Session overview
- Employment insurance reform dominated QP, with the Liberal–Conservative agreement to establish a summer panel on EI eligibility and self-employed access drawing attacks from the BQ and NDP as inadequate and too slow.
- The medical isotopes shortage generated sustained questioning, with ministers defending a $6 million research announcement and global supply coordination while opposition members cited expert criticism that the plan was a 'media diversion' and offered no immediate relief.
- The government announced the pulp and paper green transformation program, making $1 billion available to Canadian pulp mills; the NDP pressed for immediate funding and pension protection for AbitibiBowater retirees, which the minister did not address.
- The closure of the Cornwall border crossing triggered a dispute over CBSA arming policy and consultations with Akwesasne, with the Minister of Public Safety refusing to intervene while businesses described the situation as a crisis.
- Canada's response to the post-election violence in Iran was raised by Bob Rae; the Prime Minister reaffirmed condemnation of the regime and the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated the government would bring forward a motion in the House.
- The Bloc questioned the legality of loan guarantees for the forest industry, arguing that government statements in the House were being used by U.S. lawyers to undermine Canada's position in London arbitration proceedings.
Minister Gail Shea made a concrete and binding clarification on the public record, stating she never committed to 'a government funded rationalization program' and that the $75 million contribution agreement is what was announced, directly correcting the characterization that had framed the lobster fishery debate.
LeBlanc holds the minister to a specific electoral promise — a federally funded licence buyback program — and notes its absence from last week's announcement, making this a sharp accountability question.
Blackburn spent his entire answer celebrating the avoidance of an election and accusing the Bloc of wanting a crisis, without addressing the specific allegation that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development used a misleading calculation to dismiss the 360-hour eligibility threshold.
Outstanding questions
- Carolyn Bennett asked the Minister of Health to table the source and security of the isotope supply for all 240 nuclear medicine clinics in Canada and their access to alternatives — the minister announced $6 million for research but did not commit to tabling the requested data.
- Serge Cardin asked why the government would not follow its own lawyers' advice and provide loan guarantees to forestry companies rather than making statements in the House that U.S. lawyers were using to undermine Canada's position in the London arbitration — the minister did not address the legal argument.
- Mr. John Rafferty asked where pension protection was for AbitibiBowater retirees and where guarantees were for small businesses and suppliers owed money by large bankrupt corporations — the Minister of Natural Resources spoke only about the pulp and paper green transformation program and did not address pensions or supplier protections.
- Geoff Regan asked why the government prematurely shut down the MAPLE reactors before verification was even complete, and whether this was related to a privatization plan — the Minister of Natural Resources deflected by questioning what the member for Wascana knew and when, without answering why the MAPLE project was cancelled.
- Mario Laframboise asked how many infrastructure projects from the 2007 budget were started, underway, and completed — the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities spoke only about ongoing work with Quebec and did not provide any of the three figures requested.
Will the Prime Minister commit to working constructively to bring legislative changes to Parliament to make employment insurance fairer and more equitable for all Canadians?
References the Prime Minister's own public statement about 58 regional criteria and asks for a specific commitment to bring legislative changes, making it reasonably accountable.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre a maintenant dit, et pour la première fois, que cela n'avait pas de bon sens d'avoir 58 critères régionaux différents d'admissibilité à l'assurance-emploi. Le premier ministre promet-il de travailler de manière constructive afin d'apporter au Parlement les changements législatifs nécessaires pour faire de l'assurance-emploi un programme plus juste et plus équitable pour tous les Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has finally said for the first time that it does not make sense to have different employment insurance eligibility criteria in each of the 58 regions. Will the Prime Minister promise to work constructively to put the necessary legislative changes before Parliament to make the employment insurance program fairer for all Canadians?
The Prime Minister confirmed discussions will continue over the summer and cited $5.5 billion in additional EI benefits as an existing response to the recession.
Confirms ongoing discussions and references $5.5 billion in additional benefits, partially engaging the question but not committing to specific legislative action.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai eu une bonne discussion à ce sujet avec le chef de l'opposition. On va continuer ces discussions parmi nos représentants cet été et j'espère que nous arriverons à un système plus efficace pour tout le monde. Toutefois, on doit reconnaître en même temps que ce gouvernement a payé 5,5 milliards de dollars de plus aux chômeurs de ce pays en prestations d'assurance-emploi. Il s'agit d'une réponse à la récession mondiale.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I had a good discussion about this with the Leader of the Opposition. Our representatives will continue to talk about this issue over the summer, and I hope that we will end up with a better system for everyone. All the same, it must be acknowledged that this government has paid Canada's unemployed workers $5.5 billion more in employment insurance benefits in response to the global recession.
Will the Prime Minister pledge to bring before Parliament proposals that will make employment insurance fairer and more equitable for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast?
Grounds the question in the Prime Minister's own public statement and notes agreement from four premiers, asking for a specific pledge on legislative proposals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has now said for the first time in public that it does not make any sense to have 58 regional standards of eligibility for employment insurance, and the premiers of British Colombia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario agree. Will the Prime Minister now pledge to work constructively to bring before Parliament proposals that will make employment insurance fairer and more equitable for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast?
The Prime Minister said the government is willing to look at realistic, affordable proposals and cited $5.5 billion in additional benefits, encouraging continued constructive dialogue.
Engages the topic with a reference to $5.5 billion in benefits and encourages continued dialogue, but does not directly pledge to bring forward specific proposals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly, we are always willing to look at realistic, affordable proposals that will respond to the real needs of the labour force and to the unemployed during this recession. That is why we introduced a number of reforms in the budget that have allowed for an additional $5.5 billion of benefits to be paid to the unemployed of this country this year. That is important, and of course I would encourage the Leader of the Opposition and our parties to continue the constructive dialogue that we have begun on this matter.
Is the Prime Minister now willing to make the full complement of EI benefits available to the self-employed who contribute, and will he bring forward legislation in the autumn session if agreement is reached?
Cites a specific previous Conservative election promise, identifies the self-employed as the largest group without EI coverage, and asks two specific and answerable questions about scope and legislative timing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the self-employed are the largest group of Canadians without EI coverage. Last election, the Conservatives promised only to make maternity and paternity leave available to the self-employed. Are Canadians to understand that the Prime Minister is now willing to make the full complement of EI benefits available to the self-employed who contribute, and will bring forward legislation, if agreement can be reached on this subject, in the autumn session?
The Prime Minister confirmed the government is looking at ways to bring the self-employed into the system on a voluntary basis and committed to working over the summer to find common ground.
Confirms the government is looking at voluntary inclusion of the self-employed and commits to working over the summer to find common ground, but does not directly confirm the full complement of benefits or the autumn session timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, I indicated some time earlier that this government is looking at ways that we can bring the self-employed, on a voluntary basis, into the system. This is not an easy matter. We would of course welcome any proposals from the Liberal Party. We have made a commitment to work over the summer to see if we can find common ground on frankly a major improvement to the system, which would be of benefit to a lot of Canadians.
Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to reflect on Canada's position regarding the extraordinary developments taking place in Iran, including arrests and killings?
The question is mostly an invitation for the Prime Minister to reflect on Canada's position rather than a specific accountable ask, though it references concrete recent events and comparisons to Obama and Brown.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the government on the subject of Iran. We recognize that over the last three days, there have been extraordinary developments taking place in Iran that have had a dramatic effect on the people in that country. Hundreds of people have now been arrested. Many people have been killed. Both President Obama and Prime Minister Brown have issued strong statements with respect to the situation in Iran. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he would perhaps like to take the opportunity to reflect on Canada's position with respect to this most important event taking place in the world today?
The Prime Minister stated Canada has been outspoken about Iran's democratic practices and human rights record, expressed strong displeasure at authorities' reaction this week, and encouraged them to respect human rights and democratic progress.
The Prime Minister provides Canada's general stance on Iran, expresses displeasure at authorities' reaction, and calls for respect for human rights and democratic progress, offering relevant context but no specific new policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no secret to the Government of Canada's position. We have been outspoken for a very long time in the councils of the United Nations and elsewhere about the unacceptable ideology, democratic practices, and human rights record of the government of Iran. We are obviously strongly displeased by the reaction of authorities to events this week. We encourage those authorities to respect people's basic human rights and to move forward on democratic progress in that country. We find the behaviour of that regime unacceptable in so many ways that I cannot even begin to name them.
