Session overview
- Afghan detainee torture allegations dominated Question Period, with Richard Colvin's affidavit â describing conditions as 'serious, imminent and alarming' and reporting 'firsthand reports of torture' â forming the basis of sustained opposition questioning; the government maintained that no proven allegation of abuse had ever been established and that it had improved the transfer arrangement two and a half years prior.
- A reported 2007 Privy Council Office directive ordering Canadian diplomats to withhold information on Afghan detainee treatment from their reports â with public servants allegedly threatened with sanctions for non-compliance â drew separate questions from Liberal and NDP members; the government denied any cover-up and stated DFAIT had received no complaints since the 2007 strengthened arrangement.
- The Copenhagen climate summit was a recurring theme, with Bloc and NDP members pressing the government to release a regulatory framework with absolute greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets; the government cited its 20% reduction target by 2020 and its intent to coordinate with the Obama administration on a North American approach.
- The sale of nuclear materials and CANDU reactor technology to India was questioned by NDP and Bloc members citing India's 1974 diversion of Canadian civilian nuclear technology to build a bomb and its continued refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; the government defended the agreement as reflecting India's substantial non-proliferation and disarmament commitments and its status as a responsible democracy.
- Liberal members challenged the allocation of the Community Adjustment Fund in Quebec, alleging that ridings holding only 15% of Quebec constituencies but represented by Conservative members received 54% of the funding; the government said the fund served all regions of Quebec and pointed to over $230 million available for forestry sectors.
- A government parliamentary secretary publicly apologized for a ten percenter mailed to the riding of the member for Yukon that contained incorrect information about his voting record, specifically misrepresenting his votes on the long gun registry.
The Minister of Health made a concrete, specific announcement â that the G7 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting would be hosted in Iqaluit, Nunavut in February â which is a verifiable commitment and new public information.
Cites Colvin's affidavit directly, quotes specific language ('serious, imminent and alarming'), references the 'action memorandum' as a document, and asks a pointed question about the 18-month delay â though the question was cut off before completion.
When asked whether the undisclosed investigation into Senator Housakos revealed a covert cross-financing network between the ADQ and the Conservatives and a system of federal patronage appointments in exchange for funds received, Baird responded only by calling the member 'the leader of the Liberal rat pack' and accusing him of 'character assassination' and 'mean-spirited personal mudslinging,' without addressing any element of the question.
Outstanding questions
- Ujjal Dosanjh asked who in the government issued the 2007 order to Canadian diplomats to withhold information in their reports about the torture of Afghan detainees and to threaten public servants with sanctions for non-compliance â the government denied the allegations without identifying or refuting the source of the directive.
- Bob Rae asked repeatedly why it took the government 18 months to act on Richard Colvin's 'action memorandum' documenting 'serious, imminent and alarming' conditions and firsthand evidence of torture â the government claimed it had acted but never explained the specific 18-month timeline.
- Marcel Proulx asked whether the undisclosed pre-appointment investigation into Senator Housakos revealed a covert cross-financing network between the ADQ and the Conservatives and whether federal appointments were made as rewards for funds received â the government refused to address the substance of the question.
- Bonnie Crombie asked why the government was blocking an audit by the Auditor General of the Toronto Port Authority when the Port Authority itself had requested one â the government described existing audit mechanisms without explaining its refusal to grant the specific request.
- Paule Brunelle asked whether the government would make India's signature of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty a condition for the sale of CANDU reactors â the government declined to impose that condition and offered no alternative safeguard mechanism beyond citing India's 'voluntary moratorium' on nuclear testing and its non-proliferation commitments to the nuclear suppliers group.
Rae cited Colvin's affidavit describing conditions as 'serious, imminent and alarming' and his 'action memorandum,' asking why the government took 18 months to respond.
Cites Colvin's affidavit directly, quotes specific language ('serious, imminent and alarming'), references the 'action memorandum' as a document, and asks a pointed question about the 18-month delay â though the question was cut off before completion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the question I have is for the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs for the Americas. When Richard Colvin, who is a foreign service officer of great distinction, went to Kandahar in April of 2006, he said that he found the condition of Afghan detainees, and I quote from his affidavit, to be âserious, imminent and alarmingâ, as a result of which he wrote what he described as an âaction memorandumâ to his department, as well as to other departments. I would like to ask the minister, given the fact it was an action memorandum, why did it take the government 18 monthsâ
MacKay said the government actioned the file two and a half years ago, listing improvements to visitation, prison conditions, and the transfer arrangement inherited from the previous government.
MacKay claims action was taken 'two and a half years ago' and lists general improvements (visitation, investment, transfer arrangement) but does not address the specific 18-month gap or the 'action memorandum' Rae referenced.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in fact, two and a half years ago, we did action this particular file. We received concerns about conditions in Afghan prisons. As a result, we instituted a more robust system of visitation. We instituted investments to improve those conditions. We instituted a more rigorous process of assisting Afghans with respect to human rights. We inherited an inadequate transfer arrangement that had been left in place by the previous government. We improved upon that two and a half years ago. We continue to work both with local officials and members in all departments to improve things.
Rae quoted Colvin's firsthand reports of torture and asked how the minister could explain 18 months of inaction in the face of this evidence from a Canadian public official.
Quotes Colvin's affidavit directly ('I also obtained firsthand reports of torture and personally saw evidence of injuries related to torture suffered by detainees') and presses specifically on the 18-month period of inaction with firsthand evidence of torture.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Colvin went on in his affidavit to say, âI also obtained firsthand reports of torture and personally saw evidence of injuries related to torture suffered by detaineesâ. No matter how much the Minister of National Defence might huff and puff, the simple fact of the matter is that there was an 18-month period, not a month, not 6 weeks, not 8 weeks, but 18 months in which the government had information and did nothing and performed no action whatsoever. How can he explain 18 months of inaction dealing with something as serious as firsthand evidence of torture from a Canadian public official?
MacKay attacked Rae rhetorically, then repeated that the government acted on recommendations from officials, improved visitations, invested in the prison system, and improved the transfer arrangement.
MacKay opens with a personal attack on Rae before repeating the same general list of improvements from Exchange 1, still not addressing the specific 18-month timeline or the firsthand torture evidence cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think we all know here in the House who is doing the huffing and puffing and hyperventilating and pontificating. It is the member opposite. What I have already said and will repeat is that we acted upon recommendations that were coming from officials within the department from numerous sources. We improved upon regular visitations to see that conditions were in fact improving. We invested in the prison system and infrastructure itself. We improved upon the transfer arrangement. We continue to make those investments. We are there to help the Afghan people do more for themselves and improve the human rights in Afghanistan.
Rae asked in French why it took 18 months â a full year and a half â for the Canadian government to respond to the recommendations of its own employee, Mr. Colvin.
Repeats the core accountability ask cleanly â why did it take 18 months for the government to respond to Colvin's recommendations â framed as a simple, direct question, though it is repetitive of prior exchanges.
Source text
Mais la question demeure, monsieur le PrĂ©sident. La rĂ©alitĂ©, c'est que le gouvernement canadien a pris 18 mois pour changer les conditions et pour faire face au tĂ©moignage de M. Colvin qui est trĂšs clair au sujet de la torture. Est-ce que le ministre peut nous expliquer â c'est trĂšs simple, c'est une question trĂšs simple â pourquoi cela a pris 18 mois, soit un an et demi, pour que le gouvernement canadien rĂ©ponde aux recommandations de son propre employĂ©, M. Colvin?
Hansard translation: But the question remains, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that the Government of Canada took 18 months to change the conditions and respond to Mr. Colvin's affidavit, which is very clear on the subject of torture. Can the minister explainâthis is a very simple questionâwhy it took 18 months, a year and a half, for the Government of Canada to respond to the recommendations made by its own employee, Mr. Colvin?
You're late.
MacKay only managed to say the government actioned the file where the previous government had failed before being interrupted by Ralph Goodale.
MacKay began to answer but was interrupted almost immediately, producing no substantive response; the exchange is effectively incomplete.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, we actioned this file where the previous government had failed. In fact, it was notâ
Rae interjected with 'Eighteen months' as a rhetorical challenge rather than posing a formal question.
Rae's interjection ('Eighteen months') is a rhetorical prompt rather than a formal question, offering no new specificity or ask.
Source text
Eighteen months.
MacKay claimed the previous government had no transfer arrangement until one month before leaving office, and that his government improved visitation, invested in the prison system, and trained officials.
MacKay, after insulting opposition members ('bobble-heads and Muppets'), adds the specific point that the previous government had no transfer arrangement until one month before leaving office, which is a partially relevant factual claim, but still does not address the 18-month gap directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the bobble-heads and the Muppets would just let me answer the question, the reality is that the previous government did not even have a transfer arrangement in place until one month before it left office. We improved upon the transfer arrangement, invested significantly in the prison system, in training officials, in having regular and rigorous visits. That is an improvement upon the record ofâ
Dosanjh reported that Canadian diplomats were ordered in 2007 to withhold information about torture of Afghan detainees and threatened with sanctions, and asked who in the government issued that order.
Introduces a specific new allegation â that Canadian diplomats were ordered in 2007 to withhold information about torture and threatened with sanctions â and asks who issued that order, making it a factually grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is being reported that in 2007, Canadian diplomats were ordered to hold back information in their reports to Ottawa about the torture of Afghan detainees in the hands of Afghan authorities, and that the public servants were threatened with sanctions if they did not comply with that order. Who in the government issued that order? Why is the government creating an un-Canadian culture of secrecy and cover-up about an issue as abhorrent as torture?
