Session overview
- The Couillard affair dominated Question Period, with opposition parties pressing the government on whether the RCMP and PCO properly flagged security concerns related to the former minister of foreign affairs' relationship with Julie Couillard, and whether the appointment of Diane Bellemare â Couillard's mother â to the EI Board of Referees constituted a conflict of interest.
- Conflicting timelines over when the Prime Minister learned of the missing classified documents â Sunday, May 25 (per the ex-minister) versus Monday, May 26 (per the government) â were raised repeatedly but remained unresolved.
- The NDP challenged the government on soaring gasoline prices and their impact on airlines, transit systems, and families, while the government defended its GST reduction and rejected calls for intervention in fuel markets.
- BQ members raised allegations that Canadian soldiers were ordered to ignore sexual assaults committed by Afghan forces, prompting the Minister of National Defence to acknowledge he had personally directed the Chief of the Defence Staff to ensure all such allegations are recorded and reported through the chain of command.
- The Liberal carbon tax plan drew sustained government attacks across multiple exchanges on topics ranging from gasoline prices to aboriginal affairs, with government members characterizing it as a threat to families, seniors, and regional industries.
- The Minister of the Environment made a specific commitment to work with the member for British Columbia Southern Interior to oppose any U.S. hydro dam proposal on the Similkameen River that would result in flooding of Canadian territory.
Peter MacKay confirmed he had personally met with the Chief of the Defence Staff, the incoming chief of the defence staff, and the Chief of the Land Staff to direct that any allegation of a sexual assault witnessed by a Canadian soldier must be immediately recorded into the chain of command â a specific, named operational directive made on the record.
The question identifies a specific applicant (a public utility in Washington State), a specific location (Shanker's Bend on the Similkameen River), a specific proposed height (260 feet), notes two bodies that have passed opposing resolutions, and asks for a clear government commitment against flooding north of the 49th parallel.
In response to a specific question about why the PCO issued a public press release claiming the RCMP had raised no security concerns â when the RCMP itself could not confirm or deny this â the Prime Minister answered only that the Liberal Party 'wanted to know if security flags were raised' and 'the answer it got was no,' entirely ignoring the procedural concern about the PCO's public disclosure.
Outstanding questions
- Did the member for Beauce remain present in cabinet when the appointment of Diane Bellemare as chairperson of the EI Board of Referees was discussed and approved? (asked by Serge MĂ©nard, Exchange 9 â government confirmed only that the recommendation came through human resources staff, not whether he was present)
- Why did the PCO issue a press release stating the RCMP had not raised any security concerns about Julie Couillard when the RCMP had testified it could not disclose whether it had alerted the PCO due to ongoing investigations? (asked by Ujjal Dosanjh, Exchange 2)
- How many times did the Prime Minister personally meet with Julie Couillard and under what circumstances? (asked by Marlene Jennings, Exchange 15 â entirely unanswered)
- Who were the two PMO officials identified only as 'official one' and 'official two' in the NAFTA-gate investigation report who received the memo a day before Ian Brodie, and why were their names and titles concealed while others in the report were identified? (asked by Navdeep Bains, Exchange 23)
- Will the government support a motion before the Standing Committee on National Defence to invite the chaplains and officers who witnessed alleged sexual assaults by Afghan forces to testify? (asked by Claude Bachand, Exchange 17 â minister said he intended to follow up with the chaplains but did not commit to a parliamentary committee appearance)
Dosanjh cited RCMP and PCO committee testimony that appeared contradictory on whether security concerns about Couillard were raised, and asked whether the government is covering up national security facts.
Cites specific testimony from RCMP and PCO committee appearances and identifies a factual contradiction, but the closing ask is vague and rhetorical ('cover up the facts').
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP testified that Julie Couillard was known to it and that it would alert the PCO if a minister was involved with someone with ties to organized crime. The PCO testified that a background review was done for the member just this past April. The PCO also testified that the RCMP did not raise red flags about the ex-minister and Ms. Couillard. This just does not add up. Is the government at all concerned about our national security or is it just happy to cover up the facts?
Harper stated that no security flags were raised, and that the former minister resigned because he left classified documents in an unsecured location.
Harper directly addresses the security-flags question and provides a specific reason for the resignation (classified documents left unsecured), but does not resolve the RCMPâPCO contradiction Dosanjh raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for the member for Vancouver South and the entire Liberal Party, the facts are actually clear, which is no security flags were raised in this particular matter. We know the reason the former minister of foreign affairs offered me his resignation was because of his own actions. He left classified documents in an inappropriate and unsecured location. He offered to resign and I accepted his resignation.
Dosanjh asked why the PCO issued a press release claiming the RCMP raised no concerns, when the RCMP itself said it could not disclose that information without jeopardizing investigations.
Sharply identifies a specific procedural contradiction â RCMP said it could not confirm or deny raising concerns, yet PCO issued a press release claiming no concerns were raised â and poses a pointed accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP could not say whether it had alerted the PCO about security concerns because it could jeopardize current, past or future investigations. However, the PCO went right ahead and issued a press release stating that the RCMP had not raised any concerns. It said that it did this to clear up media speculation. Does clearing up media speculation matter more to the government than actually looking after the national security of this country?
Harper repeated only that no security flags were raised, without addressing the PCO press release contradiction.
Harper merely restates that no security flags were raised, entirely ignoring the procedural contradiction about the PCO press release that was the core of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party wanted to know if in fact any security flags were raised. The answer it got was no.
Dosanjh asked the government to call a public inquiry into national security concerns, arguing the PCO had failed to examine the possibility of organized crime infiltrating the government.
The question contains a specific procedural demand (public inquiry) but is heavily laden with rhetorical framing ('cover-up,' 'alarming') that dilutes its accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is an alarming answer. It is actually alarming that the government continues to ignore questions about national security. It is equally alarming that it did not even occur to the PCO, which takes its orders from the Prime Minister, that it should examine the possibility of organized crime infiltrating the government. Will the government stop the cover-up, call a public inquiry to get to the bottom of these national security concerns and do so now?
Harper called the speculation unfounded and said he had required officials to conduct an independent and professional investigation whose results would be made clear in due course.
Harper dismisses the question as speculation and references an independent investigation already underway, but does not address the specific call for a public inquiry or the PCO's failure to examine organized crime infiltration.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the only alarm are these alarming questions with ridiculous and unfounded speculation. The fact is that when the former minister of foreign affairs brought this to my attention, I accepted his resignation and I have obviously required officials to conduct an independent and professional investigation into the facts surrounding this so we know what the facts are, and those facts will be made very clear in due course.
Coderre alleged the government appointed Julie Couillard's mother, Diane Bellemare, as chairperson of the Board of Referees for Saint-JĂ©rĂŽme as a patronage appointment linked to the former minister, and asked why.
Identifies a specific appointment (Diane Bellemare as chairperson of the Board of Referees for Saint-JĂ©rĂŽme) and links it to a potential conflict of interest, but the question 'Pourquoi?' is broad and embedded in partisan rhetorical framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les conservateurs peuvent tenter de se sauver de leurs responsabilitĂ©s, mais ils ne pourront pas Ă©ternellement se cacher. Qu'on ne s'inquiĂšte pas, ce n'est pas parce qu'on s'en va en pĂ©riode estivale que l'affaire Couillard est terminĂ©e, loin de lĂ . AprĂšs les tentatives d'infiltration, le possible trafic d'influence, voilĂ que le premier ministre et son Cabinet, avec l'assentiment de son lieutenant du QuĂ©bec et en prĂ©sence de l'ex-ministre â s'il vous plaĂźt â, ont nommĂ© la mĂšre de Julie Couillard comme prĂ©sidente des conseils arbitraux de Saint-JĂ©rĂŽme. On appelle cela « un conflit d'intĂ©rĂȘts ». Le premier ministre est maintenant complice des combines de son dĂ©putĂ© de Beauce. Pourquoi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives can try to run away from their responsibilities, but they will not be able to hide forever. People need not worryâjust because we are heading into the summer break does not mean that the Couillard affair will be forgotten. Far from it. Despite attempts at infiltration and allegations of influence peddling, the Prime Minister and his cabinet, with the blessing of his Quebec lieutenant and in the presence of the former ministerâif you pleaseâappointed Julie Couillard's mother to chair the Saint-JĂ©rome board of referees. That is what we call a âconflict of interestâ. It turns out that the Prime Minister was party to the member for Beauce's schemes. Why?
Van Loan read out the eligibility criteria for Board of Referees chairpersons and stated that Bellemare applied through the process and was ultimately recommended by Human Resources officials.
Van Loan directly quotes the eligibility criteria for the appointment and states Bellemare went through the process and was recommended by Human Resources officials, substantively addressing the patronage allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Ms. Bellemare was appointed to the Board of Referees after having made an application. The eligibility criteria for the appointment of chairpersons reads: (a) be available for two sessions a month; (b) advise the Clerk of the Board in advance of any intended absence...; (c) be able to communicate both orally and in writing in either of the official languages...; (d) have lived or worked in the area serviced by the Board Centre for approximately one year, and be familiar with the labour market conditions prevalent in the area; Ms. Bellemare went through the process and was ultimately recommended by Human Resources officials.
Coderre asked what the Prime Minister and his Quebec lieutenant were thinking when they appointed Diane Bellemare as chairperson to the EI Board of Referees, framing it as part of a broader cover-up.
Repeats the Bellemare appointment allegation with added rhetorical flourish ('Mad Max has made mom Couillard very happy') and no new specific ask beyond the previous exchange, weakening the accountability value.
