Session overview
- Firearms registry dominated the opening exchanges, with the Opposition pressing the Prime Minister to personally apologize for a government MP's remarks calling police chiefs a 'cult' and accusing them of corruption; the PM deflected by noting the MP had already apologized and a staffer had resigned.
- Ethics and unregistered lobbying by Rahim Jaffer consumed multiple exchanges from the Bloc, NDP, and Liberals, focusing on whether Jaffer met with cabinet ministers and why the government would not release lists of those meetings or related emails.
- The Military Police Complaints Commission was challenged over its access to documents, with Bob Rae arguing that the commission chair was denied documents available to both witnesses and government lawyers.
- Foreign investment and job protection came under scrutiny after Georgia-Pacific laid off workers before government approval of its takeover; the Prime Minister maintained that the company had committed to retaining staffing levels and had already sent employment offers to unionized staff.
- GM's full repayment of its loans to the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario, and the United States â seven years ahead of schedule â was announced by the Minister of Industry, presented as vindication of the government's decision to support the auto sector.
- Funding for missing and murdered aboriginal women received a concrete ministerial commitment: the Minister of Justice confirmed $10 million over two years, with work to begin in partnership with provinces, territories, and aboriginal people.
The Minister of Industry confirmed a concrete, verifiable outcome: GM had repaid in full its loans to the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario, and the United States, seven years ahead of schedule.
Freeman makes a specific, concrete request: a list of all meetings between Rahim Jaffer and the Prime Minister, his ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and their staff â a narrow and answerable ask.
Asked directly whether Rahim Jaffer met with one or more cabinet ministers as a lobbyist â a yes-or-no factual question the Prime Minister was uniquely positioned to answer â Harper responded only that there are rules for lobbyists and redirected to the independent lobbying commissioner, without addressing whether any meetings occurred.
Outstanding questions
- Mr. Gilles Duceppe asked whether the Prime Minister had verified with his ministers whether Rahim Jaffer met with any of them as a lobbyist; the PM never confirmed or denied that any such meetings took place.
- Mrs. Carole Freeman asked the Prime Minister to provide a list of all meetings that he, his ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and their staff had with Rahim Jaffer; this was not answered and no such list was offered.
- Mr. Mark Holland asked why the budget for the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime shows nil â zero dollars â for the following year according to the justice department's own report; the Minister of Justice disputed the figure but gave no specific budget breakdown.
- Mr. Paul Dewar asked whether the government would support the UN's request for General Andrew Leslie to lead the command of the UN mission in the Congo; the Minister of Foreign Affairs said Canada was 'currently analyzing that question' without committing.
- Joseph Volpe asked whether the Minister of Transport would ask the RCMP to investigate breaches of the law by Toyota Canada; the minister affirmed his department was investigating but did not answer the specific question about an RCMP referral.
Will the Prime Minister rise and apologize to police chiefs on behalf of the government and condemn the remarks calling them a cult and accusing them of corruption?
The question references a specific incident (calling police chiefs a cult and accusing them of corruption) and demands a clear yes/no action (apology and condemnation), but is framed partly as a partisan attack.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, one of the Prime Minister's members of Parliament insulted police chiefs across Canada. He called them a cult and he accused them of corruption all because they support a gun registry that we believe is a vital tool to keep our communities safe and our police officers safe. Will the Prime Minister now rise in this place and apologize to police chiefs on behalf of the government and will he condemn those disgraceful remarks?
Harper said the member of Parliament immediately apologized and the staffer resigned, then attacked Ignatieff for flip-flopping on the gun registry.
Harper notes the MP apologized and the staffer resigned, which partially addresses the facts, but pivots to attacking Ignatieff's prior position on the gun registry rather than directly condemning the remarks on behalf of the government.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member of Parliament in question immediately said that those remarks were not acceptable. He apologized for them and, in fact, the staffer in question has actually resigned. The truth of the matter and the real problem here is that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to change his own position. He is the one who said: No sensible Canadian thinks the problem is the shotgun on the barn door. No sensible Canadian thinks the problem is the target shooter or the legitimate licensed gun owner. I liked him when he was a sensible Canadian.
Will the Prime Minister personally condemn the remarks calling police chiefs a cult and apologize on behalf of the government, yes or no?
The question is sharper and more focused than the first, pressing for a direct yes/no condemnation from the Prime Minister personally on behalf of the government.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not given an answer to my question. I asked him whether he would stand in this place on behalf of the government and condemn remarks which every member of Parliament must regard as disgraceful. Will he condemn them and apologize, yes or no?
Harper accepted the apology already given and stated all Conservatives agree with it, but did not personally and explicitly condemn the remarks, pivoting instead to the gun registry policy.
Harper says 'we all agree with that apology and we accept that apology,' which is a partial answer, but then pivots to attacking the Liberal leader's policy flip-flop rather than providing an unambiguous personal condemnation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he has already apologized. Of course we all agree with that apology and we accept that apology. What we do not accept is the leader of the Liberal Party trying to force a policy on members of this House that he knows is wrong and that he has flip-flopped on. The long gun registry is wasteful and ineffective and we will work to get it abolished.
Will the Prime Minister apologize to Canadian police chiefs, yes or no?
A repeated and focused yes/no ask directed at the Prime Minister to apologize to police chiefs, though it is the third iteration of essentially the same question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je pose à nouveau la question en français. Je n'ai pas entendu le premier ministre ou son gouvernement s'excuser auprÚs des chefs de police du Canada. J'attends toujours des mots d'excuse simples et humbles. S'excusera-t-il, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question again in the other official language. I did not hear the Prime Minister or his government apologize to the police chiefs of Canada. I am still waiting to hear a simple, humble apology. Will he apologize, yes or no?
Harper said the MP clearly apologized and that all Conservatives support laws punishing criminals rather than law-abiding citizens.
Harper restates that the MP clearly apologized and pivots to a general statement about Conservative policy on punishing criminals, without directly apologizing on behalf of the government.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le député s'est clairement excusé hier, et cela reflÚte la position de tous les conservateurs. Tous les conservateurs sont en faveur de lois qui punissent les criminels et non les gens qui respectent les lois du Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the member apologized very clearly yesterday, and this reflects the position of all Conservative members. All Conservatives are in favour of laws that punish criminals, and not law-abiding Canadians.
How does the minister explain supporting the Military Police Complaints Commission in this House while allegedly making it difficult for the commission to do its work?
The question is heavily rhetorical, framed around a 'Conservative culture of deceit,' and the specific ask about how the minister explains the contradiction is buried under partisan framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, another example of the Conservative culture of deceit that has enveloped this House is the way in which the Minister of Justice comes into this House and tells the House that he is such a strong supporter of the work that is going on at the Military Police Complaints Commission, while at the same time as he says that in this House as part of the Conservative culture of deceit, the people who are in that commission are making it very difficult for the commission to do its work. How does the minister explain this Conservative culture of deceit?
Nicholson stated that officials continue to work with the MPCC to provide all relevant documents and that the commission operates under the mandate given by the former Liberal government.
Nicholson asserts officials continue to work with the MPCC to provide all relevant documents and notes the commission operates under the mandate given by the former government, which is relevant but incomplete.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is a very irresponsible comment by the hon. member. Officials continue to work with the MPCC to provide all relevant documents. Again, the MPCC is doing its work under the mandate that was given to it by that member's former government. I say that we should let the commission do its work. That is in everybody's best interest.
How can justice be done at the Military Police Complaints Commission when the commission chair cannot see the same documents available to witnesses and government lawyers?
The question raises a specific procedural concern â that the commission chair cannot access documents available to witnesses and government lawyers â which has factual grounding, though it is wrapped in 'conservative culture of deceit' framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, voilĂ un autre exemple de la culture conservatrice de la tromperie. Cela n'a aucun sens que le prĂ©sident de la commission n'ait pas le droit d'examiner les mĂȘmes documents auxquels ont accĂšs les tĂ©moins. Les tĂ©moins et les avocats du gouvernement ont accĂšs aux documents en question, mais pas le prĂ©sident de la commission. Avec cette culture conservatrice de la tromperie, la justice ne pourra pas ĂȘtre faite Ă la Commission d'examen des plaintes concernant la police militaire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the Conservative culture of deceit. It makes no sense that the chair of the commission is not entitled to examine the same documents that are available to witnesses. The government's witnesses and lawyers have access to the documents in question, but the commission chair does not. With this Conservative culture of deceit, the Military Police Complaints Commission cannot bring about justice.
Nicholson said the commission operates under the mandate and laws given by the former government, that this mandate has been tested in court, and urged the commission be allowed to do its work.
Nicholson does not address the specific disparity in document access and instead deflects to the former government's mandate and urges the commission be allowed to do its work.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely ridiculous. They are under the mandate that was given to them by the former government. They are governed by the laws given to them by the former government. This mandate has been tested in court. Again, why does he not just let the commission do its work?
Did the Prime Minister verify with his ministers whether Rahim Jaffer actually acted as a lobbyist with members of his cabinet?
