Session overview
- Family care costs and corporate tax cuts dominated the opening exchanges, with the Liberal opposition contrasting the government's $6 billion in corporate tax reductions against the lack of direct support for families providing home care.
- The proposed BHP takeover of the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan generated sustained questioning from both the NDP and Liberals, with the government repeatedly committing to apply the net benefit to Canada test under the Investment Canada Act without indicating which way it would decide.
- The Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois pressed the government through multiple exchanges over political donations made by construction contractors â including SauvĂ©, Glouberman, Gersovitz, Broccolini, Canac-Marquis, Clavier, and Forbes â to the Conservative Party at a Bourassa fundraiser, amid Public Works contracting concerns; the government responded by alleging a similar donation link involving a Bloc MP.
- Canada's environmental record came under scrutiny from multiple opposition parties following the release of the first Canadian biodiversity report, with critics citing the report's finding that 80% of ecosystem indicators showed troubling signs and questioning the government's positions ahead of the UN biodiversity conference.
- The UAE basing dispute drew questions about whether the Prime Minister acted in a 'fit of pique,' with a Conservative MP quoted as making that characterization; the government's sole response was that what the UAE was offering was not in the best interest of Canada.
- The long-form census debate continued, with the opposition noting that today was the UN's first World Statistics Day and criticizing the government's decision to replace the mandatory long-form census with a voluntary national household survey at a cost of $30 million more for inferior data.
The Minister of Transport read directly from the text of the federal-Quebec agreement confirming Canada's commitment to cover 50% of eligible costs up to $262 million for phase one of Highway 175, and further confirmed that the government had funded 50% of phase two, providing a concrete and specific answer to the question of whether the federal commitment had been honoured.
Cites a unanimous National Assembly motion and references a specific commitment to share 50% of the cost of Route 175, with a clear and answerable ask directed at the minister.
Rather than addressing the substance of the question about the government's handling of G8 and G20 summit spending accountability, the Minister of Public Safety exploited the questioner's grammatical use of 'you' to deflect entirely, offering a quip about the Speaker instead of any response on expenditures.
Outstanding questions
- Diane Bourgeois asked whether the Minister of Natural Resources (the former Minister of Public Works) would appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to explain the political donations made by construction contractors â the government did not confirm the minister would testify, only that it had 'nothing to hide.' (Exchange 9)
- Paul Dewar asked whether the Minister of Public Works would conduct a forensic audit of the real estate contract allegedly manipulated by former minister Michael Fortier, and whether the planned sale of public assets would be suspended pending review â the minister gave no commitment, only saying the account was 'not based in fact.' (Exchanges 26â27)
- Daniel PaillĂ© asked whether the government would guarantee criminal prosecution for all those using foreign bank accounts to commit tax fraud, not merely recovery of unpaid amounts â the minister confirmed only that $1 billion in unpaid taxes had been recovered and that penalties apply, without committing to criminal charges. (Exchange 29)
- Gerard Kennedy asked the government to state Canada's positions for the UN biodiversity conference and to explain where those positions were being kept â the Parliamentary Secretary responded only with a recitation of past biodiversity credentials and did not disclose any negotiating positions. (Exchange 15)
- Jean Dorion asked whether the government would make public the Deloitte & Touche accounting study on the previous administration of Rights & Democracy, and whether it would acknowledge that financial management concerns were a pretext for an ideological shift â the minister confirmed only that the final report was under review by the president and board, without committing to public release. (Exchange 17)
How can the Prime Minister justify $6 billion in corporate tax breaks instead of helping families caring for the sick and elderly at home, as illustrated by Diane's situation?
The question uses a personal anecdote to frame a policy contrast between the 'family care plan' and corporate tax breaks, but the ask is implicit and rhetorical rather than a sharp, single answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on Monday at Our Lady of Lourdes high school in Guelph, a young student named Diane asked me a question, âWe are caring for my grandmother at home. If elected, what would you do to help people who are caring for the sick and elderly at home?â I replied to Diane, âOur answer is the family care planâ. The Conservatives' answer is, âUse your vacation timeâ. How can the Prime Minister justify tax breaks for profitable corporations instead of helping families like Diane's?
Harper accused the Liberal leader of recycling a broken promise and claimed the $75 billion platform would require tax hikes that economists call a recipe for disaster.
Harper deflects entirely, attacking the Liberal record on broken promises and framing the question as part of a '$75 billion' spending platform rather than addressing the family care policy contrast.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the real question of course is why the leader of the Liberal Party thinks he can pull off, for the fifth time, a promise which his party has broken four previous times to the Canadian public, which is of course his home care plan, part of the $75 billion in promises the Liberals have made for the next election campaign. The Liberals cannot justify it by then turning around and saying they will pay for it all by raising taxes on the Canadian economy during a recession. As economists across the country have said, that is a recipe for disaster. High taxes, high spending; that is why we must make sure the Liberal coalition does not get into office.
How does the government justify $6 billion in corporate tax breaks when Canadian families owe $1.47 for every dollar they earn and need help with family care and daycare?
Ignatieff cites a specific figure ($6 billion in corporate tax cuts) and the household debt ratio ($1.47 per dollar earned), giving the question some factual grounding, but the ask is still compound and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is saying it can afford $6 billion in tax cuts for corporations and it cannot help Diane's family. That is what it amounts to. The elastic on that Canadian family is stretched tight. They owe $1.47 for every dollar they earn. They need help. They need help with family care and daycare. They need help. Instead of getting care from this government, instead of getting help, it is giving a tax break to corporations. How does it justify this set of priorities to those hard-pressed Canadian families?
Harper argued the government brought tax reductions across the board for families, consumers, and business to strengthen the economy, and contrasted this with Liberal cuts to health care, education, and employment insurance.
Harper gives a general defence of broad-based tax reductions and attacks the Liberal record rather than explaining how the corporate tax cut priority was weighed against family support needs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what this government says of course is that we have brought in tax reductions across the board for families, for consumers, and yes, for business as well, in order to strengthen the Canadian economy. That is one of the reasons we have one of the strongest economies in the developed world. When we make promises to Canadians, we deliver them. We do not cut health care. We do not cut education. We do not cut employment insurance. And we do not raise taxes like the Liberals did.
How can the government explain giving a $6 billion gift to already-profitable corporations instead of helping hard-pressed Canadian families?
The question repeats the same policy contrast from Exchange 2 in French without adding new facts or a sharper ask, making it largely a restatement.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au lieu d'offrir des soins aux familles canadiennes qui sont en difficultĂ© et qui se serrent la ceinture, le gouvernement est prĂȘt Ă donner un cadeau de 6 milliards de dollars aux corporations qui sont dĂ©jĂ rentables. Comment le gouvernement peut-il expliquer ses choix aux familles canadiennes qui se serrent dĂ©jĂ la ceinture?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, instead of offering to help Canadian families who are suffering and tightening their belts, the government is prepared to give a $6 billion gift to already-profitable corporations. How does the government explain its choices to hard-pressed Canadian families?
Harper noted that corporate tax rates were set long ago and quoted the vice-president of the Institut économique de Montréal saying the Liberal plan to raise taxes on major employers would greatly harm Canadian workers and the economic recovery.
Harper cites a specific quote from the vice-president of the Institut économique de Montréal warning that Liberal tax hikes on major employers would harm workers, which is tangentially relevant but does not address the family-care priority question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la réalité est que les taux d'imposition pour les compagnies ont été établis il y a longtemps. Maintenant, le Parti libéral propose d'augmenter les impÎts pour les grands employeurs de ce pays. Le vice-président de l'Institut économique de Montréal a dit, au sujet de ce parti, que malheureusement, l'une des mesures proposées par l'opposition officielle, c'est-à -dire l'augmentation des impÎts pour les grands employeurs, nuira grandement aux travailleurs canadiens et à la reprise économique.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that corporate tax rates were set a long time ago. Now the Liberal Party is proposing to increase taxes for this country's major employers. The vice-president of the Montreal Economic Institute said that one of the measures proposed by the official opposition, increasing taxes for major employers, will be disastrous for Canadian workers and the economic recovery.
Given that the Bank of Canada has just reported the economy's worst quarter in months and flagged serious risks, how will the minister reconcile the government's optimistic recovery narrative with those hard facts?
Goodale references Bank of Canada findings released yesterday and today as a factual anchor and makes a pointed claim that the government's recovery numbers are 'a fiction,' but the ask ('reconcile his hocus-pocus with hard facts') is colourful rather than precise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for months the government has been saying, âDon't worry, be happy. Middle class families do not need any support; they can just fend for themselvesâ. But yesterday and today, the Bank of Canada shot the government's story full of holes. In fact, the Canadian economy has just suffered its worst quarter in months and faces serious risks from a global currency war to massive household debt. The government's numbers about recovery are a fiction. How will the minister reconcile his hocus-pocus with hard facts from the Bank of Canada?
Harper claimed government forecasts closely mirror the Bank of Canada's because they are based on private sector analysis, and asserted no credible economist backs the Liberal leader's call for higher tax rates.
