Session overview
- Fuel taxes dominated Question Period, with Canadian Alliance and PC members pressing the government to cut federal excise taxes at the pump; the Minister of Finance deferred action to provincial coordination, while the Prime Minister cited lower Canadian tax rates compared to European countries.
- The Minister of Finance announced a budget surplus of $12.3 billion, far exceeding government forecasts; the Bloc Québécois and NDP challenged the government over fiscal forecasting accuracy, the treatment of EI fund surpluses, and the broken fifty-fifty promise on surplus allocation.
- The Burnt Church fisheries crisis generated multiple exchanges, with opposition members arguing that unauthorized traps remained in Miramichi Bay and that the government's agreements were unenforceable; the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans cited 2,700 traps removed, 16 people charged, and a commitment from Burnt Church First Nation to substantially reduce trap numbers.
- The Minister of Justice committed to moving forward on organized crime criminal code amendments proposed by Quebec, pending consultation with provinces, territories, and law enforcement authorities.
- The Minister of Agriculture announced a one-year tax deferral for farmers and ranchers in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan who were forced to sell more than 15% of their breeding herds due to severe drought conditions.
- The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirmed that Canada contributed $1 million to the International Fund for Ireland and that General John De Chastelain heads the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of Agriculture made a concrete, specific announcement that farmers and ranchers in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan who sell more than 15% of their breeding herds due to drought will receive a one-year tax deferral, constituting a genuine new policy commitment rather than a rhetorical response.
Clark asks two precise, binary yes/no questions: whether a meeting with provinces on cutting fuel taxes has been proposed, and whether the Prime Minister rules out removing the GST on home heating fuel.
Asked directly whether the Minister of Finance had a conflict of interest by allocating the surplus to debt reduction in a way that benefited his Bay Street associates, the Prime Minister dismissed the premise as an insinuation and offered only a general list of past social spending, without addressing the specific conflict-of-interest allegation.
Outstanding questions
- Mr. Joe Clark asked whether the Prime Minister rules out removing the GST on home heating fuel â the Prime Minister quoted Mike Harris on oil companies but never answered the GST question.
- Mr. Jason Kenney asked why the government continues to impose a tax on tax â a GST charge applied on top of the excise tax â which its own caucus members said was unfair; no minister addressed the double-taxation argument.
- Mr. John Duncan asked how many of the 29 first nations fishing agreements are being honoured in practice, citing evidence that the Lennox Island Band had exceeded its 20,000-pound limit in Malpeque Bay by more than double; the minister did not address the specific Malpeque Bay overage.
- Mr. Michel Bellehumeur asked for a specific timetable for adopting the criminal code amendments on organized crime proposed by Quebec; the minister declined to provide any dates, citing the need for further consultations.
- Mr. Gerald Keddy asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans what plan B was if mediation at Burnt Church failed; the minister did not describe any specific contingency plan.
Day asks why the government consults before giving money back but acted unilaterally when cutting health transfers and raising gas taxes in 1995, and demands a clear commitment to reduce taxes at the pump.
The question cites specific figures (33% health care cut, 1995 gas tax increase) and has an identifiable ask, but is framed heavily with partisan rhetoric about self-interest.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am kind of new around here, so I am trying to get a handle on this government policy. As I understand it now, when the government is in a position to give money back to people, it says it cannot because it has to consult. However, when it wants to take money away from people, as it did when it reduced health care to the provinces by 33%, and as it did when it raised the gas taxes in 1995, there is no consultation. Will the Prime Minister please abandon this self-interested policy and state clearly that his government will in fact allow consumers to have a reduction in their taxes at the pump?
Oh, oh.
Chrétien says consultation with provinces is necessary for a meaningful policy, notes global oil price tripling, and attacks Day's Alberta record of imposing a 9-cent-per-litre gas tax.
Chrétien deflects to the need for provincial consultation and pivots to attacking Day's Alberta record rather than addressing the ask to reduce pump taxes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have replied to this question. To have a meaningful policy on that, the Minister of Finance is right to consult with the provinces otherwise it will not work. We have many options that we are looking into, but we have to go back to the fact that the increase in the price of oil in Canada has been caused by the tripling of the price of oil around the world, including those who produce oil in Alberta. By the way, I would like to tell the House of Commons that there was no tax on gasoline in Alberta when the Leader of the Opposition became a member of the assembly. He was the minister of finance for three years and there was a 9 cents a litre tax in Alberta.
Day asks the Minister of Finance to recommend lowering pump prices before leaving for Prague, contrasting his own Alberta fiscal record favourably with Martin's.
Day cites specific fiscal comparisons (lowered debt, low commodity prices) and directs a concrete ask to the Minister of Finance before his Prague trip, though it is somewhat rhetorical in framing.
Source text
The Prime Minister is correct, Mr. Speaker. When I was minister of finance we had the lowest tax on gasoline in the country and lower taxes right across the board. We lowered the debt at a time when oil prices were low and global commodity prices were high. When the Prime Minister was the minister of finance, taxes went up and debt when up. I am asking the Minister of Finance this. While he is parlaying at that palace in Prague next week and the people from P.E.I. to Penticton and Princeton continue to have their pockets picked at the pump, will he please, before he leaves, make the recommendation to lower that price?
Oh, oh.
Martin counters that Day, while Alberta finance minister, specifically rejected cutting the excise tax in his own budget despite public pressure, questioning why Day now recommends what he refused in office.
Martin deflects entirely by attacking Day's Alberta record â claiming Day rejected excise tax cuts in his own budget â without addressing the ask about making a recommendation before departing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after imposing the tax, then at a time of rising fuel taxes in Alberta, and public discussion on whether or not the excise tax should be cut when it was at 9%, the minister said he would consider it. In his budget, he specifically rejected it. The question is, why is he recommending in opposition a course of action that he refused to accept when he was in office?
Day asks why, if the Prime Minister sincerely believes rising gasoline prices risk a recession, he will not support the Alliance proposal to reduce the price of gasoline by almost 5%.
Day ties the question to the Prime Minister's own stated concern about recession risk and cites a specific Alliance proposal to reduce gasoline price by almost 5%, giving it reasonable factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my record as finance minister was to continue to lower taxes at a rate unseen across the country, even when prices were low. If the Prime Minister is sincere when he says he thinks the increase in the price of gasoline may increase the risk of a recession, why will he not support the Alliance proposal to reduce the price of gasoline by almost 5%, which would reduce the risk of a recession?