Source text
C'est pathétique, monsieur le Président! The government sees no evil to the possible infiltration by organized crime, biker gangs, access to secret documents and now a patronage appointment for the mother of the ex-minister's girlfriend. What were the Prime Minister and his Quebec lieutenant thinking when they appointed Diane Bellemare as chairperson to the EI Board of Referees? Mad Max has made mom Couillard very happy. Enough cover-up.
Van Loan stated Bellemare underwent rigorous security checks and directed the member to the process under section 78, section 4 of the Employment Insurance Act regulations to raise any concerns.
Van Loan references security checks undergone by Bellemare and points to a specific legal remedy under section 78, section 4 of the Employment Insurance Act regulations, offering partial substantive engagement though it deflects somewhat.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, in order to be appointed, one has to undergo rigorous security checks, which was the case with Madame Bellemare. The member is happy to stand there, as he has for many months on many files, and throw across unfounded allegations. If he has any, there is a process under the Employment Insurance Act regulations, section 78, section 4, where he can draw to the attention of people any of the concerns he has. If he has concerns with Madame Bellemare, they could be dealt with under that section. I do not believe he has done that.
Duceppe cited Bloodworth's committee testimony that neither the RCMP nor CSIS alerted the PCO about Couillard's troubled past, that a second security check did not cover her, and that no further investigation was ordered after her past became public, asking whether this reflected incompetence or a cover-up.
Duceppe cites specific testimony by Margaret Bloodworth at committee, identifies three distinct procedural failures (RCMP/CSIS not alerting PCO, second security check not covering Couillard, no deeper investigation after public revelations), and poses a clear alternative â incompetence or cover-up.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Mme Bloodworth, conseillĂšre en matiĂšre de sĂ©curitĂ© au Conseil privĂ©, a livrĂ© hier, en comitĂ©, un tĂ©moignage tout Ă fait farfelu. Selon elle, ni la GRC ni le SCRS n'ont avisĂ© le Conseil privĂ© du passĂ© trouble de Julie Couillard. Elle nous a mĂȘme candidement avouĂ© que le dĂ©putĂ© de Beauce avait passĂ© une deuxiĂšme sĂ©rie de vĂ©rifications de sĂ©curitĂ© sans que son ex-conjointe ne soit visĂ©e. Enfin, lorsque le passĂ© de Mme Couillard a fait les manchettes, le Conseil privĂ© n'a pas senti le besoin de faire une enquĂȘte plus approfondie. Le premier ministre n'est-il pas inquiet de constater Ă quel point le service de sĂ©curitĂ© du Conseil privĂ© est d'une telle incompĂ©tence, Ă moins que ce ne soit une vaste opĂ©ration de camouflage?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Mrs. Bloodworth, a security advisor in the Privy Council Office, gave some ridiculous testimony in committee. According to her, neither the RCMP nor CSIS advised the Privy Council of Julie Couillard's shady past. She even candidly admitted that the hon. member for Beauce went through a second series of security checks without any scrutiny of his ex-girlfriend. When Ms. Couillard's past made the headlines, the Privy Council did not feel the need to investigate further. Is the Prime Minister not concerned to see how lax the Privy Council's security service is? Or is this is a massive cover-up?
Harper stated that security checks are conducted for ministers, not private citizens, as ministers bear responsibility, and that the Prime Minister does not conduct investigations into private citizens.
Harper explains the rationale for security checks covering ministers only, not private citizens, which is partially relevant but does not address Bloodworth's admission that no investigation was launched even after Couillard's past became public.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme Mme Bloodworth l'a dit, des vĂ©rifications de sĂ©curitĂ© sont effectuĂ©es pour des ministres, et pas pour les autres, parce que ce sont les ministres qui sont les responsables. Le premier ministre ne conduit pas d'enquĂȘtes sur des citoyens privĂ©s.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as Mrs. Bloodworth said, security checks are done for ministers and not for others because it is the ministers who are responsible. The Prime Minister does not investigate private citizens.
Duceppe alleged that a person with ties to the mafia and Hells Angels dined at 24 Sussex Drive without triggering concern, and speculated the PCO may have advised the PM to use privacy as cover, asking whether that was the case.
Duceppe's question is largely rhetorical and speculative, asserting that Couillard dined at 24 Sussex and suggesting the PCO advised the PM to use privacy as an excuse, without citing specific evidence or making a sharp single ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le Canada sera la risĂ©e de toutes les dĂ©mocraties. Une personne a des liens avec la mafia, avec les Hells Angels, elle soupe au 24, promenade Sussex, et cela ne dĂ©range pas le premier ministre et il n'y a pas d'enquĂȘte. C'est incroyable! Je me demande si c'est le service de sĂ©curitĂ© du Conseil privĂ©, ce service qui ne voit rien, n'entend rien et ne sait rien, qui a conseillĂ© au premier ministre d'utiliser l'excuse de la vie privĂ©e, Ă moins que ce ne soit le premier ministre qui ait demandĂ© au Conseil privĂ© de parler de vie privĂ©e pour mieux camoufler l'affaire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada will be the laughingstock of every democracy. A person with ties to the mafia and Hells Angels dines at 24 Sussex Avenue and that does not bother the Prime Minister and there is no investigation. That is incredible. I wonder whether the Privy Council security service, which sees nothing, hears nothing and knows nothing, advised the Prime Minister to use the private life excuse, unless it was the Prime Minister who asked the Privy Council to talk about private life to better cover up the affair.
Harper reiterated that security checks were done for the former Minister of Foreign Affairs and that he resigned after admitting to breaking rules regarding classified documents.
Harper repeats the security-check framework and the classified documents explanation for the resignation, which is tangentially relevant but does not address Duceppe's specific speculation about PCO advice or the dinner at 24 Sussex.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, encore une fois, il y a des vĂ©rifications de sĂ©curitĂ© pour des ministres. L'ancien ministre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres est passĂ© par ces vĂ©rifications. En mĂȘme temps, le ministre a avouĂ© avoir enfreint les rĂšgles en ce qui concerne les documents classifiĂ©s. C'est la raison pour laquelle il a dĂ©missionnĂ©.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, again, security checks are done for ministers. The former Minister of Foreign Affairs went through a series of checks. In the meantime, the minister has admitted that he broke the rules on classified documents. That is why he stepped down.
MĂ©nard cited Bloodworth's concession that a person with criminal ties having access to secret documents would be dangerous, and asked why the PCO did not request an RCMP investigation even after Couillard's troubled past became public.
MĂ©nard cites Bloodworth's acknowledgment of the security risk posed by someone with criminal ties accessing secret documents, then asks a specific and pointed question about why no RCMP investigation was ordered even after Couillard's past became public.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la conseillĂšre nationale de la sĂ©curitĂ© auprĂšs du premier ministre, Margaret Bloodworth, a reconnu que si une personne proche de milieux criminels pouvait avoir accĂšs Ă des documents secrets, cela reprĂ©senterait un danger. Mais mĂȘme lorsque le passĂ© de Julie Couillard est devenu notoire, aucune enquĂȘte n'a Ă©tĂ© demandĂ©e Ă la GRC. Est-ce du camouflage qui cache l'incompĂ©tence ou l'incompĂ©tence qui cause le camouflage? Comment le premier ministre peut-il expliquer que le Conseil privĂ© n'ait rien fait, mĂȘme quand le passĂ© trouble de Julie Couillard est devenu public?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Margaret Bloodworth, admitted that if a person with close ties to criminal organizations had access to secret documents, that would represent a danger. However, even after Julie Couillard's past was revealed, the RCMP was never asked to investigate. Is this a cover-up to hide incompetence, or incompetence that is causing a cover-up? How can the Prime Minister explain the fact that the Privy Council did nothing, even after Julie Couillard's shady past became public?
Van Loan stated the government acted by instituting a review at the Department of Foreign Affairs to establish the facts and make recommendations, with the ability to draw on other government agencies.
Van Loan points to the Department of Foreign Affairs review as government action taken, which is relevant, but does not explain why no RCMP investigation was requested when Couillard's past became public, which was the specific question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au contraire, le gouvernement a agi. Nous avons instituĂ© une enquĂȘte au ministĂšre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres pour Ă©tablir les faits et pour faire des recommandations Ă ce sujet. Il peut demander l'aide d'autres agences du gouvernement. Nous attendons les rĂ©sultats de cette enquĂȘte.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the government has taken action. We have launched an investigation within the Department of Foreign Affairs to determine the facts and make recommendations. It can ask for assistance from other government agencies. We are awaiting the results of that investigation.
MĂ©nard asked, citing media reports, for a yes-or-no answer on whether the member for Beauce remained present during the meeting where Diane Bellemare's appointment was made, constituting a conflict of interest.
MĂ©nard asks a very specific yes-or-no question â was the member for Beauce present when the Bellemare appointment was made â citing media reports, which is highly accountable and answerable in one word.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je ne crois pas qu'il ait compris la question antĂ©rieure, mais je vais quand mĂȘme me risquer Ă en poser une autre. J'ai posĂ© une question trĂšs simple hier, en cette Chambre, et je n'ai pas eu de rĂ©ponse. Le leader du gouvernement Ă la Chambre des communes se fait donc complice du dĂ©putĂ© de Beauce, qui s'est trouvĂ© dans une grave situation de conflit d'intĂ©rĂȘts parce que, selon les mĂ©dias, il est demeurĂ© prĂ©sent Ă cette rencontre lorsqu'il a Ă©tĂ© question de la nomination de la mĂšre de Julie Couillard. Quel autre camouflage! Je lui pose Ă nouveau la mĂȘme question et je souhaite obtenir une rĂ©ponse claire. En un seul mot, oui ou non, le dĂ©putĂ© de Beauce est-il restĂ© prĂ©sent lorsque cette nomination a Ă©tĂ© faite?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member understood the previous question, but I will risk asking another one anyway. I asked a very simple question yesterday in this House and I did not get an answer. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons seems to be in league with the hon. member for Beauce, who has found himself in a very serious conflict of interest, since, according to the media, he remained present at the meeting concerning the appointment of Julie Couillard's mother. Just one more cover-up. I would like to ask the same question and I hope to get a clear answer. In one word, a simple yes or no, did the hon. member for Beauce remain present when that appointment was made?