Harper claims government forecasts mirror the Bank of Canada's without providing any supporting figures, and then pivots to attacking Liberal tax proposals, leaving the Bank of Canada contradiction unaddressed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in fact the forecasts of the Bank of Canada mirror very closely those of the government, because our forecasts are based on private sector analysis, but not the Bank of Canada. There is not a single credible economic voice in the country that is backing the advocacy of higher tax rates that the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party are proposing.
Given that the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan takeover is the biggest proposed resource takeover ever and even BHP's former chairman warned Canada has been reduced to a 'branch office,' will the government just say no?
Goodale frames the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan takeover as 'the biggest proposed resource takeover ever,' cites a direct quote from BHP's former chairman, and poses a clear binary ask (say no or not), giving the question solid factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just repeating the falsehood does not make it true. The proposed takeover of the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan amounts to the takeover of the entire Canadian industry. It is the biggest proposed resource takeover ever, and many people in Saskatchewan and beyond, including prominent business leaders, are asking: After potash is gone, what is left? Even the former chairman of BHP said, âCanada has already been reduced to an industry 'branch office' and is largely irrelevant on the global mining stageâ. Will the government stop the bleeding and just say no?
Clement confirmed the government is examining the bid under the Investment Canada Act and will render a net-benefit-to-Canada decision, while contrasting the government's record with the Liberals who approved every single bid and never went to court to enforce the act.
Clement confirms the Investment Canada Act review is underway and commits to a net-benefit decision, but does not address the specific framing of industry consolidation risk or the former BHP chairman's quote, instead pivoting to the Liberal record on approvals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously, we are examining the bid, as we are required to do under the Investment Canada Act. We will render a decision that is of net benefit to Canada one way or the other. However, I would put our record against the record of the opposition Liberals any day of the week. When they were in power, they approved every single bid. When they were in power, they did not go to court to enforce the Investment Canada Act at all. We turned down a bid and we have gone to court to enforce the Investment Canada Act because we are standing up for Canadians. We are here for Canada.
Can the Minister of Natural Resources (former Minister of Public Works) explain what connection exists between Cameron Forbes, a Markham, Ontario contractor who donated $500 at the Bourassa fundraiser and received several Public Works contracts, and the riding of Bourassa in Montreal?
Duceppe names a specific individual (Cameron Forbes of Markham, Ontario), a specific donation amount ($500), a specific fundraiser attended by the Minister of Public Works, and a specific company specialty (copper roof renovation) that received Public Works contracts, making it a well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, chaque jour amĂšne son lot de dĂ©couvertes concernant la gestion des contrats par le ministĂšre des Travaux publics. VoilĂ qu'on apprend que M. Cameron Forbes, un entrepreneur de Markham en Ontario, a donnĂ© 500 $ lors du cocktail de financement dans Bourassa auquel assistait le ministre des Travaux publics. M. Forbes est Ă la tĂȘte d'une firme spĂ©cialisĂ©e dans la rĂ©fection de toitures en cuivre qui a obtenu plusieurs contrats du ministĂšre des Travaux publics. Le ministre des Ressources naturelles, qui Ă©tait ministre des Travaux publics, peut-il nous dire quel lien existe entre un entrepreneur de Markham en Ontario et la circonscription de Bourassa Ă MontrĂ©al?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, every day brings new information about how the Department of Public Works manages contracts. The latest news is that Cameron Forbes, a contractor from Markham, Ontario, made a $500 donation at the cocktail fundraiser in Bourassa that the Minister of Public Works attended. Mr. Forbes heads a firm that specializes in repairing copper roofs and has won several contracts from the Department of Public Works. Can the Minister of Natural Resources, who was the minister of public works, tell us what the connection is between a contractor from Markham, Ontario, and the riding of Bourassa in Montreal?
Harper stated the government has strict rules on political donations prohibiting corporate and union contributions and capping individual amounts, and called the suggestion that a contract can be influenced by such donations ridiculous.
Harper responds with a general defence of party financing rules applicable to all parties including the Bloc, without addressing the specific connection between Forbes, the Bourassa fundraiser, and Public Works contracts.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce gouvernement a Ă©tabli des rĂšgles trĂšs strictes pour les dons aux partis politiques. Il est dĂ©fendu aux compagnies de donner de l'argent aux partis politiques. C'est la mĂȘme chose pour les syndicats et c'est la mĂȘme chose pour les individus, qui ne peuvent donner de gros montants. On peut donner des montants modestes aux partis politiques. De tels montants sont donnĂ©s Ă tous les partis politiques, y compris au Bloc. SuggĂ©rer qu'on peut influencer un contrat avec cela est ridicule.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government has established very strict rules for donations to political parties. Companies are prohibited from donating money to political parties. The same rules apply to unions and individuals, who cannot donate large sums of money. People can and do donate modest amounts to all political parties, including the Bloc. To suggest that someone can influence a contract with such an amount is ridiculous.
Will the Minister of Natural Resources admit that donating to his party can be an excellent investment for a contractor, given that Forbes's firm subsequently qualified for a five-year pre-qualified Public Works bidders list?
Duceppe adds a consequential detailâthat after the fundraiser Forbes's firm qualified for a five-year 'pre-qualified' bidders list for Public Worksâgiving the question a specific causal chain and a sharp accountability ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce qui est ridicule c'est de dĂ©terminer ce qui est correct et incorrect selon la hauteur du don. Ă la suite de ce cocktail, l'entreprise de M. Forbes s'est qualifiĂ©e pour faire partie, pendant cinq ans, d'une courte liste de soumissionnaires « prĂ©qualifiĂ©s » dans laquelle le ministĂšre des Travaux publics va piger lorsqu'il a besoin de services. Le ministre des Ressources naturelles admettra-t-il qu'un don Ă son parti peut ĂȘtre un excellent investissement pour un entrepreneur? On en a un septiĂšme exemple aujourd'hui, pour ce mĂȘme cocktail, uniquement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what is ridiculous is deciding what is right and wrong based on the size of the donation. Following this cocktail party, Mr. Forbes' company qualified to be on a shortlist of prequalified bidders from which the Department of Public Works will choose over the next five years when it needs work done. Will the Minister of Natural Resources admit that a donation to his party can be an excellent investment for a contractor? This is the seventh example from the same cocktail party.
Baird revealed that Nicola Papiccio, a participant at the same fundraiser, donated $500 to the Bloc MP for Saint-Jean's electoral campaign and that the MP later wrote an official letter to the Department of National Defence supporting Papiccio's company for financial assistance.
Baird does not address Forbes or the pre-qualified bidders list at all, instead launching a counter-attack about Nicola Papiccio donating $500 to a Bloc MP's campaign and that MP subsequently writing to the Department of National Defence on Papiccio's behalf.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai du nouveau pour nos amis du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois. Un des participants de ce cocktail, M. Nicola Papiccio, a signĂ© un chĂšque de 500 $ pour la campagne Ă©lectorale de qui? C'Ă©tait pour Ă la campagne Ă©lectorale du dĂ©putĂ© de Saint-Jean, le porte-parole officiel du Bloc. Seulement cinq mois aprĂšs avoir reçu 500 $, ce dernier a Ă©crit une lettre officielle au ministĂšre de la DĂ©fense nationale pour demander un appui financier pour l'entreprise de qui? Du mĂȘme M. Papiccio. Quelle horreur!
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have news for our friends in the Bloc Québécois. One of the people who attended the cocktail party, Nicola Papiccio, signed a $500 cheque for whose election campaign? It was for the election campaign of the member for Saint-Jean, the Bloc critic. Just five months after receiving $500, the member wrote an official letter to the Department of National Defence asking for financial support for whose company? Mr. Papiccio's. How shocking.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the $500 donations from multiple Public Works suppliersâSauvĂ©, Glouberman, Gersovitz, Broccolini, Canac-Marquis, Clavier, and Forbes, totalling $4,000âaccumulate into a significant war chest to fund Conservative election campaigns?
Bourgeois names seven specific individuals (Sauvé, Glouberman, Gersovitz, Broccolini, Canac-Marquis, Clavier, Forbes), specifies a total donation amount ($4,000) and links them all to Public Works Canada, making it a well-documented accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au moins sept dirigeants d'entreprises liĂ©s Ă la construction d'Ă©difices gouvernementaux ont financĂ© le Parti conservateur dans Bourassa en janvier 2009. Les SauvĂ©, Glouberman, Gersovitz, Broccolini, Canac-Marquis, Clavier et Forbes ont travaillĂ© pour Travaux publics Canada et versĂ© Ă eux seuls 4 000 $ au Parti conservateur. Le premier ministre, qui dit ne pas ĂȘtre achetable pour 500 $, reconnaĂźtra-t-il que c'est avec beaucoup de 500 $ recueillis auprĂšs des fournisseurs de l'Ătat qu'il finit par accumuler un joli pactole pour financer ses campagnes Ă©lectorales?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, at least seven business owners involved in constructing government buildings funded the Conservative Party in Bourassa in January 2009. Sauvé, Glouberman, Gersovitz, Broccolini, Canac-Marquis, Clavier and Forbes worked for Public Works Canada and they alone contributed $4,000 to the Conservative Party. Does the Prime Minister, who says that he cannot be bought for $500, acknowledge that a whole lot of $500 contributions from government contractors add up to a tidy sum to fund his election campaign?
