Session overview
- Budget 2007 dominated Question Period, with the Liberal and NDP opposition challenging the government on broken promises regarding equalization, child care spaces, and income trusts, while the government defended the budget as broadly beneficial.
- The Bloc Québécois pressed the government on whether the fiscal imbalance settlement should have been delivered through permanent tax-point transfers rather than direct cash, with the Prime Minister acknowledging the difference in value for Quebec between the two approaches.
- Minister of National Defence Gordon O'Connor faced repeated calls to resign over misleading statements about the Red Cross's role in monitoring Afghan detainees; the Leader of the Opposition formally asked the Prime Minister to request O'Connor's resignation.
- Aboriginal affairs drew sustained criticism from Liberal and NDP members over the absence of Kelowna accord funding in the budget; the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development cited $10.1 billion in aboriginal spending but did not address the Assembly of First Nations core funding question.
- The situation at Kashechewan led to a heated exchange and a point of order: member for TimminsâJames Bay Charlie Angus made an unparliamentary remark, apologized to the House, but deferred a personal apology to the minister pending consultation with Chief and council of Kashechewan.
- The government confirmed its formal opposition to LNG tanker transit through Head Harbour Passage, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs stating that Ambassador Wilson had formally conveyed Canada's strong opposition to the United States.
The Prime Minister substantively conceded that tax-point transfers and cash transfers are not equivalent â acknowledging that tax points have different values for each province â and explicitly stated the government remains open to considering both options, a concrete policy position revealed under direct questioning.
Coderre cites access documents and ministerial briefing books, specifies October as the date of available information, and asks a pointed question about whether the minister's distortion was deliberate given that the correct information was at his fingertips for months.
O'Connor responded to a detailed, multi-part question about deliberate misleading of Parliament and his background as an arms dealer with a single boilerplate sentence about engaging the Afghan Human Rights Commission, failing to address any specific allegation raised.
Outstanding questions
- Anita Neville asked whether the government has put the Assembly of First Nations core funding â as much as $8 million â at risk; the minister did not answer this at all.
- Claude Bachand asked what the Minister of National Defence and the president of the Red Cross actually discussed at their fall meeting if not Afghanistan detainees; O'Connor never answered this.
- Francine Lalonde asked why the Minister of Foreign Affairs would not sign a comprehensive agreement with Afghan authorities â as the Netherlands had done â to give Canada the right to know and act on the fate of detainees it transfers; MacKay deflected entirely to O'Connor.
- Stéphane Dion asked why the Prime Minister did not use the budget to correct the harm done to Canadian families by the income trust tax, citing the Conservative commitment to 'preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on them'; Harper did not address the broken promise directly.
- Charlie Angus asked why the government had not acted on a signed agreement to relocate Kashechewan to safe ground on their own territory and whether the minister had seen a report stating the dike would likely fail; Prentice denied slamming the door but gave no commitment on relocation.
Dion quotes the Prime Minister's January 4, 2006 promise to remove non-renewable natural resource revenue from the equalization formula and asks why he broke that promise to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Cites a specific dated commitment from January 4, 2006 to remove non-renewable natural resource revenue from the equalization formula, with a single clear accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this divisive Prime Minister--
Where's Joe? We want Joe.
Mr. Speaker, this divisive Prime Minister has broken his promises so often that this budget is only adding to that. This first example is from January 4, 2006, and this what the Prime Minister promised the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador: âWe will remove non-renewable natural resource revenue from the equalization formula...â. He committed to do that. Why did he break his promise to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Harper says the Atlantic accords are protected in their entirety and that the exclusion of offshore resources has been adopted for every province in the general equalization formula, suggesting Dion has not read the budget.
Harper claims the Atlantic accords are protected in their entirety and that offshore resources are excluded from the general formula, but does not directly address the 50% inclusion that Dion implies, pivoting instead to attacking Dion for not reading the budget.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should know that is the arrangement that exists presently in the Atlantic accords, which this government has protected in their entirety. This government has adopted as well the exclusion of offshore resources as part of the general equalization formula for every province. Once again, this is an example of why the Leader of the Opposition should have read the budget before he took a position on it. If he had done that, he might find that he does not have to kick out members of his own party who understand that this is a good budget for Canadians.
Dion asks why the Prime Minister tabled a budget that breaks his promise to create 125,000 new child care spaces, noting last year's budget created nothing and this budget likely creates zero.
References a specific prior promise of 125,000 new child care spaces and contrasts it with the apparent absence of new spaces in two consecutive budgets, making a reasonably concrete accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, maybe the Prime Minister should read the budget. He will see that it is 50% on non-renewable resources that is taking effect. He very clearly broke his promise. There is another one that he broke. He promised to create 125,000 new child care spaces. Last year's budget created nothing and this budget creates probably zero. How come the Prime Minister has tabled a budget that breaks such an important promise that is so vital for Canadian families?
Harper points to a tax credit for businesses opening child care spaces, new provincial transfers for child care spaces, and the $1,200 annual allowance from last year's budget as the government's child care measures.
Harper lists relevant budget measures (tax credit for businesses, provincial transfers, $1,200 allowance) that relate to child care but does not address the specific gap between the promised 125,000 spaces and actual spaces created, deflecting to attacks on the Liberals.
Source text
Once again, Mr. Speaker, if he had read the budget he would have seen that there is a tax credit for businesses that open up new child care spaces. There are new transfers to the provinces for the creation of new child care spaces. Of course, there is also, from last year's budget, the $1,200 a year allowance for every Canadian family. I know the Liberal Party wants to take away all these things, but once again, the Leader of the Opposition did not know what he was talking about on the security issue and he does not know what he is talking about on the budget issue. That is why he cannot get his own caucus to stand behind his positions.
Dion quotes the Conservative commitment to preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on them and asks why the Prime Minister broke that promise and failed to use the budget to correct the harm done to Canadian families.
Quotes a specific Conservative commitment to preserve income trusts by not imposing new taxes on them and asks why it was broken and why the budget did not correct the harm done.
Source text
Not a single space, Mr. Speaker. That is another broken promise. There is a third one. I have only three questions, so I will give three examples, but there are so many. He broke his promise to the retirees of this country. He did not protect their savings in the income trusts. This is the comment he made: âA Conservative government will...preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on themâ. Why did he break his promise? Why did he not use the budget to correct the harm this did to so many Canadian families?
Harper says the government ensured corporations pay their fair share of taxes and introduced income splitting for seniors, which the Liberals voted against, and then pivots to arguing that only the Liberal leader opposes the fiscal imbalance settlement in Quebec.
Harper does not address the broken income trust promise at all, instead citing corporate tax fairness and income splitting for seniors (which are different policies), then pivoting to French-language attacks on the Liberals regarding fiscal imbalance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows the answer to that question, which is that we made sure that corporations pay their fair share of taxes and that there is income splitting for seniors, and the Liberal Party voted against both of those things. Je dois aussi mentionner que la dĂ©putĂ©e de WestmountâVille-Marie a annoncĂ© qu'il s'agissait d'un bon budget. Au QuĂ©bec, seuls le chef du Parti libĂ©ral fĂ©dĂ©ral et sa bande de libĂ©raux fĂ©dĂ©raux s'opposent au rĂšglement du dĂ©sĂ©quilibre fiscal. C'est une position honteuse.
Ignatieff asks why the government introduced a budget that divides the country, citing the concerns of Saskatchewan, B.C., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
The question is largely rhetorical framing about two classes of Canadians and regional division, with only a vague compound ask about why specific provinces feel excluded rather than a precise accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government believes there are two classes of Canadians. There are those who might vote for the Conservative Party and there are those who do not count. A prime minister is supposed to unite and not divide, and a federal government is supposed to act on behalf of all Canadians, so why is it that the people of Saskatchewan, B.C., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador are wondering today, âWhy don't we count?â Why did the government introduce a budget that so obviously divides the country?
Harper says the fiscal balance solution is based on advice from an independent expert panel appointed by the previous government, that every province gets more money ($39 billion more over time), and lists beneficiaries of the budget.
Harper references the independent expert panel on fiscal balance, states every province gets more money and cites the $39 billion figure, which is partially relevant, but does not address the specific concerns of the named provinces.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party knows full well that the fiscal balance solution is based on the advice of an independent expert panel, in fact one appointed by the previous government. We modified those recommendations specifically for our platform commitments. Every province gets more money under this budget and a lot more money as the years go by, $39 billion more. This budget rewards families, it rewards seniors, it rewards truckers, it rewards farmers, it rewards soldiers, and I could go on and on. The one thing that unites members of the Liberal Party is they are voting against all of them.
