Session overview
- Government partisanship in stimulus spending dominated Question Period, with opposition members citing specific statistics — 75% of youth unemployment training funds, over 90% of accessibility funds, and 66% of recreational infrastructure projects — flowing to Conservative ridings.
- The Afghan detainee file resurfaced sharply, with multiple opposition members pressing the Minister of National Defence on whether he had read Richard Colvin's widely distributed reports on the treatment of detainees, and whether witnesses would be allowed to testify freely before the special committee.
- Nortel pensioners and long-term disabled employees were a recurring theme, with the NDP and Bloc pressing for federal action on bankruptcy law reform, while the government consistently deflected by citing provincial jurisdiction over the Ontario-registered pension plan.
- White-collar crime sentencing dominated BQ exchanges, with members challenging the government's bill as insufficient because it omitted abolition of early release after one-sixth of a sentence — a measure the government promised would come in a separate, forthcoming reform.
- Climate change accountability was raised by the NDP, which pressed the government to take the climate change accountability legislation to the Copenhagen conference rather than attend empty-handed less than 50 days before the event.
- The cheque scandal remained active, with the ethics commissioner having opened at least 50 investigations into Conservative MPs who displayed party logos on government cheques, and opposition members alleging taxpayer-funded signage costs exceeded the value of the repairs themselves.
Tony Clement made a specific, concrete statement of government position — that the Nortel pension was registered with the province of Ontario, making Ontario the only body with the right and responsibility to cover it, while confirming the finance minister and he were working with provinces on broader pension system improvements — giving the public a clear account of both the jurisdictional limit and the federal action underway.
The question is highly specific: it identifies a committee vote happening that same day on a motion by the member for Ottawa Centre to call Mr. Colvin and senior officials, and asks for a direct commitment not to obstruct that process.
Asked whether the Prime Minister recognized the urgency of acting on the climate change accountability legislation that had been before Parliament for three years, Clement answered entirely in terms of international diplomacy and the upcoming Copenhagen conference without addressing the legislation itself or the question of urgency.
Outstanding questions
- Siobhan Coady asked how the Prime Minister could claim the cheque scandal did not come from his office given that over one-third of the Conservative caucus is now under investigation by the ethics commissioner — no answer was given.
- Marlene Jennings asked specifically: who received Richard Colvin's reports, what was in those reports, and when did the Minister of National Defence first learn of them — the minister never provided dates, recipients, or content.
- Pierre Paquette asked why the government signed a trade agreement with Panama, a notorious tax haven, at the same time as it claims to be cracking down on white-collar crime and tax evasion — the minister answered only by defending free trade agreements generally.
- Michael Ignatieff asked specifically when the Prime Minister will put a stop to partisan allocation of stimulus funds, citing the 90% figure for the accessibility fund destined for disabled Canadians going to Conservative ridings — the minister disputed other statistics but never addressed the accessibility fund figure.
- Charlie Angus asked when the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will tell the children of Attawapiskat that building them a school is a priority for the Government of Canada — the minister defended the government's record on schools generally without committing to any action on Attawapiskat specifically.
Having admitted the Conservative logo on cheques was wrong, will the Prime Minister also admit that 75% of a youth unemployment training program going to Conservative ridings is wrong, and stop it?
Cites a specific statistic (75% of youth unemployment training funds to Conservative ridings) and builds on the Prime Minister's prior admission about logos, with a clear ask to stop partisan spending.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, le premier ministre a enfin admis que c'était une erreur de mettre des logos du Parti conservateur sur les chèques des contribuables. Pourtant, cet argent continue à être dépensé avec une partisanerie sans pareil. Par exemple, 75 p. 100 de l'argent d'un programme de formation de jeunes chômeurs sont dépensés dans les comtés conservateurs. Ayant admis qu'il avait tort de mettre des logos sur les chèques, le premier ministre admettra-t-il aujourd'hui que cette partisanerie dans la dépense doit cesser immédiatement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister finally admitted that it had been a mistake to put Conservative Party logos on taxpayer cheques. But this unbelievable partisan spending is still going on. For example, 75% of the money from a training program for young unemployed workers is being spent in Conservative ridings. Now that he has admitted he was wrong to put logos on the cheques, will the Prime Minister admit that this partisan spending needs to stop right now?
The minister said the government's priority is the economy and creating jobs, without addressing the specific statistic or allegation of partisan allocation.
The minister ignores the specific statistic entirely and pivots to generic talking points about the economy and jobs, never addressing the 75% figure or the partisan allocation question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre priorité est l'économie. C'est la priorité de notre gouvernement. Nous créons des emplois et prenons des mesures de stimulation économique. De plus, nous faisons exactement ce que les Canadiens et les Canadiennes veulent. We are on the side of Canadians. We are producing these projects because they mean jobs and opportunity. They mean getting behind and beyond the recession to a better and more prosperous economy through economic recovery. That is our message to Canadians and that is what Canadians want of us.
Over 90% of an accessibility fund for disabled Canadians went to Conservative ridings — will the Prime Minister admit this is wrong and put a stop to it?
Cites a specific and striking statistic (over 90% of an accessibility fund for disabled Canadians going to Conservative ridings), with a clear ask for the Prime Minister to admit it and stop it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister admitted that it was not correct to put those logos on top of government cheques. However, that is not the only thing that was not correct. There is overwhelming evidence of Conservative partisanship in this spending. I have one particularly shocking example. Over 90% of an accessibility fund destined for disabled Canadians went to Conservative ridings. Is it not time that the Prime Minister admitted that is not correct either? When will he put a stop to it?
Oh, oh!
The minister cited specific Toronto projects (Spadina subway, Sheppard subway, Union Station, northwest transmission line) as evidence of broad distribution, without addressing the accessibility fund figure.
The minister briefly acknowledges economic stimulus before pivoting to list specific Toronto infrastructure projects as counter-evidence, partially engaging the topic but not addressing the 90% accessibility fund statistic.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the evidence is clear and incontrovertible. We are engaged in economic stimulus to the economy—
Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in helping the economy. We are focused on the serious issues that Canadians care about: jobs, helping those who need help through our EI reform, and ensuring infrastructure is there now and for the future. The hon. member fails to mention all the money that went to his own city for the Spadina subway line, the Sheppard subway line, Union Station and the northwest transmission line. We can go on and on, but the point is that every part of this country must be part of the solution and that is exactly what we are doing.
Sixty-six per cent of recreational infrastructure projects went to Conservative ridings and the minister opposite gets the lion's share — when will the Prime Minister stop this partisan allocation?
Cites a specific figure (66% of recreational infrastructure projects to Conservative ridings) and names the minister's own riding as a beneficiary, with a clear ask for the Prime Minister to stop it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for once I agree with the minister. The figures are incontrovertible. I have another example. Sixty-six per cent of recreational infrastructure projects in this country have been allocated to Conservative ridings and the minister in charge directly opposite gets the lion's share of the projects. Therefore, if people vote Conservative, they get the rink. A lot of Canadians think that is wrong. When will the Prime Minister begin to understand that it is wrong and will he put a stop to it?
The minister cited Ontario-specific data showing 29 opposition ridings versus 28 government ridings received $1 million allocations, and that Toronto received 118 of 136 eligible projects, arguing the allocation was fair.
The minister responds with specific numbers for Ontario (29 opposition vs 28 government ridings for $1 million allocations; Toronto receiving 118 of 136 projects), directly engaging the statistical claim, though not addressing the national 66% figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for the Leader of the Opposition, who aspires to be prime minister one day, to get his facts so wrong is, quite frankly, shocking. In Ontario, 29 out of the 57 $1 million maximum allocation went to projects in opposition ridings, while 28 went to government-held ridings. Of the total of 136 eligible projects, the city of Toronto received 118 of them, which is 86%. We are being fair to all ridings and to all Canadians. That is what people would like us to do and that is exactly what we are doing.
With the ethics commissioner investigating at least 50 Conservative MPs for passing off taxpayer money as Conservative Party gifts, and over one-third of the Conservative caucus under investigation, how can the Prime Minister claim the cheque scandal did not come from his office?
References specific facts — at least 50 ethics commissioner investigations, over one-third of Conservative caucus under investigation, and taxpayer-funded production of phony cheques — with a pointed question about the Prime Minister's role.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the ethics commissioner has opened at least 50 investigations into the conduct of the Conservative members of Parliament who tried to pass off taxpayer dollars as gifts of the Conservative Party. What is worse, the phony cheques themselves were produced using taxpayer money. With over one-third of the Conservative caucus now under investigation, how can the Prime Minister claim that the cheque scandal did not come from his office?
The minister said the government is focused on the economy, economic stimulus, and helping those most in need, without addressing the ethics investigations.