Chrétien clarifies the recession risk was discussed in New York in a global context, and notes Canada is better positioned because it produces oil and its gas taxes are three times lower than in England, Germany or France.
Chrétien contextualizes his New York remark but does not address the Alliance proposal, instead noting Canada has domestic oil and that Canadian gas taxes are three times lower than in England, Germany or France.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this was a risk I mentioned while discussing this problem in New York last week. There is a danger in the western world that countries which are very dependent on oil may find themselves in a much more difficult situation than we have in Canada, because we have oil in this country. Moreover, the level of taxation on gasoline in Canada is three times lower than what it is in England, Germany or France.
Kenney asks why Canadians are still paying the 1.5-cent-per-litre gas tax increase introduced in 1995 to end the deficit, now that the deficit is gone.
Kenney cites the specific 1995 justification for the 1.5-cent gas tax increase and asks a pointed, narrow question about why that tax persists now that the deficit is gone.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister tells us that he is waiting for leadership. I guess leadership from the provinces when it comes to cutting taxes. He is waiting for the provinces. He is waiting for OPEC. He is waiting for the G-7. Maybe now he is waiting for Christmas to cut taxes. His 1995 excuse was that he was waiting to end the deficit when he introduced a 1.5 cent increase in the tax on gas. Now that the deficit is gone, why are we still paying that tax on gas?
Martin says any tax cut must be significant and felt by consumers, and that acting jointly with provinces is necessary to ensure the money goes into the pockets of consumers and not oil companies.
Martin states the government's position on coordinating with provinces for a significant cut visible at the pump but does not explain why the 1.5-cent deficit-era tax has not been removed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has made it very clear that the impact of any tax cut must be one that is significant and felt. That view is also shared by provincial governments. That is why we have said that if we were to act in that area we would only do so in conjunction with the provinces. We are prepared to show the leadership. No single level of government can provide a large enough cut to make an impact. We do not want to see this money lost at the pumps. We want to see it go into the pockets of consumers, not into the pockets of oil companies.
Kenney asks why a 3.5-cent-per-litre cut would not be real tax relief, and why the minister ignores his own caucus in continuing to impose a tax on tax on fuel.
Kenney asks two substantive sub-questions â why a 3.5-cent cut would not be real relief, and why the double tax condemned by government's own caucus is still in place â but the compound framing weakens focus.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. The finance minister wants to take leadership, but he actually wants the provinces to lead him. I am not sure but I think that is followership. Why does the finance minister not explain to Canadians why a 3.5 cent cut per litre at the pumps would not be real tax relief for those who are hard pressed? Why does he continue to impose a tax on tax, a double tax which his own caucus says is unfair and should be removed? Why does he not listen to his own backbenches on this issue?
Martin deflects by crediting leadership from his own caucus, specifically the member from Pickering, and asserts the government will act without addressing the specifics.
Martin does not address either sub-question, instead pivoting to praise backbench caucus leadership and asserting vaguely that the government will act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is certainly right when he talks from the leadership that has come from his caucus, the member from Pickering and the others. The government will act. One of the reasons we will act is that we have been studying this issue. There has been leadership from this caucus while that opposition sat silent.
Duceppe asks whether the Minister of Finance will admit that his strategy of hiding surpluses â he predicted $3 billion, the Bloc predicted $11.5 billion â is a convenient way of avoiding debate and bolstering his image before an election.
Duceppe cites a specific prior Bloc forecast of $11.5 billion versus the minister's $3 billion and uses the confirmed outcome to ask a pointed question about deliberate surplus concealment for electoral purposes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last year, the Minister of Finance made fun of the Bloc Quebecois because we said that the surplus would be $11.5 billion. He said it would be $3 billion. Today, we see that we were right. Will the Minister of Finance admit that his strategy of hiding the surpluses does not fool anybody and that it is just a convenient way of avoiding debate and bolstering his image on the eve of an election?
Martin frames the $12.3-billion surplus reduction as good news for debt, debt servicing savings of $1 billion, and future spending on health, education, innovation and tax cuts.
Martin celebrates the $12.3-billion debt reduction and lists spending benefits without admitting the forecasting discrepancy or addressing the accusation of hiding surpluses.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois seems to be having a little trouble accepting the good news. A reduction of $12.3 billion is good news. It will lower the debt. This is $1 billion we will save on debt servicing. It is $1 billion we will be able to use for health, education, innovation and tax cuts. It is good news.
Duceppe asks what the minister has to say to workers demonstrating in Chicoutimi, the North Shore, Charlevoix and the Saguenay, given that $6 billion from the EI fund contributed to the surplus while families struggle.
Duceppe grounds the question in a specific $6-billion EI surplus figure and refers to workers demonstrating in named regions, but the ask is largely rhetorical and aimed at eliciting a political defence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it was not news for us. We have known about it for a year. Even the minister knew. Even he knew, I am certain. However, what he is not saying is that half of the surplus has come right out of workers' pockets as a result of the $6 billion in EI cuts. This is a disgrace. What does he have to say to all the workers who are demonstrating today in Chicoutimi, on the North Shore, in Charlevoix and in the Saguenay region? What does he have to say to them when we know that he helped himself to $6 billion from the EI fund and that this had a direct impact on families, which are having trouble making both ends meet? What does he have to say to them? These are perhaps not people he knows very well. They are not people of his class.
Martin points to unemployment falling from 11.5% to 7%, over 2 million new jobs created, and rising real disposable income per capita since the government took power.
Martin responds with macro employment figures (unemployment down from 11.5% to 7%, 2 million new jobs, rising real disposable income) without addressing the EI surplus accusation or the demonstrating workers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what we will say is that when we took power unemployment stood at 11.5% and it is now down to 7%. We have created more than 2 million new jobs since we took power. Real disposable income per capita is on the increase. So is growth. What we will say is that Canada is doing just fine, and Quebecers know it.
Loubier asks whether the minister knows that a family with two children starts paying federal tax at $14,948, and whether the known surplus could have alleviated the burden of low-income families earning less than $30,000 as early as last year.
Loubier cites the specific income threshold of $14,948 where a family with two children begins paying federal tax and frames the question around a 300% surplus miscalculation, making it factually grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is telling us today that, a few months ago, he miscalculated budget surpluses by 300% and that he had an additional surplus of $9 billion last year, money that comes from excess taxes paid by taxpayers. Does the minister know that a family with two children starts paying federal tax at $14,948 and that with these surpluses, which the minister knew about, he could have alleviated, as early as last year, the burden of low income families and all those earning less than $30,000? Does the minister know that?
