Session overview
- The Canadian Wheat Board dominated Question Period, with the Liberal opposition pressing the Prime Minister on whether the government would comply with the Canadian Wheat Board Act and hold a producer vote before making changes, while the Prime Minister framed the issue as defending western Canadian farmers' marketing choices.
- The Bloc Québécois led a sustained attack on the government's newly announced $100-million older workers program, arguing it lacked income support measures, excluded workers in large urban centres, and was inadequate for workers with limited education or language skills who could not realistically be retrained.
- Gun control was raised in the context of the Dawson College shooting, with Liberal members pressing the government on whether it would strengthen firearms control and preserve the firearms registry, while the Minister of Public Safety said consultations with provincial ministers were ongoing.
- Status of Women was the subject of two exchanges, with NDP and Liberal members challenging the government over the removal of 'equality' from the mandate of Status of Women Canada and cuts to funding for women's organizations, while the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women defended the government's record.
- The Minister of Foreign Affairs made a specific public commitment condemning Chinese border guards' shooting of unarmed Tibetan civilians, calling for a full independent investigation, punishment of those responsible, and the immediate release of detained Tibetan children.
- The NDP pressed the government on climate change, alleging that intensity-based targets would allow pollution to increase rather than decrease, while the Prime Minister defended the forthcoming plan as the first in Parliament to reduce pollutants in Canada.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs made concrete, specific commitments on the record: Canada formally raised concerns with the Chinese government, condemned the shooting of unarmed Tibetan civilians as an egregious human rights violation, called for a full independent investigation, demanded punishment of those responsible, and called for the immediate release of detained Tibetan children.
The question cites a specific prior public statement by the minister when in opposition ($20 million figure, exact quote) and contrasts it with departmental estimates showing $100 million in cuts affecting 200 jobs, making a pointed accountability ask.
Rather than addressing whether she would reverse the decision to remove 'equality' from the mandate of Status of Women on Persons Day, Oda personally attacked the questioner by citing the absence of female representation on the board of Magna, making no substantive policy response whatsoever.
Outstanding questions
- Bill Graham (Liberal) asked three times whether the Prime Minister would obey the Canadian Wheat Board Act and hold a fair vote among all producers on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board â the Prime Minister never addressed the specific legal obligation.
- Lucienne Robillard asked how the government intends to control firearms in Canada four weeks after the Dawson College tragedy â Stockwell Day said only that consultations with provincial ministers were ongoing, with no specific measures announced.
- Todd Russell asked whether the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans shares the Prime Minister's opinion on race-based fisheries â Loyola Hearn described a process of bringing players to the table but never directly answered whether he agreed with the Prime Minister's stated position.
- Christiane Gagnon asked whether the government recognizes that its older workers program will be of no help to workers laid off in large urban centres due to the population cap of 250,000 â Maxime Bernier cited a single Bloc member's positive quote and never addressed the urban exclusion concern.
- Michael Savage asked the Prime Minister to admit that his written commitment that no province would lose out to changes in equalization was worthless â Jim Flaherty said consultations were ongoing but did not confirm or deny the specific written commitment.
Graham asks whether the Prime Minister will reverse his actions and permit a fair vote among all producers on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board, citing Parliament's 1998 decision to give control to farmers.
References the 1998 parliamentary vote and frames a clear ask about permitting a democratic vote among producers, but leans heavily on rhetorical framing about democracy and the rule of law.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is about farmers and their families. It is about democracy. It is about the rule of law. In 1998 Parliament voted to give control of the Wheat Board to farmers. They have a right to vote on changes to their board. The Prime Minister is ignoring the law and their rights by trying to destroy the Wheat Board without a proper, open and democratic vote among all producers. Will the Prime Minister reverse his anti-democratic actions and permit a fair vote among producers on the future of our Canadian Wheat Board?
Harper denies that any action taken violates the law and asserts that his party will defend the rights of western Canadian farmers, without addressing the question of a producer vote.
The Prime Minister dismisses the premise without addressing the specific legal argument or the question of a producer vote, pivoting instead to a partisan attack on the Liberal Party's record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is that we are or are going to do something and it is going to violate the law. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we in this party are going to do is defend the rights of western Canadian farmers, something which that party has never stood for in its entire history.
Graham asks the Prime Minister to stop gag orders on Wheat Board members who disagree with him, stop manipulating the voters list, and put the issue to a fair vote among all producers.
Raises specific concerns about gag orders on Wheat Board members and manipulation of the voters list, but compounds multiple asks and mixes substantive points with partisan rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as one Conservative member of the House learned today, the Prime Minister just cannot cope with anyone who disagrees with him, constructively or not, and that includes Canadian farmers. Will the Prime Minister stop the gag orders on anyone in the Wheat Board who disagrees with him? Will he stop trying to cook the voters list? Will he allow farmers who do not share his ideology to vote? Will the Prime Minister uphold the rule of law, uphold democracy, and put this issue to a fair vote among all producers and not just those who agree with him?
Harper recounts that the Liberal Party historically took away western Canadian farmers' right to market their own wheat and pledges to protect farmers from future Liberal government behaviour.
Harper does not address gag orders, the voters list, or any of the specific asks, instead recounting Liberal Party history with western grain marketing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, years ago the Liberal Party took away from western Canadian farmers the right to market their own wheat. Then a leader of the Liberal Party came along, having monopolized that privilege, and said âWhy should we sell your wheat for you?â We in this party are going to make sure that our farmers are never subject to that kind of arbitrary behaviour by a future Liberal government.
Graham asks why the Prime Minister is attacking the choices made by farming communities, citing western farmers' choice of the Canadian Wheat Board and Quebec farmers' choice of supply management.
Broadens the question to include supply management and frames it as the Prime Minister imposing ideology against farmers' choices, making the ask vague and rhetorical rather than specific.
Source text
TrĂšs bien, monsieur le PrĂ©sident, mais en fait ce gouvernement nous dĂ©montre qu'il se fiche des agriculteurs et de leurs choix. Dans l'Ouest, nos fermiers ont choisi la Commission canadienne du blĂ©. Au QuĂ©bec et partout au pays, ils ont choisi le systĂšme de gestion de l'offre. Le premier ministre, lui, a choisi d'imposer son idĂ©ologie, Ă l'encontre du bien-ĂȘtre de nos agriculteurs. Pourquoi le premier ministre s'attaque-t-il aux choix qu'ont faits nos communautĂ©s agricoles?
Hansard translation: That is all well and good, Mr. Speaker, but this government has shown that it does not care about farmers and their preferences. In the west, our farmers chose the Canadian Wheat Board. In Quebec and across the country, they chose the supply management system. The Prime Minister, however, chose to impose his ideology at the expense of our farmers' well-being. Why does the Prime Minister insist on attacking the choices of our farming communities?
Harper states that his government defends supply management domestically and internationally, and asserts that his government will respect the choices of western Canadian wheat farmers by ensuring options are available.
Harper addresses supply management directly but does not engage with the ideological imposition argument or explain how his government respects western wheat farmers' choices specifically.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce gouvernement défend la décision des agriculteurs qui ont choisi la gestion de l'offre. Nous avons défendu cette décision ici et à l'échelon international. Western Canadian wheat farmers do not have supply management. They are looking for options. This government will always respect their choices and make sure the choices are available to our farmers.
Robillard asks the Prime Minister what specific measures he intends to take to control firearms in Canada, four weeks after he stated in the House that he wanted to analyze the situation and reduce accessibility to firearms following the Dawson College tragedy.
Cites specific public commitments made by the Prime Minister in the House after the Dawson College tragedy and asks a clear time-bound question about concrete action four weeks later.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le gouvernement minoritaire conservateur ignore encore une fois le consensus quĂ©bĂ©cois. Il y a quelques semaines, un jeune du CollĂšge Dawson a demandĂ© au premier ministre de renforcer le contrĂŽle des armes Ă feu. Hier, c'Ă©tait au tour des parents de la jeune Anastasia de lancer le mĂȘme message. AprĂšs la tragĂ©die, le premier ministre a affirmĂ© dans cette Chambre vouloir analyser la situation et rĂ©duire l'accessibilitĂ© aux armes Ă feu. Quatre semaines plus tard, peut-il nous dire comment il entend contrĂŽler les armes Ă feu au Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative minority government is once again ignoring the consensus in Quebec. A few weeks ago, a young student at Dawson College asked the Prime Minister to strengthen gun control. Yesterday, the parents of young Anastasia sent the same message. After the tragedy, the Prime Minister stated in this House that he wants to look at the situation and make it harder to have access to firearms. Now, four weeks later, can he tell us how he intends to control firearms in Canada?
Day says the government is engaged in a consultation process with provincial ministers to improve the system and have an effective system that prevents tragedies like the one at Dawson College.
