Session overview
- The dominant theme was the RCMP search warrant executed at Conservative Party headquarters, with the Liberal and Bloc opposition pressing the Prime Minister to explain why a search warrant was necessary if all documents had already been provided to Elections Canada.
- The government's consistent defence was that the Conservative Party itself initiated the court proceeding against Elections Canada over what it called unequal treatment of Conservative candidates compared to other parties, particularly regarding in and out advertising.
- NDP leader Jack Layton challenged the Prime Minister over a KAIROS report alleging an additional $1.5 billion in government subsidies to oil sands companies; the Prime Minister countered that budget 2007 removed special incentives for the oil sands and replaced them with green technology incentives.
- The Minister of Environment John Baird denied any knowledge of Morton Paulsen, Friends of Science, Barry Cooper, or related radio advertising, in response to Liberal allegations that Conservative campaign connections were used to plan potentially illegal third-party election advertising in Ontario.
- The BQ raised concerns about Bill C-484, a private member's bill they argued opened the door to the recriminalization of abortion, but the Minister of Justice deflected by calling for Bloc support on the government's drug bill.
- The Minister of Indian Affairs announced a new water and waste water action plan to double resources for training and technical skills for first nations water operators, and committed to a formal assessment of water systems in all first nations communities.
Minister Chuck Strahl provided a specific, concrete commitment â a new water and waste water action plan that doubles resources for first nations water operator training, a formal assessment of water systems in all first nations communities, and a commitment to develop a legislative framework â representing a substantive policy announcement rather than rhetorical deflection.
Cites a specific individual (Morton Paulsen), his contractual relationship with Friends of Science, his role as ministerial spokesperson, and asks two specific questions about access to internal polling data and ad market targeting.
Rather than addressing the specific question about whether the Minister of National Revenue had recused himself from any departmental investigation into Friends of Science given his potential personal benefit from their advertising, Baird ignored the question entirely and attacked the Liberal Party as 'intellectually bankrupt' with no policy vision.
Outstanding questions
- Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-GrĂąceâLachine) asked whether the Conservative Party telling candidate Jean Landry not to speak to Elections Canada again was what the Prime Minister meant by cooperating fully with the Elections Canada Commissioner â this received no substantive response.
- Garth Turner (Halton) asked whether the RCMP shut down the Conservative Party's central computer during the raid to determine what was there and what had been deleted â this specific factual question was not answered.
- Sue Barnes (London West) asked the Minister of National Revenue who was heading the Canada Revenue Agency investigation into Barry Cooper's use of the University of Calgary's charitable tax status and when it would conclude â the minister said only that he was not aware of any investigation.
- Gilles Duceppe (LaurierâSainte-Marie) asked why, if the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, he will not make the search warrant public â this received no direct answer, only a general assertion that the court proceeding would be public.
- Bob Rae (Toronto Centre) asked Minister Bernier whether he understood that his public statements about the governor of Kandahar undermined diplomatic efforts and put President Karzai in an impossible position â Bernier did not address the substance of the diplomatic misstep and deflected to the Liberal motion on Afghanistan.
Dion asks why the RCMP needed a search warrant if the Conservative Party had already provided all information requested by the Elections Canada commissioner.
Asks a specific, logical accountability question: if documents were already provided, why was a search warrant needed â a genuine gap the PM must explain.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister's answers about the RCMP raid, which is still going on today, simply did not make sense. If the Conservative Party provided all the information requested by the Elections Canada commissioner, then why did the RCMP need a search warrant? Explain that to Canadians.
Harper says the Conservative Party initiated a legal action against Elections Canada and the matter will be resolved in court.
Harper deflects to the existence of a court proceeding and notes a scheduled examination was delayed, but never addresses the specific logical contradiction raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said already many times and has been known for some time, the Conservative Party of Canada has initiated a legal action involving Elections Canada. This is a legal matter between Elections Canada and the Conservative Party. Today we were scheduled to actually examine officials from Elections Canada. Obviously yesterday's event has delayed that, but the process will at some point resume and will be heard and resolved in court, where it is appropriate to do so.
Dion notes that a search warrant in Canada requires convincing a magistrate of valid reasons to believe an illegal act may have been committed, and asks why the RCMP is currently in Conservative Party offices.
Dion correctly notes the legal standard required for a search warrant and presses the PM for an explanation of what the RCMP is looking for â a pointed accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, un mandat de perquisition au Canada, cela ne se donne pas de façon frivole. Il faut convaincre un magistrat qu'on a des raisons valables de croire qu'un geste illĂ©gal pourrait avoir Ă©tĂ© commis. Alors, il faut poser Ă nouveau la question au premier ministre. Pourquoi ce mandat de perquisition de la GRC? Pourquoi, au moment oĂč on se parle, la GRC est dans les bureaux du Parti conservateur? Pourquoi cette perquisition? Le premier ministre connaĂźt la rĂ©ponse et il doit la donner aux Canadiens. Que cachent les conservateurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, search warrants are not issued frivolously in Canada. A judge has to be convinced that there is good reason to believe that an illegal act may have been committed. Let me ask the Prime Minister the question again. Why did the RCMP have a search warrant? Why are the RCMP searching the Conservative Party headquarters as we speak? Why was a search warrant issued? The Prime Minister knows the answer and he must give that answer to Canadians. What are the Conservatives hiding?
Harper states it is the Conservative Party that initiated the judicial proceeding and that they remain confident in their legal position.
Harper merely repeats that the Conservative Party initiated the court process and expresses confidence in their legal position, not addressing the warrant standard raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est le Parti conservateur qui a initiĂ© ce processus judiciaire. Nous sommes trĂšs confiants face Ă notre position. En fait, aujourd'hui, nous Ă©tions censĂ©s interroger les fonctionnaires d'Ălections Canada, mais cela se fera Ă l'avenir. Nous restons trĂšs confiants quant Ă notre position lĂ©gale.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative Party who initiated this lawsuit. We are very confident about our position. In fact, today we were scheduled to examine the officials from Elections Canada, but that will happen at a later date. We remain very confident about our legal position.
Dion cites the Montreal convention donation laws case and the Allan Ridell case as examples where Harper's confidence proved wrong, and asks how Canadians can believe him that the in and out scheme was legal.
Dion cites two prior instances where Harper claimed confidence and was proven wrong, then asks how he can be believed again regarding the in and out scheme â factually grounded but the ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that he was confident he did not break donation laws at their Montreal convention in 2005. He was proven wrong. He said that he was confident in his case against Allan Ridell, the candidate his party dropped in Ottawa South. He was proven wrong. How can he expect anyone to believe him when it is so clear that once again, in the last election, he broke the law with his in and out scheme?
Oh, oh!
Harper calls the allegations completely untrue, briefly references other false allegations, then pivots to listing government accomplishments and accusing Dion of throwing mud.
Harper flatly denies the allegations, pivots to unrelated examples of false allegations against other figures, then boasts about government achievements and attacks Dion personally, never engaging the substance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, those allegations are completely untrue, just as allegations made against the Minister of the Environment and the OPP were completely untrue and just as allegations made against Mr. Soudas were completely untrue. What we have isâ
Mr. Speaker, with the support, or at least the complicity of the Liberal Party, this government has managed to do a number of things for the benefit of Canadians, whether we are talking about the budget, whether we are talking about the criminal justice agenda, whether we are talking about moving our environment plan forward, defence, or foreign affairs. The Leader of the Opposition has lost ground. He has thrown away his ground on all his issues. Now he is just throwing mud.
Ignatieff challenges the government's framing of the RCMP search as a friendly visit and asks what the raid says about the Prime Minister's character.
Ignatieff describes the RCMP visit with rhetorical framing and ends with a vague character question about the Prime Minister, offering little factual specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the RCMP showed up at Conservative Party headquarters in bulletproof vests and carted away a truckload of documents, the government tried to pass it off asâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, when the RCMP visited Conservative headquarters, the government tried to pass it off as a friendly visit. The RCMP was executing a search warrant. That is called a raid. Then, Conservative spinners tried to call the raid âintimidation and a PR stuntâ. Actually, Elections Canada was just doing its job. What does this say about the Prime Minister's character?
Van Loan describes the dispute as being about Elections Canada's position that Conservative candidates cannot campaign promoting the national leader and party policy, which the Conservatives consider absurd and unequal.
Van Loan at least articulates the substance of the Elections Canada dispute â that candidates cannot campaign promoting the national leader and party policy â but does not address the character question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the subject of bulletproof vests, I do not want to comment on the leader's attire for Liberal caucus meetings. However, I am comfortable telling the House that the dispute we are talking about is one between the Conservative Party and Elections Canada. The position of Elections Canada in this dispute is that Conservative candidates are not permitted to campaign promoting our national leader and our party policy. We happen to think that is an absurd position. We further think it is unfair that it is an interpretation that applies only to Conservative candidates and not to those of other parties equally. That is why we took Elections Canada to court, and that is what this is all about.
