Session overview
- A Canadian female officer was killed in combat against Taliban forces in Afghanistan, announced by the Prime Minister during Question Period; a vote on extending Canada's mission in Afghanistan was scheduled for that evening.
- The government faced sustained pressure from the Liberals, Bloc Québécois, and NDP to respect the previous day's parliamentary majority vote requiring Canada to meet its Kyoto Protocol targets, which the Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment declined to commit to.
- The government announced the end of the long gun registry, maintaining the handgun registry and other firearms controls; the Minister of Public Safety indicated he would consult with Quebec's minister and the Sûreté du Québec on implementation.
- Opposition members challenged the government's accountability on the public appointments commission after the Prime Minister withdrew the commission entirely following the committee's rejection of Gwyn Morgan as its chair.
- The softwood lumber dispute drew sharp exchanges, with Liberal members accusing the government of surrendering gains won under NAFTA; the Minister of International Trade defended the negotiated settlement as protecting Canadian sovereignty and forest industry stability.
- Procedural points of order were raised at the session's close over whether the Prime Minister had quoted a cabinet document during Question Period without tabling it, and over comments made by the Minister of the Environment regarding the NDP environment critic's conduct in Bonn.
The Minister of Public Safety made a specific, on-the-record commitment to consult with Quebec's minister and confirmed that the government would maintain the handgun registry, safe storage requirements, safety training, police background checks, and the list of prohibited and restricted weapons while ending the long gun registry.
Martin sharply corrects the minister's answer, distinguishes Kandahar from Afghanistan as a whole, and repeats the specific financial ask with urgency about troop safety â a precise, accountable follow-up.
When asked directly whether he had already decided to extend the Afghanistan mission regardless of the vote â making the vote meaningless â or whether the House deserved weeks of debate on so grave a matter, the Prime Minister answered neither question and instead attacked the Liberal Party for sending troops to Afghanistan in the first place.
Outstanding questions
- StĂ©phane Dion asked whether the Prime Minister had already decided to extend the Afghanistan mission regardless of the outcome of the evening's vote â this was never answered.
- Keith Martin asked specifically how much money CIDA would invest in Kandahar over the next two years with the proposed mission extension â the minister refused to provide a Kandahar-specific figure.
- Raymonde Folco asked whether the Prime Minister would ensure that the House and the Standing Committee on National Defence would be regularly briefed on the military and humanitarian situation in Afghanistan â no specific commitment was made.
- Maria Minna asked whether the Prime Minister still held his 1998 view that pay equity was 'a rip-off' for taxpayers and whether the government would table new pay equity legislation before the end of 2006 â neither question was addressed.
- Irwin Cotler asked why the government announced an amnesty and non-prosecution on the long gun registry while the existing law remained in force, rather than coming before Parliament to change the law â the Minister of Public Safety did not address the constitutional or procedural substance of this challenge.
Graham informed the House of a Canadian soldier's death in Afghanistan and invited the Prime Minister to comment.
The question is more of a solemn invitation to comment than a pointed accountability ask, but it serves a genuine parliamentary function in a specific factual context.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that members of the House will have learned that today a Canadian soldier died in Afghanistan. I would like on behalf of our party and I believe all members of the House to express our deepest sympathies to her family and friends. Nous regrettons naturellement cette mort tragique. Je demande au premier ministre s'il désire faire un commentaire à ce sujet.
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, c'est avec une grande tristesse que les députés auront appris qu'une militaire canadienne a perdu la vie aujourd'hui en Afghanistan. Au nom de notre parti et, je crois, de tous les députés aussi, je tiens à exprimer nos plus sincÚres condoléances à sa famille et à ses amis. Of course, we regret this tragic loss of life. I would ask the Prime Minister if he would like to comment on this.
Harper confirmed a female officer was killed in combat against Taliban forces, that next of kin were being notified, and affirmed support for the mission.
Harper directly addressed the casualty, provided available details about the fallen soldier, and reflected substantively on the mission's significance without deflecting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. He is correct. Today we suffered a combat casualty in Afghanistan. I have the name of a female officer who was killed in combat action against Taliban forces. I am not at liberty to release the name. The next of kin, a husband, is being notified. These are always terrible tragedies. I do not know if this is a first female combat death. It is certainly not a first that we ever want to celebrate, but it does underscore the tremendous courage that our young men and women show in our theatre. I believe they have the right at all times to know that those of us who send them into combat stand behind their mission.
Graham asked whether the Prime Minister would respect the House's clear majority vote calling on Canada to meet its Kyoto Protocol objectives.
Graham cites the previous day's parliamentary vote and holds Harper to his own prior standard of respecting Parliament's will, making a clear and specific ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, cette Chambre a exprimé clairement sa volonté au sujet de la politique environnementale du Canada. Une majorité importante d'élus du peuple canadien ont demandé au premier ministre de veiller à ce que le Canada atteigne les objectifs établis en vertu du Protocole de Kyoto. Lorsque l'actuel premier ministre était assis à ma place, il demandait continuellement au gouvernement de respecter la volonté du Parlement. Le fera-t-il dans ce cas aussi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, this House clearly expressed its wishes with regard to Canada's environmental policy. A sizeable majority of elected representatives of the Canadian people asked the Prime Minister to ensure that Canada meet the objectives established by the Kyoto protocol. When the current Prime Minister was the opposition leader, he continually asked the government to respect the wishes of Parliament. Will he do so in this case, also?
Harper said the government intended to pursue real actions, criticizing the Liberals for accepting Kyoto targets without a plan, but did not say whether he would respect the vote.
Harper deflected by attacking the previous Liberal government's failure to act on Kyoto rather than addressing whether he would respect the majority vote.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement est clair depuis longtemps: nous avons l'intention de respecter nos engagements électoraux. Il est malheureux que l'ancien gouvernement ait accepté des cibles, mais qu'il ait refusé de faire des efforts pour les atteindre. Il est facile pour les partis de l'opposition de voter pour des sentiments. Toutefois, un gouvernement doit avoir des plans et entreprendre des actions. Et nous avons l'intention de réaliser de vraies actions.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government's position has been clear for quite some time: we intend to respect our election promises. It is unfortunate that the former government accepted targets but refused to take action to meet them. It is easy for the opposition parties to vote for sentiments. However, a government must have plans and take action. And we intend to take real action.
Graham asked how the Prime Minister's disregard for the Kyoto vote and the appointments commission rejection gave members any confidence that tonight's Afghanistan vote would matter.
The question weaves together multiple issues â minority Parliament behaviour, the appointments commission rejection, and the Afghanistan vote â making it compound and rhetorically charged rather than sharply focused.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, you and all members of the House will recall that during the previous election, the current Prime Minister assured Canadians who were concerned by the extreme views of his caucus that he be held in check by a minority Parliament. The Prime Minister wanted to work with all parties in this minority Parliament, he claimed. But the Prime Minister has no intention of respecting yesterday's vote on the environment. His commitment to accountability was jettisoned when his choice to head the appointments commission was rejected because he was one of his bagmen. How does that give the members of the House any confidence about the consequence of tonight's vote on Afghanistan?
Harper defended the rejection of what he called Canada's most outstanding CEO for the appointments commission and attacked the Liberal record on appointments, without addressing Afghanistan.
Harper pivoted entirely to defending Gwyn Morgan and attacking the Liberal appointments record, ignoring the question about the Afghanistan vote's consequence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, actions do have consequences. The vote yesterday to reject Canada's most outstanding CEO who was willing to provide his services to the Government of Canada for $1 a year is an action that has consequences. I can understand why the party opposite would not want to clean up the appointments process given the kind of scandals it ran when it was in office. This party will go ahead and do the job itself.
Dion asked why the Prime Minister reversed his stated position â from refusing a parliamentary vote on commitments already made to calling one â citing Harper's own words from two months and one week prior.
Dion cites two specific on-the-record statements by the Prime Minister â one from two months prior and one from the previous week â that directly contradict each other on holding parliamentary votes on Afghanistan, making a precise accountability ask.
Source text
It was not a cellphone, Mr. Speaker. Just two short months ago, the Prime Minister was adamant that he would not support a parliamentary vote on extending Canada's mission to Afghanistan. He said, âWe are not going to have votes on commitments already madeâ. Il y a une semaine, Ă une question du dĂ©putĂ© de LaurierâSainte-Marie, le premier ministre a dĂ©clarĂ©: « [...] nous nous sommes engagĂ©s Ă tenir des votes sur de nouveaux engagements. Nous sommes dĂ©jĂ en Afghanistan. » Pourquoi cette volte-face si soudaine du premier ministre?
Harper said he had long expressed the desire for votes on military commitments and accused the opposition of lacking leadership after agreeing to the vote and then complaining.
