Session overview
- Liberals and Bloc pressed the government repeatedly on the 'in and out' election financing scheme, with three independent investigations underway â by Elections Canada, the Privacy Commissioner, and the Ontario Provincial Police â while the government defended its practices as legal and comparable to those of other parties.
- The Speech from the Throne's promise to introduce legislation limiting the federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction dominated exchanges with the Bloc Québécois, who questioned whether the proposal differed meaningfully from previous federal commitments and whether it would include unconditional opting-out with full financial compensation.
- The Bloc raised concerns about the government's proposed Canada-wide common securities regulator, arguing it was opposed by the Assemblée nationale du Québec, the Autorité des marchés financiers, and the Bourse de Montréal, and contradicted the throne speech's open federalism commitments.
- The government's Afghanistan mission was challenged by both the Bloc and NDP, who questioned whether the throne speech's reference to 2011 predetermined the outcome of the John Manley panel, and whether the military component was overshadowing the humanitarian one.
- Independent MP Bill Casey pressed the government on the Atlantic accord equalization deal, noting that neither he nor former Premier John Hamm had seen a signed agreement, and that the throne speech contained no reference to promised budget amendments.
- The Minister of Industry announced that the government would examine guidelines for state-owned enterprise investments under the Investment Canada Act and introduce a national security test for foreign investment, as Canada currently lacks such a test unlike many trading partners.
Minister of Industry Jim Prentice made two specific, concrete commitments: that the government would examine guidelines for state-owned enterprise investments under the Investment Canada Act where there is a non-strictly commercial objective, and that it would introduce a national security test for foreign investment in the autumn, noting Canada currently lacks such a test.
Cites a specific newspaper article (The Daily News, Halifax) and a specific claim within it that 'the province also gives up all claim to all entitlements guaranteed in the Atlantic Accord,' and asks the single, precise, answerable question of when the government will produce a copy of the agreement.
Asked directly whether the Prime Minister would withdraw his lawsuit against Elections Canada, Van Loan responded only that 'after a summer away, the best the Liberals can do is come up with stories that have no basis about corrections,' offering no engagement with the specific question about the court challenge or the Conservative staff implicated in the in and out scheme.
Outstanding questions
- Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-GrĂąceâLachine) asked when the Prime Minister would withdraw the Conservative Party's court challenge against Elections Canada â no answer was provided on this point.
- Bill Casey (CumberlandâColchesterâMusquodoboit Valley) asked when the government would table the amendments to the 2007 budget reversing changes to the equalization formula, as promised in the exchange of letters with Nova Scotia â the minister did not address this commitment.
- Judy Sgro (York West) asked why John Reynolds and Doug Finley continue to work for the Conservative government while they are named in court documents and under police investigation â the government stated no offer or appointment was ever made but did not address whether they should step aside.
- Susan Kadis (Thornhill) asked specifically how the Prime Minister's office obtained the religious affiliation and personal contact information of constituent Michelle Kofman to send her Rosh Hashanah greetings â the government did not explain the source of that personal data.
- Vivian Barbot (Papineau) asked whether the Prime Minister would confirm that eliminating the federal spending power means an unconditional right of withdrawal with full financial compensation for Quebec when the federal government encroaches on its exclusive jurisdictions â the minister did not confirm this, stating only that provinces delivering a comparable service could opt out.
LeBlanc asks what the Prime Minister has done to address three independent investigations (Elections Canada, Privacy Commissioner, OPP) into Conservative practices, and when he will reveal his staff's role.
References three independent investigations but the ask is vague and compound ('come clean on the role his staff has played'), with heavy partisan framing dominating.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for a government that cynically wrapped itself in the Federal Accountability Act, its own unethical behaviour is coming home to roost. We now have three independent investigations being conducted into the unethical practices of the Conservatives: investigations by Elections Canada, the Privacy Commissioner and the Ontario Provincial Police. What has the Prime Minister done to get to the bottom of this? Absolutely nothing. When will the Prime Minister come clean on the role his staff has played in this sordid affair? When will he start demonstrating some of the accountability that used to mean something to him?
Van Loan dismisses the question by contrasting Liberal patronage appointments with a Conservative appointment that was never made.
Deflects by contrasting Liberal appointment scandals with the Conservative refusal to make an appointment, never addressing what the Prime Minister has done about the investigations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I guess after an entire summer the best the member could come up with is a story where we refused to give an appointment to someone. When it was the Liberals in power, the issue was to whom they gave appointments. With us, the problem is an appointment that should not have been made and was never made. That is why we never made it.
LeBlanc asks why the Prime Minister is doing nothing in the face of an Elections Canada investigation into alleged illegal Conservative campaign spending overruns.
Identifies Elections Canada's investigation into alleged illegal overspending as the factual anchor, but the ask ('qu'attend le premier ministre pour s'expliquer') remains vague.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en ce moment, il y a trois enquĂȘtes indĂ©pendantes Ă propos des pratiques douteuses de ce gouvernement. Pour un parti qui prĂ©tendait faussement ĂȘtre plus blanc que neige, c'est un retour difficile Ă la rĂ©alitĂ©. Ălections Canada enquĂȘte mĂȘme sur le fait que les conservateurs auraient trichĂ© lors de la derniĂšre Ă©lection fĂ©dĂ©rale en cachant leur dĂ©passement illĂ©gal des limites de dĂ©penses Ă©lectorales. Et le premier ministre ne fait rien du tout. Qu'attend le premier ministre pour s'expliquer?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there are currently three investigations underway into questionable practices by this government. For a party that claims to be as pure as the driven snow, this is a harsh dose of reality. Elections Canada is looking into allegations that the Conservatives may have cheated during the last federal election by hiding the fact that they exceeded their election expense limits. And the Prime Minister is doing nothing about it. What is the Prime Minister waiting for?
Van Loan asserts the financing activities were entirely legal and mirrors them to long-standing Liberal party practices, then contrasts them with Liberal misuse of public funds.
Engages the election financing topic but deflects by asserting legality and pivoting to Liberal grouped advertising practices and public fund misuse rather than addressing the Prime Minister's inaction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well from his own party's practices that what he says is entirely untrue. Our election financing activities are entirely legal. We know they are legal because they are what the law permits and because that is what other parties have done: grouped advertising buys, grouped collections of materials, the transfers from ridings to the central party. Guess what I have just defined? The way the Liberal Party has won elections for years. However, there is one difference. We did not dip into public funds the way the Liberals did for years and years to do it.
LeBlanc asks whether the Prime Minister will direct staff currently under independent investigation to cooperate fully with investigators and step aside during the process.
Poses a clear, single, actionable ask â will the Prime Minister instruct staff under investigation to cooperate fully and step aside â grounded in the fact of ongoing independent investigations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately Elections Canada takes a different view. Today we have had more dodges and rhetoric and no answers. Will the Prime Minister finally do the right thing and ask his staff, who are currently under independent investigation, to cooperate fully with the investigators and to step aside until this matter is cleared up?
Van Loan states the party always cooperates fully and accuses the Liberal Party of voting against opening its own financial books at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Deflects entirely by claiming the party always cooperates and pivoting to the Liberal Party's alleged refusal to open its books at committee, never addressing the specific ask about staff.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our party always cooperates fully. The question is, why does the Liberal Party not want to open its books? When this issue arose at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, there was a question about opening books for investigations on how spending was done for the past four years. As I recall, one party voted against that, and that was the Liberal Party. Why? I guess it was because of the $40 million that is still stashed somewhere, or maybe it was spent on previous election campaigns.
Jennings asks how Canadians can trust legislation from a minister whose senior policy advisers, Michael Donison and Andrea Paine, Elections Canada says were implicated in the in and out money scam.
Names specific individuals (Michael Donison, Andrea Paine), their roles, and their alleged connection to the in and out scheme, asking a pointed accountability question about the minister's advisers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the architects of this in and out money scam are people like Michael Donison, former executive director of the Conservative Party. Where is Mr. Donison now? He is a senior policy adviser for the Minister for Democratic Reform. He is not the only one. Andrea Paine is also implicated in this scandal and she is the senior policy adviser for who? The same minister. How can Canadians have any faith in the legislation the government brings forth when it is getting advice from people Elections Canada says broke the law?
Van Loan denies Elections Canada made any such finding, asserts no laws were broken, and counters that the Liberal Party admitted to breaking the law and repaid only a fraction of stolen taxpayer funds.
Flatly denies Elections Canada made the alleged statement and pivots to Liberal admissions of law-breaking, never addressing whether Donison or Paine are in fact serving as senior policy advisers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada has said no such thing. No laws were broken. We complied fully with the law. I can tell the House who did break the law. The party over there actually admitted it broke the law, returned moneys to the public coffer, but only a small fraction of the moneys that the Auditor General told us were actually stolen from Canadian taxpayers.
