Session overview
- Softwood lumber dominated QP, with Liberals and BQ challenging the government over a new U.S. trade dispute threatening the agreement, lost jobs in Ontario and Quebec, and the $1 billion left on the table.
- The Liberals repeatedly attacked the budget's interest deductibility and income trust measures, arguing they were making Canadian companies vulnerable to foreign takeovers; the Finance Minister deflected by framing both as anti-tax-haven policy.
- The Virginia Tech shooting prompted the BQ and Liberals to press the government on the gun registry; the Prime Minister confirmed the government intends to maintain the registry for handguns and restricted weapons while ending the long-gun registry.
- The Prime Minister announced he would recommend to the Governor General the appointment of Bert Brown to fill the Alberta Senate seat being vacated by Senator Dan Hays, citing the province's popular consultation under Bill C-43.
- The NDP questioned the Prime Minister about documents allegedly showing Canada approached the United Arab Emirates about sending Leclerc main battle tanks, armoured reconnaissance vehicles, and 155-millimetre self-propelled guns to Kandahar, suggesting an escalation of the Afghanistan mission.
- The NDP raised the collapse of the Canadian Steel Partnership Council and the resulting absence of a national steel strategy, citing imminent job losses at Stelco and Hamilton Specialty Bar; the Minister of Industry offered only general tax-reduction measures in response.
The Prime Minister made a specific, named commitment â that he would recommend Bert Brown to the Governor General to fill the Alberta Senate vacancy â constituting the only concrete, unambiguous governmental commitment disclosed during the session.
Layton cites specific documents uncovered by the NDP and names precise military equipment requested (Leclerc main battle tanks, two platoons of armoured reconnaissance vehicles, 155-millimetre self-propelled guns) and the country approached (United Arab Emirates), making this a highly specific factual challenge.
Harper did not address the specific documents, the named military equipment, or the approach to the United Arab Emirates at all, instead offering a general tribute to Canadian troops in uniform, leaving the core factual allegation of escalation entirely unanswered.
Outstanding questions
- Jack Layton asked whether Canada had specifically approached the United Arab Emirates about deploying Leclerc main battle tanks, armoured reconnaissance vehicles, and 155-millimetre self-propelled guns to Kandahar â the Prime Minister never confirmed or denied the documents.
- Yasmin Ratansi asked whether the Prime Minister would wait for the Public Service Integrity Office investigation before Treasury Board signed a $400 million contract allegedly altered to favour a company linked to Minister Fortier's former employment and personal investments â no direct answer was given.
- Serge MĂ©nard asked why police advice was sought for judicial appointments but ignored on firearms control â the Minister of Public Safety did not address the logical inconsistency and spoke only about the handgun registry.
- Christiane Gagnon asked whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs had invited or planned to invite the Queen to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the French presence in Quebec â the Minister of Canadian Heritage repeated only that no invitation had been sent by the committee, without answering what Foreign Affairs intended to do.
- Caroline St-Hilaire asked when the Minister of International Cooperation would present a credible plan to reach the 0.7 per cent of GDP ODA target by 2015 to implement the Millennium Goals â the minister cited increased aid levels without providing any timeline or plan.
Dion asked whether the Prime Minister would have the Minister of Finance reconsider the budget's elimination of interest deductibility for loans financing foreign acquisitions, citing the minister's own admission he needed to spend time on it.
The question cites the minister's own public statement and a specific policy (interest deductibility on loans for foreign acquisitions), giving it some factual grounding, though the ask is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, because of the government's misguided budget, Canadian companies will no longer be able to tax deduct interest on loans to finance foreign acquisitions. Our companies will be less able to grow and more likely to be taken over by foreigners. After I denounced that policy last Monday, the Minister of Finance said, âI'm going to spend some time on it nowâ. Will the Prime Minister help his minister spend some time on it now?
Flaherty defended tax fairness and attacked the Liberals for favouring income trusts and allowing tax havens like Barbados, without addressing the interest deductibility question.
Flaherty pivots entirely to income trusts and tax havens without addressing the interest deductibility policy or the specific concern about Canadian companies' competitiveness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are committed to tax fairness. We are committed to tax fairness for corporations. Unlike the Liberal Party opposite, we will not give a favoured tax treatment to income trusts. We believe that all Canadians should pay their fair share of taxes. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we do not believe that Canadian corporations and multinational corporations should be able to avoid paying Canadian taxes by the use of tax havens like the Barbados.
Dion listed a series of alleged policy failures and broken promises and asked whether the Prime Minister would spend time addressing them before governance descended into mismanagement.
The question piles together multiple grievances (income trusts, Canadian Wheat Board, softwood lumber, interest deductibility, sole-source contracts) making it a compound rhetorical list rather than a focused accountability question.
Source text
No, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has that wrong. It is the United States, Japan, Europe that have this rule and our companies will not have that any more. He should spend some more time on it now. Si ce n'Ă©tait que cela! Mais il y a les fiducies de revenu, la Commission canadienne du blĂ©, l'augmentation des impĂŽts sur le revenu, le bois d'oeuvre, la dĂ©ductibilitĂ© des intĂ©rĂȘts, les contrats sans soumission. La liste des promesses trahies, des politiques ratĂ©es et des mauvaises dĂ©cisions s'allonge de jour en jour. Avant que l'on ne sombre dans la mauvaise gestion Ă la Mulroney ou Ă la Harris, le premier ministre passera-t-il du temps lĂ -dessus? Will he spend some time on it now?
Oh, oh!
Flaherty argued that the interest deductibility issue had been discussed for years, citing the Auditor General and the Mintz committee appointed by the Liberal government in 1997, and blamed the Liberals for not acting on the recommendations.
Flaherty does engage the interest deductibility topic by citing the Auditor General (1992 and 2002), the Mintz committee, and the member for KingsâHants, giving some historical context, though he still deflects to Liberal inaction rather than defending the current policy.
Source text
You know, Mr. Speaker--
You know, Mr. Speaker, this issue of interest deductibility and tax havens has been discussed here for many years, by the Auditor General in 1992 and 2002. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition can remember because he was a member of cabinet in 1997 when the Mintz committee was appointed by his government, which recommended this change, but the Liberals did not get the job done. They permitted the tax havens like the Barbados to continue. Even then the member for KingsâHants said under the Liberal government that the Mintz report had collected a lot of dust and the government would do well to implement its recommendations.
Dion asked whether the Prime Minister would admit his mistake on the softwood lumber deal, warning that the U.S. may revisit the level of the export tax and the extent of the export support.
The question references a specific concern about the U.S. potentially revisiting the export tax level and export support provisions of the softwood lumber agreement, and asks the Prime Minister to admit a mistake, giving it some factual grounding.
Source text
He should spend more time on it now, Mr. Speaker. What about the softwood deal? There was $1 billion stolen from Canadian forestry companies to buy a seven year truce. Now we learn that we may not even get seven months. We warned the government against that. We said that the U.S. may revisit two issues: the level of the export tax and the extent of the export support. Unfortunately, that is what is happening. Will the Prime Minister admit his mistake? Will he spend some time on it now?
Harper accused Dion of opposing all tax cuts while now lobbying for special tax breaks for corporations, and of wanting to rip up the softwood lumber agreement after $5 billion in duties were refunded.
Harper attacks Dion's positions on tax cuts and softwood lumber rather than addressing whether the U.S. is revisiting the agreement or whether the deal is at risk.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have quite a platform developing over there. Here we have the leader of the Liberal Party who has opposed every tax cut in the last two budgets to Canadian families, to individuals and to business and who is now up here lobbying for special tax breaks for corporations. We have the leader of the Liberal Party who, after we got $5 billion in duties refunded to Canadian forestry companies, wants to rip up the softwood lumber agreement. Good luck if that is going to be his election campaign.
Ignatieff asked how Canadians could trust the government to protect Canadian jobs when the softwood deal is falling apart with the U.S. trade representative demanding even higher export taxes barely seven months after it was signed.
Ignatieff specifies that the U.S. trade representative is demanding even higher export taxes and that the deal promised seven years of peace but has lasted barely seven months, giving the question concrete factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when this incompetent government signed the softwood deal last fall, it promised seven years of peace and we have got barely seven months. The deal is falling apart. The U.S. trade representative is now demanding even higher export taxes, which would ruin Canadian producers. The dispute has started all over again. How can Canadians trust the government to protect Canadian jobs when it negotiates a bad deal for Canada and cannot even make it stick?
Harper said the softwood lumber deal is in place, that consultations and a dispute settlement mechanism exist under the agreement, and that the Liberal Party wants to rip it up, which is bad for the industry and bad for Canada.
