Session overview
- Federal-provincial relations dominated Question Period, with multiple exchanges over the government's use of 'small man of Confederation' to describe Ontario Premier McGuinty, proposed parliamentary seat redistribution for Ontario, B.C., and Alberta, and the lack of a formal first ministers meeting.
- The Bloc Québécois pressed the government repeatedly on full retroactivity of Guaranteed Income Supplement payments to seniors, citing a 2005 Conservative vote in favour of the Bloc's own bill on the matter and a double standard in debt collection practices.
- Taser use by the RCMP following the death of a man at Vancouver airport generated questions from multiple parties; the Minister of Public Safety confirmed he had asked the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP to report by December 12.
- The government's policy on seeking clemency for Canadians sentenced to death in foreign democratic countries drew sustained criticism from both Liberal and Bloc members, with the Council of Europe's accusation of 'subcontracting the death penalty' cited repeatedly; the Minister of Justice declined to state categorically whether the death penalty is always wrong.
- Afghan detainee treatment, including the transfer of minors to Afghan prisons, was raised by both Liberal members; the Minister of National Defence stated Canadian Forces keep juvenile detainees separate from adults and comply with international conventions, while deflecting responsibility to the previous Liberal government's 'flawed arrangement.'
- The Minister of the Environment and Minister of Indian Affairs announced a land withdrawal near the east arm of the Great Slave Lake and the Ramparts River wetlands described as one of the largest land conservation initiatives in Canadian history; John Baird also faced questions on climate change ahead of the Bali conference and regarding the Magdalen Islands erosion threat.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs made a specific commitment that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Quebec social services were actively working to facilitate the child's return to Canada as early as possible, providing concrete information about the state of the consular case.
Gravel cites specific figures: $110 more per month per senior from indexation, a total cost of just over $710 million, compared to $532 million in tax reductions for oil companies in 2008 rising to $1.4 billion in 2012, making this one of the more data-grounded questions in this QP.
Asked directly and explicitly whether the government believes the death penalty is admissible under any circumstances â a yes-or-no question â the Minister of Justice responded only that the government has an 'outstanding record with respect to human rights at home and abroad,' completely refusing to answer the question posed.
Outstanding questions
- Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-GrĂąceâLachine) asked whether the government endorses the use of the death penalty in other countries and whether it believes the death penalty is admissible under any circumstances â never answered directly.
- Gilles Duceppe asked how the Prime Minister can reverse the Conservative commitment to full retroactivity of the Guaranteed Income Supplement â the minister never addressed the prior 2005 vote or the double standard on debt collection timelines.
- Denis Coderre asked how many minors have been transferred to Afghan prisons and why they are being transferred rather than rehabilitated â the Minister of National Defence confirmed a policy of separation but did not provide any numbers.
- Tina Keeper asked when the Prime Minister will table uncensored copies of all reports about Afghan detainees â the minister deflected entirely to criticism of the previous Liberal government without addressing the request.
- Raymond Gravel asked whether the government will grant seniors indexation of the Guaranteed Income Supplement â yes or no â and the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development did not answer directly, instead citing other measures and questioning why the Bloc opposes them.
Dion asks whether the House leader will apologize to Premier McGuinty and to the people of Ontario for his insult.
The question references a specific insult by the House leader toward Premier McGuinty but frames it rhetorically and asks for an apology rather than accountability on a policy matter.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for a government that made the ridiculous claim that it had ended federal-provincial bickering, it continues insulting the partners of this federation. The finance minister insulted Atlantic Canadians, the transport minister insulted Canada's mayors and now the House leader insulted the Premier of Ontario. Will the House leader, a member from Ontario, apologize to Premier McGuinty and to the people of Ontario for his insult?
Van Loan defends the legislation giving Ontario more seats and implies McGuinty was wrong to complain, coining the phrase 'small man of Confederation.'
Van Loan does not apologize or address whether the remark was appropriate, instead defending the legislation's merits and doubling down on calling McGuinty 'the small man of Confederation.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Ontario was complaining about a piece of legislation that proposes to give Ontario more seats in the legislature of Canada, the federal Parliament, than it is entitled to today under the current law. It is a provision that would give Ontario more new seats than any other province. What did the premier do? He complained about it, which is what I mean when I talk about the small man of Confederation. He would get more seats for his province and he complains.
Dion condemns the government for failing to hold a first ministers meeting in nearly two years despite the Quebec Premier's repeated requests, and asks how such conduct is defensible.
Dion notes that the government has not held a first ministers meeting in nearly two years and that the Quebec Premier has repeatedly requested one, but the exchange is largely a rhetorical condemnation rather than a sharp single question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, honte à ce ministre d'avoir insulté un premier ministre de ce pays! Mais qu'attendre d'un gouvernement qui, en prÚs de deux ans, n'a jamais consenti à une réunion des premiers ministres de ce pays. Quand le premier ministre du Québec, à plusieurs reprises, le lui a demandé pour de bonnes raisons, pour l'économie de ce pays, pour les travailleurs et les familles de ce pays, le premier ministre du Canada lui a dit de se contenter de réunions de salon. Honte à ce gouvernement qui ne sait pas comment faire marcher cette fédération! Honte à lui!
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, shame on this minister for insulting one of this country's premiers. But what can we expect of a government that, in nearly two years, has never agreed to a meeting of this country's first ministers? The Premier of Quebec has repeatedly asked for such a meeting for good reasons, for the good of our country's economy and Canadian workers and families, but the Prime Minister of Canada has told him he will have to make do with informal meetings. Shame on this government, which does not know how to make this federation work. Shame!
Van Loan says the Prime Minister is happy to hold a first ministers meeting when elections and scheduling allow, then attacks the Liberals' record on seat redistribution.
Van Loan explains the Prime Minister is willing to meet when schedules allow and pivots to attacking the Liberals' own record on redistribution, only partially engaging the first ministers meeting point.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made it clear that he would be happy to have a first ministers meeting when we do not have elections and when everyone's' schedules can accommodate it. What is interesting about that former cabinet minister is that he is now standing up for a premier who is complaining about a lack of representation for Ontario. When he was in cabinet, his party introduced bills twice to deal with redistribution and never once proposed increasing a single seat. After one of those bills was introduced, Premier McGuinty had already been elected but did not raise any concerns at the time. Only now, when we are actually delivering for Ontario, is he raising concerns.
Dion asks how much longer the government will fail to lead on the taser death, noting B.C. had to call its own inquiry due to a federal leadership vacuum.
Dion cites B.C.'s own inquiry into the tragic taser death as evidence of a federal leadership vacuum, providing a factual hook, but the closing 'backseat driver' metaphor dilutes specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government insulted Ontario, ignored Quebec and now it is failing British Columbia. The B.C. government had to call its own inquiry into the tragic taser death. Why? It is because B.C. says that there is a vacuum of leadership at the federal level. How much longer will the government continue to be the backseat driver of this federation?
Day says he has spoken with the B.C. solicitor general, that the federal government moved on the taser incident before the video was public, and that a Canada Border Services report is expected the next day.
Day engages the taser incident directly, claims the federal government acted first and before the video emerged, and references an upcoming Canada Border Services report, though he does not address the specific 'vacuum of leadership' charge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have, on a number of occasions, discussed with the B.C. solicitor general this whole incident. I explained to him that the federal government was the first to move on this particular incident long before the tragic video was shown. And, long before there was one word of concern from the Liberals, we asked for the review related to the tasers. We think a first report from the Canada Border Services will come out tomorrow. We are asking for action. The Liberals asked for nothing when this first happened. We took action.
Ignatieff asks why the government House leader will not stand in the House and admit his remarks about Premier McGuinty were out of order and out of control.
Ignatieff characterizes the redistribution bill as 'a gross piece of political gerrymandering' and asks the House leader to acknowledge his remarks were out of order, but the question is more rhetorical than factually grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Ontario was protesting a gross piece of political gerrymandering that will harm the citizens of Ontario. The only thing--
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, the only thing small in this federation is the government's sense of responsibility, its sense of respect and its sense of honour. Why will the government House leader not stand up in the House today and say that his remarks about the Premier of Ontario were out of order and out of control?