Day engages the topic of gun control improvement but provides only a process answer about consultations with provincial ministers, without specifying any concrete measures four weeks after the commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous voulons un systÚme plus efficace que le systÚme qui était en place sous l'ancien régime libéral. C'est pourquoi nous avons demandé tous les faits. Nous sommes maintenant engagés dans le processus de consultation avec le ministre de la province de Québec et les ministres des autres provinces afin d'améliorer le processus, en vue d'avoir un systÚme efficace, qui préviendra les tragédies comme celle qui a frappé le CollÚge Dawson.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we want a system that is more effective than the one that was in place under the former Liberal government. This is why we have asked for all the facts. We are now engaged in a consultation process with the Quebec provincial minister and with the ministers from the other provinces to improve the process, so as to have a system that is effective and that will prevent tragedies such as the one that occurred at Dawson College.
Robillard asks whether the Prime Minister will abandon his project to weaken gun control and respect the choices of Quebecers, citing Jean Charest's call to consider tragedies prevented by the firearms registry.
References Jean Charest's specific intervention about the firearms registry and poses a direct ask about abandoning weakening of gun control, but mixes this with rhetorical framing about silencing groups.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, jour aprÚs jour, le gouvernement minoritaire fait la sourde oreille. Il a pris l'habitude d'ignorer et de faire taire les groupes qui ne sont pas d'accord avec lui. Hier, Jean Charest a interpellé le gouvernement conservateur en lui demandant de réfléchir à toutes les tragédies évitées grùce au registre des armes à feu. Le premier ministre choisira-t-il enfin de représenter l'ensemble des citoyens de ce pays? Va-t-il abandonner son projet d'affaiblir le contrÎle des armes à feu? Va-t-il respecter le choix des Québécois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, day after day the minority government ignores the pleas made. It has made a habit of ignoring those groups that do not agree with it and of silencing them. Yesterday, Jean Charest called on the Conservative government to reflect on all the tragedies that were avoided thanks to the gun registry. Will the Prime Minister at last choose to represent all the citizens of this country? Will he give up his project to weaken gun control? Will he respect the choice made by Quebeckers?
Day says the government is at the stage of strengthening and improving the gun control process, that they will reflect on Charest's comment, and that they will continue to have an effective system to protect all citizens.
Day acknowledges Charest's comment and says the government will consider it, but does not address the specific question of whether the government will abandon its project to weaken gun control.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous sommes à l'étape de la fortification et de l'amélioration du processus de contrÎle des armes à feu. Une telle tragédie n'est pas acceptable. C'est pourquoi nous avons parlé au ministre québécois. Bien sûr, nous allons réfléchir sur le commentaire de M. Jean Charest, le premier ministre de la province de Québec, et nous continuerons à avoir un systÚme efficace, qui protégera tous nos citoyens et citoyennes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are at the stage of strengthening and improving the gun control process. Such a tragedy is unacceptable. This is why we have been in contact with the Quebec minister. We will of course reflect on the comment made by Quebec premier Jean Charest and we will continue to have in place a system that is effective and that will protect all our citizens.
Duceppe asks how the Prime Minister explains that after seven months his government has studied nothing and delivered nothing for older workers, and that all it proposes is a retraining program with no income support measures, contrary to commitments in the Speech from the Throne and the budget.
Specifically cites the Speech from the Throne, the budget commitment to income support measures and a feasibility study, and the previous day's plan, asking why after seven months nothing has been delivered beyond another feasibility study promise.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement s'est clairement engagé, dans le discours du TrÎne et dans le budget, à mettre en place des mesures de soutien au revenu pour les travailleurs ùgés. De plus, dans le budget, il a également promis qu'il procéderait à une étude de faisabilité relative aux mesures d'aide aux travailleurs. Or, hier, le gouvernement a déposé un plan d'aide ne contenant pas de mesures de soutien au revenu, et qui promet encore une fois de faire une étude de faisabilité. Comment le premier ministre explique-t-il qu'aprÚs sept mois, son gouvernement n'ait rien étudié, rien livré, et que tout ce qu'il ait à proposer aux travailleurs ùgés, c'est un programme de recyclage qui ne contient aucune mesure de soutien au revenu?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government made a clear commitment in the throne speech and the budget to introduce income support measures for older workers. It also promised in the budget that it would conduct a feasibility study of assistance measures for workers. But yesterday, the government tabled an assistance plan that includes no income support measures and that once again promises to conduct a feasibility study. How does the Prime Minister explain that after seven months, his government has studied nothing and delivered nothing and that all he has for older workers is a retraining program with no income support measures?
Harper states that the government proposed a $100 million plan for older workers in concert with the provinces and that the budget promise was kept, then pivots to saying the Bloc can never do anything on this file.
Harper cites a $100 million plan developed with the provinces and claims the budget promise was kept, but does not address the specific discrepancy between the commitment to income support measures and the absence of such measures in the plan tabled the previous day.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je n'accepte pas du tout la critique du chef du Bloc québécois. De concert avec les provinces, ce gouvernement a proposé un plan de 100 millions de dollars pour les travailleurs ùgés. Cette promesse faite dans le budget a été respectée. Ce gouvernement a donc tenu sa promesse, mais le problÚme, c'est que le Bloc québécois ne pourra jamais faire quoi que ce soit dans ce dossier.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely refuse to accept the criticism from the Bloc Québécois leader. In cooperation with the provinces, this government has proposed a $100 million plan for older workers. The commitment made in the budget has been honoured. This government has kept its promise. The problem is that the Bloc Québécois will never be able to do anything about this issue.
Duceppe asks how the Prime Minister can act this way with a $13 billion surplus while giving $250 million in annual tax gifts to oil companies and nothing to unemployed workers, noting the plan is rejected by the CSN, the FTQ, and Quebec's Minister of Employment and Social Solidarity.
References CSN, FTQ, and Quebec's Minister of Employment's specific criticism of the plan as not being close to reality, and cites the $13 billion surplus and $250 million in annual tax gifts to oil companies, but the question devolves into extended rhetoric before being cut off.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce premier ministre est au pouvoir, et il se sert du pouvoir pour aider les pétroliÚres, et il ne fait rien pour les chÎmeurs. Telle est la réalité. C'est pourquoi son plan d'aide est rejeté par tout le monde au Québec: par la CSN, par la FTQ et par la ministre l'Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale du Québec qui, ce matin, jugeait que le programme d'aide n'était « pas trÚs prÚs de la réalité ». Comment peut-il agir ainsi avec 13 milliards de dollars de surplus? Compte tenu des 250 millions de cadeaux fiscaux accordés annuellement aux pétroliÚres, on comprend bien qui il sert avec son pouvoir: ses amies, les pétroliÚres. Et il n'accorde rien aux chÎmeurs. C'est ce qu'il devrait dire. Ce ministre a vendu...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister is in power, and he is using that power to help the oil companies. He is doing nothing to help the unemployed. That is the reality. That is why his assistance plan is being rejected by everyone in Quebec: the CSN, the FTQ and Quebec's minister of employment and social solidarity, who said this morning that the assistance program was ânot very realisticâ. How can he act this way with a $13 billion surplus? With the $250 million in tax breaks given annually to the oil companies, we can see who he is serving with his power: his friends, the oil companies. And he is doing nothing for the unemployed. That is what he should be saying. This minister has soldâ
Bernier claims the government has information that the Quebec government wants to benefit from the program, then accuses the Bloc of never being satisfied because its mission is to destroy the country.
Bernier does not address the specific criticisms from the CSN, FTQ, or Quebec's minister, but claims the Quebec government wants to benefit from the program, then pivots to attacking the Bloc's separatist mission.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous n'avons pas les mĂȘmes informations de ce cĂŽtĂ©-ci de la Chambre que du cĂŽtĂ© du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois. Nous avons des informations selon lesquelles le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec veut profiter de ce programme et profitera Ă©galement de celui que nous mettons sur pied pour les travailleurs quĂ©bĂ©cois. Telle est l'information que nous avons aujourd'hui. Toutefois, j'aimerais rappeler que le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois ne sera jamais satisfait de tout ce que ce gouvernement a fait. Car nous sommes un gouvernement qui respecte la Constitution canadienne, alors que la mission du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois est de dĂ©truire ce pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House do not have the same information as the Bloc Québécois does. Our information indicates that the Government of Quebec wants to take advantage of this program and will also take advantage of the program we are setting up for Quebec workers. That is the information we have today. However, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois will never be happy with everything this government has done, because we are a government that abides by Canada's constitution, whereas the mission of the Bloc Québécois is to destroy this country.
Gauthier asks why a government decision to grant a $250 million subsidy to oil companies requires only two budget lines while nothing is done for older workers, and challenges whether it is realistic to expect a 59-year-old sawmill worker to retrain and re-enter the labour market.