Baird again cited the Papiccio donation to the Bloc MP for Saint-Jean and the subsequent official support for a large Department of National Defence subsidy, asking whether a Bloc MP can be bought for $500.
Baird again ignores the named individuals and the $4,000 in donations entirely, recycling the Papiccio counter-attack against the Bloc and asking rhetorically whether a Bloc MP can be bought for $500.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il est trĂšs clair qu'un de ces participants a signĂ© un chĂšque pour la campagne Ă©lectorale du porte-parole officiel du Bloc, et que seulement cinq mois aprĂšs, il a reçu un appui officiel pour une demande de grosse subvention au ministĂšre de la DĂ©fense nationale pour une de ses entreprises. Je dois poser la mĂȘme question au Bloc. Peut-on acheter un dĂ©putĂ© bloquiste pour seulement 500 $?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that one of these participants signed a cheque for the election campaign of the Bloc's official spokesperson. Then, just five months later, he received an endorsement for an application for a hefty grant from the Department of National Defence for one of his businesses. I should ask the same question of the Bloc. Can a Bloc member be bought for a mere $500?
Will the Minister of Natural Resources, who is at the heart of this story and previously declared himself perfectly accountable, appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to explain himself?
Bourgeois cites a specific parliamentary committee initiative (Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates) and asks whether the Minister of Natural Resources, who is at the centre of the story and previously said he was 'perfectly accountable,' will testify.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Ă l'initiative du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, le ComitĂ© permanent des opĂ©rations gouvernementales et des prĂ©visions budgĂ©taires va faire enquĂȘte sur les contributions politiques versĂ©es au Parti conservateur par les entreprises impliquĂ©es dans la construction et la restauration d'Ă©difices fĂ©dĂ©raux. Le ministre des Ressources naturelles, au coeur de cette histoire, a Ă©tĂ© invitĂ© Ă tĂ©moigner. Lui qui se disait parfaitement imputable, allant mĂȘme jusqu'Ă tĂ©moigner Ă la place de ses adjoints, va-t-il venir s'expliquer devant le comitĂ©?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on the Bloc Québécois's initiative, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates will investigate political contributions made to the Conservative Party by companies involved in the construction and renovation of federal buildings. The Minister of Natural Resources, who is at the centre of this story, has been invited to testify. He has claimed to be fully accountable, to the point of testifying in place of his assistants. Will he explain himself before the committee?
Baird said the government has nothing to hide and shifted the focus to asking whether Nicola Papiccio would be invited to the same committee to explain what he did with subsidies after donating $500 to the Bloc MP.
Baird says 'on n'a rien Ă cacher' which implicitly addresses the will-he-testify question without confirming or denying attendance, then pivots again to Papiccio and the Bloc MP, leaving the committee appearance question unanswered.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on n'a rien Ă cacher. La vraie question est celle-ci. Est-ce que M. Nicola Papiccio sera invitĂ© au mĂȘme comitĂ© pour que les dĂ©putĂ©s puissent demander ce qu'il a fait avec les subventions? Il a fait un don de 500 $ au porte-parole officiel afin de recevoir de l'appui politique pour une grosse subvention pour l'une de ses entreprises. C'est cela la vraie question.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to hide. The real question is this: will Nicola Papiccio be invited to this same committee so that the members can ask him what he did with his grants? He made a $500 donation to the official spokesperson in order to get an endorsement for a hefty grant for one of his businesses. That is the real question.
Given that only 11 peopleâtwo of them clerksâare responsible for reviewing all takeovers at Investment Canada, will the government take the BHPâPotash net-benefit test seriously and stop siding with BHP's lobbyists?
Layton cites a specific operational detail (only 11 people, two of them clerks, responsible for all Investment Canada reviews) and raises the lobbying dynamic, but the question becomes compound and somewhat rhetorical by the end.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan is turning thumbs down on the BHP takeover of Potash and yet this place is still swarming with lobbyists who clearly have the ear of the government. The question is whether the Conservatives are finally going to take seriously this whole matter of the net benefit test that the law says they are supposed to apply. Do members know that only 11 people are responsible in Investment Canada, two of them are clerks, for the review of all the takeovers that come in? Clearly, they cannot get the job done. Will the government finally take the issue seriously and take the steps that are required, or is it going to continue to side with the lobbyists for BHP and let this investment go ahead, which would be the wrong thing to do?
Harper confirmed the government will listen to all sides and render a decision based on whether the transaction is a net benefit to Canada, and noted it involves an American-controlled company being taken over by an Australian-controlled company.
Harper directly confirms the government will apply the net benefit test as required by law and notes the transaction involves an American-controlled company being taken over by an Australian-controlled company, which is responsive if brief.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as is required by law, the government will listen to all sides on the matter. The government will render a decision according to whether the transaction is a net benefit to Canada. As members know, this is a proposal for an American controlled company to be taken over by an Australian controlled company. We will review the matter according to the act.
How can the Prime Minister be taken seriously about protecting the public interest when only 11 people handle complex files like Inco, Falconbridge, and now Potash, given what happened to workers at Inco and Vale?
Layton repeats the 11-person staffing figure and adds references to the Vale/Inco and Xstrata/Falconbridge takeovers as precedents, giving some factual grounding, but the question is more rhetorical than a single precise ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les prises de contrĂŽle Ă©trangĂšres ne sont pas prises au sĂ©rieux par ce gouvernement. C'est clair. Le groupe d'Ă©valuation du gouvernement est composĂ© de seulement 11 personnes. Onze personnes pour des dossiers complexes comme l'achat d'Inco par Vale, d'Xstrata par Falconbridge et maintenant de Potash par BHP. Comment peut-on croire que le premier ministre est sĂ©rieux et qu'il recherche vraiment l'intĂ©rĂȘt public quand on sait ce qui est arrivĂ© aux travailleurs d'Inco, de Vale et des autres?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, foreign takeovers are not taken seriously by this government. That is clear. The government's review panel is made up of only 11 people. Eleven people to examine complex files like the purchase of Inco by Vale, Xstrata by Falconbridge, and now Potash by BHP. How can we believe that the Prime Minister is serious and is truly looking out for public interest, when we know what happened to the workers of Inco, Vale and others?
Clement reiterated that the Investment Canada Act and the net-benefit-to-Canada test are in place and will be applied, and said the government will consider the province's considerations and all other factors to render the best decision under the act.
Clement reiterates the Investment Canada Act and the net-benefit-to-Canada test without addressing the staffing-capacity concern or the outcomes for workers in the cited precedent cases.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has indicated, and as I have indicated on many occasions, there is a law in place. It is called the Investment Canada Act. There is a test that is applied; it is called the net benefit to Canada test. We will be employing that law and that test to consider the situation. The hon. member may have his opinions, but they are only opinions. We will obviously look at the facts and look at the bidder's considerations, the province's considerations, all of the considerations, in order to render an opinion that will be the best benefit to Canada and the best benefit under the act as well.
Given the Nortel exampleâwhere the government stood by while the company was carved up, workers on medical leave were cast aside, pensions were lost, and the government ended up buying empty buildingsâis that the government's approach to strategic industries?
Layton uses Nortel as a concrete case study of failed foreign-takeover oversightâmentioning workers on medical leave, lost pensions, and the government buying empty buildingsâbut the question is cut off and never clearly formulated.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, representatives of the people of Saskatchewan, who own the resource, have their opinions and they need to be listened to here. Nortel is another example of the Conservatives' bankrupt approach to dealing with foreign takeovers. Let us look at what happened here. The Conservatives stood by and fiddled while the competitors carved up this leader in technology, a jewel of the Canadian economy that was very strategic. They watched as workers on medical leave were cast aside. They stood back as workers lost their pensions. They did absolutely nothing and pensioners' rights were dismissed. Today there is nothing left but empty buildings. So what did the government do? It bought the empty buildings. From strategic leader to empty buildings and real estate agents, is that what the government is all--
Clement acknowledged Nortel went bankrupt and was liquidated, but argued that many companies subsequently came in, hired Canadian workers, and invested in Canadian technology, citing Open Text and RIM as examples of successful Canadian ICT companies.
Clement acknowledges the bankruptcy and liquidation, partially disputes Layton's characterization by citing incoming companies hiring Canadian workers, and defends the sector by pointing to Open Text and RIM, but does not address the pension or medical-leave issues.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the company went bankrupt and was liquidated. The hon. member is correct in that sense. All of the rest of what he says about what happened in the ensuing months is not exactly accurate. A lot of companies have come in and hired Canadian workers, are investing in Canadian technology, and are part of the Canadian fabric of research, innovation and development. The hon. member should know there are a lot of successful Canadian companies in the information, communication and technology space. We are leaders in the world. One only has to look at Open Text or RIM to acknowledge that. Why does the hon. member not stand in his place and support Canadian companies rather than doing what he does day in, day out?