Jennings asks why the Prime Minister continues the court challenge against Elections Canada given that at least eight implicated Conservative candidates or official agents are now on the public payroll.
Identifies at least eight implicated candidates or official agents now on the public payroll and names specific positions, then asks a concrete question about the court challenge against Elections Canada.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au moins huit candidats ou agents officiels des conservateurs qui auraient pris part Ă cette manigance sont maintenant salariĂ©s aux frais des contribuables. Il y a, par exemple, le chef de cabinet du ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique, l'adjointe spĂ©ciale du ministre de l'Environnement de mĂȘme que son ancien attachĂ© de presse. Qu'attend le premier ministre pour retirer sa poursuite ridicule contre Ălections Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, at least eight candidates or official agents of the Conservative Party who were involved in this scheme are now on the payroll at taxpayers' expense. For instance, there is the chief of staff to the Minister of Public Safety, the special assistant to the Minister of the Environment, as well as his former press secretary. What is the Prime Minister waiting for to drop his ridiculous case against Elections Canada?
Van Loan dismisses the question as baseless stories and makes a rhetorical quip about the Liberal Party knowing a lot about 'correction,' providing no substantive response.
Van Loan offers a dismissive non-answer about Liberals having 'stories with no basis' and a pun on 'correction,' completely ignoring both the named individuals and the specific ask about the court challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after a summer away, the best the Liberals can do is come up with stories that have no basis about corrections. However, it is not surprising, because the one thing the Liberal Party knows a lot about is correction.
Duceppe asks whether the Throne Speech commitment to limit federal spending power in new cost-shared programs essentially reproduces the social union agreement that Quebec's National Assembly previously condemned.
Cites a specific Harper speech in Quebec in December 2005 and the social union agreement as reference points, asking whether the Throne Speech language on spending power essentially reproduces a framework Quebec's National Assembly condemned.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans un discours prononcĂ© Ă QuĂ©bec en dĂ©cembre 2005, le premier ministre s'est engagĂ© Ă mettre fin au fĂ©dĂ©ralisme paternaliste et dominateur, en encadrant le pouvoir fĂ©dĂ©ral de dĂ©penser. Il a mĂȘme Ă©tĂ© jusqu'Ă dĂ©noncer certaines politiques centralisatrices du gouvernement prĂ©cĂ©dent, comme l'entente sur l'union sociale. Lorsque le premier ministre nous dit dans son discours du TrĂŽne qu'il souhaite « imposer des limites explicites Ă l'utilisation du pouvoir fĂ©dĂ©ral de dĂ©penser pour des nouveaux programmes Ă frais partagĂ©s », ne reprend-il pas essentiellement l'entente sur l'union sociale, celle-lĂ mĂȘme qui a Ă©tĂ© dĂ©criĂ©e par l'AssemblĂ©e nationale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in December 2005, the Prime Minister gave a speech in Quebec City in which he promised to put an end to domineering and paternalistic federalism by monitoring federal spending power. He even condemned some of the previous government's centralizing policies, such as the social union agreement. When the Prime Minister stated in his Speech from the Throne that he wants to âplace formal limits on the use of the federal spending power for new shared-cost programsâ, is he not simply rehashing the social union agreement that was decried by the National Assembly?
Harper states the government will for the first time introduce legislation to limit federal spending power in provincial jurisdictions, citing the Quebec intergovernmental affairs minister's positive reaction.
Harper confirms legislation will be introduced to limit federal spending power in provincial jurisdictions and quotes the Quebec intergovernmental affairs minister approvingly, but does not directly address the comparison with the social union agreement.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement a tenu parole. Pour la premiÚre fois, le gouvernement déposera des mesures législatives pour limiter le pouvoir fédéral de dépenser dans les champs de compétence des provinces. Le ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales du Québec a dit que le gouvernement fédéral tentera de faire adopter un projet de loi au Parlement afin de limiter le pouvoir fédéral de dépenser. C'est une bonne nouvelle en soi. C'est un pas dans la bonne direction et c'est une chose à laquelle il faut applaudir.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government has kept its word. For the first time ever, the government will introduce legislation to place formal limits on the use of the federal spending power in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Quebec's minister of intergovernmental affairs said that the federal government would try to pass a bill in Parliament to limit federal spending power. That is good news. That is a step in the right direction and it is worth celebrating.
Duceppe asks whether the Prime Minister recognizes that the Throne Speech opt-out-with-compensation language is essentially the same as what appeared in Jean Chrétien's 1996 Throne Speech.
Quotes the specific Throne Speech language on opt-out with compensation and draws a direct textual parallel with Jean Chrétien's 1996 Throne Speech, pressing the Prime Minister on whether the two are essentially identical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales du Québec a également dit qu'il souhaitait voir le projet de loi, et que ça prenait une pleine compensation financiÚre. C'est aussi intéressant de lire ce qui suit: « Tout nouveau programme sera conçu de telle sorte que les provinces qui s'en dissocieront seront indemnisées, à condition qu'elles adoptent un programme équivalent ou comparable. » Voilà ce qu'on peut lire. Cela se retrouve néanmoins dans le discours du TrÎne de Jean Chrétien de 1996, et cela reprend essentiellement ce qu'on retrouve dans l'actuel discours du TrÎne. Le premier ministre ne trouve-t-il pas que cela se ressemble un peu, pas mal, beaucoup?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Quebec's minister of intergovernmental affairs also said that he would like to see the bill and that he wanted full financial compensation. Here is an interesting quote: âAny new program will be designed so that non-participating provinces will be compensated, provided they establish equivalent or comparable initiatives.â That was part of Jean ChrĂ©tien's 1996 Speech from the Throne, and that is more or less what appears in the most recent Speech from the Throne. Does the Prime Minister agree that this sounds strangely familiar?
Harper argues no previous government introduced actual legislation to address Quebec's historical demands and calls on the Bloc to support the Throne Speech rather than vote against Quebec's interests.
Harper argues that no previous government actually introduced legislation on this point despite Quebec's decades-long demands, and challenges the Bloc to support the Throne Speech, but does not address the textual comparison Duceppe raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aucun des prĂ©cĂ©dents gouvernements, avec l'appui du gouvernement du QuĂ©bec, n'a dĂ©posĂ© de projet de loi pour rĂ©pondre Ă ces demandes historiques qu'a formulĂ©es la province de QuĂ©bec pendant quatre dĂ©cennies. J'espĂšre que le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois appuiera le discours du TrĂŽne et ses mesures, parce qu'on n'a pas besoin du Bloc pour voter contre les intĂ©rĂȘts du QuĂ©bec ici.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, none of the previous governments have introduced a bill, with the support of the government of Quebec, to meet the historic demands that the province has articulated over the past four decades. I hope that the Bloc Québécois will support the Speech from the Throne and the measures described therein because we do not need the Bloc voting against Quebec's interests here.
Barbot asks whether the Prime Minister will deny that the Throne Speech's limit on spending power in cost-shared programs leaves the government free to continue encroaching in Quebec's jurisdictions through non-cost-shared programs such as the Mental Health Commission.
Identifies a specific gap in the Throne Speech language â that limiting spending power in cost-shared programs would not prevent encroachments through non-cost-shared programs like the Mental Health Commission â and asks the Prime Minister to confirm or deny this.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est vrai: nous avons les conservateurs. Le gouvernement affirme, dans le discours du TrĂŽne, qu'il imposera des limites au pouvoir fĂ©dĂ©ral de dĂ©penser dans les programmes Ă frais partagĂ©s. Or, rien dans cette formulation n'empĂȘcherait le gouvernement de continuer ses empiĂštements dans les champs de compĂ©tence du QuĂ©bec en lançant des programmes qui ne sont pas Ă frais partagĂ©s, comme il l'a fait avec la Commission de la santĂ© mentale. Le premier ministre peut-il nier que c'est exactement ça que propose son discours du TrĂŽne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is true: we have the Conservatives. In the Speech from the Throne, the government said that it would place limits on the use of the federal spending power for shared-cost programs. There is nothing stopping the government from continuing to encroach on Quebec's jurisdictions by launching programs that are not shared-cost, as it did with the Mental Health Commission. Will the Prime Minister deny that that is exactly what the Speech from the Throne proposes?
Ambrose confirms a bill will be introduced and says the government is prepared to collaborate with the Bloc on this important issue, without addressing the non-cost-shared program gap.