Harper asserts the deal is in place and mentions the dispute settlement mechanism and return of duties but does not address the specific claim that the U.S. trade representative is demanding higher export taxes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the leader and the deputy leader of the Liberal Party are; the softwood lumber deal is in place. Under that agreement, there are consultations and a dispute settlement mechanism. That is why we have had the return of duties. That is why we have some stability in the industry. The government obviously believes in the agreement and wants to preserve it. I do not know whether some American interests want to rip it up. I understand the Liberal Party wants to rip it up, but that is bad for the industry and bad for Canada.
Ignatieff asked how Canadians could trust this incompetent government given that the softwood deal weakened Canada's NAFTA negotiating power, left $1 billion on the table, and now faces a new U.S. trade dispute threatening the deal itself.
The question repeats the softwood lumber concern but frames it primarily through characterizations of incompetence rather than adding new specific facts beyond the previous exchange.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les conservateurs ont signĂ© une entente sur le bois d'oeuvre qui est mauvaise pour les travailleurs et pour l'industrie forestiĂšre au Canada. Nous voyons maintenant le fruit de leur incompĂ©tence: nous avons affaibli notre pouvoir de nĂ©gociation sous l'ALENA. De plus, nous avons laissĂ© un milliard de dollars sur la table. Maintenant les AmĂ©ricains soulĂšvent un nouveau diffĂ©rend commercial qui menace l'entente elle-mĂȘme. Comment les Canadiens peuvent-ils faire confiance Ă ce gouvernement incompĂ©tent?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives signed a softwood lumber agreement that was bad for workers and bad for the Canadian forestry industry. We are now seeing the results of their incompetence. We have weakened our negotiating power under NAFTA. In addition, we left a billion dollars on the table. Now, the Americans are raising a new trade dispute that threatens the agreement itself. How can Canadians have confidence in this incompetent government?
Harper said that after five years of costly disputes, the government secured the return of $5 billion for Canadian forestry companies, and that neither Quebec industry nor the rest of Canada wants to tear up the agreement.
Harper cites $5 billion returned and five years of prior disputes, and argues that neither the Quebec industry nor the rest of Canada wants to tear up the deal, but does not address the specific claim about weakened NAFTA negotiating power or money left on the table.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aprĂšs cinq ans de disputes au sujet du bois d'oeuvre qui ont beaucoup coĂ»tĂ© Ă l'industrie, ce gouvernement a conclu une entente avec les Ătats-Unis pour le retour de 5 milliards de dollars des compagnies forestiĂšres canadiennes. L'industrie du QuĂ©bec ne veut pas dĂ©chirer cette entente. L'industrie du reste du Canada ne souhaite pas dĂ©chirer cette entente. C'est la position du Parti libĂ©ral qui est mauvaise pour l'industrie et pour le Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, after five years of disputes over softwood lumber that cost the industry dearly, this government reached an agreement with the United States for the return of $5 billion to Canadian forestry companies. The industry in Quebec does not want to tear up this agreement. The industry in the rest of Canada does not want to tear up this agreement. It is the position of the Liberal party that is bad for the industry and for Canada.
Duceppe asked whether the Prime Minister, in light of the recent U.S. tragedy, understood the importance of firearms control through a registry, given the government's decision to let the existing registry wither.
Duceppe ties the question to the Virginia Tech tragedy and asks about the government letting the firearms registry die, making a topical and identifiable ask, though framed with rhetorical urgency.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la tragĂ©die survenue il y a quelques jours aux Ătats-Unis, alors qu'un tireur fou a fait irruption dans une universitĂ© tuant 33 personnes, nous a tous attristĂ©s. MalgrĂ© la gravitĂ© de la situation, il est important de ne pas baisser les bras. Il existe diffĂ©rents moyens pour lutter contre cette violence dĂ©mente. L'un d'entre eux est le contrĂŽle des armes Ă feu par le biais d'un registre. Or le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral a justement dĂ©cidĂ© de laisser mourir Ă petit feu le registre en place. Ă la lumiĂšre de ces tristes Ă©vĂ©nements, le premier ministre ne comprend-il pas l'importance du contrĂŽle des armes Ă feu, et par consĂ©quent, du registre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the tragedy that occurred a few days ago in the United States, when an insane shooter burst into a university and killed 33 people, saddened us all. Serious though the situation is, it is important that we not abandon the fight. There are various ways to combat this insane violence. One of them is gun control, and a registry for that purpose. The federal government, however, has in fact decided to allow the existing registry to fade away. In light of these tragic events, does the Prime Minister not understand the importance of gun control, and therefore of the registry?
Harper said the government recognizes the importance of firearms control measures, supports the registry for handgun and restricted weapon owners, and allocated $14 billion in the 2007 budget for an improved pre-screening system.
Harper states the government supports the registry for handgun and restricted weapon owners and cites $14 billion in the 2007 budget for an improved pre-screening system, but does not address the specific concern about letting the long-gun registry die.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce gouvernement reconnaßt l'importance des mesures de contrÎle des armes à feu et des mesures contre les crimes commis avec des armes à feu. C'est la raison pour laquelle nous favorisons, par exemple, le registre des permis pour les propriétaires d'armes de poing et d'armes restreintes. Dans son budget de 2007, le gouvernement a dépensé 14 milliards de dollars pour l'instauration d'un systÚme amélioré de sélection préalable. Il est important que nous poursuivions ces efforts.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes the importance of gun control and of taking measures against crimes committed with guns. That is why, for example, we support the registry of licences for handgun and restricted firearm owners. In its 2007 budget, the government spent $14 billion to institute an improved screening system. It is important that we continue those efforts.
Duceppe asked the Prime Minister to show realism and responsibility by maintaining the existing firearms registry, noting that the Quebec premier and police are calling for it.
Duceppe invokes the Quebec premier and police support for the registry and challenges the PM to maintain it, making it a reasonable ask but framed more as an appeal than a factually specific question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la rĂ©alitĂ©, c'est qu'il y a un registre. C'est celui-lĂ qu'il faut faire fonctionner. Il ne faut pas l'abandonner. Le premier ministre du QuĂ©bec le demande, les policiers â qui connaissent un peu le sujet â le demandent Ă©galement. Je demande au premier ministre, qui tient de façon dogmatique Ă des promesses faites en campagne Ă©lectorale bien qu'il ait renoncĂ© Ă certaines autres, de faire preuve de rĂ©alisme et de responsabilitĂ© cette fois-ci. Il doit prendre conscience de la situation et intervenir pour maintenir ce registre puisqu'il en va de la qualitĂ© de notre vie en sociĂ©tĂ©.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there is a registry. We have to make that registry work. We must not abandon it. The Premier of Quebec is calling for this, as are the police, who know a little bit about this subject. I ask the Prime Minister, who is sticking dogmatically to some promises made during the election campaign while he breaks others, to take a realistic and responsible position this time. He must grasp the situation and take action to preserve the registry, because this is a matter that affects the quality of life in our society.
Harper said the government intends to maintain the registry for handgun and other restricted weapon owners and to spend more on pre-screening, arguing measures should target crime rather than duck hunters and farmers.
Harper commits to maintaining the registry for handgun and other restricted weapon owners and to spending more on pre-screening, and draws a distinction between targeting criminals versus hunters and farmers, partially engaging the question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous avons l'intention de maintenir le registre pour les propriétaires d'armes de poing et d'autres armes restreintes. De plus, nous avons l'intention de dépenser plus d'argent pour un systÚme de sélection préalable. C'est important que nos mesures et nos dépenses soient des mesures contre la criminalité et non pas seulement des mesures contre des chasseurs de canards et des agriculteurs.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we intend to preserve the registry for owners of handguns and other restricted firearms. We also intend to spend more money for a screening system. It is important that what we do, and the money we spend, be for measures taken against crime and not just measures taken against duck hunters and farmers.
MĂ©nard asked the Minister of Public Safety to explain the inconsistency of consulting police on judicial appointment committees but ignoring their views on firearms control.
MĂ©nard poses a pointed internal consistency question: if police input matters for judicial appointments, why is it ignored on firearms control, which is a specific and arguable contradiction.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce gouvernement a une approche bien Ă©trange. Quand il s'agit de consulter pour la nomination des juges, il n'hĂ©site pas Ă faire appel aux policiers et mĂȘme Ă les nommer Ă des comitĂ©s; mais quand il s'agit de contrĂŽler la circulation des armes Ă feu, il ne veut pas les entendre. Le ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique peut-il nous expliquer sa logique? Pourquoi l'avis des policiers est si important pour choisir les juges et n'a aucune importance quand il s'agit de contrĂŽler les armes Ă feu?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government takes a very strange approach. When it comes to consulting on the appointment of judges, it does not hesitate to seek the opinion of the police and even to appoint police to the committees, but when it comes to gun control, it does not want to listen to the police. Can the Minister of Public Safety explain his logic? Why is the opinion of the police so important when it comes to choosing judges but not important at all when it comes to gun control?