Martin tells Loubier to review his figures, stating that following the last budget a family with two children and an income of $30,000 will not pay any net federal income tax.
Martin directly contests the figure cited, stating that following the last budget a family with two children and an income of $30,000 will not pay any net federal income tax, which partially addresses the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should review his figures. Following our last budget, a family with two children and an income of $30,000 will not pay any net federal income tax.
Loubier asks whether the minister realizes that, due to his strategy of hiding surpluses, approximately five million taxpayers earning less than $30,000 paid taxes last year when they should not have.
Loubier cites the minister's own department as the source and claims five million taxpayers earning less than $30,000 paid taxes unnecessarily, but the question is framed more as an accusation than a precise ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all the figures given here are from the minister's own department. Does the minister realize that, because of his incompetence, because of his crass electioneering strategy, about five million taxpayers who should not have paid taxes last year did pay taxes, namely those earning less than $30,000? Does the minister realize that?
Martin says 900,000 Canadians with income now pay no taxes thanks to the budget, a figure that will rise to 1.5 million in four years, and tells Loubier the department can provide figures but he must know how to read them.
Martin partially responds by citing 900,000 Canadians now with income but paying no taxes, rising to 1.5 million in four years, but dismissively tells Loubier he must know how to read the figures rather than reconciling the discrepancy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, thanks to our budget, there are now 900,000 Canadians who have an income but do not pay any taxes. Four years from now, there will be 1.5 million. All I can say to the hon. member is that the department can provide him with the figures, but he must know how to read them.
McDonough asks why the Prime Minister has gone back on his word to divide the surplus fifty-fifty, given a record $12-billion surplus alongside record poverty, homelessness, student debt, and fewer people eligible for employment insurance.
McDonough cites a record surplus of $12 billion, record poverty, homelessness, student debt, and reduced EI eligibility, and holds the Prime Minister to his own fifty-fifty surplus commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As we now know, the government has a record surplus of $12 billion, thanks to the tricky practices of the Minister of Finance. We have a record number of poor, a record number of homeless, a record student debt load, and fewer people eligible for employment insurance. The Prime Minister promised to divide the surplus fifty-fifty. Why has he gone back on his word?
Chrétien cites an agreement signed last week with provinces to devote more money to children, existing tax credits for poor families, and says the surplus is being used to pay down the debt.
Chrétien cites the child agreement signed with provinces last week and tax credits for poor families but does not address the fifty-fifty promise or why it was not honoured.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to be aware of certain things, for example that we signed an agreement last week with the provinces to devote more money to children in all provinces. Since we have been in government, we have established tax credits for poor families. We have put a great deal of money into improving the social situation. Here is the situation. We have a government that is working very well, there is a great deal of optimism in Canada at the present time, and revenue is coming in faster than expected, fortunately, so we are using this surplus to pay down the debt. This means that we will not have to deal with that problem further down the roadâ
McDonough asks why the Prime Minister is betraying the priorities of Canadians â the environment, education and health â by giving in to bankers and financial big shots rather than helping those most in need.
McDonough accuses the finance minister of lowballing surpluses and asserts the government is yielding to bankers and financial big shots, with only a vague rhetorical ask about betraying Canadians' priorities.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister always lowballs the surplus so that Canadians will not have a clear picture of the truth. The truth is that the government is giving into the bankers and the financial big shots rather than helping the people who need it most. The priorities of Canadians are the environment, education and health. Why is the Prime Minister betraying the priorities of Canadians?
Martin states that three-quarters of spending has been on health care, education, the environment and innovation, that massive tax cuts benefiting low and modest income Canadians have been introduced, and that debt reduction is a matter of generational equity.
Martin responds with a specific claim that three-quarters of spending has been on health care, education, the environment and innovation, and mentions massive tax cuts and debt reduction, which partially engages the priorities question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why three-quarters of our spending has been on health care, education, the environment and innovation. At the same time we have brought in massive tax cuts that will benefit low and modest income Canadians. At the same time we are reducing the debt so that the next generation of Canadians will not have to bear the huge cost our generation has incurred. This is a question of generational equity.
Clark asks why the Prime Minister gives the provinces a veto on cutting Ottawa's own taxes on fuel.
Clark asks a precise, narrow question: why the Prime Minister is giving the provinces a veto on cutting Ottawa's own fuel taxes, cutting through the consultation framing directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. His finance minister has just confirmed that the government's position on fuel taxes is that there will be no help from Ottawa unless the provinces agree. Why does the Prime Minister give the provinces a veto on cutting Ottawa's taxes on fuel?
Martin says the government is examining various options and will take action, and explains that acting jointly with provinces would produce a price cut of sufficient size to be visible at the pump and not end up in the pockets of oil companies.
Martin confirms the government is examining various options and will take action, and reiterates the provincial coordination rationale, but does not directly answer why provinces should have a veto over federal tax decisions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I said in and outside the House that the government is examining various options. The government will certainly take action in that area. I also said when I was looking at excise taxes, and according to most provincial governments, that it would be far better to act together if one is to have a price cut which will be of sufficient size to take effect at the pump, be visible and not end up in the pockets of oil companies.
Clark asks first whether the government has proposed a meeting with the provinces on cutting fuel taxes, and second whether the Prime Minister rules out removing the GST on home heating fuel.
Clark asks two precise, binary yes/no questions: whether a meeting with provinces on cutting fuel taxes has been proposed, and whether the Prime Minister rules out removing the GST on home heating fuel.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me ask whoever is answering for the Prime Minister the following two questions. First, has there been a proposal to the provinces for a meeting on cutting fuel taxes? Second, does the Prime Minister rule out removing the GST on home heating fuel?
Chrétien defers to Martin's earlier comments and quotes Mike Harris's concern that tax cuts could benefit oil companies rather than consumers, without answering either of Clark's two specific questions.
Chrétien does not answer either binary question, instead deferring to Martin's earlier remarks and quoting Mike Harris on the risk of oil companies capturing tax cuts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has spoken very clearly on this subject. I think we have to make sure that any move, if we were to have a move, goes into the pockets of consumers and not of industry. I would like to quote a good friend of the leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Mike Harris, who said âWe are not about to cut taxes to give oil companies more money. I can tell you that. We need a guarantee that the oil companies won't suck up the difference with higher pricesâ. I think that is why the Minister of Finance and the provincial governments are careful. They do not want oil companies to pick up the difference and not consumers.
