Session overview
- Canada-U.S. trade dominated early exchanges, with Liberal and NDP members pressing the government on the buy American provisions and whether the Prime Minister's Washington visit produced any concrete results; the government cited President Obama's own comments crediting the Prime Minister for raising the issue.
- A multi-party debate erupted over a looming EI payroll tax increase, with the NDP and Liberals demanding the Minister of Finance confirm the amount of the increase; the minister acknowledged premiums would rise after the two-year freeze but declined to specify a figure.
- The Bloc Québécois challenged the government on white-collar crime sentencing, pressing for immediate adoption of a bill to abolish release at one-sixth of sentence for fraudsters such as Earl Jones and Vincent Lacroix; the government dismissed the bill as improvised and cited its own work on parole reform.
- Infrastructure stimulus delivery was challenged by both the NDP and Liberals, with members citing that only 12% of the main infrastructure fund was creating jobs as of early September and that Vancouver had not received any direct infrastructure funds; ministers cited major transit investments in the broader Vancouver region.
- The government announced that Colombia was lifting its ban on Canadian beef, the one concrete policy outcome revealed during the session.
- Quebec forestry and EI for long-tenured workers drew repeated Bloc questions; the government cited $200 million for silviculture and a new measure offering 5 to 20 additional weeks of EI benefits costing $935 million for 189,000 workers, while Bloc members argued forestry workers were being excluded.
Minister Stockwell Day announced a specific, concrete outcome â Colombia lifting its ban on Canadian beef â making this the only exchange in which a minister revealed an actual policy result rather than offering process or partisan deflection.
McCallum directly quotes the minister's parliamentary secretary confirming premiums will increase after two years, contrasts it with the minister's own prior statement, and asks a precise question: admit to the payroll tax increase and state the amount.
Instead of addressing the specific allegation that the Minister of Finance had confirmed a $19 billion payroll tax increase, Baird spent his entire answer expressing personal surprise that the NDP leader would complain about high taxes and listing past GST and income tax cuts, never engaging with the substance of the question.
Outstanding questions
- John McCallum asked the Minister of Finance to state specifically how much more workers would pay in EI premiums after the two-year freeze â the minister acknowledged premiums would rise but never provided a dollar figure.
- Gerard Kennedy asked how many jobs had actually been created by the Programme de stimulation de l'infrastructure â the Minister of Finance said a third economic report would be ready 'soon' but gave no number.
- Martha Hall Findlay asked what specific results, not words, the minister could report from Washington on buy American â the minister cited the premiers' procurement agreement and Obama's encouraging words but identified no binding change to the buy American provisions.
- Serge MĂ©nard asked whether the government was aware that by signing free-trade agreements with tax havens such as Panama it was directly contributing to the protection of fraudsters â the minister defended the voluntary disclosure program without addressing the free-trade-agreement point.
- Don Davies asked when Vancouver would receive its fair share of infrastructure stimulus spending, having spoken to the mayor of Vancouver who confirmed the city had not received a single penny â the minister cited transit investments outside the city boundary without answering when direct funds would flow.
LeBlanc asks why Canadians should trust a Prime Minister who dismissed buy America as a 'small irritant' and accomplished nothing after seven meetings with President Obama.
References the specific meeting and 'buy America' irritant quote, but the ask ('why should Canadians trust') is rhetorical rather than a precise accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has concluded his 42-minute photo op with President Obama. Canadian workers and businesses were disappointed when the Prime Minister refused to make any progress on the serious challenge of buy America. Sitting with the president, he dismissed buy America as a âsmall irritantâ. Tell that to workers who are losing their jobs to protectionism. He boasted he had seven meetings with the president and yet he has accomplished absolutely nothing. Why should Canadians trust a Prime Minister who is worried more about saving his own job than their jobs?
Oh, oh!
Day quotes President Obama saying the Prime Minister raised buy America 'every single time we've met' and that bilateral efforts to reduce tensions are ongoing.
Day directly quotes President Obama praising the Prime Minister's consistent efforts on buy America, which substantively counters the premise of the question, though it does not address concrete outcomes achieved.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read this: [The] Prime Minister...has brought this up with me every single time we've met. So he's been on the job-- But in addition, we're pursuing, on a bilateral track, efforts to make sure that these sources of tension diminish. Who is crediting the Prime Minister for being on the job every single time on this issue? Those comments were made today by the President of the United States.
LeBlanc cites the OECD prediction that Canadian unemployment could reach 10% next year and asks how Canadians can trust a government that only cares about its own jobs.
Cites the OECD unemployment forecast but the ask ('Comment les Canadiens pourraient-ils faire confiance Ă ce gouvernement?') is entirely rhetorical and compound, with no specific accountable demand.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en plus de l'échec du premier ministre à Washington aujourd'hui, l'OCDE prévoit que le taux de chÎmage pourrait atteindre 10 p. 100 au Canada l'an prochain. Notre pays a besoin d'un gouvernement qui croit avoir un rÎle constructif à jouer pour sortir le pays de la récession. Les conservateurs ne croient pas qu'ils ont la responsabilité de protéger les travailleurs, les femmes et les minorités au Canada. Les seuls emplois qui les préoccupent, ce sont leurs emplois. [Agitation dans la tribune]
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, not only was the Prime Minister's trip to Washington today a failure, but now the OECD is projecting that Canada's unemployment rate could reach 10% next year. Our country needs a government that believes it has a constructive role to play in getting Canada out of this recession. The Conservatives do not believe it is their responsibility to protect workers, women and minorities in Canada. They are only worried about their own jobs. [Disturbance in the gallery]
Monsieur le Président, en plus de l'échec du premier ministre aujourd'hui à Washington, l'OCDE prévoit que le taux de chÎmage au Canada pourrait atteindre 10 p. 100 l'année prochaine. Notre pays a besoin d'un gouvernement qui croit avoir un rÎle constructif à jouer pour sortir le pays de la récession et préparer l'avenir. Les conservateurs ne croient pas qu'ils ont la responsabilité de protéger les travailleurs, les femmes et les minorités au Canada. Les seuls emplois dont ils se soucient, c'est leurs emplois à eux. Comment les Canadiens pourraient-ils faire confiance à ce gouvernement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, not only was the Prime Minister's trip to Washington today a failure, the OECD is projecting that Canada's unemployment rate could reach 10% next year. Our country needs a government that believes it has a constructive role to play in getting Canada out of this recession and preparing for the future. The Conservatives do not believe it is their responsibility to protect workers, women and minorities in Canada. They are only worried about their own jobs. How can Canadians place their trust in this government?
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
Day responds that President Obama himself credited the Prime Minister for making buy America a priority at every meeting and that progress toward a solution will continue.
Day again references Obama's praise for the Prime Minister on buy America, which is tangentially connected to the broader question of government competence but does not address the OECD unemployment projection raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'aurais espĂ©rĂ© que mon ami amĂ©liorerait peut-ĂȘtre sa question lors de sa deuxiĂšme intervention aprĂšs la grande rĂ©action, mais cela n'a pas Ă©tĂ© le cas. En effet, le prĂ©sident des Ătats-Unis. M. Obama, a lui-mĂȘme dit aujourd'hui que c'est notre premier ministre Harper qui a fait une prioritĂ© de la situation du Buy American Act. De plus, c'est le prĂ©sident qui Ă©tait d'accord pour dire que nous pouvons avoir une solution. Nous allons poursuivre sur la piste pour trouver la solution.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that my friend might ask a better question when he spoke the second time, after the disturbance, but he did not. In fact, it was the President of the United States, Mr. Obama, who said today that our Prime Minister Harper has made the situation created by the Buy American Act a priority. Furthermore, it was the President who agreed that we may have a solution. We will continue to work on a solution.
LeBlanc cites the OECD and Royal Bank predicting 10% unemployment and asks how Canadians can trust a government that does not believe in protecting Canadian workers, women, and minorities.
Cites the OECD forecast and Royal Bank prediction for a 10% unemployment rate, but concludes with a rhetorical trust question rather than a specific policy ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today the OECD announced that Canada's unemployment rate is expected to rise to 10% next year. The Royal Bank is making the same prediction. Now, more than ever, Canada needs a government that believes it must take a positive active role to dig out of the recession and to build for the future. The government does not believe it is its responsibility to protect Canadian workers, women and minorities. How can Canadians trust a government that worries more about protecting its own jobs than those of Canadian workers?
Flaherty counters that the OECD also said Canada's unemployment would remain much better than the U.S. and that the fiscal stimulus package would have a large effect on stemming job losses, then attacks the Liberals for voting against it.
Flaherty selectively quotes back from the same OECD report to rebut the framing and pivots to attacking the Liberals for voting against the stimulus, partially engaging the substance but not answering the trust question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite quotes selectively from the OECD report. The OECD said that the Canadian unemployment rate would remain much better than that in the United States. That is the first time that has happened in a generation. The OECD also said that Canada's fiscal stimulus package should have a relatively large effect in stemming job losses. The question the opposition Liberals need to ask themselves is why they are voting against the economic stimulus package. Why are they doing that when Canadians need it and when Canadians need the job help? Why are the Liberals voting against those things?