Kent called the question outrageous, noted the previous government had no detainee policy, and said the Department of Foreign Affairs had received no complaints regarding transferred prisoners since the 2007 strengthened agreement.
Kent calls the question 'outrageous,' attacks the previous government's lack of detainee policy, and claims no complaints were received since the 2007 agreement, entirely ignoring the specific question about who issued the alleged order and the threatened sanctions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is an outrageous question. The previous government did not have any detainee policy. Since our government's 2007 strengthened agreement on the transfer of detainees, the Department of Foreign Affairs has received no complaints regarding the treatment of transferred prisoners.
Dosanjh asserted there was abundant evidence the government knew of torture allegations since May 2006, ordered diplomats not to write about it, threatened public servants, and had not been telling Canadians the truth, urging the government to come clean.
Dosanjh lists several categories of alleged evidence but does not pose a specific answerable question, instead calling on the government to 'level with Canadians,' making it more of a rhetorical indictment than a precise accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is abundant evidence that many in government knew about allegations of torture, dating back to May 2006. There is clear evidence that the government ordered diplomats not to put information in writing about the torture. There is evidence that public servants were threatened if they did not comply with this order. There is also evidence that the government has not been telling the truth about all of this to Canadians. It is time the government levelled with Canadians and told us the truth.
Kent stated only that 'the allegations are simply not true' and that 'there is no evidence,' offering no factual rebuttal.
Kent's two-sentence response â 'The allegations are simply not true. There is no evidence.' â is a pure denial with no factual engagement, constituting a near-total non-answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the allegations are simply not true. There is no evidence.
Duceppe noted that the American and Chinese presidents publicly called for a successful Copenhagen agreement with immediate effects, and asked whether Canada would stop trying to sabotage the summit.
Duceppe references the public declarations of the American and Chinese presidents about Copenhagen and contrasts them with Canada's posture, but the ask â will the government stop 'sabotaging' Copenhagen â is rhetorical and hyperbolic rather than specific.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les présidents chinois et américain ont déclaré publiquement vouloir faire du sommet de Copenhague un succÚs. Ils ont dit souhaiter en arriver à un accord sur les changements climatiques qui aurait un effet immédiat. Voilà du leadership. On ne peut pas en dire autant du gouvernement canadien qui, jour aprÚs jour, se trouve des excuses ridicules pour ne pas déposer son plan de lutte aux changements climatiques. à la suite de cette déclaration des présidents américain et chinois, est-ce que le gouvernement va laisser tomber son insistance à vouloir saboter à tout prix le sommet de Copenhague?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Chinese and American presidents have publicly stated that they want to make the Copenhagen summit a success. They have said that they want to reach an agreement on climate change that would have an immediate impact. That is leadership. The Canadian government cannot be said to be showing leadership when it is constantly coming up with ridiculous excuses for not tabling its plan to fight climate change. In light of the statement by the American and Chinese presidents, will the government stop trying to sabotage the Copenhagen summit at all costs?
Paradis said the Prime Minister is clear that Copenhagen will be a success, cited the government's bold reduction targets for 2020 and 2050, and noted Canada is working collaboratively with the Obama administration on a North American approach.
Paradis asserts the Prime Minister wants Copenhagen to succeed and references the government's targets and the North American approach with the Obama administration, but does not directly address the accusation of sabotage or explain Canada's specific position.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre est trÚs clair, le sommet de Copenhague sera une réussite. Il y aura des engagements à l'échelle internationale quand les principaux pays émetteurs s'engageront. Une chose est certaine, on a toujours été clairs, en plus d'avoir pris comme engagement des cibles audacieuses de réduction d'ici 2020 et 2050. On attend aussi parce qu'on va travailler en collaboration avec l'administration Obama pour une approche nord-américaine.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is very clear: the Copenhagen summit will be a success. There will be international commitments when the major emitting countries agree to sign on. One thing is certain: we have always been clear, in addition to committing to bold targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 2050. We are also waiting because we want to work with the Obama administration on a North American approach.
Duceppe asked whether the government would admit that it is delaying a regulatory framework with absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets solely to protect oil companies, at the expense of the environment and Quebec's economy.
Duceppe makes a pointed accusation â that the government is acting in the interest of oil companies at the expense of the environment and Quebec's economy â and asks the government to admit it, which is specific but framed as a leading rhetorical question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la raison pour laquelle le gouvernement repousse constamment le dĂ©pĂŽt d'un cadre rĂ©glementaire avec des cibles absolues de rĂ©duction des Ă©missions de gaz Ă effet de serre, c'est que ce plan aurait bien sĂ»r des rĂ©percussions Ă©conomiques sur les pĂ©troliĂšres. Le gouvernement va-t-il admettre qu'il agit uniquement dans l'intĂ©rĂȘt des pĂ©troliĂšres au dĂ©triment de l'environnement et de l'Ă©conomie du QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the reason the government is constantly putting off introducing a regulatory framework with absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets is that it would have an economic impact on the oil companies. Will the government admit that it is acting solely in the interests of the oil companies, at the expense of the environment and the economy of Quebec?
Paradis said the trap is arriving with a plan that sabotages the economy, insisted environment and economic prosperity can be reconciled, and reiterated the North American approach with Obama while rejecting another Kyoto-type accord.
Paradis addresses the general tension between environment and economy but does not engage with the specific allegation about oil companies or Quebec's economy, pivoting instead to Kyoto and the international approach.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le piĂšge justement, c'est d'arriver avec un plan qui sabote l'Ă©conomie en gĂ©nĂ©ral, et c'est de ça qu'on ne veut pas. Il y a moyen de concilier environnement et prospĂ©ritĂ© Ă©conomique. Ce qu'a dit M. Obama et ce qu'a dit le premier ministre, c'est qu'on veut un engagement Ă l'Ă©chelle internationale oĂč les principaux Ă©metteurs s'engageront. De plus, on aura une approche nord-amĂ©ricaine et on va travailler en collaboration avec l'administration Obama. Mais une chose est certaine, on ne signera pas un accord comme celui de Kyoto qu'on ne pourra jamais respecter. Ăa, c'est irresponsable et ce n'est pas du leadership.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it would be a mistake to introduce a plan that sabotages the economy in general, and we do not want to make that mistake. It is possible to balance environmental protection and economic prosperity. Mr. Obama and the Prime Minister have both said that they want an international commitment that includes the major emitters. In addition, we will have a North American approach and work with the Obama administration. But one thing is certain: we will not sign an agreement like the Kyoto protocol that we can never comply with. That is irresponsible and it is not leadership.
Bigras asked whether the government intends to adopt the Bloc québécois plan calling for a 25% absolute reduction in industrialized countries' greenhouse gas emissions relative to 1990 by 2020.
Bigras references the Obama-China statement, calls for concrete and credible proposals, and asks a specific yes/no question â whether the government will adopt the Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois plan with a 25% absolute reduction target relative to 1990 by 2020.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, maintenant que les présidents américain et chinois relancent Copenhague en réclamant un accord complet avec des effets immédiats, le Canada n'a plus le choix et doit présenter des propositions concrÚtes et crédibles pour lutter contre le réchauffement climatique. Est-ce que le gouvernement entend s'inspirer du plan du Bloc québécois qui propose notamment la diminution de 25 p. 100 en cible absolue des émissions de gaz à effet de serre des pays industrialisés par rapport à 1990 d'ici 2020?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, now that the American and Chinese presidents are getting behind Copenhagen and calling for a complete agreement with immediate effects, Canada no longer has a choice and must present tangible and credible proposals to fight global warming. Does the government intend to use the Bloc Québécois plan, which proposes an absolute target of a 25% reduction in greenhouse gases below 1990 for industrialized countries by 2020?
Warawa said no, stated the government's targets are the toughest in Canadian history at a 20% reduction by 2020, and said Canada is working with international partners toward a new climate agreement.
Warawa answers the yes/no question directly ('no') and offers the government's own target of a 20% reduction by 2020, but dismisses the Bloc plan without engaging its specifics and adds an unhelpful partisan closing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is, no. Our targets are the toughest in Canadian history; that is, a 20% reduction by 2020. What he is asking us to do is support something that does not exist. Canada is hard at work with our international partners, striving to come up with a new international agreement on climate change. That member needs to support our government.
Bigras noted that Quebec is meeting Kyoto objectives while the federal government is doing the opposite, and asked whether the Conservative government will allow Quebec to have its voice heard and defend its vision at Copenhagen.
Bigras raises a legitimate point about Quebec's efforts under Kyoto and the structural problem that only the federal approach will be represented at Copenhagen, then asks whether the government will allow Quebec to have its own voice at Copenhagen â a specific and answerable request.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pendant que le Québec multiplie les efforts pour rencontrer les objectifs de Kyoto, le gouvernement fédéral, de son cÎté, fait le contraire. Et c'est l'approche fédérale qui sera entendue à Copenhague parce que le Québec ne pourra pas se faire entendre directement. Est-ce que le gouvernement conservateur va se rendre à la demande du Québec qui exige de pouvoir faire entendre sa voix et défendre sa vision à Copenhague?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, while Quebec is increasing its efforts to meet the Kyoto objectives, the federal government is doing the opposite. The federal approach will be the one heard in Copenhagen because Quebec will not be able to speak directly. Will the Conservative government comply with Quebec's request to speak with its own voice and defend its own vision in Copenhagen?