Ignatieff asks why the government did not know that half the provinces would reject its budget and why it divided the provinces rather than uniting them.
Asks why the government did not know half the provinces would reject the budget and why it sowed division rather than unity, but the question is more rhetorical than precise and relies on the Finance Minister's Monday statement rather than a cited document.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je vais essayer de nouveau en français. Lundi, le ministre des Finances a annoncé de façon assez arrogante que c'était fini les chicanes entre le gouvernement fédéral et les provinces. Ce n'est pas fini du tout. Pourquoi le gouvernement ne savait-il pas que la moitié des provinces rejetteraient son budget? Pourquoi ce gouvernement a-t-il semé la division entre les provinces plutÎt que l'unité?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I will try again in French. On Monday, the Minister of Finance announced rather arrogantly that the bickering between the provincial and federal governments was over. It is not over at all. Why did the government not know that half of the provinces would reject its budget? Why did this government drive the provinces apart, rather than bring them together?
Harper notes it is the first French question from the official opposition and argues it is the centralizing philosophy of the federal Liberal government that opposes the fiscal imbalance settlement, not his government's approach.
Harper deflects entirely, noting it is the first French question from the official opposition and pivoting to attacking the centralizing philosophy of the Liberal government rather than addressing why provinces rejected the budget.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il est intéressant de constater que c'est la premiÚre question en français de l'opposition officielle aujourd'hui. Ma réponse est claire. C'est cette bande de libéraux fédéraux centralisateurs qui s'oppose au rÚglement du déséquilibre fiscal. C'est la philosophie centralisatrice du gouvernement libéral qui veut ramasser tout l'argent d'Ottawa pour diriger les compétences des provinces. Ce n'est pas notre philosophie et ce n'est pas la philosophie d'une bonne fédération canadienne.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that this is the first question in French from the official opposition today. My answer is clear. It is this band of centralizing federal Liberals who are against correcting the fiscal imbalance. It is the centralist philosophy of a Liberal government that would collect all the money in Ottawa so that it can tell the provinces what to do. That is not our philosophy and that is not the philosophy of a good Canadian federation.
Duceppe cites Senator Fortier's interview stating all programs are susceptible to being changed, and asks whether the Prime Minister recognizes that a genuine fiscal imbalance settlement must involve a permanent transfer of tax fields.
Cites a specific interview with Senator Fortier in which he stated all programs are susceptible to being changed, and asks a precise question about whether a genuine fiscal imbalance settlement requires permanent transfer of tax fields.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux a confirmĂ© nos craintes. Dans une entrevue, le sĂ©nateur Fortier a dĂ©clarĂ© qu'il n'y avait jamais rien de permanent en politique et que: « Tous les programmes sont susceptibles d'ĂȘtre changĂ©s. » Bref, le ministre est incapable de garantir que les sommes consenties au QuĂ©bec pour rĂ©gler le dĂ©sĂ©quilibre fiscal seront reconduites annĂ©e aprĂšs annĂ©e. Ă la lumiĂšre des dĂ©clarations de son ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux, le premier ministre se rend-il compte qu'un vĂ©ritable rĂšglement du dĂ©sĂ©quilibre fiscal doit absolument passer par un transfert permanent de champs fiscaux?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services confirmed our fears. In an interview, Senator Fortier said that nothing is ever permanent in politics and that, âChanges may occur in any programâ. The minister is unable to guarantee that the money earmarked for Quebec to resolve the fiscal imbalance will be renewed year after year. In light of the statements by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, does the Prime Minister realize that in order to truly resolve the fiscal imbalance there absolutely needs to be a permanent transfer of tax fields?
Harper says the current arrangement is long term (seven years) and that there are different ways to transfer money, arguing the best guarantee for provincial transfers is a Conservative government with a decentralizing philosophy.
Harper says the arrangement is long term (seven years) and acknowledges there are different ways to transfer money, but does not directly address whether cash transfers can constitute a genuine permanent settlement or respond to the Fortier quote.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'arrangement présent est un arrangement à long terme. C'est un arrangement pour sept ans. Il y a différentes façons de transférer de l'argent, mais il est vrai que la meilleure garantie de transferts aux provinces et de bonnes relations avec les provinces, c'est un gouvernement conservateur avec une philosophie décentralisatrice pour ce pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the current arrangement is a long-term arrangement for seven years. There are different ways of transferring money, but it is true that the best guarantee for transfers to the provinces, and good relations with the provinces, is a Conservative government that advocates decentralization for this country.
Duceppe asks why the government will not commit to genuinely transferring tax fields through tax points, GST points, or a combination, arguing this would be clearer, simpler, and would actually resolve the fiscal imbalance.
Makes a substantive argument about why cash transfers are insufficient and asks specifically why the government will not commit to transferring tax fields through tax points, GST points, or a combination, though it is partly a speech rather than a pure question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la dĂ©finition du dĂ©sĂ©quilibre fiscal est simple: Ottawa perçoit trop d'argent pour ses responsabilitĂ©s alors que le QuĂ©bec n'en reçoit pas assez pour faire face aux compĂ©tences qui sont les siennes. Si le gouvernement veut rĂ©ellement rĂ©gler le dĂ©sĂ©quilibre fiscal, il est clair que l'assiette fiscale doit ĂȘtre partagĂ©e autrement et non pas relever d'une dĂ©cision prise chaque annĂ©e par un gouvernement qui ne peut pas prĂ©voir s'il sera lĂ dans sept, huit, neuf ou dix ans. Personne ne peut faire cela, surtout en situation minoritaire. Pourquoi le gouvernement ne s'engage-t-il pas Ă transfĂ©rer vĂ©ritablement des champs fiscaux par des points d'impĂŽts, des points de TPS ou une combinaison des deux? Ce serait plus clair, plus simple, et cela rĂ©glerait le problĂšme.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the definition of fiscal imbalance is simple: Ottawa gets too much money for its responsibilities while Quebec does not get enough to deal with its own jurisdictions. If the government really wants to resolve the fiscal imbalance, it is clear that the tax base has to be shared in another way and not come from a decision made every year by a government that cannot predict whether it will still be here in seven, eight, nine or ten years. No one can do that, especially not in a minority situation. Why does the government not commit to truly transferring the tax fields based on tax points, GST points, or a combination of the two? This would be clearer, simpler and would resolve the problem.
Harper explains that there are several ways to resolve the fiscal imbalance and notes that the disadvantage of tax points is that they have different values for each province, whereas a direct dollar transfer is equal for every province.
Harper directly engages the tax points vs. cash transfer debate, noting that tax points have different values for each province while a dollar transfer is a dollar for each, which partially addresses the question, though he does not commit to either approach.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il y a tout simplement plusieurs façons de rĂ©gler le dĂ©sĂ©quilibre fiscal. On peut transfĂ©rer de l'argent ou on peut transfĂ©rer des points d'impĂŽt. Le dĂ©savantage des points d'impĂŽt est que ces points d'impĂŽt ont des valeurs diffĂ©rentes pour chaque province, tandis qu'un transfert d'un dollar, pour chaque province, c'est un transfert d'un dollar. C'est peut-ĂȘtre plus juste. Nous sommes toujours prĂȘts Ă considĂ©rer les possibilitĂ©s. Enfin, pour avoir de telles relations fiscales avec les provinces, il est nĂ©cessaire d'avoir un gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©raliste Ă QuĂ©bec et un gouvernement qui respecte les champs de compĂ©tence des provinces, ici Ă Ottawa.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, quite simply, there are a number of ways to resolve the fiscal imbalance. We can transfer money or we can transfer tax points. The disadvantage of tax points is that they have different values for each province, while transferring a dollar to each province is transferring a dollar. That may be fairer. We are still prepared to consider the possibilities. To have such fiscal relations with the provinces, it is necessary to have a federalist government in Quebec and a government here in Ottawa that respects provincial jurisdictions.
Paquette challenges the Prime Minister's claim that transferring money via tax points and cash amounts to the same thing, and asks him to acknowledge that tax fields would give Quebec and the provinces permanent, reliable, independent revenues that Ottawa could not cut.