Van Loan argues that Alberta, B.C. and Ontario are underrepresented and accuses the Liberal Party of opposing additional seats for those provinces, citing Dalton McGuinty's bill 214.
Van Loan does not acknowledge the remarks were out of order; instead he pivots to attacking the Liberal Party's agenda and bill 214 introduced by Dalton McGuinty in Ontario, deflecting entirely from the apology request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is small is the number of seats that Alberta, B.C. and Ontario have in the federal Parliament. They are significantly underrepresented. I think we have now seen the real agenda of the Liberal Party. It is to ensure that B.C., Alberta and Ontario do not get those additional seats because it does not support that principle. It is not surprising since the deputy leader of the Liberal Party is from Ontario where Dalton McGuinty introduced a bill, bill 214, that wiped out the principle of representation by population in Ontario, leaving southern Ontario 44% underrepresented against the rest of the province. He should clean up his own house first.
Ignatieff asks when the minister will bring forward a measure that is genuinely fair to the province of Ontario.
Ignatieff asks when the minister will bring a measure that is fair to Ontario, but without new facts or specifics it reads as a follow-up rhetorical challenge rather than a grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a typical performance of the government to pit the west against Ontario. The issue is fairness toward Ontario. When will the minister come to the House with a measure that is fair to the province of Ontario?
Van Loan asserts the government's measure gives Ontario 10 more seats, more than any other province, and accuses the Liberals of a cloaked effort to suppress the west.
Van Loan restates that the government is delivering 10 more seats to Ontario, more than any other province, but does not engage the specific fairness concern raised by the Premier and instead accuses Liberals of suppressing the west.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we brought in a measure that brings in fairness, fairness for Ontario, for B.C. and for Alberta. We are the first ones to do it. The Liberals did not do it in 13 years. They were happy to see those provinces shortchanged. We would be delivering 10 more seats to Ontario, more than any other province would be getting. Ontario already has the most seats in the House of Commons. It is doing very well. However, traditional supporters of Confederation realize that we want to see every province and every region treated fairly, and not this cloaked effort to suppress the west that we see from the Liberal Party over there.
Duceppe asks why the Prime Minister is reneging on the Conservative commitment to full retroactivity of Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits, given that they voted for the Bloc's bill on this issue in 2005.
Duceppe cites a specific prior vote by the Conservatives in favour of a Bloc bill on full retroactivity of the Guaranteed Income Supplement and asks the government to explain why it is reneging on that commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en 2005, les conservateurs, alors dans l'opposition, ont voté en faveur d'un projet de loi du Bloc québécois demandant la pleine rétroactivité des prestations du Supplément de revenu garanti. Maintenant au pouvoir, ce gouvernement refuse d'aller de l'avant. Comment le premier ministre ose-t-il revenir sur cet engagement fait aux personnes ùgées alors que son gouvernement en a amplement les moyens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in 2005, when they were in opposition, the Conservatives voted for a Bloc Québécois bill calling for full retroactivity of guaranteed income supplement benefits. Now that the Conservatives form the government, they are refusing to go ahead. How can the Prime Minister dare go back on the promise he made to seniors, when his government has more than enough money to keep that promise?
Solberg says the government ran on protecting the guaranteed income supplement and old age security, and describes outreach efforts to ensure seniors know their benefits.
Solberg does not address the retroactivity commitment or the prior vote at all, instead listing general outreach and enhancement measures for seniors, which is a deflection from the specific promise cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the last election campaign, this party ran on a platform to protect the guaranteed income supplement, the old age security and the Canada pension plan. We have done more than that. We have enhanced programs. Today, we continue to do outreach to ensure people are aware of the benefits they can receive. We have officials who go to seniors' homes. We advertise broadly. We even have people physically present in homeless shelters and on reserves so people know exactly what kinds of benefits are available to them.
Duceppe asks how the government can justify a 11-month cap on retroactivity when it owes seniors money while imposing no such limit when seniors owe the government.
Duceppe highlights a specific asymmetry â 11 months maximum retroactivity when the government owes seniors money versus no time limit when seniors owe the government â which is a pointed factual contrast, though framed with rhetorical heat.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est de la pure hypocrisie. Car, lorsqu'ils Ă©taient dans l'opposition, ils ont appuyĂ© le projet de loi du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois et, maintenant, ils renient leur promesse. Pire que cela, quand le gouvernement doit de l'argent aux personnes ĂągĂ©es, il y a 11 mois de rĂ©troactivitĂ© maximum, mais quand les personnes ĂągĂ©es en doivent au gouvernement, il n'y a pas de dĂ©lai. Ce sont deux poids et deux mesures. Comment peut-on accepter un comportement semblable? Quand le gouvernement veut aller chercher de l'argent, il n'y a pas de dĂ©lai et on fouille dans les poches des personnes ĂągĂ©es, mais quand on en doit, on arrĂȘte Ă 11 mois. Qu'il cesse cette hypocrisie!
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is pure hypocrisy. When they were in opposition, they supported the Bloc Québécois bill, but now they are going back on their promise. Even worse, when the government owes seniors money, there is a maximum of 11 months of retroactivity, but when seniors owe the government money, there is no limitation period. It is a double standard. How can we accept such behaviour? When the government wants money, there is no limitation period and it dips into seniors' pockets, but when the government owes money, there is an 11-month limit. The government must stop this hypocrisy.
Solberg claims the government has done more for seniors in 21 months than the previous government did in 13 years, citing a minister for seniors, a national panel, elder abuse measures, and tax reductions.
Solberg lists general accomplishments for seniors without addressing the retroactivity asymmetry at all, then attacks the Bloc for voting against these measures, a clear deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government has done more for seniors in the last 21 months than the previous government did in the last 13 years. Today we have a minister in charge of seniors' issues. We have a national panel dedicated to hearing seniors' issues. We are fighting elder abuse. We are enhancing benefits. We are lowering taxes for seniors. Those are all things we support and that the Bloc, for some reason, has voted against. Shame on them.
Gravel asks whether the Prime Minister will fulfil his promise to seniors and grant full retroactivity of the Guaranteed Income Supplement, citing a specific case of a woman who would receive $12,000 in compensation.
Gravel uses a concrete Radio-Canada case study of Mme Bolduc living on $7,000 a year since 2001 and a specific $12,000 retroactivity figure to humanize the issue, though the closing Good-bye Charlie Brown reference is more rhetorical flourish than a sharply focused question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, Radio-Canada nous présentait Mme Bolduc qui vivait avec 7 000 $ par année depuis 2001. Si on lui accordait la pleine rétroactivité du Supplément de revenu garanti, elle recevrait une compensation de 12 000 $. Elle pourrait dire, comme une autre personne ùgée avant elle l'avait dit à M. Mulroney qui voulait désindexer les pensions: « Good-bye, Charlie Brown ». Avec des conservateurs, plus ça change, plus c'est pareil. Le premier ministre finira-t-il par remplir sa promesse aux personnes ùgées et leur accorder la pleine rétroactivité ou attendra-t-il que les personnes ùgées lui lancent encore à leur tour un autre Good-bye, Charlie Brown?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Radio-Canada told us the story of Ms. Bolduc, who has lived on $7,000 a year since 2001. If the guaranteed income supplement were given to her with full retroactivity, she would receive $12,000. She could sayâas another senior before her said to Mr. Mulroney, who wanted to de-index pensionsââGood-bye, Charlie Brown.â It is the same old story with the Conservatives. Will the Prime Minister keep his promise to seniors and give them full retroactivity or will he wait for seniors to once again say to him âGood-bye, Charlie Brownâ?
Solberg says the government improved CPP, raised guaranteed income supplement benefits over 18 months, and lowered taxes so 385,000 low-income Canadians no longer pay federal income tax.
Solberg does not address Mme Bolduc's case or the retroactivity question, instead listing CPP improvements, tax reductions for 385,000 low-income Canadians, and criticizing the Bloc for only talking.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is this government that moved to improve CPP and ensure additional benefits. We have seen benefits for guaranteed income supplement go up over the last 18 months. We are lowering taxes so that 385,000 low income Canadians no longer have to pay federal income tax, and many of those are seniors. We are helping seniors every day in tangible ways, while all we ever hear from the Bloc members is talk and, frankly, that is all it can do.