The minister completely ignores the ethics commissioner investigations and the specific question about the Prime Minister's office, reverting entirely to economy talking points.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are focused on something that very clearly Canadians want. They want a government that is focused on the economy, on more jobs, on more economic recovery, and on helping those most in need. That is what we are focused on. We are focused on economic stimulus measures that are being shared across the country to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to get out of this recession to have a more prosperous country. That is what we are focused on. Members opposite should focus on the same thing.
The government replaces doorknobs, installs humidifiers, and changes drain pans as an excuse to put up Conservative signs costing more than the repairs — how many taxpayer dollars are being wasted on advertising routine maintenance?
Raises a specific allegation about Conservative signs costing more than the repairs they accompany (doorknobs, humidifiers, drain pans), and asks how many taxpayer dollars are being wasted on advertising routine maintenance, though the ask is somewhat rhetorically framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want is a government that focuses on the truth. Not only does the Conservative government like to use taxpayers' money as Conservative gifts, it is also wasting untold millions on propaganda. The Conservatives replace doorknobs, install humidifiers, change drain pans, all as an excuse to put up Conservative signs that cost more than the actual repairs themselves. Could the Prime Minister tell us how many taxpayers' dollars he is wasting to advertise routine maintenance?
The minister said the government works with all provincial counterparts regardless of party to ensure stimulus works across every province and municipality, and challenged the member to prove a closed cabal in her province.
The minister does not address the signage costs or propaganda spending at all, instead defending broad provincial cooperation on stimulus and challenging the member to prove a closed cabal in her province.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are working with our municipal and provincial counterparts in the hon. member's province and every province in this country, whether it is a Conservative government, a Liberal government or an NDP government. We are working with them to make sure that stimulus works in their province, works in their territory, and works in every one of their municipalities. I defy the hon. member to say that somehow there was some closed cabal somewhere in her province, where we sat down with the provincial government, to allocate money only to Conservative ridings. That simply did not happen. We are there for each province. We are there for the country because it is simply the right thing to do.
With the new legislation eliminating conditional sentences, even someone convicted of perjury in any circumstances — as happened to Guy Lafleur — would have to serve time in prison; does the Prime Minister realize he is removing all judicial discretion for equitable and humane sentencing?
Raises a specific legal concern about the new conditional sentence proposals — using the example of Guy Lafleur and perjury — with a pointed question about whether the government realizes it is removing judicial discretion for equitable sentencing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, avec les nouvelles propositions législatives du gouvernement pour éliminer les peines avec sursis, une personne reconnue coupable de parjure, par exemple, quelles que soient les circonstances — comme c'est malheureusement arrivé à Guy Lafleur —, serait obligée de purger sa peine en prison, à moins d'avoir une peine suspendue. Dans son entêtement idéologique, le premier ministre se rend-il compte qu'il est en train d'enlever aux juges toute marge de manoeuvre pour imposer des sentences équitables et humaines tenant compte de toutes les circonstances?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with the government's proposed new legislation to eliminate conditional sentences, an individual found guilty of perjury, for example—which is unfortunately what happened to Guy Lafleur—would be required to serve his sentence in prison, regardless of the circumstances, unless the sentence were suspended. In his ideological stubbornness, does the Prime Minister realize that he is removing any leeway judges have to impose fair, humane sentences that reflect the circumstances of the case?
The minister said white-collar crimes are outrageous and the government is acting on this issue, hoping the Bloc will support the legislation.
The minister does not address conditional sentences or judicial discretion at all, instead speaking generally about white-collar crime and hoping the Bloc will support the legislation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les crimes commis par les bandits à cravate sont outrageants. La population ne veut pas de cela. C'est très sérieux. En tant que gouvernement, on s'est décidés à s'attaquer enfin à cet enjeu. On espère que le Bloc appuiera notre démarche. En effet, il n'y a rien d'outrageant lorsque le législateur décide de tracer une ligne, de donner une direction et de dire qu'assez, c'est assez. Si les collègues de l'opposition se promènent dans la population et parlent aux victimes, ils verront que tout le monde en a plein le casque de cela. On va faire face à la situation et on va régler le problème.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the crimes committed by white-collar criminals are outrageous. People have had enough. This is very serious. As a government, we decided to finally tackle this issue, and we hope that the Bloc will support us. There is nothing outrageous about the legislator deciding to draw a line, show leadership and say that enough is enough. If the opposition members go out and talk to the victims, they will see that everyone has had enough. We are going to face the situation and deal with the problem.
The minister could not cite a single case justifying the proposed two-year minimum for fraud over $1 million; the real problem is early release after one-sixth of the sentence — will the minister include abolition of that provision in the bill?
Challenges the minister directly to include abolition of early release after one-sixth of the sentence in the bill, noting the minister could not cite a single case justifying the two-year minimum for fraud over $1 million, making a sharp and specific legislative ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai parlé des peines avec sursis mais il n'a pas répondu; je sais pourquoi. Maintenant, le ministre nous parle des crimes économiques. Or nous avons effectivement rencontré les victimes. Ce que les conservateurs disent, c'est surtout qu'ils veulent éliminer la libération après le sixième de la peine. Or, par rapport aux peines minimales de deux ans qu'il propose pour une fraude de plus de 1 million de dollars, le ministre n'a pas été capable de citer un seul cas, parce qu'il n'y en a pas. Ce n'est pas cela, le problème. Le problème, c'est la libération après le sixième de la peine. Je le mets au défi d'inclure la libération au sixième de la peine dans son projet de loi. Sinon, ce sont de belles paroles, mais sans action.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I talked about conditional sentences, but he did not respond, and I know why. Now, the minister is talking about economic crimes. In fact, we have talked to the victims. The Conservatives are saying that they want to eliminate parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been served. But as for the two-year minimum sentence he is proposing for fraud over $1 million, the minister has not been able to cite a single case, because there are none. That is not the problem. The problem is offenders who get parole after serving one-sixth of their sentence. I challenge him to include parole after one-sixth of a sentence in his bill. Otherwise, it is all talk and no action.
The minister characterized the Bloc's opposition to conditional sentences as allowing criminals to serve time at home, promoted the white-collar crime bill, and said the government would not propose an improvised and ill-considered reform on the one-sixth release.
The minister addresses the conditional sentence question superficially, characterizes the Bloc's position on crime, promotes the new bill's measures, but explicitly refuses to commit on the one-sixth release reform, calling it improvised.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en ce qui a trait au sursis de sentence, on sait ce que signifie l'opposition du Bloc. Cela veut dire que s'il y a un crime grave, la commission d'un vol ou une fraude de plus de 5 000 $, le criminel peut purger la sentence chez lui, dans le confort de son salon. Voilà l'approche sur le crime du Bloc québécois. On a maintenant un projet de loi qui s'attaque aux bandits à cravate. Les victimes nous ont demandé de faire des mesures pour que cela ne se reproduise plus jamais. C'est ce que nous faisons. J'espère qu'enfin, pour une fois, les bloquistes iront au-delà des beaux mots et qu'ils nous appuieront. Quant à la libération au sixième de la peine, nous ne proposerons pas une réforme improvisée et irréfléchie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we know what the Bloc's opposition to conditional sentences means. It means that when a serious crime such as theft or fraud over $5,000 is committed, the criminal can serve his sentence at home, in the comfort of his living room. That is the Bloc's approach to crime. We now have a bill that tackles white-collar crime. Victims called on us to take action so that this never happens again. That is what we are doing. I hope that finally, for once, the Bloc will walk the talk and support us. As for release after one-sixth of a sentence has been served, we will not propose an ad hoc, ill-considered reform.
If the government truly wants white-collar criminals to serve their sentences, why not include in the bill the pure and simple abolition of early release after one-sixth of the sentence?
Makes a specific legislative ask — include abolition of the one-sixth release provision in the white-collar crime bill — and argues the existing bill is merely masking government inaction, with a clear challenge to prove seriousness.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le ministre de la Justice défonce des portes ouvertes avec son projet de loi sur les crimes économiques. Le seul effet qu'aura ce projet de loi, c'est de masquer l'inaction du gouvernement. Si l'intention réelle du gouvernement est d'obliger les criminels à cravate à purger leur peine, il n'a qu'à abolir la mesure qui permet une libération au sixième de la peine. Si le gouvernement veut prouver qu'il est sérieux dans sa lutte aux crimes économiques, pourquoi ne pas inclure dans son projet de loi l'abolition pure et simple de la libération au sixième de la peine?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice's bill on white-collar crime is an exercise in futility. This bill will only hide the government's lack of action. If the government's real intention is to force white-collar criminals to serve their sentence, he need only abolish the measure that allows criminals to be released after serving one-sixth of their sentences. If the government wants to prove that it is serious about fighting white-collar crime, why not have the bill include the outright abolition of release after serving one-sixth of the sentence?