Why are the Conservatives treating a Canadian ally this way, given that a senior Conservative MP attributed the eviction from the Dubai base to the Prime Minister's 'truculence' and 'brutality,' a version the UAE ambassador personally confirmed to the questioner?
McCallum cites a quote attributed to a senior Conservative MP ('truculence' and 'brutality') and claims the UAE ambassador personally confirmed the account to him, providing specific sourcing for the claim that the Prime Minister caused the eviction from the Dubai base.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, selon un dĂ©putĂ© conservateur senior, c'est ce premier ministre qui est la cause de l'Ă©viction de nos forces armĂ©es de la base de Dubai, et ce, Ă cause, et je cite: « de sa truculence, de sa brutalitĂ© ». L'ambassadeur des Ămirats m'a personnellement confirmĂ© cette version. Le gouvernement a annulĂ© des rencontres Ă rĂ©pĂ©tition et a reniĂ© ses engagements. Pourquoi les conservateurs traitent-ils un alliĂ© du Canada de cette façon?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, according to a senior Conservative MP, the Prime Minister is responsible for our armed forces being kicked out of the base in Dubai, because his position is, and I quote, âtruculent and unreasonableâ. The ambassador for the UAE himself confirmed this version to me. The government has repeatedly cancelled meetings and reneged on its commitments. Why are the Conservatives treating a Canadian ally like this?
Kent said the government always chooses arrangements in the best interest of Canada and repeated that what the UAE was offering was not in the best interest of Canada.
Kent ignores the specific allegations about the Prime Minister's conduct and the ambassador's confirmation entirely, repeating only that the UAE's offer was not in the best interest of Canada.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as this House has heard any number of times this week, the Government of Canada always chooses arrangements that are in the best interest of Canada and of best value to Canadians. Let me just say again, what the UAE was offering was not in the best interest of Canada
Does the Prime Minister not realize that his 'fit of pique' over the UAE base is putting Canadian jobs at risk, given that Nova Scotia's Premier and RIM are currently in the UAE negotiating deals?
McCallum quotes a Conservative MP's characterization of the Prime Minister's decision as made in a 'fit of pique' and cites concrete economic consequences (Premier of Nova Scotia in the UAE, RIM negotiations), making it more grounded than pure rhetoric, though the 'fit of pique' framing is still partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a Conservative MP has been quoted as saying that the Prime Minister made his UAE decision in a âfit of piqueâ. The result was not only bad militarily but also economically. This very week the Premier of Nova Scotia is in the UAE to negotiate a deal on environmental technology while Research In Motion is also there. Yes, they were allowed to land, but does the Prime Minister not realize that his âfit of piqueâ is putting Canadian jobs at risk?
Kent refused to respond to what he called unattributable gossip and repeated that what the UAE was offering was not in the best interest of Canada.
Kent dismisses the quoted Conservative MP as 'unattributable gossip' and simply repeats the same single line about the UAE offer not being in Canada's best interest, with no engagement on the economic consequences raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government will not respond to unattributable gossip. Let me say again, what the UAE was offering was not in the best interest of Canada.
Will the minister tell Canadians what Canada's positions are for the UN biodiversity conference, and explain why the ecosystem health reportâshowing 80% of indicators in troubling shapeâwas posted on an obscure website last Friday with no public or media notification?
Kennedy identifies a specific report posted to an 'obscure website' on a specific date (last Friday) without public notification, cites that 80% of indicators show troubling signs, and links it to a UN congress, making the question factually anchored with a clear two-part ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, vendredi passĂ©, le gouvernement a affichĂ© le premier rapport au Canada sur la santĂ© des Ă©cosystĂšmes sur un site Web obscur, sans notification au public ni aux mĂ©dias. AprĂšs une rĂ©vision du rapport, on sait pourquoi: 80 p. 100 des indicateurs dans ce rapport prĂ©parĂ© pour le congrĂšs des Nations Unies montrent des signes troublants. Le ministre, aujourd'hui, indiquera-t-il aux Canadiens quelles sont les positions du Canada pour cette confĂ©rence? Et aussi, oĂč les cache-t-il?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the government posted the first report in Canada on ecosystem health on an obscure website, without notifying the public or the media. After reviewing the report, we know why: 80% of the indicators in this report prepared for the UN conference show signs of trouble. Today, will the minister reveal to Canadians what positions Canada will take at this conference? Furthermore, where is he hiding them?
Warawa claimed the government is a world leader in biodiversity, citing Canada's role in drafting the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, being the first industrialized country to ratify it, and hosting its secretariat in Montreal, without addressing the report or conference positions.
Warawa does not address the report's findings, its posting method, or Canada's positions for the UN conference, instead pivoting to a general recitation of Canada's historical biodiversity record and contrasting it with the Liberals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member well knows that this government is a world leader in biodiversity. Canada was instrumental in drafting the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. We were the first industrialized country to ratify that convention and we hosted its international secretariat in Montreal. We have a proud history of biodiversity with this government, not with the Liberals.
Kennedy asks whether the government will adopt a doctrine of doing no further harm to Canada's international reputation on issues like oil sands and biodiversity, citing a new report from leading environmental groups.
The question references James Cameron and unnamed environmental groups but the actual ask dissolves into a rhetorical call for 'a new doctrine: the responsibility to do no further harm to Canada's reputation,' which is unanswerable in any specific policy sense.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the factors the hon. member mentions make it even more embarrassing. From biodiversity to oil sands, the government is sullying Canada's international reputation. A few weeks ago it was James Cameron, today it is leading environmental groups, on the new report, reminding Canadians how the government is failing them on the oil sands. By abdicating its responsibilities in Alberta, the government is giving Canada a black eye internationally. Canada's negotiators have received no mandate for the conference on biodiversity. Will the minister and the government not agree that Canada needs a new doctrine from the government: the responsibility to do no further harm to Canada's reputation?
Warawa says the government created a federal panel of Canada's leading scientists on water monitoring chaired by Dr. Elizabeth Dowdeswell, reporting before year-end, and deflects to the Liberal leader's admission that Liberals 'did not get it done.'
The answer mentions a concrete measure â a federal panel of scientists on water monitoring chaired by Dr. Elizabeth Dowdeswell reporting before year-end â but deflects to Liberal record rather than addressing the mandate question for the biodiversity conference.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the fact is it was the Liberal leader that said the Liberals did not get it done. Our government is committed to make sure that the oil sands are developed in an environmentally responsible way. The minister created a federal panel of Canada's leading scientists on water monitoring chaired by Dr. Elizabeth Dowdeswell. The panel will report back to the minister before the end of the year on whether or not the current monitoring systems are adequate. When it comes to the oil sands or the environment, we are getting it done.
Dorion asks whether the government's refusal to release the accounting study on the previous administration of Rights & Democracy and its failure to respond to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs confirms that the financial justification was a pretext for an ideological shift.
Dorion makes a specific factual accusation â that the government is refusing to release the accounting study on the previous administration of Rights & Democracy and refusing to respond seriously to the Standing Committee's report â and asks whether this confirms an ideological motive.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement conservateur a pris le contrÎle de Droits et Démocratie en prétextant que l'organisme était mal géré. Or, en refusant de rendre publique l'étude comptable sur la gestion de l'administration précédente et en refusant de répondre sérieusement au rapport du Comité permanent des affaires étrangÚres et du développement international, le ministre ne confirme-t-il pas que la question financiÚre n'était qu'un prétexte pour imposer un virage idéologique à Droits et Démocratie?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government took control of Rights & Democracy on the pretext that it was poorly managed. By refusing to release the forensic management audit of the previous administration and by refusing to seriously address the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, is the minister not confirming that the financial issue was only a pretext to impose an ideological shift on Rights & Democracy?
Kent says Rights & Democracy is an arm's-length organization, that the Deloitte & Touche audit was requested by Rights & Democracy itself, and that the final report is currently under review by the president and the board.
Kent acknowledges the Deloitte & Touche audit and states it is under review by the president and the board, which is partially responsive, but does not address why the study is not being made public or the committee report.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as this House well knows, Rights & Democracy is an arm's-length organization. The Deloitte & Touche audit was requested by Rights & Democracy and it has recently delivered the final report. That report is under review by both the president and the board.
Freeman states the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner has found no wrongdoing in three years, conducted very few formal investigations, and is now under Auditor General scrutiny, and asks whether the government will admit the commissioner was chosen precisely to suppress wrongdoing allegations.