Gravel asks how the government can refuse seniors $710 million in indexation while giving oil companies $532 million in tax reductions in 2008, rising to $1.4 billion in 2012, and demands a yes or no on granting indexation.
Gravel cites specific figures: $110 more per month per senior from indexation, a total cost of just over $710 million, compared to $532 million in tax reductions for oil companies in 2008 rising to $1.4 billion in 2012, making this one of the more data-grounded questions in this QP.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si on appliquait l'indexation Ă tous les aĂźnĂ©s, ils recevraient un montant supplĂ©mentaire de 110 $ par mois. Cette mesure coĂ»terait un peu plus de 710 millions de dollars au gouvernement. Comment le gouvernement peut-il refuser aux aĂźnĂ©s 710 millions de dollars alors que les pĂ©troliĂšres bĂ©nĂ©ficieront de baisses d'impĂŽt de 532 millions de dollars en 2008, une baisse qui pourrait atteindre 1,4 milliard de dollars en 2012? Le gouvernement devrait ĂȘtre gĂȘnĂ© de permettre aux pĂ©troliĂšres de faire des Ă©conomies d'impĂŽt sur le dos des aĂźnĂ©s. Va-t-il leur accorder l'indexation, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if pensions were indexed for all seniors, each of them would receive an additional $110 per month. This measure would cost the government just a little over $710 million. Tax cuts for oil companies will total $532 million in 2008, and that figure could reach $1.4 billion in 2012. How can the government refuse this $710 million to seniors? The government should be ashamed to give tax breaks to oil companies at the expense of seniors. Will it give them indexation, yes or no?
Solberg says the government has great sympathy for seniors with inadequate incomes, cites structural measures taken, and questions why the Bloc opposes these steps.
Solberg expresses sympathy and lists structural measures â a minister for seniors, a national panel, direct support, tax reductions â without addressing the specific indexation request or engaging any of the figures cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has tremendous sympathy for the plight of seniors who live without adequate incomes, which is why we have taken action in a number of ways. We put a minister in place precisely to deal with a number of these issues. We have a national panel on seniors. We have taken several steps so we ensure that seniors have adequate incomes, in the form of direct support from government, and we lowered the taxes so they do not have to pay them any more. The real question is this. Why does the Bloc oppose these things at every step?
Layton asks why the Prime Minister does not take climate change seriously, citing reports that mild winters and storm intensity could cut the Magdalen Islands in two within five years.
Layton grounds his question in a specific local consequence â the Magdalen Islands being cut in two within five years due to mild winters and storm intensity â providing a concrete factual hook, though the ask ('why don't you take it seriously') is vague.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la confĂ©rence de Bali sur les changements climatiques s'en vient Ă grands pas, mais le gouvernement ne prend pas les changements climatiques au sĂ©rieux; cela est clair. Toutefois, il y a des consĂ©quences. Hier, on apprenait que les hivers doux et l'intensitĂ© des tempĂȘtes menacent de couper les Ăles-de-la-Madeleine en deux d'ici cinq ans. Pourquoi le premier ministre ne prend-il pas les changements climatiques au sĂ©rieux? Pourquoi va-t-il laisser les Ăles-de-la-Madeleine ĂȘtre coupĂ©es en deux?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Bali conference on climate change is fast approaching, but it is clear that the government is not taking climate change seriously. There are consequences. Yesterday, we learned that mild winters and intense storms could split the Ăles-de-la-Madeleine in two within five years. Why does the Prime Minister not take climate change seriously? Why will he let the Ăles-de-la-Madeleine be split in two?
Baird says the government is taking real action with absolute greenhouse gas reductions through regulation of large industries, transport and energy measures, and collaboration with all provinces.
Baird claims the government has real absolute greenhouse gas reductions through industrial regulation, transport and energy work, and collaboration with provinces, but does not address the Magdalen Islands situation or explain why action is adequate.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la réalité est que ce gouvernement agit. Il y a la réglementation des grandes entreprises. Pour la premiÚre fois dans l'histoire du Canada, ce sont de vraies actions pour de vraies réductions, des réductions absolues de gaz à effet de serre. On travaille trÚs fort dans les domaines du transport et de l'énergie. Pour la premiÚre fois dans l'histoire du Canada, on travaille ensemble, avec toutes les provinces, avec l'argent public, pour aider cette bonne cause.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the government is taking action. It has regulated large companies. For the first time in the history of Canada, we are taking real action for real reductionsâabsolute greenhouse gas reductions. We are working very hard on transport and energy. For the first time in the history of Canada, we are working together, with all the provinces, with public money, to help this worthwhile cause.
Layton asks why the government will not take serious action on climate change, citing the sinking Queen Charlotte Islands, the disappearing polar ice cap, and criticism from French Conservatives.
Layton raises several climate signals â the Queen Charlotte Islands sinking, the polar ice cap disappearing, and French Conservatives chastizing Canadian Conservatives â but the question is diffuse and the ask is generic.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are seeing no serious action, and the minister's answer simply underlines that. There is no sense of crisis with the government. The fact is the Queen Charlotte Islands are sinking. We are losing the polar ice cap. We are watching it disappear before our very eyes. Even the Conservatives of France are chastizing the Conservatives of Canada. Their effort is to put the climate change issue on the Summit of la Francophonie in Quebec City. Why? Because just like the previous government, the Conservative government is failing to deal with the crisis of climate change. Why will the government not take it seriously? Why do we not see some real action on the biggestâ
Baird accuses Layton of making a $4.5 billion deal with the Liberals without including climate change as a condition, blaming the NDP for delaying climate action by two years.
Baird does not address the climate evidence or the French Conservative criticism at all; he attacks Layton's past deal with the Liberals on the $4.5 billion budget, which is an unrelated deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP talks about the previous government. The leader of the NDP made a deal with the Liberals for $4.5 billion. Why did he not make climate change one of those factors. We could have acted two years earlier, but the reality is the NDP got in bed with the Liberals one last time and we had to wait two more years for real leadership from this Prime Minister.
Regan asks why the government is hiding the details of its phantom equalization deal from Nova Scotians, noting four cancelled finance briefings in four weeks since October 10.
Regan cites four cancelled briefings in four weeks, a specific date (October 10) since which Nova Scotians have been kept in the dark, and characterizes the matter as a phantom equalization deal, giving the question solid factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government insulted all Nova Scotians yesterday when a finance briefing on the phantom equalization deal was cancelled at the last minute. This is the fourth cancelled briefing in the last four weeks. Nova Scotians have been kept in the dark about this deal since October 10. They have a right to see the details and to judge the deal for themselves. Yesterday was another Conservative betrayal of my province's interests. Why is the government so intent on insulting Nova Scotians by hiding the details of their phantom deal?
Flaherty says the briefing was committed for when the bill was tabled, announces the bill will be tabled that afternoon, and invites the member to attend the briefing the next day.
Flaherty directly explains that the briefing was conditioned on the bill being tabled, announces the bill will be tabled that afternoon, and commits to a briefing the next day, which is a fairly direct and substantive response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, in response to a question from a Liberal member, the commitment we had made on this very complex bill was to have a briefing as soon as the bill was tabled. The bill will be tabled this afternoon. We look forward to having a briefing tomorrow. I hope the hon. member will be there.
Regan asks whether the provincial government has been given a copy of the draft legislation and whether it has given its approval to the deal.
Regan asks two specific and verifiable questions: whether the provincial government has received a copy of the draft legislation and whether it has given its approval, which are direct accountability asks.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that regime has already betrayed Atlantic Canada and insulted Nova Scotia. Imagine it treating Alberta like that: never. One cancelled meeting is understandable. But four? It is either gross incompetence, ministerial bumbling, or an effort to hide the truth. Has the provincial government been given a copy of the draft legislation and has it given its approval?
Flaherty quotes Premier MacDonald of Nova Scotia urging Liberal MPs to stand up and support the accord rather than opposing it.