Ignatieff accuses the government of contempt for Elections Canada and other independent institutions, including the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Military Police Complaints Commission, and asks why the PM refuses to respect independent institutions.
Ignatieff lists several institutions he claims the government has undermined and asks why the PM refuses to respect independent institutions â a compound, rhetorical ask that lacks a specific answerable question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cette rĂ©ponse montre le mĂ©pris de ce gouvernement pour Ălections Canada. Tout cela est intenable. Ce dĂ©dain pour Ălections Canada va de pair avec le mĂ©pris pour nos institutions nationales, comme la Commission canadienne de sĂ»retĂ© nuclĂ©aire, la Commission d'examen des plaintes concernant la police militaire du Canada et, maintenant, Ălections Canada. Ce gouvernement essaie de subvertir des institutions indĂ©pendantes dans notre pays. Pourquoi ce premier ministre refuse-t-il de respecter les institutions indĂ©pendantes de notre...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that answer illustrates this government's contempt for Elections Canada. This is indefensible. This disdain for Elections Canada is on par with their contempt for our national institutions such as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada, and now Elections Canada. This government is trying to undermine our country's independent institutions. Why is this Prime Minister refusing to respect the independent institutions of ourâ
Van Loan deflects by noting that the member for Toronto Centre filed a lawsuit against Elections Canada and won $50,000, implying the government's approach is consistent with precedent.
Van Loan deflects by pivoting to the lawsuit filed by the member for Toronto Centre against Elections Canada and the $50,000 received, which is entirely unrelated to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I understand why the member for EtobicokeâLakeshore raises this issue. It is a terrible thing for someone to take on Elections Canada, which is what the member for Toronto Centre just did with his lawsuit against Elections Canada. Do members know what that member proved? He proved that Elections Canada's interpretation was wrong. He received $50,000 as a result of that, as did the member for Etobicoke Centre. I will bet they are pretty happy that Elections Canada lost that one.
Duceppe compares Harper's dismissal of the RCMP raid and attacks on Elections Canada's independence to Jean Chrétien's attacks on Justice Gomery, and asks whether Harper is trying to hide the truth.
Duceppe draws a comparison to Jean ChrĂ©tien's attacks on Justice Gomery and asks whether Harper is hiding the truth behind a veneer of transparency â primarily rhetorical with no specific answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, le premier ministre a tentĂ© de banaliser la perquisition que la GRC a faite dans les locaux de son parti. Il a mĂȘme remis en question le caractĂšre impartial et indĂ©pendant d'Ălections Canada. Avec ses rĂ©ponses arrogantes et ses attaques envers cette institution dĂ©mocratique, le premier ministre me fait penser Ă Jean ChrĂ©tien, l'ex-premier ministre du Canada, qui ne se gĂȘnait pas pour attaquer la crĂ©dibilitĂ© du juge Gomery lors du scandale des commandites. Il s'agit du mĂȘme comportement. On sent que le vieux fond rĂ©formiste refait surface. Le premier ministre admettra-t-il que, sous son vernis de transparence, il cherche Ă tout contrĂŽler et mĂȘme Ă cacher la vĂ©ritĂ©?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister tried to downplay the RCMP search of his party's headquarters. He even questioned the impartiality and autonomy of Elections Canada. With his arrogant replies and his attacks on this democratic institution, the Prime Minister reminds me of Jean Chrétien, the former Prime Minister of Canada, who had no scruples about attacking Justice Gomery's credibility during the sponsorship scandal. The Prime Minister is behaving in the same way, as his reform background comes to the fore. Will the Prime Minister admit that, beneath his veneer of transparency, he is trying to control everything and even conceal the truth?
Harper says it is the Conservative Party that initiated the legal proceeding and that courts are the appropriate place to resolve disputes over interpretation of the law.
Harper gives a boilerplate response that parties and MPs sometimes dispute Elections Canada interpretations and courts are the appropriate place to resolve them, not engaging Duceppe's specific comparison or question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est le Parti conservateur qui a intentĂ© une procĂ©dure judiciaire contre Ălections Canada. De temps en temps, il y a des disputes Ă propos de l'interprĂ©tation de la loi entre des partis et des dĂ©putĂ©s et Ălections Canada. Les tribunaux sont les endroits appropriĂ©s pour rĂ©gler ces disputes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative Party that initiated legal action against Elections Canada. From time to time there are disputes between the parties or members and Elections Canada about the interpretation of the law. Those disputes are best settled in the courts.
Duceppe asks why the Prime Minister does not immediately make the search warrant public if he truly has nothing to hide and is as transparent as he claims.
Duceppe makes a pointed and specific ask â release the search warrant which the PM already has in hand â grounded in a transparency argument, making it a concrete and answerable accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, à l'entendre parler, on croirait qu'ils sont en train de s'auto-perquisitionner. Néanmoins, il y a de drÎles de rebondissements cette semaine. Lundi, à Winnipeg, le premier ministre dénonçait les voleurs d'autos; mardi, à Ottawa, il y a une descente dans ses locaux. Si le premier ministre est sincÚre et s'il n'a réellement rien à cacher, pourquoi ne rend-il pas public le mandat de perquisition qui a permis à la GRC d'aller fouiller les locaux de son parti? Il l'a entre les mains et sait ce qu'il y a dessus. Qu'il nous le dise s'il n'a rien à cacher et s'il est aussi transparent, ce supposé premier ministre transparent.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, to hear the Prime Minister talk, one would think the Conservatives were searching their own headquarters. Nevertheless, it has been quite a week. On Monday, in Winnipeg, the Prime Minister took aim at car thieves. On Tuesday, in Ottawa, police raided his party's headquarters. If the Prime Minister is sincere and really has nothing to hide, why does he not release the search warrant the RCMP produced to search his party's headquarters? He has it and knows what it says. If he is so transparent and has nothing to hide, he should tell us what the warrant says. He is supposed to be the transparent prime minister.
Harper says the legal proceeding will by its nature be public and he expects all facts of the dispute to become public through that process.
Harper says the proceeding will be public by its nature and all facts will become public, but does not address why the warrant cannot be released immediately as requested.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est le Parti conservateur qui a intenté cette procédure judiciaire. Par sa nature, cette procédure sera publique. Je m'attends donc à ce que tous les faits de cette dispute soient publics. C'est la raison pour laquelle nous avons choisi ce chemin pour régler ce problÚme.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative Party that began the legal proceedings. By nature, these proceedings will be public. I therefore expect that all the facts in this dispute will be made public. That is why we chose this way of resolving this problem.
Guimond states that only the Conservative Party has had its election reports contested by Elections Canada and been subject to an RCMP raid, and asks why the raid occurred if all requested documents had been provided.
Guimond asserts that only the Conservative Party had reports contested by Elections Canada and only they were raided, then asks the same logical question as Exchange 1 â reasonably specific but repetitive.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pour banaliser leurs magouilles Ă©lectorales, les conservateurs ont le culot d'affirmer que tous les partis ont trichĂ© comme eux. Or, rien n'est plus faux. Les conservateurs sont les seuls Ă avoir des rapports qui sont contestĂ©s par Ălections Canada. Pour preuve, il n'y a que le Parti conservateur qui a Ă©tĂ© perquisitionnĂ© par la GRC. Si les conservateurs avaient transmis tous les documents demandĂ©s par Ălections Canada, comme ils le prĂ©tendent, alors pourquoi la GRC a-t-elle effectuĂ© cette descente de police dans les locaux du Parti conservateur?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, to downplay their election tricks, the Conservatives have the nerve to say that all parties cheated as they did. There is nothing further from the truth. The Conservatives are the only party whose returns are being challenged by Elections Canada. As proof, only the Conservative Party offices were searched by the RCMP. If the Conservatives had handed over all the documents requested by Elections Canada, as they claimed, then why did the RCMP raid its offices?
Van Loan argues that the real problem is unequal treatment, with Elections Canada's position being that Conservative candidates cannot promote party policy and their leader â a position he considers absurd.
