Session overview
- On National Aboriginal Day, the opposition parties (Liberal and Bloc) pressed the Conservative government repeatedly to honour the Kelowna accord, which had been voted on by Parliament, while Minister Jim Prentice deflected by listing Conservative spending measures such as $300 million for northern housing, $300 million for off-reserve housing, and drinking water standards.
- Canada's decision to withdraw support for the UN draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples drew criticism from both Liberal and Bloc members; Minister Prentice defended the position by citing incompatibility with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution Act, the National Defence Act, Supreme Court decisions, and existing treaty policies.
- The NDP raised climate change twice â first seeking the resignation of the Minister of the Environment and then pressing on government documents indicating the Northwest Passage could be open to regular navigation by 2015 and its implications for Arctic sovereignty; Minister O'Connor confirmed sovereignty protection as the government's priority regardless of ice conditions.
- The Bloc challenged the government on several Quebec-specific priorities including the Kyoto accord, the gun registry, anti-scab legislation, securities regulation consolidation under a pan-Canadian commission in Toronto, the Canada Post sorting centre closure in Quebec City, and the Pont de QuĂ©bec â receiving mostly deflective or non-responsive answers.
- The government announced that a formal apology for the Chinese head tax and appropriate acknowledgement would be made the following day in the House, described by Minister Bev Oda as a historic day for the Chinese community and all Canadians.
- The softwood lumber agreement faced continued opposition criticism, with members alleging a leaked letter from the Bush administration confirmed the U.S. goal of hobbling the Canadian forestry sector for seven years; Minister Emerson dismissed the letter as undated and unsigned and defended the deal as beneficial to all regions.
Minister Bev Oda made a specific, concrete government commitment â that the Prime Minister would deliver an apology for the Chinese head tax in the House the following day with appropriate acknowledgement â fulfilling a stated election promise.
Cites a specific date (June 15), a specific minister's statement about the procurement strategy for aboriginal business, contradicted by a named communications director in the Health department, and asks the Minister of Health to clarify whether his department will respect the mandatory set aside program for aboriginal business in place since 1996.
Nicholson dismissed specific questions about dairy by-product import controls, the PATA program for older workers, and loan guarantees for the softwood lumber industry by simply asserting that the member 'lives in a world where she believes that everything is wrong' and suggesting she celebrate the upcoming weekend â addressing none of the three concrete policy items raised.
Outstanding questions
- Bernard Patry asked for the government's concrete alternative to the Kelowna accord's $870 million over five years for the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch and $445 million for capacity â Minister Clement acknowledged the problems but offered no specific alternative funding figures or plan.
- Tina Keeper asked whether the Minister of Health's department would respect the mandatory set-aside program for aboriginal business (the procurement strategy in place since 1996) â Minister Clement declined to provide any detail on procurement and gave no direct answer.
- Todd Russell asked whether the government would consult with Inuit and MĂ©tis in Labrador to resolve outstanding legal issues before signing a deal to finance the Lower Churchill hydro project â Minister Prentice ignored the question entirely and pivoted to attacking the Liberal record.
- Gary Merasty asked when the government would start treating MĂ©tis as a priority, noting their absence from the throne speech and from the Indian affairs minister's remarks at committee â Minister Prentice cited off-reserve housing funding but did not address MĂ©tis-specific priorities or the throne speech omission.
- Peter Stoffer asked the government to confirm it would immediately extend the Veterans Independence Program for all widows of all veterans regardless of time of death, as stated in a letter attributed to the Prime Minister â Minister Thompson denied the Prime Minister wrote the letter and cited a health care review under way, without confirming or denying the specific VIP extension commitment.
Graham asks whether the Prime Minister will honour Canada's commitment to aboriginal people as agreed in the Kelowna accord, given that Parliament clearly expressed that will the previous day.
References a specific vote (yesterday's parliamentary expression of will) and the Kelowna accord, but frames the ask rhetorically around respect rather than demanding a specific policy commitment or number.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was on this side of the House, he repeatedly called on our government to respect the will of Parliament. âThis is a minority Parliamentâ, he lectured us. The government must listen to all parties in the House. Yesterday, Parliament clearly and forcefully expressed the will of the Canadian people. It wants the Conservative government to honour Canada's commitment to our aboriginal people, as agreed to in the Kelowna accord. On this National Aboriginal Day, is the Prime Minister's idea of respect for the will of the House and for our aboriginal people to turn his back on the most significant opportunity for progress in our lifetime?
Prentice lists Conservative actions on drinking water, residential schools compensation, Deh Cho claims, and matrimonial property, contrasting them with 13 years of Liberal inaction.
Deflects entirely into a comparative list of Liberal failures rather than addressing whether the government will honour the Kelowna accord or respect the parliamentary vote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The government is proceeding with aboriginal people to address their priorities. Let us compare 13 weeks of Conservative government action to 13 years of Liberal empty promises. Drinking water standards, the Liberals dodged it, we did it. The Indian residential schools compensation, they delayed it, we did it. A claims offer to the Deh Cho, they ducked it, we did it. The process of matrimonial property, they would not proceed, they ducked it, we did it. That is what we are going to see from the Conservative government.
Graham presses the minister to honour Canada's obligations under the fully funded aboriginal Kelowna accord, describing it as a solemn pledge rather than a partisan issue.
Characterizes the Kelowna agreement as a solemn pledge and asks specifically that the minister honour Canada's obligations under the fully funded aboriginal Kelowna accord, though the framing remains emotionally charged.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that response is totally in keeping with the government's lack of respect for anybody other than itself. It is not the hallmark of its thing. The Kelowna agreement was a solemn pledge on behalf of the people of Canada, on behalf of our aboriginal people. It was not a political accord. It was not a partisan electoral issue. It was a response to an enormously important problem in our country. To break this pledge is to dishonour Canada and to add to our first nations peoples sense of betrayal in the country. In the absence of the Prime Minister, will the minister please, in the name of all that is just, honour Canada's obligations enunciated in our fully funded aboriginal Kelowna accord?
Prentice lists three spending commitments totalling over $1 billion, calling the Liberal 13-year record appalling, shameful, and devastating.
Prentice continues listing spending items ($300 million northern housing, $300 million off reserve housing, $500 million Mackenzie Valley fund) without addressing the Kelowna accord commitment or the parliamentary vote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us carry on with the comparison: $300 million for northern housing, they did not, we did; $300 million for off reserve housing, they would not, we did; $500 million for the Mackenzie Valley socio-economic fund, they would not, we did. I could go on. The Liberals 13 year record is one that is appalling, shameful and devastating.
Graham notes the Kelowna accord was signed by all parties including provincial Conservatives, and asks specifically where the 5 billion dollars promised to First Nations peoples is.
Specifies that the Kelowna accord was signed by all parties including provincial Conservatives, and closes with a concrete financial ask â oĂč sont les 5 milliards de dollars â making it more pointed than the prior questions.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je crois que le ministre est dur de la feuille. L'accord de Kelowna reprĂ©sentait un consensus. Des gouvernements de tous les partis politiques reprĂ©sentĂ©s en cette Chambre l'ont signĂ©. Tous les partis reprĂ©sentĂ©s, mĂȘme les conservateurs dans les provinces, l'ont signĂ©. De plus, cet accord Ă©tait le fruit de nombreuses consultations avec les Canadiens autochtones pour connaĂźtre les solutions qu'eux proposaient. Donc, rĂ©citer une liste comme le ministre l'a fait, ce n'est pas digne de cette Chambre. Ce n'est pas digne d'un gouvernement fier d'avoir un peuple autochtone. Ce peuple veut recevoir le respect et le soutien. OĂč sont les 5 millions de dollars que nous avons promis Ă nos peuples des PremiĂšres nations de ce pays?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is hard of hearing. The Kelowna accord represented a consensus. The governments representing all political parties in this House signed the accord. All the parties represented, even the Conservatives in the provinces, signed the accord. Furthermore, this accord resulted from a number of consultations, when we listened to the solutions coming from aboriginal Canadians. Rhyming off a list like the minister did is not worthy of this House. It is not worthy of a government that is proud to have an aboriginal population that wants respect and support. Where is the $5 million we promised to our first nations peoples in this country?
Prentice says the government takes no moral lessons from Liberals and will act on aboriginal poverty and pursue systematic funding, without specifying any amount.
Prentice dismisses the moral lecture and vaguely commits to act against aboriginal poverty and pursue systematic funding, without addressing the 5 billion dollars figure asked about.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous n'avons pas de leçons de morale à recevoir des libéraux. Nous allons agir contre la pauvreté autochtone. Nous entreprenons une démarche relative aux fonds systématiques nécessaires pour améliorer la qualité de vie des Autochtones.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we do not have any lessons in morality to learn from the Liberals. We will take action against aboriginal poverty. We will take steps with regard to the systematic funding needed to improve the quality of life of aboriginals.
