Session overview
- The dominant controversy of Question Period was the Prime Minister's attempt to read into the record a Vancouver Sun article that appeared to implicate the family member of a Liberal MP, triggering prolonged exchanges about parliamentary conduct and calls for an apology and withdrawal.
- Judicial appointments were challenged by the Liberals, who cited the Canadian Judicial Council's written warning that giving the Justice Minister's appointees a majority on advisory committees 'puts in peril the concept of an independent body'; the Prime Minister defended the change as broadening representation beyond 'a private club of judges and lawyers.'
- The Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois and the NDP pressed the government on greenhouse gas emissions, citing the Pembina Institute's finding that absolute reduction targets for large industrial emitters â particularly oil companies â could halve their emissions and meet Kyoto Protocol objectives at a cost of between $0.58 and $1.16 per barrel.
- The Bloc raised concerns about Afghan detainee transfers, citing Amnesty International, High Commissioner Louise Arbour, and the U.S. State Department on torture and human rights violations, and asked why Canada would not adopt the Netherlands model of post-transfer monitoring; the Minister of National Defence said he was satisfied with the current arrangement involving the International Committee of the Red Cross.
- The government announced a $111-million investment in the Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative alongside Bill Gates, and the Minister of International Cooperation outlined additional contributions of $250 million to the Global Fund and $120 million for related projects.
- NDP MP Yvon Godin challenged the government over its appeal of an Employment Insurance ruling that had granted full retroactive benefits to approximately 100 locked-out workers from Clearwater of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, whose fish plant closed in June 2006.
The Minister of International Cooperation confirmed a specific, new government commitment: a $111-million investment in the Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative announced alongside Bill Gates, plus $250 million to the Global Fund and $120 million for additional HIV-AIDS projects.
Quotes the Canadian Judicial Council's specific finding about the voting majority of minister-appointed members and asks a precise, document-grounded question about judicial independence.
Asked directly whether the Minister of Justice would listen to the chief justices of Canada on judicial appointments, the Prime Minister ignored the question entirely and pivoted to anti-terrorism legislation and the Air-India investigation, making no reference to judicial independence.
Outstanding questions
- StĂ©phane Dion (Exchanges 1â3) asked the Prime Minister to stop the manipulation of the judicial appointments process; no response addressed whether the government would reverse the committee composition giving the Minister a majority of voting members.
- Gilles Duceppe (Exchanges 4â5) asked specifically whether the government would implement absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets for large industrial emitters; the Prime Minister confirmed only that a plan would be brought forward without answering yes or no.
- Caroline St-Hilaire (Exchanges 16â17) asked why Canada refuses to adopt the Netherlands model of following transferred Afghan detainees to ensure they are not tortured; the Minister of National Defence did not explain why this approach was rejected.
- Ralph Goodale and Michael Ignatieff (Exchanges 12â13, 25â26, 32) repeatedly asked whether the Prime Minister had verified the Vancouver Sun story before attempting to use it in the House, and demanded a withdrawal and apology; neither was provided.
- Yvon Godin (Exchanges 33â34) asked the minister to withdraw the government's appeal of the Employment Insurance ruling for the locked-out Clearwater workers; the minister refused to commit to withdrawing the appeal.
Dion quotes the Canadian Judicial Council's warning that the government 'puts in peril the concept of an independent body that advises the government on who is best qualified to be a judge,' and asks the Prime Minister to stop manipulating the judicial system.
Cites a specific document from the Canadian Judicial Council and quotes it directly, asking a clear yes/no accountability question about judicial independence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a democratic country is in trouble when judges warn that the government is putting their independence in peril. It is sad to say that the Canadian Judicial Council, led by the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, wrote that the government, â--puts in peril the concept of an independent body that advises the government on who is best qualified to be a judgeâ. Will the Prime Minister agree to stop his unprecedented and unacceptable manipulation of our judicial system?
Harper states that under the constitutional system the elected executive names judges, and defends the advisory process as having broader representation including victims and police.
Responds to the constitutional framing but does not address the specific warning from the Canadian Judicial Council, instead defending the composition of the advisory process without engaging the quoted concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, under our constitutional system the naming of judges is the responsibility of the elected executive arm of government. The government has established an independent consultative process that includes, in fact, a broader representation of voices than ever before. We do not want the judicial appointments process to become a private club of judges and lawyers. That is why we included voices as diverse as victims and the police.
Dion quotes the Canadian Judicial Council that judicial independence 'is not a right that belongs to judges individually, but rather the cornerstone of judicial impartiality and a constitutional right held by each citizen,' and asks why the Prime Minister is endangering this constitutional right.
Quotes directly from the Canadian Judicial Council to make the specific point that judicial independence is a constitutional right of citizens, not judges, sharpening the accountability ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il ne s'agit pas du corps policier que nous respectons tous; il s'agit de l'indépendance des juges. L'indépendance n'est pas un droit individuel des juges. Voici ce que le Conseil de la magistrature a écrit: « L'indépendance judiciaire n'est pas un droit qui appartient en propre à chaque juge, mais plutÎt le fondement de l'impartialité judiciaire et un droit constitutionnel détenu par chaque citoyen. » Pourquoi le premier ministre met-il en péril ce droit constitutionnel détenu par chaque citoyen?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of police forces, which we all respect. This is a matter of judicial independence. Independence is not an individual right of judges. The judicial council wrote: âJudicial independence is not the private right of judges but the foundation of judicial impartiality and a constitutional right of all Canadiansâ. Why is the Prime Minister jeopardizing this constitutional right that belongs to all Canadians?
Harper restates that the elected government names judges under the constitutional system and that the advisory committees now have more diverse representation including police and victims.
Harper repeats his previous answer about the elected government's responsibility and the advisory committee's composition without addressing the constitutional rights argument quoted from the Council.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le chef du Parti libéral sait que c'est le gouvernement élu qui nomme des juges selon notre systÚme constitutionnel. Nous prenons au sérieux nos responsabilités. C'est la raison pour laquelle nous avons créé des comités consultatifs avec une représentation plus diversifiée qu'auparavant, incluant des représentants de la police et des victimes. La nomination des juges n'est pas réservée à un club privé de juges et d'avocats.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the Liberal Party knows, under our constitutional system, it is up to the elected government to appoint judges. We take our responsibilities very seriously. Which is why we created advisory committees that include more diverse representation than ever before, including police and victim representatives. The appointment process is not reserved for a private club of judges and lawyers.
Dion quotes the Canadian Judicial Council's finding that with four of seven voting members chosen by the minister, 'the advisory committees may no longer be fully independent of government,' and asks the Prime Minister to stop attacking judicial independence.
Quotes the Canadian Judicial Council's specific finding about the voting majority of minister-appointed members and asks a precise, document-grounded question about judicial independence.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai expliquĂ© davantage le problĂšme au premier ministre. Il suffit qu'il lise ce que le conseil a Ă©crit: « [...] il y a maintenant sept membres qui ont [...] droit de vote au sein de chaque comitĂ©, avec quatre d'entre eux choisis par le ministre. Le fait que la majoritĂ© des membres votants soient nommĂ©s par le ministre de la Justice signifie que les comitĂ©s consultatifs ne sont peut-ĂȘtre plus pleinement indĂ©pendants du gouvernement, ou perçus comme tel. Cela met en pĂ©ril le concept d'un organisme indĂ©pendant [...] » Le premier ministre peut-il cesser de s'attaquer Ă l'indĂ©pendance des juges de notre pays?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I explained the problem further to the Prime Minister. He need only read what the council wrote: ââthere are seven members who are ... entitled to vote, with four chosen by the Minister of Justice. Because the majority of voting members are now appointed by the Minister, the advisory committees may neither be, nor seen to be, fully independent of the government. This puts in peril the concept of an independent bodyââ Will the Prime Minister stop attacking the independence of Canadian judges?
