Session overview
- Official languages dominated Question Period, with opposition parties attacking the government on three fronts: the paralysis of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the abolition of the court challenges program, and cuts to the Action Plan for Official Languages.
- The government repeatedly defended the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the member for StormontâDundasâSouth Glengarry, insisting Conservative members were ready to return to work and placing blame for the committee's dysfunction on opposition parties.
- The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced legislation to authorize immigration officers to deny work permits to foreign strippers, characterizing the previous Liberal government's blanket exemptions as leaving workers vulnerable to forced prostitution and other exploitation.
- A serious question of privilege was raised by the member for Ottawa South, who alleged that the member for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans, a Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole, physically crossed the floor, grabbed his left shoulder, and screamed at him during Question Period; the matter was referred to the Speaker for review of video footage.
- Multiple exchanges on the Canada summer jobs program saw the government defending its Canada summer jobs redesign against Liberal claims that non-profit organizations, including the YWCA, Canadian Cancer Society, Elizabeth Fry Society, and Autism Society of Nova Scotia, had been denied funding for the first time.
- On electoral boundaries, the Bloc Québécois challenged the government's Bill C-56, arguing it would add seats without giving Quebec any, thereby diluting Quebec's political weight; the government maintained the bill guaranteed Quebec's current level of representation and was grounded in the principle of representation by population.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made a concrete, specific legislative commitment, announcing she would table legislation later that day to authorize immigration officers to deny work permits to foreign strippers, constituting a tangible new policy disclosure.
The question identifies a specific contradiction between two ministers' public statements on the softwood lumber deal and a proposed log export tax, with a pointed ask about which table the proposal is being raised at.
Prentice gave no response to the specific allegation that federal shelters for Indigenous women receive approximately $150,000 annually compared to Quebec's $487,000, instead deflecting with a rhetorical question about why the Bloc does not support Bill C-44.
Outstanding questions
- StĂ©phane Dion asked whether the Prime Minister would admit that the court challenges program was abolished because the government lost a case against the anti-poverty coalition funded by that program, and because it was used to protect gay rights â no direct answer was given.
- Michael Ignatieff asked whether the government would commit that day to adopting all of the commissioner's recommendations, beginning with restoring the 100 million dollars cut from the Plan d'action pour les langues officielles â the minister responded only with a counter-accusation about Liberal-era cuts.
- Richard Nadeau asked why mandatory bilingualism was eliminated for senior military officers, why a unilingual anglophone was appointed as ombudsman for victims of crime, and why the committee could not discuss the Fraser report â none of these three specific questions received a direct answer.
- Todd Russell asked when the government would stop monitoring and start acting to provide assistance to fishers and plant workers without income due to severe ice conditions off Labrador and northeastern Newfoundland â the fisheries minister gave no timeline or program commitment.
- Maria Minna asked the minister to explain specifically what was wrong with Community Centre 55, a charity in her riding that was denied funding for the first time in 30 years under Canada summer jobs â the minister did not address Community Centre 55 and instead spoke about the Flemingdon Park Parent Association.
Dion asks whether the Prime Minister will appoint a new chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages so it can fulfill its duty under section 88 of the Official Languages Act to study the commissioner's report.
Cites a specific statutory provision (article 88 of the Official Languages Act) and makes a single, clear ask â will the PM designate a new chair so the committee can fulfill its legal mandate.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre viole la Loi sur les langues officielles qui prévoit, à son article 88, que le Comité permanent des langues officielles étudie le rapport du commissaire aux langues officielles. Le premier ministre posera-t-il une geste trÚs simple en désignant un nouveau président, de façon à ce que le comité puisse faire le travail requis par la loi? Le premier ministre posera-t-il ce geste tout simple et se comportera-t-il de façon responsable?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is violating the Official Languages Act, section 88 of which requires the Standing Committee on Official Languages to review the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Will the Prime Minister simply designate a new chair so that the committee can do the work required by the act? Will the Prime Minister do this simple thing and behave responsibly?
Harper says Conservative MPs support the current chair and that Conservative members are ready to return to work immediately, implying the delay is the Liberals' doing.
Harper addresses the committee standoff but deflects by framing it as the Liberals' fault and asserting Conservative members support the current chair, without engaging the legal obligation raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, selon mes informations, les dĂ©putĂ©s conservateurs de ce comitĂ© appuient la prĂ©sidence du dĂ©putĂ© de StormontâDundasâSouth Glengarry, qui fait un bon travail. Le prĂ©sident et les dĂ©putĂ©s conservateurs de ce comitĂ© sont prĂȘts Ă retourner au travail aussi vite que possible, et j'espĂšre que les dĂ©putĂ©s libĂ©raux feront la mĂȘme chose.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, according to my information, the Conservative members on that committee support the hon. member for StormontâDundasâSouth Glengarry as chair. He is doing good work. The chair and the Conservative members of the committee are ready to get back to work as soon as possible and I hope the Liberal members will do the same.
Dion asks whether the PM killed the court challenges program because of cases it lost (anti-poverty coalition, Montfort Hospital, gay rights), and whether he will end what Dion calls a 'personal and vindictive vendetta against minority rights.'
The question lists three specific alleged reasons for killing the court challenges program but wraps them in rhetorical framing ('personal and vindictive vendetta') and ends with a vague compound ask rather than a single accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister admit that he killed the court challenges program because he lost a case against the anti-poverty coalition funded by this program, because, thanks to this program, his Minister of the Environment has been unable to close the Montfort Hospital and because, thanks to this program, gay rights have been protected, something that has been criticized by the chief of staff? Will the Prime Minister stop this personal and vindictive vendetta against minority rights in Canada?
Harper pivots to listing Conservative rights achievements â Chinese head tax redress, matrimonial property rights for aboriginal women, Bill C-44 â and attacks the Liberals for blocking them.
Harper does not address the court challenges program at all, instead listing unrelated government rights initiatives and attacking the Liberal record, a clear deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government certainly has nothing to learn from the Liberal Party in the area of rights. This is the government that dealt with the issue of the Chinese head tax, which the previous government refused to do. This is the government that is trying to get matrimonial property rights for aboriginal women. This is the government that is trying to toughen up laws to protect women and children in Canada. We have an important bill before the House, Bill C-44, to give aboriginal people, under the Canadian human rights code, equal status for the first time. The Liberal Party should stop blocking it and support it.
Dion cites the commissioner's report directly to refute Harper's claim that the Plan d'action pour les langues officielles was criticized, and asks when the PM will stop misleading the House.
Dion quotes the commissioner's actual report verbatim to contradict Harper's previous day claim, and asks a pointed question about when the PM will stop misleading the House â factually grounded but the ask is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, malheureusement, comme cela arrive trop souvent, hier, le premier ministre a encore induit la Chambre en erreur. Il a faussement prétendu que le Plan d'action pour les langues officielles, que j'ai eu l'honneur de lancer en 2003, avait été critiqué par le commissaire. Au contraire, voici ce que le commissaire a dit: « Le Plan d'action a [...] réussi en grande partie son pari. Il a donné le nouvel élan tant souhaité à la politique des langues officielles. [...] le gouvernement doit impérativement s'inspirer de l'esprit du plan d'action. [...] L'an dernier, le gouvernement a directement porté atteinte au plan d'action. » Quand le premier ministre cessera-t-il d'induire cette Chambre en erreur? Quand cessera-t-il de se complaire dans la basse politique et se haussera-t-il au niveau de sa fonction?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, as is far too often the case, the Prime Minister misled the House again yesterday. He falsely claimed that the action plan for official languages, which I had the honour of launching in 2003, had been criticized by the commissioner. On the contrary, the commissioner said, âThe action plan has achieved much of what it set out to do. It has given the new momentum that was so desperately needed to the official languages policy...the federal government must be inspired by the spirit of the action plan...the government has...directly undermined the action plan over the past yearâ. When will the Prime Minister stop misleading the House? When will he stop playing politics and live up to his role?
Harper quotes a different passage from a former commissioner criticizing weak political leadership in 2003, then briefly notes increased minority-language funding before shifting to an unrelated remark about vindictiveness.
Harper counters with a different quote from a former commissioner criticizing weak leadership, partially engaging the factual dispute, but switches mid-answer to a tangential point about vindictiveness and does not resolve the specific contradiction Dion raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je peux citer le rapport de l'ex-commissaire aux langues officielles, qui a dit: « Comme on lâa bien notĂ© dans le bilan de la derniĂšre annĂ©e, le leadership politique bat de lâaile et sâessouffle; il nâest pas assez fort pour bien enclencher le renouveau de la dualitĂ© linguistique annoncĂ© en 2003. » Ce sont lĂ des mots de l'ex-commissaire. Ce ministre a augmentĂ© les fonds pour les programmes linguistiques minoritaires. The hon. leader uses the term vindictiveness, talking about the current chair of the official languages committeeâ
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I can cite the report of the former Commissioner of Official Languages, who said, âAs was clearly seen in last yearâs annual report, political leadership is in a downward spiral and is running out of steam; it lacks the strength to properly undertake the renewal of linguistic duality announced in 2003â. Those are the words of the former commissioner. This minister has increased funding for linguistic minority programs. Le chef de l'opposition a employĂ© le mot « vengeance », en parlant du prĂ©sident actuel de ComitĂ© des langues officielles...
Ignatieff draws on the official languages commissioner's findings â employees unable to work in their language, citizens not receiving bilingual services, contractors ignoring language requirements â and asks when the PM will demonstrate leadership and enforce bilingualism laws.
Ignatieff grounds the question in the commissioner's report, citing three specific failures (language of work, bilingual services, contractor compliance) and asks a focused question about leadership and law enforcement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the official languages commissioner makes it very clear that the government is undermining bilingualism. Government employees cannot work in the language of their choice. Citizens cannot get bilingual services. Contractors do not respect language requirements on federal jobs. The commissioner puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of the government's appalling lack of political will. When is the Prime Minister going to demonstrate leadership, respect the linguistic duality of this country and start enforcing Canada's bilingualism laws?
Harper acknowledges the commissioner's report reviews successes and failures and says the government will instruct the federal administration to improve, without specifying how, then attacks Ignatieff over remarks about the committee chair.
Harper acknowledges the commissioner's report exists and commits vaguely to instructing the federal administration to improve, but provides no specifics and then pivots to a partisan jab about the committee chair.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the commissioner's report, as it does every year, overviews all the activities of the government, where the government is failing, where it is succeeding and where there is work to be done. We will examine this and we will instruct the federal administration to improve performance in those areas. Once again, the Leader of the Opposition talked about vindictiveness. I have to tell the deputy leader of the opposition that I do not have to have the executive director of my party defend the chair of the language committee against his own members.
Ignatieff asks whether the government will commit to adopting all the commissioner's recommendations, beginning with restoring the more than 100 million dollars cut from the Plan d'action pour les langues officielles.
Ignatieff makes a specific factual claim (more than 100 million dollars cut from the Plan d'action pour les langues officielles) and asks a direct, binary commitment: will the government adopt all the commissioner's recommendations, starting with restoring those funds?