Patry asks why the government reneged on the previous government's Kelowna accord signature, which included $1.3 billion to prevent situations like the tuberculosis outbreak at Garden Hill, Manitoba.
Cites a specific health crisis (tuberculosis at Garden Hill, Manitoba) and a specific dollar figure ($1.3 billion in the Kelowna accord) to ask why the government reneged on that commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous soulignons aujourd'hui la JournĂ©e nationale des Autochtones. Pourtant, ce gouvernement donne trĂšs peu de raisons de fĂȘter aux communautĂ©s des PremiĂšres nations. Alors que des maladies que l'on croyait sorties d'un autre Ăąge refont leur apparition au sein de certaines communautĂ©s autochtones â je songe notamment aux cas de tuberculose Ă Garden Hill, au Manitoba â, les actions nĂ©gatives de ce gouvernement ont des consĂ©quences pires que s'il restait les bras croisĂ©s. Pourquoi ce gouvernement a-t-il reniĂ© la signature du prĂ©cĂ©dent gouvernement au bas de l'accord de Kelowna, qui prĂ©voyait 1,3 milliard de dollars pour prĂ©venir des situations comme celle de la tuberculose Ă Garden Hill?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today is National Aboriginal Day. And, yet, this government is providing very little reason for the first nations communities to celebrate. While age-old diseases are making a comeback within certain aboriginal communitiesâI am talking about the cases of tuberculosis in Garden Hill, Manitobaâthe consequences of the negative actions by this government are worse than if it had done nothing at all. Why did this government renounce the signature of the previous government at the bottom of the Kelowna accord, which allocated $1.3 billion to prevent situations like the comeback of tuberculosis in Garden Hill?
Prentice cites Conservative budget commitments totalling $1.75 billion for housing and other funds, without addressing the tuberculosis crisis or the Kelowna health envelope specifically.
Prentice cites budget figures ($300 million northern housing, $300 million off reserve housing, $150,000 additional fund, $1.75 billion total) but does not address the tuberculosis situation at Garden Hill or the specific Kelowna health allocation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce n'est pas ce que dit le budget. Le budget de ce gouvernement conservateur indique que 300 millions de dollars seront consacrés aux logements dans le Nord et que 300 millions de dollars seront consacrés à des logements hors réserve. Le budget prévoit aussi un fonds additionnel de 150 000 $. Au total, c'est 1,75 milliard de dollars. Voilà ce que nous avons fait.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is not what the budget says. The budget of this Conservative government indicates that $300 million is earmarked for housing in the North and that $300 million is earmarked for off-reserve housing. The budget also allocates an additional $150,000. That is $1.75 billion in all. That is what we have done.
Patry cites aboriginal health statistics and the $870 million plus $445 million allocated in the Kelowna accord for the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, asking what the government's concrete alternative solution is.
Cites specific statistics (infant mortality 20% higher, three times the type 2 diabetes rate, suicide rate 10 times higher) and specific Kelowna dollar figures ($870 million over five years for the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, $445 million for capacity), asking for a concrete alternative.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, entre 5 milliards de dollars pour les Autochtones et 5 milliards de dollars pour la TPS, je choisis la santé des Autochtones. La mortalité infantile parmi les communautés autochtones est de 20 p. 100 plus élevée que parmi le reste de la population canadienne. Les Autochtones présentent trois fois plus de cas de diabÚte de type 2, et leur taux de suicide, dans certaines communautés, est 10 fois plus élevé que dans le reste de la population canadienne. L'accord de Kelowna offrait un début de solution à ce problÚme en prévoyant 870 millions de dollars sur cinq ans pour la Direction générale de la santé des PremiÚres nations et des Inuits, et un autre montant de 445 millions de dollars pour accroßtre la capacité du systÚme. Le gouvernement actuel peut-il nous faire part de sa solution de rechange concrÚte...?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if it is a question of $5 billion for aboriginal peoples or $5 billion for the GST, I choose the health of aboriginal peoples. The infant mortality rate for native communities is 20% higher than for the rest of the Canadian population. The incidence of type 2 diabetes is three times greater and the suicide rate, in certain communities, is ten times higher than in the rest of Canada. The Kelowna accord was a first step towards addressing these problems as it provided $870 million over five years for the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, and a further $445 million to increase the system capacity. Can the current government inform us of its concrete alternative solutionâ?
Clement acknowledges serious problems in aboriginal communities and says he supports another solution, but provides no specific plan, program, or funding figure.
Clement acknowledges serious problems and the need for solutions but offers no specific alternative plan, numbers, or programs, instead attacking Liberal solutions as a catastrophe.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'honorable dĂ©putĂ© sait qu'il y a des problĂšmes trĂšs sĂ©rieux dans les communautĂ©s autochtones. Il faut faire face aux dĂ©fis et trouver d'autres solutions nous-mĂȘmes. Pour arriver Ă une solution, il y a beaucoup d'aide financiĂšre et davantage de dĂ©penses. Personnellement, j'appuie une autre solution aux problĂšmes des Autochtones parce que les solutions des libĂ©raux sont une catastrophe pour la santĂ© des Autochtones.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that there are some very serious problems in aboriginal communities. We must take up these challenges and find other solutions ourselves, which requires much financial assistance and additional costs. Personally, I support another solution to the problems of aboriginal peoples because the Liberal solutions have been catastrophic for aboriginal health.
Duceppe asks whether the Prime Minister's decision to hold a Cabinet meeting in Quebec City on the eve of the fĂȘte nationale implies that he recognizes Quebeckers as a nation.
Duceppe draws a logical connection between the Prime Minister's presence at the fĂȘte nationale and recognition of Quebec as a nation, making an identifiable ask, though it is framed as an inference rather than citing a specific document or commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la veille de la fĂȘte nationale du QuĂ©bec, le premier ministre a dĂ©cidĂ© de tenir un conseil des ministres dans la capitale nationale. On peut en dĂ©duire que le premier ministre accorde une certaine importance Ă cette fĂȘte. Or, s'il y a une fĂȘte nationale des QuĂ©bĂ©cois, c'est que les QuĂ©bĂ©cois se reconnaissent comme nation. Puisque le premier ministre juge important d'ĂȘtre Ă QuĂ©bec pour la FĂȘte nationale, est-ce que cela veut aussi dire qu'il reconnaĂźt que les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et les QuĂ©bĂ©coises forment une nation?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on the eve of Quebec's FĂȘte nationale, the Prime Minister has decided to hold a cabinet meeting in the national capital. We can assume, then, that the Prime Minister accords some importance to this holiday. If Quebeckers have a national holiday, it is because they see Quebec as a nation. Since the Prime Minister considers it important to be in Quebec City for the FĂȘte nationale, does this also mean that he recognizes that Quebeckers form a nation?
Bernier confirms the Prime Minister and Cabinet will be in Quebec on Friday and that the Prime Minister will celebrate the fĂȘte nationale in Beauce with federalists who believe in a proud Quebec in a united Canada.
Bernier confirms the Cabinet's presence in Quebec City and the Prime Minister's plans in Beauce but does not address whether Quebeckers constitute a nation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre et tout le Cabinet seront Ă QuĂ©bec vendredi, c'est un fait. Vous avez Ă©galement pu voir dans les journaux que le premier ministre sera en Beauce pour fĂȘter la fĂȘte nationale du QuĂ©bec avec les Beaucerons, qui sont de grands fĂ©dĂ©ralistes, qui croient en un QuĂ©bec fier dans un Canada uni.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Prime Minister and the entire cabinet will be in Quebec City on Friday. You have also seen in the newspapers that the Prime Minister will be in Beauce to celebrate the FĂȘte nationale with the people there, who are great federalists and believe in a proud Quebec in a united Canada.
Duceppe asks whether the minister can clearly state that Quebeckers, like Acadians and First Nations peoples already recognized on both sides of the House, form a nation.
Duceppe sharpens the question by invoking the existing cross-party consensus recognizing Acadians and First Nations as nations, and asks the minister to clearly state whether Quebeckers form a nation on the same basis.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je veux bien. Je ne conteste pas cela. Je lui pose la question suivante. On reconnaĂźt, avec raison, que les Acadiens forment une nation et que les PremiĂšres nations sont des nations. On reconnaĂźt cela des deux cĂŽtĂ©s de la Chambre. Puisqu'on le reconnaĂźt pour les Autochtones et les Acadiens, ce que j'appuie, je demande au ministre s'il peut nous dire trĂšs clairement s'il reconnaĂźt que les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et les QuĂ©bĂ©coises, au mĂȘme titre que les Acadiens et les Autochtones, forment une nation?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is all well and good. I do not dispute that. I have this question for the minister. We recognize, and rightly so, that the Acadians form a nation and the first nations are nations. Both sides of this House recognize that. Since we recognize that aboriginal peoples and Acadians form nations, which I support, can the minister clearly tell us whether he recognizes that, by the same token, Quebeckers form a nation?