Flaherty does not answer either specific question about the draft legislation or provincial approval; instead he quotes Premier MacDonald urging Liberal MPs to support the accord, which is relevant context but not a direct answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite actually cared about what was in the bill, he would wait to read it. Once he reads it, perhaps he could form an opinion. Maybe he could listen to his own premier in Nova Scotia who said: If Nova Scotia MPs...are not standing up and supporting this, that says to me, No. 1, that they're not in favour of us receiving the full benefits of the...(accord). I hope that our MPs, especially...our Liberal MPs...are going to stand up and be counted.
Robillard asks why provinces must beg the Prime Minister for a first ministers meeting to discuss the rising dollar, the manufacturing sector, and the forestry industry.
Robillard identifies specific issues the provinces want to discuss â the rising dollar, the manufacturing sector crisis, and the forestry industry â and notes the Quebec government has been requesting a first ministers meeting for weeks, giving the question reasonable factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis des semaines, le gouvernement du Québec réclame une rencontre des premiers ministres. Les provinces veulent parler de dossiers importants comme la hausse du dollar, la crise du secteur manufacturier, les problÚmes de l'industrie forestiÚre. Ce sont des dossiers qui touchent les Canadiens de toutes les régions, des dossiers qui touchent les citoyens tous les jours. Toutefois, le premier ministre fait la sourde oreille. Pourquoi les provinces doivent-elles supplier le premier ministre pour une simple rencontre? Combien de fois devront-elles insister pour qu'il prenne enfin ses responsabilités?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for weeks now, the Government of Quebec has been calling for a first ministers meeting. The provinces wish to discuss important files such as the rising dollar, the crisis in the manufacturing sector and problems facing the forestry industry. These files affect Canadians in all regions and have an impact on their daily lives. The Prime Minister, however, prefers to turn a deaf ear. Why must the provinces beg the Prime Minister for a simple meeting? How many times do they have to push the matter for him to finally assume his responsibilities?
Ambrose says the Prime Minister tried to convene a first ministers meeting as early as last June and has informed Premier Shawn Graham of a planned informal meeting at 24 Sussex in December or early January.
Ambrose directly counters the claim by asserting the Prime Minister tried to convene a first ministers meeting as early as last June, cites scheduling constraints and provincial elections, and states the Prime Minister has informed Premier Shawn Graham of a proposed informal meeting in December or January.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is incorrect. The Prime Minister tried to convene a first ministers meeting as early as last June. Unfortunately due to scheduling constraints of some premiers and provincial elections, we have now been trying to convene a meeting for either later this year, in December, or early in January. The Prime Minister has already informed the chairman of the Council of the Federation, Premier Shawn Graham, that this is the case, and he looks forward to having the premiers at 24 Sussex for an informal meeting soon.
Robillard asks the Prime Minister to admit that his open federalism is an illusion and that he has no intention of treating the provinces as true partners, citing his refusal to hold a formal first ministers meeting and his lack of support for the manufacturing and forestry sectors.
Robillard raises several specific grievances â no official first ministers meeting on dollar impacts, no support for the manufacturing and forestry sectors, Senate reform without provincial involvement â but combines them into a broad rhetorical ask about whether open federalism is an illusion.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est du jamais vu. Le premier ministre refuse de rassembler officiellement les provinces pour parler des problĂšmes engendrĂ©s par la hausse du dollar. Il refuse d'aider le QuĂ©bec et d'offrir un appui immĂ©diat aux secteurs manufacturier et forestier. Il se moque mĂȘme des propos des premiers ministres provinciaux et promet d'aller de l'avant avec une rĂ©forme du SĂ©nat sans assurer leur implication. Le premier ministre peut-il avouer que son fĂ©dĂ©ralisme d'ouverture n'est qu'une illusion et qu'il n'a aucune intention de considĂ©rer les provinces comme de vraies partenaires dans cette fĂ©dĂ©ration?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is unheard of. The Prime Minister refuses to call an official meeting among the provinces to discuss the problems created by the rising dollar. He refuses to help Quebec and provide immediate assistance to the manufacturing and forestry sectors. He even thumbs his nose at comments made by the provincial leaders and says he will go ahead with Senate reform without ensuring their involvement. Will the Prime Minister admit that his open federalism is a mere illusion and that he has no intention of treating the provinces as real partners in this federation?
Ambrose says the provinces are treated in a businesslike fashion and the Prime Minister has a professional, open-door relationship with the premiers and is always accessible.
Ambrose offers only vague assurances that provinces are treated in a businesslike fashion and that the Prime Minister has a professional, open-door relationship with premiers, without addressing any of the specific policy gaps mentioned.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in a long time, the provinces are treated in a very businesslike fashion. The Prime Minister has a very professional relationship with the premiers and has an open door to them. He has regular meetings with the premiers and is always is accessible, just like all our ministers.
St-Hilaire asks whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs intends to repatriate a Haitian-born child adopted by constituents, who was abandoned in Haiti and is pleading to return to Quebec.
Cites a specific prior October notification to the minister and a direct plea from the child on Friday, with a clear ask for confirmation of repatriation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au mois d'octobre dernier, j'informais le ministre des Affaires étrangÚres qu'un jeune garçon d'origine haïtienne adopté par des citoyens canadiens de ma circonscription aurait été abandonné en Haïti. Vendredi dernier, le garçon nous a suppliés de le ramener au plus vite au Québec pour avoir, selon ses dires, « une vie décente, soit manger, boire, dormir et aller à l'école ». Le ministre des Affaires étrangÚres peut-il nous confirmer qu'il entend rapatrier l'enfant dans les plus brefs délais?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in October, I informed the Minister of Foreign Affairs that a young Haitian boy adopted by Canadian citizens in my riding was abandoned in Haiti. Last Friday, the boy begged us to bring him back to Quebec as soon as possible so that he could, in his words, âhave a decent life, where he could eat, drink, sleep and go to schoolâ. Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirm that he intends to repatriate the child as soon as possible?
Obhrai confirms that Foreign Affairs officers in Ottawa and Port-au-Prince are working with Quebec authorities to ensure the child's well-being and facilitate his return to Canada as early as possible.
Confirms departmental action in Ottawa and Port-au-Prince, cooperation with Quebec social services, and commitment to return the child as early as possible, though no timeline is given.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade officers in Ottawa and Port-au-Prince are working together with the authorities of the province of Quebec to ensure the well-being of this child. The department is working very closely with Quebec social services, which is investigating allegations of neglect made by this child. I assure the member that the department is working hard toward facilitating the child's return to Canada as early as possible.
St-Hilaire notes that Haiti is on the moratorium list due to insecurity and presses for a specific date by which the adolescent will be repatriated.
Sharpens the ask by citing Haiti's moratorium status and the child's dangerous situation, pressing for a specific timeline â a concrete and answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le secrĂ©taire parlementaire n'est pas sans savoir que HaĂŻti est sur la liste des pays sous moratoire de renvoi en raison de l'insĂ©curitĂ© qui y rĂšgne. Compte tenu du fait que ce jeune garçon est livrĂ© Ă lui-mĂȘme dans cet endroit dangereux, le gouvernement doit agir rapidement. Le secrĂ©taire parlementaire peut-il dire Ă cette Chambre quand il entend rapatrier l'adolescent?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary knows that Haiti is on the list of countries under a deportation moratorium because of the ongoing instability in that country. Given that this young boy has to fend for himself in such a dangerous place, the government must act quickly. Can the parliamentary secretary tell this House when he intends to repatriate this adolescent?
Obhrai repeats that the department is working hard to return the child as quickly as possible and is cooperating with Quebec social services, but provides no specific timeline.
Repeats the same assurances as the first answer without providing any timeline, which was the specific ask of the follow-up question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, the department is working very hard toward quickly facilitating the child's return to Canada as early as possible. However, I assure the member that we are also working with the Quebec social services, which is investigating these allegations. As I said, we are working very hard to get this child to Canada as quickly as possible.
MĂ©nard argues that a taser should only be used when firearms would have been justified, contends this was not the case at Vancouver airport, and asks whether the minister will declare a moratorium on RCMP taser use until the public inquiry is complete.
