Session overview
- The session opened with all parties paying condolences for three Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan; the Prime Minister confirmed the combat mission ends February 2009 and that any extension requires parliamentary approval.
- Equalization and the Atlantic accord dominated multiple exchanges, with opposition leaders charging broken promises while the Prime Minister insisted transfer values remained unchanged and no new 'side deals' would be created.
- The Bloc Québécois pressed repeatedly on supply management at the WTO, fiscal imbalance and transfer of tax fields, and a proposed pan-Canadian securities commission, arguing the government was ignoring Quebec's priorities.
- Health-related topics â prescription drug coverage, wait times guarantees, and new trans fat limits â produced the session's clearest government commitment, with the Minister of Health announcing acceptance of the trans fat task force recommendations.
- Jim Peterson (Willowdale) announced his resignation from Parliament, delivering an extended personal tribute reviewing his career highlights under successive Liberal governments.
- Consumer safety concerns over counterfeit and tainted imported products â including toothpaste â drew NDP criticism that the government's advice amounted to little more than 'buyer beware,' with no commitment to make importers legally responsible.
The Minister of Health made a specific, concrete commitment: accepting the trans fat task force recommendations to limit trans fats to 2% in vegetable oils and 5% in the rest of the food supply, with a two-year industry compliance timeline.
Ignatieff cites the Prime Minister's own characterization of the February 2009 end date as 'arbitrary' and asks a clear, specific question about how long the combat mission will last.
Asked to justify the income trust tax and produce evidence supporting the broken promise, Van Loan ignored the substance entirely and instead taunted Garth Turner about floor-crossing and byelections.
Outstanding questions
- Garth Turner (Halton) asked for proof that the government was justified in imposing a new tax on income trusts and breaking its promise â no evidence was provided and the question went completely unanswered.
- Michael Ignatieff (EtobicokeâLakeshore) asked whether the Prime Minister intends to extend the combat mission beyond February 2009 or commits to the date adopted by the House â the Prime Minister reiterated the end date but did not address plans being considered for a post-2009 role.
- Penny Priddy (Surrey North) asked why importers are not made legally responsible for the contents of tainted goods â Tony Clement confirmed the importer acted voluntarily but made no commitment to change the regulatory framework.
- Paul CrĂȘte (MontmagnyâL'IsletâKamouraskaâRiviĂšre-du-Loup) asked whether the government will present concrete proposals to limit the federal spending power with an unconditional withdrawal and full compensation in all areas of Quebec and provincial jurisdiction â Rona Ambrose deflected by saying no provincial proposal had been received.
- Jack Layton (TorontoâDanforth) asked when the government will move on a national approach to universal prescription drug coverage â Tony Clement pointed to existing health spending and a national cancer strategy but gave no commitment on pharmaceuticals.
Dion expressed condolences for three fallen Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan and invited the Prime Minister to pay his respects.
This is a condolence statement offering the Prime Minister an opportunity to pay respects, not an accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speakerâ
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
Monsieur le Président, aujourd'hui, nous pleurons la mort de trois soldats canadiens, qui servaient avec courage et honneur en Afghanistan. Un pays ne peut pas demander de plus grand sacrifice à ses citoyens. On behalf of all of the Liberal caucus and indeed all Canadians, I want to extend my sincere condolences to the families of these three fallen heroes, to their friends and to their comrades. We will remember them. We will honour them. We thank them. I would like to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to pay his respects.
Harper expressed sincere condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of the three fallen soldiers.
The Prime Minister directly and sincerely addressed the occasion with appropriate condolences and acknowledgement of the sacrifice.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his kind words. This is of course a terrible tragedy, as it always is when Canada loses brave men and women who are willing to put on the uniform to defend not only our own rights and freedoms but those of people around the world. We obviously will remember these three fallen members of the armed forces in our thoughts and prayers. Our condolences and heartfelt sympathies go out to their families, friends and colleagues.
Dion asked the Prime Minister to explain ongoing federal-provincial bickering over equalization despite the finance minister's claim that the budget would end such disputes.
The question references a specific ministerial claim and a premier's accusation of 'dishonour' but the ask is largely rhetorical and sarcastic rather than precisely focused.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the finance minister tabled his budget, he said that it would be the end of the era of federal-provincial bickering, but since then things are so bad that now we have premiers accusing the Prime Minister of acting with âdishonourâ. I ask the Prime Minister, what would it be like if we were in an era of bickering?
Harper said the budget was well received by most governments, that transfers increased for all, and that he would not provide new special side deals.
Harper provides some context about transfer payments increasing for all provinces and the principle of no new side deals, but does not directly address the 'dishonour' accusation or the specific dispute.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have to point out that the budget was well received by most provincial and territorial governments. At the same time, the budget increased transfer payments to every provincial and territorial government this year and into the future. We have tried to base those decisions on a set of principles that everyone can understand. We have respected special deals, side deals, that we signed before the budget. The value of those deals remains identical to the value there was before the budget was tabled. We have provided new enriched programs to others. We will not provide new side deals--
Dion cited John Crosbie's statement that 'The public isn't that stupid' to challenge Harper's claim that he respected the Atlantic accord, and asked him to admit he broke his promise.
The question cites a specific named public figure (John Crosbie) and his quote to challenge the Prime Minister's claim about respecting the Atlantic accord, with a clear ask about a broken promise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, about the claim the Prime Minister just made that he respected Atlantic accord, the Hon. John Crosbie said, âThe public isn't that stupidâ. It is time for the truth. Will the Prime Minister admit that he should stop insulting the intelligence of Canadians and instead say that he broke his promise?
Harper stated that transfers under the Atlantic accord to Newfoundland are exactly the same as before the budget and that Newfoundland will benefit under the new equalization formula when the accord expires in 2012.
Harper offers specific figures about Newfoundland transfers remaining identical and explains the 2012 timeline, partially addressing the broken-promise accusation but not directly engaging with Crosbie's quote.
Source text
I disagree, Mr. Speaker. Here are the facts. The transfers under the Atlantic accord to Newfoundland this year are exactly the same as they were before the budget and, under the new equalization formula, Newfoundland will be able to gain when that accord runs out, as it surely will under its current terms, in 2012. I say again that every province can have the arrangements they signed before, but the new arrangement has to be available to all. There will be no new special deals only for some provinces and not for others.
Ignatieff asked the Prime Minister to clearly state how long the combat mission in Afghanistan will last, noting that Harper himself had called his February 2009 end date 'arbitrary.'
Ignatieff cites the Prime Minister's own characterization of the February 2009 end date as 'arbitrary' and asks a clear, specific question about how long the combat mission will last.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all Canadians and all members of this House mourn the death of our soldiers in Afghanistan today. The government does need to be accountable with Canadians about this mission. It is incumbent upon the government to tell Canadians how long this combat mission will last. The Prime Minister has described his own end date of February 2009 as arbitrary. Will he now clearly say to the House how long this combat mission will last? Canadians deserve to know. Is it not time for the truth?
Harper stated that three of four parties agreed to the mission to February 2009 and that any military activity after that date would require parliamentary approval.
Harper directly states the mission ends in February 2009 and that any activity after that requires parliamentary approval, which substantially addresses the question, though he deflects by referencing the previous government.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the government has been extremely clear on this point. Three of the four parties of this House have agreed with this military mission to February 2009. The government has been clear. If there is to be any military activity after that date, that would have to be approved by Parliament. This is, frankly, something the previous government did not do, but we will do that in the future. We have been very clear on that. I have communicated that to foreign leaders at the appropriate opportunities.
Ignatieff asked whether the Prime Minister intends to extend the combat mission beyond February 2009 or commits to the date set by Parliament, in the context of the Royal 22e RĂ©giment's imminent deployment.
Ignatieff asks a clear, binary question about whether the Prime Minister intends to extend the combat mission beyond February 2009 or commit to the date adopted by the House, referencing the imminent departure of the Royal 22e RĂ©giment.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, avec le dĂ©part imminent du Royal 22e RĂ©giment, l'heure de la vĂ©ritĂ© sur la mission est arrivĂ©e. Les Canadiens ont droit Ă la vĂ©ritĂ© de la part de ce premier ministre et ils mĂ©ritent des rĂ©ponses claires. Le premier ministre entend-il prolonger la mission de combat au-delĂ de fĂ©vrier 2009 ou s'engage-t-il Ă respecter la date qu'il a lui-mĂȘme fixĂ©e et qui a Ă©tĂ© adoptĂ©e par cette Chambre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with the imminent departure of the Royal 22nd Regiment, the moment of truth for the mission has arrived. Canadians are entitled to hear the truth from this Prime Minister and they deserve straight answers. Does the Prime Minister plan to extend the combat mission beyond February 2009 or will he commit to respecting the date he set that was passed by this House?
Harper stated clearly that the mission will end in February 2009 and that any new mission after that date would have to be adopted by Parliament, noting that the Liberal leader himself had mentioned a possible role for Canada after that date.