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il faut faire beaucoup mieux que cela. Ce gouvernement a fait preuve d'un manque de leadership flagrant en coupant plus de 100 millions de dollars dans le financement du Plan d'action pour les langues officielles, le plan mis en place par mon collĂšgue. Ce gouvernement s'engage-t-il, aujourd'hui mĂȘme, Ă adopter toutes les recommandations du commissaire, en commençant par le rĂ©tablissement des 100 millions de dollars coupĂ©s par ce gouvernement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there will have to be considerable improvement. This government has shown a flagrant lack of leadership by cutting more than $100 million in funding for the action plan for official languages, a plan created by my colleague. Will this government commit today to adopting all the commissioner's recommendations, starting with restoring the $100 million cut by this government?
Verner counter-attacks by citing Liberal cuts of nearly 100 million dollars to official language community budgets between 1993 and 1999 and a commissioner's quote calling those cuts 'désastreuses', without addressing the current ask.
Verner deflects entirely by citing Liberal cuts in the 1990s and a 2004-2005 commissioner quote, never addressing the specific $100 million figure or the commitment to adopt the commissioner's recommendations.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, entre 1993 et 1999, les libéraux ont coupé prÚs de 100 millions de dollars dans les budgets consentis aux communautés de langue officielle, ce qui a fait dire à la commissaire, dans son rapport de 2004-2005: « L'expérience passée sert souvent à prédire l'avenir. » Les transformations gouvernementales apportées au moment de l'adoption des programmes pour les langues officielles au cours des années 1990 ont été désastreuses.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, between 1993 and 1999, the Liberals cut close to $100 million from the budgets of official language communities, which led the commissioner to say in her 2004-05 report, âPast experience often helps to forecast the future.â The changes that the government made when the official language programs were adopted during the 1990s were disastrous.
Duceppe notes that on the same day the commissioner's report was tabled criticizing the government, the PM shut down the Standing Committee on Official Languages tasked with reviewing it, and asks why the PM will not restore the committee so MPs can examine the commissioner's recommendations.
Duceppe links two specific concurrent events â the commissioner's report tabling and the committee shutdown â and asks a clear question about restoring the committee, though the framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans son rapport dĂ©posĂ© hier, le commissaire aux langues officielles, M. Graham Fraser, a sĂ©vĂšrement blĂąmĂ© le gouvernement pour son inaction dans le dossier des langues officielles. Or, la mĂȘme journĂ©e, le premier ministre a dĂ©cidĂ© de faire cesser les activitĂ©s du ComitĂ© permanent des langues officielles, celui-lĂ mĂȘme qui doit dĂ©battre du rapport du commissaire Fraser. Comme le premier ministre a sĂ»rement pris connaissance du rapport du commissaire, pourquoi ne rĂ©tablit-il pas le ComitĂ© permanent des langues officielles afin que les parlementaires puissent faire leur travail et prennent connaissance des recommandations du commissaire Fraser?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in his report tabled yesterday, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, severely criticized the government for its failure to act in the official languages file. Yet, the same day, the Prime Minister decided to halt the activities of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the very committee that should be examining Commissioner Fraser's report. Since the Prime Minister surely must have read the commissioners' report, why does he refuse to reinstate the Standing Committee on Official Languages, so that parliamentarians can do their job and hear Commissioner Fraser's recommendations?
Harper says Conservative members, including the chair, are ready to work as quickly as possible and hopes Bloc members will do the same.
Harper repeats his earlier claim that Conservative members are ready to work immediately without addressing why the chair who lost the committee's confidence has not been replaced, essentially re-stating his position without engaging Duceppe's specific premise.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au contraire, comme je viens de le dire, les dĂ©putĂ©s conservateurs de ce comitĂ© sont prĂȘts Ă travailler aussi vite que possible, y compris le prĂ©sident du comitĂ©. J'espĂšre que les dĂ©putĂ©s bloquistes vont faire la mĂȘme chose.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, as I just said, the Conservative members of that committee are ready to get to work as quickly as possible, including the committee chair. I hope the Bloc members will do the same.
Duceppe argues the chair lost the committee's confidence because he refused to hear certain witnesses, including those from the Montfort Hospital relevant to the court challenges program, and asks whether the PM is avoiding reactivating the committee to prevent criticism of his choices.
Duceppe raises a specific procedural reason why the chair lost confidence (refusing certain witnesses) and ties it to the court challenges program and the commissioner's denunciation, though the rhetorical closing question weakens the score.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce dĂ©putĂ© n'a plus la confiance du comitĂ© parce qu'il ne voulait pas entendre certains tĂ©moins. C'est la rĂ©alitĂ©. Or un des mandats du ComitĂ© permanent des langues officielles est justement d'entendre des tĂ©moins. Il aurait Ă©tĂ© intĂ©ressant d'inviter les gens de l'hĂŽpital Montfort Ă venir s'exprimer sur l'importance du Programme de contestation judiciaire. Le commissaire Fraser a d'ailleurs vivement dĂ©noncĂ© l'abolition de ce programme. Mais peut-ĂȘtre que le premier ministre n'a justement pas envie d'entendre des groupes venir lui reprocher en comitĂ© certains de ses choix. N'est-ce pas pour cela qu'il refuse de rĂ©activer le comitĂ©?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that member no longer has the confidence of the committee, because he did not want to hear certain witnesses. That is a fact. Yet, one of the mandates of the Standing Committee on Official Languages is, in fact, to hear witnesses. It would have been interesting to invite people from the Montfort Hospital to come and talk about the importance of the court challenges program. Commissioner Fraser also harshly criticized the elimination of that program. Perhaps the Prime Minister does not want to hear any groups that appear before the committee to condemn certain things he has done. Is this not why he refuses to reinstate the committee?
Harper says the committee is ready to meet at any time, then attacks the Bloc for presenting itself as a defender of bilingualism when its fundamental objective is dividing Canada into two unilingual countries.
Harper briefly restates the committee's readiness to meet, then pivots to attacking the Bloc's separatist objective as inconsistent with defending bilingualism, which does not address Duceppe's specific allegation about witness exclusions.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le prĂ©sident et le comitĂ© sont prĂȘts Ă se rĂ©unir Ă n'importe quel moment possible. Toutefois, il est bizarre de voir que le Bloc se prĂ©sente comme le grand dĂ©fenseur du bilinguisme canadien. L'objectif fondamental du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois est la division de ce pays entre deux pays unilingues. Nous appuyons un pays bilingue et fort.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the committee and its chair are ready to meet at any time. However, it is strange to see the Bloc present itself as a staunch defender of Canadian bilingualism. The fundamental objective of the Bloc Québécois is to divide this country into two unilingual countries. We support a strong, bilingual country.
Nadeau asks whether the government realizes that abolishing the court challenges program â saving only 18 cents per citizen per year â is depriving women, gay people, Indigenous peoples, immigrants, and all minorities of one of their only means of having their rights respected.
Nadeau cites specific examples (Montfort Hospital, French-language schools in Alberta), quantifies the per-citizen cost at 18 cents per year, and asks a focused accountability question about the trade-off.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le commissaire aux langues officielles dénonce l'abolition du Programme de contestation judiciaire. L'hÎpital Montfort et les écoles françaises de l'Alberta sont deux causes qui ont bénéficié de ce programme. Le gouvernement se rend-il compte que pour économiser 18 ¹ par année par citoyen, il brime le droit à l'égalité des femmes, des homosexuels, des Autochtones, des immigrants, bref, de toutes les minorités? Pourquoi leur enlever un des seuls moyens qu'elles avaient pour faire respecter leurs droits?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages criticized the elimination of the court challenges program. The Montfort Hospital and Alberta's French schools have both benefited from this program. Is the government aware that in order to save 18Âą per year per person, it is taking away the right of women, homosexuals, aboriginals and immigrants, indeed, of all minorities, to equality? Why take away one of the only tools they have to ensure their rights are respected?
Verner attacks the Bloc MP for claiming to defend minority communities outside Quebec while having said he chose Quebec as his country, then announces $30 million in additional budget funding for minority communities.
Verner deflects by attacking the Bloc's credibility as a defender of minority communities and citing $30 million in new budget funding, never engaging the 18-cents calculation or the specific rights impacts named in the question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, évidemment, nous sommes toujours surpris d'entendre le député du Bloc se présenter comme le grand défenseur des communautés minoritaires hors Québec, lui qui a dit, lors d'une de mes comparutions devant le Comité permanent des langues officielles qu'il avait choisi son pays et que ce pays-là était le Québec. Moi aussi, j'ai choisi mon pays. Il s'agit d'un pays à l'intérieur duquel on va faire la promotion de la dualité linguistique. Il s'agit d'un pays à l'intérieur duquel, pour nos communautés en situation minoritaire, nous avons annoncé 30 millions de dollars de plus dans le dernier budget.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, naturally, we are always surprised to hear the Bloc member portray himself as the great defender of minority communities outside Quebec. After all, during one of my appearances before the Standing Committee on Official Languages, he said that he had chosen his country and that that country was Quebec. I too have chosen my country. It is a country in which we promote linguistic duality. It is a country in which we have announced another $30 million dollars for minority communities in the latest budget.
Nadeau asks the government to explain why it eliminated mandatory bilingualism for senior military officers, appointed a unilingual English victims ombudsman, and is preventing discussion of Fraser's report in committee.
Nadeau lists three concrete examples (mandatory bilingualism for senior military officers, unilingual English victims ombudsman, inability to discuss Fraser's report in committee) and asks for an explanation of what he calls contempt and indifference amounting to an attack on democracy.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si vraiment le gouvernement a à coeur le sort des minorités et des francophones, qu'il nous explique pourquoi on a éliminé le bilinguisme obligatoire pour les hauts gradés de l'armée, pourquoi un unilingue anglais a été nommé ombudsman des victimes d'actes criminels et pourquoi on ne peut discuter du rapport de M. Fraser en comité. Qu'il nous explique ce mépris et cette indifférence qui constituent une atteinte à la démocratie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if this government really cares about the fate of minorities and francophones, it should explain why it eliminated mandatory bilingualism for senior military officers, why a unilingual anglophone was appointed the ombudsman for victims of crime and why the committee cannot discuss Mr. Fraser's report. It should explain its disdainful and indifferent attitude, which undermines democracy.
Verner attacks the Bloc for years of indifference toward official language minority communities outside Quebec and for voting against Bill S-3 in autumn 2005, reaffirming the government's commitment to promoting linguistic duality.
Verner attacks the Bloc's record of indifference toward official language minority communities and notes a 2005 vote against Bill S-3, without addressing any of the three specific examples Nadeau raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est quand mĂȘme le Bloc qui, pendant des annĂ©es, a fait preuve d'indiffĂ©rence envers les communautĂ©s de langue officielle vivant en situation minoritaire Ă l'extĂ©rieur du QuĂ©bec. Ă l'automne 2005, le Bloc a votĂ© contre le projet de loi S-3. Nous nous sommes fermement engagĂ©s Ă promouvoir la dualitĂ© linguistique et nous poursuivrons en ce sens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for years, the Bloc was indifferent to official language minority communities outside of Quebec. In the fall of 2005, the Bloc voted against Bill S-3. We, however, have made a strong commitment to promoting linguistic duality, and we will continue to strive toward achieving that goal.