Duceppe identifies a specific logical gap in Harper's prior answer â no contract does not equal no lobbying â and asks a direct factual question about whether Harper verified whether Jaffer acted as a lobbyist with cabinet members.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, le premier ministre a fait une déclaration surprenante. Alors qu'on lui demandait si Rahim Jaffer, le mari de son ex-ministre de la Condition féminine, avait pratiqué des activités de lobbyiste auprÚs de membres de son Cabinet, il nous a répondu que M. Jaffer n'avait jamais obtenu de contrat. Or ce n'est pas parce que M. Jaffer n'a pas obtenu de contrat qu'il n'a pas agi à titre de lobbyiste auprÚs de membres de son Cabinet. Cela me semble évident. Le premier ministre, qui veut tout contrÎler, doit certainement avoir fait certaines vérifications concernant M. Jaffer. A-t-il vérifié si M. Jaffer a agi à titre de lobbyiste auprÚs de certains membres de son Cabinet?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister made a surprising statement. When asked whether Rahim Jaffer, the husband of his former status of women minister, had lobbied members of his cabinet, he answered that Mr. Jaffer had never been awarded a contract. But it seems clear to me that the fact that Mr. Jaffer did not get a contract does not mean he did not lobby cabinet members. The Prime Minister, who is a control freak, surely must have done some checking on Mr. Jaffer. Did he check whether Mr. Jaffer lobbied members of his cabinet?
Harper said there are laws governing lobbying, that lobbyists are expected to comply, and repeated that there is no government contract in the matter, without addressing whether he checked.
Harper restates that there is no government contract in the matter and refers to existing lobbying laws, but does not answer whether he verified if Jaffer met with cabinet members in a lobbying capacity.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il y a des lois pour diriger le lobbying. On s'attend à ce que les lobbyistes respectent les lois en vigueur. Nous nous y attendons. Néanmoins, je répÚte qu'il n'y a aucun contrat du gouvernement dans cette affaire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there are laws governing lobbying. We expect lobbyists to comply with the laws that are in place. We expect that. But I repeat that there is no government contract involved in this matter.
Given that the Minister of State (Sciences et Technologie) confirmed Jaffer's business partner met with him about several projects, will the Prime Minister admit that Jaffer acted as a lobbyist and met with one or more ministers?
Duceppe cites a specific admission by the Minister of State (Sciences et Technologie) that Jaffer's business partner met with him about several projects, and asks directly whether Jaffer met with one or more ministers.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il n'y a pas de contrat, mais le fait que M. Jaffer n'ait pas respectĂ© la loi ne dispense pas le premier ministre, qui est un control freak, de vĂ©rifier auprĂšs de ses ministres si, effectivement, il n'y a pas eu de telles rencontres Ă titre de lobbyiste. Le ministre dâĂtat (Sciences et Technologie), lui, a confirmĂ© que le partenaire d'affaires de M. Jaffer l'avait rencontrĂ© concernant plusieurs projets. C'est le ministre qui le dit. Le premier ministre admettra-t-il que M. Jaffer a agi Ă titre de lobbyiste auprĂšs de ministres? M. Jaffer ne s'« autolobbyait » certainement pas, il en rencontrait pour justement faire du lobbying. A-t-il, oui ou non, rencontrĂ© un ou plusieurs de ses ministres?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there is no contract, but the fact that Mr. Jaffer broke the law does not excuse the Prime Minister, who is a control freak, from checking whether any of his ministers met with Mr. Jaffer as a lobbyist. The Minister of State for Science and Technology confirmed that Mr. Jaffer's business partner had met with him about a number of projects. The minister himself said that. Will the Prime Minister admit that Mr. Jaffer lobbied ministers? Surely Mr. Jaffer was not lobbying himself. He was meeting with ministers to lobby them. Did he meet with one or more ministers, yes or no?
Harper said there are rules for those who lobby, suggested the Bloc leader refer any information about rule-breaking to the independent lobbying commissioner, and repeated that there is no government business or contract involved.
Harper deflects entirely to lobbying rules and the independent lobbying commissioner rather than addressing the direct factual question about whether Jaffer met with ministers.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il y a des rÚgles pour ceux et celles qui font du lobbying. Si le chef du Bloc pense que quelqu'un a enfreint ces rÚgles, il peut donner ses informations à la commissaire au lobbying indépendante nommée par ce gouvernement. Il n'y a aucune affaire gouvernementale, et il n'y a aucun contrat gouvernemental dans cette affaire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there are rules in place governing lobbyists. If the Bloc leader thinks that someone broke those rules, he can pass his information on to the independent lobbying commissioner appointed by this government. This matter has nothing to do with government affairs or a government contract.
Will the Prime Minister admit that had he kept his electoral promise to have ministers register contacts with lobbyists, we would know how many ministers met with Rahim Jaffer?
Freeman references a specific unfulfilled Conservative electoral promise to have ministers register contacts with lobbyists, and asks whether the Prime Minister acknowledges that keeping that promise would have revealed how many ministers met Rahim Jaffer.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au moment oĂč les conservateurs pourfendaient les libĂ©raux au sujet de l'Ă©thique, ils promettaient de s'assurer que les ministres enregistrent leurs contacts avec des lobbyistes. Pourtant, cette promesse Ă©lectorale ne s'est jamais concrĂ©tisĂ©e. Seuls les lobbyistes doivent enregistrer ces contacts. Il est donc impossible de comparer les listes pour savoir qui dit vrai. Le premier ministre reconnaĂźtra-t-il que s'il avait respectĂ© sa promesse Ă©lectorale, on saurait au moins combien de ministres ont rencontrĂ© Rahim Jaffer, le lobbyiste conservateur?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives attacked the Liberals on ethics, they promised to ensure that ministers would register their contacts with lobbyists. They have never made good on their promise. Only the lobbyists are required to register such contacts. Therefore, it is impossible to compare the lists and determine who is telling the truth. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, had he kept his election promise, we would at least know how many ministers met with Rahim Jaffer, the Conservative lobbyist?
Paradis said the government passed a clear law that lobbyists must respect, that a commissioner enforces it, that serious allegations were referred to competent authorities, and that nothing is linked to government business.
Paradis does not address the broken electoral promise at all, instead restating that a law governing lobbyists exists, that a commissioner enforces it, and that nothing is linked to government business.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce gouvernement a adoptĂ© une loi claire qui doit ĂȘtre respectĂ©e par les lobbyistes. Une commissaire est responsable de l'application de la loi. Les allĂ©gations sĂ©rieuses qui ont Ă©tĂ© portĂ©es Ă l'attention du premier ministre ont Ă©tĂ© transmises aux autoritĂ©s compĂ©tentes qui tireront leurs propres conclusions. Il n'y a rien qui soit liĂ© aux affaires du gouvernement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government passed a clear law with which lobbyists must comply. A commissioner is responsible for compliance with the act. The serious allegations that have been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister have been forwarded to the appropriate authorities who will draw their own conclusions. There is no connection to the business of government.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to provide a list of all meetings that he, his ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and their staff had with Rahim Jaffer?
Freeman makes a specific, concrete request: a list of all meetings between Rahim Jaffer and the Prime Minister, his ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and their staff â a narrow and answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre, qui prĂŽne la transparence, doit faire la lumiĂšre sur l'Ă©tendue des entrĂ©es dans son gouvernement du lobbyiste conservateur non enregistrĂ© Rahim Jaffer. Le premier ministre est-il prĂȘt Ă nous fournir la liste de toutes les rencontres que lui-mĂȘme, ses ministres, ses secrĂ©taires parlementaires et leur personnel ont eues avec Rahim Jaffer?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, who supports transparency, must shed light on the number of contacts his government had with the unregistered Conservative lobbyist, Rahim Jaffer. Is the Prime Minister willing to provide the list of all meetings that he, his ministers, his parliamentary secretaries and their staff had with Rahim Jaffer?
Paradis said the government enacted a law to govern lobbying activities with sanctions for non-compliance, and directed the opposition to go to the relevant authorities with any allegations.
Paradis ignores the specific request for a list of meetings entirely, restates the lobbying law framework and the commissioner's role, and tells the opposition to go to the relevant authorities.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est ce gouvernement qui a adopté une loi pour encadrer les activités des lobbyistes, et ces derniers doivent respecter la loi. S'ils ne le font pas, des sanctions sont prévues dans la loi. Une commissaire est responsable de l'application de la loi. Si l'opposition a des allégations à faire, qu'elle aille voir les instances concernées.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it was this government that enacted legislation to monitor lobbyists' activities and they must comply with the law or be subject to the sanctions contained therein. A commissioner is responsible for enforcement of the act. If the opposition has allegations to make, it should address them to the appropriate authorities.
Given that Georgia-Pacific was already firing staff before government approval, with the Timmins mill closed and the Calgary operation shut down, how can this takeover possibly be to the net benefit of Canada?
Layton cites specific facts â the industry minister's commitment on employment levels, the closed Timmins mill, and the shut Calgary operation â and asks how the Georgia-Pacific takeover can be to the net benefit of Canada.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the industry minister said in this House that Georgia-Pacific had committed to maintaining employment levels. Now, how many times have we heard him say that before, only to watch companies that were approved throw people out of work. But here we have a new gall being demonstrated by the company. Georgia-Pacific already started firing staff before the government gave approval for the takeover. The Timmins mill is closed. The Calgary operation is shut down. Could the Prime Minister tell us how this takeover could possibly be to the net benefit of Canada?