Harper gives a direct answer that the mission will end in February 2009 and any new mission requires parliamentary approval, and adds relevant context about the Liberal leader's own stated position.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le gouvernement est clair: la mission prendra fin en fĂ©vrier 2009. Pour qu'il y ait une nouvelle mission aprĂšs cette date, cela devra ĂȘtre adoptĂ© par ce Parlement. Je dois rappeler aux dĂ©putĂ©s du Parti libĂ©ral que leur chef a dit qu'il pouvait voir un rĂŽle pour le Canada dans l'entraĂźnement des forces afghanes et dans la protection des activitĂ©s de reconstruction, mĂȘme aprĂšs cette date.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government has made it clear that the mission will end in February 2009. A new mission after that date would have to be approved by this Parliament. I must remind members of the Liberal Party that their leader said that he saw a possible role for Canada in training Afghan forces and protecting reconstruction activities even after this date.
Duceppe asked whether the Prime Minister agrees that the only fair equalization formula is one that includes all ten provinces and 100% of natural resources, amid rumours of a new deal being negotiated with Nova Scotia.
Duceppe asks a specific, pointed question referencing rumours of a new deal with Nova Scotia and invokes a clear principleâten provinces and 100% of natural resourcesâas the standard for a fair equalization formula.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je voudrais offrir des condolĂ©ances, en mon nom et au nom de tous les dĂ©putĂ©s du Bloc, aux familles des soldats tragiquement disparus en Afghanistan. J'Ă©tends Ă©galement mes condolĂ©ances Ă tous leurs camarades d'armes. Au sujet du dĂ©sĂ©quilibre fiscal, au QuĂ©bec, tous conviennent que la formule ne doit pas reposer sur des ententes particuliĂšres qui avantagent une province ou une autre. Or des rumeurs courent Ă l'effet que le gouvernement nĂ©gocie une telle formule avec la Nouvelle-Ăcosse. Le premier ministre ne convient-il pas que la seule formule juste de pĂ©rĂ©quation est celle qui inclut les dix provinces et 100 p. 100 des ressources naturelles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of the Bloc and myself, I would like to offer our condolences to the families of the soldiers who were so tragically lost in Afghanistan. I would also like to offer my condolences to their comrades in arms. With respect to the fiscal imbalance, everyone in Quebec agrees that the formula should not be based on specific agreements that confer certain advantages on one province or another. There are rumours that the government is negotiating a new formula with Nova Scotia. Does the Prime Minister agree that the only fair equalization formula is one that includes all 10 provinces and 100% of natural resource revenues?
Harper said the fair formula is the one adopted by Parliament and this government, based on the recommendations of O'Brien's independent inquiry, and that the Bloc itself voted in favour of it.
Harper defends the formula as fair and references O'Brien's independent inquiry and the Bloc's own vote in favour, but does not address the specific rumour about Nova Scotia or engage with the 100% natural resources criterion.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la formule Ă©quitable est celle adoptĂ©e par ce Parlement et par ce gouvernement, et en faveur de laquelle le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois a votĂ©. Elle est basĂ©e sur les recommandations d'une enquĂȘte indĂ©pendante de M. O'Brien, modifiĂ©e pour respecter les engagements de ce gouvernement, et je pense que c'est la solution juste.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the fairest formula is the one that this Parliament and this government adopted, the one that the Bloc Québécois voted for. It is based on the recommendations that resulted from an independent inquiry by Mr. O'Brien, recommendations that were modified to honour this government's commitments, and I think that it is the fairest solution.
Duceppe asked when the Prime Minister will respond to Quebec's demand for a permanent resolution to fiscal imbalance through the transfer of tax fields, as all parties in the Assemblée nationale agree that a lasting solution requires this.
Duceppe asks a specific policy question about transferring tax fields as a permanent resolution to fiscal imbalance, referencing the unanimous position of all parties in the Assemblée nationale du Québec.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, tous les partis de l'AssemblĂ©e nationale du QuĂ©bec s'entendent pour dire qu'un rĂšglement du dĂ©sĂ©quilibre fiscal ne doit pas ĂȘtre basĂ© sur une entente financiĂšre ponctuelle mais bien, plutĂŽt, sur une formule permanente. Cela se rĂšgle donc forcĂ©ment par le transfert de champs fiscaux. Le premier ministre a promis de rĂ©gler pour de bon le dĂ©sĂ©quilibre fiscal et de façon permanente. Qu'attend-il pour rĂ©pondre Ă la demande du QuĂ©bec et procĂ©der au transfert des champs fiscaux?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, all parties in Quebec's National Assembly agree that the solution to the fiscal imbalance must not be based on a temporary financial agreement but on a permanent formula. The only way to fix this is to transfer tax fields. The Prime Minister promised to fix the fiscal imbalance once and for all. When will he acknowledge Quebec's demands and transfer tax fields?
Harper claimed the fiscal settlement was accomplished by the Conservative government and quoted the member for RobervalâLac-Saint-Jean praising the resolution of the fiscal imbalance.
Harper claims the fiscal imbalance was resolved by a Conservative government and quotes a backbench MP, but does not address the specific demand for tax field transfers or explain why this approach was rejected.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le rĂšglement fiscal a Ă©tĂ© accompli par un gouvernement conservateur. De plus, il est toujours essentiel pour le pays d'avoir un gouvernement qui respecte les champs de compĂ©tence des provinces. Je peux citer le dĂ©putĂ© de RobervalâLac-Saint-Jean qui a dit: « Maintenant, le gouvernement provincial pourra annoncer des subventions ou des baisses d'impĂŽts grĂące au rĂšglement du dĂ©sĂ©quilibre fiscal. »
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, fiscal balance was restored by a Conservative government. This country must have a government that respects provincial areas of jurisdiction. I would like to quote the member for RobervalâLac-Saint-Jean, who said: âNow that the fiscal imbalance has been corrected, the provincial government will be able to announce subsidies or tax cuts.â
CrĂȘte asked whether the Prime Minister will present concrete proposals to limit federal spending power in areas of Quebec and provincial jurisdiction, as he had committed to in Quebec, without restricting it only to cost-shared programs.
CrĂȘte cites a specific prior commitment made in Quebec about limiting federal spending power and identifies what he sees as a subsequent backtrack limiting it to cost-shared programs, then asks for concrete proposals.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre s'est engagé à Québec à limiter le pouvoir de dépenser du gouvernement fédéral dans les champs de compétence du Québec et des provinces. Par la suite, le premier ministre a mis des bémols à son engagement en voulant le limiter aux seuls programmes à frais partagés. Le premier ministre s'est engagé à limiter le pouvoir fédéral de dépenser, point à la ligne. Va-t-il agir et présenter des propositions concrÚtes en ce sens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Quebec that he would limit federal spending power in Quebec's and the provinces' areas of responsibility. Then the Prime Minister watered down his promise by limiting it to cost shared programs. The Prime Minister promised to limit federal spending power, period. Will he take action and present concrete proposals in this regard?
Ambrose stated that the government has had discussions with Quebec and other provincial governments on the federal spending power but has not yet received a proposal from any provincial government.
Ambrose states that discussions have taken place but no proposal has been received from any province, which partially addresses the question but deflects the accountability for action back onto the provinces rather than engaging with the broken commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have had negotiations and talks with the Quebec government and other provincial governments on the federal spending power. To this date we have not received a proposal from any provincial government.
CrĂȘte cited Quebec minister BenoĂźt Pelletier's position that the protection offered is inadequate and asked whether the government will commit to unconditional withdrawal and full compensation in all areas of Quebec and provincial jurisdiction.
CrĂȘte cites Quebec minister BenoĂźt Pelletier's specific objection and articulates a precise two-part definitionâunconditional withdrawal and full compensation in all areas of Quebec and provincial jurisdictionâthen asks if the government will act on it.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en dépit des affirmations du gouvernement, le ministre Benoßt Pelletier soutient qu'il n'a pas la protection qu'il faut pour encadrer convenablement le pouvoir de dépenser du fédéral. Bien sûr, le dernier budget traite des programmes à frais partagés, mais il ne s'agit pas de cela. Une vraie limite au pouvoir de dépenser signifie deux choses: un retrait sans condition et une pleine compensation dans tous les champs de compétence du Québec et des provinces. Le gouvernement va-t-il le faire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the government has said, minister BenoĂźt Pelletier maintains that he does not have the necessary tools to set appropriate limits on federal spending power. The latest budget deals with cost shared programs, but that is not what we are talking about. Truly limiting spending power means two things: unconditional withdrawal from all areas of jurisdiction that belong to Quebec and the provinces and full compensation. Will the government do this?
Ambrose said the budget contains wording related to cost-sharing programs and limiting federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction, and that the government remains open to proposals but has not received any from Quebec or other provinces.
Ambrose references the budget wording and the government's general intention but does not address Pelletier's specific objection or commit to the two conditions of unconditional withdrawal and full compensation across all jurisdictions.
