Session overview
- Afghan detainee transfers dominated with multiple exchanges revealing contradictions between what the government told Canadians about building prisons and what it privately communicated to Afghan officials, with over 210 unannounced inspection visits cited in defence.
- Maternal health and contraception generated sustained debate, with the NDP and Liberals pressing the government on why contraception was excluded from Canada's G8 maternal health initiative, while Minister Oda repeatedly focused on postpartum mortality statistics without addressing the contraception question directly.
- Employment insurance premiums were contested, with Liberals arguing that premium increases set by the independent commission constitute a government-imposed tax hike that will cost a two-earner family $1,200 and eliminate 200,000 jobs; the Prime Minister maintained premiums are set independently in line with program costs.
- GST harmonization with Quebec produced a substantive exchange in which the Prime Minister confirmed that Quebec's 1992 agreement â under which Quebec collects the GST on behalf of the federal government â is distinct from harmonization agreements signed with other provinces, and that negotiations are ongoing in good faith.
- The NDP's motion to limit prorogation to seven days unless the House of Commons votes otherwise was raised by Jack Layton; the Prime Minister responded that changing executive powers would require a constitutional amendment and suggested Layton seek a mandate from Canadians rather than rely on a coalition.
- The ten-percenter mailing program was addressed briefly, with the Prime Minister implicitly endorsing yesterday's House vote to end the practice while noting the matter falls under the Board of Internal Economy.
The Prime Minister concretely confirmed that Quebec's 1992 arrangement â under which Quebec collects the GST on behalf of the federal government â is a separate agreement from harmonization deals signed with other provinces, and that the government is open to negotiating a different kind of agreement with Quebec.
Duceppe poses a binary, explicitly answerable yes/no question â will Quebec retain management of the $2.2 billion â grounded in the 1992 agreement and the contrast with all other federal-provincial agreements.
Asked directly whether the government would provide scientists with a creationist guide â a pointed satirical challenge about science policy â Warawa responded by pivoting entirely to the Copenhagen accord and Canada's environmental legislation, addressing nothing in the question.
Outstanding questions
- Jack Layton asked whether the Prime Minister would support the NDP motion to limit prorogation to seven days unless the House votes otherwise â the Prime Minister deflected to constitutional amendment requirements and coalition politics without answering yes or no.
- Bryon Wilfert asked why the government told Canadians it had no interest in building prisons in Afghanistan while privately communicating the opposite to Afghan officials, and why it would not call a public inquiry â no explanation of the contradiction was provided.
- Jack Layton asked whether Canada's G8 signature initiative would exclude contraception entirely and characterized it as a 'no condoms for Africa strategy' â Minister Oda repeated postpartum mortality statistics without confirming or denying whether contraception is excluded from the program.
- Marlene Jennings asked the Minister of Finance to explain to Isabelle Thiffault, a postdoctoral researcher at McGill University, why the 2010 budget's changes to the eligibility for the education tax credit would raise her taxes by $4,000 â Minister Finley did not address Thiffault's situation or the tax credit change.
- Bernard Bigras asked why Environment Canada's media relations policy requires scientists to assess whether their publications align with government policies and priorities, and whether this constitutes censorship â Parliamentary Secretary Warawa denied the allegations without addressing the specific policy requirement.
McCallum notes the House voted to end ten percenters, saving $20 million, and asks when the government will comply with the will of the House of Commons.
Cites a specific House vote, a specific dollar figure ($20 million), and asks a clear yes/no compliance question directed at the Prime Minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday this House voted to end the practice of allowing members to send free propaganda outside their ridings. We voted to save taxpayers $20 million by eliminating this partisan junk mail. If the government is serious about reducing waste, it will surely leap at this opportunity to save $20 million. My question is for the Prime Minister. The Liberals have already stopped their participation in this program. When will the government also comply with the will of the House of Commons?
Harper congratulates McCallum sarcastically, defers to the Board of Internal Economy, and implies the cancellation was a good idea without making any commitment.
Harper deflects with a personal jab at McCallum, passes responsibility to the Board of Internal Economy, and never commits to complying with the House vote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his promotion through what appears to be the rapidly dwindling leadership ranks. Mr. Speaker, as you would know, this matter is under the Board of Internal Economy which you chair. I will just say this, having viewed a few of these Liberal ten percenters, I think the cancellation of the program was a good idea.
McCallum asks the Prime Minister, as an economist, to admit that raising EI premiums constitutes raising taxes on Canadians.
Frames EI premiums as a tax increase and invokes the Prime Minister's economist credentials, but the ask â will you admit you are raising taxes â is more rhetorical than analytically precise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, so I take it that the Prime Minister will indeed comply with the will of the House and save $20 million. I hope that is true. Maintenant, j'aimerais poser une question au premier ministre, d'économiste à économiste. En tant qu'économiste, il sait sûrement qu'une cotisation à l'assurance-emploi est une taxe. En tant que premier ministre, il sait sûrement que son gouvernement haussera cette taxe quatre années de suite. N'est-il donc pas évident qu'il hausse les taxes des Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, si je comprends bien, le premier ministre respectera la volonté de la Chambre, permettant ainsi des économies de 20 millions de dollars. J'espÚre que cela est vrai. I now have a question for the Prime Minister, from one economist to another. As an economist, he surely knows that employment insurance premiums are a tax. As Prime Minister, he surely knows that his government will increase this tax four years in a row. Is it not obvious that he is increasing taxes for Canadians?
Harper states EI premiums are determined by an independent commission according to program costs, and attacks the Liberal 45-day work year proposal.
Harper explains that EI premiums are set by an independent commission and pivots to attacking the Liberal 45-day work year proposal, without directly answering whether premiums constitute a tax increase.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'honorable député sait que les cotisations à l'assurance-emploi sont déterminées par une commission indépendante, selon les frais encourus par le programme. Ce parti, le Parti libéral, veut augmenter de façon incroyable les coûts du programme en établissant l'année de travail à 45 jours. Cela augmentera les coûts du programme. C'est la raison pour laquelle ce gouvernement s'oppose à ces augmentations du programme d'assurance-emploi.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that employment insurance premiums are determined by an independent commission and based on the costs incurred by the program. This party, the Liberal Party, wants to make astronomical increases to the costs of the program by suggesting a 45-day work year. That will increase the program costs. That is why this government is opposed to these changes to the employment insurance program.
McCallum claims the EI premium hike will cost a two-earner family $1,200 and 200,000 jobs, and asks the Prime Minister to simply admit he is raising payroll taxes.
Adds specific figures ($1,200 per two-earner family, 200,000 jobs) and asks the Prime Minister to admit he is raising payroll taxes, though the core ask remains the same rhetorical admission sought in the prior exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we all know that this so-called arm's-length organization is totally under the control of the Prime Minister. If those taxes go up, it is under his orders. This tax hike will cost a two-earner family $1,200 and will cost 200,000 jobs in this fragile economy. If there is one person from whom Canadians deserve the unvarnished truth, that person must surely be the Prime Minister. I ask him the very simple question: Will he simply admit what is evident to all in this House, that he is raising the payroll taxes of Canadians?
Harper again defers to the independent commission and attacks the Liberal $4 billion proposal for a 45-day work year, without admitting the premium increase constitutes a tax hike.
Harper repeats the independent commission argument and again pivots to the Liberal $4 billion 45-day work year proposal, never directly admitting or denying that premiums constitute a tax hike.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, there are some programs of the government that are paid through distinct charges that are set to correspond with the cost of the program. One of those is employment insurance. Those premiums are determined by an independent commission in line with the cost of the program. That is why on this side of the House we oppose the $4 billion a year idea of the Liberal Party to create a 45-day work year subsidized by the employment insurance program. Those are the kinds of costs and those are the kinds of increases we do not want to see in employment insurance.
Jennings accuses the Conservatives of falsely promising no tax or fee increases in the 2010 budget and asks why the minister broke this promise by making life harder for scientific researchers and young Canadians.
References a budget promise and specific policy areas (neurology research incentives, youth jobs) but conflates multiple issues and the ask is compound and somewhat vague.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les conservateurs ont faussement promis que leur budget de 2010 ne hausserait ni les impÎts ni les taxes. Le chef de l'opposition a demandé au premier ministre d'augmenter les incitatifs financiers pour la recherche en neurologie et pour aider des jeunes à trouver des emplois. Mais le gouvernement a fait le contraire! Pourquoi le ministre a-t-il rompu cette promesse? Pourquoi son gouvernement rend-il la vie plus difficile aux chercheurs scientifiques et aux jeunes Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives falsely promised that their 2010 budget would not increase taxes. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister to increase financial incentives for neurological research and to help young people find jobs. But the government did the opposite. Why did the minister break this promise? Why did his government make life more difficult for researchers and young Canadians?