Day said the government will continue to maintain the registry for handguns and will introduce a new system requiring an interview with someone before purchasing any type of firearm.
Day addresses the registry for handguns and introduces the new interview-based registration system but does not engage the logical contradiction about police input that was the core of the question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce n'est pas le cas. Nous allons continuer de maintenir le registre pour les armes de poing. C'est trÚs important de le faire. Aussi, nous allons introduire un autre systÚme. Lorsque quelqu'un voudra s'enregistrer pour acheter un quelconque type d'arme à feu, que ce soit une arme de poing ou autre, il faudra qu'il ait une entrevue avec une telle personne. Jamais, nous n'avons eu un tel systÚme, et nous l'avons maintenant.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. The handgun registry will be maintained. It is very important to do this. In addition, we are going to introduce another system. A person wishing to register to purchase a firearm of any kind, whether a handgun or any other kind of gun, will have to be interviewed. We have never had a system like this, and now we will.
MĂ©nard asked whether the tragic events of recent days should prompt the Prime Minister to re-evaluate his approach of letting the registry stagnate by not keeping it up to date and by extending the amnesty for those who refuse to register their firearms.
MĂ©nard cites specific actions (not updating the registry, extending the amnesty for non-registrants) as evidence of a deliberate strategy to render the registry inoperable, giving the question some factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, voilĂ bien un domaine oĂč on a besoin de plus de clartĂ©. Le gouvernement a dĂ©cidĂ© d'adopter une approche sournoise et vicieuse avec le registre des armes Ă feu en posant des gestes qui vont le rendre, Ă terme, totalement inopĂ©rant. Par exemple, il laisse le registre Ă l'abandon en ne le tenant pas Ă jour, ou encore il prolonge l'amnistie totale pour les rĂ©calcitrants qui refusent de dĂ©clarer leurs armes. Les Ă©vĂ©nements tragiques des derniers jours ne devraient-ils pas amener le premier ministre Ă rĂ©Ă©valuer son approche et Ă comprendre qu'il va Ă l'encontre de ce que veut la population?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously an area that needs further clarification. The government has decided to take a mean, underhanded approach to the firearms registry by doing things that will ultimately totally gut it. For example, it is letting the registry go to seed by failing to keep it up to date and by extending the full amnesty for holdouts who refuse to register their firearms. Have the tragic events of the last few days not induced the Prime Minister to review his approach and finally realize that it is contrary to what the people want?
Day said the government continues to study the situation to improve the system and reaffirmed that the handgun registration system will be maintained.
Day says the government continues to study the situation and reiterates commitment to the handgun registry but does not address the specific accusations about failing to update the registry or extending the amnesty.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous continuons à étudier la situation pour améliorer le systÚme, mais nous avons introduit quelque chose qui n'a jamais existé sous le rÚgne des libéraux. C'est mon ami et collÚgue qui n'est pas clair. Avec les armes de poing, il faut absolument maintenir le systÚme d'enregistrement, et nous allons le faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to study the situation and improve the system, but we have introduced something that never existed under the Liberals. It is my friend and hon. colleague who is not very clear. It is absolutely essential to keep the handgun registry, and that is what we are going to do.
Layton asked why the Prime Minister persists in escalating Canada's commitment in Afghanistan without a plan or exit strategy, noting that NATO allies are not pursuing the war the same way.
Layton raises the Afghanistan engagement but the question is mostly rhetorical ('pourquoi s'entĂȘte-t-il') without citing specific documents or data, and the ask is vague.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, de plus en plus de gens se posent des questions concernant l'escalade de la guerre en Afghanistan. On sait que les libĂ©raux ont envoyĂ© nos troupes, sans plan ni stratĂ©gie de sortie. Et les conservateurs continuent dans la mĂȘme direction. Ils ne respectent pas la position contraire de nos alliĂ©s de l'OTAN, qui ne poursuivent pas cette guerre en Afghanistan contrairement Ă nous. Ma question s'adresse au premier ministre. Pourquoi s'entĂȘte-t-il dans cet engagement, cette escalade en Afghanistan? Pourquoi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, more and more people are asking themselves questions about the escalation of the war in Afghanistan. We know that the Liberals sent our troops with no plan and no exit strategy. And the Conservatives are continuing down the same path. They do not respect the position of our NATO allies, who, unlike us, are not pursuing this war in Afghanistan. My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is he persisting in this engagement, this escalation in Afghanistan? Why?
Harper said Canada is in Afghanistan with the support of the Afghan government and people, the United Nations, the international community, and NATO allies, and praised the sacrifices of Canadian troops.
Harper reaffirms the mission's legitimacy through references to Afghan government, UN, and NATO support, and praises the troops, but does not address the specific claim about escalation or the lack of an exit strategy.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous sommes en Afghanistan avec l'appui du gouvernement, du peuple de l'Afghanistan, des Nations Unies et de la communautĂ© internationale, et aussi avec nos alliĂ©s de l'OTAN. Ce gouvernement appuie fortement les efforts de nos troupes dans des circonstances trĂšs dangereuses. C'est un grand honneur pour notre pays que des hommes et des femmes soient prĂȘts Ă faire de tels sacrifices pour nous et pour les citoyens des autres pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are in Afghanistan with the support of the government and people of Afghanistan, the United Nations and the international community, and also with our NATO allies. This government strongly supports the efforts of our troops in very dangerous circumstances. It is a great honour for our country that our men and women are prepared to make such sacrifices for us and for the citizens of other countries.
Layton asked the Prime Minister to explain documents showing Canada approached the United Arab Emirates about sending Leclerc main battle tanks, two platoons of armoured reconnaissance vehicles, and 155-millimetre self-propelled guns to Kandahar, arguing this constitutes a Bush-style surge and an escalation of the conflict.
Layton cites specific documents uncovered by the NDP and names precise military equipment requested (Leclerc main battle tanks, two platoons of armoured reconnaissance vehicles, 155-millimetre self-propelled guns) and the country approached (United Arab Emirates), making this a highly specific factual challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the problem here is that the Prime Minister is not coming clean with Canadians about what is really going on, that he is actively promoting an escalation of the conflict. Documents uncovered by the NDP show that this government has approached the United Arab Emirates about sending troops to Kandahar. Canada requested Leclerc main battle tanks, two platoons of armoured reconnaissance vehicles and 155-millimetre self-propelled guns. All of this new firepower is designed to launch a Bush-style surge to attack insurgents at the border with Pakistan. Now, if this is not an escalation, what is?
Harper spoke generally about Canadian troops helping the Afghan population deal with terrorist threats and said the troops deserve support rather than attacks on their efforts, without addressing the specific equipment or UAE claims.
Harper completely ignores the specific equipment requests and the UAE approach, instead speaking generally about helping the Afghan population and praising troops, characterizing the question as an attack on the military.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Canadian men and women who serve in uniform in dangerous circumstances such as this are there to help the Afghan population and the international community deal with serious domestic terrorist threats that have possible international implications. Our people are there doing the work of the international community. They are doing good work. They deserve our support. They certainly do not deserve this kind of attack on their efforts.
Valley asked how the Minister of International Trade could claim the softwood deal is the best in three decades for Ontario when a letter from President Bush's trade representative is attacking several Ontario programs, including one funding access road construction and maintenance costs.
Valley cites a specific letter from President Bush's trade representative attacking Ontario programs including access road construction and maintenance costs, and asks the minister to reconcile this with his claim that the deal is the best in three decades.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade has stood in this House and pretended that the softwood lumber deal would protect lumber programs and policies in Canada. Yet what is happening is exactly the opposite. We have a letter from President Bush's trade representative attacking several programs in Ontario because the Americans are unhappy with them. They are even attacking a program to fund the construction and maintenance costs of access roads. How can the Minister of International Trade claim that this is the best deal in three decades for Ontario and will he spend some time on it now?
Menzies said it is a good deal, that there was no deal under the Liberal government, and that the softwood lumber agreement provides an avenue for consultations.