Harper said the Timmins mill has been closed for four years and is unrelated to the transaction, that Georgia-Pacific committed to retain staffing levels, and that all unionized staff have received offers of employment.
Harper directly addresses the Timmins mill claim by stating it has been closed for four years and is unrelated to the transaction, confirms a commitment to retain staffing levels, and adds that unionized staff have received offers of employment â substantive engagement with the specific question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the minister regarding this. I understand the Timmins mill has been closed for four years. It does not have anything to do with this transaction. As members know, transactions have to go through a process to ensure they are for the net benefit of Canada. I gather that, in this case, there is a commitment to retain staffing levels. I am also told that, in fact, all unionized staff have received offers of employment.
When will the Prime Minister stop rubber-stamping foreign takeovers, given that approvals like Vale Inco led to thousands of job losses while the company doubled executive salaries and profits?
Layton references Xstrata and Vale Inco as specific examples of failed takeover approvals with job losses and executive pay increases, but the question trails off into a broad accusation of rubber-stamping without a sharp single ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, of course, it would be helpful if the entire agreement could simply be tabled here so we would know exactly what has been committed to. But instead, what we get is the rubber-stamping by the current government of foreign takeovers, one after the other. Look at what happened with Xstrata and Vale Inco. Thousands of jobs were lost on that approval. Yet, Vale Inco made twice the profit in two years that Inco made in the previous ten. It has doubled the salaries of its executives over there at that company. Why? Probably because it is taking a hard line against the workers, who have now been out 10 months on a strike to get fairness. When will the Prime Minister learn a lesson and stop rubber-stamping--
Harper denied there is a rubber stamp, said there is a process with conditions often attached, reiterated Georgia-Pacific's commitment to staffing levels and offers to unionized staff, and accused the NDP of not having the facts right.
Harper disputes the rubber-stamp characterization, reiterates the commitment on staffing levels and job offers to unionized staff, and attacks the NDP for not having the facts right, but does not address the Vale Inco/Xstrata example specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no rubber stamp. There is a process. Often there are conditions attached to a foreign takeover. In this case, as I have said to the Leader of the Opposition, my understanding is that it has committed to not only retain staffing levels but, in fact, has already sent out offers to unionized staff to that effect. So, the issue is not the government providing more information to the NDP. The issue is the NDP having the facts right before it poses the questions.
Since workers were fired by Georgia-Pacific before government approval and employees of decades have no guarantee of receiving payments owed to them, what guarantee do these workers have that they will receive all benefits to which they are entitled?
Layton raises a specific concern that workers fired before the takeover approval have no guarantee of receiving benefits owed to them, making it a reasonably concrete ask, though embedded in broader rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the stamp may not be rubber, but there is a stamp, we can be sure of that. Because it has been used thousands of times to sell out our resources and companies without getting guarantees. La rĂ©alitĂ©, c'est que les travailleurs ont Ă©tĂ© congĂ©diĂ©s par la Georgia-Pacific avant mĂȘme l'approbation du gouvernement. De plus, des employĂ©s qui travaillent lĂ depuis des dĂ©cennies n'ont maintenant aucune garantie de recevoir les paiements qui leur sont dus. Puisque le gouvernement a Ă©chouĂ© Ă les protĂ©ger, quelle garantie ont ces travailleurs qu'ils recevront tous les bĂ©nĂ©fices auxquels ils ont droit?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'approbation n'est peut-ĂȘtre pas automatique, mais elle arrive toujours, c'est sĂ»r, puisqu'elle a Ă©tĂ© donnĂ©e des milliers de fois pour brader nos ressources et nos entreprises sans aucune garantie. The reality is that the workers were fired by Georgia-Pacific even before the government gave its approval. Furthermore, employees who worked there for decades now have no guarantee of receiving what they are owed. Since the government has failed to protect them, what guarantee do these workers have of receiving the benefits to which they are entitled?
Harper said Georgia-Pacific committed to maintaining employment levels and has already sent work schedules to its unionized employees.
Harper reiterates that Georgia-Pacific said it would maintain employment levels and has already sent work schedules to unionized employees, which partially addresses the employment security concern but does not address guarantees for benefits owed to those already dismissed.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le chef du NPD m'a posé une question sur une compagnie en particulier. Selon mes informations, cette compagnie a dit qu'elle maintiendrait les niveaux d'emplois. De plus, cette compagnie a déjà envoyé des horaires de travail à ses employés syndiqués.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP asked me a question about a specific company. According to my information, this company has said that it will maintain staffing levels. Furthermore, this company has already sent work schedules to its unionized employees.
Does the Prime Minister think it is acceptable for his cabinet, caucus, and Conservative staffers to provide privileged access to unregistered Conservative lobbyists who hand out MP business cards and use the Conservative Party logo?
Neville cites specific behaviours â handing out MP business cards, using the Conservative Party logo, meeting with ministers and parliamentary secretaries â and asks a direct normative question about whether the Prime Minister finds this acceptable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. Two past Conservative candidates start a business that they proudly proclaim offers access to government grants and loans. MP business cards are handed out, the Conservative Party logo is used, and they meet with ministers, parliamentary secretaries and ministerial staff. Does the Prime Minister actually think that it is acceptable for his cabinet, his caucus, and Conservative staffers to provide privileged access to unregistered Conservative lobbyists?
Baird said every Canadian is equal under the law, that the allegations had nothing to do with government business, that no government money was given under the green fund for the projects mentioned, and encouraged her to bring evidence to the independent authorities.
Baird says allegations were referred to relevant authorities and no government money was given under the green fund, which deflects the direct question about whether such privileged access is acceptable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every Canadian is equal under the law. Let me be very clear. The allegations that the Prime Minister referred to the relevant authorities had nothing to do with government business. In fact, no government money was given under the green fund for the projects that she speaks about. If she has any evidence of a contravention of the Lobbyists Registration Act, I encourage her to bring those forward to the independent authorities that this government established.
Given that the government will not release emails sent to the industry minister's office or say what a former Conservative MP discussed with the minister of infrastructure about the billion dollar fund, how long does the government think it can stonewall Canadians?
Neville points to specific facts â emails sent to the industry minister's office being withheld and a meeting with the minister of infrastructure about a billion dollar fund â and asks how long the government thinks it can stonewall Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, only within a Conservative culture of deceit can a government think that is acceptable. A former Conservative MP sends emails across government, including to the industry minister's office, but the government will not release the emails. He meets with the minister of infrastructure, the man in charge of the billion dollar fund he is trying to access, but the government will not say what they discussed. How long does the government really think that it can get away with stonewalling Canadians about the truth?
Baird said that when serious allegations were brought forward they were immediately referred to the relevant authorities for an independent review, calling it what ethics and accountability are about.
Baird disputes the characterization, says the Prime Minister did the right thing by referring allegations to relevant authorities, but does not address the specific emails or the content of the infrastructure minister meeting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just because the member opposite says it, does not mean it is true. We have been very clear. When serious allegations were brought forward, they were immediately referred to the relevant authorities for an independent review. That is what ethics is all about. That is what accountability is all about. The Prime Minister did the right thing.
How can the Prime Minister tolerate a situation where two former Conservative candidates met with the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, submitted three proposals without registering as lobbyists, and the government refuses to disclose those proposals or confirm one involved a company promoted by the dismissed minister?
LeBlanc cites specific facts â two former Conservative candidates meeting the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, submitting three proposals without registering as lobbyists, and the government refusing to disclose those proposals â and asks how the Prime Minister can tolerate this.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, deux anciens candidats conservateurs rencontrent le secrĂ©taire parlementaire du ministre des Transports, de lâInfrastructure et des CollectivitĂ©s. Ils lui remettent trois soumissions sans jamais s'enregistrer comme lobbyistes, et le gouvernement ne veut mĂȘme pas divulguer ces soumissions ni mĂȘme confirmer que l'une d'elles impliquait une compagnie promue par la ministre congĂ©diĂ©e. En dehors de la culture de tromperie conservatrice, cette situation n'est clairement pas acceptable. Comment le premier ministre peut-il la tolĂ©rer?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, two former Conservative candidates met with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. They submitted three proposals without ever registering as lobbyists, and the government is refusing to either disclose the contents of those submissions or confirm that one of them involved a company promoted by the dismissed minister. Such a situation would clearly be unacceptable except in the Conservative culture of deceit. How can the Prime Minister let that kind of thing happen?
Baird said the allegations brought forward two weeks ago had nothing to do with government business, were immediately referred to the relevant authority for independent review, and challenged LeBlanc to make specific allegations outside the House or refer evidence to independent authorities.
Baird repeats that allegations had nothing to do with government business and were referred to the relevant authority, challenges LeBlanc to make allegations outside the House, and does not address the specific undisclosed proposals or confirm their link to the dismissed minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the allegations brought forward some two weeks ago had nothing to do with government business. They were immediately referred to the relevant authority for independent review. If the member opposite has any allegations that he would like to make, I would encourage him to have the guts to make them outside this place. If he has specific evidence of any wrongdoing, he should follow the example of the Prime Minister and refer it to the relevant independent authorities.
