Session overview
- F-35 procurement dominated the opening exchanges, with Michael Ignatieff pressing for a competitive bid and Stephen Harper defending the selection process as rooted in a decision made under the previous Liberal government.
- The extension of the Afghanistan mission beyond 2011 drew sustained criticism from the Bloc Québécois and NDP, who accused the government of breaking promises to hold a parliamentary vote and to end combat operations.
- The government's $130 million advertising expenditure during the recession was challenged by Liberal MPs, who compared it unfavourably to the entire Canadian beer industry's advertising spend.
- Climate change accountability was raised across multiple exchanges, including Jack Layton's accusation that the Prime Minister used unelected senators to kill Bill C-311 against the will of the House, and Bloc members pressing for Canada's position at COP 16 in CancĂșn.
- The Bloc Québécois challenged federal jurisdiction over securities regulation after Jim Flaherty acknowledged that the November 10 agreement was signed by the appropriate regulatory authorities in Canada, which the Bloc interpreted as a concession that provincial regulators held the competence.
- Vale's announcement of surface operation closures in Thompson, Manitoba prompted NDP MP Niki Ashton to demand government accountability over the Inco takeover approval, while the Minister of Industry highlighted a concurrent $10 billion Vale investment across Canada.
Jim Flaherty confirmed on the record that discussions on Chinese insurance regulatory access were initiated when he visited Beijing in June and that agreements were signed with the appropriate regulatory authorities in Canada, providing concrete factual information about who conducted and concluded the negotiations.
The question is well-grounded, citing specific prior commitments â the 2005 electoral platform, the 2007 Speech from the Throne, and the PM's January 2010 statement â and asks directly whether extending the mission beyond 2011 breaks those promises.
Rona Ambrose responded to a detailed question about alleged threats against a company that challenged a Public Works and Government Services Canada procurement process â including named Conservative Party donors â with only a one-sentence statement that all contracting regulations are followed, addressing none of the specifics.
Outstanding questions
- Bernard Bigras (RosemontâLa Petite-Patrie) asked directly whether the Minister of the Environment would attend COP 16 in CancĂșn â the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment never answered yes or no.
- Johanne Deschamps (LaurentidesâLabelle) and Jack Layton (TorontoâDanforth) asked why the government refuses a parliamentary vote on the extension of the military mission in Afghanistan â the government asserted it was a non-combat mission requiring no vote but never engaged with the specific platform commitments cited.
- Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic) asked why the budget of the federal ombudsman for victims of crime is being cut and why half the money from the crime victims fund was not distributed in 2009-2010 â Rob Nicholson redirected entirely to mandatory minimum sentences without addressing the ombudsman budget or the undistributed funds.
- Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges) asked whether the former Minister of Public Works and Government Services approved a strategy to threaten a company with debarment for challenging a biased procurement process, and called for an impartial public inquiry â Rona Ambrose provided no substantive response.
- Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) asked when the government will set a minimum water level below which all water withdrawals by the oil sands industry from the Athabasca River would be prohibited â the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment referenced the scientific panel and chemical fingerprinting technology without committing to any threshold or timeline.
Why is the government buying $16 billion worth of F-35 fighter jets without a competitive bid, despite warnings from the Auditor General, the Pentagon, and American senators?
The question references the Auditor General's report and a specific dollar figure ($16 billion) but is framed broadly with rhetorical flourish about the PM ignoring everyone, and the ask â a competitive bid â is clear but embedded in partisan framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, à propos des avions de chasse F-35, les conservateurs ignorent le rapport de la vérificatrice générale, ils ignorent le Pentagone américain, ils ignorent les sénateurs américains, ils ignorent tout le monde, surtout les Canadiens qui se demandent pourquoi on peut acheter 16 milliards de dollars d'avions sans un appel d'offres compétitif? Quand le premier ministre va-t-il cesser d'ignorer tout le monde, commencer à écouter les Canadiens et nous donner un appel d'offres compétitif pour ces avions?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the F-35 fighter jets, the Conservatives are ignoring the Auditor General's report, they are ignoring the Pentagon, they are ignoring U.S. senators, they are ignoring everyone, especially Canadians who are wondering how the government can buy planes to the tune of $16 billion without a competitive bidding process. When will the Prime Minister stop ignoring everyone, start listening to Canadians and give us a competitive bidding process for these planes?
The Prime Minister asserted that the plane was chosen through a competitive process under the previous Liberal government and encouraged the opposition leader to listen to the air force and the aerospace industry.
The PM claims a competitive process existed under the previous Liberal government but does not address the specific ask for a new competitive bid or engage with the Auditor General's report cited in the question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cet avion a été choisi dans le cadre d'un processus compétitif pendant la période de l'ancien gouvernement libéral. On sait clairement que c'est l'avion que les experts de ce secteur et que l'industrie préfÚrent. J'encourage le chef de l'opposition à écouter les forces aériennes et aussi l'industrie aérospatiale.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this plane was selected through a competitive process under the previous Liberal government. We know with certainty that this is the preferred plane of experts in the field and of industry. I encourage the leader of the opposition to listen to the air force and the aerospace industry.