Oh, oh!
Oh, oh!
Oh, oh!
Harper claims the Liberal Party opposes giving police a voice, then attempts to read from a Vancouver Sun story about a Liberal MP's family before being interrupted by disorder.
Harper abandons the topic entirely, pivoting to a Vancouver Sun story about a Liberal MP's father-in-law in a clear deflection that is cut off by disorder in the House.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously the Liberal Party opposes the change we have made, which is to give the police a voice in this process. I am not surprised, given what I am reading in The Vancouver Sun today, when I read this how the Liberal Party makes decisions: âThe Vancouver Sun has learned that the father-in-law of the member of Parliament for MississaugaâBrampton South--â.
Mr. Speaker, I am simply reading what The Vancouver Sun reported.
Duceppe cites the Pembina Institute's demonstration that absolute reduction targets could halve greenhouse gas emissions from major industrial emitters and asks whether the Prime Minister will implement such targets to meet Kyoto Protocol objectives.
Cites the Pembina Institute's analysis from the previous day and asks a specific policy question about absolute reduction targets to meet Kyoto Protocol objectives.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, l'Institut Pembina a fait la démonstration au gouvernement fédéral qu'un plan avec des cibles absolues de réduction permettrait d'abaisser de moitié les émissions de gaz à effet de serre produites par les grands émetteurs industriels, principalement les pétroliÚres. Ces cibles de réduction absolues permettraient au Canada d'atteindre les objectifs du Protocole de Kyoto. Alors que le temps file et que l'avenir de la planÚte est en jeu, le premier ministre instaurera-t-il enfin des cibles de réduction absolues, comme tous le réclament?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Pembina Institute showed the federal government that a plan with absolute reduction targets would cut in half greenhouse gas emissions by major industrial emitters, which are mainly oil companies. These absolute reduction targets would enable Canada to reach the Kyoto protocol targets. With time running out and the future of the planet at stake, will the Prime Minister finally introduce absolute reduction targets, which everyone is calling for?
Harper says his government is the first to commit to addressing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants nationally, having tabled the Clean Air Act, and that he will announce policy but will not take measures that jeopardize the economy.
Harper claims the government is the first to commit to addressing greenhouse gas emissions nationally and refers to the Clean Air Act, but does not address the specific question about absolute reduction targets.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce gouvernement est le premier à s'engager à régler à l'échelle nationale les émissions de gaz à effet de serre et les polluants aériens. C'est la raison pour laquelle nous avons déposé la loi sur la qualité de l'air. Nous annoncerons notre politique à cet égard. Je peux assurer tous les députés de cette Chambre que ce gouvernement n'a pas l'intention de prendre n'importe quelles mesures qui mettraient en péril notre économie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government is the first to promise to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants on a national level. That is why we introduced Canada's clean air act. We will be announcing our policy. I can assure all the members of this House that this government does not intend to take any measures that would threaten our economy.
Duceppe presses the Prime Minister for a clear answer on absolute reduction targets and cites a cost of 58 cents to $1.16 per barrel for oil companies to offset their greenhouse gas emissions, asking whether the government will prioritize citizens over oil companies.
Presses for a direct answer on absolute targets while adding specific cost data (58 cents to $1.16 per barrel) and asks whether the government will prioritize citizens' interests over oil companies' interests.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, s'il a vraiment l'intention de rĂ©gler le problĂšme, qu'il rĂ©ponde correctement et clairement Ă la question qui lui est posĂ©e. Est-ce que ce sera des cibles de rĂ©duction absolues? Il a aussi parlĂ© d'Ă©conomie. Il parle de ne pas mettre l'Ă©conomie en jeu; je lui rappelle qu'il en coĂ»terait entre 58 Âą et 1,16 $ par baril aux pĂ©troliĂšres pour compenser les gaz Ă effet de serre qu'elles Ă©mettent. Elles en ont amplement les moyens, on n'a qu'Ă regarder les surplus annuels de ces compagnies. Mettra-t-il de l'avant les intĂ©rĂȘts de l'ensemble des citoyens ou mettra-t-il de l'avant l'intĂ©rĂȘt des seules pĂ©troliĂšres?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if he really intends to solve the problem, he should answer the question properly and clearly. Will there be absolute reduction targets? He also mentioned the economy. He says he will not do anything to threaten the economy. I would like to remind him that it would cost the oil companies between 58Âą and $1.16 per barrel to offset their greenhouse gas emissions. They have more than enough money to do this, judging by the companies' annual surpluses. Will he put the interests of Canadians or the interests of the oil companies first?
Harper says his government ended preferential benefits to the oil industry through energy trust changes and that proposals will be brought to the House of Commons.
Harper claims the government ended preferential benefits to the oil industry via energy trust changes and says proposals will be brought forward, but does not answer whether absolute targets will be adopted or address the per-barrel cost figures.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est ce gouvernement qui a mis fin aux bénéfices préférentiels accordés à l'industrie pétroliÚre, grùce aux changements apportés aux fiducies énergétiques. Le chef du Bloc dit que c'est possible. Pourtant, le Bloc québécois et les autres partis d'opposition ont voté en faveur d'un projet de loi qui demandait au gouvernement de définir son programme. Il est essentiel que nous proposions des mesures, et nous avons l'intention d'apporter des propositions à la Chambre des communes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it was this government that put an end to the preferential treatment of the oil industry, thanks to the changes to energy trusts. The Bloc leader says that it is possible, Yet the Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties voted for a bill that called on the government to define its program. We must propose measures, and we intend to introduce proposals in the House of Commons.
DeBellefeuille cites oil multinationals' record profits of $12.1 billion in 2006 (up 25% from 2005 and 70% from 2004) and asks whether the government finds it justified for oil companies to contribute 58 cents to $1.16 per barrel toward greenhouse gas reduction costs.
Cites specific profit figures for oil multinationals in 2006 ($12.1 billion, up 25% from 2005 and 70% from 2004) and asks a pointed question about the 58 cents to $1.16 per barrel contribution, grounding the ask in data.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les multinationales du pétrole ont fait des profits records en 2006, en empochant 12,1 milliards de dollars. C'est une augmentation de 25 p. 100 par rapport aux résultats de 2005 et de 70 p. 100 par rapport à ceux de 2004. Devant des profits aussi exorbitants, le gouvernement ne trouve-t-il pas qu'il serait tout à fait justifié que les pétroliÚres contribuent entre 58 ¹ et 1,16 $ le baril aux coûts associés à la réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, multinational oil companies had record profits in 2006, pocketing $12.1 billion, an increase of 25% over 2005 and 70% over 2004. In view of these astronomical profits, does the government not think that it would be quite justified to have oil companies contribute between $0.58 and $1.16 per barrel to the cost of reducing greenhouse gases?
Baird states that oil companies, like all Canadian industries, will have to comply with industrial regulation, and that industries unable to improve their processes will have to pay fees to ensure better technologies are adopted and greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.