Warawa accused the member of misleading the House, cited the government's North American 20% by 2020 target, and listed progress on tailpipe emissions, aviation standards, carbon capture storage, and cap and trade.
Warawa accuses the member of misleading the House, lists the government's environmental initiatives (tailpipe emissions, aviation standards, carbon capture storage, cap and trade), but does not address the specific question about Quebec's representation at Copenhagen.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member is misleading this House. This government's plan is clear. We now have in effect a North American target of 20% by 2020. We are also making progress on tailpipe emissions standards, aviation standards, carbon capture storage, and a North American integrated cap and trade. We are getting it done. Why will that member not support good environmental legislation?
Layton cited India's nuclear alert status, its non-signature of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Australia's refusal to sell nuclear technology to India, and asked what guarantees Canada has that Australia does not seem to have.
Layton grounds the question in concrete facts â India's facilities on high alert, historical precedent of Canada's nuclear transfer being used to build the bomb, India's non-signature of the NPT, and Australia's refusal â and asks what guarantees Canada has that Australia does not seem to have.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, India's nuclear facilities are on high alert and the region is quite volatile, as we all know. Yet, the Conservative government is about to sell India nuclear materials and technology. The last time that Canada did this, India took the opportunity to build the bomb. India is still refusing to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. For that reason, Australia is refusing to sell nuclear technology to India. The party of Lester B. Pearson should note this before supporting the initiative. What guarantees does the government have that Australia does not seem to have?
Baird described India as a responsible democracy sharing Canadian values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and rule of law, and noted India has made non-proliferation and disarmament commitments to achieve the trust of the nuclear suppliers group.
Baird makes no reference to the specific guarantees requested, instead offering a general character endorsement of India as a responsible democracy and quoting the Prime Minister, without addressing the NPT non-signature or the Australia comparison.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, those of us in the government believe that India is a responsible democracy and shares with Canada the fundamental values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and respect for law. India has made substantial non-proliferation and disarmament commitments to achieve the trust of the nuclear suppliers group. As the Prime Minister said earlier this week: We have great faith in our Indian friends and partners. We are not living in the 1970s. We are living in 2009.
Layton raised concerns about environmental damage, the lack of a nuclear waste solution, and security risks, asking whether the government is abandoning Canadian principles of sustainable development and nuclear non-proliferation for financial gain.
Layton raises environmental concerns and the nuclear waste problem, but frames the core question as whether the government has abandoned Canadian principles like sustainable development and nuclear non-proliferation for money â making the ask rhetorical rather than specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 2009 remains a very dangerous period of time. Faire le choix du nucléaire pose beaucoup de problÚmes, et l'exporter n'est pas une bonne idée. Les dommages environnementaux potentiels sont énormes. Il n'y a aucune solution pour les déchets nucléaires, par exemple, sans parler des trÚs grands risques pour la sécurité des gens. Est-ce là qu'en est rendu le gouvernement, à abandonner les principes canadiens, comme le développement durable et la non-prolifération nucléaire, pour faire un coup d'argent? Est-ce là que nous en sommes rendus?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, mĂȘme en 2009, le monde n'est pas sans danger. Choosing nuclear energy sources poses many problems and exporting nuclear technology is not a good idea. The potential for environmental damage is huge. The issue of nuclear waste disposal has not been resolved, for example, and then there are the very great risks to people's safety. Has the Canadian government abandoned such Canadian principles as sustainable development and nuclear non-proliferation just to make a buck? Is that the low point we have reached?
Baird described India as a like-minded liberal democracy respecting the environment, argued nuclear energy produces non-emitting electricity superior to dirty coal, and said Canada is committed to working with India's responsible government.
Baird reiterates India's democratic credentials, argues nuclear energy is non-emitting and better than dirty coal, but does not address the nuclear waste issue, the non-proliferation concern, or the specific charge that principles are being abandoned for profit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know that India has a like-minded liberal democracy. It is a like-minded country that respects democracy and human rights, shares our values and our commitments with respect to the environment. One of the very important benefits of nuclear energy is that it produces electricity in a non-emitting form, something that is much better than dirty coal which is proliferating greatly in that part of the world. We are committed to working with our friends in India. We are committed to working with the responsible, respected international government in India. We are committed to getting the job done for the environment.
Layton cited the environment minister's June commitment to have a plan before the Copenhagen summit, contrasted it with the current position of waiting for the rest of the world to act first, and asked where the leadership on climate change is.
Layton references a specific prior commitment â the environment minister saying in June he would have a plan before the summit â and contrasts it with the current position of waiting for others to act first, but the closing ask ('Where is the leadership on climate change?') is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it certainly is not sustainable, and sustainability should be at the heart of all of our policies whether it is job creation or exports. Talking of sustainability, the Conservatives' position prior to the Copenhagen summit on climate change is anything but. In June the environment minister said that he would have a plan before the summit. He now says that the Conservatives will wait until the rest of the world has taken action before we take action. They want to be the last to act rather than the first. Canadians want them to be the first. They owe a responsibility to the next generation. Where is the leadership on climate change?
Baird cited the Prime Minister and President Obama working together as great leadership, described the North American approach and outreach to large emitters including India, China, and the European Union, and said Canada is committed to making a deal happen in Copenhagen.
Baird cites the North American approach with President Obama as an example of leadership and mentions outreach to large emitters, but does not address the specific broken promise about a plan before Copenhagen or explain the change in position.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have seen great leadership from the Prime Minister and President Obama. For the first time ever we have two of the largest emitters in North America working together. We believe in that common North American approach, working constructively with President Obama, reaching out to all large emitters, whether it be India, China or the European Union, to get everyone on board to clean up what has become a big mess with respect to global warming. We need to have real and meaningful action. We need to have all the big players on board. Canada is committed to doing our part to make a deal happen in Copenhagen.
Duncan said the Minister of Health repeatedly told Canadians they could all be vaccinated by Christmas but now must admit that at least seven million Canadians will be left behind until next year, as confirmed by Dr. Butler-Jones, and asked why the minister misled the House.
Duncan cites specific prior ministerial statements about Christmas vaccination for all, references Dr. Butler-Jones's confirmation of a shortfall of at least seven million Canadians, and asks a direct accountability question about misleading the House.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for weeks the Minister of Health incorrectly told Canadians that they could all be vaccinated by Christmas. Now the minister has to admit, and Dr. Butler-Jones has confirmed, that at least seven million Canadians will be left behind until well into next year. Why did the minister mislead the House? More seriously, why did she fail to tell Canadians the truth?
Aglukkaq said 20% of Canada's population has been vaccinated this week, that 10.4 million vaccines are available, that provinces and territories are working to vaccinate every willing Canadian by year-end, and described it as a good news story with Canada leading and ahead of schedule.
Aglukkaq provides specific numbers (20% vaccinated, 10.4 million vaccines available this week) and asserts the schedule is well ahead, but does not address the specific allegation that the minister misled the House by promising all Canadians vaccinated by Christmas.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 20% of the population of Canada has been vaccinated this week. At the same time, our schedule is well ahead in producing vaccines for all Canadians. This week alone we have 10.4 million vaccines available to all Canadians. The provinces and territories are working hard to vaccinate every Canadian who wants to receive a vaccine by the end of the year. This is a good news story for Canada. We are leading in the response to this pandemic. We are well ahead of schedule. It is something to be proud of.
Duncan cited Dr. Butler-Jones's statement that there will not be enough vaccines for all Canadians by end of 2009, called it a broken promise, and asked whether the minister will commit additional resources to help front line medical workers vaccinate as many Canadians as possible.
Duncan cites headlines, quotes Dr. Butler-Jones's confirmation that there will not be enough vaccines for all Canadians by end of 2009, characterizes this as a broken promise, and asks a specific forward-looking question: will the minister commit additional resources.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, headlines across the country are clear, âNot enough vaccine for all until Christmasâ. According to Dr. Butler-Jones, there will not be enough vaccines for all Canadians by the end of 2009. The government broke its promise. Our front line medical workers need more help from the government if they are going to vaccinate as many Canadians as possible. Will the minister now commit the additional resources to get this done?
Aglukkaq acknowledged front line workers, repeated that Canada is ahead of schedule with 10.4 million vaccines and 20% of the population vaccinated, and noted some jurisdictions will complete their vaccination program this week, without addressing the request for additional resources.
Aglukkaq repeats the same figures from Exchange 14 (20% vaccinated, 10.4 million vaccines), praises front line workers, and says some jurisdictions will finish their vaccination program this week, but does not commit to additional resources as asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I also want to acknowledge again the hard work of the front line people who are working very hard in the provinces and territories to vaccinate every Canadian who wants to receive the vaccine by the end of this year. Canada is ahead of schedule. We produce more vaccines for Canadians, 10.4 million vaccines by the end of this week, and 20% of our population has been vaccinated to date. Once again, I will say this in the House, some jurisdictions will have completed their vaccination program this week and that is something to be proud of as Canadians. We should be proud of how we are doing.
Rodriguez asks whether the government recognizes that Conservative ridings holding 15% of Quebec seats received 54% of Community Adjustment Fund money, violating ethics and fairness rules.