Ambrose confirms legislation will be introduced and expresses willingness to collaborate with the Bloc, but does not address the specific gap regarding non-cost-shared programs identified in the question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre l'a dĂ©jĂ dit, et le discours du TrĂŽne l'a indiquĂ© hier soir: nous dĂ©poserons un projet de loi. Ă ce sujet, nous sommes prĂȘts Ă collaborer avec notre collĂšgue du Bloc sur une question aussi importante pour le Bloc et les QuĂ©bĂ©cois Ă©galement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already said this, and the Speech from the Throne stated it yesterday: we will table a bill. We are prepared to work with our Bloc colleague on an issue that is so important to the Bloc and to Quebeckers.
Barbot asks whether the Prime Minister will confirm that limiting federal spending power means Quebec has an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation when the federal government encroaches on its exclusive jurisdictions.
Asks a precise, answerable policy question: does the Throne Speech guarantee unconditional opt-out with full financial compensation when the federal government encroaches on Quebec's exclusive jurisdictions?
Source text
Monsieur le Président, à l'instar du ministre québécois des Affaires intergouvernementales, le premier ministre admettra-t-il que l'élimination du pouvoir fédéral de dépenser implique pour le Québec un droit de retrait sans condition, avec pleine compensation financiÚre, lorsque le fédéral empiÚte dans ses champs de compétence exclusifs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister agree with the Quebec intergovernmental affairs minister that eliminating the federal spending power means that Quebec has an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation when the federal government encroaches on Quebec's exclusive jurisdictions?
Ambrose says a province may opt out as long as it delivers a comparable service to its citizens, and that the government will work with provinces on new cost-shared programs requiring majority provincial support.
Ambrose explains the opt-out framework â comparable services and majority provincial support â but does not directly address whether compensation is full and unconditional as the Quebec minister demanded, partially engaging the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the Bloc is a separatist party but we are a federalist party and we will work together with the provinces, including Quebec, to ensure that when we do introduce new cost shared programs that we have the support of the majority of the provinces. If one province would like to opt out, as long as it delivers a comparable service to its citizens and we have comparable services across the country we will work with them.
Layton asks why the Prime Minister has abandoned fairness for ordinary Canadians by failing on the clean air act, Afghanistan, and the prosperity gap.
Lists three broad grievances (clean air act, Afghanistan, prosperity gap) with no specific facts or documents cited, and the ask â 'Why has the Prime Minister abandoned fairness for ordinary Canadians?' â is rhetorical and unanswerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne continues to take this country in the wrong direction. The Prime Minister has failed to bring back the entire clean air act. He has failed to change direction in the war on Afghanistan and he has failed to even acknowledge the growing prosperity gap that is making life tougher for Canadians, even middle class families. The NDP will stand united against the Conservative agenda because we know where we stand. Why has the Prime Minister abandoned fairness for ordinary Canadians?
Harper asserts the Throne Speech addressed poverty, homelessness and middle-class cost pressures, and suggests Layton would have noticed this had he not pre-committed to opposing the speech weeks earlier.
Harper engages the topics mentioned by pointing out the Throne Speech addressed poverty, homelessness and cost pressures on the middle class, though he does not provide specifics and deflects by noting Layton pre-committed to opposing it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the House knows well, the throne speech addressed the very issues that the leader of the NDP just talked about: concerns about poverty, homelessness and some of the rising cost pressures on the middle class. If the leader of the NDP had not decided several weeks before the throne speech was read that he would oppose it, he would have noticed these things in the throne speech.
Layton asks why the Throne Speech abandoned today's families by offering no solutions on homelessness, no change on Afghanistan, and no climate action plan.
Repeats broad criticisms of the Throne Speech on homelessness, Afghanistan and climate change without citing specific provisions or data, and the ask is again rhetorical ('why has he abandoned today's families').
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le problĂšme, c'est que dans ce discours, on ne parle pas des solutions aux problĂšmes des familles d'aujourd'hui. On parle des sans-abri, mais aucune solution n'a Ă©tĂ© prĂ©sentĂ©e. Le gouvernement refuse de changer de direction quant Ă cette guerre agressive en Afghanistan. Il refuse de proposer un plan d'action au sujet des changements climatiques. Le premier ministre n'a pas le droit et le mandat d'en faire Ă sa tĂȘte. Pourquoi a-t-il abandonnĂ© les familles d'aujourd'hui dans ce discours du TrĂŽne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that in this speech there were no solutions to the problems facing families today. There is talk of the homeless, but no solutions were offered. The government refuses to change directions when it comes to this war of aggression in Afghanistan. It refuses to propose an action plan for climate change. The Prime Minister does not have the right or the mandate to do whatever he likes. Why did he abandon today's families in this Speech from the Throne?
Harper says the government recognized these problems in the Throne Speech and two budgets, citing tax reductions and investments in anti-poverty programs and the middle class.
Harper references two budgets and tax reductions as evidence the government has helped Canadians, and again charges Layton with deciding to oppose the speech before reading it, partially engaging but not specifically answering.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, d'abord, ce gouvernement a reconnu ces problÚmes non seulement dans le discours du TrÎne, mais aussi dans deux budgets. De fait, nous avons aidé la population grùce à une diminution des taxes et à des investissements dans des programmes importants pour contrer la pauvreté et favoriser la classe moyenne. Une fois de plus, si le chef du NPD n'avait pas décidé de s'opposer à ce discours du TrÎne il y a plusieurs semaines, il l'aurait lu avant de le commenter.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, first of all, this government has acknowledged these problems, not only in the Speech from the Throne, but also in two budgets. As a matter of fact, we have helped Canadians by lowering taxes and investing in important programs to address poverty and help the middle class. Once again, if the leader of the NDP had not decided several weeks ago to oppose this throne speech, he would have read it before commenting on it.
Murphy asks how much it will cost Canadian taxpayers for Elections Canada to defend itself against the Conservative-initiated court challenge, naming ministers and MPs he says are implicated in the in and out money scam.
Names specific ministers and a parliamentary secretary implicated and asks a concrete cost question â how much will Canadian taxpayers pay for Elections Canada to defend the Conservative court challenge â though the list of implicated members is asserted without sourced evidence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, to date, the government's Ministers of Public Safety, Foreign Affairs, Transport, Heritage, along with the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary and 12 other Conservative MPs have been implicated in the in and out money scams. Will the government inform the House now how much it will cost Canadian taxpayers for Elections Canada to defend itself from the frivolous, Conservative initiated court challenge?
Oh, oh!
Van Loan asserts the party's practices are the same as all other parties and says the Conservatives sought a full committee investigation into all parties' transfers back to 1997, which the Liberals voted against.
Van Loan does not answer the cost question at all, instead asserting that the practices are common to all parties and that Liberals voted against a full investigation at committee.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I guess the Liberals have not yet decided what they will do on the throne speech and have nothing else to talk about. Certainly I can tell the member this. What I do know--
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, the practices that our party is engaged in are the same as all other parties. In fact, we wanted to shine a light on that by inviting the procedure and House affairs committee to do a thorough study into the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party and their use of transfers between national parties and riding associations dating back to 1997. We were happy about a full investigation but they voted against it.
Murphy asks whether the Prime Minister will reimburse Canadians for legal costs if the investigation finds the Conservative Party guilty, contrasting the government's refusal to fund minority-language rights lawyers with its willingness to fund partisan legal defence.
Draws a specific contrast between the government's refusal to fund minority-language rights lawyers and its willingness to fund partisan legal defence, and asks whether the Prime Minister will reimburse Canadians if found guilty.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre rĂ©pondra-t-il Ă ces questions? L'an dernier, les conservateurs ont admis avoir violĂ© la Loi sur le financement des campagnes Ă©lectorales, et qu'ils devaient soumettre de nouveau leurs Ă©tats financiers. Ils ne veulent pas dĂ©penser leur argent pour payer des avocats qui dĂ©fendent les droits des minoritĂ©s linguistiques de ma province. Toutefois, ils vont payer des avocats chargĂ©s de dĂ©fendre leurs intĂ©rĂȘts partisans. Si l'enquĂȘte conclut que le Parti conservateur est coupable, le premier ministre remboursera-t-il aux Canadiens ses frais d'avocats?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister respond to these questions? Last year, the Conservatives admitted that they had violated the election financing laws and they had to resubmit their financial statements. They do not want to spend their money on lawyers who defend the rights of linguistic minorities in my province, yet they will pay lawyers to defend their partisan interests. If the investigation finds that the Conservative Party is guilty, will the Prime Minister reimburse Canadians for his legal bills?
Van Loan states only that the party always complies with the law and did so in this case, without addressing the reimbursement question.
Van Loan offers only a one-sentence boilerplate assertion of always complying with the law, without addressing the cost reimbursement question or the contrast about minority-language rights funding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, of course we always comply with the law. We did in this particular case and we always will in the future.