Finley states the government invested several million dollars to help young people through Emplois d'été Canada and an internship program, without addressing the broken tax promise or neurology research.
Finley cites Emplois d'été Canada and an internship program for students but does not address neurology research incentives or explain why the budget broke the no-tax-increase promise.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en fait, nous faisons le contraire. Nous avons investi plusieurs millions de dollars pour aider les jeunes. Cet été, des jeunes bénéficieront du programme Emplois d'été Canada. Il y a aussi un programme d'internat pour les étudiants. Nous avons amélioré ces programmes pour aider les jeunes gens qui ont de la difficulté à trouver des emplois à cause de la récession globale.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in fact, we have done the opposite. We have invested several millions of dollars to help young people. This summer, young people will be able to take advantage of the Canada summer jobs program. There is also an internship program for students. We have improved these programs to help young people who have a hard time finding jobs because of the global recession.
Jennings asks the Minister of Finance to explain to Isabelle Thiffault, a postdoctoral researcher at McGill, why the 2010 budget's changes to the education tax credit will raise her taxes by $4,000.
Names a specific individual (Isabelle Thiffault, Université McGill), identifies a specific policy change (eligibility limit on the education tax credit), and cites a specific dollar impact ($4,000 tax increase), making this highly grounded.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, Isabelle Thiffault, de l'Université McGill, est récipiendaire de deux bourses postdoctorales. Ses recherches pourraient ouvrir la voie à de nouveaux traitements pour les troubles neurologiques. à cause du budget de 2010, qui limite l'admissibilité au crédit d'impÎt pour l'éducation, Isabelle subira une hausse d'impÎt de 4 000 $. Le ministre des Finances expliquera-t-il à Isabelle pourquoi il a augmenté ses impÎts de 4 000 $?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Isabelle Thiffault, from McGill University, received two post-doctoral scholarships. Her research could open the door to new treatments for neurological problems. Because of the 2010 budget, which limits eligibility for education tax credits, Isabelle will see her taxes increase by $4,000. Will the Minister of Finance explain to Isabelle why he increased her taxes by $4,000?
Finley claims the member ignores the facts and lists general student investments such as more bursaries, university funding, and changes to the repayment system, without addressing the specific case.
Finley does not address Isabelle Thiffault's situation, the education tax credit change, or the $4,000 figure, instead speaking generically about student grants and university funding.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'honorable députée ignore tous les faits. Nous avons fait beaucoup pour les étudiants: il y a beaucoup plus de bourses et de financement qui sont disponibles. Nous avons investi dans les universités et les collÚges afin de les aider à accepter des étudiants. Nous avons également modifié le systÚme de remboursement afin qu'il soit plus facile pour les étudiants d'étudier.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is ignoring the facts. We have done a lot for students: there are many more scholarships and funding opportunities available. We have invested in universities and colleges to help them accept students. We have also modified the repayment system to make it easier for students to study.
Duceppe asks whether the Prime Minister shares his parliamentary secretary's April 2009 statement that a new GST harmonization deal with Quebec would require federal management of the tax.
Cites the specific 1992 agreement, the Ontario and British Columbia agreements, and a specific statement by a parliamentary secretary from April 2009, asking whether the federal government would manage Quebec's tax under a new deal.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, concernant l'harmonisation de la TPS, le premier ministre nous a rĂ©pondu hier: « Nous continuons Ă travailler pour rĂ©aliser une entente semblable Ă celle conclue avec les autres provinces ». Or, l'entente conclue entre le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral et les provinces comme l'Ontario et la Colombie-Britannique stipule clairement que c'est le fĂ©dĂ©ral qui perçoit la TPS, et non les provinces. Le premier ministre peut-il nous dire s'il partage la mĂȘme opinion que le secrĂ©taire parlementaire du ministre des Finances, qui a dĂ©clarĂ©, en avril 2009, qu'une entente avec le QuĂ©bec sur la TPS impliquerait que le fĂ©dĂ©ral gĂ©rerait cette taxe?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when asked about tax harmonization yesterday, the Prime Minister said, âWe will continue to work to reach an agreement similar to those reached with other provincesâ. But the agreement reached between the federal government and provinces such as Ontario and British Colombia clearly states that the federal government collects the GST, not the provinces. Can the Prime Minister tell us if he agrees with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance who, in April 2009, said that an agreement with Quebec about the GST would mean that the federal government would manage this tax?
Harper states Parliament passed GST harmonization legislation, that signed agreements create mutual obligations, and that the government wants accords respecting those obligations, without addressing the parliamentary secretary's statement.
Harper acknowledges the existing agreements and says the government wants to reach an accord respecting obligations to other provinces, but does not directly confirm or deny whether the parliamentary secretary's position reflects government policy.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai répondu à cette question hier. Le Parlement du Canada a adopté une législation sur l'harmonisation de la TPS avec les taxes des provinces. C'est une décision des provinces. Nous avons signé des ententes à cet égard, qui créent des obligations mutuelles entre le fédéral et les provinces. Nous voulons conclure des accords qui respectent nos obligations envers les autres provinces.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question yesterday. The Parliament of Canada passed legislation on harmonizing the GST with provincial sales taxes. It is a provincial decision. We have signed agreements in this regard, agreements that create mutual obligations between the federal and provincial governments. We want agreements that respect our obligations towards the other provinces.
Duceppe asks directly: will Quebec retain management of the $2.2 billion under a new harmonization agreement, or does the current government require Quebec to cede that management to Ottawa to receive the money?
Duceppe poses a binary, explicitly answerable yes/no question â will Quebec retain management of the $2.2 billion â grounded in the 1992 agreement and the contrast with all other federal-provincial agreements.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je demande au premier ministre de nous rĂ©pondre clairement. Un des deux gouvernements va gĂ©rer cet argent. En vertu de l'entente de 1992, c'est le QuĂ©bec qui le gĂšre. Dans toutes les autres ententes conclues entre le fĂ©dĂ©ral et les provinces, c'est Ottawa qui le gĂšre. J'aimerais simplement qu'il nous rĂ©ponde. Est-ce cela qui bloque l'entente? Le gouvernement actuel remet-il en question l'entente de 1992 et nous dit-il que si QuĂ©bec veut recevoir les 2,2 milliards de dollars, il devra cĂ©der la gestion Ă Ottawa? Le QuĂ©bec conservera-t-il la gestion de cet argent, oui ou non? La question ne peut pas ĂȘtre plus claire que cela.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Prime Minister to give us a clear answer. One of the two governments will have to manage this money. Under the 1992 agreement, Quebec manages it. In all of the other agreements between the federal government and other provinces, Ottawa manages it. I simply want an answer. Is this why negotiations have stalled? Is the current government questioning the 1992 agreement? Is it saying that if Quebec wants to receive that $2.2 million, then Ottawa must be allowed to manage the money? Will Quebec be allowed to continue managing this money, yes or no? The question could not be any clearer.
Harper explains that Quebec's 1992 arrangement has Quebec collecting the GST on behalf of the federal government and says the government is open and negotiating in good faith if Quebec wants a different kind of agreement.
Harper clarifies that Quebec's 1992 agreement has Quebec collecting GST on behalf of the federal government and says the government is open to negotiating another kind of agreement, partially addressing the management question but not giving a clear yes/no on retaining the $2.2 billion.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Québec a signé une entente tout à fait différente, que nous avons respectée. Ce n'est pas une entente d'harmonisation de sa taxe avec la TPS. Cette entente prévoit que c'est le Québec qui perçoit la TPS au nom du fédéral. Nous respectons cette entente. Si le Québec veut un autre genre d'entente, nous sommes trÚs ouverts. Nous sommes en train de négocier de bonne foi avec la province.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Quebec signed a completely different agreement. We have respected that agreement. It was not an agreement about harmonizing the provincial tax with the GST. This agreement states that Quebec will collect the GST on behalf of the federal government. We are respecting this agreement. If Quebec would like another type of agreement, we are open to that. We are currently negotiating in good faith with the province.
Bigras accuses the Conservative government of muzzling scientists and imposing partisan publication standards, implying this constitutes censorship.