Why were unregistered lobbying meetings with the minister's office acceptable, and why was a staffer involved promoted to chief of staff to the Minister of Public Safety?
The question identifies specific actors (former Conservative candidate, minister's office, chief of staff promotion) and implies unregistered lobbying, but frames it as a rhetorical 'culture of deceit' attack rather than a single clear answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us try another example. A former Conservative candidate meets with the office of the minister for southern Ontario. He submits three client proposals to another former candidate, who works for the minister. None of this lobbying is registered until it is made public and then the minister tells the lobbying commissioner secretly. What happened to the second staffer? He received a promotion to chief of staff to the Minister of Public Safety. How can these events be acceptable anywhere other than in a Conservative culture of deceit?
Baird stated the allegations involved no government business, no grants were awarded, and urged the member to refer any facts about the Lobbyists Registration Act to the independent officer.
Baird addresses the core allegation by stating no government business was involved and no grants were awarded, which is relevant, but deflects the specific question about the staffer's promotion and redirects to the Lobbyists Registration Act referral.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. The allegations that were referred to the government some two weeks ago involved no government business. Let me be very clear. Any application or interest of funding that was brought forward to my department or to FedDev Ontario received no grant. No money was awarded to these individuals. If the member has any specific allegations to make with respect to the Lobbyists Registration Act, he should follow the lead of the Prime Minister and immediately refer all of the facts that he claims to have to that independent officer so that they can be fully reviewed independently.
Why is the government injecting $193 million more into federal penitentiaries while cutting grants to the victims of crime initiative by 41%, during Crime Victims Awareness Week?
The question cites specific figures ($193 million in penitentiaries, 41% cut to the victims of crime initiative) and is asked during Crime Victims Awareness Week, giving it factual grounding, though it is partially wrapped in rhetorical framing about 'spectacles'.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre semble plus intéressé à se faire du capital politique en mettant en avant son prétendu programme de la loi et de l'ordre qu'à venir en aide aux victimes d'actes criminels. Alors que le gouvernement fédéral injectera 193 millions de dollars supplémentaires dans les pénitenciers fédéraux, les subventions à l'Initiative sur les victimes d'actes criminels diminueront de 41 p. 100. En cette Semaine de sensibilisation aux victimes d'actes criminels, pourquoi le premier ministre ne montre-t-il pas plus de compassion à l'égard des victimes au lieu de nous faire, chaque fois, ses fameux spectacles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister seems more interested in making political gains by promoting his so-called law and order agenda than in helping victims of crime. The government is planning to inject another $193 million into federal penitentiaries, but funding for the victims of crime initiative will be cut by 41%. This being National Victims of Crime Awareness Week, why is the Prime Minister not demonstrating more compassion toward victims instead of subjecting us to these big shows over and over again?
Nicholson cited the creation of the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, $56 million committed in 2007, and an additional $6.6 million in the most recent budget as evidence of the government's commitment to victims.
Nicholson mentions the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and $56 million in 2007 plus $6.6 million in the recent budget, but does not address the 41% cut to the Initiative sur les victimes d'actes criminels specifically cited in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of this government's commitment to victims. We instituted the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. In 2007 we put in $56 million. I want to use this opportunity to thank the Minister of Finance. I want to tell him how pleased I am, on behalf of myself and victims across this country, that he put an extra $6.6 million in the most recent budget. That underlines this government's commitment to victims right across this country.
After four years of Conservative government and opposition cooperation, why are criminals still systematically released after serving only one-sixth of their sentence, as in the cases of Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones?
The question names specific victims (Vincent Lacroix, Earl Jones), references a specific Bloc bill on one-sixth sentence release, and asks why the practice persists after four years of Conservative government, making it reasonably grounded.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si le ministre avait un peu de compassion envers les victimes d'actes criminels, notamment les centaines de victimes de Vincent Lacroix et d'Earl Jones, il pourrait éliminer rapidement les libérations au sixiÚme de la peine, comme le propose le projet de loi du Bloc québécois. Comment le premier ministre explique-t-il qu'aprÚs quatre ans de gouvernement conservateur, et malgré la collaboration de l'opposition sur ce sujet, des criminels sont relùchés systématiquement aprÚs n'avoir purgé que le sixiÚme de leur sentence?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the minister had just a little compassion for victims of crime, including the hundreds of people victimized by Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones, he would not hesitate to abolish parole after only one sixth of a sentence has been served, as the Bloc Québécois bill proposes. Can the Prime Minister explain why, after four years of Conservative government, and despite the opposition's united opinion on this subject, criminals are systematically released after having served just one-sixth of their sentence?
Toews expressed willingness to work with the member on legislation ensuring criminals earn parole rather than being automatically released, contrasting with Liberal practices, but gave no specifics on the one-sixth rule.
Toews does not address the Bloc's specific bill or the one-sixth release rule directly, instead vaguely promising to work with the member on legislation for earned parole and taking a swipe at Liberal automatic release practices.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the member on legislation that would ensure that criminals earn parole as opposed to being automatically released on parole in the methods that the Liberals used to employ.
Why is the Canadian embassy in Haiti still paralyzed, with 1,500 pre-earthquake Quebec files still pending and 3,000 more expected, despite government promises of emergency measures to accelerate family reunification for Haitian earthquake victims?
The question cites specific figures (1,500 pending Quebec files pre-earthquake, 3,000 additional expected), references an observation by Pauline Marois on the ground, and asks a clear accountability question about why processing is stalled.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement fédéral avait promis de mettre en place des mesures d'urgence afin d'accélérer le traitement des demandes de réunification familiale des Haïtiens victimes du terrible tremblement de terre du 12 janvier dernier. Or Pauline Marois, chef du Parti québécois, a constaté sur place que l'ambassade canadienne en Haïti est toujours paralysée et que 1 500 dossiers provenant du Québec avant le séisme sont toujours en attente, sans compter les 3 000 autres demandes qui arriveront. Comment le gouvernement explique-t-il que, sur le terrain, rien ne bouge?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the federal government promised to implement emergency measures to fast-track the processing of family reunification applications specifically for those affected by the devastating earthquake in Haiti on January 12. Yet Pauline Marois, the leader of the Parti Québécois, noted during her visit to Haiti that the Canadian embassy there remains paralyzed and that 1,500 applications from Quebec from before the earthquake are still in the queue, not to mention the 3,000 additional applications that are expected. Can the government explain why nothing is happening on the ground?
Kenney denied the premise, citing the processing of more than 1,400 permanent residence applications since the earthquake and weekly progress on family sponsorship applications, expressing confidence in federal officials rather than Pauline Marois.
Kenney disputes the premise with a specific counter-figure (more than 1,400 permanent residence applications processed since the earthquake) and asserts weekly progress, but does not address the specific backlog of 1,500 pre-earthquake Quebec files or the embassy paralysis claim.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce n'est pas vrai du tout. J'encourage mon collÚgue à voir le travail incroyable de nos fonctionnaires qui font face à des défis logistiques énormes. Depuis le séisme, ils ont traité plus de 1 400 demandes de résidence permanente de ressortissants haïtiens. Ils font énormément de progrÚs. Chaque semaine, ils traitent davantage de demandes de parrainage familial. Je fais confiance à nos fonctionnaires et non à la chef du Parti québécois.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is completely false. I encourage my hon. colleague to look at the incredible work being done by our public servants in the face of tremendous logistical challenges. Since the earthquake, they have processed over 1,400 permanent resident applications from Haitians. They are making a great deal of progress. Every week they are processing more and more family sponsorship applications. I trust our public servants, not the leader of the Parti Québécois.
Has the federal government reached an agreement with Quebec to recognize and accelerate applications under Quebec's expanded family reunification program for Haitian earthquake victims?
The question asks a specific and answerable question: whether an agreement exists with Quebec to recognize and accelerate applications under Quebec's expanded family reunification program for Haitian earthquake victims.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce n'est pas le travail des fonctionnaires qui pose problĂšme, c'est le travail du ministre. Le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec a Ă©largi la dĂ©finition du regroupement familial afin d'accueillir davantage d'HaĂŻtiens touchĂ©s par le sĂ©isme. Le gouvernement conservateur doit contribuer Ă cet objectif plutĂŽt que de se traĂźner les pieds. Le premier ministre peut-il confirmer s'il y a eu entente avec QuĂ©bec pour reconnaĂźtre et accĂ©lĂ©rer les demandes Ă©ventuelles provenant du nouveau programme quĂ©bĂ©cois, mĂȘme si les critĂšres de ce dernier ont Ă©tĂ© Ă©largis?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is not the work of our public servants that poses a problem; it is the work of the minister. The Government of Quebec has broadened the concept of family reunification in order to allow more Haitians affected by the earthquake to come to Quebec. The Conservative government should help work towards that goal instead of dragging its feet. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether any agreements have been reached with Quebec to recognize and accelerate future applications received through Quebec's new program, even though the criteria have been expanded?
Kenney confirmed meeting his Quebec counterpart before the announcement of Quebec's special program and committing to accelerate Quebec files, while noting the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act still applies to all applications.
Kenney confirms he met his Quebec counterpart and committed to accelerating Quebec files, which partially answers the question, but ends by implying the Bloc wants the government to ignore the law rather than clearly confirming or denying a formal agreement on the expanded criteria.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai rencontrĂ© mon homologue quĂ©bĂ©coise avant l'annonce d'un programme spĂ©cial du gouvernement du QuĂ©bec. Je me suis engagĂ© auprĂšs de Mme James Ă traiter les dossiers provenant du QuĂ©bec de façon accĂ©lĂ©rĂ©e. Globalement, il y a des milliers de dossiers de parrainage familial provenant du QuĂ©bec et du Canada. La Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des rĂ©fugiĂ©s s'applique toujours et il faut vĂ©rifier les demandes d'immigration au QuĂ©bec. Le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois veut peut-ĂȘtre que nous ignorions la loi...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I met with my Quebec counterpart before the Quebec government announced that special program. I made a commitment to Ms. James that we would fast-track the applications received from Quebec. Overall, we receive thousands of family sponsorship applications from within Quebec and Canada. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act still applies and all immigration applications from Quebec must be verified. Perhaps the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois wants us to ignore the lawâ
Given that the Information Commissioner gave Foreign Affairs a red alert, with nearly 60% of requests taking so long they became obsolete and an average 163-day processing time, will the minister stop his Conservative culture of deceit?
The question cites the Information Commissioner's red alert designation for Foreign Affairs, a 60% rate of requests becoming obsolete, and a 163-day average processing time, providing strong factual grounding despite a rhetorical closing flourish.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la commissaire Ă l'information a attribuĂ© une alerte rouge au ministĂšre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres et du Commerce international en matiĂšre d'accĂšs Ă l'information. On parle d'alerte rouge parce que les critĂšres habituels ne permettent mĂȘme plus de dresser un portrait juste de la situation. PrĂšs de 60 p. 100 des demandes ont pris si longtemps Ă ĂȘtre traitĂ©es qu'elles sont devenues dĂ©suĂštes. Il faut compter 163 jours en moyenne pour rĂ©gler une demande. C'est de la censure. Le ministre cessera-t-il de pratiquer une culture de tromperie conservatrice?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Information Commissioner has placed Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada on red alert when it comes to access to information. We talk about a red alert because the usual criteria no longer adequately describe what is going on. Nearly 60% of all requests took so long to be processed that they became outdated. It takes an average of 163 days for a request to be completed. That is censorship. Will the minister stop engaging in a Conservative culture of deceit?
Cannon said he met the commissioner, noted an extraordinary volume of work by his department, and committed to examining the commissioner's recommendations.
Cannon merely states he met the commissioner, acknowledges extraordinary workload, and promises to examine recommendations, which is tangential and does not address the specific metrics or the red alert designation cited.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai eu l'occasion de rencontrer la commissaire et nous avons échangé sur cette question. Comme on le sait, un volume de travail extraordinaire a été fait au cours des derniers mois par les gens de mon ministÚre. Nous allons examiner les recommandations de la commissaire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance to meet with the Information Commissioner and we discussed this issue. As hon. members know, an extraordinary volume of work has been done over the past few months by people in my department. We are reviewing the Commissioner's recommendations.
Why has the Privy Council Office refused to respond to one-quarter of access to information requests and requested 120-day extensions in two-thirds of cases, given the 30-day legal standard?
The question cites specific data points (one-quarter of Privy Council Office requests refused, 30-day legal standard, two-thirds of PCO requests delayed with 120-day extensions) and targets the Prime Minister's own department, making it reasonably grounded.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce gouvernement patauge dans une culture de tromperie conservatrice. Le Bureau du Conseil privĂ©, c'est-Ă -dire le ministĂšre du premier ministre, a refusĂ© de rĂ©pondre au quart des demandes d'accĂšs Ă l'information. La loi prĂ©voit qu'une demande devrait ĂȘtre traitĂ©e en 30 jours. Chez le premier ministre, deux fois sur trois, on demande un sursis de 120 jours. Quand le premier ministre cessera-t-il d'encourager cette culture de tromperie conservatrice?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government is mired in a Conservative culture of deceit. The Privy Council Office, in other words, the Prime Minister's own department, refused to respond to a quarter of the requests for access to information. Under the legislation, a request requires a response within 30 days. In the Prime Minister's case, two times out of three, it takes 120 days. When will the Prime Minister stop encouraging this Conservative culture of deceit?
Day cited 40,000 annual access to information requests handled by the government, the majority answered within 30 days, and acknowledged that about 10â12% take more than 120 days, expressing a desire to accelerate the process.
Day provides relevant counter-statistics (40,000 requests per year, majority answered in 30 days, 10â12% taking more than 120 days) and acknowledges wanting to accelerate the process, which partially engages the question but does not address the PCO-specific figures raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, malheureusement, ma collĂšgue ne connaĂźt pas tous les faits. Le gouvernement reçoit plus de 40 000 demandes d'accĂšs Ă l'information par annĂ©e. Nous rĂ©pondons Ă la majoritĂ© de ces demandes en 30 jours. Environ 10 ou 12 p. 100 des demandes prennent plus de 120 jours Ă ĂȘtre traitĂ©es, et nous voulons accĂ©lĂ©rer le processus.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, my colleague does not have all the facts. The government receives more than 40,000 requests for access to information a year. We respond to most of those requests within 30 days. Roughly 10% or 12% of requests take more than 120 days to be dealt with and we want to speed up the process.
Why does the government use victims for votes but then cut the victims of crime initiative by 41% and zero out the budget for the victims' ombudsman next year, as shown in the justice department's own report?
The question quotes Canada's ombudsman for victims directly, cites a specific 41% cut to the victims of crime initiative, and references the justice department's own report showing zero budget for the victims' watchdog next year, making it well-grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's ombudsman for victims said yesterday that the Conservatives' agenda on crime would ânot meet the needs of victimsâ. He called the government's approach unbalanced and criticized huge cuts of 41% to the victims of crime initiative. Canada's ombudsman for victims has been doing critical work. Now the government is showing him the door. Worse, the justice department's own report shows the budget for the victims' watchdog will be nil, that is zero dollars, next year. Why does the government use victims when it needs votes, but forgets them when it comes time to act?
Nicholson dismissed the member's understanding of the budgetary process and reiterated the government's $52 million commitment to the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime plus $6.6 million added by the Minister of Finance.
Nicholson dismisses the member's knowledge of the budgetary process and repeats the $52 million and $6.6 million figures already given, but fails to address the ombudsman's specific criticisms, the 41% cut to the victims of crime initiative, or the zero-dollar budget line for next year.
Source text
I can only assume, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member knows nothing about the budgetary process. As I indicated in a previous question, this government has committed $52 million to the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. Again, I publicly thanked the Minister of Finance for going above and beyond that by adding another $6.6 million to assist victims in our country. This is something for everybody to celebrate.
Why is the government firing the ombudsman for victims when its own 2011â12 report shows zero dollars for his office, while prison construction spending is up 238% since 2005 and victims' funding is flat or cut?
The question cites the 2011â12 report showing zero dollars for the ombudsman's office, a 238% increase in prison construction spending since 2005, and a pattern of watchdogs being removed after criticizing the government, providing specific accountability grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the ombudsman the government fired is not celebrating. If the minister takes a look at the his report for 2011-12, his office is gone, zero dollars. Watchdogs for the RCMP, the military, nuclear safety and now the ombudsman for victims all stood up to the government, criticized failures and then found themselves without a job. In a culture of deceit, watchdogs that are not Conservative cheerleaders get the axe. In two years' time spending on prison construction will be up 238% since 2005, while funding for victims is either flat or cut. Why is the government not listening to the ombudsman instead of firing him?
Nicholson asserted the member was completely wrong about the ombudsman's budget, claiming funding is in place and has been increased, and declared his party the only one consistently standing up for victims and law-abiding Canadians.
Nicholson claims the member 'has it completely wrong' and asserts funding is in place and increased, but provides no specific figures to rebut the zero-dollar line for 2011â12, deflects with a broad claim about being the only party standing up for victims, and does not address the firing allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has taken a balanced approach right across the board since we have taken office, and I am very proud of that record. The member keeps mentioning the budget of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. He has it completely wrong. That funding is in place. There has been a change; it has been increased. Again, I am proud to be a part of the only political party that consistently stands up for victims and law-abiding Canadians. That sets us aside from all those people.
Could the Minister of Finance update the House on today's IMF economic outlook, contrasting it with alleged Liberal plans to raise taxes?
This is a government-backbench softball setup that mischaracterizes the Liberal finance critic's position and asks the minister to tout the economic action plan, with no real accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Liberals keep on shamefully complaining that Canadian families are not paying enough taxes. Just yesterday the Liberal finance critic stated his intention to raise taxes. Let the era of Liberal tax hikes begin, everything from hiking the GST, imposing a carbon tax and increasing job-killing business taxes. While the Liberals scheme about new taxes and killing jobs, our Conservative government is focused on the economy and Canada's economic action plan, a plan that is working. Could the Minister of Finance update the House on today's IMF economic outlook?