Redman asks when the government will end its appeal against Elections Canada and admit it broke the law, noting that the parliamentary committee investigating the issue was shut down by the Conservative government.
References the committee shutdown and the upcoming election context, and asks a clear question â when will the government end its appeal against Elections Canada and admit it broke the law â but the framing is heavily partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is refusing to be honest with Canadians about what it did during the last election while it campaigned on accountability. We need look no further than the parliamentary committee that was investigating this very issue which was shut down by the Conservative government, silenced. Canadians deserve to know what the government did during the last election before they are plunged into another election. When will the government end its appeal against Elections Canada and simply admit that it broke the law?
Van Loan says the Conservatives do not want an election and that it will be the Liberals' decision to call one, then asserts it was the Liberal Party that voted against the committee study.
Van Loan deflects entirely to who will cause an election and then claims it was the Liberal Party that shut down the committee study, neither addressing the appeal nor engaging with the law-breaking allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our party will not plunge this country into an election. We want to govern and we want to govern until 2009. If we are to be plunged into an election, we know who will make that decision. It will be the folks right across the aisle. I remind members that the people who shut down the investigation, the inquiry and the study at the procedure and House affairs committee were not members of the Conservative Party. It was the Liberal Party that voted against it. I have the minutes right here if members want to look at them.
Redman asks why the Conservative government will not admit it broke the law in the last election, citing over $1.2 million in national advertising expenses laundered through local campaigns and over $780,000 in taxpayer-funded rebates to 66 Conservative riding associations.
Cites specific dollar figures ($1.2 million in national advertising and $780,000 in taxpayer-funded rebates) and names 66 Conservative riding associations, giving the question factual grounding, though the ask repeats the prior exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives laundered over $1.2 million in national advertising expenses through local campaigns, which is against the law. Even worse, they tried to pad bank accounts of 66 Conservative riding associations with over $780,000 with taxpayer funded rebates, again against the law. They have done everything they can to avoid coming clean: shutting down parliamentary hearings with prorogation and taking Elections Canada to court. Why will the Conservative government not admit that it broke the law in the last election and finally be honest with Canadians?
Van Loan describes Liberal grouped advertising buys and promotional materials purchases as identical to what the Conservatives are accused of, and references the Auditor General's condemnation of Liberals for using public money to fund campaigns.
Van Loan pivots entirely to describing Liberal grouped advertising and lawn sign practices as equivalent, and references the member for LaSalleâĂmard, never addressing the specific dollar figures cited or the question of admitting law-breaking.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me illuminate for Canadians how the Liberal Party has practised this. For years, its advertising, its promotional materials and even its lawn signs have been purchased by grouped purchases and grouped advertising buys, exactly the same thing they are complaining we did. That is why so many of them had a picture of the member for LaSalleâĂmard on their signs as they went down to defeat in that election after they were guilty of taking the public's money to fund their campaigns on the side, as condemned by the Auditor General and judged by Canadians quite harshly.
Will the Minister of Finance respect the Quebec consensus and abandon his pan-Canadian securities commission project, which the National Assembly, the Autorité des marchés financiers, and the Bourse de Montréal all oppose?
Cites specific institutions (Assemblée nationale, Autorité des marchés financiers, Bourse de Montréal) and their positions, and asks a clear yes/no accountability question about renouncing the pan-Canadian securities commission.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans le discours du TrĂŽne, le gouvernement se targue, d'un cĂŽtĂ©, de faire un fĂ©dĂ©ralisme d'ouverture et dit que chaque ordre de gouvernement doit ĂȘtre respectĂ©, mais de l'autre, il nous annonce du mĂȘme souffle une rĂ©glementation pancanadienne pour centraliser le secteur financier Ă Toronto. Pourtant, au QuĂ©bec, l'AssemblĂ©e nationale, l'AutoritĂ© des marchĂ©s financiers et la Bourse de MontrĂ©al se sont prononcĂ©s contre la mise en place d'un organisme centralisĂ©. Le ministre des Finances entend-il respecter le consensus quĂ©bĂ©cois et nous annoncer qu'il renonce Ă aller de l'avant avec son projet de commission des valeurs mobiliĂšres pancanadienne qui va Ă l'encontre des compĂ©tences exclusives et des intĂ©rĂȘts du QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the government boasts, in one breath, about having an open federalism and respecting each level of government and then, in the next breath, it announces Canada-wide regulations to centralize the financial sector in Toronto. Yet, in Quebec, the National Assembly, the Autorité des marchés financiers, and the Montreal Stock Exchange stated that they were against the establishment of a centralized commission. Does the Minister of Finance intend to respect the Quebec consensus and announce that he will not be going ahead with his project for a pan-Canadian securities commission which infringes on the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec and runs counter to its interests?
Flaherty said the government intends to act within federal constitutional power over trade and commerce, and clarified that the proposal is for a common securities regulator, not a federal one.
Flaherty engages the topic by distinguishing a 'common securities regulator' from a 'federal securities regulator' and affirms intent to respect constitutional authority, but does not directly answer whether he will abandon the project as Quebec demands.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie le dĂ©putĂ© de sa question. Il a dit que notre gouvernement estime que les compĂ©tences constitutionnelles de chaque ordre de gouvernement doivent ĂȘtre respectĂ©es. Our intention is to act within the federal constitutional power with respect to all matters relating to trade and commerce in Canada. Certainly we intend to respect the constitutional authority, as it is, of the various provinces with respect to various issues. I remind the member opposite that the call is not for a federal securities regulator but for a common securities regulator.
Given that the World Bank, OECD, and two Université Laval professors say a single agency would cost more and be less efficient, and given the Quebec finance minister and all opposition parties in Quebec are against it, how can the minister justify continuing with his pan-Canadian commission?
Cites a University of Laval study and references the World Bank and OECD as sources saying the current system performs well, and asks how the minister can justify the project given this evidence and Quebec's unanimous opposition.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est d'ailleurs cette prise de position qui a Ă©tĂ© dĂ©noncĂ©e par l'AssemblĂ©e nationale du QuĂ©bec. Le ministre parle des deux cĂŽtĂ©s de la bouche en mĂȘme temps, dans le mĂȘme discours du TrĂŽne. C'est ce qu'on dĂ©nonce aujourd'hui. AprĂšs la Banque mondiale et l'OCDE, qui disent que le systĂšme actuel est trĂšs performant, deux professeurs de l'UniversitĂ© Laval ajoutent, dans une Ă©tude, qu'une agence unique coĂ»terait plus cher et serait moins efficace. Comment le ministre peut-il continuer Ă justifier son projet quand tous les faits lui prouvent le contraire, quand la ministre des Finances du QuĂ©bec et les partis d'opposition Ă QuĂ©bec sont contre son projet? Quand comprendra-t-il que le QuĂ©bec ne veut pas de sa commission pancanadienne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it was this position that was denounced by the National Assembly of Quebec. The minister is speaking out of both sides of his mouth in the same Throne Speech. That is what we are condemning today. In addition to the World Bank and the OECD, which have stated that the current system works very well, two professors from Laval University have added, in a study, that a single organization would be more expensive and less effective. How can the minister continue to justify his project when all the facts are against it, when the Quebec minister of finance and the opposition parties in Quebec oppose his project? When will he understand that Quebec does not want his pan-Canadian commission?
Flaherty said the proposal respects provincial constitutional powers because it is a common regulator agreed to by provinces and the federal government, and noted that Quebec's finance minister has called for national enforcement of securities rules.
Flaherty again distinguishes 'common' from 'federal' regulator and introduces the counter-point that Quebec's finance minister called for national enforcement, which is partially relevant but does not address the cited studies or explain how the project is justified against Quebec's opposition.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I say, I certainly intend to respect the constitutional powers of Quebec and the other provinces but what is called for is a common securities regulator. When one deals with a common securities regulator we are not dealing with constitutional issues because the provinces and the federal government would agree. I would remind the member opposite also that the Minister of Finance in Quebec has called for national enforcement with respect to securities which necessarily involves the Government of Canada.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the government's plan uses intensity targets rather than absolute targets, meaning overall pollution could still increase, mirroring George Bush's approach?