Given that Canada has diplomatic relations with Iran, what additional measures does the government propose to strengthen the possibility of a democratic moment in Iran, in coordination with the US, EU, and others?
Identifies Canada's diplomatic presence in Iran as a specific asset and asks what concrete additional measures Canada can take with allies, making it a reasonably specific policy question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous avons l'avantage d'avoir des relations diplomatiques avec l'Iran. Cela veut dire que nous avons maintenant la possibilité d'entendre directement, de notre ambassade, ce qui se passe exactement en Iran à présent et quelles sont les mesures additionnelles que peut prendre le Canada avec nos amis, avec les États-Unis, avec l'Union européenne et les autres. Est-ce que le gouvernement peut nous dire ce qu'il propose maintenant pour renforcer la possibilité d'un moment finalement démocratique en Iran?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, fortunately, we have diplomatic relations with Iran. As such, our embassy can tell us exactly what is going on in Iran right now, and what further measures Canada and our friends, the United States and the European Union, among others, can take. Can the government tell us what it plans to do to help bring true democracy to Iran?
The minister cited Canada's past condemnations at the UN and calls for transparent elections, and mentioned an upcoming motion in the House, without specifying new concrete measures.
The minister recounts past actions at the UN and calls for election transparency, and hints at a future motion in the House, but does not directly address what additional measures Canada will now take using its diplomatic presence.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme on le sait, ce gouvernement a été extrêmement actif dans le dossier de l'Iran, notamment au niveau de la dénonciation et de l'engagement que nous avons pris, particulièrement aux Nations Unies, pour dénoncer les abus à l'égard des droits humains. Nous avons aussi été extrêmement vigoureux dans notre dénonciation des plus récentes élections, demandant à ce que ces élections soient tout à fait transparentes et que chaque bulletin de vote puisse être compté. Nous suivons le dossier et j'espère aujourd'hui, en terminant, que l'opposition va appuyer la prochaine démarche au niveau d'une motion de la Chambre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that this government has been very active on the Iran file, particularly in terms of condemnation and the commitment we made at the United Nations to condemn human rights abuses. We have also very strongly condemned the latest elections. We demanded that the elections be transparent and that every vote be counted. We are following up on this issue, and I hope that today, the opposition will support the motion outlining our next steps.
Does the coalition realize that concrete action must be taken immediately to help unemployed workers, rather than leaving them to their fate all summer while a committee reports in the fall?
Raises a specific concern about the timing of the EI committee and its impact on unemployed workers over the summer, but is framed heavily around partisan rhetoric about a 'coalition' and abandonment.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la coalition libérale-conservatrice qui vient tout juste d'être formée est définitivement contre les intérêts du Québec et de la population. Après avoir présenté et appuyé un budget inadéquat et insuffisant pour le Québec, voilà que la nouvelle coalition met en place un comité sur l'assurance-emploi qui rendra des comptes à l'automne. Ils abandonnent donc les chômeurs à leur sort pendant tout l'été, au minimum. Est-ce que la coalition se rend compte que des gestes concrets doivent être posés dès maintenant pour venir en aide aux chômeurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the newly formed Liberal-Conservative coalition is definitely against the interests of Quebec and the public. Having introduced and supported a budget that is inappropriate and inadequate for Quebec, now the new coalition is setting up a panel on employment insurance that will report in the fall. They are abandoning the unemployed to their fate for the summer at least. Does the coalition realize that real action must be taken now to help the unemployed?
The Prime Minister pointed to $5.5 billion in additional EI benefits already paid and accused the Bloc of opposing reforms that benefit unemployed workers.
The Prime Minister cites $5.5 billion in additional EI benefits from the Economic Action Plan but deflects by attacking the Bloc rather than addressing whether concrete action will be taken before autumn.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, déjà, dans le Plan d'action économique du Canada, ce gouvernement a présenté des mesures qui ont donné de grands bénéfices pour les chômeurs de ce pays. Nous avons payé 5,5 milliards de dollars de plus aux chômeurs de ce pays pour ce qui est de l'assurance-emploi. C'est le Bloc québécois qui a abandonné ces chômeurs en s'opposant à tout prix, dans tous les cas, aux réformes qui bénéficient à ces chômeurs.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government has already introduced measures in Canada's economic action plan that have greatly benefited unemployed workers in this country. We have paid the unemployed an additional $5.5 billion in employment insurance. It is the Bloc Québécois that abandoned these unemployed workers by consistently opposing, at all cost, the reforms that benefited them.
Do the Prime Minister and the Liberal leader realize that unemployed workers need a comprehensive EI reform, not just the two limited items in their agreement?
Identifies two specific elements of the EI agreement, notes that the parental leave measure already exists in Quebec, and asks whether a comprehensive EI reform is what unemployed workers actually need.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'entente de la coalition libérale-conservatrice ne porte que sur deux aspects de l'assurance-emploi: la promesse électorale conservatrice et l'admissibilité. Or, la promesse conservatrice ne touche que les congés parentaux pour les travailleurs autonomes et cela existe déjà au Québec. Quant au seuil d'admissibilité de 360 heures, le chef libéral est déjà prêt à céder. Est-ce que le premier ministre et son nouvel ami libéral réalisent que ce dont les chômeurs ont besoin, c'est d'une réforme complète du régime d'assurance-emploi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal-Conservative coalition agreement covers only two aspects of employment insurance: the Conservative election promise and eligibility. The Conservative election promise was only for parental leave for self-employed workers, and Quebec already has that. As for the 360-hour eligibility threshold, the Liberal leader is already willing to give in. Do the Prime Minister and his new Liberal friend realize that what the unemployed need is a complete overhaul of the employment insurance system?
The Prime Minister confirmed discussions on future eligibility criteria and voluntary coverage for the self-employed, and accused the Bloc of always voting against measures for unemployed workers regardless of their content.
The Prime Minister confirms the scope of discussions on eligibility criteria and voluntary coverage for the self-employed, but deflects by attacking the Bloc rather than engaging with the substance of comprehensive reform.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce gouvernement et le Parti libéral sont d'accord pour discuter des futurs amendements aux critères d'admissibilité et des prestations d'une façon volontaire pour les travailleurs autonomes. Mais si on parle d'une réforme plus complète, je suis certain que, dans n'importe quel cas, le Bloc québécois votera contre des mesures pour les chômeurs de ce pays. C'est la difficulté avec le Bloc québécois, il ne peut jamais livrer la marchandise.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government and the Liberal Party have agreed to discuss future amendments to eligibility criteria and voluntary benefits for self-employed workers. But if we talk about more comprehensive reform, I am sure that the Bloc Québécois will vote against measures to help the unemployed in this country in any case. That is the problem with the Bloc Québécois: it can never deliver the goods.
Why does the minister refuse to understand that a comprehensive EI reform is needed now, and why does she use an aberrant calculation adding insurable work weeks to waiting periods and benefits to justify the current system?
Cites a specific calculation attributed to the Minister of Human Resources and challenges its methodology, asking why the minister refuses to understand the need for a comprehensive EI reform.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pour dénigrer le seuil d'admissibilité de 360 heures que les libéraux ont largué, la ministre des Ressources humaines et du Développement des compétences fait un calcul tordu en additionnant les 9 semaines de travail assurables que cela représente aux 39 semaines de prestations et aux 2 semaines de carence, pour affirmer que cela fait bien une année de prestations. Quelle aberration! Du salaire et un délai de carence, ce ne sont pas des prestations! Pourquoi la ministre refuse-t-elle de comprendre que ça prend dès maintenant une réforme globale à l'assurance-emploi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, to undermine the 360-hour eligibility threshold that the Liberals have proposed, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development is making a perverse calculation by adding together the 9 weeks of insurable employment represented by those hours, the 39 weeks of benefits and the 2 week waiting period to conclude that workers have one year of benefits. What a gross misstatement! Wages and a waiting period are not benefits. Why does the minister refuse to understand that an immediate overhaul of the employment insurance system is needed?
The minister accused the Bloc of wanting a crisis and an election, and claimed the government is working in the interest of unemployed workers and will be in action mode this summer.