Van Loan again articulates the party's substantive position about unequal treatment but does not address the specific question of why the raid was necessary if documents were already provided.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le traitement diffĂ©rent entre les partis constitue le problĂšme. La position d'Ălections Canada est la suivante: les candidats du Parti conservateur n'ont pas l'autorisation de promouvoir les politiques du parti et leur chef. Nous pensons que c'est absurde. En outre, nous sommes d'avis qu'il est injuste que cette interprĂ©tation ne s'applique qu'aux candidats conservateurs et que cela dĂ©montre un traitement inĂ©gal entre les partis. C'est pourquoi nous avons poursuivi Ălections Canada en justice.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is the different treatment of the parties that is the problem. Elections Canada's position is as follows: Conservative candidates are not permitted to promote the policies of our party and of our leader. We feel that is absurd. Furthermore, we believe that it is unfair that this interpretation applies only to Conservative candidates. This demonstrates that the parties are not treated equally. That is why we are taking Elections Canada to court.
Guimond lists what he calls Conservative electoral schemes â obstruction at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, refusal to cooperate with Elections Canada, and attacks on its credibility â and demands the Prime Minister immediately table the search warrant in the House.
Guimond lists specific Conservative behaviours â obstruction at committee, refusal to cooperate with Elections Canada, attacking its credibility â and makes a concrete ask to table the search warrant in the House.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, faisons maintenant la nomenclature des magouilles Ă©lectorales des conservateurs. Ils font de l'obstruction systĂ©matique au ComitĂ© permanent de la procĂ©dure et des affaires de la Chambre, refusent de collaborer avec Ălections Canada, attaquent sa crĂ©dibilitĂ©, tentent de noyer le poisson. Cela nous rappelle les attaques de la National Citizen Coalition contre le plafond des dĂ©penses Ă©lectorales. Si le premier ministre veut faire preuve de bonne foi et de transparence, qu'attend-il pour dĂ©poser immĂ©diatement en cette Chambre le mandat de perquisition?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to now list the Conservatives' election tricks. They are filibustering the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, refusing to cooperate with Elections Canada, attacking its credibility, and attempting to evade the issue. This reminds us of the National Citizen Coalition attacks against the limit on election expenses. If the Prime Minister wishes to show good faith and transparency, why does he not immediately produce the search warrant in this House?
Van Loan says the search warrant is a matter of a legal proceeding and will unfold through that process, then repeats the argument that Elections Canada's interpretation applies unequally only to the Conservative Party.
Van Loan says the search warrant is a matter of a legal proceeding and will unfold there, then pivots to the unequal treatment argument, not engaging the list of obstruction allegations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the search warrant is a matter of a legal proceeding and we will let the legal proceeding unfold where it will. The concern for us is that there is a treatment for the Conservative Party that is different from that of all other parties, which is the absurd proposition that we cannot promote as candidates in our ridings our national leader and our party policies. That is a position that is contrary to every fundamental principle of democracy. Every fair-minded Canadian would see that as unreasonable. Most unreasonable is the fact that the interpretation by Elections Canada only applies to the Conservative Party, which is why we have taken it to court.
Layton cites a new KAIROS report showing the government subsidizes oil sands companies by an additional $1.5 billion and asks why the Prime Minister chooses big polluters and profiteers over families suffering from rising gasoline and food prices.
Layton cites a specific KAIROS report showing $1.5 billion in additional subsidies to oil sands companies and asks why the PM favours big polluters over families â factually grounded but the ask is rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on a un nouveau record pour les prix de l'essence ici, au Canada. Les gens et les familles souffrent Ă cause de cela et les familles trouvent mĂȘme que le prix de la nourriture est en hausse Ă cause de ce problĂšme. Quelle est la solution des conservateurs? Un nouveau rapport de KAIROS dĂ©montre que le gouvernement subventionne les grandes pĂ©troliĂšres dĂ©veloppant les sables bitumineux au montant de 1,5 milliard de dollars additionnels. Pourquoi le premier ministre choisit-il ses amis, les grands pollueurs et les grands profiteurs, plutĂŽt que les familles d'aujourd'hui qui souffrent Ă cause de la hausse du prix de l'essence?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, gas prices in Canada have hit a new high. Individuals and families are suffering, and families are even finding that the cost of food is increasing because of this problem. What is the Conservatives' solution? A new report from KAIROS shows that the government is providing an additional $1.5 billion in funding for the big oil companies operating in the oil sands. Why does the Prime Minister choose his friends, the major polluters and major profiteers, over the families that are suffering because of high gas prices?
Harper states that in budget 2007 his government removed subsidies and tax incentives for the oil sands sector, and criticizes the NDP for voting against those measures.
Harper specifically references budget 2007 measures to remove subsidies and incentives for the oil sands sector, which is a relevant factual response, though he pivots to attacking the NDP's voting record.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce gouvernement a retirĂ© les subventions et les incitatifs fiscaux pour ce secteur dans le budget de 2007. Je suis déçu que le NPD ait votĂ© contre les intĂ©rĂȘts des consommateurs et des payeurs de taxes du Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government removed funding and tax incentives for this sector in the 2007 budget. I am disappointed that the NDP voted against the interests of Canadian taxpayers and consumers.
Layton urges the Prime Minister to acknowledge the truth revealed in government briefing documents cited in the KAIROS report â that an additional $1.5 billion goes to big oil and gas companies â instead of choosing them over ordinary families.
Layton again cites the KAIROS report and the government's own briefing documents but frames the ask as a demand for truth-telling rather than a specific answerable question, making it more rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would simply suggest that the Prime Minister read his own government's briefing documents on the subject, which were revealed in a report tabled by KAIROS today, showing that this year an additional $1.5 billion will go these big polluting companies developing the oil and tar sands. It is time the Prime Minister rose in the House and told Canadians the truth about what is going on. He has chosen his friends, the big profiteers, the big oil and gas companies, instead of helping out ordinary families that are trying to get by, buy a little gas at a fair price and get some food at a fair price. The Prime Minister should stand and tell the truth.
Harper states that budget 2007 removed special incentives and subsidies for the oil sands and replaced them with incentives for green technology development, accusing the NDP of having voted to keep these subsidies.
Harper is more specific about budget 2007 measures â removing special incentives and subsidies for oil sands and replacing them with green technology incentives â but spends most of the answer attacking the NDP's voting record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is time the leader of the NDP told the truth, especially when, in budget 2007, this government put in measures to remove the special incentives and subsidies for the oil sands and, in fact, to replace them specifically with incentives for green technology development, and the NDP voted against the interests of the environment, voted against the interests of consumers, voted against the interests of taxpayers and voted to keep these subsidies. That is what the NDP did.
Jennings cites Conservative candidate Jean Landry of RichmondâArthabaska, who said his campaign was forced to process $26,000 through the in and out scheme and was told by the Conservative Party not to speak to Elections Canada again, and asks whether that constitutes the full cooperation the Prime Minister claims.
Jennings cites a named Conservative candidate, Jean Landry of RichmondâArthabaska, a specific dollar amount of $26,000, and a specific alleged instruction not to speak to Elections Canada, then asks whether that constitutes full cooperation as claimed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is not just Elections Canada saying that the Conservatives cheated in the last election. Their own candidates from across the country are saying that too. Jean Landry, their candidate in RichmondâArthabaska, said that his campaign was forced to process $26,000 through this scheme. Mr. Landry said, âThe Conservative Party called me to tell me not to talk to Elections Canada againâ. Is that what the Prime Minister means when he says that they cooperated fully with the Elections Canada Commissioner who the Conservatives appointed?
Van Loan states all documents were provided before yesterday's action, then quotes Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch to argue the Conservative spending practice is legal and common to all parties.
Van Loan asserts all documents were provided before yesterday's action, then quotes Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch at length on CTV to argue the spending practice is legal and common â relevant but cuts off and does not address the specific Landry allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as indicated previously, we have provided all documents that Elections Canada has asked for in this regard before yesterday's extraordinary and unusual action. In terms of our spending practices, I would like to quote Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch, who was on CTV today. He said, âThe Conservatives did something in the last election that all parties have done for years. That's legal, and parties can donate as much as they want to a local candidate and often do to candidates that don't have a lot of local support and can't raise money on their own. And then what happens is those candidates use some of that money to buy materials for national headquarters, like pamphlets, signs, platforms to hand out to people. That's all--â
Jennings quotes Jean Landry saying there was in and out money and that funds designated for local advertising were used instead for national advertising, and asks whether the Conservatives will accuse their own 2006 candidates of fabricating a false scandal.
Jennings quotes Jean Landry directly, using his own words about in and out money intended for advertising being used for national advertising instead, and asks whether the Conservatives will now accuse their own 2006 candidates of fabricating a scandal.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'ancien candidat Jean Landry s'est fait tordre le bras pour aider les conservateurs à tricher lors des derniÚres élections. Il a dit, et je cite: « Il y avait un montant d'argent qui était du in and out. » M. Landry va encore plus loin. Il a dit: « On avait précisé que ça devait me servir pour de la publicité, [...] L'argent a plutÎt servi à des publicités nationales. » Les conservateurs vont-ils maintenant accuser leurs propres candidats de la campagne de 2006 d'imaginer un faux scandale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, former candidate Jean Landry was forced to help the Conservatives cheat in the last election. He said that there was an amount of money for the in and out scheme. Mr. Landry also said that he was told the money was meant to be used for his advertising, but that instead it went towards national advertisements. Are the Conservatives now going to accuse their own candidates from the 2006 campaign of creating a bogus scandal?