Cites specific figures (15% of ridings receiving 54% of funding) and names the Community Adjustment Fund, with a clear accountability ask about ethical violations.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'utilisation de fonds à des fins partisanes se poursuit. Le cas était flagrant au Québec. C'est disgracieux. Le Fonds d'adaptation des collectivités, doté d'un budget d'un milliard de dollars sur deux ans, vise les régions qui ont perdu beaucoup d'emplois, des régions qui sont dans le besoin. Je vais le répéter, c'est pour les régions dans le besoin, et non pas pour appuyer l'élection de députés conservateurs. Regardez les chiffres. Les conservateurs qui détiennent uniquement 15 p. 100 des comtés au Québec ont reçu 54 p. 100 du financement. On parle de 54 p. 100. Le gouvernement se rend-il compte que cela viole toutes les rÚgles d'éthique, d'équité et d'impartialité?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government is still using the fund for partisan purposes. What it did in Quebec was shameless and totally inappropriate. The community adjustment fund has a budget of $1 billion over two years. It targets regions that have lost a lot of jobs, regions that are in need. Let me repeat that: the money is supposed to help regions in need, not help Conservative members get themselves elected. Let us look at the numbers. The Conservatives hold 15% of the seats in Quebec, and their ridings received 54% of the funding. That is 54%. Does the government realize that this violates all of the rules of ethics, fairness and impartiality?
Lebel states that over $230 million is available for sylviculture and forestry across all Quebec regions, and deflects with a personal comment about Rodriguez visiting his riding.
The minister pivots to the total amount available for sylviculture and forestry regions without addressing the 15%/54% disparity alleged, then deflects with a personal jab.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est avec plaisir que je rappellerai les faits Ă mon confrĂšre. Les faits sont les suivants: grĂące au Fonds d'adaptation des collectivitĂ©s, notre gouvernement, de concert avec le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec, a mis une somme de plus de 230 millions de dollars qui est disponible pour les secteurs de la sylviculture et de l'amĂ©nagement forestier dans toutes les rĂ©gions du QuĂ©bec. Nous continuerons de faire notre travail. Ce mĂȘme dĂ©putĂ© est rĂ©cemment venu dans mon comtĂ© pour dire que je ne faisais pas mon travail. Aujourd'hui, il dit que je le fais trop bien.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to remind the member of the facts. The facts are these: thanks to the community adjustment fund, our government, together with the Government of Quebec, has made over $230 million available to the silviculture and forest resources management sectors in all regions of Quebec. We will continue to do our job. The member recently came to my riding and said that I was not doing my job. Now he says that I am doing it too well.
Rodriguez asks whether the government is effectively telling workers, unemployed people, families and children in non-Conservative ridings that they deserve nothing, given the 15%/54% funding distribution.
Reiterates the 15%/54% statistic but frames the ask in increasingly rhetorical terms about two categories of citizens, diluting the specificity of the accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est carrément de la foutaise. On parle de 15 p. 100 des comtés qui reçoivent 54 p. 100 du financement, uniquement parce qu'ils ont voté pour le Parti conservateur. Pour les conservateurs, c'est clair qu'il y a les bons et les mauvais comtés, soit ceux qui ont voté pour eux et ceux qui ont voté autrement. Pour eux, il y a de bons citoyens et d'autres qui ne le sont pas. En d'autres mots, ils disent que si les gens ont voté pour eux, ils les aideront et tant pis pour les autres. Y a-t-il maintenant deux catégories de citoyens? Est-on en train de dire aux travailleurs, aux chÎmeurs, aux familles et aux enfants qui ne vivent pas dans un comté conservateur qu'ils ne méritent absolument rien?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is a load of bull. What happened was that 15% of the ridings received 54% of the funding just because they voted for the Conservative Party. Clearly, the Conservatives believe there are two kinds of ridings: good ones, which voted for them; and bad ones, which voted for other parties. They believe there are good voters and bad ones. In other words, they are sending the message that they will help people who voted for them and ignore everyone else. Do we have two classes of citizens now? Is the government telling workers and the unemployed, families and children who do not live in a Conservative riding that they deserve nothing?
Lebel says the Community Adjustment Fund serves all Quebec regions, credits 400 civil servants in 14 regional offices, and notes that regions that did not apply cannot receive funding.
The minister says the fund serves all Quebec regions and references 400 civil servants in 14 offices, but does not address the funding distribution disparity, pivoting to the excuse that regions that did not apply cannot receive help.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai le plaisir de faire des annonces, tout comme le font plusieurs confrÚres partout au Québec. Le Fonds d'adaptation des collectivités sert toutes les régions du Québec. Bien sûr, le mandat de Développement économique Canada est entre autres d'aider les régions qui éprouvent plus de difficultés, économiques et nous allons faire notre travail. Je remercie les 400 fonctionnaires qui sont dans les 14 bureaux d'affaires partout dans les régions du Québec et qui analysent les demandes que nous recevons. Malheureusement, on ne peut pas aider les régions qui n'ont pas demandé d'aide financiÚre. On continuera à faire notre travail. Pendant qu'il y en a qui crient, nous allons agir.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it has been my pleasure to make a number of announcements, just as several of my colleagues have done across Quebec. The community adjustment fund serves all regions of Quebec. Canada Economic Development's mandate is to help regions that are struggling economically, and we intend to do our job. I would like to thank the 400 public servants working in 14 business offices across the regions of Quebec. These people analyze all of the applications we receive. Unfortunately, we cannot help regions that do not ask for financial support. We will continue to do our job. As long as people ask for our help, we will take action.
Brunelle asks whether the minister recognizes that Canada is being negligent by not requiring India to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty before offering CANDU reactors, given that India diverted Canadian civil nuclear technology to produce its first nuclear bomb in 1974.
Grounds the question in a specific historical fact (India's 1974 nuclear test using diverted Canadian civil technology) and asks a clear, answerable policy question about requiring NPT signature before offering CANDU reactors.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, sur la question de la vente possible de CANDU Ă l'Inde, le ministre dâĂtat des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres (AmĂ©riques) a tentĂ© de nous rassurer en disant que l'Inde s'est engagĂ©e Ă respecter un « moratoire volontaire » sur les essais nuclĂ©aires. Le ministre se contente de bien peu alors qu'on sait que l'Inde a dĂ©tournĂ© des technologies nuclĂ©aires civiles canadiennes pour produire sa premiĂšre bombe nuclĂ©aire en 1974, et ce, malgrĂ© l'accord conclu entre les parties. Le ministre d'Ătat reconnaĂźt-il que le Canada fait preuve de nĂ©gligence en n'exigeant pas que l'Inde signe le TraitĂ© de non-prolifĂ©ration nuclĂ©aire avant de lui offrir des CANDU?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, regarding the potential sale of Candu reactors to India, the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs for the Americas tried to reassure us by saying that India has agreed to respect a âvoluntary moratoriumâ on nuclear testing. It does not take much to satisfy the minister, when we know that India misused Canadian civilian nuclear technologies to produce its first nuclear bomb in 1974, even though the parties had signed an agreement. Does the Minister of State realize that Canada is being negligent by not requiring that India sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty before Canada sells India any Candu reactors?
Kent calls the nuclear cooperation agreement a turning point to celebrate, says India made substantial non-proliferation commitments to achieve trust of the nuclear suppliers group, and criticizes Liberal-era sanctions.
Kent celebrates the bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement and cites India's commitments to the nuclear suppliers group but does not address whether NPT signature should be required, instead attacking the previous Liberal government.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's support for a nuclear cooperation agreement is a turning point in our bilateral relationship that we should celebrate. We are rebuilding a relationship that was badly damaged under the previous Liberal government which petulantly imposed ineffective sanctions. India has indeed made substantial non-proliferation and disarmament commitments to achieve the trust of all of the nuclear suppliers group and which were reiterated on September 5. As the Prime Minister said, âWe have great faith in our Indian friends and partnersâ.
Brunelle demands to know when the government will impose the condition of NPT signature on India before providing CANDU reactors.
Maintains a clear policy demand â no CANDU reactors without NPT signature â but leans more heavily on rhetorical framing ('Ă la solde de la filiĂšre nuclĂ©aire') than on new evidence.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce gouvernement est dĂ©cidĂ©ment Ă la solde de la filiĂšre nuclĂ©aire. Pour refiler ses rĂ©acteurs CANDU qui trouvent difficilement preneur, le gouvernement conservateur est prĂȘt Ă tout: il ferme les yeux sur l'affront de 1974 et il se contente d'une dĂ©claration politique peu contraignante de l'Inde pour se donner bonne conscience. Quand ce gouvernement prendra-t-il ses responsabilitĂ©s en imposant ses conditions Ă l'Inde: pas de rĂ©acteurs CANDU sans signature du TraitĂ© sur la non-prolifĂ©ration des armes nuclĂ©aires?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government is definitely in the pay of the nuclear industry. Since it is hard to find buyers for Candu reactors, the Conservative government is ready to try anything. It is turning a blind eye to the 1974 betrayal, and says it is satisfied with India's political declaration, which is hardly binding, to ease its conscience. When will this government take responsibility by imposing conditions on India: no Candu reactors unless it signs the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?
Kent says 'this is 2009 and not 1974' and that both sides are committed to moving quickly so Canada can participate in the Indian market.
Kent's answer simply says 'this is 2009 and not 1974' and that both sides want to move quickly to access the Indian market â an almost complete non-answer to the specific NPT condition question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is 2009 and not 1974. I can assure the House that both sides are committed to moving as quickly as possible so Canada can fully participate in the important Indian market.