The question makes a substantive distinction between intensity targets and absolute targets, with a policy-relevant implication, but frames it as a comparison to George Bush rather than a single precise answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le gouvernement dit qu'il veut inclure des cibles obligatoires pour lutter efficacement contre les gaz Ă effet de serre, mais ce qu'il ne dit pas, c'est que ce sont des cibles d'intensitĂ© et non des cibles absolues qu'il a en tĂȘte. Cela signifie que mĂȘme si on pollue moins avec chaque baril de pĂ©trole mais qu'on en produit plus, le rĂ©sultat final est que la pollution, loin de diminuer, augmentera. Le premier ministre admettra-t-il que c'est cela la rĂ©alitĂ©, la mĂȘme approche que celle de son ami George Bush?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government says it wants to include mandatory targets to effectively deal with greenhouse gases, but what it is not saying is that what is has in mind are intensity targets, not absolute targets. This means that even if we pollute less with every barrel of oil, but we produce more oil, we end up with more pollution, not less. Will the Prime Minister admit that such is the reality, the same approach as his friend George Bush?
Baird denied the characterization, asserting the program targets absolute reductions in greenhouse gases, and criticized the BQ for overseeing a 33% increase in GHG emissions during its years in opposition.
Baird flatly denied the characterization and claimed the program aims at absolute reductions, but provided no data or specifics to back this up, and pivoted to attacking the BQ's record of a 33% increase in GHG emissions.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je souhaite corriger mon collĂšgue de RosemontâLa Petite-Patrie. Ce n'est pas du tout le cas. Notre programme vise une rĂ©duction absolue des gaz Ă effet de serre alors que, pendant les 10 longues annĂ©es oĂč ce dĂ©putĂ© a Ă©tĂ© porte-parole de son parti politique, on a connu une augmentation de 33 p. 100 des gaz Ă effet de serre. PrĂ©sentement, ce gouvernement agit beaucoup plus que le gouvernement prĂ©cĂ©dent.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct my colleague from RosemontâLa Petite-Patrie. That is not the case at all. Our program will ensure an absolute reduction of greenhouse gases. In the 10 long years that the member was critic for his party, there was a 33% increase in greenhouse gases. This government is getting a lot more done than the previous government did.
Where in Canada does the Prime Minister intend to establish the future carbon exchange â in MontrĂ©al, Toronto, or elsewhere?
Asks a clear, single, specific geographic question about where the carbon exchange will be located (Montréal, Toronto, or elsewhere), which is directly answerable.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la rĂ©alitĂ© est que le programme des conservateurs vise Ă torpiller le Protocole de Kyoto. VoilĂ la rĂ©alitĂ©. Le gouvernement prend aussi l'engagement de mettre en place une bourse du carbone. Ma question est simple. Le premier ministre peut-il nous dire oĂč, au Canada, il compte installer cette future bourse: Ă MontrĂ©al, Ă Toronto ou ailleurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Conservatives' program will kill the Kyoto protocol. That is the reality. The government is also promising to set up a carbon exchange. My question is simple. Can the Prime Minister tell us where, in Canada, he intends to set up this future exchange: Montreal, Toronto, or somewhere else?
Baird said the directors of the Montreal and Toronto exchanges have stated it is a market decision, not one made in Ottawa's corridors, and emphasized that Canada will have a carbon exchange for the first time.
Baird said it is a market decision and cited the heads of the Montreal and Toronto stock exchanges as having stated this, which is tangentially relevant but avoids giving any government position on location.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je serai trÚs clair. Les directeurs des Bourses de Montréal et de Toronto ont été trÚs clairs. Ils disent que c'est le marché qui dicte cette décision, que ce n'est pas une décision qui se prend dans les corridors ici, à Ottawa. C'est ce qu'a fait le directeur de la Bourse de Montréal. Nous sommes trÚs occupés à travailler sur ce dossier. Pour la premiÚre fois, on aura une bourse au Canada. C'est quelque chose qu'on n'a jamais eu pendant les 10 premiÚres années du mandat de ce député.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear. The directors of the Montreal and Toronto exchanges were very clear. They are saying that the market will determine this decision and that it is not a decision to be made in the halls here in Ottawa. That is what the director of the Montreal exchange said. We are very busy working on this file. For the first time, Canada will have an exchange. That is something we never had in the first 10 years of that member's mandate.
Will the Prime Minister direct Conservative campaign chair John Reynolds and campaign director Doug Finley, named in court documents in connection with an alleged bribe to drop a mayoralty candidacy in exchange for a federal appointment, to step aside until the police investigation concludes?
References court documents naming Conservative campaign chair John Reynolds and campaign director Doug Finley, and makes a specific ask â that those officials step aside during the police investigation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives pretend that they are interested in accountability. Some joke. The police are now investigating allegations that a mayoralty candidate was bribed to drop out of the race in exchange for a federal appointment. Conservative campaign chair John Reynolds and the Prime Minister's campaign director Doug Finley have also been named by Conservative staff in court documents. Will the Prime Minister tell his officials to step aside from any role within the Conservative government or the party until the conclusion of the police investigation?
Van Loan said absolutely nothing improper took place, no appointment was made, no offer was ever made, and that when the minister was approached with the suggestion he called it crazy.
Van Loan flatly denied any impropriety and said no appointment or offer was made, briefly quoting the minister's reaction, but did not address whether Reynolds and Finley would step aside as asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing improper took place on the part of this government or the Conservative Party. No appointment was made; no offer was ever made. In fact, when the minister was approached with the suggestion of an offer, he said it was crazy and he would never consider it. I have no idea why this is the best those members can come up with. It is a big difference from the days when appointments were made.
Why are John Reynolds and Doug Finley, named by the mayor of Ottawa and a government aide in police statements regarding an alleged offer of a Parole Board appointment, still working for the Prime Minister while under police investigation?
Cites the mayor of Ottawa's admission to police about discussions with Mr. Reynolds and an aide's statement to police about Doug Finley, making a specific ask about why the two men are still working for the Prime Minister while under police investigation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Ottawa has admitted to police that he and Mr. Reynolds discussed giving his political rival a Parole Board appointment. An aide to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board told police that the offer was in the works through Doug Finley. It is time that the Prime Minister stop hiding and tell the truth. Why is he defending these two men? Why are they still working for him while they are under police investigation?
Van Loan stated simply that no offer was ever made and no appointment was ever given, without addressing the status of Reynolds and Finley in their roles.
Van Loan repeated only that no offer was made and no appointment given, and did not address whether Reynolds and Finley remain in their roles or why, failing to answer the specific question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the facts are pretty simple. From this government's side, no offer was ever made, no appointment ever given.
How does the Prime Minister know constituent Michelle Kofman's religious affiliation, and how did his office obtain her personal information to send her Rosh Hashanah greetings?
Cites a specific constituent (Michelle Kofman) by name and asks two concrete, answerable questions: how the government knows her religious affiliation and how it obtained her personal information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a number of my constituents were recipients of mysterious Rosh Hashanah greetings from the Prime Minister. It was a mystery because they had no idea they were on such a government mailing list. One constituent, Michelle Kofman, was one of those Canadians. She wants to know two things: how does the Prime Minister know her religious affiliation and how did his office get her personal information?
Kenney said all party leaders send holiday greetings using publicly available lists and the government makes no apology for celebrating Canada's Jewish community's high holidays as part of its commitment to multiculturalism.
Kenney did not address either specific question â how religious affiliation was known or how personal information was obtained â and instead defended the practice of sending holiday greetings as analogous to Christmas mailings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all members of this House I suspect, certainly all party leaders, send holiday greetings around the time of Christmas to millions of Canadians on publicly available lists. We make no apology for doing the same thing with Canada's Jewish community to celebrate their important high holidays as well. We believe, unlike the Liberals, in multiculturalism and celebrating all of our cultural communities' holidays and important dates.
Why is the government compiling lists of Canadians according to their religious and ethnic affiliation, given that the Privacy Commissioner has been asked to investigate?
Notes the Privacy Commissioner investigation and asks a pointed, answerable question about why the government is compiling lists of Canadians categorized by religious and ethnic affiliation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Ms. Kofman and Canadians deserve a full and complete answer from the government. The Privacy Commissioner has been asked to investigate, one of three investigations involving the Prime Minister and the Conservative government. Why is the government compiling lists of Canadians according to their religious and ethnic affiliation?
Kenney joked about not launching an investigation over a Christmas card and said the government believes in sharing greetings with Canadians from all cultural and religious backgrounds, making no apology for doing so.
Kenney made a joke about Christmas cards and investigations and reiterated that Canada is a beautiful mosaic, entirely avoiding the specific question about the compilation and use of lists based on religious and ethnic affiliation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I promise the member opposite that if she sends me a Christmas card, I am not going to launch an investigation. The fact of the matter is that Canada is a beautiful mosaic made up of people of different cultural and religious backgrounds. This government believes in sharing greetings with Canadians from all of those backgrounds at important times in different cultural and religious communities. We make no apology for doing so.
Could the Minister of Justice explain how the government's justice agenda will help make communities safer?