Articulates a substantive policy position on taser use as an avant-dernier recours and links it to the Vancouver airport incident, asking a specific yes/no question about a moratorium.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le pistolet Ă©lectrique Taser ne doit ĂȘtre utilisĂ© que comme arme d'avant-dernier recours. Il ne doit donc l'ĂȘtre que lorsque l'usage de l'arme Ă feu aurait Ă©tĂ© justifiĂ© si les policiers n'avaient pas Ă leur disposition le pistolet paralysant. Selon toutes les apparences, ce n'Ă©tait pas le cas lors des Ă©vĂ©nements tragiques survenus Ă l'aĂ©roport de Vancouver. Cela dĂ©note de sĂ©rieuses lacunes dans la formation des policiers. Dans ces circonstances, le ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique ne devrait-il pas dĂ©crĂ©ter un moratoire sur l'utilisation de cette arme par les officiers de la GRC, tant que l'enquĂȘte publique ne sera pas terminĂ©e?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, tasers should only be used as a next-to-last resort. They should only be used when the use of a firearm would be justified if the police did not have this paralyzing weapon available. By all accounts, this was not the case during the tragic events that occurred at the Vancouver airport. This means there are serious shortcomings in police training. Under the circumstances, should the Minister of Public Safety not declare a moratorium on the use of this weapon by RCMP officers until the public inquiry is complete?
Day corrects the characterization of use-of-force protocol, notes he has asked the Commission des plaintes contre la GRC for a review and report before December 12, but does not address the moratorium request.
Day corrects MĂ©nard's framing on the order of force options and mentions requesting a report from the Commission des plaintes contre la GRC by December 12, but does not directly address the moratorium request.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, avec le plus grand respect, je pense que mon collÚgue a fait une erreur. La derniÚre option pour un policier est d'utiliser l'arme à feu, pas le pistolet électronique. De plus, j'ai demandé à la Commission des plaintes contre la GRC de revoir la question. J'ai aussi demandé si nous pouvions recevoir le rapport avant le 12 décembre. Il est trÚs important que nous ayons les réponses à toutes ces questions.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think my colleague is mistaken. The last option for a police officer is to use a firearm, not a stun gun. Furthermore, I have asked the RCMP complaints commission to review the matter. I have also asked whether we could receive the report before December 12. It is very important that we get answers to all these questions.
Barbot cites the Council of Europe's criticism of the government's decision no longer to seek commutation of death sentences for Canadians abroad, and asks whether the government will reverse course to actively promote abolition of the death penalty.
References a specific Council of Europe criticism and distinguishes between commutation and clemency, asking whether the government will reverse course and actively promote abolition of the death penalty.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Conseil de l'Europe, organisme chargé de défendre les droits de la personne, a sévÚrement critiqué la récente décision du gouvernement qui n'exige plus que les sentences de peine de mort prononcées contre ses citoyens à l'étranger soient commuées en peines d'emprisonnement à vie. Commutation de peine et clémence ne sont pas synonymes, comme on tente erronément de le faire croire. Le gouvernement entend-il faire volte-face et prendre les moyens pour que le Canada redevienne un promoteur actif de l'abolition de la peine de mort?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Council of Europe, a human rights body, was highly critical of the government's recent decision to no longer require that death sentences served on its citizens in foreign countries be commuted to life sentences. Commuting a sentence and clemency are not the same thing, as has been mistakenly suggested. Does the government plan to change its mind and ensure that Canada goes back to actively promoting the abolition of the death penalty?
Nicholson states Canada continues to oppose capital punishment at the United Nations, there are no plans to change Canadian law, but Canadians committing multiple or mass murders in democratic rule-of-law countries cannot be guaranteed Canadian intervention.
Nicholson states Canada continues to oppose capital punishment at the United Nations and notes no plans to change Canadian law, but does not address the commutation vs. clemency distinction or the reversal of policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we continue to oppose capital punishment at the United Nations and there are no plans to change the laws in Canada. However, I believe what has been made clear is if any Canadians go abroad to a democratic country where there is the rule of law, they cannot be guaranteed that Canada will intervene if they become multiple or mass murderers.
Kadis asks the justice minister whether he believes the death penalty is always wrong.
The question is an extremely short and vague yes/no framing that lacks factual grounding or context, functioning more as a rhetorical trap than a substantive accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, does the justice minister believe that the death penalty is always wrong?
Nicholson states Canadian law is clear and there are no plans to change it, without directly addressing the personal belief question.
Nicholson references Canadian law and states there are no plans to change it, which is tangentially related but does not answer whether he personally believes the death penalty is always wrong.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear what the law is in Canada and there are certainly no plans to change that law.
Kadis asks why the government has abandoned the long-standing 30-year policy of seeking clemency for Canadians on death row abroad, questioning Canada's credibility in fighting for Canadians facing the death penalty in China and Ethiopia.
Cites a specific 30-year policy precedent and names concrete countries (China, Ethiopia, Montana, Mississippi) to challenge the government's credibility, with a clear ask for justification of the policy change.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for at least 30 years, Canadian governments have had a policy of seeking clemency for Canadians on death row in foreign countries. Why has the government decided to ignore that long-standing policy? What credibility do we now have in fighting for Canadians who are facing the death penalty in places like China and Ethiopia when the government says it is okay in Montana and Mississippi?
Nicholson attacks the Liberals on China, says cases will be reviewed individually, and reiterates that mass or multiple murderers in democratic countries with rule of law cannot count on Canadian government assistance.
Nicholson deflects by attacking the Liberals on China, does not explain the policy change, and simply restates that cases will be looked at individually â without addressing the 30-year policy or the named countries.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that the Liberals now want us to stand up on behalf of human rights in China. This is certainly a departure from some of their previous comments, but we will have a look at individual cases. Again, we want to send a message out to anyone who is in the business of being a mass murderer or a multiple murderer in a democratic country where there is a rule of law that they cannot necessarily count on the assistance of the Canadian government.
Jennings cites the Council of Europe's accusation that the government is subcontracting the death penalty and asks why it endorses use of the death penalty in other countries.
Cites the Council of Europe's specific accusation of 'subcontracting the death penalty' and frames a clear question about endorsing capital punishment in other countries, though the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Council of Europe, the top human rights body, has accused this government of subcontracting the death penalty; that it is okay to execute our citizens as long as it does not happen in Canada. The international community is urging the government to have Canadian citizens granted clemency to serve their sentences behind bars. Why does the government endorse the use of the death penalty in other countries when it flies in the face of Canadian law?
Nicholson says there are no plans to change Canadian law, that assurances will continue to be sought in extradition cases, and that each case will be examined individually.
Nicholson states there are no plans to change Canadian law and that assurances will be sought in extradition cases, but does not address the Council of Europe accusation or the 'subcontracting' characterization.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are no plans to change Canadian law and this country will continue to seek assurances for all extradition cases with which we become seized. Again, we will look at each of these cases on an individual basis and will take the best decisions in the interests of Canada.
Jennings asks pointedly whether the government believes the death penalty is admissible under any circumstances, demanding a simple yes or no answer.
Frames a direct yes/no question on whether the government believes the death penalty is admissible under any circumstances, which is explicit and answerable, though preceded by a rhetorical preamble.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cela veut dire qu'il veut lui-mĂȘme ĂȘtre l'exĂ©cuteur. Le gouvernement croit-il que la peine de mort est admissible, quelles que soient les circonstances, oui ou non? Il s'agit d'une simple question qui exige une simple rĂ©ponse, s'il vous plaĂźt.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that means the government itself wants to be the executioner. Does the government believe that the death penalty is acceptable, regardless of the circumstances, yes or no? It is a simple question that requires a simple answer, please.
Nicholson claims the government has an outstanding record on human rights at home and abroad, without answering the yes/no question.
Nicholson responds with an entirely boilerplate statement about the government's outstanding human rights record at home and abroad, with no connection to the specific yes/no question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this country and this government, in particular, has had an outstanding record with respect to human rights at home and abroad. I think it is a record for which all Canadians can be very proud.