Van Loan described the application and recommendation process for Bellemare's appointment, attributing the recommendation to the human resources minister and the decision to cabinet, without answering whether the member for Beauce was present.
Van Loan addresses the process by which Bellemare was recommended and appointed without answering the specific yes-or-no question of whether the member for Beauce was present during the appointment decision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The recommendation of Madame Bellemare did not come from the member for Beauce. The individual, Madame Bellemare, made application through the process. It was reviewed by human resources staff. That recommendation is ultimately made to cabinet by the human resources minister. That was the case for Madame Bellemare, following the application process, which she passed and demonstrated that she satisfied the criteria, to which I earlier was speaking. Cabinet made the decision to appoint her as she did have the qualifications it was seeking.
Layton cited rising gas prices, 33% of families changing vacation plans, Air Canada's fuel surcharges, reduced flights, and 2,000 layoffs to ask when the Prime Minister would act against oil companies' appetite.
Layton cites a specific statistic (33% of families changed vacation plans) and the Air Canada layoffs of 2,000 workers, but the ask â 'quand le premier ministre va-t-il agir?' â is vague and unanswerable without further specification.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, alors que le prix de l'essence ne fait qu'augmenter, 33 p. 100 des familles ont dû changer leurs plans de vacances. Air Canada continue d'augmenter les surcharges pour l'essence, réduit le nombre de vols et met 2 000 personnes à pied. L'ensemble de notre économie est touché par l'incapacité du gouvernement d'agir contre l'appétit des pétroliÚres. Quand le premier ministre va-t-il agir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the price of gas keeps going up, and 33% of families have been forced to change their vacation plans. Air Canada keeps bumping up fuel surcharges, and now it has cut flights and plans to lay off 2,000 people. Our whole economy is feeling the pinch because the government is unwilling to take action against oil company greed. When will the Prime Minister do something about this?
Harper said gas prices are determined by international markets, pointed to the GST reduction as relief for families, and acknowledged job losses while noting the economy was creating other jobs.
Harper acknowledges the difficulty for families, references the GST reduction as a concrete measure, and notes job creation, which is partially relevant but does not address the specific actions Layton called for regarding oil companies.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les prix de l'essence sont dĂ©terminĂ©s par les marchĂ©s internationaux. Nous reconnaissons les difficultĂ©s que cela pose pour les familles. C'est la raison pour laquelle nous avons rĂ©duit la TPS, malgrĂ© l'opposition des partis de l'opposition. Aussi, nous reconnaissons qu'il y a des pertes d'emploi, mais, en mĂȘme temps, l'Ă©conomie crĂ©e des emplois pour assurer que ces familles ont d'autres possibilitĂ©s pour l'avenir.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, gasoline prices are determined by international markets. We understand that families are having a hard time dealing with this. That is why we reduced the GST, despite lack of support from opposition parties. We also understand that there have been job losses, but at the same time, the economy is creating new jobs to ensure that those families will have other opportunities for the future.
Layton listed specific fuel-cost impacts on airlines (surcharges up to $220), Toronto cabs, VIA Rail (5% increase), BC Ferries (up to 20% surcharge), and transit systems across the country, asking when the Prime Minister would act.
Layton lists multiple specific examples of fuel-cost impacts â airline surcharges of up to $220 on a one-way trip, Toronto cab fee increases, VIA Rail 5% price increase, BC Ferries surcharge of up to 20%, and transit system struggles â but the rhetorical closing line weakens the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to hear the Prime Minister dismiss 2,000 jobs with a wave of the hand. A rapid increase of gas prices is happening and it is affecting families in the short, medium and long term. Airlines have fuel surcharges now of up to $220 on a one-way trip. Toronto cabs, like cabs elsewhere, have had to increase their fees. VIA Rail raised its ticket prices by 5% to offset fuel costs. BC Ferries has added a surcharge of up to 20%. Transit systems across the whole country are struggling. When is the Prime Minister going to take his head out of the tar sands and start listening to working families?
Harper said the government would not pretend to control fuel prices, cited the 2% GST reduction as relief, and pivoted to attacking the Liberal leader for previously opposing a carbon tax.
Harper refuses to address any of the specific examples cited, pivots to opposing a carbon tax and attacking the Leader of the Opposition for a leadership race statement, deflecting from the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, this government will not pretend that it can control the price of fuels and gasoline. We can do something to relieve families from the pressure they are under. That is why we have had a 2% reduction, for example, in the GST. What we will not do and what will clearly hurt Canadian families is go around imposing carbon taxes at this time on all kinds of fuel. The Leader of the Opposition told his own party during the leadership race that he would never impose a carbon tax, that it was bad policy. It is not surprising that all those leadership rivals have left the country this week.
Brown asked whether the National Security Advisor genuinely lacked details about the paper trail for the missing secret documents, or whether the PMO directed Bloodworth not to look into the matter.
Brown asks a specific question about Bloodworth's apparent lack of knowledge of the paper trail for the missing documents, and raises the pointed possibility that the PMO directed Bloodworth not to look into the matter, but frames it with 'does the government expect us to actually believe,' weakening precision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when pressed about the retrieval of the missing secret documents left unsecured by the ex-minister, the Prime Minister's National Security Advisor seemed to have no idea about the paper trail. Does the government expect us to actually believe that the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister does not have those details, or that she was too busy, or did the Prime Minister's Office direct Ms. Bloodworth not to look into this matter?
Van Loan stated the matter is being reviewed by the Department of Foreign Affairs, which will determine what happened with the classified documents, make recommendations, and can draw on other government agencies.
Van Loan references the Department of Foreign Affairs review already underway and its ability to draw on other resources, which partially addresses the question of follow-up on the documents but does not address whether the PMO directed Bloodworth's non-disclosure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the matter is being reviewed. I thought the hon. member had heard me say, even in this question period today, that the Department of Foreign Affairs was conducting a review and would determine what the course of actions were with the classified documents that were left in an unsecured place. It will make recommendations. It has the ability to draw on whatever resources in the government it needs and whatever other agencies in order to do that job fully and completely. I am sure the hon. member would be satisfied that this is the appropriate way to deal with this.
Brown asked which version is true â the ex-minister's claim that he informed the PM immediately on Sunday, May 25, or the PM's claim he only learned on Monday, May 26 â and whether this contradiction explains why the member for Beauce is not testifying before the standing committee.
Brown identifies a specific and verifiable factual contradiction between the ex-minister's account (informed the PM on Sunday, May 25) and the PM's account (learned on Monday, May 26), and links it to the question of why the member for Beauce is not testifying before the standing committee.
Source text
I am not satisfied, Mr. Speaker. I would really like to hear from the minister responsible for national security, not the House leader. It is obvious that a cover up is taking place here. The ex-minister said that he informed the Prime Minister immediately when he found out about the missing documents, on Sunday, May 25. However, the Prime Minister said that he only learned about the documents missing on Monday, May 26. Now which version is true? Is this contradiction why the Prime Minister will not let the member for Beauce testify before our standing committee?
Van Loan stated repeatedly that the Prime Minister learned of the matter on the Monday afternoon, without addressing the contradiction with the former minister's account or the committee testimony question.
Van Loan simply repeats that the PM learned on Monday afternoon without addressing the contradiction with the former minister's own account or the question about the member for Beauce testifying.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for a year now we have had the opposition members state things as fact that are simply false. They apparently have not quit that habit, even though we are coming to the end of this session. We have made clear very many times that the Prime Minister learned of this matter on the Monday afternoon. I will say it one more time slowly so it can sink in: on the Monday afternoon.
Jennings highlighted that the former minister said he 'immediately' informed the PM on Sunday, May 25, while the PM's side maintains Monday, May 26, and asked how 'immediately' means one day later.
Jennings sharpens the Sunday/Monday contradiction by noting that the ex-minister said he 'immediately' informed the PM, making the one-day discrepancy pointed, but the question is embedded in sarcasm and does not add substantially new factual ground beyond Exchange 13.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il aurait peut-ĂȘtre intĂ©rĂȘt Ă le rĂ©pĂ©ter au dĂ©putĂ© de Beauce. Il y a maintenant deux dates au cours desquelles le gouvernement a Ă©tĂ© mis au courant de cette infraction Ă la sĂ©curitĂ©. L'ancien ministre affirme qu'il l'a su le dimanche 25 mai et en a immĂ©diatement informĂ© le premier ministre. Le premier ministre, son Cabinet et son leader du gouvernement Ă la Chambre des communes maintiennent qu'ils l'ont su le lundi 26 mai. J'imagine que « immĂ©diatement » veut dire une journĂ©e plus tard? C'est avec ce peu de sĂ©rieux que les conservateurs traitent de toutes les questions...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, perhaps he should tell that to the member for Beauce. We now have two dates on which the government was informed of this security breach. The former minister claims that he found out about it on Sunday, May 25, and informed the Prime Minister immediately. The Prime Minister, his cabinet and his Leader of the Government in the House of Commons claim that they found out about it on Monday, May 26. Does âimmediatelyâ mean âthe next dayâ? The Conservatives are not taking any of these issues seriouslyâ
Van Loan repeated three times that the Prime Minister was informed on Monday afternoon without addressing the contradiction with the word 'immediately' used by the former minister.