Chong says the government is focusing on ensuring federalism works for Quebeckers and that Quebec is stronger within a united Canada, without answering the nation question.
Chong does not address whether Quebeckers constitute a nation and instead speaks generally about ensuring federalism works for Quebeckers and that Quebec is stronger within a united Canada.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are focusing on the things that matter to Canadians and Quebeckers living in Quebec. We are focusing on ensuring that the Government of Canada is relevant in Quebec, that federalism works for Quebeckers. Our belief is that Quebec is stronger within a united Canada. That is exactly the kind of policies the government has acted on and will act on in the coming months.
Brunelle asks how the Prime Minister can tell Quebeckers their priorities are his government's priorities when he has dropped Kyoto, plans to abolish the gun registry that 76% of Quebeckers support, and has not adopted anti-scab legislation.
Lists three specific Quebec priorities (Kyoto accord, gun registry at 76% support, anti-scab legislation) but bundles them into a single vague ask about whether the Prime Minister will say these are his government's priorities.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre ira Ă QuĂ©bec pour la fĂȘte nationale, mais hĂ©las, tout ce qui tient Ă coeur aux QuĂ©bĂ©cois ne semble avoir aucune importance pour son gouvernement. L'Accord de Kyoto est une prioritĂ© pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois; son gouvernement a rayĂ© Kyoto de son agenda. Le registre des armes Ă feu, que 76 p. 100 des QuĂ©bĂ©cois appuient, sera aboli par son gouvernement. La loi antibriseurs de grĂšve n'est une rĂ©alitĂ© qu'au QuĂ©bec et pas Ă Ottawa, Ă cause de son gouvernement. Dans un tel contexte, comment le premier ministre compte-t-il dire aux QuĂ©bĂ©cois que leurs prioritĂ©s sont celles de son gouvernement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will be in Quebec City for the FĂȘte nationale, but unfortunately, everything Quebeckers hold dear seems unimportant to his government. The Kyoto agreement is a priority for Quebeckers; his government has struck Kyoto from its agenda. His government plans to abolish the gun registry, which 76% of Quebeckers support. Antiscab legislation is a reality in Quebec but not in Ottawa because of his government. Given this context, how can the Prime Minister justify telling Quebeckers that his government shares their priorities?
Nicholson says the Prime Minister has concentrated on the five priorities discussed in the last election and claims tremendous progress on all fronts, without addressing any of the three specific issues.
Nicholson references the five election priorities without naming them and claims tremendous progress, entirely ignoring the three specific issues raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear right from the start. We have concentrated on the five priorities that we talked about in the last election. I am very pleased to say we have made tremendous progress on all fronts. I know that is important not just to Quebeckers but to all Canadians.
Brunelle asks how the Prime Minister can claim to be on the same wavelength as Quebeckers when he has not acted on dairy by-product controls, PATA for older workers, or softwood lumber loan guarantees.
Raises three additional Quebec-specific issues (dairy by-product import controls, PATA for older workers, softwood lumber loan guarantees) but again bundles them into a rhetorical framing question rather than a single sharp ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous devrons en ajouter un peu plus. D'autres mesures ont une importance capitale pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois, alors que son gouvernement ne s'en soucie guĂšre. Le contrĂŽle de l'entrĂ©e de sous-produits du lait, une prioritĂ© pour les agriculteurs, ne se fera pas, car son gouvernement n'y croit pas. Les travailleurs ĂągĂ©s ont besoin d'aide, mais le gouvernement n'a rien annoncĂ© relativement au PATA. L'industrie du bois d'oeuvre a un urgent besoin de garanties de prĂȘts; son gouvernement refuse d'en donner. Comment le premier ministre peut-il prĂ©tendre ĂȘtre sur la mĂȘme longueur d'onde que les QuĂ©bĂ©cois, alors que tout ce qui est important pour eux ne l'est pas pour son gouvernement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there is more. Other issues that are very important to Quebeckers have received no more than a passing glance from his government. Limiting imports of milk by-products is a priority for agricultural producers, but it will never happen because his government does not believe in it. Older workers need help, but the government has not made any POWA announcements. The softwood industry needs loan guarantees urgently, but his government refuses to give them. How can the Prime Minister claim to be on the same wavelength as Quebeckers when what is important to them is not important to his government?
Nicholson says the member believes everything is wrong but that the government has emphasized things important to Canadians and Quebeckers and made tremendous progress, without addressing any of the three issues.
Nicholson dismisses the premise, says the member lives in a world where she believes everything is wrong, claims tremendous progress, and suggests she celebrate the coming weekend â no substantive engagement with any issue raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the hon. member lives in a world where she believes that everything is wrong. That is not the case. We have been emphasizing those things that are important to Canadians, and they are important to Quebeckers as well. We have made tremendous progress. The hon. member should celebrate that this coming weekend.
Layton notes the NDP has tabled a motion at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development calling for the Environment minister's resignation, and asks why the government would trigger elections given the minister's incompetence on climate change.
References an NDP motion at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development calling for the Environment minister's resignation and raises climate change urgency, but conflates the resignation demand with a policy question, making the ask compound and partly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le NPD a déposé une motion au Comité permanent de l'environnement et du développement durable afin de demander la démission de la ministre de l'Environnement. Le gouvernement prétend qu'il s'agit d'une question de confiance. Encore une fois, comme dans le cas de Gwyn Morgan, le premier ministre est aveuglé par la partisanerie. Sa ministre ne comprend pas la nécessité d'agir immédiatement. Les changements climatiques sont importants et requiÚrent une attention immédiate. Pourquoi le ministre veut-il déclencher des élections, puisque sa ministre est incompétente?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the NDP moved a motion before the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, calling for the resignation of the Minister of the Environment. The government claims that this is a confidence matter. Once again, as in the case of Gwyn Morgan, the Prime Minister is blinded by partisanship. His minister does not understand the need for immediate action. Climate change is an important file that requires immediate attention. Why does the Prime Minister want to force an election because of his incompetent minister?
Ambrose says the government is focused on accountability after 13 years of Liberal waste and mismanagement, and is concerned about the health of Canadians and protecting it, without addressing the resignation motion or climate change.
Ambrose does not address the committee motion, her competence, or the specific climate change concern, instead attacking the Liberal record and making general statements about accountability and health.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear that after 13 years of Liberal waste and mismanagement on all fronts, including the environment, this government is focused on accountability on all fronts, particularly on the environment because the environment is something that Canadians care deeply about. This government is concerned about the health of Canadians. Canadians have asked us to protect their health. Those are the measures we are taking every single day in government.
Layton cites NDP-obtained government documents warning the Northwest Passage could be open to more regular navigation by 2015 if ice thinning continues, and asks whether the government recognizes that climate change impacts sovereignty.
Cites specific government documents obtained by the NDP stating the Northwest Passage could be open to more regular navigation by 2015, and asks whether the government recognizes climate change impacts on sovereignty â a well-grounded, specific question.
Source text
Platitudes, Mr. Speaker. The minister should resign if she is not going to act. That is all there is to it. She does not understand climate change, but there is another minister who has been briefed on climate change. The Minister of National Defence has been told by his officials what impact climate change is going to have on the Northwest Passage. Government documents obtained by the NDP say this: âIf the current rate of ice thinning continues, the Northwest Passage could be open to more regular navigation by 2015â. That is only nine years away. Does the government not realize that climate change impacts not only the environment but also our sovereignty?
O'Connor says that whether or not the ice melts, the government will protect sovereignty by investing in the military to ensure the air force, army and navy can operate through the north.
O'Connor commits to protecting sovereignty through military investment in air force, army and navy operations in the north, which partially addresses the sovereignty dimension but ignores the climate change policy question and the specific 2015 document finding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, whether the ice melts or does not melt in the north, we will continue to protect our sovereignty. That is why we are investing in the military. That is why we are going to ensure that the air force, army and navy are able to operate through the north and enforce our sovereignty.
Neville asks why the government rejects the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people when Canada took the lead in developing it, arguing adoption would show the government values aboriginal rights.