Van Loan asserts the Conservative election spending practices comply fully with the law and describes the Liberal Party's own grouped regional advertising and national brochure practices as equivalent to what the Conservatives did.
Van Loan asserts full legal compliance, then pivots to Liberal grouped regional advertising and national brochure practices as equivalent â a substantive counter-argument but does not address the Landry quotes or the accusation question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our election spending practices comply fully with the law. Other parties do exactly the same type of spending. In fact, in the last election, the Liberal Party did grouped regional advertising, the same thing, and it even has an approach where the national campaign provides nationally produced advertising brochures and materials to local candidates who actually need to sign over their Elections Canada rebates to the central party. It sounds like in and out and it sounds like back and forth but, guess what? It is exactly the same as what we do and we actually think it is legal.
Turner states he refused to participate in the in and out scheme as a Conservative candidate in 2005 and asks whether the Prime Minister will use the same scheme in the next election if it was legal.
Turner's personal narrative context is rhetorical but his specific ask â will the Conservatives use the same scheme in the next election â is a pointed forward-looking accountability question, though embedded in self-promotion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when police raided the Conservative Party headquarters yesterday looking for evidence of election fraud, there was one name they left without having in their files and that was mine. As a Conservative candidate in 2005, I refused to take part in an election scheme designed to break the law and rip off taxpayers. My campaign team--
Oh, oh!
My question is for the Prime Minister, Mr. Integrity. If what he did was legal in the last election, will he be doing the same thing this time?
Van Loan sarcastically thanks Turner for his 'bold stance' two and a half years after the fact and invites him to put his integrity to the test of voters in Halton in upcoming by-elections.
Van Loan ignores the question entirely, attacking Turner personally over his floor-crossing position and inviting him to face voters in Halton, with no connection to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Integrity for his bold stance some two and a half years after the event in question. This is the same fellow who said that anybody who ever crossed the floor should go to the people for ratification of that decision. There will be another round of by-elections. We would be happy to accommodate him if he wants to put his integrity to the test of Canadians and voters in Halton.
Turner asserts that 66 Conservative candidates were indicted by the Chief Electoral Officer and asks the Prime Minister to confirm that the RCMP shut down the Conservative Party's central computer to determine what was there and what had been deleted.
Turner makes a specific factual claim â 66 candidates indicted by the Chief Electoral Officer â and asks a pointed and specific question about whether the RCMP shut down the Conservative Party's central computer and what was deleted.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government claims that this historic raid was no big deal, just the result of a civil lawsuit. However, never before have 66 candidates, many of them obedient, pliant, silent members of Parliament, ever been indicted by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. The Conservatives say that it was an imaginary raid. Were the police imaginary? Could the Prime Minister confirm that the RCMP shut down the Conservative Party's central computer yesterday to find out what was there and what had been deleted?
Van Loan says all Conservative practices follow the law and expresses puzzlement that a search was necessary since all documents were provided, then deflects by questioning why the Liberal Party happened to be on the scene with a camera crew.
Van Loan asserts all practices follow the law and says they share the concern about why the search was necessary since all documents were provided, but does not address the specific question about the central computer or deleted files, and deflects with a question about the Liberal camera crew.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all of our practices entirely follow the law. We share some of the concern of the hon. member. We do not know why any search by Elections Canada was necessary because we provided every document required. I am also given pause to wonder why it was that the Liberal Party of Canada just happened to be on the scene, camera crew at the ready. That is an interesting question to ask.
Why did the Minister of Foreign Affairs say in October 2007 that the situation had greatly improved in Kandahar, only to say the opposite earlier this week and question whether the governor was 'the right person, in the right place, at the right moment'?
Cites specific October 2007 ministerial statement and contrasts it with an early-week contradiction, with a clear ask to explain the inconsistency.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, alors qu'en octobre 2007, le ministre des Affaires étrangÚres disait que la situation s'était grandement améliorée à Kandahar, voilà qu'en début de semaine, il affirmait exactement le contraire et ajoutait: « Le président doit décider de l'avenir du gouverneur. Est-ce qu'il est la bonne personne, à la bonne place, au bon moment [...]? » Le ministre pourrait-il nous expliquer ces contradictions et le sens de ses propos afin que nous puissions comprendre la profondeur de sa réflexion?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in October 2007, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the situation in Kandahar had improved significantly, but earlier this week, he said the opposite, adding that âThe president will have to decide about the governor's future. Is he the right person at the right place at the right timeâ?â Can the minister explain these contradictions and what he meant by his remarks so that we can understand what he was thinking?
The minister cited UN Resolution 1806 on good governance and anti-corruption, and called on the Bloc Québécois to support the mission in Afghanistan.
The minister pivots to citing UN Resolution 1806 and general governance talking points, never addressing the contradiction between his two statements.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis un grand défenseur des droits de la personne au Canada et en Afghanistan. Ce parti, ce gouvernement, se bat pour avoir une bonne gouvernance en Afghanistan. Nous faisons cela en vertu de la résolution 1806 des Nations Unies, qui demande aux pays et à la communauté internationale d'aider à améliorer la gouvernance pour « lutter contre la corruption, en particulier au niveau local, et pour promouvoir les initiatives locales de développement ». C'est ce que nous faisons en Afghanistan. J'aimerais bien que le Bloc québécois nous appuie pour aider les Afghans.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am a great champion of human rights in Canada and Afghanistan. This party, this government, is fighting for good governance in Afghanistan. We are doing so because of UN resolution 1806, which asks countries and the international community to help improve governance to âcombat corruption, in particular at subnational level, and to promote development initiatives at the local levelâ. That is what we are doing in Afghanistan. I would like the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois to support us in our efforts to help the Afghan people.
Is the Prime Minister aware that pressuring President Karzai to fire the governor of Kandahar makes the Afghan president appear to lead a puppet government, especially given the minister's conduct during his recent Afghanistan visit?
Raises a substantive concern about undermining President Karzai's sovereignty, but the Jos Louis cake reference and 'marionnette' framing make it heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, malheureusement, le ministre prend les mauvais moyens. En plus d'avoir brĂ»lĂ© les canaux diplomatiques, le ministre a menottĂ© le prĂ©sident KarzaĂŻ. Limoger le gouverneur de Kandahar Ă ce moment-ci donnerait l'impression que le prĂ©sident afghan est Ă la tĂȘte d'un gouvernement fantoche. Le premier ministre est-il conscient que ce n'est pas trĂšs glorieux d'avoir l'air de la marionnette d'un ministre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres canadien qui, lors d'un rĂ©cent sĂ©jour en Afghanistan, s'est surtout illustrĂ© par sa distribution de petits gĂąteaux Jos Louis?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the minister is not doing things the right way. In addition to having burned diplomatic bridges, the minister handcuffed President Karzai. Dismissing the governor of Kandahar right now would give people the impression that the Afghan president is heading up a puppet government. Is the Prime Minister aware that looking like the puppet of the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, whose most conspicuous activity during a recent visit to Afghanistan was handing out Jos Louis cakes, does not come across as particularly glorious?
The minister accused the Bloc of partisan politics and said his side was working to improve economic development, governance, stability, and security in Afghanistan.
The minister does not address the diplomatic sovereignty concern at all, instead attacking the Bloc for talking rather than helping Afghans.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au lieu de faire de la politique partisane, ma collÚgue du Bloc québécois devrait faire comme nous, de ce cÎté-ci de la Chambre, et aider les Afghans à avoir un meilleur développement économique, à avoir une bonne gouvernance, à avoir un gouvernement stable et à avoir plus de sécurité en Afghanistan. Mais non, ce que le Bloc québécois fait, c'est parler, parler, parler depuis 18 ans contre tout ce qui se passe ici, au Canada. Il ne veut pas aider les Afghans à améliorer leur sort.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, instead of indulging in partisan politics, my Bloc Québécois colleague should do what we on this side of the House are doing and help the Afghan people achieve better economic development, good governance, a stable government and improved security in Afghanistan. But no, the Bloc Québécois is doing what it has always done for the past 18 years: speak out against everything happening here in Canada. The Bloc does not want to help the Afghan people build better lives for themselves.