Kennedy asks how many jobs have actually been created by the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, citing the budget's May 27 deadline and the Prime Minister's June claim that 80% of stimulus programs had created jobs.
Kennedy cites the budget deadline of May 27, the Prime Minister's June claim that 80% of stimulus programs had created jobs, and asks for a specific number of jobs created by the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans le budget, le ministre des Finances a annoncĂ© aux Canadiens que des emplois devaient ĂȘtre crĂ©Ă©s en date du 27 mai. En juin, le premier ministre a annoncĂ© aux Canadiens que 80 p. 100 des programmes de stimulation avaient crĂ©Ă© des emplois. Le ministre peut-il dire aujourd'hui, Ă la Chambre et aux Canadiens, combien d'emplois ont rĂ©ellement Ă©tĂ© crĂ©Ă©s par le Programme de stimulation de l'infrastructure?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in the budget, the Minister of Finance announced to Canadians that jobs would be created by May 27. In June, the Prime Minister announced to Canadians that 80% of the stimulus programs had created jobs. Is the minister able to tell the House and Canadians today how many jobs have really been created by the infrastructure stimulus fund?
Flaherty says the third economic report to Canadians will be ready soon and that job creation and maintenance figures are even better than projected in the economic action plan, without giving a specific number.
Flaherty says a third economic report is coming 'soon' and that job figures are 'even better' than projected, but provides no actual number in response to the specific quantitative question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are committed to Canadians in the process of preparing our third economic report to Canadians which will be ready soon. I can say that the job creation and the job maintenance figures are even better than we had in the economic action plan.
Kennedy claims that as of early September only 12% of the main infrastructure fund is creating any jobs, calls it an 88% failure rate, and asks why the government is letting down unemployed Canadians so badly.
Kennedy presents a specific finding from his own examination of announced projects â only 12% of the main infrastructure fund creating jobs as of early September â and calls it an 88% failure rate, giving a concrete factual basis for accountability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know the minister and his fellow cabinet ministers have been too busy dividing up the pork to keep track but we have examined hundreds of announced projects across the country. As of the beginning of September, only 12% of the main infrastructure fund is creating any jobs at all. That is an 88% failure rate. The Prime Minister misled Canadians. The Minister of Finance misled Canadians. The infrastructure minister responsible has failed them. Would anyone over there care to explain why they are letting down hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians and the Canadian economy so badly?
Baird lists partnerships with provincial governments and 3,700 municipalities and asserts that jobs, hope, and opportunities are being created across the country, without addressing the 12% figure.
Baird lists provincial and municipal partners and asserts the government is 'getting the job done' but does not address or rebut the 12% figure or the 88% failure rate claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government is working hard. We have put politics aside. We are working hard with Dalton McGuinty's Liberal Government of Ontario. We are working with Danny Williams in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are working with Jean Charest's Liberals in Quebec. In every part of this country we are working in partnership with 3,700 different municipalities. We are working hard with the 13 provincial and territorial governments. We are getting the job done, and all the carping from the member opposite will not change the jobs, hope and opportunities that are being created in every part of this country.
Duceppe asks why the Conservative government refused to support the Bloc's bill to abolish parole at one-sixth of sentence, which could have applied immediately to Earl Jones and Vincent Lacroix if convicted.
Duceppe references a specific Bloc bill to abolish parole at one-sixth of sentence, names Earl Jones and Vincent Lacroix, and asks why the Conservative government refused to proceed with legislation that could apply immediately.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois a dĂ©posĂ© un projet de loi qui vise Ă abolir la libĂ©ration au sixiĂšme de la peine pour, notamment, les criminels Ă cravate. Ce projet de loi aurait pu ĂȘtre adoptĂ© en une journĂ©e, mais pour des raisons bassement partisanes, le gouvernement conservateur en a dĂ©cidĂ© autrement. Pourtant, notre projet de loi, s'il Ă©tait adoptĂ©, pourrait s'appliquer immĂ©diatement Ă MM. Earl Jones et Vincent Lacroix s'ils sont dĂ©clarĂ©s coupables. Comment le gouvernement conservateur explique-t-il son refus d'aller de l'avant avec un projet de loi qui aurait des effets concrets et immĂ©diats dans la lutte aux criminels Ă cravate?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has introduced a bill to abolish parole after one-sixth of the sentence has been served, including for white-collar criminals. This bill could have been passed in a single day, but for crassly partisan reasons, the Conservative government decided otherwise. If our bill were passed, it would apply immediately to Earl Jones and Vincent Lacroix, if they are found guilty. How does the Conservative government explain its refusal to proceed with a bill that would have actual, immediate effects on the fight against white-collar crime?
Paradis accuses the Bloc of having blocked Conservative justice initiatives in the past and says a parole reform cannot be done in two days.
Paradis attacks the Bloc for past obstruction of justice initiatives and claims a parole reform cannot be done in two days, but does not explain why the government refused to support the specific Bloc bill.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si le Bloc a décidé de mettre la justice à son ordre du jour, c'est tant mieux. Il vaut mieux tard que jamais parce qu'il n'a pas cessé de bloquer nos initiatives. Là , il sort dehors. Il sent la grogne populaire et il arrive avec des projets de loi improvisés. Une réforme des libérations conditionnelles ne se fait pas en deux jours et les bloquistes le savent trÚs bien.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the Bloc has decided to add justice to its agenda, that is all to the good. It is better late than never because the Bloc has constantly blocked our initiatives. Now it emerges, senses the simmering public discontent, and shows up with bills it has quickly cobbled together. The parole system cannot be reformed in two days, and the Bloc knows it.
Duceppe asks what the Conservatives are waiting for to support the two-article Bloc bill abolishing parole at one-sixth of sentence, noting the Liberals and NDP are in agreement and the Bloc has proposed it since 2007.
Duceppe notes the Bloc proposed this since 2007, points out the bill has only two articles, notes NDP and Liberal support, and presses for an explanation of the specific delay.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, s'il y en a qui devraient sentir la grogne populaire, ce sont bien les gens d'en face. On propose cela depuis 2007. Le ministre trouvait le projet de loi complexe. Un projet de loi avec deux articles, c'est trop complexe pour ce ministre. Imaginez! Qu'attend-il pour donner son aval à ce projet de loi qui aurait des effets immédiats, alors qu'eux n'ont aucune prescription quant à l'élimination de la libération au sixiÚme de la peine? Qu'attendent les conservateurs? Les libéraux, le NPD sont d'accord. Voilà les...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if someone should sense the simmering public discontent, it is the party opposite. We have been proposing this since 2007. The minister found the bill complex. A bill with two clauses is too complex for the minister. It is unbelievable. What is he waiting for to give the go-ahead to a bill that would have an immediate impact, when they have no plans for abolishing parole after one-sixth of the sentence has been served? What are the Conservatives waiting for? The Liberals and the NDP are in favour. Nowâ
Paradis says the government is working on a parole reform and points to yesterday's announcement of minimum sentences for serious crimes, without explaining why the Bloc's specific bill cannot proceed.
Paradis acknowledges a parole reform is being worked on, mentions a separate announcement about minimum sentences, but does not explain why the two-article Bloc bill cannot be supported now.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, une rĂ©forme est Ă ĂȘtre faite au niveau des libĂ©rations conditionnelles. Notre gouvernement travaille sur cela. Ici, nos gens qui ont la pensĂ©e magique de l'autre cĂŽtĂ© de la Chambre ne sont mĂȘme pas capables de voir que ce dossier relĂšve de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique. Hier, la bonne annonce qu'on a faite, qui respecte la volontĂ© des victimes, c'est de mettre des peines minimales pour sĂ©vir contre des crimes crapuleux et non pas laisser les gens subir leur sentence parce qu'ils sont dans leur salon. Le sixiĂšme de la peine ne s'applique mĂȘme pas dans un tel cas. C'est honteux. C'est cela de la dĂ©magogie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the parole system needs to be reformed. Our government is working on it. They have this magical way of thinking across the aisle and cannot even understand that this comes under Public Safety. The excellent announcement we made yesterday, which is in line with what victims want, was to establish minimum sentences to deal firmly with sordid crimes and not allow people to serve their sentences in the comfort of their homes. In these cases, they do not even serve one-sixth of their sentence. It is a disgrace. This is grandstanding.
MĂ©nard asks whether the government is aware that by signing free trade agreements with tax havens like Panama it is directly contributing to the protection of white-collar fraudsters.