Baird confirms oil companies will be subject to industrial regulation and that industries that cannot improve processes will pay fees, which partially addresses the principle but does not engage with the specific per-barrel figures.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai dit trÚs clairement que les pétroliÚres, comme toutes les industries canadiennes, devront suivre la réglementation de l'industrie. C'est trÚs important. Les industries qui ne pourront pas améliorer leurs procédés auront à débourser des frais pour que nous soyons certains que de meilleures technologies soient adoptées, et pour que nous soyons certains de réduire les émissions de gaz à effet serre et d'avoir une meilleure qualité de l'air.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have stated very clearly that oil companies, just like all other Canadian industries, will have to comply with industry regulations. That is very important. Industries that are not able to improve their processes will have to bear the costs to ensure that the best technologies are used and that we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality.
DeBellefeuille accuses the government of defending oil companies and asks what it is waiting for to set absolute reduction targets and allow the creation of a carbon exchange.
Combines rhetorical framing ('pauvres pétroliÚres') with a substantive ask about absolute reduction targets and carbon exchange creation, but the question is less precisely grounded than the previous one.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il est temps de passer Ă l'action. Les effets des changements climatiques sont partout prĂ©sents. L'argent est disponible, les profits des pĂ©troliĂšres en sont la preuve. PlutĂŽt que de s'entĂȘter Ă dĂ©fendre les « pauvres » pĂ©troliĂšres, qu'attend le gouvernement pour fixer des cibles absolues de rĂ©duction, et ainsi permettre la crĂ©ation d'une bourse du carbone?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the time has come to take action. The effects of climate change are omnipresent. The money is available as we can see from oil company profits. Rather than insisting on defending the âpoorâoil companies, why does the government not set absolute reduction targets, thus making it possible for a carbon exchange to be established?
Baird says this government will be the first in Canadian history to regulate industry on both greenhouse gases and air quality, and that all Canadian industries including Quebec industries and Alberta oil companies will participate.
Baird repeats his claim that this government will be the first to regulate industry for greenhouse gases and air quality and that all Canadian industries will participate, but does not address absolute targets or a carbon exchange specifically.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai déjà dit que ce gouvernement sera le premier gouvernement de l'histoire du Canada à réglementer l'industrie, non seulement en ce qui a trait aux gaz à effet de serre, mais aussi en ce qui a trait à la qualité de l'air. Toutes les industries canadiennes devront participer à notre nouveau régime. C'est trÚs important. C'est le cas des industries du Québec et des pétroliÚres d'Alberta.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that this government will be the first in the history of Canada to regulate industry with regard to greenhouse gases as well as air quality. All Canadian industries will have to comply. That is very important. It will apply to Quebec industries and Alberta oil companies.
Layton cites the Pembina Institute's conservative estimate of $1.50 per barrel to clean up greenhouse gas emissions from the oil patch and asks the Prime Minister whether that is too much to ask of the petroleum industry given its enormous profits.
References a specific Pembina Institute estimate of $1.50 per barrel and asks a pointed question about whether that cost is too much to ask of the petroleum industry, though framed with some rhetorical embellishment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the all party committee dealing with climate change is moving at a glacial pace. In fact, glaciers are melting even faster than this committee is moving and it is time the Prime Minister told his MPs to get to work and start producing some results at that committee. Yesterday, the Pembina Institute very conservatively estimated that it would cost about $1.50 per barrel of oil to clean up the greenhouse gas emissions from the oil patch. That is worth a cup of coffee for each barrel. Is that too much to ask of the petroleum industry, with its enormous profits? I ask the Prime Minister, what does he think about this eminently sensible proposition from Pembina?
Harper says he does not know the basis for that argument, states the previous government proposed that Canadian taxpayers subsidize international credit purchases by industry, and affirms that his plan will be based on the polluter pay principle.
Harper invokes the polluter pay principle and criticizes the previous government's approach of subsidizing international credit purchases, which is contextually relevant but does not directly engage with the Pembina Institute's $1.50 per barrel figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know the basis on which that kind of argument was made. I can tell the hon. member that the proposal of the previous government was that the taxpayers of Canada would subsidize the purchase of credits by industry internationally. We do not think that is a responsible environmental policy. We think the basis of regulation of greenhouse gases and air pollution should be the polluter pay principle, and this will be the basis of the plans we bring forward.
Layton cites a Suncor VP saying meeting Kyoto would not cause job losses and Shell's commitment to a 50% reduction in its first oil sands project, and asks how the Prime Minister can refuse to act when even industry admits it will not hurt the economy.
Cites a Suncor VP's statement and Shell's 50% reduction commitment as specific evidence that industry itself says Kyoto compliance won't hurt the economy, but wraps it in rhetorical framing including reference to Al Gore's visit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear the holier-than-thou phraseology, but the government is subsidizing the big oil and gas companies, and is perfectly happy to do it, apparently. A VP at Suncor said yesterday, âWe don't predict job losses or impact on the economy [because] of meeting Kyotoâ. Shell has committed to a 50% reduction in its first oil sands project as long as it can be done voluntarily. This industry has no reason to be fighting regulation and rules with the pollution that it is putting forward. How can the Prime Minister continue to refuse to act on this situation when even the industry admits that it will not hurt the economy? When is he going to get going? Or on a day when Al Gore is here, calling on us to act as Canadians, will he continue to deny?
Harper states the government has committed to bringing forward a compulsory program of regulation of industry for greenhouse gases and air pollution for the first time, questions whether the oil industry executives were quoted in context, and says he looks forward to their support when the plan is announced.
Harper confirms the government will bring forward a first-ever compulsory program of regulation for greenhouse gases and air pollution, and says he looks forward to industry support if quoted in context, which is a partial but meaningful engagement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we will take our own decisions as Canadians. The leader of the New Democratic Party knows that the government has committed to bringing forward, for the first time, a compulsory program of regulation of industry for the control and reduction of greenhouse gases and air pollution. I am not sure that those oil industry executives were quoted in context, but if they were, I look forward to their support when the government announces its plan.
Ignatieff accuses the Prime Minister of an uncalled-for attack on a member's integrity and asks whether the Conservatives are prepared to listen to justices and chief justices and reverse their judicial appointments policy.
Partly addresses a procedural concern about the Prime Minister's conduct in the House but the question about judicial independence is vague and the ask ('stop this foolish policy and reverse course') is rhetorical rather than specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made an absolutely uncalled for attack on the integrity of a member of the House, and in so doing has shown no respect for this institution. Similarly, the Minister of Justice appears to show no respect for the institution of the Canadian judiciary. The issue is whether the Conservatives are prepared to listen to what the justices and chief justices of this country are saying. Stop this foolish policy and reverse course.
Harper pivots entirely to the Air-India investigation and anti-terrorism measures, saying the Liberal Party's current position will jeopardize the police investigation and urging them to pass the measures again.
Harper ignores the question about judicial appointments entirely and pivots to the Air-India investigation and anti-terrorism measures, with no connection to what was asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since the opposition apparently will not let me read into the record what The Vancouver Sun reported, let me say this. It is very clear from the Air-India families, and I think from the police community and the wider Canadian community, that we expect the Air-India investigation to go forward. It is an important police investigation and nothing in the Liberal Party should interfere with that. It was the Liberal Party that passed these anti-terrorism measures in the first place. Rather than playing partisan games in politics, it should pass it again and allow the police to do their job.
Ignatieff repeats his question: will the Minister of Justice listen to the chief justices of Canada, or will he say they are wrong?
Asks a clear binary question â will the Minister of Justice listen to the chief justices or say they are wrong â but the framing is partly reactive to disorder in the House rather than fact-grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the insinuation of the Prime Minister that this side of the House would put the public interests of our countryâ
Oh, oh!