Given opposition from the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec, the Fédération des femmes du Québec, and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux to Bill C-484, will the minister take responsibility and defend women rather than hiding behind a free vote?
Names three specific organizations (Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec, Fédération des femmes du Québec, Confédération des syndicats nationaux) opposing Bill C-484 and asks the minister to take a clear position rather than hiding behind a free vote.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le projet de loi C-484 d'un député conservateur soulÚve de sérieuses inquiétudes au Québec. La Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec, la Fédération des femmes du Québec et la Confédération des syndicats nationaux s'insurgent contre ce projet de loi qui ouvre tout grand la porte à la recriminalisation de l'avortement. La ministre du Patrimoine canadien, de la Condition féminine et des Langues officielles, au lieu de se cacher sous des prétextes fallacieux et de dire que c'est un vote libre, va-t-elle enfin prendre ses responsabilités et défendre les femmes afin qu'un tel projet de loi rétrograde ne soit jamais adopté?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Conservative Bill C-484 is creating some serious concerns in Quebec. The Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec, the Fédération des femmes du Québec and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux are speaking out against this bill that would throw open the door for the recriminalization of abortion. Instead of hiding behind false pretenses and saying that it is a free vote, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages finally assume her responsibilities and defend women so that this regressive bill will never pass?
The minister said it is a private member's bill for each member to decide, and pivoted to asking for the Bloc's position on ID theft, auto theft, and drug bills.
The minister dismisses the question as repetitive, makes a sarcastic remark about the Bloc discovering justice issues, and pivots entirely to other unrelated bills.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for umpteen days we have been getting this question from the Bloc Québécois on this private member's bill. It is up to each member to decide how he or she wants to treat the bill. I am happy if the Bloc Québécois members have finally discovered some justice issues. I want to get their help on ID theft, auto theft and drug bills. Where is their position on those? Let us hear it from them.
Why is the Minister of Justice allowing the debate on women's right to abortion to be reopened through the back door via Bill C-484, especially given that pro-life groups are openly claiming it as a gain?
References pro-life groups claiming Bill C-484 as a gain for fetal rights recognition and notes the Prime Minister's absence during the second reading vote, but the ask is somewhat vague and mixed with partisan framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le groupe pro-vie s'en vante: le projet de loi C-484 est un gain qui pourrait reconnaßtre des droits au foetus. On le voit bien, le vieux fond réformiste des conservateurs refait surface, et ce n'est que par pur électoralisme que le premier ministre ne s'est pas présenté lors du vote sur ce projet de loi à l'étape de la deuxiÚme lecture. Pourquoi le ministre de la Justice laisse-t-il rouvrir le débat sur le droit des femmes à l'avortement, en usant des prétextes et en agissant par la porte de derriÚre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Pro-Life is boasting that Bill C-484 is a triumph that could recognize fetal rights. It is very clear that the Conservatives' old reformist slant is resurfacing, and that it was with an eye to an election that the Prime Minister did not show up to vote on the second reading of this bill. Why is the Minister of Justice allowing the debate about a woman's right to abortion to be re-opened via the back door and under false pretenses?
The minister noted it is a private member's bill and asked for the Bloc's position on the drug bill with mandatory jail terms for narcotics importers, exporters, and grow-op operators.
The minister notes it is a private member's bill and then pivots entirely to asking the Bloc's position on the drug bill, not addressing the question at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member missed this, but this is a private member's bill that has been debated in this House. While I am on my feet, I would like to know where the Bloc Québécois stands on our drug bill. That has mandatory jail terms for people who import or export narcotics in and out of this country, and for people who want to sell drugs around schoolyards, and for people who want to get into the grow op business. I have not heard a peep out of the Bloc on this one. Let us hear it.
Why did the Minister of the Environment give Morton Paulsen access to internal polling results and allow him to target markets for Friends of Science advertising, given that Paulsen was simultaneously under contract with Friends of Science and serving as the minister's spokesperson during the last election?
Cites a specific individual (Morton Paulsen), his contractual relationship with Friends of Science, his role as ministerial spokesperson, and asks two specific questions about access to internal polling data and ad market targeting.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ministre qui a prĂ©sentĂ© la Loi sur la responsabilitĂ© Ă©tait aussi prĂ©sident de la campagne conservatrice en Ontario. Alors que M. Morton Paulsen Ă©tait sous contrat avec les Amis de la Science, il Ă©tait porte-parole de ce mĂȘme ministre aux derniĂšres Ă©lections. Pourquoi le ministre de l'Environnement a-t-il donnĂ© Ă M. Paulsen accĂšs aux rĂ©sultats de sondages internes? Pourquoi lui a-t-il permis de cibler les marchĂ©s oĂč les publicitĂ©s des Amis de la Science devraient ĂȘtre diffusĂ©es?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the minister who introduced the accountability act was also the chair of the Conservative campaign in Ontario. While Morton Paulsen was under contract to the Friends of Science, he was also the spokesperson for that same minister during the last election. Why did the Minister of the Environment give Mr. Paulsen access to the results of internal polls? Why did he allow him to pick the markets where Friends of Science commercials were to be aired?
The minister stated he has never met Mr. Paulsen and had never heard his name until the previous day.
The minister directly denies ever meeting or hearing of Mr. Paulsen, which addresses the personal connection alleged, but does not address the polling data or market targeting questions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have never met Mr. Paulsen. I had never heard his name until yesterday.
Given that Friends of Science admitted it was Barry Cooper's right-hand man Morton Paulsen who planned the ad campaign and picked five Ontario markets while working for the minister, will the minister admit that Friends of Science acted as an arm of the Conservative Party to break campaign financing rules?
References Friends of Science's own admission, names Barry Cooper, identifies five Ontario markets, and makes a specific claim about campaign financing violations, with a clear accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Friends of Science has admitted it was Mr. Paulsen, Barry Cooper's right-hand man, who planned the ad campaign and picked the five markets in Ontario while working for the minister on the Conservative campaign. They even bragged that these radio ads reached hundreds of thousands of people in ridings where they could influence the outcome of the election. In fact, they did. Will Canadians have to wait until the RCMP comes knocking on the minister's door, or will he simply admit that Friends of Science act as an arm for the Conservative Party to break, yet again, campaign financing rules?
Oh, oh!
The minister denied prior knowledge of any radio ads, Friends of Science, Barry Cooper, or Douglas Leahey, and challenged the member to repeat his allegations outside the House of Commons.
The minister denies awareness of the radio ads, Friends of Science, Barry Cooper, and Douglas Leahey, then challenges the member to repeat the allegations outside the House, without engaging the substance of the campaign financing question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, until yesterday I was unaware of any radio ads. I have never heard of the Friends of Science, and I have never heard of Barry Cooper or Douglas Leahey. What the Liberal member for Ottawa South is doing is saying things with which he has no ability to provide one ounce of truth to back them up. If he is so brave, if he is so convinced he has the facts, let him tender those facts outside of the House of Commons. Let him say exactly what he said here outside of the House of Commons. There is a reason why he will not, because it is not true and he knows it.
Who is heading the Canada Revenue Agency investigation into whether Barry Cooper misused the University of Calgary's charitable tax status for partisan election advertising, when does the minister expect it to conclude, and will the conclusions be made public?
References a specific Canada Revenue Agency investigation into Barry Cooper's alleged misuse of the University of Calgary's charitable tax status for partisan election advertising, and asks three concrete questions about who is leading it, timeline, and public disclosure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have heard reports that a Canada Revenue Agency investigation is ongoing into whether the Prime Minister's friend and adviser, Barry Cooper, misused the University of Calgary's charitable tax status by engaging in partisan activities in election advertising. I ask the revenue minister , who was heading up the investigation? When does he expect it to conclude, and will the conclusions be made public?
The minister stated he is not aware of any investigation.
The minister's single-sentence answerâ'I am not aware of any investigation'âfails to address the three specific questions asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any investigation.
Given the University of Calgary audit services report and potentially illegal third party election advertising in Ontario, has the revenue minister recused himself from any departmental proceedings given that he may have personally benefited from those ads?
References the University of Calgary's audit services report released that week, ties Friends of Science to the election and Kyoto announcement timing, and raises a conflict-of-interest question about ministerial recusal, though the question is cut off mid-sentence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Friends of Science helped the Conservatives by launching an anti-Kyoto PR campaign on the very same day that the former Liberal government's project green was announced. Now we learn through this week's release of the Calgary University's audit services report that they also worked with the Conservatives in the last election through the potentially illegal third party advertising during an election, an advertising campaign that hit Ontario. Given that the revenue minister may be among those who personally benefited from these questionable ads, has the minister recused himself from any of his department's--
Oh, oh!
The minister did not address the question and instead attacked the Liberal Party for being intellectually bankrupt and lacking policies, vision, and leadership.