Harper did not explain the apparent contradiction between his two quoted statements, instead claiming a longstanding desire for votes and attacking Liberal leadership.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'exprime le désir, depuis longtemps, de tenir des votes sur des engagements militaires. Il est malheureux qu'un tel vote n'ait pas eu lieu il y a longtemps. Tous les partis de cette Chambre étaient d'accord, hier, avec le vote et avec cette procédure. Maintenant, ils commencent à se plaindre. Il n'y a pas de leadership là -bas.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have long expressed the desire to hold a vote on military commitments. It is unfortunate that such a vote was not held long ago. All the parties in this House were in agreement yesterday with the vote and the procedure. Now they are starting to complain. There is no leadership over there.
Dion asked whether the Prime Minister had already decided to extend the Afghanistan mission, arguing that if he had, the vote was meaningless, and if he had not, the House deserved weeks of discussion on such a serious issue.
Dion poses a pointed binary â either Harper has already decided and the vote is meaningless, or he has not and the House deserves weeks of debate â pressing the Prime Minister to commit to one of two clear positions.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on demande au premier ministre d'ĂȘtre digne de sa fonction. On parle d'un enjeu extrĂȘmement grave. Il a dĂ©cidĂ© soudainement d'avoir un vote en cette Chambre, sans qu'il y ait eu de dĂ©bat sur un sujet aussi grave dans un temps respectable pour cette Chambre. Alors, de deux choses l'une: ou il a dĂ©jĂ pris la dĂ©cision et il est dĂ©terminĂ© Ă prolonger la mission quel que soit le vote de la Chambre â et alors le vote n'a pas de signification â, ou il n'a pas pris la dĂ©cision et, Ă ce moment-lĂ , la Chambre a le droit d'avoir des semaines de discussions sur un enjeu aussi important. A-t-il pris ou non la dĂ©cision?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we would ask the Prime Minister to be worthy of his office. This is an extremely serious issue. He decided all of a sudden to have a vote in this House without debate on a matter as serious in a respectable timeframe for this House. So, either he has already decided and is determined to prolong the mission however the House votesâand so the vote means nothingâor he has not decided and so the House can debate for weeks on end this very important issue. Has he or has he not decided?
Harper blamed the Liberal Party for having sent and kept troops in Afghanistan and declared it was the Liberals' duty to support the troops in this military campaign, without answering whether he had made a decision.
Harper ignored the binary entirely and attacked the Liberal Party for having sent troops to Afghanistan in the first place, not addressing the question of whether a decision had been made.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Parti libéral a envoyé nos troupes en Afghanistan il y a plus de quatre ans. Il a gardé les troupes là . Les troupes sont là et sont là pour le long terme. C'était leur décision. Le Parti libéral n'a pas besoin de temps pour décider de sa position. C'est le devoir du Parti libéral d'appuyer nos troupes dans cette campagne militaire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party sent our troops to Afghanistan over four years ago. It kept them there. They are there and are there for the long term. That was their decision. The Liberal Party does not need any time to decide on its position. It is the duty of the Liberal Party to support our troops in this military campaign.
Duceppe asked whether the Prime Minister, leading a minority government elected with only 36% of the vote, recognized his duty to implement the House's adopted motion requiring a Kyoto plan by October 15, 2006.
Duceppe cites the specific Bloc québécois motion adopted the previous day, names the October 15, 2006 deadline it contained, and asks directly whether the Prime Minister will implement the will of the House as a minority government.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, la Chambre des communes a adoptĂ© une motion du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois qui somme, notamment, le gouvernement de rendre public d'ici le 15 octobre 2006 un plan permettant d'atteindre les objectifs du Protocole de Kyoto. Ă la tĂȘte d'un gouvernement minoritaire Ă©lu avec seulement 36 p. 100 des voix, le premier ministre a le devoir de mettre en oeuvre la volontĂ© de la Chambre. Le premier ministre ne conviendra-t-il pas qu'il est de son devoir de respecter les dĂ©cisions de la Chambre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House of Commons passed a Bloc Québécois motion that calls on the government to publish, by October 15, 2006, a plan for complying with the Kyoto protocol. As leader of a minority government elected with only 36% of the vote, the Prime Minister has a duty to implement the will of the House. Does the Prime Minister not agree that he has a duty to respect the decisions of the House?
Harper said opposition parties without power find it easy to vote for complicated things without a plan, and that his government intended to develop a plan and take real actions.
Harper dismissed the question with a general attack on opposition parties voting for complicated things without a plan, offering no answer on respecting the motion's deadline or requirements.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je viens de le dire, c'est facile pour un parti d'opposition qui n'aura jamais le pouvoir de décider de dire qu'il est facile de voter pour des choses trÚs compliquées sans un plan. Ce gouvernement a l'intention de développer un plan et de poser de vraies actions.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, it is easy for an opposition party that will never be in power to say that it is easy to vote for very complex matters without a plan. This government intends to develop a plan and take concrete action.
Duceppe cited Harper's own May 11, 2005 statement that it is the government's duty to respect the decisions of the House of Commons, and asked whether the Prime Minister now says anything convenient and then does the opposite.
Duceppe quotes Harper's own words from May 11, 2005 â that it is the government's duty to respect the decisions of the House of Commons â and asks directly whether Harper now contradicts his prior public commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai un mandat tout autant légitime que le sien. Je reprenais les mots du premier ministre qui disait, le 11 mai 2005: « Il est du devoir du gouvernement de respecter les décisions de la Chambre des communes. » Dois-je comprendre qu'il était facile pour lui de dire n'importe quoi quand il était de ce cÎté-ci de la Chambre, de dire n'importe quoi en campagne électorale, et de faire le contraire aujourd'hui?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my mandate is just as legitimate as his. I was referring to the comments the Prime Minister made on May 11, 2005, when he said, âThe government is duty bound to respect the decisions made by the House of Commonsâ. Am I to understand that it was easy for him to say whatever he wanted when he was on this side of the House, to say whatever he wanted during the election campaign and to do the opposite today?
Harper noted that polls show Kyoto is popular and accused the Bloc of changing positions on Afghanistan based on polls, saying independent countries need leaders not pollsters.
Harper pivoted to polling on Kyoto's popularity and attacked the Bloc's position on Afghanistan as poll-driven, entirely avoiding the quoted commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Ă©videmment, il y a des sondages qui indiquent que le Protocole de Kyoto est populaire. Je remarque que le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois indique aujourd'hui â seulement aujourd'hui â, aprĂšs quatre ans, un changement de position. Il s'oppose Ă notre action en Afghanistan parce que les sondages indiquent que cela n'est pas populaire. Les pays indĂ©pendants ont besoin de leaders, pas de sondeurs.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, polls indicate that the Kyoto protocol is popular. I notice today that the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois is indicatingâjust todayâafter four years, a change in position. It is opposed to our action in Afghanistan because polls indicate that our presence there is not popular. Independent nations need leaders, not pollsters.
Bigras asked whether the Prime Minister would return to reason and reaffirm Canada's support for the Kyoto Protocol objectives, arguing the government's coming plan risked being a copy of the Bush approach based on voluntarism.
Bigras characterizes the government's future plan as a 'copier-coller du plan Bush' relying on voluntarism, then asks whether Harper will reaffirm support for Kyoto objectives â a compound ask with significant rhetorical framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre rejette Kyoto, et son futur plan pour contrer les gaz Ă effet de serre risque bien d'ĂȘtre un « copier-coller » du plan Bush, une approche qui sĂ©duit les pĂ©troliĂšres parce qu'elle n'impose aucune contrainte et mise sur le volontariat. Je demande au premier ministre s'il entend revenir Ă la raison, se mettre Ă l'Ă©coute de ce que lui dit la population et rĂ©affirmer, sans dĂ©tour, l'appui du Canada aux objectifs du Protocole de Kyoto?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is rejecting Kyoto, and his future plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could very well be a carbon copy of the Bush plan, an approach that is very attractive to the oil companies because it imposes no restrictions and relies on voluntary action. Will the Prime Minister see reason, listen to what Canadians are telling him and, in no uncertain terms, reaffirm Canada's support for the Kyoto protocol targets?
Ambrose said the Bloc critic should be embarrassed about his motion because it would mean massive job losses for Quebec and that he had not explained the consequences to Quebeckers.
Ambrose did not address the characterization of the plan or the ask about Kyoto objectives, instead attacking the Bloc critic for not explaining the economic consequences of his motion to Quebeckers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the critic for the environment should be embarrassed about the motion that he put before the House last week because it means for Quebec massive job losses and impacts the Quebec economy. He did nothing to explain to Quebeckers what his motion would actually entail and the consequences of exactly what he put forward.
Bigras asked whether the government would adopt a territorial approach similar to the acid rain strategy and commit to giving Quebec the money to apply the Kyoto Protocol provisions on its own territory.