Menzies simply asserts it is a good deal, notes there was no deal under the Liberals, and says consultations are happening, without addressing the specific letter or the programs being attacked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a good deal. As a matter of fact, there was no deal under the Liberal government and we all know that. It is because of the hard work of the Prime Minister and the trade minister that we actually have a softwood lumber agreement that provides the avenue for us to have consultations and that indeed is what we are doing.
Valley asked when the Minister of International Trade would admit the softwood deal does nothing to protect the Ontario industry and start ensuring forest policy is made in Canada rather than Washington, citing U.S. attacks on loan guarantees, value added manufacturing, and diversification programs.
Valley identifies specific categories being attacked (loan guarantees, value added manufacturing, diversification programs) and asks when the minister will admit the deal fails to protect Ontario, though the framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is clear the government is not paying attention to the thousands of forestry workers who have lost their jobs. Clearly, the deal is bad for Canada and especially Ontario. The U.S. is attacking loan guarantees, programs that are necessary to help the industry grow. It is attacking programs that will help value added manufacturing, diversification, and the long term health and sustainability of the Ontario forest sector. When will the Minister of International Trade admit that this deal does nothing to protect the Ontario industry and when will he start making sure forest policy is made in Canada and not in Washington?
Menzies said the government does not control the U.S. housing industry, that the softening of U.S. housing prices has created more protectionism than expected, and that the softwood lumber agreement provides an opportunity to discuss American concerns.
Menzies attributes the problem partly to the softening U.S. housing market creating more protectionism than expected, which is a relevant contextual point, and says the agreement provides an opportunity to discuss American concerns, but does not address the specific programs under attack.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the opposition gives this government a lot more credit than is likely going to happen. We do not control the housing industry in the United States. The softening of prices in the United States has created more protectionism than we were expecting. It is this softwood lumber agreement that provides us the opportunity to sit down and discuss what the Americans feel are their concerns.
Proulx asked why the Conservative government is not acting to correct what he called errors caused by its incompetence and inertia on the softwood lumber file, citing job losses in Abitibi, Mauricie, and Outaouais.
Proulx references forestry workers in Abitibi, Mauricie, and Outaouais but frames the question primarily as an attack on government incompetence rather than raising specific facts or a targeted ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le secteur forestier québécois traverse une crise sans précédent, mais il ne peut compter sur l'aide du gouvernement conservateur incompétent. AprÚs avoir abandonné le développement économique des régions du Québec dans leur budget, les conservateurs ont abandonné les travailleurs forestiers au profit des Américains et d'une entente à rabais sur le bois d'oeuvre. Parlons-en aux travailleurs qui ont perdu leur emploi en Abitibi, en Mauricie ou en Outaouais. Pourquoi le gouvernement conservateur n'agit-il pas dÚs aujourd'hui pour corriger ces erreurs causées par son incompétence et son inertie dans le dossier du bois d'oeuvre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec forestry industry is going through an unprecedented crisis, but it cannot look to the incompetent Conservative government for assistance. After abandoning the economic development of the regions of Quebec in their budget, the Conservatives have abandoned forestry workers for the benefit of the Americans and a bargain-basement deal on softwood lumber. Just ask workers who have lost their jobs in Abitibi, in Mauricie or in the Outaouais. Why is the Conservative government not doing something today to fix the mistakes caused by its incompetence and inertia on softwood lumber?
Bernier said $400 million was included in the last budget to help the competitiveness of the forestry industry, in addition to the softwood lumber agreement providing long-term stability for the next seven years.
Bernier cites $400 million in the last budget for forestry industry competitiveness and the seven-year stability provided by the softwood deal, offering some substantive content, though not addressing the specific claim about abandoning regional workers.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je me demande oĂč Ă©tait mon honorable collĂšgue il y a quelques mois, puisque s'il avait bien lu le dernier budget, il aurait pu s'apercevoir que 400 millions de dollars ont Ă©tĂ© prĂ©vus pour aider la compĂ©titivitĂ© de l'industrie forestiĂšre. Cela s'ajoute Ă l'entente sur le bois d'oeuvre qui amĂšne une stabilitĂ© Ă long terme pour les sept prochaines annĂ©es. C'est ça, les gestes que nous posons. C'est ça, un gouvernement conservateur. Nous tenons nos promesses aux Canadiens et Ă l'industrie du bois d'oeuvre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I wonder where my hon. colleague was a few months ago; since he certainly read the last budget, he could have seen that $400 million was allocated to help the forestry industry stay competitive. That is in addition to the softwood lumber deal, which will bring about long-term stability for the next seven years. That is what we are doing. That is what a Conservative government does. We keep our promises to Canadians and the softwood lumber industry.
Proulx asked whether, in the meetings scheduled for the next day with the Americans, someone in the Conservative government would defend the interests of Quebec workers rather than capitulating, given that Americans are attacking Quebec government programs totalling more than $1 billion.
Proulx cites a recent letter from Americans attacking Quebec government assistance programs totalling more than $1 billion and asks whether someone in the government will defend Quebec workers' interests in the scheduled meetings, giving the question a specific factual anchor and a timely ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les travailleurs du secteur forestier mĂ©ritent mieux que l'incompĂ©tence flagrante des conservateurs. Dans une lettre rĂ©cente, les AmĂ©ricains attaquent de front des programmes d'aide du gouvernement du QuĂ©bec totalisant plus de 1 milliard de dollars. Les conservateurs ont crĂ©Ă© plus de problĂšmes qu'ils n'en ont rĂ©solus. Lors des rencontres prĂ©vues demain avec les AmĂ©ricains, au lieu de se mettre Ă plat ventre, quelqu'un dans ce gouvernement conservateur dĂ©fendra-t-il finalement les intĂ©rĂȘts des travailleurs du QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, forestry industry workers deserve better than the flagrant incompetence of the Conservatives. In a recent letter, the Americans launched a frontal attack on the assistance programs operated by the Government of Quebec totalling over $1 billion. The Conservatives have created more problems than they have solved. At the meetings with the Americans scheduled for tomorrow, instead of kowtowing, will someone in this Conservative government finally stand up for the interests of Quebec workers?
Bernier said that 98% of Quebec softwood entrepreneurs supported and still support the agreement, and that the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec (FTQ) also supports it because it is a good deal for workers and Quebec.
Bernier responds with statistics about Quebec industry support for the deal (98% of softwood entrepreneurs and the FTQ) rather than addressing whether the government will defend the Quebec programs under U.S. attack in the upcoming meetings.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'aimerais rappeler Ă mon honorable collĂšgue qu'au QuĂ©bec, 98 p. 100 des entrepreneurs du bois d'oeuvre appuyaient l'entente et l'appuient encore. De plus, au QuĂ©bec, la FĂ©dĂ©ration des travailleurs du QuĂ©bec (FTQ) appuie l'entente parce que c'est une bonne entente pour les travailleurs et pour le QuĂ©bec. C'est pour cette raison qu'ils appuyaient l'entente et qu'ils l'appuient encore aujourd'hui. Je me demande oĂč Ă©tait mon collĂšgue il y a quelques mois.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that in Quebec, 98% of softwood lumber companies supported the agreement and still support it. And in Quebec the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec (FTQ) also supports this agreement because it is good for the workers and for Quebec. That is why they supported the agreement and why they still support it today. I wonder where my colleague was a few months ago.
CrĂȘte asks whether the government will follow the SĂ©guin report's recommendation to transfer tax fields to resolve the fiscal imbalance definitively, pointing out the government's own ad admits the solution is not permanent.
Cites the SĂ©guin report by name and asks a specific policy question about transferring tax fields versus the current formula, grounded in the government's own advertising.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans sa derniĂšre publicitĂ©, le Parti conservateur admet que la solution proposĂ©e au dĂ©sĂ©quilibre fiscal n'est pas dĂ©finitive puisque, selon l'avis mĂȘme du gouvernement, le prochain gouvernement pourrait essayer de reprendre l'argent. Le premier ministre pourrait-il ĂȘtre cohĂ©rent, reconnaĂźtre que le dĂ©sĂ©quilibre fiscal n'est pas rĂ©glĂ© et procĂ©der immĂ©diatement Ă un transfert de champ fiscal tel que le proposait le rapport SĂ©guin, de façon Ă rĂ©gler cette question sur une base dĂ©finitive et une fois pour toutes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in its most recent ad, the Conservative Party admits that its solution to the fiscal imbalance is not definitive because, according to what the government itself says, the next government could try to take the money back. Could the Prime Minister be consistent, acknowledge that the fiscal imbalance has not been resolved, and immediately transfer tax fields as suggested in the SĂ©guin report in order to settle this question once and for all?