The minister's response is a pure attack on the Liberal Party's intellectual bankruptcy and policy vacuum with no connection whatsoever to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day for Canada. Members of the Liberal Party have exposed just how bankrupt intellectually they are--
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada is intellectually bankrupt. The Liberals have no policies for this country. They have no vision. They are providing no leadership and no agenda for the future. Those of us on this side of the House are working to improve health care, build a strong economy, fight crime and we are getting the job done. That is why they support us each and every day to allow us to stay in government.
How does the government plan to proceed in selecting a new Chief of Defence Staff following General Rick Hillier's announcement that he will step down on July 1?
A government backbench softball setup question about General Hillier's retirement and the process for selecting a new Chief of Defence Staff.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday General Rick Hillier announced he will step down as chief of defence staff as of July 1 of this year. In his 30-plus years of service, General Hillier demonstrated his dedication to the men and women of the Canadian Forces and made a great contribution to the rebuilding of the pride of serving in Canada's armed services. His retirement leaves an opening for the military's top position. Can the Prime Minister explain how the government plans to proceed in selecting a new chief of defence staff?
Mr. Speaker, first I thank the hon. member for the question and I would like to repeat what I said yesterday. General Hillier has provided strong and remarkable leadership for the military during a period in which it has been rebuilt. He has left it a much stronger institution than when he found it. He has also left us with a strong cadre of senior officers from which the government will consult and will ultimately pick a successor. We look forward to seeing an even stronger Canadian Forces in the future.
The Prime Minister praised General Hillier's leadership in rebuilding the military and said the government will consult the strong cadre of senior officers left behind to ultimately pick a successor.
The Prime Minister provides a substantive tribute to General Hillier and clearly describes the succession processâconsulting the existing cadre of senior officersâwhich directly addresses the question.
When will the government stop defying political and legal institutions and admit that it broke election financing laws, given the RCMP raid and alleged efforts to intimidate Elections Canada?
References the RCMP raid and characterizes it as a serious police action, but the question is largely rhetorical and asks the government to 'admit' wrongdoing rather than posing a specific factual question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party set up an elaborate scam to circumvent the election financing rules of Canada and when it was caught, it tried to intimidate Elections Canada into backing down. It has obstructed, defied and made a mockery of attempts by this Parliament to get to the bottom of it, but most shocking of all is the contempt the Conservatives are showing for the RCMP. Yesterday's raid was not a publicity stunt, as the government claims. It was a serious police action. When will the government stop defying the political and legal institutions of this country and admit that it broke the election financing laws of Canada?
The minister described the dispute as a disagreement over the interpretation of elections lawâspecifically whether local Conservative candidates can promote their national leader in advertisingâand cited NDP sign practices in Toronto as a parallel.
The minister does not address the RCMP raid at all and instead explains the party's legal interpretation of election advertising rules, comparing the situation to NDP sign placement in Toronto.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated several times, our dispute with Elections Canada is a disagreement over the interpretation of the elections law. Elections Canada takes the somewhat unusual position that local Conservative candidates cannot promote in their advertising their national leader or national policies. We think that is absurd and we do not think that is fair, because in the last federal election, if one were driving around the greater Toronto area, one would have seen everywhere NDP signs outside of the NDP leader's riding of TorontoâDanforth, all of which had the NDP leader's name on it, all outside that riding. That is the exact same principle at work. We do not see anything wrong with that. We think it is legal. We think all--
Why does the Conservative Party refuse to play by election financing rules that apply to average Canadians, especially after promising to set a higher bar than the corrupt old Liberals?
The question is largely rhetorical, framing election financing rules as a democratic cornerstone and asking why the Conservative Party refuses to follow rules average Canadians abide by, without citing specific violations or documents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, elections financing rules are a fundamental cornerstone of a legitimate democratic process. They are there to ensure that some party cannot come along and buy an election. The Conservative Party jigged the rules and when it was caught, it tried to intimidate officials. The Conservatives promised the Canadian public that they would set a higher bar than the corrupt, old Liberals and they are no bloody better. Why is it that average Canadians play by the rules and that party refuses?
The minister stated the Conservatives initiated the court dispute because of unequal treatment compared to other parties, cited Duff Conacher's statement that inter-party fund transfers to local candidates are legal, and said every party should be treated the same.
The minister explains that the Conservatives initiated the court dispute to challenge unequal treatment, references Duff Conacher's television comments about inter-party fund transfers, and argues the same rules should apply to all partiesâtangentially relevant but not addressing the specific allegation of rule-breaking.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us remember that this was a dispute initiated in the courts by the Conservative Party of Canada because of the unequal treatment of the Conservative Party compared with other parties, including the NDP, which engages in the transfer of funds between riding associations from its central party to assist in local targeted ridings. It has been going on for years. Duff Conacher said that on television. He said it is legal. Parties can donate as much as they want to a local candidate and they often do that to candidates who do not have a lot of local support which, of course, happens with the NDP very often. We think that is perfectly fine. We just think every party should be treated the same. That is why we took Elections Canada to court.
General Hillier said the governor of Kandahar was doing a phenomenal job; the minister questioned whether the governor was the right person in the right positionâwho is right, the general or the minister?
Cites General Hillier's specific characterization of the Kandahar governor as doing 'phenomenal' work and directly contrasts it with the minister's public questioning of the governor, posing a single clear answerable question about who is correct.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai une question pour le ministre des Affaires étrangÚres. Il y a quelques semaines, le général Hillier a dit qu'il pensait que le gouverneur de Kandahar faisait un travail phénoménal. Ce sont ses paroles. Puis, le ministre a demandé si le gouverneur était la bonne personne dans la bonne position. Ma question est trÚs simple. Qui a raison: le général Hillier ou le ministre des Affaires étrangÚres?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. A few weeks ago, General Hillier said he thought the governor of Kandahar was doing phenomenal work. Those were his words. Yet the minister asked if the governor was the right person in the right job. My question is very simple. Who is right: General Hillier or the Minister of Foreign Affairs?
The minister did not answer the question and instead accused the Liberal Party of not standing up for Afghan people, good governance, or human rights.
The minister does not answer whether he or General Hillier is correct and instead attacks the Liberal Party's record on human rights and good governance in Afghanistan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party claims to speak for human rights. It claims to speak for good governance. It claims to speak against corruption. But in Afghanistan the Liberal Party does not stand up for the Afghan people, does not stand up for good governance. You know what, Mr. Speaker? On this side of the House, what is good for Canadians is good for Afghans.
Does the minister not realize that his public statements to the media about the governor of Kandahar, having already had a private conversation with President Karzai on the matter, are making the fight against corruption and prisoner mistreatment more difficult by putting the Afghan government in an impossible position?
References the minister's private conversation with President Karzai and argues that public media comments undermine diplomatic efforts against corruption and prisoner mistreatment, posing a clear accountability question about the diplomatic consequences of the minister's actions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is an old trick: weak point, shout louder. I have a very simple question for the minister. Does he not realize that there were diplomatic efforts to deal with the question of the governor of Kandahar? He himself had a private conversation with President Karzai about the governor of Kandahar. Does the minister not realize that, in fact, he is making the fight against corruption, the fight against the mistreatment of prisoners more difficult by babbling in front of the media and putting public pressure on the government of Afghanistan and putting them in an impossible position? Does he not even understand what he has done? He does not.
The minister said the government is implementing the motion voted on in the House by the Liberal Party calling for Afghanistan to be left to Afghans within a better-governed country, and called on the Liberals to help achieve good governance in Afghanistan.
The minister does not address the question of diplomatic damage or the private conversation with Karzai, instead citing the Liberal-supported House motion on leaving Afghanistan to Afghans within a better-governed country.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, voici ce que nous faisons: nous appliquons la motion votĂ©e en Chambre par le Parti libĂ©ral. Je lis cette motion: « [...] le but final de la politique canadienne est de laisser lâAfghanistan aux Afghans, au sein dâun pays mieux gouvernĂ© [...] » C'est ce que nous faisons. Pourquoi voulons-nous que l'Afghanistan soit mieux gouvernĂ©? Pour faire en sorte qu'on puisse construire des Ă©coles, des routes et de l'infrastructure pour les Afghans. J'aimerais que le Parti libĂ©ral, en plus de voter avec nous pour la motion, nous aide afin qu'il y ait en Afghanistan une bonne gouvernance.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, here is what we are doing. We are implementing the motion the Liberal Party voted for in this House. The motion reads: ââ the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country that is better governedââ That is what we are doing. Why do we want Afghanistan to be better governed? In order to ensure that schools, roads and infrastructures can be built for the Afghan people. I would like the Liberal Party to do more than simply vote with us on the motion, but also to help us create good governance in Afghanistan.