A government-backbench softball citing a survey to invite the minister to outline the justice agenda, with no accountability purpose.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, fighting crime is a priority of all governments because safer communities are a priority for Canadians. I know this because I hear concerns from my constituents about violent criminals, auto theft and drug dealers. According to a recent survey two-thirds of Canadians support our government's approach to criminal justice. Could the Minister of Justice tell the House how our justice agenda will help make our communities safer?
Nicholson said the government will introduce the tackling violent crime bill and make improvements to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and noted this contrasts with the Liberal Party's approach.
Nicholson named specific upcoming measures â the tackling violent crime bill and improvements to the Youth Criminal Justice Act â providing some real informational content despite also attacking the Liberals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for all her efforts to fight crime in this country. My colleagues and I have been right across the country this summer explaining and discussing with Canadians our crime fighting agenda. This is in contrast to the Liberal Party. It has been talking about fighting this summer, but that is just within the Liberal Party. That is not the same thing as fighting crime. We will be introducing the tackling violent crime bill. We will be making improvements to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. As I said to some of my colleagues when they asked me about this, we are just getting started.
Why won't the Minister of Finance take the simple, concrete step of eliminating abusive ATM fees to benefit the middle class, rather than a GST cut that benefits the wealthy far more?
Uses a concrete numerical illustration (100 000 $ luxury car vs. 100 $ children's clothing) to contrast GST benefits, and ends with a specific actionable ask about removing abusive ATM fees, but combines two distinct issues.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la personne fortunĂ©e qui s'achĂšte une voiture de luxe de 100 000 $ vient de recevoir un cadeau de 1000 $ sous forme d'une rĂ©duction de 1 p. 100 de la TPS. De son cĂŽtĂ©, une famille typique, pour qui un achat de 100 $ de vĂȘtements pour les enfants constitue un achat important, recevra un dollar. Le ministre des Finances peut-il nous dire pourquoi il ne pose pas un geste simple et concret dans l'intĂ©rĂȘt de la classe moyenne, c'est-Ă -dire en enlevant les frais abusifs aux distributeurs automatiques de billets aux guichets automatiques?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, anyone fortunate enough to buy a $100,000 luxury car receives a $1,000 gift, thanks to the 1% cut in the GST. On the other hand, the average family, which might struggle to spend $100 on clothing for their children, receives $1. Can the Minister of Finance tell us why he refuses to take simple, concrete action in the interest of the middle class, particularly, by removing the exorbitant fees charged at ATMs?
Flaherty defended the GST reduction as a tax cut benefiting every Canadian, including those who do not pay income tax, and accused both the Liberals and NDP of opposing it.
Flaherty ignored the ATM fee question entirely and instead defended the GST reduction as a universal tax cut, while falsely framing the NDP as opposed to reducing the GST.
Source text
I knew, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberals are against reducing the GST. I did not know that the NDP is also against reducing the GST, which after all is a tax cut that benefits every Canadian who makes purchases across Canada, including Canadians who do not pay income tax.
Why do workers have to pay abusive ATM fees of $3 to access their own money, and why has the minister not acted on this after being turned down flat by the banks when he asked them to reduce these fees last year?
Focuses the question specifically on abusive ATM fees, notes that the minister was previously turned down by the banks, and asks why workers must pay $3 to access their own money â a clear and specific policy ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I know it was my first question, but I was actually expecting a response, so I will be a little bit more direct.
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister of Finance went cap in hand to the banks to ask them to reduce abusive ATM fees. He was turned down flat and sent packing. Why should a worker whose paycheque is deposited automatically by his employer have to give the bank president a $3 tip to have access to his own money? Why does he have to pay these abusive ATM fees?
Flaherty welcomed the member to his portfolio and quoted Bob Rae from 1994 expressing support for eliminating the GST, which had no connection to the ATM fee question.
Flaherty entirely ignored the ATM fee question and instead used the time to quote Bob Rae on the GST from 1994, which has no connection to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member to his portfolio as finance critic. I think the question was about the GST, at least the first question. I remind him that a very learned member of the NDP said, âI just as soon that they got rid of the GST and do something else. I haven't given up on Mr. Jean ChrĂ©tien keeping his promise and keeping his word in getting rid of the GSTâ. That was Bob Rae in 1994 who was NDP then and who now I think is a Liberal. It is very confusing when it comes to GST and the opposition parties.
Will the Prime Minister stop misleading Nova Scotians and apologize for turning the Atlantic accord into an either-or proposition instead of a benefit above and beyond equalization, as originally promised?
Makes a substantive claim that the Prime Minister's resolution turned the Atlantic accord into an either-or proposition, but frames it with 'bully the weak premier' rhetoric and ends with a vague demand to stop misleading and apologize.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated that he resolved the issue of the Nova Scotia offshore agreement. He has not. What he has done, Mr. Speaker, is--
Oh, oh!
What he has really done, Mr. Speaker, is bully the weak premier into accepting a lesser deal. The Atlantic accord was supposed to be to Nova Scotia's benefit above and beyond any benefits or revenues coming from equalization or any other program. He has turned it into an either-or proposition for Nova Scotians. When will the Prime Minister stop misleading Nova Scotians and apologize to Nova Scotians?
MacKay said most Nova Scotians applauded the Prime Minister and Premier Rodney MacDonald for resolving a misunderstanding about the budget interpretation of the Atlantic accord, and said issues around the Crown's share were finally resolved.
MacKay said most Nova Scotians applauded the Prime Minister and Premier MacDonald for resolving the issue and that issues around the Crown's share were finally resolved, but provided no specifics about the deal's terms.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, quite to the contrary, most Nova Scotians to whom I have talked have been applauding the Prime Minister and Premier Rodney MacDonald for putting an end to a misunderstanding about the budget interpretation, the Atlantic accord. What we see happening is a Liberal member who does not like good news. He certainly does not like to see issues that the Liberals struggled with for so many years, particularly issues around the Crown's share, finally resolved by a fair-minded, flexible Prime Minister. That is what has happened.
With no document, agreement, analysis, or proof of the claimed resolution of the Atlantic accord issue, why should Nova Scotians believe the minister, given his track record of breaking commitments?
Points to the absence of any document, agreement, analysis, or proof for the claimed resolution of the Atlantic accord issue, and asks why Nova Scotians should believe the minister given his prior record of breaking commitments, including to David Orchard.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ministre politique de la Nouvelle-Ăcosse a reniĂ© une entente signĂ©e avec David Orchard et a affirmĂ© en cette Chambre qu'un dĂ©putĂ© conservateur pouvait voter contre le budget, et cela, sans qu'il y ait de rĂ©percussions. On en connaĂźt les consĂ©quences pour le dĂ©putĂ© de CumberlandâColchesterâMusquodoboit Valley. Maintenant, il prĂ©tend avoir rĂ©solu la question de l'accord de l'Atlantique, mais cela, sans qu'il y ait aucun document, aucune entente, aucune analyse et aucune preuve. Pourquoi les NĂ©o-Ăcossais devraient-ils croire ce ministre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the political minister for Nova Scotia reneged on an agreement signed with David Orchard and said in this House that a Conservative member could vote against the budget and not face any repercussions. We all know what happened to the hon. member for CumberlandâColchesterâMusquodoboit Valley. Now, he claims to have resolved the Atlantic accord issue, but without any documentation, agreement, analysis or proof. Why should Nova Scotians believe this minister?
MacKay dismissed the question as bluster, said Nova Scotians are pleased with progress under the Conservative Party, and attacked the member's record on the Digby wharf and Digby ferry.
MacKay called the question bluster and wind, claimed Nova Scotians are pleased, and pivoted to attacking the member's record on the Digby wharf and Digby ferry, entirely avoiding the question about the absence of documentation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotians and particularly members of his own riding have become accustomed to this type of bluster and wind coming from the member opposite. In fact, if he were a car, he would run on a mix of adrenalin and vitriol, but the truth on this issue is that Nova Scotians are extremely pleased to see the issue around the offshore deal now put to rest. They are glad to see an Atlantic gateway underway. They are glad to see the progress that is happening throughout Atlantic Canada under the Conservative Party, unlike messes around the Digby wharf and the devolution of the Digby ferry, all of these issues that happened under the former minister's watch. He made a mess in his riding. We are cleaning it up.
The Daily News reported that under the new arrangement the province gives up all claim to all entitlements guaranteed in the Atlantic Accord â when will the government produce a copy of the agreement so it can be assessed?