His insinuations do not deserve a reply. I repeat my question. Will the Minister of Justice listen to the chief justices of our country, or will he get up in the House and say that they are wrong?
Harper attacks the Liberal Party for reversing its support for anti-terrorism measures two weeks earlier after the Liberal leader started playing caucus games with the safety and security of Canadians.
Harper does not address the question about the Minister of Justice and the chief justices at all, instead attacking the Liberal Party's position on anti-terrorism measures and accusing the leader of playing caucus games.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, everyone in the country knows, including many in the media who do not normally support this party, that the Liberal Party supported these anti-terrorism measures. Everyone knows that the entire frontbench of the Liberal Party supported those measures until two weeks ago when the leader of the Liberal Party started playing caucus games with the safety and security of Canadians. He should be ashamed of himself.
Goodale asks whether the Prime Minister knows if the Vancouver Sun story was correct, whether due process was followed, and calls on him to withdraw his character slur against a member of Parliament and meet the basic decent standard of a prime minister.
Asks whether Harper knows if the newspaper story was correct, whether due process was followed, and requests a withdrawal and apology â three distinct asks that reduce precision but the procedural accountability concern is genuine.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's allegations are simply beneath contempt. The Prime Minister has attempted in the House to impugn the character and the reputation of an hon. member of Parliament. That is absolutely unacceptable. Does he know if the newspaper story was correct or incorrect? Has he followed due process in making the allegations that he was proposing to make? Will he simply withdraw that character slur against a member of the House and live up to the basic decent standard of a prime minister?
Oh, oh!
Harper deflects entirely to the Liberal Party's flip-flop on anti-terrorism measures and the concerns of Air-India families, with no engagement on the accuracy of the newspaper story or the request for withdrawal.
Harper does not address the accuracy of the story, due process, or the request for withdrawal, and instead pivots to the Liberal Party's position on anti-terrorism measures and the Air-India families.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. memberâ
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in question can take up the facts of the story with The Vancouver Sun if he likes. However, everybody knows that the Liberal Party has done a complete flip-flop on an issue that is of vital concern to the safety and security of Canadians without explanation. It is inexcusable. It should reverse its position and get back to doing the right thing.
Goodale accuses the Prime Minister of treating partisan advantage as everything regardless of truth, and asks him to withdraw his allegations and apologize to the House.
The request to withdraw allegations and apologize is clear, but the question is heavily rhetorical and more about character than substantive policy accountability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just confirmed that, to him, partisan advantage is everything. The truth does not matter; it is the allegation that counts. Never mind what the facts are in the final analysis. He just proved his devious and deceitful behaviour and he does not pay any attention to the consequences to any Canadian. Will the Prime Minister withdraw those allegations and apologize to this House?
Oh, oh!
Harper says the Liberals can ignore what is in the newspaper but should not ignore that even Air-India families say the Liberal position will jeopardize the police investigation into the Air-India terrorism act.
Harper does not address the request for withdrawal or apology and pivots again to the Air-India families and the Liberal Party's position on anti-terrorism, completely ignoring the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party can choose to ignore, if it wants, what is in the newspaper. The Liberals can choose to ignore what they want from this party. What they should not be ignoring is the fact that even the Air-India families are saying that the position they are now taking will jeopardize the police investigation into the Air-India terrorism act. The Liberal Party has no excuse for that position. It is an irresponsible position and it should change that position.
Bigras notes the Biosafety Protocol has been ratified by 139 countries and establishes legal liability for GMO contamination, and asks how Canada â one of the four largest GMO producers â can justify opposing this legal framework, given its refusal to apply the polluter-pay principle.
Cites the specific Biosafety Protocol, notes 139 ratifying countries, and asks a pointed question about Canada's refusal to establish a legal liability framework for GMO contamination, grounded in the polluter-pay principle.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le Protocole sur la biosĂ©curitĂ© a Ă©tĂ© ratifiĂ© par 139 pays et prĂ©voit la mise au point d'un cadre juridique permettant d'Ă©tablir la responsabilitĂ© des multinationales et des acteurs locaux lorsque les semences ou les espĂšces naturelles seront contaminĂ©es par des OGM. Or, le Canada et les Ătats-Unis n'ont pas ratifiĂ© ce protocole et ne veulent pas payer pour les dommages causĂ©s par les OGM. Comment le Canada, qui est un des quatre plus gros producteurs d'OGM sur la planĂšte, peut-il justifier son opposition Ă l'Ă©tablissement d'un cadre juridique, sinon qu'il refuse de reconnaĂźtre le principe du pollueur-payeur?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the biosafety protocol has been ratified by 139 countries. Its purpose is to develop a legal framework for determining to what extent multinationals and local growers are responsible when seed or non-GMO species are contaminated with GMOs. Neither Canada nor the United States has ratified the protocol, and neither country is willing to pay for damage caused by GMOs. How can Canada, which is one of the world's four largest GMO producers, justify its opposition to developing a legal framework unless it is because the government refuses to recognize the polluter-pay principle?
Strahl states Canada signed the biosafety protocol in April 2001, has actively participated in three meetings of the parties and technical task forces, but has not yet ratified due to lack of clarity on legal and technical questions, with the expectation of continued support as those questions are resolved.
Strahl provides factual context â Canada signed in April 2001, participated in three meetings of the parties and technical task forces â and explains the specific reason for non-ratification (lack of clarity on legal and technical questions), which substantially addresses the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada signed the biosafety protocol in April 2001. To signal our support for that objective, we have actively participated in the three meetings of the parties to the protocol as well as a number of technical task forces. We continue to work with that group to address the legal and technical questions that the protocol has raised. We have not ratified this protocol yet due to the concerns regarding this lack of clarity. As these working groups put this clarity together and answer those technical questions, we look forward to continuing to support that protocol in the days ahead.
Bigras asks whether the government's refusal to ratify the Biosafety Protocol is further proof that on GMOs, it intends to protect the interests of multinationals rather than farmers and consumers.
Links the biosafety issue to the broader pattern of protecting multinationals, but the question is more rhetorical than specific and lacks new factual grounding beyond the previous exchange.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aprĂšs avoir refusĂ© d'appliquer le principe du pollueur-payeur aux grandes pĂ©troliĂšres, voici maintenant que le gouvernement veut soustraire de poursuites Ă©ventuelles les multinationales qui produisent des OGM. Est-ce que le refus du gouvernement d'adhĂ©rer au protocole sur la biosĂ©curitĂ© n'est pas une preuve de plus qu'en matiĂšre d'OGM, il entend protĂ©ger d'abord les intĂ©rĂȘts des multinationales plutĂŽt que les intĂ©rĂȘts des agriculteurs et des consommateurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government refused to apply the polluter-pay principle to big oil companies, and now it wants to shelter GMO-producing multinationals from exposure to legal action. Is the government's refusal to ratify the biosafety protocol further proof that when it comes to GMOs, it intends to put the interests of multinationals ahead of those of farmers and consumers?
Strahl states that GMO products are used by Canadian farmers coast to coast, not multinationals, and that the government wants the protocol's regulatory regime to address technical, safety, and regulatory issues so Prairie and Quebec farmers can continue to do business after Canada signs on.