Storseth asks the Minister of the Environment to explain how the announced land withdrawal near the east arm of the Great Slave Lake and around the Ramparts River wetlands will benefit northern communities, especially in the Northwest Territories.
A government backbench softball setup that describes the announcement and invites the minister to elaborate, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today our government has taken yet another major step to protect and conserve Canada's north, by announcing a land withdrawal twice the size of Nova Scotia and five times the size of Prince Edward Island. This is one of the largest land conservation initiatives in Canadian history near the east arm of the Great Slave Lake and around the Ramparts River wetlands, both in the Northwest Territories. Could the Minister of the Environment tell the House how today's announcement will benefit our northern communities, especially those in the Northwest Territories?
Oh, oh!
Baird states the initiative protects culturally sensitive lands and fragile ecosystems for generations, credits the Prime Minister, the Canadian Boreal Initiative, and especially first nations partners for their leadership.
Baird provides real content about the announcement â protecting culturally sensitive lands, fragile ecosystems, acknowledges the Canadian Boreal Initiative and first nations partners â offering substantive information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the announcement that I made with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was a significant one. We are protecting culturally sensitive lands. We are protecting some very fragile ecosystems. We are protecting something that will be remembered for generations to come. We owe three sets of thanks to people. We owe the Prime Minister, for his leadership. We owe the environmental groups, led by the Canadian Boreal Initiative. Most importantly, we owe the real leadership, over many decades and centuries, of our first nations partners, who join us in the gallery today.
Priddy notes there are no national rules, no standard operating procedures, and no mandatory reporting for tasers, cites Toronto police and Royal Newfoundland Constabulary pausing taser plans, and asks the minister to suspend RCMP taser use until standards and retraining are in place.
Cites specific facts: no national rules, no standard operating procedures, no mandatory reporting, the Toronto police $8.5 million taser plan on hold, and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary halt â making a specific and grounded ask to suspend RCMP taser use.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the death of a new Canadian at the Vancouver airport has put a sharp focus on the use of tasers in Canada. There are no national rules governing the use of tasers, no standard operating procedures for the devices and no mandatory reporting of incidents. The Toronto police plan to spend $8.5 million on tasers is now on hold. The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary has halted a plan to buy tasers. Will the minister do what responsible forces are doing and suspend the RCMP use of tasers until standards and retraining are in place?
Day notes Newfoundland's position, says he has asked for a full RCMP review on taser use and compliance, and that the chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP will report by December 12.
Day acknowledges Newfoundland's position, outlines the RCMP internal review and the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP review with a December 12 deadline, but does not address the suspension request or the absence of national standards.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of Newfoundland's position. I am not aware of any other police force taking that particular step. I have asked for a full review from the RCMP related to taser use, compliance and also implementation. I have also asked the chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP to do a thorough review of this, again along the lines of training and compliance. As the chair himself said today, he has a very broad mandate to do so and to report back by December 12 before we leave these chambers.
Priddy cites lawsuits by police officers following taser training and American investigations, then asks whether the minister supports a parliamentary investigation into tasers and calling Taser International founders and directors to testify at committee.
Cites specific lawsuits by five U.S. and one Canadian police officer following taser training, and American investigations, then asks two specific yes/no questions about a parliamentary investigation and calling Taser International founders to testify.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the taser company has some serious explaining to do. At least five police officers in the U.S. and one in Canada have launched lawsuits after taser training went awry. American states across the U.S. have launched lawsuits and investigations into taser use. The government has a duty to gather all the information available. Does the minister support a parliamentary investigation into tasers and their use and misuse in Canada? Would he support calling the founders and the directors of Taser International to testify at committee?
Day says he requested reviews before the opposition did, notes the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP review, and deflects the committee question by saying parliamentary committees set their own agendas.
Day claims he acted before the opposition, lists existing reviews, but deflects the specific parliamentary committee question by saying committees set their own agendas rather than answering whether he supports it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, long before any opposition party or member took action, I requested a review of this particular matter on a number of levels. The commissioner who is in charge of the entire board, which is an independent agency, I might add, that takes complaints against the RCMP, is also doing a review. There are a number of reviews being done at different levels. I am a bit surprised that my hon. colleague would ask me if I am in favour of what a parliamentary committee might be doing. Parliamentary committees set their own agendas. I am rather surprised that she would say I would have something to do with that. I would welcome any review at any level. It will all be helpful.
Coderre cites documents showing torture in Afghan prisons and transfer of minors, notes reports of inadequate facilities and separate cells remaining a problem until 2010, and asks why minors are transferred to Afghan prisons and how many youth have been sent.
Cites specific documents showing torture and transfer of minors, references inadequate facilities and a 2010 target date for separate juvenile detention, and asks a specific question including a numerical ask: how many youth have been transferred.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, aprÚs la Convention de GenÚve, voilà maintenant que les conservateurs contreviennent au protocole impliquant les enfants-soldats et la Convention des droits de l'enfant. Les documents démontrent noir sur blanc que non seulement il y a de la torture dans les prisons afghanes, mais qu'on y a également transféré des mineurs. De plus, les différents rapports nous démontrent clairement que les installations sont inadéquates, qu'héberger les adolescents dans des cellules distinctes demeure un problÚme et que nous ne pourrons régler la situation que d'ici 2010. Pourquoi transfÚre-t-on des mineurs dans les prisons afghanes au lieu de les réhabiliter? Combien de jeunes avons-nous envoyés à ces bourreaux?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, first they violated the Geneva convention, and now the Conservatives are violating the protocol on child soldiers and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The evidence is clear: not only is torture practised in Afghan prisons, but Canada has transferred minors to those prisons. What is more, various reports clearly show that the facilities are inadequate, that holding adolescents in separate cells remains a problem and that we will not be able to correct the situation before 2010. Why is Canada transferring minors to Afghan prisons instead of rehabilitating them? How many young people have we handed over to these executioners?
MacKay states that Canadian Forces have clear directives to keep minors in a separate location from adult detainees, consistent with international conventions.
MacKay states that Canadian Forces have clear directives to keep minors separate from adult detainees and that this is consistent with international conventions, but does not address how many youth were transferred or the documented facility inadequacies.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les Forces canadiennes en Afghanistan ont reçu des directives claires sur la façon de dĂ©tenir les mineurs avec un soin particulier. Tout mineur dĂ©tenu par les Forces canadiennes est gardĂ© dans un lieu distinct de celui oĂč se trouvent les dĂ©tenus adultes. C'est clair, c'est consistant avec les conventions internationales. Toutes les Forces canadiennes ont toujours respectĂ© les standards internationaux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan have received clear instructions on how to take special care when holding minors. Any minor held by the Canadian Forces is kept separate from adult detainees. This is clear, and it is consistent with international conventions. All the Canadian Forces have always complied with international standards.
Coderre attacks the government for hiding behind soldiers on the detainee issue and asks when the government will take responsibility for its actions and admit it has done nothing to prevent torture.
The follow-up devolves into personal attacks on the minister and general partisan rhetoric, with an implicit rather than specific ask about government responsibility for detainee policy.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je n'ai rien compris. The only thing that minister understood from his briefings is camouflage. The cowardice that government is showing by hiding behind our soldiers or slinging mud at the opposition is shameful and beneath contempt. We support the troops. Let us be clear. Our army is following that government's orders regarding detainees. It is that government that is responsible. When will that government take responsibility for its actions and admit that it has done nothing to prevent the use of torture?
MacKay accuses Coderre of making scurrilous allegations that Canadian soldiers are complicit in war crimes and calls such allegations reprehensible and un-Canadian, without addressing the substance of the question.
MacKay responds entirely with personal attacks on Coderre, accusing him of making scurrilous allegations and being un-Canadian, with no substantive engagement with the detainee responsibility question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is certainly clear is that the bombast and the blast coming from the member for Bourassa do nothing to demonstrate that his party or that member support the troops. These scurrilous allegations that somehow Canadian soldiers are complicit in war crimes is beyond contempt. It is reprehensible. It is un-Canadian for that member to make those kinds of allegations in this place.