Dorion asks whether Canada will join the US, UK and EU in formally condemning Israel's authorization of 900 new housing units in East Jerusalem, whose annexation Canada has never recognized.
Cites a specific event (Israel authorizing 900 new housing units in East Jerusalem) and notes that the US, UK and EU condemned it, asking a clear yes/no question about Canada joining that condemnation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, IsraĂ«l a autorisĂ© la construction de 900 nouveaux logements dans JĂ©rusalem-Est, dont l'annexion n'a jamais Ă©tĂ© reconnue par le Canada et la communautĂ© internationale. Les Ătats-Unis, la Grande-Bretagne et l'Union europĂ©enne ont dĂ©noncĂ© vigoureusement ce geste. Le Canada va-t-il joindre sa voix Ă celle de la communautĂ© internationale pour dĂ©noncer cette dĂ©cision illĂ©gale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Israel has authorized the construction of 900 new homes in East Jerusalem, even though its annexation has never been recognized by Canada and the international community. The United States, Great Britain and the European Union have vigorously condemned the action. Will Canada add its voice to that of the international community and condemn this illegal decision?
Kent says Canada's position has not changed â settlement expansion is unhelpful to efforts to restart peace negotiations â and urges both parties to refrain from unilateral actions.
Kent directly states Canada's position â settlement expansion is unhelpful to peace negotiations â which partially answers the question, but does not explain why Canada will not join the formal condemnation others issued.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie mon collÚgue. I can assure him that Canada's position has not changed. Canada considers settlement expansion unhelpful to efforts to restart peace negotiations. At the same time, Canada urges both parties to refrain from any unilateral actions that undermine the resumption of direct bilateral negotiations.
Dorion asks why Canada hesitates to condemn Israeli settlement expansion when even the US, described by special envoy George Mitchell as a close Israeli ally, has denounced the situation.
Cites US envoy George Mitchell's assessment and asks a pointed question about why Canada's closest ally to Israel can condemn the situation while Canada hesitates, but the question is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, selon l'Ă©missaire spĂ©cial des Ătats-Unis pour le Proche-Orient, George Mitchell, ce projet porte atteinte aux chances d'une reprise des nĂ©gociations avec l'AutoritĂ© palestinienne. Comment peut-on expliquer que le plus proche alliĂ© d'IsraĂ«l soit capable de dĂ©noncer cette situation alors que le Canada tergiverse?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, according to George Mitchell, the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, this project threatens the chances of negotiations with Palestinian authorities resuming. Why is it that Israel's closest ally can denounce this situation while Canada dithers?
Kent quibbles about the characterization of Israel's closest ally and reiterates Canada's long-standing position that settlement expansion is unhelpful to the peace process.
Kent quibbles about which country is Israel's closest ally and restates Canada's unchanged position on settlement expansion without addressing why Canada did not join the formal condemnation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one might quibble in terms of the proximity of Israel's closest ally but, as I said, our long-standing position has not changed. We do consider settlement expansion to be unhelpful to the peace process.
Proulx asks why the government is hiding the results of its pre-appointment vetting of Senator Housakos, whose financing methods are so suspect that the ADQ leader called police.
Asks a specific question about why the government is hiding results of its vetting of Senator Housakos, and references the ADQ leader calling police â but the ask is somewhat vague about what specifically was concealed.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les mĂ©thodes de financement du sĂ©nateur Housakos sont tellement suspectes que le chef de l'ADQ a appelĂ© la police pour enquĂȘter. Les conservateurs refusent de rĂ©vĂ©ler ce que les vĂ©rifications du gouvernement leur ont appris Ă son sujet avant de le nommer au SĂ©nat. Pourquoi le gouvernement cache-t-il les rĂ©sultats de son enquĂȘte?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Senator Housakos' financing methods are so suspicious that the leader of the ADQ has asked the police to investigate. The Conservatives refuse to disclose what they learned about the senator from government checks prior to his appointment to the Senate. Why is the government hiding the results of its inquiry?
Baird pivots to the government's political financing reforms â banning corporate and union donations and lowering the contribution limit to $1,000 â without addressing the Housakos vetting.
Baird does not address the Housakos vetting or why its results are withheld, instead pivoting entirely to the government's broader political financing reforms.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is another fishing expedition from the member for HullâAylmer. I will tell the House what the government has done with respect to political financing. When we took office, we made the biggest priority an overhaul of our public laws with respect to political financing. We banned all corporations from donating to political parties. We promised it and we did it. We banned all unions from contributing to political parties. We promised it and we delivered it. We finally put an end to $5,000 a person cocktail parties and lowered the limit to $1,000. Those are the most pro middle-class initiatives ever taken in Canadian history. We have cleaned up the ethical mess we found when the hon. member's party left government.
Proulx asks how one cannot see the link between a hidden cross-financing network between the ADQ and Conservatives and the system of partisan appointments, citing the cases of Nick Katalifos and Jean-Martin Masse.
Names specific individuals (Nick Katalifos and Jean-Martin Masse) and alleges a covert cross-financing network between the ADQ and Conservatives linked to partisan appointments, but the compound, speculative framing weakens the accountability value.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'enquĂȘte cachĂ©e rĂ©vĂ©lerait-elle d'abord une filiĂšre occulte d'interfinancement entre l'ADQ et les conservateurs, et ensuite un systĂšme de nominations fĂ©dĂ©rales partisanes en rĂ©compense des sommes reçues, comme dans les cas de Nick Katalifos et Jean-Martin Masse, par exemple? Comment ne pas voir le lien qui existe entre cette filiĂšre d'interfinancement et le systĂšme de nominations partisanes des conservateurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, would the hidden inquiry first reveal a shady arrangement of cross-funding between the ADQ and the Conservatives, along with a system of partisan federal appointments in exchange for payments, as was the case with Nick Katalifos and Jean-Martin Masse, for example? How can anyone fail to see the connection between this cross-funding arrangement and the Conservatives' system of partisan appointments?
Baird accuses the member of character assassination and mean-spirited personal mudslinging without addressing any of the named individuals or the alleged network.
Baird does not address any of the named individuals or the alleged cross-financing network, responding only with personal attacks calling Rodriguez the leader of a Liberal rat pack.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is increasingly becoming the leader of the Liberal rat pack. The Liberals seem to have only two objectives in relation to this matter. One is character assassination and the other is a mean-spirited personal mudslinging, which does not serve the member opposite or his party well in my judgment.
Crombie asks how Canadians can take the government seriously when it refuses to discipline the Minister of Natural Resources for violations of ethics codes, conflicts of interest rules, and use of taxpayer money to advertise Conservative fundraisers during her time at the Toronto Port Authority.
References violations of ethics codes, conflicts of interest, and use of taxpayer money for Conservative fundraisers during the Minister of Natural Resources' tenure at the Toronto Port Authority, but the ask â why the minister is not disciplined â is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has claimed many times that it takes the allegations surrounding the Minister of Natural Resources' sorry tenure of the Toronto Port Authority seriously. However, its definition of serious seems to condone violations of ethic codes, breaking rules against conflicts of interest and using taxpayer money to advertise Conservative fundraisers. How can Canadians take the government seriously when it refuses to discipline its ethically challenged minister?
Baird accuses Crombie of being part of the Liberals' rat pack and asserts that the Minister of Natural Resources has brought more integrity to her office than many former Liberal ministers.
Baird responds only by calling Crombie part of the Liberals' rat pack and praising the minister's integrity, with no substantive engagement with the specific allegations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again we have a member of the Liberals' rat pack seeking to malign a hard-working minister in this government. Let me say that the Minister of Natural Resources has brought more integrity to her office than many ministers whoever sat in cabinet from that party opposite.
Crombie asks what the Conservatives have to hide and why they are blocking an Auditor General audit of the Toronto Port Authority when the Port Authority itself has requested one.
Raises a specific inconsistency â the government accepts the Port Authority's word on unauthorized expenses but blocks an Auditor General audit â and asks why the government is afraid of what the Auditor General would find.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is willing to take the Toronto Port Authority at its word when it suits its interests. Signing off on unauthorized expenses is not a problem. Hospitality policies violated but we need not worry because the board says that it is fine. However, when the Port Authority asks for an audit by the Auditor General to shed light on the truth, the government covers up. What do the Conservatives have to hide? Why are they afraid of what the Auditor General will find?
Baird says the Toronto Port Authority operates at arm's length, its financial statements are audited annually, and it will undergo a special examination this year as all similar port authorities do every five years.
Baird explains that the Toronto Port Authority operates at arm's length, is audited annually, and will undergo a special examination this year, which partially addresses the audit question but does not explain why an Auditor General audit specifically was opposed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Port Authority operates on an arm's-length basis. We look to its directors and to its audit committee. We look to ensure that all of its statements are audited each and every year, which has always happened. The Toronto Port Authority also undergoes, as do all similar port authorities and crown corporations, a special examination every five years, and that will be happening this year.
Wallace asks the Minister of Health to explain the significance of today's announcement about the February G7 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting.
A classic government-backbench softball setup asking a minister to announce a pre-arranged hosting decision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health announced the site of the February meeting of the G7 finance ministers and the central bank governors. Could the Minister of Health please tell the House the significance of today's announcement?
Aglukkaq announces that the G7 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting will be hosted in Iqaluit, Nunavut, and speaks briefly in Inuktitut.