Van Loan simply repeats 'lundi aprĂšs-midi' three times without engaging with the word 'immediately' used by the former minister or explaining the discrepancy, which is a deflection by repetition.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai répondu plusieurs fois à cette question. Le premier ministre a été mis au courant des faits dans ce cas le lundi aprÚs-midi. Je le répÚte: lundi aprÚs-midi. Je le répÚte encore une fois pour l'honorable députée: lundi aprÚs-midi. C'est facile à comprendre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the question several times. The Prime Minister found out about it on Monday afternoon. Once more: Monday afternoon. One more time for the hon. member: Monday afternoon. That should not be too hard to understand.
Jennings alleged a cover-up spanning Foreign Affairs, Public Works, Public Safety, Transport, the PCO, the PMO, CSIS, and the RCMP, and asked specifically how many times the Prime Minister personally met Couillard and in what circumstances.
Jennings lists numerous departments and agencies allegedly involved in a cover-up and closes with a specific factual question â how many times did the PM personally meet Couillard and in what circumstances â but the lengthy preamble is largely rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, toute cette triste histoire ressemble Ă une tentative de camouflage qui implique les Affaires Ă©trangĂšres, les Travaux publics, la SĂ©curitĂ© publique, les Transports, le Conseil privĂ©, le Bureau du premier ministre, le SCRS et la GRC. Pourquoi tout ce camouflage? Pour cacher le manque de jugement du premier ministre. Ce scandale est le scandale du premier ministre, qui affecte maintenant tout son gouvernement. Combien de fois le premier ministre a-t-il lui-mĂȘme personnellement rencontrĂ© Mme Couillard et dans quelles circonstances?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this whole sad story looks like an attempted cover-up involving Foreign Affairs, Public Works, Public Safety, Transport, the Privy Council, the Prime Minister's Office, CSIS and the RCMP. Why such a cover-up? To hide the Prime Minister's lack of judgment. The Prime Minister is at the heart of this scandal, and now it is affecting his entire government. How many times did the Prime Minister himself personally meet with Julie Couillard, and under what circumstances?
Van Loan did not address the question at all, instead criticizing the Liberals for asking no policy questions over the past year and listing government accomplishments on taxes and crime.
Van Loan ignores the specific question about the PM's personal meetings with Couillard entirely, pivoting to a partisan attack on the Liberals' lack of policy questions and defending the government's record on taxes, crime, and carbon taxes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are lengthy lists of departments, a lengthy list of federal responsibilities, a lengthy list of ministers of whom the Liberals have not asked any policy questions at all in the past year. They really only have one theme, which has nothing to do with good governance in our country. We are a government that has spent the past year delivering results for Canadians on the things that matter to them, things like lowering their taxes to help them make ends meet, things like getting tough on crime, not things like destroying our economy with carbon taxes and making false and scurrilous accusations for a year because they do not have any other good ideas.
Bachand asks the Minister of National Defence to explain the contradiction between his shouted denial that orders to look the other way regarding sexual assaults were given and his separate acknowledgment that he had asked the Chief of the Defence Staff for a complete judicial review of all evidence and allegations.
Bachand cites two specific statements made by the Minister of National Defence in the previous day's QP and identifies a concrete contradiction between them, constituting a pointed accountability ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, deux aumÎniers de l'armée canadienne confirment que l'ordre avait été donné aux soldats canadiens de fermer les yeux dans les cas d'agressions sexuelles perpétrées par l'armée afghane contre la population. Or, le ministre de la Défense nationale hurlait, hier, en réponse à ma question en disant que c'était absolument faux. à une autre question, il affirmait toutefois avoir demandé au chef d'état-major, et je le cite, « qu'on procÚde à une expertise judiciaire complÚte de toutes les preuves et qu'on aille au fond de toutes ces allégations ». Belle contradiction! Le ministre de la Défense nationale peut-il nous expliquer cette contradiction?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, two Canadian army chaplains have confirmed that Canadian soldiers were ordered to turn a blind eye to sexual assaults committed by the Afghan army against the public. Yet, yesterday, the Minister of National Defence, in response to my question, angrily shouted that this was absolutely untrue. In response to another question, however, he said that he had asked the chief of staff to, and I quote, âdo a complete forensic examination of all evidence, to look into all these allegations and get to the bottom of itâ. Talk about a contradiction. Can the Minister of National Defence explain this contradiction?
MacKay calls Bachand a walking contradiction, then states he met with senior military leadership to ensure any allegation of sexual assault or other misconduct is immediately recorded into the chain of command.
MacKay opens with a personal attack and then describes steps taken with the Chief of the Defence Staff, but does not explain or even acknowledge the contradiction identified in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that individual is a walking contradiction. He stands in the House and pretends to care about the well-being of Canadian forces instead of suggesting that we should look at these situations very seriously. I have had a sit down with the Chief of the Defence Staff, the incoming chief of the defence staff and the Chief of the Land Staff to ensure there is absolutely no misunderstanding whatsoever. Any allegations, any suggestion that a Canadian soldier would see a misdeed, a sexual assault or otherwise, is to be immediately recorded in to the chain of command. That is in place now and it works.
Bachand asks whether the government will support a motion he intends to table before the Comité permanent de la défense nationale to invite the chaplains and officers responsible for witnessing the alleged abuses to testify.
Bachand proposes a specific procedural measure â a motion before the ComitĂ© permanent de la dĂ©fense nationale to hear the chaplains and responsible officers â and asks directly whether the government will support it.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au lieu de dire une chose et son contraire, le gouvernement doit prendre au sĂ©rieux les allĂ©gations qui sont devant lui et prendre justement les mesures pour dĂ©couvrir la vĂ©ritĂ© dans toute cette affaire. On a une autre dĂ©marche Ă suggĂ©rer au ministre. Pour faire vraiment la lumiĂšre sur cette question, son gouvernement est-il prĂȘt Ă appuyer une motion que je dĂ©poserai devant le ComitĂ© permanent de la dĂ©fense nationale pour inviter Ă venir tĂ©moigner les aumĂŽniers et les officiers qui sont responsables d'avoir vu ces exactions?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, instead of saying one thing and then the opposite, the government should be taking the allegations before it seriously and trying to find out the truth in this whole affair. We have another suggestion for the minister. To truly shed some light on this matter, is the government ready to support a motion, which I will move before the Standing Committee on National Defence, to invite the chaplains and the officers who saw these abuses to appear before the committee?
MacKay says the allegations are serious and the government has every intention of following up with the chaplains and those individuals who brought this information forward, without committing to the committee motion.
MacKay says the government has every intention of following up with the chaplains and those individuals who brought this information forward, which partially engages the ask but does not address the proposed committee motion specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I have a little more faith in the leadership of the Canadian Forces than the member opposite. We have every intention of following up on these allegations. Let us not forget that these are allegations, serious as they are. We are looking into this matter. We have every intention of following up with the chaplains and those individuals who have brought this information forward. The Canadian Forces and this government could not take this matter more seriously.
Barbot argues that by not repatriating Omar Khadr, who was captured at age 15, Canada is complicit in violating the Convention internationale relative aux droits de l'enfant and the Protocole facultatif sur les enfants soldats, and appears to be asking whether the government acknowledges it is reneging on Canada's signature to these instruments.
Barbot grounds the question in two specific treaties Canada has ratified â the Convention internationale relative aux droits de l'enfant and the Protocole facultatif sur les enfants soldats â and applies them to Omar Khadr's age at capture, though the question is cut off before the explicit ask is stated.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la Convention internationale relative aux droits de l'enfant des Nations Unies, que le Canada a ratifiĂ©e, dĂ©finit un « enfant » comme Ă©tant « tout ĂȘtre humain ĂągĂ© de moins de 18 ans ». Omar Khadr a Ă©tĂ© fait prisonnier Ă l'Ăąge de 15 ans. Ainsi, en ne le rapatriant pas, le gouvernement est complice des Ătats-Unis, un pays qui ne respecte ni l'esprit ni la lettre du Protocole facultatif sur les enfants soldats que le Canada a Ă©galement ratifiĂ©. Le gouvernement est-il conscient qu'en refusant de rapatrier Omar Khadr, un citoyen canadien, il renie la signature du Canada au bas...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was ratified by Canada, defines a âchildâ as âevery human being below the age of eighteen yearsâ. Omar Khadr was imprisoned at the age of 15. By not bringing him back to Canada, the government is complicit with the United States, a country that does not respect the spirit or the letter of the Optional Protocol on Child Soldiers, which Canada has also ratified. Does the government realize that by refusing to repatriate Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, it is renouncing Canada's signatureâ
Obhrai states that Mr. Khadr faces very serious charges and that questions regarding whether Canada plans to ask for his release are premature and speculative, citing a former Liberal critic's similar view.
Obhrai does not engage with the treaty obligations cited but deflects by citing the seriousness of the charges and quoting the former Liberal critic, never addressing Canada's obligations under the instruments named.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, Mr. Khadr faces very serious charges in relation to his capture in Afghanistan. However, if the member is not willing to listen to me, maybe she would listen to the former Liberal critic who said to Mike Duffy that the charges against Omar Khadr are very serious. Therefore, any questions regarding whether Canada plans to ask for the release of Omar Khadr are premature and speculative at this time.