Cummins asks when the minister will get illegal traps out of the water, citing the minister's own statements that mediation cannot shield unauthorized activity and that he would not jeopardize conservation by letting fishing continue unabated.
Cummins directly quotes the minister's own prior statements about mediation not shielding unauthorized activity and not jeopardizing conservation, and holds him to those words with a specific ask to remove illegal traps.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the reported deal at Burnt Church is not a deal. It is a capitulation. Illegal traps remain in the water. Yesterday the minister said âMediation cannot be a shield for unauthorized activityâ. He said that he âwould not jeopardize conservation of the viability of the fishery by letting fishing continue unabatedâ. This deal allows fishing to continue unabated. It jeopardizes conservation. It legitimizes illegal activity. When will the minister get the illegal traps out of the water?
Dhaliwal reports that Rae has obtained a commitment from Burnt Church first nation to substantially reduce the number of traps in Miramichi Bay, and reaffirms his mandate to protect the resource while resolving the situation peacefully.
Dhaliwal reports Rae's commitment from Burnt Church first nation to substantially reduce traps but does not address the specific demand to remove illegal traps already in the water, and does not acknowledge the contradiction with his prior statements.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House that Mr. Rae has reported and sent out a press release saying that he has a commitment from Burnt Church first nation to substantially reduce the number of traps in the Miramichi Bay. The intent is to ensure that we have conservation as a priority. As I said in the House before, and I want to say it again, I will carry out my mandate to make sure we protect the resource for all Canadians and future generations, but we owe it to the communities to bring the communities together to make sure that we make every effort to resolve this situation in a peaceful way. That is exactlyâ
Cummins, citing the minister's own figure of two thousand traps and calculating 20,000 pounds of lobster per day being removed from a closed bay, asks why the minister will not get the traps out of the water now.
Cummins cites the minister's own figure of two thousand traps, calculates a specific daily harvest of 20,000 pounds of lobster from a modest 10-pounds-per-trap-per-day rate, and poses a direct demand to act now.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week the minister was quoted as saying that there were two thousand traps in Miramichi Bay. At a modest catch of 10 pounds of lobster per trap, per day, that is 20,000 pounds of lobster coming out of Miramichi Bay every day at a time when the bay is closed for conservation purposes. The minister continues to jeopardize conservation. He is threatening the viability of the fishery. Why will he not get the traps out of the water now?
Dhaliwal states that 2,700 traps have already been taken out of Miramichi Bay through enforcement action, notes 29 agreements with first nations out of 34, and reaffirms he will protect the resource and ensure the rule of law is followed.
Dhaliwal directly counters by stating 2,700 traps have already been removed through enforcement action, engages the conservation concern, and reaffirms commitment to the rule of law, though he does not address the ongoing daily catch calculation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not been following what we have been doing. We have been taking enforcement action. In fact we have taken 2,700 traps out of Miramichi Bay, so there has been enforcement action. We have always said from day one, unlike the hon. member, that it is through co-operation and dialogue. That is our first preference. That is why we were able to get 29 agreements with first nations out of 34. That is working well. We will continue to do it, but at the end of the day I will take my mandate seriously. I will protect the resource and make sure the rule of law is followed by all Canadians.
Asselin asks whether the minister will propose transitional measures for seasonal workers who qualified for EI between July 9 and September 17 and will receive only 21 weeks of benefits based on 525 hours, leaving them on welfare by February 15.
The question cites a specific date (February 15), a specific eligibility window (July 9 to September 17), a specific benefit figure (21 weeks, 525 hours), and asks a clear yes/no policy question about transitional measures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, thousands of seasonal workers in Charlevoix, the north shore, the lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé, even in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, are worried. Next February 15, they will all end up on welfare. I am asking the Minister of Human Resources Development whether she is going to propose transitional measures for these people who qualified for employment insurance between July 9 and September 17 and will receive only 21 weeks of benefits based on 525 hours.
Stewart says the government has agreed to phase in EI boundary changes and is offering a community group to look at expanding employment opportunities in the region.
Stewart confirms a phase-in of EI boundary changes and proposes a community group but does not directly address whether transitional measures for the specific cohort described will be introduced.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I met with the hon. member and constituents from his area just a few days ago on this very issue. He knows full well that we have agreed to phase in the changes for employment insurance boundaries in his part of Quebec. As well we have offered and are very anxious to start a community group to look at expanding the employment opportunities in that part of Quebec. The workers want to work. The workers want new opportunities. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. gentleman if he would join us in that undertaking to make sure that the workers get what they really want.
Asselin asks whether the minister realizes she received bad advice and made a serious mistake for which seasonal workers are paying, and whether she will act promptly to remedy it.
The follow-up is mostly rhetorical, asking the minister to acknowledge she made a 'very serious mistake' and acted on 'bad advice,' with only a vague call to 'remedy this mistake promptly.'
Source text
Does the minister realize that she has been given bad advice on this matter and has made a very serious mistake, for which the seasonal workers must pay, and does she realize that she needs to act promptly to remedy this mistake, which is having negative effects for workers in the regions?
Stewart says the government has acted quickly by phasing in EI boundary changes and will announce a community committee, then suggests the BQ does not understand that employment is about more than EI.
Stewart repeats the phase-in and community committee announcements without acknowledging any mistake or specifying any new remedial action for the workers described.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have acted quickly. We are phasing in the changes to the EI boundaries. We will be announcing a committee working right in the community to look at opportunities there. I, along with my colleague the Minister of National Revenue, will be investing and supporting that undertaking. The real question is if that party understands that the issue of employment is about more than just employment insurance. It is about finding new opportunities and work for the people in that region.
Duncan asks why the minister is pretending to protect the lobster resource with meaningless agreements, citing that the Lennox Island Band, which had a 20,000-pound agreement in Malpeque Bay, has now fished more than double that and is still fishing according to DFO sources.
Duncan cites a specific band (Lennox Island), a specific quota (20,000 pounds in Malpeque Bay), a specific source (DFO sources), and a specific alleged overrun (more than double), asking a pointed question about the meaningfulness of the agreements.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister brags that 29 out of 34 bands in the maritimes have signed fishing agreements. He suggests that if only Burnt Church would sign on that would end the problem. The reality is quite different. The Lennox Island Band agreement was for 20,000 pounds in Malpeque Bay. DFO sources say they have now fished more than double that and they are still fishing. Why is the minister pretending to protect the lobster resource with meaningless agreements?
Dhaliwal promotes the 29 agreements as creating real opportunity for aboriginal communities, notes enforcement actions including arresting four vessels and charging 16 people, and pledges to protect the resource for all Canadians.