The aerospace industry says a competitive bid would yield more economic benefits; how can the Prime Minister justify buying $16 billion in equipment without one?
The question invokes the aerospace industry's own stated preference for a competitive bid and uses the small-business analogy for rhetorical effect, but the question is cut off before completion and lacks sharpness.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, justement, on Ă©coute l'industrie aĂ©rospatiale. Ils disent qu'il y aurait plus de retombĂ©es Ă©conomiques et industrielles s'il y avait un appel d'offres compĂ©titif. I have done a lot of town halls this year. The Prime Minister does not hold open town halls, but if he did, he would listen to Canadians. What Canadians are saying is this does not make sense. We cannot persuade a small business person across the country that it makes sense to buy 16 billion dollars' worth of equipment without a competitive bid. We would not run a small business like that, so we cannot run the Department of National Defence that way. How can the Prime Minister stand and assure business people across theâ
The PM reiterated that a competitive process was held under the previous government and that the alternative to purchasing the F-35 would be grounding the air force, accusing the opposition of playing politics.
The PM repeats the prior-government competitive process claim, pivots to the CF-18 end-of-life justification, and accuses the opposition of playing politics, without addressing the aerospace industry's stated position on competitive bids.
Source text
Once again, Mr. Speaker, there was a competitive process held under the previous government to choose this plane. In fact, the Government of Canada, under the previous government, has funded the development of this aircraft. What are we to do when the CF-18 reaches the end of its useful life: simply ground the air force or spend more money on a second set of planes? The government's position is clear. It is straightforward. The opposition is simply playing politics with the lives of air force members and with jobs in the Canadian aerospace industry.
Why not hold a competitive bid for the F-35s, save money, and redirect it to help Canadian families?
The question is largely rhetorical, mixing references to the $56 billion deficit and family care priorities without a specific, focused ask, though it nominally calls for a competitive bid.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should get out around the country and listen to what Canadians are saying. He should have an open town hall and he should listen because they think this is a $16 billion mistake. Nobody wants to ground the air force. The issue is about getting value for money, getting our priorities straight, digging us out of a $56 billion deficit, attaching our priorities to what matters to Canadians. We can have a competitive bid, save the money and use it to help families take care of their loved ones. Why not?
The PM invoked the Liberal Party's cancellation of the helicopter contract as precedent and challenged the opposition leader to face aerospace workers whose jobs would be threatened by cancelling the F-35 contract.
The PM deflects to the Liberals' helicopter cancellation record and challenges the opposition leader to visit aerospace shop floors, without engaging the competitive bid question or the deficit argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party always tries to play these political games with military purchases. We saw what it did with the helicopters, and we are still paying for that. If the Leader of the Opposition is serious about talking to Canadians, he can go to Montreal or he can go to Winnipeg, like I did. He can go to the shop floors of the aerospace industry and tell those people he is going to tear up their jobs by tearing up the contract because he does not care about them.
Will the government operations and estimates committee review the OPP's detailed spending at the G8 and G20 summits, given that the $100 million allocated has not been accounted for in documents submitted to the committee?
The exchange identifies specific unreviewed spending (OPP costs, $100 million allocation) and asks a concrete procedural question about committee agenda, grounded in the committee's documented work; the follow-up adds accountability pressure by naming Julian Fantino.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the chair of the government operations and estimates committee. The committee has learned about spending on glow sticks for the RCMP and money wasted draining a quarry to build temporary police headquarters, but we have no details on spending for the Ontario Provincial Police. Could the chair tell the House if the upcoming agenda for the committee will include looking at and reviewing detailed spending of the OPP at the G8 and G20 summits?
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP and the city of Toronto police force have submitted their costs for review to the committee. To date, we have not received any similar costing from the government for the $100 million allocated to the OPP. Until such time as the government is willing to submit these documents, the committee will be unable to complete its study on behalf of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, why will the Conservative government not release these documents to the committee? Would the government have us believe it signed a $100 million blank cheque and almost six months later it still does not have the details on how it was spent? We have already seen the government's lavish spending on frosted glasses and posh centrepieces. Are there more embarrassing items it wishes to hide? Are the Conservatives trying to protect themselves or their candidate in Vaughan, Julian Fantino, or both?
The Minister of Public Safety stated that the OPP has until December 1 to submit all G8 and G20 expenses under their agreement, and noted public OPP statements indicating costs are expected to come in well under budget.