Bigras draws a specific historical analogy to Canada's acid rain approach, references the prior day's Kyoto vote, and makes a concrete ask: commit to giving Quebec money to apply Kyoto provisions on its territory using a territorial approach.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, bien au contraire, la motion votĂ©e hier recueille un large consensus au QuĂ©bec. Dans les annĂ©es 1980-1990, le Canada a luttĂ© contre les pluies acides en misant sur l'approche territoriale. Cette stratĂ©gie a permis au Canada de dĂ©passer ses objectifs internationaux. Dans la foulĂ©e du vote d'hier sur le Protocole de Kyoto, qu'est-ce qui empĂȘche le gouvernement d'adopter la mĂȘme approche? Peut-il s'engager Ă donner l'argent au QuĂ©bec, pour qu'il puisse appliquer lui-mĂȘme les dispositions du Protocole de Kyoto sur son territoire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the motion voted on yesterday enjoys broad support in Quebec. From 1980 to 1990, Canada fought against acid rain using a territorial approach, which enabled the country to surpass its international targets. In the wake of yesterday's vote on the Kyoto protocol, what is preventing the government from taking the same approach? Can the government promise to give money to Quebec so that it can implement the Kyoto protocol in its own territory?
Ambrose said this was not about money but the environment, cited the Liberal record of billions in wasted money while emissions rose 35% above Kyoto targets, and accused the member of not caring about the environment.
Ambrose ignored the acid rain analogy and the specific ask about transferring money to Quebec, instead repeating the attack on Liberal spending waste and questioning whether the member cared about the environment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is not about money. This is about the environment. We have seen the Liberal record of billions of dollars in wasted money and we are 35% above our Kyoto targets. If the member actually cared about the environment and the future of Quebeckers, he would be working with us for a sensible approach instead of putting forward a motion that means shutting down the Quebec economy and doing nothing for the environment.
Layton asked why the Prime Minister would cancel the appointments commission â described as a good idea â simply because his personal choice, who had made a controversial speech to the Fraser Institute, did not get the job.
Layton raises a legitimate process concern about the appointments commission but frames it with rhetorical asides and crowd interaction interrupting the flow, blunting the accountability value of his actual question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a lot of Canadians and members in the House welcomed the idea of having an appointments commission that would take a look at the whole process of how appointments are made. What we did not realize was that the Prime Minister thought that there was only one man out of the 32 million Canadians who was qualified to take this position. What we did not realize was that--
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, in the face of this Canadians are rather shocked. Given that the House of Commons was not prepared to appoint the one man, someone who made quite a controversial speech to the Fraser Institute, the Prime Minister's favourite think tank, the question is, why would the Prime Minister decide to cancel a good idea just because his guy did not get the job?
Harper said Gwyn Morgan was voted the top CEO in the country and led a team of highly qualified executives willing to work for free, but that the committee subjected Morgan to a buffoonish partisan show, and he would not ask anyone else to go before it.
Harper defended Morgan's credentials and characterized the committee hearing as a buffoonish partisan show, but did not explain why he was cancelling the entire commission rather than finding another candidate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Gwyn Morgan was voted the top CEO in the country. He brought forward with him a team of highly qualified executives, people from different partisan backgrounds, all of whom were willing to work to clean up the appointments process in this country for nothing, absolutely free to the taxpayers of Canada. Mr. Morgan, instead of having an examination of his credentials, was treated to a buffoonish show of partisan behaviour at the committee. No quality person is going to go before that committee again for such an appointment and this Prime Minister is not going to ask anyone to do it.
Layton asked whether the Prime Minister would respect tonight's House vote on deploying troops in Afghanistan, given his pattern of disregarding votes on the environment and the appointments commission.
Layton draws a pointed contrast between Harper's deference to the CEO vote versus his disregard for House of Commons votes, culminating in a direct and answerable question about whether tonight's Afghanistan vote will be respected.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to understand it now. Votes for the best CEO by whomever casts those votes is respected by the Prime Minister, but a vote in the House of Commons to respect international engagements on the environment is not respected by the Prime Minister. A vote in this place that would reject his personal choice for the appointments commission would not be respect by him. This afternoon and this evening, when there is a vote in the House on the deployment of troops in Afghanistan, is he going to respect that vote or is he just going to say, âIt's my way or the highway and just get used to itâ?
Harper confirmed the appointments commission would not proceed with Morgan's team, then cited the NDP foreign affairs critic's weekend statement supporting the Afghanistan mission to suggest the NDP's position was inconsistent.
Harper confirmed consequences for the Morgan appointment but deflected on Afghanistan by citing the NDP foreign affairs critic's Sunday statement supporting the mission, implying NDP inconsistency rather than directly committing to respect the vote's outcome.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am clear the vote has consequences. We are not proceeding with Mr. Morgan and his team on the public appointments commission. In terms of Afghanistan, on Sunday the foreign affairs critic of the NDP said, âIt's not a question of should we be in Afghanistan. Yes, we should; we need to be - we need to be in [for] the long haul...â. And yet today members of the NDP say they will vote against it, so maybe I will just wait a few days and we will get a different position from the NDP.
Martin asked the Minister of International Cooperation to tell the House how much money CIDA would invest specifically in Kandahar over the next two years if the mission is extended.
Martin asks a specific financial question â how much money CIDA will invest in Kandahar over the next two years â grounded in a substantive concern about the adequacy of briefings before the vote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is demanding that Parliament make an important decision on sending our troops into harms way for another two years without an opportunity to get briefings from foreign affairs, CIDA and defence, so we can make a decision based on the facts. This is utterly irresponsible. Aid is critically important for the success of the superb job our troops are doing in Afghanistan. Will the Minister of International Cooperation tell the House how much money CIDA is going to invest in Kandahar over the next two years?
Verner said the government committed $100 million for 2006-2007 and another $100 million for the following two years for aid, development, and poverty in Afghanistan.
Verner provided a specific dollar figure of $100 million for 2006-2007 and $100 million for the next two years, but for Afghanistan as a whole rather than specifically for Kandahar as asked.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pour l'année 2006-2007, le gouvernement s'est engagé à donner 100 millions de dollars afin de venir en aide à la population, au développement et à la pauvreté en Afghanistan. Lors des deux prochaines années, il s'agira encore de 100 millions de dollars.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for the year 2006-07, the government has committed $100 million to help the people of Afghanistan, and address the issues of development and poverty in that country. In the next two years, an additional $100 million will be allocated.
Martin pressed the minister to provide specifically how much CIDA would invest in Kandahar â not Afghanistan as a whole â over the next two years with the proposed mission extension.
Martin sharply corrects the minister's answer, distinguishes Kandahar from Afghanistan as a whole, and repeats the specific financial ask with urgency about troop safety â a precise, accountable follow-up.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is the budget for Afghanistan. It is not the budget for Kandahar where the bulk of our troops are, where the bulk of our troops are paying the price, and where their lives are on the line. This issue is critically important to the success of our troops on the ground in Kandahar and the minister knows this. Will the minister tell the House specifically, how much money will CIDA invest in Kandahar over the next two years with the extension of this proposed mission? Can she specifically tell us how much now?
Verner said there is not two Afghanistans but one, and that $100 million annually until 2011 would go to the entire Afghan population, without providing a Kandahar-specific figure.
Verner declined to provide a Kandahar-specific figure, insisting there is only one Afghanistan and repeating the $100 million annual figure to 2011, which did not address the Kandahar-specific question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pour notre gouvernement, la population afghane a besoin d'aide, tant à Kandahar que partout dans le pays. Il n'y a pas deux Afghanistan, il n'y en a qu'un seul. L'aide qui sera apportée à l'entiÚre population afghane se chiffre à 100 millions de dollars annuellement, et ce, jusqu'en 2011.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our government believes that the Afghan people need help, in Kandahar and throughout the country. There are not two Afghanistans, there is but one. $100 million in aid will be given to the Afghan people every year until 2011.
Folco asked the Prime Minister to assure the House and the Standing Committee on National Defence that they would be regularly informed of the military and humanitarian situation in Afghanistan.
Folco raises a legitimate concern about information access before the vote and makes a specific ask â assurance that the House and the Standing Committee on National Defence will be regularly briefed on military and humanitarian developments in Afghanistan.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il est trĂšs important que les Canadiens comprennent bien la nature de notre mission en Afghanistan. Les conservateurs nous pressent de prendre une position lors du vote de ce soir, mĂȘme si nous n'avons accĂšs qu'Ă une partie de l'information sur la prolongation de la mission. En plus, ce que nous savons nous vient non pas du gouvernement, mais des mĂ©dias. Le premier ministre peut-il assurer aux Canadiens que cette Chambre et le ComitĂ© permanent de la dĂ©fense nationale seront rĂ©guliĂšrement informĂ©s de la situation militaire et humanitaire en Afghanistan?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that Canadians fully understand the nature of our mission in Afghanistan. The Conservatives are pressing us to take a position in this eveningâs vote, even though we have access to only part of the information on the extension of the mission. What is more, what we know comes to us not from the government, but from the media. Can the Prime Minister assure Canadians that this House and the Standing Committee on National Defence will be regularly informed of the military and humanitarian situation in Afghanistan?