MĂ©nard links white-collar fraud to tax havens and raises a concrete policy concern â the Canada-Panama free trade agreement facilitating protection of fraud proceeds â with a clear yes/no accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les fraudeurs Ă cravate sont des manipulateurs et s'ils se permettent des fraudes colossales, c'est qu'ils pensent ĂȘtre capables de s'en sauver en utilisant les paradis fiscaux pour mettre les produits de leurs fraudes Ă l'abri. PlutĂŽt que de prĂ©senter des solutions concrĂštes, le gouvernement nous annonce qu'il Ă©tudiera le problĂšme. Est-ce que le gouvernement est conscient qu'en signant des ententes de libre-Ă©change avec des paradis fiscaux comme le Panama, par exemple, il participe directement Ă la protection des fraudeurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, those who commit white collar fraud are manipulative and commit fraud on a grand scale because they think they can get away with it by making use of tax havens to shelter the proceeds of their fraud. Rather than put forward specific solutions, the government tells us that it is going to study the problem. Does the government realize that by signing free trade agreements with tax havens such as Panama that it is having a direct hand in protecting those who commit fraud?
Blackburn says the government is making progress against tax havens, clarifies that holding a foreign account is not illegal but failing to declare income is, and cites voluntary disclosures triggered by the UBS case.
Blackburn notes the distinction between holding foreign accounts and failing to declare income, cites voluntary disclosures by UBS clients as evidence of progress, but does not address the specific Panama free trade agreement concern.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, permettez-moi de préciser que c'est ce gouvernement qui est en train de progresser beaucoup pour essayer d'éliminer justement les paradis fiscaux. Ce n'est pas parce qu'on détient un compte bancaire dans un pays à l'étranger que c'est illégal. Quand on fait fructifier cet argent et qu'on ne déclare pas les sommes à l'impÎt au Canada, c'est cette partie qui est incorrecte. Nous continuons à y travailler. Je veux juste rappeler que derniÚrement, dans le cas d'UBS, entre autres, c'est tellement public qu'il y a des gens qui savent qu'on va les trouver et ils ont commencé à faire des divulgations volontaires.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, allow me to point out that this government is making real progress in attempting to eliminate these very tax havens. It is not illegal to have a bank account in a foreign country. What is not right is the failure to declare amounts earned on this money for taxation in Canada. We are continuing to work on this. I would just point out that, recently, in the case of UBS among others, the matter has become so public that people know they will be found out and have begun making voluntary disclosures.
MĂ©nard contrasts the $4.5 million recovered through voluntary disclosure with the $2.4 billion in taxes the five major Canadian banks saved through tax havens in 2007 alone, and asks whether the minister recognizes that refusing to act against tax havens makes him complicit with fraudsters.
MĂ©nard cites a specific figure â $4.5 million recovered through voluntary disclosure â and contrasts it with the five major Canadian banks saving $2.4 billion in taxes via tax havens in 2007 alone, making a precise and data-grounded accountability challenge.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, parlons des progrÚs. On va voir à quel rythme on en fait. Le ministre du Revenu national prétend que le programme de divulgation volontaire est un outil efficace contre les paradis fiscaux puisqu'il a permis de récupérer 4,5 millions de dollars. Ce n'est rien quand on voit que les cinq grandes banques canadiennes, selon leurs propres déclarations, ont sauvé, seulement en 2007, 2,4 milliards de dollars d'impÎts grùce aux paradis fiscaux. Le ministre est-il conscient qu'en refusant d'agir contre les paradis fiscaux, il se rend complice des fraudeurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of progress, we will see how quickly progress is made. The Minister of National Revenue claims that the voluntary disclosure program is effective against the tax havens as it has made it possible to recover $4.5 million. That is nothing compared with what the five major banks in Canada themselves report having saved thanks to tax havens--$2.4 billion in 2007 alone. Does the minister realize that, by refusing to take action against tax havens, he is an accomplice to fraud?
Blackburn says the government is working to obtain more powers through legislation to better pursue tax evaders and notes 36 voluntary disclosure calls and 12 settled cases related to UBS.
Blackburn mentions working on new legislative powers and cites 36 voluntary disclosure calls and 12 settled cases from UBS, but does not address the $4.5 million vs. $2.4 billion disproportion raised or deny complicity with fraudsters.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Ă nouveau, pendant que les gouvernements prĂ©cĂ©dents n'agissaient pas, nous, nous estimons effectivement que nous devons progresser du cĂŽtĂ© des paradis fiscaux pour faire en sorte de trouver ces personnes qui, effectivement, Ă©vitent de payer leurs impĂŽts au Canada. Nous sommes en train de travailler pour justement obtenir davantage de pouvoirs avec une loi pour ĂȘtre en mesure de mieux faire notre travail. De plus, avec UBS, dans 36 cas, des gens nous ont effectivement appelĂ©s pour faire une divulgation volontaire et 12 de ces cas sont dĂ©jĂ rĂ©glĂ©s.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, as previous governments did not act, we feel that we must make progress on the matter of the tax havens in order to find these people who are evading taxation in Canada. We are working to expand our powers with legislation to enable us to better do our job. In addition, with UBS, in 36 cases people have called to make a voluntary disclosure, and 12 of these cases have already been settled.
Layton asks why the finance minister would propose a $19 billion payroll tax increase on workers and businesses, citing the Canadian Federation of Independent Business opposition to this job-killing initiative.
Layton references a specific statement by the Minister of Finance confirming a $19 billion payroll tax increase and cites the Canadian Federation of Independent Business opposition, making it a reasonably grounded question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, despite what the Prime Minister used to say about taxes, he has a finance minister who confirmed last week that he will be proposing a $19 billion payroll tax increase on workers and businesses. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has come out strongly against this job-killing initiative. Why would the finance minister want to bring forward a huge tax increase on the backs of Canadian families and Canadian businesses at this time, or any time for that matter?
Baird attacks the NDP for having voted against Conservative GST and income tax cuts, expressing disbelief that the NDP leader would complain about high taxes, without addressing the payroll tax increase.
Baird does not address the $19 billion payroll tax increase at all, instead attacking the NDP's record on tax cuts in a pure deflection with no connection to the specific question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have been fortunate to be elected five times to the provincial legislature and here. I have served for 14.5 years and I never thought I would see a day in my life when the leader of the NDP would stand in his place and complain about high taxes. Where has he been? It is this government that has been cutting taxes. We cut the GST by two points, which the leader of the NDP and the NDP voted against it. This government cut income taxes. The leader of the NDP and the NDP voted against it. Every time this government and the Conservative Party stands up to vote against taxes we are opposed by the NDP. I say shame on him and shame on his party.
Layton asks whether the government will return the $57 billion EI surplus built on workers' backs and end the payroll tax increase, citing the Canadian Federation of Independent Business position.
Layton cites the $57 billion EI surplus under Liberal governments and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business demand that it be returned, and asks whether the government will end the payroll tax increase, giving the question some factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he did not deny the tax increase that the government is about to bring in. Sous le gouvernement libĂ©ral, le surplus de la caisse d'assurance-emploi a atteint 57 milliards de dollars, sur le dos des chĂŽmeurs. Ce gouvernement et le Parti libĂ©ral avant lui ont pillĂ© la caisse d'assurance-emploi. La FĂ©dĂ©ration canadienne de l'entreprise indĂ©pendante affirme que les 57 milliards de dollars doivent ĂȘtre rendus. Le gouvernement le fera-t-il? Mettra-t-il fin Ă cette augmentation de sa taxe sur l'emploi?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il nâa pas niĂ© que le gouvernement sâapprĂȘte Ă augmenter les impĂŽts. Under the Liberal government, the surplus in the employment insurance fund reached $57 billion at the expense of unemployed workers. Both this government and the Liberal government that preceded it looted the employment insurance fund. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says that the $57 billion must be put back. Will the government do it? Will it put an end to this increase in its tax on employment?
Baird says the NDP voted against the government's EI premium freeze and then redirects attention to the Liberal leader's statement that taxes must go up.
Baird notes the government sought to freeze EI premiums and the NDP voted against it, then pivots to attacking the Liberal leader's comment about raising taxes â a deflection that does not address whether the $57 billion will be returned or the increase cancelled.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance and this government sought to freeze these premiums, the NDP, each one of them, stood in their place and voted against those tax freezes, and the member opposite knows that. What the member really needs to wonder is what the leader of the Liberal Party will do. On April 14, he said that federal taxes must go up, that we will have to raise taxes. Can members believe that the leader of the NDP was going to join a government whose leader would say that?
Layton asks why the government is supporting the imposition of a new HST on Ontario and B.C. families â 7% more in B.C. and 8% more in Ontario â at this difficult economic time.
Layton names specific HST rate increases (7% in B.C., 8% in Ontario) and links them to the federal government's role alongside Liberal premiers, but the question trails off and the core ask is implicit rather than sharply stated.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on top of the payroll tax increase, which the government today is refusing to deny that it is bringing in, the Conservatives are imposing a new tax. It is the HST on the citizens of Ontario and British Columbia. The Prime Minister has united with the Liberal premiers of Ontario and British Columbia and with the Leader of the Opposition to impose a new tax on the families of these provinces. It is a raise the tax coalition; 7% more in B.C. and 8% more in Ontario on everything from vitamins to funerals. Why would the government do this at this--
Baird says HST decisions are provincial matters, accuses the NDP of hypocrisy on taxes, and asserts the government will keep working to reduce the tax burden on middle class families.