Strahl makes a substantive point that GMO products are used by Canadian farmers from coast to coast rather than multinationals, and explains that the government wants the regulatory regime to address technical, safety, and regulatory issues before signing on, which partially addresses the concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has pointed out, Canada is one of the largest users of GMO products and those are not used by multinationals. Those are used by our farmers from coast to coast. We want to ensure that the regulatory regime that comes forward from this biosafety protocol addresses the technical issues, the safety issues and the regulatory issues so when we sign on to this protocol, we will be able to do so with confidence, and our Prairie farmers and Quebec farmers will be able to say that they can continue to do business after we sign on.
Why does Canada refuse to follow the Dutch approach of retaining the right to monitor transferred prisoners to Afghan authorities, as urged by Amnesty International?
Cites Amnesty International's concerns and references a specific Dutch model, with a clear and answerable ask about why Canada refuses to adopt follow-up monitoring of transferred prisoners.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement fédéral s'est engagé à ce que les prisonniers afghans ne soient pas torturés et qu'ils bénéficient de la Convention de GenÚve avant leur transfert aux autorités afghanes. Amnistie internationale déplore l'absence de suivi face à cet engagement. Le ministre de la Défense nationale peut-il nous dire pourquoi le Canada refuse de s'inspirer des Pays-Bas qui ont obtenu le droit de suivre les prisonniers transférés aux autorités afghanes pour ainsi s'assurer qu'ils seront traités humainement, qu'ils ne seront pas torturés et que leurs droits seront respectés?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the federal government committed to ensuring that Afghan prisoners would not be tortured and that they would be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention until their transfer to Afghan authorities. Amnesty International deplores the lack of compliance with that convention. Can the Minister of National Defence tell us why Canada refuses to follow the example of the Netherlands, which obtained the right to follow up on prisoners transferred to Afghan authorities, in order to ensure that they are treated humanely, that they are not tortured and that their rights are respected?
The current detainee arrangement was made by the previous government and includes ICRC monitoring and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission; the ICRC president said Canada was scrupulous in its notifications.
The minister describes the existing arrangement involving the ICRC and Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and cites a specific ICRC statement, but does not address why Canada has not adopted the Dutch model of direct follow-up access.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the current arrangement for detainees was made by the previous government. In that agreement, the International Committee of the Red Cross is mandated to visit and monitor detainees to ensure that they are treated in accordance with the standards of the Geneva Convention. The arrangement also recognizes the role of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission with respect to human rights and detainees. Last fall the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross said that Canada was scrupulous in notifying the Red Cross when it took prisoners and handed them over. We are satisfied with the current arrangements.
Given that Louise Arbour and the U.S. State Department document widespread torture and rights violations in Afghanistan, why will the minister not follow the Dutch approach to prisoner transfers?
Cites Louise Arbour as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the U.S. State Department as factual sources documenting torture and systemic violations, then asks a pointed question about why the minister will not follow the Dutch approach.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, outre Amnistie internationale, Louise Arbour, Haut-Commissaire aux droits de l'homme, dĂ©clare que les cas d'extorsion, d'emprisonnements prolongĂ©s sans procĂšs, de torture et de violation systĂ©matique de la rĂšgle de droit sont lĂ©gion. Le dĂ©partement d'Ătat amĂ©ricain arrive aux mĂȘmes conclusions. Devant ces troublantes constatations, qu'attend le ministre de la DĂ©fense nationale pour mettre fin Ă son aveuglement volontaire, et suivre sans tarder l'approche adoptĂ©e par les Pays-Bas dans le transfert des prisonniers aux autoritĂ©s afghanes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in addition to Amnesty International, Louise Arbour, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated that cases of extortion, torture, prolonged imprisonment without trial, and the systematic violation of the rule of law are frequent. The U.S. Department of State has reached the same conclusions. Given these worrisome findings, what is the Minister of National Defence waiting for to put an end to his wilful blindness and immediately emulate the approach taken by the Netherlands with respect to the transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities?
When lawbreakers come into Canada's hands they are handed over to the proper authorities with all the protections of international laws on prisoners.
The minister gives only a brief general statement about handing over lawbreakers with international law protections, entirely ignoring the cited evidence from Arbour and the U.S. State Department and not addressing the Dutch model at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are in Afghanistan in support of the Afghan government. When lawbreakers come into our hands, we hand them over to the proper authorities. As I previously explained, they are handed over with all the protections of international laws on prisoners.
The Leader of the Opposition asks the Prime Minister to apologize and withdraw remarks he considers beneath the dignity of a prime minister.
The exchange is almost entirely a personal appeal for an apology with no factual grounding or policy substance, making it a rhetorical demand rather than an accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai fait partie de ce Parlement pendant 11 ans. Je n'ai jamais rien vu d'aussi bas que ce que le premier ministre a essayĂ© de faire contre un dĂ©putĂ© de cette Chambre. Ce n'est pas Ă la hauteur de ce qu'un premier ministre doit ĂȘtre. Je demande au premier ministre de s'excuser et de retirer ses paroles.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have been part of this Parliament for 11 years. I have never seen anything as low as what the Prime Minister tried to do against a member of this House. It is unbefitting a prime minister. I am asking the Prime Minister to apologize and retract his comments.
The Prime Minister says the Liberal Party's actions have endangered police investigations and that the Liberals owe Canadians an explanation for their irresponsible positions.
The Prime Minister deflects entirely to the Liberal Party's position on anti-terrorism measures and does not address the request for an apology or withdrawal of remarks.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce gouvernement tente de poursuivre des mesures contre le terrorisme adoptĂ©es par un gouvernement libĂ©ral et appuyĂ©es par le Parti libĂ©ral jusqu'Ă il y a quelques semaines, quelques jours en fait. Ă cause des actions du Parti libĂ©ral, des enquĂȘtes policiĂšres sont en danger. C'est au Parti libĂ©ral de s'excuser et d'offrir l'explication de ses positions irresponsables aux Canadiens et aux Canadiennes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government is trying to follow through on anti-terrorism measures adopted by a Liberal government and supported by the Liberal Party until a few weeks ago, a few days ago in fact. Because of the actions of the Liberal Party, police investigations are in danger. It is the Liberal Party that should apologize and offer an explanation to Canadians for its irresponsible positions.
Noting that some Conservative members also voted against those provisions, Dion again demands that the Prime Minister withdraw and apologize for attempting to tarnish a member's reputation.
The question is mainly a renewed demand for an apology with minimal new factual grounding, though it briefly references Conservative MPs' past votes as context.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at that time, some members of the Conservative Party voted against these two dispositions. They voted for the sunset as well. That is not the point. The point is the Prime Minister tried to tarnish the reputation of a member of the House. It was so low. Many of us have never seen it in 11 years in Parliament. The Prime Minister must withdraw and he must apologize.
The Minister of Justice attacks the Liberal Party for fighting government crime legislation and weakening terrorism laws, saying they have been complaining about police officers every day for three weeks.
The Minister of Justice does not address the apology request at all and instead pivots to attacking the Liberal record on crime legislation and terrorism laws.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said that some members of the Conservative Party voted against something about four or five years ago. It seems to me that those members have a lot of explaining to do when they told the Canadian public, in the last election, that they wanted to get tough on crime and they wanted to increase mandatory minimum sentences. What have they done? They have fought our attempts to get rid of house arrest for serious crimes. They have fought our attempts to increase mandatory minimum sentences. They want to weaken terrorism laws. The only thing they have been consistent about is they have been complaining about police officers every day for the last three weeks.
Will the Prime Minister apologize for words she considers unworthy of a prime minister, spoken in the House?