Poses a pointed and concrete challenge about the realism of retraining a 59-year-old sawmill worker with 40 years of experience, and contrasts this with the $250 million oil company subsidy requiring only two budget lines, but combines two distinct points without a single sharp ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la mission de ce gouvernement, c'est de prendre soin des citoyens les plus mal pris et, hier, il a failli Ă la tĂąche. Ne faut-il pas ĂȘtre dĂ©connectĂ© de la rĂ©alitĂ© pour penser qu'un travailleur de scierie, qui a passĂ© 40 ans de sa vie dans une scierie, peut se recycler et rĂ©intĂ©grer le marchĂ© du travail Ă l'Ăąge de 59 ans, grĂące Ă un programme comme celui proposĂ© par le gouvernement? Pourquoi une dĂ©cision du gouvernement d'attribuer une subvention de 250 millions de dollars aux pĂ©troliĂšres requiert-elle seulement deux lignes dans le budget, alors que pour les travailleurs c'est toujours impossible?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the mission of this government is to care for the most unfortunate among us, and yesterday it failed in that task. Does someone not have to be disconnected from reality to think that a sawmill worker who has spent 40 years of his life in a sawmill is going to be able to get retrained and re-enter the labour market at the age of 59, under a program like the one the government is proposing? Why does a government decision to give oil companies $250 million call for just two lines in the budget, but it is always impossible to do something for workers?
Bernier says the government trusts older workers and that the Mouvement des aßnés du Québec confirmed today that it is essential to support workers aged 55 and over, which is what the government is doing.
Bernier cites the Mouvement des aßnés du Québec's support for the program but does not address the specific question of whether retraining is realistic for older workers or the contrast with oil company subsidies.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, contrairement au Bloc québécois, nous faisons confiance aux travailleurs et aux travailleurs ùgés. C'est pour cette raison que nous avons élaboré un programme qui répond à leurs besoins. C'est tellement vrai que le Mouvement des aßnés du Québec nous a dit aujourd'hui qu'il est essentiel de soutenir les travailleurs de 55 ans et plus, et c'est ce que nous faisons. L'heure de la retraite n'a pas encore sonné pour plusieurs travailleurs ùgés au Québec. Ces gens veulent encore participer à la vie économique du Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Bloc Québécois, we have confidence in workers, and in older workers. That is why we have developed a program that meets their needs. The truth of this is demonstrated by the fact that the Mouvement des aßnés du Québec told us today that it is essential that we support workers who are 55 and over, and that is what we are doing. The retirement bell has not yet rung for many older workers in Quebec. These people still want to participate in the economic life of Canada.
Gauthier asks how the government can justify hundreds of millions of dollars for oil companies while denying a few million dollars for the dignity of older workers who built what Canada has today, citing workers in Montmagny who made 25-30 job applications and were told they were too old.
Offers a concrete anecdote about Whirlpool workers in Montmagny making 25-30 job applications and being told they are too old, making a human-interest case, but the ask is rhetorical and not a specific policy question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce ministre est complĂštement dĂ©connectĂ© de la rĂ©alitĂ©. J'ai rencontrĂ© les travailleurs de la Whirpool Ă Montmagny, durant la campagne Ă©lectorale, des travailleurs qui ont fait 25, 30 ou 40 demandes d'emploi et qui se sont fait dire: « Je regrette, vous ĂȘtes trop vieux. » Comment le gouvernement peut-il justifier qu'il y ait des centaines de millions de dollars pour ses amies, les pĂ©troliĂšres, et pas quelques millions de dollars pour la dignitĂ© des travailleurs ĂągĂ©s qui ont bĂąti ce qu'on a aujourd'hui?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this minister is completely disconnected from reality. I met the Whirlpool workers in Montmagny during the election campaign, workers who have sent out 25 or 30 or 40 job applications and been told âI am sorry, you are too oldâ. How can the government justify having hundreds of millions of dollars for its friends the oil companies, and not have a few million dollars to preserve the dignity of the older workers who have built what we have today?
Bernier claims the government delivered the program the Bloc asked for in the budget targeting older workers in difficult regions of Quebec, and accuses the Bloc of opposing all government action because its goal is secession.
Bernier claims the government delivered what the Bloc asked for in the budget regarding a program for older workers in difficult regions, but does not address the specific situation of workers in Montmagny or the income support gap, then pivots to attacking the Bloc's separatist mission.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, le Bloc québécois parle, parle et parle. Lors du budget, le Bloc québécois disait qu'il voulait un programme pour cibler et aider les travailleurs ùgés dans les régions difficiles au Québec; c'est ce que nous avons livré. Maintenant, que nous dit-il? C'est sûr que le Bloc québécois est contre toute action de ce gouvernement qui prÎne un fédéralisme d'ouverture et qui croit au respect des compétences, puisque le but du Bloc est d'avoir la sécession au Québec.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Bloc Québécois talks and talks and talks. When the budget was debated, the Bloc Québécois said that it wanted a program to target and assist older workers in regions of Quebec where there was hardship; that is what we have delivered. What are they telling us now? Obviously the Bloc Québécois will oppose everything done by this government, which advocates open federalism and believes in respecting jurisdictions, because the goal of the Bloc is Quebec's secession.
Layton asks the Prime Minister to admit that his intensity-based targets plan, which he alleges was conceived in Washington, will increase pollution rather than reduce it, while hundreds of millions of dollars go to big oil and gas companies.
References intensity-based targets and the allegation that the approach was conceived in Washington, framing a pointed question about pollution increases, but the ask is somewhat rhetorical and the factual claims are asserted without documentary citation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister, just like the Liberals before him, while he was quietly slipping hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of the big oil and gas companies let it slip that, just like the Liberals before him, he is going to break his promise on reducing pollution. Canadians know that with these so-called intensity based targets, pollution does not go down. It goes up. It turns out that the Prime Minister has actually produced what he likes to call a made in Canada plan that was really conceived in Washington, a Washington based approach to increase pollution and make the air dirtier right here in Canada. Will the Prime Minister admit what he is doing?
Harper refuses to admit the premise, tells Layton to wait and see the government's proposals, and deflects by referencing the NDP's handling of the government's budget.
Harper flatly refuses to admit the premise and tells Layton to wait for the government's proposals, without engaging with the substance of intensity-based targets or the Washington-based approach allegation, then deflects to the NDP budget.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, of course I will not admit that. I would urge the hon. member and leader of the NDP to actually wait and see the government's proposals to see that everything he said is completely wrong and without foundation. The hon. member likes to talk about money slipping by him. As I recall, that is exactly what happened to the government's budget. It was a good budget and we are proud of it.
Layton asks whether Canadians will finally get something other than empty words from the Prime Minister, characterizing the government's bill as a delaying measure that will not reduce pollution or combat climate change.
Characterizes the government's bill as a delaying measure that will not reduce pollution, but the question is largely rhetorical and does not specify which bill or provide evidence for its claims.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again the Prime Minister's solution to pollution is to say to all Canadians âhold your breathâ. We will see what happens with that bill tomorrow. On a besoin d'une volontĂ© politique. Le projet de loi du gouvernement est une mesure dilatoire. C'est une perte de temps. Cela ne rĂ©duira pas la pollution, et le premier ministre le sait. On peut prendre maintenant les mesures pour rĂ©duire la pollution, pour combattre les changements climatiques. Aura-t-on finalement autre chose que du vent de la part du premier ministre?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, encore une fois, la solution du premier ministre pour lutter contre la pollution consiste Ă demander aux Canadiens de « retenir leur souffle ». Nous allons voir demain ce que contiendra ce projet de loi. We need some political will. The governmentâs bill is a stalling tactic. It is a waste of time. It will not reduce pollution, and the Prime Minister knows it. We can take action now to reduce pollution and to combat climate change. Will we ever hear anything but hot air from the Prime Minister?
Harper asserts that the government's actions will reduce pollution and that it is the first plan presented in Parliament to reduce pollutants in Canada, noting that Layton condemns the bill before seeing it.
Harper asserts that the government's actions will reduce pollution and calls it the first plan presented in Parliament to reduce pollutants, but does not provide specifics or address the delaying-measure characterization.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les actions de ce gouvernement vont réduire la pollution. C'est le premier plan présenté dans ce Parlement pour réduire les polluants au Canada. Le fait que le chef du NPD dénonce le projet de loi avant de le voir indique qu'on ne peut pas croire en ses paroles.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the actions taken by this government will reduce pollution. This is the first plan that has been introduced in this Parliament to reduce pollutants in Canada. The fact that the leader of the NDP is denouncing this bill before seeing it shows that we cannot have any faith in what he says.
D'Amours asks whether the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages understands that the future of minority communities is at stake and that maintaining their rights is essential, citing the elimination of the Court Challenges Program and the minister's accusation that minorities 'live in the past'.
Cites specific actions â the elimination of the Court Challenges Program and accusations that the Minister for la Francophonie called minority communities people who 'live in the past' â and poses a clear question about community rights, though it is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on pourrait s'attendre à ce qu'un gouvernement minoritaire soit bien placé pour comprendre les minorités linguistiques, mais il est clair que ce n'est pas le cas. AprÚs avoir massacré le Programme de contestation judiciaire et avoir étouffé la voix des communautés francophones, la ministre de la Francophonie et des Langues officielles a versé de l'huile sur le feu en accusant les minorités de « vivre dans le passé ». La ministre ne comprend-elle pas que c'est de l'avenir de nos communautés qu'il est question et que celui-ci passe par le maintien de nos droits?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, one might think that a minority government would be inclined to show some understanding for linguistic minorities, but that is clearly not the case. After having massacred the court challenges program and stifled the voice of francophone communities, the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages poured oil on the fire by accusing minorities of living in the past. Does the minister not understand that the future of our communities is at stake here and it depends on the preservation of our rights?