Will the Prime Minister explain his own words and the allegation that he tried to buy a vote to bring down a government?
The question is almost entirely rhetoricalâdramatic appeals to the Prime Minister to 'stand up' and 'explain' without citing any new specific facts or documents, though it references the broader cash-for-vote allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, day after day I have asked the Prime Minister to explain his own words. With his silence, I have tried to put together what is already publicly known, giving him every benefit of the doubt. But every scenario leads to the same place, trying to buy a vote to bring down a government. To the Prime Minister, it is time for an answer. Do not slink down. Look up. Stand up. Explain.
The parliamentary secretary said the Prime Minister has already answered the question and the Liberal accusations are entirely false, while criticizing the member for York Centre for not standing up on important votes.
The parliamentary secretary attacks the member for York Centre for not voting in the House and states the Prime Minister has already answered the question and the accusations are 'entirely false,' without providing any substantive explanation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit ironic to hear the member for York Centre asking other people to stand up in the House of Commons. He has not stood up on an important vote in this House of Commons in months and stood up for his constituents. On this issue, the Prime Minister has been clear. He has answered this question and the accusations by the Liberals are entirely false.
Will the Prime Minister finally stand up and explain himself on the Cadman affair, rather than hiding behind a growing wall of silence?
The question is purely rhetorical, using a Doonesbury cartoon analogy to call on the Prime Minister to explain himself, with no new facts or specific ask beyond the general Cadman affair allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in his cartoon strip Doonesbury as day after day no answers came from President Nixon, Garry Trudeau began building a wall around the White House. With every week that passed, the wall grew higher and higher. For the Prime Minister, with every week that passes, the wall is growing higher and higher as he slinks lower and lower behind it. To the Prime Minister, do not slink down. Look up. Stand up. Explain.
The parliamentary secretary noted this was the 150th Liberal question on the issue, accused the Liberals of missing opportunities to address the environment, trade, justice, and farmers, and told them to leave their fantasies in the 1970s.
The parliamentary secretary counts this as the 150th question on the issue, attacks the Liberals for missed opportunities on real policy issues, and tells them to 'leave their fantasies back in the 1970s,' without addressing the substance at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today actually marks an interesting moment because this is actually the 150th question on this very issue asked by the Liberals. They are 150 questions on something that did not happen, and they are 150 questions that they did not ask on the environment, on trade, justice issues, or farmers. They are 150 missed opportunities to do what the Liberals said they were going to do in the election campaign, which is to stand up and be a voice for their constituents. The Liberal Party members would do very well to leave their fantasies, like their questions, back in the 1970s, look to the future, stand in the House of Commons, vote and ask questions that are of substance to the Canadian people.
MĂ©nard asks whether the Minister of Justice intends to end the practice of 'temps compte double' (double-credit for pre-trial detention), citing a specific case of a drug trafficker released nearly a year early.
The question cites a specific case of a drug trafficker sentenced to 50 months being released after two years due to double-credit for pre-trial detention, and asks a clear yes/no policy question about ending the practice.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la Commission nationale des libérations conditionnelles vient de libérer, aprÚs deux ans de prison, un trafiquant de drogue pourtant condamné à 50 mois de réclusion. à cause de la pratique qui veut que le temps passé en détention avant son procÚs compte double, ce narcotrafiquant pourra sortir du pénitencier prÚs d'un an avant d'avoir purgé véritablement les deux tiers de sa peine. Le ministre de la Justice peut-il dire s'il a l'intention de mettre fin, comme le lui demande le Bloc québécois, à cette pratique du « temps compte double » qui déconsidÚre l'administration de la justice?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the National Parole Board has just released a drug trafficker sentenced to 50 months in jail after serving only two years. Because of the practice of giving double the amount of credit for time spent in custody awaiting trial, this trafficker is leaving jail almost one year before having actually served two thirds of his sentence. Does the Minister of Justice intend to put an end to the double credit practice, which undermines the administration of justice, as demanded by the Bloc Québécois?
Nicholson ignores the double-credit question and instead calls on the Bloc to support the drug bill currently before Parliament, which includes mandatory jail times for drug offences.
Nicholson does not address the double-credit pre-trial detention practice at all, instead pivoting to criticize the Bloc for not supporting the drug bill before Parliament.
Source text
Finally, Mr. Speaker, a question from the Bloc Québécois on the justice agenda before Parliament. It has been a while. I would ask the hon. member just to spend a couple of minutes to worry about the agenda that is presently before Parliament. The drug bill that we have before Parliament has mandatory jail times for people who want to sell drugs to children, people who want to import and export narcotics, and people who want to get into the grow op business. How about a little bit of support on this before the next part of the agenda?
Ménard asks whether the Minister of Justice will abolish the procédure d'examen expéditif that allowed Hugo Bernier to be released after one-sixth of his sentence before murdering Julie Boisvenu.
The question cites the specific case of Hugo Bernier and Julie Boisvenu, references Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu's denunciation, and poses a direct yes/no question about abolishing the procédure d'examen expéditif.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le fait que des dĂ©tenus puissent ĂȘtre libĂ©rĂ©s de maniĂšre quasi automatique aprĂšs seulement le sixiĂšme de leur peine choque les QuĂ©bĂ©cois. Le cas d'Hugo Bernier, qui a assassinĂ© Julie Boisvenu avant qu'il ne soit remis en libertĂ© aprĂšs seulement le sixiĂšme de sa peine, illustre clairement cette aberration du systĂšme. Le pĂšre de la victime, Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, a d'ailleurs dĂ©noncĂ© cette situation. Le ministre de la Justice entend-il, oui ou non, abolir la procĂ©dure d'examen expĂ©ditif qui mine la crĂ©dibilitĂ© du systĂšme de justice, comme le rĂ©clame le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois depuis plusieurs annĂ©es?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the fact that inmates can be released almost automatically after serving only one sixth of their sentence is shocking for Quebeckers. The case of Hugo Bernier, who murdered Julie Boisvenu after serving only one sixth of his sentence, clearly illustrates the system's aberrations. The victim's father, Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu has spoken out against this situation. Does the Minister of Justice intend to abolish accelerated parole review, which is undermining the justice system, as the Bloc Québécois has been demanding for many years, yes or no?
Nicholson attacks the Bloc for previously supporting house arrest and asks them to support the auto theft, ID theft, and drug bills currently before Parliament.
Nicholson entirely ignores the procédure d'examen expéditif and the Bernier/Boisvenu case, instead attacking the Bloc's past record on house arrest and urging support for unrelated bills.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is amazing. This is the same political party that was supporting house arrest for arsonists and a whole group of people. When we needed their support on that, they were nowhere to be found. I would like to ask them to get behind the auto theft bill, the ID theft bill, and the bill on drugs. Help get the agenda that is before Parliament right now before worrying about other things.
Easter asks why, after being warned his request would violate the Privacy Act, the Minister of Agriculture wrote two letters demanding names, addresses, and commercial information about individual producers from the Canadian Wheat Board.
Easter references two specific letters and a warning that the minister's request would violate the Privacy Act, asking why he demanded names, addresses, and commercial information about individual producers, though the framing is partly rhetorical with 'witch hunt' language.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has demonstrated that it is willing to break the law with respect to the Elections Act and break the law with its attack on the Canadian Wheat Board. Now the Minister of Agriculture has shown in writing that he is prepared to break the law when it comes to the Privacy Act. After being warned that his request would violate the law, can the minister explain why, in two letters, he demanded the board provide the names, addresses and specific commercial information about individual producers? Why the witch hunt on individuals? Is there no law the government is not willing to break?
Ritz denies Easter's claims, says he has a fiduciary responsibility as minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, and explains he wanted to personally contact the 25 farmers in the pilot project to assess its effectiveness.
Ritz denies the premise and offers a partial explanation of his fiduciary responsibility and the rationale for contacting farmers in the pilot project, but does not address the specific Privacy Act warning or the two letters cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, everything the member for Malpeque said is not true. The reality is, as the minister of record for the Canadian Wheat Board, I have the fiduciary responsibility to make sure that these pilot projects do not intrude on taxpayers' money and that they are effective in their delivery. When I found out that only 25 farmers took part in this pilot, I thought it was a good opportunity to phone them all personally to find out what exactly worked, what did not work, and build a better mousetrap for the future. That is what we are trying to do.
Harris asks what the government is doing to address the critical issue of risky drinking water systems in first nations communities.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to describe what the government is doing about drinking water on reserves, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when most Canadians turn the water on to have a drink or for cooking, they are not really worried about their safety, but this is not the case with many first nations. There are still far too many communities with risky drinking water systems. This is a critical issue for first nations and one they often identify as one of their top priorities. The current state of drinking water on reserves needs improving and it needs to be addressed now. Could the Minister of Indian Affairs tell this House what our government is doing about this critical issue?