The minister does not address the specific calculation challenged or explain the government's EI position, instead pivoting entirely to attacking the Bloc for wanting a crisis and an election.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je comprends que pour le chef du Bloc et son équipe, c'est une grande déception aujourd'hui, parce qu'on vient encore d'éviter une crise, et eux, c'est ce qu'ils auraient voulu. Ils auraient voulu une crise de plus, ils auraient voulu des élections, ils auraient voulu qu'on dilapide un demi-milliard de dollars de l'argent des contribuables en allant en élections. Mais non, nous nous sommes entendus. Nous travaillons dans l'intérêt des chômeurs et des travailleurs, et nous serons déjà en mode action cet été pour faire en sorte d'apporter des améliorations à l'assurance-emploi.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is a very disappointing day for the leader of the Bloc and his team because we again avoided a crisis that they wanted. They wanted another crisis, they wanted an election, they wanted to waste half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money on an election. But no, we came to an agreement. We are working in the interests of the unemployed and workers and we will already be taking action this summer to improve the employment insurance system.
When will the Liberal-Conservative coalition understand that unemployed workers need a comprehensive EI reform now, not piecemeal measures that largely already exist in Quebec?
Identifies a specific concern that the parental leave reform for the self-employed is limited and already exists in Quebec, and asks when the government will move beyond piecemeal measures to comprehensive reform.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la réforme à l'assurance-emploi dont parlait le premier ministre en campagne électorale vise à donner accès au congé parental aux travailleurs indépendants, une mesure limitée dont bénéficient déjà ces travailleurs au Québec. Encore une fois, le Québec est laissé pour compte. Quand la coalition libérale-conservatrice comprendra-t-elle que ça prend plus que des mesures à la pièce, ça prend dès maintenant une réforme globale à l'assurance-emploi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the reform of employment insurance that the Prime Minister spoke about during the election campaign will provide parental leave to the self-employed, a limited measure already available to these workers in Quebec. Once again, there is no consideration for Quebec. When will the Liberal-Conservative coalition realize that more than piecemeal changes are need, that employment insurance must be overhauled now?
The minister accused the Bloc of living off the country's misfortunes, cited five additional weeks of benefits the Bloc voted against, and said the government would work to improve the system over the summer.
The minister again pivots entirely to attacking the Bloc for wanting a crisis, offers no substantive response to the Quebec-specific concern or the call for comprehensive reform.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, à nouveau, je veux leur rappeler — et ils sont déçus — qu'il n'y a pas de crise aujourd'hui. On s'est entendus et on vient d'éviter une élection. Cela ne fait pas l'affaire du Bloc québécois qui ne vit que du malheur du pays. Pour notre part, on vit du bonheur du Canada, et c'est ce qu'on essaie de faire, soit de contribuer à l'essor économique du pays. On a accordé dernièrement cinq semaines de plus aux chômeurs et ils ont voté contre. Cet été, on va travailler pour améliorer davantage le système, mais bien sûr, ils risquent encore de voter contre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again I wish to remind them that, although they are disappointed, there is no crisis today. We have come to an agreement and we have avoided an election. The Bloc does not like it and only wants the downfall of the country. For our part, we want to make Canada thrive and we are attempting to contribute to the economic prosperity of the country. We recently extended unemployment benefits by five weeks and they voted against it. This summer we will work on further enhancing the system. However, they might vote against it again.
Instead of appointing panels, why will the Prime Minister not act for jobless Canadians today?
Mostly rhetorical with a series of satirical comparisons; the ask is vague and the framing is dominated by partisan attack language rather than specific factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the marriage of convenience between the Conservatives and the Liberals has blossomed into true love. What is their message to Canadians? If they have H1N1, they should take an aspirin. If they need isotopes, they should use soap. Are people putting groceries on a credit card? The big fonts will show them just how deep they are sinking. If they have lost their job, there is a blue ribbon panel and they should sit tight till the fall. When will these partners in crime get real? Instead of appointing panels, why will the Prime Minister not act for jobless Canadians today?
Oh, oh!
The Prime Minister said the government has already taken important action for the unemployed that the NDP voted against, and accused the NDP of opposing proposals before even knowing what they are.
The Prime Minister deflects by noting the NDP voted against prior action and mocks the NDP as 'le Bloc anglais,' providing no substantive answer to what action will be taken for jobless Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have already taken important action for the unemployed, but the NDP voted against it. NDP members decided they would vote against it before they even knew what it was. They have decided they will be against any further proposals before they know what they are. In effect, we have le Bloc anglais down there.
When will the Prime Minister stop playing at his opponent's low level and start acting to help those Canadians who are jobless, rather than offering only a blue ribbon panel?
References the NDP's 2005 budget negotiation as a factual comparator but the ask is vague and the framing is largely partisan, with no specific policy demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, workers need help now, not months from now. When New Democrats negotiated budget 2005, we delivered. We turned $4.6 billion in corporate tax breaks into billions for housing, post-secondary education, transit, and more. After all that tough talk from the Liberal leader, all Canadians get is a blue ribbon panel. That is cold comfort for laid off workers. When will the Prime Minister stop playing at his opponent's low level and start acting to help those Canadians who are jobless?
The Prime Minister accused the NDP of playing the lowest level game in Parliament and of opposing everything before knowing what proposals are made, calling them completely irrelevant to Canadians.
The Prime Minister responds entirely with partisan attacks on the NDP's relevance and behaviour, providing no substantive answer about actions for jobless Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the problem for the NDP is that the lowest level game being played in this Parliament is by the NDP. The NDP does not seem to accept that the people of Canada re-elected this government, and this government wants to work with other parties. As long as the NDP decides it will oppose everything before it even knows what the proposals are, it will remain completely irrelevant to Canadians.
Why does the Prime Minister persist in spreading a falsehood about unemployed workers when 60 per cent of people who lose their job are not eligible for employment insurance?
Cites a specific statistic — 60 per cent of people who lose their jobs are not eligible for employment insurance — and asks the Prime Minister to address it directly, though the framing is heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, les libéraux hurlaient que les chômeurs allaient crever. Aujourd'hui, le vice-premier ministre libéral, leur chef, dit: « Qu'ils crèvent! » Le pire, c'est que la coalition libérale-conservatrice n'offre aucun espoir aux centaines de milliers de chômeurs en pleine crise économique. C'est une honte et une tragédie. Pourquoi le premier ministre persiste-t-il à répandre une fausseté sur le dos des chômeurs? Est-il possible qu'il ne sache pas que 60 p. 100 des gens qui perdent leur emploi ne sont pas admissibles à l'assurance-emploi? Ou est-il comme le vice-premier ministre libéral qui s'en fout?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals were yelling that unemployed workers were going to starve. Today, the Liberal deputy prime minister is effectively saying, “Let them starve!” The worst is that the Liberal-Conservative coalition offers no hope to the hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers caught up in the economic crisis. It is shameful and tragic. Why does the Prime Minister insist on spreading falsehoods to the detriment of unemployed workers? Is it possible that he does not know that 60% of those who lose their jobs are not eligible for employment insurance? Or, like the Liberal deputy prime minister, does he just not care?
The minister cited five additional weeks of benefits and the Work-Sharing program protecting more than 130,000 jobs as evidence of government action, and accused the NDP of voting against every proposal for unemployed workers.
The minister lists some existing measures such as five additional weeks of benefits and the Work-Sharing program protecting 130,000 jobs, but does not address the 60 per cent eligibility statistic cited in the question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si le NPD avait lu notre Plan d'action économique, il saurait que nous avons fait beaucoup de choses et que nous continuons d'en faire pour aider les chômeurs du Canada. Par exemple, nous avons donné cinq semaines de plus de prestations et élargi le programme Travail partagé qui protège en ce moment plus de 130 000 emplois. Peu importe la proposition que nous offrons aux chômeurs, le NPD vote contre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the NDP had read our economic action plan, they would know that we have done many things, and we continue to do so, to help unemployed workers in Canada. For instance, we have provided five extra weeks of benefits and expanded the work sharing program, which is protecting over 130,000 jobs at this time. No matter what we propose for employed workers, the NDP votes against it.
Why did the Conservatives abandon the MAPLE project when verification of the reactors was not yet complete, and was it because isotope production did not fit into their privatization plan?
Cites specific testimony from the former president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission about the MAPLE reactors and asks a direct, answerable question about why the project was abandoned before verification was complete.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'ancienne présidente de la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire nous a dit, hier, que les réacteurs MAPLE auraient pu fonctionner et produire des isotopes. Elle dit que la décision du gouvernement de fermer prématurément les réacteurs MAPLE, il y a un an, était choquante. Pourquoi les conservateurs ont-ils abandonné le projet MAPLE alors que la vérification des réacteurs n'était même pas terminée? Est-ce parce que la production d'isotopes ne cadrait pas dans leur plan de privatisation?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the former president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission said yesterday that the MAPLE reactors could have been working and producing isotopes. She said that the government's decision to prematurely shut down the MAPLE reactors a year ago was shocking. Why did the Conservatives abandon the MAPLE project, when the reactors were still being audited? Was it because producing isotopes did not fit into their privatization plans?