Flaherty says the equalization formula is accepted by a majority of provinces and territories, is based on the O'Brien committee's expert advice, and provides fiscal certainty over seven years.
Flaherty defends the equalization formula and references the O'Brien committee but does not address the SĂ©guin report's tax-field transfer proposal or explain why it was rejected.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the formula that we have put forward for equalization within the budget has been broadly accepted by a majority of the provinces in Canada and by all of the territories. This is a formula that is based on the expert advice of the O'Brien committee that was appointed by the previous government, headed by a former deputy treasurer of the province of Alberta. It is a principle based, forward looking formula, so that the provinces and territories will accurately know where they will stand from year to year over the next seven years. This is important in terms of being able to plan their fiscal futures.
CrĂȘte asks how the Finance Minister can simultaneously claim the fiscal imbalance is resolved and admit that transfers to Quebec depend on the government in power, and whether Conservatives will fully honour their commitment.
Identifies a logical contradiction between claiming the fiscal imbalance is resolved and admitting transfers depend on the government in place, and asks whether the Conservatives will honour their commitment fully.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comment le ministre des Finances peut-il prétendre, d'une part, que le déséquilibre fiscal est une question réglée et, d'autre part, admettre que les transferts au Québec dépendent de l'humeur du gouvernement en place? N'est-ce pas là affirmer une chose et son contraire? Les conservateurs iront-ils au bout de leur engagement sur le déséquilibre fiscal?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, how can the finance minister claim that the fiscal imbalance has been resolved while admitting that the transfers to Quebec depend on the mood of the government in place? Is that not speaking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time? Will the Conservatives go all the way in their commitment to resolve the fiscal imbalance?
Flaherty says the commitment is firm and incorporated in Bill C-52, which is before the House, and congratulates CrĂȘte on his new role as Bloc finance critic.
Flaherty points to Bill C-52 as evidence the commitment is firm but does not address the contradiction about future government discretion, and ends with a congratulatory aside that deflects.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the commitment in the budget is firm and it is incorporated in Bill C-52, which is the first budget implementation bill that is now before the House. I believe it is up for debate today as a matter of fact. The commitment is quite clear. I congratulate the hon. member on his new appointment as the finance critic for the Bloc.
St-Hilaire cites Paul GĂ©rin-Lajoie's data on child poverty, Canada's 14th OECD rank on official development assistance, and asks when the minister will present a credible plan to reach 0.7% of GDP by 2015 to implement the Millennium Goals.
Cites specific statistics attributed to Paul GĂ©rin-Lajoie (infant mortality, AIDS orphans, street children) and Canada's 14th OECD ranking, and asks for a credible plan to reach the 0.7% of GDP target by 2015.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, Paul Gérin-Lajoie a récemment dénoncé le sort réservé aux enfants accablés par la pauvreté. Son constat est troublant: le taux de mortalité infantile est deux fois plus élevé dans les pays moins développés; 12 millions d'enfants sont orphelins en raison du sida; 30 millions d'enfants en Asie vivent dans la rue. Il trouve « honteux » la 14e place du Canada sur la liste des pays de l'OCDE quant à l'aide publique au développement. Quand la ministre de la Coopération internationale présentera-t-elle un plan crédible pour atteindre l'objectif de 0,7 p. 100 du PIB d'ici 2015, afin de mettre en oeuvre les Objectifs du Millénaire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Paul GĂ©rin-Lajoie recently denounced the fate that awaits children living in poverty. His findings are most disturbing: child mortality is twice as high in developing countries; 12 million children have been orphaned because of AIDS; 30 million children in Asia are living on the streets. He describes as shameful the fact that Canada is in 14th place on the list of OECD countries in terms of public aid for development. When will the Minister for International Cooperation present a credible plan for reaching the objective of 0.7% of GDP by 2015, to implement the Millennium Development Goals?
Verner states the government is committed to increasing international aid, referenced the last budget, and noted the questioner supported that budget.
Verner gives only a generic commitment to increasing international aid and budget references, and deflects by noting St-Hilaire voted for the budget, without providing any plan or timeline toward 0.7%.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais rappeler à ma collÚgue que notre gouvernement s'est engagé à accroßtre l'aide internationale. Dans le dernier budget, nous avons présenté des sommes qui visent à venir en aide aux pays dans le besoin. Je lui rappelle également qu'elle a appuyé notre budget.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that our government is committed to increasing international aid. In the latest budget, we have included amounts that are meant to provide assistance to countries in need. I also remind her that she supported our budget.
St-Hilaire uses GĂ©rin-Lajoie's data showing a 20% drop in infant mortality and rise in primary enrolment to argue the problem is budget size, not just aid effectiveness, and asks when the minister will show leadership on the budget.
Cites GĂ©rin-Lajoie's specific progress figures on Millennium Goals (20% drop in infant mortality, primary enrolment rising from 4% to 7%) to challenge the minister's efficiency framing and ask for budget leadership.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la ministre se targue de vouloir assurer l'efficacitĂ© de l'aide. Or M. GĂ©rin-Lajoie affirme qu'il y a eu des progrĂšs notables quant aux Objectifs du MillĂ©naire, soit la baisse de 20 p. 100 du taux de mortalitĂ© infantile et une hausse de 4 p. 100 Ă 7 p. 100 du taux d'admission dans l'enseignement primaire. Contrairement aux propos de la ministre, le problĂšme n'est pas seulement l'efficacitĂ© de l'aide, mais aussi l'ampleur des budgets. Quand la ministre arrĂȘtera-t-elle de nous jouer sa cassette et prendra-t-elle enfin le leadership quant au budget?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the minister boasts about wanting to ensure that assistance is effective. Mr. GĂ©rin-Lajoie insists that there has been significant progress in terms of the Millennium Goals, specifically, a 20% decrease in child mortality and an increase from 4% to 7% in admission rates for primary education. Contrary to the ministerâs remarks, the problem is not just the effectiveness of our aid, but also the budget size. When will the minister stop repeating the same message and start to show some leadership concerning the budget?
Verner says the Liberal government reached its lowest international aid ratio of 0.22% in 2001 and states the current government has increased international aid.
Verner deflects entirely to the Liberal government's record of 0.22% ratio in 2001, without addressing the specific figures cited or committing to any budget increase.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais rappeler à ma collÚgue que sous l'ancien gouvernement libéral, le ratio de l'aide internationale a atteint son point le plus faible, c'est-à -dire 0,22 p. 100 en 2001. Nous avons augmenté l'aide internationale et nous sommes engagés à venir en aide à la population dans le besoin.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that international aid sank to its lowest point, at 0.22%, under the former Liberal government in 2001. We have increased international aid and we are committed to providing assistance to countries in need.
McCallum challenges the finance minister over raising income tax and the foreign interest deductibility measure, arguing the latter is about competitiveness and jobs, not tax havens, and asks why the minister did not think it through before the budget.
References economists' consensus and the interest deductibility measure's impact on competitiveness, but the question is more rhetorical challenge than a specific ask and conflates two policy issues.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister raises income tax and every economist on the planet says that is wrong, it is clear the Prime Minister should spend some time on his economic files. As for the finance minister and interest deductibility, anyone who is even slightly informed on this knows it has absolutely nothing to do with tax havens and everything to do with competitiveness and jobs. Why did the finance minister not spend some time on this and think it through carefully before he presented his budget?
Flaherty touts over $1 billion in tax savings in Bill C-52 including pension splitting, and accuses the Liberals of supporting tax havens rather than addressing the interest deductibility competitiveness argument.
Flaherty pivots to pension splitting, attacks Liberals on tax havens, and never addresses the interest deductibility competitiveness argument that was the core of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are more than $1 billion in tax savings in Bill C-52, which is before the House, including pension splitting for seniors, which the Liberals oppose. This is just one large tax reduction that they oppose. With respect to the issue of tax havens, I understand that we are for tax fairness and the Liberals are for tax havens. In fact, they have been known to use tax havens in the past. They have lots of experience with tax havens. We do not support tax havens. We think all Canadians should pay their fair share, including multinational corporations doing business in Canada.
McCallum argues that 5% of income trusts have been acquired by entities that pay no tax, meaning ordinary taxpayers pay more, undercutting the minister's tax fairness argument, and challenges him on this contradiction.
Raises a specific empirical claim that 5% of income trusts have been bought by non-taxable entities, undermining the tax fairness rationale, but frames it with rhetorical flourish.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the minister is entirely out of his depth. It is nothing to do with tax havens, and his arguments on tax fairness make no sense. Already 5% of the income trusts have been bought up by entities that will pay no tax. The previous owners paid lots of tax. It is obvious that as a consequence of his policy, ordinary taxpayers will pay more, not less. Why is it that every time the minister mentions the word fairness, Canadians have to reach for their wallets?