The question is almost entirely rhetorical, invoking expectations of prime ministerial conduct without citing specific facts or making a precise policy ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, un premier ministre est supposĂ© reprĂ©senter l'ensemble des citoyens de ce pays, l'ensemble des Canadiens. On s'attend d'un premier ministre qu'il ait un comportement de chef d'Ătat. Aujourd'hui, le premier ministre a prononcĂ© des mots indignes d'un premier ministre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a prime minister is supposed to represent all citizens in this country, all Canadians. We expect a prime minister to behave like a head of state. Today, the Prime Minister uttered words unbefitting a prime minister.
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
Heureusement que nous Ă©tions lĂ pour l'empĂȘcher de les prononcer, monsieur le ministre des Transports! Le premier ministre va-t-il s'excuser de ce qu'il a osĂ© faire en cette Chambre?
Hansard translation: Fortunately we were here to prevent him from saying even more, Mr. Minister of Transport. Will the Prime Minister apologize for what he dared to do in this House?
The Prime Minister says his remarks were cut off by Liberal actions, then pivots to the Liberal caucus decision that he claims endangered police investigations into Air India.
The Prime Minister deflects to the Liberal Party's decision in caucus against anti-terrorism provisions and the Air India case, never addressing the apology demand.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce premier ministre n'a pas eu l'occasion de prononcer des propos Ă cause des actions du Parti libĂ©ral. Je veux seulement dire que, Ă cause des actions du caucus du Parti libĂ©ral, nous avons mis en danger des enquĂȘtes policiĂšres Ă l'Ă©gard du cas d'Air India, le plus grand acte terroriste de l'histoire canadienne. Ă cause d'une politique irresponsable et inexplicable, oĂč le Parti libĂ©ral a dĂ©cidĂ© en caucus de voter contre sa propre...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister has not had the opportunity to say anything because of the actions of the Liberal Party. I simply want to say that because of the actions of the Liberal Party caucus, we have put police investigations in danger with respect to the Air India case, the largest act of terrorism in Canadian history. Because of an irresponsible and inexplicable policy, where the Liberal Party decided in caucus to vote against its ownâ
Given that the Prime Minister's intent was clear to all who witnessed it, will he apologize for making allegations against a democratically elected member of the House?
The question is essentially a rhetorical indictment of the Prime Minister's intent and a repeated demand for an apology, with no new factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, tous ceux qui ont Ă©coutĂ© cette pĂ©riode de questions et tous ceux qui liront les transcriptions de cette pĂ©riode de questions vont rĂ©aliser quelle Ă©tait l'intention de ce premier ministre. C'est trĂšs clair. Ce sont des propos indignes. Aujourd'hui, il essaie complĂštement de changer la donne. On lui a mĂȘme demandĂ©, au dĂ©but, comment il se faisait qu'il mettait son idĂ©ologie en premier, au lieu de favoriser l'indĂ©pendance judiciaire. Ensuite, il fait des allĂ©gations Ă propos d'un dĂ©putĂ© de cette Chambre qui a Ă©tĂ© Ă©lu de façon dĂ©mocratique, et il n'est mĂȘme pas capable de s'excuser...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, all those who are watching this question period and those who will read the transcripts of this question period will know what the Prime Minister's intention was. It is very clear. This is unparliamentary. Today he is trying to completely change the story. We even asked him, at first, how he could put his ideology ahead of judicial independence. Then he made allegations about an hon. member of this House, who was democratically elected, and he is not even able to apologizeâ
The Minister of Justice says the Liberal Party has no intention of fulfilling its election obligations and that the Prime Minister's job is to protect and defend Canadians.
The Minister of Justice ignores the apology request entirely and pivots to claiming the Liberal Party has broken its election promises on crime, with no connection to the specific allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the Liberal Party has no intention of fulfilling the obligations it made to Canadians in the last election. It promised to get tough on crime and to support us on that but it has done absolutely nothing. With respect to the Prime Minister, his job is to protect and defend Canadians and that is exactly what he is doing with this legislation.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans confirm his commitment to accountability, transparency, and protecting Canadian fisheries despite opposition threats to undermine the new fisheries bill?
This is a government-backbench softball setup framed around opposition threats, designed to give the minister a platform rather than hold him accountable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am alarmed to hear that opposition parties are threatening to play political games to undermine the new fisheries bill, even though they have agreed that we need to modernize this 139 year old act or risk jeopardizing 21st century fisheries. Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans assure the House that he remains committed to accountability, transparency and protecting Canadian fisheries and fish habitats?
The minister says he remains fully committed to replacing the 139-year-old act, notes support from provinces, industry, fishermen, and unions, and offers to work with opposition in second reading and committee.
The minister affirms his commitment, notes stakeholder support from provinces, industry, and fishermen's unions, and offers a path through second reading and committee, providing some substantive information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have never been more committed to dealing with this act, which would replace the one that is 139 years old. The provinces want it, the industry wants it, the fishermen want it and their unions want it. I hope, with the help of my colleagues, we will refine the act to make it the kind of act that everybody wants. We can do it in second reading and in committee. I am willing to work with them. If they do not want to do that, they can answer to their constituents.
Given that aviation inspectors warn that SMS is a disaster waiting to happen and that similar oversight transfers worsened railway and marine safety, will the minister stop turning airline passengers into cannon fodder?
References aviation inspectors' stated concerns about SMS and draws a factual comparison to deteriorating railway and marine safety outcomes after similar oversight transfers, with a clear ask to stop the SMS approach.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's aviation inspectors understand air safety better than anyone and they are telling the minister that his so-called SMS, self-serve safety, is a literal disaster waiting to happen. These inspectors know what they are talking about. We need only look at what happened to railway safety and marine safety when oversight was handed over to the industries' CEOs. Accident rates rose and safety plummetted. Will the minister listen to those who know best and stop his attempt to turn Canadian airline passengers into cannon fodder? Will he stop playing games with the safety of Canadians?
The minister says SMS adds an additional layer of security for airline users and asserts Canada has the safest airways in the world, and calls on the member to support these actions.
The minister describes SMS as adding an additional layer of security and asserts Canada has the safest airways, but does not address the inspectors' specific concerns or the railway/marine safety comparison raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the facts are the following. We are putting in place a security management system that basically calls upon everybody who is involved in the industry to add on an additional layer in terms of security and safety to those who take our airlines. In that sense, we are continuing to be the safest airways, not only in Canada but throughout the world. I call upon my colleague to support these actions. They are good actions for Canadians.
Given that 80% of Canada's inspectors say self-serve safety will prevent them from correcting problems and three-quarters predict a major accident, why will the minister not listen to those who know aviation safety best?
Cites specific statistics â 80% of inspectors opposed to SMS, three-quarters predicting a major accident â grounding the ask in inspectors' own stated positions, though the rhetoric is heavy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the fact is, the minister is promoting the reckless endangerment of Canadians. Eighty per cent of Canada's inspectors say that the minister's self-serve safety will prevent them from correcting safety problems before they happen. Three-quarters of Canada's inspectors believe that a major accident will occur soon and that the public would lose confidence in aviation safety if they knew what reckless, feckless plans the minister has. The minister is putting Canadian lives at risk. Why will he not listen to those who know aviation safety best?
The minister questions the member's expertise on aviation safety, notes that inspectors are doing their job, and points to a newly appointed railway safety review panel as evidence of government action.