The minister said the government has always considered the one-sixth release an aberration and is working on a reform, but would not arrive with improvised magical-thinking measures.
The minister dismisses the Bloc's position as improvised and irréfléchie, claims the government has always said the one-sixth release is an aberration and that a reform is coming, but gives no timeline or commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on connaît l'ampleur et la gravité de cette situation. On sait que les gens du Bloc sont sortis un bon matin, ils ont regardé la direction du vent et ont décidé d'arriver avec une mesure improvisée et irréfléchie. Le sixième de la peine, il n'y a rien de nouveau dans cela. Notre gouvernement a toujours dit que c'est une aberration et on travaille sur cela. On a dit qu'une réforme serait déposée incessamment, mais on n'arrivera pas avec des projets de pensée magique, comme les collègues d'en face viennent de le faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the extent and the seriousness of this situation. We know that the Bloc members went out one morning, checked which way the wind was blowing and decided to come back with an ad hoc and ill-considered measure. There is nothing new about wanting to change the one-sixth of the sentence provision. Our government has always said that it is an aberration and we are working on it. Reform will be introduced shortly but we will not be proposing measures based on magical thinking, as our colleagues opposite have just done.
As long as there are tax havens where people like Vincent Lacroix can hide their money, the chances of defrauded investors being reimbursed are nearly nil — is the government aware of this problem?
Links the effectiveness of white-collar crime legislation to the existence of tax havens using the example of Vincent Lacroix, and raises the one-sixth release issue again with a direct question about whether the government understands that tax havens make reimbursement nearly impossible.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est dans le programme du Bloc québécois depuis 2007. On n'a pas besoin de faire de la magie pour cela, il suffit de présenter un projet de loi en cette Chambre et nous voterons en sa faveur. Si les Vincent Lacroix de ce monde prennent des risques, c'est parce qu'il y a des paradis fiscaux où ils peuvent cacher leur argent en toute impunité. Ils savent qu'au sixième de leur peine, ils pourront tranquillement récupérer leur fric. Le gouvernement dit qu'il veut que les criminels remboursent les épargnants fraudés, mais est-il conscient que tant qu'il y aura des paradis fiscaux, les possibilités de remboursement seront quasi nulles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this has been part of the Bloc Québécois platform since 2007. There is no need for magic; all they have to do is introduce a bill in this House and we will vote for it. If people like Vincent Lacroix take risks it is because there are tax havens where they can hide their money and get away with it. They know that after serving one-sixth of their sentence they are free to recover their loot. The government says that it wants criminals to make restitution to investors but does it realize that as long as there are tax havens the likelihood of this happening is virtually nil?
The minister promoted the announcement of two-year minimum sentences for fraud over $1 million and challenged the opposition to oppose this measure to victims' faces, without mentioning tax havens or reimbursement.
The minister ignores tax havens entirely, challenges opposition members to tell victims they oppose minimum sentences, and does not address the reimbursement or tax haven question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, je peux dire que nous avons annoncé une bonne nouvelle. Il y avait des victimes qui étaient présentes. La population en général est très contente de ce qu'on a annoncé: des peines minimales de deux ans pour des fraudes de plus de 1 million de dollars, nonobstant le nombre de victimes. Je mets au défi les gens de l'opposition d'aller voir les victimes et de leur dire dans les yeux qu'ils vont s'opposer à cela parce que c'est contre leur principe idéologique borné d'imposer des peines minimales. C'est honteux. Cela donne des résultats incongrus et non souhaités, comme on vient de le voir.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I can say that we announced good news yesterday. There were victims present. The public in general is very pleased with what was announced: minimum sentences of two years for fraud over $1 million, no matter the number of victims. I challenge the opposition members to look the victims in the eyes and tell them that they will oppose the bill because it goes against their narrow ideology to impose minimum sentences. That is shameful. It gives inappropriate and undesirable results, as we have just seen.
The climate change accountability legislation has been delayed for three years and is currently in committee — does the Prime Minister recognize the urgency of acting?
References a specific bill (climate change accountability legislation) and its three-year legislative history, and asks if the Prime Minister recognizes the urgency of acting, but the ask is vague and rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la crise des changements climatiques est le plus grand défi de l'humanité. Depuis trois ans, le projet de loi sur notre responsabilité en matière de changements climatiques traîne dans les corridors du Parlement. Il s'est rendu jusqu'au Sénat, mais les élections l'ont ramené à la case départ. Le projet est au comité depuis avril. Il présente des cibles audacieuses basées sur la science. Le premier ministre se rend-il compte de l'urgence d'agir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the climate change crisis is the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced. For the past three years, the bill to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities with respect to climate change has been slowly making its way through Parliament. It got as far as the Senate, but the election put it right back at square one. The bill has been with the committee since April. It proposes aggressive science-based targets. Does the Prime Minister realize how urgent it is that we take action?
The minister said Canada's position is to go to Copenhagen and work with the United States, China, India and other major emitters for a comprehensive global climate change policy.
The minister speaks to Canada's intention to attend Copenhagen and work with international partners, but does not address the climate change accountability legislation specifically or the urgency question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our position is very clear on this matter. It is important for Canada to go to Copenhagen to the International Conference on Climate Change. We are working obviously with all of our international partners, including the United States of America, and also China, India and other major emitters to make sure that we have a comprehensive climate change policy for the entire world. That is what my hon. colleague, the Minister of the Environment, is doing, and that is why it is important for the NDP to get onside with what we can accomplish for not only Canada but the rest of the world as well.
With Copenhagen less than 50 days away, no clear objectives, and no firm targets, why will the Prime Minister not take the climate change accountability legislation to Copenhagen and show Canada is ready to be a world leader?
Notes Copenhagen is less than 50 days away and asserts the government has no clear objectives or firm targets, and asks why the Prime Minister won't take the climate change accountability legislation to Copenhagen — combines some specificity with partisan framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are less than 50 days away from the global conference on climate change in Copenhagen and the government is proposing to go empty-handed. It is an irresponsible position. There are no clear objectives. There are no firm targets and the uncertainty is stalling the green investments that we could be taking advantage of. It is preventing Canada from becoming a leader on the green technologies of the future. Instead of counting on another flip-flop from the Liberal Party to stop progress on the climate change crisis, why will the Prime Minister not have the courage to take the climate change accountability legislation to Copenhagen and say we are ready to be world leaders?
The minister said the government has a coherent position for Copenhagen, is working with the United States on a North American approach, and cited investments of hundreds of millions in carbon capture and storage in Alberta along with renewables and cleaner energy.
The minister cites the Prime Minister's Edmonton announcement of hundreds of millions for carbon capture and storage in Alberta, and mentions investments in renewables and cleaner energy, but does not address the climate change accountability legislation or the absence of firm targets.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the important thing is to have a coherent position going into Copenhagen, which we do have. We are working with the United States on a comprehensive North American approach to this issue as well. The hon. member mentioned green investment. The Prime Minister last week was in Edmonton to announce an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in the province of Alberta for carbon capture and storage. We are also involved in investments in renewables. We are also involved in investments in cleaner energy and hydrocarbons as well. That is our position. We are not only talking about it in Parliament, we are actually doing it for the people of Canada.
Nortel workers have lost their pensions, severance, disability pensions, and medical payments — will the Prime Minister stop saying this is a provincial matter and act to change bankruptcy laws to help them?
References specific former Nortel employees' losses (pensions, severance, disability pensions, medical payments) and asks a pointed either/or question about whether the Prime Minister will act on bankruptcy law changes or leave it to the provinces.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was just outside with pensioners, long-term disabled employees and former Nortel employees. They are calling on the federal government to act by changing our bankruptcy laws to help them. They have lost their pensions. They have lost their severance pay, their disability pensions, and their medical payments. They want justice and they want action from the government now. They have worked hard. They played by the rules, the way they were supposed to. They built wealth in a company that was then squandered by the people who were running it, and they got cheated by the system. Is the Prime Minister content to stand by and say this is what the provinces should take care of, or is he willing to roll up his sleeves and take action for the Nortel workers and the other pensioners who are losing their--
The minister said Nortel pensions were registered with the province of Ontario, which has the right and responsibility to cover them, but noted that he and the finance minister are working with provinces to ensure better pension systems in the future.