Harper described the mission extension as continuing Liberal commitments by two more years plus four years of humanitarian aid, with one addition: requesting ISAF overall command requiring a senior general for one year around February 2008.
Harper described the specific additions to the mission â the ISAF command request requiring a senior general and support staff â but did not address the assurance about regular briefings that was actually asked.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est clair: notre gouvernement demande de prolonger les engagements de l'ancien gouvernement libéral de deux autres années et de prolonger de quatre années encore l'aide au développement humanitaire. Une addition est apportée à la mission militaire: le Canada demande le commandement général de la Force internationale d'assistance à la sécurité, qui exige le déploiement d'un général haut gradé et de personnes subalternes pour un an, probablement en février 2008. Il s'agit de la seule addition à notre mission militaire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is clear: our government is asking for an extension of the commitments of the former Liberal government for another two years, and an extension of assistance for humanitarian development for another four years. One addition is being made to the military mission: Canada is requesting general command of the International Security Assistance Force, which requires the deployment of a high-ranking general and subordinates for one year, probably in February 2008. This is the only addition to our military mission.
Folco asked why the Prime Minister did not understand that the lives of Canadian soldiers deserved deeper reflection than a six-hour debate before committing them for two more years until 2009.
Folco makes a pointed specific challenge â six hours of debate for a two-year troop commitment â asking why the Prime Minister does not understand that soldiers' lives deserve deeper reflection than a six-hour debate allows.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cette réponse est totalement inacceptable. Il est temps que le gouvernement commence à répondre aux questions que nous posons. Alors que le premier ministre veut engager nos soldats pour deux ans de plus, jusqu'en 2009, il ne nous permet que six heures de débat sur cette question. Pourquoi le premier ministre ne comprend-il pas que la vie de nos braves soldats canadiens mérite une réflexion plus profonde que ce que nous permet un débat de six heures?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this answer is totally unacceptable. It is time the government started answering the questions that we ask. The Prime Minister wants to commit our soldiers for two more years, until 2009, but he allows us only six hours of debate on the issue. Why does the Prime Minister not understand that the lives of our brave Canadian soldiers deserve more thorough reflection than can be had in a six-hour debate?
Harper said that any Liberal MP voting against the extension or completion of their mission would be deplorable and that there was no excuse for it.
Harper ignored the substance of the debate-duration concern entirely and simply stated that any Liberal voting against the extension would be deplorable, offering no justification for the six-hour limit.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si n'importe quel député du Parti libéral veut voter contre un prolongement ou une complétion de leur mission, c'est déplorable. Il n'y a pas d'excuse pour cela.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if any member of the Liberal Party wishes to vote against an extension or the completion of their mission, that is deplorable. There is no excuse for it.
Why would the government not wait for the Standing Committee on National Defence's recommendations before making a final decision on the extension of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan?
Cites a specific committee resolution adopted the previous day and asks a clear, answerable procedural question about why the government would not wait for the Standing Committee on National Defence recommendations before making a final decision on the Afghanistan mission extension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, le Comité permanent de la défense nationale a adopté une résolution qui demande d'étudier les divers aspects de la mission canadienne en Afghanistan, entre autres l'état des troupes et des équipements, la capacité du Canada de répondre à ses autres obligations internationales, afin de permettre à la Chambre de prendre une décision éclairée. Pourquoi le gouvernement n'attendrait-il pas les recommandations du Comité permanent de la défense nationale avant de prendre une décision finale relativement à la prolongation de la mission canadienne en Afghanistan?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Standing Committee on National Defence passed a resolution which asks to study the various aspects of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, including the status of the troops and equipment and Canadaâs capacity to meet its other international obligations, so that the House can make an informed decision. Why would the government not wait for the recommendations of the Standing Committee on National Defence before making a final decision on extending the Canadian mission in Afghanistan?
Any committee can study what it wishes, but a vote on Afghanistan was scheduled for that evening as agreed by all House leaders of all parties.
The minister acknowledges the committee's right to study what it wishes but does not explain why the government chose not to wait for its recommendations, instead simply stating the vote was agreed to by all House leaders.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as is its right, any committee of Parliament can decide to study anything it wants. We are having a vote tonight on Afghanistan, as agreed by all House leaders of all parties.
Given his own past statement that the Liberal Party cannot ignore the democratic will of elected MPs, has the Prime Minister already forgotten the commitments that supposedly distinguished him from the Liberals?
The question quotes the Prime Minister's own prior public statement about democratic will but frames the ask as a broad rhetorical challenge about whether Harper has already forgotten his commitments, making the accountability hook implicit rather than precise.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre a dĂ©jĂ dĂ©clarĂ© ceci: « Le Parti libĂ©ral ne peut pas ignorer la volontĂ© dĂ©mocratique de dĂ©putĂ©s Ă©lus, mĂȘme si cette volontĂ© ne correspond pas Ă son agenda politique. » Doit-on comprendre, de l'attitude du premier ministre, que seulement quatre mois aprĂšs son Ă©lection, il a dĂ©jĂ oubliĂ© les beaux engagements qui, soi-disant, le distinguaient des libĂ©raux?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister once said: âThe Liberal Party cannot ignore the democratic will of elected Members of Parliament whenever it fits their political agendaâ. Are we to understand from the Prime Ministerâs attitude that, just four months after his election, he has already forgotten the noble commitments which supposedly set him apart from the Liberals?
The Prime Minister stated that the Bloc had agreed to the debate and vote procedures the previous day and suggested the Bloc keeps changing its position on Afghanistan.
The Prime Minister deflects by claiming the Bloc agreed to the debate procedures the previous day and mocks the Bloc for changing its position, without addressing the quoted commitment or the substance of the democratic-will argument.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je vais rĂ©pĂ©ter en français la rĂ©ponse que je viens de donner en anglais. Hier, le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois Ă©tait d'accord avec les procĂ©dures du dĂ©bat et du vote. Aujourd'hui, il a une position diffĂ©rente. Je peux peut-ĂȘtre attendre quelques jours et le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois aura encore changĂ© sa position sur l'Afghanistan.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat in French what I just said in English. Yesterday, the Bloc Québécois was in agreement with procedures for the debate and the vote. Today it has a different position. Possibly if I wait a few days the Bloc Québécois will have again changed its position on Afghanistan.
Given that his Quebec counterpart has asked him to reverse his decision and leave the firearms registry in place, will the minister respond favourably to that request from the Quebec government?
The question references a specific announced change to the firearms registry and a specific request from the Quebec government, asking a clear yes-or-no accountability question about whether the minister will respond favourably to that request.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le ministre de la Sécurité publique vient d'annoncer qu'il modifie le registre des armes à feu et que les armes de chasse ne seront plus dans ce groupe.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety just announced that he is changing the gun registry and that hunting rifles will no longer be included.
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
Monsieur le Président, son collÚgue québécois vient de demander qu'il revienne sur sa décision et qu'il laisse le registre en place. Le ministre entend-il répondre favorablement à cette demande du gouvernement québécois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, his counterpart in Quebec has asked that he reverse his decision and leave the registry in place. Will the minister respond favourably to this request from the Government of Quebec?
The minister confirmed receiving a call from the Quebec minister's office, pledged to consult the provinces, and outlined retained gun-control measures including the handgun registry, safety storage, background checks, and safety training.
The minister confirms he received a call from the Quebec minister's office, commits to consulting the provinces, and lists retained measures, but does not directly answer whether he will respond favourably to the specific request to leave the registry in place.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, mon bureau et moi avons reçu avec plaisir un appel du bureau du ministre de la belle province de Québec. Je peux lui dire que nous allons consulter les provinces. De plus, je peux assurer le ministre que nous continuerons d'exiger l'entreposage sécuritaire des armes à feu, une formation sur la sécurité, la vérification des antécédents judiciaires par la police et le registre des armes de poing. En outre, je vais consulter le ministre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my office and I were pleased to receive a call from the minister for the beautiful Province of Quebec. I can tell him that we are going to consult the provinces. I can also assure the minister that we will continue to require safe storage of firearms, safety training, a police check and registration of handguns. I will be consulting with the minister.
Does the government intend to propose to the Quebec government that the Sûreté du Québec assume registry management responsibility in Quebec territory with corresponding budget transfers, given that the SQ supports the Canadian Firearms Program?