The minister deflects by questioning the member's expertise, mentions a newly appointed railway safety review panel, and does not address the cited inspector survey figures or the specific SMS concerns.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, surely it is not my hon. colleague who knows aviation safety the best. We have been working extensively on this file. We are putting in new layers of protection. We are ensuring that our inspectors are doing the job. Incidentally, we have just appointed a review panel to look at railway safety in the country. We are acting and that party is not doing anything.
Ignatieff asks the Prime Minister to withdraw two specific allegations: one against a member's character and integrity, and one implying the Liberals' policy decisions were motivated by protecting that member.
More specific than prior apology demands in that it identifies two distinct allegations â one against a member's character and one about Liberal political motivation â but remains a demand for withdrawal rather than a policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made two allegations in this House. The first one was against the character and integrity of a member and his family. The second one was the political insinuation that this side of the House would make its decisions on a matter of public policy in order to protect that member. I would ask him to withdraw both of those allegations.
The Minister of Justice says it is very disappointing that the Liberals have changed their position on the Anti-terrorism Act, which the police supported and Liberals themselves put in place five years ago.
The Minister of Justice ignores both identified allegations entirely and pivots to the Liberal Party's position on the Anti-terrorism Act, providing no response to the specific request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is very disappointing is the Liberal position with respect to the Anti-terrorism Act. This was put in by a Liberal government five years ago. The police supported it, members of the Liberal party supported it and the Conservative Party and its antecedents supported it. To make a change at this time, when police are counting on these weapons to fight terrorism in this country, I do not buy the Liberals' story that somehow the problem has gone away. We need it more today than we ever needed it and they should get behind it and support it.
Ignatieff asks that the House receive a clear answer to the question of unsubstantiated allegations made against a member, stating the House deserves that respect.
The question is a pointed but brief demand for a clear answer about unsubstantiated allegations, with minimal new factual grounding beyond the prior exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a clear question was asked in this House about unsubstantiated allegations. The House deserves the respect of a clear answer to a question that relates to the integrity of a member.
Oh, oh!
Van Loan says he did not hear any allegation made and suggests the member raise the matter as a point of order, then attacks Ignatieff for flip-flopping on the Anti-terrorism Act.
Van Loan denies hearing any allegation, deflects to a procedural suggestion about points of order, and then pivots entirely to Ignatieff's past positions on terrorism, providing no substantive response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are getting into the realm of points of order here. I think the member may wish to raise those at the appropriate time. I was in the House and I did not hear any allegation made. I know there was an effort to read an article. I often hear that being done by members on the other side. However, the real question is why the member for EtobicokeâLakeshore, with all the things he has said about the dangers of terrorism in this world and all the positions he has taken, which are far more aggressive than the Anti-terrorism Act, has now joined his leader in flip-flopping on this issue and wanting to oppose the Anti-terrorism Act protections that Canadians need to rely on.
Graham asks the Prime Minister to speak with decency and consideration for fellow members and do the decent thing by apologizing and withdrawing what he calls a drive-by smear against a young member.
The question is almost entirely an appeal to norms of prime ministerial conduct and decency, with no factual or policy grounding, though it contains a specific ask for an apology.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise with considerable difficulty, given the decorum in the House today, but I believe it would be obvious to you and to all members what caused it. I would add my voice to those who would ask our Prime Minister to speak with the voice of Canada, to speak with the decency of politics, to speak with the consideration that members of this House have always shown for one another and apologize and withdraw what clearly was going to be a drive-by smear against a young, hon. member of this House who is seeking to represent his constituents and his country. Will he do the decent thing and speak up?
Van Loan says it is odd to apologize for something about to happen and pivots to the Liberal position on the Anti-terrorism Act as the real serious issue facing Canadians.
Van Loan notes the oddity of being asked to apologize for something that was about to happen and pivots immediately to the Anti-terrorism Act, never engaging with the substance of the civility request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I respect what the hon. member said about decorum. It would be nice to have a little in the House so we could deal with these issues. However, it is a very odd situation. We are being asked to apologize for something that was about to happen. I think the Liberals should apologize for what they are about to do in terms of the Anti-terrorism Act. The problem that is facing Canadians is a very serious one and it is not a question of games in the House of Commons. It is not a question of who is calling each other names or that kind of thing. It is a question of the security of Canadians. It is a very serious and profound question. The Liberals may be trying to dodge and divert, but the fundamental issue remains.
Graham asks the Prime Minister to restore civility and dignity to the House and to act as a Prime Minister for all of Canada rather than for partisanship.
The question is a pure appeal for civility and prime ministerial dignity with no factual grounding or policy ask, making it essentially rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that answer, unfortunately, seeks to move the question away. What I am asking is that the Prime Minister restore civility in the House and restore the sense of dignity of politics in our country and to speak for all Canadians and for what Canada is about, which is decency and respect for one another as we seek to resolve essential issues of the day. What we want is a Prime Minister for Canada, not for partisanship, every day in the House.
Van Loan argues that the Anti-terrorism Act is a non-partisan issue involving the lives of hundreds of Canadians and asks why Liberals have flip-flopped on its protections.
Van Loan again deflects entirely to the Anti-terrorism Act question and Liberal flip-flopping, not addressing the request for restored civility or a prime minister who speaks for all Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there can be no less partisan issue in the House than the question of the extension of the Anti-terrorism Act provisions. Hundreds of Canadians have lost their lives in terrorist acts. All Canadians are at risk should these provisions not be extended. The question is not the issue that the Liberals are trying to divert us to today. The question is why the Liberals will not look at reversing themselves on this. Why have they flip-flopped on it? Why are they willing to give up those protections? Canadians need that explained to them.
Will the federal budget respond positively to Quebec's unanimous National Assembly consensus by including an equalization formula covering all 10 provinces and all revenue sources?
Cites the Quebec Finance Minister's budget statement directly and asks a specific, answerable question about whether the federal budget will include a 10-province formula covering all revenue sources including natural resources.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, lors de la présentation de son budget, hier, le ministre des Finances du Québec a été on ne peut plus clair en affirmant que le rÚglement du déséquilibre fiscal passe inévitablement par une modification de la péréquation dont la formule devra inclure les 10 provinces et qui, et je le cite: « tiendrait compte de l'ensemble de leurs sources de revenus. » Dans son budget, le ministre des Finances répondra-t-il positivement à cette demande qui exprime un consensus unanime de tous les partis à l'Assemblée nationale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when he tabled his budget yesterday, Quebec's minister of finance made it abundantly clear that correcting the fiscal imbalance would involve changing the equalization formula, which must include all 10 provinces and all their revenue sources. In his budget, will the Minister of Finance respond positively to this request, which reflects a unanimous consensus of all the parties in the National Assembly?
The minister says he will not preview budget content but notes extensive consultations with finance ministers and first ministers and confirms the budget will be presented on March 19.
The minister acknowledges extensive consultations and sets a specific budget date of March 19 but declines to preview the content, which is a legitimate and partially informative response though it does not answer the substantive question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member opposite is aware, I will not talk about what might or might not be in the budget. We have had extensive consultations over the course of the past more than one year now with respect to that issue and other issues. We have reviewed all the studies. Certainly the finance ministers and the first ministers have had discussions. My colleague across the floor will have to wait until the budget, which will be March 19.
Will the minister's fiscal imbalance principles include the 10-province rule and 100% of provincial revenues including both renewable and non-renewable natural resources?