The minister acknowledges the specific Nortel situation, explains that Nortel pensions were registered with the province of Ontario and are that province's responsibility, and notes that he and the finance minister are working with provinces on better pension systems — partially responsive but does not commit to changing bankruptcy laws.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the economic turmoil around the world has put enormous pressure on all kinds of pension plans and all kinds of investors. Nortel pensioners have had the particularly cruel situation of their entire company being put into bankruptcy. The fact of the matter is though that these pensions were registered with the province of Ontario. The province of Ontario is the only body that has the right and responsibility to cover those pensions. On the other hand, the finance minister and I are working with the provinces to make sure that we have better pension systems in this country in the future.
Could the Prime Minister explain why two-thirds of all RInC funds will only help the one-third of Canadians who voted Conservative?
References the RInC fund and the two-thirds/one-third statistic, with a specific ask about why the fund only helps Canadians who voted Conservative, but the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, clearly there is no limit to the depths to which the Conservatives will sink in order to buy-off taxpayers with their own money. Kids playing hockey in Ontario are being denied improvements to their rinks simply because they do not live in Conservative ridings. Could the Prime Minister explain why two-thirds of all RInC funds will only help the one-third of Canadians who voted Conservative?
The minister cited specific approval rates for Mississauga (6/7), Windsor (6/7), Ottawa (25/34), and Toronto (118/136) to argue the program is serving all of Ontario and Canada fairly.
The minister cites specific project approval numbers for Mississauga, Windsor, Ottawa, and Toronto, and challenges the member to provide evidence of conspiracy with Liberal cabinet minister George Smitherman, engaging the substance of the allocation question with data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I really do not know where the hon. member gets her facts. The city of Mississauga submitted seven projects and six were approved. The city of Windsor submitted seven projects and six were approved. The city of Ottawa submitted 34 applications and 25 were approved. The city of Toronto submitted 136 eligible projects and 118 were approved. We are doing this for all of Ontario and for all of Canada. The statistics are the same across the entire country. If the hon. member has evidence that I conspired with Liberal cabinet minister George Smitherman to make sure all of the money in Ontario went to Conservative ridings, she should table that right now.
The Prime Minister claimed nearly half of RInC projects went to opposition ridings, but the government's own propaganda shows the top five ridings that received infrastructure funding are held by Conservatives — is this discrimination what the Prime Minister meant in Sault Ste. Marie?
Challenges a specific Prime Minister's claim about nearly half of RInC projects going to opposition ridings, cites the government's own propaganda as contradicting this, and names the top five ridings as Conservative, with a reference to a specific speech in Sault Ste. Marie.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister buys his own propaganda. The Prime Minister falsely claimed that nearly half of all projects, including the largest one in the RInC fund, have gone to opposition ridings. Yet, the government's own propaganda shows that this is simply not true. In fact, the top five ridings that received infrastructure funding are held by, guess who, the Conservatives. Is this discrimination what the Prime Minister meant in Sault Ste. Marie when he said he was going to teach Canadians a lesson?
The minister stated that the number one riding in Ontario receiving the most RInC funding was the NDP-held riding of Trinity—Spadina with 67 projects totalling $13 million.
The minister provides a highly specific counter-fact — that the number one riding in Ontario for RInC funding was NDP-held Trinity—Spadina with 67 projects totalling $13 million — directly rebutting the top-riding claim with named data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would really encourage Liberal researchers to do their research a little bit better. Actually, the number one riding in Ontario that received the most, 67 projects totalling $13 million, was the NDP held riding of Trinity—Spadina. Those are the facts. If the hon. member has evidence that the member for Trinity—Spadina has suddenly become a Conservative MP, she should table that information in the House as well.
The government proposed ten years of patching up the Champlain Bridge and then awarded a $1 million contract that reeks of corruption — when will the government stop thinking about its own gains and focus on maintaining this vital structure?
References the Champlain Bridge specifically, notes the government's ten-year patch-up plan, and raises a $1 million contract alleged to smell of corruption, asking when the government will focus on maintaining this vital structure — the corruption allegation is asserted but not documented.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'emprunte le pont Champlain à Montréal plusieurs fois par semaine. C'est une voie de circulation importante pour mon comté. Le gouvernement a proposé dix ans de rafistolage pour l'entretenir. Dix ans. Et voilà qu'il adjuge un contrat de 1 million de dollars qui pue la corruption à plein nez. Quand le gouvernement cessera-t-il de penser uniquement à ses gains et commencera-t-il à penser à l'entretien de cette structure vitale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I cross the Champlain bridge in Montreal several times a week. It is a major thoroughfare in my riding. The government has come up with a program to patch it up over a ten-year period. Ten years. And it just recently awarded a million dollar contract that reeks of corruption. When will the government stop thinking only of what it stands to gain and start thinking about maintaining this critical piece of infrastructure?
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
The minister said the budget included $212 million for the Champlain Bridge, and that the independent corporation Les Ponts Jacques Cartier et Champlain Incorporée conducted a fair, open, and transparent call for tenders with no political interference from any minister's office.
The minister cites the specific $212 million announced in the budget for the Champlain Bridge, confirms the independent corporation Les Ponts Jacques Cartier et Champlain Incorporée ran an open and transparent tender process, and asserts no political interference — partially responsive but does not address the specific $1 million contract allegation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je rappelle à ma collègue que dans le budget, pour lequel elle a elle-même voté, 212 millions de dollars ont été annoncés pour le pont Champlain. À partir de là, la société indépendante — la société Les Ponts Jacques Cartier et Champlain Incorporée — a fait un appel d'offre juste, ouvert et transparent. Il n'y a eu aucune ingérence politique et aucun cabinet de ministre ne s'est mêlé de cela.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member that in our budget—which she herself supported—we allocated $212 million to the Champlain bridge. An independent corporation—The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated—took it from there and issued a fair, open and transparent call for tenders. There was no political interference, and no minister's office was involved.
Puisque j'entends rire les députés de l'opposition, je les mets au défi de porter leurs accusations à l'extérieur de cette Chambre.
Hansard translation: If the opposition members find that so funny, they should level their accusations outside of the House.
Why is the government covering up a senator's misconduct by removing traces from its website instead of governing?
The question is almost entirely rhetorical — referring vaguely to 'un sénateur' with 'les mains sales' and a deleted website without naming the senator, citing any document, or asking a specific answerable question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, un sénateur a les mains sales. Au lieu de punir ses actes, le gouvernement efface toute trace de saleté de son site Web et prétend que rien ne s'est jamais produit. Pourquoi le gouvernement ne gouverne-t-il pas au lieu de faire de la politicaillerie?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a senator got his hands dirty. Instead of punishing him, the government removed all traces of dirt from its website and pretended that nothing ever happened. Why is the government spending its time politicking instead of governing?
The minister claimed the government showed political leadership on the Champlain Bridge and challenged the opposition to make its accusations outside the House.
The minister pivots entirely to the Champlain Bridge and challenges the opposition to repeat accusations outside the Chamber, without addressing the question about the senator or the website.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est assez incroyable. Enfin, on a du leadership politique pour s'occuper du pont Champlain. Le gouvernement a mis ses culottes et a dit qu'on va s'en occuper. Ce que l'opposition essaie de faire, c'est de minimiser tout cela avec toutes sortes d'histoires sans fondement. Encore une fois, je mets au défi l'opposition de porter ces accusations à l'extérieur de la Chambre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is unbelievable. Finally there is a government showing some political leadership with respect to the Champlain bridge. The government rolled up its sleeves and said it would take care of things. The opposition is trying to undermine our work with all kinds of baseless accusations. Once again, I dare the opposition to raise these accusations outside of the House.
Given that CINAR admitted lying about its participation in Robinson Sucroë in a court document filed September 25, why does the government refuse to recover funds fraudulently obtained by the company?
The question cites a specific court document dated September 25, a specific company (CINAR), a specific allegation (lying about participation in Robinson Sucroë), and asks a pointed accountability question about recovering fraudulently obtained funds.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'affaire CINAR est l'un des plus importants scandales économiques de l'histoire canadienne. Or, malgré le fait que CINAR ait reconnu avoir menti sur sa participation réelle dans la série Robinson Sucroë dans un document déposé à la cour d'appel le 25 septembre dernier, le gouvernement refuse de récupérer les fonds acquis frauduleusement par l'entreprise. Comment le premier ministre peut-il prétendre lutter contre les criminels à cravate et refuser en même temps de récupérer l'argent que CINAR a frauduleusement acquis?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the CINAR affair is one of the largest financial scandals in Canadian history. But even though CINAR acknowledged that it lied regarding its actual participation in the Robinson Sucroe series, in a document filed with the court of appeal on September 25, the government refuses to recover the money fraudulently obtained by the company. How can the Prime Minister claim to be going after white-collar crime, and yet refuse to recover the money fraudulently obtained by CINAR?