Verner says her remarks must be understood in full context, that she was referring to her government's forward-looking approach, and asks the Liberals to justify $100 million in cuts to minority community budgets between 1993 and 1999.
Verner claims her remarks were taken out of context and pivots to the Liberal government's $100 million cuts to minority community budgets between 1993 and 1999, without substantively addressing the question about community rights and the future.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il est bien important de comprendre l'ensemble de mes propos. Si le député avait pris la peine de lire la transcription, il aurait vu que je faisais référence à l'approche de notre gouvernement, qui est de regarder vers l'avenir pour assurer l'épanouissement des communautés. Si le député veut regarder en arriÚre, il faudrait qu'il justifie aux communautés comment les libéraux ont fait, entre 1993 et 1999, pour couper 100 millions de dollars dans leurs budgets.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is very important to understand all that I said. If the hon. member had taken the time to read the transcript, he would have seen that I was referring to our governmentâs approach, which is to look to the future to ensure that the communities continue to thrive. If the hon. member wants to look to the past, he should explain to the communities why the Liberals cut $100 million from their budgets between 1993 and 1999.
D'Amours asks what the minister's response is to all minority communities in the country demanding the maintenance of the Court Challenges Program, citing the FCFA's call and the SAANB's letter to the government.
Cites specific organizations â the FCFA and the SAANB â and their specific demands for the maintenance of the Court Challenges Program, and poses a direct question about how the minister responds to all minority communities calling for the program's maintenance.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pendant que le ministre des Transports, de lâInfrastructure et des CollectivitĂ©s se dĂ©siste pour rencontrer les maires et conseillers Ă la rĂ©union des municipalitĂ©s francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick, la ministre de la Francophonie et des Langues officielles veut Ă©touffer la voix des communautĂ©s acadiennes. N'a-t-elle pas entendu l'appel lancĂ© par la FCFA pour exiger le maintien du Programme de contestation judiciaire? N'a-t-elle pas lu la lettre de la SAANB envoyĂ©e Ă son gouvernement, demandant le maintien du programme? Que rĂ©pond la ministre Ă toutes les communautĂ©s minoritaires du pays qui rĂ©clament le maintien du Programme de contestation judiciaire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities declined to meet with the mayors and councillors at the conference of francophone municipalities of New Brunswick, the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages is trying to stifle the voice of the Acadian communities. Has she not heard the appeal from the FCFA demanding that the court challenges program be maintained? Has she not read the letter that the SAANB sent to her government asking that the program be preserved? How does the minister answer all the minority communities across the country that are demanding that the court challenges program be kept?
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
DĂ©mission!
Hansard translation: Resign!
Verner lists her government's actions including education agreements worth over $1 billion with each province, service agreements for $64 million, a francophone immigration plan, and $660,000 in financial support to the FCFA for a Sommet de la Francophonie canadienne, without addressing the Court Challenges Program specifically.
Verner lists a series of actions taken in her mandate â education agreements worth over $1 billion, service agreements for $64 million, community agreements, a francophone immigration plan, and $660,000 to the FCFA â without addressing the specific demand to maintain the Court Challenges Program.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, voici ce que notre gouvernement et moi avons fait en quelques mois. J'ai signĂ©, avec chaque province, des ententes en Ă©ducation de plus d'un milliard de dollars et des ententes de services pour un total de 64 millions de dollars. J'ai signĂ© des ententes avec les communautĂ©s. RĂ©cemment, avec mon collĂšgue le ministre de la CitoyennetĂ© et de lâImmigration, j'ai annoncĂ© un plan pour favoriser l'immigration francophone. VoilĂ ce que nous avons fait.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is what our government and I have done in just a few months time. I have signed education agreements with every province worth more than a billion dollars and agreements for services worth a total of $64 million. I have signed agreements with the communities. Recently, I joined forces with my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to announce a plan to encourage francophone immigration. That is what we have done.
Monsieur le Président, nous en avons fait beaucoup et je n'avais pas terminé. La semaine derniÚre, j'ai annoncé un appui financier de 660 000 $ à la Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne pour la tenue d'un sommet de la Francophonie canadienne.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have done an awful lot and I had not even finished. Last week, I announced $660,000 in financial support for the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne to hold a summit of the Canadian Francophonie.
Stronach asks the minister responsible how it feels to be the person who eliminated equality as a benchmark for Canadian women, on the anniversary of Persons Day.
Uses the occasion of Persons Day to pose a pointed question about the removal of equality from the Status of Women mandate, but the framing around the Minister of Environment's bumper sticker is rhetorical and the question is directed at making a political point rather than seeking specific information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment drives a car with a bumper sticker which says, âA woman's place is in the house, the senate and the oval officeâ. That is a great sentiment if we were all Americans, but it is too bad that she did not advocate for rights and equality for Canadian women within her own cabinet. In fact, the six women in cabinet sat back, said and did nothing, while equality was dropped as part of this government's mandate. On the anniversary of Persons Day I ask the minister responsible this question. How does it feel to be the person who eliminated equality as a benchmark for Canadian women?
Oda says her government understands that not all women have equal opportunity and will address that issue, denies cutting the women's program budget as the Liberals did three times in the last decade, and criticizes the Liberal caucus for boys' weekends.
Oda does not address the removal of equality from the mandate, instead claiming the government addresses unequal opportunity, denying budget cuts, and attacking the Liberal Party for boys' weekends, all of which deflect from the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government is made up of caucus members who understand that not all women have equal opportunity and therefore we will address that issue. This government did not cut, as the previous Liberal government did, the women's program budget three times in the last decade, and this government does not have a caucus that has boys' weekends to make up its policies.
Stronach asks the minister to send a strong signal to Canadian women on Persons Day by reversing her decision to cut equality from the mandate of the Status of Women.
Poses a clear ask on Persons Day â that the minister reverse her decision to cut equality from the mandate of the Status of Women â with reference to the CIDA minister's shared views on minority rights, though it is framed more rhetorically than analytically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that answer will satisfy Canadian women. On a day that we should be celebrating progress in the area of women's rights, there is a black cloud over it because the government does not believe in women's equality and does not even want to hear their progressive voices. The CIDA minister and the Minister responsible for the Status of Women apparently share the views that minority rights do not deserve protection. Will the minister send a strong signal to Canadian women on this very important day and reverse her decision to cut equality from the mandate of the Status of Women?
Oda does not address the request to reverse the decision, but instead makes a personal attack on Stronach for doing little with her opportunities as the most powerful businesswoman in Canada and for the absence of female representation on Magna's board.
Oda does not address the request to reverse the decision to cut equality from the mandate, instead making a personal attack on Stronach's record as a businesswoman and the absence of female representation on Magna's board.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I shared with you an experience this morning of honouring some very significant women and in fact these women are with us today. I would suggest that the member opposite who had the opportunities, at one time being recognized as the most powerful businesswoman in Canada, did very little about it. Consequently, when we look at her board at Magna, there is no female representation on that board.
Does the government recognize that its new program, limited to localities of 250,000 people and fewer, will be useless for hundreds of workers laid off in large centres like Montréal and Québec City?
The question cites specific companies (Wolverine à Montréal, Chaussures Régence à Québec) and the concrete 250,000-population threshold to ask whether the government recognizes that hundreds of workers in large centres are excluded from the program.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, non seulement le programme annoncĂ© hier n'est pas un vĂ©ritable programme de soutien au revenu pour les travailleurs ĂągĂ©s, mais il est limitĂ© aux localitĂ©s de 250 000 personnes et moins, ce qui exclut d'emblĂ©e les travailleurs qui ont perdu leur emploi chez Wolverine Ă MontrĂ©al, par exemple, ou encore ceux de la fabrique Chaussures RĂ©gence Ă QuĂ©bec, dans le comtĂ© de Charlesbourg. Le gouvernement se rend-il compte que son prĂ©tendu programme de soutien ne sera d'aucun secours pour des centaines de travailleurs qui auront eu la mauvaise fortune d'avoir Ă©tĂ© mis Ă pied dans un grand centre oĂč le programme ne s'appliquera pas?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, not only is the program announced yesterday not a real income support program for older workers, but it is also limited to localities with populations of 250,000 or less. Straight off this excludes workers who lost their jobs at Wolverine in Montreal, for example, or the factory workers at RĂ©gence shoes in Quebec City, in Charlesbourg riding. Does the government realize that its supposed support program will not be of any help to hundreds of workers who have the misfortune of being laid off in a major centre where the program will not apply?
The minister ignored the geographic exclusion question and instead challenged the Bloc's consistency by quoting a Bloc MP who called the program good the previous day.