References Canada's role in developing the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people and asks why the government now rejects it, making an identifiable ask, though the framing includes rhetorical flourishes about abandonment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on National Aboriginal Day, the government has once again abandoned aboriginal Canadians. Canada took the lead in developing the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people. Now, when it is time for the government to support it, the government rejects it. Adopting this resolution would be a sign that the government values the rights and the contributions of aboriginal Canadians. Why does the government continue to abandon Canada's first citizens? Why does the government not think that Canada's indigenous people should have the same rights and the same privileges as all Canadians?
Prentice says no previous government supported the draft declaration and that it is inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution, the National Defence Act, treaties, and longstanding land claims policies.
Prentice offers substantive grounds for rejecting the draft declaration (inconsistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution, the National Defence Act, treaties, and land claims policies) but frames it as Liberal hypocrisy rather than directly explaining the government's position.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is a continuation of Liberal hypocrisy, empty promises and rhetoric. The member knows full well that no previous government of this country has ever supported that draft declaration. She knows full well that it is inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is inconsistent with our Constitution. It is inconsistent with the National Defence Act. It is inconsistent with our treaties. It is inconsistent with all of the policies under which we have negotiated land claims for 100 years. That is Liberal hypocrisy.
Merasty asks when the government will start treating MĂ©tis as a priority, noting no mention of the MĂ©tis in the throne speech or at the aboriginal affairs committee and the cancellation of the Kelowna accord.
Raises the absence of MĂ©tis in the throne speech and at the aboriginal affairs committee as specific omissions and asks when the government will start treating MĂ©tis as a priority, but the framing is largely partisan and the asks are bundled.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we all know the Conservative government was a huge disappointment to aboriginal Canadians. In fact, it completely left out the MĂ©tis. Worse yet, there was no mention of the MĂ©tis in the throne speech. There was no mention of the MĂ©tis by the Indian affairs minister at the aboriginal affairs committee. On top of that, the Conservatives killed the Kelowna accord which had tremendous opportunity for MĂ©tis people. Perhaps certain advisers to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have told them the MĂ©tis do not exist. Let me say that they do exist and they are proud to be MĂ©tis. When will the government start treating MĂ©tis as a priority?
Prentice notes the budget contains $300 million for off reserve housing and attacks the Liberal record on E. coli-contaminated water and the absence of matrimonial property rights for aboriginal women.
Prentice cites $300 million for off reserve housing but pivots almost entirely to attacking the Liberal record on contaminated water and matrimonial property, without specifically addressing the MĂ©tis concerns raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that the budget contains $300 million for off reserve housing for native Canadians. I will not stand in the House and take any lectures from the Liberals on aboriginal policy. That is the party of empty promises. That is the party that stood by while aboriginal Canadians drank water contaminated with E. coli. That is the party that stood by while native aboriginal women could not sleep in their own beds because they have no matrimonial property rights. For 13 years of shame, the Liberals have been slammed by the Auditor General and Amnesty International. I will not take it.
Russell asks whether the government will consult with the Inuit and MĂ©tis in Labrador to resolve outstanding legal issues and ensure all residents benefit before signing a deal on the Lower Churchill hydro project, which Premier Williams says the Prime Minister agreed to finance.
References Premier Williams's statement that the Prime Minister agreed to finance the Lower Churchill hydro project and asks specifically whether the government will consult with the Inuit and MĂ©tis to resolve outstanding legal issues before signing a deal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker--
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, this is the most attention a MĂ©tis will get from that government. It is National Aboriginal Day, a day to celebrate. Yet aboriginal people are crying shame on the Conservatives, shame for killing Kelowna, shame for opposing the UN indigenous race declaration, shame that the Conservatives do not consult with aboriginal people. Premier Williams said that the Prime Minister agreed to finance the Lower Churchill hydro project and the Conservatives have not consulted with the aboriginal people in Labrador. Before signing a deal, will the government in its shameful way consult with the Inuit and MĂ©tis to resolve outstanding legal issues and ensure all residents of Labrador benefit from this resource?
Prentice speaks only of Liberal shame, quoting unnamed former Liberal leaders describing the Liberal record as shameful and devastating, without addressing the Lower Churchill project or Labrador consultation.
Prentice makes no reference to the Lower Churchill project, Premier Williams, or consultation with the Inuit and MĂ©tis in Labrador, instead mocking the Liberal record with rhetoric about choking on their own record of shame.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think today we are actually talking about Liberal shame. The former leader of the Liberal Party describes the Liberal record as shameful. One of the current leadership candidates describes it as devastating. There is lot of noise and sputtering from the other side of the House, which is the Liberals choking on their own record of shame.
Keeper asks the Minister of Health to clarify whether his department will respect the mandatory set aside program for aboriginal business, after his communications director said the department would not respect this federal policy in place since 1996.
Cites a specific date (June 15), a specific minister's statement about the procurement strategy for aboriginal business, contradicted by a named communications director in the Health department, and asks the Minister of Health to clarify whether his department will respect the mandatory set aside program for aboriginal business in place since 1996.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on June 15 the Minister of Indian Affairs claimed that the procurement strategy for aboriginal business continues to be government policy. Perhaps he should speak to his colleague, the Minister of Health, whose communications director said that the health department would not respect this federal policy, in place since 1996. Would the Minister of Health please clarify for us whether his department will respect the mandatory set aside program for aboriginal business?
Clement says he cannot get into details on procurement and states the government wants aboriginal Canadians to get the best health care from the best sources with the best health outcomes, without addressing the mandatory set aside program.
Clement says he cannot get into details on procurement and vaguely asserts the government wants the best health care from the best sources, entirely avoiding the specific question about the mandatory set aside program.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think all members of the House realize that I cannot get into any details on procurement, but indeed, as the hon. member no doubt knows, we want to ensure that aboriginal Canadians wherever they live get the best health care from the best sources available with the best health outcomes. That is the strategy of this government when it comes to aboriginal health care.
How can the Minister of Finance justify consolidating securities regulation under a single pan-Canadian commission in Toronto when that is a provincial responsibility under the Constitution?
Cites the Constitution as grounding and asks a specific accountability question about jurisdiction, but the framing is partly rhetorical ('dépouiller').
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce que les Québécois détestent avant tout, c'est de se faire dépouiller. Ils tiennent à leur Commission des valeurs mobiliÚres, qui leur appartient de plein droit selon la Constitution. Comment le ministre des Finances peut-il justifier auprÚs des Québécois son projet de regrouper le secteur des valeurs mobiliÚres sous le chapeau d'une seule commission pancanadienne, à Toronto, alors que cette responsabilité ne lui appartient pas, en vertu de la Constitution canadienne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, more than anything, Quebeckers hate being ripped off. They are very attached to their securities commission, which is rightfully theirs under the Constitution. How can the finance minister justify to Quebeckers his plan to bring together the entire securities industry under a single, Canada-wide commission, in Toronto, when this does not fall under his jurisdiction by virtue of the Canadian Constitution?
Flaherty says the question is whether one common securities regulator is in the best interests of Canadians, not whether it must be federal or provincial, and that this will be discussed with finance ministers next week.
Flaherty engages the topic of a common securities regulator but explicitly sidesteps the constitutional jurisdiction question, reframing it as an economic federation issue.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the issue is as part of our economic federation whether it is in the best interests of Canadians across Canada to have one common securities regulator. The issue is not whether it needs to be a federal regulator or a regulator that is created by the provinces. The point of the discussion which we hope to have with the finance ministers and the ministers responsible for securities regulation next week when we meet together is to address that issue in terms of making sense of our economic federation and protecting investors in Canada and having adequate enforcement, whether it is in our best interests to have one common securities regulator.
Given that the OCDE ranks the current Canadian system second best in the world, how can the government claim the Quebec Securities Commission is failing, and is the minister's view distorted by a desire to favour Toronto?
Cites a specific OCDE ranking (second best in the world) and asks the minister to explain the characterization of the Quebec commission as failing, with a pointed secondary ask about bias toward Toronto.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la Constitution est claire: les valeurs mobiliÚres sont de compétence provinciale. Comment le gouvernement fédéral peut-il essayer de faire croire aux Québécois que la Commission des valeurs mobiliÚres du Québec ne fonctionne pas et qu'on doit centraliser le contrÎle à Toronto, alors que selon l'OCDE, le systÚme présentement en place est le deuxiÚme meilleur au monde? Se pourrait-il que la perception du ministre soit faussée par son désir de favoriser Toronto?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is clear: securities are a provincial jurisdiction. How can the federal government try to convince Quebeckers that the Quebec securities commission is not working and that control should be centralized in Toronto when, according to the OECD, our existing system is the second best in the world? Could it be that the minister's perception is clouded by his desire to favour Toronto?