The minister blamed the Liberal government for the CINAR affair, stated a commitment to transparency and accountability, and urged the member to turn any evidence of wrongdoing over to appropriate authorities.
The minister deflects to blaming the Liberal government, offers a generic commitment to transparency, and tells the member to take information to authorities despite the member having just cited a court document — completely ignoring the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about something that happened under the Liberal watch. I have indicated on a number of occasions that we are committed to transparency and accountability. I urge the hon. member that if he has any information of any criminal or other wrongdoing, he should turn it over to the appropriate authorities.
Why does the government claim to fight white-collar crime while signing a trade agreement with Panama, described as a notorious tax haven?
The question raises a specific contradiction — signing a trade accord with Panama, described as a paradis fiscal notoire, while claiming to fight white-collar crime — but bundles multiple accusations and the ask remains compound and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je viens justement de lui donner l'information. Cela a été déposé à la cour d'appel le 25 septembre dernier. Cependant, comme les libéraux, les conservateurs refusent de s'attaquer aux crimes économiques et aux paradis fiscaux. Au contraire, ils ont même signé récemment un accord visant à assouplir les barrières commerciales avec le Panama, un paradis fiscal notoire. C'est un bel exemple du double discours conservateur: d'un côté, en conférence de presse, on bombe le torse et on dit jouer aux gros bras avec les criminels à cravate, et en arrière, en même temps, on signe des ententes pour les accommoder. Pourquoi prétendre s'attaquer aux crimes économiques alors que, concrètement, on ne fait rien, bien au contraire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I just gave him the information. That was filed with the court of appeal on September 25. But, like the Liberals, the Conservatives refuse to go after white-collar crime and tax havens. On the contrary, they even recently signed an agreement to ease trade barriers with Panama, a notorious tax haven. This is a perfect example of the Conservatives talking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, they hold a press conference, putting on a big show, to say that they are getting tough on white-collar crime, and on the other hand, they are signing agreements that make this crime easier. Why claim to go after white-collar crime, when in reality, they are doing quite the opposite?
The minister stated the government will continue signing free trade agreements to create opportunities for Canadian workers, investors, and businesses.
The minister defends free trade agreements as job-creating policy in general terms and does not address the specific contradiction regarding Panama as a paradis fiscal notoire or the allegation of double discourse.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous allons continuer de signer des accords de libre-échange avec d'autres pays parce que nous voulons continuer de créer des occasions pour les travailleuses et travailleurs canadiens, pour nos investisseurs et pour nos entreprises. C'est dans notre plan. Nous allons voir notre économie continuer de croître parce que nous allons poursuivre notre objectif de signer des accords de libre-échange avec beaucoup d'autres pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to sign free trade agreements with other countries because we want to continue to create opportunities for Canadian workers, investors and businesses. That is in our plan. Our economy will continue to grow because we will be signing free trade agreements with many more countries.
Will the government respect the House vote supporting the Bloc motion and put in place emergency measures for the forestry industry and its workers?
The question references a specific House vote on a Bloc motion demanding emergency aid for the forestry industry and asks whether the government will respect that vote, making it a reasonably concrete accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, en s'opposant à la motion du Bloc québécois réclamant une aide d'urgence pour l'industrie forestière, les conservateurs ont prouvé qu'ils n'ont pas l'intention d'aider les travailleurs de cette industrie, comme dans Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, et comme dans ma région qui traverse une grave crise depuis plusieurs années. Le gouvernement va-t-il respecter le vote de cette Chambre et mettre en place des mesures d'urgence pour l'industrie forestière et ses travailleurs comme l'a demandé une majorité de parlementaires ici à la Chambre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, by voting yesterday against the Bloc Québécois motion for emergency assistance for the forestry sector, the Conservatives demonstrated that they have no intention of helping the workers of that industry, like those in Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, and in my region, which has been going through a major crisis for several years now. Will the government respect the decision of this House and implement emergency measures for the forestry industry and its workers, as called for by the majority of parliamentarians in this House?
The minister cited the Canada-Quebec work team established in spring, said results were praised by the forestry industry across Quebec, and promised announcements in coming weeks.
The minister references a Canada-Quebec task force and vaguely promises announcements in coming weeks but does not address whether the government will respect the parliamentary vote or implement emergency measures.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre gouvernement est très fier de ce qu'il a fait pour soutenir l'industrie forestière partout au pays. Nous avons mis de l'avant, il y a peu de temps, le travail d'une équipe de travail Canada-Québec. On se rappellera que le comité mis en place au printemps dernier a eu de très bons résultats, qui ont été salués partout au Québec par l'ensemble de l'industrie forestière. Dans les prochaines semaines, nous annoncerons le fruit du travail de ce comité. Nous allons encore une fois tenir nos promesses.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our government is very proud of what it has done to support the forestry industry throughout Canada. We recently put together a Canada-Quebec task force. I would remind the House that the committee, formed last spring, has achieved some excellent results, which have been commended by the forestry industry throughout Quebec. In the coming weeks, we will announce what has come out of the committee's work. We will continue to keep our promises.
Will the government quickly implement measures for private woodlot owners, similar to automotive sector aid, as supported by the majority parliamentary vote on the Bloc motion?
The question specifically asks about aid for private woodlot owners concentrated in Bas-Saint-Laurent and Rive-Sud, analogous to automotive sector support, and invokes the majority parliamentary vote, giving it reasonable specificity.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Bloc québécois et une majorité de parlementaires réclament un plan d'aide pour l'industrie forestière similaire à l'aide consentie au secteur automobile concentré en Ontario. Nous proposons, entre autres, de l'aide pour les propriétaires de boisés privés, dont une bonne partie est concentrée dans le Bas-Saint-Laurent et sur la Rive-Sud. Une majorité de parlementaires a appuyé la motion du Bloc pour les propriétaires de boisés privés. Le gouvernement compte-t-il faire adopter ces mesures le plus rapidement possible?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois and a majority of parliamentarians are calling for an assistance plan for the forest industry similar to the funding provided to the auto sector, which is concentrated in Ontario. For example, we are proposing assistance for private woodlot owners, many of whom are concentrated in the Lower St. Lawrence and south shore regions. A majority of parliamentarians supported the Bloc Québécois motion for private woodlot owners. Does the government plan to adopt those measures as quickly as possible?
The minister stated the government invested $30 million with the Quebec government in private forestry for silviculture and forest management following the spring committee's work, and committed to continuing that collaboration.
The minister cites a specific $30-million investment in private forestry for silviculture and forest management in Quebec jointly with the provincial government, which is partially responsive, though he does not address the specific ask about adopting measures quickly.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai eu le plaisir de rencontrer les représentants de la forêt privée au Québec à plusieurs reprises. À la suite du travail du comité au printemps dernier, nous avons investi, avec le gouvernement du Québec, 30 millions de dollars dans la forêt privée du Québec pour la sylviculture et l'aménagement forestier. Nous allons continuer de travailler avec lui. Tout le monde connaît très bien la tactique voulant qu'on gagne des votes sur le dos des travailleurs qui vivent malheureusement la crise forestière. Nous allons continuer de travailler pour eux et de les représenter.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of Quebec's private woodlots on many occasions. As a result of the committee's work last spring, we and the Government of Quebec have invested $30 million in Quebec's private woodlots for silviculture and forest resources management. We will continue to work with that government. Everyone is familiar with the tactic of trying to win votes on the backs of workers who are unfortunately affected by the forestry crisis. We will continue to work for them and represent them.
Why can the minister not provide an answer with even a shred of credibility on the detainee issue, given that his predecessor was demoted over it?
The question is largely rhetorical — focused on the minister's credibility and incompetence — without citing specific documents or making a precise answerable ask beyond demanding a credible answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the incompetence of the government is stunning. The issue of detainees brought down the last minister of defence. Now we are supposed to believe that, after watching his colleague be demoted, the new minister did not bother to be briefed on something as serious as allegations of torture. When will the minister come up with an answer that has even a shred of credibility?
The minister cited the improved transfer agreement, 175 prison visits, investment in Afghanistan's justice system and policing, and a program to train female Afghan prison guards, arguing the government acted decisively two and a half years ago.
The minister cites the improved transfer agreement, 175 prison visits, $132-million justice investment, and female Afghan prison guard training, providing some factual context, but does not address the specific question about ministerial briefings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike the member opposite and her government, our government acted decisively. We improved a transfer agreement that would ensure visits. In fact, as recently as today I understand there have been 175 visits to Afghan prisons with respect to ensuring that conditions are proper. We have invested in its justice system, in policing, in correction facilities. In fact, we met last night to talk about Afghanistan and there is now a program to train female Afghan prison guards. These are the steps that we took two and a half years ago to improve the human rights situation in that country, something her government failed to do abysmally.