Bigras makes allegations about scientific censorship but frames the question as a rhetorical denunciation rather than a specific, answerable ask, ending without a clear question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce gouvernement conservateur veut mettre les scientifiques à sa main en leur imposant son programme idéologique de droite. Non satisfait de les museler, il les invite à se demander si leurs publications correspondent aux politiques et aux priorités du gouvernement. C'est scandaleux! Pourtant, le ministre refuse de voir dans cette approche une tentative délibérée de censure. Quand on interdit aux scientifiques de répondre directement aux journalistes, qu'on exige de voir à l'avance leurs réponses et qu'on leur impose des normes partisanes de publication, si ce n'est pas de la censure, je me demande bien ce que c'est.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this Conservative government wants to control scientists by imposing its right-wing ideological agenda on them. Not content with muzzling them, now the government would like them to consider whether their publications are in line with government policies and priorities. It is outrageous. The minister refuses to see that this approach is a deliberate attempt at censorship. When scientists are prohibited from answering journalists directly, are required to provide their answers in advance and are subject to partisan publication standards, if that is not censorship, then I wonder what is.
Warawa says the allegations are false, notes Environment Canada has the same media relations policy as all other departments, and states the government supports climate change science.
Warawa denies the allegations and states Environment Canada has the same media relations policy as every other department, and expresses support for climate change science, which partially engages the censorship allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member knows that his allegations are false. He also knows that Environment Canada has the same media relations policy as every other department across the government. Climate change science is valuable and important work that this government supports. We will continue to support good science.
Bigras mockingly asks why the government does not give scientists a creationist guide titled 'Les dinosaures au pouvoir,' implying the government imposes an anti-science agenda.
Bigras's question is entirely satirical and rhetorical, referencing a hypothetical creationist guide and containing no factual grounding or answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, tant qu'Ă tout contrĂŽler et Ă vouloir imposer un programme rĂ©trograde, qu'attend le gouvernement pour donner le feu vert au ministre dâĂtat (Sciences et Technologie) pour qu'il distribue aux scientifiques un petit guide du parfait crĂ©ationniste qui pourrait s'intituler « Les dinosaures au pouvoir »?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, since it wants to control everything and impose a regressive program, when can we expect the government to give the Minister of State for Science and Technology the green light to provide scientists with a little creationism for dummies guide that could be called âDinosaurs in powerâ?
Warawa states the government supports good science, references Canada's participation in the Copenhagen accord, and asks why the member will not support good environmental legislation.
Warawa ignores the satirical premise entirely, pivots to the Copenhagen accord and environmental legislation, delivering a completely unrelated response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we support good science and science research. The member may not be aware, but Canada is part of the Copenhagen accord. We have worked with our international partners and with our provinces. We have moved on now with a new global agreement. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment, we are making Canada proud. We are acting. Why will that member not support good environmental legislation?
Layton asks whether the Prime Minister will support the NDP's proposal to limit prorogation to seven days unless the House of Commons votes otherwise.
Layton references hundreds of thousands of protesters, cites a specific NDP motion being debated that day, and asks a precise yes/no question about supporting a seven-day limit on prorogation without a House vote.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, des centaines de milliers de personnes ont manifestĂ© contre la prorogation de leur Chambre des communes, une mesure prise par le premier ministre. Nous dĂ©battrons aujourd'hui une motion du NPD pour encadrer le pouvoir de prorogation. ConsidĂ©rant la vague de mĂ©contentement face Ă sa dĂ©cision unilatĂ©rale, le premier ministre est-il prĂȘt Ă appuyer notre proposition de limiter la prorogation Ă sept jours, Ă moins qu'un vote Ă la Chambre des communes en dĂ©cide autrement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated against the Prime Minister's prorogation of their House of Commons. Today we are debating an NDP motion to put limits on the power to prorogue. Considering the wave of discontent over his unilateral decision, is the Prime Minister prepared to support our proposal to limit prorogation to seven days unless a vote in the House of Commons decides otherwise?
Harper claims changing executive powers requires a constitutional amendment and mocks Layton for his coalition with the Bloc and Liberals, without addressing the NDP motion's specific proposal.
Harper claims a constitutional amendment is required to change executive powers, then pivots to attacking the NDP-Bloc-Liberal coalition, never engaging with the specific seven-day proposal in the NDP motion.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pour changer les pouvoirs de l'exĂ©cutif dans la Constitution canadienne, un amendement constitutionnel est nĂ©cessaire. Mais si le chef du Bloc, pardon, je veux dire le chef du Nouveau parti dĂ©mocratique -- c'est parfois la mĂȘme chose â veut former sa coalition avec le Bloc et le Parti libĂ©ral, au lieu de changer la Constitution, il devrait chercher un mandat de la population canadienne.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, to change executive powers in the Canadian Constitution, a constitutional amendment is required. However, if the leader of the Blocâexcuse me, I meant to say the leader of the New Democratic Party, but sometimes it amounts to the same thingâwants to form his coalition with the Bloc and the Liberal Party instead of changing the Constitution, he should seek a mandate from the people of Canada.
Layton asks the Prime Minister to explain why contraception is excluded from the maternal health initiative on the grounds that it does not save lives.
Layton identifies a specific claim â that contraception does not save lives â attributed to the government, and asks why this element is excluded from the maternal health initiative, though the attribution is somewhat imprecise.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on apprend que non seulement les conservateurs veulent exclure la contraception de leur plan pour améliorer la santé des mÚres dans le monde, mais qu'ils le font parce que, selon eux, la contraception ne sauve pas de vies. C'est incroyable! Comment le premier ministre peut-il expliquer que ce pan trÚs important de prévention soit exclus de l'initiative, par ailleurs louable, d'améliorer la santé des mÚres dans les pays moins fortunés?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the Conservatives want to exclude contraception from their plan to improve maternal health throughout the world because they believe that contraception does not save lives. That is unbelievable. Can the Prime Minister explain why this very important aspect of prevention is excluded from this otherwise commendable initiative to improve maternal health in less fortunate countries?
Oda states the initiative aims to save the lives of mothers and children, citing that 500,000 women die in pregnancy and childbirth every year and 75% of maternal deaths occur within 48 hours after delivery.
Oda reiterates the initiative's focus on saving mothers' and children's lives and cites the statistic that 500,000 women die in pregnancy and childbirth yearly, but does not address the specific claim about contraception or explain its exclusion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear since our great announcement, accepted by all countries in the G8. This initiative is about saving the lives of mothers and children. As we know, 500,000 women die in pregnancy and childbirth every year and an estimated 75% of maternal deaths occur within 48 hours after delivery. This hard fact is something we can do something about, and that is what we intend to do, at the G8, along with our colleagues.
Layton asks the Prime Minister whether Canada's G8 signature initiative will exclude contraception from a program aimed at reducing maternal mortality.
Layton cites specific figures (more than half a million women dying, 15 to 20 million with maternal morbidity) and asks a pointed question about whether contraception will be part of the program, though the closing framing ('no condoms for Africa strategy') is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, more than half a million women and girls die from pregnancy-related causes every year, and more than 15 million to 20 million have maternal morbidity. And the foreign affairs minister is going around saying that contraception does not save lives. How can a program aimed at reducing maternal mortality not allow for any contraception as a part of the program? I ask the Prime Minister, is Canada's signature initiative at the G8 going to be the no condoms for Africa strategy?
Oda repeats statistics on maternal deaths occurring within 48 hours of delivery and says the government intends to act, without addressing the contraception exclusion.
Oda provides additional statistics about timing of maternal deaths (17% during childbirth, 71% postpartum, 45% within 24 hours) but still does not address whether contraception is or will be part of the program.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I just said, 75% of mothers are dying within 48 hours after delivery. In fact, 17% of those maternal deaths happen during childbirth and 71% happen in the postpartum period. Out of the 75%, 45% of those deaths happen within 24 hours of giving birth. Far too many lives are being sacrificed when we can do something about it. This is the time we should act.
LeBlanc asks why the Conservative government publicly denied interest in building prisons in Afghanistan while privately telling Afghan officials in February 2009 exactly the opposite.
LeBlanc cites a specific time (February 2009), a specific discrepancy between public and private statements to Afghan officials, and asks why the government said one thing publicly and the opposite privately.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les ministres conservateurs ont faussement soutenu, Ă de nombreuses reprises, qu'ils n'avaient aucun intĂ©rĂȘt Ă construire des prisons en Afghanistan. Or nous venons d'apprendre qu'en fĂ©vrier 2009, en privĂ©, ils disaient exactement le contraire aux reprĂ©sentants afghans. Pourquoi le gouvernement a-t-il dit une chose aux Canadiens et exactement le contraire, en privĂ©, aux autoritĂ©s afghanes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Conservative ministers falsely maintained, on a number of occasions, that they were not interested in building prisons in Afghanistan. We have just learned that, in February 2009, they were privately telling Afghan representatives the exact opposite. Why did the government say one thing to Canadians and quite another, in private, to the Afghan authorities?