Layton accuses the government of blocking the procedure committee from voting, shutting down the official languages committee by refusing to appoint a competent chair, and muzzling the opposition on the NDP's climate change motion, and asks why the government shows such disrespect for elected members.
Layton raises three distinct procedural grievances (procedure committee, official languages committee, NDP climate change motion) in one question, making it compound and rhetorical rather than sharply focused, though each element is identifiable.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le manque de respect de ce gouvernement pour le Parlement Ă©lu, pour nous, est de plus en plus flagrant. Il empĂȘche le travail du ComitĂ© permanent de la procĂ©dure et des affaires de la Chambre en ne lui permettant pas de voter. Il annule les travaux importants du ComitĂ© permanent des langues officielles en refusant de nommer un prĂ©sident compĂ©tent. De plus, il muselle l'opposition au sujet de la motion prĂ©sentĂ©e par le NPD en ce qui a trait aux changements climatiques. Pourquoi ce manque de respect envers nous, les Ă©lus? Pourquoi ce manque de respect envers les Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government's lack of respect for the elected Parliament, for us, is becoming increasingly obvious. It is hindering the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs by not allowing it to vote. It is cancelling important work of the Standing Committee on Official Languages by refusing to appoint a competent chair. Furthermore, it is muzzling the opposition on the motion put forward by NDP on climate change. Why this lack of respect toward us, the elected members? Why this lack of respect toward Canadians?
Harper praises the chair of the official languages committee as a proud Franco-Ontarian who has done good work and calls the opposition's treatment of him partisan, without addressing the other grievances.
Harper responds only to the official languages committee issue and praises the current chair without addressing the procedure committee voting allegation or the climate change debate curtailment, constituting a significant deflection.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le président du Comité permanent des langues officielles est un Franco-Ontarien fier et dédié à ce pays. Il a fait un bon travail selon nos membres du comité. C'est bien malheureux qu'il soit traité de façon aussi partisane.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages is a proud franco-Ontarian who is devoted to this country. He does good work according to our members on the committee. It is unfortunate that he is being treated in such a partisan way.
Layton accuses the government of shutting down committees, blocking votes, filibustering, having ministers mislead the House, ignoring disclosure rules, and cutting climate change debate from eight hours to two hours for retribution, asking whether this is what the PM meant by good government.
Layton makes several broad accusations (committee shutdowns, refusal to allow votes, filibustering, ministers misleading the House, disclosure violations, climate debate curtailment) without citing specific documents or a single clear ask, making it largely a list of talking points.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the gulf between how the Prime Minister says he wants to run government and how he actually is doing it is getting wider all the time. His members are shutting down committees. They are refusing to allow votes. They are filibustering. We have ministers misleading the House and they are not following the disclosure rules. The latest move is to cut down the debate on climate change and the NDP's motion to get something done on the issue, cut it down from a day when there would have been eight hours of debate to a day when there would be only two. Why? For retribution. Why the lack of respect? Is this what he meant by good government?
Harper rejects every claim Layton made, focuses on defending the member for StormontâDundasâSouth Glengarry as a strong franco-Ontarian who has worked hard under difficult circumstances, and urges other parties to return to committee work.
Harper rejects Layton's claims wholesale and returns to defending the member for StormontâDundasâSouth Glengarry, addressing only one peripheral element and not engaging the substantive procedural allegations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I reject every single thing the leader of the NDP has said. What I particularly reject are the personal attacks on the member for StormontâDundasâSouth Glengarry. This is a strong franco-Ontarian who has done hard work on that committee under very difficult circumstances. Our members on the committee have indicated to me that they have no desire to remove him. I wish the members of the other parties would simply get back to work at the committee because the Conservative members want to do that work.
McGuinty asks whether the PM will admit that without the court challenges program, the three Mike Harris retreads on the front bench would have succeeded in shutting down the Montfort Hospital, referencing the environment minister's silence as minister responsible for official languages in Ontario.
McGuinty links the court challenges program to the Montfort Hospital case and directly implicates the Minister of the Environment's past conduct, but the closing ask ('will the PM admit') is rhetorical and designed to embarrass rather than elicit accountable information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the court challenges program defended minority community rights in Canada. One of the most renowned cases was of course the Montfort Hospital. We remember how the environment minister kept silent when he was minister responsible for official languages in Ontario. In fact, he tried to shut it down and a whole community had to fight to save the only francophone hospital in the province. The community could not count on its minister but at least it had the court challenges program. Will the Prime Minister now admit that without the court challenges program the three Mike Harris retreads on his front bench would have succeeded in shutting down the Montfort?
Baird says he was proud to be minister of francophone affairs when the Ontario government decided to keep the Montfort Hospital open and to expand it with more long-term care beds, with the support of the current finance and health ministers.
Baird directly addresses the Montfort Hospital allegation with a factual counter-claim â that as minister of francophone affairs he supported keeping and expanding the hospital â which is partially responsive, though he does not address the court challenges program question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was proud to be minister of francophone affairs when the Government of Ontario made an important decision to ensure that the Montfort Hospital not only stayed open but that it was expanded considerably by putting in more long term care beds. I can tell the House that in making that decision I had the solid support of both the current finance minister and the current health minister as well.
McGuinty asks whether the PM will immediately restore the court challenges program, citing the silence of the MPs for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans and GlengarryâPrescottâRussell â who had previously supported the fight to save the Montfort Hospital â as evidence that official language minorities mean nothing to this government.
McGuinty names specific MPs and their past support for the Montfort fight, contrasts it with their current silence on the court challenges program, and makes a clear single ask (restore the program immediately), though the framing is partly partisan.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Ă l'Ă©poque oĂč la communautĂ© franco-ontarienne leur tenait Ă coeur, les dĂ©putĂ©s d'OttawaâOrlĂ©ans et de GlengarryâPrescottâRussell avaient appuyĂ© la lutte pour sauver l'hĂŽpital Montfort. Lorsque le gouvernement a dĂ©cidĂ© d'Ă©liminer le Programme de contestation judiciaire, ils sont restĂ©s silencieux. C'est la preuve flagrante que les minoritĂ©s de langue officielle n'ont vraiment aucune importance pour ce gouvernement. Le premier ministre rĂ©tablira-t-il immĂ©diatement le Programme de contestation judiciaire, avant qu'une autre crise vienne Ă©branler la communautĂ© franco-ontarienne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, back when the members for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans and GlengarryâPrescottâRussell cared about the franco-Ontarian community, they supported the battle to save Montfort Hospital. Since the government decided to eliminate the court challenges program, they have remained silent. This clearly indicates that official language minorities are really not important to this government. Will the Prime Minister immediately reinstate the court challenges program before another crisis shakes the Franco-Ontarian community?
Baird accuses the Liberal member of wanting to support Liberal lawyers, asserts the government supports francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec with quality services, and claims to be strengthening official language programs.
Baird dismisses the question as being about supporting 'avocats libĂ©raux', asserts the government supports francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec, and claims to be strengthening official language programs â none of which addresses the specific restoration ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce député libéral voulait appuyer les avocats libéraux. De ce cÎté-ci de la Chambre, on va appuyer les francophones hors Québec et les anglophones au Québec. Notre but est de fournir de bons services de qualité dans chaque coin de ce pays. Il a sabré dans le budget des affaires francophones. Notre gouvernement est en train d'agir pour renforcer les meilleurs programmes relatifs aux langues officielles.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member wanted to support the Liberal lawyers. On this side of the House, we will support francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec. Our objective is to provide good service throughout the country. He slashed the budget for francophone affairs. Our government is taking action to strengthen the best of the official languages programs.
Jennings asks why the Prime Minister is targeting minority communities, citing the impact of September Conservative cuts on official language minorities, literacy organizations, volunteers, women, homeless people, and children.
Jennings lists several groups affected by September cuts (official language minorities, literacy organizations, volunteers, women, homeless, children) without citing specific data, and the closing ask ('pourquoi s'acharne-t-il') is rhetorical and compound.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les compressions imposées par les conservateurs en septembre dernier ont eu un impact direct sur un grand nombre de communautés partout au pays. Non seulement les minorités de langue officielle ont souffert, mais aussi les organismes d'alphabétisation, les bénévoles, les femmes, les sans-abri, les enfants et un grand nombre d'autres groupes. Tous ont souffert des politiques déplorables des conservateurs. Pourquoi le premier ministre tient-il à s'acharner sur les communautés minoritaires?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the cuts made by the Conservatives last September had a direct impact on many communities across the country. Not only did official language minorities suffer, but also literacy organizations, volunteers, women, the homeless, children and a large number of other groups. They all suffered because of the Conservatives' terrible policies. Why is the Prime Minister so determined to go after minority communities?
Solberg says Jennings has her facts wrong and that under Canada summer jobs, minority community status means extra attention, with hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing to minority communities around the country.
Solberg challenges the factual premise by pointing to Canada summer jobs funding flowing to minority communities, which is at least partially relevant, but does not address the other groups named or the broader September cuts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member simply has her facts wrong. In fact, under the new Canada summer jobs, being a minority community means that people get extra attention. Under Canada summer jobs today we are seeing hundreds of thousands of dollars flow to minority communities around this country. We are completely getting the job done for minority communities in this country.
Jennings argues that the government's $1 billion in cuts harmed the court challenges program, Canadian women, and adult literacy programs, and cites page 6 of the commissioner's report as evidence the government failed to assess the impact of its cuts, asking why the only minority the PM cares about is his own Conservative minority.
Jennings cites $1 billion in cuts and references the commissioner's report (page 6) on lack of homework, but combines multiple policy areas (court challenges, women's programs, literacy) and ends with a rhetorical jab rather than a precise ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when this meanspirited government cut $1 billion from its budget, the court challenges program suffered, Canadian women suffered, and adult literacy programs suffered. To make matters worse, the government failed to determine the impacts its massive cuts would have on these groups. Even the Commissioner of Official Languages said that the government failed to do its homework. It is on page 6 of his report if anyone wants to read it. Why is the only minority that the Prime Minister cares about his own Conservative minority?
Oda says the government will not take lessons from Liberals, and that it has increased Status of Women funding to $29.9 million, more than it has ever had since its inception.
Oda claims the government has increased Status of Women funding to $29.9 million (a specific figure), which is partially relevant to women's programs, but does not address the court challenges program, literacy cuts, or the commissioner's report finding cited in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government will not take any lessons from the Liberals. This is a government that does not just talk, this is a government that does. We have done more for women. We have increased the funding for Status of Women to $29.9 million which is more than it has ever had since its inception. We are making a difference right in the communities and in the lives of women. We stand up for the rights of every Canadian.
Given that the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages suspended committee work and sent witnesses travelling from as far as Winnipeg away without being heard, how can the Prime Minister maintain that the chair is doing exceptional work, and why does he continue to protect him?