The minister deflects entirely by quoting a Bloc MP's contradictory statement from the day before rather than addressing the geographic exclusion threshold raised in the question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je cherche encore la position du Bloc québécois par rapport à la nouvelle initiative que nous avons annoncée hier. En effet, hier, le député du Bloc québécois de Sherbrooke a dit, et je le cite: Ce programme représente un gain pour l'industrie forestiÚre et pour l'industrie du textile. C'est un bon programme. Aujourd'hui, le Bloc québécois est contre le programme. Quelle est la position du Bloc?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am still trying to figure out the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois position on this new initiative that we announced yesterday. In fact yesterday the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois member for Sherbrooke said, and I quote: This program gains something for the forestry industry and the textile industry. It is a good program. Today the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois is against the program. What is the Blocâs position?
What reasons will the government give to workers at Cardinal in MontrĂ©al â women over 55, many immigrants with limited French and English and limited schooling â to explain that the program is both inadequate and inaccessible to them?
The question is grounded with a specific example (compagnie de vĂȘtements Cardinal, MontrĂ©al) and a specific worker profile (55+, immigrants, limited education) to challenge the adequacy and applicability of the program.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je vous donne l'exemple de la compagnie de vĂȘtements Cardinal, de MontrĂ©al, oĂč des centaines de travailleuses ont Ă©tĂ© mises Ă pied. Ce sont de bonnes couturiĂšres qui ont plus de 55 ans, et beaucoup d'entre elles sont des immigrantes qui ont une connaissance sommaire du français et de l'anglais, en plus d'une scolaritĂ© limitĂ©e. Quelles raisons le gouvernement va-t-il avancer pour expliquer Ă ces travailleuses que non seulement le programme est inadĂ©quat, mais qu'en plus, elles n'y ont pas droit?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I give you the example of the Cardinal clothing company, where hundreds of workers were laid off. These are good seamstresses who are over 55 years old and many of them are immigrants with only a limited knowledge of French or English and a limited education. What reasons is the government going to put forward to explain to these workers that not only is the program inadequate, but also that they are not eligible for it?
The minister explained the two main program criteria (age 55â64 and being in a region in difficulty) and said provinces, including QuĂ©bec, will decide which communities benefit.
The minister offers a partial explanation of the program's two main criteria and mentions provincial collaboration, but does not directly address why Cardinal workers in Montréal would or would not qualify, or explain the program's adequacy for workers with the described profile.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est mal comprendre le programme que nous avons annoncĂ© hier. C'est bien simple. On nous a demandĂ© un programme pour les personnes ĂągĂ©es, pour aider les travailleurs ĂągĂ©s en rĂ©gion. C'est ce que nous avons fait. Il y a deux critĂšres importants: avoir entre 55 et 64 ans et ĂȘtre dans une rĂ©gion en difficultĂ©. Tous les autres critĂšres seront discutĂ©s en collaboration avec les provinces, dont le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec. C'est ce dernier qui va dĂ©cider quelle communautĂ© bĂ©nĂ©ficiera de ce programme. Nous croyons aux provinces, contrairement au Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is a misunderstanding of the program that we announced yesterday. It is very simple. We were asked for a program for older people, to help older workers in the regions. That is what we did There are two key criteria: be between 55 and 64 and be in a hard-hit region. All the other criteria will be discussed in cooperation with the provinces, including Quebec. The Government of Quebec will decide which community will benefit from this program. We believe in the provinces, unlike the Bloc Québécois.
Does the minister realize that for a worker who spent 40 years in a textile factory without a diploma, the reality ahead often amounts to a choice between social assistance andâŠ(question cut off)?
The question raises a real concern about workers with 40 years in a factory and no diploma facing a choice between social assistance and nothing, but is cut off before the full ask, making it incomplete and partially rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le programme annoncĂ© hier ne sera d'aucune utilitĂ© pour vraiment aider les travailleurs. La ministre se fait des illusions. Quand on a plus de 55 ans et qu'on a passĂ© l'essentiel de sa vie dans une usine de textile, c'est presque impossible. La ministre de la CoopĂ©ration internationale et ministre de la Francophonie et des Langues officielles peut bien inviter les travailleurs Ă ne plus regarder derriĂšre mais plutĂŽt devant, cela ne changera rien Ă leur rĂ©alitĂ©. La ministre se rend-elle compte que si on perd son emploi aprĂšs avoir passĂ© 40 ans dans la mĂȘme entreprise, sans dĂ©tenir un diplĂŽme, tout ce qu'on a devant, c'est souvent le choix entre l'aide sociale...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the program announced yesterday will not be of any use in truly helping the workers. The Minister is fooling herself. When you are over 55 and you have spent the better part of your life in a textile factory, it is almost impossible. The Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for La Francophonie and Official Languages can go ahead and urge workers not to look back anymore, but to look ahead all she wants. It will not change a thing. Does the minister realize that if you lose your job after spending 40 years with the same company, without a diploma, the only thing ahead of you is often a choice between welfareâ
The minister accused the Bloc of claiming people over 55 can no longer contribute to society, and asserted confidence that a 55-year-old deserves to work and deserves support to find employment.
The minister attacks the Bloc for allegedly saying 55-year-olds can no longer contribute to society and appeals to the Mouvement des aßnés du Québec, without addressing the substantive concern about workers with no diploma facing limited options.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Bloc québécois s'acharne à dire que les personnes de 55 ans et plus ne peuvent plus contribuer à la société canadienne. Ce n'est pas ce que le Mouvement des aßnés du Québec nous a dit. Ces gens peuvent participer à la société canadienne, et j'ai confiance dans les gens, dans les individus, et je sais qu'une personne de 55 ans mérite de travailler et mérite notre soutien pour trouver un emploi.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is trying to say that people 55 and older can no longer contribute to Canadian society. This is not what the Mouvement des aßnés du Québec is saying. Those individuals can take part in Canadian society. I have confidence in people, in individuals, and I know that people over 55 deserve to work and deserve our support to find work.
Can the minister tell the hundreds of forestry workers in Gaspésie who recently lost their jobs how the program will help them retrain, and specifically retrain into what?
The question specifies a concrete context (forestry workers in Gaspésie, single-industry regions) and asks precisely what the program will help workers retrain for, pressing the minister on the 'into what' detail.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, beaucoup de travailleurs qui sont victimes de licenciements massifs se retrouvent dans des rĂ©gions qui dĂ©pendent d'une seule industrie: par exemple, la forĂȘt, la pĂȘche ou les mines. Dans un tel contexte, le recyclage devient difficile, sinon impossible. La ministre des Ressources humaines et du DĂ©veloppement social peut-elle dire aux centaines de travailleurs forestiers de la GaspĂ©sie, qui ont rĂ©cemment perdu leur emploi, comment son supposĂ© programme va les aider Ă se recycler et surtout dans quoi? Dans quoi, madame la ministre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, many workers who are victims of mass layoffs live in regions that rely on a single industry such as forestry, fisheries or mines. In that context, retraining is difficult, if not impossible. Can the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development tell the hundreds of forestry workers in the Gaspé Peninsula, who recently lost their jobs, how her program is supposed to help them retrain and for what? What will they be retrained for, Minister?
The minister stated that the government has launched a program for older workers and that it will work with the province of Québec, which will decide which communities benefit.
The minister only reaffirms that a program exists and that the province of Québec will decide which communities benefit, without answering the specific question of what retraining options are available for forestry workers in single-industry regions.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous disons aujourd'hui à l'ensemble des travailleurs ùgés, dont ceux de la Gaspésie, que nous avons mis sur pied un programme. En collaboration avec la province de Québec, nous allons respecter ses priorités et la province décidera quelle communauté bénéficiera du programme.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today we are telling all older workers, including those in the Gaspé Peninsula, that we have implemented a program. We will work together with the province of Quebec and we will respect its priorities. The province will decide which community will benefit from the program.
Given the minister's own past statement that cuts to fisheries would be 'devastating,' why is he now cutting $100 million affecting 200 jobs as shown in departmental estimates?
The question cites a specific prior public statement by the minister when in opposition ($20 million figure, exact quote) and contrasts it with departmental estimates showing $100 million in cuts affecting 200 jobs, making a pointed accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was the fisheries critic, he said in the House, âThe department has been asked to find up to $20 million. This means devastating cuts. The government cannot giveth and then taketh awayâ. The departmental estimates now prove he is cutting $100 million, affecting 200 jobs in fisheries. Why will the minister not use the money to give instead of taking away?
The minister said the figures cited are interim estimates with no reality to the actual budget, accused the member of reading NDP press releases, and asserted that the budget will not be cut.
The minister dismisses the figures as interim estimates with no reality to the upcoming budget, characterizes the source as an NDP press release, and pledges no cuts â but does not address the specific $100 million figure or the 200 jobs mentioned.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know and does know that he should not be reading NDP published press releases because what he is talking about are interim figures that are tabled that have no reality to the budget that will be presented next spring. Our budget will not be cut. We are in the process of helping people, not hurting them. They had enough of that in years past.