Cannon states the 2007 Kabul NDS detention centre proposal was a UK-led initiative that did not come to pass, and describes the current arrangement for Afghan facilities under the transfer agreement.
Cannon identifies the 2007 UK-led initiative for a Kabul NDS detention centre that did not come to pass, and describes the current transfer arrangement, partially addressing the context but not explaining the alleged contradiction between public and private statements.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the proposal to build a Kabul-based NDS detention centre in 2007 was a U.K.-led initiative, which ultimately did not come to pass. Under the new transfer agreement, the Government of Afghanistan has agreed to hold detainees in a limited number of Afghan facilities: first, in the NDS facility, as well as in the Sarposa prison, which is run by the Afghan minister of justice.
LeBlanc asks why the government gives Afghan prison authorities advance notice of inspections, allowing time to conceal cases of torture, given that the US State Department has found torture to be common in those prisons.
LeBlanc raises a specific allegation (advance notice to Afghan prison officials before inspections), cites a US State Department finding on torture being common in those same prisons, and asks a clear causal question about why advance notice is given.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme aucune prison n'a Ă©tĂ© construite, les conservateurs ont convenu de donner aux autoritĂ©s afghanes des prĂ©avis d'inspection avant de visiter leurs prisons. DerniĂšrement, le dĂ©partement d'Ătat amĂ©ricain nous a dit que la torture Ă©tait courante dans ces mĂȘmes prisons. Pourquoi le gouvernement donne-t-il aux responsables des prisons afghanes un prĂ©avis qui leur laisse le temps de cacher leurs cas de torture?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, since no prisons were built, the Conservatives agreed to give Afghan authorities a heads-up before inspecting their prisons. Recently, the U.S. State Department reported that torture was commonplace in these same prisons. Why does the government give advance notice to those responsible for Afghan prisons, thus giving them time to hide evidence of torture?
Cannon denies that advance notice is given, states that over 210 unannounced visits have been made including one 10 days ago, and says the negotiated agreement provides for unannounced access.
Cannon directly denies that advance notice is given, cites over 210 unannounced visits including one 10 days prior, and references the negotiated agreement, substantively addressing the specific allegation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si mon honorable collÚgue avait pris un tantinet la peine de lire l'entente, il aurait rapidement conclu que nous ne donnons pas de préavis. C'est exactement l'entente qui a été négociée. Plus de 210 visites ont été faites sans préavis. Il y en a eu une il n'y a pas longtemps, soit il y a 10 jours. Non seulement est-ce l'entente qui a été négociée, mais c'est certainement l'entente que nous avons améliorée.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, had my honourable colleague made just the slightest effort to read the agreement, he would have quickly discovered that we do not give advance notice. That is exactly what was negotiated. More than 210 inspections have been carried out without advance notice. One took place recently, just 10 days ago. Not only did we negotiate that agreement, but we have also enhanced it.
Wilfert asks what the government knew about the risk of torture when it agreed with NATO allies to build a new prison, and why a letter surfacing now if the government has nothing to hide.
Wilfert references a secret deal with British and Dutch officials, a written promise to Afghan officials over a year ago, and asks what the government knew and why the letter is surfacing now, though the phrasing 'what exactly did the government know' is somewhat broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it has come to light that the government made a secret deal with the British and Dutch officials to build a new Afghan prison. Despite its written promise over a year ago to Afghan officials, there is nothing to show. The government must have known about the risk of torture when it agreed with our NATO allies to build a new prison. Instead of addressing our international obligations, our government is now apologizing for this empty promise. What exactly did the government know and why is this letter surfacing now, if the government has nothing to hide?
Cannon states he has never been briefed on the matter, confirms the 2007 transfer agreement is in full force, and cites over 210 visits by Canadian officials to detention facilities.
Cannon states he was never briefed on the matter, confirms the 2007 transfer agreement is in full force, and notes over 210 visits have been made, partially addressing the question but not explaining why the letter is surfacing now or what the government knew.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, we have never been briefed on that. I can confirm that the 2007 transfer agreement is in full force and in effect. As I reminded his colleague, the 2007 agreement that this government negotiated grants us full and unrestricted access to detention facilities where detainees are transferred by Canadian Forces. To date, there have been over 210 visits made by Canadian officials to these facilities.
A letter from the general director of the NDS allegedly proves Canada had interest in building Afghan prisons contrary to what ministers said publicly; why not call a public inquiry?
Cites a specific letter from the general director of the NDS as evidence of contradiction, but the ask â a public inquiry â is broad and the framing is heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions in public and in the House, the Conservative ministers have repeatedly said that Canada has no interest in building prisons in Afghanistan. Yet this letter from the general director of the NDS proves otherwise. The government must have known that torture is a serious issue in Afghan prisons. The government was telling Canadians one thing while telling Afghan officials the complete opposite. Canadians do not know what to believe from a government that keeps hiding the truth and gets caught hiding the truth. Why does it not stop the charade and call a public inquiry?
Canada is not building or running Afghan prisons; it is mentoring Afghan prison staff and has invested $5.5 million to improve corrections infrastructure as part of its six priorities.
Partially addresses the prison-building claim by clarifying Canada's role as mentoring and investing $5.5 million in infrastructure, but does not engage with the NDS letter or the allegation of contradictory messaging.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me remind the colleague here and my colleagues in the House that Canada is not in the business of building or running Afghan prisons. Let us be clear on that. We are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan government build its independent capacity to manage its own affairs. One of Canada's six priorities is helping the Afghan government promote law and order, which includes its corrections systems. Canada has mentored Afghan prison staff and invested $5.5 million to improve that infrastructure.
Given that the Minister of Foreign Affairs requires Rights & Democracy to follow international treaty obligations, what should the organization do regarding Omar Khadr â denounce Canada's non-compliance or defend the government's interpretation?
Draws a specific contrast between the minister's own public statement requiring Rights & Democracy to follow international treaty obligations and the government's treatment of Omar Khadr, posing a pointed dilemma, though it combines two distinct issues.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Canada a signé des traités internationaux ayant pour effet de protéger les enfants soldats. Or le gouvernement conservateur ne respecte pas ces traités, prétendant qu'Omar Khadr n'est pas un enfant soldat. Pourtant le ministre des Affaires étrangÚres soutient que Droits et Démocratie « doit [...] suivre les obligations des traités internationaux auxquels le gouvernement du Canada a souscrit » et les politiques qui en découlent. Que devra faire Droits et Démocratie dans le cas d'Omar Khadr? Dénoncer le non-respect des engagements internationaux ou défendre l'interprétation tordue du gouvernement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada has signed international treaties meant to protect child soldiers. But the Conservative government is disregarding those treaties by claiming that Omar Khadr is not a child soldier. Yet the Minister of Foreign Affairs maintains that Rights & Democracy ââhas to respect the obligations under the international treaties to which the Government of Canada has adheredâ and the resulting policies. What should Rights & Democracy do in Omar Khadr's case? Condemn the government's failure to respect international commitments or defend its twisted interpretation?
The minister says he will address only the Rights & Democracy portion and invites the member to read paragraph 13(3) of the legislation governing Rights & Democracy.
The minister deflects entirely, declining to address the Omar Khadr dimension and merely directing the member to read paragraph 13(3) of the governing legislation without explaining its relevance.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je vais répondre à la partie qui concerne Droits et Démocratie. J'invite ma collÚgue à lire attentivement la loi qui gouverne Droits et Démocratie, particuliÚrement le paragraphe 13(3).
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the part about Rights & Democracy. I invite my colleague to carefully read the legislation governing Rights & Democracy, particularly subsection 13(3).
Why does the government not acknowledge that by appointing GĂ©rard Latulippe and stacking Rights & Democracy's board it has taken control of an organization meant to be independent?
Alleges government control of Rights & Democracy through the appointment of GĂ©rard Latulippe and stacking of the board, but the ask is largely rhetorical and not tied to specific verifiable evidence.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'obsession du premier ministre de tout contrĂŽler ne connaĂźt aucune limite. En nommant GĂ©rard Latulippe et en noyautant Droits et DĂ©mocratie, le gouvernement a manoeuvrĂ© pour assujettir cet organisme censĂ© ĂȘtre indĂ©pendant de tout gouvernement. Pourquoi le gouvernement ne reconnaĂźt-il pas qu'il a pris le contrĂŽle de Droits et DĂ©mocratie et qu'il s'attend maintenant Ă ce que celui-ci chante les louanges du gouvernement conservateur?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's obsession with controlling everything knows no bounds. By appointing GĂ©rard Latulippe and infiltrating Rights & Democracy, the government manipulated the situation in order to subjugate this organization, which is supposed to be independent of any government. Why will the government not admit that it took control of Rights & Democracy and that it now expects that organization to sing the praises of the Conservative government?
The minister says he has answered these questions before a parliamentary committee, that Rights & Democracy officials appeared and satisfied the committee on October 29, and that he invited colleagues to meet with Rights & Democracy representatives.
The minister points to his committee testimony and a previous appearance by Rights & Democracy officials without addressing the substance of the takeover allegation, and deflects by inviting further committee appearances.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai eu l'occasion de rĂ©pondre Ă ces questions devant le comitĂ© parlementaire Ă l'occasion de mon tĂ©moignage. Le 29 octobre dernier, les gens de Droits et DĂ©mocratie ont eu l'occasion de comparaĂźtre devant le comitĂ©, qui a Ă©tĂ© satisfait des rĂ©ponses obtenues. Hier, j'ai invitĂ© mes collĂšgues Ă faire preuve d'ouverture et Ă inviter des gens de Droits et DĂ©mocratie, qui sont prĂȘts Ă venir les rencontrer pour parler de questions qui les touchent et les intĂ©ressent.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to answer these questions when I appeared before the parliamentary committee. On October 29, 2009, the people of Rights & Democracy had the opportunity to appear before the committee, which was satisfied with the responses it heard. Yesterday, I invited my colleagues to show some openness and invite people from Rights & Democracy, who are willing to meet with them to discuss the issues that concern and interest them.
The new Conservative MP for MontmagnyâL'IsletâKamouraskaâRiviĂšre-du-Loup confirmed on local radio that transitional EI measures for eastern Quebec will not be renewed; how can the government claim to help the unemployed while imposing additional weeks without income?
Cites a specific on-air radio statement by the new Conservative MP and draws a direct contrast with his campaign promises, asking why transitional EI measures will not be renewed, though the framing is partly partisan.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le nouveau dĂ©putĂ© conservateur de MontmagnyâL'IsletâKamouraskaâRiviĂšre-du-Loup...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the new Conservative member for MontmagnyâL'IsletâKamouraskaâRiviĂšre-du-Loupâ
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le nouveau dĂ©putĂ© conservateur de MontmagnyâL'IsletâKamouraskaâRiviĂšre-du-Loup a confirmĂ© sur les ondes d'une radio locale que les mesures transitoires d'assurance-emploi pour l'est du QuĂ©bec ne seraient pas reconduites. Celui qui se vantait d'ĂȘtre gĂ©nĂ©reux conseille maintenant aux chĂŽmeurs de trouver un troisiĂšme emploi Ă temps partiel. Celui qui promettait de se tenir debout devant le premier ministre n'ose mĂȘme pas exiger que les mesures transitoires soient reconduites. Comment le gouvernement conservateur peut-il prĂ©tendre aider les chĂŽmeurs alors qu'il leur impose des semaines supplĂ©mentaires sans revenu?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the new Conservative member for MontmagnyâL'IsletâKamouraskaâRiviĂšre-du-Loup confirmed on a local radio station that the transitional employment insurance measures in eastern Quebec would not be extended. He bragged about being generous, but now he is telling unemployed workers to find a third part-time job. He promised to stand up to the Prime Minister, and now he will not even dare ask that the transitional measures be extended. How can the Conservative government claim to be helping the unemployed, when it is adding more weeks without income?
The government is currently studying the transitional measures; some Quebec regions with difficult EI conditions could benefit from additional weeks, but no decision has been taken yet, and the measure has been renewed five times since 2000.
The minister acknowledges the question directly, confirms a decision has not yet been made, and notes the measure has been renewed five times since 2000, but provides no timeline or criteria for the decision.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on étudie actuellement la question des mesures transitoires. On sait que certaines régions du Québec connaissent des conditions d'assurance-emploi plus difficiles. Dans ce contexte, ces régions pourraient bénéficier de quelques semaines additionnelles. Nous évaluons la situation. La décision n'est pas encore prise. Mais on se rappellera que cette mesure a été reconduite à cinq reprises depuis 2000. Laissons le gouvernement faire son analyse.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are currently examining the issue of transitional measures. We know that some regions in Quebec are experiencing more difficult employment insurance conditions and could benefit from some additional weeks. We are examining the situation. The decision has not yet been made. But I remind members that this measure has been extended five times since 2000. Let the government examine it.
Since the problem that justified the transitional EI measures in 2000 still exists, why would the government eliminate those measures for workers in eastern Quebec?
Presses the specific point that the problem identified in 2000 still exists and asks why transitional measures for eastern Quebec workers would be eliminated, though it is partly rhetorical in its characterization of the MP.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, plutĂŽt que de proposer des solutions pour aider les chĂŽmeurs, le QuĂ©bĂ©cois de service du premier ministre dans MontmagnyâL'IsletâKamouraskaâRiviĂšre-du-Loup s'est attaquĂ© aux travailleurs saisonniers en dĂ©plorant que ces travailleurs aient recours rĂ©guliĂšrement Ă l'assurance-emploi au dĂ©triment de la population qui travaille 12 mois par annĂ©e. Puisque le problĂšme identifiĂ© en 2000 est toujours prĂ©sent, pourquoi Ă©liminer les mesures transitoires pour les travailleurs de l'est du QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, instead of proposing solutions to help the unemployed, the Prime Minister's token Quebecker in MontmagnyâL'IsletâKamouraskaâRiviĂšre-du-Loup went after seasonal workers by criticizing the fact that these workers regularly collect employment insurance at the expense of people who work 12 months a year. Since the problem that was identified in 2000 is still an issue, why eliminate the transitional measures for workers in eastern Quebec?
The minister lists six or seven economic measures put in place to support regions and workers during the recession, notes the Bloc voted against them, and cites 21,000 new jobs created in February and a drop in the unemployment rate from 8.3% to 8.2%.
The minister pivots entirely to listing unrelated economic stimulus measures and February job creation figures, without addressing the question of why transitional EI measures would or would not be renewed.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai remarquĂ©, au cours des derniers mois, qu'Ă six ou sept reprises, nous avons mis en place toutes sortes de mesures pour soutenir les rĂ©gions et les travailleurs au moment oĂč notre pays souffrait d'une rĂ©cession. Au moins six ou sept mesures ont Ă©tĂ© mises en avant pour les aider. Or, Ă chaque fois, le Bloc s'est levĂ© pour voter contre. De notre cĂŽtĂ©, nous avons mis en place des mesures pour soutenir l'Ă©conomie et cela a fonctionnĂ©: 21 000 nouveaux emplois ont Ă©tĂ© crĂ©Ă©s en fĂ©vrier, et le taux de chĂŽmage au Canada a diminuĂ© de 8,3 p. 100 Ă 8,2 p. 100. Nous allons dans la bonne direction.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in recent months, we implemented six or seven different measures to support regions and workers while our country was in the midst of a recession. We implemented at least six or seven measures to help them. Each time, the Bloc voted against those measures. The government has implemented measures to support the economy, and they have worked: 21,000 new jobs were created in February, and the unemployment rate in Canada decreased from 8.3% to 8.2%. We are heading in the right direction.
Given that according to the United Nations population fund lack of adequate contraceptive services causes 1.5 million deaths in developing countries every year, why does the government not include reproductive health in its maternal health commitment?
Cites a specific United Nations population fund figure of 1.5 million deaths attributable to lack of contraceptive services and links it directly to a minister's public statement, though the ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has confirmed what we have feared all along: the government's commitment to maternal health ends when it comes to reproductive health. Unbelievably, the minister suggested that birth control has nothing to do with saving lives. Perhaps the minister is ignorant of the fact that according to the United Nations population fund, lack of adequate contraceptive services is responsible for 1.5 million deaths in developing countries every year. Why does the government not care about saving the lives of these women and these children?
The government cares about women's health and has chosen to focus on saving the lives of mothers and children through clean water, vaccinations, better nutrition, training of health care workers, and improving access for women.
The minister affirms the government cares about women's health and lists clean water, vaccinations, nutrition, and health worker training as priorities, but does not address the specific contraception figure or the minister's statement about birth control.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we should be clear that this government does care about women and does care about the health of women. We have chosen to focus the world's lens on saving the lives of mothers and children. We know what we can do by providing clean water, vaccinations and better nutrition. As well the most effective way is the training of health care workers and improving access for those women. That is what we are going to do.
Have Canada's G8 partners been informed that its maternal health initiative excludes contraception, given that providing contraceptive access to the 215 million women who want it would avert over one-third of maternal deaths in the developing world?
Cites specific figures â 215 million women without contraceptive access and one-third of maternal deaths averted â and asks whether G8 partners have been informed of Canada's position, making it a reasonably pointed question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister is wilfully ignoring the research which shows that over 215 million women who would like to have access to contraception cannot get it. Providing access to contraception to those who want it would avert over one-third of the maternal deaths in the developing world. Has the minister informed our G8 partners that Canada's so-called signature priority is doomed for failure because Conservative Party ideology does not think that birth control has anything to do with saving lives of women and their children?
G8 partner countries have applauded Canada's initiative, and donor countries know there are actions that can make a significant difference in maternal mortality and child survival, but the answer is cut off before completion.
The minister says G8 partners have applauded Canada's initiative and references actions that make a significant difference on maternal mortality, but does not address whether partners were told contraception is excluded, and the answer is cut off.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have talked to my colleagues in all the G8 countries and they have applauded the initiative that we are putting forward. Every one of these enlightened countries, the donor countries which are making a difference in developing countries, knows that there are actions we can take that will actually make a significant difference in the number of mothers who are dying in childbirth and in their postpartum terms. We are also addressing the lives of those children under the age of--
The minister promised an action plan for Canadian women in 2008 and said it would be completed soon last May; why are the three pillars she calls her action plan sufficient given that commitment?
Holds the minister to a specific 2008 public commitment to develop an action plan, notes the May follow-up statement, and challenges the adequacy of the three pillars as a substitute, making it a reasonably grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the ineffectiveness of the Minister of State for the Status of Women is astounding. In 2008 she told us she was developing an action plan for Canadian women. Last May she said the plan would be completed soon. We have been waiting; we have been watching. Now we learn that her three identified priorities, or pillars as she calls them, are her action plan. Those are just empty words. Where is her real action plan?
Status of Women Canada was restructured around three pillars â economic security, ending violence against women, and women in leadership and democracy â and the government introduced a partnership fund and EI benefits for self-employed workers, the majority of whom are women.
The minister describes the three pillars, the partnership fund, and EI changes for self-employed women, but does not directly explain why the action plan promised in 2008 was replaced by the three pillars or acknowledge the delay.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear. We completely restructured Status of Women Canada. We introduced three pillars of focus: economic security, ending violence against women, and women in leadership and democracy. We continue to engage with Canadian women in grassroots organizations across the country to develop partnerships with the newly created partnership fund in line with and in support of our three pillars. In addition, we did introduce Canada's economic action plan. Within it are a number of benefits for Canadian women, including the changes to EI benefits for self-employed of which the majority are women. Would the member not agree that is significant?
Is the Minister of State for the Status of Women actually responsible for anything, given that she deflects questions on child care, pay equity, the court challenges program, maternal health, and housing?
Lists several policy areas the minister allegedly deflects â child care, pay equity, the court challenges program, maternal health, housing â but the ask devolves into a sarcastic rhetorical jab rather than a specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I invite the minister to read the Liberal pink book. It has a real action plan for all Canadian women developed after a consultation process. It is not three pillars unilaterally thought up over lunch. The Minister of State for the Status of Women deflects questions on child care, pay equity, the court challenges program, maternal health, and housing. Is she responsible really for anything, or is her job to sit in the screen shot during question period?
Conservative women were not relegated to writing a list of broken promises on a pink pad of paper; the government has increased the availability of grassroots organizations that deliver services to the most vulnerable women in Canadian society.
The minister responds with a partisan attack on the Liberal pink book process rather than addressing any of the listed policy areas or the question of her ministerial responsibilities.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what I can say to the member is that we on this side of the House, we Conservative women, were not relegated to the pink back room with a pink pad of paper and asked to write down for the third time a list of pink broken promises made by the previous Liberal government. What we have done is we have increased the availability of those grassroots organizations across the country which are able to deliver to the most vulnerable women in Canadian society.
Could the Minister of Public Safety update the House on an important measure the government has taken to further protect Canadians?
A classic government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to tout a new public safety measure, with no accountability dimension whatsoever.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that this Conservative government is committed to fighting crime and protecting Canadians so that our communities are safe places for people to live and to raise their families. Since coming to office, our government has accomplished a great deal when it comes to cracking down on crime and better protecting Canadians. Thankfully, the Liberal senators are no longer able to abuse their majority in the Senate to delay and obstruct important law and order bills. Could the Minister of Public Safety update this House on another important measure that this government has taken to further protect Canadians?
The government introduced a bill in the Senate that day to strengthen the national sex offender registry and the national DNA data bank, ensuring sex offenders are properly identified to give police better tools, and is calling on Liberal senators to support it.
The minister provides specific information â a bill introduced in the Senate that day to strengthen the national sex offender registry and the national DNA data bank â and calls on Liberal senators to support it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his support and hard work on this important file. I am very pleased to announce that today in the Senate, we have introduced a bill regarding protecting victims from sex offenders. This bill will strengthen the national sex offender registry and the national DNA data bank. It also includes important measures to ensure that sex offenders are properly identified so that police have the tools to do their job. Our Conservative government has listened to the concerns raised by law enforcement and victims' groups, and we have taken action. When last in the House, the opposition decided to support this bill. We are calling on Liberals in the Senate to do the same.
Given that OECD and UNICEF rank Canada dead last in the provision of early learning and child care, when will the government create new child care services for families rather than relying on bogus talking points?
References a YouTube exchange and cites OECD and UNICEF rankings placing Canada last in early learning and child care, giving the question some factual grounding, though the ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last night on YouTube, the Prime Minister was reminded that his failed Conservative child care policy is âan insult to any family that actually relies on itâ. The government's failure is so noticeable that international organizations such as the OECD and UNICEF rank Canada dead last in the provision of early learning and child care. When will the government stop insulting working parents with bogus talking points and actually create new child care services for families?
The minister says the report's study period ended in 2005 under the previous government, points to the universal child care benefit of $100 per month per child under six, and notes $250 million delivered to provinces resulting in over 85,000 announced spaces.
The minister challenges the study period of the report, points to the universal child care benefit of $100 per month per child under six, and notes $250 million to provinces resulting in over 85,000 announced spaces, but does not directly address the OECD and UNICEF rankings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should keep up to date. That report was actually written not about this government, but the study period ended in 2005 under the previous government. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what our government has done. We have created and introduced the universal child care benefit. It offers $100 a month for each child under the age of six, so that parents can get their choice in child care. On top of that, we delivered $250 million to the provinces to help them create spaces, and they have announced over 85,000 of those so far.
Given that every dollar invested in child care returns $2.30 to the economy and there were no new child care spaces in this budget, will the minister admit her family policies are failing hard-working families?
Cites a new OECD report, notes no new child care spaces in the budget, and offers an economic return figure of $2.30 per dollar invested, giving the question factual grounding, though the final ask is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, actually there is a new OECD report. The fact is that parents have not been given any choice because there were no new child care spaces in this budget, not one. Every dollar invested in child care puts $2.30 back into the economy. That is over 10 times more than the Conservatives' tax breaks to their buddies in the big oil companies. No more talking points. Does the minister have the courage to admit her family policies are failing hard-working families and their children?
Creating child care spaces is not the federal government's responsibility; the government has provided $250 million per year to provinces and territories resulting in over 85,000 new spaces, and the universal child care benefit has lifted 22,000 families including 57,000 children above the poverty line.
The minister clarifies constitutional responsibility, reiterates the $250 million per year to provinces and 85,000 new spaces, and adds that the universal child care benefit lifted 22,000 families including 57,000 children above the poverty line, which is a substantive though indirect response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in fact it is not the federal government's responsibility to create child care spaces. We are not allowed to do that. What we have done is we have provided $250 million a year to the provinces and territories, and they have announced over 85,000 new spaces in the last couple of years. The other thing we have done is with our universal child care benefit and that alone has lifted 22,000 families, including some 57,000 children, above the poverty line.
A Quebec City woman with cancer has had her request for a visa for her Haitian half-sister refused twice because the latter cannot offer immovable property guarantees after the earthquake; now that the minister has the file, will he act?