Dhaliwal describes the benefits of the 29 agreements and lists enforcement actions (four vessels seized, 16 people charged) but does not address the specific Lennox Island overrun allegation at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should take the time to read the 29 agreements we have signed. For the first time we are creating real opportunity, providing not only access to the resource but providing vessels, providing training and providing mentoring so that the aboriginal community can truly be successful in the fishery as it participates more and more in the commercial fishery. We have taken enforcement action, as I said earlier. We arrested and seized four vessels. We charged 16 people, so enforcement action has been taken. We want to make sure that every step is taken to try to resolve this issue in a peaceful and co-operative manner. However, at the end of the day, we will enforce the law and make sure we protect the resource for all Canadians.
Duncan asks how many of the 29 deals are shams like the Malpeque Bay deal, noting the minister said yesterday he would not use deals as a shield for unauthorized activities but argues he is doing exactly that.
Duncan quotes the minister's own statement from the previous day about not using deals as a shield for unauthorized activities and asks how many of the 29 deals are shams like the Malpeque Bay deal, making it a specific accountability challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we cannot have two sets of rules. In Malpeque Bay the minister is legitimizing illegal fishing by calling it a deal. Yesterday the minister said that he would not use deals as a shield for unauthorized activities, but he is and he has. How many other of the 29 deals are shams like the Malpeque Bay deal?
Dhaliwal promotes the $160 million commitment and the 29 deals as creating real opportunity for first nations and says one or two bands are not signing but the government is working on it.
Dhaliwal does not address the contradiction between his previous statement and the alleged Malpeque Bay overrun, instead promoting the overall $160 million commitment and deflecting by telling Duncan to talk to the chiefs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should meet and talk to some of the chiefs who have signed deals and then he would have a firsthand view. They are very reluctant to go out to talk to the aboriginal community because then they would see the good work that has been done with the 29 deals which have been signed for this year that are creating real opportunity for first nations. This has been a big commitment by the federal government of $160 million, to make sure that we have a plan to deal with Marshall. It is doing well. Unfortunately one or two bands are not signing, but we are working on that. At the end of the day we will make sure we will protect the resource for all Canadians.
Bellehumeur asks whether the minister will act on Quebec's two specific proposalsâamending the criminal code to criminalize membership in a criminal group and immediately submitting that amendment to the supreme courtâas quickly as possible.
Bellehumeur cites a specific meeting (deputy ministers of justice, previous day), two specific Quebec proposals (criminalizing membership in a criminal group; immediate supreme court reference), and asks a clear yes/no question about acting on them as quickly as possible.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a meeting was held between the deputy ministers of justice of the government of Quebec and the Government of Canada. Quebec submitted specific proposals to the federal government. The first was to amend the criminal code in order to criminalize membership in a criminal group. The second was to submit this amendment to the supreme court immediately for validation in order to avoid lengthy appeal proceedings. My question is as follows. Will the minister agree to act on the proposal by Quebec as quickly as possible?
McLellan confirms federal-Quebec discussions were constructive and says the government is looking at possible legislative change but will consult other provinces, territories, and law enforcement before moving forward very soon.
McLellan confirms constructive discussions, acknowledges Quebec's work, and pledges to move forward very soon, but does not commit to either specific proposal and adds the condition of provincial/territorial consultations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, federal officials had very constructive discussions with their Quebec counterparts. There are a number of fronts on which we will be working. One is looking at possible legislative change. Indeed the government of Quebec has done some very good work in that regard, and we will be working with them further. We will be consulting with the other provinces and the territories and with law enforcement authorities before we move forward, but I can assure the hon. member we are taking this matter very seriously and we will be moving forward very soon.
Bellehumeur asks the minister to specify a timetable for adopting the amendments Quebec proposed, challenging her to demonstrate real political will.
Bellehumeur asks the minister to specify a timetable for adopting the amendments Quebec proposed, a concrete and answerable follow-up that tests sincerity with a specific deliverable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the minister is sincere in her response, if she really intends to act and has the political will to do so, she has the government behind her on that. Can she specify the timetable for adopting the amendments Quebec has proposed?
McLellan says federal and Quebec officials agreed to consult provincial, territorial, and law enforcement counterparts first, and that action will follow, but refuses to give a timetable and says the government will not be rushed.
McLellan references consultations agreed to by officials and says action will follow their completion, but gives no timetable whatsoever and adds a caveat about not being rushed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I believe it was agreed yesterday by federal officials and Quebec officials that it would be important to consult with provincial and territorial counterparts and that it would be important to have discussions with law enforcement authorities. As soon as those discussions are completed, we will be in a position to act. However, we will not be rushed into passing a law that is not the very best that we can make to protect all Canadians from organized crime.
Abbott asks why the government shut down sidewinder, a joint RCMP and CSIS operation examining organized crime and foreign influence, which he says raises very serious concerns about Canadians' personal safety and national security.
Abbott identifies the specific operation (sidewinder, joint RCMP and CSIS), describes its subject matter (organized crime and foreign influence), states he has read the report, and asks a clear yes/no question about why the government shut it down.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, sidewinder was a joint RCMP and CSIS operation that looked into the influence of organized crime and foreign companies on Canadian companies and our security. I have had an opportunity to read the report and it raises very serious concerns about Canadians' personal safety, national security and foreign influence in Canada. Why did the government shut down the report?
Myers announces the SIRC review is now complete and submitted to the solicitor general, with three findings: no political interference, the draft report was deeply flawed, and no evidence of any substantial nature was part of it.
Myers announces the SIRC review is complete and submitted and provides three specific findings, which partially addresses the question by explaining what happened to the report, though not why it was shut down.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the member opposite has gone on repeatedly about this project. He knows full well that the Security Intelligence Review Committee has conducted a review. I am pleased to report to the House today that review is now complete and has been submitted to the solicitor general. There are three points in that submission that I would like to refer to all members of the House. The first is that there was no political interference as alleged in the media. The second is the draft report in fact was deeply flawed. The third is that no evidence of any substantial nature was part of that draft report. This is good news for all of us. It underscoresâ
Abbott questions the claim of no influence, arguing that even discounting the findings by 50% they remain threatening, and asks rhetorically whether the RCMP would have voluntarily stopped investigating such serious findings.