The member began to ask about department cuts and custodial management but the question was cut off before it could be completed.
The question is almost entirely a theatrical flounder metaphor and was cut off before a substantive ask was completed, leaving virtually no factual content or clear question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is a fish off the Atlantic coast called the flounder. It is kind of a flat fish. When it swims and sees trouble, it flips, it flops, and it swims in the opposite direction.
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of flip, flop and flounder. Department cuts, also custodial management, when will he practise what he started to--
Oh, oh!
The minister referenced a committee trip to Newfoundland and mentioned an oversupply of shrimp as the biggest problem, without addressing any specific question.
The minister's response does not engage with any question asked, instead mentioning a committee trip to Newfoundland and a non-sequitur comment about shrimp oversupply.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I asked the member who ducked away from supporting our committee to go to Newfoundland so that we could hear what the people had to say and that we made the proper decisions in relation to the fishery. The biggest problem we have in Newfoundland is an oversupply of one fish. It is called the shrimp.
Will the fisheries minister commit to protecting aboriginal fishing rights, which are constitutional rights upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, in the face of the Prime Minister's announcement to eliminate race-based fisheries?
The question raises the Prime Minister's announcement to eliminate race-based fisheries, references the Supreme Court of Canada's upholding of constitutional aboriginal fishing rights, and asks for a commitment to protect those rights â reasonably specific but mixed with partisan rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker--
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, that is a bit of a whale of a tale, but there was shock among Canada's aboriginal peoples when the Prime Minister announced that he would eliminate race based fisheries. It is a page out of the Reform book. It is inflammatory and divisive. Yesterday the fisheries minister was confronted by a fellow MP for his government's handling of the west coast fishery. Having crushed Paul McCartney's relationship, is he now set on crushing Canada's relationship with aboriginal people? Will the fisheries minister commit to protecting aboriginal fishing rights, constitutional rights that have been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada?
The minister invited the member to consult aboriginal chiefs about the minister's work with them, without directly committing to protect aboriginal fishing rights or addressing the Prime Minister's announcement.
The minister deflects by inviting the member to ask aboriginal chiefs what they think of the minister's performance, without making any commitment regarding aboriginal fishing rights or addressing the Prime Minister's announcement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will gladly answer. I would ask my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador if he would talk to his friends and aboriginal families across the country, including the chiefs of many of the groups across this great country. He should ask them what they think of the performance of this minister and the work we are doing with them to make sure that we have a part as we move forward in the fisheries of this country.
Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans share the Prime Minister's opinion on race-based fisheries?
The question identifies a specific internal policy contradiction between the Prime Minister, Minister of Indian Affairs, Minister of Fisheries, and member for DeltaâRichmond East on aboriginal fisheries, and asks the minister directly whether he shares the Prime Minister's opinion â a clear, answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is his job; it may be mine later. Confronted with anger over the PM's assault on aboriginal fisheries, the Minister of Indian Affairs says not to worry. The fisheries minister too has tried to soften his leader's vicious and unwarranted attack. The Conservative Party policy on aboriginal fisheries depends on who one asks: the Prime Minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs , the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, or the member for DeltaâRichmond East. Let us get some clarity here. Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans share the Prime Minister's opinion of race based fisheries?
The minister asserted that fisheries policy is his responsibility, described a collaborative process bringing all players to the table, and said the Prime Minister and himself are in the one boat on this.
The minister claims full responsibility for fisheries policy and says everyone is 'in the one boat,' but does not specifically state whether he agrees with the Prime Minister's characterization of 'race based fisheries' or clarify the actual policy position.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is one person responsible for fisheries in this country and that is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Our policies are clear cut. There is one way to move ahead in this country. We take all the players that are involved, bring them around the table and make sure that they agree to a process that suits everybody. That is exactly what we are doing. The Prime Minister, myself and everybody else are in the one boat on this.
Can the minister inform the House on the status of the review by Mr. Roger Tassé that the government commissioned regarding the Toronto Port Authority?
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to inform the House on the status of the Tassé review, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities with regard to the Toronto Port Authority. Can the minister inform the House on the status of the review by Mr. Roger Tassé that this new government has commissioned?
The minister reported that Mr. Tassé submitted his report on October 16, that he is currently reviewing it, and that the government will make the report public once the review is complete.
The minister provides a concrete and informative answer: Mr. Tassé submitted his report on October 16, the minister is reviewing it, and he commits to making the report public once reviewed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House and all the members that on October 16, Mr. Tassé submitted his report on the findings of the Toronto Port Authority. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank Mr. Tassé for his extensive work in preparing this report. I will be reviewing the report and on completion of this review, I will be in a position to comment more fully. I can assure all Canadians that the government is open, accountable and transparent and will therefore make the report public, once I have reviewed the findings thoroughly.
Given that 68% of women and 62% of men who contributed to employment insurance still cannot access it, will the minister listen to workers and the unemployed and make the necessary changes?
The question cites specific statistics (68% of women and 62% of men who contributed to EI do not have access) and references the march from MontrĂ©al to Ottawa, and asks whether the minister will make changes â reasonably specific but somewhat broad.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, des travailleurs et des gens sans emploi ont marché de Montréal à Ottawa afin de dénoncer le programme d'assurance-emploi et le manque d'action des conservateurs. AprÚs des années de gouvernements libéraux et conservateurs, la situation est pire que jamais. C'est sur le dos des travailleurs que le gouvernement a fait le plus de surplus. Pourtant, 68 p. 100 des femmes et 62 p. 100 des hommes qui ont cotisé à l'assurance-emploi n'y ont toujours pas accÚs. La ministre écoutera-t-elle les travailleurs, les travailleuses et les sans-emploi pour faire les changements? La nécessité du programme est de...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, workers and unemployed individuals took part in a march from Montreal to Ottawa to protest the EI program and the Conservatives' inaction. Years of successive Liberal and Conservative governments have resulted in a situation that is worse than ever. The government has built up its largest surplus on the backs of workers. Yet, 68% of the women and 62% of the men who contributed to the EI fund are still being denied benefits. Will the minister listen to workers and the unemployed and make changes? The need for the programâ
The minister thanked the member for his work, acknowledged EI's complexity, and said the government is carefully reviewing all aspects to ensure it meets the needs of all Canadians, without committing to specific changes.
The minister thanks the member and acknowledges EI's complexity but offers no specific commitment or timeline for changes, essentially deferring action without addressing the access statistics cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for all the work that he has done on this issue. As he knows, employment insurance is extremely broad, extremely complex. Any changes that are to be made, we have to make sure that they do not affect some other part of EI in an adverse way. That is why we are slowly going through and making sure we pay due attention to all the various aspects of EI so that it meets the needs of all Canadians.
With 800,000 workers not qualifying for employment insurance and 1.4 million children living in poverty, what will the minister do to help workers with a fairer and more accessible EI program?
The question cites specific figures (800,000 workers not qualifying, 1.4 million children living in poverty) and links them to EI reform, asking what the minister will do for workers â substantive but somewhat rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce gouvernement a toujours une excuse pour justifier son manque d'engagement envers les personnes qui sont sans emploi et les travailleurs. Depuis 13 ans, les libĂ©raux et les conservateurs ont les mĂȘmes excuses inacceptables. Il y a 800 000 travailleurs ne se qualifient pas Ă l'assurance-emploi. De plus, 1,4 million d'enfants vivent dans la pauvretĂ©. Un programme d'assurance-emploi plus juste et accessible aiderait Ă rĂ©soudre cette situation. Hier, le gouvernement a prĂ©sentĂ© un programme qui ne viendra aucunement aider les travailleurs et les travailleuses. Rire des gens, c'est terminĂ©. Que fera la ministre pour aider les travailleurs et les travailleuses du pays?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government always finds some excuse to justify its lack of commitment to workers and the unemployed. The Liberals and the Conservatives have been giving the same unacceptable excuses for the past 13 years. We have 800,000 workers who do not qualify for employment insurance. Also 1.4 million children are living in poverty. A fairer and more accessible EI program would help address that. Yesterday, the government introduced a program that will do nothing to help workers. Enough already with laughing at people's expense. What is the minister going to do to help this country's workers?
The minister defended the program launched the previous day for displaced older workers and quoted the president of the CPQ endorsing the retraining approach, asserting the government will not write off older workers.
The minister references the program launched yesterday and quotes the president of the CPQ to defend the retraining approach, but does not address the 800,000 workers excluded from EI or the child poverty figure cited in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we launched our program yesterday, because we do care. We recognize the needs of older workers who have been displaced through circumstances beyond their control. I would like to quote the president of the CPQ who said yesterday about our new program: Entre recevoir un poisson et apprendre Ă pĂȘcher, le choix est clair. Il faut aider les travailleurs affectĂ©s Ă se recycler vers d'autres secteurs et le faire le plus vite possible. This government is not going to write off older workers. We are going to help them.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his written commitment that no province would lose out on equalization changes is worthless, given his current uncertainty on the Atlantic accords?