Challenges the Prime Minister's specific prior statement that tax point and cash transfers amount to the same thing, and asks whether he will deny the difference between the two, grounding the question in a concrete policy distinction.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, le premier ministre a affirmĂ© Ă propos du transfert d'argent et du transfert de points d'impĂŽt aux provinces que: « Ă la fin, cela fait la mĂȘme chose. » Or c'est faux. Ce n'est pas la mĂȘme chose et le premier ministre le sait trĂšs bien. D'ailleurs, il vient de le signaler. Le premier ministre peut-il nier qu'il y a toute une diffĂ©rence entre le transfert d'argent par le biais de points d'impĂŽt et d'argent en espĂšces, ce qui donnerait au QuĂ©bec et aux provinces des revenus permanents, fiables et indĂ©pendants qu'Ottawa ne pourrait pas couper Ă sa guise, comme cela a dĂ©jĂ Ă©tĂ© le cas dans le passĂ©?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in reference to money transfers and tax point transfers to the provinces,the Prime Minister said, âIn the end, the result is the sameâ. But that is wrong. It is not the same thing, and the Prime Minister knows it full well. In fact, he just pointed it out. Can the Prime Minister deny that there is a huge difference between the transfer of money through tax points and the transfer of cash, which would give Quebec and the provinces permanent, reliable and independent revenues that Ottawa would not be able cut at will, as has been the case in the past?
Harper acknowledges there are differences and specifically notes that a tax point transfer is worth less for Quebec than a direct cash transfer, then adds that the reaction to the fiscal imbalance settlement is very positive in Quebec.
Harper partially concedes there are differences and specifically acknowledges that a tax point transfer is worth less for Quebec than a direct cash transfer, which is responsive, but he then pivots to noting positive reaction in Quebec rather than fully addressing permanence.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il y a des différences. L'une de ces différences est qu'un transfert de points d'impÎt vaut moins pour le Québec qu'un transfert direct d'argent. C'est une considération. Enfin, je note que la réaction envers notre rÚglement du déséquilibre fiscal est trÚs positive au Québec.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there are differences. One of those differences is that a tax point transfer is worth less for Quebec than a direct transfer of cash. That is one consideration. I should also point out that the reaction to the way we settled the fiscal imbalance issue is very positive in Quebec.
Paquette asks whether the Prime Minister will admit that by choosing cash transfers over tax fields he intends to maintain federal control over Quebec and the provinces, keeping them dependent on Ottawa's goodwill.
Asks whether the Prime Minister will admit that choosing cash transfers over tax fields is intended to maintain federal control and keep provinces dependent on Ottawa's goodwill, which is a pointed but largely rhetorical framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre admettra-t-il qu'en choisissant de transférer de l'argent plutÎt que des champs fiscaux, il veut maintenir son contrÎle sur le Québec et les provinces, et il veut les garder sous la tutelle du fédéral en entretenant leur dépendance face au bon vouloir d'Ottawa? Au fond, c'est ce que dit le premier ministre.
Hansard translation: Will the Prime Minisiter admit that, by choosing to transfer money instead of tax fields, he wants to maintain control over Quebec and the provinces, and he wants to keep them under the control of the federal government by keeping them at the mercy of Ottawa's good will? Come to think of it, this is what the Prime Minister is saying.
Harper denies the accusation, says the government respects provincial jurisdiction and is prepared to meet a new federalist government to control the federal spending power, and argues the Bloc's real issue is separation, not fiscal imbalance.
Harper flatly denies the accusation, cites the government's respect for provincial jurisdiction and willingness to meet a new federalist government to control the federal spending power, then deflects by saying the Bloc's real issue is separation rather than fiscal imbalance.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est tout Ă fait faux. Ce gouvernement respecte clairement les champs de compĂ©tence des provinces. Ce gouvernement est prĂȘt Ă rencontrer le nouveau gouvernement â qui, je l'espĂšre, sera fĂ©dĂ©raliste â pour contrĂŽler le pouvoir fĂ©dĂ©ral de dĂ©penser. Le problĂšme du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, c'est que ce n'est pas une question de dĂ©sĂ©quilibre fiscal, c'est une question de sĂ©paration. Nous avons rĂ©glĂ© le dossier de la sĂ©paration. Les QuĂ©bĂ©cois ne veulent pas que le QuĂ©bec se sĂ©pare du reste du Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false. This government clearly respects provincial jurisdictions. It is prepared to meet with the new provincial governmentâwhich I hope will be a federalist governmentâto control federal spending power. The problem for the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois is not a fiscal imbalance issue, but a separation issue. We have settled the issue of separation. Quebeckers do not want Quebec to separate from the rest of Canada.
Layton asks whether the Prime Minister recognizes that his budget does nothing to reduce the social imbalance suffered by middle-class families and the poor, arguing tax reductions mainly benefit large corporations and the wealthy.
Layton frames the budget's tax reductions as benefiting mainly large corporations and the wealthy and asks whether the Prime Minister recognizes the budget does nothing for the social imbalance faced by middle-class families and the poor, but the ask is vague and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le budget conservateur ignore les besoins fondamentaux des familles parce que les déductions d'impÎt profitent en majorité aux grandes entreprises et aux riches. Les réductions d'impÎt n'embauchent pas d'infirmiÚres, ne réduisent pas les frais de scolarité, ne créent pas de places en garderie et ne bùtissent pas de logements abordables. Le premier ministre se rend-il compte que son budget ne fait rien pour réduire le déséquilibre social dont souffrent les familles de la classe moyenne et les pauvres?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative budget ignores the basic needs of families, because tax the deductions primarily benefit large corporations and the wealthy. Tax cuts do not hire nurses, reduce tuition fees, create daycare spaces, or build affordable housing. Does the Prime Minister realize that his budget does nothing to reduce the social imbalance that is adversely affecting middle class families and the poor?
Harper rejects the premise and lists the working income tax benefit, new savings plans for disabled Canadians, and the child care credit as initiatives for working Canadians and the working poor, and challenges the NDP to vote for them.
Harper directly names specific budget initiatives (working income tax benefit, new savings plans for disabled Canadians, child care credit) that are at least partially responsive to Layton's social concerns, though he does not engage with the 'social imbalance' framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not accept that at all. The government has brought in a number of important initiatives for working Canadians and for the working poor, the working income tax benefit for example, the new savings plans for disabled Canadians. We have also brought in a child care credit for families and the vast majority of that will go to very modest and middle income families. These are all things NDP members claim to support. It is about time, instead of criticizing and asking for more spending, they actually voted for some of the things that help working people.
Layton asks why the Prime Minister will not raise the minimum wage to $10 across the country, and also raises concerns about the lack of affordable training and inadequate action on credential recognition for new Canadians.
Raises several concerns (affordable training, credential recognition for new Canadians, minimum wage) but bundles them into a compound ask with rhetorical framing, making it less precise than it could be.
Source text
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is in denial. The budget does nothing about the growing prosperity gap that is evident in the country. To give several examples, there is nothing for affordable training that people need for the 21st century economy. New Canadians were promised that they would have their credentials recognized and we have pathetic action on that front, which will not amount to a hill of beans. What about ensuring that people have a decent wage? Why is the government not taking action to bring us a $10 minimum wage across the country, something we should have in Canada, and in Ontario, right away? Why will the Prime Minister not act to do something that is fair for working families for a change?
Harper quotes the Vancouver Sun criticizing the NDP's knee-jerk opposition to a budget containing measures such as a cervical cancer immunization program, child sexual exploitation protection, a savings plan for disabled children, and a Canadian Mental Health Commission.
Harper does not address affordable training, credential recognition, or the $10 minimum wage at all, instead quoting the Vancouver Sun's editorial criticizing the NDP's opposition to specific budget measures, which is a deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me quote what the Vancouver Sun says about the knee-jerk opposition of the NDP: How could the opposition have faced the nation after defeating a budget that allocated $300 million to an immunization program to protect women against cervical cancer, set aside money to help the RCMP protect children from sexual exploitation and trafficking, created a savings plan to help parents put aside money to care for disabled children, and funded the establishment of a Canadian Mental Health Commission? NDP Leader Jack Layton explained that his party wouldn't support the budget because it left only crumbs on the kitchen table, and put the rest on the boardroom table. But he's wrong. There's a whole loaf on the kitchen table...
Ratansi presents the case of a single mother earning $22,000 who falls into a gap â too much for the working income tax credit, too little for the child tax credit â and asks the Minister of Finance to explain why the budget does nothing for her.