Abbott's follow-up is more rhetorical than precise, posing a hypothetical about RCMP motivations and questioning what 'no influence' means, without a clearly defined single ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the House will know, we have been after this information for an extended period of time. What seemed to us to be totally incredible is that this report, with all of the findings that it had, even if we were to discount them to 50%, are still very threatening and of concern to Canadians. It raises the question of would the RCMP have actually said âThis report is terrible. Look at all the evidence we are uncovering. We had better stop investigatingâ. What does the member mean there was not any influence on this process?
Myers restates there was no political interference, says CSIS and RCMP continue to work hard based on Canadian values, and dismisses Abbott as seeking a conspiracy theory akin to the grassy knoll.
Myers repeats that there was no political interference, praises CSIS and RCMP, and dismisses Abbott's concern as a conspiracy theory with a 'grassy knoll' reference, without engaging the substantive hypothetical raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, clearly the member opposite did not listen to my answer and does not get it. The answer is quite simply that there was no political interference. CSIS, the RCMP and all involved in this matter continue to work very hard on it and will continue to do so based on the values of this country and based on the values of all Canadians. Instead of looking for the conspiracy theory, which the member opposite always wants to do in trying to get the theory of the grassy knoll and other things, he should bear down on the facts. The facts today are evident and they are presented here in the House.
Venne asks why the Minister of Justice has not kept her commitment to propose criminal code amendments allowing Quebec to use ignition interlock systems for repeat drunk-driving offenders, given that other provinces' lawyers and evidence support the system.
Venne cites a specific commitment made this summer to a named Quebec minister, a specific policy tool (ignition interlock systems), a specific target group (repeat offenders), supporting evidence (favourable opinion from lawyers in other provinces and proven effectiveness), and asks why the promise has not been kept.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice made a commitment this summer to the Quebec minister of transport to propose amendments to the criminal code so that Quebec could use ignition interlock systems to fight cases of repeat offenders under the influence of alcohol. Why has the minister not kept her promise, when Quebec obtained a favourable opinion from lawyers in other provinces and this system has already been shown to be effective?
McLellan says she has written to the Quebec minister of transport expressing willingness to pursue the suggestions and has instructed her deputy minister to take it up with fellow deputy ministers at their November meeting.
McLellan confirms she wrote to the Quebec minister of transport and instructed her deputy minister to take it up with fellow deputy ministers in November, but does not explain the delay or commit to criminal code amendments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, indeed I have had the opportunity to write to my colleague the minister of transport in the province of Quebec indicating my willingness to pursue the suggestions that the hon. minister has made. I have instructed my deputy minister to take this up with his fellow deputy ministers at their meeting in November.
Harvard asks what the government of Canada can do to assist producers in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan who have had to sell breeding stock due to severe drought conditions this summer.
This is a government-backbench softball: Harvard describes a known weather situation and invites the minister to announce what the government can do, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food. This summer, producers in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan have faced severe drought conditions. As a result of that, many of them have had to sell some or all of their breeding stock. Can the minister tell the House what the government of Canada can do to assist these producers who have been hit by the severe weather in Alberta and Saskatchewan?
Vanclief announces that farmers and ranchers who have to sell over 15% or all of their breeding herds will now receive a one-year tax deferral on income from the sale of those animals.
Vanclief provides a specific new measureâa one-year tax deferral on income from sale of breeding herds for farmers selling over 15%âdirectly answering what the government will do.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as we know, in a country this size there is great variability in weather. As the hon. member has said, in some parts of southern Alberta and Saskatchewan this year there has been a severe drought. I am pleased to announce today that those farmers and ranchers who see fit and have to sell over 15% and maybe all of their breeding herds will now receive a one year tax deferral on income from the sale of those animals. This is another program that is in place to assist, along with the other safety net programs in Canada, farmers in situations of financial stress.
Johnston asks when the minister will bring in a dispute settlement mechanism, citing grain handlers at Thunder Bay threatening to strike during harvest and the government's repeated failure to prevent the grain transportation system from being held hostage.
Johnston identifies a specific imminent threat (Thunder Bay port grain handlers threatening to strike during harvest), references the government's prior assurances, and asks when a dispute settlement mechanism will be introduced, though the framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again the government failed western Canadian grain farmers. The grain transportation system is in a mess at the moment. While harvest is under way, the grain handlers at the seasonal port of Thunder Bay are threatening to strike. Time and time again the government has said to just trust it, that nothing will stand in the way of grain shipments and that these will not be held hostage again. The fact is Canadians do not trust the government's crisis management solution. They want the minister to bring in some dispute settlement mechanism that would bring the Canadian code into the 21st century. When will the minister be prepared to do that?
Collenette rejects the description of the grain transportation system as a mess, cites Bill C-34 and $178 million returned to the system, and says it is premature to discuss problems that have not yet manifested, noting grain shipments have increased.
Collenette rejects the characterization of the grain transportation system, cites Bill C-34 and $178 million returned to the system, and says it is premature to talk about problems not yet manifested, without addressing the dispute settlement mechanism request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny and reject the assertion of the hon. member that the grain transportation system is as he describes it. As hon. members know, Bill C-34 was passed by the House on division. There was great co-operation by members. This is good news for western farmers because $178 million has been put back into the system. It is very premature for the hon. member to start talking about problems that have not yet manifested themselves. I just read a note that talks about grain shipments having increased so far this year. I think that good trend will continue.
Johnston notes workers have been without a contract since January and asks why the minister will not change the code to introduce a dispute settlement mechanism to prevent crises before they start, given the threat low commodity prices pose to grain farmers.
Johnston adds the specific fact that workers have been without a contract since January and reiterates the call for a dispute settlement mechanism, though the framing remains somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister has not noticed that the workers have been without a contract since January and they are frustrated. Of course, the grain companies are frustrated too. The farmers have had it right up to their ears. With low commodity prices threatening to put many grain farmers completely out of business, I would think it is about time that the minister changed the code so that there would be a dispute settlement mechanism whereby these things could be nipped in the bud before they became a crisis.
Vanclief says the opposition does not believe in the collective bargaining process, expresses confidence it will work, and says the government will deal with any failure when it happens.
Vanclief deflects by defending the collective bargaining process and accusing the opposition of not believing in it, without addressing the specific request for a dispute settlement mechanism.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the opposition across the way does not believe in the collective bargaining process. The collective bargaining process is in action. Let us hope that it works well. If it does not work well, then we will have to deal with it when that happens. We cannot be premature and start dictating to somebody what they should and should not do. The collective bargaining process is there. It has worked in the past and I am confident it will work now.
Nystrom asks why the Minister of Finance chose to put the entire surplus into paying down the national debt for Bay Street bondholders instead of reducing the human deficit by investing in health, education, farmers, and poor people.