Baird deflects to provincial jurisdiction and again attacks the NDP for opposing GST cuts, without addressing the federal government's role in facilitating the HST harmonization or the specific rate figures cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP knows that decisions taken in the provinces by the governments of Ontario and British Columbia are just those. They are decisions taken in the provinces. It is hypocrisy of the highest level for the leader of the NDP to stand and talk about high taxes. When the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and this government took major initiatives to cut the GST we could count on one thing day in and day out: for the NDP to stand in the way of middle class families from getting the real tax breaks. I say shame on them. The good news is that the Minister of Finance and the government will keep working to reduce the tax burden on hard-working middle class families.
Mendes asks why the government is about to increase EI payroll tax contributions at a time when economic recovery is uncertain, while Conservative cronyism reaches new heights.
Mendes refers generally to an EI premium increase and Conservative cronyism but the ask is vague ('Pourquoi n'ont-ils pas davantage l'intĂ©rĂȘt des Canadiens Ă coeur?') and lacks specific figures or documentary grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, alors que la reprise Ă©conomique est loin d'ĂȘtre acquise, les conservateurs s'apprĂȘtent Ă augmenter encore le fardeau fiscal des travailleurs. Les conservateurs vont augmenter les cotisations Ă l'assurance-emploi. C'est une hausse des taxes prĂ©levĂ©es sur chaque chĂšque de paie. Alors que le copinage conservateur atteint des niveaux jamais vus, ils s'acharnent sur les travailleurs. Pourquoi n'ont-ils pas davantage l'intĂ©rĂȘt des Canadiens Ă coeur?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, even though economic recovery is far from a sure thing, the Conservatives are planning to increase the tax burden on workers. The Conservatives are going to increase employment insurance contribution rates. That means more tax deducted from every paycheque. Conservative cronyism is worse than ever, and still they attack workers. Why do they not care more about what is in Canadians' best interest?
Blackburn says it was the Liberals who left the bipartisan EI committee table agreed upon in late June, and notes the government introduced a bill to give long-tenured workers five to twenty additional weeks of benefits.
Blackburn pivots to accusing the Liberals of abandoning a bipartisan EI committee and mentions a bill to extend benefits to long-tenured workers, which is tangentially related but does not directly address the payroll tax increase question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'espÚre que la députée est consciente que c'est son parti qui a quitté la table de discussion, puisque nous avions convenu, à la fin juin, qu'il y aurait un comité bipartite de son parti et de notre parti, notre gouvernement, pour mettre en place des mesures visant à aider les chÎmeurs. Il a abandonné les chÎmeurs, pas nous. Nous avons déposé notre intention d'avoir un projet de loi qui aidera les travailleurs de longue durée en leur accordant de cinq à vingt semaines de prestations de plus.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the member is aware that her party is the one that left the table even though we agreed to a bipartisan committee at the end of Juneâher party and our party, our governmentâto come up with measures to help the unemployed. Her party abandoned the unemployed, not ours. We tabled our plan to introduce a bill to help long-tenured workers by giving them between five and 20 extra weeks of benefits.
Mendes argues that raising EI contributions would drain the engine of the Canadian economy and asks whether the government is about to pump even more money out of workers' pockets.
Mendes offers an economic argument that higher EI contributions reduce household spending and harm economic recovery, but the question is framed as a metaphor ('siphonner le réservoir') rather than a specific policy ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, malheureusement, ce n'Ă©tait pas une table de discussion, c'Ă©tait une table de fuite. On n'a jamais eu de rĂ©ponse Ă nos questions. Ce gouvernement est d'ailleurs devenu maĂźtre dans l'art de les fuir. Le problĂšme est que les dĂ©penses des mĂ©nages, l'usage que les travailleurs font de leur chĂšque de paie, est le principal moteur de notre Ă©conomie. Tout le monde sait cela. Si les conservateurs augmentent les cotisations d'assurance-emploi, ce sera comme s'ils siphonnaient le rĂ©servoir d'essence du moteur de l'Ă©conomie canadienne. Est-ce parce qu'ils savent qu'ils sont sur le point de manquer de « gaz » qu'ils s'apprĂȘtent Ă pomper encore davantage dans le portefeuille des travailleurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there was never really an opportunity for discussion because the government ran away. We never got any answers to our questions. The government became adept at avoiding them. The problem is that household expenditures, which is how workers spend their paycheques, are what keep our economy going. Everyone knows that. If the Conservatives raise employment insurance premiums, it will be like siphoning fuel out of the Canadian economy's gas tank. Are they planning to pump even more out of workers' pockets because they know that they are about to run out of gas?
Blackburn outlines infrastructure stimulus and worker support measures reaching 790,000 people, and states that the 2009-2010 worker contribution rate is frozen at $1.73 per $100.
Blackburn outlines two approaches to recession relief â infrastructure stimulus and measures for unemployed workers â and specifically notes the 2009-2010 worker contribution rate is frozen at $1.73 per $100, partially addressing the payroll tax concern.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il y a deux façons d'aider ceux qui connaissent des difficultés lors d'une récession économique. La premiÚre, c'est de stimuler l'économie. C'est ce que notre gouvernement est en train de faire avec des mesures pour l'infrastructure, afin qu'il y ait des travaux partout au pays. La deuxiÚme façon de faire, c'est de mettre en place des mesures pour aider les chÎmeurs, pour aider ceux qui ont de la difficulté. Les quatre mesures que l'on a mises en place permettront à 790 000 personnes de profiter de l'aide nouvelle qu'on leur offre. Pour l'année 2009-2010, le taux de cotisation des travailleurs est gelé à 1,73 $ par tranche de 100 $.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there are two ways to help people who are going through a hard time because of a recession. The first is to stimulate the economy. That is what our government is doing with infrastructure measures across the country. The second is to implement measures to help the unemployed, to help those who are in trouble. The four measures we have brought in will enable 790,000 people to take advantage of the new assistance we are offering. For 2009-10, employee contributions have been frozen at $1.73 per $100.
McCallum asks the Minister of Finance to follow his parliamentary secretary's lead, admit to the EI payroll tax increase coming after the two-year freeze, and tell Canadians how much it will be.
McCallum directly quotes the minister's parliamentary secretary confirming premiums will increase after two years, contrasts it with the minister's own prior statement, and asks a precise question: admit to the payroll tax increase and state the amount.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Finance said that he would not raise taxes, while at the same time booking a huge EI payroll tax increase. Yesterday the minister's parliamentary secretary actually told the truth, saying âthat after a two year period the premiums will increaseâ. Today, will the minister follow the lead of his parliamentary secretary and tell the truth to Canadians, admit to the payroll tax increase and tell Canadians how much?
Flaherty confirms the two-year EI premium freeze was a temporary part of the economic action plan and that after the stimulus ends premiums will go forward in the normal way as set by the board with Parliament's authority, without stating the specific amount of increase.
Flaherty confirms the two-year premium freeze will end after the stimulus period and that premiums will 'go forward in the normal way' as set by the board, which implicitly confirms an increase without stating the amount, then deflects by quoting the Liberal member on raising taxes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as part of the economic action plan, we included freezing EI premiums for two years at substantial cost. After the economic statement, it is finished. It is a temporary plan. It is what Parliament voted for. After the stimulus ends, and it will end, then we will move back toward surplus. EI premiums, as set by the board with the authority of Parliament in 2008, will go forward in the normal way. What we will not do is raise taxes like the member for MarkhamâUnionville says, âraising taxes is certainly a mathematical possibility in one way or anotherâ.
McCallum asks the Minister of Finance to tell Canadians exactly how much more they will pay in EI premiums, or whether they must wait for the Parliamentary Budget Officer to reveal the figure.
McCallum cites a specific pending PBO inquiry and asks the minister to state the concrete dollar amount of additional premiums Canadians will pay, making it a reasonably specific and answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, rising payroll taxes is a mathematical certainty under the government. Because Canadians cannot trust the government, I have asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to tell Canadians the truth about the amount of additional premiums that they will pay. Will it be $300? Will it be $400? Will Canadians have to wait for the PBO to tell them the truth or will the minister stand up right now and tell Canadians how much more they will pay?
Flaherty defends the two-year premium freeze as Parliament-supported policy and attacks the Liberals for building a slush fund, without providing any dollar figure for future premium increases.
Flaherty does not state any dollar figure for premium increases, instead defending the two-year freeze and attacking the Liberal slush fund, entirely avoiding the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance program is an important social program. We agreed in Parliament, Parliament supported it, that the program should pay for itself except during the time of recession, when we need to stimulate the economy. That is why we froze premiums for a period of two years. This was supported by Parliament. It should pay its own way and not what the party opposite did. When the Liberals were the government, they built up a slush fund and used it for their private projects and for their own edification.