Freeman cites specific facts â no wrongdoing found in three years, few formal investigations, and an Auditor General inquiry â but the ask (whether the government will admit the commissioner was chosen to suppress wrongdoing allegations) is leading and partly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le Commissariat Ă l'intĂ©gritĂ© du secteur public du Canada est paralysĂ©. L'organisme fĂ©dĂ©ral chargĂ© de faire la lumiĂšre sur les allĂ©gations d'actes rĂ©prĂ©hensibles dans la fonction publique n'a relevĂ© aucun abus dans le secteur public en trois ans. Ce n'est pas sĂ©rieux, d'autant plus que trĂšs peu d'enquĂȘtes formelles ont Ă©tĂ© entreprises. La vĂ©rificatrice gĂ©nĂ©rale, inquiĂšte, a mĂȘme ouvert une enquĂȘte. Est-ce que le gouvernement admettra que l'actuel commissaire a prĂ©cisĂ©ment Ă©tĂ© choisi pour sa capacitĂ© Ă Ă©touffer les allĂ©gations d'actes rĂ©prĂ©hensibles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada is paralyzed. The federal organization responsible for investigating allegations of wrongdoing in the public service has not identified any abuses in the public sector in three years. How can that be, particularly since very few investigations have been undertaken? The Auditor General, concerned by this state of affairs, is investigating. Will the government admit that the current commissioner was chosen precisely for her ability to suppress allegations of wrongdoing?
Day confirms that the Auditor General has received complaints about the office, has begun an investigation, and says the government will wait for the results.
Day confirms the Auditor General has received complaints and begun an investigation and says the government will await results, which is a minimal but direct engagement with the factual premise.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il est vrai que la vĂ©rificatrice gĂ©nĂ©rale a reçu des plaintes concernant l'organisme mentionnĂ©. Elle a commencĂ© une enquĂȘte et nous allons attendre ses rĂ©sultats.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Auditor General has received complaints about the organization mentioned. She has started an investigation, and we will wait for the results.
Bigras cites the first Canadian biodiversity report as showing a disastrous state of ecosystems and asks whether the government now understands that its environmental record is why Canada lost its bid for a Security Council seat.
Bigras references a specific biodiversity report and the Cartagena Protocol, but the closing question â linking the UN Security Council seat loss to environmental performance â is rhetorical and not a precise accountable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on commence Ă comprendre pourquoi le gouvernement refuse de ratifier le Protocole de CarthagĂšne sur la biosĂ©curitĂ©. Le premier rapport sur la biodiversitĂ© canadienne dresse un bilan dĂ©sastreux de l'Ă©tat des Ă©cosystĂšmes en 2010. Le gouvernement est tellement gĂȘnĂ© de son bilan que le rapport a Ă©tĂ© mis sur le site Web du ministĂšre de l'Environnement en douce, un vendredi. Sur la scĂšne internationale, le gouvernement se comporte en vĂ©ritable cancre en matiĂšre d'environnement. Comprend-il maintenant pourquoi le siĂšge au Conseil de sĂ©curitĂ© lui a Ă©chappĂ©?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are starting to understand why the government is refusing to ratify the Cartagena protocol on biosafety. The first report on Canadian biodiversity paints a disastrous picture of the state of the ecosystems in 2010. The government is so ashamed of its record that the report was quietly released on Environment Canada's website on a Friday. The government is making all the wrong moves on the world stage when it comes to the environment. Does the government understand now why it did not get a seat on the Security Council?
Warawa states that Canada is not a party to the Cartagena protocol and is therefore not expected to sign or ratify the supplementary protocol, and notes that Canada has a strong regulatory framework for living modified organisms.
Warawa directly addresses the Cartagena Protocol status, noting Canada is not a party and thus not expected to ratify the supplementary protocol, and describes Canada's regulatory framework â a reasonably factual response to the protocol point but not the Security Council link.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member knows what he said is not true. He also knows that Canada is not a party to the Cartagena protocol. As a non-party, Canada is not in a position to, nor would it be expected to, sign or ratify the supplementary protocol. Even though Canada is a non-party, we ensure the protection of biological diversity by having a strong regulatory framework for living modified organisms.
Deschamps cites Mines Alerte Canada's finding that Canadian mining companies are responsible for one-third of environmental degradation and human rights abuses linked to the mining sector, and asks whether the government will regulate these companies' activities.
Deschamps cites Mines Alerte Canada data â that one-third of global environmental degradation and human rights abuses by mining companies are attributable to Canadian miners â and asks a reasonably clear yes/no accountability question about regulation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement n'est pas le seul à jouer les cancres en matiÚre d'environnement. Il y a aussi des compagnies miniÚres canadiennes qui sont pointées du doigt par Mines Alerte Canada. L'organisme nous apprend que le tiers des problÚmes concernant la dégradation de l'environnement et le mépris des droits de la personne causés par des miniÚres le sont par des miniÚres canadiennes. Le gouvernement a une obligation de réglementer les activités de ces entreprises. Le fera-t-il, ou continuera-t-il de leur permettre de bafouer l'environnement et les droits humains fondamentaux?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government is not the only one making all the wrong moves when it comes to the environment. Canadian mining companies have also been singled out by MiningWatch Canada. According to this organization, one-third of the mining companies involved in problems related to environmental degradation and human rights violations in the mining industry are Canadian. The government has an obligation to regulate the operations of these companies. Will it do so, or will it continue to let them destroy the environment and violate fundamental human rights?
Warawa speaks about protecting more than 100 million hectares of land and three million hectares of ocean, and blames the Bloc's coalition partners for creating the mess on the environment â without addressing mining regulation.
Warawa does not address Canadian mining companies or Mines Alerte Canada at all, instead reciting biodiversity land protection figures and attacking the Bloc's coalition partners â a near-complete non-answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have a proud record on biodiversity in Canada. We have taken action to protect more than 100 million hectares of land, nearly 10% of Canada's land mass and three million hectares of ocean. We will continue to do the good work on the environment. The Bloc needs to remember, it was the Bloc's coalition partners that created the mess on the environment, according to the Liberal leader.
Zarac asks why the Prime Minister dismissed the Status of Women minister without letting her explain herself, while tolerating a Natural Resources minister who is under investigation by the Ethics, Information, and Lobbying commissioners and whose former department is under RCMP investigation.
Zarac draws a specific contrast between the dismissal of the Status of Women minister and the continued tolerance of the Natural Resources minister who faces investigations by three commissioners and an RCMP probe of his former department, which is substantive, but the ask is framed as an accusation of gender bias rather than a precise procedural question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre a remerciĂ© sa ministre de la Condition fĂ©minine sans mĂȘme lui laisser la chance de s'expliquer. Pourtant, il tolĂšre le ministre des Ressources naturelles, mĂȘme s'il est sous enquĂȘte des commissaires Ă l'Ă©thique, Ă l'information et au lobbying. Son ancien ministĂšre est maintenant sous enquĂȘte de la GRC. Pourquoi virer si cavaliĂšrement une ministre femme, mais tolĂ©rer l'intolĂ©rable chez un ministre de sexe masculin? Pourquoi faire deux poids, deux mesures?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister fired his Minister for Status of Women without even giving her a chance to explain herself. However, he keeps supporting the Minister of Natural Resources even though he is being investigated by the Ethics Commissioner, the Information Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner. His former department is being investigated by the RCMP. Why get rid of a female minister so cavalierly yet tolerate the intolerable from a male minister? Why is there a double standard?
Baird dismisses the question as ridiculous and states that the Minister of Natural Resources has always conducted himself with great integrity and is an outstanding constituency representative and public servant.
Baird does not address the double-standard claim or the multiple investigations at all, simply asserting the Minister of Natural Resources has always conducted himself with great integrity â a deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely ridiculous. Let us look at the facts. The Minister of Natural Resources, throughout his time in politics, has always conducted himself with great integrity. He is an outstanding constituency representative, a strong voice for Quebec, and a great public servant for Canada.
Jennings asks why the Prime Minister permanently removed the former Status of Women minister on an erroneous tip while ignoring that the former minister of public works faces investigation by the Ethics Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying, and an RCMP probe of his department.
Jennings specifies three ongoing commissioner investigations and an RCMP investigation into the former minister of public works, contrasting this with the treatment of the former Status of Women minister, making the double-standard question reasonably grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister received an erroneous tip from a discredited gumshoe, he kicked the former status of women minister out of cabinet and out of caucus permanently, yet he turns a blind eye while the former minister of public works is under investigation by the Ethics Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, and the Commissioner of Lobbying. And the RCMP is investigating that same department. He threw his women's minister under the bus, but will not do the same with his male Quebec lieutenant. Why the double standard?
Baird deflects entirely, criticizing Liberal members for outrageous comments about the former minister for the status of women and suggesting they have no standing to ask such a question.
Baird does not engage with any of the investigations cited, instead turning the attack on Liberal members' comments about the former minister for the status of women â a pure deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it would be funny if it were not so sad. When we look at the outrageous comments made by so many of the members in the Liberal Party about the former minister for the status of women, we wonder how they can even get up and ask such a question.
Holland questions the government's explanation that it is still waiting for bills to determine G8/G20 summit costs, suggesting this reflects incompetence in managing over a billion dollars in spending.