The government member confirms the December 1 deadline for OPP expense submission, explains the agreement's timeline, and notes public OPP statements that costs will come in under budget, which partially addresses the question of missing documents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the arrangement with the OPP is that it has until December 1 of this year to submit all of their G8 and G20 expenses. This is significantly shorter than the deadline for other security events, indeed years shorter. The member opposite knows that the deadline has been in place from the beginning of our agreement with the OPP. That said, we understand from public statements by the OPP that its costs are expected to come in well under budget.
Given the Prime Minister's commitments in his 2005 platform, the 2007 Speech from the Throne, and his January 2010 statement that there would be no military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2011 except to secure the embassy, is he not breaking his word by extending the mission?
The question is well-grounded, citing specific prior commitments â the 2005 electoral platform, the 2007 Speech from the Throne, and the PM's January 2010 statement â and asks directly whether extending the mission beyond 2011 breaks those promises.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre s'est engagĂ© clairement, dans sa plate-forme Ă©lectorale de 2005 ainsi que dans le discours du TrĂŽne de 2007, Ă tenir un vote Ă la Chambre sur toute opĂ©ration militaire Ă l'Ă©tranger. En janvier 2010, le premier ministre a mĂȘme Ă©tĂ© plus loin en dĂ©clarant qu'il n'y aurait pas de prĂ©sence militaire en Afghanistan au-delĂ de 2011 autre que celle visant Ă assurer la sĂ©curitĂ© de l'ambassade canadienne. En prolongeant la prĂ©sence militaire en Afghanistan au-delĂ de 2011, est-ce que le premier ministre rĂ©alise qu'il est carrĂ©ment en train de renier sa parole?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a clear commitment in his 2005 election platform and in the 2007 Speech from the Throne to hold a vote in the House on any foreign military operation. In January 2010, the Prime Minister went even further when he said that there would be no military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2011 other than that required for the security of the Canadian embassy. By extending the military mission in Afghanistan beyond 2011, does the Prime Minister realize that he is absolutely reneging on his promise?
The Prime Minister stated that his government has never held a vote on a non-combat military mission and that the future Afghanistan mission will be a non-combat mission.
The PM distinguishes combat from non-combat missions to explain why no vote was held previously, which partially engages the commitment question, but does not address the January 2010 'no military presence beyond 2011' pledge specifically cited.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je l'ai dit à plusieurs reprises, nous n'avons jamais eu de vote sur une mission militaire qui n'inclut pas le combat. Concernant la prolongation de la mission en Afghanistan, le gouvernement est clair: ce sera une mission de non-combat.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly, we have never voted on a non-combat military mission. With regard to the extension of the mission in Afghanistan, the government is clear: it will be a non-combat mission.
Former General Rick Hillier has said it is impossible to train soldiers without following up in the field, i.e., in combat zones; does the PM recognize that the new Afghan mission will therefore be military in nature, not simply training or humanitarian?
The question introduces a specific named source â former Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier â and his concrete argument that training soldiers necessarily involves following them into combat zones, making it a factually grounded challenge.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, justement, ce n'est pas l'opinion de l'ex-général en chef des forces armées, Rick Hillier, qui affirme qu'il est impossible de former des militaires sans faire un suivi sur le terrain, c'est-à -dire sur les lieux de combat. Le premier ministre réalise-t-il que la « nouvelle » mission afghane ne sera pas de type humanitaire ou de formation, comme il le prétend et comme il tente de nous le faire croire, mais plutÎt militaire car des soldats canadiens devront aller en zone de combat pour accomplir leurs tùches?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is not the opinion of the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Rick Hillier, who said that it is impossible to train soldiers without monitoring them on the ground, that is, in the combat zone. Does the Prime Minister realize that the ânewâ Afghan mission will not be a humanitarian or training mission, as he claims and as he would like us to believe, but rather a military mission because Canadian soldiers will have to go into the combat zone to do their job?
The Prime Minister reiterated that the training will take place in military bases and classrooms and that the government is clear on the limits of this mission.
The PM restates that training will take place in military bases and classrooms without engaging Hillier's specific argument that trainers must follow trainees into combat zones.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement est trÚs clair. C'est un entraßnement qui aura lieu dans des bases militaires et dans des salles de cours. Le gouvernement est bien clair sur les limites de cette mission.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government is very clear. The training will take place on military bases and in classrooms. The government is very clear on the scope of this mission.
Without parliamentary debate or vote, the government wants to extend the military mission in Afghanistan at $500 million per year while halving development aid, creating a 5-to-1 military-to-development ratio; does the government recognize this makes it a combat mission?