Nystrom's question is mostly rhetorical partisan framing accusing the minister of favouring Bay Street bondholders, with a vague embedded ask about why he chose debt repayment over programs, and no specific figures or documents cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance put all the surplus into paying down the national debt, but he had a choice. He chose the bondholders of Bay Street before paying down the human deficit in this country. He chose the bondholders of Bay Street before putting more money into health and education. He chose Bay Street before helping the farmers and helping poor people in this country. I want to know why the Minister of Finance chose his friends on Bay Street instead of paying down the human deficit by putting money into programs for people in this country.
Martin lists social spending including $900 million for the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, $2.5 billion in health transfers in the budget, and the $21 billion to $23 billion provincial agreement signed by the Prime Minister and premiers two weeks ago.
Martin lists specific figuresâ$900 million for the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, $2.5 billion in health transfers, and $21 billion to $23 billion in provincial transfersâproviding real budgetary context though not directly rebutting the Bay Street framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me simply explain the balanced approach to the hon. member. He may well remember that in the budget we put $900 million more into the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. At the year end we put more money into western and eastern agriculture. In that same budget we put $2.5 billion into transfers to the provinces for health care. It is that surplus which will allow us to finance the very large funding of $21 billion to $23 billion in transfers to the provinces in the agreement signed by the Prime Minister and the premiers two weeks ago.
Nystrom asks the Prime Minister whether it is a conflict of interest for the finance minister to direct surplus money to debt repayment, citing the minister's own morning statement that he was advised by his friends on Bay Street, and whether the minister should resign.
Nystrom cites a specific statement made that morning by the Minister of Finance about being advised by friends on Bay Street, and asks whether directing the surplus to debt constitutes a conflict of interest, though the call for resignation makes it partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question then goes to the right hon. Prime Minister. This morning the Minister of Finance said he was advised by his friends on Bay Street as to what to do with the surplus. Of course, the surplus going to the debt would help his friends on Bay Street and that is exactly what the minister did. I ask the Prime Minister, is this not a conflict of interest? Is it not a conflict of interest for the finance minister to give the money to an institution that would help his friends? Should the minister not resign because of that?
Chrétien rejects the insinuation, praises Martin's honour and objectivity over six years, lists social investments including health, the children's agenda, research and development, and the millennium scholarship program, and defends paying down the debt.
Chrétien defends Martin's honour and objectivity and lists social spending items but does not address the conflict of interest allegation or the specific morning statement about Bay Street advice.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not like the insinuation. I think that the Minister of Finance has shown how honourable he is and how objective he has been over the last six years. I have to tell hon. members that he recited a long list of agreements and payments that we are giving in the social field. There is the health agreement. We have invested a lot of money in the children's agenda since we have been here. We have invested in research and development, high technology for connecting all Canadians, the millennium scholarship program and I could go on and on. I will always be happy when we can pay the debt in Canada because we are paying the mortgage that the previous generation put on the children of today.
Vautour asks the minister to confirm that any agreement reached with Burnt Church will apply the same commercial fishing season and rules to all fishers in order to make conservation of the lobster fishery a priority.
Vautour asks a specific and answerable yes/no question about whether any Burnt Church agreement will apply the same season and rules to all fishers for conservation purposes, which is a concrete policy accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans confirm in this House that if an agreement is reached in Burnt Church today, or tomorrowâwe hope it will be as soon as possibleâthat agreement will provide that commercial fishing is subject to the same season and the same rules for all fishers, so as to ensure that the conservation of the lobster fishery is a priority?
Dhaliwal reports that Burnt Church first nation has agreed to substantially reduce the number of traps in Miramichi Bay and says all traps must be authorized and legal, pledging enforcement action against unauthorized and illegal fishing.
Dhaliwal reports that Burnt Church first nation has agreed to substantially reduce traps in Miramichi Bay and pledges to enforce against unauthorized and illegal fishing, but does not directly confirm whether an agreement would apply the same season and rules for all fishers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I said earlier. As the hon. member knows, Mr. Rae is the mediator who was trying to bring the communities together. He has reported that Burnt Church first nation has agreed to substantially reduce the number of traps in the water in Miramichi Bay. This is a good step. We will watch to make sure that happens. It will really be in the action and not the words. I have always said that we want to make sure that all of the traps that are out there are authorized and legal. Any that are not authorized are illegal fishing and we will take steps to make sure that we deal with unauthorized and illegal fishing.
Does the minister have a plan b if a peaceful solution to the crisis in Burnt Church cannot be guaranteed, and if so, what is it?
The question asks a reasonably specific accountability question about whether a 'plan b' exists for Burnt Church, but lacks documentary grounding or precise factual context.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rae cannot guarantee a peaceful solution to the crisis in Burnt Church. The House has a right to know if the minister has a plan b and if so, what is it?
The minister says the government always has plans and references his direction laid out at the fisheries committee, then quotes John Crosbie praising his handling of Marshall.
The minister deflects by citing his appearance at the fisheries committee and quoting John Crosbie rather than describing any actual plan b for Burnt Church.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, of course the government always has plans to deal with situations that do not work out. The hon. member should know because I have gone to the fisheries committee. I have laid out the direction in our response to Marshall. Obviously he is not listening. Let me quote for him a Progressive Conservative member who said âI congratulate and support the federal fisheries minister in accepting his responsibility and exercising his powersâ. This was said by John Crosbie, the former fisheries minister.
What efforts has Canada been making to support the Northern Ireland peace process, including policing reform?
This is a government-backbench softball setup inviting the parliamentary secretary to tout Canada's role in the Northern Ireland peace process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Peter Mandelson, the British secretary of state for Northern Ireland, met with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and several parliamentary groups. Could the parliamentary secretary explain to the House the efforts that Canada has been making to the peace process in Northern Ireland, including its efforts to reform policing in that part of Ireland?
Mr. Speaker, Canada has encouraged and participated in the peace process at all levels. Canada has contributed $1 million to the international fund for Ireland. Eminent Canadians have been actively involved in the peace process. General John De Chastelain, for example, heads the independent international commission on decommissioning. Secretary of State Mandelson said yesterday of General De Chastelain âJohn De Chastelain was head of the decommissioning body for some years. He is a man who commands great trust in Northern Ireland. He has immense authority and credibilityâ.
Canada contributed $1 million to the international fund for Ireland and General John De Chastelain heads the independent international commission on decommissioning, praised by Secretary of State Mandelson for his trust and credibility.