Flaherty says he wants to favour Canadians and protect investors in RSPs, pension plans, and markets, and that Montreal's derivatives sector can be accommodated in discussions.
Flaherty does not address the OCDE ranking cited, ignores the characterization of the Quebec commission, and simply reiterates his investor-protection framing while briefly mentioning Montreal derivatives markets.
Source text
No, Mr. Speaker. I want to favour Canadians. I want to protect investors who invest in RSPs, who invest in pension plans, who invest directly in the market. There is a significant market in Montreal in the derivatives section that can certainly be accommodated in our discussions. As I say, the point is not a provincial jurisdiction point. The point is the best interests of Canadians who need protection in our securities markets.
How does the government explain Canada's withdrawal of support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, given twenty years of international work and with the vote scheduled for June 29 in Geneva?
Cites a specific timeline (twenty years of work, vote on June 29 in Geneva) and references Amnesty International's secretary-general, asking for a clear explanation of Canada's reversal.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Canada vient de déclarer qu'il retirait son appui au projet de Déclaration des droits des peuples autochtones des Nations Unies, alors que la communauté internationale y travaille depuis déjà une vingtaine d'années. Le vote se tiendra le 29 juin prochain à GenÚve. Comment le gouvernement peut-il expliquer cette volte-face du Canada, alors que le secrétaire général d'Amnistie internationale affirme qu'il est difficile d'imaginer un problÚme aussi important sans volonté de le résoudre aprÚs autant d'années de travail?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada has stated that it is withdrawing its support for the proposed United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, although the international community has been working on this declaration for 20 years. The vote will take place on June 29 in Geneva. How can the government explain Canada's about-face when the secretary general of Amnesty International states that it is difficult to imagine that a worse problem could exist with no will to solve it after so many years of work?
Prentice says the proposed text is incompatible with the Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, various Supreme Court decisions, the National Defence Act, and federal policies on land claims and Aboriginal self-government, and that further work is needed.
Prentice gives a substantive list of specific legal incompatibilities (Constitution, Canadian Charter, Supreme Court decisions, National Defence Act, treaties and self-government policies) and explains Canada's position, though he does not address the Amnesty International quote.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'apprĂ©cie la question de l'honorable dĂ©putĂ©, mais je ne suis pas d'accord avec lui. Le texte proposĂ© est incompatible avec notre Constitution, la Charte canadienne des droits et libertĂ©s, diverses dĂ©cisions de la Cour suprĂȘme, la Loi sur la dĂ©fense nationale, ainsi que les politiques fĂ©dĂ©rales concernant les revendications territoriales et l'autonomie gouvernementale des Autochtones. Nous devons travailler avec d'autres pays et avec le ComitĂ© permanent des affaires autochtones et du dĂ©veloppement du Grand Nord afin d'amĂ©liorer l'Ă©bauche d'une telle dĂ©claration.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question, but I do not agree with him. The proposed wording is incompatible with our Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, various Supreme Court decisions, the National Defence Act and federal policies on aboriginal land claims and self-government. We must work with other countries and the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to improve the drafting of such a declaration.
Given that article 45 of the draft Declaration explicitly states it cannot be interpreted to authorize acts contrary to the UN Charter, how does the minister explain Canada's radical reversal other than as alignment with the US and Australia?
Cites a specific article (article 45) of the draft Declaration with a direct quote addressing the constitutional compatibility argument, making it a pointed factual challenge, though the second part about aligning with the US and Australia is more rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'invite le ministre Ă relire l'article 45 du projet de DĂ©claration des droits des peuples autochtones. Il y est Ă©crit, et je cite: Aucune disposition de la prĂ©sente DĂ©claration ne peut ĂȘtre interprĂ©tĂ©e comme confĂ©rant Ă un Ătat, Ă un groupe ou Ă un individu le droit de se livrer Ă une activitĂ© ou Ă un acte contraire Ă la Charte des Nations Unies. Comment alors expliquer le virage radical Ă droite, si ce n'est pour se coller aux Ătats-Unis et Ă l'Australie, sans tenir compte de la tradition de dialogue et d'ouverture aux peuples autochtones qu'ont manifestĂ©e jusqu'Ă maintenant le Canada et le QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I invite the minister to reread article 45 of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which reads as follows: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations. What, then, is the explanation for the radical shift to the right, if it is not Canada's desire to align itself with the United States and Australia, disregarding the tradition of dialogue with and openness to aboriginal peoples that Canada and Quebec have maintained until now?
Prentice clarifies that no previous Canadian government ever supported the draft declaration, that Australia and New Zealand also do not support it, and that it remains inconsistent with the Canadian charter, Constitution Act, Supreme Court decisions, the National Defence Act, and treaty policies.
Prentice directly addresses the consistency claim by stating the draft was never supported by any previous Canadian government and lists specific legal and treaty incompatibilities, though he does not engage with the text of article 45 directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of some importance. Let us ensure that the public record is clear on this matter. The draft declaration has never been supported by any previous government of this country. There is no change of policy in that regard. It is not supported by the Australians. It is not supported by New Zealand. It is contrary to or inconsistent with the Canadian charter, with our Constitution Act, the distribution of powers. It is inconsistent with previous decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and very inconsistent with the National Defence Act and the treaties and policies under which we negotiate treaties. This is a draft which requires further work. That work is under way. We support a final text as long as it is improved.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his April softwood lumber announcement was premature, given a leaked letter from the Bush administration to its lumber lobby confirming the real US goal is to hobble the Canadian forestry sector for seven years?
References a leaked letter from the Bush administration to its lumber lobby as factual grounding, but the question is heavily rhetorical (softwood sellout, mission accomplished banner) and the ask is compound and imprecise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it has been almost two months since the Prime Minister announced his softwood sellout, but the fallout continues. Industry is revolting to save itself. Premiers are feeling betrayed. We are now getting details of a leaked letter from the Bush administration to its lumber lobby confirming that the real goal of the U.S. is to completely hobble the Canadian forestry sector for at least seven years. Will the Prime Minister admit today that his grand proclamation in April was akin to erecting a mission accomplished banner on an aircraft carrier before the job was actually done?
Emerson says discussions are proceeding extremely well, dismisses the letter as undated and unsigned with no status, and asserts that Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies, the west, and B.C. will be much better off under the softwood lumber agreement.
Emerson dismisses the leaked letter as undated and unsigned with no status, claims provinces are supportive, and asserts regions will be better off, but does not address the substance of the letter's alleged content or the specific concern about hobbling the Canadian forestry sector.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber discussions are proceeding extremely well. Provinces are very supportive. The so-called letter that is being referred to was an undated, unsigned letter. It has no status whatever in the discussions that are ongoing on softwood lumber. I can tell the hon. member that his region, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and the west and B.C. are going to be much better off under this softwood lumber agreement than under any other alternative.
Given that producers will face up to 10% duty with an export cap under the deal, will the Prime Minister guarantee that NAFTA and Canada's sovereignty will be protected?
Cites a specific duty rate (up to 10%) and export cap as concrete figures, and raises NAFTA compliance as a clear accountability ask, though framed with partisan language (sellout table).
Source text
Mr. Speaker, under this so-called deal, at current softwood lumber prices our producers will face up to 10% duty with an export cap. That is not free trade. That is not fair trade. In fact, it is much worse than the illegal status quo. Negotiators have now left the table and there is no plan to comply with NAFTA. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, support our Canadian industry now and guarantee that NAFTA and Canada's sovereignty will be protected if he goes back to the sellout table?
Emerson says no region would have to accept that level of export tax because they could opt for a different option with less severe duty, offering greater stability and predictability for the industry.
Emerson partially addresses the duty concern by noting regions could opt for a different option with less severe duty and export tax, but does not address the NAFTA compliance question or sovereignty concern at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, never has the softwood lumber industry been better and more strongly supported than by this Prime Minister and this government. I want to remind the hon. member that no regions would have to accept an export tax of that level. They could opt for a different option and they would be facing a much less severe duty and a much less severe export tax. It would create much greater stability and much more predictability in this industry.
Why did the Minister of Industry meet secretly with the president of Boeing's defence division and Lockheed Martin representatives in Washington, opening Canada to legal challenges to the tactical airlift purchase process?
Identifies specific meetings in Washington with named companies (Boeing's defence division and Lockheed Martin) tied to a specific procurement (tactical airlift purchase) and raises a concrete legal and process integrity concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in Washington last week the Minister of Industry met secretly with the president of Boeing's defence division and with top representatives of Lockheed Martin, a potential bidder on the tactical airlift purchase. By meeting with these companies secretly, the minister has opened up our country to legal challenges for years to come. Why was the Prime Minister blind to the fact that these meetings take away the integrity of what must be an open, transparent and competitive process?