Holland raises a concrete point â the minister's stated rationale of waiting for bills before determining summit costs â but the Paris Hilton analogy and the closing address to 'you' (the Speaker) undercut the specificity, and the final ask is sarcastic rather than precise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after four months of scrambling to bury $1 billion in summit spending, the government has a new excuse for hiding the cost: it is still waiting for the bill. The minister even said, âWe actually wait for the bills to come in before we determine what the costs areâ. So let us get this straight. The Conservatives hand out blank cheques, send contractors out to go wild, and sit around with fingers crossed, waiting months to find out how much money they have blown. That is like giving Paris Hilton one's credit card and telling her to send the bill when she gets around to it. To the minister, is this incompetence, or are you in some kind of secret wasting competition we should know about?
Toews notes only that the question was directed to the Speaker ('you') and claims ignorance of any incompetence accusations involving the Speaker â no substantive response to the summit cost question.
Toews exploits the procedural error of Holland addressing 'you' to the Speaker and offers no substantive response to the question about summit cost management â essentially a non-answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the question was directed at you, and I am unaware of any incompetent accusations that you are involved in.
Holland asks whether the minister is proud of the fake lake, giant inflatable horses, and two-storey jumbotron described as 'a wild success' by officials, given how many Canadians are struggling financially.
Holland references specific elements â the fake lake, giant inflatable horses, two-storey jumbotron â and raises the human cost of the waste, but the ask ('how proud is he of his fake lake') is rhetorical rather than a genuine accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at least that was an honest denial in answering a question. The government blows through more than a billion in taxpayers' dollars for a weekend photo-op. That is offensive enough, but the government goes even further. Rather than being sorry for its outrageous waste, it celebrates it. It has its officials call the fake lake with its giant inflatable horses and two-storey jumbotron âa wild successâ. While the government is celebrating its lake-making skills, does it realize how many Canadians are struggling and without work, how many are worried how they will pay for heat this winter? Can the minister tell these Canadians how proud he is of his fake lake?
Toews says the government is proud of its G8 and G20 accomplishments, that Canada is leading the global economic recovery and international aid efforts, and accuses Holland of consistently opposing these policies.
Toews pivots to Canada leading global economic recovery and G8/G20 accomplishments without addressing the fake lake expenditure or the specific cost management concerns raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of our accomplishments at the G8 and G20 summits. Canada is leading the global economic recovery as well as international efforts to aid developing countries. Our government is focused on ensuring that Canadians have jobs, and that we meet our international responsibilities. In this way, we are ensuring that we have a vibrant world economy in which Canadians benefit. That is a member who consistently speaks out against this policy.
Trost invites the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs to comment on Wall Street Journal praise for the Prime Minister's leadership on the economy and Afghanistan, and former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin's praise for the government's child and maternal health leadership.
This is a government-backbench softball that quotes the Wall Street Journal and Paul Martin praising the government, simply inviting the minister to comment â no accountability ask whatsoever.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Liberal foreign policy proposals have been criticized as gimmicky and bumper-sticker-sounding, while our government has consistently exhibited principled foreign policy praised by many around the world. Even former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin has praised our leadership on child and maternal health. Now the Wall Street Journal has added its voice to the chorus, stating that under the Prime Minister's leadership, âCanada has avoided the worst of the global recession and...the courage of its soldiers in Afghanistan, and in other missions, is testament to a nation that honors its commitmentsâ. Can the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs for the Americas please comment on this most recent praise?
Kent cites the government's record of doubling aid to Africa, sacrifices in Afghanistan, leadership on child and maternal health, and support for democratic Israel as evidence of principled foreign policy.
Kent provides a list of government foreign policy positions including doubling aid to Africa, Afghanistan, child and maternal health, and support for democratic Israel, which contains real if broad information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of our principled foreign policy positions. Our record on the world stage is clear. We have doubled aid to Africa. Canada has made tremendous sacrifices in Afghanistan. Canada has led the way on child and maternal health. We are proud of Canada's support and friendship with democratic Israel. Our government makes foreign policy decisions based on what is right and the principles Canadians hold dear. Those positions may not always be popular with some members of the UN, but we will not apologize for doing what is right.
Dewar alleges that former minister Michael Fortier manipulated the request for proposals on the largest government real estate deal in decades so the contract went to two banks rather than one, generating $12 million, and that Fortier now works for one of those banks; he asks whether the minister will conduct a forensic audit.
Dewar names a specific former minister (Michael Fortier), a specific contract (the largest government real estate deal in decades), a specific alleged violation (manipulation of the request for proposals), a specific allegation (contract went to two banks, generating $12 million, and Fortier now works for one of them), and asks for a specific remedy â a forensic audit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, and I want her to pay close attention to this. We have learned that her predecessor Michael Fortier apparently manipulated the request for proposals on the largest real estate government deal in decades. If true, this is a violation of government rules. He ensured that the contract went to two banks, not one. The deal generated $12 million and the former minister is currently working for one of those banks. Will the minister conduct a forensic audit of this contract to ensure accountability to Canadians?
Ambrose asserts that what Dewar described is not based in fact and says she will get back to him with more details if needed â no substantive engagement with the forensic audit request.
Ambrose simply denies the factual basis without providing any specifics, says she will get back to him with more details, but does not address the forensic audit request or any element of the allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that what he is speaking about is not based in fact, but I will get back to him with more details if he needs them.
Dewar names Rick Byers (a Tory candidate) and Michael Norris (a bagman for a Conservative leadership candidate) as key players in the real estate deal, and asks whether the minister will suspend the planned sale of public assets until the deal is studied and subject to oversight.
Dewar names specific individuals â Rick Byers as a Tory candidate and Michael Norris as a bagman for a Conservative leadership candidate â and asks for a suspension of the planned sale pending study and oversight, which is a concrete and specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it gets worse. The key players in the deal had close connections to the Conservative Party and Mr. Fortier himself. Rick Byers was a Tory candidate and Michael Norris was a bagman for a leadership candidate in the Conservative Party. I am sure even the Prime Minister agrees that if it walks like a conflict of interest, and it quacks like a conflict of interest, then a forensic audit is necessary. Will the minister suspend the planned sale of public assets until a study and oversight of this deal is done?
Ambrose states that the former minister always conducted himself according to the highest ethical standards and followed all government contracting regulations, and offers to provide further details.
Ambrose asserts the former minister always conducted himself according to the highest ethical standards and followed contracting regulations, and again offers to get back with details â a deflection without any engagement with the conflict-of-interest allegations or the suspension request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the former minister always conducted himself according to the highest of ethical standards, and I am sure that he followed all government contracting regulations. Again, I am happy to get back to the member with further details.
Carrier asks whether the Minister of National Revenue will be content to recover unpaid taxes from Canadians using Swiss bank accounts or will also commit to laying criminal charges against all those using foreign accounts to evade taxes.
Carrier asks a reasonably specific policy question â whether the Minister will merely recover unpaid taxes from Canadians with Swiss bank accounts or also lay criminal charges â grounded in a specific enforcement scenario.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il semble que la récupération des revenus non déclarés par des citoyens canadiens détenant des comptes bancaires en Suisse s'accélÚre. C'est bien beau de récupérer l'argent, mais il est nécessaire que des accusations soient portées contre ceux qui ont tenté de frauder l'impÎt. Le ministre du Revenu va-t-il se contenter de récupérer les sommes qui lui sont dues, ou va-t-il en plus s'engager à porter des accusations contre tous ceux qui utilisent un compte bancaire à l'étranger pour éviter de payer des impÎts ici?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the recovery of undeclared income hidden by Canadians in Swiss bank accounts is picking up speed. Recovering the money is all well and good, but charges need to be brought against these tax evaders. Will the Minister of National Revenue be satisfied with merely recovering the money owing in taxes, or will he also commit to laying criminal charges against anyone who uses foreign bank accounts to avoid paying taxes here?
Ashfield says the government is taking aggressive action against those placing money in foreign countries and recovered over $1 billion in unpaid taxes last year, but does not address criminal charges.
Ashfield says the government is taking aggressive action and recovered over $1 billion in unpaid taxes last year but does not directly address whether criminal charges will be laid against tax evaders â the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government knows that the majority of Canadians pay their taxes, but there are some who are intent on investing or placing their money in foreign countries. Our government is taking aggressive action to recover money owed to honest, hard-working Canadians. Just last year, over $1 billion was recovered in unpaid taxes.
Paillé asks whether the government can guarantee that all those using foreign bank accounts to commit tax fraud will face criminal prosecution, not merely repayment.
PaillĂ© uses a concrete analogy and asks a direct yes/no question â will the government guarantee criminal prosecution of all those using foreign bank accounts to commit tax fraud â which is clear, though framed with partisan rhetoric about 'bandits Ă cravate.'