Aglukkaq provides the specific announcement â the G7 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting will be hosted in Iqaluit, Nunavut â with real informational content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the meeting of the G7 finance ministers and central bank governors will be hosted in Iqaluit, Nunavut. At such an important and challenging time, I can think of no better location for an international meeting focused on collaboration to resolve shared challenges. Throughout its long history, the people of Nunavut and all of Canada's north have demonstrated a community spirit and steadfast determination to overcome adversity. [Member spoke in Inuktitut]
Angus asks what steps the minister will take to end the corporate conflict between cable giants racking up $2.1 billion in profits and broadcasters who spent $740 million on U.S. programs while consumers are gouged and local television is held hostage.
Cites specific figures ($2.1 billion in cable profits and $740 million spent on U.S. programs) but the ask â what steps will the minister take â is broad and unspecific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are fed up with the ridiculous media war between the broadcasters and the cable giants. On the one hand, the cable giants have racked up $2.1 billion in profits while jacking up cable rates year after year and, on the other hand, the broadcasters are crying destitution after blowing $740 million on U.S. programs. Meanwhile, Canadian consumers are getting gouged, local television is being held hostage and Canada's amazingly versatile film and television industry is being hung out to dry. What steps will the minister take to put an end to this corporate circus?
Moore says the government gave the CRTC a section 15 consumer-first requirement and reached an agreement on part II fees providing $450 million in immediate relief to the industry.
Moore explains the section 15 consumer-first requirement given to the CRTC and the $450 million in immediate relief from the part II fees agreement, providing some concrete information but not fully specifying future steps.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and obviously all Canadians have been paying attention to this important debate. What we have done are two things most recently that are very important. First, we gave a section 15 requirement to the CRTC that the most important thing it needs to do in its consideration and deliberation over this very important issue is to put consumers first. We want to ensure that consumers are put first in this conversation and discussion. The second thing we have done is to bring together all the stakeholders, which is what the member is talking about. We have brought together all the partners and we have reached an agreement on part II fees which gives $450 million in immediate relief to the industry. This is good for all Canadians.
Angus asks whether, if the minister uses an order in council to override the CRTC, it will benefit cable industry buddies or force cable giants to fund local television, stop consumer gouging, and ensure broadcasters meet minimal Canadian content requirements.
Raises a specific concern about the government floating an order in council to override the CRTC and asks whose interests that override would serve, but the question is multi-part and somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the CRTC were doing its job, the minister would not be floating trial balloons about using an order in council to override the CRTC. When he does override, will it be to help his buddies in the cable industry or will he force the cable giants to put some money into local television, stop consumers from being gouged and ensure that the broadcasters meet minimal requirements so that Canadian stories are once again heard on Canada's prime time airwaves?
Moore cites the Canada media fund providing $310 million for Canadian content on multiple platforms and says the government will not apologize for intervening to ensure the CRTC puts consumers first rather than arbitrating between two big corporate entities.
Moore references the Canada media fund with $310 million for Canadian content on multiple platforms and defends intervening to ensure the CRTC puts consumers first, engaging most but not all elements of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are making the investments that the member describes in terms of Canadian content. Not only did we arrive at the agreement to bring all partners together with regard to part II fees, we also brought partners together to create the Canada media fund; $310 million to do what the member describes, which is to create Canadian content and make it available on multiple platforms so Canadian stories can be told to Canadians on Canadian platforms. That is what we have done as a government. The member criticizes us for getting involved. I will not apologize to the member or anyone else for getting involved to ensure that the CRTC does not arbitrate between two big corporate entities as he describes but ensure that the first responsibility of all of us, including the CRTC, is to put consumers first.
Bachand asks whether the government can confirm that the Privy Council Office ordered Canadian diplomats in 2007 to conceal government information about the torture of Afghan prisoners transferred by Canada to Afghan authorities.
Cites a specific alleged order from the Privy Council Office in 2007 directing diplomats to conceal information about torture of Afghan detainees transferred by Canada, and asks the government to confirm whether this information from Defence and Foreign Affairs is founded.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le Bureau du Conseil privĂ©, le ministĂšre du premier ministre, a ordonnĂ© en 2007 Ă des diplomates canadiens de camoufler les informations dĂ©tenues par le gouvernement concernant la torture des prisonniers afghans transfĂ©rĂ©s par le Canada aux autoritĂ©s afghanes. Est-ce que le gouvernement peut prĂ©ciser Ă la Chambre si ces informations extrĂȘmement graves Ă©manant des ministĂšres de la DĂ©fense et des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres sont fondĂ©es?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in 2007, the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's own department, ordered Canadian diplomats to cover up information held by the government concerning the torture of Afghan detainees transferred by Canada to the Afghan authorities. Can the government explain to the House whether this extremely serious information, coming from the Departments of National Defence and Foreign Affairs, is founded?
Kent states that DFAIT has received no allegations of torture or abuse and that the Government of Canada has received no proven allegation of abuse since instituting the strengthened detainee arrangement in 2007.
Kent repeats that DFAIT received no allegations of torture and no proven allegations of abuse since 2007, which is a categorical denial but does not address the specific alleged PCO order to diplomats.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will say it again and I hope the opposition listens very carefully. DFAIT has received no allegations of torture or abuse. The Government of Canada has received no proven allegation of abuse since instituting our strengthened detainee arrangement in 2007.
Bachand asks the Minister of National Defence to confirm that senior Privy Council Office officials ordered Canadian diplomats to hide the truth about torture inflicted on Afghan prisoners, with the revelations coming from Foreign Affairs and National Defence civil servants.
Alleges that senior Privy Council Office officials ordered Canadian diplomats to hide facts about torture of Afghan prisoners, citing civil servants from Foreign Affairs and National Defence as sources, and asks the Minister of National Defence to respond directly.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans ce dossier, ce ministre, le ministre de la DĂ©fense nationale et le ministre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres font tout pour Ă©touffer la vĂ©ritĂ©. Et nous allons travailler pour que la vĂ©ritĂ© sorte. De hauts responsables du Bureau du Conseil privĂ© ont donnĂ© ordre Ă des diplomates canadiens de cacher les faits et la vĂ©ritĂ© sur la torture infligĂ©e aux prisonniers afghans. D'oĂč proviennent ces rĂ©vĂ©lations? Des fonctionnaires des ministĂšres des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres et de la DĂ©fense nationale. Est-ce que le ministre de la DĂ©fense nationale va se lever et nous dire, de son siĂšge...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in this matter, this minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are doing whatever it takes to bury the truth. We are going to do whatever we can to uncover the truth. Senior officials from the Privy Council Office gave Canadian diplomats orders to hide the facts and the truth about the torture used against Afghan detainees. Where do these revelations come from? From officials at National Defence and Foreign Affairs. Will the Minister of National Defence stand up here and tell usâ
MacKay says the allegations come from an unnamed source, notes the government provided thousands of documents to military and parliamentary tribunals and will cooperate with parliamentary hearings, and states there has never been a proven allegation of abuse involving a Taliban prisoner transferred by Canadian Forces.
MacKay notes the allegations come from an unnamed source, describes extensive document and witness cooperation with military and parliamentary tribunals, and categorically denies any proven allegation of abuse, but does not address the specific PCO order alleged.
Source text
No, Mr. Speaker. These allegations come from an unnamed source. The reality is that we have co-operated. We have provided thousands of documents to a number of tribunals, both military and parliamentary. We have provided access to witnesses. We have co-operated with respect to disclosure, which we will do today with respect to parliamentary hearings. I do want to be very clear on one thing. There has never been a proven allegation of abuse involving a Taliban prisoner transferred by Canadian Forces. There is no wrong-doing on the part of the soldiers who are working hard to protect our interests in Afghanistan.
Why is the government spending money on signs to advertise other signs instead of helping the nearly 800,000 Canadians lining up at food banks during this Conservative recession?
Cites 800,000 Canadians at food banks and references specific sign expenditures, but the ask is vague and buried in rhetorical framing about 'sending a sign' to families.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the government could not tell us why it erected an expensive sign in Gatineau to advertise the installation of another sign. In Yellowknife, another Conservative sign has been bought to advertise the installation of âinterior-exterior signsâ. Signs, signs, everywhere a sign. Meanwhile, almost 800,000 Canadians are lining up at food banks. Statistics Canada confirms that the jobless numbers are continuing. Instead of paying for signs to advertise signs, why will the government not send a sign to Canadian families who are struggling in this Conservative recession. That would be real stimulus. Why can the government not help those in need?
The minister defended the signs as symbols of transparency and accountability for the largest infrastructure initiative since the Second World War, saying they signal hope and economic recovery.
Does not address the sign expenditure criticism or food bank need at all, pivoting entirely to boilerplate about the economic action plan and infrastructure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as part of the government's economic action plan, we have undertaken the largest infrastructure initiative in this country since the second world war. We believe we have an important responsibility to be both transparent and accountable for the investments that we are making. Signs are going up right across the country, which are signs of hope, signs that opportunities are coming to the labour market and signs that the economic downturn is turning around and the economy is growing, jobs are being created and Canada will soon be back.
Given that $100 million spent on Conservative propaganda could have generated $800 million in food for struggling families at a ratio of eight dollars per dollar invested in food banks, why did the government choose signs over helping victims of this Conservative recession?