Strahl says the water action plan has halved the number of high-risk drinking water systems inherited from previous governments, a new water and waste water action plan was announced yesterday doubling resources for training, and a formal assessment and legislative framework are underway.
Strahl provides substantive information: the water action plan has cut high-risk drinking water systems in half, a new water and waste water action plan was announced yesterday, a formal assessment of all first nations water systems is underway, and a legislative framework is being developed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the current situation is unacceptable. That is why, since we have come to power, we have launched a water action plan in which we have cut in half the number of high-risk drinking water systems that we inherited from previous governments. Our work is not done. That is why yesterday we announced a strategic investment in the new water and waste water action plan that will double the resources provided to improve training and technical skills to first nations water operators. We are conducting a formal assessment of water systems in all first nations communities. We will work with first nations organizations to develop a legislative framework. Clean drinking water is important. This action plan will get it done.
Savoie asks why the minister is allowing an American company responsible for the National Student Loans Service Centre to exploit Canadian graduates through shoddy service and poor record keeping.
Savoie raises a legitimate issue about shoddy service and poor record keeping at the National Student Loans Service Centre but frames it in rhetorical terms ('victimize,' 'U.S.-based company') without citing specific data or a precise accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of ordinary Canadians are suffering a crushing burden of debt. Graduates continue to be exploited through the National Student Loans Service Centre. They have to contend with shoddy service, poor record keeping, an unwillingness to share information that would help them to repay quickly, and all of this at the hands of the U.S.-based company responsible for administering the program. Can the minister tell us why he is allowing American companies to victimize Canadian graduates for the sake of the bottom line?
Solberg highlights the government's budget measures providing upfront cash grants for low and middle income students and changes to repayment assistance, and notes the NDP voted against these measures.
Solberg pivots entirely to describing new budget measuresâupfront cash grants and repayment assistance changesâwithout addressing the National Student Loans Service Centre service failures or the role of the U.S.-based company.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that in the last budget the government moved forward with transformational changes to student financial assistance, which will mean low and middle income Canadians will receive upfront cash grants when they are accepted for post-secondary education, whether at a university, college or technical school. We have also made important changes to repayment assistance, which will ensure that vulnerable students who struggle to repay will not have to bear that burden for the rest of their lives. We got it done, but the NDP voted against it.
Savoie asks why the minister continues to award contractsâincluding $18.5 million to collection agencies like U.S. firm Resolveâthat incentivize keeping Canadian graduates in debt, and when he will amend the contracts.
Savoie cites specific figuresâ$66 million spent on the National Student Loans Service Centre and $18.5 million paid to collection agencies including U.S. firm Resolveâand asks a clear question about amending contracts to stop companies from profiting by keeping graduates in debt.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government spent $66 million last year on the National Student Loans Service Centre that offered no service, loses paperwork, and is causing untold headaches. There was $18.5 million paid to collection agencies, including the U.S. firm Resolve, which is paid only for the accounts it recovers. This means the longer they keep graduates in debt the more money they make. Why does the minister continue to dole out contracts that allow companies to make money by keeping Canadian graduates in debt? When will he amend the contract to help graduates avoid financial problems?
Solberg says the answer lies in the budget and in changes already made to student financial assistance, and criticizes the NDP for voting against those solutions.
Solberg does not address the $66 million, the $18.5 million, Resolve, or the contract amendment question, instead telling Savoie to read the budget document and again attacking the NDP for voting against the budget.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the answer lies in the budget. It lies in the changes that we have made in student financial assistance. If the critic for the NDP would simply read the document, she would know that. Instead, she gets up and pontificates on an issue on which we have already provided the answers. Again, the NDP gets up with all this rhetoric, and then turns around and votes against the very solutions that are necessary to fix the problem.
Mr. Steven Blaney (CPC) raised a point of order claiming that the member for La Pointe-de-l'Ăle made remarks during Oral Questions that could be insulting to Quebec workers and consumers, and invited her to clarify her comments and confirm her support for Quebec agri-food products, referencing Vachon pastries.
- CPC Mr. Steven Blaney
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'invoque le RĂšglement. Au cours de la pĂ©riode des questions orales, la dĂ©putĂ©e de La Pointe-de-l'Ăle a tenu des propos qui pourraient ĂȘtre insultants pour des travailleurs et des consommateurs quĂ©bĂ©cois et canadiens. J'ai moi-mĂȘme grandi Ă Sainte-Marie et nous Ă©tions trĂšs fiers de la pĂątisserie Vachon. De plus, lorsque nous allions Ă l'extĂ©rieur, nous apportions des boĂźtes de petits gĂąteaux Vachon et les gens Ă©taient contents de les avoir. Je voudrais donner l'occasion Ă ma collĂšgue, la dĂ©putĂ©e de La Pointe-de-l'Ăle, de clarifier sa pensĂ©e et de confirmer qu'elle est une fiĂšre ambassadrice des produits quĂ©bĂ©cois et de l'industrie agroalimentaire quĂ©bĂ©coise.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During oral question period, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Ăle made comments that could be seen as insulting to Quebec and Canadian workers and consumers. I grew up in Sainte-Marie and we were very proud of the Vachon bakery. When we went abroad we would bring boxes of Vachon snack cakes with us and people were pleased to have them. I would like to give my colleague, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Ăle, the opportunity to clarify what she said and confirm that she is a proud ambassador of Quebec's products and Quebec's agri-food industry.
Mr. Michel Guimond (BQ) responded to the same point of order, clarifying that the member for La Pointe-de-l'Ăle was ridiculing the Minister of Foreign Affairs for distributing Jos Louis and Vachon cakes in Afghanistan, not the workers or the industry, and Mr. Blaney reiterated his pride in the Vachon workers and his commitment to defend them.
- BQ Mr. Michel Guimond
- CPC Mr. Steven Blaney
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'interviens sur le mĂȘme recours au RĂšglement. Je crois que notre collĂšgue confond deux choses. Ma collĂšgue de La Pointe-de-l'Ăle ne veut pas ridiculiser les travailleurs et les travailleuses de l'industrie agroalimentaire, ni les gens de Vachon, ni les gens de la Beauce. Elle voulait tout simplement ridiculiser le voyage du ministre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres qui est allĂ© en Afghanistan distribuer des petits gĂąteaux Jos Louis, des petits gĂąteaux Vachon. C'est Ă cela que ma collĂšgue faisait rĂ©fĂ©rence. Au lieu de rĂ©gler les vrais problĂšmes, il prĂ©fĂ©rait aller distribuer des petits gĂąteaux. Je crois que le collĂšgue confond les choses et qu'il n'a pas compris.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I believe the hon. member is getting things mixed up. My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Ăle does not want to ridicule workers in the agri-food industry, or the people at Vachon, or the people from Beauce. She simply wanted to ridicule the fact that the Minister of Foreign Affairs went to Afghanistan and handed out Vachon Jos Louis snack cakes. That was what my colleague was referring to. Instead of resolving real problems, he was handing out snack cakes. I believe the hon. member is getting things mixed up and that he did not understand.
Monsieur le Président, je suis trÚs fier de vivre à Sainte-Marie. J'ai des parents et il y a des gens ici aujourd'hui qui ont travaillé à la pùtisserie Vachon et ils méritent le respect. Nous les défendrons et les représenterons jusqu'au bout.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to live in Sainte-Marie. I have relatives and there are people here today who have worked at Vachon and they deserve some respect. We will defend them and represent them to the end.
Mr. David McGuinty (Lib) sought unanimous consent to table a 27-page special investigation report from the University of Calgary audit services regarding what he described as an advertising scam, and Wayne Easter (Lib) sought unanimous consent to table letters between the minister and the Canadian Wheat Board showing the minister was advised his request violated the Privacy Act yet demanded the information again; both requests were denied by government members.
- Lib Mr. David McGuinty
- Some hon. members
- Lib Wayne Easter
Source text
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the question I put today, I seek unanimous consent, once again, particularly at the request of the Minister of Public Safety, to table the special investigation report from the University of Calgary audit services, a 27 page report that goes into the details of what is clearly an advertising scam. I seek unanimous consent, which was denied yesterday by government members, to table this very report.
Agreed. No.
Mr. Speaker, I have in my hands the exchange of letters between the minister and the Canadian Wheat Board, wherein the minister was advised his request was in violation of the Privacy Act, yet he wrote and demanded that information again, commercial confidential information. I ask permission to table these documents in the House.
Agreed. No.