Lessard asks how the minister can raise expectations among older workers when those who received more than 35 weeks of EI over the past five years are excluded from the announced program.
Lessard identifies a specific eligibility exclusion (workers who received more than 35 weeks of EI in the past five years) and asks how the minister can justify raising expectations when the program excludes thousands of workers with multiple work stoppages.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les travailleurs ĂągĂ©s qui ont touchĂ© plus de 35 semaines d'assurance-emploi au cours des cinq derniĂšres annĂ©es seront exclus des mesures annoncĂ©es par le gouvernement. Ce programme, en plus d'ĂȘtre insuffisant, exclut injustement des milliers de travailleurs ayant subi de multiples arrĂȘts de travail au cours des derniĂšres annĂ©es. Comment la ministre peut-elle cruellement susciter des attentes auprĂšs des travailleurs ĂągĂ©s alors qu'en fait, elle n'a rien de significatif Ă leur offrir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, older workers who have received over 35 weeks of employment insurance over the past five years will be excluded from the measures announced by the government. Not only is it inadequate, but this program unfairly excludes thousands of workers who have endured multiple work interruptions over the past few years. How can the minister so cruelly raise the hopes of older workers, when in reality, she has nothing meaningful to offer them?
Blackburn notes that Liberals abandoned the joint committee, then outlines the new measure offering 5 to 20 additional weeks at a cost of $935 million benefiting 189,000 people.
Blackburn provides some relevant figures ($935 million, 189,000 beneficiaries, 5â20 additional weeks) but does not directly address the 35-week exclusion criterion raised by Lessard.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'espÚre à nouveau que le représentant du Bloc québécois a constaté lui aussi que les libéraux ont abandonné le comité bipartite qui devait se pencher sur des mesures pour aider les chÎmeurs. Nous, ce que nous avons fait, nous ne les avons pas abandonnés. Nous avons fait en sorte de mettre en place plusieurs mesures. La derniÚre mesure, qui vise les travailleurs de longue date, va leur donner 5 à 20 semaines de plus de prestations d'assurance-emploi. La mesure coûtera 935 millions de dollars et 189 000 personnes en profiteront. Il y en toujours bien quelques-unes au Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, I hope the Bloc Québécois member also noted that it was the Liberals who abandoned the bipartisan committee that was supposed to look at measures to help the unemployed. We, on the other hand, did not abandon them. We have introduced several measures. The latest measure, specifically for long-tenured workers, will provide them with an additional five to 20 weeks of EI benefits. That measure will cost $935 million, and 189,000 people will benefit from it. There are still a few in Canada who need it.
Beaudin asks whether Quebec ministers acknowledge that the long-tenured workers program is designed mainly for the automotive industry in Ontario, leaving out forestry workers who have faced economic slowdown since 2005.
Beaudin grounds her question in a specific statistic (25,000 forestry jobs lost in Quebec since April 2005) and asks whether ministers recognize that the program is designed primarily for Ontario's automotive sector rather than Quebec's forestry sector.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis avril 2005, il s'est perdu 25 000 emplois au QuĂ©bec dans le secteur forestier, alors que dans le secteur automobile, concentrĂ© en Ontario, il s'est perdu des milliers d'emplois, essentiellement dans la derniĂšre annĂ©e. Les travailleurs forestiers touchĂ©s depuis plusieurs annĂ©es par un ralentissement Ă©conomique risquent donc d'ĂȘtre exclus d'un programme qui semble viser principalement l'industrie automobile. Les ministres du QuĂ©bec rĂ©alisent-ils qu'ils proposent un programme conçu d'abord pour l'Ontario, alors que depuis 2006 ils n'ont rien livrĂ© dans le secteur forestier du QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, since April 2005, some 25,000 jobs have been lost in Quebec in the forestry sector, while in the auto sector, which is concentrated in Ontario, thousands of jobs have been lost, mainly in the last year. The economic downturn has been affecting forestry workers for several years now, and they risk being excluded from a program that seems to target primarily the auto industry. Do the ministers from Quebec realize that they are proposing a program designed mainly for Ontario, and that they have done nothing to help the Quebec forestry industry since 2006?
Blackburn states the measure adds 5 to 20 weeks and explicitly names mines, forestry, manufacturing, and automotive sectors as beneficiaries, saying the government is sensitive to Quebec's forestry situation.
Blackburn explicitly lists forestry among the sectors covered alongside mining, manufacturing, and automotive, partially addressing the concern, but does not substantively rebut the structural design argument about the forestry sector being disadvantaged.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous avons pensĂ© Ă essayer de trouver des avenues pour aider les travailleurs de longue date, pour aider ceux qui paient des cotisations depuis de nombreuses annĂ©es et faire en sorte de leur donner, au moment oĂč ils connaissent une pĂ©riode difficile, davantage de temps pour se trouver un emploi. On va ajouter de 5 Ă 20 semaines. Entre autres, qui allons-nous aider plus spĂ©cifiquement? Ceux qui travaillent dans les mines, dans la foresterie, dans le secteur manufacturier et Ă©galement dans le secteur automobile. De tout cela, on est trĂšs sensibles Ă ce qui se passe du cĂŽtĂ© de la foresterie au QuĂ©bec.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we tried to come up with ways to help long-tenured workers, to help those who have been paying into the system for many years, and to ensure that, when they go through a rough patch, they have more time to find a job. We are giving an additional five to 20 weeks. Exactly who will this help? It will help people who work in mines, in forestry, in the manufacturing sector and yes, in the auto sector. We are very aware of what is happening in the Quebec forestry sector.
Bouchard asks why Conservative ministers opposed in a dissenting Industry Committee report the Bloc's proposal to increase wood use in federal buildings, and whether defending forestry workers is what troubles them.
Bouchard references a specific Industry Committee dissenting report that labelled the Bloc's wood-use proposal 'troublante,' but the question is heavily rhetorical and the actual ask is buried in partisan language about ministerial subservience.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, seuls les conservateurs se sont opposĂ©s, au ComitĂ© de l'industrie, Ă la proposition du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois visant Ă augmenter la quantitĂ© de bois utilisĂ©e dans la construction et la rĂ©novation d'Ă©difices fĂ©dĂ©raux. Dans un rapport dissident, ils ont qualifiĂ© cette recommandation de « troublante ». Ce qui est troublant, c'est l'Ă -plat-ventrisme des deux ministres du SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean. Qu'est-ce qui les trouble? DĂ©fendre les travailleurs forestiers? DĂ©fendre les intĂ©rĂȘts des dizaines de communautĂ©s du QuĂ©bec dont l'Ă©conomie repose sur la foresterie?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, only the Conservatives were opposed at the industry committee to the Blocâs proposal to increase the amount of lumber used in the construction and renovation of federal buildings. In a dissenting report, they called this recommendation troubling. What really is troubling is the grovelling of the two ministers from SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean. What troubles them? Defending forestry workers? Defending the interests of dozens of Quebec communities whose economies depend on forestry?
Paradis says Conservative MPs from SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean have delivered results and cites $323 million invested in federal building renovations creating increased demand for wood.
Paradis cites $323 million in stimulus for federal building renovations and links this to increased wood demand but does not address the specific committee dissent or the proposal to increase wood use in federal buildings.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je peux dire une chose, c'est que les dĂ©putĂ©s du SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean ont livrĂ© la marchandise. On a un plan d'action Ă©conomique qui porte fruits. Qu'on aille voir n'importe quelle municipalitĂ©, qu'on aille voir dans la province de QuĂ©bec, on voit qu'il y a maintenant des rĂ©sultats sur le terrain. Pour ce qui est des Ă©difices fĂ©dĂ©raux, je vais le rĂ©pĂ©ter pour la troisiĂšme fois. Ils sont durs d'oreille, ils ne comprennent pas. Il y a 323 millions de dollars investis en stimulus Ă©conomique pour la rĂ©novation d'immeubles. Cela veut dire une demande accrue de bois. Ce n'est pas difficile Ă comprendre. C'est une bonne nouvelle, mais ils essaient encore de diminuer cela. Nos collĂšgues ici livrent la marchandise. Tant mieux pour le SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I can say only one thing and that is that the members for SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean have really delivered the goods. We have an economic action plan that has been very successful. Go and see any town, go and see the province of Quebec, and the results are there right now. Insofar as federal buildings are concerned, I will say it for the third time. They are hard of hearing and fail to understand. Some $323 million has been invested in economic stimulus for building renovations. That means more demand for lumber. It is not hard to understand. This is good news, but still they try to run it down. Our colleagues here are really delivering the goods. So much the better for SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean.
Guimond asks how the minister can justify inaction toward private woodlot owners given specific Bloc proposals for tax rule modifications and a registered sylvicultural savings plan.