Provides a specific ratio (one dollar invested yields eight dollars of food) and a concrete figure ($100 million on Conservative propaganda), making a pointed contrast, though the ask remains implicit and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for every dollar invested in food banks, eight dollars' worth of essential food can be acquired by food banks to help people living in poverty. The $100 million spent on Conservative propaganda could have meant $800 million for Canadians who are struggling to feed their families. Instead, we get signs, some of which are advertising other signs. The Conservative government has chosen to spend $100 million of publicly funded money for Conservative waste instead of helping the victims of this Conservative recession. What kind of pathetic sign is that to Canadian families in need?
The minister acknowledged that some Canadians are experiencing challenging economic times and cited the economic action plan's infrastructure investments as creating jobs and hope.
Acknowledges Canadians facing hardship but does not address the $100 million figure, the food bank ratio, or the sign expenditure criticism, pivoting to general economic action plan talking points.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that in every corner of this country some of our fellow citizens are experiencing a real challenging time with respect to the economy. That is why we brought forth Canada's economic action plan. That is why we are working constructively with the provinces, territories and municipalities on getting infrastructure projects up so we can create jobs and create a bit of hope for the future and opportunities for Canadian workers. Whether it is for the materials, for architects, for engineers or for the construction workers themselves, we are putting in more money and giving a big boost to the Canadian economy. We are proud of that. We have an important responsibility to continue to work hard on creating those important jobs.
Why did the Privy Council Office send a directive to Afghanistan ordering that information on the handling of Afghan prisoners be withheld from diplomatic and military reports, and why did the government feel information on torture and abuse had to be covered up?
Cites a specific Privy Council Office directive to Afghanistan to withhold information from diplomatic and military reports, naming plausible deniability as the mechanism, and asks a clear accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the Privy Council Office sent a directive to Afghanistan that information on the handling of Afghan prisoners should be withheld from reports by diplomats in the military. This not only undermines accountability and transparency, hiding the truth from Canadians, but it allows ministers to have what is known as plausible deniability. Why did the Conservative government send this directive and why did it think that information on torture and abuse had to be covered up?
The minister stated the government has always had concerns about Afghan prisoner treatment, put an enhanced monitoring system in place in 2007, and noted the previous government signed a transfer agreement only one month before leaving office.
Does not address the PCO directive or the withholding of information at all, pivoting to the 2007 enhanced monitoring system and blaming the previous government's transfer agreement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me say again that this government has always had concerns about the treatment of Afghan prisoners. Because the government believes in upholding its obligations under international law, we put in place an enhanced system in 2007 in order to visit and monitor transferred Afghan prisoners. Let us not forget that the previous government put in place a transfer agreement only one month before it left office.
Given the PCO directive, the Department of National Defence's Tiger Team set up in 2007 to vet access to information requests on detainees, and efforts to hinder the Military Police Complaints Commission, when will the government remove this cone of silence and let Canadians learn the truth?
References a specific body called the Tiger Team set up by the Department of National Defence in 2007 to vet access to information requests concerning detainees, and links it to a broader pattern including the Military Police Complaints Commission, making a reasonably grounded accusation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, how convenient is it for the most powerful agency in the government to order that no records be kept? This appears to be part of a broader strategy by the government to hold back details of torture and abuse in Afghan prisons. In 2007 the Department of National Defence even set up a group called the Tiger Team to vet access to information requests concerning detainees. The process continues with government efforts to hinder the work of the Military Police Complaints Commission. When will the government remove this cone of silence and let Canadians learn the truth?
The minister stated the government has co-operated with the Military Police Complaints Commission, parliamentary committees, and investigations, asserted there has never been a single proven allegation of abuse of a Taliban prisoner transferred by Canadian Forces, and cited over 170 prison visits under the new arrangement.
Addresses co-operation with the Military Police Complaints Commission and parliamentary committees, and cites over 170 prison visits under the new arrangement, but does not address the Tiger Team allegation or the PCO directive.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as has been stated many times, we have co-operated with the Military Police Complaints Commission. We have co-operated with parliamentary committees. We have co-operated with investigations. I state again that there has never been a single solitary proven allegation of abuse of a Taliban prisoner transferred by the Canadian Forces. It is important the member knows that since this new arrangement has been put in place, there have been over 170 visits to Afghan prisons to ensure this new arrangement is improving human rights. That is what our government did. We improved upon the situation. We will continue to make improvements in that country.
Why should the Liberal Party finally stand up and support Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade act, given that the NDP and the Bloc, with Liberal support, have filibustered it for over 30 hours?
A government-backbench softball asking why the Liberal Party should support Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade act, framed entirely in partisan terms about filibustering and wasted time.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade act, has been filibustered in the House for over 30 hours. The NDP and the Bloc, with the support of the Liberals, are wasting Parliament's valuable time, holding up an agreement that would create new business opportunities for Canadians, create jobs and encourage economic growth across Canada and in Colombia. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade tell the House why the Liberal Party should finally stand up and support this free trade act?
Mr. Speaker, the reality is the opposition parties are allowing their partisan ideology to fritter away the opportunity of Canadian companies. If they would just listen over thereâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, the reality is the opposition parties are allowing their partisan ideology to fritter away an opportunity for Canadian companies to have access to Colombian trade in front and ahead of their competition. The reality is we need the Liberal Party to support the Colombia free trade agreement. We need it to support Canadian companies. It is time the Liberals did it. Get up and supportâ
The parliamentary secretary said the opposition parties are allowing their partisan ideology to fritter away opportunities for Canadian companies to access Colombian trade ahead of their competition.
The parliamentary secretary echoes the partisan framing about opposition ideology and calls on the Liberal Party to support the Colombia free trade agreement, offering no substantive policy information.
The Minister of Transport voted in favour of a motion for new, robust, legally binding protection for airline passengers but reportedly ordered professional lobbyists to mount a public relations campaign against that same policy â are the lobbyists running the transport department or is the transport department running the lobbyists, and when is airline passenger protection coming in?
Holds the minister to a specific prior public commitment (voting in favour of a motion for legally binding airline passenger protection) and raises a specific allegation that the minister ordered lobbyists to mount a public relations campaign against the very policy he voted for, asking a clear and pointed accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, putting consumers first is an interesting slogan. The House may recall when the Minister of Transport voted in favour of my motion to bring in new, robust, legally binding protection for airline passengers. However, what members will not recall is that prior to the vote, that same minister, the industry's regulator, ordered professional lobbyists to mount a public relations campaign to undermine the very policy of which he voted in favour. Which is it? Is it the lobbyists who are running the transport department, or is the transport department running the lobbyists? This collusion occurring between the government regulator and the airline companies must end. When is airline passenger protection coming in?
The minister said the government is concerned for Canadian families and the travelling public, has put forward new public policy, and noted that NDP-sponsored legislation is currently before a committee that will hear from the public, industry, and consumer groups.
Does not address the lobbyist allegation or collusion charge at all, provides vague references to 'new public policy' and NDP-sponsored legislation in committee, and confuses the motion the member cited with NDP legislation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are obviously tremendously concerned for the many Canadian families, people with small businesses and the travelling public. They face challenges with weather conditions. Then there are mechanical issues and other problems with our airlines. However, we have been working constructively. We have put forward some new public policy. We have worked constructively with the airlines. We are pleased with some of the new proposals that have come forward. Right now before the House, there is legislation, sponsored by the NDP, which I confess I voted against, that is being considered in committee. The committee will hear from the public, the industry and consumer groups. We look forward to hearing that input.
How can the minister responsible for the Quebec region remain silent while the Department of National Defence, after contaminating the water in Shannon for years, continues to challenge the 2007 Quebec court ruling authorizing the class action, with the Quebec Environment Minister herself denouncing the federal government's attitude and accusing it of withholding information?
References the specific 2007 Quebec court class action authorization, the Quebec Environment Minister's public criticism, and the federal government's challenge of the ruling, asking a pointed accountability question directed at the minister responsible for the Quebec region.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, aprÚs avoir contaminé pendant des années l'eau de Shannon, voilà que le gouvernement fédéral continue de s'acharner sur les victimes en tentant de faire réviser le jugement qui autorise l'exercice du recours collectif autorisé en 2007 par un tribunal québécois. Hier, la ministre québécoise de l'Environnement a déploré l'attitude générale du gouvernement fédéral dans ce dossier, se disant « [indignée] face à ce qui est arrivé » et lui reprochant de retenir l'information. Comment la ministre responsable de la région de Québec peut-elle continuer de se taire alors que le ministÚre de la Défense nationale continue d'afficher une telle mauvaise foi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, after spending years contaminating the water in Shannon, now the federal government is continuing to go after the victims by seeking a review of the 2007 ruling by a Quebec court that authorized a class action. Yesterday, Quebec's environment minister deplored the federal government's general attitude toward this matter and said she is infuriated at what has happened. She also criticized the federal government for withholding information. How can the minister responsible for the Quebec City region continue to keep mum while the Department of National Defence continues to show such bad faith?
The minister cited investments of $40 million initially and $13.3 million to complete construction of the water system in Shannon, characterized the court matter as a review of disclosed material and a government view that the case no longer qualifies as a class action, and committed to continuing to find solutions for the people of Shannon.
Provides specific figures ($40 million initially and $13.3 million for water system construction in Shannon) and acknowledges the court matter, but does not explain the decision to retain information or address the Quebec Environment Minister's specific criticism.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. We have great sympathy and concerns for anyone affected by the situation involving the water in Shannon, which is why we have invested significantly, in fact, $40 million initially to improve the water system and another $13.3 million to complete the construction of the existing water system to help the people of Shannon. That initiative was taken by my colleague from Quebec. The issue with respect to the court is an issue over the review of disclosed material. It is the government's view that this case has no longer qualified as a class action suit and we are moving to have it dismissed. However, with respect to the people of Quebec, the people of Shannon, we will continue to work to find solutions.