Keeper accuses the Prime Minister of hiding behind national security claims and labelling critics as pro-Taliban, and asks when uncensored copies of all reports about Afghan detainees will be tabled.
Has some factual framing around dismissal of reports and bogus national security claims, but is heavily rhetorical with personal attacks on the Prime Minister and uses 'pro-Taliban' labelling as context; the ask for uncensored copies of reports is concrete.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister showed once again how far he will go to distract Canadians from his government's incompetence. He dismisses reports alleging the use of torture of Afghan detainees, and when anyone dares to ask to see the facts, he hides behind the bogus claim of national security and then brands his critics as pro-Taliban. Protecting the government from embarrassment is not a matter of national security. When will the Prime Minister table uncensored copies of all reports about Afghan detainees?
MacKay says there have been numerous consistent disclosures, claims compliance with NATO and Geneva Convention standards, and attacks the Liberal deputy leader without addressing the request for uncensored documents.
MacKay claims numerous consistent disclosures have been made and that NATO and Geneva Convention standards are being met, but does not address tabling uncensored copies, and closes with a personal attack on the Liberal deputy leader.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous and consistent disclosures of documentation from Afghanistan. We have indicated clearly that we are complying with NATO standards, with international standards and with the Geneva Convention. What is beyond understanding is why members opposite continually make up allegations without any evidence, now suggesting that Canadian soldiers have done something wrong. For the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, who may have been a pretty good non-fiction writer about international affairs, to now be engaging in fiction about Canadian soldiers is despicable.
Keeper asks why the Prime Minister ignores his own officials who say there is evidence of torture and questions what he is afraid of regarding the truth.
Raises a disconnect between what officials say and what the Prime Minister claims about evidence of torture, but frames it rhetorically as 'what is the Prime Minister afraid of' rather than making a precise ask.
Source text
But, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims there is no evidence of torture. His own officials say there is evidence, but he just ignores them. There is a complete disconnect between what the officials are saying and what the Prime Minister is trying to lead Canadians to believe. What is the Prime Minister afraid of? Is he afraid the truth will catch up to him?
MacKay blames the previous Liberal government for a flawed detainee arrangement, claims the current government has improved upon it, and mentions specific directions on juvenile Taliban detainees.
MacKay pivots to blaming the previous Liberal government for a flawed detainee arrangement, claims improvements have been made, and does not address the alleged disconnect between officials' evidence and the Prime Minister's denials.
Source text
Granted, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was not here in the previous Parliament, but she should know that the members opposite, the previous government, put in place a flawed arrangement with respect to the transfer of Taliban prisoners. We have improved upon that. We have specific directions with respect to juvenile Taliban detainees. We have improved upon the failings of the Liberal Party in many ways, including now finally giving the equipment and the moral support of our government.
Will the Prime Minister put climate change on the agenda of the 2008 Sommet de la Francophonie in Quebec, as France has called for?
The question cites a specific upcoming event (Sommet de la Francophonie 2008 à Québec), references France's stated position, and poses a single clear yes/no ask directed at the Prime Minister.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en vue du prochain Sommet de la Francophonie, qui doit se tenir Ă QuĂ©bec en 2008, la France dit ĂȘtre dĂ©terminĂ©e Ă faire des changements climatiques un thĂšme central de la rencontre. Refusant de prendre position, le ministre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres a affirmĂ© qu'il appartenait au premier ministre de dĂ©cider des sujets, ce qui n'est pas de bon augure. Le gouvernement continue d'affirmer qu'il est en faveur du Protocole de Kyoto, mais refuse obstinĂ©ment d'en accepter les effets contraignants. S'il croit au Protocole de Kyoto, le premier ministre doit mettre les changements climatiques Ă l'ordre du jour du sommet. Ma question est claire: le fera-t-il?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, France has stated that it intends to make climate change a central theme of the 2008 summit of la Francophonie in Quebec City. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has refused to take a stand, saying that it is up to the Prime Minister to decide what will be on the agenda. That does not bode well. The government keeps saying that it supports the Kyoto accord, yet it stubbornly refuses to yield to the accord's inconvenient targets. If the Prime Minister really believes in the Kyoto accord, he should put climate change on the summit's agenda. My question is straightforward: will he do it?
Baird spoke about working with francophone countries at the UN meeting in Indonesia toward a post-2012 climate agreement, without addressing the Francophonie summit agenda.
Baird deflects to the upcoming UN meeting in Indonesia without addressing whether the Prime Minister will put climate change on the Francophonie summit agenda.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, tous les reprĂ©sentants des pays francophones travailleront fort pour lutter contre les changements climatiques. Dans un premier temps, nous pourrons le faire en IndonĂ©sie, lors de la rĂ©union des Nations Unies, oĂč le Canada travaillera trĂšs fort pour avoir un meilleur accord sur la lutte contre les changements climatiques. Il est absolument essentiel que tous les grands pays industriels travaillent ensemble, avec les autres pays dans la Francophonie. On peut ĂȘtre assurĂ© de voir le vĂ©ritable leadership des pays de la Francophonie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, all representatives of francophone countries will work hard to fight climate change. We will have an initial opportunity to do that during the UN meeting in Indonesia, where Canada will work hard to come up with a better agreement to fight climate change. It is absolutely essential for all large industrialized nations to work together with other members of la Francophonie. I am sure that francophone nations will show true leadership on this issue.
Given the Ouranos group preliminary study showing the Ăles-de-la-Madeleine archipelago could split in two by 2012 due to coastal erosion, how will the government justify to Francophonie partners its refusal to put climate change on the summit agenda?
The question cites a specific study by the groupe Ouranos with a concrete projection (l'archipel pourrait se scinder en deux d'ici Ă 2012) and links it directly to the government's refusal to put climate change on the Francophonie summit agenda.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les changements climatiques ont des effets concrets aux Ăles-de-la-Madeleine, comme on peut dĂ©jĂ le constater. Une Ă©tude prĂ©liminaire du groupe Ouranos rĂ©vĂšle que l'Ă©rosion des berges est telle que l'archipel pourrait se scinder en deux d'ici Ă 2012. Devant les preuves scientifiques qui s'accumulent, comment le gouvernement pourra-t-il justifier auprĂšs des autres membres de la Francophonie son refus de porter le sujet Ă l'ordre du jour du sommet?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, climate change is affecting the Magdalen Islands. A preliminary study by the Ouranos group showed that erosion of the sandbanks could split the archipelago in two by 2012. Given the growing body of scientific evidence, how can the government justify leaving this subject off the summit's agenda to other members of la Francophonie?
Baird denied the characterization and said the government would work with francophone countries in Indonesia to produce a real action plan for the planet after 2012.
Baird denies the premise without engaging the Ouranos study or the specific question about justifying the decision to other Francophonie members, and again redirects to Indonesia.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce n'est pas du tout le cas. On est toujours heureux de travailler avec les pays francophones. La meilleure façon de le faire, cette année, ce n'est pas d'attendre encore six mois pour tenir une réunion à propos de cette politique. On travaillera trÚs fort avec tous les représentants des pays francophones, en Indonésie, pour s'assurer d'avoir un vrai plan d'action pour toute la planÚte aprÚs 2012.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is not the case at all. We are always happy to work with francophone countries. The best way to make that happen this year is not to wait six months to hold a meeting about it. We will work hard in Indonesia with all representatives of francophone countries to ensure that we have a real action plan for the whole planet in place after 2012.
Will the Minister of Justice cooperate to ensure that Mr. Schreiber can appear before a parliamentary committee if requested?
The question identifies a specific concern about political interference in extradition decisions and poses a clear, concrete ask about whether the minister will cooperate with a parliamentary committee appearance by Mr. Schreiber.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned that the justice minister allows political considerations to influence his decisions about whether to extradite Mr. Schreiber. If a parliamentary committee requests that Mr. Schreiber appear before it, will the Minister of Justice cooperate and will he ensure that Mr. Schreiber can appear before the committee?
Nicholson said he does not interfere with House committee business but that it would be inappropriate to comment given he is seized of the extradition matter.