Bernier says he was in Washington for meetings with his counterpart on the security and prosperity partnership and had meetings with the aerospace industry, which he describes as very profitable and routine for a Minister of Industry.
Bernier confirms he met with the aerospace industry in Washington but frames it as routine ministerial industry engagement, does not address the legal challenge risk, the competitive process integrity concern, or why these specific companies were met secretly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was in Washington last week and am pretty proud to have had a first meeting with my counterpart. We had discussions about the security partnership and the prosperity partnership. Also, I had some meetings with the aerospace industry. Those were very profitable meetings. As is usual for the Minister of Industry, I have to meet my counterparts and also meet industry. I did that at the beginning of this mandate and I am going to follow that to meet the industry stakeholders.
Is the Minister of National Defence prepared to let Canadian procurement policy be managed by Boeing and Lockheed Martin under a proposed arrangement where maintenance of helicopters and tactical aircraft would be run by those two American companies?
Raises a specific concern about maintenance contracts for helicopters and tactical aircraft being managed by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, but the question is laden with rhetorical framing (abdicate sovereignty, mal aux genoux) and combines multiple issues.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'imagine que le ministre de l'Industrie doit avoir mal aux genoux, Ă force de nĂ©gocier Ă Washington. Dans une stratĂ©gie de relations publiques et, soyons clairs, de camouflage, le ministre de l'Industrie a rencontrĂ© en cachette Ă Washington les dirigeants de Boeing et de Lockheed Martin pour nous faire oublier le manque total de transparence dans l'affaire des C-17. Les conservateurs s'apprĂȘtent maintenant Ă annoncer d'autres achats militaires. L'entente proposerait que la maintenance sur 20 ans des hĂ©licoptĂšres et des avions tactiques serait attribuĂ©e Ă l'industrie, mais selon une compĂ©tition gĂ©rĂ©e par ces deux compagnies amĂ©ricaines. En plus d'abdiquer la souverainetĂ© et la sĂ©curitĂ© du Canada, le ministre de la DĂ©fense est-il prĂȘt maintenant Ă laisser notre politique d'achat aux AmĂ©ricains? Est-ce bien lĂ ce qu'il nous dit?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I imagine the industry minister's knees must be sore, what with all the negotiating in Washington. In a public relations strategy and, let us be honest, in an attempt to hide the facts, the Minister of Industry secretly met in Washington with directors from Boeing and Lockheed Martin to make us forget the total lack of transparency in the C-17 issue. The Conservatives are now getting ready to announce more military procurements. The agreement allegedly proposes that maintenance of the tactical helicopters and aircraft over a 20-year period will be assigned to the industry, but through a competition run by these two U.S. companies. In addition to giving up Canada's security and sovereignty, is the Minister of Defence now preparing to leave our procurement policy to the Americans? Is that what he is saying?
O'Connor says all defence equipment decisions will serve the military's needs, Canada's security, and provide industry benefits, and that equipment will always remain under sovereign Canadian control.
O'Connor gives a general assurance that equipment decisions will serve military needs, provide industry benefits, and remain under sovereign Canadian control, but does not address the specific allegation about maintenance contracts being managed by the two American companies.
Source text
First of all, Mr. Speaker, any decision taken by this government with respect to defence equipment will be in the interests of the military, will serve the needs of Canada's security and will also provide industry with plentiful benefits. We will always, when we acquire equipment, have it sovereign, under our control, and we will manage the equipment.
Can the finance minister explain why the GST reduction is good for all Canadians, in light of a Liberal leadership candidate wanting to increase the GST?
A classic government-backbench softball setup referencing a Liberal leadership candidate's position on the GST to invite the minister to promote the government's own tax cut.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government delivered on its promise to reduce the GST from 7% to 6%. After crossing the floor to a party that once campaigned on scrapping the GST, Liberal leadership hopeful and member for KingsâHants now says he wants to increase the GST. Can the finance minister tell this House and leadership candidates opposite why the GST reduction is good for all Canadians?
Flaherty confirms that the 1% GST reduction comes into force on July 1 and that the budget bill is passing through the Senate that day.
Flaherty confirms the 1% GST reduction comes into force July 1 and notes the budget bill is passing through the Senate that day, providing concrete factual information alongside the partisan framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I know that July 1 will be a day of mourning for the members of the GST club opposite. That is the day the rest of Canadians will be celebrating the 1% reduction in the GST, which will come into force on July 1. I understand that the bill is passing through the Senate today. I thank the members opposite for permitting the budget bill to pass through the House on unanimous consent. It gives me a warm feeling of collegiality at the end of the session.
Given that the US activated its missile shield for the first time yesterday, does Canada still refuse to participate in missile defence, and does Canada reject the concept of weapons in space?
References a specific event (US activation of the missile shield for the first time, yesterday) and asks two clear yes/no questions about Canada's position on missile defence and weapons in space.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les Ătats-Unis ont activĂ©, hier, leur supposĂ© bouclier antimissile pour la premiĂšre fois. Il s'agit d'une autre Ă©tape dans cette course alarmante Ă l'armement. Or les Canadiens s'opposent fortement Ă une course Ă l'armement dans l'espace. Le premier ministre peut-il nous dire si le Canada refuse toujours de participer au bouclier antimissile? Le Canada rejette-t-il le concept des armes dans l'espace?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the United States activated their so-called missile defence shield for the first time. This is another step in this alarming arms race. Canadians are strongly opposed to an arms race in space. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether Canada is still refusing to take part in the missile defence shield? Does Canada reject the concept of weapons in space?
MacKay confirms that Canada is in no way, shape or form embarking on any further discussions with the United States on ballistic missile defence.
MacKay directly confirms Canada is not embarking on any further discussions with the United States on ballistic missile defence, fully addressing the first question, though he does not address the weapons in space question and pivots to a partisan comment about the Liberals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can certainly confirm to the hon. member that Canada is in no way, shape or form embarking on any further discussions with the United States of America on ballistic missile defence. I can tell her, as she is probably already aware, that the former ambassador of Canada to the United States, Frank McKenna, has urged all members of the Liberal Party and Liberal leadership contenders to take a look at this issue, so perhaps they will pronounce themselves on it in the near future.
Is the government joining the missile defence program by stealth, given that DND documents indicate the relationship between Canada Command and the US Northern Command will deepen integration?
Cites DND documents indicating deepening integration between Canada Command and US Northern Command as factual grounding for the question about joining missile defence by stealth, but the framing (missile defence madness) is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just like Frank McKenna, more and more Liberals now want Canada to join the missile defence madness. New Democrats are focused on the World Peace Forum in Vancouver, but the critical question is which side the government is on. Is it for peace or for an escalated arms race? According to the Department of National Defence, the relationship between Canada Command and the U.S. Northern Command will deepen integration. Is the government joining the missile defence program by stealth, just like documents from DND seem to indicate?
O'Connor says this government has made no changes to the previous government's policy on ballistic missile defence, and that the recent Norad agreement added only maritime surveillance without other changes.
O'Connor directly states there have been no changes to the previous government's ballistic missile defence policy and that the recent Norad agreement added only maritime surveillance, which substantively addresses the stealth-joining concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government is for peace. We are always for peace. We have made no changes to the previous government's policy with respect to ballistic missile defence. There have been no changes. We recently had a Norad agreement, which added maritime surveillance but did not make any other changes, so we are in a status quo.
Will the Minister of Finance really put future generations' pensions at risk by tinkering with the Canada Pension Plan, which the Liberal government made sustainable for 75 years?
References the IMF's historical warning about the Canada Pension Plan's sustainability and the Liberal government's 75-year fix as factual context, but the ask (will you endanger future pensions?) is somewhat vague and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la derniÚre fois que les conservateurs ont formé le gouvernement, le Fonds monétaire international a sonné l'alerte parce que le Régime de pensions du Canada n'était pas viable. Puis le gouvernement libéral a pérennisé le Régime de pensions du Canada pour les 75 prochaines années. Aujourd'hui, nous apprenons que les conservateurs veulent bricoler ce régime. Le ministre des Finances va-t-il vraiment mettre en péril les pensions des générations futures?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the last time the Conservatives took office, the International Monetary Fund sounded the alert because the Canada Pension Plan was not viable. Then the Liberal government secured the Canada Pension fund for the next 75 years. Today we are hearing that the Conservatives want to tinker with this plan. Will the Minister of Finance really jeopardize the pensions of future generations?
Flaherty says the IMF was complimentary about the budget last week, confirms the CPP/QPP issue is referenced in the fiscal balance paper published with the budget, and says it will be discussed with finance ministers next week in terms of intergenerational equity.