The question cites specific figures â 500 million dollars per year, 950 soldiers, a 5-to-1 military-to-development ratio â and raises a substantive question about mission characterization and lack of a parliamentary vote.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, sans débat et sans vote du Parlement, le gouvernement veut prolonger la mission militaire en Afghanistan à raison de 500 millions de dollars par an, tout en réduisant de moitié l'aide au développement consentie à ce pays. Pour chaque dollar d'aide, 5 $ iront pour le militaire. Cela n'a vraiment pas de bon sens. Est-ce que le gouvernement est conscient qu'avec un tel déséquilibre dans la répartition entre le militaire et l'aide au développement, la mission en Afghanistan est bel et bien une mission de combat?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, without a debate and without a vote in Parliament, the government wants to extend our military mission in Afghanistan at a cost of $500 million a year. It is also planning to cut our development assistance to the country in half. For every dollar in assistance, $5 will go to the military. That makes no sense. Does the government realize that such an imbalance in the allocation of funding to the military and to development assistance just proves that the mission in Afghanistan truly is a combat mission?
The Minister of International Cooperation outlined Canada's development achievements in Afghanistan, including girls in school, female teachers trained, and polio vaccinations, without addressing the spending ratio or the parliamentary vote question.
The Minister of International Cooperation lists aid accomplishments (girls in school, teachers trained, polio vaccinations) without addressing the military-to-development spending ratio or the absence of a parliamentary vote raised in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government has made a significant difference to the lives of the people in Afghanistan. We will be building on our successes by focusing on children and youth in the future, primarily by focusing on education. In fact, our signature projects have improved the lives of children. We now have more than two million girls in school. We have educated and trained over 3,000 female teachers. We have seven million children with polio vaccinations. We will be building on that kind of difference.
With 950 soldiers remaining and military spending monopolizing five times the resources of development aid, why does the government refuse a genuine parliamentary debate and vote on the Afghan mission rather than closed-door discussions with the Liberals?
The question reiterates the 950-soldier and 5-to-1 spending ratio figures and poses a clear, direct ask: why is the government refusing a parliamentary debate and vote on the Afghan mission?
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement veut prolonger la mission militaire en Afghanistan: 950 militaires seront toujours sur place et l'aspect militaire monopolisera cinq fois plus de ressources que l'aide au développement. Un véritable débat est nécessaire afin de s'assurer que la mission afghane est une véritable mission civile. Les discussions entre les conservateurs et les libéraux derriÚre des portes closes ne suffisent pas. Pourquoi le gouvernement refuse-t-il un véritable débat et un vote de la Chambre sur cette question?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government wants to extend our military mission in Afghanistan: 950 soldiers will remain in the country and the military component will gobble up five times as many resources as development assistance. We need a real debate to ensure that the Afghan mission is truly a civilian mission. Talks between the Conservatives and Liberals behind closed doors are not enough. Why is the government refusing to have a real debate and a vote in the House on this issue?
The Minister of International Cooperation described Canada's security and development goals in Afghanistan, citing health care access and achievements with mothers and children, without addressing the question of a parliamentary debate or vote.
The minister speaks to the goal of preventing Afghanistan from being a home for terrorists and lists development accomplishments again, entirely ignoring the direct question about refusing a parliamentary debate and vote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our plan going forward is to ensure that the Afghan people and the world are more secure by not enabling Afghanistan to be a home for terrorists. Also, at the same time as we are supporting their increased security efforts, we will be building on the successes we have achieved. In fact, these are accomplishments that do make a difference. Sixty-six per cent of the population now have access to primary health care. Canada's efforts with mothers and children willâ
The Conservative electoral program promised to give Parliament responsibility for overseeing Canadian Armed Forces operations abroad; why is the Prime Minister breaking that promise by extending the Afghan mission without a parliamentary vote?
The question directly quotes the Conservative electoral program promising Parliament responsibility for supervising Canadian Armed Forces operations abroad and asks why the PM is breaking that promise, making it a well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le refus du premier ministre de permettre un vote sur la prolongation de notre mission militaire en Afghanistan est inacceptable. Leur programme Ă©lectoral dit: Un gouvernement conservateur: [...] Donnera au Parlement la responsabilitĂ© de superviser lâapplication de la politique Ă©trangĂšre du Canada et la participation des Forces armĂ©es canadiennes aux opĂ©rations Ă lâĂ©tranger. Pourquoi le premier ministre brise-t-il cette promesse?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable that the Prime Minister is not allowing a vote on the extension of our military mission in Afghanistan. Their election platform stated the following: A Conservative government will: ... Make Parliament responsible for exercising oversight over the conduct of Canadian foreign policy and the commitment of Canadian Forces to foreign operations. Why is the Prime Minister breaking this promise?
The Prime Minister stated that his government has never held a vote on a non-combat mission and confirmed the future Afghanistan mission will be a non-combat mission.
The PM invokes the non-combat/combat distinction to justify the absence of a vote, which partially engages the promise question, but does not explain how this squares with the broad language of the electoral commitment cited.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement n'a jamais eu recours à un vote sur une mission non combative, comme c'est le cas ici. Comme je l'ai dit, la mission future en Afghanistan sera une mission non combative.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government has never voted on a non-combat mission such as this. As I said, the future mission in Afghanistan will be a non-combat mission.