Barbot asks whether the only reason for the Conservative government's incoherent position on Omar Khadr â supporting repatriation in the dissenting opinion while acknowledging unlikely conviction, yet refusing to act on the majority committee report calling for repatriation â is to avoid displeasing his friend George W. Bush.
Barbot references the majority report of the Comité permanent des affaires étrangÚres et du développement international and the Conservative dissenting opinion's specific acknowledgment that conviction in Canada is unlikely, creating a concrete tension, but the concluding question devolves into partisan framing about George W. Bush.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la question s'adressait au ministre concerné, et je souhaiterais qu'il ait le courage de se lever en cette Chambre pour répondre de ses actions. Alors que le Comité permanent des affaires étrangÚres et du développement international demande dans un rapport majoritaire son rapatriement, les conservateurs, dans leur opinion dissidente, prétextent qu'il pourrait représenter un danger pour le Canada, mais reconnaissent pourtant qu'il est peu probable qu'il soit condamné ici. Est-ce que la seule raison de l'attitude incohérente du gouvernement conservateur dans le dossier Omar Khadr est de ne pas déplaire à son ami George W. Bush?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the question was for the related minister, and I would like him to have the courage to rise in this House to defend his actions. Although a majority report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development called for his repatriation, the Conservatives, in their dissenting opinion, claimed that he could represent a danger to Canada, but acknowledged that it was not very likely he would be convicted here. Is the only reason for the Conservative government's inconsistency in the Omar Khadr case that it does not want to offend its friend, George W. Bush?
Obhrai repeats that Mr. Khadr faces very serious charges and that any questions about Canada asking for his release are premature and speculative as the appeal and legal process is still ongoing.
Obhrai repeats verbatim the same deflection as in exchange 18 â serious charges, premature and speculative â without engaging the committee report or the dissenting opinion cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have said it before and I will keep repeating it, Mr. Khadr faces very serious charges. Any questions regarding whether Canada plans to ask for Mr. Khadr's release are premature and speculative at this time, as the appeal and legal process is still ongoing.
Bell asks why a report by audio expert Stevan Pausak, hired to analyze the Cadman tape, was never released, and how many audio experts the Conservatives needed to cover up the Cadman scandal.
Bell names a specific audio expert, Stevan Pausak, and references an unreleased report, which adds some factual grounding, but the question is framed rhetorically and conflates the Cadman tape issue with the in-and-out scandal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, audio experts have stated that those are the Prime Minister's unaltered words on the tape where he talks about offering financial considerations to Chuck Cadman in exchange for his vote. Stevan Pausak, one of Canada's leading audio experts, says that he was hired a long time ago to analyze the tape in question, but his report was never released. We know it takes 67 Conservative candidates to launder over $1 million in advertising costs, but how many audio experts did they need to cover up this Conservative Cadman scandal?
Moore states that the two audio experts Owen and Gough tabled their expert opinions before the Ontario Superior Court concluding that the tape has been edited and doctored and does not represent the entire conversation, adding that the RCMP found no evidence of wrongdoing.
Moore cites the conclusions of the two audio experts Owen and Gough who tabled opinions before the Ontario Superior Court stating the tape has been edited and doctored, directly engaging the audio expert question, though he also pivots to partisan attacks.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the two audio experts we hired, Messrs. Owen and Gough, both tabled their expert opinions before the Ontario Superior Court. Here is what they said in their conclusion: The tape has been edited and doctored and does not represent the entire conversation that took place. They are audio experts. They say the tapes have been doctored. But the Liberals have ignored the facts from the very beginning. They ignored Chuck Cadman when Chuck Cadman said there was no inappropriate offer. They are ignoring the audio experts. They ignored the RCMP when the RCMP said there is no evidence of any wrongdoing. They can ignore the facts all they want, but they will not be ignoring the date that we see them in court.
Bell asks why the Conservatives are trying to cover up the May 17 meeting referenced in the sworn affidavit of Dona Cadman, who is also the Conservative candidate in Surrey North, at which Conservative Party officials allegedly offered her husband a $1 million insurance policy.
Bell cites a sworn affidavit from Dona Cadman referencing a specific date â May 17, 2005 â distinct from the May 19 meeting the Conservatives discuss, and asks why the government is trying to cover up the May 17 meeting, constituting a specific and factually grounded ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore the sworn affidavit that the Conservatives have distributed from Dona Cadman, who is the Conservative candidate in Surrey North. In the affidavit, she states that Conservative Party officials offered her husband a $1 million insurance policy on May 17, 2005. The Conservatives do not want to talk about the May 17 meeting; they only want to talk about May 19. Why are the Conservatives trying to cover up the May 17 meeting that Dona Cadman is so anxious to talk about?
Moore insists there was one and only one meeting â on May 19 â between Doug Finley, Tom Flanagan and Chuck Cadman, and states the facts will be seen in a court of law.
Moore asserts there was one and only one meeting on May 19 between Doug Finley, Tom Flanagan and Chuck Cadman, directly contradicting the May 17 date, but does not address the sworn affidavit of Dona Cadman's content about that date.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, as I have said time and again in the House of Commons, there was the one meeting between Doug Finley, Tom Flanagan and Chuck Cadman that happened on May 19. May 19 was the one and only meeting. But, again, the Liberals can ignore the facts all they want. They can put them aside all they want. The facts will be seen in a court of law and the Liberals will again be proven wrong.
Bains asks why the NAFTA-gate investigation, which cost taxpayers $140,000, was unable to determine who leaked the report, to whom it was leaked or whether there was only one leak.
Bains cites the specific cost of $140,000 for the NAFTA-gate investigation and quotes its stated finding verbatim, and asks a direct question about why the investigation failed to achieve its objective, though the partisan framing about Republican masters weakens the specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government continues to blame the bureaucracy for NAFTA-gate, saying that there were too many emails on the distribution list for the leaked memo. It sounds easy, but where is the motive? It was the Conservative Party and its Republican masters that had the most to gain from this leak. The NAFTA-gate investigation cost taxpayers $140,000, but was, âunable to determine who leaked the report, to whom it was leaked or whether there was only one leakâ. Could the Prime Minister tell us why this investigation failed to achieve its objective?
Van Loan claims the Clerk of the Privy Council found no wrongful disclosure by the Prime Minister's Office and characterizes the NAFTA leak as an imaginary scandal among a long list of similar Liberal false accusations.
Van Loan does not address the $140,000 cost or the investigation's stated inability to determine the source, instead claiming the Clerk of the Privy Council cleared the Prime Minister's Office and accusing the Liberals of imaginary scandals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, earlier in this session, when we were oddly not hearing any questions about policy from the Liberals, and we continued to have no policy from them for the past year, I quoted from a play, Little Women, where the lead actress said that the problem with doing nothing is that one is never really sure when one is finished. We see that from the Liberal Party right now. The Liberals continue to come up with these imaginary scandals. In the case of the false accusations they made in the NAFTA leak, of course, this is one of many cases where the investigation determined that the government was clear. The Clerk of the Privy Council found no wrongful disclosure by the Prime Minister's Office. It is one of a long list of similar situations.
Bains asks who were the two PMO officials identified only as official one and two in the NAFTA-gate investigation report, who received the memo on February 27 a day before Ian Brodie, and why the report went to such lengths to conceal their identities.
Bains identifies a specific detail in the investigation report â two PMO officials labeled only as official one and two on February 27, unnamed unlike others in the report â and asks a pointed question about why their identities were concealed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is still a leak in the government, one that has hurt our international reputation. On February 27, two PMO officials, identified in the report only as official one and two, were given the memo, a day before Ian Brodie had access to it. Oddly enough, these officials are not identified by either their names or titles, unlike the others in the report. Who were these officials and why did the report go to such lengths to conceal their identities? Why the cover up?
Van Loan denies any cover-up and lists multiple cases â the mayoralty campaign, the police investigation, an Ethics Commissioner finding, and the NAFTA matter â where he says the government was cleared of false Liberal accusations.
Van Loan does not address the anonymized PMO officials or the February 27 date at all, instead listing a series of cases where the government was allegedly cleared of false Liberal accusations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is none, but there is a long record of Liberals inventing imaginary scandals, only to smear the government and smear the reputations of very good people. However, all they are doing is demonstrating their own vacancy and tarnishing their own reputations. We have this NAFTA case where the Clerk of the Privy Council cleared the Prime Minister's chief of staff, and it was another false Liberal accusation. We had the false Liberal accusation of intruding into a mayoralty campaign cleared by the OPP. It found no wrongdoing. Following that, we had the false Liberal accusations that there was actual interference in the police investigation. That too was cleared by the OPP Complaints Commissioner. We had the false Liberal accusations of interference--
Tweed asks the minister how punitive a carbon tax would be, framing it as a trick that will raise prices on food, electricity, home heating, and gas and devastate young families, seniors, and people on fixed incomes.
This is a government backbench softball question designed to attack the Liberal carbon tax plan, with no specific policy detail cited, no accountability ask, and no identifiable answer expected from the minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, no matter what we call it, a carbon tax is a trick. It will raise the price of everything, including food, electricity, home heating, and gas at the pumps. It will devastate young families, seniors and people on fixed incomes. Jobs will be destroyed and Canada's traditional industries will be impacted. Despite warnings from premiers, industry members, and climate change experts about the perils of this massive carbon tax on everything, the Liberal leader will supposedly unveil the details of his plan tomorrow. Can the minister tell the House how punitive a carbon--
Kenney makes a series of jokes using the phrase shift happens to mock the Liberal carbon tax plan, without providing any substantive analysis of its costs or effects.