The question raises a specific governance proposal â having the SĂ»retĂ© du QuĂ©bec assume registry management in Quebec territory with corresponding budget transfers â and grounds it in the announced RCMP responsibility change, making it a focused and substantive ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le ministre annonce également que la GRC serait dorénavant responsable de la gestion du registre. Le gouvernement entend-il proposer au gouvernement du Québec que la Sûreté du Québec assume cette responsabilité en territoire québécois avec un transfert des budgets correspondants, d'autant plus que la Sûreté du Québec, elle, croit à la nécessité du Programme canadien de contrÎle des armes à feu et qu'elle est sous la responsabilité d'un ministre qui y croit aussi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the minister is also announcing that the RCMP will be responsible for managing the registry from now on. Does the government intend to propose to the Government of Quebec that the Sûreté du Québec take on this responsibility in Quebec, with an appropriate budget transfer, especially since the Sûreté du Québec believes in the need for the national firearms program and reports to a minister who also believes in the program?
The minister confirmed that consultation is the process, stated he will consult the Quebec minister and the Sûreté du Québec, and affirmed that everyone supports effective firearms control.
The minister confirms that consultation is exactly the process, says he will consult the Quebec minister and the Sûreté du Québec, and affirms support for effective firearms control, but gives no detail on budget transfers or formal commitment to the proposal.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est exactement le processus. Je vais consulter le ministre Ă ce sujet, parce que, bien sĂ»r, la SĂ»retĂ© du QuĂ©bec a des idĂ©es, et je vais consulter ses reprĂ©sentants. Je suis pour â et nous sommes tous pour â un contrĂŽle des armes Ă feu efficace.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what will happen. I will consult with the minister on this, because the SĂ»retĂ© du QuĂ©bec has ideas, of course, and I will consult its representatives. I am in favourâwe are all in favourâof effective gun control.
Why will the Prime Minister not stand up for Canadian companies and why did he give away what they had already won under NAFTA, given that two major Canadian lumber industry groups have filed lawsuits against both governments?
The question references specific lawsuits filed by two major Canadian lumber industry groups against both governments and a NAFTA panel decision, with a reasonably clear ask about why the Prime Minister did not stand up for Canadian companies, though the framing is somewhat partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, two major Canadian lumber industry groups have filed lawsuits against both the Government of Canada and the government of the United States. They state that the two governments are preventing Canadian private industry from finalizing the decision of the NAFTA panel that has found that Canadian softwood is not subsidized. That decision should be final and recognized. All duties which have been collected must be returned. Why will the Prime Minister not stand up for Canadian companies and why did he give away what they had already won under NAFTA?
The minister urged the member to tell his community that the negotiated settlement would bring stability, job growth, investment, and a future for the softwood lumber industry, without addressing the lawsuits or the NAFTA panel decision.
The minister does not address the lawsuits, the NAFTA panel decision, or the specific question of why the government acted as it did; instead he pivots to urging the member to defend the negotiated settlement to his community, answering a different question entirely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be prepared to go to his community, where the softwood lumber industry has been on its back for the last five years, and say that he wants more years of litigation and that he wants to cast aside a negotiated settlement that will bring stability, job growth, investment and a sense of a future for the softwood lumber industry across Canada and in northern Ontario.
Why is a Canadian company forced to sue its own government to protect legal rights under NAFTA, given that the U.S. has not abandoned its litigation, industries are still paying $40 million a month in duties, and many are on the brink of bankruptcy?
The question cites a specific figure ($40 million a month in duties) and references ongoing U.S. litigation and capital financing pressures, but the rhetorical framing ('stab in the back') weakens its accountability value and the ask is implicit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, who does he think asked me to ask the question? It is absolutely shameful that a Canadian company needs to sue its own government to protect our legal rights. The United States has not yet abandoned any of its litigation. Our industries are still paying $40 million a month in duties. Many are totally tapped out of capital financing and on the brink of bankruptcy. It is another stab in the back.
The minister said lawyers likely prompted the question, noted hundreds of millions in legal fees, argued the settlement serves the Ontario forest industry, and stated that legal rights have not been given up but only the extraordinary challenge has been suspended.
The minister addresses the legal fees issue and makes a substantive claim that legal rights have not been given up and that the extraordinary challenge is merely suspended, partially engaging the question but not addressing the $40 million monthly duties figure or the bankruptcy concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the lawyers were probably the ones who got him to ask the question. Hundreds of millions of dollars have spent on legal fees in this action. This negotiated settlement was very much in the interests of the Ontario forest industry and the forest industry across the country. We have not given up our legal rights. We have merely suspended the extraordinary challenge. It can be continued, if this negotiation is not completed.
Why did the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade approve and abandon everything when a NAFTA tribunal was about to confirm that Canadian softwood was not subject to subsidies, and now industry must sue its own government to have NAFTA respected?
The question references a specific NAFTA tribunal that was about to confirm Canadian softwood was not subject to subsidies and the fact that industry must now sue its own government, asking why the government capitulated, though the framing relies partly on 'capitulated' rhetoric.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, un tribunal de l'ALENA s'apprĂȘtait Ă confirmer que le bois d'oeuvre canadien n'Ă©tait pas sujet Ă des subsides, juste avant que le gouvernement ne capitule devant les AmĂ©ricains. Maintenant, notre industrie doit poursuivre son propre gouvernement pour faire respecter l'ALENA. Au lieu d'accorder la prioritĂ© Ă l'industrie canadienne en lui donnant un poids juridique au sein de l'ALENA, le premier ministre et son ministre du Commerce international ont tout approuvĂ© et tout abandonnĂ©. Pourquoi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a NAFTA panel was preparing to confirm that Canadian softwood lumber is not subsidized just before the government capitulated to the Americans. Now, our industry must sue its own government in order to ensure compliance with NAFTA. Rather than making the Canadian industry the priority by giving it a legal footing within NAFTA, the Prime Minister and his Minister of International Trade approved everything and abandoned everything. Why?
The minister asserted that legal rights have not been given up, that Canadian forest policy and sovereignty have been protected, and that the United States agreed not to launch further aggressive trade actions, accusing the opposition of cheap partisan politics.
The minister repeats that legal rights have not been given up and claims protection of Canadian forest policy and sovereignty, and accuses the opposition of inviting a trade war, without addressing the specific NAFTA tribunal point or the lawsuits filed against the government.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said to the previous question, we have not given up our legal rights. We have negotiated a settlement. We have protected Canadian forest policy. We have, if anything, protected Canadian sovereignty. We have an agreement from the United States not to launch further aggressive trade actions. Those hon. members, with their cheap partisan politics, are inviting us to go back into a trade war, to go back into litigation, to go back into uncertainty, to go back into unemployment and to go back to destroying the softwood lumber industry.
Why did the government gut NAFTA and give $500 million to American companies to continue to harass Canadian softwood producers, cutting loose Ontario softwood producers in their fight to see free trade respected?
The question cites a specific figure ($500 million given to American companies) and raises the specific concern of Ontario softwood producers being cut loose, but the 'butler to the U.S. industry' framing is highly rhetorical and dilutes the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it was established some time ago that the minister knows nothing about partisan politics. Despite veiled threats to the provinces and industry, Ontario softwood producers have been cut loose in their fight to see free trade respected. It seems that the government is more interested in playing the role of butler to the U.S. industry than protecting Canadian jobs and ensuring our industry can compete in the future. Why did the government gut NAFTA and give $500 million to American companies to continue to harass Canadian softwood producers?
The minister asserted that the government is committed to protecting and improving NAFTA, not destroying it, that legal rights have not been given up, and that the government is re-energizing NAFTA and the softwood lumber industry.
The minister does not address the $500 million figure, the Ontario softwood producers' situation, or the specific claim about gutting NAFTA; he simply asserts the government is protecting and improving NAFTA and re-energizing the softwood lumber industry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I may not know much about partisan politics, but I think know a thing or two about softwood lumber. The government is dead set on protecting and improving NAFTA, not on destroying it. We have not given up our legal position. We are building on NAFTA. We are re-energizing NAFTA. We are re-energizing the softwood lumber industry in our country.
Could the Minister of Public Safety tell the House his plans for the long gun registry, given yesterday's Auditor General condemnation of Liberal waste and mismanagement?
This is a government-backbench softball setup referencing the Auditor General's report as a pretext to invite the minister to announce his plans, with no real accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard the Auditor General's condemnation of the Liberal waste and mismanagement in the long gun registry. The government is committed to addressing the issue of the registry. Today we delivered. Could the Minister for Public Safety tell the House his plans for the long gun registry?
The minister outlined plans to maintain the handgun registry, the list of prohibited and restricted weapons, firearm licensing, safety checks, and safe storage requirements, while announcing the end of the long gun registry which has cost close to $1 billion and has not been effective.