Why did the Prime Minister order his senators to kill the climate change accountability act, which was adopted by a majority of MPs in the House, when he had said the Prime Minister has a moral responsibility to respect the will of the House?
The question cites the PM's own stated commitment against using unelected senators to block the House, references the climate change accountability act adopted in the spring, and quotes him directly, making it a well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did what he promised he would never do, which is to appoint and then use unelected senators to block the will of the House of Commons. He said he would never do that. Canadians are asking for action on climate change and we adopted a climate change accountability act right here last spring. âThe Prime Minister has the moral responsibility to respect the will of the Houseâ. That is what he said. So why did he order his senators in the other place to kill the climate change bill that was adopted by the majority of MPs in this House?
The Prime Minister stated that Conservatives consistently opposed Bill C-311 as irresponsible because it set unachievable targets without any plan other than shutting down sections of the Canadian economy.
The PM defends the Senate's action by attacking Bill C-311 as irresponsible and economically harmful but does not address the democratic principle question about using senators to override the elected House.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been very consistent and very clear in their opposition to Bill C-311, a completely irresponsible bill. It sets irresponsible targets, does not lay out any measure of achieving them, other than by shutting down sections of the Canadian economy and throwing hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people out of work. Of course, we will never support such legislation.
Has the Prime Minister lost his democratic impulse, given that he broke promises on troops, parliamentary votes on military missions, Senate appointments, and now used his senators to kill a bill passed by the House?
The question is a rhetorical accumulation of broken promises (troops, Senate appointments, democratic override) without a single focused ask, functioning more as a speech than an accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he has no right to use his unelected senator friends to kill the will of this House. He has lost his moral centre. He is fundamentally undemocratic. Let us be clear about it. That is the truth. He broke his promise to bring our troops home, which the House asked for. He broke his promise to have votes on the use of our troops in foreign wars. He broke his promise never to appoint unelected senators and now he is using them to subvert the will of the House. It has never happened before. It should not be permitted. Where is his democratic impulse? Has it gone? Has he lost any sense of his responsibilities?
The PM said the government has a responsibility to protect Canadian workers' jobs, accused the NDP leader of attempting to overturn election results through a coalition, and called on him to support the government's Senate reform bills.
The PM pivots to defending workers' jobs, attacks the NDP leader over the 2008 coalition, and redirects to Senate reform bills, without addressing any specific broken promise raised in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, of course, as I have been very clear, we have a responsibility to the Canadian public and to Canadian workers to protect their jobs. At the same time, when we talk about democracy and the leader of the NDP, this is a man who after the election set out to form a coalition to overturn the results of that election so he could appoint members to the Senate. If the leader of the NDP is serious about Senate reform, he can support the government's Senate reform bills that are before the House.
Does the Prime Minister believe his record is less mediocre because he spent $130 million on government advertising in a single year, more than the entire beer industry combined?
The question cites a specific figure ($130 million on advertising vs. $97 million for the entire beer industry) and asks whether the PM believes his record is better because of this spending, but frames it with partisan rhetoric ('péter de la broue').
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le ministre des Finances a trouvé une autre maniÚre de gaspiller l'argent des contribuables. Les conservateurs ont dépassé pas moins de 130 millions de dollars en publicités gouvernementales en une seule année. L'industrie de la biÚre au grand complet n'a dépensé que 97 millions de dollars. C'est ce qu'on appelle « péter de la broue ». Le premier ministre croit-il que son bilan est moins médiocre parce qu'il a consacré 130 millions de dollars à des annonces complÚtement futiles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance found another way to waste taxpayers' money. The Conservatives spent no less than $130 million on government advertising in just one year. The entire beer industry spent only $97 million. The Conservatives are just full of hot air. Does the Prime Minister believe that devoting $130 million to completely useless advertising makes his record less mediocre?
The minister stated that the government believes it is important to inform Canadians of its achievements, including the Economic Action Plan which created over 430,000 jobs.
The minister justifies advertising as informing Canadians of government programs and cites 430,000 jobs created, without addressing the specific $130 million advertising figure or the beer-industry comparison.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est toujours le cas avec notre gouvernement qui croit qu'il est important d'informer les Canadiens des bons coups qu'il réalise. Il est toujours important de faire savoir à la population quels sont les outils disponibles. C'est ce que nous avons fait avec le merveilleux Plan d'action économique, qui a créé plus de 430 000 emplois.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our government has always believed that it is important to inform Canadians of its accomplishments. It is always important to let people know about the tools available to them. That is what we did with our excellent economic action plan, which created over 430,000 jobs.
How can the Prime Minister spend 25% more advertising victim support programs than funding the programs themselves, while refusing to spend anything on a public inquiry into the 600 missing indigenous women?