Who received Mr. Colvin's reports, what was in those reports, and when did the minister first hear about them?
The question asks three specific and answerable questions: who received Colvin's reports, what was in them, and when the minister first learned of them — making it one of the sharper questions in this session.
Source text
Another avoidance, Mr. Speaker. After the previous defence minister lost his job over this issue, surely someone would have ensured that the current minister was well briefed so he did not follow the same path. Therefore, why does the minister keep avoiding the question? Who got Mr. Colvin's reports, what was in those reports and when did the minister first hear about them? Those are clear questions.
The minister said the government received thousands of documents and acted decisively, investing over $132 million in Afghanistan's justice system, but did not answer any of the three specific questions.
The minister references 'thousands of documents' and lists actions taken but does not answer who received Colvin's reports, what was in them, or when the minister first heard about them.
Source text
And clear answers, Mr. Speaker. We received thousands of documents with respect to many files and, as a result, we acted. We took decisive action to improve the situation in Afghanistan. We have plused up our ability to go and visit these detention facilities. We have improved our ability to work with police, to mentor corrections officers. We have invested over $132 million in improving the justice system of the country. These are things that her government failed to do. We can be very proud of the work of CIDA, the Department of Foreign Affairs and particularly the hard work of the men and women of the Canadian Forces.
Is it credible that a report by a Canadian diplomat containing such explosive revelations about Afghan detainee treatment was never brought to the minister's attention?
The question challenges the credibility of the minister's claim not to have seen Colvin's reports, given the seriousness of the revelations, and implicitly asks whether it is plausible that such a report was not brought to the minister's attention.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le ministre de la Défense nationale vient de dire qu'il n'était pas au courant des rapports de Richard Colvin sur le traitement douteux des détenus afghans. Il dit que ces rapports provenaient d'une personne parmi des milliers d'autres. Franchement! Est-il crédible qu'un rapport présenté par un diplomate canadien et comportant des révélations si fracassantes n'ait pas été porté à l'attention de ce ministre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence just said that he was not aware of Richard Colvin's reports on the questionable treatment of the Afghan detainees. He said that these reports were among thousands of others. Honestly. Would he have us believe that a report presented by a Canadian diplomat and containing such dramatic revelations was not brought to the minister's attention?
Oh, oh!
The minister claimed the member has no idea what is in the reports and repeated that the government receives thousands of documents on detainee treatment and acts responsibly.
The minister deflects by asserting the member does not know what is in the reports and repeats the boilerplate about receiving thousands of documents and acting responsibly, without addressing the plausibility challenge.
Source text
One thing we know for sure, Mr. Speaker, that member has no idea what is in any of those reports. On the contrary, we receive these reports, we act responsibly as a result—
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we receive thousands of documents with respect to the treatment of detainees. We act responsibly. We improve conditions within prisons. We invest in its justice system. We continue to train prison officials, including women prison guards in the country. These are the important actions that began over two and a half years ago. These are the actions that have improved the human rights situation in Afghanistan. Those members continue to just stir the pot, and try to cast aspersions. There is nothing there.
When did the Colvin reports reach the minister, what did they contain, and why does the minister deny having seen them when the chief of defence staff received them?
The question presses on three specific points — when the reports reached the minister, their contents, and whether the minister denies having seen them — and adds a specific factual claim that General Hillier attended cabinet meetings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister just said he did not receive the reports. It was one report among thousands of others. If he does not know what is in the report, how is the opposition supposed to know? That is the question. When did those reports get to that minister, what is in those reports and why is the minister denying ever having seen them? The chief of defence staff knew what was in the report. General Hillier would have attended cabinet meetings. When did the Conservatives know, what—
The minister stated the government never denied receiving information or that there were unproven allegations, cited no proven abuse by Canadian Forces, and said General Hillier did not say what he was quoted as saying.
The minister denies denying receipt of information, repeats the 'decisive action' boilerplate, and addresses the Hillier reference only by saying he spoke to Hillier that morning and that a quote attributed to Hillier was inaccurate — without answering when he saw the reports.
Source text
The old saying goes, Mr. Speaker, more sound, more fury, no substance. We have never denied that there were unproven allegations with respect to detainees. We never denied that we had received information. That is why we acted. That is why, importantly, Canadians should understand that we acted decisively, improving the justice system. It is very important that the member and all members understand there has never been a proven allegation of abuse by Canadian Forces personnel in Afghanistan, not one. I spoke to General Hillier this morning. I commend the book for the member's reading. What General Hillier has been quoted as saying he did not say.
Why have attorneys general been so supportive of the truth in sentencing bill, Bill C-25?
This is a government-backbench softball: the question praises the government's bill, attacks Liberal senators, and asks why attorneys general support the bill — a setup designed to allow the minister to score political points.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday a number of Liberals voted in favour of gutting Bill C-25. They voted in favour of giving criminals double credit for time served in pre-sentencing custody. Liberals are defying the wishes of attorneys general from across the country. They are defying the wishes of premiers of all political stripes. Liberal senators are defying the wishes of the elected representatives of the House, who voted unanimously to pass Bill C-25. My question is for the Minister of Justice. Why have attorneys general been so supportive of this truth in sentencing bill?
The minister stated that since 2006, provincial attorneys general across the country have wanted to eliminate double credit for time served and want truth in sentencing, and criticized Liberal senators for defying the provinces and the House.
The minister provides substantive context — that provincial attorneys general since 2006 have wanted to eliminate double credit for time served — and attacks Liberal senators specifically, making it a reasonably informative answer for a setup question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question. It is absolutely true that since 2006, provincial attorneys general right across the country have wanted to get rid of the practice of giving double credit for time served. They want the same thing that we want, which is truth in sentencing. It is absolutely shameful what is taking place among Liberal senators who disrespect and defy the wishes of the provinces and the House of Commons. This week a Liberal MP in the House of Commons said that the Liberals in the House of Commons were spooked into supporting the bill. I have some advice for them. They should go spook their friends in the Senate and get this bill passed.
Given the minister's shifting explanations about Richard Colvin's reports on Afghan prisoner abuse, will he acknowledge he should have paid attention to those reports and apologize for being delinquent in his duties?
The question usefully summarizes the minister's evolving positions (baseless allegations → unaware of reports → receives thousands of reports) and asks a direct accountability question about whether the minister should apologize for delinquency.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the defence minister was first asked about Afghan prisoner abuse, he said that the allegations were baseless. Then when we learned that Richard Colvin had widely distributed reports on the matter, he said that he was not aware of them. Now that it is clear that everyone from the chief of defence staff right on down received the reports, the minister says that he receives thousands of reports and he cannot be expected to keep up. I am sorry, but that is just unacceptable. Torture is not something to be taken lightly. Will the minister recognize that he should have paid attention to these reports and apologize for being delinquent in his duties?
The minister invoked the importance of evidence and proof, cited investments in Afghan prisons, police, corrections officers, and the justice system, and asked the member to support the government's work over the last two and a half years.
The minister appeals to the member's legal background regarding proof, repeats the 'decisive action' boilerplate about investments in Afghanistan, and does not acknowledge the evolving positions or address the apology request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member is a barrister. He should also know that evidence and proof of evidence in a forum is also an important factor when discussing important issues such as abuse. What we have done, importantly, is to understand that we acted decisively. We have improved upon an inadequate transfer arrangement. We have invested in the prisons where Afghan terrorist detainees were kept. We have invested in training correctional officers. We have invested in police officers. We have invested heavily in the justice system and the human rights of Afghanistan. I would hope the hon. member would support what we have done in the last two and a half years.
Will the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence commit to not obstructing the appearance of Mr. Colvin and other senior officials before the special committee on Afghanistan?
The question is highly specific: it identifies a committee vote happening that same day on a motion by the member for Ottawa Centre to call Mr. Colvin and senior officials, and asks for a direct commitment not to obstruct that process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that those allegations were baseless. Now we want to get to the truth. If the minister is truly interested in getting to the bottom of this, my question for him is very simple. Today, right after question period, the special committee on Afghanistan will vote on a motion submitted by my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, to have Mr. Colvin and all relevant senior officials appear before the committee. I am asking a direct question and I want a direct answer. Will the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence commit to not putting any obstacles and allow Mr. Colvin and other witnesses to fully discuss what they know?
The minister said the committee will be allowed to do its work, then attacked the member's voting record against veterans' education assistance, military disability awards, and Canadian Forces pay increases.