Cites a specific incident â witnesses travelling from as far as Winnipeg being turned away â and holds the Prime Minister to his public characterization of the committee chair's work, making it a reasonably grounded accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le prĂ©sident du ComitĂ© permanent des langues officielles, le dĂ©putĂ© de StormontâDundasâSouth Glengarry, soutient qu'il a suspendu les travaux du comitĂ© parce qu'il Ă©tait devenu trop partisan. Sa dĂ©cision intempestive et dĂ©pourvue de toute considĂ©ration pour les tĂ©moins venus d'aussi loin que Winnipeg les a forcĂ©s Ă rebrousser chemin sans ĂȘtre entendus. Devant ces faits, comment le premier ministre peut-il encore soutenir que le prĂ©sident du comitĂ© dirige d'une maniĂšre exceptionnelle, et pourquoi s'obstine-t-il Ă le protĂ©ger?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the member for StormontâDundasâSouth Glengarry, claims that he suspended the work of the committee because it had become too partisan. His impetuous decision, which was made with no consideration for witnesses who had come from as far away as Winnipeg, forced them to return home without testifying. In light of this, how can the Prime Minister still say that the committee chair is doing an excellent job, and why is he persisting in protecting the chair?
Van Loan stated that all Conservatives support the committee chair and that he has done good work, and blamed the opposition for procedural manoeuvres rather than addressing the Winnipeg witnesses incident.
Van Loan defends the chair in general terms and deflects blame onto the opposition's 'manigances procédurales' without addressing the specific incident of dismissed witnesses or justifying the Prime Minister's praise.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le prĂ©sident du ComitĂ© permanent des langues officielles a fait du bon travail. Tous les conservateurs sont en accord et appuient le prĂ©sident. Les dĂ©putĂ©s du Parti conservateur et le prĂ©sident du ComitĂ© permanent des langues officielles demeurent prĂȘts Ă travailler et Ă assister aux rĂ©unions. C'est aux dĂ©putĂ©s de l'opposition de dĂ©cider s'ils veulent retourner au travail ou continuer leurs manigances procĂ©durales.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages has done a good job. All Conservatives agree and support the chair. The Conservative members and the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages are prepared to work and to attend meetings. It is up to the opposition members to decide whether they want to go back to work or carry on with their procedural shenanigans.
Given the Prime Minister's own 2004 statement that Parliament should lead the country, and given that he leads a minority government, how can he justify his conduct on official languages, and what would it look like under a majority?
Quotes the Prime Minister's own 2004 words about parliamentary supremacy as a hook, but the question is largely rhetorical speculation about what a majority government might do to official languages, without a clear, answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en 2004, ce premier ministre affirmait: « C'est le Parlement qui est supposĂ© diriger le pays et non seulement le parti avec le plus grand nombre de dĂ©putĂ©s et le seul chef de ce parti. » Le premier ministre doit se rendre Ă l'Ă©vidence qu'il est Ă la tĂȘte d'un gouvernement minoritaire, lui aussi, et qu'il ne peut pas tout contrĂŽler. Si le gouvernement se permet d'agir de la sorte alors qu'il est minoritaire, on se demande bien ce que ça serait s'il Ă©tait majoritaire et quel impact cela aurait sur les langues officielles!
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in 2004, this Prime Minister stated: âIt is the Parliament thatâs supposed to run the country, not just the largest party and the single leader of that partyâ. The Prime Minister needs to face facts: he has a minority government and he cannot control everything. If the Conservatives think they can behave in this way when they have a minority, just imagine what would happen if they had a majority and what impact it would have on official languages.
Van Loan simply reiterated that Conservatives are ready to work and characterized the entire issue as opposition procedural manoeuvres, offering no substantive response.
Van Loan repeats the same boilerplate about Conservative readiness to work and opposition procedural manoeuvres, entirely ignoring the 2004 quote and the hypothetical about a majority government's impact on official languages.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous disons la mĂȘme chose: nous sommes prĂȘts Ă travailler, tous les conservateurs sont prĂȘts Ă travailler. Le problĂšme est que toute l'opposition peut faire des manigances procĂ©durales.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I repeat: we are prepared to work. All the Conservatives are prepared to work. The problem is that the opposition is engaging in procedural shenanigans.
With a majority of Assemblée nationale members denouncing the electoral representation bill, will the Prime Minister withdraw it and guarantee Quebec 25% of seats in the House, or will the nation motion remain an empty gesture?
Cites a specific legislative proposal (Bill C-56), references a majority vote at the AssemblĂ©e nationale, and makes a specific demand â withdraw the bill and guarantee Quebec 25% of seats â giving it reasonable factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Bloc québécois n'est pas seul à s'opposer au projet de loi du gouvernement qui veut porter le nombre de députés en cette Chambre de 308 à 330. Une majorité de députés de l'Assemblée nationale du Québec a aussi dénoncé, hier, le projet de loi sur la représentation électorale. Si le premier ministre ne veut pas que la motion sur la nation québécoise ne demeure qu'un voeu pieux, il doit retirer son projet de loi et garantir au Québec 25 p. 100 des siÚges en cette Chambre. C'est ce qu'il doit faire!
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is not alone in opposing the bill introduced by the government, which seeks to increase the number of members in this House from 308 to 320. A majority of members of the National Assembly of Quebec also spoke out against the electoral representation bill yesterday. If the Prime Minister does not want the motion on the Quebec nation to be nothing but wishful thinking, he must withdraw his bill and guarantee Quebec 25% of the seats in this House. That is what he must do.
Van Loan stated that the bill guarantees Quebec's current level of representation will be maintained and that Quebec's representation will serve as the benchmark against which British Columbia's and Alberta's representation is measured.
Van Loan addresses the question by explaining what the bill guarantees for Quebec's representation and how Quebec's level would serve as a benchmark for other provinces, though he does not engage the Assemblée nationale vote or the 25% demand directly.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, dans notre projet de loi, le Québec aura la garantie que son actuel niveau de représentation sera maintenu. Cette mesure législative rétablira l'équité. La représentation selon la population sera presque assurée au Québec, en Colombie-Britannique et en Alberta. De plus, le niveau de représentation du Québec constituera la mesure par rapport à laquelle le niveau de représentation des deux autres provinces sera évalué. C'est une forte garantie pour le Québec.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in our bill, Quebec will be guaranteed that its current level of representation will be preserved. This legislation will restore fairness. Representation by population will be virtually assured for Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta. As well, Quebecâs level of representation will be the standard by which the level of representation for the other two provinces will be measured. This is a strong guarantee for Quebec.
Given that Bill C-56 means 48 new seats will have been added since the 1985 Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act without Quebec receiving a single one, can the government reconcile recognizing the Quebec nation with accelerating the dilution of that nation's political weight in the House?
Cites a specific statistic â 48 new seats added since the 1985 Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act without Quebec receiving any â and poses a pointed contradiction between recognizing the Quebec nation and diluting its political weight.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le projet de loi C-56 fera en sorte que, depuis la Loi sur la reprĂ©sentation Ă©lectorale de 1985, 48 nouveaux siĂšges auront Ă©tĂ© ajoutĂ©s au Parlement fĂ©dĂ©ral, sans que le QuĂ©bec n'en reçoive un seul. C'est ce qu'on appelle perdre du poids politique. Le gouvernement se rend-il compte qu'il ne peut pas, d'un cĂŽtĂ©, reconnaĂźtre la nation quĂ©bĂ©coise et, de l'autre, accĂ©lĂ©rer la dilution du poids politique de cette mĂȘme nation au sein de la Chambre des communes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the effect of Bill C-56 will be that since the Representation Act was passed in 1985, 48 new seats will have been added to the federal Parliament, and Quebec will not have received a single one of them. That is what is called losing political weight. Does the government realize that it cannot recognize the Quebec nation, on the one hand, and then on the other hand step up the dilution of that nationâs political weight in the House of Commons?
Van Loan defended the bill on the principled grounds of rep by pop and protection of proportional provincial representation as foundational Confederation principles, without addressing the 48-seat figure or the nation-motion contradiction.
Van Loan responds with general principles (rep by pop, federal protection of provincial proportional representation) without addressing the specific claim about 48 seats, the 1985 Act, or the contradiction between the nation motion and Bill C-56.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, contrairement Ă ceux des autres partis, notre projet est fondĂ© sur des principes. PremiĂšrement, il est fondĂ© sur le principe fondamental de la reprĂ©sentation dĂ©mocratique: une personne, un vote, chaque vote devant avoir le mĂȘme poids dans la mesure du possible. DeuxiĂšmement, il est fondĂ© sur le principe de la protection de la reprĂ©sentation proportionnelle des provinces. Ce principe Ă©tait Ă l'origine mĂȘme de la ConfĂ©dĂ©ration: la reprĂ©sentation selon la population, conjuguĂ©e Ă la notion de fĂ©dĂ©ration.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the other partiesâ proposals, our proposal is based on principles. First, it is based on the fundamental principle of democratic representation: one person, one vote, each vote to have the same weight, as far as possible. Second, it is based on the principle of protecting the proportional representation of the provinces. That principle was a very foundation of Confederation: representation by population, together with the concept of federalism.
With the Bush administration reportedly trying to water down the G-8 climate change statement and refusing to recognize the UN as an appropriate negotiating forum, what is the minister's position on these issues, or is he waiting for instructions from Washington?
References a specific external source (Governor Schwarzenegger's environmental adviser), cites reports from Bonn about US G-8 positions, and asks three identifiable sub-questions about the minister's positions, though the partisan framing ('waiting for instructions from Washington') weakens the overall accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Governor Schwarzenegger's environmental adviser says that this Conservative government has made the same mistake as President Bush and that these neo-con cousins are asleep at the switch. Reports out of Bonn say the Bush administration is trying to water down the G-8 climate change statement. It refuses to endorse the most basic of limits. It will not even recognize the UN as an appropriate forum for negotiating future global action. Could the minister today tell us his position on these issues, or is he still waiting for instructions from Washington?
Baird stated that Canada strongly supports global efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions in absolute terms and cited a national plan, then quoted the Liberal deputy leader criticizing his own party on the environment.
Baird offers a general statement of support for reducing greenhouse emissions, cites having a national plan, but does not address any of the three specific questions about the G-8 statement, US positions, or the UN as a negotiating forum, instead pivoting to a Liberal quote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada strongly supports global efforts to reduce in absolute terms greenhouse emissions. For the first time in Canadian history, we have a national plan to actually cope with that. I can appreciate that for the member opposite and his colleagues this is a sensitive issue. âI think our party has gotten into a mess on the environmentâ. Do members know who said that? The deputy leader of the Liberal Party.
While France, Germany, and Britain are pushing for a strong G-8 statement on climate change, will Canada play a leadership role at the G-8 Summit or merely play a decorative role?
References France, Germany, and Britain pushing for a strong G-8 climate declaration as factual context, but the question of whether Canada will be a leader or a 'pot de fleurs' is largely rhetorical and lacks a specific answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au Sommet du G8, la France, l'Allemagne et la Grande-Bretagne militent tous en faveur d'une déclaration forte sur les changements climatiques. Pendant ce temps, le premier ministre, comme son ami le président Bush, reste muet et la réputation du Canada en souffre. Le Canada fera-t-il figure de leader au Sommet du G8 ou ne jouera-t-il encore qu'un rÎle de pot de fleurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, at the G-8 Summit, France, Germany and Great Britain all argued for a strong statement on climate change. During that time, the Prime Minister, like his friend President Bush, remained silent and Canadaâs reputation suffered as a result. Will Canada show some leadership at the G-8 Summit or will it continue to act like mere background scenery?