Uses a constructed persona (Judy) to illustrate a gap in budget coverage, but the hypothetical framing weakens accountability value and the ask is implicit rather than direct.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Judy lives in my province of Ontario. She is a busy single mother who raises her seven year old son. Life has not been easy on her and she works as many hours as she can. It is difficult without the benefit of an affordable national child care system. She will earn about $22,000 this year working at various jobs, too much for the working income tax credit, too little for the child tax credit. Could the Minister of Finance explain why his budget does nothing for Judy?
Spin, skate, spin, skate.
Oh, oh!
Flaherty begins to reference the $100 per month universal child tax benefit introduced in last year's budget and mentions a new benefit, but is interrupted and does not complete his answer.
Flaherty begins to reference the $100 per month universal child tax benefit from last year's budget and mentions a new benefit, but is interrupted before fully answering, so the response is incomplete.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, in last year's budget we introduced the $100 per month universal child tax benefit, which would be received. We have also now introduced the benefit for theâ
Does the former goaltender not want me to answer or does he want me to answer?
Ratansi presents the case of Marie, a 56-year-old widow in Cranbrook, B.C., with a $40,000 pension, and asks the Minister of Finance to explain why the budget does nothing for her.
Again uses a constructed persona (Marie) to illustrate a gap in budget coverage, making it a rhetorical device rather than a precise accountability question with a specific policy ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, shame on the minister. He could have had the courtesy to answer the question. Marie is 56 years old and an active member of her community in Cranbrook, B.C. Her late husband, Kevin, passed away three years ago and left her a pension of $40,000. She continues to live in a house where they raised their grown children. Right now she is busy volunteering her time to ensure that this year's summer festival is the best one ever. Could the Minister of Finance explain why his budget does nothing for Marie?
Flaherty cites the universal child benefit and the $1.4 billion benefit for children under 18 introduced in budget 2007, and states that 75% of tax reductions go to people earning less than $75,000 and about 50% to people earning less than $33,000.
Flaherty references the universal child benefit and the new $1.4 billion benefit for children under 18 from budget 2007, and notes that 75% of tax reductions go to people earning less than $75,000, which is partially responsive but does not address Marie's specific situation as a widow with a $40,000 pension and no children at home.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the universal child benefit, there is also the benefit, costing $1.4 billion, introduced for children under the age of 18 in budget 2007. This is a major reform and a major step forward to encourage families. Lots of families in Canada struggle. At the end of the month, they have trouble paying their bills, with the cost of gas, the cost of energy and the cost of electricity in many places in Canada. We understand that struggle by middle class families in Canada Seventy-five per cent of the tax reductions in the budget go to people earning less than $75,000, about 50% to people earning less than $33,000â
McCallum presents the case of a couple (Marc and MylĂšne) earning about $25,000 each after Marc lost his job when the Prime Minister allegedly broke his promise to keep the Quebec postal sorting centre open, and asks why budget 2007 does nothing for them.
Uses a constructed couple (Marc et MylĂšne) and ties it to an alleged broken promise about the Quebec postal sorting centre, giving it some factual grounding, but the constructed persona framing weakens precision.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, Marc et MylÚne forment un jeune couple sans enfants qui loue un appartement de trois piÚces et demi. Marc a perdu son emploi lorsque le premier ministre n'a pas tenu sa promesse de garder ouvert le centre de tri postal de Québec. Il a trouvé un autre emploi beaucoup moins bien rémunéré, et maintenant chacun d'eux gagne environ 25 000 $ par année. Le ministre des Finances peut-il expliquer pourquoi son budget 2007 n'a absolument rien pour Marc et MylÚne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Marc and MylĂšne are a young couple with no children renting a one-bedroom apartment. Marc lost his job when the Prime Minister broke his promise to keep the mail sorting centre in Quebec City open. He found another much lower-paying job, and now they each earn about $25,000 per year. Can the Minister of Finance explain why his 2007 budget does nothing for Marc and MylĂšne?
Cannon corrects the factual premise, stating that not a single person from the Quebec postal sorting centre lost their job, and dismisses both the preamble and the question as false.
Cannon directly challenges the factual premise, stating that not a single person from the Quebec postal sorting centre lost their job, which addresses the key factual claim underpinning the question even if it doesn't address the broader budget question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais d'abord corriger les faits, parce que le député erre. Il erre, car pas une seule personne du centre de tri de Québec n'a perdu son emploi. Son préambule est faux, tout comme sa question.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to correct the facts, because the member is mistaken. Not one person at the Quebec City mail sorting centre lost their job. His preamble is misleading, just like his question.
McCallum asks why decent, hard-working Canadians of modest means like Marie, Marc, Mylene, and Judy get nothing from the budget while a family earning over $300,000 receives a $930 tax credit.
Attempts a fairness contrast between a family earning over $300,000 receiving a $930 tax credit and the personas from earlier questions who receive nothing, but the $300,000 figure is disputed and the question bundles rhetorical framing with a legitimate distributional concern.
Source text
Mr. Speakerâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, Jim and his wife raised their three teenage sons in Whitby on a family income of more than $300,000. This lucky family just got a $930 tax credit? Why, in the name of tax fairness, do decent, hard-working Canadians of modest means, like Marie, Marc, Mylene and Judy, get absolutely nothing from this budget, while Jim, who already rakes inâ
Harper says McCallum is wrong again, specifically correcting that the full benefit of the new child credit kicks in for an income earner of only $37,000, not $300,000, and notes this follows McCallum's earlier error about the postal centre in Quebec City.
Harper directly corrects a specific factual error â that the full benefit of the new child credit kicks in at an income of only $37,000, not $300,000 â and references the earlier postal centre error, substantively addressing the mischaracterization even if not the broader fairness argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, once again, has his facts wrong. In his first question he was wrong about the postal centre in Quebec City. In this question he tries to imply that people have to have an income of $300,000 to get the full benefit of the new child credit, when in fact the full benefit kicks in for an income earner of only $37,000. These are the kinds of mistakes and the kinds of attacks we get from a party that has made up its mind on the budget and does not even understand what is in it. It has made up its mind without knowing the facts.
Bachand asks what the Minister of National Defence actually discussed with the president of the Red Cross at their autumn meeting, given his claim never to have discussed Afghanistan.
Bachand cites a specific prior ministerial claim about the Red Cross supervising detainee transfers and poses a pointed, specific question about what was actually discussed at the autumn meeting.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, dans une de ses réponses, le ministre de la Défense nationale soutient que, lors d'une rencontre tenue l'automne dernier avec le président de la Croix-Rouge, il n'a jamais parlé de l'Afghanistan. Or, le ministre a souvent invoqué que c'est la Croix-Rouge qui supervisait le bon déroulement du transfert des prisonniers aux autorités afghanes, et il ne lui est jamais venu à l'esprit d'en parler avec le président. De quoi ont-ils parlé? Ont-il parlé des horaires des collectes de sang au Canada ou des modalités d'inscription à des cours de sauvetage?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when questioned, the Minister of National Defence insisted that he never discussed Afghanistan with the president of the Red Cross when they met last fall. Even though he has often indicated that the Red Cross was in charge of monitoring the orderly transfer of detainees to Afghan authorities, it has never occurred to the minister to discuss the matter with him. What did they talk about? Did they talk about the scheduling of blood banks in Canada or about the registering process for first aid courses?
O'Connor states the government has signed a new agreement with the Afghan Human Rights Commission to verify proper treatment of detainees.
O'Connor does not address what was discussed at the Red Cross meeting and instead pivots to the new Afghan Human Rights Commission agreement, ignoring the specific contradiction raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensure that detainees are treated properly in Afghanistan. That is why we have made a recent agreement with the human rights commission, which will go into the Afghan system and verify that detainees are treated properly.
Bachand accuses the minister of repeatedly misleading the House and calls on him to resign.
The question demands the minister's resignation and accuses him of repeatedly misleading the House, but the accountability ask ('why won't you resign?') is more rhetorical than answerable with facts.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je rappelle que le ministre a induit la Chambre en erreur non pas une fois, mais plusieurs fois. Par conséquent, il a rompu la confiance que nous avions en sa parole. Si le ministre pense se tirer d'embarras aussi facilement, il se trompe. Ce serait bien trop simple: on triture la vérité, on informe mal la Chambre et, ensuite, on présente des excuses et tout est oublié. Eh bien, ça ne se passera pas ainsi. Qu'attend le ministre pour démissionner?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, might I remind the minister that he has mislead this House not just once but several times. In so doing, he has broken the trust we had in his word. The minister should not delude himself into thinking that he will get off the hook that easily. It would be too easy to twist the truth, misinform the House and simply apologize for all to be forgotten. Well, we will not stand for that. What is the minister waiting for to resign?