Flaherty accuses McCallum of not believing his own words by quoting his post-October 31 television endorsement of the policy, and cites John Manley's support as validation.
Flaherty attacks McCallum's credibility by quoting his post-October 31 television statement and citing John Manley, without addressing the specific 5% income trust buyout claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite does not believe a word he is saying. After October 31, after the announcement, he was on television. What did he say then? He said that it was absolutely the right thing to ensure tax fairness and to work for Canada's productivity. That is what he said right after October 31. He does not believe a word he says. Besides that, if we look at people who are actually informed and have reviewed this, like the former deputy prime minister and finance minister of that government, John Manley, he said that it was the right thing to do. Any day that good public policy triumphs is a good day. This is a good day.
D'Amours argues that the removal of foreign interest deductibility combined with the income trust tax has led to at least 15 foreign takeovers of Canadian companies and asks why the government is facilitating this and whether it will reconsider.
Cites 15 specific foreign takeovers of Canadian companies as a concrete consequence of the interest deductibility and income trust policies, and asks why the government wants to help foreign firms take over Canadian companies.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the removal of foreign interest deductibility and the disastrous Conservative income trust tax are crippling Canadian companies in a way that is making them ripe for foreign takeovers. So far it has resulted in at least 15 takeovers of Canadian companies by foreign interests, and that is just after a few short months. Why does the government want to help foreign firms take over Canadian companies? Should the government not have thought about this before the budget? Will it spend some time on it now, like the Finance Minister said?
Flaherty invites Liberal members to read four reports recommending action on tax havens, without addressing the foreign takeover figures or the competitiveness concern.
Flaherty lists four historical reports (1992 Auditor General, 1997 Mintz committee, 1990s public accounts committee, 2002 Auditor General) on tax havens but never addresses the 15 foreign takeovers or the competitiveness harm cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I invite the member opposite, and all Liberal members, to read the auditor general's report in 1992; to read the report of the Mintz committee in 1997, appointed by the Liberal government, and the recommendations; to read the report of the public accounts committee of the House in the 1990s; and to read the report of the Auditor General in 2002. This would be good reading for the members opposite. Finally, I invite them to read the report of the finance committee of the House, from which they did not dissent, in December 2006, all of which say that we have to deal with tax havens.
D'Amours argues the interest deductibility measure, described as the worst tax policy from Ottawa in 30 years, is achieving the opposite of its goal by enabling foreign entities to acquire Canadian companies that pay taxes elsewhere, and asks when the government will reverse the decision.
Characterizes the interest deductibility decision as the worst tax policy from Ottawa in 30 years and notes the policy's self-defeating nature, but the ask is compound and partly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la dĂ©cision au sujet de la dĂ©ductibilitĂ© des intĂ©rĂȘts Ă©trangers, de concert avec celle au sujet des fiducies de revenu, devait empĂȘcher les revenus provenant des impĂŽts de quitter les coffres du Canada. Au contraire, des entreprises canadiennes sont avalĂ©es par des entitĂ©s Ă©trangĂšres qui paient des impĂŽts dans d'autres juridictions que le Canada. Les gestes posĂ©s au sujet de la dĂ©ductibilitĂ© des intĂ©rĂȘts ont Ă©tĂ© qualifiĂ©s de pire politique fiscale Ă ĂȘtre produite Ă Ottawa au cours des 30 derniĂšres annĂ©es. Quand le gouvernement renversera-t-il sa derniĂšre dĂ©cision dĂ©sastreuse? Quand le ministre dĂ©cidera-t-il vraiment d'y penser?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the decision concerning the deductibility of foreign interest charges, along with the decision on income trusts, should have prevented the flight of income tax revenues from Canada. On the contrary, Canadian companies are being gobbled up by foreign companies that pay income taxes in jurisdictions other than Canada. The action taken in regard to interest deductibility has been described as the worst fiscal policy produced in Ottawa in the last 30 years. When will the government reverse this disastrous decision? When will the minister decide to really tackle this issue?
Flaherty cites the Institute for Competitiveness and Productivity report dismissing the hollowing-out concern, and notes Canada has grown from 33 to 72 global leaders since 1985, citing Magna as an example.
Flaherty cites the Institute for Competitiveness and Productivity report and the growth in Canadian global leaders from 33 to 72, including Magna, but does not address whether the policy will be reversed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals opposite really need to do their homework. They ought to read the last report of the Institute for Competitiveness and Productivity. The Leader of the Opposition was at the Rotman school the other day. He ought to read the last report where it put the nonsense idea of hollowing out to rest. In fact, we had 33 global leaders in 1985. Today in Canada we have 72 global leaders. That is because of the growth we have in the Canadian economy. One of them is a company with which the Liberals are probably even familiar; it is called Magna.
Sorenson asks the Prime Minister how he will fill Senator Dan Hays's upcoming vacancy from Alberta, referencing Bill C-43 on Senate elections.
Government backbench softball setup referencing Bill C-43 and Senator Hays's retirement to invite the Prime Minister to announce an appointment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as part of our campaign promise for democratic reform, our Conservative government put forward Bill C-43, which establishes the national process for consulting Canadians on their preferences for Senate appointment through election. We have recently learned that Senator Dan Hays, who holds the seat from Alberta, will be retiring from the Senate after it rises for the summer. Could our Prime Minister advise the House, Canadians and Albertans on how he will be filling this vacancy?
First , Mr. Speaker, let me take the opportunity to congratulate Senator Hays on his long public service, including his role as leader of the opposition and Speaker of the Senate. We do have Bill C-43 tabled. On the other hand, the province of Alberta did some time ago hold a popular consultation for the filling of a Senate vacancy. When that seat comes due, I will recommend to the Governor General the appointment of Mr. Bert Brown.
Harper congratulates Senator Hays, notes Alberta held a popular consultation for Senate vacancies, and announces he will recommend Bert Brown to the Governor General for the seat.
Harper gives a direct, newsworthy answer naming Bert Brown as his recommendation to the Governor General for the Alberta Senate vacancy, a clear and specific commitment.
Christopherson notes the collapse of the Canadian Steel Partnership Council and asks how the industry minister plans to fill the vacuum, create a national steel strategy, and save steel worker jobs.
Identifies the collapse of the Canadian Steel Partnership Council as a specific event and asks concretely how the industry minister plans to fill the vacuum and create a national steel strategy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as Canada's steel industry suffers a severe downturn, its workers and employers alike have looked to the Canadian Steel Partnership Council to develop a critically needed national steel strategy, a strategy for steel industry security and growth. Given that the partnership council has recently collapsed, how does the industry minister plan to fill the vacuum, create a national steel strategy and save important steel worker jobs?
Bernier says the steel industry is important and that the last budget reduced taxes for all industries including steel, enabling reinvestment and global competitiveness.
Bernier only references general tax cuts from the last budget benefiting the steel industry, without addressing the collapse of the partnership council or any plan for a national steel strategy.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'industrie de l'acier est une industrie importante au Canada, nous le savons trĂšs bien. C'est pour cela que dans le dernier budget, nous avons rĂ©duit les taxes et les impĂŽts de l'ensemble des industries, dont l'industrie de l'acier, ce qui va leur ĂȘtre profitable. Cela permettra aux entrepreneurs de l'industrie de l'acier d'avoir de l'argent dans leurs poches pour pouvoir rĂ©investir et continuer Ă ĂȘtre compĂ©titifs sur la scĂšne mondiale.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the steel industry is an important industry in Canada. We know that very well. That is why, in the latest budget, we reduced the income tax rates for all industries, including the steel industry, which improves their profitability. Business people in the steel industry will thus have more money in their pockets to reinvest and continue to be competitive globally.
Christopherson cites the imminent closure of Stelco's hot strip mill threatening 300 jobs and 360 jobs at Hamilton Specialty Bar, and asks the minister to explain a made-for-Canada national steel strategy beyond rhetoric.
Names specific companies (Stelco, Hamilton Specialty Bar), specific job numbers (300 and 360), and a specific closing event (hot strip mill closure) to ground the request for a national steel strategy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the minister understands the desperate need for a national steel strategy. In my home town of Hamilton, for example, over 300 steelworkers have learned that their jobs could disappear when Stelco's hot strip mill is closed. Workers at Hamilton Specialty Bar have their 360 jobs on the chopping block too. I will give the minister another chance. Steelworkers are listening. What does the minister have to say about providing a made for Canada national steel strategy? Do not give us rhetoric. Tell us how we will get the strategy we need to save jobs.