Nicholson partially answers by stating he does not interfere with committee business and that commenting further on the extradition matter would be inappropriate, which is relevant but does not fully commit to cooperation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not interfere with the business of a committee of the House of Commons, and inasmuch as I am seized of the extradition matter, it would be inappropriate to comment.
Has the government fulfilled its commitment to bring about custodial management beyond the 200-mile limit?
This is a government-backbench softball setup that references a ministerial announcement made the same day and invites the minister to tout his record on custodial management.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for many years now overfishing has been a serious issue facing our country. Many communities, including several in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador, have been devastated by the disregard by some foreign countries of international law that forbids these actions. Today I was pleased to hear the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announce that serious overfishing citations in the NAFO zone are at an all-time low. Can the minister inform the House if the government has fulfilled its commitment to bring about custodial management beyond our 200 mile limit?
Hearn quoted the all-party Standing Committee's definition of custodial management and stated the government had fulfilled that mandate.
Hearn provides a direct quote from the all-party Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans defining custodial management and asserts the government fulfilled the commitment, offering substantive if self-congratulatory content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in a unanimous report to the House, the all party Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans said: By custodial management, the Committee did not intend that Canada should claim sovereignty over or exclusive rights to the resources of these regions of the ocean but that Canada should assume the role of managing and conserving the fisheries resources of the NAFO regulatory area in a way that would fully respect the rights of other nations that have historically fished these grounds. We have done that in spades.
Will the minister make companies responsible for their imports and take serious action against violations related to lead-laced toys?
The question lists specific named products found with unacceptable levels of lead and a recent shelf-removal incident, then poses two concrete asks: making companies responsible for imports and taking serious action against violations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the toys our kids have learned to love are turning out to be toxic. Dora the Explorer and her cartoon cousin Diego, Thomas the train, Barbie, and toy cars and trucks all were found with unacceptable levels of lead. Just yesterday, lead-laced duck-shaped umbrellas were pulled from Canadian store shelves. With Christmas coming, this is becoming a very urgent matter. A government-sponsored recall website is not going to fix the problems. Will the minister make companies responsible for their imports? Will he take serious action against violations?
Clement said only 'Indeed I will' with no further detail.
Clement's one-line 'Indeed I will' provides no facts, no specifics, and no explanation of what action he will actually take, making it essentially a non-answer.
Source text
Indeed I will, Mr. Speaker.
Will the minister impose more border testing paid for by importing companies like Mattel, strengthen Health Canada's recall powers, tighten import controls, and introduce a toxic import protection act?
The question mentions Mattel's $592 million in profits and lists several specific proposed measures (more border testing, beefed-up recall powers, tougher import controls, a toxic import protection act), but the rhetorical 'Surely' framing and compound structure dilute the specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, surely the minister would like to say something to Canadians about the fact that unsafe products should never enter Canada in the first place. Surely he would want to say something about more testing at the border paid for by importing companies like Mattel, out of its $592 million in profits. Surely he would like to see beefed-up powers for Health Canada to order recalls. Surely he wants tougher import controls. Surely he would like a toxic import protection act. Will he at least take seriously the issues around toxic toys and do something about this kind of train?
Clement claimed that a speech he delivered ten days ago stated exactly the position the member was demanding.
Clement claims he delivered a speech ten days earlier saying exactly what the member is demanding, which is a substantive if unverifiable response that engages the topic without providing the specific details requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member might have been waving around was a copy of a speech that I in fact delivered just 10 days ago, saying exactly what she is demanding. That is exactly my position.
Has the minister reopened his department's investigation, and will he recover the $2 million owed to taxpayers from Mr. Mulroney?
The question references Mulroney's 1996 sworn testimony, the $300,000 cash payment, and the $2-million taxpayer settlement, and poses two specific asks: whether the Justice Department inquiry has been reopened and whether Mulroney will be required to repay the $2 million.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en 1996, sous serment, M. Mulroney a affirmĂ© ne rien savoir des intĂ©rĂȘts d'affaires de M. Schreiber au Canada, mais il a acceptĂ© 300 000 $ en espĂšces de M. Schreiber. Cela ne tient pas debout. Si accepter 300 000 $ n'est pas une transaction d'affaires, de quoi s'agit-il exactement? Le ministre de la Justice a-t-il relancĂ© l'enquĂȘte de son ministĂšre et va-t-il recouvrer de M. Mulroney les 2 millions de dollars dus aux contribuables?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in 1996, under oath, Mr. Mulroney said he knew nothing about Mr. Schreiber's business interests in Canada, yet he accepted $300,000 in cash from Mr. Schreiber. It does not make any sense. If accepting $300,000 is not a business transaction, then what exactly is it? Has the Minister of Justice relaunched his department's investigation and will he recover from Mr. Mulroney the $2 million that is owing to taxpayers?
Nicholson said the government agreed to a full public inquiry and appointed Dr. Johnston to set its parameters.
Nicholson responds by noting the government agreed to a public inquiry and appointed Dr. Johnston to set its parameters, which addresses the broader accountability context but does not answer either specific ask about reopening the departmental investigation or recovering the $2 million.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with what the Liberals and a number of others asked for, the government has agreed to a full public inquiry. We have appointed a very eminent Canadian in the person of Dr. Johnston and he is having a look at this. He will set the parameters for a public inquiry. I think that should satisfy the hon. member.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary update the House on the UN resolution regarding the human rights situation in Iran?
This is a government-backbench setup asking the Parliamentary Secretary to update the House on a UN resolution the government itself sponsored, with no real accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned with the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran. The Iranian government is blatantly disregarding its commitments and its obligations under international law as well as its own domestic legal obligations. Canada, along with 41 co-sponsoring nations, brought forward a resolution at the UN this year to call attention to our serious concerns regarding Iran. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs update the House on the situation regarding the UN resolution?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the UN adopted a Canadian sponsored resolution calling attention to the continuing deterioration of the human rights situation in Iran. At the UN General Assembly meeting this September, the Minister of Foreign Affairs worked hard to build support for this resolution by his participation in almost 30 meetings with his foreign counterparts. United by our shared values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, our government will continue to restore Canada's international leadership through concrete actions that bring results.
Obhrai reported that the UN adopted a Canadian-sponsored resolution yesterday on the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran, supported by the Minister of Foreign Affairs' participation in almost 30 meetings at the September UN General Assembly.
Obhrai provides concrete information: the UN adopted a Canadian-sponsored resolution yesterday, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs held almost 30 meetings at the UN General Assembly in September to build support for it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would certainly offer my full apologies to you. I am a rookie member and I appreciate your wise counsel. You are the great wise helmsman of Parliament.
No summary.
This exchange consists entirely of procedural jousting and partisan commentary about the Minister of the Environment's earlier breach of House rules, with no policy question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on this issue, you will recall that you were the Speaker of the House when one of our members referred to somebody in the gallery. She lost the right to speak in this House of Commons for 30 days. I propose to the Speaker that the Minister of the Environment be taken off of his duties for 30 days.
Mr. Speaker, the whip for the NDP has made an eminently important point. I think we should also consider the beneficial effect that that action would have in reducing greenhouse gases.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, was once a rookie and I, too, made the same mistake and I, too, was cut off for 30 days. Fair is fair.
Mr. Speaker, I will remind you that I actually was a rookie. I had been here several months and had made the mistake of referring to a group of seniors who were visiting from my riding. I was chastised and for 30 days I could not stand and ask a question or speak in the House. So I think the same conditions apply.
No summary.
The government House Leader's response is a partisan deflection with no substantive content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that on behalf of the Minister of the Environment I can commit that he will not ask a question for the next 30 days here. However, there were times when he has not had to answer a question for 30 days, since opposition members abandoned that issue long ago when they abandoned so many other issues in favour of just sitting down every day.
No summary.
This is a procedural clarification by Mr. Godin about the specific penalty (loss of speaking rights, not question rights), not a policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just for the record, a member does not lose the right to raise a question. A member loses the right to make a speech in the House of Commons. A member loses the right to make a statement. That is what a member loses. A member loses the right to speak in the House of Commons. That is what he should lose.
Hear, hear! Oh, oh!
No summary.
The response is audience reaction only, with no ministerial answer.