Flaherty deflects on the IMF reference to the recent budget report, acknowledges the CPP/QPP issue was referenced in the fiscal balance paper, and says it will be discussed with finance ministers next week, without clarifying whether the plan will be changed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising the IMF issue. The report the IMF did with respect to our budget and our efforts on the Canadian economy was quite complimentary last week. On the issue he raises with respect to the CPP and the QPP, that is an issue we referenced in the fiscal balance paper that was published with the budget. I am sure the hon. member has read it. It is an issue of intergenerational equity with respect to taxation, which we do intend to discuss with the finance ministers next week when we gather.
Will the minister confirm today that the government will not tinker with the Canada Pension Plan, a system the former Liberal government resolved for 75 years and which is reported in this morning's Globe and Mail to be under consideration for changes?
References a Globe and Mail report this morning as a news peg and asks the minister for a direct commitment not to tinker with the CPP, making it a reasonably specific accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, such a vague answer is totally unacceptable when it comes to the security of the pension system of Canadians. The Liberal government fixed that system for 75 years. The rumour is in the Globe and Mail this morning that the government is tinkering with a system that is not broken. Will the minister confirm to seniors and near seniors today, not at some future meeting, that he is not going to tinker with a pension system that was resolved for 75 years by the former government?
Flaherty says the government will not repeat what the Liberals did with surprise surpluses and interference in provincial jurisdiction, and that it will look at intergenerational equity to more fairly distribute the surplus over generations.
Flaherty does not confirm or deny plans to change the CPP, instead pivoting to criticizing the previous government's surprise surpluses and meddling in provincial jurisdiction, and vaguely referencing intergenerational equity without addressing the specific ask.
Source text
What we are not going to do, Mr. Speaker, is what members opposite did when they were the government, and that is to have these surprise surpluses and then interfere in provincial jurisdiction and meddle in provincial jurisdiction with these surprise surpluses that were not authorized by Parliament. What we are going to do is look at the issue of intergenerational equity and ask how we can more fairly distribute that surplus over the generations in Canada so that young people are treated more fairly than they were by the members opposite when they were the government.
Given that the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates voted to apply the 75-25 policy to square feet rather than individuals, what empty warehouses does the Prime Minister intend to move to the Quebec side of the National Capital Region?
Cites a specific committee vote (Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates) and a specific policy (75-25) with a precise alleged change (from individuals to square feet), asking a pointed accountability question about its implications.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux et son secrétaire parlementaire ont publiquement confirmé la politique du 75-25 sur le partage des emplois du gouvernement du Canada, entre l'Ontario et le Québec, dans la région de la capitale nationale. Hier, au Comité permanent des opérations gouvernementales et des prévisions budgétaires, les conservateurs et le Nouveau Parti démocratique ont modifié une motion afin que la politique du 75-25 s'applique à l'avenir à des pieds carrés au lieu des individus. Le premier ministre peut-il nous dire quels entrepÎts, vides d'emplois, il a l'intention de déménager du cÎté québécois de la région de la capitale nationale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and his parliamentary secretary publicly confirmed the 75:25 distribution of Government of Canada jobs between Ontario and Quebec, in the national capital region. Yesterday, at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party amended a motion so that the 75:25 policy would in future refer to square footage rather than individuals. Can the Prime Minister tell us which warehouses, with no jobs, does he intend to transfer to the Quebec side of the national capital region?
Moore says the motion was tabled in committee but has not yet been voted on, that the 75:25 policy was put in place by the previous government, and that the current government recognizes it as important and will honour it.
Moore confirms the 75:25 policy will be honoured and that the motion has not yet been voted on, but the questioner's premise is that it has been voted on, leaving a factual dispute unresolved; Moore does not address the square footage versus individuals distinction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the motion was tabled in committee but has not been voted on yet. The policy position of 75:25 is a policy that was put in place by the previous government. It is something that we recognize as important for the region and important for the country, and it is a policy that we are going to honour.
Why is the government publishing a public tender for RCMP relocation for only ten days with six-month delivery, knowing that Minto is the only company able to respond, rather than obtaining the best conditions and prices while respecting the 75-25 policy?
Raises a specific procurement concern about a 10-day public tender for RCMP relocation with a six-month delivery requirement, alleging Minto is the only possible respondent, which is a specific and verifiable accountability claim.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le secrétaire parlementaire est dans l'erreur, car l'amendement a été voté et accepté. Puisque le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux ne siÚge pas ici et que son secrétaire parlementaire n'est pas présent à la table du Cabinet, le premier ministre peut-il nous dire pourquoi son gouvernement publiera pour dix jours seulement un appel d'offres public pour relocaliser la GRC avec livraison dans les six prochains mois, sachant trÚs bien que Minto est le seul à pouvoir répondre à une telle demande? Pourquoi son gouvernement ne veut-il pas obtenir les meilleures conditions et les meilleurs prix sans lobbyiste, tout en respectant la politique du 75-25?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is mistaken because the amendment was voted on and accepted. Since the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is not a member of Parliament and his parliamentary secretary is not present at the cabinet table, can the Prime Minister tell us why his government will advertise for only ten days a call for tenders to relocate the RCMP in the next six months, knowing full well that Minto is the only corporation capable of qualifying? Why does his government not wish to obtain the best terms at the best price without lobbyists and while respecting the 75:25 policy?
Moore says the government decided to go to a new competitive open process for the former JDS Uniphase building, and promises a departmental briefing on the 75:25 policy, but does not address the specific tender timeline or the Minto allegation.
Moore says the government chose a new competitive open process for the former JDS Uniphase building but does not address the 10-day tender window, the six-month delivery requirement, or the Minto allegation, pivoting instead to criticizing the Liberals and promising a departmental briefing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the former JDS Uniphase building, this government decided to go to a new competitive open process and that is exactly what we have done. With regard to the 75:25 policy, unfortunately I cannot educate my colleague in 30 seconds on what the policy is, but I know that he is going to have a briefing very soon from the Department of Public Works. When he gets that briefing, he will understand this policy much better. What is interesting is that he is condemning a policy that was put in place by the former Liberal government. It is very interesting. Now that he is on the opposition side, suddenly he has a backbone and is opposed to a policy that he was championing just a few months ago. We are going to get done what the Liberals failed to do, which is what is right and which is the 75:25 policy and good value for taxpayers.
Why did the minister responsible for the Quebec City region fail to act to prevent the closure of the postal sorting centre in the national capital region of Quebec, despite Conservative electoral commitments?
The question cites a specific electoral commitment by Conservatives and a specific event (closure of the postal sorting centre in the national capital region of Quebec), making it reasonably grounded, though the ask is directed at a minister who is not present.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre se rendra Ă QuĂ©bec pour la fĂȘte nationale du QuĂ©bec, et ce sera pour lui une bonne occasion de donner aux rĂ©sidants de cette ville quelques explications qu'ils souhaitent obtenir. La ministre responsable de la rĂ©gion de QuĂ©bec pourrait-elle expliquer aux citoyens de ma rĂ©gion pourquoi, malgrĂ© les engagements des conservateurs lors de la campagne Ă©lectorale, elle n'a pas levĂ© le petit doigt pour empĂȘcher la fermeture du centre de tri postal de la rĂ©gion de la capitale nationale du QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is going to Quebec City for Quebec's FĂȘte nationale and this will be a good opportunity for him to give the residents of that city a few explanations. Could the minister responsible for the regions of Quebec explain to the citizens of my region why, despite promises from the Conservatives during the election campaign, she did not lift a finger to prevent the closure of the mail sorting centre in Quebec's national capital region?
The parliamentary secretary claimed Conservative MPs worked very hard on the issue, fulfilled their election promise, and assured that no jobs would be lost and service quality would improve.
The parliamentary secretary claims Conservative MPs 'fulfilled their election promise' and that 'no jobs will be lost' and 'quality of service will actually be improved,' but does not address the specific question about the closure of the postal sorting centre or what the minister responsible for the Quebec City region actually did.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec City can be very proud of my Conservative colleagues in the House who have expressed this issue to the minister and brought it forward to me. They have worked very hard on this issue and they continue to work very hard to represent the people of Quebec. They have fulfilled their election promise. They have assured this House that there will be no jobs lost and the quality of service will actually be improved. We should be very proud of our Quebec MPs from the Conservative side.
Why, five months after the election, has the Conservative government still not been able to have the Pont de Québec painted, given the Prime Minister's own criticism of the Liberals on this issue during the campaign?