Cites a specific newspaper article (The Daily News, Halifax) and a specific claim within it that 'the province also gives up all claim to all entitlements guaranteed in the Atlantic Accord,' and asks the single, precise, answerable question of when the government will produce a copy of the agreement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, The Daily News in Halifax wrote an article the other day. It said that under the new arrangement to which the minister just referred, â--the province also gives up all claim to all entitlements guaranteed in the Atlantic Accordâ. That line sends a shiver down the spine of every Nova Scotian. I do not think it is right. I hope it is not right, but the fact of the matter is that we just do not have a signed agreement that we can check to see whether it is right or not. When will the government just produce a copy of the agreement so that we can all assess it and decide whether it is a good deal?
MacKay said former Premier John Hamm and current Premier Rodney MacDonald believe it is a good deal for Nova Scotia, and described the benefits as including the full Atlantic accord plus the Crown share left out under the previous government.
MacKay said former Premier John Hamm thinks it is a good deal and described benefits including Crown share and the equalization formula, but did not produce or commit to producing the agreement as specifically requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's interest in this issue. I know he has followed it over the summer. I also understand that he has had the opportunity to speak to not only the current Premier, Rodney MacDonald, but he has also had the opportunity to speak to former Premier John Hamm who thinks this is a good deal for Nova Scotia, as do most Nova Scotians. This allows us to be the full beneficiaries of the Atlantic accord with the additional portion of Crown share that was left out under the previous government. This speaks well to the future of Nova Scotia's offshore and our ability to be the primary beneficiaries of both the accord and the new equalization formula.
Since former Premier John Hamm has not seen the contract and the Nova Scotia finance minister's exchange of letters promised federal amendments to reverse changes to the equalization formula made in the 2007 budget, when will the minister table those amendments as promised?
Cites former Premier John Hamm's own admission of not having seen the contract, references the Nova Scotia finance minister's exchange of letters, and asks specifically when the minister will table the amendments promised in those letters â a clear, accountable, answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the House that I did have the opportunity to talk to former Premier John Hamm. I asked him if he had seen a copy of the contract. He said, âNo, I haven'tâ. So, I do not know how he came to the conclusion, but I have great respect for John Hamm. None of us have seen the contract. There was an exchange of letters. The minister of finance for Nova Scotia said that the federal minister will make amendments to the 2007 budget to reverse the changes to the equalization formula made in the 2007 budget. There is no reference to this in the throne speech, so when will the minister table the amendments as promised in the exchange of letters?
MacKay expressed surprise at the member casting doubt on former Premier Hamm's position and urged him to set aside his personal crusade and work more productively in Nova Scotia's interests, without addressing the question of tabling amendments.
MacKay did not address the question of tabling amendments at all, instead expressing surprise at the member casting doubt on Hamm's position, accusing him of pursuing a personal crusade, and urging him to work in Nova Scotia's interests.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised, quite frankly, to see the member for CumberlandâColchesterâMusquodoboit Valley now casting doubt on the position put forward by former Premier Hamm. I know he is very concerned about the details and also very concerned about his own personal situation. We just wish that he would work a little bit more productively in the interests of Nova Scotians, put his own personal crusade aside, and accept what is good for his province.
Lalonde asks whether the government has already decided Canada will stay in the Kandahar region until 2011, making the Manley committee merely a device to present parliament with a fait accompli.
The question identifies a specific tension between the Manley committee mandate and the Throne Speech's 2011 commitment, posing a clear and answerable accountability question about whether the outcome is predetermined.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la position du gouvernement sur l'Afghanistan est pour le moins paradoxale. Alors qu'il vient de nommer un comité d'experts dirigé par John Manley pour faire le point sur la mission canadienne en Afghanistan, on nous apprend, dans le discours du TrÎne, que le mandat de la mission s'étendra jusqu'en 2011. Doit-on comprendre que le gouvernement a déjà décidé que le Canada restera dans la région de Kandahar jusqu'en 2011 et que la création du comité, finalement, n'était qu'un moyen pour nous mettre devant le fait accompli?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government's position on Afghanistan is paradoxical, to say the least. It has just appointed a panel of experts headed by John Manley to review Canada's mission in Afghanistan, yet we learned from the throne speech that the mandate for the mission will be extended until 2011. Are we to understand that the government has already decided that Canada will remain in the Kandahar region until 2011 and that creating the panel was merely a way of presenting us with a fait accompli?
Bernier cites page 7 of the Throne Speech to argue the government simply does not believe Canada should abandon Afghanistan after February 2009, and frames the mission as humanitarian within a NATO and UN context.
Bernier quotes directly from page 7 of the Throne Speech but only addresses the post-2009 framing, not the core contradiction between commissioning an expert review and simultaneously announcing a 2011 end date.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je m'aperçois que ma collĂšgue n'a pas bien lu le discours du TrĂŽne d'hier. J'aimerais citer un extrait de la page 7 du discours du TrĂŽne qui est trĂšs prĂ©cis Ă cet effet: « Notre gouvernement ne croit pas que le Canada doive simplement abandonner le peuple dâAfghanistan aprĂšs fĂ©vrier 2009. » Cela est dit clairement. C'est une mission humanitaire, menĂ©e avec l'ensemble des pays des Nations Unies et aussi ceux de l'OTAN. Nous sommes fiers de cette participation pour dĂ©fendre les droits humains en Afghanistan.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my colleague did not read yesterday's throne speech very carefully. I would like to quote from page 7 of the speech, which is very clear on this: âOur Government does not believe that Canada should simply abandon the people of Afghanistan after February 2009â. That is clear. We are engaged in a humanitarian mission with all the United Nations and NATO countries. We are proud to be taking part in a mission to defend human rights in Afghanistan.
Bachand argues that $20 billion in military procurement promises last year, with more announced in the Throne Speech, proves the Conservative government prioritizes the military component over the humanitarian component of the Afghanistan mission.
The question raises a real concern about military-versus-humanitarian balance and references $20 billion in military procurement promises, but is heavily rhetorical and contains a partisan personal jab, and does not pose a single clear answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ministre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres devrait lire le discours lui-mĂȘme plutĂŽt que de manger des Jos Louis et en distribuer en Afghanistan. Le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois exige depuis des mois le rĂ©tablissement du volet humanitaire et de l'Ă©quilibre entre l'humanitaire et le militaire dans la mission canadienne en Afghanistan. Or, hier, dans le discours du TrĂŽne, qu'apprend-on? On apprend qu'on procĂ©dera encore Ă des achats de matĂ©riel militaire. Il y a eu 20 milliards de dollars de promesses d'achat l'an passĂ©, et on en rajoute cette annĂ©e. Cela signifie une chose, cela trahit une chose de ce Parti conservateur, soit que le volet militaire a nettement prĂ©sĂ©ance sur le reste des choses. C'est absolument inacceptable pour nous.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs should read the speech himself instead of eating Joe Louis and handing them out in Afghanistan. For months, the Bloc Québécois has been calling on the government to restore the humanitarian side of the mission and the balance between Canada's humanitarian and military activities in Afghanistan. But what did we learn from the throne speech yesterday? We learned that the government will be buying more military equipment. The government made $20 billion in spending promises last year and is making additional promises this year. What this means is that for the Conservative Party, the military side of the mission takes precedence over everything else. We find this absolutely unacceptable.
Bernier asserts that security and development are inseparable, and that Canada's approach in Afghanistan alongside allies like France and England reflects this principle.
Bernier offers only a general principle that security and development are linked, without addressing the specific procurement figures or the Bloc's demand to restore the humanitarian component of the mission.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, tout comme l'ensemble de la communauté internationale, nous savons tous qu'il ne peut y avoir de développement sans sécurité, qu'il ne peut y avoir de développement économique sans sécurité, qu'il ne peut y avoir de respect des droits humains sans sécurité. C'est donc important et les deux sont liés. C'est ce que nous faisons en Afghanistan, avec l'ensemble de nos collÚgues, avec la France, l'Angleterre et bien d'autres pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, like the rest of the international community, we all know that there can be no development without security, that there can be no economic development without security, that there can be no respect for human rights without security. The two are linked, and this is important. That is why we are in Afghanistan with our colleagues from France, England and many other countries.
Pearson asks when the Prime Minister will break his silence on Darfur and work with all parties to create a course of action the House can be proud of.
The question is emotionally framed around personal experience and asks broadly when the Prime Minister will 'break the silence' without specifying a policy action, making the ask vague and difficult to answer concretely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for the people of Darfur, time is running out. In late August my wife and I adopted two more children from Darfur. Each night I hear their nightmares and I am challenged as a father to know how best to respond. Right now there are millions of such nightmares taking place in Darfur, and we as a peacekeeping country are being challenged to take action. We can no longer afford our silence. So I ask, when will the Prime Minister break the silence and work with all parties here and create a course of action that every one of us in this House can be proud of?