Source text
As I said, Mr. Speaker, there is wording in our budget related to cost sharing programs and to limiting the federal spending power. It is the intention of our government, as we have with the settlement of the fiscal imbalance, to limit our spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction where it touches on obviously provincial programs. Again, we are open to proposals. We have not yet seen a proposal from the Quebec government or any other province at this point.
Layton asked when the federal government will show leadership on prescription drug costs, given that Canadians face a patchwork system depending on wealth, location, or disease rather than medical need.
Layton references real data about a patchwork of provincial coverage and raises a genuine policy gap, but the question is broad and rhetorical, asking generally 'when' without a specific policy ask or cited commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I in the NDP caucus extend our condolences to the families of our fallen soldiers. Nos condoléances vont aussi aux confrÚres et aux consoeurs de nos soldats. Across the country there are Canadians now who are having to choose between buying groceries or getting the medications their doctor says that they need. Some provinces like Saskatchewan and Quebec are taking some leadership here, but the result is we are getting a patchwork quilt because there is no leadership from the federal government when it comes to prescription drug costs. Whether or not people get the drugs they need does not depend on their illness. It depends on how much money they have, where they live, or whether they have the right disease to match up with the right province. When are we going to see some leadership on the health care issue by the government?
Clement said discussions are ongoing with provinces and territories, and cited $1.1 billion in health care spending last year and $1.2 billion this year as evidence of real leadership.
Clement mentions discussions with provinces and cites $1.1 billion and $1.2 billion in health care spending over two years, but does not address the specific issue of prescription drug costs or the patchwork coverage problem raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member no doubt is aware, we are in discussions with the provinces and territories on this very issue to see how the federal sphere of competency can be helpful in what is a provincial sphere of jurisdiction. However, the hon. member asks about leadership. It is this government that has ensured that there has been extra spending on health care in this budget and in last year's budget to the tune of $1.1 billion last year and $1.2 billion this year. That is real leadership.
Layton cited figures of $4 billion by families, $7 billion by provinces, and $10 billion by companies spent on prescription drugs annually, with 3.5 million Canadians uncovered, and asked why the government will not move on universal prescription drug coverage.
Layton cites specific figuresâfamilies spending $4 billion, provinces $7 billion, companies $10 billion on prescription drugs, and 3.5 million Canadians with no coverageâgrounding his call for universal prescription drug coverage in data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, discussions do not treat diseases and the fact is that the government has not moved at all on the whole concept of a national approach to pharmaceuticals as requested by the provinces. I have been discussing this matter with the premiers and I can tell members that they can feel the foot on the brake. The result is that every day families spent $4 billion on prescription drugs last year, provincial governments $7 billion, and companies $10 billion. Meanwhile, 3.5 million Canadians have no coverage at all. The fact is that we need universal prescription drug coverage now. Why will the government not get moving on it?
Clement said the issue falls under provincial jurisdiction, referenced the Canada Health Act funding responsibilities, and challenged Layton to support the national cancer strategy.
Clement deflects to provincial jurisdiction and then pivots entirely to the national cancer strategy, not addressing the specific data cited or the request for a national approach to pharmaceuticals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well this would be an intrusion into the provincial area of jurisdiction, so one has to deal with the provinces and territories on this issue. In the meantime, we have acted. The federal government's responsibilities in terms of the Canada Health Act and in terms of funding of Canadian health care are in fact ensured. We have launched a national cancer strategy. Why is the hon. member not supporting our government when it comes to a national cancer strategy? That is what Canadians should be asking.
Minna asked why equality has been removed from the mandate of Status of Women Canada, citing the Prime Minister's written promise to women's groups during the election to uphold Canada's commitments to women.
Minna cites a specific written election promise by the Prime Minister to women's groups and asks a clear, focused question about why equality was removed from the mandate of Status of Women Canada.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yet another broken promise by the Conservative government. During the election the Prime Minister wrote to women's groups and guaranteed that if elected, it would âtake concrete and immediate measuresâŠto ensure that Canada fully upholds its commitments to womenâ. However, now the government says one thing while it does exactly the opposite. Canadians deserve answers. It is time for the truth. Why has equality been removed from the mandate of Status of Women Canada? Equality, Mr. Speaker.
Yelich stated only that the government works on a principle of equality and runs its mandate accordingly, without addressing the specific change to Status of Women Canada's mandate.
Yelich does not address the removal of equality from the mandate of Status of Women Canada and offers only a vague assertion that the government 'works on a principle of equality,' which is a non-answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell that member that she belongs to the Status of Women. She should understand that this government works on a principle of equality and that is how we run our mandate.
Folco asked whether the minister responsible for official languages will commit once and for all to restoring funding for the Programme de contestation judiciaire for linguistic minorities.
Folco identifies a specific programâthe Programme de contestation judiciaireâand asks a clear yes-or-no commitment question about restoring its funding for official language minorities.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis leur arrivée au pouvoir, les conservateurs continuent de s'attaquer aux minorités de langue officielle. L'élimination du Programme de contestation judiciaire en est le symbole le plus frappant. Les Canadiens méritent enfin d'obtenir de véritables réponses de la part de ce gouvernement. La ministre responsable des langues officielles s'engagera-t-elle, une fois pour toutes, à rétablir le financement du Programme de contestation judiciaire pour les minorités?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, since coming into power, the Conservatives continue to attack official language minorities. The elimination of the court challenges program is the most striking example of that. Canadians deserve to get real answers from this government. Will the minister responsible for official languages promise, once and for all, to reinstate funding for the court challenges program for minorities?
Verner stated the government is committed to promoting linguistic duality and that the last budget provides $30 million over two years to help minority communities, without mentioning the Programme de contestation judiciaire.
Verner does not address the Programme de contestation judiciaire at all, instead citing $30 million over two years for minority communities in general, which does not answer the specific restoration question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre gouvernement s'est fermement engagé à faire la promotion de la dualité linguistique. Le dernier budget prévoit 30 millions de dollars répartis sur deux ans pour aider les communautés en situation minoritaire à l'intérieur du pays. Le gouvernement continuera à faire son travail dans ce domaine.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our government is firmly committed to promoting linguistic duality. The latest budget earmarks $30 million over two years to help minority communities in our country. The government will continue to do its job in this area.
Ratansi asked when the government will deliver the 125,000 child care spaces it promised Canadian parents, noting Canada lags behind other OECD countries on early learning and child care investment.
Ratansi cites a specific promise of 125,000 child care spaces and references Canada's OECD ranking, but the question is somewhat rhetorical in framing and does not pinpoint a specific broken commitment document.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has yet to deliver on its promise to create 125,000 new child care spaces. This betrayal is happening while Canada lags way behind other OECD countries on investments in early learning and child care. Canadians want to be leaders not laggards. Canadians deserve answers and it is time for the Conservative government to tell the truth. When is the government going to deliver the child care spaces it promised Canadian parents?
Solberg cited the $2.4 billion universal child care benefit, referenced provincial budget commitments to create spaces using federal money, and criticized the previous Liberal government for not creating a single child care space.
Solberg cites the universal child care benefit of $2.4 billion and references provincial budget commitments to create spaces, but does not provide data on how many spaces have actually been created relative to the 125,000 promise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that Sheila Copps not long ago pointed out that the previous government did not create a single child care space with its plan. I point to the commitments in provincial budgets this spring where provinces say they are going to use that money that we are providing them to create spaces. But more than that, upon coming to office this government provided families with $2.4 billion a year through the universal child care benefit, which is helping families who want choice, something the leader of the Liberal Party said he would take away. I do not understand it.
Neville cited the minister's own expert panel report warning that the government's plan may put drinking water safety at risk, and asked when the minister will put money toward addressing drinking water for first nations.
Neville cites the minister's own expert panel report with a specific quoted finding that the government's plan 'may even put drinking water safety at risk' and asks when the minister will put money toward the issue.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a report from the minister's own expert panel on drinking water for first nations said the government's plan âmay even put drinking water safety at risk by diverting badly needed resources into regulatory frameworks and compliance costsâ. The truth is that the minister has only half a plan. Canadians deserve answers and it is time for the Conservative government to tell the truth. When will the minister put money where his mouth is? When will he tell the truth?
Prentice claimed the government supports delivery of drinking water to first nations communities but then pivoted entirely to criticizing the Liberal Party for blocking Bill C-44 related to matrimonial property rights and human rights legislation.
Prentice completely ignores the drinking water question and pivots to matrimonial property rights and human rights legislation for first nations women, attacking the Liberal member for blocking Bill C-44âa total deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are supporting the delivery of drinking water to first nations communities, but let us talk about human rights because for 21 years first nations women on reserve in this country have not had access to matrimonial property rights. For 30 years first nations women on reserve in this country have not had access to Canada's human rights legislation. The member, together with the Liberal Party, is supporting that sad state of affairs by blocking Bill C-44. Yesterday in committee she said, âIt doesn't matter whether first nations women's rights are postponed for six months, eight months or a year. It makes no difference to themâ.
St-Cyr asks why the Minister of Finance is acting in an area of provincial jurisdiction when only Ontario supports a pan-Canadian securities commission, framing it as a favour to Bay Street.