The question introduces the specific claim that 25% more is spent on advertising victim support programs than on the programs themselves, and pivots to a contrasting ask about a public inquiry into 600 missing indigenous women, but the two parts weaken each other's focus.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on parle de fonds publics. Cent trente millions de dollars ont Ă©tĂ© dilapidĂ©s pour des publicitĂ©s aux couleurs du Parti conservateur. Parlons justement des programmes. Les conservateurs dĂ©pensent 25 p. 100 de plus pour la publicitĂ© vantant les programmes de soutien aux victimes plutĂŽt que pour les programmes eux-mĂȘmes. Si cela n'est pas de l'auto-promotion, je ne sais pas ce que c'est. Comment se fait-il que le premier ministre mette autant d'argent pour de l'auto-promotion, alors qu'il ne met pas un sous pour une commission d'enquĂȘte sur les 600 femmes autochtones disparues? Ces femmes et leur famille sont des victimes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about taxpayers' money. One hundred and thirty million dollars squandered on Conservative Party advertising. Let us talk about programs. The Conservatives are spending an additional 25% on self-congratulatory advertisements for victim support programs rather than putting that money toward the programs themselves. If that does not constitute self-promotion, then I do not know what does. How is it that the Prime Minister is spending so much money on self-promotion when he has not put a cent toward an inquiry on the 600 missing aboriginal women? These women and their families are victims.
The President of the Treasury Board cited unprecedented pressures from H1N1 and infrastructure communications to justify increased advertising, and noted an $11 million reduction and freeze on advertising this year.
The minister acknowledges increased advertising pressures from H1N1 and infrastructure projects and mentions the $11 million reduction and freeze, but does not address the 25% advertising-vs.-program figure or the missing indigenous women inquiry question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there has been unprecedented pressure and incidents over the last year or two years, whether we are talking about the H1N1 crisis or whether we are talking about communicating on vast amounts of infrastructure projects, on and on it goes. There have been increased pressures. What the opposition members fail to point out every single time when they raise this issue and we give the very clear accounting that is provided for by the Auditor General, is that this year there is not only a freeze, there is an $11 million reduction on advertising pertaining to these ministers' offices.
When will the Conservatives stop spending record amounts on advertising â more than all beer companies combined â and start addressing the $56 billion deficit?
The question cites the highest advertising spend in Canadian history and the beer industry comparison, frames it against the $56 billion deficit, but the final ask ('stop wasting money and do something about the deficit') is vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in a time of economic restraint when Canadians are losing their jobs and are hard hit by a recession, this Conservative government spent the highest amount in Canadian history on advertising. To put it in perspective, the amount was more than all the beer companies combined spent last year. That is an outrageous amount of spending on advertisements which many Canadians, when surveyed, associated with Conservative Party propaganda. When will the Conservatives stop wasting taxpayers' money and start doing something about the $56 billion deficit?
The President of the Treasury Board justified advertising spending as necessary to inform Canadians about H1N1, tax reductions, and family credits, and suggested the Liberals are sensitive because these policies differ from their own.
The minister defends specific categories of advertising (H1N1 pandemic, tax credits, family programs) as legitimate public information, which is somewhat responsive but does not address the historical record level of spending or the deficit question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, most Canadians think it is a valid expenditure when we have something like a pandemic of H1N1, to inform Canadians about that. When we have a variety of tax measures that involve not only tax reductions, but also credits to families for a variety of programs, we think we should be informing Canadians about it. We can understand the Liberals are sensitive, especially when we are talking about reducing the tax load on people and providing credits for families. We understand that is so far from their policy that they are sensitive about it, but we think we should be informing Canadians about these initiatives.
How can the government justify spending over $130 million on advertising during a recession â $33 million more than the entire Canadian beer industry â money that could instead have helped 100,000 Canadian caregivers?
The question reuses the beer-industry comparison and the $130 million figure but is rhetorically loaded ('under the influence', 'like it was Christmas') and the caregivers counterfactual, making the ask more rhetorical than analytical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives spent $33 million more on advertising last year than the entire Canadian beer industry combined spent. That is over $130 million on billboards and TV ads during a recession. Is the government under the influence? While Canadian families were tightening their belts, this government was spending âlike it was Christmasâ. The Conservatives' advertising budget last year was so big that the same amount of money could have helped 100,000 Canadian caregivers. How is it that the Conservatives can so easily waste taxpayers' money?
The President of the Treasury Board dismissed the beer industry comparison as irrelevant (private-sector decisions), defended government advertising as informing Canadians on important issues, and reiterated the three-year operational spending freeze and $11 million reduction on ministerial office advertising.