Kenney delivers a purely partisan comedic riff on shift happens with no factual content about the carbon tax or any substantive policy information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Liberal slogan for its carbon tax will be: shift happens. I suppose that means that Air Canada workers who just lost their jobs because of high fuel prices, the Liberal message to them is: shift happens. If auto workers have lost their jobs because people are not buying SUVs and trucks, the Liberal message is: shift happens. If rural Canadians heat their home with oil, the Liberal message is: shift happens. If the Liberals succeed with their carbon tax trick, Canadians will be: shift out of luck.
Julian asks why the Conservatives accept that American agents enforce the law on Canadian soil under the Shiprider programme, and why the government is renouncing Canadian sovereignty in public safety.
Julian references the Shiprider programme by name and raises a concrete sovereignty concern about armed American agents making arrests on Canadian soil, but the question is framed in rhetorical terms and lacks specific documentary citation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'été dernier, les Canadiens ont appris avec stupéfaction que, dans le cadre du programme Shiprider, des agents américains armés procédaient à des arrestations de Canadiens sur le sol canadien! Aujourd'hui, nous apprenons non seulement que le gouvernement renonce à la souveraineté canadienne en matiÚre de sécurité publique, mais que la GRC veut élargir le programme Shiprider et le rendre permanent. Pourquoi les conservateurs acceptent-ils que les agents américains fassent la loi en sol canadien? Pourquoi renoncer à la souveraineté canadienne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, last summer, Canadians were shocked to learn that, in the context of the Shiprider program, armed U.S. officers were arresting Canadians on Canadian soil. We now learn that not only is this government abandoning Canadian sovereignty in matters of public safety, but the RCMP wants to expand the Shiprider program and make it permanent. Why do the Conservatives allow American officers to enforce the law on Canadian soil? Why are they abandoning Canadian sovereignty?
Day says the Shiprider project has been extremely successful over two years, with officers from both sides cooperating under very clear protocols regarding jurisdiction and command, and has been effective in interdicting drug transports, illegal arms, and a variety number of activities.
Day defends the Shiprider project as successful over two years under clear protocols and mentions it has interdicted drug transports, illegal arms, and a variety number of activities, engaging the topic but not addressing the specific sovereignty concern about arrests.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member, who has raised the question, had been paying any attention at all, which he has not been, over the last two years the Shiprider project has been extremely successful. We have officers from both sides of the border who cooperate together under very clear protocols in terms of who is in whose jurisdiction and who has command. The particular Shiprider projects have been very successful in interdicting drug transports across the border, illegal arms, and a variety number of activities. It is a very successful program. We plan to continue it and expand it.
Julian asks why the Conservatives are allowing more armed American agents in Canada and contracting out Canadian public safety to the U.S. coast guard, citing internal documents dated June 4 of this year showing the RCMP is seeking to permanently expand Shiprider.
Julian cites internal documents dated June 4 of this year showing the RCMP is seeking to allow more armed U.S. coast guard agents to patrol Canadian territory, and references the SPP agenda and deep integration, grounding the question in a specific recent document.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, paying attention is why we know that the RCMP and the U.S. coast guard want to permanently implement Shiprider, and they are negotiating now. This is following other agreements to deploy American troops on Canadian soil in the context of deep integration as part of the SPP agenda. Internal documents, dated June 4 of this year, show that the RCMP is seeking to allow more armed U.S. coast guard agents to patrol Canadian territory. Why are the Conservatives allowing more armed American agents in Canada, and why are they contracting out Canadian public safety to the U.S. coast guard?
Day argues that joint border teams working together under clear protocols allow pursuit of criminals across the border while maintaining sovereignty in each country and apprehending criminals, calling it a successful program.
Day uses an illustrative scenario about officers in pursuit of drug dealers crossing a border to explain joint operations under clear protocols and sovereignty maintained in each country, but does not address the specific June 4 documents or the permanent implementation question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, only the NDP, and at times the Liberals, can take a very successful program that is protecting Canadians and see it come to something ridiculous like the hon. member is talking about. Picture this, Mr. Speaker. We have officers in pursuit of drug dealers. They come to the actual border, let us say on a river crossing, and they have to come screeching to a stop and let those criminals escape. When we have joint border teams, working together under clear protocols, the pursuit can continue, sovereignty is maintained in each country, and criminals are apprehended. It is a successful program. The NDP just does not get it.
LeBlanc asks when the cover-ups will end, cataloguing the Cadman scandal, the in and out scandal involving nine months of dirty tricks at committee and stonewalling Elections Canada, and the O'Brien scandal involving OPP allegations against Conservative operatives and the Minister of the Environment.
LeBlanc groups four distinct allegations â Cadman, in-and-out, O'Brien, and committee stonewalling â into a single vague compound question about when cover-ups will end, making it more of a rhetorical catalogue than an accountable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the Cadman scandal, the Conservative cover-up involved frivolous lawsuits and paid opinions to hide the Prime Minister's own words. In the in and out scandal, the cover-up was nine months of dirty tricks at committee and stonewalling Elections Canada. In the O'Brien scandal, the cover-up was a refusal to examine OPP allegations against Conservative operatives and the Minister of the Environment. When will the cover-ups end?
Van Loan asks when false Liberal accusations will end and lists the mayoralty campaign, the police investigation, Ethics Commissioner findings, the NAFTA matter, and the RCMP clearance in the Cadman affair as cases where the government was cleared.
Van Loan lists the same cases and claims the government was cleared in each without engaging any specific allegation LeBlanc raised, essentially matching rhetoric with rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the real question is, when will the false Liberal accusations end? There were false Liberal accusations in the mayoralty campaign. We were cleared. There were false allegations with regard to the police investigation. We were cleared. In fact, it was the Liberal member who was accused by the OPP of having engaged in political interference. There were false accusations with regard to contracts that, once again, were cleared by the Ethics Commissioner. There were false Liberal accusations on NAFTA. Once again, we were cleared. There were false allegations in the affair he mentioned at the very start. Once again, we were cleared by the RCMP. Will the Liberals once, just once, acknowledge when they have made a mistake and made false accusations?
LeBlanc asks when the government will stop covering things up and start being accountable, citing NAFTA-gate, the Mulroney-Schreiber affair with its restrictive commission mandate, the treatment of detainees, and the national security breach by the former Minister of Foreign Affairs.
LeBlanc raises four specific matters â NAFTA-gate, the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, the treatment of detainees, and the former Minister of Foreign Affairs security breach â but frames the ask as a general when will you stop covering things up, diluting the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is the mother-in-law of all cover-ups, NAFTA-gate. C'est un rapport bidon qui ne suit pas les pistes qui mĂšnent directement au Cabinet du premier ministre. L'affaire Mulroney-Schreiber: Ă©touffĂ©e grĂące Ă un Ă©noncĂ© de mission restrictif de la commission d'enquĂȘte. Le traitement des dĂ©tenus: affaire Ă©touffĂ©e. L'infraction Ă la sĂ©curitĂ© nationale par l'ex-ministre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres: affaire Ă©touffĂ©e. Quand le gouvernement cessera-t-il de tout Ă©touffer et commencera-t-il Ă rendre des comptes?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, voilà le pire des camouflages, l'ALENAgate. It is an fake report that does not follow the trail that leads directly to the Prime Minister's cabinet. The Mulroney-Schreiber affair: swept under the rug thanks to the inquiry's restrictive mission statement. The treatment of detainees: swept under the rug. The national security breach by the former foreign affairs minister: swept under the rug. When will the government stop sweeping everything under the rug and start being accountable?
Van Loan shifts to economic issues and the threat of a carbon tax, then claims the government gets cleared every time an inquiry or hearing is held, without addressing the four specific matters named.
Van Loan pivots to the threat of a carbon tax and claims the government has been cleared every time, without addressing any of the four specific matters named by LeBlanc.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are important economic issues that matter to this country. There is a very grave threat of a carbon tax. The Liberals are still not talking about it. The fact is that we have done good things for Canada. The fact is that we have people who want to see a crack down on crime. They do not want to talk about that. In fact, the only things they want to talk about are false accusations. We have been cleared in every case. On those ones they have taken their chance. They have tried to have inquiries at hearings. They had their legislative inquiry in the Mulroney matter. Did that help? No. We are doing it in a proper, professional way as we do. Guess what? Every time the government gets cleared.
Simard asks the justice minister to put the brakes on the alleged appointment of the Treasury Board President to a judicial post in Manitoba, calling it a case of conflict of interest and a way for the Prime Minister to get rid of a political liability by giving him a cushy job with a huge salary.
Simard raises the specific matter of 166 judicial appointments and the alleged appointment of the Treasury Board President to a judicial post as a political manoeuvre, but frames it with loaded language like cushy job and huge salary that shifts it toward rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Manitobans are watching and they see a clear case of cover-up and conflict of interest here. They are concerned about the 166 judicial appointments the government is about to make. The Treasury Board President is such a political mess for the Prime Minister that he has no other choice but to give him a cushy job with a huge salary just to get rid of him. Will the justice minister do the right thing, put the brakes on this ridiculous appointment, and save himself a huge embarrassment?
Nicholson defends judicial appointees as individuals prepared to serve their country, notes the Treasury Board President's background as a distinguished prosecutor and attorney general of Manitoba, and quotes his advice not to count on the Liberal Party when it comes to fighting crime.