Cites the specific outcome of the ministers' meeting, references Quebec Finance Minister's stated priority of the passport system, and asks a pointed question about federal jurisdiction, though framed with partisan rhetoric about 'Bay Street.'
Source text
Monsieur le Président, à l'issue d'une rencontre avec ses homologues du Québec et des provinces pour traiter de la création d'une Commission des valeurs mobiliÚres pancanadienne, le ministre des Finances a fait savoir qu'il créerait un groupe d'experts indépendants chargé de donner leurs avis sur la réglementation des valeurs mobiliÚres. Or, la ministre des Finances du Québec a précisé que le passeport demeurait plutÎt sa priorité. En fait personne, sauf l'Ontario, ne souhaite un autre arrangement. Le ministre des Finances peut-il nous expliquer ce qu'il vient faire dans un champ de compétence qui ne le regarde pas, sinon qu'il veut encore faire un cadeau à ses amis de Bay Street?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, after meeting with his Quebec and provincial counterparts to discuss the creation of a Canada-wide securities commission, the Minister of Finance indicated that he plans to form an independent expert panel to advise on possible securities regulation. The Quebec finance minister, however, specified that the passport system would remain her priority. In fact, no one but Ontario wants any other arrangement. Can the Minister of Finance explain what he is doing in this area of jurisdiction that is none of his business, unless he hopes to give his friends on Bay Street another handout?
Ablonczy says the meeting was productive, lists federal policy goals around capital access and jobs, asserts federal jurisdiction, and says a paper is being prepared.
Engages the topic by listing policy rationales for the discussions and mentions a forthcoming paper, but does not address the jurisdictional challenge or the Quebec minister's disagreement about the passport system.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member mentioned yesterday, there was a good exchange of views on this issue of securities regulation with provincial counterparts. It was a good meeting. The discussion centred around the need for better access to capital by Canadian companies, a more competitive cost of capital, increased investment choices for Canadians and, of course, this would create more jobs for Canadians. We are within the federal jurisdiction and we will be preparing a paper on this issue, and I hope the hon. member will read it.
St-Cyr asks whether the minister realizes that ignoring Quebec's position contravenes the Civil Code of Quebec and disregards Quebec's national character, alleging the government's openness only benefits Ontario.
Raises a pointed allegation about disregarding Quebec's will and the Civil Code, but the ask is vague and the framing is largely rhetorical rather than grounded in specific facts.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le ministre se rend-il compte qu'en ne respectant pas la volonté du Québec, il contrevient au Code civil du Québec et oublie le caractÚre national du Québec? En réalité, l'ouverture dont son gouvernement se vante se fait uniquement avec l'Ontario et au détriment du Québec et des provinces.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that, by failing to respect the will of Quebec, he is violating the civil code of Quebec and ignoring the national character of Quebec? In actual fact, the openness that his government is so proud of is reserved only for Ontario, to the detriment of Quebec and the other provinces.
Ablonczy calls the claim untrue, says all provinces are involved, and notes the IMF urged Canada to undertake these discussions.
Ablonczy dismisses the claim as 'nonsense' without engaging the substance, then pivots to IMF urging and collegial process, not addressing the specific Quebec Civil Code or 'national character' claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member knows that is nonsense. I know he likes to fan these flames, but that is completely and utterly untrue. The fact of the matter is that all provinces are involved in these discussions. They are important discussions for Canada. They are discussions which the International Monetary Fund urged Canada to undertake and to get into, and we are doing that in an appropriate, responsible and collegial way.
Bellavance cites a press conference by the Quebec Agriculture Minister and UPA president warning of federal inaction at the WTO, and asks whether the Agriculture Minister will meet the mandate of ensuring supply-managed producers win in the negotiations.
Cites a specific press conference with named officials (Quebec Agriculture Minister and UPA president), quotes their direct statement setting a clear standard, and asks whether the minister will fulfill that mandate.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, les secteurs du lait, de la volaille et des oeufs ont lancĂ© un cri d'alarme au gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral au sujet de son inaction dans l'actuelle ronde de nĂ©gociations Ă l'OMC. Le ministre de lâAgriculture du QuĂ©bec et le prĂ©sident de l'UPA ont dĂ©clarĂ© ce qui suit en confĂ©rence de presse: « Le gouvernement du Canada est responsable de la nĂ©gociation Ă l'OMC et des rĂ©sultats qui en dĂ©couleront. Ces rĂ©sultats seront jugĂ©s positifs si, et seulement si, les producteurs sous gestion de l'offre ressortent gagnants de cette nĂ©gociation. » Le ministre de lâAgriculture et de lâAgroalimentaire entend-il remplir ce mandat?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the dairy, poultry and egg sectors sounded the alarm on the federal government's inaction at the current round of WTO negotiations. Quebec's agriculture minister and the president of the UPA said the following in a press conference: âThe Government of Canada is responsible for the WTO negotiations and their subsequent results. Those results will be deemed positive if, and only if, producers under supply management come out as winners in this negotiationâ. Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food intend to carry out this mandate?
Paradis says unprecedented measures have been taken over the past 14 months to defend supply management, references the House motion, and commits to defending supply management by not touching tariffs and quotas.
Paradis commits to defending supply management and references the House motion on tariffs and quotas, but does not address the specific WTO round or the allegation of inaction raised in the question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je rappelle à mon collÚgue que, depuis les 14 derniers mois, des mesures sans précédent ont été prises en ce qui a trait à la défense de la gestion de l'offre. Dans cette foulée, il est évident que le gouvernement du Canada continuera à appuyer et à défendre la gestion de l'offre. Ce sont les instructions que nous avons eues. La motion présentée en Chambre précise qu'il faut défendre la gestion de l'offre et ne pas toucher aux tarifs et aux quotas. C'est ce que nous ferons.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that for the past 14 months, unprecedented measures have been taken in defence of supply management. As a result, it is obvious that the Government of Canada will continue to support and defend supply management. Those were our instructions. The motion put forward in this House specifies that we must defend supply management and not touch the tariffs and quotas. That is what we will do.
Bellavance presses the minister to stop deflecting responsibility onto the Coalition GO5 for his inaction and to actively advocate for supply-managed sectors' particular sensitivity at the WTO.
Cites the minister's own admission of not currently negotiating at the WTO and challenges the government to stop blaming the Coalition GO5, making a reasonably specific accountability demand.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ministre de lâAgriculture a dit qu'actuellement, il ne nĂ©gociait pas Ă l'OMC. Dire que l'on dĂ©fend la gestion de l'offre, ce ne sont que des belles paroles si elles ne sont pas accompagnĂ©es de gestes concrets. Actuellement, Ă l'OMC, tous les pays se positionnent et font valoir leur point de vue, sauf le Canada, selon les dires mĂȘmes du ministre fĂ©dĂ©ral. Ce dernier cessera-t-il de faire porter l'odieux de son inaction Ă la Coalition GO5 et prendra-t-il ses responsabilitĂ©s en faisant valoir la sensibilitĂ© particuliĂšre des secteurs sous gestion de l'offre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that he is currently not negotiating at the WTO. To say they are defending supply management is nothing but fine words if there is nothing concrete to back them up. All the countries at the WTO are currently positioning themselves and presenting their points of view, expect for Canada, according to the federal minister himself. Will he stop shamelessly shifting the blame for his inaction to the GO5 coalition and start fulfilling his responsibilities by emphasizing the vulnerability of the sectors under supply management?
Paradis repeats that the government's instructions are to defend supply management and not touch tariffs and quotas, without addressing the inaction allegation.
Paradis simply repeats the earlier commitment to defend supply management without addressing the charge of inaction or the allegation about blaming the Coalition GO5.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'honorable député pourra dire autant de mots qu'il le veut, une chose est certaine: les instructions viennent de la coalition et veillent à défendre la gestion de l'offre et à ne pas toucher aux tarifs et aux quotas. Le ministre l'a dit et redit maintes fois en Chambre. On l'a répété et on le répÚte. Une fois de plus, dans quelle langue faudra-t-il le dire? Ce gouvernement défendra la gestion de l'offre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can say what he wants, but one thing is certain: the coalition's instructions were to defend supply management and not to touch tariffs and quotas. The minister has said so time and time again in this House. This has been repeated over and over again. Again, what language should I say this in? This government will defend supply management.
Turner says income trust investors attending town halls across Ontario are asking for proof that the new tax and broken promise decimating their savings was justified, and demands the Minister of Finance tell the truth.
References taxpayer town halls in specific cities and demands proof that the income trust tax was justified, but the ask is vague ('tell us the truth') and the framing is largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, taxpayers showed up in Waterloo, Ontario last Monday, as they did in Burlington last week, and as they will in Whitby next week and in scores of other cities. Income trust investors are asking for one thing above all, proof that the government was justified in decimating their savings with a new tax and a broken promise. Canadians deserve answers, not blacked out pages, not moody arrogance from the Minister of Finance. It is time he told us the truth, so let us have it.
Van Loan attacks Turner for voting against income splitting and pivots to the floor-crossing issue, not addressing the income trust question at all.