Baird criticized 13 years of Liberal inaction, asserted Canada has a plan to aggressively reduce greenhouse emissions in absolute terms, and claimed Canada can lead abroad, without specifying Canada's G-8 summit position.
Baird attacks the Liberal government's record of 'all talk and no action' and asserts Canada will lead with real reductions, but does not address Canada's specific position at the G-8 summit or the international dynamics raised in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for 13 long years Canada was the leader at all talk and no action. The time has come in this country to move and to act aggressively, to finally, in absolute terms, reduce harmful greenhouse emissions. We have a plan to deliver that. We think a 25% increase in greenhouse gases in this country, the record of the Liberal government, is unacceptable. We believe we can lead abroad, but leadership requires going first. We are going to deliver with real reductions in greenhouse gases.
Given that Correctional Service Canada's acting commissioner Don Demers told the public safety committee yesterday that 'We're broke' and the minister is spending $3.5 million on a blue ribbon review headed by a Harris Conservative, why won't the minister take his officials' advice and demand adequate funding immediately?
Directly quotes the acting commissioner's testimony ('We're broke') from the previous day's public safety committee, cites the $3.5 million blue ribbon review, and makes a specific demand that the minister seek adequate funding, grounding it in identifiable facts and a clear ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, jaws dropped yesterday at the public safety committee when Correctional Service Canada revealed that its âfinancial situation is direâ. âWe're broke,â said acting commissioner Don Demers. The minister ignores the advice of dedicated Correctional Service Canada officials and blows $3.5 million on a blue ribbon review headed by a Harris Conservative. Why does the minister not take the advice of his officials and demand adequate funding for Correctional Service Canada immediately?
Day cited the $1.8 billion budget, a $102 million increase over two years, and $5.9 million in procurement savings, arguing that substantial increases are coming for Correctional Service Canada.
Day provides the current budget figure ($1.8 billion), the $102 million increase, and notes $5.9 million in procurement savings, engaging with the funding question substantively, though he does not directly address the acting commissioner's statement that the situation is 'dire' or the blue ribbon review criticism.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this year's budget at Correctional Service Canada is about $1.8 billion for some 13,460 very dedicated people working with offenders both in and outside of the system. There was an increase in the allotment to Correctional Service Canada this year of $102 million. That is for two years, so some of that may not be fully reflected in the 2007 budget. If the member had been able to, as she indicated, lift her jaw from her briefing book and look, she would have seen there is a substantial increase coming in for Correctional Service Canada. Not just that, but I also want to congratulate officials for saving $5.9 million in procurements. That money will go to assisting inmates.
With prison escapes up last year and the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada saying the agency has no money and criticizing the minister's Transition Fund, why is the government depriving the two federal prisons in the member's riding of the resources they need to supervise the most dangerous criminals?
References two specific facts â increased prison escapes and the acting commissioner's funding concerns including criticism of the minister's Transition Fund â and personalizes it to two federal prisons in the member's riding, but the ask ('pourquoi les prive-t-il des moyens') is broad.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement conservateur a eu une dure journée hier. Non seulement on apprenait que les évasions des pénitenciers ont augmenté l'an dernier, mais le Service correctionnel du Canada a aussi dit qu'il n'avait plus d'argent. Le commissaire a critiqué le Fonds de transition du ministre conservateur en disant qu'ils ont vraiment du mal à joindre les deux bouts. Il y a deux prisons fédérales dans ma circonscription. Pourquoi ce gouvernement les prive-t-elles des moyens dont elles ont besoin pour surveiller les criminels les plus dangereux?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government had a bad day yesterday. Not only did we learn that there was an increase in the number of inmates who escaped from penitentiaries last year, but Correctional Service Canada also reported that it has no more money. The commissioner criticized the Conservative minister's transition fund by stating that they are having trouble making ends meet. There are two federal prisons in my riding. Why is this government depriving them of the means required to supervise the most dangerous criminals?
Day clarified that the escaped inmates were in minimum security facilities (not dangerous criminals), noted they had returned, and stated that substantial increases will go to institutions in the member's constituency, without addressing the Transition Fund criticism.
Day clarifies the nature of the escapes (minimum security, not dangerous prisoners) and asserts substantial increases will go to institutions in the member's constituency, though without specifying amounts or addressing the Transition Fund criticism.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, premiÚrement, ce ne sont pas des prisonniers dangereux qui se sont échappés des installations pénitentiaires. Ils étaient dans un établissement à sécurité minimum. They took a walk from minimum security and they have returned from their walk. Of course, most of those facilities do not even have fences. Any time somebody walks away from an institution it is serious, but they have been walked back there, let us say. I can assure the member for Beauséjour, who always raises good concerns about the system, that there are substantial increases, many of which will go into the two institutions right in his constituency.
Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration inform the House of the government's intention to help prevent vulnerable people coming to Canada from being exploited or abused?
This is a government-backbench softball setup with no factual grounding, no accountability dimension, and a completely open-ended ask designed only to invite a ministerial announcement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration inform the House of the government's intention to help prevent vulnerable people coming to Canada from being exploited or abused?
Finley announced she would table legislation later that day authorizing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to instruct immigration officers to deny work permits to foreign strippers, reversing the previous Liberal government's blanket exemptions.
Finley announces specific forthcoming legislation to deny work permits to foreign strippers, identifies the policy gap left by the previous government's blanket exemptions, and names the specific amendment being tabled, providing genuinely new and concrete information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that later today I will table legislation to help prevent vulnerable foreign workers such as strippers from being exploited or abused. The amendments will authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to instruct immigration officers to deny work permits to foreign strippers. The previous Liberal government gave blanket exemptions to foreign strippers to work in Canada despite warnings that they were vulnerable to forced prostitution and other exploitation. Thanks to today's amendments, the good old days of Liberal strippergate will be a thing of the past.
Why is the minister developing new specific land claims legislation without consulting first nations, repeating the mistakes of his predecessors?
References National Chief Fontaine's call for mutual respect the previous day, notes the existence of new land claims legislation in progress, and specifically challenges the absence of first nations consultation, making it a reasonably grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday National Chief Fontaine asked for a relationship of mutual respect. The minister is working on new legislation to deal with specific land claims, but to date there has been no consultation with first nations. Why is the minister repeating all the mistakes of his predecessors and refusing to work with first nations to create legislation that actually works?
Prentice stated he met with National Chief Fontaine for over an hour on Monday, acknowledged approximately 800 unresolved land claims left by the previous Liberal government, and indicated he is awaiting the Ipperwash inquiry report around June 1 before proceeding.
Prentice directly refutes the premise by citing his Monday meeting with Fontaine, acknowledges the approximately 800 unresolved land claims, and references the Ipperwash inquiry timeline, partially addressing consultation but not fully explaining the legislative process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite wrong in her question. As a matter of fact, Mr. Fontaine and I met for over an hour on Monday of this week. The former Liberal government left office with approximately 800 unresolved land claims left in the closet. I think that situation is unacceptable. Mr. Fontaine agrees with me. I intend to do something about it. I have indicated that I wish to hear from the Ipperwash inquiry, which is to be heard on or about June 1, and I have every reason to believe that Mr. Fontaine will work together with the government in aid of this.
Given that the Haida case established that government must consult with first nations before making decisions that affect treaty rights, and that specific land claims are about treaty rights, will the minister abide by the Haida court decision and consult with first nations on land claims legislation?
Cites the Haida court decision by name as a specific legal obligation to consult before making decisions affecting treaty rights, and links it directly to land claims legislation, making the legal grounding clear and the ask specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, talks are not consultations. The Haida case made it clear that government must consult with first nations before making any decisions that affect treaty rights. Specific claims are all about treaty rights. Will the minister start showing respect, abide by the Haida court decision and consult with first nations on land claims legislation? What is he waiting for?
Prentice declined to address whether talks constitute consultations under the Haida decision, stating only that he and Fontaine met and share a common purpose on the matter.
Prentice sidesteps the legal distinction between talks and consultations that the Haida decision raises, merely confirms the meeting with Fontaine occurred and asserts common purpose, without addressing whether the legal standard for consultation has been or will be met.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will leave the fascinating subject of whether talks are or are not consultations for wiser minds than we find here. For my part, Mr. Fontaine and I did meet, we did discuss this issue, and we are of common purpose in terms of working together on this matter.
With organizations that have depended on the summer career placements program now being denied funding and thousands of students losing jobs, who is next on the government's hit list after Status of Women, literacy groups, the court challenges program, and now students?
References the specific 'summer career placements program,' asserts organizations are receiving rejection letters that week, and lists affected groups, but the final 'who is next on the government's hit list' framing and the compound ask dilute the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has slashed the summer career placements program. Organizations across Canada that for years have depended on funding to hire students are getting the bad news in the mail this week, just like thousands of students have. Contrary to what the minister says, these jobs were going not to MPs' friends but to students and outstanding non-profit organizations. They are getting nothing and they are rightly outraged at the government. Status of Women, literacy groups, the court challenges program and now students: who is next on the government's hit list?
Solberg cited the lowest unemployment rates in 40 years, asserted that not-for-profit sector funding has been preserved, and named five specific organizations in the member's riding that received funding under the Canada summer jobs program.
Solberg cites lowest unemployment in 40 years and specifically names five funded organizations in the member's own riding, engaging with the funding question with concrete examples, though he does not address the broader claim about many organizations losing funding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member is simply wrong. First of all, today's students are benefiting from the lowest unemployment rates in 40 years in this country. It is also a fact that the funding for the not for profit sector has been absolutely preserved. Even in the member's own riding, the Salvation Army's Scotian Glen Camp, FANE, the Canadian Mental Health Association, Akerley Child Care and the Boys and Girls Club all received funding under the Canada summer jobs program. We are giving quality job opportunities to students and helping not for profit organizations.
Why is the government shutting out non-partisan, non-profit organizations like the YWCA, the Canadian Diabetes Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, and the Autism Society of Nova Scotia â which went from seven positions to none â and when will the minister restore full funding?
Names five specific non-partisan non-profit organizations denied funding and cites the Autism Society of Nova Scotia losing all seven of its positions as a concrete before-and-after example, making the ask â restore full funding â grounded and specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, FANE is a francophone organization. What can the minister possibly have against the YWCA, the Canadian Diabetes Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, and arts groups, all of which are non-partisan, non-profit organizations across Canada? Last year the Autism Society of Nova Scotia had seven positions. This year? Nothing. Organizations like these have a question for the government: âWhy is the government shutting us out?â When will the minister restore full funding to this program? When will he do what is right for these organizations across Canada?
Solberg cited the Autism Resource Centre in Moncton receiving $29,000 this year compared to $9,000 previously, and argued the government is helping groups that need help and ensuring students get work experience, without addressing the named organizations.