Presents a concrete individual case â a Quebec City woman with cancer seeking a visa for her half-sister from Haiti, refused twice citing immovable property guarantees â and names the Conservative MP who confirmed the file is on the minister's desk, making it a specific and verifiable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, une femme de QuĂ©bec atteinte d'un cancer tente de faire venir sa demi-soeur d'HaĂŻti. Le ministĂšre de l'Immigration a refusĂ© deux fois sa demande de visa sous prĂ©texte que la dame n'a pas de garantie immobiliĂšre Ă offrir. Or, en raison du sĂ©isme, la seule garantie immobiliĂšre qu'elle peut offrir, c'est un bloc de bĂ©ton. Selon la dĂ©putĂ©e conservatrice de BeauportâLimoilou, le dossier est sur le bureau du ministre de la CitoyennetĂ© et de lâImmigration. Maintenant que le ministre Ă l'autorisation de parler publiquement de ce cas et qu'il a Ă©tĂ© saisi du dossier, va-t-il maintenant agir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a Quebec woman suffering from cancer is trying to bring her half-sister from Haiti to Canada. The immigration minister turned down her visa application twice because the woman does not own any real property. As a result of the earthquake, the only real property she has to offer is a block of cement. According to the Conservative member for BeauportâLimoilou, the matter is in the hands of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Now that the minister is able to speak publicly about this case and is involved in the matter, will he take action?
Visa decisions are made by officials, not the minister, and in this specific case it was not clear whether the applicant intended to work in Canada, and the form was neither coherent nor complete.
The minister clarifies that visa decisions are made by officials, not the minister, and states the application was incomplete and incoherent, engaging the specific case but not addressing the broader humanitarian concern raised by post-earthquake circumstances.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je sais que la dĂ©putĂ©e n'est pas exactement une dĂ©butante ici, mais elle n'est peut-ĂȘtre pas au courant que ce n'est pas le ministre qui prend les dĂ©cisions concernant les demandes de visa, ce sont les fonctionnaires. Ils prennent ces dĂ©cisions plus de 800 000 fois par annĂ©e. J'ai confiance en l'efficacitĂ© de nos fonctionnaires et de nos agents de visa. Dans le cas actuel, il n'Ă©tait pas clair du tout si la demanderesse avait l'intention de travailler au Canada ou non, et le formulaire n'Ă©tait rempli de façon ni cohĂ©rente ni complĂšte.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, although not exactly new to this place, the member may not know that public servants, not the minister, make decisions about visa applications. They make more than 800,000 such decisions every year. I am confident that our public servants and our visa officers do a good job. In this case, it was not at all clear whether or not the applicant intended to work in Canada, and the form was not filled out properly.
Quebec's forestry industry proposed to the Prime Minister several weeks ago to build 2,000 wooden houses for Haiti; does the Minister of Foreign Affairs intend to promote this project at the March 31 UN conference in New York?
References a specific proposal from Quebec's forestry industry to build 2,000 wooden houses for Haiti ahead of the March 31 UN conference in New York, making it a concrete and identifiable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le 31 mars prochain, l'ONU tiendra, à New York, une importante conférence sur la reconstruction en Haïti. L'industrie forestiÚre québécoise a proposé au premier ministre, il y a quelques semaines, de fabriquer 2 000 maisons en bois destinées à Haïti. Déjà , plusieurs partenaires ont offert leur appui au projet. Le ministre des Affaires étrangÚres entend-il faire la promotion de ce projet lors de la rencontre qui se tiendra à New York?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on March 31, in New York, the UN will hold a major conference about reconstruction in Haiti. A couple of weeks ago, Quebec's forestry industry proposed to the Prime Minister that 2,000 wood houses be built for Haiti. A number of partners have already offered their support. Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs plan to promote this proposal while at the meeting in New York?
The minister expresses satisfaction with Canadian initiatives to help Haiti and notes the upcoming conference will align needs identified by the Haitian government and other institutions with financing, but does not specifically address the wooden-house proposal before the answer is cut off.
The minister speaks generally about the March 31 conference and the alignment of needs with financing, but does not specifically address whether he intends to promote the Quebec forestry industry's wooden-house proposal; the answer is cut off.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis particuliÚrement heureux des initiatives prises pour venir en aide à Haïti. Je suis particuliÚrement heureux des initiatives que le gouvernement du Canada et les Canadiens ont créées pour aider les Haïtiens. Une nouvelle rencontre aura lieu à la fin du mois, à New York. On pourra alors arrimer les besoins identifiés par le gouvernement haïtien et par les autres institutions aux besoins réels de la population. De plus, on pourra savoir de quelle façon on les financera. Ma collÚgue la ministre des...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased about the initiatives undertaken to help Haiti. I am very pleased about the initiatives that the Government of Canada and Canadians have created to help Haitians. Another meeting will take place at the end of the month in New York to help us align the needs identified by the Haitian government and other institutions with the real needs of the people. We will also find out more about financing. My colleague, the Minister ofâ
Under the last Liberal government, the Innovation Fund and Communities Fund provided $113 million for ACOA; the government has now announced only $19 million, a cut of $94 million â why has the minister let down Atlantic Canadians?
Cites specific dollar figures â $113 million available for two programs under the previous government versus $19 million announced now, a stated reduction of $94 million â and asks why the government cut ACOA funding for Atlantic Canadians.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, dans le budget de 2010, le gouvernement conservateur nous a démontré son désir d'éliminer les agences de développement économique, dont l'APECA. Sous le dernier gouvernement libéral, deux programmes avaient été mis en place, soit le Fonds d'innovation et le Fonds des collectivités. Au cours de la derniÚre année, 113 millions de dollars étaient disponibles pour ces deux programmes distincts. Aujourd'hui, on nous annonce seulement 19 millions de dollars. Maintenant que les conservateurs annoncent une diminution de 94 millions de dollars pour cette année, le ministre peut-il nous expliquer pourquoi il a laissé tomber les citoyens de l'Atlantique?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with budget 2010, the Conservative government has shown that it hopes to eliminate economic development agencies, including ACOA. Under the previous Liberal government, two programs were created: an innovation fund and a communities fund. Last year, $113 million was available for those two separate programs. Today it was announced that only $19 million would be available. Now that the Conservatives have announced a $94 million funding cut for this year, can the minister explain to us why he has abandoned the people of Atlantic Canada?
The parliamentary secretary says the government supports all regions equally and equitably through year two of Canada's economic action plan, and asks members to support it so all Canadians can benefit.
The parliamentary secretary does not address the specific funding figures at all, instead pivoting to a general defence of Canada's economic action plan and a vague remark about equitable support for all regions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the member would think that we have let down any part of this country. We do support all regions of this country. We put in place year two of Canada's economic action plan, which reaches across all parts of this country equally and equitably. We had a little trouble getting it passed through this House but we managed. Now that it has passed, let us support it and make sure that all Canadians benefit from it.
The member asked when the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency would restore the two ACOA programs to their 2009 funding levels, noting that the five-year, $475-million programs have ended and been replaced by only $19 million per year.
The question cites specific dollar figures ($475 million over five years, $19 million per year replacement), names the two ACOA programs, and gives a clear deadline (March 31, 2010), making it reasonably specific and factually grounded.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la question s'adressait au ministre de l'Agence de promotion Ă©conomique du Canada atlantique. Les deux programmes de l'APECA avaient Ă©tĂ© annoncĂ©s pour une pĂ©riode de cinq ans se terminant le 31 mars 2010, totalisant un investissement de plus de 475 millions de dollars. Aujourd'hui, ces fonds sont Ă©puisĂ©s et les conservateurs n'offrent qu'un maigre montant de 19 millions de dollars par annĂ©e pour les remplacer. Le ministre de l'Agence de promotion Ă©conomique du Canada atlantique devrait faire comme son collĂšgue le ministre de lâIndustrie, soit s'excuser des coupes et remettre en place les programmes avec le financement de 2009. Quand le ministre agira-t-il pour les gens de l'Atlantique?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The two ACOA programs were for a five-year period ending March 31, 2010, with a total investment of over $475 million. Now those funds have run out, and the Conservatives are offering a mere $19 million a year to replace them. The Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency should do as his colleague, the Minister of Industry, did: apologize for the cuts and restore the programs with 2009-level funding. When will the minister take action for the people of Atlantic Canada?
The minister confirmed the $19 million is an ongoing base budget (not part of the five-year programming) and added that $11 million per year for the community futures program represents additional ACOA funding, asserting there are no cuts.
The minister addresses the $19 million figure and adds the $11 million community futures program, but does not explain the transition from the five-year programming or justify the reduction relative to the original investment, leaving the core accountability ask partially unaddressed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite actually read the budget, he would realize it is a $19 million a year ongoing budget, a base budget. It is an improvement over what was there before and certainly not part of the five year programming. Also, there is $11 million per year for the community futures program, another addition to the ACOA funding. I am very proud to represent ACOA. Believe me, there are no cuts in our budgets.