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pendant que le ministre des Finances annonce un dĂ©ficit record, on peut craindre que ce gouvernement sacrifie la justice et renonce Ă rĂ©cupĂ©rer des millions de dollars indispensables. Si quelqu'un se fait prendre Ă voler une pinte de lait dans un dĂ©panneur, il va ĂȘtre obligĂ© de la rembourser et il va ĂȘtre accusĂ© au criminel. Cela devrait ĂȘtre la mĂȘme chose avec les bandits Ă cravate. Est-ce que le gouvernement peut nous garantir que tous ceux qui utilisent un compte de banque Ă l'Ă©tranger pour frauder le gouvernement en matiĂšre d'impĂŽt vont ĂȘtre poursuivis au criminel?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Finance is announcing a record deficit, there are fears that this government will sacrifice justice and not bother recovering millions of dollars in much needed revenue. Someone who is caught stealing a litre of milk from a corner store has to pay for it and face criminal charges. The same should apply to white collar criminals. Can the government assure us that anyone who uses foreign bank accounts to evade taxes will face criminal charges?
Ashfield repeats that the government is taking aggressive action, that over $1 billion was recovered in unpaid taxes, and adds that unpaid taxes are subject to penalties â without committing to criminal prosecutions.
Ashfield repeats the same $1 billion recovery figure and adds that unpaid taxes are subject to penalties, but still does not address whether criminal prosecutions will be pursued â only partial engagement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, our government is taking aggressive action and over $1 billion was recovered in unpaid taxes. Those unpaid taxes are subject to penalties.
Folco asks why the government is abolishing the detailed census, citing a cost increase of $30 million, a drop in response rate from 94% to approximately 50%, and condemnation even from the government scientists' union, and questions whether it is to hide a disastrous socio-economic record.
Folco cites specific figures â $30 million more in cost, response rate dropping from 94% to approximately 50%, and the condemnation of the government's anti-scientific drift by the government scientists' union â and asks a clear question, though the closing conspiracy suggestion weakens it.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les conservateurs veulent dĂ©penser 30 millions de dollars de plus pour un recensement de moins bonne qualitĂ©. Les donnĂ©es seront basĂ©es sur un taux de rĂ©ponse d'Ă peu prĂšs 50 p. 100, alors que le taux Ă©tait de 94 p. 100 jusqu'Ă prĂ©sent. On peut imaginer les consĂ©quences. Et la dĂ©rive anti-scientifique du premier ministre est dĂ©noncĂ©e, mĂȘme par le syndicat des scientifiques du gouvernement. Pourquoi abolir le recensement dĂ©taillĂ©? Est-ce pour enterrer le bilan socio-Ă©conomique dĂ©sastreux des cinq derniĂšres annĂ©es?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives want to spend $30 million more for a lower-quality census. The data will be based on a response rate of about 50%, which is a far cry from the previous rate of 94%. We can imagine the consequences. The Prime Minister's anti-scientific action is even being condemned by the union representing government scientists. Why abolish the long form census? Is it to bury the government's lousy socio-economic record over the past five years?
Clement says the government supports a voluntary questionnaire to protect Canadians' rights, and that the national household survey will go to 4.5 million households, balancing privacy rights with the need to collect data.
Clement states the national household survey will go to 4.5 million households and frames the change as balancing privacy rights, which is relevant context, but does not address the response rate figures, cost increase, or union criticism.
Source text
Pas du tout, monsieur le Président. Nous appuyons un questionnaire volontaire pour protéger les droits des Canadiens. We understand that we can get useful data from a national household survey, which will be going to 4.5 million households. We can do this in a way that balances the privacy rights of individuals, allowing them to choose not to answer intrusive questions, with the need to collect data for Canadians.
Bennett asks when the government will restore the long form census, citing a drop in response rate from 94% to 50% and a $30 million cost to the deficit.
Cites specific figures (94% vs 50% response rate, $30 million cost) and asks a clear restorative question, though framed with partisan rhetoric about 'attacking statistics.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today is the United Nations' first World Statistics Day. Sadly, unlike the rest of the world, Canada's Conservatives are attacking statistics instead of celebrating international progress. Elimination of the long form census would reduce the response rate from 94% to a paltry 50%. This wasteful decision would add $30 million to the deficit, and it will cost provinces and municipalities millions more, because they will lose the ability to target programs to their citizens' needs. When will Canada lead again and restore the long from census?
Clement defends the voluntary survey as covering 4.5 million households and protecting Canadians from coercion, without addressing the specific figures cited.
Clement does not address the cited figures or the cost claim, instead pivoting to defending the policy on coercion grounds and attacking the opposition's position.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day, in a world statistics way, when the party of the official opposition is wedded to the idea that it is best to coerce Canadians, to threaten them with jail time or massive fines, if they do not fill out a government form. That may be the official opposition's policy. We have a fair and reasonable policy, designed to get useful and usable data by covering 4.5 million households. At the same time, our policy protects Canadians from coercion on the part of their government, which has an obligation to represent Canadians' interests. Maybe the opposition is not aware of that, but we sure are on this side of the House.
Cullen asks whether the Conservatives will admit their approach to regulating pollution in the tar sands is bad for the economy and environment, citing a report released that day.
References a report released that day and raises a substantive concern about pollution regulation, but the ask is vague ('finally admit') and framed rhetorically with 'hear no evil, see no evil.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a report out today confirms what New Democrats have been telling the current government for years: the Conservatives are ignoring their responsibility to control pollution in the tar sands. Under both the Liberal and Conservative governments, industry has been given billions of dollars to open up the tar sands, while legal responsibilities to regulate pollution and protect the environment and Canadians' health have been ignored. Will the Conservatives finally admit that their âhear no evil, see no evilâ attitude is bad for the economy and bad for our environment?
Warawa says the report supports developing the oil sands responsibly, and cites a federal panel of scientists and investment in chemical fingerprinting equipment as evidence the government is acting.
Warawa references the same report and describes specific government actions (a federal panel of leading scientists, chemical fingerprinting equipment), partially engaging the question though not admitting to any failure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the report, like this government, supports developing the oil sands in an environmentally responsible manner. That is why the minister under this government struck a federal panel of Canada's leading scientists and tasked them with ensuring the proper and accurate monitoring of water. We have also invested in state-of-the-art analytical equipment for chemical fingerprinting, so that we can determine where the toxins are coming from. When it comes to the environment, the member knows we are getting it done.
Cullen cites a report showing tar sands greenhouse gas emissions will be 40 times above the government's own targets by 2050, with carbon capture costs of $60â$70 billion, and asks when the Conservatives will act.
Cites specific figures from today's report (emissions 40 times above targets by 2050, carbon capture costs of $60â$70 billion) and asks a pointed question about government action, though the closing ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would like to know where the toxins are coming from. They are coming from the tar sands. What we realize today is that the negligence with respect to this project is only going to get worse. Today's report shows that greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands are ballooning out of control. By the year 2050, emissions will be 40 times above the government's own pathetically weak targets. Under this nightmare scenario, using carbon capture and storage to make up the difference is going to cost between $60 billion and $70 billion. When will the Conservatives realize that runaway growth in the tar sands will hurt Canada's economy and the environment? When are they going to start doing their jobs?
Warawa says the oil sands are improving under this government's leadership and will be developed in an environmentally responsible way, without addressing the cited figures.
Warawa does not address any of the specific figures cited, instead blaming the Liberals, dismissing the NDP, and making a generic claim that the oil sands 'will be developed in an environmentally responsible way.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame the member could not attend a tour of the oil sands. It is the oil sands, and it is improving. Because of the Liberals? No, they made a mess of it. Because of the NDP? No, and not even the Bloc. It is this government that is taking leadership on the environment. The oil sands will be developed in an environmentally responsible way.
McLeod asks why the government thinks women deserve better than what the Liberal leader's private member's bill offers, framing it as politics over substance.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the President of the Treasury Board to explain why 'we think women deserve better,' with no specific policy ask and heavy partisan framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the status of women committee, the Leader of the Opposition once again chose show over substance. Members of the committee work long and hard to ensure that women's rights are addressed seriously, respectfully and honestly. Yesterday members of the committee were insulted that the Liberal leader used his private member's bill as an excuse to play politics with women's rights or, as the National Post said, âjust window-dressingâ. Can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House why we think women deserve better?
Day says the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act addresses pay equity issues upfront in the bargaining process, contrasting it with the past Liberal approach that forced women to wait and go to court.
Day provides some substantive information about the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act and contrasts it with the past Liberal approach, though it remains largely partisan in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we firmly agree with and support the principle of equal pay for equal work. The past Liberal government used to force women into court and, in fact, for years forced them to wait for fair compensation. We do not think that is the right way to treat women in these situations, so our Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act allows for these issues to be dealt with right up front, right in the bargaining process. We do not think women should be forced to wait. We do not know why the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberals want to force them for years to wait for fair compensation.
Wrzesnewskyj asks whether the Prime Minister will raise democratic and human rights concerns with Ukrainian President Yanukovych during their October 25 meeting in Kyiv.
Cites a specific date for the PM's meeting with Yanukovych, lists concrete human rights transgressions, and asks a clear yes/no question about a future meeting on October 25 in Kyiv.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on September 23 the Prime Minister met Ukrainian President Yanukovych under whom democratic and human rights transgressions are regularly occurring: intimidation of media, restrictions to freedom of assembly, tampering with election rules, secret police even pressuring university rectors to spy on students. Sadly, the Prime Minister did not make clear that Canada stands united with Ukrainians who demonstrated their will to be a free democratic state during the Orange Revolution. Will he do so on October 25 while meeting with the president in Kyiv?