The minister redirected the question by citing the former CNSC president's testimony that MAPLE had problems in 2001 and questioned whether the member for Wascana knew about this when in government.
The minister deflects by using the same testimony to raise questions about the member for Wascana's prior knowledge of MAPLE problems, without answering why the government abandoned the MAPLE project.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the testimony of the former president of CNSC has actually turned up something else which I find very interesting. Indeed, she indicated to the Globe and Mail, not more than three weeks ago, that she was told that the MAPLEs had problems in 2001, which I presume she told the member for Wascana. As well, the quote was, “You know, we are going to be bringing out the cement machines to fill that in”. Now, is that something the member for Wascana actually knew about? If so, why did it take him so long to alert the world that Canada was not in a position to provide—
Why does the government believe Canadian cancer patients should be dependent on other countries for isotopes when Canada can be a world leader in this field?
Lists several specific government actions — or failures to act — including shutting down MAPLE reactors, not prioritizing McMaster, denying a crisis, and announcing isotope production would end, and asks a clear question about policy direction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know the government refuses to explore every possible solution to the isotope crisis. The government prematurely shut down the MAPLE reactors. It did not treat a proposal to create isotopes at McMaster University as a priority. It denied, for months, there was even a crisis. Then it made matters worse by announcing isotope production would die on its watch. Why does the government believe Canadian cancer patients should be dependent on other countries for isotopes when it is clear we can be world leaders in this field?
The minister said Canada is a world leader in global contingency planning for medical isotopes, confirmed government funding for McMaster's reactor research and infrastructure, and referenced the May 28 expert panel to review proposals for alternate long-term isotope production.
The minister confirms government funding for McMaster on both research and infrastructure and references the May 28 expert panel announcement for long-term alternate isotope production, partially addressing the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, indeed, the one thing that the hon. member said that was, in fact, a fact is that we are world leaders. We are absolutely world leaders in leading the globe in coming together to come up with contingency planning with respect to reactor schedules to ensure that we have a global supply of medical isotopes. With respect to McMaster, this government has funded McMaster, both on the side of research with respect to the reactor as well as the infrastructure side of the reactor. Indeed, on May 28 of this year we announced an expert panel to review the call for proposals for alternate ways to produce medical isotopes for the long-term.
When will the Minister of Health provide an actual plan for worried patients in Canada, particularly in communities like Saskatoon, Windsor, Kitchener, and Kingston where there are no alternatives to technetium bone scans?
Identifies specific communities — Saskatoon, Windsor, Kitchener, and Kingston — where there are no alternatives to technetium bone scans and asks for a concrete plan for worried patients, making it reasonably specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has finally admitted that there is an isotope crisis. Canadians urgently need a triage system where the most urgent cases go to the front of the line. The nuclear medicine community yesterday criticized the research announcement for doing nothing to calm the fears of anxious patients waiting for tests, like in Saskatoon, Windsor, Kitchener and Kingston, where there are no alternatives to technetium bone scans. When will the Minister of Health provide an actual plan for the worried patients in Canada?
The minister said that contingency measures established in 2007 with provinces and territories have been implemented, that alternatives were identified and made available, and that the Tc-99 shortage is being managed by front-line health care providers.
The minister references the 2007 contingency measures established with provinces and territories and the availability of alternatives, but does not provide a specific triage plan or address the communities named where no alternatives exist.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, back in 2007 the medical isotope experts, in partnership with the provinces and territories, established contingency measures. Those measures have been implemented and the provinces and territories continue to work with them. Part of that plan was to identify alternatives. Alternatives were made available to the provinces and territories and are available now. The Tc-99 shortage is being managed by front-line health care providers and we will continue to work with them.
Bennett asked whether the minister would appear at the health committee and table the source and security of the isotope supply for all 240 nuclear medicine clinics along with their access to alternatives.
Bennett makes a specific, two-part ask — that the minister appear at the health committee and table supply and capacity data for all 240 nuclear medicine clinics — grounded in an identifiable accountability gap.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows the alternatives are not equally available across Canada. This is a crisis and it deserves to be treated as such. Ministers must be accountable to Parliament and to Canadians during times of crisis. The minister and her medical adviser must appear tomorrow at the health committee and reveal her proper plan for the patients in Canada. Will she agree to table the source and security of the isotope supply for all 240 nuclear medicine clinics in Canada, their access to the alternatives and their capacity to help the other areas that have no access to alternatives?
Aglukkaq said she would continue working with provinces, territories, and medical experts, and highlighted the $6 million research announcement as a world-first effort to find alternatives to Tc-99.
Aglukkaq does not address either specific request (committee appearance or tabling clinic data) and instead pivots to announcing the $6 million research fund already announced the day before.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will continue to work with the provinces and territories, which deliver health care, on this issue. I will continue to work with the medical experts on medical isotopes in identifying alternatives. Yesterday I announced $6 million to be allocated for research. Canada is a world leader in research. This is the first of its kind. For the very first time, experts on medical isotopes are coming together to look at alternatives to Tc-99.
Bouchard asked when the government will grant loan guarantees to sawmills in Girardville, Roberval, Mistassini, and other Quebec forestry companies that are closed and in need of liquidity.
Bouchard names specific sawmills (Girardville, Roberval, Mistassini) and asks a concrete question about when the government will grant loan guarantees to forestry companies that need them.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, grâce aux pressions faites par le Bloc québécois, quelques usines de pâtes et papiers recevront de l'aide, mais c'est insuffisant. Deux entreprises seulement au Québec seront ainsi soutenues et le reste ira essentiellement en Colombie-Britannique. Il faut accorder de la liquidité et des garanties de prêts aux autres entreprises forestières qui en ont bien besoin. Qu'en est-il des scieries de Girardville, Roberval, Mistassini et des autres au Québec qui sont fermées? Quand le gouvernement leur accordera-t-il enfin les garanties de prêts qu'elles demandent?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, thanks to pressure from the Bloc Québécois, a few pulp and paper plants will be receiving assistance, but this is not enough. Only two Quebec companies will receive any of this support, with the rest going essentially to British Columbia. We must provide the other forestry companies whose need is also great with liquidity and loan guarantees. What about the sawmills in Girardville, Roberval, Mistassini and other places in Quebec that have closed down? When will the government finally give them the loan guarantees they are asking for?
Lebel credited the government's pulp-and-paper competitiveness program led by the Minister of Natural Resources, and accused the Bloc of trying to take credit for the government's work and of creating political crises.
Lebel does not address loan guarantees for the named sawmills at all, instead touting the pulp-and-paper program and attacking the Bloc for trying to claim credit.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, encore une autre fois, le Bloc québécois essaie de s'attribuer le travail du gouvernement. Encore une fois et ce n'est pas le cas. Grâce au travail de la ministre des Ressources naturelles et de notre gouvernement, nous avons réussi à mettre de l'avant un programme qui soutiendra l'industrie des pâtes et papiers pour améliorer sa compétitivité et devenir encore plus verte pour répondre aux tendances du marché. Encore une fois, tout ce que le Bloc québécois veut, c'est encore créer une crise politique en confrontant les provinces du pays. Pourquoi ne dit-on pas toujours l'ensemble des éléments d'un dossier?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Bloc Québécois is trying to take credit for the government's work. And once again, it is not the case. Thanks to the work of the Minister of Natural Resources and of our government, we have successfully put in place a program that will support the pulp and paper industry and improve its competitive edge, as well as making it greener in response to market trends. Once again, the only thing the Bloc Québécois wants is to again stir up a political crisis by pitting one province against another. Why do they not always give the full picture?
Cardin asked whether the government should heed its own lawyers' advice and grant loan guarantees to forestry companies, given that ministerial statements in the House are being used by U.S. lawyers to undermine Canada's case at the London tribunal.