The minister deflects with a non sequitur about the beer industry being a private-sector matter, then repeats the freeze and $11 million reduction talking points without addressing the specific $130 million spending level or the caregivers comparison.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Liberals' fascination is with raising the bar related to the beer industry. These are private sector decisions. I know it is of some concern. There are ways where they can find out about the availability of those products and where they are sold. I do not know why they are upset about that expenditure. However, we are concerned about Canadians being informed about issues that are of great importance to them. We do not apologize for that. We are actually quite pleased with the way we have put a freeze for the next three years on government operational spending, including on ministerial offices, an $11 million reduction this year.
Will the Prime Minister guarantee that his Minister of the Environment will attend the 16th Conference of the Parties in CancĂșn?
The question is specific and answerable â it asks whether the Minister of the Environment will attend COP 16 in CancĂșn â but is framed with partisan characterization of the minister's past conduct.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on connaĂźt le manque d'intĂ©rĂȘt et de dĂ©termination du gouvernement et du ministre de lâEnvironnement pour la lutte au rĂ©chauffement climatique. Dans le passĂ©, le ministre a dĂ©montrĂ© plus d'empressement Ă torpiller les travaux des confĂ©rences sur le climat qu'Ă travailler de façon constructive Ă leur succĂšs. Devant ce manque d'intĂ©rĂȘt Ă©vident des conservateurs pour les enjeux environnementaux, est-ce que le premier ministre peut nous garantir que son ministre de lâEnvironnement se rendra Ă la 16e ConfĂ©rence des Parties qui aura lieu Ă CancĂșn?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the government and the Minister of the Environment have no interest in fighting climate change. In the past, the minister has shown that he would rather torpedo the work of conferences on climate change than work constructively to ensure their success. In light of the Conservatives' obvious lack of interest in environmental issues, can the Prime Minister guarantee that the Minister of the Environment will attend the 16th Conference of the Parties, which will be held in Cancun?
Canada seeks an outcome at COP 16 that includes commitments from all major emitters and reflects the balance achieved with the Copenhagen accord, which has 139 signatory countries.
The parliamentary secretary pivots entirely to Canada's policy position at COP 16 without addressing whether the minister will attend, which was the direct question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at COP 16, Canada seeks an outcome that includes commitments from all the major emitters and reflects the balance achieved with the Copenhagen accord. Copenhagen has the support of 139 signatory countries representing 85% of greenhouse gas emissions. Canada is on the right track.
Will the Minister of the Environment go to CancĂșn for the next climate change conference â yes or no?
The follow-up sharpens the ask to a yes-or-no question â will the Minister of the Environment physically attend the CancĂșn climate conference â making it highly specific and directly answerable.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je pense que le secrĂ©taire parlementaire n'a pas compris ma question et que le premier ministre n'a pas non plus Ă©coutĂ©. La question est claire aujourd'hui. Ce qu'on veut savoir du gouvernement, c'est si le ministre de lâEnvironnement va prendre ses responsabilitĂ©s internationales et va se rendre directement Ă CancĂșn lors de la prochaine confĂ©rence sur les changements climatiques. Oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the parliamentary secretary understood my question, and the Prime Minister was not listening either. Today the question is clear. What we want to know is whether the Minister of the Environment will fulfill his international responsibilities and go directly to Cancun for the next conference on climate change. Yes or no?
The government is committed to building upon the success of the Copenhagen accord and working toward outcomes including funding, deforestation, adaptation, technology, mitigation commitments, and measured reporting and verification.
The parliamentary secretary again ignores the binary yes-or-no question entirely and restates Canada's desired policy outcomes at CancĂșn, providing no answer on the minister's attendance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has been very clear. Canada's desired outcome in Cancun is to build upon the success of the Copenhagen accord. It is the only accord that includes all the major emitters. Canada will continue to work toward outcomes that include funding, deforestation, adaptation, technology, mitigation commitments from all the major emitters. measured reporting and verification. We are getting it done.
Who negotiated and who signed the November 10 agreement between Canada and China's insurance regulatory commission?
The question is grounded in a specific prior ministerial statement from this week and cites a specific signed agreement dated November 10, asking a precise factual question about who signed it.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cette semaine, le ministre des Finances m'a répondu que « c'est le gouvernement du Canada qui a mené les discussions » avec la Commission de réglementation des assurances de la Chine permettant aux assureurs chinois de venir investir dans des produits canadiens. Ce qui est important, ce n'est pas de savoir qui en a jasé et qui en a discuté pendant l'été, mais qui a négocié, qui a signé l'entente du 10 novembre. Qui a signé cette entente?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this week, in response to a question I asked him, the Minister of Finance said that the Government of Canada had conducted discussions with the China Insurance Regulatory Commission to allow Chinese insurance companies to invest in Canadian products. What is important is not who held talks and discussions during the summer, but who negotiated the agreement and signed it on November 10. Who signed this agreement?