Guimond identifies specific Bloc proposals (fiscal rule modifications for forestry expense deductions and a registered sylvicultural savings plan) and asks the minister to justify inaction toward private woodlot owners.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce gouvernement n'a rien fait de valable pour l'industrie forestiĂšre. Les propriĂ©taires de boisĂ©s privĂ©s, qui ont pourtant subi d'importantes pertes de revenus sont laissĂ©s Ă eux-mĂȘmes. Pourtant, les solutions sont connues. Le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois a notamment proposĂ© des modifications aux rĂšgles fiscales pour assouplir les rĂšgles de dĂ©duction des dĂ©penses au chapitre de l'amĂ©nagement forestier et pour introduire un rĂ©gime enregistrĂ© d'Ă©pargne sylvicole. Comment le ministre responsable du dĂ©veloppement Ă©conomique peut-il encore justifier son inaction envers les propriĂ©taires de boisĂ©s privĂ©s?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government has not done anything good for the forest industry. Owners of private woodlots have suffered major losses but are being left on their own. There are solutions, however. The Bloc Québécois has proposed changes to the tax rules to relax the rules on the deduction of expenses for forest resources management and to introduce a registered silviculture savings plan. How can the minister responsible for economic development go on justifying his inaction in regard to the owners of private woodlots?
Lebel cites $200 million for silviculture and forest management and $30 million directed to the private forest industry through the Community Adjustment Fund, noting the Bloc voted against these measures.
Lebel cites $200 million for silviculture and forest management and $30 million for private forest industry under the Community Adjustment Fund, which partially addresses the private woodlot owners' concern but does not engage with the specific fiscal proposals Guimond raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme les dĂ©putĂ©s du parti d'en face le savent, lors de l'acceptation du plan d'action Ă©conomique, la mise en place du Fonds d'adaptation des collectivitĂ©s a permis Ă notre gouvernement d'aider l'industrie forestiĂšre partout au Canada, y compris dans la province de QuĂ©bec. Nous avons annoncĂ© 200 millions de dollars pour la sylviculture et l'amĂ©nagement forestier et 30 millions de dollars sont allĂ©s Ă l'industrie en ce qui a trait Ă la forĂȘt privĂ©e. Un montant de 30 millions de dollars, ce n'est pas peu dire. C'est plus que ce que le Bloc a obtenu en 18 ans. Comme Ă l'habitude, ils ont encore votĂ© contre cela.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as the members of the party on the other side know, when the economic action plan was adopted, a community adjustment fund was established that has enabled our government to help the forest industry all over Canada, including in the province of Quebec. We announced $200 million for silviculture and forest resources management, and $30 million has gone to the industry for private woodlots. Thirty million dollars is no small amount. It sure is more than the Bloc has come up with in 18 years. As usual, they voted against that too.
Jennings asks whether the minister truly believes Canadians accept the government's claim that the Chalk River shutdown has nothing to do with 25% of Ontario cancer patients not receiving treatment.
Jennings references a claimed statistic (25% of Ontario cancer patients not receiving treatment) but the question is predominantly rhetorical, ending with a sarcastic ask about whether the minister thinks Canadians are gullible.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, inaction on the part of the Conservative government has left hospital budgets stretched to the limit. It has put at risk thousands of Canadians in need of cancer tests and medical treatment. Now it appears the government has decided to try to blame the provinces and doctors for their medical isotope shortage. The Conservatives are claiming that the Chalk River shutdown has nothing to do with the 25% of Ontario cancer patients and other patients not receiving their treatment. Does the minister really think Canadians are that gullible?
Raitt accuses the Liberals of creating a series of nuclear messes, including trying to replace the aging NRU with a faulty design and leaving no contingency plans, without addressing the question about cancer patients.
Raitt does not address the claim about cancer patients or the alleged provincial blame-shifting, instead attacking the Liberal record on nuclear infrastructure with no factual engagement on the specific question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the nuclear file, there is just one Liberal mess after another with which we have to deal. The Liberals tried to replace an aging NRU with a faulty design. When that did not work, they did nothing, no contingency plans, no backup plans. It was this government that acted, and this government continues to clean up the messes left by that party. We will take no lessons from the Liberals on this file.
Jennings asks whether the Conservative government's position is to blame provinces and doctors for the isotope crisis, and whether the government has a plan B.
Jennings asks whether blaming provinces and doctors for the isotope crisis is the government's official position and whether the minister has a plan B, combining a substantive policy ask with significant rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is a typical Conservative government ploy. It rewrites history so as not to take its share of the blame. La dĂ©putĂ©e de RenfrewâNipissingâPembroke prĂ©tend qu'il n'y a pas de lien entre la fermeture de la centrale de Chalk River et l'allongement des dĂ©lais d'attente de dĂ©pistage et de traitement du cancer. Et voilĂ que lorsqu'elle rĂ©pond aux questions sur cette crise, elle fait des reproches aux provinces et aux mĂ©decins. Est-ce lĂ la position du gouvernement conservateur? Est-ce la toute derniĂšre excuse qu'il a trouvĂ© pour ne pas avoir un plan B?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est l'un des stratagĂšmes typiques du gouvernement conservateur. Il rĂ©crit l'histoire afin d'Ă©viter d'assumer sa part du blĂąme. The hon. member for RenfrewâNipissingâPembroke claims there is no connection between the closure of the Chalk River reactor and longer wait times for cancer detection and treatment. When she answers questions about this crisis, she blames the provinces and the doctors. Is this the position of the Conservative government? Is this the latest excuse it has found for not having a plan B?
Raitt states the government is directing AECL to repair the NRU as quickly as possible and accuses Liberals of scoring political points off their own disasters.
Raitt claims the government is working diligently and directing AECL to repair the NRU quickly but does not address whether blaming provinces and doctors is government policy, and pivots to attacking Liberals for playing politics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, this Conservative government has been working diligently on the matter. We are helping with respect to the facilitation of an isotope shortage in our country. We are directing AECL clearly to repair the NRU as quickly as possible. It is very clear as well, now that they are in opposition, the Liberals will stoop to anything to score political points off of their own disasters, knowing very well we are doing everything that is absolutely appropriate on this matter.
Hall Findlay asks what specific results, not words, the minister can report from Washington on changing buy American provisions, noting that individual states and municipalities outside NAFTA are a major unresolved problem.
Hall Findlay distinguishes federal from state/municipal jurisdiction, notes the NAFTA gap covering individual states and municipalities, and asks for specific results from Washington rather than wordsâa reasonably focused ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it has now been months and months, yet we have seen no change in the protectionist buy American provisions that are killing Canadian jobs. A few diplomatic words from the President do not actually change any facts. Indeed, all we see are words in unanswered letters and photo ops, but it is not even federal. A major problem is the individual states and municipalities, which are outside of NAFTA. What specific results, not words, could the minister report to us from Washington?
Day highlights the unprecedented procurement agreement reached by premiers and territorial leaders and defends the government's approach, without reporting specific results from Washington on buy American provisions.
Day highlights the unprecedented provincial and territorial procurement agreement but does not report any specific results from Washington or address the state and municipal buy American problem Hall Findlay raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat disappointing to hear my colleague opposite diminish the words of the President of the United States. It is somewhat reminiscent of how the Liberals dealt with the United States when they were in government, always diminishing what the U.S. was doing with us. Directly related to the procurement agreement, the premiers and territorial leaders came together several weeks ago, in rather an unprecedented and historic way, and they agreed on a procurement agreement among provinces and territories. It was unprecedented on their part and they should be congratulated for that. They should not be diminished for doing it.
Hall Findlay asks when Canada can expect concrete results on buy American, arguing that letters and photo ops are insufficient and that representatives need to be working in individual U.S. states and municipalities.
Hall Findlay calls for on-the-ground presence in individual U.S. states and municipalities and asks when results can be expected, though the question is partially rhetorical in framing ('Only when it is too late?').
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again I repeat, it is not words but action we want from the United States. That is not how it works in the United States. It is not enough to write letters, to have nice words and provide weak protest. It was 42 minutes with the President, giving the Prime Minister a photo op, and a few pat on the back words, but that is it. We should have had people on the ground right from the beginning, not only our premiers and territorial leaders but in the United States, and not just in Washington but working with those individual states and municipalities, which are not bound by NAFTA. When can we expect results? Only when it is too late?
Day quotes President Obama's same-day statement that there may be bilateral ways to address the issue and acknowledges that more work remains to be done but that progress is being made.
Day relays President Obama's same-day comment that there may be ways to deal with this bilaterally and acknowledges more work remains, which is partial but not a full answer to the question of when concrete results will materialise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is being a good soldier and continuing to read out the questions that have been hastily written out and handed to her. However, I can add some more words to President Obama's evaluation. Upon hearing the proposal that has been brought forward, a proposal that was worked on by premiers and territorial leaders, he also said today that it appears there may be ways to deal with this bilaterally, that we are working together on this and that this in fact might be one solution. We are not there yet. There is more work to do, but progress is being made on this.