The minister provides substantive information about specific retained measures (handgun registry, prohibited and restricted weapons list, licensing, safety checks, safe storage) and states the long gun registry costing close to $1 billion will be ended, delivering real policy content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleague, the member for YorktonâMelville, for his diligence on this file for years, keeping it before the public and showing us the importance of it. We want to do a number of things. We want to ensure that Canadians have effective gun control. That is why we are maintaining the handgun registry. That is why we are maintaining the list of prohibited and restricted weapons. That is why we still need to have a licence to acquire a firearm. That is why we are still requiring safety checks and that firearms be stored safety. When it comes to the long gun registry, which has cost close to $1 billion and has not been effective, we say it is time to put an end to that and get effective gun control for Canadians.
Given that the International Climate Action Network has called on the minister to step up and recommit to Canada's targets or to step aside as chair of the UN convention, will the minister respond to this call?
The question references specific events in Bonn, cites a call from the International Climate Action Network for the minister to recommit to Canada's targets or step aside as chair, and raises a real accountability issue, but conflates this with a broad attack on 13 years of Liberal neglect.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has once again embarrassed Canada on the international stage. In Bonn I witnessed the minister stand up and tell the world that Canada was going to cut and run on its commitments to do something about climate change. After 13 years of Liberal neglect, Canadians could be forgiven for thinking our reputation could not get any worse. Sadly, they were wrong. The International Climate Action Network has called on the minister to step up and recommit to Canada's targets or to step aside as chair of this UN convention.
The minister said the Liberals are the ones who should be embarrassed given 13 years of no action and Canada being 35% above its Kyoto targets, and that the international community is well aware of that record.
The minister does not address the International Climate Action Network's call, the specific events in Bonn, or Canada's targets; she deflects entirely to the Liberal record and the 35% above Kyoto targets figure, answering a different question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the only people who have anything to be embarrassed about on this are the Liberals. After 13 years of no action on the environment, we are now at 35% above our Kyoto targets. The international community is well aware of that. What the member cannot handle is that I am actually telling the truth. When it comes to the Liberal record on the environment, the emperor has no clothes.
Will the government accept the UN's offer of assistance and simply commit to meeting Canada's climate targets, given that every other country went to Bonn with a plan except Canada, and India and China showed up with better plans?
The question makes a specific comparative claim that every other country went to Bonn with a plan and a commitment to meet their targets except Canada, and that India and China showed better plans, and asks whether the government will accept UN assistance, though the 'counselling' framing is rhetorically loaded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the truth is the minister is running away from Canada's commitments when it comes to climate change. Every other country went to Bonn with a plan and a commitment to meet their targets, except Canada. India and China showed up with plans that were better than ours. The UN has offered its assistance for some counselling for the government, some help and assistance in finding out that it can actually meet its targets. Will the government simply just state the obvious, take the help it needs and receive the counselling that it so desperately wants?
Oh, oh!
Oh, oh!
The minister stated that Japan, New Zealand, Norway and Canada all took the exact same position in Bonn â that there needs to be an assessment of the Kyoto protocol over the next two years before any further commitments are made â and accused the member of meddling rather than being constructive.
The minister provides a specific factual counter-claim that Japan, New Zealand, Norway and Canada all took the exact same position â that an assessment of the Kyoto protocol is needed over two years before further commitments â which partially addresses the 'Canada alone' claim, though she does not address the UN assistance offer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is too bad we used taxpayer dollars and hosted the member to come all the way to Bonn, and he comes back with this rhetoric. What happened in Bonn is that Norway--
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member did not use his time over there to be constructive. Instead, he meddled in things he should not have. If he actually got to the truth of what happened over there, he would know that--
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were truthful about what happened in Bonn, he would know that Japan, New Zealand, Norway and Canada have all taken the exact same position, and that is there needs to be an assessment of the Kyoto protocol over the next two years before any further commitments are made.
Given that La Presse considers ending the registry 'a terrible mistake' and Le Devoir says its flaws have nothing to do with its relevance as confirmed by police users, does the government intend to take into account these voices of the Canadian people?
The question cites two specific editorial sources (La Presse and Le Devoir) with direct quotes and frames an ask about whether the government will take into account these voices, but the framing as 'voices of the Canadian people' is diffuse and the ask is vague.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le ministre de la Sécurité publique devrait tenir compte du fait que la majorité des Canadiens et un grand nombre d'éditorialistes sont en faveur du registre des armes à feu. Par exemple, La Presse croit que le gouvernement commettrait « une terrible erreur » en mettant fin au registre. Le Devoir croit que « les lacunes qu'il reste à corriger n'ont rien à voir avec la pertinence du registre, confirmée par ses utilisateurs: les policiers ». Le gouvernement entend-il tenir compte de ces voix du peuple canadien?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety should take into account that the majority of Canadians, and a good number of editorial boards, support the gun registry. For example, La Presse believes that the government would be making a terrible mistake by eliminating the registry. Le Devoir states that the shortcomings that remain to be fixed have nothing to do with the relevance of the registry, which has been confirmed by its users, the police. Does the government intend to listen to the Canadian people?
The minister countered by quoting the Calgary Police Association and the Toronto chief of police, who stated that the gun problem in Toronto is overwhelmingly one of illegal handguns and that changes to the gun registry will not significantly impact efforts to control gang gun activity.
The minister does not address the cited editorials but counters with quotes from the Calgary Police Association and the Toronto chief of police on the ineffectiveness of the registry against illegal handguns, partially engaging the 'who supports what' debate without addressing the specific editorials cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, any poll that would be done of Canadians asking if they want effective gun control and if they are tired of money being wasted on gun control that does not work, I think they would agree with that. Quoting editorialists is one thing. How about quoting some of the chiefs of police? The Calgary Police Association said today: Wiping the slate clean and not making responsible gun owners into criminals is a good start. The chief of police from Toronto said today: --we know the gun problem in Toronto is overwhelmingly a problem of illegal handguns. Gangsters who carry guns in the city of Toronto do not register those guns so any changes in the gun registry are not going to have a significant impact on our efforts to control the operation... Let us quote the police officers who are doing the work.
Whatever the merits of the gun registry, why does the government announce an amnesty and non-prosecution while the existing law is still in place â which is an abuse of Parliament and due process â rather than coming before Parliament to seek to change the law through a vote?
The question raises a specific and serious constitutional/parliamentary procedure concern â that announcing an amnesty and non-prosecution while the existing law is still in place constitutes an abuse of Parliament and due process â and asks why the government does not come before Parliament to change the law rather than acting by fiat.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am quoting exactly what was said by the chair of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and other law enforcement authorities. However, whatever the merits of the gun registry and the government's intention to kill it, the announcement of an amnesty and non-prosecution, while the existing law is still in place, is an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of due process. If the government wants to kill the registry, why not come before Parliament and seek to change the law? Why does the government act by fiat rather than parliamentary vote? Why does it presuppose that Parliament will in fact repeal the law? Why is there this affront to Parliament to due process--
Oh, oh!
The minister cited the Auditor General's report as an indictment of the former government hiding results and money, and quoted the former Ottawa police chief and former chairman of the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs accusing the Liberals of lying about the registry being on budget.
The minister does not address the abuse of Parliament/due process argument, the amnesty announcement, or the specific procedural question at all; he pivots entirely to the Auditor General's report and quotes a former Ottawa police chief attacking the Liberals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, talking about coming before Parliament, the Auditor General has tabled her report and it was an incredible indictment of that former government hiding the results and hiding the money. If he wants to quote people and police chiefs, let me quote the former police chief in Ottawa, who was also the former chairman of the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs. He said this about the Liberals: I was assured by government -- it's on budget. They were lying. It bothers me. Those are the words of the former chief of police, not my words.
Will the Prime Minister ensure his part-time ACOA minister will not interfere with the hiring process for the ACOA vice-president position in P.E.I., given allegations that the job description was tailored â including being made English essential rather than bilingual â to favour a political operative of the Conservative premier?
The question cites a specific ACOA vice-president position, a specific salary of $135,000, and a specific allegation that the job description was tailored including being made English essential rather than bilingual to favour a particular candidate who is a political operative and employee of the Conservative premier, making it a reasonably grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, recently, ACOA advertised the position of vice-president for the province of P.E.I. It has become common knowledge that a political operative and employee of the Conservative premier may be handed the $135,000 job. In fact, it would appear the job description was tailored to ensure he gets it, including making the position only English essential, not bilingual, even though other positions reporting to the VP require bilingualism. This is not supposed to be a political appointment. It is a public service position. Will the Prime Minister ensure his part time ACOA minister will not interfere with the hiring process?
The minister deflected with a quip that a Conservative can accomplish in part time what Liberals could not accomplish at all, and stated the government will not take lessons on patronage appointments from the Liberals.
The minister does not address the specific allegations about tailoring the job description, the bilingualism requirement, the $135,000 position, or the specific candidate; he deflects entirely with a quip about Conservative efficiency and a partisan attack on Liberal patronage.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as for being a part time ACOA minister, it just proves once again that a Conservative can do in part time what it takes Liberals not even to be able to accomplish. As far as patronage appointments, this minister and this government will not take lessons from a party of pork that took it to new levels every day when it was in government.