Cardin raises a specific legal argument — that ministerial statements in the House are being used by U.S. lawyers to undermine Canada's position in the London tribunal — and asks whether it would be better to follow Canada's own lawyers' advice and grant loan guarantees.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les avocats des États-Unis utilisent les déclarations du premier ministre et des ministres en cette Chambre sur les garanties de prêts pour miner les plaidoiries et les arguments des avocats du Canada au tribunal de Londres, qui eux soutiennent que les garanties de prêts sont tout à fait légales. Ne serait-il pas mieux avisé pour le gouvernement de dire et de faire ce que leurs propres avocats proposent et donner des garanties de prêts aux entreprises forestières plutôt que de soutenir les États-Unis?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. lawyers are using statements on loan guarantees made by the Prime Minister and his ministers in this House to undermine the case Canada's lawyers are trying to make in the London tribunal, which is that the loan guarantees are absolutely legal. Would it not have been a better idea for the government to do and say what its own lawyers are proposing, and give loan guarantees to the forest industry rather than back up the U.S.?
Day said the government focuses on the needs of workers rather than lawyers, and cited more than $8 billion in support through Exportation et développement Canada for Quebec forestry companies.
Day does not engage the legal argument about the London tribunal at all, instead stating that the government focuses on workers rather than lawyers and citing $8 billion in Exportation et développement Canada support.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les bloquistes continuent à focaliser sur les besoins des avocats. Nous focalisons sur les besoins des travailleurs. C'est pourquoi, avec la coopération d'Exportation et développement Canada, nous avons mis en place un soutien de l'ordre de plus de 8 milliards de dollars pour aider les entreprises forestières du Québec à continuer leur travail pendant la crise financière.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois members continue to focus on the lawyers' needs, while we focus on the workers' needs. That is why, with the cooperation of Export and Development Canada, we have put in place support in the order of $8 billion-plus to help Quebec forest industries to continue to operate during the financial crisis.
Laframboise challenged the Public Works minister's claim that an election would freeze approved credits, noted that 2007 budget funds remain unspent, and asked how many infrastructure projects from the 2007 budget are started, underway, or completed.
Laframboise challenges a specific ministerial claim, cites unspent 2007 budget infrastructure funds, and asks for precise numbers on how many projects under the 2007 budget are started, underway, or completed.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux a affirmé hier qu'une chute du gouvernement bloquerait les crédits déjà votés et, du coup, entraînerait la suspension du versement de l'argent aux municipalités, ce qui est faux. Qui plus est, il y a des crédits votés en 2007 qui ne sont toujours pas dépensés. Des sommes prévues dans le budget de 2007 pour les infrastructures, le ministre peut-il nous dire combien de projets sont commencés, combien sont en voie de l'être et combien sont terminés?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said yesterday that, if the government were to fall, funds that have already been voted on would be blocked and that payments to municipalities would in turn be suspended, which is false. What is more, funds that were voted on in 2007 still have not to be spent. Of the money earmarked for infrastructure in budget 2007, can the minister tell us how many projects have already begun, how many are about to begin and how many have been completed?
Baird said the federal and provincial governments are working hard together and are in the process of signing a detailed agreement with Quebec, emphasizing that infrastructure investment to create jobs is the priority.
Baird does not provide any project numbers and instead offers vague assurances about working hard with Quebec and the importance of investment, completely sidestepping the specific data request.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie mon collègue de sa question. Nous travaillons très fort avec le gouvernement du Québec. On est en train de signer un accord avec des détails précis. Il est absolument essentiel qu'on continue à travailler avec le gouvernement du Québec et de faire les investissements qui peuvent créer des emplois parce que la croissance économique au Québec et partout au Canada est notre priorité.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. We are working very hard with the Government of Quebec. We are in the midst of signing a detailed agreement. It is absolutely crucial that we continue to work with the Government of Quebec and make the necessary investments to create jobs, because economic growth in Quebec and Canada is our top priority.
Laframboise cited Allan Maslove of Carleton University and Conseil du Trésor confirmation that about 90% of stimulus money would continue flowing regardless of the political situation, and asked how the government can claim to deserve the confidence of the House when it distorts reality.
Laframboise cites Allan Maslove of Carleton University and Conseil du Trésor confirmation that 90% of stimulus funds would flow regardless of political situation, using this to challenge the government's confidence justification — a reasonably specific challenge but framed rhetorically.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, Allan Maslove, de l'Université Carleton, confirme que près de 90 p. 100 de l'argent du plan de relance continuerait d'être distribué, peu importe la situation politique, ce que confirme le Conseil du Trésor. Alors comment ce gouvernement peut-il prétendre mériter la confiance de la Chambre quand il n'hésite même pas, de façon éhontée, à triturer la réalité comme il le fait?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Allan Maslove of Carleton University has said that nearly 90% of the stimulus package funds would continue to be distributed, regardless of the political situation, and the Treasury Board has confirmed this. So how can this government claim to be worthy of the confidence of the House, when it does not hesitate to brazenly twist the facts like that?
Baird disputed the claim, insisting that a real government is essential to sign agreements and take action, and credited the government with creating jobs across Canada and in all regions of Quebec.
Baird simply asserts Laframboise is wrong and argues a government is needed to sign agreements, without engaging the Maslove study or the Conseil du Trésor figures cited.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, mon collègue a tort. Il est absolument essentiel d'avoir un vrai gouvernement pour signer les accords, signer les ententes et signer les détails précis. Si la Chambre ne siège pas, si on n'a pas un vrai gouvernement, on ne peut pas agir. Nous sommes en train d'agir, en train de créer des emplois partout au Canada et dans toutes les régions du Québec, avec l'équipe forte pour le Québec qui est de ce côté de la Chambre et qui obtient de vrais résultats pour la province.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is wrong. It is absolutely crucial to have a real government to sign accords and detailed agreements. If the House is not sitting, if we do not have a real government, we cannot take action. We are taking action; we are creating jobs across Canada and in all regions of Quebec. Quebec has a strong team working for it on this side of the House, one that is achieving real results for the province.
LeBlanc asked whether the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans forgot her election promise to establish a federally funded licence buyback program for the lobster industry in the Northumberland Strait, noting its absence from last week's announcement.
LeBlanc holds the minister to a specific electoral promise — a federally funded licence buyback program — and notes its absence from last week's announcement, making this a sharp accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'industrie de la pêche au homard, dans le détroit de Northumberland, traverse sa crise la plus grave depuis une génération. En campagne électorale, la ministre des Pêches et des Océans a promis d'instaurer un programme de rachat de permis pour aider les pêcheurs, programme financé par le gouvernement fédéral. Lors de son annonce, la semaine dernière, elle est demeurée silencieuse sur la question d'un programme de rachat de permis. La ministre a-t-elle oublié sa promesse électorale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the lobster fishery in the Northumberland Strait is experiencing its worst slump in a generation. During the election campaign, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans promised to establish a licence buyback program to help fishers, which would be funded by the federal government. Although she made an announcement last week, the minister remained silent about the licence buyout program. Has the minister forgotten her election promise?
Shea said she committed to helping her riding and addressing rationalization, and announced $65 million to support the lobster industry, some of which will go to rationalization, while working with fisheries organizations across Atlantic Canada.
Shea acknowledges committing to rationalization during the campaign and announces $65 million including some for rationalization, which is partially responsive, but does not directly address whether a federally financed licence buyback program was promised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, I committed to helping the people in my riding. One of the issues they identified was the need for rationalization. That is why last week we announced $65 million to support the lobster industry, some of which will go to rationalization. We are working on plans with the different fisheries organizations right now all across Atlantic Canada to assist them and to address their issues.
LeBlanc clarified that fishermen expected a federally financed licence buyback program — not a loan — and asked why the minister let down fishermen on both sides of the Northumberland Strait by omitting this from her announcement.
LeBlanc sharpens the prior exchange by distinguishing between a loan for rationalization and a federally financed licence buyback program, holding the minister to the precise wording of her election commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the fishermen in the minister's riding were not expecting a loan from the government to pay for a rationalization program. What she was talking about was a federally financed licence buyback program. That is what she talked about in the election, that is what the fishermen in the Northumberland Strait were expecting, and that is precisely what is absent from the minister's comments now. Why did the minister let down the fishermen in her riding and the fishermen in my riding on the other side of the Northumberland Strait?
Shea denied ever saying 'a government funded rationalization program,' said the contribution agreement helps fishers carry out their plans, and noted this is $75 million more than the Liberals ever put on the table for the lobster industry.