Smith asks the Minister of Health to update the House on cooperative efforts with provinces and territories to prepare for a potential second wave of H1N1.
Smith's question is a government-backbench softball asking the Minister of Health to provide an update on cooperative H1N1 efforts with provinces and territories, offering no accountability element.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that our government is hard at work preparing for a potential second wave of the H1N1 pandemic and we are focused on ensuring that Canadians are informed and protected. Could the Minister of Health provide the House with an update on co-operative efforts in this regard with the provinces and territories?
Aglukkaq announces she will meet provincial and territorial counterparts in Winnipeg the next day, states the vaccine is on target to be safe and effective, and says pandemic plan elements are being implemented with the provinces.
Aglukkaq provides a concrete upcoming action (meeting with provincial and territorial counterparts in Winnipeg the next day) and states the vaccine program is on target, offering real if brief information before pivoting to attack the Liberal leader.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will be meeting with my provincial and territorial counterparts in Winnipeg to build on the excellent co-operation that we have seen thus far. We remain on target in producing a safe and effective vaccine for Canadians. Other necessary elements of our pandemic plan are also being implemented, working with the provinces and the territories. Our commitment to co-operation and the health of Canadians stands in stark contrast to the leader of the Liberal Party, who is only interested in playing politics with H1N1. The leader of the Liberal Party should takeâ
Davies states that after speaking with the mayor of Vancouver he learned the city has received no infrastructure stimulus funds in nine months despite ready projects, and asks when Vancouver will receive its fair share.
Davies cites a specific conversation with the mayor of Vancouver, specifies nine months have elapsed since the January promise, and asks when Vancouver will receive its fair share of infrastructure stimulus spending.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in January the government promised to deliver infrastructure dollars to cities and municipalities to get our economy moving. In my riding of Vancouver Kingsway, we are counting on those federal dollars to boost business and create jobs. However, just this weekend I spoke to the mayor of Vancouver and was shocked to learn that Canada's third largest city had not received one single penny of infrastructure funds. We have many worthy projects ready to go, from housing to roads to bridges, but nothing in nine months. When will Vancouver receive its fair share of infrastructure stimulus spending?
Baird cites $416 million for the Evergreen line, $450 million for the Canada Line, and $365 million for the South Fraser Perimeter Road as investments in Vancouver, and notes Davies voted against the money.
Baird lists three specific dollar figures for projects he attributes to Vancouver ($416 million Evergreen line, $450 million Canada Line, $365 million South Fraser Perimeter Road) but two of those projects are not within Vancouver proper, and he does not address the mayor's claim of receiving nothing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I find that most interesting. I wonder if he told the mayor of Vancouver that he voted against any money going to any community in the country. That is the real outrage. I am happy to correct the record. This government is investing $416 million in the Evergreen public transport line. Where is that? Vancouver. We are putting $450 million into the Canada Line. Where is that? Vancouver. We are putting $365 million into the South Fraser Perimeter Road. Where is that? Vancouver. It sounds like we are getting the job done.
Davies corrects that the cited projects are not in Vancouver, then asks whether the Conservative economic action plan for Vancouver amounts to no stimulus spending combined with a new HST burden on British Columbians.
Davies corrects the minister's geographic error and raises the HST as a compounding economic burden on British Columbians, but the question is compound and somewhat rhetorical, mixing infrastructure and tax grievances.
Source text
Actually, Mr. Speaker, those are not Vancouver. He should look at a map. The Conservative government seems to have forgotten the action in its own action plan. The government cannot get infrastructure dollars into Vancouver, but it has no problem getting money out of people's pockets through the HST. This new tax created by the Conservatives and supported by the Liberals has British Columbians feeling betrayed. From haircuts to home heating, this tax makes life harder for British Columbians. It is bad policy during a recession. Is this the Conservatives' economic action plan for Vancouver, wherever the minister thinks it is? No stimulus spending and--
Flaherty says he saw the Canada Line in downtown Vancouver, explains that harmonization is ultimately a provincial decision, and quotes the Liberal leader's expressed support for harmonization.
Flaherty defends his presence in Vancouver and the Canada Line, explains harmonization is a provincial decision and cites the Liberal leader's own support for harmonization, which is tangential to the specific infrastructure gap Davies raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was in Vancouver last week and I saw the Canada Line. It was actually in downtown Vancouver. The decision on harmonization, as I said in the House the other day, is a decision for the provinces that have not yet harmonized. There is a federal proposal that is the same for every province, and some provinces over the years have chosen to harmonize and others have not. Ultimately of course it is a decision for the provinces to make. As the Leader of the Opposition said, and this is the Liberal Party position, I think, âWe support harmonization. We have no criticism of the Ontario government's budget. We think it is--
Bellavance notes that Quebec's agriculture minister wrote in July requesting equivalency for organic certification and asks whether the federal minister will respond favourably to Quebec's request.
Bellavance cites a specific July letter from Quebec's agriculture minister requesting equivalency recognition for organic certification and asks whether the federal minister will respond favourably, making it a concrete and traceable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ministre de l'Agriculture, des PĂȘcheries et de l'Alimentation du QuĂ©bec a Ă©crit en juillet dernier Ă son homologue fĂ©dĂ©ral pour rĂ©clamer une Ă©quivalence pour la certification biologique. Non seulement le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec, mais toute l'industrie des produits biologiques souhaite faire reconnaĂźtre ses produits destinĂ©s aux marchĂ©s extĂ©rieurs. Une fin de non-recevoir est malheureusement parvenue d'un fonctionnaire par le biais des mĂ©dias. Le ministre va-t-il entendre raison et rĂ©pondre favorablement Ă la demande du QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in July, the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wrote to his federal counterpart, calling for an organic certification equivalence. Not just the Government of Quebec, but the entire organic products industry wants to have its products for foreign markets recognized. Unfortunately, Quebec's request was turned down by a government official via the media. Will the minister listen to reason and say yes to Quebec's request?
Blackburn explains that Canada needs a single national certification standard and describes an agreement accepting Quebec's current organic products according to their compliance until 2011.
Blackburn explains the government's national single-standard policy and describes a transitional arrangement accepting Quebec's current organic products until 2011, partially addressing the equivalency request without fully committing to it.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous avons convenu qu'au Canada, il Ă©tait important d'avoir la mĂȘme certification pour toutes les provinces Ă l'Ă©chelle du pays. Nous formons un pays appelĂ© le Canada et nous essayons d'avoir une seule et mĂȘme norme pour l'ensemble des provinces. Cela dit, nous avons Ă©galement trouvĂ© une entente avec QuĂ©bec en acceptant jusqu'en 2011 les produits biologiques actuels selon leur conformitĂ©, en attendant que la mesure s'applique globalement Ă tout le pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we agreed that it is important for Canada to have standardized certification across the country for all provinces. We make up a country called Canada, and we are trying to set a single standard for all provinces. That said, we have also reached an agreement with Quebec whereby we will accept organic products certified according to its standards until 2011, while waiting for this measure to apply to the whole country.
Bonsant asks whether the Minister of Agriculture will finally act on the consensus â from producers, processors, consumers, the Standing Committee, and the government's own officials â to lower the 'Product of Canada' standard from 98% to 85%.
Bonsant cites a specific contested standard (98% versus the 85% consensus threshold), names multiple stakeholders who support the 85% standard (producers, processors, consumers, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and the government's own officials), and asks the minister to act on this consensus.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, non content d'imposer des demandes administratives inutiles aux producteurs de produits biologiques, le gouvernement conservateur persiste Ă maintenir la norme irrĂ©aliste de 98 p. 100 pour l'appellation « Produit du Canada ». Le vrai ministre de lâAgriculture et de lâAgroalimentaire, qui dit avoir fait des consultations tout l'Ă©tĂ©, va-t-il enfin Ă©couter les producteurs, les transformateurs, les consommateurs, le ComitĂ© permanent de l'agriculture et de l'agroalimentaire, et mĂȘme ses propres fonctionnaires, qui rĂ©clament la norme de 85 p. 100 qui fait consensus?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, not only has it imposed needless administrative demands on organic producers, but the Conservative government has also upheld the unrealistic 98% standard for labelling goods as âProduct of Canadaâ. Will the real Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who claims to have conducted consultations all summer long, finally listen to producers, processors, consumers, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and even his own officials, who agree that the standard should be 85%?
Blackburn notes that the first consultation showed support for the 98% standard, says the government has since met with processors and heard their concerns, and states it continues working to protect consumers and help processors.