The minister says the committee will be allowed to do its work but immediately pivots to attacking the member's voting record on military funding measures, never directly committing to non-interference with witnesses.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we will let the committee do its work, of course. The member says that he stands up for the Canadian Forces and he questions what we are doing. What I really wish is the member could explain why he voted against children of deceased veterans education assistance, grants for military disability awards and allowances, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, money for funding for Canadian mission in Afghanistan, money to increase pay and allowances for Canadian Forces personnel. He spins a good story. He pedals hard, but he is getting further and further from the truth. I wish, when he said he stood for Canadian Forces, that he would stand in the House and vote for them.
What will the government concretely do to protect the pensions of Nortel's 17,000 retirees while assets are being liquidated and the former CEO seeks $12 million from the company?
The question cites the 17,000 retirees affected, the asset liquidation underway, and the former CEO's $12-million claim, and asks concretely what the government will do to protect pensions — a reasonably specific ask with factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les déboires de Nortel, qui s'est placé sous la protection des tribunaux au début de l'année, inquiètent les 17 000 retraités. Alors qu'on liquide les actifs les plus attrayants de Nortel et que l'ex-chef de la direction réclame devant les tribunaux plus de 12 millions de dollars à l'entreprise, les retraités, aujourd'hui présents sur la Colline, se demandent ce qu'il adviendra de leur pension. Des pensionnés de plusieurs entreprises chancelantes sont aujourd'hui dans la même situation. Que compte faire concrètement le gouvernement pour protéger les pensions de ces travailleurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the trials and tribulations of Nortel, which was placed under court protection at the beginning of the year, are worrisome to the 117,000 retirees. While Nortel's most attractive assets are being liquidated and the former CEO is submitting a claim in court for over $12 million from the company, the retirees here on the Hill today are wondering what will become of their pensions. Pensioners from a number of troubled companies are in the same boat today. What concrete action does the government intend to take to protect the pensions of these workers?
The minister noted the pension is registered with the province of Ontario, but stated the government is doubling solvency payment timeframes for federally regulated plans and conducting cross-Canada consultations on the federal pension framework.
The minister clarifies jurisdiction (Ontario-registered pension), mentions doubling solvency payment timeframes for federally regulated plans, and cites cross-Canada consultations on the federal pension framework — partially responsive but avoids the specific Nortel situation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je l'ai dit, c'est une compétence provinciale. Cette pension est enregistrée dans la province de l'Ontario. We are working within our own level of competency and within our own jurisdiction to double the time required for solvency payments of federally regulated plans. We have also done cross-Canada consultations. We are looking at the federal pension framework because that is in our realm of responsibility. That is certainly our commitment to the people of Canada.
Why does the government refuse to adopt the Bloc's proposal for trusteeship of federally regulated pension plans to protect private-sector pensioners?
The question proposes a specific Bloc measure — trusteeship of federally regulated pension plans to prevent liquidation during market lows — and asks why the government refuses to protect private-sector pensioners, giving it some concrete policy content.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Bloc québécois a mis de l'avant plusieurs propositions responsables pour protéger les pensionnés du secteur privé. Nous proposons notamment la prise en tutelle des régimes de pensions de juridiction fédérale pour éviter que ces fonds ne soient liquidés pendant que les marchés sont au plus bas. Les solutions existent. Tout ce qui manque, c'est une volonté politique d'aider ces retraités. Pourquoi le gouvernement refuse-t-il de protéger les pensionnés du secteur privé?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has made several responsible proposals to protect pensioners in the private sector. We are proposing that the federal government take trusteeship over the pension plans in federal jurisdiction to prevent these funds from being liquidated while the markets are at their lowest. The solutions are there. The only thing lacking is the political will to help these retirees. Why is the government refusing to protect private sector pensioners?
The minister sarcastically questioned why the Bloc was asking the federal government to address a pension under provincial jurisdiction.
The minister offers only sarcastic deflection, mocking the Bloc for asking the federal government to address a pension under provincial jurisdiction, without engaging with the specific trusteeship proposal for federally regulated plans.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est très très curieux que le Bloc québécois demande qu'une pension, qui relève de la responsabilité de la juridiction provinciale, soit maintenant un problème, un défi fédéral. Quelle horreur!
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is rich coming from the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc is asking that pensions, which are a provincial responsibility, now become a federal jurisdiction. That is just terrible.
Why was the Prime Minister the only leader who did not attend the rally for former Nortel employees, and how can he say pensions are not his problem?
The question combines a partisan framing (Liberal leader solidarity rally) with a pointed factual claim (the Prime Minister was the only leader absent) and an accountability ask about the Prime Minister's position on pensions — but the ask is compound and partially rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that minister is clearly out of touch with the reality of Canadians who are suffering today. Earlier today the leader of the Liberal Party stood on the front lawn of Parliament Hill in solidarity with the former employees of Nortel. This group of Canadians worked for years and contributed to their pensions, but now when they need them the most, their pension and benefit packages are being stripped away. Why was the Prime Minister the only leader who chose not to show up at the rally today and how could he possibly say that pensions are not his problem?
The minister said the Prime Minister was fulfilling a speaking engagement with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce that the Liberal leader had cancelled, and reiterated that the Nortel pension is registered with Ontario, which is why protesters were at Queen's Park the previous week.
The minister explains the Prime Minister was fulfilling a Chamber of Commerce engagement that the Liberal leader had cancelled, and reiterates jurisdiction and past action, partially addressing why the PM was absent but not the core question about pension protection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was on his way to Toronto to fulfill a speaking engagement that the hon. Leader of the Opposition cancelled with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. He is talking about the economy. He is talking about jobs. He is talking about how economic stimulus is important for the future of our country. Let me say again to the hon. member that we take these matters seriously in our own level of competency and jurisdiction. We have acted and we will act. However, that particular pension was registered with the province of Ontario. It has carriage of this file, which is why those protesters were at Queen's Park the week before.
Why will the Conservatives not act to protect 409 Nortel employees on long-term disability who may lose up to 85% of their benefits and most of their drug cost funding?
Cites a specific number (409 employees) and a concrete harm (loss of up to 85% of benefits and drug funding), with a named individual as illustration, though the ask — 'fight for disabled Canadians' — is vague rather than demanding a specific government action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is about leadership. It is about the role of the federal government, which is to show leadership and to show that it cares. Clearly it is something that the minister does not do. There are 409 Nortel employees who are on long term disability. Without government action, these individuals may lose as much as 85% of their benefits, as well as most of their funding for drug costs. Let me tell the House about Arlene. She had a workplace injury. She began receiving long term disability payments. Now she knows that she will lose the great bulk of her benefits and her pension by the time she reaches the age of 65. Why is it that the Conservatives will not stand up and fight for disabled Canadians?
Clement says the government has already made changes to federally regulated pension plans and will bring proposals to a December federal-provincial finance ministers' conference, while acknowledging broader losses from Nortel's mismanagement.
Clement mentions pension reform steps and a December federal-provincial conference but does not address the 409 Nortel long-term disability employees or the specific benefit losses raised, pivoting instead to broader Nortel shareholder losses.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is exactly the opposite. When it comes to pension reform, again in federally regulated plans, we have already made some changes. We have drafted some ideas for the federal-provincial conference that the finance minister will be conducting in December. We understand that this is an issue that is beyond the Nortel pensioners. It involves Canadians who perhaps invested in Nortel shares 10 years ago and saw all of those savings disappear because of the mismanagement in that particular company. We understand that, but at the same time we respect the provincial jurisdiction just as we have to act in the federal jurisdiction.
Why has the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development told Attawapiskat children a new school is not a priority while funnelling money to private schools in Tory ridings, when the Attawapiskat project has been shovel ready for nine years?
Angus contrasts a specific ministerial statement (school not a priority) with concrete allegations of funding to private schools in Tory ridings and nine years of shovel-ready status for Attawapiskat, making a clear accountability demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development told the children of Attawapiskat to their faces that building them a school was not a priority. However, his government has made a priority of funnelling money to two private schools in Tory ridings. There are pork-barrel cheques for private school recreation and meanwhile, kids in Attawapiskat are in makeshift portables on one of the most toxic sites in Canada. They do not even have a lousy set of playground swings. They have been shovel ready for nine years. When will the minister tell these children that they are a priority for the Government of Canada?
Strahl accuses Angus of misrepresenting facts, notes 18 schools announced including in NDP ridings, and lists votes Angus cast against housing, training, and matrimonial real property rights measures.
Strahl attacks Angus's voting record on housing, training, and matrimonial real property rights rather than addressing whether Attawapiskat school is now a priority or explaining the private-school funding contrast.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for the children in Attawapiskat who have that member of Parliament who continues to misrepresent the facts day after day in the House of Commons. We announced this summer 18 schools in ridings, many of them in New Democrat ridings. When we put forward proposals to help children, the member votes against them. He votes against housing allocations. He votes against training and skills development. He votes against matrimonial real property rights that would finally bring property rights to aboriginal women on reserve, so they could have the rights of every other woman in Canada. He votes against that too.