Shea directly disputes the characterization of her promise, stating she never said 'a government funded rationalization program,' and notes the $75 million advantage over what Liberals offered, though she does not fully clarify what her actual election commitment entailed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify something. I did commit to working with the fishermen on a rationalization program. I never once said “a government funded rationalization program”. What we do have here is a contribution agreement to help the fishers carry out their plans, which I must point out is $75 million more than the Liberals ever put on the table for the lobster industry.
Mendes cited a Conference Board study showing medium-sized cities like Saguenay, Trois-Rivières, and Sherbrooke are hard-hit, and asked when the government will provide precise figures on stimulus funds directed to the manufacturing and forestry sectors.
Mendes cites a Conference Board study and names specific cities (Saguenay, Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke) experiencing decline, asking for precise information on stimulus funds directed to manufacturing and forestry — reasonably specific but also carries partisan framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, une étude du Conference Board révèle que les villes de taille moyenne sont particulièrement touchées par la récession en cours. Au Québec, des villes telles que Saguenay, Trois-Rivières et Sherbrooke le vivent au quotidien, et leur économie fléchit de manière inquiétante. Depuis 2006, ce gouvernement n'a rien fait pour l'industrie manufacturière. Il ne brille pas non plus par ses initiatives dans le secteur forestier. Quand les conservateurs vont-ils nous donner des réponses précises quant aux fonds du plan de relance qui seront dirigés vers ces secteurs cruciaux de l'économie de nos municipalités?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a Conference Board study showed that medium-sized cities are bearing the brunt of the current recession. In Quebec, cities like Saguenay, Trois-Rivières and Sherbrooke are dealing with it every day, and we are all worried about their weakening economies. Since 2006, this government has done nothing for the manufacturing industry. Nor has it done anything particularly good for the forestry industry. When will the Conservatives give us specific answers about the stimulus package funds that are supposed to go to these crucial sectors of our municipalities' economies?
Baird cited the gas tax and a 200% increase to the municipal rebate as support for municipalities, and said the federal and provincial governments are working hard in every region, without addressing manufacturing or forestry specifically.
Baird does not address stimulus funds for manufacturing or forestry in the named cities, instead citing the gas tax and municipal rebates increased by 200%, which is tangential to the specific question asked.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux travaillent très fort dans chaque région du pays et du Québec. Nous avons inclus de grandes mesures dans le budget, comme la taxe sur l'essence. Le rabais aux municipalités a été augmenté de 200 p. 100. Nous avons déjà commencé à payer cet investissement à chaque municipalité parce que nous sommes conscients que les municipalités sont le coeur de notre pays. Il est absolument essentiel que nous appuyions ces municipalités.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, federal and provincial governments are working very hard in all regions of Canada and Quebec. Our budget included major measures, such as the gas tax. We have increased the municipal refund by 200%. We have already begun paying that money out to every municipality because we know that municipalities are at the heart of this country. It is critical that we support municipalities.
Mendes described the devastation of forestry and manufacturing industries in Saguenay, Trois-Rivières, and Sherbrooke, and asked when the Conservatives will offer those communities concrete hope rather than empty political slogans.
Mendes names specific cities and industries and invokes families struggling, but the ask remains vague — 'un peu d'espoir' rather than a specific policy or commitment — combining substance with rhetorical framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il ne faut pas chercher très loin pour trouver des cas précis. À Saguenay et à Trois-Rivières, la crise forestière a décimé les scieries et les moulins à papier. À Sherbrooke, les conservateurs sont restés les bras croisés pendant que l'industrie manufacturière piquait du nez. Dans chacune de ces villes et derrière les chiffres du Conference Board, des familles tirent le diable par la queue. Quand les conservateurs vont-ils leur offrir un peu d'espoir plutôt que des slogans politiques vides de sens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we do not have to look far to find specific examples. In Saguenay and Trois-Rivières, the forestry crisis has decimated sawmills and paper mills. In Sherbrooke, the Conservatives stood by while the manufacturing industry took a nosedive. In every one of those cities, behind all of the Conference Board numbers, there are families struggling to survive. When will the Conservatives offer a little hope instead of empty political slogans?
Lebel noted that Canada is not an island and the economic turbulence is global, and cited the Plan d'action économique's billions in infrastructure, training, and renovation credits as generating economic activity.
Lebel responds with generic references to the Plan d'action économique, infrastructure billions, renovation credits, and a request for the House to let the government continue its work, without addressing forestry or manufacturing in the named cities.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme ma consoeur le sait, le Canada n'est pas une île et la turbulence économique est mondiale. Notre gouvernement, par son Plan d'action économique, par les milliards de dollars investis en infrastructure, en formation et en crédits pour la rénovation, génère de l'activité économique, et déjà on sent une certaine relance. Ne mettons pas de lunettes roses, nous savons que cela va encore s'améliorer. Nous sommes résolument au travail. Il faut que cela continue. Merci de faire en sorte que l'on puisse continuer notre travail pour stimuler l'économie du pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, Canada is not an island. Economic turmoil is affecting the whole world. Our government's economic action plan, with billions invested in infrastructure, training and renovation credits, is generating economic activity, and we are beginning to see a recovery. We do not need rose-coloured glasses to see that things will get even better. We are hard at work. We must be given the opportunity to keep working. Thank you for allowing us to keep working to stimulate this country's economy.
Rathgeber asked the Minister of Justice to explain the government's most recently tabled crime legislation and how it fits into the overall crime agenda to help victims.
Rathgeber's question is a government-backbench softball that simply asks the Minister of Justice to explain recent crime legislation and how it fits the government's overall crime agenda, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as we approach the summer months, all members of the House are anxious to return to their ridings and speak with their constituents about the performance of their respective parties and their leaders. I know that members on this side of the House will be seeking the opinions of their constituents with respect to our crime agenda, an aggressive agenda that would ensure that the rights of law-abiding Canadians and victims trump the rights of criminals. Would the Minister of Justice explain this government's most recently tabled crime legislation and how it would help victims of crime in this country and how it would fit into the government's overall crime agenda?
Nicholson described legislation to prevent those convicted of serious crimes from serving time under house arrest, and criticized the NDP for not supporting the drug bill and having problems with identity theft legislation.
Nicholson briefly describes the house arrest legislation and then pivots to attacking the NDP for not supporting the drug bill and having problems with identity theft, providing some policy information but mostly using it as an attack vehicle.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, those who commit serious crimes should serve their time behind bars and not in the comfort of their homes. This is why we introduced legislation to make sure that those who have house arrest for something will not be able to go home if they have committed a serious crime. I hope we get a change of support from the opposition parties on this. They have not supported it up to this point. I have said this in view of the fact that the NDP last week did not support our drug bill. Now they have problems with identity theft. What is it about the NDP that they can never stand up for victims in this country? Would it be so bad for them to, for once, support victims of crime?
Godin accused the Liberal leader of betraying workers by abandoning the 360-hour threshold, characterized the joint Liberal-Conservative panel as a coalition of those who raided the EI fund, and asked why they are hiding behind a commission instead of acting now for unemployed workers.
Godin asks why the coalition is hiding behind a commission rather than acting, but the question is heavily wrapped in partisan rhetoric about betrayal and 'détournement des fonds' with the actual ask being vague.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le chef du Parti libéral vient de changer d'idée. Il vient de tromper les travailleurs. Les 360 heures ne sont plus nécessaires. Quel triste spectacle! Les responsables du détournement des fonds de la caisse de l'assurance-emploi sont d'accord avec les insultes des conservateurs à propos d'une « année de travail de 45 jours ». Cette nouvelle coalition entre les responsables du sabotage du système d'assurance-emploi et ceux qui croient que c'est lucratif est inquiétante. Pourquoi la nouvelle coalition se cache-t-elle derrière une parodie de commission et n'agit-elle pas maintenant pour les chômeurs, comme l'a suggéré le chef libéral il y a deux jours?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party just changed his mind. He just duped workers. The 360-hour threshold is no longer necessary. What a sad spectacle. The people responsible for misappropriating funds from the employment insurance fund are agreeing with the Conservative insults about a “45-day work year”. This new coalition between the people who sabotaged the employment insurance system and those who see EI as lucrative is disturbing. Why is the new coalition hiding behind a phoney panel and not taking action now to help the unemployed, as the Liberal leader suggested two days ago?
Finley said the government is working to provide EI access for self-employed workers and asked why the NDP changed its position to oppose this effort.