Kent answers yes directly, stating Canada has concerns about the encroachment of fundamental democratic freedoms in Ukraine and the Prime Minister will raise them during the visit.
Kent gives a direct yes answer, confirms Canada has concerns about encroachment of fundamental democratic freedoms in Ukraine, and confirms the Prime Minister will raise those concerns during his visit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. We do have concerns about the encroachment of fundamental democratic freedoms in Ukraine, and yes, the Prime Minister will raise those concerns during his visit.
Bouchard asks whether the Minister of Transport will commit to sharing equally with Quebec the total construction costs of Route 175, in light of a unanimous National Assembly motion demanding the federal government honour its 50% commitment.
Cites a unanimous National Assembly motion and references a specific commitment to share 50% of the cost of Route 175, with a clear and answerable ask directed at the minister.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'AssemblĂ©e nationale a adoptĂ© Ă l'unanimitĂ© une motion exigeant que le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral respecte son engagement de partager Ă 50 p. 100 la facture de construction de la route 175 reliant les villes de QuĂ©bec et de Saguenay. Compte tenu de l'importance de la route 175 pour le dĂ©veloppement Ă©conomique du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, le ministre des Transports, de lâInfrastructure et des CollectivitĂ©s va-t-il s'engager Ă partager Ă parts Ă©gales, avec le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec, les coĂ»ts totaux de construction de la route 175?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion calling on the federal government to respect its commitment to pay for 50% of the cost of Highway 175 between Quebec City and Saguenay. Given the importance of Highway 175 for the economic development of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, will the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities undertake to split 50-50, with the Government of Quebec, the total cost of Highway 175?
Strahl quotes the agreement confirming Canada and Quebec each committed to 50% of eligible costs up to $262 million for phase one, and adds that Canada has also funded 50% of phase two, exceeding the terms.
Strahl quotes directly from the agreement confirming the 50% cost-sharing up to $262 million each for phase one and states that the government has also funded 50% of phase two, directly addressing the commitment question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est clair. J'ai une copie de l'accord entre les gouvernements du Québec et du Canada. Cela dit que le Canada et le Québec conviennent que la contribution respective au projet équivaudra à 50 p. 100 des frais admissibles jusqu'à concurrence de 262 millions de dollars chacun pour la premiÚre phase du projet. In fact, we not only committed to this and paid this; we have also funded 50% of phase two of the project. We have not only met the terms of the agreement; we have exceeded them.
Davies asks why the public safety minister will not appear before the public safety committee to be accountable for CSIS director Fadden's statements about foreign influence on Canadian politicians.
Cites a specific date for CSIS director Fadden's contact with the minister, references the committee's request for the minister to appear, and quotes the government House leader's own words about ministerial accountability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, CSIS director Richard Fadden made allegations of foreign influence that tarred thousands of Canadians with unwarranted suspicion and are hurtful to the Chinese Canadian community. We know that Mr. Fadden was in direct contact with the public safety minister before and after his remarks. Yet the minister is now ducking the public safety committee's request for him to appear and be accountable for his own official statements. Here is what the government House leader said about appearing at committees: âMinisters are responsible, and I'm here to accept that responsibilityâ. Why will this minister not accept his responsibility, be accountable and explain this unjustified smear?
Toews briefly states he will be at committee on Monday, then pivots to attacking the NDP public safety critic over comments comparing human smugglers to those who helped slaves escape.
Toews confirms he will attend committee on Monday, but spends most of his answer attacking the NDP public safety critic over an unrelated human smuggling issue rather than addressing the question about Fadden's statements or ministerial accountability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will be at the committee on Monday. However, I want to indicate that the NDP public safety critic compared the selfless acts of those who helped slaves escape persecution to the criminal human smugglers who prey on individuals, vulnerable individuals, and who only care about profit. That member should be ashamed. That member should apologize. Human smugglers are clearly targeting Canada and are treating our country like a doormat. The problem is growing and it must be stopped. That member should apologize and assist us.
Dreeshen asks the parliamentary secretary to explain the danger of the coalition's tax-and-spend policies ahead of a vote on Bill C-290.
This is a government-backbench softball that labels the opposition a 'Bloc-NDP-Liberal coalition' and asks the parliamentary secretary to explain dangers of 'coalition tax-and-spend policies,' with no real accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, later today the House will vote on Bill C-290. The Bloc-NDP-Liberal coalition supported proposal would let businesses that underfund their own employees' pension plans off the hook, and would cost $10 billion annually for a new scheme to be paid for with higher and higher taxes on Canadians. These reckless and costly schemes underline why the coalition is bad for our economy. Can the parliamentary secretary please explain the danger of the coalition's tax-and-spend policies?
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc-NDP-Liberal coalition's tax-and-spend policies are economically destructive. The Liberal-led coalition is targeting job creators and would kill jobs with its tax hike plan. Experts have confirmed that this would kill 253,000 jobs. Manufacturers are worried. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is so worried that it even called the Liberal plan the most âeconomically destructiveâ plan possible.
Menzies says the coalition's tax hike plan would kill 253,000 jobs and cites the Canadian Chamber of Commerce calling the Liberal plan the most 'economically destructive' plan possible.
Menzies echoes the partisan framing and cites a figure of 253,000 jobs killed and a Canadian Chamber of Commerce characterization of the plan as 'most economically destructive,' providing some external sourcing but no substantive policy analysis.
Wrzesnewskyj asks why the federal Conservative government is stonewalling and delaying its participation as the missing funding partner in a Ukrainian Canadian archives and museum project in Edmonton announced ten years ago.
Provides historical and funding context (120 years of Ukrainian pioneers, 10-year-old announcement, multiple committed partners) and asks a specific question about federal funding, though 'stonewalling and delays' is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, next year marks 120 years since the first wave of Ukrainian pioneers to Canada. They transformed the bush of the Northwest Territories into the golden wheat fields of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Ten years ago, a state-of-the-art Ukrainian Canadian archives and museum was announced in Edmonton. Individual Canadians, Ukrainian Canadian organizations, the City of Edmonton and Premier Stelmach have all committed generous funding. There is just one missing partner in the final push to get this done, the federal Conservative government. Why the stonewalling and delays?
Merrifield says the infrastructure project is being analyzed and an appropriate announcement will be made in due course, offering no timeline or commitment.
Merrifield gives a non-committal boilerplate response saying the infrastructure project 'is being analyzed' and an announcement will come 'in due course,' with no substantive engagement on the specific project or timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. colleague for his interest and his question. This is an infrastructure project. The project is being analyzed at the present time. We will make the appropriate announcement in due course.
Mourani asks whether the minister is hiding to avoid revealing that his government is associated with the irresponsible operation by the CSIS chief that cast doubt on the integrity of elected officials.
References the committee's request for the minister to appear on the Fadden matter, notes the minister's refusal without explanation, and asks a pointed question about government association with the CSIS director's statements undermining elected officials' integrity.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le chef du SCRS, Richard Fadden, a dĂ©clarĂ© que plusieurs politiciens seraient sous l'influence d'un gouvernement Ă©tranger. Cette dĂ©claration inusitĂ©e pour un chef du SCRS a ajoutĂ© au climat de doute Ă l'Ă©gard des Ă©lus. Le ComitĂ© permanent de la sĂ©curitĂ© publique et nationale a demandĂ© au ministre de venir rĂ©pondre Ă ses questions relativement Ă cette affaire, mais mĂȘme si le ministre vient lundi nous rencontrer, il refuse de se prĂ©senter pour rĂ©pondre Ă cette question, et ce, sans aucune explication. Le ministre se cache-t-il pour ne pas rĂ©vĂ©ler que, dans les faits, son gouvernement est associĂ© Ă l'opĂ©ration irresponsable de mise en doute de l'intĂ©gritĂ© des Ă©lus qu'a faite le chef du SCRS?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Richard Fadden, the director of CSIS, has alleged that a number of politicians are under the influence of a foreign government. This unusual statement from a CSIS director has added to the climate of doubt surrounding elected officials. The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has invited the minister to come and answer questions about this affair but, even though the minister is joining us on Monday, he refuses to answer this question for no apparent reason. Is the minister hiding in order to avoid revealing that his government is, in fact, associated with the CSIS director's irresponsible operation to cast doubt on the integrity of elected officials?
Toews confirms he will appear Monday, states the government does not comment on CSIS operational matters, and notes that Fadden already answered questions at committee for two hours.
Toews confirms he will appear Monday and states the government does not comment on operational matters related to CSIS and that Fadden already testified for two hours, partially addressing the appearance question but not the underlying accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will be there on Monday. The member can ask me any question that she likes. However, we do not comment on operational matters related to CSIS. Mr. Fadden came to committee and answered questions for two hours in respect of that particular issue. The member is obviously trying to make a political issue out of Mr. Fadden's comments.