The parliamentary secretary provides specific facts including a $1 million contribution to the international fund for Ireland, General John De Chastelain's role heading the independent international commission on decommissioning, and a direct quote from Secretary of State Mandelson.
Why did the minister appeal the WTO drug patent ruling when Canada's own negotiators said in May it was an open and shut case, instead of informing Canadian consumers of the impact?
The question cites a specific WTO drug patent ruling, references Canada's own negotiators and their May assessment that it was an open and shut case, and asks a clear accountability question about why the minister appealed a case he knew would be lost.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the WTO drug patent ruling is yet another example of the government wasting valuable time and money on a senseless dispute before the WTO. Canada's own negotiators involved with the TRIPS agreement said in May that this was an open and shut case. Yet the minister went ahead with an appeal that he knew would be lost when his priority should have been to inform Canadian consumers of the impact of the WTO decision. Why?
The minister said he was disappointed with the WTO panel decision but relieved it would not force Canada to change substantially the overall balance of its present legislation.
The minister acknowledges disappointment with the WTO panel decision and expresses relief that Canada's legislation need not change substantially, but does not address why he pursued an appeal his own negotiators called an open and shut case.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we received the answer from the WTO panel and did not particularly like it. I was disappointed with the decision. I am very relieved, however, that that particular decision will not force Canada to change substantially the overall balance of our present legislation.
Given that Dr. Gilles Grenier's new confidential data at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited match worse case scenarios for MOX importation, does the minister still believe there is no risk to the population?
The question cites a named expert, Dr. Gilles Grenier, and references new confidential data at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited matching worse case scenarios, giving factual grounding to a direct yes/no accountability question to the minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources keeps repeating that the importation of MOX does not pose any risk. Yet Dr. Gilles Grenier, who is an expert on emergency situations relating to nuclear accidents, recently said that new confidential data at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited basically match the worse case scenarios described by those who oppose the project. In light of this new information, does the Minister of Natural Resources still believe that there is no risk for the population?
The minister says AECL took Dr. Grenier's comments into account during the open public comment process and that Transport Canada as regulator will determine whether circumstances allow the transportation to occur.
The minister notes that AECL addressed Dr. Grenier's comments during the open public comment process and defers to Transport Canada as regulator, engaging the topic but not directly answering whether he still believes there is no risk.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman to whom the hon. member refers made some comments during the open public comment process. AECL took those comments into account and responded to them during the process. It is now in the hands of the Department of Transport as the regulator to determine whether all of the circumstances are sufficient to allow the transportation to occur. I have every confidence that Transport Canada will discharge its responsibilities in the public interest.
Given a $12 billion surplus of which $7.5 billion comes from the employment insurance fund, and given the House of Commons unanimously supported an EI review on May 9, will the minister act immediately or wait until the eve of an election?
The question cites the $12 billion surplus, specifies that $7.5 billion came from the employment insurance fund, and references the May 9 unanimous House vote on EI review, giving a clear factual basis for an accountability question about timing of reforms.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today, the Minister of Finance announced an unexpected surplus of $12 billion. Out of that $12 billion, $7.5 billion comes from the employment insurance fund and from those who have lost their jobs. My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Since on May 9 the House of Commons unanimously supported a review of the employment insurance program, will the minister wait until the eve of an election to make changes to the employment insurance program for the benefit of the Liberals, or will she act immediately for the benefit of Canadian workers?
The minister describes her visit to the Acadian Peninsula with the Minister of Labour, meetings with employees and employers, and active community groups in New Brunswick, claiming real results.
The minister pivots entirely to describing community activities in the Acadian Peninsula rather than addressing the question about when EI program changes will be made or why action has not followed the unanimous House vote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member talks about immediate action. Let me describe to him the things that we are doing in his community in the Acadian Peninsula. I was there with the Minister of Labour and together we met with employees and employers. There are very active community groups in that part of New Brunswick where the unemployment levels have been significantly high. We are getting real results.
Will the Minister of Finance use anticipated surpluses to hand over to the provinces the money agreed on in last week's health agreement?
The question mixes partisan rhetoric about the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance with a substantive ask about whether anticipated surpluses will be used to deliver money agreed in last week's health agreement to the provinces.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, bad news for the Prime Minister: thanks to his Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister has broken yet another Liberal promise, the one about the 50:50 ratio for the budget surplus. This is bad news for the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance is hiding future surpluses from the Prime Minister because he knows him so well. This is bad news for the Prime Minister, but that is how things are between them. For the benefit of Canadians, could the Minister of Finance tell the House today that he will use the anticipated surpluses to hand over to the provinces the money agreed on in last week's health agreement now?
The Prime Minister says money is available this year for equipment and other parts of the health program, and global transfers to provincial governments will begin next year, with all provincial governments having been happy with the agreement.
The Prime Minister confirms the health agreement signed the previous Monday, specifies that money is available this year for equipment and other program parts and global transfers begin next year, partially addressing the question though without detail on anticipated surpluses.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have a plan and we are following it. Fortunately, the economy is exceptional and future generations will be the ones to benefit because the debt will go down. As for the money that will be given to provincial governments, I signed an agreement with them last Monday, and all of them were happy. Money is available starting this year for the purchase of equipment and for other parts of the program. As for the global transfers, they will begin next year. All of the provincial governments were happy and they included representatives of all parties. The member should perhaps realize that, when there is an agreementâ
Does western diversification have a valuable role to play in the western economy?
This is a pure government-backbench softball inviting the Secretary of State to affirm whether western diversification has a valuable role to play, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification. I heard a lot about the regional agencies and their role and effectiveness in the Canadian economy. Does western diversification have a valuable role to play in the western economy?
Oh, oh.
The Secretary of State cites $2.3 billion invested in the western economy since the department's inception and states that Community Future Development Corporations produced 10% of new jobs in British Columbia over the last few years.
The Secretary of State provides specific figures including $2.3 billion invested since inception and the claim that Community Future Development Corporations produced 10% of new jobs in British Columbia over the last few years, giving real informational content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government of Canada, my department has invested $2.3 billion in the western economy since its inception. With its partners it has created the tools that have permitted the western economies to diversify in a significant kind of way. Last week I was in the western provinces, particularly in British Columbia. I was told that one of the tools developed, the Community Future Development Corporations, has produced 10% of the new jobs in British Columbia over the last few years. The department also comes to the aid of communities in crisis such as the west coast fisheries and the Red River flood.
They really do not want to hear the good news. We are proud of the record of the western economic diversification.