Finley does not address the question about the commission or acting for unemployed workers, and instead talks about extending EI to self-employed workers and asks why the NDP changed its position.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous essayons, tel que promis, de fournir des prestations d'assurance-emploi aux travailleurs autonomes. En ce moment, ce groupe de personnes n'a pas accès à l'assurance-emploi. De plus, le NPD a encouragé cela. Pourquoi a-t-il changé de position et pourquoi est-il maintenant contre les efforts des libéraux et des conservateurs pour créer une système d'accès pour les travailleurs autonomes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as promised, we are trying to provide self-employed workers with employment insurance benefits. These people currently do not have access to employment insurance. What is more, the NDP promoted this. Why has it changed its position, and why is it now against the efforts of the Liberals and the Conservatives to create a system of access for self-employed workers?
Martin cited a 25% jump in B.C. social assistance claims and 225,000 additional single people or families on Ontario welfare, and asked why the government is hiding behind a blue-ribbon panel instead of acting now for workers falling off EI.
Martin cites specific data — a 25% jump in B.C. social assistance claims and an increase of 225,000 single people or families on welfare in Ontario — to support a concrete ask about why the government is using a panel instead of acting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, workers do not want a summer of talks. They need action now. More and more workers across Canada are falling off EI and onto welfare. In the past year, B.C. has seen a 25% jump in social assistance claims. Ontario has seen an increase of 225,000 single people or families on welfare, the largest in its history. We know the problems. We know the answers. Why is the government hiding behind another blue-ribbon panel when workers will continue to suffer this summer?
Finley cited the five additional EI weeks and work sharing program as strong actions already taken, and described the summer panel as developing a program to help self-employed workers access EI benefits.
Finley cites the five additional weeks and work sharing program as actions already taken, and describes the panel's focus on self-employed workers, but does not address the specific welfare caseload data cited or explain why a panel is the chosen mechanism.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been taking very strong action to help all those who have been unfortunate enough to lose their jobs, by adding an additional five weeks and by protecting jobs through our work sharing program. Now we are taking it one step further by working with the Liberals on this panel this summer to develop a program that will help those who are self-employed get access to EI benefits. This is a group that has been largely ignored. We are working to help them. I do not understand why the NDP members are against that. It is not something that can be done overnight, but I am glad we are going to have the input from the Liberals to make this a viable program.
Brunelle cited Dr. Lamoureux calling the $6 million research announcement a media diversion that will solve nothing immediately, and asked whether the government will present a real crisis exit plan rather than improvised announcements.
Brunelle cites Dr. Lamoureux's characterization of the $6 million announcement as 'une diversion médiatique' and asks whether the government will present a real crisis exit plan, making it a reasonably specific accountability question grounded in expert criticism.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement pense régler la pénurie d'isotopes médicaux en débloquant, dans l'improvisation, 6 millions de dollars pour la recherche. Or une sommité dans le domaine, le Dr Lamoureux, affirme que cette annonce n'est rien d'autre qu'une diversion médiatique et que cette solution ne réglera rien demain matin. Le gouvernement entend-il limiter son action à des annonces improvisées ou entend-il présenter un vrai plan de sortie de crise pour régler la pénurie d'isotopes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government thinks it is dealing with the medical isotope shortage by suddenly freeing up $6 million for research. But an expert in the field, Dr. Lamoureux, says that this announcement is nothing but a media diversion and that it will do nothing to solve the crisis immediately. Will the government limit its action to spur-of-the-moment announcements, or will it come up with a real plan to deal with the isotope shortage?
Aglukkaq described the Tc99 alternatives research announcement as the first of its kind in the world and said she will continue working with medical isotope experts to look at other alternatives.
Aglukkaq repeats the $6 million research announcement and its world-first status without engaging Dr. Lamoureux's criticism or presenting any crisis exit plan, essentially reprising her earlier answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the announcement I made yesterday with regard to research to find alternatives to Tc99 is the first of its kind in the world. Canada is a world leader in research, and this will help deal with the shortage of Tc99. We need to look at those alternatives, and we are doing so. I will continue to work with the medical isotope experts to look at other alternatives, and with my colleague, who is dealing with the supply situation in this country.
Brunelle cited Linda Keen's confirmation that there was no supply plan, noted that patients and doctors are now paying the price, and asked what concrete steps the government will take to end Canada's dependence on other countries for isotope supply.
Brunelle invokes Linda Keen's confirmation that no supply plan existed, links it to current patient harm, and asks specifically what concrete steps the government will take to end Canada's dependence on other countries for isotope supply.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, Linda Keen, que le gouvernement a limogée l'an dernier, confirme qu'il n'y avait aucun plan pour assurer l'approvisionnement en isotopes. Bref, les conservateurs comme les libéraux se sont traîné les pieds et en font aujourd'hui payer le prix aux malades et aux médecins. Quels gestes concrets entend poser le gouvernement afin que le Canada cesse de dépendre d'autres pays pour l'approvisionnement en isotopes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Linda Keen, whom the government fired last year, confirms that there was no plan to secure the supply of isotopes. In short, the Conservatives, like the Liberals, dragged their feet and today are making patients and doctors pay the price. What real measures does the government plan to take so that Canada stops depending on other countries for its isotope supply?
Raitt cited a December statement on global supply security, two departmental work streams on alternative production and global reactor coordination, an expert panel for long-term new production methods, and the response of Petten and France coming on line.
Raitt cites a December statement, two departmental work streams (alternative production methods and global reactor coordination), and outcomes including the expert panel and Petten and France coming on line, which is substantive but does not directly answer the question of ending dependence on other countries.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our plan has been in action and we have been very active on the file. In December of last year, we released a statement to the public, indicating that we were pursuing the supply of medical isotopes around the globe in terms of the security of supply. Two areas on which my department was concentrating were reviewing the actual ability to produce alternatives to medical isotopes in another way and to explore how to better coordinate the reactors around the world. We have had great success on both of those, culminating with an expert panel review for the long-term with respect to new ways to produce medical isotopes and the global response of both Petten and France coming on line.
Holland said trade and tourism have been halted for more than two weeks around Cornwall, blamed the minister for failing to consult the Akwesasne and refusing to intervene, and asked why the public safety minister refuses to find a solution.
Holland identifies a two-week border closure harming businesses, attributes fault to the minister's failure to consult the Akwesasne and refusal to intervene, and asks why the minister is indifferent and refuses to find a solution — reasonably specific but partly rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for more than two weeks, trade and tourism have been ground to a halt in and around Cornwall as a result of the closed border. Businesses already hard-hit by a recession are wondering how they are going to keep their doors open, how they are going to keep going. The fault rests with the government. It has refused to even try to resolve the dispute between the Akwesasne people and the CBSA, a dispute to which all agree no ground exists. The public safety minister has closed his ears. He did not consult the Akwesasne before and he refuses to try to work with them now. Why is the minister so indifferent to the suffering of this community? Why does he refuse to try to intervene and find a solution? It is his job.
Van Loan defended the decision to arm border service officers at all land crossings taken three years ago, cited close to a dozen consultations with the community in the past year, and encouraged continued discussions toward a satisfactory resolution.
Van Loan defends the three-year-old arming policy and cites close to a dozen consultations in the past year, encouraging continued discussions, but does not address Holland's specific charge that he refuses to try to intervene or find a solution now.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we care a great deal about the safety of the community and communities all across the country. That is why we took a decision three years ago to arm our border service officers at every land crossing across the country. We also want to see the safety and security of the travelling public of the community and our border services officers maintained, including at the Cornwall border crossing. The implementation of this policy was undertaken by the Canadian Border Services Agency, with consultations that went on close to a dozen times, I think, in the past year. Those discussions continue, and I encourage those them to continue, so we can have a satisfactory resolution in the interests of the community, which maintains, number one, safety and security.
Holland asks when the minister will meet with the Akwesasne and work toward a solution to the border crisis that the Chamber of Commerce in Cornwall called a crisis for its local economy.
The question references a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Cornwall and three years of inaction, making a specific demand that the minister meet with the Akwesasne, but the framing is heavily rhetorical with a compound accusation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is clear the minister does not even understand the concerns. Over the last three years, the Conservatives knew the situation was coming. They knew the concerns of the Akwesasne. In a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce in Cornwall today, it called the situation a crisis for its local economy, and the minister refuses to intervene. The minister has ignored every request to meet with the Akwesasne, instead taking an uncompromising position with no concern for the damage it will cause. The minister's position has to change. When will he step in, do his job, start to work with the Akwesasne and find a solution to the crisis he created?