O'Connor states the new agreement with the Afghan Human Rights Commission will monitor detainees, and that he visited troops in Afghanistan and received assurances from an Afghan human rights representative.
O'Connor repeats the same talking point about the Afghan Human Rights Commission agreement without engaging the resignation demand or the allegation of misleading the House.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have recently signed an agreement with the Afghan Human Rights Commission. That commission will go into the Afghan system and monitor our detainees to see how they are treated. Meanwhile, I was in Afghanistan last week with our hard-working troops. I met the Afghan human rights representative. He gave me his personal assurance that the Afghans can do what we ask of them.
Lalonde asks the Minister of Foreign Affairs why he has not signed an agreement with Afghan authorities, like the Netherlands did, to allow Canada to monitor and act on the fate of transferred detainees.
Lalonde references the Dutch model specifically and asks the Foreign Affairs Minister to sign a new agreement allowing Canada to know and act on the fate of transferred detainees, a concrete and identifiable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'armée canadienne ignore le sort réservé jusqu'ici aux personnes qu'elle a transférées à l'Afghanistan, car l'entente qui lie le Canada et l'Afghanistan est insuffisante. Au lieu de déployer des efforts pour tenter de justifier son inaction, qu'attend le ministre des Affaires étrangÚres pour imiter les Pays-Bas et signer, avec les autorités afghanes, une entente qui permette au gouvernement de connaßtre et d'agir sur le sort réservé aux personnes qu'elle fait prisonniÚres? C'est sa responsabilité de ministre des Affaires étrangÚres que de signer de telles ententes, qu'il l'assume!
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, because the agreement between Canada and Afghanistan is inadequate, the Canadians Forces have no idea how the individuals they have turned over to Afghan authorities so far have been treated. Instead of directing his efforts at trying to justify his lack of action, what is the Minister of Foreign Affairs waiting for to follow the lead of the Netherlands and enter into an agreement with Afghanistan, whereby the government would be kept abreast of how the individuals captured are being treated and could intervene in this regard? It is the responsibility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to enter into such agreements. Let him take his responsibilities.
MacKay says the National Defence Minister has already answered this and that there is now more protection for detainees in Afghanistan.
MacKay defers entirely to the National Defence Minister rather than addressing his own responsibilities or the specific ask about a new agreement modelled on the Dutch approach.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je crois que le ministre de la Défense nationale a répondu à cette question. C'est clair. Il y a maintenant plus de protection pour les personnes qui vivent ces situations en Afghanistan. Je suis convaincu que le ministre de la Défense nationale a maintenant le contrÎle et l'information nécessaire pour surveiller cette situation.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of National Defence has answered that question. The situation is clear. There is now more protection afforded to those in such situations in Afghanistan. I am convinced that the Minister of National Defence now has the control and information necessary to monitor the situation.
Lalonde asks the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he will sign a comprehensive agreement with Afghan authorities to fulfil Canada's international obligations, noting that it is logically his responsibility to sign international agreements.
Lalonde presses MacKay specifically on his ministerial responsibility to sign international agreements, citing the U.S. example of Condoleezza Rice, making the ask reasonably concrete.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je sais que le ministre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres ne veut pas s'en mĂȘler et qu'il prĂ©fĂšre laisser le problĂšme Ă son collĂšgue le ministre de la DĂ©fense nationale. Mais, en toute logique, ça doit ĂȘtre le ministre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres qui signe des ententes avec l'Ă©tranger. D'ailleurs, aux Ătats-Unis, c'est Condoleezza Rice â que le ministre ne dĂ©teste pas â, qui signe ce genre d'entente. Qu'attend le ministre pour signer une entente complĂšte avec les autoritĂ©s afghanes afin de remplir ses obligations internationales?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not want to get involved and would rather let his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, deal with the problem but, logically, the Minister of Foreign Affairs should be the one signing agreements with foreign countries. In fact, in the United States, Condoleeza Rice, whom the minister is rather fond of, is the one who signs those kinds of agreements. What is the minister waiting for to sign a comprehensive agreement with the Afghan authorities to meet our international obligations?
MacKay says the Chief of the Defence Staff signed the original agreement, that the National Defence Minister has the situation in hand, and that the government stands behind the National Defence Minister.
MacKay notes the Chief of the Defence Staff signed the original agreement and defers again to the National Defence Minister without explaining why Foreign Affairs is not responsible for a new comprehensive agreement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just to inform the hon. member, it was actually the Chief of the Defence Staff who signed the original agreement. Since that time, we know the Minister of National Defence has travelled to Afghanistan and met with the necessary officials from the human rights commission there. The Minister of National Defence has this clearly in hand. He knows now what the situation was that had to be addressed. He has taken action on that. The government stands four-square behind its Minister of National Defence who is doing a great job on behalf of Canadians.
Neville asks the Minister of Indian Affairs how he can be anything other than ashamed over his government's inaction on aboriginal poverty, contrasting the Kelowna accord with budget 2007.
The question is primarily rhetorical framing contrasting the Kelowna accord with budget 2007, and the ask â how can the minister not be ashamed â is not a factual question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a striking contrast: the Kelowna accord versus budget 2007; working cooperatively versus confrontation; and eliminating the prosperity gap versus perpetuating the cycle of poverty. The Conservatives call their budget document âAspireâ. They should have called it âBetrayalâ. The minister once called aboriginal poverty the most pressing social issue that we face as a nation. How can he be anything other than ashamed over his government's inaction plan to combat aboriginal poverty?
Prentice states that spending on aboriginal programs will crest over $10 billion in 2007â08, $1 billion more than the last Liberal government, and challenges Neville to support the budget.
Prentice provides a specific dollar figure ($10 billion, $1 billion more than the previous Liberal budget) which partially addresses aboriginal spending claims, but pivots to attacking the opposition's position on the budget rather than responding to the shame framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 2007-08, the spending of the Government of Canada on aboriginal programs and services is going to crest over $10 billion for the first time in Canadian history. This is $1 billion more per annum than the last Liberal government spent in the last Liberal budget. My friend has somewhat of a moral dilemma. She speaks of betrayal. If she ascribes to her own rhetoric, she will break ranks with her leader and support this budget. What is it going to be? More Liberal hypocrisy and rhetoric or is she going to stand with aboriginal Canadians?
Neville asks whether core funding for the Assembly of First Nations, perhaps as much as $8 million, is in jeopardy and requests a guarantee it will not be put at risk.
Neville asks a specific question about the core funding of the Assembly of First Nations, citing a figure of approximately $8 million, and requests a guarantee it will not be put at risk.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister mixes legal obligations with program dollars. First nations organizations are concerned that core funding for the Assembly of First Nations, perhaps as much as $8 million, may now be in jeopardy. Will the Prime Minister explain what the government has done to the core funding of the Assembly of First Nations and will he guarantee that it will not be put at risk?
Prentice attacks Neville's positions on matrimonial property rights, Bill C-44, housing, specific claims, and accuses her of Liberal rhetoric without addressing the AFN funding question.
Prentice does not address the Assembly of First Nations core funding question at all, instead attacking Neville's positions on matrimonial property rights, Bill C-44, housing, and specific claims.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am not mixing anything. The hon. member stands opposed to matrimonial property rights for first nations women. She stands opposed to Bill C-44 to provide first nations women with human rights protection for the first time in Canadian history. She does not support the $300 million on reserve private housing initiative. She does not support what is in the budget for specific claims. It is just more Liberal rhetoric and empty promises. She does not stand in favour of aboriginal people in this country at all.
Merasty quotes the minister's own words about aboriginal poverty and despair, then asks whether the minister wept around the cabinet table when the Prime Minister said no to aboriginal funding.
Merasty uses a direct quote from the minister himself to create an accountability contrast, but the final ask â 'did he weep around the cabinet table?' â is rhetorical rather than a specific factual question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first nations, MĂ©tis and Inuit leaders want to close the prosperity gap. Instead they get insults. They get nothing in this Conservative budget. I want to read a quote: I have seen the face of aboriginal poverty. I have seen the face of aboriginal despair, the despondency of fetal alcohol syndrome and of teenage suicide. I am unashamed to say, as a citizen of Canada, that I have wept in the face of the poverty I have seen on first nations. It is the current Minister of Indian Affairs who said that. Did he weep around the cabinet table when the Prime Minister said no to aboriginal funding?