Nicholson deflects by defending the dignity of judicial appointments, then uses the question as an opportunity to quote advice from the Treasury Board President about not counting on the Liberal Party to fight crime.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals described judicial appointments as cushy jobs. These are individuals prepared to serve their country, for which they should all receive the respect of the House and our thanks. The President of the Treasury Board was mentioned. I know he has been a distinguished prosecutor. He has been attorney general of Manitoba and he certainly gave me some good advice when I became justice minister. He said, when it comes to fighting crime in this country, do not ever count on the Liberal Party. That was great advice and I thank him publicly for that.
Simard asks the Prime Minister to confirm clearly, once and for all, that the Treasury Board President will not be appointed to the bench in Manitoba, citing the Prime Minister's own statement earlier in the week that such talk was complete nonsense.
Simard cites the Prime Minister's own stated position from earlier in the week â that the appointment talk was complete nonsense â and asks him to confirm clearly, once and for all, that the appointment will not take place, constituting a direct commitment-based accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in question period this week, the Prime Minister clearly stated that talk of the Treasury Board President being appointed to the bench in Manitoba was complete nonsense. We hope the Prime Minister realizes that this would be the straw that broke the camel's back on his government's accountability scam. Will the Prime Minister confirm clearly, once and for all, that Canadians will be spared and this appointment will not take place?
Harper does not confirm or deny the appointment but attacks the Liberals for attacking contracts nobody has ever signed and appointments that nobody has ever made, and pivots to criticizing the Liberal carbon tax plan.
Harper does not confirm or deny whether the appointment will take place but instead attacks the Liberals for accusing people of involvement in cover-ups and for attacking contracts nobody has ever signed and appointments that nobody has ever made, pivoting to the carbon tax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I guess when the Liberal Party is not accusing the police, audio experts, senior bureaucrats, and everybody else of being involved in a cover-up, it is attacking contracts that nobody has ever signed and attacking appointments that nobody has ever made. This really illustrates what is wrong with the Liberal Party, a party that has no agenda. That is why it passes the government's agenda for the last two and a half years. When actually pressed to do something, the only thing it can come up with is to impose a carbon tax on every single Canadian.
Why was there nothing in the 2008 budget for a year-round maritime link for the Ăles-de-la-Madeleine despite the minister's commitment, and what guarantee can the minister offer that the permanent maritime service will exist by next winter?
The question cites a specific budgetary omission, contrasts it with Newfoundland-and-Labrador funding, references a prior ministerial commitment, and asks for a concrete guarantee regarding a year-round maritime link for the Ăles-de-la-Madeleine by next winter.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, malgrĂ© l'engagement pris par le ministre des Transports, de lâInfrastructure et des CollectivitĂ©s, il n'y avait rien dans le budget de 2008 pour la rĂ©alisation d'un lien maritime Ă longueur d'annĂ©e pour les Ăles-de-la-Madeleine, alors que des sommes sont prĂ©vues pour celui de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador. Le ministre des Transports, de lâInfrastructure et des CollectivitĂ©s peut bien faire de belles promesses, mais il ne les respecte pas. Quelle forme de garantie peut nous offrir le ministre des Transports, de lâInfrastructure et des CollectivitĂ©s pour que l'archipel madelinot puisse enfin avoir, dĂšs l'hiver prochain, le service maritime permanent rĂ©clamĂ© par toute la population des Ăles-de-la-Madeleine?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, despite the promise made by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, there was nothing in the budget for the construction of a year-round maritime link for the Magdalen Islands, although amounts have been allocated for the Newfoundland and Labrador link. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is good at making promises but does not keep them. Can the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities guarantee that the Magdalen Islands will finally, by next winter, have the permanent maritime service called for by the entire population of the Magdalen Islands?
The minister says he has told Islanders directly that there will be a pilot program next winter, with further steps to be announced, then pivots to criticizing the Bloc's carbon position.
The minister confirms a pilot program for next winter, which partially addresses the ask, but pivots to attacking the Bloc on carbon dependency rather than providing the guarantee or details requested.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Ă©videmment, je l'ai rĂ©pĂ©tĂ© au Bloc et aux dĂ©putĂ©s Ă maintes reprises, mais, comme d'habitude, ils n'Ă©coutent pas. Alors, j'ai parlĂ© directement Ă ceux et celles qui sont touchĂ©s, les gens des Ăles-de-la-Madeleine. Je leur ai dit clairement que l'hiver prochain, il y aura un programme-pilote et que ce programme donnera lieu Ă d'autres dĂ©marches qui seront Ă annoncer ultimement. Cependant, je dois dĂ©noncer avec vigueur l'association entre le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois et l'idĂ©e de couper de 50 p. 100 la dĂ©pendance des QuĂ©bĂ©cois au carbone, tout comme les libĂ©raux...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have told the Bloc and the members many times but, as usual, they do not listen. I spoke directly with those affected, the inhabitants of the Magdalen Islands. I clearly told them that, next winter, there will be a pilot program leading to other measures to be announced later. However, I wish to vigorously denounce the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois' support for the idea of reducing Quebec's dependence on carbon by 50%, just as the Liberalsâ
Will the government commit to opposing the International Joint Commission's new management plan and do everything in its power to preserve lac Saint-Pierre, recognized by UNESCO as a world biosphere reserve?
The question identifies a specific body (la Commission mixte internationale), a specific event (resolutions to be filed that evening in Sorel-Tracy), a specific designation (réserve mondiale de la biosphÚre), and asks a clear yes/no policy commitment regarding the new management plan.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Ă l'heure oĂč la Commission mixte internationale s'apprĂȘte Ă modifier le mode de gestion des eaux du Saint-Laurent, plusieurs municipalitĂ©s rĂ©gionales de comtĂ©, dont celle de Bas-Richelieu, dĂ©poseront ce soir, Ă Sorel-Tracy, des rĂ©solutions rĂ©clamant le maintien du statu quo. Le gouvernement s'engage-t-il Ă s'opposer au nouveau plan de gestion de la commission et Ă faire tout en son pouvoir pour prĂ©server le lac Saint-Pierre, reconnu par l'UNESCO comme rĂ©serve mondiale de la biosphĂšre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as the International Joint Commission prepares to change how the waters of the St. Lawrence River are managed, a number of regional municipalities, including Bas-Richelieu, will table resolutions this evening in Sorel-Tracy calling for the status quo to be maintained. Does the government promise to oppose the commission's new management plan and do everything in its power to preserve Lac Saint-Pierre, which UNESCO has recognized as a world biosphere reserve?
The minister says the IJC is still in consultations, has not yet produced a plan, and that the government will make a decision once it receives the IJC's advice.
The minister engages the topic accurately by noting consultations are ongoing and no plan has been received yet, which is a factual partial answer, but he makes no commitment on the government's position and does not address lac Saint-Pierre specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the International Joint Commission is in the process of going through consultations. We have not received a plan. It is my impression that it does not have a plan yet. It is looking at a number of options. When we receive the advice of the IJC we will make a decision.
Using rhetorical framing, the member implies the minister has hindered economic development and asks implicitly when he will leave office.
The question is almost entirely rhetorical wordplay using the minister's own 'début, milieu, fin' formulation; there is no identifiable factual ask or specific policy issue raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aujourd'hui, tout le monde critique le ministre de lâAgence de dĂ©veloppement Ă©conomique du Canada pour les rĂ©gions du QuĂ©bec. C'est simple, au lieu d'aider au dĂ©veloppement Ă©conomique, il le freine; au lieu de crĂ©er des projets, il les annule; au lieu de rassurer nos rĂ©gions, il les maintient dans l'insĂ©curitĂ©; au lieu de tendre la main au gouvernement du QuĂ©bec, il lui tape dessus. Le ministre qui aime tant parler d'un « dĂ©but », d'un « milieu » et d'une « fin », sait-il qu'on l'a vu s'installer au dĂ©but, qu'on l'a subi et endurĂ© dans le milieu et que lĂ , on a vraiment hĂąte qu'il tire Ă sa fin?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today, everyone is criticizing the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. The reasons are simple: instead of helping economic development, he is putting a stop to it; instead of creating projects, he is cancelling them; instead of reassuring our regions, he is keeping them in uncertainty; instead of reaching out to the Government of Quebec, he is attacking it. Does the minister, who loves to talk about a beginning, a middle and an end, know that we watched as he took office in the beginning, we suffered and put up with him in the middle, and we cannot wait until his term of office comes to an end?
The minister cites the fiscal imbalance resolution and the $242 million transferred to Quebec's economic development ministry as evidence of the government's action.
The minister does not address any implied concern but pivots to the fiscal imbalance settlement and the $242 million transferred to Quebec's MDEIE, which is tangentially relevant at best.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, lorsque le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois s'Ă©poumonait Ă parler du dĂ©sĂ©quilibre fiscal et Ă parler de rĂ©gler cela au QuĂ©bec, que faisait le Parti libĂ©ral? Il ne faisait rien; il ne le reconnaissait mĂȘme pas. Un premier ministre en cette Chambre a fait preuve de leadership, et c'est ce premier ministre. En rĂ©glant le dĂ©sĂ©quilibre fiscal, nous avons donnĂ© 242 millions de dollars de plus au ministĂšre du DĂ©veloppement Ă©conomique, de l'Innovation et de l'Exportation Ă QuĂ©bec. On se l'est enlevĂ© Ă Ottawa pour le donner Ă QuĂ©bec. Si QuĂ©bec veut subventionner des organismes de façon rĂ©currente, il a tous les pouvoirs pour le faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when the Bloc Québécois was going on about the fiscal imbalance and calling on the government to correct it in Quebec, what did the Liberal Party do? It did nothing. It did not even recognize that there was a fiscal imbalance. One prime minister in this House has shown leadership, and that is this Prime Minister. By correcting the fiscal imbalance, we have given an additional $242 million to the Department of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade in Quebec City. We have taken that money out of Ottawa and given it to Quebec City. If Quebec City wants to provide recurring funding for organizations, it has everything it needs to do so.