Why would the Prime Minister allow the part-time Minister of ACOA to interfere with the hiring process, given the government's pledge to keep politics out of ACOA and to do a value for money audit?
The question references the government's own pledge to keep politics out of ACOA and to do a value for money audit, and asks why the Prime Minister would allow the part-time ACOA minister to interfere with the hiring process, but the framing is largely rhetorical with no new specific facts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is the party that pledged to keep politics out of ACOA and to do a value for money audit. One does not keep politics out of ACOA by throwing Conservatives into it, especially the friends of the minister and friends of the political premiers in Atlantic Canada. The government says one thing and it does another. Why would the Prime Minister allow the part time Minister of ACOA to interfere with the hiring process?
The minister accused the member of begging for ACOA projects for his riding and defended the unnamed individual who served in the P.E.I. cabinet, suggesting the member should take up the question with the citizens of that province.
The minister does not address the hiring process interference allegation, the bilingualism concern, or the value for money audit pledge; he attacks the member for seeking ACOA projects for his riding and defends the unnamed P.E.I. candidate without naming him or addressing the specific allegations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me answer my ineffective critic across the way. If the member is so concerned about the way this department is operating, I would like to know why he comes cap in hand begging for ACOA projects for his riding. As for the appointment of an individual, who has served in the cabinet of Prince Edward Island, being somehow not effective or not up to the job of representing the people of Prince Edward Island, I think he should take it up with the citizens of that province.
Why hasn't the government fulfilled its written election commitment to negotiate special working conditions and a fair pension plan for the 6,000 correctional officers who have been without a contract for four years?
Cites a specific date (1er juin), a specific number (6 000 agents), and references a written commitment made during the election, with a clear ask about a pension fund.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le 1er juin prochain, cela fera exactement quatre ans que les 6 000 agents correctionnels sont sans contrat de travail. Pourtant, ce gouvernement s'est engagé par écrit, pendant l'élection, à négocier des conditions de travail particuliÚres. Qu'attend ce gouvernement pour remplir ses promesses, faites en janvier par écrit, et donner aux agents correctionnels un fonds de pension équitable qui tienne compte des grands risques et du haut niveau de stress lié à leur travail?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on June 1, it will be exactly four years that 6,000 correctional officers have been working without a contract. However, this government promised in writing during the election to negotiate specific working conditions. What is this government waiting for to keep the promises it made in writing in January and give the correctional officers a fair pension fund that takes into account the great risks and high level of stress related to their work?
Baird says he has met and spoken with union representatives four times and that his deputy minister is working with the group toward a solution as soon as possible.
Baird acknowledges the file and notes four contacts with the union but gives no details on the pension demand or timeline, only a vague promise to resolve it as soon as possible.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je dirai directement à ma collÚgue du Québec que ce gouvernement travaille actuellement trÚs fort avec ces fonctionnaires. Ceux-ci ont travaillé pendant quatre années pour obtenir un accord avec le gouvernement précédent. J'ai déjà rencontré deux fois les représentants de leur syndicat et je leur ai parlé au téléphone deux fois également. Mon sous-ministre adjoint travaille trÚs fort avec ce groupe. J'espÚre que nous aurons une solution aussitÎt que possible.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I will say directly to my colleague from Quebec that this government is currently working very hard with these public servants. They worked for four years on getting a contract with the previous government. I have already met with their union representatives twice and spoke to them on the phone twice. My assistant deputy minister is working very hard with this group. I hope we will have a solution as soon as possible.
Given four years without a contract, isn't it time for the government to demonstrate good faith by actually signing an agreement with correctional officers rather than merely making phone calls?
A follow-up that sharpens the ask to signing an agreement and demonstrating good faith, but largely repeats the framing of the first question without new facts.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cela fait quatre ans que les agents correctionnels sont sans contrat de travail. Le président du Conseil du Trésor ne pense-t-il pas qu'il est temps pour ce gouvernement de démontrer sa bonne foi, et non seulement de leur parler au téléphone, mais de remplir ses engagements et de signer une entente avec les agents correctionnels?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the correctional officers have been working without a contract for four years. Does the President of the Treasury Board not think it is time for this government to show its good faith, not just talk on the telephone, and fulfill its commitments and sign an agreement with the correctional officers?
Baird reiterates that he has contacted the union four times in his first 100 days and that his deputy minister is working toward a solution acceptable to both workers and the government.
Baird again highlights his personal engagement (four contacts) and pledges to report good results, but still offers no specifics on the pension demand or any concrete timeline.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai dit que ce problÚme avec le gouvernement précédent s'est prolongé pendant quatre ans. Durant les 100 premiers jours à mon poste, j'ai rencontré ce syndicat et j'ai parlé à ses représentants, quatre fois en tout. Mon sous-ministre adjoint est en train de travailler avec ce groupe pour obtenir une véritable solution, une solution que les fonctionnaires peuvent appuyer et que le gouvernement va appuyer. DÚs que possible, je rapporterai à cette Chambre les bons résultats obtenus pour les fonctionnaires et les contribuables.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I said that this problem with the previous government went on for four years. In my first 100 days in office, I have met with this union and spoken to its representatives four times in all. My assistant deputy minister is working with this group to get a real solution, a solution that the public servants can support and the government will support. As soon as possible, I will announce in this House the positive results achieved for the public servants and taxpayers alike.
Given that women earn only 71% of men's wages and given the Prime Minister's 1998 description of pay equity as 'a rip-off,' will the government table new pay equity legislation before the end of 2006?
Cites a specific statistic (71%), references a prior government commitment (end of 2006 legislation), and quotes the Prime Minister's own 1998 words, with a clear yes/no ask about legislation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, women who work full time in Canada earn only 71% of what men earn. The previous Liberal government committed to table new pay equity legislation by the end of 2006. By contrast, in 1998 the current Prime Minister said that pay equity was âa rip-offâ for taxpayers and that the federal government should âscrap its ridiculous pay equity lawâ. Is this still the view of the Prime Minister and, if not, will he table new pay equity legislation before the end of this year?
Baird states the government believes in the equality of men and women and attacks the previous Liberal government for doing nothing on the issue over 13 years.
Baird does not address the 71% figure, the 1998 quote, or the specific ask about tabling pay equity legislation, instead pivoting entirely to attacking the Liberal record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the equality of men and women is something that this government gives great importance to. The equality of public servants is something that is required for the good functioning of government and we strongly believe that we must treat every public servant fairly. This was another example of where the previous government said, after 13 long years, that it was just about ready to get on with it. We do not need any lectures from the member opposite. The member opposite who sat in the government throughout all those years did absolutely nothing in this regard.
Does the government's decision to keep the hopper cars mean any increased cost to farmers, given the FRCC CEO's testimony that the FRCC plan would have meant higher costs?
A government backbench softball that references yesterday's committee testimony but is designed to elicit a favourable announcement rather than hold the minister to account.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the agriculture committee, the CEO of the Farmer Rail Car Coalition said that if the government had given its fleet of hopper cars over to the FRCC it would have had to charge a lease fee to farmers. He then said that with the FRCC plan there âwill be some increased cost to farmersâ. Could the transport minister tell the House if the government's decision to keep the hopper cars means any increased cost to farmers?
Cannon says the government is bringing an amendment in Bill C-11 to lower the revenue cap, passing on $50 million in savings to farmers.
Cannon does not directly answer whether keeping the hopper cars means no increased cost to farmers but does provide a concrete figure ($50 million in savings via Bill C-11's revenue cap amendment), partially addressing the underlying concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while farmers have had a hard time making ends meet over the last 13 years, this government respects farmers and is committed to taking action. This is why this government, in Bill C-11, is bringing in an amendment to lower the revenue cap. The amendment will pass on savings to the farmers of Canada, who, everybody knows, need it. They will be getting $50 million.
The Auditor General found no federal organization has taken responsibility for the mould problem on reserves and no comprehensive strategy exists; which minister will take responsibility and ensure the resources to address it?
Cites the Auditor General's findings from the previous day, identifies a specific problem (mould on reserves), and asks which minister will take responsibility and ensure resources are available.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General said yesterday that no federal organization has taken responsibility for assessing the extent of the insidious mould problem on reserves and no one is developing a comprehensive strategy to address it. This is a serious health and safety issue for first nations. Which of those ministers will take responsibility for this disaster and ensure the resources are available to deal with this problem?
Clement says the Auditor General described a tale of mismanagement and that the government will be part of the solution, without specifying resources or a strategy.
Clement acknowledges the Auditor General's findings as 'a tale of mismanagement' but takes no responsibility, makes no commitment on resources, and pivots to blaming the previous government.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has expressed a tale of mismanagement that has a direct impact on the health and safety of aboriginal Canadians. We do not have to make any excuses but we will be part of the solution rather than the members opposite who have been part of the problem for the last 13 years.