Prentice states the budget contains $10.1 billion for aboriginal programs and services, approximately $16,500 per citizen on reserve, and challenges the member to say whether he supports the budget.
Prentice cites the $10.1 billion figure and per capita spending amounts, which are relevant to the spending adequacy question, but does not engage the contrast with the minister's own prior statement or the substance of the quote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member faces the same moral dilemma. This budget contains $10.1 billion of expenditures this year for aboriginal programs and services. Does the member support this or not? This includes on reserve expenditures of about $16,500 per citizen, $66,000 per family of four. Is the hon. member going to stand and support this budget, or is he not?
Keeper asks whether the government will reverse itself and support Bill C-292 supporting the Kelowna accord unanimously, now that former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has said he supports the Kelowna accord absolutely.
Keeper asks whether the government will reverse itself and support Bill C-292 unanimously, citing Brian Mulroney's endorsement of the Kelowna accord, which gives it a specific peg, but the framing is largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today my colleagues and I will proudly vote for the member for LaSalleâĂmard's private member's bill supporting the historic Kelowna accord. It is shameful that the government is widening the economic, educational and social gaps between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians, and there is only lip service and misleading in this House. Now that former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney says that he supports the Kelowna accord absolutely, will the government reverse itself and support Bill C-292 unanimously?
Prentice accuses the Liberals of empty promises and rhetoric, states the budget provides $1 billion more than the previous Liberal government, and challenges opposition members to explain their reluctance to support the budget.
Prentice attacks the Liberal tradition of empty promises and repeats the $1 billion more claim without addressing Bill C-292 or Mulroney's endorsement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it just continues, the Liberal tradition of empty promises and rhetoric to aboriginal Canadians. The Liberals need to have the facts straight with respect to this budget, and no one on this side of the House has been able to respond. This budget provides $1 billion more than the previous Liberal government provided in its last budget, so what problem do opposition members have with supporting the budget? Are they afraid of their leader? Are they afraid to be kicked out of their caucus in the same way as the member from Thunder Bay? Why do they not stand in favour of Canada's aboriginal people?
Allen asks the minister what the government has done to indicate Canada's opposition to the use of Head Harbour Passage by LNG tankers.
This is a government backbench softball question designed to highlight the Liberal leader's past inaction versus the current government's position on Head Harbour Passage.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Liberal leader suddenly took an interest in LNG tankers using Head Harbour Passage. This interest is surprising, given that he had the lead on the file in the previous government and did nothing. In fact, the now Leader of the Opposition said in 2004 that his government had not received any information that required it to change the policy that would allow the passage of LNG tankers through Head Harbour Passage. Could the minister advise the House what the government has done to indicate Canada's opposition to the use of Head Harbour Passage by LNG tankers?
MacKay states that Canada's new government has formally opposed LNG tanker transit through Head Harbour Passage, that the Prime Minister has stated this, that he raised it with Secretary Rice, and that Ambassador Wilson has formally conveyed strong opposition to the United States.
MacKay provides a list of concrete actions taken â the Prime Minister's statement, the veterans affairs minister's championing, his own conversation with Secretary Rice, and Ambassador Wilson's formal conveyance of opposition â giving substantive if self-congratulatory content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government has indicated forcefully that we oppose the transit of LNG traffic through Head Harbour Passage. The Prime Minister has stated this. The veterans affairs minister has championed this. I have raised this with Secretary Rice. Ambassador Wilson has formally conveyed to the United States strong opposition to LNG tankers passing through Head Harbour Passage because of navigational, environmental and public safety concerns. We welcome the flip-flop of the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps he will now see the light on a number of other files. He will recognize a government that is getting a job done where he failed and perhaps he will visit another New Brunswick landmark, the Reversing Falls.
Stoffer asks the heritage minister to commit that the medals of Conn Smythe and F.W. Curzon, currently up for auction on the Internet, will not leave Canada.
Stoffer identifies two specific cases â Conn Smythe and F.W. Curzon â by name and asks the heritage minister to commit that these Canadian historical artifacts will not leave the country.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in Canada right now we are about to lose some cultural and historical artifacts. Mr. Conn Smythe, the founder of the Maple Leafs in the NHL and a World War I prisoner of war and a World War II veteran, as well as F.W. Curzon, one of Canada's first war artists during the Northwest Rebellion, have something in common. Both of their medals are up for sale on the auction block on the Internet by profiteers who want to steal the valour of others. I ask the cultural affairs minister, the heritage minister, to stand up in this House and tell Canadians that these very important Canadian historical artifacts will not leave our country.
Oda states the government does not intervene when medals are sold within Canada, but if they are sold outside Canada, the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board will make a determination through a reasonable and responsible process.
Oda explains the government's policy on medals sold within Canada versus those exported, and references the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board process, which is relevant but stops short of committing to retain the specific medals mentioned.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, military medals recognize the valiant service that our military provides to Canada and Canadians. Those medals are the property of the recipients or their heirs. The government does not intervene when the medals are sold within Canada. If they are sold outside of Canada, then the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board will make a determination, and a reasonable and responsible process will be followed.
Stoffer demands that the government stop the sale of military medals or at least prevent them from leaving Canada.
Stoffer's follow-up is more of a passionate speech than a sharp question, but does include an implicit demand that the government stop medals from leaving the country.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is absolute nonsense. My parents were liberated by the valour of Canadian soldiers, airmen and sailors. The medals they wear are not currency on their chests. They represent valour, honour, duty and remembrance to those who died and paid the ultimate sacrifice. Nobody should profit from the valour of other people. I say to the government one more time, if it will not stand up and stop the sale of these medals, then it should stop these medals from leaving this country once and for all.
Oda reaffirms respect for the right of heirs to retain or dispose of medals and states that a process exists if the medals are to potentially leave Canada.
Oda reiterates the family's right to dispose of medals and confirms the process for potential export, engaging the topic but not committing to new action or addressing Stoffer's call to stop the sale entirely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, military medals are part of Canada's recognition of service by our armed forces. Upon their passing, they pass to the heirs or the estates of those military personnel. We respect that the families and the heirs of these valiant men and women want to and should be able to choose how they either retain or dispose of these medals. We respect the family's decision, but we do have a process in place if they are to potentially leave Canada.
Coderre cites access documents showing the minister's own briefing books available since October clarified that the Red Cross only has the right to visit detainees and is not responsible to monitor them, and asks how the minister can claim his misleading statements were not deliberate.
Coderre cites access documents and ministerial briefing books, specifies October as the date of available information, and asks a pointed question about whether the minister's distortion was deliberate given that the correct information was at his fingertips for months.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after months of misleading Canadians, the defence minister wants us to believe that he only recently learned how wrong his statements were on the role of the Red Cross in Afghanistan, even though he and the foreign affairs minister received a personal briefing last September. Now, access documents show that if he had bothered to read his own ministerial briefing books, he would have known since October that the Red Cross only has the right to visit detainees and is not responsible to monitor them. How can the minister expect Canadians to believe his so-called distortion was not deliberate when his answer was at his fingertips for months?
O'Connor states the government is committed to ensuring detainees are treated properly and has engaged the Afghan Human Rights Commission to check on and report back about detainee treatment.
O'Connor does not address the access documents, the October briefing books, or the allegation of deliberate distortion, and instead repeats the Afghan Human Rights Commission talking point.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, our government is committed to ensuring that detainees are treated properly in accordance with military law. For that we have engaged the Afghan Human Rights Commission that will go into the Afghan system and check to see how the detainees are treated. It will report back to us if there is any maltreatment.
Coderre accuses the minister of incompetence, misleading Canadians, and conflicts of interest as a former arms dealer, and asks why he should still be trusted.
Coderre's follow-up is largely a rhetorical attack combining multiple accusations â incompetence, lack of transparency, being a former arms dealer â and the final question 'why should we still trust him?' is too vague and compound to be specifically answerable.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous avons devant nous un ministre incompĂ©tent qui a trompĂ© les Canadiens, qui refuse de faire preuve de transparence dans ses dossiers et dont les excuses ne changeront strictement rien. Nous avons un gĂ©nĂ©ral qui est incapable de lire ses notes ou de comprendre une entente de deux pages expliquant clairement le rĂŽle de la Croix-Rouge. Nous avons devons nous un ancien marchand d'armes qui dĂ©cide maintenant des critĂšres nĂ©cessaires aux Ă©quipements militaires de nos troupes qu'il tentait lui-mĂȘme de vendre Ă l'Ătat. Pourquoi devrait-on encore lui faire confiance?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what we have here is an incompetent minister who misled Canadians, who is not being transparent in these matters and whose excuses will not make one bit of difference. We have a general who is incapable of reading his notes or understanding a two-page agreement that clearly explains the role of the Red Cross. What we have here is a former arms dealer who is now in charge of decisions about what kind of military equipment our troops need, the kind he himself was trying to sell to the government. Why should we trust him?