The question references a specific written commitment by the Prime Minister that no province would lose out on equalization changes, contrasts it with apparent waffling, and asks him to admit his signature is worthless â pointed but rhetorically framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in Atlantic Canada alarm bells are ringing over the government's waffling on the Atlantic accords. Back when they needed votes in Atlantic Canada, the Prime Minister said in writing that no province would lose out to the changes in equalization, but now suddenly, he is not so sure and neither is anybody else. Will the Prime Minister stand today in the House and admit that his signature is worthless?
The minister asserted that the government keeps its commitment on the Atlantic accord and described the ongoing consultation process with provinces, expecting discussions to continue through the end of the year and into budget 2007.
The minister asserts the government keeps its Atlantic accord commitment and describes the ongoing consultation process with provinces, but does not directly address the specific written commitment or the accusation of waffling.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike the government before us, we keep our commitments. We are keeping our commitment with respect to the Atlantic accord. We are also following the process that was outlined in the budget papers in 2006; that is, we are consulting with the provinces. The finance ministers have met. We have received and we are reviewing and studying the various reports that have been presented. These discussions continue. We expect them to continue through the end of this year and into the new year and look forward to budget 2007.
Are any Atlantic Conservative MPs willing to stand up for an Atlantic gateway initiative comparable to the Pacific gateway, or are they afraid of the same treatment as the member for Halton?
The question blends a reference to the Pacific gateway reannouncement with a rhetorical challenge to Atlantic Conservative MPs, and asks about an Atlantic gateway initiative â the ask is vague and mixed with partisan taunting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is just the latest in a long line of policy reversals by the government. The Prime Minister of Canada gave his word. If that cannot be honoured, what can? The government recently reannounced the Liberal Pacific gateway plan. It even used the same minister we did. Well Atlantic Canada is also a gateway to the world's richest markets. Atlantic Canadians know what the Prime Minister thinks of them, but are there any Atlantic Conservative MPs who will stand up for the Atlantic gateway, or are they afraid of getting the same treatment as the member for Halton?
The minister praised the Pacific gateway announcement and stated the government is committed to other initiatives, including some already-initiated funding, without specifying Atlantic gateway commitments.
The minister praises the Pacific gateway announcement and vaguely mentions funding for unspecified Atlantic initiatives, without addressing the specific Atlantic gateway ask or the question of whether Atlantic Conservative MPs will stand up.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member of the opposition is absolutely right in underlining the tremendous work that was undertaken by my colleague in announcing last week with the Prime Minister and the premier of the province of British Columbia the gateway and the corridors. We are also committed to the other initiatives in this country. As a matter of fact, we have already initiated some funding so that we can see this program and this project go forward.
How many more municipalities will the minority government blackmail and bully before handing over previously committed infrastructure funding, given the leaking of confidential documents on Ottawa's light rail contract?
The question cites a specific incident (leaking confidential documents on Ottawa's light rail contract), names two additional cases (Toronto waterfront revitalization, TTC contract), and asks how many more municipalities will face this treatment before infrastructure funding is released â reasonably specific but with rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week by having his staff leak confidential documents concerning Ottawa's signed light rail contract, the President of the Treasury Board inserted himself in a municipal election. Now he has his sights set on Toronto's waterfront revitalization project and a TTC contract. How many more municipalities across this country will this minority government blackmail and bully before it hands over previously committed infrastructure funding?
The minister said the government promised accountability, and cited Mayor David Miller's statement from Monday calling him a friend of Toronto as evidence of a good relationship with the city.
The minister pivots to accountability promises and invokes Mayor David Miller's positive remark from Monday without addressing the specific allegations of leaking confidential documents or the withholding of infrastructure funding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government promised to change the way Ottawa worked. We promised more accountability. People across the country felt the Liberal standard on accountability fell short. I do note that the relationship between the Government of Canada and the City of Toronto is working quite well. I am working quite well with the Mayor of Toronto, David Miller, who just on Monday said that I was a friend of Toronto.
Is it now government policy to breach confidentiality agreements, deny local democracy, use federal funding for blackmail, and interfere in municipal elections, as seen in the Ottawa light rail case?
The question raises specific concerns about breach of confidentiality agreements and interference in municipal elections, referencing an Ottawa Citizen article, but frames them as a compound rhetorical list rather than a single sharp ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board, if he had read an article in the Ottawa Citizen, would have seen âpeople thought that this was purely politicalâ when they were speaking about his actions in Ottawa. The new deal has become a raw deal and the minister responsible for infrastructure can do nothing about it. Is this the new government policy, to breach confidentiality agreements, deny local democracy, use federal funding for blackmail and interfere in municipal elections?
The minister cited an Ottawa Citizen quote praising the unprecedented scope of the investment as justifying endorsement, and an Ottawa Citizen headline from that morning stating the majority backed him on the light rail delay.
The minister counters by citing a different Ottawa Citizen quote endorsing the investment's scope and an Ottawa Citizen headline claiming majority support for his position, engaging the newspaper source but not directly addressing the confidentiality breach allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member for Kitchener Centre is obviously not reading the same stories in the Ottawa Citizen that I am reading. Here is what it said last week, âunprecedented scope of the investment...makes a final, ratifying endorsement entirely appropriateâ. An Ottawa Citizen headline this morning said that the majority backed me on the light rail delay.
Why did the government use the 13-billion-dollar surplus â including 2 billion from the caisse d'assurance-emploi â to pay down debt and give gifts to oil companies rather than undertake a real reform of the employment insurance system?
Cites a specific surplus figure of 13 milliards de dollars (including 2 milliards from the caisse d'assurance-emploi) and references the marchers, but the ask is compound and embedded in partisan framing about pétroliÚres.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au lieu d'utiliser les surplus de 13 milliards de dollars â dont 2 milliards de dollars viennent de la caisse d'assurance-emploi â pour procĂ©der Ă une vraie rĂ©forme du rĂ©gime, le gouvernement a prĂ©fĂ©rĂ© tout mettre sur la dette. Comment le gouvernement peut-il justifier auprĂšs des chĂŽmeurs, qui terminent aujourd'hui une longue marche vers la Colline parlementaire, qu'il prĂ©fĂšre se servir de ses milliards de dollars pour offrir de gĂ©nĂ©reux cadeaux Ă ses amies les pĂ©troliĂšres, plutĂŽt que d'apporter une vraie rĂ©forme du rĂ©gime de l'assurance-emploi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, instead of using the $13 billion surplusâwhich includes $2 billion from the employment insurance fundâto initiate real reforms, the government chose to put it all toward the debt. How can the government justify this to the unemployed people who ended their long march to Parliament Hill today? How can it explain that it would rather use its billions of dollars to give generous gifts to its oil company friends than to bring about real change to the employment insurance system?
The minister stated that EI surpluses go to general revenue, benefiting all Canadians and helping create jobs, without addressing the reform demand.
Finley acknowledges that surpluses go to general revenue but does not address the demand for a réforme du régime or the allegation about gifts to pétroliÚres, pivoting instead to vague job-creation benefits.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, any surpluses in the EI account go to general revenue. Those are shared by all Canadians. The benefits of that go to help all Canadians, not just those unemployed but to help create new jobs in the country as well. That is important to keep our country going and growing.
Is the government prepared to vote in favour of the two Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois bills â one to improve the employment insurance regime and one to create an autonomous caisse d'assurance-emploi?
Asks a pointed yes/no question about whether the government will vote in favour of two specific Bloc québécois bills (one to improve the regime and one to create an autonomous fund), grounding it in a concrete legislative ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la ministre sait-elle que cet argent appartient aux travailleurs et aux employeurs? L'attitude du gouvernement est incomprĂ©hensible. Il a abaissĂ© le taux des cotisations d'assurance-emploi pour aider ceux qui travaillaient. Il n'a rien fait pour ceux qui avaient vraiment besoin d'aide, ceux pour qui la caisse existe, c'est-Ă -dire les chĂŽmeurs. Si le gouvernement est tellement Ă court d'idĂ©es, est-il prĂȘt, au moins, Ă voter en faveur des deux projets de loi dĂ©posĂ©s par le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, l'un qui vise Ă bonifier le rĂ©gime et l'autre qui crĂ©e une caisse autonome de l'assurance-emploi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that this money belongs to workers and employers? The government's attitude is incomprehensible. It lowered employment insurance contributions to help workers. It did nothing for the people who really need help, the people for whom the fund exists: the unemployed. If the government is that short of ideas, will it at the very least support the two bills introduced by the Bloc Québécois, one to improve the EI system and the other to create an independent employment insurance fund?
The minister cited near-record low unemployment of 6.4% and announced a new program to help older workers participate in the workforce, without answering the question about the Bloc bills.
Finley does not address the two Bloc bills at all, instead pivoting to the 6.4% unemployment rate and the new older-workers program announced the previous day.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as a new government, we are reviewing every program in every department. What we have to recognize is that Canada has registered almost record low unemployment rates, 6.4% last month. That is a miraculous achievement. We have to focus on getting more people prepared and skilled and into the workforce. That is what we have to do. That is what we are focusing on. That is why we announced our new program yesterday to help older workers participate in the workforce, not pension them off and have them sitting outside. Let us let them contribute. Let us get everybody back to work.