Bernier states Canada is the fourth-largest donor to the African Union, is working with the UN and the African Union toward a peace process, and links this to the Throne Speech's promotion of universal values.
Bernier states Canada is the fourth-largest donor to the African Union and references UN and AU peace process work, providing some relevant context, but does not address the specific ask about the Prime Minister taking action or working with all parties.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'engagement du Canada au Soudan, au Darfour, est un engagement trÚs important pour notre pays. En effet, le Canada est le quatriÚme donateur au niveau de l'aide internationale pour l'Union africaine. Nous travaillons aussi avec l'ONU et l'Union africaine pour nous assurer de pouvoir arriver à un processus de paix dans ce pays. C'est pour cela que, dans le discours du TrÎne, nous avons bien dit que nous faisions la promotion des valeurs universelles que sont la liberté, la liberté d'expression, la démocratie. C'est cela que nous devons faire et nous allons continuer de le faire pour toujours, dans ce dossier-là tout comme dans d'autres dossiers aussi importants.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada's commitment to Sudan, to Darfur, is very important to our country. Canada is the fourth-largest contributor in international aid to the African Union. We are also working with the UN and the African Union towards a peace process. This is why, in the Speech from the Throne, we said that we were promoting the universal values of freedom, freedom of expression and democracy. This is what we must do and will always do with respect to this issue and others that are equally important.
Calkins asks the Minister of Industry to assure Canadians that the government is not and will not become protectionist on foreign investment.
This is a government-backbench softball that sets up the minister to reject a Liberal position and declare the government non-protectionist, with no real accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there has been wide coverage in the press of the issue of foreign investment specifically as it relates to concerns about national security and investments by foreign state-owned enterprises. Last spring the Liberal opposition leader wanted to take us back to the economic policies of the 1970s by calling for a moratorium on foreign investment. Will the Minister of Industry assure Canadians that the government is not, and will not become, protectionist?
Prentice says Canada is open for business but not for sale, identifies two specific gaps in the Investment Canada Act â the need for guidelines on state-owned enterprises and the absence of a national security test â and commits to examining both in autumn.
Prentice provides substantive information, announcing two specific policy directions: guidelines for state-owned enterprises with non-strictly commercial objectives and a new national security test to be examined in autumn, which is a concrete and informative response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our position is quite clear. Canada is open for business but is not for sale. Foreign investment is essential to our prosperity. That said, the Investment Canada framework, the Investment Canada Act, is not perfect. First, we will proceed with situations where there is a non-strictly commercial objective and unclear governance that may not be beneficial to Canada in the context of state-owned enterprises. I am currently examining the need for guidelines in such circumstances. Second, unlike many other countries, including our trading partners, Canada does not have a national security test. We will be looking at that this autumn. We will protect the interests of Canadians while advancing foreign investment in our country.
Davies asks when the Prime Minister will stop ignoring the will of the House and bring back the entire clean air and climate change act.
Davies references a specific bill â the clean air and climate change act â and raises the government's refusal to bring it back, but the question combines that specific ask with a broader rhetorical charge about the Prime Minister's respect for the House.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has repeatedly ignored the will of the House. He has no intention of honouring the decisions made by elected members. How can any member claiming to be committed to the environment let the throne speech pass when the government refuses to bring back the entire clean air and climate change act? When did the Prime Minister lose his respect for the House of Commons, and why does he have such disdain for this place and its members?
Baird argues that global warming has gone unaddressed too long and that the government is acting through mandatory regulations on big polluters, transportation initiatives, and energy conservation, and will not study the issue further.
Baird speaks generally about mandatory regulations and transportation and energy initiatives without addressing the specific question about bringing back the clean air and climate change act or responding to the charge of ignoring the will of the House.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the challenge of global warming has gone unaddressed in this country for far too long. Environmentalists and industry cannot come to a consensus. The premiers met this summer; they cannot come to a consensus. Neither can parties in this House. This government is acting in a big way through mandatory regulations requiring the big polluters to cut their emissions, new transportation initiatives to address that sector, as well as major initiatives in energy conservation and efficiency. We will not study any more. We will not research any more. This government is committed to acting and we are acting.
Davies asks whether the Prime Minister has lost his moral responsibility to respect the will of the House, citing broken promises on a public appointments commission, a seniors charter, veterans' benefits, and a parliamentary budget office.
Davies lists several specific unfulfilled commitments â public appointments commission, seniors charter, benefits for veterans, parliamentary budget office â grounding the question in concrete examples, though she then wraps it in a broad rhetorical framing about the Prime Minister's 'moral responsibility.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the truth is the government is ignoring the will of this House. The Prime Minister himself said that the Prime Minister has the moral responsibility to respect the will of the House. Despite promises and motions adopted in this House, there is no public appointments commission, no seniors charter, no benefits for veterans and no parliamentary budget office. I ask again, has the Prime Minister lost his moral responsibility to respect the votes in this House? When did he acquire such contempt for this place?
Baird asserts the government has a moral responsibility to act on global warming and lists spring regulations on big polluters, transportation initiatives, and energy efficiency programs.
Baird, as the Environment Minister, does not address any of the specific unfulfilled commitments Davies listed, instead repeating talking points about acting on global warming, making this a near-complete non-answer to the actual question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been abundantly clear that we have a moral responsibility to act on the global crisis that is global warming. We do not want to study this issue for another year. We do not want to put off action that is required. Just this spring we began to act by regulating for the first time in Canadian history the big polluters to clean up their act. There are more initiatives on transportation, on energy efficiency and on energy conservation and programs so that Canadians themselves can help in this global effort. We will not shirk our responsibilities. We are going to act.
Martin asks whether the government will contribute the troops and air and ground transport assets that the United Nations Secretary General has pleaded for, or turn its back on Darfur.
Martin grounds the question in a specific operational need identified by the UN Secretary General â troops, air and ground transport â and asks a clear binary question about whether Canada will contribute these assets.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know words will not save lives in Darfur; only action will. Mass murders and rapes continue. The situation is getting worse in that part of the Sudan. The United Nations Secretary General has pleaded for the resources for troops and for air and ground transport. Without these assets, the mission will likely fail. I have a simple question for the government. Will the government contribute to these assets for the UN, or will it turn its back and allow Darfur's agony to continue?
Bernier states Canada is the fourth-largest contributor to the African Union force and strongly supports the AU-UN political process on Darfur set to begin at the end of October.
Bernier repeats Canada's status as fourth-largest donor to the African Union force and references the upcoming AU-UN political process, but does not address the specific ask about contributing troops, air transport, or ground transport assets.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je l'ai dit tout à l'heure, nous contribuons effectivement. Nous sommes le quatriÚme donneur, si on compare avec les pays, pour la force de l'Union africaine. Je pense que c'est une contribution trÚs importante. De plus, en tant que pays, on appuie fermement le processus politique dirigé par l'Union africaine et les Nations Unies concernant le Darfour qui doit débuter bientÎt, à la fin de ce mois-ci.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we are contributing. We are the fourth-largest contributor to the African Union. I think that is a significant contribution. Furthermore, as a country, we strongly support the African Union and United Nations-led political process for Darfur which is to start soon, at the end of the month.
Dykstra asks the Minister of the Environment to describe how Canada showed real international leadership on the environment, referencing the recent international deal involving China to phase out harmful ozone-depleting chemicals.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the minister to tout Canada's international environmental leadership, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since we are on the topic of the environment, over the last few months Canada has been at the forefront of international action on climate change, including the leadership shown by the Prime Minister at the G-8, at APEC and at the United Nations. Last month Canada was part of a major international deal that involved countries like China to phase out harmful ozone-depleting chemicals. Could the Minister of the Environment tell the House how Canada is once again showing real international leadership on the world stage to fight pollution?
Baird describes the Montreal meeting four weeks ago where Canada helped accelerate by 10 years the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances, specifically HCFC, building on the 1987 Montreal Protocol negotiated by Brian Mulroney.
Baird provides specific information â Canada's participation in the Montreal meeting four weeks ago, an acceleration by 10 years of the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances, and names HCFC as the specific substance and potent greenhouse gas â making this a substantive and informative answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I note that today, three political parties asked questions on the environment, every party except for the official opposition. Four weeks ago the world gathered in Montreal to tackle ozone-depleting substances. We built on the Montreal protocol, which was first negotiated in 1987 by the then prime minister, Brian Mulroney. We were able to accelerate by 10 years the phase-out of these ozone-depleting substances, the worst being HCFC, which is a major and potent greenhouse gas. This government is not talking about taking action on the environment; we are delivering the goods.
The Speaker drew the attention of the House to visitors in the gallery and members responded with approval. No policy question was asked or answered.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Hear, hear!