O'Connor dismisses the accusations as blather and repeats that the Afghan Human Rights Commission will ensure detainees are treated properly.
O'Connor dismisses the question as blather and repeats the same Afghan Human Rights Commission talking point without engaging any of the specific accusations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all that blather is not going to change the fact that we will make sure that detainees are treated properly. We have engaged the Afghan Human Rights Commission. It will go into the Afghan system and report anything wrong with respect to detainees.
Dion asks the Prime Minister to call on the Minister of National Defence to resign, given the minister's failure on the duty to protect human lives including war detainees.
Dion asks the Prime Minister to ask his Minister of National Defence to do the honourable thing and resign, a clear demand but one grounded in a general characterisation of failure rather than specific new facts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are few things that are more important for the honour of a country than its duty to protect human lives, including war detainees. It is clear that the Minister of National Defence failed in his duty, even though he has often been briefed on this. I have no other choice than to ask the Prime Minister to ask his Minister of National Defence to do the honourable thing and resign.
O'Connor states his statements were made in good faith based on the understanding he had, and that he has taken action to ensure detainees are treated properly.
O'Connor responds rather than the Prime Minister, restates that his statements were made in good faith, and says he has taken action, without engaging the resignation demand or Dion's characterisation of negligence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said in previous statements, my statements here in the House were made in good faith and based on the understanding that I had. I have taken action to ensure that our detainees are treated properly.
Dion asks the Prime Minister to acknowledge that his Minister of National Defence has been negligent and incompetent on protecting human lives under Canada's responsibility, and implies he cannot keep the minister unless he does not consider protecting those lives important.
Dion repeats the resignation demand, framing it around the Prime Minister's responsibility, but the question is more of a rhetorical ultimatum than a specific factual ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre doit comprendre que son ministre s'est montré négligent et incompétent sur un enjeu trÚs grave pour un pays comme le Canada, soit la protection des vies humaines qui sont sous notre responsabilité. Le premier ministre ne peut pas garder son ministre de la Défense nationale, à moins que le premier ministre nous dise qu'il n'est pas important pour le Canada de protéger les vies humaines qui sont sous notre responsabilité.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has to see that his minister was negligent and incompetent with respect to a very serious issue for a country like Canada: the protection of the human lives we are responsible for. The Prime Minister cannot keep his Minister of National Defence, not unless the Prime Minister is telling us that it is not important for Canada to protect the human lives we are responsible for.
Harper states the minister provided a clear explanation, notes the original agreement was signed by the previous government, references the new arrangement with the Independent Afghan Human Rights Commission, and attacks the Leader of the Opposition for showing passion for Taliban prisoners but not Canadian soldiers.
Harper notes the original agreement was signed by the previous government and references the new arrangement with the Independent Afghan Human Rights Commission, but pivots to an attack on the Liberal leader's concern for Taliban prisoners versus Canadian soldiers rather than addressing the resignation demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has provided a clear explanation to the House of Commons. As the member knows, this government was at the time operating under an agreement signed by the previous government. We have since entered into a new arrangement with the Independent Afghan Human Rights Commission. I can understand the passion that the Leader of the Opposition and members of his party feel for Taliban prisoners. I just wish occasionally they would show the same passion for Canadian soldiers.
Will the Minister of Transport respond favourably to DASH-L by granting the $70 million requested to extend and restore the main runway at Saint-Hubert airport, enabling Pratt & Whitney Canada to conduct flight engine tests there?
Highly specific: names DASH-L, Pratt & Whitney Canada, identifies the runway extension/restoration condition, and asks for a specific dollar figure ($70 million) with a clear yes/no ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, DĂ©veloppement aĂ©roport de Saint-Hubert Ă Longueuil â aussi appelĂ© DASH-L â pilote un important projet, en partenariat avec Pratt & Whitney Canada, afin que cette entreprise puisse poursuivre l'essai de ses nouveaux modĂšles de moteurs au QuĂ©bec. L'une des solutions qui s'offrent Ă Pratt & Whitney est de concentrer en vol ses essais de moteur Ă Saint-Hubert, mais Ă la condition, entre autres, de rallonger et de restaurer la piste principale. Le ministre des Transports entend-il rĂ©pondre favorablement Ă DASH-L en accordant les 70 millions de dollars qui lui sont demandĂ©s?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, DĂ©veloppement de lâaĂ©roport Saint-Hubert de Longueuil, also known as DASH-L, is piloting an important project in partnership with Pratt & Whitney Canada, in order to allow that company to continue to test its new engine models in Quebec. One possible solution for Pratt & Whitney is to concentrate all of its engine test flights in Saint-Hubert, but on the condition that the main runway is lengthened and repaired. Does the Minister of Transport intend to respond favourably to DASH-L, by allocating the $70 million needed for the project?
Cannon says there is no money in his current program budgets for this request, but suggests that funds from the fiscal imbalance settlement could potentially help Quebec progress.
The minister acknowledges no funding exists in current budgets but pivots to fiscal imbalance resolution as a vague hope, never committing to or rejecting the $70 million request directly.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai eu l'occasion de m'entretenir avec la députée qui a fait des représentations à cet égard. Nos programmes sont sujets à des normes. à l'intérieur des budgets pour lesquels j'ai une responsabilité, il n'y a pas de sommes d'argent consacrées à ces demandes. Toutefois, puisque le gouvernement a réglé le déséquilibre fiscal, contrairement aux prétentions de l'opposition officielle, il est possible qu'à l'intérieur de ces deniers, nous puissions trouver des choses qui permettront au Québec de progresser au sein d'un Canada uni.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak with the hon. member who raised this matter. Our programs are subject to certain standards. Within the budgets under my responsibility, there is no money set aside for those requests. However, since the government corrected the fiscal imbalance, contrary to the official opposition's claims, perhaps within those funds, we could find what is needed to allow Quebec to flourish within a united Canada.
Is the Minister of Transport aware that the Pratt & Whitney Canada project will have significant and lasting impacts on consolidating Quebec's aeronautics industry and on the region's economic development, given that a decision must be made in spring?
The question adds urgency (Pratt & Whitney's spring deadline) but shifts from the specific funding ask to a broader awareness question, making it more rhetorical and less precise than Exchange 31.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le temps presse. Pratt & Whitney Canada de Longueuil doit prendre une décision au printemps. Le ministre des Transports est-il conscient qu'un tel projet aura des impacts significatifs et durables, non seulement pour la consolidation de l'industrie aéronautique au Québec, mais aussi pour le développement économique de la région?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, time is running out. Pratt & Whitney Canada of Longueuil must make a decision this spring. Is the Minister of Transport aware of the significant and lasting impact that such a project would have, not only for the consolidation of the aerospace industry in Quebec, but also for the economic development of the region?
Cannon says he is perfectly aware of the potential impact on the Montreal region's industry, notes Pratt & Whitney is a world-class company, and says the project deserves examination, while criticising the Bloc over a separate industry-retombées dispute.
Cannon affirms awareness of the project's impact on the Montreal region's industry but deflects by criticising the Bloc and offering only a vague commitment to 'examine' the project, without addressing timing or funding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis parfaitement conscient de l'impact qu'un tel projet pourrait procurer Ă l'industrie dans la grande rĂ©gion de MontrĂ©al. On sait trĂšs bien que rĂ©cemment, le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois dĂ©nonçait mon collĂšgue, le ministre de lâIndustrie, quant Ă la façon dont les retombĂ©es allaient jaillir sur l'ensemble canadien. Pratt & Whitney est une entreprise de classe mondiale qui sera en mesure de faire son chemin dans le monde et qui mĂ©rite Ă©videmment que nous puissions examiner ce projet.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the impact that such a project could have for the industry in the greater Montreal area. As we all know, the Bloc Québécois recently criticized my colleague, the Minister of Industry, regarding how certain spinoffs are going to be distributed across Canada. Pratt & Whitney is a world-class company that will be able to make its way in the world and that obviously deserves to have us look at this project.
Dion demands that the Prime Minister apologize for allegedly saying the government does not care about human rights and that the official opposition does not care about Canadian soldiers.