Solberg provides a specific counter-example (Autism Resource Centre in Moncton receiving $29,000 versus the previous $9,000) but does not address the named organizations or the Autism Society of Nova Scotia specifically, and deflects with a question about why the previous government denied funding to other groups.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I guess the question is why the previous government routinely shut out thousands of groups every year that it did not fund. The member speaks of autism. I want to point out that the Autism Resource Centre in Moncton will receive $29,000 this year from this government. Previously it got only $9,000. This government is stepping up to the plate, helping groups that need the help and, more important, making sure students get the work experience that they need to succeed.
Community Centre 55 in BeachesâEast York, entirely dependent on federal funding and providing services to the underprivileged for 30 years, was denied funding for the first time; given the minister's suggestion that some programs are not 'clean,' can he explain specifically what is wrong with Community Centre 55?
Names a specific organization (Community Centre 55) denied funding for the first time in 30 years, notes it is entirely dependent on federal funding, and quotes the minister's own characterization of programs as not being 'clean' to hold him to a prior public statement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Community Centre 55, a charity based organization in my riding that provides services to the underprivileged, was denied funding for the first time in 30 years. Its summer employment program is based entirely on funding from the federal government. The minister has politicized the summer employment programs by saying that these may not be âcleanâ programs. Can he explain to my constituents why programs such as day care and summer camp will be cancelled? Specifically, what is wrong with Community Centre 55? Everyone in BeachesâEast York knows its work. Why did the minister rule it out?
Oh, oh!
Solberg stated the minister did not make individual funding decisions (unlike under the Liberals), announced that Flemingdon Park Parent Association received first-time funding, and claimed Wal-Mart and Safeway no longer receive funding, without addressing Community Centre 55.
Solberg denies ministerial involvement in individual decisions, names the Flemingdon Park Parent Association as a new recipient, and mentions Wal-Mart and Safeway losing funding, but never addresses Community Centre 55 or explains what criteria led to its rejection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this will be a foreign concept to the member, but the minister did not make decisions on these groups, unlike the previous program where the Liberals intervened and directed the funding to their friends. The member speaks of groups getting funded. I want to talk about the Flemingdon Park--
Yes, Mr. Speaker, no more money for Wal-Mart and Safeway, but we are sending money to the Flemingdon Park Parent Association. Twenty coaches will be hired to help with students this year. That is first time funding. It is funding that was never given under the Liberal plan. We are helping these groups. Most important, we are helping students.
With summer student positions in Cape BretonâCanso dropping from 1,000 to 100 (a 90% decline) in community jobs at museums, theatres, and recreation programs, when will the minister restore the funding?
Cites a specific and dramatic before-and-after comparison (1,000 summer students last year versus 100 this year, a 90% drop) in Cape BretonâCanso, and names specific types of community jobs lost, giving factual grounding, though the rhetorical 'give us back our zero' weakens the close.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the good people of Cape Breton--Canso have been victimized by what must have been an administrative error, because somewhere somebody has lost a zero. Last summer we had a thousand summer students working. This year it is a hundred. That is a drop of 90%. These jobs were not Wal-Mart jobs. They were community jobs in museums, theatres and recreation programs. The actions of the government have hurt students and they have hurt communities. When will the minister restore the funding? When will he act like a hero and give us back our zero?
Solberg listed five specific organizations in the member's riding receiving funding (St. Anne Community and Nursing Care Centre, Port Hastings Historical Society, Al MacInnis Sports Centre, Camp Rankin 4-H, and Eastern Counties Regional Library) without addressing the 90% drop in student positions.
Solberg names five specific funded organizations in the member's riding but does not address the 90% drop in student positions or explain how the named organizations relate to the thousand student jobs that were lost.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, apparently his riding has a zero. I want to talk about his riding. We are providing funding to the St. Anne Community and Nursing Care Centre, the Port Hastings Historical Society, the Al MacInnis Sports Centre, Camp Rankin 4-H, and the Eastern Counties Regional Library. The list goes on and on. We are helping students and we are helping those not for profit groups.
Why do Indigenous women's shelters receive roughly $150,000 annually from the federal government compared to nearly $487,000 from Quebec, given that Statistics Canada shows Indigenous women are three times more likely to be victims of violence?
Cites specific funding figures ($150,000 vs $487,000 per shelter) and Statistics Canada data on victimization rates, with a clear accountability ask about the funding disparity.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les femmes autochtones du QuĂ©bec ont dĂ©noncĂ© le sous-financement fĂ©dĂ©ral des maisons d'hĂ©bergement situĂ©es dans les communautĂ©s autochtones. Le fĂ©dĂ©ral alloue annuellement environ 150 000 $ par maison alors que le QuĂ©bec en accorde prĂšs de 487 000 $. Ces maisons sont essentielles pour de nombreuses femmes autochtones et pour leurs enfants. Pourquoi les femmes autochtones devraient-elles recevoir trois fois moins de financement alors que, selon Statistique Canada, elles sont trois fois plus susceptibles d'ĂȘtre victimes de violence que les autres femmes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Native Women's Association has denounced the federal government's underfunding of shelters located in aboriginal communities. The federal government allocates approximately $150,000 annually per shelter, while the Quebec government gives nearly $487,000. These shelters are vital to many aboriginal women and their children. Why should aboriginal women receive three times less funding when, according to Statistics Canada, they are three times more likely to be victims of violence than other women?
The minister acknowledged the question briefly and then asked why the Bloc does not support Bill C-44, without addressing the funding disparity.
The minister deflects entirely by turning the question back on the Bloc with a reference to Bill C-44, offering no response to the funding gap or the Statistics Canada data cited.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'apprĂ©cie la question de l'honorable dĂ©putĂ©e. Nous avons dĂ©jĂ dit que nous devions protĂ©ger les intĂ©rĂȘts des Autochtones, des jeunes et des femmes. Cependant, une vraie question se pose: pourquoi le Bloc n'appuie-t-il pas le projet de loi C-44?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. We have already said that we must protect the interests of aboriginals, youth and women. However, here is the real question. Why does the Bloc Québécois refuse to support Bill C-44?
Can the government House leader publicly release a document showing exactly how much each of the two ministers spent on travel expenses?
The question is concrete in demanding a public itemized breakdown of each minister's travel expenses on a single sheet, but relies on prior assertions by the government House leader rather than independently verified documents.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le leader du gouvernement Ă la Chambre des communes ne cesse de rĂ©pĂ©ter que les frais de dĂ©placement du ministre du Travail et du ministre des Transports, de lâInfrastructure et des CollectivitĂ©s respectent en tous points les rĂšgles administratives et que tout est rĂ©gulier. On veut bien croire le leader du gouvernement Ă la Chambre des communes, mais qu'il dĂ©cortique donc ça, et qu'il nous dise combien d'argent chaque ministre a dĂ©pensĂ©. Qu'il rende ça public, sur une feuille. On pourra alors juger par nous mĂȘmes. Le leader du gouvernement Ă la Chambre des communes peut-il faire ça?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons will not stop repeating that the travel expenses of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities fully respect all points of the administrative regulations and that everything is in order. We would like to believe the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, but let him stop covering up and tell us how much money each minister has spent. Let him make that public, on a sheet of paper. Then we can judge for ourselves. Can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons do that?
The minister stated that ministerial travel expenses are entirely disclosed and that Conservatives spent less than Liberals, without providing the specific itemized document requested.
The minister asserts that travel expenses are fully disclosed and pivots to a comparison with Liberal spending, without providing the specific itemized breakdown requested.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je l'ai déjà dit souvent, les dépenses des ministres relatives aux voyages sont entiÚrement divulguées, c'est clair. La différence, c'est que les libéraux ont dépensé plus que les conservateurs.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, the travel expenses of the ministers are fully disclosed. That is clear. The difference is that the Liberals spent more than the Conservatives.
Why is the Minister of Public Safety not hiring the needed customs officers to prevent flight cancellations at medium-sized airports like Moncton?
The question raises a real issue about customs officers and airport flight cancellations but buries the ask in a lengthy list of rhetorical partisan grievances, diluting its accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government does not care about medium-sized cities. From Abbotsford to Charlottetown, airports like the Moncton Airport, important economic generators to their communities, are cancelling new flights. Why? Because the Minister of Public Safety neglects to rein in the rogue president of the Canada Border Services Agency and refuses to hire the needed customs officers. We know the government does not care about the charter, literacy, women's issues, child care and summer jobs. Must we now add mid-sized airports and their communities to the not wanted list, to this culture of defeat?
The minister said a core review is underway to assess resource needs, noted a recent successful redeployment of CBSA officers in Newfoundland, and confirmed meetings on the Moncton issue are ongoing.
The minister references an ongoing core review, cites a recent example in Newfoundland where CBSA officers were redeployed, and acknowledges meetings on the Moncton issue, providing some substantive engagement without fully committing to a resolution.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is a core review going on right now to see how much extra is needed in terms of resources to have extra officers to correspond to increased economic growth in certain areas, just as we did in Newfoundland recently. We looked at an area where there was an increased amount of traffic because of a sudden movement upward in economic activity, and because we were able to move CBSA officers around, they were able to have extra flights into that area. We have also met with people on the Moncton issue. We are seeing what can be done. It is going to take some time, because there is a certain amount of resources across the country, but we are looking at it.
Could the Minister of the Environment explain how ramming through Bill C-288 in 43 seconds is undemocratic?
This is a government-backbench softball setup heavily laden with partisan language such as 'sleazy tactics' and 'unaccountable, unelected Liberal Senate,' with the question itself cut off before completion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last night the unaccountable, unelected Liberal Senate stooped to a new low when it used sleazy tactics to ram through its environmental plan. The Senate committee, in 43 seconds flat--
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, it rammed through its environmental plan in 43 seconds flat. Canada's leading economist said this bill would cause a massive recession, including dramatic increases in the cost of gasoline, yet the Liberals passed it through the committee without one second of debate. Once again the Liberal Party has shown itself to be anti-democratic and dictatorial in its pursuit of power. Could the Minister of the Environment tell this House how ramming through Bill C-288 in 43 seconds is undemocratic--
The minister condemned the Senate's handling of the bill as sleazy and underhanded, claimed it was passed in 43 seconds without debate, and called on Liberal senators including Tommy Banks to resign and allow Albertans to elect senators.
The minister mirrors the partisan framing, repeats the '43 seconds' allegation, and calls on named Liberal senators to resign, without providing any substantive policy information about Bill C-288.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have become used to sleazy and underhanded tactics by the unelected Liberal senators, but we saw a new low last night. They booked two hours for a meeting but, wanting to sneak off, not do their jobs and go home early, they rammed through a bill in 43 seconds without one single second of debate. It is time for these unelected members of the Liberal leader's dream team, senators like Tommy Banks, to go back to Alberta, resign, and let the people of Alberta elect real senators to do the job for them.
If the Minister of International Trade says the softwood deal is working fine with no further talks, why is the Minister of Natural Resources proposing a new export tax on logs, and at what table is this being raised?
The question identifies a specific contradiction between two ministers' public statements on the softwood lumber deal and a proposed log export tax, with a pointed ask about which table the proposal is being raised at.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of International Trade said that the softwood deal was working just fine and there were no further talks with the U.S., but the Minister of Natural Resources claims that the government has proposed an export tax on logs to make them cheaper to mill in Canada. He says that the Minister of International Trade is looking at this. If the softwood deal is working so well, why is the minister proposing this new tax? What table is he bringing it up at if none exists?
The minister confirmed that a clause in the softwood deal allows ongoing discussions on whole log exports with U.S. counterparts and that the Minister of International Trade is pursuing this, but did not reconcile the contradiction between the two ministers' positions.
The minister confirms the existence of a clause allowing ongoing discussions on whole log exports and says the Minister of International Trade is pursuing it, but does not address the contradiction between the two ministers' statements or identify the specific table.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in fact the Minister of International Trade backed the softwood lumber industry in every corner of this country. We saw $5 billion returned to the industry in this country. There is a clause with respect to whole log exports to the U.S. that allows for ongoing discussions with our counterparts in the U.S. This is something that the Minister of International Trade is pursuing. We are providing certainties to this industry so it can move forward.
Will the minister agree that exporting raw logs means exporting jobs, commit to curtailing such exports, and help struggling mills keep value-added manufacturing jobs in Canada?
The question cites a specific claim from mill operators about fibre access and asks three identifiable questions about raw log exports, curtailment, and support for struggling mills, though the compound format reduces sharpness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, thousands of jobs have been lost across the country. Mills are closing in B.C., Ontario and Quebec. The Minister of Natural Resources says that logs can only be exported if no one wants them, yet mill operators say they cannot get logs and they do not have access to fibre because of raw log exports. I ask again, will the minister agree that the exporting of raw logs means the exporting of jobs? Does he agree it must be curtailed? Will he commit to help mills that are struggling and keep value added and manufacturing jobs in Canada where they belong?
The minister stated that no log is exported unless Canadian operators have first been offered it and deemed it excess, and cited the government's $400 million forest industry restructuring commitment, endorsed by Avrim Lazar of the Forest Products Association of Canada.
The minister asserts the process for log exports includes hearings to ensure Canadian operators have first access and references the $400 million commitment and Avrim Lazar's endorsement, partially addressing the broader concern but not the specific mill operators' claim about fibre access.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is not one log that is exported from Canada unless it has been given first to the Canadian operators and is deemed an excess log. Every time there is a hearing. More important, this government has committed $400 million to help restructure the forest industry. It is very well received according to the president of the Forest Products Association of Canada, Avrim Lazar. The association is applauding our efforts and so is the industry.
With fishers and plant workers in Labrador and northeastern Newfoundland without income for weeks due to severe ice conditions delaying the crab and other fisheries, when will the government stop monitoring and provide the assistance they need?
The question references specific ongoing conditions (severe ice, delayed crab fisheries, weeks without income) and names two ministers, but the ask ('when will the government start acting') remains somewhat vague about what specific assistance is sought.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government must have known about the severe ice conditions off Labrador and northeastern Newfoundland. All of Canada has seen the TV images of sealing and fishing vessels trapped in the thickest ice in decades. The opening of crab and other fisheries is delayed. Fishers and plant workers have been without income for weeks and the start of the season is nowhere in sight. The fisheries minister is monitoring the situation. The human resources minister has been sitting on it, the file I mean, for almost a month. My question for whoever is in charge is, when will the government stop monitoring and start acting? Where is the assistance that fishers and plant workers need now?
The minister said preparatory work has been done and information is being gathered to develop a program, and suggested the member should provide information on behalf of constituents instead of complaining.
The minister says preparatory work has been done and information is being gathered, then attacks the member for complaining rather than providing information, without specifying any assistance program or timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the preparatory work has been done. In order to be able to develop any program to assist anybody, we need to gather the appropriate information. It would be a lot more beneficial for all of us if people like him who complain would provide some information on behalf of their constituents instead of just complaining.
Can the Minister of Transport provide details of the memorandum of understanding signed with the Railway Association of Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and explain how it improves the health of Canadians?
This is a government-backbench softball inviting the minister to announce details of an agreement already signed, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, oui, notre nouveau gouvernement prend des mesures concrÚtes pour réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre et la pollution atmosphérique. Hier, les ministres des Transports et de l'Environnement ont annoncé la signature d'un protocole d'entente avec l'Association des chemins de fer du Canada afin de réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre ici, au pays. Le ministre des Transports peut-il nous donner les détails de cette entente et dire comment elle améliore la santé des Canadiens et des Québécois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yes, our new government is taking concrete measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric pollution. Yesterday, the ministers of transport and of the environment announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding with the Railway Association of Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country. Can the Minister of Transport give us the details of this memorandum and tell us how it will improve the health of Canadians and Quebeckers?
The minister stated that the agreement will immediately reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gases and will achieve a 44% improvement in energy efficiency per unit by 2010 compared to 1990, contrasting this with the Liberals' passage of Bill C-288 in 43 seconds.
The minister provides a concrete deliverable â a 44% improvement in energy efficiency per unit by 2010 relative to 1990 â and contextualizes it against the opposition's handling of Bill C-288, offering real informational content alongside partisanship.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, effectivement, cette entente qui entre en vigueur réduira immédiatement les polluants atmosphériques et les gaz à effet de serre. Au terme de cette entente en 2010, l'efficacité énergétique s'améliorera de 44 p. 100 par rapport 1990. Cependant, notre approche constructive contraste avec l'approche des libéraux. Hier, comme on l'a compris, ils ont fait adopté le projet de loi C-288 en 43 secondes, et ce, sans appeler qui que ce soit à la barre des témoins. Notre approche sauve des milliers d'emplois contrairement à eux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, this agreement will immediately reduce atmospheric pollutants and greenhouse gases. By the end of this agreement, in 2010, energy efficiency will be improved by 44% compared to 1990. However, our constructive approach is in contrast to the Liberal approach. Yesterday, as we have heard, they passed Bill C-288 in 43 seconds, and they did that without calling a single witness. Our approach saves thousands of jobs compared to theirs.
Mr. David McGuinty (Lib) raised a question of privilege alleging that the member for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans physically crossed the floor, screamed at him, and grabbed his left shoulder in a threatening manner after McGuinty's second question during Question Period, noting the particular seriousness given the member's role as Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole; Mr. Michel Guimond (BQ) supported the question of privilege citing Maingot on parliamentary privilege and Marleau and Montpetit on the Speaker's authority; the member for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans, Mr. Royal Galipeau (CPC), countered that the privilege violation was against him, as the member for Ottawa South had attacked his reputation in a manner he could not defend given his non-partisan role as an officer of the House.
- Lib Mr. David McGuinty
- Some hon. members
- An hon. member
- BQ Mr. Michel Guimond
- CPC Mr. Royal Galipeau
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise with you in the House an occurrence that is deeply troubling to me as an individual member of Parliament. It is the first time that I have experienced this kind of occurrence in my three short years as a member of Parliament. During question period the member for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans physically crossed the floor and began screaming at me immediately after I posed my second question during question period. I believe this is a serious question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The member was clearly out of control, using unparliamentary language and in a threatening fashion grabbed my left shoulder and only left my side when several of my colleagues urged him to stop and to leave, but he would not.
Oh, oh!
He was clearly completely out of control, raising his voice, flailing his arms, gesticulating in a threatening fashion and making wild accusations.
Oh, oh!
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, even at the urging of the colleagues around me, he simply would not stop. He would not leave until he realized that he was being video filmed just as my colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-GrĂąceâLachine, was rising to speak. He then ran out of the camera's range because he was being caught by the camera lens. This is not the first time that we have seen this kind of occurrence during this Parliament. This happened once before with the member for NepeanâCarleton who crossed the floor to threaten the member for Mississauga South. He was subsequently forced by you, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw his remarks and publicly apologize. This is a serious occurrence in an instant when I felt for the first time in my young parliamentary career threatened by a member of the House. There is clearly enough here, in my view, to warrant a question of privilege. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that if you examine the video footage which was captured here on tape, you will see the occurrence. I also think this is a particularly egregious and serious matter because the member is the Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole of this House of Commons.
An officer of this House.
He is an officer of the House of Commons and his obligation is to conduct himself with the highest integrity. Not only is he one of us as a member of Parliament, he is entrusted with a special responsibility of upholding a code of conduct, of upholding the rules, of upholding a type of practice as a member of Parliament that we should all be aspiring to replicate. I would expect, Mr. Speaker, in this case, that you investigate this matter, that you review the tapes and that you see that this is again part of a pattern of conduct. When the government does not like what it hears, it dispatches members of Parliament across the floor to threaten members of Parliament. It is a serious matter, the kind of matter that we might expect in some of the developing countries in which I spent much of my career, but certainly not here in the House of Commons of Canada. I believe if you check with other colleagues who sit around me as well, they can verify that every single word I have pronounced here this afternoon is in fact true.
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je pense, Ă voir la rĂ©action des conservateurs suite Ă cette question de privilĂšge trĂšs sĂ©rieuse posĂ©e par mon collĂšgue d'Ottawa-Sud, que cela dĂ©montre trĂšs bien ce que ce parti pense des rĂšgles de fonctionnement de cette Chambre. Nous, de ce cĂŽtĂ©-ci, avons aussi Ă©tĂ© tĂ©moins du geste posĂ© par le dĂ©putĂ© d'OttawaâOrlĂ©ans qui, de surplus, est le vice-prĂ©sident des comitĂ©s plĂ©niers de la Chambre. MĂȘme s'il occupe le fauteuil, il ne peut se soustraire Ă la confiance que cette Chambre lui a confiĂ©e en assumant cette vice-prĂ©sidence des comitĂ©s plĂ©niers, comme vous, d'ailleurs, ne pouvez vous soustraire Ă votre responsabilitĂ©. Ce que, soit dit en passant, vous faites de façon correcte. Je vous cite le professeur Maingot, Ă la deuxiĂšme Ă©dition du livre intitulĂ© Le privilĂšge parlementaire au Canada, Ă la page 241. Le professeur Maingot se penche sur le droit des dĂ©putĂ©s de s'exprimer librement en cette Chambre et en comitĂ©, sans entrave et sans intimidation aucune. Le geste qui a Ă©tĂ© posĂ© par le dĂ©putĂ© d'OttawaâOrlĂ©ans et vice-prĂ©sident des comitĂ©s plĂ©niers reprĂ©sente un geste d'intimidation Ă l'endroit du dĂ©putĂ© d'Ottawa-Sud qui n'a fait que son travail de parlementaire. Je vous rĂ©fĂšre Ă la citation de Maingot. Il nous dit: Les dĂ©putĂ©s ont le droit de se livrer Ă leurs activitĂ©s parlementaires sans ĂȘtre dĂ©rangĂ©s. Les voies de fait, les menaces et les insultes Ă l'Ă©gard d'un dĂ©putĂ© sur le parquet de la Chambre ou lorsqu'il se rend Ă la Chambre ou en revient, ou encore Ă cause de son attitude au cours des dĂ©libĂ©rations du Parlement, constituent une atteinte aux droits du Parlement. Je termine cette citation de Maingot: Toute forme d'intimidation [...] envers quiconque en raison de son attitude au cours des dĂ©libĂ©rations du Parlement peut ĂȘtre considĂ©rĂ©e comme un outrage. Le geste qu'on a vu ici, de ce cĂŽtĂ© de la Chambre, est un geste trĂšs sĂ©rieux qui, dans une certaine mesure, remet en question l'autoritĂ© morale et lĂ©gitime du dĂ©putĂ© d'OttawaâOrlĂ©ans d'occuper le fauteuil lorsque vous n'y ĂȘtes pas. En tant que PrĂ©sident de la Chambre, je vous rĂ©fĂšre Ă vos responsabilitĂ©s. Dans le Marleau et Montpetit, Ă la page 79, il est clairement Ă©tabli ce qui suit dans un paragraphe qui dĂ©crit l'autoritĂ© de la prĂ©sidence. Je cite Marleau et Montpetit La libertĂ© de parole des dĂ©putĂ©s est Ă©galement limitĂ©e du fait qu'aux termes du RĂšglement de la Chambre, la prĂ©sidence a le pouvoir de maintenir l'ordre et le dĂ©corum et, au besoin, d'ordonner Ă un dĂ©putĂ© de regagner son siĂšge [...] En conclusion, je crois que vous devriez Ă©tudier cette question de façon trĂšs sĂ©rieuse et vous rappeler que lorsqu'on pose une question ici, en Chambre â que cela fasse l'affaire du gouvernement ou non â, c'est notre privilĂšge de le faire pour reprĂ©senter les gens qui nous ont Ă©lus dĂ©mocratiquement, malgrĂ© qu'il y en ait ici qui pense que ce n'est pas partisan. Comme je l'ai dit hier, ce n'est pas un club de bridge. Nous avons des citoyens Ă reprĂ©senter. Le dĂ©putĂ© d'Ottawa-Sud n'a fait que reprĂ©senter les citoyens de sa circonscription qui l'ont Ă©lu dĂ©mocratiquement. Cela, il a le droit de le faire sans aucune entrave, comme le dĂ©putĂ© d'OttawaâOrlĂ©ans, vice-prĂ©sident des comitĂ©s plĂ©niers, l'a fait. Nous vous demandons d'enquĂȘter sĂ©rieusement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Conservative reaction to this very serious question of privilege raised by my colleague for Ottawa South clearly shows what this party thinks of the rules of this House. On this side of the House, we also witnessed the conduct of the member for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans who, moreover, is the Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House. Even though he is a chair occupant, he must retain the confidence of this House accorded to him in that role of Deputy Chair of Committees of the whole, just as you must carry out your responsibilities, which, I might add, you do properly. I will quote from the second edition of Professor Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, on page 230, where he deals with the right of members to speak freely in this House and in committee, without any obstruction or intimidation. The conduct of the member for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans and Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole is an act of intimidation directed at the member for Ottawa South, who was only doing his job as a parliamentarian. I quote from Maingot: Members are entitled to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed. The assaulting, menacing, or insulting of any Member on the floor of the House or while he is coming or going to or from the House, or on account of his behaviour during a proceeding in Parliament, is a violation of the rights of Parliament. This quote from Maingot concludes as follows: Any form of intimidation...of a person for or on account of his behaviour during a proceeding in Parliament could amount to contempt. The conduct we saw from this side of the House is very serious and, to some extent, calls into question whether the member for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans has the legitimate moral authority to occupy the chair when you are not in it. I refer you to your responsibilities as Speaker of the House. Page 79 of Marleau and Montpetit clearly describes the authority of the speaker. A further limitation on the freedom of speech of Members is provided by the authority of the Speaker under the Standing Orders to preserve order and decorum, and when necessary to order a Member to resume his or her seatâ In conclusion, I believe you should take a serious look at this matter and remember that when we ask a question in this Houseâwhether or not the government likes the questionâit is our privilege to do so, as we are representing the people who elected us democratically, even though there are people here who think that it is not partisan. As I said yesterday, this is not a bridge club. We have people to represent. The member for Ottawa South was just representing the people in his riding who elected him democratically. And he has the right to do so unimpeded, just as the member for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans, who is the deputy chair of committees of the whole, has done. We ask that you conduct a thorough investigation.
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je pense que c'est une bonne idĂ©e que quelqu'un ait soulevĂ© une question de privilĂšge. Finalement, s'il y a eu une entrave Ă un privilĂšge, c'est une entrave au privilĂšge du dĂ©putĂ© d'OttawaâOrlĂ©ans. Les dĂ©putĂ©s de cette Chambre savent trĂšs bien que, depuis que j'occupe les fonctions que mes Ă©lecteurs et tous les dĂ©putĂ©s m'ont confiĂ©es le 5 avril de l'annĂ©e derniĂšre, j'occupe ces fonctions dans la plus grande impartialitĂ©, sans aucune partisanerie et sans attaquer aucun des membres de la Chambre, qu'il soit d'un parti ou d'un autre. J'avoue qu'aujourd'hui, j'ai Ă©tĂ© franchement surpris d'entendre l'honorable dĂ©putĂ© d'Ottawa-Sud attaquer ma personne de sorte que je ne puisse mĂȘme pas me dĂ©fendre. Puisque je respecte l'impartialitĂ© du poste que la Chambre m'a confiĂ©, je ne fais pas de partisanerie. Alors, j'ai trouvĂ© cela un peu Ă©trange qu'il y ait deux poids et deux mesures. Je me rĂ©fĂšre Ă Ă la page 522 de La procĂ©dure et les usages de la Chambre des communes, de Marleau et de Montpetit. Au quatriĂšme paragraphe, on dit ceci: Les remarques adressĂ©es directement Ă un autre dĂ©putĂ© qui mettent en doute son intĂ©gritĂ©, son honnĂȘtetĂ© ou sa rĂ©putation sont antirĂ©glementaires. L'honorable dĂ©putĂ© d'Ottawa-Sud a remis spĂ©cifiquement en question la rĂ©putation de deux dĂ©putĂ©s du parti ministĂ©riel, y compris la rĂ©putation d'un occupant du fauteuil qui, normalement, ne pourrait pas se dĂ©fendre. Je suis allĂ© voir le dĂ©putĂ© d'Ottawa-Sud, qui est un vieil ami â soit dit en passant â, pour lui dire que je trouvais cela un peu bas. Et voilĂ ! Il y a sans doute eu entrave au droit d'un dĂ©putĂ©, et, en l'occurrence, le dĂ©putĂ© qui a Ă©tĂ© la victime est celui qui vous parle maintenant, le dĂ©putĂ© d'OttawaâOrlĂ©ans.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that somebody raised a question of privilege. In fact, if anyone's privilege has been breached, the member for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans' has. The members of this House are well aware that since I have been carrying out the role that my voters and all members assigned to me on April 5 of last year, I have tried to maintain the greatest possible degree of impartiality, without partisanship and without attacking any member of this House, regardless of party affiliation. I must say that today, I was very surprised to hear the member for Ottawa South attack me personally when I was not in a position to defend myself. Because I respect the impartiality of the position to which the House has appointed me, I do not engage in partisanship. I find the double standard a bit strange. The fourth paragraph on page 522 of Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice reads as follows: Remarks directed specifically at another Member which question that Member's integrity, honesty or character are not in order. The honourable member for Ottawa South specifically cast aspersions on the reputation of two members of the governing party, including the reputation of a chair occupant who, of course, was unable to defend himself. I went over to the member for Ottawa South, who is, as it happens, an old friend, to tell him that I thought that was a bit low. That's all. There is no doubt that there was a breach of privilege and it just so happens that the member whose privilege was breached is the one talking to you now, the member for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans.
Ralph Goodale (Lib) argued that the physical accosting of one member of Parliament by another amounts to contempt of Parliament and urged the Speaker to review the tapes, noting the particular seriousness given the member for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans is an officer of the House, and indicated the member for Ottawa South would be prepared to move the appropriate motion if a prima facie case of privilege is found; Peter Van Loan (CPC) argued the member for Ottawa South misrepresented the circumstances since the member for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans sits on the same side of the House, and that the member for Ottawa South had attacked the character of an officer of the House who could not defend himself; Mr. Tom Lukiwski (CPC) drew a parallel to a similar incident involving the member for Winnipeg South Centre and the member for SelkirkâInterlake on which no Speaker's ruling had yet been issued.
- Lib Ralph Goodale
- CPC Peter Van Loan
- CPC Mr. Tom Lukiwski
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that the physical accosting of one member of Parliament by another amounts to contempt of Parliament and it amounts certainly to a question of privilege. It does not matter what members think of the questions asked or the answers given. When the reaction of a member of Parliament amounts to a physical approach in an intimidating manner and a physical accosting, that does cross the line. Mr. Speaker, I do not think this matter can rest where it is at the present time. I think it is important that you review the record, including the tapes of the proceedings, not only because this involves a dispute between two members of Parliament, but because one of those members of Parliament is in fact an officer of the House, an officer responsible, at least in part, for the decorum in the House. If what has been alleged here in fact transpired, although I was not a personal witness to it but obviously many members of Parliament were, I believe, therefore, it is absolutely unacceptable to leave this situation hanging in the air. It must be further adjudicated by you, Mr. Speaker, and I would simply want to advise the Chair that if you do find that there is here a prima facie case of privilege, then the member for Ottawa South would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak because I did not witness the incident that was alleged. However, I see that did not stop the Liberal House leader from speaking to the matter in any event, so I thought I might add what I have to say. First, the member for Ottawa South misrepresented the circumstances in a quite obvious fashion. He suggested that the individual in question, the member for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans, crossed the floor to talk to him. All of us are fully aware that the member for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans sits on the same side of the House as the member for Ottawa South. That is clear and obvious to everyone. Second, I think it is of significance, as the Liberal House leader pointed out, that the member for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans does occupy a position as an officer of the House. The member for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans makes continuous efforts to participate in the House in only the most non-partisan fashion. If everybody looks at his record, he has refrained from participating in any debates in the House for that reason. The member for OttawaâOrlĂ©ans has tried to maintain his position of non-partisanship and yet that did not stop the member for Ottawa South from attacking his character and dragging him into a partisan debate, of which he had not been part in the past, and he was obviously in a position where, if he were to respect that approach of non-partisanship that he has always utilized, he would be entirely unable to defend himself. I think those are particular considerations that you, Mr. Speaker, should take into account as you consider this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I think we had a similar incident only about a week ago that was raised on a question of privilege where the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre approached the member for SelkirkâInterlake, I believe, and not only threatened him but actually indicated that if he did not stop putting 10-percenters in the hon. member's riding, she would then produce a list and a photograph that would bring the Conservative caucus down. The member for Winnipeg South Centre then subsequently apologized the following day but we have not heard a ruling from the Speaker on the original question of privilege. I see a lot of commonality between what the member opposite is saying, the member for Ottawa South. I would appreciate your consideration of that fact, Mr. Speaker.