Discussions took place during Flaherty's visit to Beijing in June 2010 and previously in 2007, and the agreements were signed with the appropriate regulatory authorities in Canada.
Flaherty confirms discussions took place in Beijing in June and previously in 2007, and states agreements were signed with 'the appropriate regulatory authorities in Canada,' which partially answers who signed but without naming the specific signatories.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, discussions took place when I visited with the regulatory commission in June of this year, in Beijing. In fact, those discussions also took place when I was there previously, in 2007, and the agreements were signed with the appropriate regulatory authorities in Canada.
When will the minister recognize that securities regulation falls under provincial jurisdiction and that he has no business imposing federal authority to favour Toronto?
The question is largely rhetorical and declaratory, asserting federal incompetence in securities regulation rather than posing a precise answerable question, though it does ask when the minister will recognize provincial jurisdiction.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, voilà , le chat sort du sac. Le ministre reconnaßt enfin que ce sont les autorités réglementaires du Québec et des autres provinces qui ont la compétence. Ce sont elles qui ont signé l'accord du 10 novembre. Il n'y avait pas un chat du fédéral parce que cela ne relÚve pas de sa compétence. Quand comprendra-t-il qu'il n'a pas d'affaire là , qu'il n'a qu'à sortir de là et qu'il n'a pas à imposer ses volontés pour favoriser Toronto? Get out of that!
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, now the cat is out of the bag. The minister is finally acknowledging that it is the regulatory authorities in Quebec and the other provinces that have jurisdiction in this area. They are the ones who signed the agreement on November 10. There were no federal officials involved, because this does not come under federal jurisdiction. When will the federal government understand that it has no business getting involved in this, that it should butt out and that it should not impose its will to favour Toronto? Get out of that.
The initiative is voluntary for Quebec and other provinces, and the Supreme Court of Canada will address the jurisdictional question in April of next year.
Flaherty acknowledges the voluntary nature of the initiative for provinces and notes the Supreme Court of Canada will address the jurisdictional question in April, which is relevant context but does not directly engage the question of whether he will withdraw.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je l'ai toujours dit, c'est une initiative volontaire pour la province de Québec et les autres provinces. The Supreme Court of Canada will deal with the jurisdictional issue in April of next year and then we will have confirmation with respect to the legislative authority of Parliament on this subject.
When does the Prime Minister or the environment minister plan to stand up for Canadians' interests on climate change, given that Canada has no position, no action, and no plan heading into CancĂșn?
The question is heavily rhetorical, characterizing the government as having 'no position, no action, and no plan' without citing specific documents or data, and the ask â when will the government stand up for Canadians' interests on climate change â is vague and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are just days away from the international climate change negotiations in Cancun and under the current government, Canada has no position, no action, and no plan. For five years, the Prime Minister's long series of ministers have posed and postured and have done nothing. Every week that goes by, the government is creating a steeper hill for Canadians to climb in the future, which will make it tougher for Canadians and tougher for Canadian business. Would the Prime Minister or his part-time minister care to tell us today when they plan to stand up for Canadians' interests on climate change?
The government always stands up for a cleaner environment, supports the Copenhagen accord-based global climate change regime, and is cleaning up the mess left by the previous Liberal government.
The parliamentary secretary deflects entirely to attacking the previous Liberal government's record and offers boilerplate about the Copenhagen accord without addressing the question of what Canada's current plan or position is.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is this government that always stands up for a cleaner environment and is cleaning up the mess left by the previous Liberal government. Our government supports the new global climate change regime, based on the Copenhagen accord, that recognizes the importance of greening the economy for tomorrow and protecting jobs today. We are getting it done.
When will the government admit that it has failed Canadians on climate change, given its poor performance in Copenhagen, Nagoya, and its deference to the U.S. Congress?
The question is almost entirely rhetorical and satirical â referencing 'fossil and dodo booby prizes' â with no specific factual grounding and an unanswerable ask about admitting failure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in that answer, which I assume was given to him by the minister, we are reminded that Canada not only has a part-time environment minister but a retreaded failed minister, clearly one instance where recycling should have been avoided. In Japan last month, on biodiversity, and in Copenhagen on climate change, the government has stocked the trophy case with fossil and dodo booby prizes for its poor international performance. Canadians are looking for leadership, while the Prime Minister is surrendering to the U.S. Congress to look after our interests on climate change. When will the government admit that it has failed Canadians on one of the biggest challenges our country faces?
Under the Liberals, emissions went up; under this government, emissions are already going down; and the government is very pleased with the outcome in Nagoya.
The parliamentary secretary provides a factual counter-claim that emissions went up under the Liberals and are going down now, and mentions satisfaction with the Nagoya biodiversity outcome, though he also attacks the member personally, making the answer partially deflective.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member is distorting the facts. The facts are that, under the previous Liberal government, emissions went up. Under this government, emissions are already going down. