Session overview
- G8/G20 summit costs dominated Question Period, with opposition members pressing the government on $1.3 billion in spending, untendered contracts, and infrastructure projects in the industry minister's riding that critics called a 'slush fund.'
- The refusal of Dimitri Soudas, the Prime Minister's director of communications, to appear before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics drew repeated challenges from the Bloc Québécois, who warned the situation could trigger contempt of Parliament proceedings.
- The NDP pressed the government on Afghanistan troop withdrawal after 2011, the Afghan torture scandal involving Richard Colvin, and the status of the Shell Canada refinery in Montreal-Est, where 800 direct and 3,500 indirect jobs are at risk.
- Offshore and Arctic drilling safety was raised by both the Bloc Québécois and the NDP in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico disaster; the Minister of Natural Resources stated that no offshore project in the Arctic would be approved unless worker safety and environmental protection are ensured.
- The government repeatedly promoted Bill C-23 pardon reform through planted questions and deflection, while the NDP countered with its own competing bill; the Minister of Public Safety argued the NDP proposal would require the National Parole Board to issue pardons even to those convicted of sexual offences against children.
- A Point of Order dispute erupted after Question Period over whether the Kearney bridge project was funded under the G8 legacy fund; Minister Baird stated it received no G8 funding, while Liberal MP Marcel Proulx presented a press release and photographs showing a G8 sign at the site, with Baird subsequently acknowledging $730,000 in federal funding for Main Street and sewer work in Kearney.
The Minister of Natural Resources made a specific, on-the-record commitment that no offshore Arctic drilling project would be approved unless the government is convinced that the health of workers and the protection of the environment are ensured, and confirmed that the National Energy Board had already announced a full review of offshore drilling regulations on May 11.
Proulx holds up a specific press release dated June 25, 2009 that he says directly contradicts Baird's claim that the bridge in Kearney was not a G8 summit project, offering to table it â a highly grounded, document-specific challenge.
Rather than confirming or denying whether Canadian troops would be withdrawn from Afghanistan after July 2011 â the direct question asked â the Prime Minister responded entirely by attacking the NDP deputy leader over statements about Israel, providing no information on troop withdrawal.
Outstanding questions
- Jack Layton asked whether the Prime Minister can confirm that Canada will withdraw all its troops from Afghanistan by July 2011 â no answer was provided.
- Siobhan Coady asked how many summit contracts for the Departments of Public Safety, Health, Industry, and Foreign Affairs were untendered â the minister deflected by asking for a specific example rather than providing the requested figures.
- Denis Coderre asked the Prime Minister directly whether he would call Peter Voser, CEO of Shell, in London to ask Shell to consider the Delek US offer and save the Shell Canada refinery in Montreal-Est â no commitment was made.
- Mark Holland asked whether the Conservatives refused to move both summits to Toronto in order to provide cover for infrastructure spending in the industry minister's riding â no direct answer was given.
- Jack Layton asked why the government reassigned people who raised the issue of torture and why it wanted to stop Richard Colvin from exposing the truth â the Prime Minister did not address the substance and instead attacked the NDP over unrelated comments about Israel.
Ignatieff asks how the Prime Minister can explain the incoherence of summit preparation and the hypocrisy of inviting African leaders while abandoning Africa.
The question is largely rhetorical, using words like 'incohérence' and 'hypocrisie' without citing specific data or a single answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le G8 est devenu je ne sais plus quoi. Quelle incohĂ©rence et quelle hypocrisie! Au moment mĂȘme oĂč le gouvernement abandonne l'Afrique, il a le courage d'inviter des leaders africains. Quelle hypocrisie! Comment le premier ministre peut-il expliquer l'incohĂ©rence de sa prĂ©paration pour le sommet et l'hypocrisie de sa politique Ă©trangĂšre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the G8 has turned into. What incoherence and hypocrisy. Just as the government is turning its back on Africa, it dares to invite African leaders. What hypocrisy. How can the Prime Minister explain his incoherent summit planning and his hypocritical foreign policy?
Harper asserts that more than half of Canada's development budget goes to Africa and that Canada leads in fulfilling its promises to Africa, hence the tradition of inviting African leaders.
Harper responds with a concrete claim â more than half the development budget goes to Africa and Canada is first in fulfilling its promises â which partially engages the substance, though without citing specific figures.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au contraire, l'Afrique est trÚs importante pour ce gouvernement. Nous avons plus de la moitié de notre budget pour le développement pour ce continent. Le Canada est le premier pays pour ce qui est de remplir ses promesses à l'égard de l'Afrique. C'est la raison pour laquelle nous continuons la tradition d'inviter des chefs africains au sommet du G8. Franchement, je suis surpris que le Parti libéral soit contre cela.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, Africa is very important to this government. More than half our development budget goes to that continent. Canada leads other countries in terms of keeping its promises to Africa. That is why we are carrying on the tradition of inviting African leaders to the G8 summit. Frankly, I am surprised that the Liberal Party is against that.
Ignatieff asks how the Prime Minister will explain to Canadians that he has lost control of Canada's summit given last-minute venue changes, spending on decorations, late invitations, and a neighbourhood shutdown.
The question raises identifiable specifics â last-minute venue change, unfinished decorations, late invitations, neighbourhood shutdown â but mixes them with rhetorical flourishes like 'a bake sale would not be run like this.'
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ils vont couper les vivres aux Africains. Ils vont couper l'aide aux pays africains. Ils n'ont pas le courage de l'admettre mĂȘme aux leaders africains qui viendront Ă Toronto. It is also a question of the government changing the venue at the last minute, splurging on decorations, inviting half the guest list with 10 days left, and the Prime Minister is going to shut down the entire neighbourhood. A bake sale would not be run like this. A children's birthday party would not be planned like this. Canadians have to pay the bill. How is the Prime Minister going to explain to Canadians that he has lost control of Canada's summit?
Harper says the Liberal Party seems angry that Canada is leading the world economically and lists economic achievements, without addressing any summit planning concerns.
Harper ignores all specific planning and cost concerns and pivots entirely to Canada's economic performance, constituting a near-complete deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party seems extremely angry that Canada is leading the world right now in terms of the economy, not just through chairmanship of the G8 and G20, but also, obviously, through the strong performance of the Canadian economy, some of the strongest job creation in the advanced world, the lowest debts, the lowest taxes, the strongest banking system, the strongest balance sheets. The Liberal Party should be cheering Canada instead of insulting it.
Ignatieff asks how the Prime Minister can explain that Canada has lost control of its own summit, citing $1.3 billion in waste and contradictions on women's rights, banking reform, and climate change on the agenda.
The question cites '$1.3 billion in waste' and raises three specific agenda failures â women's rights, banking reform, and climate change â but blends them into a broad 'lost control' framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we always cheer Canada, but we cannot cheer $1.3 billion in waste. The Prime Minister has not only lost control of the costs, he has lost control of the agenda. He wanted to talk about women's rights, but he is not providing any protection for women's rights overseas. He wanted to talk about the economy, but there is no progress on banking reform. He started calling climate change a sideshow and then was forced to put it back on the agenda. Anyone looking at this would think this is chaos. How can the Prime Minister explain that Canada has lost control of its own summit?
Harper says child and maternal health was identified as a major development priority warmly embraced by G8 partners, and references Canada's leading banking system, before cutting off mid-sentence.
Harper briefly mentions child and maternal health as a G8 priority and Canada's banking system, but spends more time making a personal jab at Ignatieff and does not address the specific agenda failures raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that sounds to me more like a leader who is losing control of his own party. The fact is this government identified child and maternal health as a major development priority at the G8. That initiative has been warmly embraced not just by our G8 partners but by others around the world. If we talk about things like the banking system, Canada has the leading banking system. Canada is the model to which many are looking in terms of financial--
Holland asks whether the Conservatives refused to move both summits to Toronto and save half a billion dollars in order to give cover to $50 million in pork-barrel spending in the industry minister's riding.
Holland cites specific figures ($50 million, 80 kilometres distance, unfinished projects) and raises a pointed question about whether refusal to consolidate summits in Toronto was designed to cover pork-barrel spending in the industry minister's riding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a fake lake, fiddlers and a landlocked boat were just the beginning. A drive around the industry minister's riding reveals a tour de pork: $50 million dumped on distant gazebos and goodies under the guise of a day of G8 meetings to re-elect the minister. Even if the delegates wanted to drive 80 kilometres away to see it, they cannot because most of it is not finished. Some of it has not even been started. This is not a G8 legacy fund. It is a slush fund for a minister gone wild. Did the Conservatives refuse to move both summits to Toronto and save half a billion dollars so they could give cover to this pork?
Baird claims the Leader of the Opposition had promised to hold the G8 in Huntsville, says all G8 projects are completed or near completion, and accuses Liberals of spreading falsehoods.
Baird claims all G8 projects are completed or near completion and attacks the Liberals for spreading falsehoods, but does not address the specific allegation about consolidating summits or the $50 million in Holland's cited projects.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do note that the Leader of the Opposition promised to hold the G8 summit in Huntsville because he appreciated the good choice that this government made. All of the G8 projects have already been completed or are expected to be completed in the coming weeks. We are proud of them. They are creating jobs as part of Canada's economic action plan, and that is good for this country. What I can say is that the Liberals' repeated attempts to mislead, to say untrue things and to spread falsehoods will not work.
Holland asks how the Conservatives justify pork spending in the industry minister's riding, citing a nearly $1 million bridge 42 kilometres away not yet started and $2 million for park improvements 135 kilometres away that is currently mud, all approved under summit funds.
Holland cites specific dollar amounts ($2.8 million for Nickel Belt, nearly $100 million for the industry minister's riding, a nearly $1 million bridge 42 kilometres away not started, $2 million for park improvements 135 kilometres away currently mud), making this a reasonably well-grounded question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he should take a drive around because he would see that they are not done. The nearby riding of Nickel Belt received $2.8 million for infrastructure. All together, the industry minister's riding will receive almost $100 million. What is he building with it? More gazebos per capita than probably anywhere else on earth, from nearly a $1 million bridge to nowhere 42 kilometres away that has not even been started, to $2 million for park improvements 135 kilometres away that is currently mud. It was approved in the name of the summits but has a better chance of being visited by aliens than Barack Obama. How do the Conservatives justify this pork?
Baird states the bridge in Kearney is not a G8 summit project and has nothing to do with it, and counter-attacks by referencing dozens of infrastructure projects in AjaxâPickering that Holland had no part in securing.
Baird directly addresses the bridge in Kearney by asserting it is not a G8 summit project, which is a responsive factual claim, but he then pivots to a counter-attack about projects in AjaxâPickering rather than addressing the other cited projects.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will speak very directly to the project mentioned by the member opposite. He speaks about a bridge in Kearney. This is not a G8 summit project and has nothing to do with the G8 summit project. Just because the member opposite wants to spread mistruths does not make them true. I do have a list of literally dozens of projects amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars in the riding of Ajax--Pickering. These dozens of projects in the member's own riding all have one thing in common: the member of Parliament for that riding had nothing to do with getting them.
Duceppe asks why the Prime Minister continues to endorse his press secretary Dimitri Soudas's refusal to testify before a parliamentary committee, given the parliamentary counsel's ruling that ministerial responsibility does not limit committee powers.
Duceppe cites the parliamentary counsel's ruling that ministerial responsibility does not limit committee powers, identifies Dimitri Soudas by name, and asks a clear yes/no accountability question about whether Soudas is above the law.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le conseiller parlementaire de la Chambre des communes a été trÚs clair: la responsabilité ministérielle ne limite pas le pouvoir des comités parlementaires. Ceux-ci ont donc le droit de convoquer des membres du personnel politique, si c'est nécessaire à l'avancement des travaux. Pourquoi le premier ministre s'obstine-t-il à cautionner son attaché de presse, Dimitri Soudas, qui refuse d'aller témoigner en comité parlementaire? Serait-il au-dessus de la loi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to the House of Commons was very clear: ministerial responsibility does not limit the power of parliamentary committees. They therefore have the right to call political staff members, if needed to advance their work. Why does the Prime Minister continue to support his press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, who is refusing to testify before a parliamentary committee? Is he above the law?
Harper states the government follows the tradition of ministerial responsibility to Parliament and that its employees are accountable to the government.
Harper states only that the government's position is that employees are accountable to ministers, restating its position without engaging the parliamentary counsel's contrary ruling or answering whether Soudas is above the law.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la position du gouvernement est claire. Nous suivons la tradition de la responsabilité ministérielle envers le Parlement. C'est la position du gouvernement, et nos employés sont responsables devant nous.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government's position is clear. We support the tradition of ministerial responsibility to Parliament. That is the government's position and our employees answer to us.
Duceppe asks whether the Prime Minister realizes that by endorsing Dimitri Soudas's refusal to testify, he becomes complicit in contempt of Parliament and is thereby unworthy of serving as Prime Minister.
Duceppe raises the specific consequence of contempt of Parliament proceedings and asks whether the Prime Minister realizes he becomes complicit in Soudas's contempt for Parliament, which is a pointed accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la position du gouvernement est claire, mais elle contrevient clairement aux pouvoirs du Parlement. Par son entĂȘtement Ă ne pas aller tĂ©moigner en comitĂ©, Dimitri Soudas pourrait ĂȘtre accusĂ© d'outrage au Parlement. Le premier ministre rĂ©alise-t-il qu'en cautionnant son attachĂ© de presse, il s'en fait le complice dans son mĂ©pris du Parlement et de la dĂ©mocratie? Cela le rend indigne d'agir comme premier ministre, lorsqu'il agit de la sorte.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government's position is clear, but it clearly contravenes the authority of Parliament. With his stubborn refusal to appear before a committee, Dimitri Soudas could be charged with contempt of Parliament. Does the Prime Minister realize that, by supporting his press secretary, he is complicit in the contempt for Parliament and democracy? Such action is unbecoming of a prime minister.
Harper briefly reiterates that ministers are accountable to Parliament, then pivots entirely to calling for pardon system reform, which he deems more important.
Harper briefly restates the ministerial responsibility position and then completely pivots to pardon system reform, making no attempt to address the contempt proceedings or complicity allegation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre et les ministres sont responsables devant le Parlement. La position du gouvernement est claire sur un autre sujet: la population du Canada croit que le systÚme de pardon a besoin de réforme. Comme moi, la population pense qu'il s'agit là d'un sujet plus important que les vacances. J'espÚre que le Bloc québécois travaillera avec nous pour réformer ce systÚme.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, prime ministers and ministers are responsible to Parliament. The government's position is clear on another matter: the people of Canada believe that the pardon system needs to be overhauled. The people believe, as I do, that this subject is far more important than holidays. I hope that the Bloc Québécois will work with us to reform this system.
Freeman asks whether the Prime Minister maintains his position of ordering Dimitri Soudas not to appear before the ethics committee, given that today is the deadline for his appearance and the parliamentary counsel has confirmed committees can summon whom they wish.
Freeman cites the parliamentary counsel's ruling, notes that today is the deadline for Soudas to appear before the ethics committee, and asks a direct yes/no question about whether the Prime Minister will continue ordering his director of communications not to appear.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme vous, le conseiller parlementaire de la Chambre a déclaré que les comités parlementaires ont le pouvoir de convoquer qui ils veulent pour mener à bien leurs travaux. Or aujourd'hui, c'est la date limite pour que Dimitri Soudas comparaisse devant le comité de l'éthique. Est-ce que le premier ministre maintient sa position irresponsable et continue d'ordonner à son directeur des communications de ne pas se présenter devant le comité?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, like you, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons has said that the parliamentary committees have the power to call whomever they want in order to accomplish their work. Today is the deadline for Dimitri Soudas to appear before the ethics committee. Will the Prime Minister maintain his irresponsible position and continue to order his director of communications not to appear before the committee?
Poilievre restates the tradition that ministers answer to Parliament and their staff answer to ministers, then pivots to economic achievements including 56,000 children lifted out of poverty and 300,000 jobs created.
Poilievre briefly states the tradition on ministerial responsibility and then completely abandons the question to recite economic talking points about the universal child care benefit, tax-free savings accounts, and job creation, with no connection to Soudas or the committee deadline.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la tradition est claire: les ministres répondent au Parlement et leurs adjoints répondent aux ministres. The reason the coalition parties do not want to ask questions of the ministers is that they do not want the real facts of this great country to come out. They do not want Canadians to know that, through the universal child care benefit, 56,000 children have been lifted out of poverty and that 5 million Canadians have registered tax-free savings accounts with up to $16 billion in new investment from that. The coalition parties also do not want Canadians to know about the 300,000 jobs. That is the real Canadian story and we are telling it.
Freeman asks whether the Prime Minister realizes that his insistence on preventing his director of communications from testifying will force the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to draft a report triggering contempt of Parliament proceedings against him and Dimitri Soudas.
Freeman raises the specific consequence that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics will have no choice but to draft a report triggering contempt proceedings, making this a pointed follow-up with a concrete institutional outcome identified.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre croit vraiment qu'il est au-dessus des lois. RĂ©alise-t-il que son entĂȘtement Ă empĂȘcher son directeur des communications de tĂ©moigner fait en sorte que le ComitĂ© permanent de l'accĂšs Ă l'information, de la protection des renseignements personnels et de l'Ă©thique n'aura d'autre choix que de rĂ©diger un rapport dĂ©clenchant le processus d'outrage au Parlement contre lui et Dimitri Soudas?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister truly believes he is above the law. Does he realize that by digging in his heels and preventing his director of communications from testifying, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics will have no choice but to draft a report and initiate the process to find him and Dimitri Soudas in contempt of Parliament?
Poilievre states that the Bloc and coalition parties can ask any question of ministers and the government will answer, then pivots to citing 300,000 new jobs, five million Canadians in tax-free savings accounts, and 56,000 children lifted out of poverty.
Poilievre again briefly states that all parties can question ministers and the government will respond, then returns entirely to economic talking points with no engagement of the contempt proceedings threat.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le Bloc et tous les partis de la coalition ont le pouvoir de poser n'importe quelle question aux ministres, et nous serons prĂȘts, comme gouvernement, Ă y rĂ©pondre. They do not want Canadians to know that this government is succeeding. Through our economic plan, we have created 300,000 new jobs. Five million Canadians invested in the tax-free savings accounts, which is $16 billion in accumulated savings for the future. The universal child care benefit has lifted 56,000 children out of poverty. We are getting the job done and they do not want Canadians to know it.
Layton asks the Prime Minister to confirm that Canada will withdraw all its troops from Afghanistan by July 2011, in line with the will of the House, as opposed to the Liberal leader's position of extending the military presence.
Layton references the House's stated will on Afghanistan, identifies a specific opposing position attributed to the Liberal leader, and asks a direct confirmable question about whether all troops will be withdrawn by July 2011.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, le chef du Parti libéral a fait volte-face encore une fois, cette fois dans le dossier de l'Afghanistan. Le chef du Parti libéral veut prolonger la présence militaire du Canada en Afghanistan. Cette position qui va à l'encontre de la volonté de la Chambre. Le premier ministre peut-il confirmer que le Canada retirera toutes ses troupes d'Afghanistan dÚs juillet 2011?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberal Party leader flip-flopped yet again, this time on the Afghanistan issue. The Liberal Party leader wants to prolong Canada's military presence in Afghanistan, but that is contrary to the will of the House. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Canada will withdraw all of its troops from Afghanistan as of July 2011?
Harper does not confirm or deny the 2011 withdrawal, instead attacking the NDP for allowing its House leader to make statements described as extremist regarding Israel without consequences.
Harper does not address Afghanistan or the 2011 withdrawal at all, instead attacking the NDP's deputy leader for statements described as denying Israel's right to exist, constituting a pure deflection.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis bien surpris que le chef du Nouveau Parti démocratique tente de critiquer un autre chef. AprÚs ses actions, sa députée, sa leader à la Chambre, a en effet nié le droit d'Israël d'exister, en faisant des déclarations extrémistes sans aucune conséquence. Il n'est pas dans une position pour critiquer le chef du Parti libéral ou n'importe quel autre chef de la Chambre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the NDP leader would criticize another party leader. One of his members, his House Leader in fact, basically denied Israel's right to exist by making extremist statements with impunity. He is in no position to criticize the Liberal Party leader or any other leader in the House.
Layton asks whether the Prime Minister agrees that Canada's money, given the $20 billion cost so far and $1 billion a month in NATO training costs, would be better spent on humanitarian aid, development assistance, justice, human rights and peace negotiations in Afghanistan.
Layton cites specific costs ($20 billion for Canada's involvement, $1 billion a month for NATO training costs) and asks a dual question about whether the Prime Minister agrees that money would be better spent on humanitarian aid, development, justice, human rights, and peace negotiations.
Source text
So, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not prepared to confirm that Canadian troops will no longer be in Afghanistan after 2011. The cost of Canada's involvement in the war is $20 billion so far. The NATO costs on training are $1 billion a month. That is exactly the approach that the Liberal leader wants Canada to continue with. Would the Prime Minister tell us if he agrees that the Canadian money would be better spent on humanitarian aid, development assistance work, justice, human rights and peace negotiations in Afghanistan? Could he at least confirm that?
Harper says successive Conservative and Liberal governments have worked with international partners and the Afghan people and expresses pride in Canada's military and civilian contributions, then attacks the NDP leader for sheltering an MP who made anti-Israeli extremist statements.
Harper speaks generally about successive governments' work in Afghanistan with pride but again pivots to attacking the NDP deputy leader's statements about Israel, failing to address the cost figures or the spending priorities question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, successive governments, both Conservative and Liberal, have worked with our international partners and with the Afghan people to bring peace, security and development to that country. We are extremely proud of the work that our men and women in uniform, our diplomats and our development workers have done with our international partners. Quite frankly, I do not think a leader who shelters an MP who makes anti-Israeli extremist statements without repercussion should be making any criticism of policy.
Layton asks why the government reassigned people who were raising the issue of torture and why it wanted to stop Richard Colvin from exposing the truth and reporting on what he saw.
Layton raises Richard Colvin by name, references DND officials sending memos to silence him, and asks two specific questions about reassignment of people raising torture issues and the government's motivation to stop Colvin from reporting what he saw.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the faulty deal that the Prime Minister signed with the coalition of the unwilling shows why only a judicial inquiry will ever get to the bottom of the Afghan torture scandal. The government tried to silence diplomat, Richard Colvin, who was trying to blow the whistle on torture. DND officials were sending memos begging to silence him. Why did the government reassign people who were trying to raise the issue of torture? Why did it want to stop Richard Colvin from exposing the truth and reporting on what he saw?
Harper states that three political parties worked to get a responsible resolution but the NDP did not, then attacks the NDP deputy leader for making statements he characterizes as equivalent to those of Hamas or Hezbollah, and calls for pardon system reform.
Harper does not address Richard Colvin, the reassignments, or the memos at all, pivoting entirely to attacking the NDP deputy leader's statements on Israel and calling for pardon system reform.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, three political parties worked to get a responsible resolution to this question but, unfortunately, the NDP did not. However, why would we be surprised? The deputy leader of the NDP knew full well what she was saying when she made statements that could have been made by Hamas, Hezbollah or anybody else, with no repercussions from that party whatsoever. I hope the leader of the NDP will come clean and actually face up to his responsibilities on that question. While I am on my feet, I also hope that he will help us pass a reform of the pardon system, something for which Canadians have been waiting weeks.
Coady asks how many summit contracts for the Departments of Public Safety, Health, Industry and Foreign Affairs were untendered, noting yesterday's answer covered only the Department of Public Works and Government Services.
Coady identifies specifically that yesterday's answer covered only the Minister of Public Works and Government Services's department and asks about untendered contracts for four named departments â Public Safety, Health, Industry and Foreign Affairs â making this a precise, narrowed follow-up.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked the government how much of its out of control G8 and G20 spending was being splurged on untendered contracts. However, we only received an answer from the Minister of Public Works and Government Services who would only talk about her department. The vast majority of the G spending spree is being done by the Departments of Public Safety, Health, Industry and Foreign Affairs. Will the government tell us how many summit contracts for those specific departments were untendered?
Baird asks the member opposite if she has a specific example she is concerned about, providing no data on untendered contracts.
Baird responds only by asking the member if she has a specific example, providing no data whatsoever and effectively refusing to answer the question about untendered contracts across the named departments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, does the member opposite have a specific example that she is concerned about?
Coady asks the government to release details on how many contracts were sole sourced due to special security circumstances and whether it will agree to allow the Auditor General to immediately review all summit contracts.
Coady makes a claim about sole-sourcing to firms friendly to the Conservatives and Harris buddies, and asks two specific questions â details on sole-sourced contracts due to security circumstances and agreement to allow the Auditor General to immediately review all contracts â but mixes them with partisan rhetoric.
Source text
The truth is out there, Mr. Speaker. It seems that everything from G8 catering to building projects have been sole sourced to firms friendly to the Conservatives and their Harris buddies in Toronto all in the name of security. It is little wonder why they are wasting more than $1 billion. Will the government release details on how many contracts were sole sourced due to special security circumstances? Will it agree to allow the Auditor General to immediately review all contracts?
Baird challenges the Liberals to name one contract that was not tendered, asserts that the claim of 85% untendered contracts is false, and states more than 90% of Public Works contracts were tendered, without addressing the Auditor General request.
Baird challenges the Liberals to name one specific untendered contract, asserts the claim that 85% of contracts are untendered is false, and states more than 90% of Public Works contracts were tendered â engaging the substance somewhat but not addressing the Auditor General request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is from Newfoundland and Labrador and I think she is going fishing. I just challenged the Liberals to name one contract that has caused them concern. They are saying that 85% of contracts are untendered. That is false. It is not true. More than 90% of Public Works contracts have been tendered. The Liberals cannot name a single contract that was not tendered because they are making it up.
Proulx asks whether the minister will apologize and retract his claim that the bridge project was not part of G8 funds, citing a June 25, 2009 press release he says says the contrary, and offers to table it.
Proulx holds up a specific press release dated June 25, 2009 that he says directly contradicts Baird's claim that the bridge in Kearney was not a G8 summit project, offering to table it â a highly grounded, document-specific challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities just said a few minutes ago that the project for the bridge was not part of the G8 funds. I have in front of me the press release of June 25, 2009 saying the contrary. Le ministre des Transports, de lâInfrastructure et des CollectivitĂ©s a dit que cela ne faisait pas partie des fonds pour le G8. Le communiquĂ© de presse du 25 juin 2009 nous dit le contraire. Est-ce que le ministre va s'excuser et retirer ses paroles ou est-ce que je dois dĂ©poser le communiquĂ© de presse?
Baird accuses the Liberals of falsehoods, says the government is pleased to be spending on 12,000 infrastructure projects across the country including in HullâAylmer, and cites 300,000 net new jobs, without addressing the press release or retracting his earlier claim.
Baird does not address the press release, does not retract his earlier statement, and instead pivots to general infrastructure spending and 300,000 net new jobs, constituting a near-complete deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing are Liberal falsehoods, untruths and mistruths. That is not the case. We are very pleased to be spending money on some 12,000 projects on infrastructure in every corner of the country, some even in the constituency of the member for HullâAylmer. We have been fair, open and transparent in ensuring that every region in the country gets their fair share. We have done a good job and we have seen more than 300,000 net new jobs created. That is good news for Canada.
The member asks what proportion of the Conservatives' $1 billion G8/G20 spending went to partisan, useless expenses like gazebos, public toilets, and sculptures in the Industry minister's riding.
Cites specific spending items (gazebos, toilettes publiques, sculptures) and asks for a proportion of the $1 billion tied to partisan spending, giving it factual grounding, but the framing is heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le communiquĂ© de presse dit le contraire. Il devrait s'excuser. Le ministre de lâIndustrie a parsemĂ© son comtĂ© de gazebos, de toilettes publiques et de sculptures qui n'ont rien Ă voir avec le G8. Le ministre s'est livrĂ© Ă un vĂ©ritable exercice de distribution de bacon. Pourquoi le premier ministre dĂ©tourne-t-il et souille-t-il la rĂ©putation internationale du Canada? Quelle proportion du gĂąchis financier de 1 milliard de dollars des conservateurs est allĂ©e Ă ces dĂ©penses partisanes, inutiles et irrespectueuses envers les contribuables?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the press release says the opposite. He should apologize. The Minister of Industry showered his riding with gazebos, public washrooms and sculptures that have nothing to do with the G8. The minister indulged in some serious pork barrelling. Why is the Prime Minister twisting and sullying Canada's international reputation? How much of that $1 billion did the Conservatives waste on useless partisan spending, thereby blatantly disrespecting taxpayers?
Baird confirms the bridge in question is not a G8 legacy project and pivots to listing infrastructure spending in HullâAylmer attributed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Baird denies the bridge is a G8 legacy project but does not address the gazebos, toilettes publiques, or sculptures, nor does he provide any proportion of spending as asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will confirm once again that the bridge in question is not a G8 legacy project. I will be clear. It is not true, it is a falsehood and the Liberals should stop their fear-mongering. I will say that this government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the great riding of HullâAylmer. All of those projects have one thing in common: They are as a result of the hard work of the member for Pontiac, my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, because he has worked hard to ensure that the Outaouais has its fair share of infrastructure spending.
The member asks whether the minister will make the construction of relief wells mandatory for all offshore drilling operations within federal jurisdiction, specifically in the Arctic.
The question is focused and specific: it correctly distinguishes federal jurisdiction over Arctic offshore drilling and asks a single clear yes/no policy question about whether relief well construction will be made mandatory.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le ministre des Ressources naturelles fait valoir que l'encadrement du forage en mer est une compétence partagée et qu'il est nécessaire de respecter les compétences du Québec et des provinces. Nous sommes bien d'accord. Par contre, le forage extracÎtier dans l'Arctique, c'est la responsabilité du fédéral. Alors, je demande ceci au ministre. à l'intérieur de son champ exclusif de compétence, est-ce qu'il va faire en sorte que la construction de puits de secours soit obligatoire pour toute opération de forage en mer?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources says that regulating offshore drilling is a shared jurisdiction and that the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces must be respected. We could not agree more. But offshore drilling in the Arctic is a federal responsibility. I have a question for the minister. Within his exclusive jurisdiction, will he make it mandatory to build relief wells for any offshore drilling operation?
Paradis states the National Energy Board announced on May 11 that it would review all offshore drilling rules, and that no authorizations are currently being issued for Arctic offshore drilling until worker health and environmental protection are assured.
Paradis notes the National Energy Board announced a review of all offshore drilling rules on May 11 and states no authorizations are being issued in the Arctic, which is relevant context but does not directly confirm relief wells will be mandatory.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, dÚs le 11 mai dernier, l'Office national de l'énergie a annoncé qu'il reverrait toutes les rÚgles qui se rattachent au forage extracÎtier. C'est ce qui se passe. Présentement, aucune autorisation n'est émise dans la région de l'Arctique pour du forage en haute mer. Soyons clairs: aucun projet ne sera approuvé tant et aussi longtemps que nous ne serons pas convaincus que la santé des travailleurs et la protection de l'environnement seront assurées.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on May 11, the National Energy Board announced that it would review all the rules that apply to offshore drilling. It is doing that now. Currently, there are no permits for offshore drilling in the Arctic. Let me be clear: no project will be approved unless we are certain that workers' health and the environment will be protected.
The member asks whether the Minister of Natural Resources intends, like the Quebec government, to request a moratorium on offshore drilling from Newfoundland.
The member acknowledges jurisdictional limits and asks a specific, answerable question about whether the federal minister will request a moratorium from Newfoundland, though the ask is somewhat indirect.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, tout en étant consciente qu'il revient à Terre-Neuve d'encadrer le forage extracÎtier au large de la province, je demande au ministre des Ressources naturelles s'il entend imiter le gouvernement du Québec et demander à Terre-Neuve un moratoire sur le forage en mer.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, although I am aware that Newfoundland is responsible for regulating drilling off the province's coast, I want to ask the Minister of Natural Resources whether he plans to follow the lead of the Government of Quebec and call on Newfoundland to impose a moratorium on offshore drilling.
Paradis explains that Newfoundland offshore drilling falls under the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, an independent regulator that has already tightened its evaluation criteria, and criticizes the member for attempting to discredit credible independent bodies.
Paradis explains that the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board is the relevant regulator and describes its tightened criteria, but does not directly say whether he will or will not request a moratorium from Newfoundland.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le forage en mer dans la rĂ©gion de Terre-Neuve relĂšve de l'Office Canada-Terre-Neuve et Labrador des hydrocarbures extracĂŽtiers. C'est une entitĂ© distincte, un rĂ©gulateur indĂ©pendant. Cet office a annoncĂ©, dĂšs le 12 mai dernier, qu'il resserrait les critĂšres d'Ă©valuation pour les projets, les plans d'intervention et les plans d'urgence Ă ĂȘtre soumis. Cela a d'ailleurs Ă©tĂ© mis en oeuvre . Encore une fois, je trouve dĂ©plorable que ma collĂšgue tente de discrĂ©diter des offices indĂ©pendants qui sont crĂ©dibles et qui ont un dossier fort Ă©loquent.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, offshore drilling in Newfoundland is regulated by the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, an independent body. This board announced on May 12 that it would tighten evaluation criteria for future projects, response plans and emergency plans, and it has done just that. Once again, I am appalled that my colleague is trying to discredit independent boards that are credible and have a very solid record.
The member asks how the government can claim provinces are free to keep their own regulator when it is prohibiting or abolishing the passport system, citing opposition from Quebec and Alberta finance ministers.
The question cites specific critics (Quebec and Alberta finance ministers), references the passport system, and raises a concrete contradiction about provincial freedom versus abolition of passports, though the final rhetorical flourish dilutes it.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les ministres des Finances du QuĂ©bec et de l'Alberta ont vertement dĂ©noncĂ© le projet de commission des valeurs mobiliĂšres fĂ©dĂ©rales, le vieux rĂȘve du ministre des Finances. Selon eux, le systĂšme actuel des passeports fonctionne trĂšs bien. En l'Ă©liminant, le gouvernement crĂ©era de la chicane entre sa commission torontoise et les autoritĂ©s existantes. Comment le gouvernement peut-il prĂ©tendre que le QuĂ©bec et les autres provinces sont libres de conserver un rĂ©gulateur alors qu'il interdit, voire abolit, le systĂšme des passeports? Pourquoi dĂ©faire au lieu de parfaire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec and Alberta finance ministers have harshly criticized the plan for a national securities commission, the old dream of the Minister of Finance. According to them, the current passport system works very well. By eliminating this system, the government will create conflict between its Toronto commission and the existing authorities. How can the government claim that Quebec and the other provinces are free to keep their regulators, when it is prohibitingâeven abolishingâthe passport system? Why are they trying to tear this apart instead of making it better?
Flaherty states the system is clearly voluntary and that provinces can continue with the passport system if they choose, and that the government will continue to work with the 10 provinces and territories that want to participate.
Flaherty asserts the system is clearly voluntary and provinces can keep the passport system if they wish, but does not address the allegation that the passport system would be prohibited or abolished under the proposed federal commission.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les provinces peuvent continuer à fonctionner avec le systÚme de passeports si elles les veulent. C'est un systÚme clairement volontaire. C'est le choix du gouvernement du Québec, et c'est le choix des autres gouvernements du Canada. Nous allons continuer à travailler avec les 10 provinces et territoires qui veulent travailler avec le gouvernement fédéral.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the provinces can continue to operate with the passport system if they choose to do so. It is clearly a voluntary system. It is up to the Government of Quebec and to the other governments in Canada. We will continue to work with the 10 provinces and territories who want to work with the federal government.
The member asks why the government wants to replace the AMF with a centralized federal body, citing a press conference where the minister allegedly said passports would not be accepted and a quote from Ted Morton about federal institutions being highly centralized.
The member cites a press conference statement and a quote from Ted Morton to allege a contradiction, and asks a pointed question about why Quebec entrepreneurs should lose an accessible French-language regulator, but the 'boĂźte vocale' line is rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en confĂ©rence de presse, il a dit le contraire, Ă savoir que les passeports ne seraient pas acceptĂ©s par la commission canadienne. Ted Morton a dit que les institutions financiĂšres fĂ©dĂ©rales ont tendance Ă ĂȘtre trĂšs centralisĂ©es. Avec des ressources insuffisantes et peu d'autonomie, elles seront des coquilles vides. Ă Calgary comme Ă MontrĂ©al, le vieux rĂȘve du ministre des Finances fĂ©dĂ©ral deviendra notre cauchemar. Pourquoi le gouvernement conservateur veut-il dĂ©possĂ©der les entrepreneurs quĂ©bĂ©cois d'un rĂ©gulateur prĂšs de leurs prĂ©occupations et qui peut leur parler en français? Pourquoi remplacer l'AMF par une boĂźte vocale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, he said the complete opposite at a press conference, when he said that passports would not be accepted by the Canadian commission. Ted Morton said that federal financial institutions tend to be very centralized. With insufficient resources and a lack of autonomy, they will be empty shells. In Calgary and Montreal, the Minister of Finance's old dream will become our nightmare. Why does the Conservative government want to deprive Quebec entrepreneurs of a regulator that understands their needs and can speak to them in French? Why replace the AMF with an answering machine?
Flaherty says the proposed Canadian securities regulator model is highly decentralized, will rely on provincial expertise in various areas of capital markets, and notes Canada is the only major industrialized country without a national securities regulator.
Flaherty describes the proposed model as highly decentralized and says existing provincial expertise will be respected, but does not address the specific contradiction about the press conference statement or the French-language accessibility concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the proposed model for a Canadian securities regulator is a highly decentralized model. It will rely on the expertise that exists in the various provinces and territories in Canada and in various areas of stock market, capital market expertise. That will be respected. That is part of the model. Canada is the only major industrialized country in the world without a national securities regulator. We want to move forward to ensure that this pillar of our financial system matches the strength of the rest of Canada's financial system, which is the strongestâ
The member asks whether the minister will explain the allegation that his chief of staff made clear plans to deliberately hold up infrastructure funding in New Brunswick Southwest to benefit the federal Conservative candidate, the Prime Minister's former director of communications.
The question references a specific source (the chief of staff to the ACOA minister), a specific riding (New Brunswick Southwest), and a named individual (the Prime Minister's former director of communications), making it factually grounded, though phrased with heavy rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today we learned of yet another example of the abuse of power under the government. The chief of staff to the ACOA minister has made clear the minister's plans to deliberately hold up funding for infrastructure projects in New Brunswick in order to influence the upcoming provincial election and benefit the federal Conservative candidate in New Brunswick Southwest, who happens to be the Prime Minister's former director of communications. If the government is as accountable as it pretends to be, will the minister stand and explain his deplorable actions in withholding funding for infrastructure projects that have been approved?
Ashfield calls the statement absolutely ridiculous, praises the member for New Brunswick Southwest, and asserts that under Canada's economic action plan the needs of all New Brunswickers and Canadians are put before partisan politics.
Ashfield calls the statement ridiculous and pivots to praising the member for New Brunswick Southwest and asserting that needs of Canadians are put before partisan politics, without addressing the specific allegation about deliberately withholding infrastructure funding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is an absolutely ridiculous statement by the member opposite. I know all members of the House have respect for the member for New Brunswick Southwest, both as a former minister and a colleague. I look forward to continuing our working relationship over the course of time. As is clear through funding announcements made as part of Canada's economic action plan, the needs of all New Brunswickers, in fact, all Canadians, are put well before partisan politics. We will continue to work with our colleagues in the provinces and municipalities to announce projects as agreed upon.
The member asks why the ACOA minister is holding up a funding project in New Brunswick Southwest while waiting for the Prime Minister's former director of communications to secure the Conservative nomination, and whether the government has no shame for punishing the people of New Brunswick.
The question references the toll bridge in Saint John and the premier's call to the Prime Minister as specific facts, but is largely composed of rhetorical questions and partisan framing that dilute the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he seems to be calling into question the credibility of the member for New Brunswick Southwest. The ACOA minister has stated that he would take his time to reach a funding agreement for the toll bridge in Saint John. Meanwhile, he is holding up a funding project in New Brunswick Southwest, while we wait for the former director of communications of the Prime Minister to get the nomination in that riding. This morning the premier was forced to call the Prime Minister over these political backroom games being played by that minister's office. Have the Conservatives no shame? Why are they punishing the people of New Brunswick? Why this culture of deceit?
Ashfield lists specific project counts across multiple ACOA programs in New Brunswick totalling $273 million and states he is making an announcement with the premier that afternoon.
Ashfield provides a list of specific project counts and a dollar figure ($273 million) for New Brunswick and mentions an announcement with the premier that afternoon, which is relevant but does not directly address the allegation of deliberate funding delays.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, the member opposite is totally off base and incorrect in the tone of his question. In fact, we are moving ahead with projects. In the province of New Brunswick, since elected in 2006, we have 26 projects under community adjustment, 57 projects under recreational infrastructure, 73 projects under innovative community funds, 39 projects under the Atlantic innovation fund, 50 projects under the innovation stimulus fund, totalling $273 million. In fact, I am making an announcement with the premier this afternoon.
The member asks whether Shell Canada's hiring of eight lobbyists in Ottawa since February, allegedly to frame the Montreal-East refinery issue as a Quebec-only problem, explains the Conservative government's timidity in the file.
The question cites a specific claim (Shell hiring eight lobbyists since February) and raises a pointed question about government timidity in the file, but the Calgary headquarters angle is speculative and the ask is somewhat compound.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, selon différentes sources, la pétroliÚre Shell a engagé, depuis février, huit lobbyistes à Ottawa pour s'assurer que le dossier de la raffinerie Shell de Montréal-Est est perçu comme un problÚme uniquement québécois. C'est scandaleux! Cela explique-t-il la timidité du gouvernement conservateur dans ce dossier? Est-ce pour ne pas déplaire à Shell Canada dont le siÚge social est à Calgary?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, various sources have told us that, since February, Shell Oil has hired eight lobbyists in Ottawa to ensure that the Shell refinery in Montreal East is seen only as Quebec's problem. This is scandalous. Does that explain the government's hesitancy to deal with this issue? Is it because it does not want to upset Shell Canada, which has its headquarters in Calgary?
Paradis says union members have repeatedly expressed satisfaction with government involvement at all levels and notes that a revised offer has been tabled, expressing hope that the parties will reach an agreement.
Paradis pivots to saying union members have praised government involvement and notes a revised offer has been tabled, without addressing the lobbyist allegation or the question of whether lobbying has influenced government behaviour.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, mon collÚgue, qui habite trÚs prÚs de là , doit avoir contacté les gens du syndicat qui ont dit, maintes et maintes fois, qu'ils étaient trÚs heureux de l'implication des paliers de gouvernement pour tenter de sauver les emplois. Je comprends qu'une offre bonifiée a été déposée. On espÚre que les parties pourront s'entendre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, who lives quite close to there, should have talked to the union representatives who have said, time and time again, that they are very happy with the efforts by all levels of government trying to save these jobs. I understand that a better offer has been tabled. We hope that the parties can come to an agreement.
The member asks whether the Prime Minister is prepared to call Peter Voser, CEO of Shell in London, to ask him to consider the offer from Delek US of $75 million to $150 million to save the Montreal petrochemical industry.
The question is highly specific: it names Delek US, cites a dollar range ($75 million to $150 million), references Shell's June 14 closure announcement, invokes the comitĂ© Fortier, and makes a single concrete ask â will the Prime Minister call Peter Voser, CEO of Shell in London.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, parlons-en justement. Shell Canada, de Calgary, a affirmĂ© depuis le 14 juin que le dossier Ă©tait clos. Or, comme il le sait, l'un des deux acheteurs intĂ©ressĂ©s, Delek US, une division amĂ©ricaine d'un holding basĂ© en IsraĂ«l, a doublĂ© sa mise et est maintenant prĂȘt Ă mettre de 75 millions Ă 150 millions de dollars. Au nom des 500 travailleurs qualifiĂ©s et en appui au comitĂ© Fortier, je m'adresse au premier ministre. Est-il est prĂȘt Ă intervenir et Ă appeler le grand patron, Peter Voser, CEO de Shell Ă Londres, et Ă lui demander de considĂ©rer l'offre de Delek US pour sauver l'industrie pĂ©trochimique Ă MontrĂ©al?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about that. Shell Canada, in Calgary, has stated since June 14 that the file is closed. But, as he knows, one of the two interested buyers, Delek US, an American branch of an Israeli-based holding company, doubled its offer and is now willing to pay between $75 million and $150 million. On behalf of the 500 skilled workers and in support of the Fortier committee, I am asking the Prime Minister this question. Is he ready to intervene and call the big boss, Peter Voser, Shell's CEO in London, England, to ask him to consider Delek US's offer in order to save Montreal's petrochemical industry?
Paradis says the workers have always acknowledged government involvement, notes the revised offer is good news, and expresses hope that the parties will reach an agreement to preserve jobs.
Paradis again says workers have saluted government involvement, acknowledges the revised offer is good news, and hopes the parties will agree, but completely ignores the specific ask to have the Prime Minister call Peter Voser.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, mon collÚgue le sait et il ne pourra pas le nier, depuis le début, les travailleurs ont toujours salué l'implication des paliers de gouvernement dans ce dossier. Effectivement, il y a une offre bonifiée. C'est une bonne nouvelle. On espÚre que les parties pourront s'entendre pour que les emplois soient préservés.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows and he cannot deny it, that from the start the workers have been happy with all levels of government involved in this file. The offer has been increased. That is good news. We hope that all sides can come to an agreement so that the jobs can be saved.
A government backbencher asks the Minister of Public Safety to update the House on the NDP's latest move regarding Bill C-23 and pardons for notorious criminals.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to comment on the NDP's own bill, with no accountability value and a purely partisan framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the NDP refuses to support the speedy passage of Bill C-23, meaning notorious criminals would remain eligible for pardons. Now I understand it has introduced its own bill, which is a far cry from our legislation. Neither victims nor law-abiding Canadians think it is acceptable for notorious criminals to be pardoned, while the opposition continues to play political games in Ottawa. Could the Minister of Public Safety update the House on the latest move by the NDP?
Toews states the NDP proposal would allow dangerous criminals to apply for a pardon and would require the National Parole Board to issue pardons to individuals convicted of sexual offences against children even with multiple convictions, and calls on opposition parties to support Bill C-23 immediately.
Toews provides specific substantive criticism of the NDP proposal, stating it would allow dangerous criminals to apply for a pardon and would require the National Parole Board to issue a pardon to individuals convicted of sexual offences against children even with multiple convictions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the NDP proposal does not do what it claims it will. The NDP proposal will allow dangerous criminals to apply for a pardon. The NDP proposal will require the National Parole Board to issue a pardon to an individual convicted of a sexual offence even if the victim is a child and the individual has been convicted of multiple offences. Canadians will not be fooled by that proposal and neither will this government. We call on opposition parties to support the speedy passage of urgently needed principled legislation at all stages immediately.
The member asks when the minister will stop merely monitoring the Shell Montreal refinery file and start acting, given that 3,500 indirect and 800 direct jobs are at risk and business groups, unions, and municipal and provincial elected officials are already engaged while the federal government does nothing.
The question cites specific employment figures (3,500 indirect, 800 direct jobs) and notes months of inaction while listing other actors who are engaged, making a clear ask for action, though the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est faux de dire que les travailleurs saluent l'oeuvre du gouvernement. Il n'y a rien Ă saluer, il n'a rien fait jusqu'Ă prĂ©sent. La compagnie Shell refuse toujours de nĂ©gocier de bonne foi dans le dossier de sa raffinerie Ă MontrĂ©al. Si la raffinerie ferme, c'est 3 500 emplois indirects et 800 emplois directs qui seront perdus, et la grappe industrielle pĂ©trochimique sera entachĂ©e Ă jamais. Depuis des mois, du cĂŽtĂ© du gouvernement conservateur, il ne se passe rien. Alors que groupes d'affaires, syndicats et Ă©lus municipaux et provinciaux s'activent, le ministre dit qu'il suit le dossier. Quand va-t-il arrĂȘter de suivre et commencer Ă agir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is not true that workers are applauding the government's efforts. There is nothing to applaud; it has done nothing to date. Shell Canada is still refusing to negotiate in good faith with respect to its Montreal refinery. If the refinery closes, 3,500 indirect and 800 direct jobs will be lost, and the petrochemical industrial cluster will be marred forever. The Conservative government has done nothing for months. While business groups, unions, municipal and provincial officials take action, the minister says he is monitoring the situation. When will he stop monitoring and start doing something?
Paradis says it is the union that praised government efforts, then attacks the NDP for considering oil a poison and wanting to fly planes on renewable energy, calling the NDP's position on the Shell file contradictory.
Paradis disputes the union characterization, attacks the NDP for calling oil a poison and for wanting to fly planes on renewable energy, and does not address any specific action the government is taking or plans to take on the Shell file.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est le syndicat qui a dit qu'il saluait les efforts des paliers de gouvernement dans ce dossier. Je rappelle à la Chambre qu'on n'a pas de leçons à recevoir de ce parti, qui considÚre le pétrole comme un poison. Il voudrait faire voler des avions avec de l'énergie renouvelable, comme si on pouvait le faire maintenant. Il considÚre que c'est du poison et qu'il n'y a rien à faire avec cela. Par contre, lorsque vient le temps de sauver une raffinerie, il demande au gouvernement de faire quelque chose et d'agir. C'est complÚtement contradictoire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it was the union that said it applauded the efforts of government instances in this matter. I would remind the House that we have nothing to learn from that party, which considers oil to be a poison. It would like to have airplanes fly with renewable energy, as though that were possible right now. It believes that oil is poison and nothing can be done with it. However, when it comes to saving a refinery, it asks the government to do something and take action. That is a complete contradiction.
The member asks whether the Conservatives have given up in Quebec to the point of not even trying to act on the Shell refinery file, given the ecological risks of importing petroleum by the St. Lawrence, the economic loss of exporting raw oil without added value, and the social impact on thousands of families.
The question raises substantive concerns about ecological, economic, and social risks of the refinery's closure but is structured as a series of rhetorical questions rather than a single specific ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le public jugera du sĂ©rieux d'un ministre des Ressources naturelles qui sort des Ăąneries de la sorte. Si la raffinerie ferme, on sera obligĂ© d'importer des produits pĂ©troliers Ă MontrĂ©al par le Saint-Laurent. N'ont-ils rien compris aux dangers Ă©cologiques? Ils vont exporter notre pĂ©trole en vrac, sans valeur ajoutĂ©e ici. N'ont-ils rien compris aux problĂšmes Ă©conomiques? Des milliers de familles perdront leur gagne-pain. N'ont-ils rien compris aux dangers sociaux? Les conservateurs ont-ils baissĂ© les bras au QuĂ©bec Ă tel point qu'ils n'essaieront mĂȘme plus d'agir dans un dossier clĂ© comme celui de Shell?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the public will question the credibility of a Minister of Natural Resources who trots out such nonsense. If the refinery closes, we will be forced to import petroleum products into Montreal on the St. Lawrence River. Have they understood nothing about the environmental hazards? They will export our oil in bulk, with no value added here. Have they understood nothing about the economic problems? Thousands of families will lose their livelihoods. Have they understood nothing about the social dangers? Have the Conservatives given up on Quebec and are they not even going to try to do something about a key issue like Shell?
Paradis asks rhetorically if the government can invent a buyer, claims the NDP scares off buyers by denigrating fossil energy, and redirects to statements made by the NDP's deputy leader about Israel.
Paradis asks rhetorically whether the NDP thinks the government can invent a buyer, claims the NDP scares off buyers by denigrating fossil energy, and then attacks the NDP deputy leader over statements on Israel â no connection to the refinery question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en parlant d'ùneries, mon collÚgue croit-il que le gouvernement peut inventer un acheteur, surtout que le NPD fait peur aux acheteurs en dénigrant l'énergie fossile? On se dit content qu'une offre bonifiée ait été déposée et on espÚre qu'il y aura une entente. Mon collÚgue devrait plutÎt s'attarder aux déclarations sur Israël que la chef adjointe de son parti a faites. C'est honteux, et c'est là -dessus qu'il devrait se concentrer.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, speaking of nonsense, does my colleague believe that the government can invent a buyer, especially when the NDP scares off buyers by smearing fossil fuels? We are pleased that an improved offer has been made and we hope there will be an agreement. My colleague should instead look at the statements about Israel made by the deputy leader of his party. That is shameful and that is what he should focus on.
The member asks how the government can explain that six years after the 2004 motion and the 2006 election promise to resell 11,000 acres of expropriated agricultural land at Mirabel to families and farmers, only eight files have been resolved or are in progress.
The question cites a specific motion from November 30, 2004, references 2006 election promises, and provides a concrete measurable fact (only eight files resolved after six years) to hold the government accountable.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, alors qu'il Ă©tait chef de l'opposition, le premier ministre avait dĂ©posĂ© une motion le 30 novembre 2004 demandant la revente des 11 000 acres de terres agricoles aux familles et agriculteurs expropriĂ©s de Mirabel. Les conservateurs ont d'ailleurs rĂ©itĂ©rĂ© cette promesse au cours de la campagne Ă©lectorale de 2006 et en avaient fait l'annonce officielle Ă Mirabel suite Ă l'Ă©lection. Comment peuvent-ils expliquer qu'Ă ce jour, soit six ans plus tard, seulement huit dossiers ont Ă©tĂ© rĂ©glĂ©s ou sont en voie de l'ĂȘtre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when he was leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister moved a motion on November 30, 2004, calling on the federal government to sell the 11,000 acres of arable land back to the families and farmers whose land was expropriated to build the Mirabel Airport. The Conservatives even reiterated this promise during the 2006 election campaign and made an official announcement in Mirabel after the election. How do they explain the fact that thus far, six years later, only eight files have been or are in the process of being resolved?
Baird agrees with the member, describes the decision to resolve the historic problem inherited from the Liberal government in the 1970s as a good one, and expresses willingness to go to the riding to meet farmers and others to try to resolve the problem as quickly as possible.
Baird agrees with the member, acknowledges the historic problem inherited from the Liberals in the 1970s, and offers to visit the riding to meet farmers, but gives no explanation for why only eight files have been resolved and no plan or timeline.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis complĂštement d'accord avec le dĂ©putĂ© d'ArgenteuilâPapineauâMirabel. Notre gouvernement a pris une bonne dĂ©cision en rĂ©glant un problĂšme historique hĂ©ritĂ© du gouvernement libĂ©ral dans les annĂ©es 1970. J'Ă©tais prĂȘt Ă aller dans sa circonscription pour y rencontrer des fermiers et d'autres personnes pour essayer de rĂ©gler ce problĂšme le plus vite possible. J'apprĂ©cie sa question.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with the hon. member for ArgenteuilâPapineauâMirabel. Our government made a good decision and resolved a problem we inherited from the Liberals that goes back to the 1970s. I was willing to go to his riding to meet with farmers and other people to try to resolve this problem as soon as possible. I appreciate his question.
The member asks the minister to confirm that the negotiation process will be simplified and that outstanding files will be completed by the end of summer, citing administrative burden as the core problem.
The question is specific and seeks a concrete commitment: simplification of the negotiation process and completion of outstanding files by the end of summer, identifying administrative burden as the precise problem.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie le ministre de son ouverture, mais peut-il nous confirmer que le processus de négociation sera simplifié et que les dossiers en attente de rÚglement seront complétés d'ici la fin de l'été? C'est le processus de négociation et la lourdeur administrative qui posent problÚme.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his openness, but can he confirm that the negotiation process will be simplified and that the outstanding files will be resolved by the end of the summer? It is the negotiation process and red tape that are causing problems.
Baird says he wants to act quickly but finds the end-of-summer deadline too optimistic, and commits to working with his officials and the member to resolve the issue as soon as possible.
Baird says he wants to act quickly but finds the end-of-summer deadline too optimistic, and commits to working with officials and the member to resolve the issue as soon as possible â a partial answer that addresses the timeline but not the administrative simplification request.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai dit que nous voulions agir rapidement pour rĂ©gler ce problĂšme. Je crois qu'il est trop optimiste de vouloir le faire d'ici la fin de l'Ă©tĂ©, mais je suis prĂȘt Ă travailler avec mes fonctionnaires et mon collĂšgue pour rĂ©gler ce problĂšme aussitĂŽt que possible. C'est une faute historique et nous sommes prĂȘts Ă rĂ©gler cette faute libĂ©rale.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I said we want to act quickly to resolve this issue. I think he is being a little optimistic to think this could be done by the end of the summer, but I am prepared to work with government officials and with my colleague to resolve this issue as soon as possible. This was a Liberal mistake from the past and we are prepared to rectify it.
The member asks how the government can spend over $1 billion to secure 72 hours of G8/G20 meetings while completely ignoring for years the security threat posed by unsecured explosive fertilizers accessible to terrorists and drug dealers.
The question raises a legitimate security concern about unsecured explosive fertilizers and contrasts it with G8/G20 spending, but combines two issues (summit costs and fertilizer security) and does not cite specific data on the fertilizer security gap.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Conservative arrogance has stuck Canadians with an absurd price tag for the G8 and G20. Shoddy planning and mismanagement have run up costs well over $1 billion. Meanwhile Canada's agri-retail sector is pleading for help to secure tonnes of explosive fertilizers that sit without proper security, unprotected from the dangerous plans of terrorists and drug dealers. We have raised this issue for months and still there is no action. How can the Conservatives spend over $1 billion to secure and promote just 72 hours of meetings, while completely ignoring for years this most obvious security threat?
Lemieux states that in 2008 the government consulted with the fertilizer industry and introduced new regulations under the Explosives Act to protect Canadians while minimizing costs to industry and end users.
Lemieux references 2008 consultations with the fertilizer industry and new regulations under the Explosives Act, which is relevant but does not address the member's claim that tonnes of explosive fertilizers still sit without proper security or that the issue has been raised for months without action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight that our government is committed to protecting the safety of Canadians and our agricultural industry. In 2008 we consulted with the fertilizer industry and we brought in new regulations under the Explosives Act to protect Canadians. These regulations reflect our commitment to ensuring public safety and security, while minimizing the cost to Canadian industry and end users.
When will the government address the security threat posed to Canadians by dangerous materials at unprotected agri-retail sites?
The question is dominated by rhetorical attacks on G8 spending ('fake lakes,' 'phoney stock exchange') with only a vague closing ask about when the government will address security threats from dangerous materials at agri-retail sites.
Source text
They are asking for help, Mr. Speaker, not regulations. These sites remain unprotected. The government spares no expense to build a ridiculous monument to the Prime Minister's ego, money blown on a phoney stock exchange, fake lakes, sham lighthouses and boats that do not float. The Conservative principles are phoney but the cost to Canadians is real. The Conservatives' priorities are misplaced and their hypocrisy is stunning. When will the government actually address the security threat posed to Canadians by these dangerous materials?
The parliamentary secretary said he has met with agri-retailers on at least two occasions, that the government consulted with the fertilizer industry in 2008 and brought in new regulations under the Explosives Act, and that a balance is being sought between public safety and minimizing costs.
The parliamentary secretary references personal meetings with agri-retailers, committee appearances, and the 2008 regulations under the Explosives Act, providing some relevant context but not directly answering when further action will be taken.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I personally have met with the agri-retailers on at least two occasions. They have also presented themselves in front of committee. We are aware of their concerns. As I also said, in 2008 our government consulted with the fertilizer industry, and we brought in new regulations under the Explosives Act to protect Canadians. We are finding a balance between public safety and security, which is extremely important, while minimizing the cost to Canadian industry and to end-users.
Given expert testimony that there is no known way to get oil out of ice-filled Arctic waters, will the minister admit his mistake, change course, and start protecting the environment rather than selling off exploration rights?
The question cites specific committee testimony that there is no known way to get oil out of ice-filled Arctic waters and references the government's sale of more exploration rights, giving it factual grounding, though the closing ask is somewhat compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Chevron is currently operating an offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that is tragically named Blind Faith. That could also be the name of the Conservative government's approach to offshore safety. Yesterday at committee, an oil cleanup expert testified that there is no known way to get oil out of ice-filled Arctic waters. We have known this for years, but the government insists on selling off more and more exploration rights in the middle of ecologically sensitive areas. When will the minister admit his mistake, change course, and start protecting instead of endangering our environment?
The minister said the National Energy Board announced on May 11 that it will review its entire regulations with public input, and that Canadian regulators will not allow any offshore activity unless convinced of worker security and environmental protection.
The minister references the National Energy Board's May 11 announcement of a regulatory review and states that Canadian regulators enforce world-class standards, but does not address the specific claim about oil cleanup in Arctic waters or the question of whether he will change course.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on May 11, the National Energy Board announced that it will review its entire regulations, and the public will be invited. This is what we learned last week. The public will be invited to submit recommendations. We enforce world-class standards. Let us be clear: Canadian regulators will not allow any offshore activity unless they are convinced that the security of the workers and the protection of the environment are ensured.
Given Parliament's unanimous motion calling for a complete review and President Obama's suspension on deepwater drilling, will the minister stop expanding Arctic drilling and restore funding for green energy solutions?
The question references Parliament's unanimous motion calling for a complete review of all federal laws, regulations, and policies, and President Obama's suspension on deepwater drilling, giving it some factual grounding, but the closing ask is cut off and somewhat compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the only thing the NEB is going to monitor is itself. This is like asking students to mark their own examine papers. Parliament unanimously passed a New Democratic motion calling for a complete review of all federal laws, regulations, and policies. President Obama has put a suspension on all deepwater drilling and has further boosted U.S. spending on alternative energy. The fact is, the government is pushing for drilling in even deeper and more dangerous water. The fact is that the government has cut all funding to green energy solutions. Unlike the Conservatives, Canadians will not put their trust in blind faith. Will the minister stop carving up the Arctic and restore funding for the green energy solutions we so--
The minister said it is sad to hear the NEB discredited given its 50-year track record, noted President Obama suspended the Minerals Management Service, and reiterated that no project will be approved unless worker safety and environmental protection are ensured.
The minister defends the National Energy Board's 50-year track record and repeats the world-class regulations talking point without addressing the specific claims about the NEB monitoring itself, Arctic drilling expansion, or the cut to green energy funding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is sad to hear the member discredit the National Energy Board, which has a track record of 50 years. President Obama suspended the Minerals Management Service to get where we are now. We have world-class regulations, and there will be no project approved unless we are convinced of the safety of the workers and that the environment will be protected.
Can the Minister of Public Safety explain to the Liberal public safety critic what it really means to stand up for victims?
This is a government-backbench softball that attributes a position to the Liberal member for AjaxâPickering and asks the minister to explain what it means to stand up for victims, with no factual ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberal member for AjaxâPickering once again revealed his agenda when he said that prisoners' rights are a real priority. He is the same member who delayed the vote on the bill to end the wasteful long gun registry and who refused to support a bill that would ensure that one of the country's most notorious killers does not receive a pardon. Can the Minister of Public Safety explain to the Liberal public safety critic what it really means to stand up for victims?
The minister attacked the member for AjaxâPickering, said real Canadians understand the consequences of not passing the pardons legislation, and called on opposition parties to support speedy passage of principled legislation.
The minister does not explain what standing up for victims means but instead attacks the member for AjaxâPickering and calls on opposition parties to support speedy passage of pardons legislation, essentially deflecting rather than answering.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike the member for AjaxâPickering, real Canadians understand the consequences of not passing our pardons legislation. That is why we will do what it takes to prevent notorious criminals from being pardoned now. Enough games from the opposition. Again, we call on the opposition parties to support speedy passage of urgently needed principal legislation at all stages immediately. We are committed to preventing the pardoning of notorious criminals now. Why will the Liberals not support us?
Given that the law clerk stated the Prime Minister has no authority to prevent someone from appearing before a committee, why does the Prime Minister continue to order Mr. Soudas not to appear, in violation of parliamentary authority?
The question cites a specific statement by the law clerk at committee the previous day that the Prime Minister has no authority to prevent someone from appearing before a committee, and asks directly why the Prime Minister continues to order Mr. Soudas not to appear.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, earlier the Prime Minister wrongly argued his case for denying his chief spokesman's appearance before a committee. In fact, yesterday at committee, the distinguished law clerk said, âthe Prime Minister, and any minister, has no authority to prevent someone from appearing in front of a committeeâ. Why does the Prime Minister continue to order Mr. Soudas not to appear, in violation of parliamentary authority? Just what does the Prime Minister have to hide?
The parliamentary secretary did not address Mr. Soudas or the law clerk's statement, instead attacking the member for Malpeque for reversing his position on the Liberal gun registry under orders from his leader.
The parliamentary secretary completely ignores the law clerk's statement, the question about Mr. Soudas, and parliamentary authority, instead pivoting to the member's position on the gun registry and the Liberal leader's economic policies.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, ministers respond to Parliament, and parliamentarians respond to their constituents. That is a basic lesson in parliamentary democracy 101 for the member of Parliament, who should understand that he works for the constituents of Malpeque, whom he has promised year after year he would vote to scrap the Liberal gun registry. Now, under orders from his leader, he has reversed course, just like he would have to follow the Liberal leader if they ever had a chance through their coalition to raise taxes and undermine the enormous economic success this government has built.
Does the government realize that by refusing to implement concrete measures such as the Bloc's bill on the use of wood in federal construction, it is abandoning Quebec workers and communities still mired in the forestry crisis?
The question cites a PricewaterhouseCoopers study showing the forestry industry recovering except in Quebec, and asks whether the government realizes it is abandoning Quebec workers by refusing to adopt concrete measures such as the Bloc's bill on wood use in federal construction.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, selon une Ă©tude rĂ©alisĂ©e par PricewaterhouseCoopers, l'industrie forestiĂšre montre des signes de reprise, sauf au QuĂ©bec oĂč elle est loin d'ĂȘtre sortie de la crise. Est-ce que le gouvernement rĂ©alise qu'en refusant de mettre en place des mesures concrĂštes, comme le projet de loi du Bloc sur l'utilisation du bois dans les constructions fĂ©dĂ©rales, il laisse tomber les travailleurs et les collectivitĂ©s du QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, according to a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the forestry industry is showing signs of recovery, except in Quebec, where it is still deep in crisis. Does the government realize that by refusing to introduce practical measures such as the Bloc bill on using wood in federal buildings, it is abandoning workers and communities in Quebec?
The minister cited $4.160 billion in EDC financial support to Quebec's forestry industry since the start of 2010, a joint $230 million announcement with the Quebec government for silviculture and forest management, and $100 million for communities affected by the forestry crisis.
The minister provides specific figures â $4.160 billion in EDC financial support, $230 million with the Quebec government for silviculture and forest management, and $100 million for communities â which are relevant and substantive, though he does not address the Bloc's wood-use bill specifically.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme le sait trÚs bien ce député, notre gouvernement est celui qui en a fait le plus pour la foresterie au Québec. En date du 31 mai 2010, et cela depuis le début de l'année 2010, EDC a soutenu l'industrie forestiÚre au Québec par des produits financiers de l'ordre de 4,160 milliards. Nous avons annoncé, avec le gouvernement du Québec, 230 millions de dollars pour la sylviculture et l'aménagement forestier et 100 millions de dollars pour développer les communautés touchées par la crise forestiÚre. Pendant ce temps, tout ce qu'ils font, c'est qu'ils critiquent depuis 20 ans.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as the member is well aware, our government is the one that has done the most for forestry in Quebec. From the beginning of 2010 to May 31, 2010, EDC supported the forestry industry in Quebec with financial products worth $4.160 billion. With the Government of Quebec, we have announced $230 million for sylviculture and forest management and $100 million to develop communities affected by the forestry crisis. Meanwhile, all the Bloc members have done is carp for 20 years.
Why is the government putting Canada's supply management system on the table in Canada-EU trade negotiations, risking the livelihoods of thousands of farmers and hundreds of communities that depend on it?
The question references witness testimony at trade committee stating that supply management has been put on the table in Canada-EU trade negotiations, providing some factual grounding, but the ask is compound and the framing is heavily rhetorical with references to the 'infamous softwood sellout' and EFTA.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives sold out the softwood industry in the infamous softwood sellout. They sold out our shipbuilding industry in EFTA. The witnesses at the trade committee have stated that now our key supply management sector has been clearly put on the table as part of the Canada-E.U. trade negotiations. Why is the government so eagerly and irresponsibly willing to sacrifice Canada's supply management system? Why is the government ready to sell out the thousands of farmers and hundreds of communities in this country that depend on supply management for their economic well-being?
The minister stated the government is clearly committed to defending and protecting supply-managed industries while also seeking a Canada-EU agreement that will deliver a $12 billion boost to the Canadian economy, and accused the NDP of voting against farmers in the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.
The minister asserts the government is committed to defending supply management and mentions the projected $12 billion boost from an EU agreement, but does not address the specific committee testimony about supply management being put on the table or explain how it will be protected.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is clearly committed to defending and protecting our supply-managed industries. However, we are also committed to creating trade opportunities for our farmers and workers around the world. That is why we want an agreement with the European Union that will deliver a $12 billion boost to the Canadian economy, and that is why that member voted against a boost for our farmers in the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement just the other day. We are on the side of workers and farmers. They clearly are not.
Would the Minister of Public Safety update the House on the critical issue of preventing notorious criminals from being pardoned under Bill C-23?
This is a government-backbench softball asking the minister to update the House on the critical issue of Bill C-23 and pardon reform, with no factual challenge or accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the NDP refused to support the speedy passage of Bill C-23, meaning that notorious criminals would remain eligible for pardons. Neither victims nor law-abiding Canadians think that it is acceptable for notorious criminals to be pardoned while the opposition plays political games in Ottawa. Would the Minister of Public Safety update this House on this critical issue?
The minister said the Conservative government seeks to reform the pardon system, will prevent pardoning of notorious criminals, and will ensure dangerous criminals wait 10 years before applying for a pardon, calling on the opposition to support speedy passage of the legislation.
The minister repeats the same talking points from exchange 34 â preventing pardons of notorious criminals, the 10-year wait requirement, and calling on opposition to support speedy passage â without providing new substantive information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government seeks to reform the pardon system in Canada. The opposition parties want to wait. We are committed to preventing the pardoning of notorious criminals now. We will also ensure that dangerous criminals have to wait 10 years before being able to apply for a pardon. Enough political games from the opposition. Will they finally do the right thing and support speedy passage of urgently needed, principled legislation at all stages immediately?
Members recognized a guest or guests in the gallery with applause; no question or answer was exchanged.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Bravo!
Hansard translation: Hear, hear!
Mr. Baird (CPC) rose on a point of order to clarify that the Kearney bridge project raised during Question Period did not receive a single dollar of federal government funding, as it could not be completed before the G8, and accused the Liberal Party of not checking its facts with Infrastructure Canada or the town of Kearney.
- CPC John Baird
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order resulting from question period. In question period, the issue of the Kearney bridge project, which was originally included in a press release, was raised. This project could not be completed before the G8, and as a result, it was not funded. It did not get a single dollar of federal government funding. Let me repeat: it was not funded. If the Liberal Party had checked with Infrastructure Canada or with the town of Kearney, it would have discovered that. I have a suggestion. The next time the Liberals get in a car for one of their drive-by smears, they should get their facts straight.
Mr. Proulx (Lib) disputed Mr. Baird's point of order by citing an Industry Canada press release dated June 25, 2009 announcing four new projects including the bridge, and presented a photograph taken three days earlier showing a G8 sign at the site; he sought unanimous consent to table the pictures, which was not granted. Mr. Baird then clarified that the federal government did fund $730,000 in work on Main Street and sewer work in the town of Kearney, distinguishing this from the bridge project.
- Lib Mr. Marcel Proulx
- Some hon. members
- CPC John Baird
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. A press release was issued by Industry Canada on June 25, 2009 saying that the Minister of Industry and the member of Parliament for Parry Sound--Muskoka announced four new projects, and these four projects included the bridge. A picture is worth a thousand words. I have a picture here that is worth $730,000. This picture, showing a G8 sign, was taken over the weekend, three days ago.
Mr. Speaker, it is a question of somebody wanting to mislead the House, so I ask for unanimous consent to table the pictures.
Agreed. No.
Mr. Speaker, I am not seeking consent. I can inform the member for HullâAylmer and the House that the federal government has funded some work on Main Street and some sewer work in the town of Kearney in the amount of $730,000. It is all expected to be--