Flaherty cited the IMF forecast placing Canada at the head of the pack for G7 and major advanced economies, quoting the IMF's praise that Canada 'entered the global crisis in good shape' and faces a less challenging exit than others.
Flaherty cites the specific IMF forecast placing Canada at the head of the pack for G7 growth and includes a direct IMF quotation, providing real economic information in response to the setup.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today the IMF has forecasted Canada's economic growth will be at the head of the pack for the G7 and all major advanced economies. The IMF has singled out Canada for special praise, saying, âCanada entered the global crisis in good shape, and thus the exit strategy appears less challenging than elsewhereâ. We have said all along that while not immune from the global recession, we entered it and we exit it in the strongest position in the G7.
Will the government support the UN's request to have General Andrew Leslie lead the command of the UN mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?
The question cites Canada's specific rank of 57th in UN peacekeeping contributions, names a specific UN request, and asks a clear yes/no accountability question about whether Canada will support General Andrew Leslie leading the MONUC command.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada has ceded its position of leadership in fighting crimes against humanity. As a country, we are now 57th in contributions to the UN peacekeeping missions. Nowhere is this absence more acute than in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a place where we have repeatedly been asked to send peacekeepers. The United Nations has issued a direct appeal to Canada, asking for help in the Congo. Will the government support the request by the UN to have General Andrew Leslie lead the command of the UN mission in the Congo?
Cannon cited Canada's more than $250 million contribution to the great lakes region over 10 years, confirmed Canada is among the countries asked to consider providing a candidate for the position, and said the government is currently analyzing that question.
Cannon provides relevant context ($250 million over 10 years to MONUC and the great lakes region) and acknowledges Canada is among countries asked to consider providing a candidate, but avoids directly answering whether the government will support General Leslie specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's participation in MONUC, which is the UN-led mission in the Congo, is an integral part of our regional commitment in Africa, particularly in the great lakes region, totalling more than $250 million over the last 10 years. Long-term stability in this region hinges on the resolution of the ongoing conflict in the eastern part of the DRC. Canada is one of the countries asked by the UN Secretariat to consider providing a candidate for the position, and we are currently analyzing that question.
Will the government renew, support and strengthen its commitment to ending sexual violence in the Congo, given that Canada's current $2 million program runs out in June 2011 and the Governor General called such violence a crime against humanity?
The question references Canada's specific $2 million commitment to the anti-sexual-violence project expiring in June 2011, cites the Governor General's statements in Kinshasa, and asks for renewal and strengthening, though it ends with a list rather than a single ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yes is not that hard a word to say. As the Governor General stated in Kinshasa, sexual violence in the Congo is a crime against humanity, but Canada's current commitment to the project against sexual violence is just about $2 million and runs out in June 2011. Programs to end sexual violence require sustained resources and better management to provide measures that would help people on the ground. Will the government listen to the words of our Governor General, the pleas of the Congolese and the call of Canadians to end sexual violence? Will it renew, support and strengthenâ
Mr. Speaker, Canada deplores the ongoing violence in eastern Congo, particularly against civilians, notably women and children, and strongly supports MONUC's efforts to end the impunity. Canada supports stabilization and the reconstruction efforts in the DRC, and has contributed well over $124 million in long-term humanitarian and aid development since 2006.
Cannon stated Canada deplores ongoing violence in eastern Congo against civilians, supports MONUC's efforts to end impunity, and has contributed more than $124 million in long-term humanitarian and development aid since 2006, without addressing the specific program renewal.
Cannon expresses condemnation of violence and cites more than $124 million in long-term humanitarian and development aid since 2006, but does not address the specific $2 million sexual violence program expiring in June 2011 or commit to renewal.
What is the government waiting for to implement a comprehensive EI reform to help workers in resource regions of Quebec, which lost 30,000 jobsâone in 17âsince the start of the recession, according to Institut de la statistique du QuĂ©bec data?
The question cites Institut de la statistique du Québec data, identifies four specific regions, and states 30,000 jobs lost (one in 17) in resource regions, giving it factual grounding, but the ask for a 'réforme globale' is broad.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si le QuĂ©bec a Ă©tĂ© davantage Ă©pargnĂ© par la rĂ©cession que les provinces canadiennes en raison de sa structure industrielle, les chiffres de l'Institut de la statistique du QuĂ©bec rĂ©vĂšlent, eux, un QuĂ©bec Ă deux vitesses. Ensemble, l'Abitibi, la Mauricie, le SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean et l'est du QuĂ©bec ont perdu 30 000 emplois depuis le dĂ©but de la rĂ©cession. Un emploi sur 17 a Ă©tĂ© supprimĂ© dans les rĂ©gions ressources sans que le gouvernement conservateur ne lĂšve le petit doigt. Qu'attend le gouvernement pour mettre en place une rĂ©forme globale de l'assurance-emploi afin, notamment, d'aider les travailleurs des rĂ©gions?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, although Quebec's industrial structure helped it weather the recession better than the other Canadian provinces, the figures from the Institut de la statistique du QuĂ©bec show two different sides of Quebec. In all, Abitibi, Mauricie, SaguenayâLac Saint-Jean and eastern Quebec have lost 30,000 jobs since the beginning of the recession. One out of every 17 jobs was cut in the resource regions, and the Conservative government did not do a thing. What is the government waiting for to completely overhaul employment insurance, to help the workers in these regions especially?
Blackburn cited eight EI measures introduced under the Economic Action Plan, including shared work, self-employed worker programs, and five additional benefit weeks, and accused the Bloc of voting against each of these measures.
Blackburn lists eight EI measures including shared work, self-employed workers, and five additional weeks of benefits, which is relevant context, but ends with a partisan attack on the Bloc for voting against these measures rather than addressing the specific demand for comprehensive EI reform.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis surpris de cette question. En plus d'avoir mis en place notre Plan d'action économique qui a aidé les travailleurs à l'échelle de notre pays, nous avons instauré huit mesures différentes pour soutenir les travailleurs qui perdaient leur emploi, que ce soit sur le plan du travail à temps partagé, des mesures pour les travailleurs autonomes ou des cinq semaines supplémentaires de prestations d'assurance-emploi. Nous avons mis toutes ces mesures en avant et, chaque fois, le Bloc a voté contre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by this question. Not only did we implement our economic action plan, which helped workers across the country, but we also implemented eight different measures to support workers who were losing their jobs, including work sharing, measures for self-employed workers, and five additional weeks of employment insurance benefits. We introduced all of these measures, and every single time the Bloc voted against them.
Will the government show compassion and extend EI benefits to a maximum of 50 weeks for workers forced to stop working due to serious illnesses like cancer, as proposed in the Bloc bill supported by a petition of more than 65,000 names?
The question references a specific Bloc bill, a petition of more than 65,000 signatures tabled the previous week, and a specific proposal to extend EI benefits to a maximum of 50 weeks for workers with serious illnesses like cancer, making it well-grounded and clearly answerable.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, une rĂ©forme globale de l'assurance-emploi est nĂ©cessaire. Par contre, Ă court terme, le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois propose d'aider les travailleurs victimes de maladies graves. Mon collĂšgue de ChamblyâBorduas a d'ailleurs dĂ©posĂ©, la semaine derniĂšre, une pĂ©tition de plus de 65 000 noms demandant le prolongement des prestations d'assurance-emploi jusqu'Ă un maximum de 50 semaines pour les personnes forcĂ©es de s'absenter de leur travail en raison de maladies graves, comme le cancer. Le gouvernement va-t-il faire preuve de compassion et donner suite Ă cette mesure extrĂȘmement raisonnable?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we need a complete overhaul of the employment insurance system. But in the short term, the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois is proposing that we help workers with serious illnesses. My colleague from ChamblyâBorduas presented a petition last week signed by over 65,000 people, calling for an extension of employment insurance benefits to a maximum of 50 weeks for people are forced to miss work because of serious illnesses, like cancer. Will the government show some compassion and follow through with this extremely reasonable measure?
Blackburn noted the current 15-week illness benefit maximum (with an average of about nine weeks), expressed sensitivity to the issue, but made no commitment to the specific 50-week proposal.
Blackburn acknowledges the issue with compassion, notes the current 15-week maximum for illness benefits with an average of about nine weeks, and expresses sympathy, but does not commit to or reject the specific 50-week proposal or respond to the 65,000-signature petition.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en tant que dĂ©putĂ©s du gouvernement, nous sommes Ă©videmment sensibles aux difficultĂ©s que peuvent vivre les citoyens. Les mesures d'assurance-emploi sont partagĂ©es, en termes de cotisations, entre les employeurs et les employĂ©s, et nous essayons d'offrir le maximum de prestations possible pour aider les gens. En rĂšgle gĂ©nĂ©rale, quelqu'un qui a une maladie peut bĂ©nĂ©ficier de prestations d'assurance-emploi pendant une pĂ©riode de 15 semaines, et la moyenne est d'environ neuf semaines. Toutefois, nous comprenons la situation et nous demeurons quand mĂȘme sensibles Ă cela.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as members of Parliament, we are obviously aware of the challenges facing our constituents. The payment of employment insurance premiums is shared by employers and employees, and we try to offer as many benefits as possible to help people. As a general rule, someone who is ill is eligible for employment insurance for a period of 15 weeks. In general, the average is about nine weeks. However, we understand the situation and are still very much aware of it.
Given that the US imposed a historic $16.4 million fine on Toyota for withholding safety information and Toyota admitted guilt and paid this week, when will the Minister of Transport hold Toyota Canada to account with charges and fines as in the US?
The question cites the specific April 5 US Department of Transportation fine of $16.4 million, Toyota's admission of guilt and payment this week, contrasts this with no Canadian charges or fines, and asks a direct accountability question about when the minister will act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on April 5, relying upon European and Canadian data, the American department of transportation imposed a historic $16.4 million fine on Toyota for having deprived its customers of timely safety-related information about it vehicles, and more charges are to follow. This week Toyota admitted guilt and paid the fine. In Canada there were no charges, no fines, no admissions. When will the Minister of Transport do his job and protect Canadian motorists by holding Toyota Canada to account?
Baird stated the government will ensure all legal measures are taken to keep Canadians safe, that the department is currently investigating and gathering information on a priority basis, and that appropriate action will be taken if Canadian laws have not been respected.
Baird commits to using the full force of Canadian law and states an active departmental investigation gathering information on a priority basis, which is relevant but vague â no timelines, no specific legal provisions, and no acknowledgment of why Canada has not acted while the US already levied a fine.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada will ensure that the full force of Canadian law and all legal measures are taken to ensure we keep Canadians safe. My department right now is investigating this important issue and my officials are continuing to gather information on a priority basis to ensure that all Canadian laws have been respected, and if they have not, they will take appropriate action.
Volpe cited the minister's shifting statements on Toyota Canada (applauding them in November, calling them a good corporate citizen on February 24, considering criminal charges on March 17, then retracting) and asked whether the minister will ask the RCMP to investigate breaches of the law by Toyota Canada.
Cites specific dates and quotes from the minister's own public statements (November, February 24, March 17) to expose a contradiction, and closes with a specific ask about requesting an RCMP investigation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I find the minister's indifference to Canadian drivers and their families astounding and dangerous. In November he applauded Toyota's actions to protect consumers even as it was being investigated. On February 24, the minister claimed that Toyota had been a good corporate citizen. However, on March 17, he indicated he was considering criminal charges. What happened? Yesterday he retracted, saying that ministers did not order criminal charges to be laid. If he cannot order them to be laid, will he ask the RCMP to investigate the breaches of the law by Toyota Canada?
Baird stated that cabinet ministers do not order criminal investigations or that criminal charges be laid, and said his department is working hard with top-notch officials to ensure the full force of Canadian law applies to any actor in the transportation sector that does not fully respect Canadian law.
The minister corrects the premise about ordering criminal charges but does not address the specific askâwhether he will ask the RCMP to investigate breaches of the law by Toyota Canadaâinstead offering vague assurances about his department's work.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the government worked when that member was a member of the cabinet, but in Canada cabinet ministers do not order criminal investigations and do not order that criminal charges be laid. Let me tell him this. My department is working very hard. We have a top-notch group of officials that will ensure the full force of Canadian law comes down on any actor in the transportation sector that does not fully respect Canadian law.
Crowder noted New Zealand reversed its position and now supports the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples without conditions, and asked whether Canada will tell the UN it supports the declaration without conditions and announce a formal date for its adoption.
References a specific recent event (New Zealand reversing its position at the UN this week) and asks a clear two-part question about whether Canada will support the declaration without conditions and announce a formal date, though the framing includes some rhetorical characterization.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the refusal of the Conservatives to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was an international embarrassment and an insult to aboriginal peoples in Canada. Other countries that made the same mistake are now making the right choice by signing on to this important human rights document. This week at the UN, New Zealand reversed its position and now supports the declaration with no conditions. Will Canada finally tell the UN that we support the declaration, without conditions, and will a formal date for its adoption by Canada be announced?
Strahl claimed New Zealand followed Canada's lead, said the government is consulting with first nation and aboriginal leaders across Canada, and referenced a throne speech promise to support the declaration in a way all Canadians can be very proud of.
Strahl disputes the characterization of New Zealand's action, claims New Zealand followed Canada's lead, and references a throne speech promise, but does not answer whether Canada will sign without conditions or provide any formal date.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member did not read the same speech that I did from the New Zealand delegation, but we were very pleased to see New Zealand follow our lead. They have also moved ahead on this. Of course, as we do in Canada, we are consulting with first nation and aboriginal leaders across Canada. We are putting together a package of ideas on making sure that, when we follow through on our throne speech promise to support the declaration, it will be done in a way that not only aboriginal people are comfortable with but all Canadians can be very proud of.
Mathyssen cited the Native Women's Association of Canada report on 582 cases of missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls, noted over a month had passed since the government promised funding, and asked when the Minister of Justice plans to release the $10 million he promised.
Cites the Native Women's Association of Canada report, references 582 cases of missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls, notes that over a month has passed since a funding promise, and asks specifically when the minister plans to release the $10 million he promised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Native Women's Association of Canada released a report on the lack of effective programming to address the 582 cases of missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls in Canada. It has been over a month since the government promised funding to address this serious issue, and we still have no details on how and when it will be delivered. Aboriginal women in this country are being murdered. There needs to be action now. Will the Minister of Justice tell us when he plans to release the $10 million he promised? We simply cannot afford to wait any longer.
Nicholson confirmed the government will be investing $10 million over two years to address the disturbingly high number of missing and murdered aboriginal people and said they will work with provinces, territories, aboriginal people and other stakeholders for effective solutions.
Nicholson confirms the $10 million over two years from the budget and outlines the collaborative approach, which partially answers the 'when' question (it is in the budget) but does not give a specific timeline for release of the funds.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to ensuring that all women, including aboriginal women, are safe and secure regardless of the community in which they live. Since this is the first question we have had on this since the budget, I can say that the government will be investing $10 million over two years to address the disturbingly high number of missing and murdered aboriginal people. We will work with provinces, territories, aboriginal people and other stakeholders for effective solutions. After all, we all have a stake in finding a solution to this terrible problem.
Watson asked the Minister of Industry to update the House on the progress being made on the government's robust commitment to the Canadian auto sector.
A government-backbench softball setup asking the Minister of Industry to update the House on progress on the government's commitment to the Canadian auto sector, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during a period of global economic uncertainty, our government acted responsibly to ensure the survival of Canada's automotive industry. In co-operation with the Obama administration and the Government of Ontario, we acted to secure this vital manufacturing sector and protect its nearly half a million Canadian jobs. Could the Minister of Industry update the House on the progress being made on our government's robust commitment to the Canadian auto sector?
Clement announced that GM has repaid in full its loans to the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario and the United States, seven years ahead of schedule, and noted new shifts and new jobs being announced at Canadian auto plants.
Clement provides a concrete, newsworthy factâthat GM has repaid in full its loans to the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario and the United States, seven years ahead of scheduleâand mentions new shifts and new jobs being announced at Canadian auto plants.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a difficult but necessary decision a year ago to support the auto sector here in Canada. We see more evidence that it was the right decision. I am pleased to rise today and indicate that GM has repaid in full its loans to the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario and the United States, well ahead of schedule. It is seven years ahead of schedule, as a matter of fact. It is clear that Canada's auto sector is back on the road to prosperity. We have new shifts. We have new jobs being announced at Canadian auto plants. Of course, this government remains committed to our manufacturing sector from coast to coast to coast.
Scarpaleggia cited the specific case of Dennis Vialls, an Allied war veteran who fought in Normandy alongside Canadian troops and is now battling Alzheimer's, and asked why the government cannot allow Allied veterans like him the same direct access to Ste. Anne's Hospital as other World War II veterans.
Grounds the question in the specific case of Dennis Vialls, an Allied war veteran with Alzheimer's, references empty beds at Ste. Anne's Hospital, and asks a clear policy question about direct access for Allied veterans.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Dennis Vialls, an Allied war veteran who fought in Normandy alongside Canadian troops, is now battling Alzheimer's. His wife is exhausted from caring for him and from fighting this stubborn government. The Ste. Anne's Hospital for veterans has empty beds. Why can the government not allow Allied veterans like Dennis Vialls the same direct access to Ste. Anne's Hospital as other World War II veterans who fought for our freedom?
Blackburn said veterans can go to Ste. Anne's Hospital but not all can do so as certain criteria apply, and noted that people generally prefer to go to a hospital near their home.
Blackburn acknowledges that not all veterans can access Ste. Anne's Hospital and that criteria apply, but does not address the specific case of Dennis Vialls or explain why Allied veterans like him are denied direct access compared to other World War II veterans.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, effectivement, nos anciens combattants peuvent se rendre à l'HÎpital Sainte-Anne, prÚs de Montréal, pour y recevoir les soins dont ils ont besoin. Cependant, ce ne sont pas tous les anciens combattants qui peuvent le faire; certains critÚres s'appliquent. Il faut dire qu'en rÚgle générale, les gens préfÚrent aller à un hÎpital prÚs de chez eux. Nous faisons tout notre possible pour aider nos anciens combattants tout en respectant les rÚgles qui s'appliquent.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our veterans can go to Ste. Anne's Hospital near Montreal to receive the care they need. However, not all veterans are eligible. Certain criteria must be met. In general, people prefer to go to hospitals near their homes. We are doing everything we can to help our veterans, but we have to follow the rules.
Lemay noted that an Algonquin chiefs' delegation was on the Hill, that after New Zealand's adhesion only Canada and the United States still oppose the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and asked when the government will announce it is signing the declaration.
References the specific context of an Algonquin chiefs' delegation on the Hill and New Zealand's adhesion, and poses a clear ask about when the government will announce it is signing the declaration, though the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aujourd'hui, une dĂ©lĂ©gation de chefs algonquins est sur la Colline. Depuis l'adhĂ©sion de la Nouvelle-ZĂ©lande, seuls le Canada et les Ătats-Unis s'opposent Ă la DĂ©claration des Nations Unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones. On n'a pas besoin de consultation additionnelle: toutes les nations autochtones la rĂ©clament. Quand le gouvernement va-t-il cesser de nier les droits Ă©lĂ©mentaires des Autochtones? Quand va-t-il annoncer qu'il signe cette dĂ©claration?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today, a delegation of Algonquin chiefs is on the Hill. Now that New Zealand has declared its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Canada and the United States remain the only countries that oppose it. No further consultation is necessary: this is what all first nations want. When will the government stop denying aboriginal peoples' basic rights? When will it announce its intention to sign this declaration?
Strahl cited changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act and a matrimonial property rights bill as examples of action on aboriginal rights, and said the government is moving ahead with negotiations with aboriginal leaders to fulfill its throne speech promise to support the declaration.
Strahl cites changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the matrimonial property rights bill as evidence of action on rights, then references throne speech negotiations, but does not answer when the government will announce support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, not only do we believe in rights but we have actually taken action on this side of the table. We brought in changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act that included aboriginal people on reserve for the first time ever. We also introduced another bill that will give matrimonial property rights to women and children who, as of right now, have no such property rights on reserves. Support for those kinds of initiatives is important, but we are also moving ahead with negotiations with aboriginal leaders across the country to fulfill our throne speech promise that we will be supporting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in a way that all Canadians can be proud of.
Allen noted that EU representatives were in Ottawa for trade negotiations and asked the Minister of International Trade to confirm that he has honoured his commitment to Canada's dairy, poultry and egg farmers and taken supply management off the negotiating table.
Ties the question to the timely context of EU trade negotiations happening in Ottawa that week, references Canada's current supply management system, and asks the minister to confirm a specific commitment that supply management has been taken off the negotiating table.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are increasingly concerned about their food, where it is coming from, how it is made and whether it is safe. EU representatives are in Ottawa this week for trade negotiations, and the future of Canadian-grown food is in question. Canada's current supply management system ensures fairness for farmers, and it benefits both Canadians and our economy. Will the Minister of International Trade confirm that he has honoured his commitment to Canada's dairy, poultry and egg farmers and taken supply management off the negotiating table?
Van Loan said the government has been strong supporters of supply management and continues to be, and argued that negotiations with the European Union offer opportunity for prosperity for Canadian workers and Canadian farmers.
Van Loan affirms the government's strong support for supply management but does not directly confirm that supply management has been taken off the negotiating table with the EU, instead pointing to past free trade agreements as evidence compatibility is possible.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government has been quite clear. We have been strong supporters of supply management, and we continue to be. That has not prevented us from successfully entering into free trade agreements with the United States, with Colombia and with other countries and having the benefits of the prosperity that have come from that. Our negotiations with the European Union, right now the largest economy in the world, offer us the opportunity for more prosperity, not just for Canadian workers, but also for Canadian farmers. That is why we are pursuing it.
McLeod referenced the government's bill reforming the Youth Criminal Justice Act and legislation introduced in the Senate to repeal the faint hope clause, and asked the Minister of Justice what other legislative measures he plans to bring forward this session.
A government-backbench softball that references two specific bills (Youth Criminal Justice Act reform and faint hope clause repeal) but ultimately asks the minister to announce future legislation, functioning as a setup rather than an accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, standing up for victims and law-abiding citizens is of paramount importance to our government. This session we introduced a bill reforming the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and yesterday our government introduced important legislation in the Senate that seeks to repeal the faint hope clause. Can the Minister of Justice please inform the House what other legislative measures he plans to bring forward this session?
Nicholson announced the government plans to introduce legislation to put an end to house arrest for serious and violent crimes, noting that under the current system criminals remain eligible for house arrest for a long list of crimes including aggravated assault, human trafficking and luring a child.
Nicholson announces a specific forthcoming bill to put an end to house arrest for serious and violent crimes, references a concrete list of crimes currently eligible for house arrest, and notes this was previously introduced and stalled, providing substantive new information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her support of our criminal justice legislation. It is true we plan to introduce legislation to put an end to house arrest for serious and violent crimes. Now the opposition might remember this subject because it was introduced in the previous Parliament, where members repeatedly stalled it and eventually gutted the bill. As a result, criminals remain eligible for house arrest for a long list of property and other serious crimes including aggravated assault, human trafficking and luring a child. We have to change that. Canadians can be proud that they have a government that makes their concerns its priority.
Scarpaleggia raised concerns about secret negotiations over the transfer of Ste. Anne's Hospital from Veterans Affairs to the province of Quebec and asked whether the minister will hold public hearings before continuing talks with Quebec and allow veterans and the community to speak freely on the matter.
Raises a concrete concern about secret negotiations regarding the transfer of Ste. Anne's Hospital and asks specific procedural questionsâpublic hearings and allowing veterans and the community to speakâthough the closing rhetorical flourish lowers the score slightly.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement parle de transférer l'HÎpital Sainte-Anne administré par le ministÚre des Anciens Combattants à la province de Québec, mais tout se déroule en cachette, ce qui nourrit les rumeurs et sÚme l'inquiétude. Le ministre va-t-il tenir des audiences publiques avant de poursuivre ses pourparlers avec Québec? Va-t-il permettre aux anciens combattants et à l'ensemble de la collectivité de s'exprimer librement sur une question qui les touche de prÚs? Va-t-il souscrire, dans les faits, à la liberté d'expression pour laquelle nos anciens combattants se sont battus?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government is talking about transferring Ste. Anne's Hospital, which is administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, to the Province of Quebec. But everything is happening behind closed doors, which only serves to feed the rumours and raise concern in people's minds. Will the minister hold public hearings before continuing his discussions with Quebec? Will he allow veterans and the community at large to speak freely about an issue that affects them personally? Will he honour the freedom of speech that these veterans fought for?
Blackburn confirmed the government will begin discussions with the Government of Quebec about a possible transfer of Ste. Anne's Hospital, noting that health care is now a provincial jurisdiction, and emphasized that veterans receiving priority care is the most important consideration even if the hospital is transferred.
Blackburn confirms discussions with the Government of Quebec about a potential transfer of Ste. Anne's Hospital and states that veterans' priority care is the most important consideration, but does not address the specific ask about public hearings or allowing veterans and the community to express themselves.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il y avait 17 hĂŽpitaux diffĂ©rents pour venir en aide et donner des soins Ă nos anciens combattants. L'HĂŽpital Sainte-Anne est le dernier qui reste. L'assurance-santĂ© et les soins de santĂ© sont maintenant de compĂ©tence provinciale. C'est dans ce contexte que nous allons amorcer des discussions avec le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec. Nous voulons voir s'il est intĂ©ressĂ© Ă ce qu'on lui transfĂšre l'HĂŽpital Sainte-Anne. Le plus important, c'est que nos anciens combattants obtiennent des soins en prioritĂ©, mĂȘme si cet hĂŽpital est transfĂ©rĂ©.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there were 17 different hospitals that helped care for our veterans. Ste. Anne's Hospital is the only one left. Health insurance and health care are now under provincial jurisdiction. It is in this context that we began discussions with the Quebec government. We want to know if they would be interested in having Ste. Anne's Hospital transferred to them. The top priority is ensuring that our veterans receive priority care, even if the hospital is transferred.
Irene Mathyssen (NDP) raised a point of order stating that the Minister of Justice had inadvertently misled the House by claiming her question about the $10 million was the first such question, when she had in fact raised a similar question on April 15 regarding the Sisters In Spirit campaign. Rob Nicholson acknowledged this could be the case, stated he did not remember the earlier question, and withdrew his remark and apologized to her.
- NDP Ms. Irene Mathyssen
- CPC Rob Nicholson
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in a response to my question today, the Minister of Justice inadvertently misled the House. On April 15, I asked him a similar question in regard to the Sisters In Spirit campaign. This is not the first time this question was raised. I raised it on April 15. I am asking the minister to correct his response.
Mr. Speaker, that could be. It was certainly the first question I had about the $10 million that was in the federal budget, but if in fact the hon. member did raise it, I do not remember it. However, I am prepared to withdraw and apologize to her.