Given that the Auditor General's report shows Conservative promises are insufficient to close gaps for first nations, Inuit and MĂ©tis, will the minister commit to implementing every single recommendation in the Auditor General's report immediately?
Cites specific dollar figures ($450 million vs $1.15 billion), references the Auditor General's report, and makes a concrete ask about implementing every recommendation immediately.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, without last year's NDP budget the Conservatives would have only committed $450 million to aboriginal peoples over two years, not the $1.15 billion that the minister is fond of bragging about. The Auditor General's report shows that Conservative promises are not nearly enough to reduce the gaps in the standard of living for first nations, Inuit and MĂ©tis. Will the minister commit to implementing every single recommendation in the Auditor General's report for first nations programs immediately?
Clement says the government intends to fulfill its promises based on budget 2006, which the NDP voted against.
Clement does not address the specific dollar figures, the Auditor General's recommendations, or the ask for immediate implementation, instead pivoting to budget 2006 promises and accusing the NDP of voting against them.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that we intend to fulfill our promises that were based on budget 2006, promises to aboriginal Canadians from coast to coast to coast, which the hon. member and her caucus voted against.
Members acknowledged a presence in the gallery with expressions of approval; no substantive exchange took place.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Ralph Goodale (Lib) asked the government House leader for the legislative schedule for the remainder of the week and the full week after the Victoria Day break, and whether the Prime Minister would table the cabinet document he had been reading from during question period. Rob Nicholson (Leader of the Government in the House) outlined the schedule, including debate on the Afghanistan motion, second reading of Bill C-13, Justice Bills C-9 and C-10, allotted days on May 30 and June 1, and the adjusted sitting hours for Thursday; he did not address the question about tabling the cabinet document.
- Lib Ralph Goodale
- CPC Rob Nicholson
Source text
Yes, Mr. Speaker, because of the unusual events of tomorrow, the Thursday question becomes the Wednesday question. I wonder if the government House leader would indicate what his work program is through the rest of this week and the full week after the Victoria Day break? I also wonder, while he is on his feet, if he could advise us if the Prime Minister will be tabling in the House the document, clearly a cabinet document, that he was reading from and quoting from directly at 2:38 p.m. this afternoon?
Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider a motion by the Prime Minister of Canada supporting the extension of Canada's contribution to international efforts at reducing poverty, enhancing human rights and gender equality for all Afghan men, women and children. Tomorrow, but no later than Friday, we would like to conclude debate at second reading on Bill C-13, the budget implementation bill, in order to ensure, among other important objectives, that parents will receive their much anticipated and needed child care benefit cheques by July 1. I would like to use this opportunity as well to remind members that tomorrow the House opens at 9 a.m., with statements by members at 11 a.m., followed by question period at 11:15 a.m. At noon, the House will adjourn in order to allow arrangements to be made for the Prime Minister of Australia to address both Houses of Parliament at 3 p.m. After Bill C-13 is sent to committee, it is our intention to call two important justice bills: Bill C-9, the conditional sentencing bill; and Bill C-10, the mandatory minimum penalties bill. We will continue to debate those bills. In addition, I would indicate, pending progress on Bill C-13, that Tuesday, May 30 and Thursday, June 1 would be allotted days. I am sure that answers all the hon. member's questions.
Mauril BĂ©langer (Lib) raised a point of order citing Marleau and Montpetit at page 372, arguing that any document from which a minister quotes during debate or in response to a question must be tabled, and asked whether the Prime Minister intended to table the document he had quoted from. Rob Nicholson (Leader of the Government in the House) said he would take the matter under advisement and get back to the House, which drew audible objections from members.
- Lib Mauril BĂ©langer
- CPC Rob Nicholson
- Some hon. members
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'invoque le RĂšglement relativement Ă la pĂ©riode des questions orales. Permettez-moi de citer La procĂ©dure et les usages de la Chambre de Marleau et Montpetit Ă la page 372: Tout document dont un ministre cite un extrait au cours du dĂ©bat ou en rĂ©ponse Ă une question doit ĂȘtre dĂ©posĂ©. Le premier ministre, en rĂ©ponse Ă une question posĂ©e plus tĂŽt, a citĂ© un document. Le premier ministre entend-il dĂ©poser ce document?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding oral question period. Allow me to quote from House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit at page 372: Any document quoted by a Minister in debate, or in response to a question, must be tabled. The Prime Minister quoted a document in response to a question asked earlier. Does the Prime Minister intend to table this document?
Mr. Speaker, I will take that under advisement and get back to the House.
Oh, oh!
No.
Mauril BĂ©langer (Lib) asked the Speaker to review the video of question period to confirm the Prime Minister was quoting a cabinet document; Jean Lapierre (Lib) demanded immediate tabling of the document; Nathan Cullen (NDP) asked the Speaker to request that the Minister of the Environment withdraw a comment and apologize regarding his participation in the Bonn, Germany meetings; Rona Ambrose (Minister of the Environment) responded that she was referring to comments the NDP critic made in a press conference about arguing with Environment Canada employees in Bonn. No ruling was issued.
- Lib Mauril BĂ©langer
- Lib Jean Lapierre
- NDP Mr. Nathan Cullen
- CPC Rona Ambrose
- Some hon. members
- An hon. member
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in making your determination, will you also review the video of question period because it was quite obvious that the Prime Minister was quoting a cabinet document and not a briefing for question period.
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je souhaite intervenir Ă propos du mĂȘme recours au RĂšglement. J'ai vu, de mes yeux vu, qu'il s'agissait d'un document du Cabinet. Nous exigeons son dĂ©pĂŽt immĂ©diatement. Nous n'avons pas besoin d'attendre des consultations. Cela Ă©tait clair Ă l'oeil nu. Je l'ai vu moi-mĂȘme.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to intervene with regard to the same point of order. I saw with my own eyes that it was a cabinet document. We insist it be tabled immediately. We have no need to wait for consultations. It was clear to the naked eye. I saw it myself.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very important point of order on what happened in the course of question period today. The Minister of the Environment made some suggestion that in my accompaniment of her, which, under the agreements within the parties allows the minister to travel abroad, that I took this agreement and accompanied the minister to Bonn, Germany. In that accompaniment, I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if you might request that the minister withdraw the comment, and also as the Speaker, direct her to offer an apology, because in her statement she imbued all sorts of comments about my participation, not only on the environment file, which she may address to some of her colleagues who have sat with me on committee over the years, but also my participation in Bonn, Germany and the diligence with which I took up my directives.
Mr. Speaker, what I was referring to was a number of comments that the critic from the NDP made in a presser yesterday. In particular, he referred to how he spent most of his time in Bonn arguing with Environment Canada employees. I took offence to that, because Environment Canada employees and our department, I would say, are the people who care most about the department in this country. I did not appreciate him coming to Bonn to argue with the Canadian delegation, who went out of their way to make him feel comfortable, to take him to all of the meetings--
Oh, oh!
It is a question of privilege.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Lib) raised a point of order under Standing Order 16(2), alleging the Minister of the Environment walked across the chamber while the NDP member was addressing the Chair; Mr. Charlie Angus (NDP) raised what he called a question of privilege over the Minister of the Environment's suggestion that the NDP member used taxpayers' money improperly; Rob Nicholson (Leader of the Government in the House) then rose to inform the House that the present Minister of Transport had confirmed the Prime Minister was not reading from a document, seeking to resolve the earlier point of order. No formal rulings were issued on any of these matters.
- Lib Mr. Paul Szabo
- Some hon. members
- NDP Mr. Charlie Angus
- CPC Rob Nicholson
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 16(2) states: When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between that Member and the Chair, nor interrupt him or her, except to raise a point of order. Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment, while the member for the NDP was addressing the Chair, moved from this seat and walked directly across the chamber without respecting the standing order.
Oh, oh!
I believe it is a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of the Environment stands up in the House and accuses a member who is doing his job on behalf of Canadians and constituents of going on the taxpayers' dollar. That is what she said: to use the taxpayers' money. It is not his job to carry her ideological luggage when she goes to Europe. I--
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have some news that I am sure will be of interest to the House with respect to a previous point of order. I heard the comments from the former minister of transport, who believed that the Prime Minister was reading from a document. I have had the opportunity to consult with the present Minister of Transport and he indicates to me that this was not the case. I am going to go with the advice of the present Minister of Transport. I hope this satisfies the House on that point of order.
Jean Lapierre (Lib) sarcastically suggested that the new Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities should wear glasses, implying he had not correctly observed whether the Prime Minister was reading from a cabinet document.
- Lib Jean Lapierre
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, peut-ĂȘtre que je pourrais recommander au nouveau ministre des Transports, de lâInfrastructure et des CollectivitĂ©s de porter des lunettes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I might suggest to the new Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that he consider wearing glasses.