Blackburn says the first consultation showed support for the 98% standard, claims to have met recently with processors, and says the government continues working on the issue, but does not indicate any movement toward the 85% threshold or a timeline for resolution.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je rappellerai au Bloc québécois qu'effectivement, lorsque nous avions fait la premiÚre consultation, les gens étaient favorables à la norme de 98 p. 100 sur l'étiquetage des produits du Canada. Cela dit, pendant que ce parti ne faisait que critiquer, nous avons rencontré les transformateurs et nous avons organisé une rencontre avec eux derniÚrement. Ils nous ont fait part de leurs préoccupations à cet égard et nous continuons de travailler à la question pour trouver une bonne façon de faire en sorte que les consommateurs soient protégés et qu'on aide également nos transformateurs.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Bloc Québécois that when we conducted the first consultation, people agreed with the 98% standard for labelling goods as products of Canada. That said, while his party was doing nothing but complaining, we met with processors. We organized a meeting with them recently. They shared their concerns, and we are working on the issue to find a solution to protect consumers and help our processors at the same time.
Valeriote asks when the southern Ontario development agency will open for business, noting that seven months after its announcement not one penny of the promised billion dollars has flowed and no criteria or application forms exist.
Valeriote cites a specific figure (269,000 jobs lost in southern Ontario), specifies seven months have elapsed since the SODA announcement, and identifies concrete operational gaps (no criteria, no application forms, no funds flowing) making it a well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the depth of the economic crisis is touching every industry and every household, with the loss of 269,000 jobs in southern Ontario alone. Seven months have passed since the announcement of the southern Ontario development agency to help small and medium business survive or start up. Not one penny of the billion dollars promised has flowed from it into southern Ontario. No criteria has been set up and there are no application forms. The SODA program is nothing but an empty storefront with hundreds of business owners trying to create jobs for Ontario families knocking at the door facing unfilled promises. When will the door open?
Goodyear claims the government has acted diligently through IRAP and other channels, cites 12,000 new jobs in Ontario in June, and warns against an unnecessary election interrupting progress.
Goodyear makes vague references to helping communities, venture capitalists, and IRAP and cites 12,000 new Ontario jobs in June without addressing the specific SODA operational failures Valeriote raised, then pivots to warning against an election.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the member to pay attention. The door is wide open and it might hit him. Our government has acted very diligently and responsibly to create jobs and stimulate the economy in this downturn. We have helped communities. We have helped venture capitalists. We have helped industry through IRAP. Money is already flowing. I note there are 12,000 new jobs in Ontario alone in June. We do not want to interrupt this progress with an unnecessary, opportunistic election. That is not what Canadians need.
Valeriote reports that Community Futures offices in Wellington, Waterloo, Simcoe, Bruce, Collingwood, Orillia, Welland, and Niagara have no money, no ability to staff their offices, and no communication or direction from the minister, and asks how the minister answers those accusations.
The question cites specific named Community Futures offices and concrete operational concerns (no money, no staffing, no direction), but is cut off before a clear ask is completed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows he is misstating the facts. I have just spoken to Community Futures in Wellington, Waterloo, Simcoe, Bruce, Collingwood, Orillia, Welland, Niagara, and they expressed overwhelming concern, frustration, and a lack of communication or direction from the minister. There is no money, no ability to staff their offices to receive applications, and if the money finally comes they feel they would be forced to rush it out, compromising the opportunity for meaningful results. They urge the Liberal opposition to shake money out of the government. How does the member answer the accusations from the--
Goodyear quotes an unidentified source praising FedDev Ontario and accuses the opposition of seeking an election for their own benefit rather than focusing on jobs.
The minister offers a single unattributed quote and pivots to attacking the opposition's electoral motives, never addressing the specific concerns raised about Community Futures offices.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member can yell all he wants. Here is a quote: âIt's clear that we're on the right track and our approach is transforming the economy of this region and FedDev Ontario will play a critical role...â. The rhetoric is up and loud by members of that party, whose intent is to go to an election to find a job for themselves. This government is focused on creating jobs for Canadians, supporting Canadian businesses in southern Ontario and every community in between, regardless of their selfish priorities.
Hughes asks why the Minister of Finance persists in imposing tax harmonization that will make gasoline, heating costs, and funerals more expensive for people in Northern Ontario and British Columbia.
The question identifies specific items that will cost more (essence, frais de chauffage, funérailles) and frames a reasonably clear ask about why the minister persists with tax harmonization, though it blends partisan framing with substantive concern.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la solution du ministre des Finances pour relancer l'Ă©conomie consiste Ă faire payer plus de taxes aux familles et aux consommateurs. Les libĂ©raux aussi sont en faveur de l'harmonisation de la taxe de vente. Cela veut dire que l'essence, les frais de chauffage et mĂȘme les funĂ©railles vont coĂ»ter plus cher. Les gens du Nord de l'Ontario et de la Colombie-Britannique ne veulent pas d'augmentation de taxes. Pourquoi le ministre persiste-t-il Ă les imposer?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has decided to stimulate the economy by having families and consumers pay more taxes. The Liberals are also in favour of harmonizing the sales tax. That means that gas, heating and even funerals will cost more. People living in northern Ontario and British Columbia do not want tax increases. Why is the minister intent on raising taxes?
Flaherty states that harmonization is a provincial government decision, not a federal one, and notes prior harmonization with New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, and British Columbia.
Flaherty provides relevant historical context about prior harmonization with New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, and British Columbia, and clarifies it is a provincial decision, which partially addresses the question without directly responding to the cost impacts cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member ought to look at the last generation in Canadian history and go back to when the previous governments worked with the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador when they decided to harmonize their taxes, more recently with the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia, and the province of Quebec may as well at one time. There are other provinces that have not made the decision to harmonize. As I have said repeatedly, this is a decision for the provincial governments, not for the Government of Canada.
Hughes notes that since November 2008 the Constance Lake First Nation has had no post office, forcing residents to travel 80 kilometres, and asks whether remote and First Nations communities have the right to the same services as all other communities.
The question cites a specific community (PremiĂšre nation de Constance Lake), a specific date (novembre 2008), a specific distance (80 kilomĂštres), and a concrete policy concern, with a clear equity-based ask about whether remote and First Nations communities receive the same services.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le gouvernement conservateur ne comprend pas l'ampleur du problĂšme dans le Nord de l'Ontario. Depuis novembre 2008, la PremiĂšre nation de Constance Lake n'a plus de bureau de poste. Les gens doivent parcourir 80 kilomĂštres pour poster une lettre ou pour aller chercher leur remboursement de TPS. Avec une taxe supplĂ©mentaire sur l'essence, cela va coĂ»ter plus cher. De plus, il n'y a aucun transport collectif pour cette communautĂ©. Est-ce que les communautĂ©s Ă©loignĂ©es et celles des PremiĂšres nations ont droit aux mĂȘmes services que toutes les autres communautĂ©s?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government does not understand the extent of the problem in northern Ontario. The Constance Lake First Nation lost its post office in November 2008. People have to travel 80 kilometres to mail a letter or pick up their GST rebate. With another gas tax, it will cost more. Furthermore, there is no public transportation for this community. Are remote and first nations communities not entitled to the same services as all other communities?
Strahl says the government has an ambitious plan and budget from Canada's action plan focused on education reform, housing allocations, and water and waste water action plans, dismissing the transportation concern as not part of the answer.
Strahl references Canada's action plan and lists general priorities (education reform, housing, water and waste water action plans) but dismisses the transportation concern and does not address the specific postal service loss at Constance Lake First Nation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have a very ambitious plan and a very good budget allocation that came out of Canada's action plan because we care very much that first nations have the same opportunities as every other Canadian. The member calling for rapid transit in these isolated communities is not part of the answer. What is important are the things we are working on: education reform, housing allocations, water and waste water action plans. Those are the sorts of things that mean something in aboriginal communities, and that is why we have money to make that investment and to make it happen.
Hoeppner asks the Minister of International Trade what the Conservative government is doing to stand up for Canadian producers whose beef exports face closed markets despite Canada's cutting-edge animal health care systems.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking broadly what the Conservative government is doing to stand up for Canadian producers, with no specific accountability pressure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last year Canadian producers exported high-quality beef to more than 55 countries. Unfortunately, many countries continue to close their doors to Canadian beef despite Canada's cutting-edge animal health care systems. Can the Minister of International Trade tell this House what the Conservative government is doing to stand up for Canadian producers?
Day announces that Colombia has today lifted its ban on beef, notes that the ban had cost Canadian producers approximately $6 million in access, and urges opposition parties to support the Colombia free trade agreement.
Day provides a specific dollar figure ($6 million access lost due to Colombia's ban), announces that Colombia has today lifted the ban on beef, and names both himself and the Minister of Agriculture as having pursued the issue, directly and substantively answering the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge how my colleague stands up for producers in her own constituency. On the ban on beef from Colombia alone, in fact if we did not have that ban in place right now, we would have about a $6 million access for our producers. I wish the opposition parties would stop their grandstanding and help us move along the Colombia free trade agreement. On the issue of Colombia's ban, the Minister of Agriculture and I have continually pursued this issue. I am pleased to announce that the country of Colombia has announced today that it is lifting that ban on beef.