Why is the minister hiding behind the Quebec government when Quebec minister Michelle Courchesne has said she is disappointed with the program, that it penalizes Montreal and Quebec, and that it is not a pre-retirement program?
References a specific named Quebec minister (Michelle Courchesne) and her quoted criticism that the program pénalise Montréal and pénalise Québec, giving it factual grounding, though the ask is partly rhetorical ('va-t-il l'admettre?').
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ma question s'adresse au ministre de lâIndustrie. Pourquoi essaie-t-il de se camoufler derriĂšre le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec? La ministre Michelle Courchesne vient de dĂ©clarer qu'elle est déçue du programme: il ne correspond pas du tout aux attentes des travailleurs, il pĂ©nalise MontrĂ©al, il pĂ©nalise QuĂ©bec et il n'est pas un programme de prĂ©retraite. Au fond, son programme n'est qu'un pansement sur la gangrĂšne, un pont vers l'aide sociale. Va-t-il l'admettre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. Why is he trying to hide behind the Quebec government? Minister Michelle Courchesne just said that she is disappointed with the program. It does not at all meet workers' expectations, it has an adverse impact on Montreal and Quebec City, and it is not an early retirement plan. In fact, his program is nothing but a band-aid solution to a serious problem, a bridge to welfare. Will the minister admit it?
Bernier contested Lapierre's information by claiming the Quebec government had just told him it would use the program and found it interesting, then attacked the previous Liberal government for having 76 priorities that did not address older workers.
Bernier disputes Lapierre's information by claiming the Quebec government told him otherwise at the same moment, then pivots to attacking the previous Liberal government's 76 priorities, without substantively addressing Courchesne's specific criticisms.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les informations que mon honorable collÚgue d'Outremont détient sont contredites par celles que nous avons eues du gouvernement du Québec. Celui-ci nous dit à l'instant qu'il va profiter du programme et que c'est un programme intéressant pour les travailleurs du Québec. J'aimerais demander à mon collÚgue d'Outremont qu'elles étaient leurs priorités? L'ancien gouvernement avait 76 priorités, juste avant la dissolution de la Chambre. Or aucune de ces 76 priorités ne touchaient les travailleurs ùgés.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the information that the hon. member for Outremont has is contradicted by what the Quebec government just told us moments ago, namely that it is going to take advantage of the program and that this is an interesting initiative for Quebec workers. I want to ask the hon. member for Outremont what his government's priorities were? The former government had 76 priorities just before the House was dissolved. However, none of these 76 priorities was related to older workers.
What representations has Canada made to the Chinese government following reports that Chinese border guards fired on about 70 unarmed Tibetans, killing a 17-year-old nun, and what measures are being taken to return detained children aged six to eight to their families?
Cites a specific incident involving approximately 70 unarmed Tibetans, a named victim category (17-year-old nun), and detained children aged six to eight, with a clear dual ask about representations made and measures to return the children.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is reported that Chinese border guards fired on a group of about 70 unarmed Tibetans who were attempting to cross the border from China into Nepal. A 17-year-old nun was killed. The guards also reportedly took some Tibetans into custody, mostly children aged six to eight. Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what representation has been made to the Chinese government and what measures are being taken to have these children returned to their families?
MacKay confirmed Canada formally raised concerns, strongly condemned the act as an egregious violation of human rights, called on China to conduct a full independent investigation, punish those responsible, and release the detained Tibetan children immediately under UN Convention of the Rights of Children obligations.
MacKay directly addresses both asks â confirming formal representations were made, stating Canada strongly condemns the act, calling for a full independent investigation, and specifically demanding release of the detained Tibetan children â though without specifying the exact diplomatic channel used.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's abhorrence and dismay for this terrible incident that happened at the border. Canada strongly condemns this act of violence against unarmed civilians as an egregious violation of human rights. We have formally raised these concerns. About the incident, we will follow up further with the Chinese government and we intend to reiterate Canada's strong condemnation of this gross human rights violation. We have called upon the Chinese to conduct a full, independent investigation and punish those responsible, as well as release the detained Tibetan children immediately to their families and abide by the relevant international obligations, including those under the UN Convention of the Rights of Children.
Will the minister reverse her decision to change the funding mandate for Status of Women, which has gutted funding for organizations like Charlotte Thibault's FAFIA even as Thibault is being honoured by the Governor General?
References a specific named individual (Charlotte Thibault of FAFIA) receiving a Governor General award on that day and identifies the specific change in funding mandate as the harm, with a clear ask to reverse the decision, but blends this with irony framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today Charlotte Thibault, the chair of government relations for FAFIA, was presented an award by our Governor General to recognize her work promoting women's rights. The disgraceful irony is that she is honoured and the minister responsible for women has gutted the funding for Thibault's organization. The minister has changed the mandate so that women's organizations will be unable to continue to do their work. Will the minister stand up and defend women in our country and reverse her decision to change the funding mandate?
Oda did not address the funding mandate or FAFIA, instead listing government actions on aboriginal women's matrimonial property rights, universal child care benefit, justice legislation, and human trafficking.
Oda does not address FAFIA, Charlotte Thibault, or the funding mandate change at all, instead listing unrelated government actions (matrimonial property rights, universal child care benefit, justice legislation, human trafficking) as a deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, nobody has to talk to me about minority rights. What we are trying to do as a government is to offer opportunities. Unlike the previous Liberal government, this government is taking action. In nine short months, we are acting on matrimonial property rights for aboriginal women. We have introduced the universal child care benefit. We are going to put forward tougher justice legislation to protect our women. We will no longer treat the women who are victims of human trafficking as criminals. This is action and this is what we will deliver to Canadian women.
As the minister refuses to protect the mandate for the Status of Women and shows ignorance about women's needs by refusing pay equity legislation, will she resign?
The question is largely rhetorical and personal, characterizing the minister as ignorant and unable to stand up for women, with a resignation demand that is not a genuine accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious by the minister's non-response that she does not understand her portfolio. By refusing new pay equity legislation and insisting that women have full equality in our country, the minister shows her total ignorance about the needs of women in Canada. She is unable, or refuses, to stand up for women at the cabinet table. I have asked for this before and I am going to ask again. As the minister refuses to protect the mandate for the Status of Women, will she now do the right thing and resign?
Oda stated that she and her entire caucus stand up for women and that she will not resign.
Oda's two-sentence response â asserting she stands up for women and will not resign â is pure deflection with no substantive content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I stand up for women, but every member of this caucus and government stands up for women. I will not resign.
Will the Prime Minister obey the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which gives farmers the right by vote to determine their marketing institution's powers, and hold a vote on single desk selling?
Cites the specific Canadian Wheat Board Act and its provision granting farmers a vote to determine their marketing institution's powers, framing a clear legal ask about whether the Prime Minister will obey the law and hold that vote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, earlier in the House the Prime Minister, as is his way, attempted to confuse Canadians on what the Canadian Wheat Board Act is about. The act empowers farmers as opposed to them being at the mercy of the grain trade. Farmers under that act have rights and one of those rights is, by vote, to determine their marketing institution's powers. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, obey the law and give them a vote on single desk selling?
Harper stated the government will give farmers a range of marketing choices including the Wheat Board and is not afraid to consult western farmers, without addressing the legal vote obligation.
Harper does not address the specific legal obligation under the Canadian Wheat Board Act or the vote question, instead asserting the government will give farmers marketing choices and making a partisan jab about Liberals losing western seats.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government will do what farmers have always wanted, which is to have a range of marketing choices, including the Wheat Board. We are never going to be afraid to consult western farmers. The last time we did it, like so many times when we have done it, they did not return a single Liberal MP, and they never will.
What steps has Canada's new government taken to address wait times for children, following the minister's keynote address to the Canadian Association of Paediatric Health Centres?
A government-backbench softball setup referencing the minister's keynote address to ask what steps have been taken on pediatric wait times, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. The minister delivered a keynote address earlier this week to the Canadian Association of Paediatric Health Centres during the national symposium on pediatric wait times. Could the minister please inform the House what steps Canada's new government has taken to address the important issue of wait times for children?
Clement announced that budget 2006 provides $400,000 per year for five years for the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program, which the previous Liberal government had cut in March 2005.
Clement provides a specific funding figure of $400,000 per year for five years for the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program from budget 2006, a concrete answer though it also includes an attack on the previous Liberal government.
Source text
Curiously, Mr. Speaker, while the previous Liberal government was doling out money to its friends, it forgot and it cut the funds in March 2005 for the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program. Help is on the way. In budget 2006 this government will provide funding of $400,000 per year for the next five years for this important program. This will help our kids. It will help reduce wait times. We are on the side of our patients and we are on the side of those most special patients, our kids.
This exchange recorded only a procedural acknowledgement of a presence in the gallery and contained no substantive question or answer.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!