Bernier says the previous Liberal government failed to deliver a steel strategy despite promising one, while his government reduced taxes for the steel industry to improve its global competitiveness.
Bernier deflects to the previous Liberal government's failure to deliver a steel strategy and repeats the tax-cut talking point, offering nothing specific about the named plants or any strategy.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, mon honorable collĂšgue demande une stratĂ©gie pour l'acier qui serait trĂšs importante, mais nous attendons de l'autre cĂŽtĂ© de la Chambre depuis plusieurs annĂ©es. L'ancien gouvernement devait prĂ©senter une stratĂ©gie de l'acier, et il n'a jamais rien prĂ©sentĂ©. Il a continuĂ© Ă taxer les entreprises de l'acier. Nous, dans le dernier budget, nous avons baissĂ© les taxes et les impĂŽts de l'industrie de l'acier, afin de lui permettre, comme je le disais plus tĂŽt, d'ĂȘtre encore plus compĂ©titive sur la scĂšne mondiale. Nous faisons confiance aux entrepreneurs de l'industrie de l'acier, comme Ă ceux du textile et comme Ă ceux du bois d'oeuvre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague calls for a steel strategy, which would be very important but we have waited on the other side of the House for several years. The previous government should have presented a steel strategy but it never did anything. It continued to tax steel companies. For our part, in the latest budget we lowered the taxes on the steel industry, as I said previously, to enable them to be even more competitive in international markets. We have confidence in the steel industry businesses, just as we have confidence in textile and softwood lumber companies.
Jennings cites the Canadian Police Association president's statement that the registry is useful and the statistic that police use it more than 5,000 times each day, and asks why the minister will not listen to rank and file officers.
Cites the Canadian Police Association's presence on Parliament Hill, quotes the association president, and provides the specific statistic of 5,000 daily registry queries to challenge the government's position.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian Police Association was on Parliament Hill to meet with all members. One of the key messages we heard was to fight tooth and nail against the government's underhanded attempt to scrap the gun registry. Yesterday the president of the association said, âThe registry has always been useful to usâ. Why will the minister not listen to rank and file police officers who use the gun registry more than 5,000 times each day of the year?
Day says the government has listened to concerns about the gun registry and that it will still be required for anyone acquiring any type of firearm to be registered.
Day says it will still be required for anyone acquiring a firearm to be registered, but does not directly address the 5,000 daily queries statistic or engage with the police association's stated position.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have listened to people who are concerned about the gun registry. We have listened to people who want to see gun crime reduced. This is why it will still be required, for anybody who wants to acquire any type of firearm at all, that they must be registered, and that will continue to show up on the system.
Jennings accuses the government of breaking its promise to hire new front-line officers and removing tools police need, and asks whether the minister will hold a vote on the gun registry and respect Parliament's will.
Raises a specific prior commitment on hiring 2,500 front-line officers, alleges it was broken, and asks whether the minister will hold a vote on the gun registry and respect Parliament's will.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'actuel gouvernement a déjà renié une promesse faite aux policiers et n'a pas consacré un sou à l'embauche de nouveaux agents de premiÚre ligne dans nos rues. Maintenant, les conservateurs comptent retirer aux policiers les moyens dont ils disposent pour protéger nos collectivités. Si le ministre de la Sécurité publique est sérieux, tiendra-t-il un vote sur le registre des armes à feu et respectera-t-il la volonté du Parlement une fois pour toutes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the current government has already reneged on a promise made to police forces and has not committed one cent to the hiring of new front line officers to patrol our streets. Now, the Conservatives intend to take away from the police the tools at their disposal for protecting our communities. If the Minister of Public Safety is serious, will he hold a vote on the firearms registry and will he respect the will of Parliament once and for all?
Day describes his consultations with provincial and territorial counterparts on a cost-sharing formula for 2,500 municipal officers and his meetings with Tony Cannavino and CPA representatives, saying the promise will be kept.
Day addresses the 2,500 officers commitment specifically by describing his consultations with provinces and meetings with Tony Cannavino and the CPA, but does not answer whether he will hold a vote on the registry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just a few months ago I met with all my counterparts in the provincial and territorial governments, ministers responsible for security and policing. I asked them for the first round of feedback so we could begin the process of seeing 2,500 more municipal officers right across the country. Many have responded, and we are working now in looking at what that cost sharing formula would be. I also met with Mr. Tony Cannavino on this just about two or three weeks ago, and I met with the CPA representatives today. We are getting there. It is a promise and we are going to be keeping it.
Barnes says front-line police officers who were on Parliament Hill supported the gun registry and wanted more than a toothless investigator, and asks whether the minister will ignore them as he has ignored Parliament.
References front-line police officers' support for the gun registry and a toothless investigator in the same question, conflating the registry issue with the RCMP pension fund issue in a way that makes the core ask ambiguous.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday was clearly a bad day for the Minister of Public Safety. Not only did the front line police officers, who were on Parliament Hill, tell us that they supported the gun registry, they also wanted more than a toothless investigator. The minister has completely ignored Parliament. Will he also ignore the front line police officers he says he represents?
Day says many police associations told the government that removing the unrestricted long gun registry was a good move, and accuses Liberals of feigning concern for policing only when officers are present on the Hill.
Day says many police associations supported removing the unrestricted long gun registry and accuses Liberals of only caring about policing when officers are on the Hill, without substantively addressing either the registry or the investigator concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, many police associations have communicated to us and said that they feel the move to get rid of the unrestricted long gun registry was a good move. It allows them to focus on the people who commit crimes. When the members of the CPA were here yesterday we were able to meet with them. I find this to be an interesting process. The only time we hear the Liberals speaking out and pretending to care about policing concerns is when those police officers are here on the Hill. Once the police officers leave, the Liberals continue to frustrate the legislation that would keep our streets safe and secure.
Barnes asks when the minister will stop delaying and launch a full judicial inquiry into the RCMP pension fund allegations, replacing the existing powerless investigation and powerless investigator.
Asks specifically about the RCMP pension fund allegations, references multiple prior calls for a full judicial inquiry, and characterizes the existing investigation as powerless, making a clear and answerable demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the minister does not understand the necessity of getting to the bottom of the allegations about the RCMP pension fund or if he just does not care. The officers have demanded answers and they deserve them. Any delays now in getting answers is the responsibility of the minister who has not acted on multiple calls for a full judicial inquiry. When will the minister stop putting up roadblocks, end the sham of a powerless investigation and a powerless investigator and launch a full judicial inquiry?
Day accuses Barnes of prejudicing work not yet begun and deflects to Liberal scandals, sarcastically suggesting Liberals hold a secret caucus meeting and propose a massive omnibus inquiry into their own scandals.
Day dismisses the question as prejudging work not yet begun, then pivots entirely to attacking Liberal scandals with a sarcastic call for an omnibus inquiry, making no connection to the RCMP pension fund question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat alarmed at her attitude of prejudice toward people who have yet to begin their work but I will overlook that and suggest something else here. Every time another Liberal mess or scandal is unearthed we want to get to the answers right away while the Liberals want a full public inquiry that would take years. I would suggest that the Liberals call together their shrinking caucus, have a secret meeting, talk about all the scandals that are still yet to come forward, bring those out and we will have a massive omnibus full inquiry.
Has the Minister of Foreign Affairs invited or is he preparing to invite the Queen to celebrate the 400th anniversary of French presence in Quebec?
The question is precise and single-focused: it asks specifically whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs has invited or intends to invite the Queen for the 400th anniversary, correcting the prior day's framing by identifying the correct responsible minister.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, la ministre du Patrimoine canadien a affirmĂ© que le comitĂ© des fĂȘtes du 400e anniversaire de la ville de QuĂ©bec n'avait pas fait parvenir d'invitation Ă la reine pour les festivitĂ©s. On savait cela parce que le comitĂ© dit que cette invitation doit venir du ministĂšre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres. La question devient trĂšs simple. Le ministre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres a-t-il invitĂ© ou s'apprĂȘte-t-il Ă inviter la reine pour cĂ©lĂ©brer le 400e anniversaire de la prĂ©sence française au QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage stated that the committee for Quebec Cityâs 400th anniversary celebrations had not sent an invitation to the Queen to attend the festivities. The committee says that this invitation has to come from the Department of Foreign Affairs. The question is a very simple one. Has the Minister of Foreign Affairs invited the Queen, or is he planning to invite her, to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the French presence in Quebec?