Could the Minister of Indian Affairs update the House on what this government is doing to address the real needs of aboriginals in Canada?
This is a government-backbench softball setup that frames the question as an attack on the Liberal carbon tax and asks the minister to update the House on what the government is doing for aboriginals â a wide-open invitation with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is clear how a Liberal government would treat aboriginal people and Canadians living in the north. Their bright idea is to increase the high costs northerners are already paying by saddling them with a regressive carbon tax that would affect the price of everything. This is not what northerners and aboriginal people want. They want clear and concrete action with real results and not more Liberal press releases and empty words. Could the Minister of Indian Affairs update this House with what this government is doing to address the real needs of aboriginals in Canada?
The minister cites the increased northern allowance, the PM's residential schools apology, Senate passage of the specific claims bill, and Senate passage of Bill C-21 giving first nations on reserve the same rights as other Canadians.
The minister provides several concrete recent actions: the northern allowance increase, the residential schools apology, the passage of the specific claims bill in the Senate, and the passage of Bill C-21, giving substantive informational content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is the reality. While the Liberals' carbon tax would increase the cost of living for northerners, the Conservatives actually increased the northern allowance to help northerners pay the bills. Last week the PM gave a sincere and meaningful apology for residential schools. Now the specific claims bill has passed the Senate, something first nations have been asking for for 60 years. Yesterday Bill C-21 passed the Senate. That means for the first time in 30 years, or the first time ever really, first nations living on reserve will have the same rights as every other Canadian. Imagine that, the same rights as every other Canadian. While the Liberals are busy thinking about how to increase costs for first nations, we are getting the job done by helping aboriginal Canadians today.
Will the government take immediate action to make it perfectly clear to U.S. authorities that any flooding north of the 49th parallel resulting from a proposed 260-foot dam at Shanker's Bend on the Similkameen River is not acceptable?
The question identifies a specific applicant (a public utility in Washington State), a specific location (Shanker's Bend on the Similkameen River), a specific proposed height (260 feet), notes two bodies that have passed opposing resolutions, and asks for a clear government commitment against flooding north of the 49th parallel.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a public utility in the State of Washington is in the preliminary stages of applying to build a hydro dam on the Similkameen River at Shanker's Bend, the proposed height of which could be as high as 260 feet. A dam of this magnitude would necessitate the flooding of Canadian territory. The Regional District of South Okanagan and the Okanagan Nation Alliance have both passed resolutions opposing a 260-foot dam. Before this goes any further, will the government take immediate action to make it perfectly clear to the U.S. authorities that any flooding north of the 49th parallel is not acceptable?
The minister says any such dam would require Government of Canada or IJC approval, and commits to working with the member and his community to protect environmental interests and quality of life.
The minister acknowledges the issue's significance, correctly identifies that government or IJC approval would be required for such a dam, and commits to working with the member and community to protect environmental interests, but does not explicitly state that flooding north of the 49th parallel is unacceptable as asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for British Columbia Southern Interior. This is an issue with which all Canadians should be concerned. Obviously it has terrific impacts on his own constituency and in southern British Columbia. Any dam that would result in mass flooding in southern British Columbia would obviously require the approval of this government, the Government of Canada, or the International Joint Commission. I want to commit to the member that we will work with him and we will work with his community to ensure that the vested environmental interests and the quality of life for residents in his community are protected.
Where is the government's plan for food security both in Canada and abroad, given rising food riots, food rationing, and the world-class resources available such as the Ontario Agricultural College at the University of Guelph?
The question references real global conditions (food riots, food rationing) and a specific institution (Ontario Agricultural College at the University of Guelph), but the ask â 'Where is the government's plan for food security?' â is broad and the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I understand that to mean a commitment that there will be no flooding in Canada. I will move on to another subject. With food riots and food rationing on the rise around the world, and a growing concern about the quality and safety of food right here in Canada, there is a desperate need for Canada to take a leadership role when it comes to food security. We have the world-class talent. We have world-class facilities such as the Ontario Agricultural College at the University of Guelph. However, the band-aid solutions offered by the government have not been nearly enough. Where is the government's plan for food security both here and abroad?
The minister does not address food security; he briefly mentions the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and then uses the remainder of his answer to attack the Liberal carbon tax as a 'flood' threatening all constituencies.
The minister does not address food security at all; he briefly references the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act from the previous exchange and then pivots entirely to attacking the Liberal carbon tax, offering no connection to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are obviously very concerned about floods in southern British Columbia, but we will work to ensure that requirements of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act are maintained. However, I have a warning for the member for British Columbia Southern Interior. There is a flood coming to his constituency, like every constituency across this country, and it is disguised as a green tax shift. It is a massive tax grab to pay for a spree of wasted wild spending that the Liberal Party wants to go on. Please go back to your riding and warn Canadians about this coming disaster.
Why is the Prime Minister protecting Brian Mulroney and hiding the truth, given that the mandate of the Mulroney-Schreiber inquiry is so narrow that many questions will go unanswered?
The question references the Mulroney-Schreiber inquiry and claims its mandate is too narrow, but the actual ask â 'Why is the PM protecting Brian Mulroney? Why is he hiding the truth?' â is a compound rhetorical accusation rather than a specific answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have a question on Mulroney-Schreiber. Le mandat de la commission d'enquĂȘte sur le vol Mulroney-Schreiber est si restreint que de nombreuses questions resteront sans rĂ©ponse. Pourtant, le gouvernement a le devoir de faire toute la lumiĂšre sur cette affaire. Pourquoi le premier ministre protĂšge-t-il Brian Mulroney? Pourquoi cache-t-il la vĂ©ritĂ©?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, j'ai une question au sujet de l'affaire Mulroney-Schreiber. The mandate of the commission of inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber theft is so limited that many questions will remain unanswered. Yet the government has the duty to shed light on this affair. Why is the Prime Minister protecting Brian Mulroney? Why is he hiding the truth?
The parliamentary secretary dismisses the matter as an 'imaginary scandal' and pivots to criticizing Liberals for missing confidence votes and planning to impose a carbon tax.
The parliamentary secretary does not address the Mulroney-Schreiber inquiry at all; he pivots entirely to attacking the Liberals over the carbon tax and missed confidence votes, offering a pure deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the government House leader has said on many occasions here, unfortunately the Liberal opposition members can only concentrate on imaginary scandals. I can understand this because in just a few days they will have to go home for the summer and start explaining to their constituents why they would want to impose a carbon tax on every single Canadian rather than deal with policy issues of substance. They will have to go home and tell their constituents why they missed 20 confidence votes. The Liberals will have a lot of explaining to do, but after all, sometimes shift happens.
Can the Minister of Public Safety tell the House what the Conservative government will do to support the tourism industry at Mont-Tremblant, given that the airport has asked the federal government for help with passenger and baggage processing services?
This is a government-backbench softball that sets up an announcement about Mont-Tremblant airport while taking a swipe at the Bloc, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, Mont-Tremblant est une destination touristique de premiÚre classe, et l'avenir des Laurentides est trÚs prometteur. L'aéroport de Mont-Tremblant joue un rÎle essentiel dans le développement économique de cette région. Comme le Bloc québécois a toujours les mains vides et ne peut rien faire pour encourager les industries de la région, les représentants de l'aéroport ont récemment demandé au gouvernement canadien de les aider pour offrir des services de traitement des passagers et de leurs bagages. Mon collÚgue, l'honorable ministre de la Sécurité publique, peut-il nous dire ce que le gouvernement conservateur va faire pour soutenir l'industrie touristique de Mont-Tremblant?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Mont Tremblant is a first class tourist destination and the future of the Laurentians is very promising. The Mont Tremblant airport plays a key role in the economic development of that region. Since the Bloc Québécois always comes up empty-handed and cannot do anything to encourage industry in the region, the airport's representatives have recently asked the Canadian government to help them provide services to clear passengers and their luggage through customs. Could my colleague, the hon. Minister of Public Safety, tell us what the Conservative government is doing to support the tourism industry in Mont Tremblant?
The minister announces a new agreement with the Mont-Tremblant airport that will allow it to be more competitive in attracting international flights.
The minister announces a concrete agreement with the Mont-Tremblant airport to make it more competitive for international flights, providing a real factual answer to the setup question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai annoncĂ© aujourd'hui une entente conclue avec l'aĂ©roport de Mont-Tremblant. Et cette entente permettra Ă l'aĂ©roport d'ĂȘtre plus compĂ©titif pour accueillir plus de vols internationaux. Cela dĂ©montre encore que, lorsqu'il y a des problĂšmes au QuĂ©bec, les dĂ©putĂ©s bloquistes jouent dans les estrades, alors que les dĂ©putĂ©s conservateurs sont sur la glace et marquent des points.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today I announced that an agreement has been reached with the Mont Tremblant airport. This agreement will allow the airport to be more competitive and welcome more international flights. This shows once again that when there are problems in Quebec, the Bloc members are mere spectators while the Conservative members are on the ice scoring points.