Van Loan refuses to compromise safety and security and accuses Holland of having a long record of opposing the arming of border service officers.
The minister deflects entirely by pivoting to the member's record on arming border service officers rather than addressing the request to meet with the Akwesasne or the local economic crisis.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on one question the hon. member raises, I agree. We will not compromise safety and security for anybody in the country. I know the hon. member has a long record of being on the record as opposed to the arming of our border service officers. We will not put them at risk of being shot by criminals and being forced to do their jobs without the tools they need to be safe. We will not compromise safety and security, not like he is prepared to do.
Rafferty asks whether the forestry package addresses EI accessibility, pension protection for AbitibiBowater retirees, and guarantees for small businesses owed money by bankrupt corporations, and whether it will save hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Rafferty identifies specific gaps in the forestry package — EI accessibility, pension protection for AbitibiBowater retirees, and guarantees for small businesses — making the ask reasonably concrete, though the final question is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today's forestry package has totally missed the mark. While New Democrats welcome aid for pulp and paper producers to make their operations more efficient and environmentally friendly, the government has failed to deal with some fundamental issues. Where is the commitment to make EI more accessible? Where is the pension protection for AbitibiBowater retirees? Where are the guarantees for small businesses and suppliers that are owed huge sums of money by large bankrupt corporations? With hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk across the country, does the minister really think this plan will save them?
Raitt says the government is pleased to announce its new forestry program, that industry embraces it, and that it supports capital improvements to prepare for the return of markets.
Raitt promotes the announced program and cites industry support but does not address the specific gaps Rafferty named: EI, AbitibiBowater pensions, or small business guarantees.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to announce today the government's new program with respect to forestry, and I will give more details of it later on. However, if the member actually bothered to talk to the industry, he would find out that it embraces it, that it will help save jobs and help us maintain our edge as the greenest supplier of pulp in the world. What it particularly appreciates about the announcement is it demonstrates a commitment to the future of the industry through its support to capital improvements, exactly what industry needs to prepare for the return of markets.
Atamanenko asks the minister to commit to immediate funding to save the pulp and paper industry, citing the U.S. black liquor subsidy and warning from the manager of Zellstoff Celgar in Castlegar that a three or four month delay will be too late.
Atamanenko cites the U.S. black liquor subsidy, quotes the manager of Zellstoff Celgar in Castlegar, and gives a specific timeline warning, but the opening demand for a guarantee that no jobs will be lost is unrealistic, weakening the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, will the minister guarantee that no jobs will be lost at all as of today? That is the question. The U.S. black liquor subsidy has hammered our pulp and paper industry and it needs help today or 100,000 jobs are on the line. The failure to negotiate an end to the U.S. subsidy has brought our industry to the brink of extinction. As the manager of Zellstoff Celgar in Castlegar said today, a three or four month delay will be too late. The mill will no longer be viable. Will the minister commit today to immediate funding that will arrive in time to save the pulp and paper industry?
Raitt reiterates the pulp and paper green transformation program announcement and states the industry has embraced it as the right thing to do.
Raitt repeats the announcement of the pulp and paper green transformation program and notes industry support but does not address the specific ask for immediate funding, the U.S. black liquor subsidy, or the Castlegar mill's viability timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the government announced today the pulp and paper green transformation program. This program is being put in place specifically to allow the pulp and paper industry to transform itself. It is already doing very well in terms of renewable energy, but even more so it is becoming more clean and more green. That is exactly what we should be doing at this point in time. As I have already indicated, the industry has embraced this and has been very vocal about the fact that it is the right thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, our government is determined to minimize the damaging effects this global recession has had on our forestry sector. The Kenora riding was delighted to hear today that our Conservative government announced new funding for Canadian pulp mills that produce black liquor to invest in new green technologies which will increase the environmental performance of their facilities. Could the Minister of Natural Resources tell us more about this exciting new program and how it will help our Canadian forestry sector and its workers?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kenora for his work on the file and all the other Conservative MPs who have brought this matter to my attention. He continues to serve his constituents in northern Ontario very well. As indicated, Canadian pulp mills will be eligible to access $1 billion in funding through our government's pulp and paper green transformation program. It will help ensure Canada has a pulp sector, both commercially and environmentally sustainable for years to come. Every dollar made available through this program will benefit forestry communities across Canada and provide them with a brighter future. By making a smart investment today, we are laying the groundwork for a greener, more secure future for pulp and paper workers and their families.
Murphy asks why the Minister of Industry disrespected the wishes of Charlottetown residents and their elected council by ordering the construction of a Rogers Telecom cell tower in a residential neighbourhood that the city council had voted against.
Murphy identifies a specific case — Rogers Telecom's cell tower application in a residential neighbourhood in Charlottetown — names the city council vote against it, and asks directly why the minister overruled that decision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. Last year Rogers Telecom applied to build a massive cell tower in a residential neighbourhood right in the middle of the city of Charlottetown. The neighbours did not want it. The people who lived in Charlottetown did not want it. Our democratically elected city council voted against it. The Minister of Industry, since the tower was not in his neighbourhood, overruled the decision of the city council and ordered the construction of the tower to proceed. My question is very simple. Why did he disrespect the wishes of the residents of Charlottetown and the decision of their elected council?
Clement says legislation ensures a well-connected national network, that Health Canada reviewed and dismissed health and safety concerns, and that national-level decisions are necessary for network capacity including 911 calls.
Clement references the legislative framework, Health Canada's health and safety review, and national network capacity needs, engaging the topic but not directly explaining the specific decision to overrule Charlottetown city council.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member knows there is legislation in place that ensures we have a well connected network throughout the country. If there are legitimate concerns, those concerns are then addressed. Health Canada reviews the concerns from a health and safety point of view. Health Canada did its job and reviewed for health and safety concerns. Those concerns were not valid. On that basis, that is why these are left to the national level to ensure we have the network capacity that is necessary for health and safety reasons, for instance 911 calls and things like that, of which I think the people of Charlottetown would in fact approve.
Guimond asks how the government can consider a free trade agreement with Colombia given that Colombian soldiers are killing civilians for government rewards, with over 1,200 judicial investigations opened and the UN and human rights organizations describing the practice as systematic and widespread.
Guimond cites more than 1,200 judicial investigations, UN denunciation, and human rights organizations describing the practice of Colombian soldiers killing civilians as systematic and widespread, grounding the question in specific facts before asking how a free trade agreement can proceed.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, des militaires colombiens ont assassiné des civils dans le but de recevoir des récompenses offertes par le gouvernement. Ils déguisent leurs victimes en guérilleros pour gonfler les chiffres de la lutte antiterroriste et toucher les récompenses promises. La justice a ouvert plus de 1 200 enquêtes. L'ONU a dénoncé cette pratique et les organisations de défense des droits de la personne parlent d'une pratique « systématique et généralisée ». Comment le gouvernement peut-il envisager un accord de libre-échange avec un pays qui favorise une politique de récompense pour venir à bout des guérillas?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Colombian soldiers have assassinated civilians to receive compensation offered by the government. They disguise their victims as guerrilla fighters to inflate the figures in the anti-terrorist fight and collect promised cash rewards. Justice officials have opened more than 1,200 inquiries. The UN has condemned this practice, which human rights organizations are describing as “systematic and widespread”. How can the government be considering a free trade agreement with a country that puts a bounty on people's heads to get rid of guerrillas?
Day says there has been much progress with Colombia on human rights, that the Colombian president visited to answer MPs' questions, and that the agreement includes strong provisions and sanctions if certain parts are not followed.
Day notes human rights progress in Colombia, the president's recent visit to answer MPs' questions, and a strong agreement with sanctions for non-compliance, engaging the human rights dimension but not addressing the specific military killing-for-rewards practice cited.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous avons vu beaucoup de progrès avec la Colombie relativement à la situation des droits humains. Le président de la Colombie était ici, la semaine dernière, pour répondre aux questions des députés. De plus, nous avons un accord qui est très fort qu'ils ont signé pour déterminer et continuer les progrès sur la question des droits humains. L'accord comporte aussi des sanctions s'ils ne suivent pas certaines parties de l'accord.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have seen a great deal of progress with Colombia on human rights. The Colombian president was here last week to answer members' questions. In addition, we have a very strong agreement that they signed to determine and continue progress on human rights issues. The agreement also includes sanctions if they do not comply with certain parts of the agreement.
This exchange consisted solely of members acknowledging a presence in the gallery and contained no substantive question or answer.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Hear, hear!