The minister simply restated that, to her knowledge, no invitation had been sent by the committee to Her Majesty the Queen, without addressing the Foreign Affairs angle.
The minister repeated her previous answer about the committee not having sent an invitation, entirely ignoring the specific ask about the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department's role.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je dis aujourd'hui la mĂȘme chose que ce que j'ai dit hier, soit qu'Ă ce que je sache, aucune invitation n'a Ă©tĂ© envoyĂ©e par le comitĂ© Ă Sa MajestĂ© la reine.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today I say the same thing as I said yesterday, namely that, as far as I know, no invitation has been sent by the committee to Her Majesty the Queen.
Why did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans fence off the Saint-Georges-de-Malbaie wharf for safety reasons just one week before lobster season instead of presenting a repair schedule and viable alternative for fishermen?
The question is grounded in a specific incident â the fencing of the Saint-Georges-de-Malbaie wharf one week before lobster season â and asks why the department acted irresponsibly instead of presenting a repair schedule and alternative.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans le dossier des ports pour petits bateaux, je dois malheureusement encore une fois souligner l'inertie du ministĂšre des PĂȘches et OcĂ©ans, cette fois-ci avec le quai de Saint-Georges-de-Malbaie. Ă peine une semaine avant le dĂ©but de la pĂȘche au homard, le ministĂšre a choisi de clĂŽturer le quai pour des raisons de sĂ©curitĂ© plutĂŽt que de prĂ©senter un Ă©chĂ©ancier de rĂ©parations et d'offrir une alternative intĂ©ressante aux pĂȘcheurs. Pourquoi le ministĂšre a-t-il agi de façon irresponsable dans ce dossier et n'a pas investi les sommes nĂ©cessaires Ă la rĂ©paration de cette infrastructure essentielle pour les pĂȘcheurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with respect to small craft harbours, unfortunately I must once again draw attention to the lack of action by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, this time in connection with the Saint-Georges-de-Malbaie wharf. Barely a week before the beginning of lobster-fishing, the department decided to close the wharf for safety reasons, and did not present a repair schedule or offer an interesting alternative to fishers. Why has the department acted irresponsibly in this file and not invested the amounts necessary to repair this essential infrastructure for fishers?
The minister noted that wharves face damage from seas and ice and said provisions would be made so fishermen in the area could conduct the fishery when the season starts.
The minister acknowledged the existence of the wharf issue and gave a vague commitment to ensure provisions would be made for fishermen, but provided no timeline, no explanation for the closure decision, and no specifics on repairs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have wharves in every fishing harbour across the country. We do what we can to keep them going and damage is always caused whether it is by the seas, by ice or whatever the case might be. In relation to the wharf the member is talking about, we will ensure that provisions are made for the fishermen in his area to be able to conduct the fishery when the season starts.
Will the Prime Minister wait for the results of the Public Service Integrity Office investigation before awarding the $400 million contract that TPG claims was altered to favour a company linked to Minister Fortier's past employment and investments?
The question cites a specific dollar amount ($400 million), identifies TPG's allegation that the contract was altered mid-stream, references the minister's prior employment and personal investments, and notes the file is before the Public Service Integrity Office â a clear, accountable ask about whether to pause the contract.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the unelected Michael Fortier thinks he is entitled to be unaccountable. Tomorrow, Treasury Board is set to sign off on a $400 million contract which TPG claims was altered mid-stream to favour a company which the minister recently worked for and whose financial success is tied to the minister's personal investments. The file is before the Public Service Integrity Office. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and wait for the results of this investigation before awarding the contract?
The parliamentary secretary stated the contract was awarded in a fair and open process, that Minister Fortier was not involved directly or indirectly, and accused the Liberals of having broken rules for 13 years in Public Works.
The parliamentary secretary denied Fortier's involvement and pivoted to attacking the Liberal record in Public Works for 13 years, without addressing the Public Service Integrity Office investigation or the specific question of whether the contract award should be paused.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, this contract was awarded in a fair and open process. Minister Fortier was not involved directly or indirectly in this contract, in the assignment of this contract or in the process at all. We have obeyed all the rules, unlike the Liberals did for 13 long years in the Department of Public Works. We are cleaning up their mess and Minister Fortier is leading by example.
Could the minister inform the House what he is doing to ensure funding for housing in New Brunswick and other provinces and territories?
This is a government-backbench softball setup that lists the government's own announcements and asks the minister to elaborate on housing funding in New Brunswick and other provinces, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have heard the opposition fearmonger that housing groups will lose out during the transition to the homelessness partnering strategy but the fact is that transitional funding was approved and projects were saved. The opposition says that the recent budget does not do anything for aboriginals, seniors or youth at risk when it comes to housing and yet there have been announcements for supportive housing for women, at risk children, aboriginals and seniors all across Canada, including announcements made for affordable housing for seniors and the disabled in western New Brunswick. Could the minister inform the House what he is doing to ensure funding for housing in New Brunswick and other provinces and territories?
The minister stated that the government provides over $2 billion annually for affordable housing and homelessness, and cited a recent announcement in Fredericton for 63 new affordable housing units in partnership with New Brunswick.
The minister provided a concrete figure ($2 billion annually), cited a specific announcement in Fredericton for 63 new affordable housing units, and credited the member's role â real information delivered in direct response to the setup.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every year Canada's new government provides over $2 billion in support of affordable housing and programs to tackle homelessness. Recently, my friend was present in Fredericton where we, along with our partners in the province of New Brunswick, announced funding for the creation of 63 new affordable housing units. I am proud of the hard work that my friend has undertaken to help make that happen. I want to point out that this government does believe we have an obligation--
Who pays for the Prime Minister's new style consultant who travels with him, and how much does it cost?
The question asks specifically who pays for the Prime Minister's new style consultant and how much it costs â a factual, answerable ask â but is heavily wrapped in mockery and rhetorical framing that dilutes its accountability value.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la consultante en mode du premier ministre voyage avec lui dans le monde aux frais des contribuables. Vraiment? C'est difficile de choisir le bon veston bleu conservateur? Le premier ministre avait-il de la difficulté à s'endormir le soir en se demandant s'il devait porter des bas bleu pùle ou bleu foncé? à mon avis, les gens ordinaires ont d'autres priorités. Le premier ministre peut-il dire qui paie pour sa nouvelle consultante en mode, et combien ça coûte?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Ministerâs fashion consultant travels with him around the world at the taxpayersâ expense. Really. Is it hard to choose the right Conservative blue suit? Did the Prime Minister have trouble sleeping at night, wondering whether he should wear light blue or dark blue socks? To my mind, ordinary people have other priorities. Can the Prime Minister tell us who pays for his new fashion consultant and how much it costs?
The minister said the Prime Minister maintains a tour staff as all prime ministers do and suggested it is smaller than those of his Liberal predecessors, without addressing the cost or payment of the stylist.
The minister confirmed the Prime Minister maintains a tour staff and claimed it is smaller than those of Liberal predecessors, but did not address the specific cost or who pays for the stylist.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister maintains a tour staff, as do all prime ministers. In fact, I believe members will find that this Prime Minister has a smaller tour staff than all his Liberal predecessors.
Given that the Prime Minister previously criticized Preston Manning for a $31,000 clothing allowance, why is it acceptable now to have a travelling style assistant paid by taxpayers when it was not acceptable then?
The question invokes a specific prior commitment â the Prime Minister's criticism of Preston Manning's $31,000 clothing allowance â as a contrast to current practice, making it somewhat grounded, but it is still heavily rhetorical and the ask is diffuse.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of ordinary Canadians are asking why the Prime Minister even needs a stylist. I am certain that after the disastrous cowboy photo op, prime ministerial lint and stray hairs are at the top of the PMO agenda. Perhaps a one-time consultation but a travelling assistant devoted to tie choices? The Prime Minister is wasting taxpayer dollars on his own ego. In fact, it was the Prime Minister who harangued his former colleague, Preston Manning, about a $31,000 clothing allowance. What has changed? Why is it okay now when it was not okay a few years ago?
The minister assured the House that the Prime Minister pays for all his clothes, unlike some of his predecessors, without addressing the Manning comparison or the cost of the travelling stylist.
The minister deflected with a quip that the Prime Minister pays for all his clothes unlike some predecessors, which partially engages the hypocrisy angle but does not address the Manning comparison or explain what changed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a lot of ordinary Canadians are wondering what I am doing answering questions about style and fashion. However, I can assure the House that the Prime Minister pays for all his clothes, unlike some of his predecessors.
This exchange recorded only ceremonial acknowledgment of guests in the gallery, with no question asked and no substantive response given.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Hear, hear!