Is the Prime Minister aware that $1 million of B.C. taxpayer money from the Canada's Economic Action Plan has gone to a Washington State company for a B.C. infrastructure project, and is this the government's response to the buy American policy of the U.S. government?
Cites a specific instance of $1 million in B.C. taxpayer money going to a Washington State company on a federal infrastructure project, and connects it to the buy American policy, making a reasonably specific and factually grounded ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a large road sign in my riding describes the federal and provincial governments partnership with the title âCanada's Economic Action Planâ. According to the federal government, infrastructure projects are supposed to provide work opportunities for small and medium size B.C. businesses. A million dollars of B.C. taxpayer money has gone to a Washington State company, giving us another example of the government's continuous outsourcing of contracts and jobs, work that could have been done in B.C. Is the Prime Minister aware of this practice and if so, is this his response to the buy American policy of the U.S. government?
The minister said the government is making infrastructure investments across British Columbia and that reverting to protectionism would be disastrous, citing a strong partnership with the province.
Does not address the Washington State company, the $1 million figure, or the buy American policy question at all, instead giving boilerplate about infrastructure investments across British Columbia and ending with a quip about signs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are making investments in infrastructure in every corner of the country. We think it would be disastrous if we reverted to protectionism, something that would kill jobs around the world and lower the standard of living for everyone. We have had a particularly strong partnership with the province of British Columbia, making investments in the Southern Interior, on Vancouver Island, in metro Vancouver and in the north. We are very proud of the infrastructure investments we are making. We are so proud of these infrastructure investments, we have even put a sign up in front of each one of them, showing how transparent and accountable we are to the taxpayers in British Columbia.
Why are the political games being played by the NDP, the Bloc, and the Liberals in rejecting a modernized and widely supported fisheries convention so off the mark?
A government-backbench softball asking why opposition parties are playing political games on a modernized NAFO convention, with no factual grounding and framed entirely to invite partisan attack.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister is travelling abroad, enhancing Canada's profile on the world stage and opening many doors for Canadians. Meanwhile the opposition parties are attempting to undermine Canadian fishers' interests in international waters off the east coast by rejecting a modernized and widely supported fisheries convention. Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tell the House why these political games are so off the mark?
The minister stated that the Atlantic offshore fishing industry, inshore fishers, union leaders, and independent international legal experts all support the new NAFO convention, and accused the Liberal leader of not understanding the Atlantic Canadian fishery.
The minister names specific supporters of the new NAFO convention (Atlantic offshore fishing industry, inshore fishers, union leaders, independent international legal experts) and attacks the Liberals over sealers and fishers, providing some substantive context though no direct policy detail.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government has cleaned up NAFO. The Atlantic offshore fishing industry supports the new NAFO convention. So do inshore fishers, so do union leaders and so do independent international legal experts, but the opposition parties are playing political games. The Liberals completely ignore Newfoundland and Labrador industry calls to protect its interests and then they claim a moral victory. First it was the sealers. Now it is the fishers. It proves, once again, that the Liberal leader does not understand the Atlantic Canadian fishery.
Navdeep Bains (MississaugaâBrampton South, Lib) raised a point of order asking the President of the Treasury Board to apologize for making a gun-like gesture during debate on the Afghanistan detainee issue; Vic Toews did not apologize and instead addressed a statement he attributed to the member for Toronto Centre about Afghan prisoner transfers before 2006.
- Lib Navdeep Bains
- CPC Vic Toews
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during question period, as we were talking about a very important issue regarding the detainees in Afghanistan, the President of the Treasury Board made a gun-like gesture, something along this nature. I found that to be completely inappropriate, wrong and disturbing. I would ask the minister to apologize.
Mr. Speaker, let us put on the record what happened. The member for Toronto Centre said that there were no Afghan prisoners transferred by Canadian soldiers to Afghanis prior to 2006. It is a ridiculous suggestion that Canadians did not transfer. What did they do with these prisoners? They did not hold them.
Navdeep Bains (MississaugaâBrampton South, Lib) pressed again for an apology from the President of the Treasury Board for the gun-like gesture; Mark Warawa countered that Bains himself had been making the gesture, and Vic Toews again declined to apologize, instead asserting that Canadian soldiers do not mistreat their prisoners and challenging the member opposite to provide evidence if he believes otherwise.
- Lib Navdeep Bains
- CPC Mr. Mark Warawa
- CPC Vic Toews
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the fact that the President of the Treasury Board is unwilling reflects some sort of guilt there. He made the gesture. It was wrong. He should apologize. That is the issue.
Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to see that member making those gestures of which he is now accusing the member. If you would check the blues and check the cameras, you will see that member making the gesture. It is not appropriate for him to be attacking a member over here when he is doing that.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian soldiers had these prisoners. They transferred them to the Afghanis. The suggestion made by the member opposite was there was something untoward done by Canadian soldiers to Afghani prisoners. If he has any evidence in that respect, he should stand and give that evidence. The fact is Canadian soldiers do not mistreat their prisoners.
Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib) rose to state that the President of the Treasury Board had made a completely and utterly false statement about his views regarding the conduct of Canadian soldiers, clarifying that the issue before the House was the Conservative government's conduct in handling information about the treatment of Afghan detainees by Afghan authorities; Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib) separately raised a point of order asking the Speaker to review the transcript of the November 17 Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics meeting to determine whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage had used offensive and unfounded words against him under Standing Order 18; Dean Del Mastro responded defending his characterization of Szabo as a partisan chair and described an incident where Szabo had prevented him from speaking to a motion at committee.
- Lib Bob Rae
- Lib Mr. Paul Szabo
- CPC Mr. Dean Del Mastro
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am going to mark my words carefully. The President of the Treasury Board has made a statement about my views, about what I have said and what I have ever suggested, which is completely and utterly false. He should know that and he should know better. He has made a statement today in the House, which is completely and categorically untrue with respect to what I have ever suggested or has been suggested on this side with respect to the conduct of Canadian soldiers. It is absolutely ridiculous for the minister to have made such a statement. He has simply compounded the error, in which he got himself involved. For him to point his fingers over here and suggest that anyone on this side has said anything with respect to how Canadian soldiers have treated Afghan detainees is completely and utterly false. That is not the issue before the House. The issue before the House is the question of the conduct of the Conservative government with respect to how it has treated information received with respect to the treatment by the Afghan authorities of Afghan detainees. To make any other suggestion is completely and utterly preposterous.
Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 18 states in part, âNo Member shall speak disrespectfully...nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereofâ. Yesterday, on page 6864 of Hansard, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage said: This morning, in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I had to put up with the abhorrent behaviour of a partisan chair, who pays no attention to the rules governing parliamentary committees whatsoever. However, during that meeting, I provided the respect that each member is due. These words, I submit, are not only offensive, but they are without foundation and if I do not defend myself there may be some who will take those statements as being fact. Mr. Speaker, accordingly, I would respectfully request that you review the transcript of the November 17 meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to determine whether or not there is a foundation for the member's statements. Should you find that they are without foundation and that certain words in fact are offensive, I would be pleased to rise on a question of privilege and to move the appropriate motion.
Mr. Speaker, I actually thought referring to the member as a partisan chair would be something he would be proud of because that is how he conducts himself. Yesterday, I brought a motion before that committee and the member did not even allow me the opportunity to introduce or speak to the motion. I thought that was abuse of my privilege as a member, but he did not much care about that because that is how he operates. He also interjected into my allotted question time because he objected to a word that I used, a word that perhaps he is a little touchy about, a word that prompted the member for Scarborough Southwest to tweet that she thought that apparently I should lose some weight, which I also thought was inappropriate. I used the word âcrimeâ when talking about Liberal actions related to the sponsorship scandal. He insisted before the witness that I could not use that word. I will read directly--
Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib) attempted to raise a question of privilege regarding offensive words used against him in the House; Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) intervened to apologize to the member for Yukon and his constituents for a ten percenter sent by the Conservative caucus that contained incorrect information about the member's voting record on the long gun registry.
- Lib Mr. Paul Szabo
- An hon. member
- CPC Mr. Tom Lukiwski
Source text
A question of privilege.
The same one.
Point of order.
Mr. Speaker, it is different from the standpoint that this does not refer to the committee. It refers to a statement the member made in the House, this chamber, yesterday, in which he described my behaviour as being offensive. That is disrespectful--
Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention this morning that a ten percenter has been sent by our caucus into the riding of the member for Yukon that contained incorrect information about the member's voting record. This was clearly an error. It should not have happened. Therefore, I would like to apologize to the member and to his constituents. For the record, unlike the majority of his fellow Liberal caucus members, the member for Yukon did vote against an opposition motion in April that called to maintain the long gun registry and end the amnesty, and two weeks ago he voted in favour of private member's Bill C-391 that would end the long gun registry. To be fair, it can be confusing to determine which Liberal members support the registry and which do not. After all, it was the Liberal Party that invented the wasteful long gun registry, and it is the same Liberal Party today that is fighting to keep it in existence. In any case, I encourage the member and those opposition colleagues from all parties who support Bill C-391 to continue to do so through the committee process. Finally, I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight, and once again apologize to the member.