The question is specific, referencing the Prime Minister's own electoral statement about the Pont de Québec and the five months elapsed since his election without action, making it a clear accountability question tied to a prior public commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, durant la derniĂšre campagne Ă©lectorale, le premier ministre a ralliĂ© ses prĂ©dĂ©cesseurs libĂ©raux en affirmant qu'ils n'Ă©taient mĂȘme pas capables de faire peindre un pont, le pont de QuĂ©bec en l'occurrence. Compte-t-il profiter de son passage Ă QuĂ©bec pour expliquer aux citoyens pourquoi, cinq mois aprĂšs son Ă©lection, son gouvernement n'est toujours pas davantage capable de faire peindre le pont de QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister scoffed at his Liberal predecessors for not even being able to get a bridge painted, the Quebec bridge to be exact. Does he intend to take advantage of his trip to Quebec City to explain to the people why, five months after his election, his government is still no better at getting the Quebec bridge painted?
The parliamentary secretary claimed the bridge is built, painted, and working fine, and praised Conservative MPs for representing Quebeckers.
The parliamentary secretary's answer that 'the bridge is built, it is painted and it is working fine' appears to confuse or misrepresent the issue (the question was about painting the Pont de Québec, not building it), and does not address the government's inaction on its electoral promise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would seriously suggest that my colleague should read more newspapers because the bridge is built, it is painted and it is working fine. These Conservative members are doing very well in Quebec at representing the people of Quebec and making sure that Quebeckers get what they need.
Will the Prime Minister act on the February parliamentary appeal by calling an international donors conference for Somalia and organizing a rapid reconstruction team, after four months of Conservative inaction?
The question references a February parliamentary appeal and four months of inaction, but the core ask (an international donors conference and a rapid reconstruction team) is embedded in heavy rhetorical framing, reducing its sharpness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Do we want a radical fundamentalist takeover in Somalia? Does the Prime Minister need to see images on our front pages of human carnage and children with distended bellies to act? In February, Canadian parliamentarians sent an appeal to the Prime Minister to call an international donors conference for Somalia to organize a rapid reconstruction team. After four months of repeated requests and Conservative inaction, what does the Prime Minister have to say to the anguished hundreds of thousands of Somali Canadians?
The Minister of Foreign Affairs cited $35.1 million to the World Food Programme for East Africa and the Horn, including $4.5 million for Somalia, and stated Canada remains concerned and will continue to support the people of Somalia.
The minister provides specific figures ($35.1 million to the World Food Programme and $4.5 million to Somalia) and states Canada remains concerned and engaged, partially addressing the humanitarian dimension but not the specific asks of an international donors conference or a rapid reconstruction team.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada has proceeded with more than $35.1 million to the World Food Programme, WFP, to countries in East Africa and the Horn that have been affected by drought and food shortages. The hon. member would know that included a $4.5 million commitment to Somalia. This government, obviously, remains very concerned, along with all members present, about the drought. We continue to monitor the situation closely and we will continue to figure prominently in the recovery and the support of the people of Somalia.
Could the fisheries minister explain what steps he has taken to increase enforcement on the Fraser River, given that the previous Liberal government was planning to reduce enforcement?
This is a government-backbench softball setup that references the previous Liberal government's plans to reduce enforcement and invites the minister to announce positive action, with no genuine accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Fraser River in B.C. represents one of Canada's most sensitive salmon fisheries. Recently it has come to light that the previous Liberal government was planning to reduce enforcement on the Fraser River. As we know, Canadians expect our fisheries to be protected against illegal fishing. Canadians will be relieved to know that this government is committed to doing just that. Could the fisheries minister tell us what steps he has taken to increase enforcement on the Fraser River?
The minister stated the government will spend $2.4 million to reverse the previous government's decision to reduce fisheries officers and to add a significant number of extra fisheries officers on the Fraser River.
The minister provides a specific figure ($2.4 million) to reverse the previous government's decision and add extra fisheries officers on the Fraser River, directly addressing the question with concrete information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the new member is certainly a fast learner. He is right when he says that the former government was going to reduce the number of fisheries officers. He is also right when he says that the fishery needs protection. We will be spending $2.4 million, not only to reverse the decision made by the former government, but to add a significant number of extra fisheries officers on the river so we can have a stable fishery this year, which is lauded, by the way, by most of the groups that are looking forward to a good year on the Fraser River.
Will the Prime Minister offer compensation to Chinese head tax payers' descendants when he delivers the apology tomorrow?
The question is grounded in a specific electoral promise, references concrete affected parties (Chinese head tax payers' descendants) and a specific upcoming occasion (tomorrow), and asks a clear yes/no question about compensation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last Sunday was Father's Day but many Chinese Canadians never knew their fathers because of the racist head tax. Very few of them could celebrate Father's Day because their fathers died waiting for an apology and redress. A few minutes ago I welcomed a trainload of very frail seniors who have arrived in Ottawa looking for justice at last, but justice without compensation for families there is no reconciliation. It will not work. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing tomorrow and offer compensation to Chinese head tax payers' descendants?
The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women confirmed that an apology will be made in the House tomorrow and that the government will be addressing appropriate acknowledgement, but did not explicitly confirm compensation for descendants.
The minister confirms an apology will be made in the House and references 'appropriate acknowledgement,' but does not directly answer whether compensation will be offered to Chinese head tax payers' descendants, which was the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that tomorrow will be a historic day for the Chinese community and all Canadians. This Prime Minister and the government will fulfill their election promise. An apology will be made in the House and we will be addressing appropriate acknowledgement.
Will the government confirm that it will immediately extend the veterans independence programs for all widows of all veterans regardless of the time of death, as stated in a letter sent to Joyce Carter last October?
The question cites a specific letter from October of last year attributed to the Prime Minister making a commitment to immediately extend the veterans independence programs for all widows of all veterans regardless of the time of death, and asks the government to confirm this specific commitment to a named individual.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in October of last year a letter was sent to Joyce Carter, who is a widow of a war veteran in Cape Breton. In the letter the Prime Minister states that a Conservative government would immediately extend the veterans independence programs for all widows of all veterans regardless of the time of death. However, we hear from Veterans Affairs Canada that may not be so. I want to give the Prime Minister and the government an opportunity to look at the camera, talk to Joyce Carter through the media and tell her that we will immediately extend the VIP program for all widows of all veterans regardless of the time of death.
The minister clarified the letter was not written by the Prime Minister, cited $350 million in additional spending, and mentioned a health care review underway that would inform future improvements for veterans and their families, including widows.
The minister disputes authorship of the letter and cites $350 million in additional spending and a health care review, but does not directly confirm or deny the specific commitment to immediately extend the VIP program for all widows of all veterans regardless of the time of death.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the first thing we want to clarify is that the letter was not written by the Prime Minister. In terms of the Department of Veterans Affairs, we will be spending an additional $350 million this year alone, which is $350 million more than the previous government. One of the first things I did as minister was to initiate a health care review. The information from that health care review will be the knowledge base that we will use as we move forward to continue to improve services for veterans and their families, and that includes widows.
Will the foreign minister engage with the UN emergency contact group and the AU peacekeeping mission on the crisis in Somalia, given that Canada was absent from a recent UN contact group emergency meeting?
The question cites a specific UN contact group emergency meeting Canada missed and makes a specific ask (engagement with the UN emergency contact group and the AU peacekeeping mission), grounded in the fact that Somali transitional government ministers hold Canadian passports.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week Canada was missing in action at a UN contact group emergency meeting on the crisis in Somalia, which did not meet about the drought but about the looming civil war. The Somali transitional government has 17 ministers and parliamentarians with Canadian passports and hundreds of Somali Canadians are volunteering on the ground. The Conservatives have abandoned them and have missed a chance to show international peace building leadership. Civil war and famine are at Somalia's gates. Will the foreign minister at least engage with the UN emergency contact group and the AU peacekeeping mission?
The minister stated Canada called for a ceasefire, urged all parties to respect international law and protect aid workers, called for an end to the occupation of a hospital operated by the Somali Red Crescent Society, and affirmed Canada will continue to aid Somalia in concert with international partners.
The minister offers general statements about calling for a ceasefire and urging respect for international law and mentions the Somali Red Crescent Society hospital, but does not directly address whether Canada was absent from the UN contact group emergency meeting or commit to engaging with the UN emergency contact group and the AU peacekeeping mission.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada is, of course, engaged in this process. We called immediately for a ceasefire and we urged all parties to fully respect their obligations under international law, including the full protection for aid workers and their safe and unimpeded access to the needs of the people of Somalia. We have also called for an end to the occupation of a major hospital operated by the Somali Red Crescent Society. Canada has been there. We have been involved. We will continue to do so and continue to aid this wartorn country. We will continue to do as much as we can in concert with other international partners.