The exchange is dominated by partisan framing characterising the Prime Minister's prior statements as 'shocking'; the ask (an apology) is clear but the question relies on characterisations of what was said rather than documented evidence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made two shocking statements. First, he said that the government does not care about human rights and, second, that the official opposition does not care about Canadian soldiers. The Prime Minister must understand that he has insulted the entire Parliament with his statement and he should apologize.
Harper flatly denies making those statements, says what he actually said was that the government does care about the issue and acted on it, and calls for more support in the House for Canadian men and women in uniform.
Harper denies saying what was attributed to him and pivots to a call for broader support for Canadian men and women in uniform, partially engaging the subject but not directly addressing what he did or did not say in detail.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I said absolutely no such thing. What I clearly said was that the government does care about this issue, which is precisely why the Minister of National Defence, upon learning the information he learned, acted to correct the situation. We will continue to monitor the situation to ensure we make progress. The only other point I want to make is that I would like to see more support in the House of Commons from all sides for our Canadian men and women in uniform. I think Canadians expect that from parliamentarians in every party. They have not been getting it and they deserve it.
Could the Minister of Health provide details about the Canadian mental health commission announced in the budget and describe the mental health community's reaction to it?
A government-backbench softball setup that cites the budget announcement and asks the minister to provide details and community reaction, offering no accountability challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, mental illness affects one in five people in Canada. In Monday's budget, the Minister of Finance announced the creation of the Canadian mental health commission, including long term funding and the appointment of former Senator Kirby as chair. Could the Minister of Health provide details and the reaction of the mental health community to this announcement?
Clement cites the Canadian Psychiatric Association calling it 'an important first concrete step' and the Mood Disorders Society of Canada saying they 'applaud the government,' while attacking the Liberals for not acting in 13 years.
Clement provides two named community endorsements (Canadian Psychiatric Association and Mood Disorders Society of Canada) with direct quotes, and notes former Senator Kirby as chair, though he undercuts the informational value by attacking the Liberals at the end.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance for creating a national mental health commission to help Canadians who need help to deal with this challenge. The Canadian Psychiatric Association had this to say, âThis is an important first concrete step toward getting a mental health strategy for Canadaâ. The Mood Disorders Society of Canada said, âWe applaud the government on this important decisionâ. We got the job done. The Liberals, in 13 years, did not get it done. Why will the Liberals not support and help those living with mental illness?
If the minister had no intention of living up to the signed agreement to move Kashechewan on to safe ground on their own territory, why did he play political games with the community for over a year, and what is his plan as the spring flood season arrives?
References a signed agreement, a specific community (Kashechewan), the spring flood season timeline, and the claim that the minister slammed the door last week, providing reasonable factual grounding with a pointed accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the spring flood season is upon us and the people of Kashechewan continue to wait for the government to live up to the signed agreement to move them on to safe ground on their own territory. They have tried to work with the minister and have given him report after report. Last week the minister slammed the door on Kashechewan. They are being left on the flood plain with no plan and no commitment. If he had no intention of living up to that signed agreement, why did he play political games with a desperate community for over a year?
Prentice says he met with Chief Solomon last week, reviewed their document, committed to a two-week response, and has sent people into the community to verify that the water system and dike are functioning properly.
Prentice confirms he met with Chief Solomon, reviewed their document, gave a two-week response timeline, and says the water system and dike are being monitored â a partial but concrete response that does not address the signed agreement allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that I met last week with Chief Solomon and members of the Kashechewan community. I reviewed at that time the document that they put in front of me. I indicated that I would get back to them within a two week period responding to what they had put before me. In the meantime, we have sent people into the community to ensure that the water system is functioning properly, which I am advised it is, and that the dike is safe. We are taking all steps to ensure that is the case.
Given that the minister is sitting on a report saying the dike will likely fail and human life is at risk, what will it take for him to take action â will it take deaths in Kashechewan?
References a specific report indicating the dike will likely fail and human life is at risk, which is substantive, but the question is heavily rhetorical ('political spin,' 'deaths in Kashechewan') and the ask is emotionally charged rather than sharply focused.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am so tired of the political spin I have been hearing from the minister. We remember when he was in opposition and he stormed across the floor, threw down the book and demanded the Liberal minister's resignation for doing nothing. Here is the nub. He is sitting on a report that says that the dike will likely fail and that human life is at risk. He has done absolutely nothing to guarantee the health of these people. What will it take for him to take action, deaths in Kashechewan?
Prentice says he specifically inquired about the engineering safety of the dike with the chief, struck a committee to ensure that work is undertaken, confirms the water system is up to standard, and notes significant money spent on housing and water.
Prentice asserts he specifically discussed engineering safety of the dike with the chief, struck a committee to address it, confirms the water system is up to standard, and notes significant spending on housing and water, partially addressing the engineering report concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my friend goes too far, even by the standards of rhetoric in this place. I can assure him that I have met with the chief and specifically asked him if he was content with the steps that the department was taking. I inquired specifically about steps that needed to be taken to ensure the engineering safety of the dike. We discussed that. We struck a committee to ensure that work is being undertaken. The water system is up to standard. We have spent a significant amount of money in the community with respect to housing and water. We are acting on the situation.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary, CPC) raised a point of order regarding the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre's comparison of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to Mussolini during debate on March 2, calling it unparliamentary under Beauchesne's 6th Edition and demanding an immediate and unreserved apology and withdrawal. Mr. Gerald Keddy (South ShoreâSt. Margaret's, CPC) also raised the unparliamentary comments made by the member for TimminsâJames Bay toward the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and invited the member for TimminsâJames Bay to stand and apologize.
- CPC Mr. Tom Lukiwski
- CPC Mr. Gerald Keddy
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to an incident that occurred in this House during debate on a concurrence motion on Friday, March 2. The NDP member for Winnipeg Centre said, âthe Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who we call II Duce because Mussolini has nothing on this guyâ. This is clearly unparliamentary language. In fact, page 150 of Beauchesne's 6th Edition has the word âfascistsâ listed as unparliamentary, and for obvious reasons. The fascist regime committed untold atrocities during World War II and for any member of this House to compare another member to anyone in the fascist regime is unconscionable. The statement by the New Democratic Party member is a slur against the good character of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and, in fact, is a slur and a condemnation about the membership of this place in general. Even more troubling is the fact that over the past several months the New Democratic Party has stood in this House and in committee and has complained about the lack of decorum and civility in this place. In light of that rhetoric, I would assume that the NDP can only be considered as sanctimonious and hypocritical. I would ask the member for Winnipeg Centre to apologize immediately, unreservedly, and withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, during a discussion in the House, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was speaking and the member for TimminsâJames Bay made a very unparliamentary comment. We are talking about parliamentary language in this place. I would offer the member for TimminsâJames Bay the opportunity to stand and apologize, first to the minister and second to the House.
Mr. Charlie Angus (TimminsâJames Bay, NDP) apologized to the House for using unparliamentary language but stated he would not apologize to the governing party for what he called a disgraceful misrepresentation of the facts on the James Bay coast. Minister Jim Prentice responded that the privilege at issue is personal and that he expected a personal apology from the member for TimminsâJames Bay.
- NDP Mr. Charlie Angus
- CPC Jim Prentice
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a question of unparliamentary language but I think it speaks to a larger issue, which is the complete disgraceful response from the government to deal with one of the most desperate communities that we have in this country, desperate, shameful conditions, the suffering and the deaths that they have endured over this last year and the young people who have gone. I have seen the problems because nothing has been done by the government. However, I will apologize to this House for saying something unparliamentary but I will not apologize to that party for the disgraceful misrepresentation of the facts on the James Bay coast.
Mr. Speaker, as a follow up to that point of order, the privilege in respect to this is personal and I would expect a personal apology from the member for TimminsâJames Bay.
Mr. Charlie Angus (TimminsâJames Bay, NDP) said he would take the minister's request for a personal apology under advisement, consult with the leadership and the people of Kashechewan â who were present at the meeting with the minister â and return the following day with his response, stating he would be willing to make a personal apology if necessary.
- NDP Mr. Charlie Angus
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will take the minister's request under advisement. I will speak with the leadership and the people of Kashechewan and I will take my direction from them because they were at the meeting with the minister. I will come back tomorrow and say what I should respond. If it is necessary for me to make a personal apology, I will be more than willing, but I will be asking the chief and council of Kashechewan what they felt from their meeting first.