Paquette sharpens the ask by clarifying he is not asking for budget details but specifically whether the minister's stated principles will include the 10-province rule and 100% of revenues including natural resources.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce qu'on demande au ministre, ce n'est pas de nous dévoiler son budget. Le ministre a déjà dit que la solution qu'il mettrait de l'avant pour régler le déséquilibre fiscal reposerait sur des principes et des principes clairs. Ce que je lui demande, c'est si ces principes vont inclure la rÚgle des 10 provinces et 100 p. 100 des revenus de ces provinces, incluant les ressources naturelles, qu'elles soient renouvelables ou non? C'est ce que je lui demande. C'est une question d'équité pour nous.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are not asking the minister to divulge what is in his budget. The minister said that the solution he would propose to correct the fiscal imbalance would be based on clear principles. What I am asking is whether these principles will include the 10-province rule and 100% of those provinces' revenues, including both renewable and non-renewable natural resources? That is what I am asking. It is a question of fairness.
The minister says the principles for predictable, long-term funding to resolve the fiscal imbalance will be in the budget.
The minister gives a one-sentence answer saying the principles will be in the budget, which technically acknowledges the question but provides no substantive information about whether those specific principles will be included.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the principles upon which predictable, long term funding will be based to resolve the fiscal imbalance and create fiscal balance will be in the budget.
The MP asked the Minister of International Cooperation to share with the House the importance of the HIV vaccine research funding initiative announced with Bill Gates.
A government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to share the importance of an already-announced initiative, with no accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, HIV-AIDS affects people from all walks of life in all parts of the world. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health, the Minister of International Cooperation and the Minister of Industry, along with Mr. Bill Gates, announced funding for research into the development of an HIV vaccine. Would the Minister of International Cooperation share with the House the importance of this initiative in regard to HIV-AIDS research?
The minister announced a $111 million investment in the Canadian HIV vaccine initiative alongside Bill Gates, citing also $250 million to the Global Fund and $120 million for nearly twenty projects.
The minister provided specific figures â $111 million for the Canadian HIV vaccine initiative, $250 million to the Global Fund, and $120 million for nearly twenty projects â directly responding to the prompt about the initiative's importance.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie mon collÚgue de sa question. Hier, le gouvernement du Canada a annoncé un investissement de 111 millions de dollars dans l'initiative canadienne de vaccins contre le VIH, en compagnie de M. Bill Gates. Cet investissement majeur démontre notre leadership sur la scÚne internationale en matiÚre de recherche et de prévention dans la lutte contre le VIH-sida. à cela s'ajoute, bien entendu, notre contribution de 250 millions de dollars au Fonds global de lutte contre le sida, la tuberculose et le paludisme, sans compter l'octroi de 120 millions de dollars que nous avons accordés en décembre dernier pour appuyer prÚs d'une vingtaine de projets.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Yesterday, the Government of Canada, along with Bill Gates, announced that it was investing $111 million in the Canadian HIV vaccine initiative. This major investment shows that Canada is an international leader in HIV-AIDS research and prevention. Of course, we have also contributed $250 million to the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and, last December, we announced $120 million in funding for nearly 20 projects.
Goodale asked whether the Prime Minister verified the Vancouver Sun story before proposing to use it in the House, and demanded the government withdraw the allegation.
Goodale raises a specific accountability question about whether the Prime Minister verified The Vancouver Sun story before attempting to use it in the House, with a clear ask to withdraw the allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the last time the Conservatives accused us of being soft on terror, they were slurring Maher Arar. Earlier in the House, the Prime Minister said that if I doubted a particular story in The Vancouver Sun I could check with the newspaper. Did he not check himself before proposing to use that news story in the House of Commons? Does he subscribe to the view that any old smear will do? Why will the government simply not do the honourable thing today and withdraw that allegation?
Van Loan suggested opposition members could explain the article themselves and redirected to the Liberals' withdrawal of support for the Anti-terrorism Act as the real issue.
Van Loan does not address whether the Prime Minister verified the story, ignores the withdrawal request, and pivots to attacking the Liberals over the Anti-terrorism Act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again the member is talking about something that he is supposing we were about to say. Had it been said, I suppose opposition members could explain the article themselves. They had an opportunity to do that on the public record. They still have the opportunity to explain it and I do not wish to deny that to them. The real issue is that this is a diversion. The real issue is that the big question of the day is the serious question of the Anti-terrorism Act and the risk that Canadians are being put at because the Liberals are pulling their support for those important public security measures.
Godin asked why the minister is appealing an EI ruling that granted full retroactive benefits to approximately 100 workers locked out by Clearwater of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia.
Godin identifies a specific case â Clearwater of Glace Bay, a lockout of around 100 workers, an EI ruling granting full benefits, and the government's appeal â with a clear ask for an explanation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last March Clearwater of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia locked out around 100 workers. In June 2006 it decided not to reopen the fish plant. The federal government rejected the workers' claims for employment insurance, since there are no benefits during a strike or lockout and the dispute was not over. However, the EI ruling gave the workers full benefits, including retroactive payments, but the federal government decided to appeal the ruling. Could the minister please explain to these workers why he is letting them down?
Solberg stated that 83% of workers affected by closures ultimately receive benefits and that disputes are handled by an objective, arm's-length panel of referees with a further appeal to an umpire, which is now underway.
Solberg acknowledged the tragedy of job loss and explained the referral process to an arm's-length panel of referees and umpire, but did not directly explain why the government is appealing the specific EI ruling in the Clearwater case.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously, it is a tragedy whenever anyone loses their job. In situations like this, there are a range of benefits that are available for people if they meet the standards, and 83% of people who lose their jobs through closures like this ultimately are able to get benefits In some cases, there is a dispute. Those disputes are sent to an objective body, to an arm's-length body, a panel of referees, and ultimately, it is appealed again to an umpire. That process is now underway.
Godin demanded that the minister withdraw the government's appeal, noting workers have received no money for a year and will wait at least six more months due to the appeal.
Godin makes a specific and direct demand â that the minister withdraw the government's appeal â grounded in the fact that workers have received no money for a year and face at least six more months of waiting.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cette situation est inacceptable. Ces travailleurs n'ont pas reçu d'argent depuis un an et, en plus, ils vont devoir attendre au moins six mois, car le gouvernement interjette appel. Le message envoyé aux travailleurs est trÚs clair: on ne va pas seulement vous laisser tomber, on va tout faire pour ne pas vous aider. Les travailleurs et leurs familles méritent beaucoup plus. Le ministre va-t-il retirer la demande d'appel faite par ce gouvernement qui est injuste envers ses travailleurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this situation is unacceptable. These workers have not received any money for a year or more. They will have to wait at least six months because the government has appealed. The message being given to the workers is very clear: not only are we going to abandon you, but we will do everything possible to avoid helping you. These workers and their families deserve much more. Will the minister withdraw the appeal filed by this government, which is unfair to its workers?
Solberg defended the fairness of the process, cited the targeted initiative for older workers and extended unemployment benefits in high-unemployment areas, and urged the member to let the process take its course without addressing the withdrawal request.
Solberg does not address the withdrawal of the appeal, instead calling the member out of line, citing unrelated measures such as the targeted initiative for older workers, and urging the member to let the process take its course.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this member is really way out of line here. The government has moved to help workers on many occasions, including the targeted initiative for older workers. We have extended unemployment benefits in areas of high unemployment. In this case, I can guarantee the member that this is a fair process and that people will be treated fairly. As I pointed out earlier, workers are able to get benefits. I would urge the member to let the process take its course.
This exchange recorded a procedural acknowledgment of guests in the gallery, with members responding with 'Hear, hear!' No question was asked and no substantive answer was given.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!