Van Loan does not address income trusts at all, instead attacking Turner's voting record on income splitting and raising the floor-crossing issue, a complete non-answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is a question from the member who used to campaign in favour of income splitting and then voted against it when it came to the budget. Yesterday we heard a call from the Liberal Party to hold byelections quickly. I know that the member said that he thought anyone who crosses the floor should go back to the people for ratification. The opportunity is coming. The time is coming. The member should get in line. We will give him what he wants and help him keep his promise.
Regan asks when the Prime Minister will admit his climate plan amounts to 'fraude Ă©cologique' and when the clean air bill will be passed, citing consensus among scientists, economists, and environmentalists.
References scientific and economic consensus on GHG increases but the characterization 'fraude Ă©cologique' is rhetorical, and the ask conflates two different demands without specificity.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, tous les scientifiques crédibles, les économistes et les environnementalistes sont unanimes: le plan en matiÚre de changements climatiques du gouvernement verra les émissions de gaz à effet de serre augmenter au cours des cinq prochaines décennies. Les Canadiens méritent d'avoir des réponses. Il est temps que ce gouvernement dise la vérité. Quand ce premier ministre admettra-t-il que sa « fraude écologique » n'a trompé personne? Quand fera-t-il adopter le projet de loi sur la qualité de l'air?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, all credible scientists, economists and environmentalists unanimously agree: This government's climate change plan will see greenhouse gas emissions increase over the next 50 years. Canadians deserve some answers. It is time for this government to tell the truth. When will the Prime Minister admit that his ecofraud has not fooled anyone? When will he adopt the clean air act?
Baird cites Professor Mark Jaccard's report criticizing the Liberal climate record, claims the Liberal leader's promise would increase GHG by 50%, and commits to an absolute 20% GHG reduction.
Baird cites a named academic report (Professor Mark Jaccard) attacking the Liberal record and states a specific commitment of 20% absolute GHG reduction, partially engaging but primarily deflecting to the Liberals' past record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very interesting to note that the Liberals are doing everything they possibly can rather than talk about their record. Why do they not quote Professor Mark Jaccard? Professor Mark Jaccard last year wrote a report on the Liberals' record on climate change. The report was entitled, âBurning Our Money to Warm the Planet: Canada's Ineffective Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissionsâ. It said that the leader of the Liberal Party's promise would lead to an increase of 50% in harmful greenhouse gas emissions. We will cut greenhouse gas emissions by an absolute 20%. That is our commitment. That is our promise.
Holland notes that despite Treasury Board guidelines requiring expense disclosure, neither the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity nor the Minister of Canadian Heritage has posted any disclosures since April 2006, and asks when the government will disclose these expenses.
Cites Treasury Board guidelines requiring expense disclosure, notes no disclosures since April 2006, names specific ministers, and ties it to an accountability promise, making it a reasonably specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, hearing the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity boast of taking more than 100 trips to perform outreach, it is logical to wonder how much it all cost. Despite Treasury Board guidelines that require such expenses to be posted, not a single disclosure has been made since April 2006. There is not one trip reported. For the Minister of Canadian Heritage there are no disclosures at all. The government has again broken its promise on transparency again. In fact, if that promise was in NASCAR, it would have flown off the road and erupted in flames at every race it ever entered. When will the government tell the truth and disclose these expenses?
Van Loan claims cabinet expenses are a fraction of Liberal ministers' spending, compares Senate leaders' expenses, and pivots to NASCAR sponsorship, not addressing the missing disclosures.
Van Loan does not address the missing expense disclosures at all, instead pivoting to comparisons with Liberal spending, Senate obstruction, and NASCAR sponsorship.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of our track record of cabinet ministers' expense spending, because it is a fraction of what the Liberal ministers spent. We care about the taxpayers' dollars. While the Senate is over there refusing to do its job on all our bills, it is worth noting that the Senate government leader under the Liberals spent almost 4,000 times in expenses in their last year what our Senate leader spent. As for NASCAR, we are proud to be sponsoring a car at NASCAR, not like the Liberal member for Bourassa who said that he finds NASCAR bizarre. We find it exciting and so do a lot of other Canadians.
Fry asks when the Conservatives will establish the wait times guarantee they specifically promised during the election, noting it has been 18 months without action.
Cites the specific Conservative election promise of a wait times guarantee and notes 18 months have passed without implementation, making it a reasonably specific accountability question tied to a prior public commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during the last election the Conservatives promised to implement a wait times guarantee for all Canadians. Eighteen months later, Canadians are still waiting and their health care is being put at risk. Stop the smoke and mirrors. Canadians deserve answers and it is time for the government to tell the truth. When will the Conservatives establish a wait times guarantee, which they specifically promised well over a year ago?
Clement says the Prime Minister and he announced at least one patient wait times guarantee in each province and territory, claiming the promise has been kept and that they are moving to reduce wait times.
Clement directly states that a patient wait times guarantee has been announced in each province and territory, claims the promise has been kept, and references 13 years of doubled wait times under Liberals, substantively addressing the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member missed the press conference, but indeed, the Prime Minister and I were able to announce that we have in each and every province and territory a patient wait times guarantee, at least one in many of the provinces and moving ahead with more. We have kept that promise. We are moving to reduce wait times. We are moving to increase accessibility in our health care system. After 13 years in which the wait times in this country doubled, we are moving to act.
Hawn asks whether the Liberal-dominated Senate is refusing to vote on the government's Senate term limits bill.
This is a government-backbench softball setup that repeatedly uses the phrase 'Liberal dominated Senate' and is designed to invite condemnation of Senate obstruction rather than seek genuine accountability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this spring the House of Commons has been very busy. There were 29 bills sent to the Senate, including all of the government's priority bills such as the budget, and bills to make our streets and communities safer. However, the Liberal dominated Senate continues to obstruct and delay bills like Bill C-10, which institutes mandatory sentences for gun crimes. I heard the Liberal dominated Senate is now refusing to do its job on democratic reform and refuses to vote on a bill that will democratize the Senate by limiting senators' terms to eight years instead of 45. Could the Prime Minister please tell me if the Liberal dominated Senate is really refusing to do its job?
Mr. Speaker, I have to point out that in rejecting terms of less than 45 years, the Liberal Senate has not merely defied the government, it has defied its own leader here in the House. It has defied its former leader in the Senate and of course defied public opinion and all common sense. Liberal senators will not stop Senate reform. They will only ensure that they are not part of the reform that is coming, because reform is inevitable, because the public will not stomach any longer an institution that functions like that.
Harper says the Liberal Senate has defied its own leader in the House, its former Senate leader, and public opinion, and commits that Senate reform is inevitable regardless of Liberal senators' obstruction.
Harper provides a substantive response naming specific actors (Liberal senators, their own leader in the House, former Senate leader) and makes a clear commitment that Senate reform is inevitable, going beyond a simple partisan attack.
Priddy cites multiple tainted product incidents including counterfeit toothpaste and asks why the minister has not implemented the Consumer Products Association's advice to make importers responsible for the contents of their goods.
Lists specific product safety incidents (carrot juice, spinach, dog food, counterfeit toothpaste) and asks a specific policy question about implementing the Consumer Products Association's advice to make importers responsible.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there has been tainted carrot juice, spinach laced with e-coli, dog food that leads to severe health issues and death. Now we find that ordinary Canadians have been exposed to counterfeit toothpaste and other personal hygiene items. Canadians are quickly losing confidence in imported foods and personal items. With bad trade deals and understaffed inspectors, the government does not seem to grasp the severity of the issue. Releasing warnings to the media is not enough. Why has the minister not taken the Consumer Products Association's advice and made importers responsible for the contents of their goods?
Clement confirms that inspectors and investigators are analyzing products for health hazards, mentions counterfeit monitoring, and advises buyer beware until the investigation is complete.
Clement acknowledges the seriousness, confirms inspectors and investigators are on the scene analyzing products, mentions counterfeit monitoring, but does not address the specific Consumer Products Association recommendation or the question about importer responsibility.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a serious situation. The hon. member is talking about the possibility of tainted toothpaste which has been available in the marketplace. I can tell the hon. member that in fact we do have inspectors and investigators who are on the scene and who are busy analyzing the products to see whether there is any kind of health hazard. That is what we do. We are responding to this situation. Indeed, we do have staff who are involved in the counterfeit situation as well. They monitor to ensure that we have a response if counterfeit products do appear on our shelves. The best advice I can give until that investigation is complete is buyer beware.
Priddy asks why importers of tainted goods are not held responsible alongside sellers, challenges the minister to demonstrate confidence in unregulated products, and asks how many more incidents are needed before real change is made.
Asks a pointed follow-up on importer responsibility and challenges the minister with a personal test of confidence in unregulated products, though it mixes substantive policy with rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. The health of our children is being put at risk. Why is it only the responsibility of those who sell the tainted goods and not also the responsibility of those who import the tainted goods? If the minister believes the current regulations are adequate, would he be confident eating an entire meal or using personal products that are not regulated? How many more tainted products do Canadians need to be exposed to before the minister makes real change?
Clement says the importer in this case did act responsibly by removing products, affirms enforcement and monitoring systems exist, and acknowledges they cannot catch everything but commits to continued monitoring.
Clement corrects the record by noting the importer did remove products, affirms enforcement mechanisms exist, acknowledges the system cannot catch everything, but still does not address whether importers will be made legally responsible.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely incorrect. In this case the importer has in fact acted to remove the products from the shelves. That is what a responsible importer would do. The hon. member should be aware that we do have an enforcement mechanism. We do have a monitoring system. Can it catch everything? Obviously not, because that is why we are faced with this situation. We are going to continue to monitor and continue to enforce. The fact of the matter is if there is a problem in our food supply, we will do everything that we can do and that a government should do, but also, people should take care. The fact of the matter is we get what we pay for. In this particular case, what has happened is not acceptable.
Wilson alleges the U.S. has increased duties from 10.8% to 15% and may impose a 50% penalty tax while starting new lawsuits using Canada's surrendered funds, and asks when the government will stop caving in to the U.S. lumber lobby.
Cites specific duty figures (10.8% increasing to 15%, potential 50% penalty), mentions new lawsuits using surrendered funds, but frames the ask broadly as 'stop caving in' without a specific actionable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government brags about its softwood lumber sellout, but only seven months into the deal the U.S. has started attacking our programs, increasing the 10.8% duty to a 15% tax. Now we learn it is getting set to impose a new 50% penalty tax, while at the same time starting new lawsuits against us using our very own money which the Conservatives surrendered in the first place. Canadians deserve answers. It is time to tell the truth. When will the government stop caving in to the White House and the U.S. lumber lobby?
Emerson says without the softwood lumber agreement Canada would face new chapter 19 lawsuits and duties of 30-40%, and that the deal put over $5 billion back into the pockets of Canadians.
Emerson defends the deal by claiming without it duties would be 30-40% and $5 billion was returned to Canadians, but does not address the specific duty increases or new lawsuits cited in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the truth of the matter is it is time the hon. member, members opposite, members of the NDP and the others who oppose the softwood lumber agreement faced up to the fact that without the softwood lumber agreement, we would be facing new chapter 19 lawsuits, new actions. We would be facing duties of 30% or 40%. And we would not have put over $5 billion back into the pockets of Canadians.
Bains asks whether the government will ensure a free trade agreement with South Korea will not sell out the auto industry, citing reports of thousands of job losses.
References unspecified reports of thousands of job losses and the Canada-South Korea FTA negotiations, but the ask ('will not sell out our auto industry') is vague and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our auto industry is very concerned that the Conservative government is currently negotiating a free trade agreement with South Korea. Based on the government's track record on the softwood sellout, the industry has every right to be concerned. There are numerous reports which indicate that thousands of auto sector jobs will be lost. Canadians deserve answers, and it is time the government told the truth. Will the government ensure that any agreement with South Korea will not sell out our auto industry?
Emerson dismisses the question as NDP-inspired and says the government will not enter free trade agreements that are not in the best interests of all Canadians and all affected industries.
Emerson attacks the Liberals for adopting NDP language and offers only a vague pledge not to enter agreements not in the best interests of all Canadians, without addressing the auto sector specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it amazes me. I guess when the Liberals lose some critical members from the other side, they start to take their economic lessons from the NDP. Even the language is NDP language. We will not enter into free trade agreements that are not in the best interests of all Canadians and all affected industries.
Dryden accuses the Prime Minister of being 'the great divider' who refuses to answer to ordinary Canadians, Parliament, or civil society groups, and asks when he will begin offering real answers.
Dryden gestures at multiple grievances (committee dirty tricks manual, cuts to literacy and women's groups, lack of media access) but the question 'when will the Prime Minister begin offering Canadians real answers' is unanswerable and essentially a speech.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve answers, but the government has never felt the need to give them, not to ordinary people through the media or question period; not to members of Parliament in committees, the unbelievable dirty tricks manual; not to groups that have made the environment, literacy, women, you name it, Mr. Speaker, their life's work. We can ask them. They cannot even get a meeting. Canada works because with more potential differences than any other country, we talk, we listen, we do not purposely strategically divide. The current Prime Minister is different. He is the great divider. When will the Prime Minister begin offering Canadians real answers?
Van Loan shares a personal story about his grandmother as a refugee and describes the Conservative vision of Canada as a country of freedom, hope, and opportunity.
Van Loan responds with a personal story about his grandmother and a generic statement about Conservative values of freedom and opportunity, with no connection to any of the specific concerns raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our Canada is the Canada that my grandmother, a refugee from communism, told me about when she said it was a country of freedom, hope and opportunity. She told me one did not have to be from the elite. It did not matter if one's father was a professor, a politician, a businessman or a diplomat. It did not matter. One could succeed simply by working hard and doing one's best. That is the Canada that Conservatives believe in. That is the kind of Canada that this government is trying to build.
Dryden accuses the Conservative government of having no purpose, direction, or ideas after 17 months, and asks when the Prime Minister will understand what the public already knows.
Dryden's question is entirely a rhetorical characterization of the government as lacking purpose and direction, with no specific factual grounding or answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when one does not give answers for a while, people might still assume one has them, then months pass and they wonder. It has been the last few weeks, having governed to campaign, suddenly with no campaign, the Conservative government has shown clearly that it has no purpose, no direction, no idea of what to do. In 17 months it has gone from decisive to decisively wrong to decisively decisive. There is nothing else there. The government became so old, so fast. When will the Prime Minister understand what the public already knows? For the Conservative government the problem is not just not giving answers, it is not having them.
Van Loan lists government accomplishments including lower taxes, balanced budgets, crime legislation, and democratic reform, blaming the Liberal Party for obstructing progress at every step.
Van Loan responds with a list of government accomplishments (lower taxes, balanced budgets, crime legislation, Senate reform) framed against Liberal obstruction, which is marginally more substantive than a pure attack but does not engage Dryden's premise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians can see today a choice, a choice between the pessimism of people who are desperate to hang onto power, who wish they were in the government on this side, which is delivering results. We are not just delivering answers, we are delivering the things we committed to Canadians, such as lower taxes. We are delivering balanced budgets. We are correcting a fiscal imbalance. We are delivering legislation that is making our streets and communities safer by getting tough on crime. We are delivering democratic reform legislation. We are trying to get our Senate cleaned up. We are trying to make our country a better place. Who is in the way every step of the way? One group of people, the Liberal Party.
Why are federalist parties blocking Lise Thibault from testifying before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts about her expenses, given she is now simply citizen Thibault?
The question identifies a specific committee proceeding, names Lise Thibault, and poses a clear constitutional question about why she cannot be summoned to testify, grounded in a concrete recent event.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les partis fĂ©dĂ©ralistes ont dĂ©montrĂ© cette semaine, au ComitĂ© permanent des comptes publics, leur attachement profond Ă la monarchie, en refusant d'inviter Ă comparaĂźtre l'ex-lieutenant-gouverneur du QuĂ©bec pour qu'elle vienne tĂ©moigner de ses Ă©garements et de ses dĂ©penses. Un dĂ©putĂ© conservateur et un nĂ©o-dĂ©mocrate veulent mĂȘme entendre des experts constitutionnels et juridiques avant de prendre une dĂ©cision aussi simple que celle de l'inviter Ă comparaĂźtre. Lise Thibault n'Ă©tant plus lieutenant-gouverneur, elle est redevenue la citoyenne Thibault et, Ă ce titre, en quoi peut-on s'opposer Ă ce qu'elle vienne tĂ©moigner de l'usage qu'elle a fait de l'argent des contribuables?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this week at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the federalist parties demonstrated their deep attachment to the monarchy by refusing to ask Quebec's former lieutenant governor to appear and testify about her excesses and expenses. A Conservative and an NDP member even want to hear from legal and constitutional experts before making the simple decision to ask her to appear. Lise Thibault is no longer the lieutenant governor and as she has returned to private life, what would be the reason for not wanting her to testify about how she spent taxpayers' money?
The government asked the Auditor General to investigate and invited the RCMP to investigate, and respects the authority and autonomy of parliamentary committees to invite witnesses.
The minister lists actions taken (Auditor General, RCMP) but does not address the specific constitutional or procedural objection raised, deflecting to committee autonomy rather than answering why she cannot testify.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, soyons clairs. Le gouvernement a Ă©tĂ© dĂ©terminĂ© dans les gestes qu'il a posĂ©s. Ce gouvernement a d'abord et avant tout demandĂ© Ă la vĂ©rificatrice gĂ©nĂ©rale d'enquĂȘter, ce qu'elle a fait. Ce gouvernement a invitĂ© la GRC Ă enquĂȘter, ce qu'elle fait prĂ©sentement. Ce gouvernement reconnaĂźt et respecte l'autoritĂ© et l'autonomie des commissions parlementaires quant Ă inviter qui que ce soit Ă tĂ©moigner. C'est la position du gouvernement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The government acted decisively. First and foremost, this government asked the Auditor General to investigate, and she did. This government asked the RCMP to investigate, and it is doing so at present. This government recognizes and respects the authority and the independence of parliamentary committees to invite whomever they wish to appear. That is the government's position.
Will the federal government follow Quebec's example and require future lieutenant governors and the Governor General to appear before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to justify their expenses?
The question poses a concrete forward-looking policy ask â whether the government will require future lieutenant governors and the Governor General to appear before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to justify their expenses â with a specific reference to Quebec's practice.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les partis fĂ©dĂ©ralistes mettent leur attachement Ă la monarchie avant l'intĂ©rĂȘt des contribuables. Le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral entend-il imiter le QuĂ©bec et exiger Ă l'avenir des futurs lieutenants-gouverneurs et du Gouverneur gĂ©nĂ©ral qu'ils comparaissent au ComitĂ© permanent du patrimoine canadien pour justifier leurs dĂ©penses? Pas besoin d'avis d'experts juridiques pour exiger cela!
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the federalist parties are placing their affection for the monarchy ahead of the interests of taxpayers. Does the federal government intend to follow Quebec's lead and henceforth require future lieutenant governors and the Governor General to appear before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to justify their expenses? Expert legal opinions are not needed for that.
The minister referenced the Federal Accountability Act as the government's mark of commitment to transparency and accountability, without addressing the specific proposal.
The minister pivots entirely to praising the Federal Accountability Act and government transparency without addressing the specific ask about requiring future vice-regal representatives to appear before a parliamentary committee.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'honorable dĂ©putĂ©e semble oublier quelque chose. Ce gouvernement, au moment oĂč il a pris le pouvoir, a dĂ©posĂ© un projet de loi sur la responsabilitĂ©, qui est aujourd'hui une loi. C'est notre marque de commerce. Nous ne tolĂ©rons pas de cachotteries, nous ne tolĂ©rons pas de corruption. Nous sommes transparents, nous sommes responsables et nous sommes sĂ©rieux quant Ă la protection des droits des contribuables canadiens. C'est notre marque de commerce.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member seems to be forgetting something. This government, when it took power, tabled a bill on accountability, which is now law. That is our trademark. We do not tolerate secrecy. We do not tolerate corruption. We are transparent, we are accountable and we are serious about protecting the rights of Canadian taxpayers. That is our trademark.
Is it true that Canadian negotiators were ordered not to intervene at the WTO, and will the government commit to no tariff reductions for supply-managed producers at short, medium, or long term?
The question cites specific actors (Quebec Agriculture Minister, UPA), references active WTO negotiations, and poses two distinct direct asks â whether negotiators were ordered to use an empty-chair strategy and whether the government will commit to no tariff reductions for supply-managed sectors.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la gestion de l'offre fait actuellement, pendant les négociations à l'OMC, l'objet d'une attaque féroce. Le ministre de l'Agriculture du Québec et l'UPA ont joint leurs voix pour implorer le gouvernement fédéral de défendre les producteurs québécois à l'OMC. Il est temps que ce gouvernement dise la vérité. Est-il vrai que nos négociateurs ont reçu des ordres précis de ce gouvernement de ne pas intervenir dans le processus, c'est-à -dire que leur stratégie est celle de la chaise vide? Le gouvernement va-t-il s'engager fermement et officiellement auprÚs des producteurs soumis au régime de la gestion de l'offre pour qu'ils ne subissent aucune baisse tarifaire à court, moyen et long termes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, supply management is currently being viciously attacked at the WTO negotiations. Quebec's agriculture minister and the UPA have joined forces to implore the federal government to defend Quebec producers at the WTO. It is time for this government to tell the truth. Is it true that our negotiators received strict orders from this government not to interfere in the process, meaning that they have an empty chair strategy? Will the government officially and firmly commit to supply-managed producers that they will not experience any tariff decreases in the short, medium and long terms?
The government's instructions are clear: it will defend supply management, and will not touch quotas or tariffs â the Canadian negotiator will say so loudly.
The Secretary of State directly addresses both asks by confirming instructions to defend supply management and explicitly stating no changes to quotas or tariffs, though no supporting data or document is cited.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les instructions sont claires. Notre gouvernement dĂ©fendra la gestion de l'offre. Non, on ne touchera pas aux quotas. Non, on ne touchera pas aux tarifs. C'est ce que le nĂ©gociateur du Canada dira haut et fort â la dĂ©fense de la gestion de l'offre, telle qu'elle est.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the instructions are clear. Our government will defend supply management. No, we will not touch quotas. No, we will not touch tariffs. This is what Canada's negotiator will say loud and clearâdefending supply management as is.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain why Canada did not agree with the conclusions reached by the UN Human Rights Council at its fifth regular session?
This is a government-backbench softball setup that essentially invites the minister to explain a known position, with no real accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the United Nations Human Rights Council concluded its fifth regular session in Geneva. Canada has always held that the council needs to live up to expectations to promote and protect human rights around the world through an objective and impartial body. So far, the council is failing to live up to these expectations, but our Conservative government has maintained a principled position. The main emphasis of the fifth session was institution building, yet Canada did not agree with the final consensus document. Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs say why Canada did not agree with the conclusions reached by the human rights council?
Canada was disappointed that the council adopted a permanent agenda item on the Palestinian territories while eliminating special human rights scrutiny of countries of concern such as Cuba and Belarus, contradicting its founding principles.
The minister provides specific, substantive reasons for Canada's dissent â objecting to a permanent agenda item on Palestinian territories while eliminating special scrutiny of Cuba and Belarus â and articulates a clear principled stance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada was in fact disappointed with the human rights council, created to promote and protect human rights, which failed to respect its founding principles in the text that was adopted this week. We cannot, for expedience, accept a permanent agenda item on the Palestinian territories, singling out one situation while at the same time eliminating a special human rights scrutiny of countries of concern, such as Cuba and Belarus. It is a contradiction. If the human rights council is to be successful and avoid being discredited like its predecessor, the founding principles must be respected and upheld. Canada, for its part, will continue to work for an effective and credible human rights body that is consistent in its principles and its actions.
Why did the Prime Minister break his promise to a Cape Breton widow to extend the VIP immediately, leaving 69,000 veterans and their spouses to potentially die before seeing the extension?
The question cites a specific figure (69,000 veterans and spouses), references a named widow from Cape Breton and a specific Prime Minister's promise to extend the VIP, and asks directly why the Prime Minister broke his commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, by the end of the day, Canada will lose 120 World War II and Korean veterans and/or their spouses due to the aging process. A widow from Cape Breton came to the House to make the Prime Minister keep his promise to extend the VIP immediately, but he told her it would be in the next budget. If that is to be true, and no one trusts the Prime Minister any more, that means 69,000 veterans and their spouses will die before they see the extension of this program. Why did the Prime Minister break his trust with the widow of a veteran and is this the Canada that the House leader so envisions?
The minister stated the government is committed to enhancing the program and that 12,000 veterans and spouses were brought into it in the last year alone.
The minister states commitment to enhancing the program and cites 12,000 new participants brought in the last year, but does not address the broken promise to the widow or the timeline question about 69,000 veterans dying before the extension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are committed to enhancing that program. The member knows this. In fact, if he were being intellectually honest, he would tell the House that we brought 12,000 people, veterans and spouses, into that program in the last year alone. When we do it, we want to do it in a way that is consistent with the department and consistent with the good delivery to veterans and widows. We are committed to doing it, and we will get it done.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans commit to increasing funding and staffing for conservation measures to maintain sustainable fish stocks for west coast sport, commercial, and native fishermen, given declining wild salmon and halibut numbers?
The question references declining numbers for wild salmon and halibut, cites the wild salmon policy's conservation-first principle, and poses a direct ask about committing to increased funding and staffing for conservation measures, though it is paired with rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my constituents are very concerned about the appalling lack of conservation for wild salmon and halibut. Numbers are down and fishermen cannot get their quota, yet DFO insists on extending their openings. The wild salmon policy is clear: conservation first. Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans trying to eliminate the fishing on the west coast or will he commit to increasing funding and staffing for conservation measures to maintain sustainable fish stocks for west coast sport, commercial and native fishermen?
The minister asserted that the government has put more money into conserving fish on the west coast than any previous government and has more boarding enforcement officers than ever, asking the member to stay tuned.
The minister makes a general claim about more money and more boarding enforcement officers without citing any figures, and does not commit to increased funding or staffing as asked, ending with a vague 'stay tuned.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that this government has put more money into conserving fish on the west coast than any government before it. We have more boarding enforcement officers than ever before. If the member wants to see what we will really do for the west coast, I suggest to her that she stay tuned.
When will the government start telling the truth about the Canada summer jobs fiasco of 2007, including details about funding, after departmental officials admitted in committee that the program was botched?
The question references the Canada summer jobs program and committee admissions that the program was botched, but the ask â 'when will the government start telling truth' â is vague and rhetorical rather than a precise accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us review the summer jobs fiasco. Let me give the minister a few highlights. He cancelled a program that worked; brought in one that does not with less money and a new criteria; organizations and students were thrown into disarray; scrambling ensued; and departmental officials admitted in committee that the program was botched. Now the minister refuses to come clean with details about funding. I want to wish the minister a happy summer, a good guy, but we need to ensure that next year summer will be good for everyone else involved in this program. When will the government start telling truth about the Canada summer jobs fiasco of 2007?
The minister claimed students are getting the best jobs they have ever had under the new program and deflected with a joke that the member is not young enough to qualify.
The minister provides no substantive information about the program, pivots to a joke about the member being too old to qualify, and offers no engagement with the specific allegations of mismanagement or funding transparency.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the truth is students are getting the best jobs they have ever had under the new program. That is the truth. For my friend, though, I do not care how many times he asks me, he is not young enough to qualify for a Canada summer job. He needs to get that into his head, but failing that, I hope he and his family have a terrific summer.
Could the Minister of Health inform the House what the government is doing to help Canadians make healthier food choices following the trans fat task force report?
This is a government-backbench softball setup inviting the minister to announce a policy already made public earlier that day, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, heart and other related diseases affect thousands of Canadians every year. Earlier today the Minister of Health announced the government's response to the report by the trans fat task force. Could the Minister of Health informed the members of the House what our government is doing to help Canadians make healthier food choices?
The government is accepting the task force recommendations to limit trans fats to 2% for vegetable oils and 5% for the rest of the food supply, giving industry two years to comply, and noting that trans fat supply has been cut in half over the last two years.
The minister provides specific, concrete information: accepting the trans fat task force recommendations, citing the 2% limit for vegetable oils and 5% for the rest of the food supply, a two-year industry timeline, and a claim that trans fat supply has been cut in half over two years.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today I announced that we are accepting the recommendations of the task force to limit trans fats in our food supply at 2% for vegetable oils and 5% through the rest of the food supply. We have given industry two years to use market forces, which they are doing. We have cut the trans fat supply in half over the last two years in our food supply because of the results of consumers and industries. I hope that will make a difference. I think it will make a difference for our health, and I hope it will make a difference for some members of the House as well, because they need the help too.
Members of the House acknowledged the presence of guests in the gallery with applause.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Jim Peterson (Lib, Willowdale) announced his resignation as MP effective July 12, delivering a farewell speech in which he reflected on career highlights including his work on sexual assault law reform, GST harmonization consultations, financial institutions legislation, and trade missions to China, India, Russia, and Brazil, and thanked his constituents, parliamentary staff, public servants, family, and colleagues from all parties.
- Lib Jim Peterson
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je dĂ©sire m'adresser Ă vous ainsi qu'Ă mes collĂšgues. C'est avec une grande Ă©motion que j'annonce aujourd'hui qu'aprĂšs le 12 juillet, je ne serai plus le dĂ©putĂ© fĂ©dĂ©ral de Willowdale. While this is a very difficult decision for me, we all know a law was passed that would see an election in the fall of 2009. As my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Toronto Centre, said yesterday, I feel this is the best option we have for renewal and for the voices of tomorrow to be heard in this august chamber. For the right hon. Prime Minister, while I respectfully understand the calling of a byelection is his sole prerogative, I can assure him that the people of Willowdale will stand behind him if he chooses to do so. Ce fut pour moi un grand privilĂšge et un grand honneur d'avoir servi dans la capitale nationale sous ce premier ministre et d'avoir reprĂ©sentĂ© les gens de Willowdale. There have been many highlights. I am proud that in 1982, as parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, the Right Hon. Jean ChrĂ©tien, I was able to help pass Criminal Code changes that created the offence of sexual assault and ensured that a woman's previous relationships could no longer be put on trial. As chair of the finance committee in 1993, the very first duty assigned to me by the prime minister was to find a way to honour our election commitment to replace the GST. We looked at over 20 alternatives and we found one. The conclusion was that we would harmonize the federal sales tax with the provinces. We would have tax included pricing and, most important, we would change the name to the national value added tax. I can say that former Prime Minister ChrĂ©tien was not very happy but former Prime Minister Mulroney was. The finance minister at the time, the member for LaSalleâĂmard, instituted pre budget consultations by the finance committee which continue to this day and have been adopted by other legislatures in Canada and abroad. Our reports were long and scholarly and, as I was so often assured, they were, perhaps sometimes, read by someone in finance. Secretary of state for financial institutions was an active stint. It included foreign bank branching, a five year review of the Bank Act which resulted in the longest bill to ever hit Parliament, the deneutralization of our insurance companies, FINTRAC to counter money laundering, major reforms to the office of the ombudsman and four major financial institution mergers without a public furor. I want to say that our financial institutions in Canada are among our leading corporations and many are global champions. I believe mergers will help our banks remain competitive and that these mergers can be engineered without major job losses or branch closings, as evidenced by the TD Canada Trust merger. We should not fear bank mergers. As minister of international trade, I received incredible support from the prime minister at the time, the member for LaSalleâĂmard, to develop and implement a commercial strategy, not just for the U.S., EU and others, but especially for the Brazils, Russias, Indias and Chinas. We see the strategy being continued today but I believe there is urgency in bringing greater resources and efforts to bear. I visited China three times and India twice, as well as Russia and Brazil. The prime minister at the time, the member for LaSalleâĂmard, was a huge help with these BRICK countries. We visited them and opened doors for Canadians that only a prime minister can open. India is especially dear to me. Last Saturday night in Toronto, I met with Kamal Nath, India's industry minister. He is a great leader, politician, statesman and friend. Later on in the evening, Heather and I attended the Indo-Canada Chamber of Commerce dinner where he was a keynote speaker, along with someone else from this House. It was a splendid event. I remember not only fruitful bilateral dealings with Minister Nath, but our work at the WTO. I especially recall going three days without sleep as we worked in the green room in Geneva at the end of July. It was hot and there was no air conditioning. We opened the windows but there were no screens. Millions of mosquitoes joined us inside but, nevertheless, we achieved a framework agreement for Doha. Today, success in this realm seems illusive. However, I leave this House believing that a successful outcome of the Doha round is critical. It must be about development and, most important, only the WTO can rein in the obscene agricultural subsidies that we find in the U.S. and in the EU. Bilateral and regional deals will not do it. Life in the public eye has had some precious moments. A few days after the same sex vote in this House, I was scheduled to attend the laying of a cornerstone at a convent, something I faced with great trepidation. The Mother Superior met me at the gate and said, âJim, thank you for what you didâ. I asked her what she was talking about. She replied, âYour vote for same sex marriageâ. I told her that she had to be kidding. She said, âNo, Jim, Jesus would want us to be inclusiveâ. I am very proud of the parishioners of Newtonbrook United Church who have donated a huge, expensive property at Young and Cummer, raised the money and built 52 affordable housing units. This is a shining example of what more of us might do to help others. I recall the time I worked long and hard to get a young man with severe disabilities into a proper facility that could cope with his needs. During the next election, I called at the family's door and asked if I could put up a sign. He replied, âNo, I am not Liberalâ. As members in this House know, one's best efforts are not always met with a reward but that is not the reason that we make those efforts. There are so many to whom I am grateful. I want to thank the involved, caring and committed people of Willowdale who made my public years possible. To the officers and employees of this House, I thank them for being unfailingly helpful. To the many public servants at finance, trade and elsewhere, I thank them. They are among the hardest working and ablest people I know. To our extended family of outstanding staffers over the years, to whom I owe so muchâwould it be in order to recognize them in the gallery?
No. They are right up there. My staffers are among Heather's and my closest friends today. My mom and dad are both 94 and they have given me more than any son could hope for. They are to this day an incredible inspiration. I could not have chosen better parents or better Liberals. To my brothers, David and Tim, who have always been there for me, I look forward to seeing more of them and their exceptional families. I could not have chosen better brothers. My most important thanks goes to Heather, who, if members looked in the gallery she would be there but I cannot recognize her. I met Heather the first week of grade nine and eight years later I finally got her to marry me. That was 44 years ago. Heather has shared this journey with me 24/7 and I thank her. I thank her for her unconditional support that has made all of this worthwhile. I thank her for her wisdom and advice which have proven invaluable. I thank her for her love that has made tough times easier, good times better and, at election time, she got far more signs up in Willowdale than anyone else. Lastly, I want to thank my colleagues throughout the years from all parties in this House, including you, Mr. Speaker. We may at times have differed over policies but we never differed over the need to serve our constituents with dedication and commitment, to work to make a difference in the lives of people and to build a better Canada and a better world. In closing, I would like to say that over the course of my life I have visited and worked in many countries but it has always been such a great joy to come home to Canada. We Canadians are among the most fortunate of all people on earth. I leave my colleagues today fully confident that they and those who follow will ensure that Canada is always the envy of the world. Je vous remercie tous de tout ce que vous avez fait pour le Canada. Je vous remercie de tout ce que vous avez fait pour moi.