The member asked whether the Prime Minister would call a public inquiry, given revelations that Afghan officials requested a prison to hold detainees without risk of torture while the government made false promises and told the House a new prison was a bad idea.
The question references a specific revelation about Afghan officials requesting a prison to avoid torture and alleges the government made false promises, but the ask â a public inquiry â is a repeated generic demand that reduces the specificity of the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have yet another revelation today that Afghan officials asked the government to build a prison where detainees could be held without the risk of torture. In response, the government made repeated false promises to the Afghans that a prison was coming while the government told this House that a new prison was a bad idea. By failing to work with our NATO allies to ensure proper treatment of detainees, the government has ignored our legal obligation to protect human rights and has tainted Canada's international reputation. Will the Prime Minister finally call a public inquiry?
The minister noted that General Ray Henault publicly ruled out NATO prisons in November 2007, stated that Canada's role is to build Afghan capacity rather than build prisons, and said Canada has invested in Afghan prisons and continues to monitor transferred prisoners.
The minister invokes General Ray Henault's November 2007 ruling against NATO prisons and references investment in Afghan prisons and ongoing monitoring, but does not address the allegation of false promises made to Afghan officials or to the House, and ignores the public inquiry request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about events that happened a number of years ago. It is interesting to note that in fact the issue around NATO prisons circulated years ago, but in November 2007 General Ray Henault, a Canadian, then the chair of NATO's military committee, publicly ruled out the creation of NATO prisons. We are there not to build prisons for Afghans; we are there to help them build capacity to do these things for themselves. We will continue to do so. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated, we have invested in Afghan prisons. We continue to monitor prisoners transferred by our forces. We will continue to work to build that capacity.
The member asked how many more stories need to be published before the government calls a public inquiry, citing a revelation that the government agreed to limit detainee inspections to once a month and give plenty of advance notice to appease the National Directorate of Security.
The question cites a specific allegation â that the government agreed to limit inspections to once a month at most and give advance notice at the request of the National Directorate of Security â providing concrete detail, though the ask (a public inquiry) remains a standing demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, day after day there are new stories about the government's mishandling of the transfer of Afghan detainees. Included in today's revelations was the fact that last year when the National Directorate of Security complained about detainee inspections creating problems, the Conservative government agreed to limit them to once a month at the most and to give plenty of advance notice. The government has abandoned our legal obligation to uphold human rights, this time to appease the dreaded NDS. How many more of these stories need to be published before we get a public inquiry?
The minister stated that over 210 visits have been made by Canadian officials to Afghan detention facilities since the transfer agreement was signed, and that the most recent unannounced visit occurred within the last 10 days, asserting visits occur on a regular basis under the transfer agreement.
The minister cites 210 visits since the transfer agreement was signed and notes a recent unannounced visit within the last 10 days, which partially addresses the inspection-frequency allegation, but does not address the specific claim about advance notice or the NDS's influence on inspection limits.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would take the time to read the new transfer agreement, he would see that there have been over 210 visits by Canadian officials to Afghan detention facilities since the transfer agreement was signed. The most recent unannounced visit by Canadian officials to Afghan detention facilities occurred within the last 10 days. These occur, have occurred and continue to occur on a regular basis. This is the nature of the transfer agreement that we put in place.
A government backbencher asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage to state the government's position on the NDP bill to tax MP3s and iPods, which the Bloc and Liberals also support.
This is a government-backbench softball setup that leads with partisan framing about the opposition never meeting a tax they didn't like, and simply asks the minister to state the government's position on the NDP's bill.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, opposition members have never met a tax they did not like. Given the chance, they would raise the GST and introduce a job-killing carbon tax. Yesterday the NDP introduced a bill to tax MP3s and iPods. Both the Bloc and the Liberals support their coalition partners on this tax on Canadian consumers. Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell the House our government's position regarding this new tax on Canadians?
The minister stated that the NDP and Bloc Québécois legislation would impose a massive new tax on Canadians, noting the last iPod tax proposal reached up to $75 per iPod, and listed devices that would be covered, pledging to fight the new iPhone tax every step of the way.
The minister provides some substantive detail â citing a potential $75-per-iPod tax from last time, listing affected devices (iPods, MP3 players, PVRs, DVRs, iPhones, cellphones, BlackBerrys, anything with a hard drive) â though the response is largely rhetorical and does not engage with the policy merits of the NDP bill.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois have proposed legislation that would impose a massive new tax on Canadians. The last time an iPod tax was put forward it was up to $75 per iPod, a massive tax on consumers. What is worse is the way the legislation is written. This new tax would apply to iPods, MP3 players, PVRs, DVRs, iPhones, cellphones, BlackBerrys, anything with a hard drive. The Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP think this is what consumers need, a massive new tax. This Conservative government will fight this new iPhone tax every step of the way.
The member asked whether the minister could promise rural Canadians that both broadband and CAP site programs would receive all needed funding this year, next year, and beyond, given concerns that CAP funding is being taken from the rural broadband program.
The question identifies a specific concern â that rural broadband funding is being cannibalized to pay for the community access program (CAP) sites â and asks for a concrete multi-year commitment for both broadband and CAP funding, making it reasonably specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, despite the Minister of Industry's flip-flop about funding community access programs, all he has done is rob Peter to pay Paul. He claims the funding will now come from rural broadband programs, which will then leave that program short of the promised funding. Also, the minister has only said that the funding will continue this year. He has said nothing about 2011 and beyond. Could the minister promise rural Canadians that they will get all the funding needed for broadband and CAP sites for this year, next year and beyond?
The minister confirmed the program was funded in the 2010 budget and acknowledged a change in the funding envelope, but did not commit to 2011 funding or beyond, instead citing 13 years of Liberal neglect and asserting the government is proud of its rural broadband investment.
The minister confirms funding for 2010 and references the 2010 budget, but explicitly does not address the 2011-and-beyond question asked, and pivots to criticizing 13 years of Liberal neglect rather than answering the specific multi-year commitment question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what I said inside and outside this place was that this program had been funded and was funded in the 2010 budget. That is the issue of the day. There has been a change in the funding envelope, but the people are not concerned about that. They are concerned about ensuring that rural Canadians and remote Canadians have access to the Internet. When it comes to the rural broadband program, this government is acting. After 13 years of neglect from the other side, we are actually funding access for broadband for rural and remote Canadians, and we are proud of that. It is good for Canada.
The member asked whether statistics showing the percentage of unilingual employees hired for bilingual positions rising from 14% in 2005 to 19% last year confirm that the government harbours ideological hostility toward francophones, during International Francophonie Week.
The question cites specific statistics â unilingual employees in bilingual positions rising from 14% in 2005 to 19% last year â and asks whether this confirms the government's ideological hostility toward francophones, giving it factual grounding though the rhetorical framing of the ask weakens its accountability value.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en cette Semaine internationale de la Francophonie, le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral, en tant qu'employeur, n'a pas de quoi cĂ©lĂ©brer. Le pourcentage de fonctionnaires unilingues embauchĂ©s dans des postes bilingues continue d'augmenter, passant de 14 p. 100 en 2005 Ă 19 p. 100 l'an dernier. Les francophones oeuvrant dans la fonction publique ne peuvent donc pas travailler en français puisque des gestionnaires unilingues continuent d'ĂȘtre embauchĂ©s. Ces donnĂ©es ne confirment-elles pas que nous avions raison de nous mĂ©fier de l'hostilitĂ© idĂ©ologique de ce gouvernement Ă l'endroit des francophones?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, during this international week of la Francophonie, the federal government, as an employer, has nothing to celebrate. The percentage of unilingual officials hired in bilingual positions continues to increase, going from 14% in 2005 to 19% last year. Francophones working in the public service therefore cannot work in French since unilingual managers continue to be hired. Do these data not confirm that we were right to mistrust this government's ideological hostility toward francophones?
The minister stated only that the government supports official languages guidelines, laws, and citizens' rights across the country, and will continue to do so.
The minister offers only a generic statement that the government supports official languages rights for all citizens, without addressing the specific statistics cited, the trend of increasing unilingual appointments to bilingual positions, or the underlying question about francophone public servants' ability to work in French.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement appuie les guides, les lois et les droits des citoyens et citoyennes de partout au pays pour ce qui est de leurs droits en matiÚre de langues officielles, et il continuera de le faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government supports the guidelines, the laws and the rights of people across the country when it comes to the official languages, and it will continue to do so.