Will the government extend the March 31, 2011 infrastructure stimulus deadline given that much of the promised money has not reached Atlantic Canada communities and a full construction season has been missed?
Leslie cites Atlantic Canada mayors' concerns about unflowed stimulus money and the missed construction season, and poses a direct binary question about extending the March 31, 2011 deadline, though the framing includes partisan rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, had the government followed our suggestion on infrastructure stimulus through the gas tax, the money would have flowed almost instantly, but of course, that would have meant no big cheque photo ops. Instead, as the mayors in Atlantic Canada recently pointed out, much of the promised stimulus money still has not made it to the communities that need it. We have missed an entire construction season and the clock is ticking. Will the government extend the March 31, 2011 deadline, or will local communities be left paying the price for the government's mismanagement?
Clement says 85 recreational infrastructure projects were allocated in opposition ridings in Atlantic Canada, framing this as evidence the government is focused on jobs and recovery for all Canadians.
Clement does not address the deadline extension question at all, instead citing 85 recreational infrastructure projects in opposition ridings as evidence of fairness, which is tangential to whether the deadline will be extended.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously that is a serious question, but I want to put before the House that when it comes to recreational infrastructure, for example in Atlantic Canada, 85 projects were allocated in opposition ridings. That is our record. Why are we doing that? Because it is important for all Canadians, regardless of where they live, to have more jobs, more opportunity, an opportunity to get away from the recession and toward the recovery. That is what we are focused on. Why are those members not focused on the same thing?
What will the government do to deliver justice to victims of white-collar criminals, given that Liberal senators are blocking sentencing legislation and the Bloc votes against mandatory minimums?
This is a government-backbench softball that attacks opposition parties and the Senate before asking a vague open-ended question about what the government will do for victims of white-collar crime, with no specific factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au lieu de faire comme les sénateurs libéraux qui bloquent et éviscèrent notre projet de loi pour que les criminels purgent leur peine, ou comme les bloquistes qui votent contre les sentences minimales pour mettre un terme à l'exploitation des enfants, par pure idéologie, les partis d'opposition devraient faire comme nous, les conservateurs, et se soucier des victimes d'actes criminels et envoyer les criminels derrière les barreaux, au lieu de les envoyer se mettre les deux pieds sur la bavette du poêle, avec la grosse caisse de bière et la télévision. Est-ce que le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux peut nous dire ce que nous, nous allons faire, pour rendre justice aux victimes des criminels à cravate?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, rather than acting like the Liberal senators, who are blocking and gutting our bill to ensure that criminals serve their sentences, or the Bloc members, who for purely ideological reasons vote against minimum sentences that would end the exploitation of children, the opposition parties should follow our example by looking after the victims of crime and putting criminals behind bars instead of sending them home to put their feet up cosily in front of the TV with a case of beer. Can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services tell us what we are going to do to bring justice to victims of white-collar crime?
Paradis announces a bill introducing mandatory minimum two-year sentences for fraud of $1 million or more, aggravating circumstances, prohibition orders, and an upcoming reform of the one-sixth sentence release rule.
Paradis provides substantive information: a minimum two-year sentence for fraud over $1 million, aggravating circumstances provisions, prohibition orders, and an upcoming reform to the one-sixth sentence release rule, which is real legislative content.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'opposition pourrait expliquer pourquoi elle offre seulement des demi-mesures aux victimes de crimes. Nous, nous allons nous occuper des victimes. Nous avons annoncé une bonne nouvelle hier: un projet de loi avec des sentences minimales de deux ans de prison pour une fraude de 1 million de dollars et plus, nonobstant le nombre de victimes. Il y aura des circonstances aggravantes, des ordonnances de prohibition. De plus, nous allons présenter incessamment une réforme concernant la libération au sixième de la peine, une réforme qui sera beaucoup plus complète que celle présentée par le Bloc. Nous écoutons les victimes, nous écoutons la population et nous, nous agissons.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the opposition could explain why it is only offering half measures to victims of crime. We will be looking after the victims of crime. We announced some good news yesterday: a bill with minimum sentences of two years imprisonment for fraud in excess of $1 million no matter the number of victims. It will include aggravating factors and prohibition orders. We will introduce reforms with respect to release after serving one-sixth of a sentence, reforms that will be much more comprehensive than those presented by the Bloc. We listen to the victims, we listen to the people and we take action.
When will Canadian pregnant women receive current, accurate, and reliable information about H1N1 vaccination, given that the government's information is months out of date compared to a joint CDC and American Society for Reproductive Medicine statement issued yesterday?
Minna cites a specific joint statement from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control issued the previous day and contrasts it with the government's months-out-of-date information, making a precise and timely accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, pregnant women with H1N1 influenza have higher rates of hospitalization and death than does the general population. Yesterday, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control issued a joint statement giving detailed information regarding vaccinations for U.S. women. The Conservative government's information for pregnant women is now months out of date. When are Canadian women going to get current accurate and reliable information?
Aglukkaq states that Canada's chief medical officers and Chief Public Health Officer have advised that an unadjuvanted vaccine is safe for pregnant women, and that she has full confidence in that expert advice.
Aglukkaq affirms that the Chief Public Health Officer has advised pregnant women that an unadjuvanted vaccine is safe but does not address whether Canadian guidance is months out of date or explain what current accurate information is being provided.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in Canada, the chief medical officers and the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada have advised women in Canada who are pregnant that an unadjuvanted vaccine is safe. I have every confidence in the expert advice that I am receiving from the Chief Public Health Officer of this country, and the opposition members should as well.
When will the Conservative government stop using public funds for partisan purposes — including taxpayer-funded partisan advertising, Conservative-logo cheques, and a contract involving Senator Housakos — as the Liberals did with the sponsorship program?
Freeman references three specific allegations — partisan advertising paid by taxpayers, oversized Conservative-logo cheques, and a contract linked to Senator Housakos — but frames them in a broad rhetorical comparison to the Liberal sponsorship scandal, diluting the accountability focus.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en matière d'éthique, libéraux et conservateurs, c'est du pareil au même. Comme les libéraux et leur programme de commandites, les conservateurs n'hésitent pas à utiliser les fonds publics pour promouvoir leurs intérêts partisans. En faisant payer par les contribuables leurs publicités partisanes, en multipliant les remises de faux chèques au logo du Parti conservateur, en octroyant un contrat à une firme dont faisait partie le sénateur Housakos, les conservateurs se comportent comme si l'État leur appartenait. Quand ce gouvernement conservateur cessera-t-il, comme les libéraux, de tenter d'acheter les électeurs avec leur propre argent?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to ethics, the Liberals and the Conservatives are cut from the same cloth. Like the Liberals with their sponsorship program, the Conservatives are quick to use public money to promote their partisan interests. By making taxpayers foot the bill for their partisan advertising, handing out a slew of dummy cheques with the Conservative Party logo and awarding a contract to a firm that employed Senator Housakos, the Conservatives are behaving as though the government belonged to them. When will this Conservative government stop trying to buy voters with their own money, like the Liberals before them?
Paradis defends the Economic Action Plan as economic stimulus running through March 31, 2011, and cites an infrastructure announcement in the opposition riding of Brome—Missisquoi as evidence the government acts for all Canadians.
Paradis does not address partisan advertising, the Conservative-logo cheques, or the Housakos contract, instead defending the Economic Action Plan and citing an infrastructure announcement in an opposition riding.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on traverse une crise économique sans précédent. On s'est engagés à stimuler l'économie, et c'est ce qu'on fait. On a un Plan d'action économique qui est mis en vigueur pour les deux prochaines années, et qui se termine le 31 mars 2011. C'est une bonne nouvelle. Les municipalités et les paliers de gouvernements provinciaux sont tous heureux de cela. J'étais encore à Bromont dernièrement, dans le comté de Brome—Missisquoi, une circonscription de l'opposition, pour annoncer un projet majeur en matière d'infrastructure du savoir. Savez-vous quoi? Si on poussait la logique du représentant de cette circonscription jusqu'au bout, il n'y aurait jamais eu d'annonce parce qu'ils ont voté contre ces investissements.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are going through an unprecedented economic crisis. We made a commitment to stimulate the economy, and that is what we are doing. We have an economic action plan that will be in effect for the next two years, until March 31, 2011. That is good news. The municipalities and the provincial governments are all happy about that. I was in Bromont again recently, in the riding of Brome—Missisquoi, an opposition riding, to announce a major knowledge infrastructure project. Do you know what? If we took the logic of the member for that riding to the extreme, there never would have been any announcement, because they voted against these investments.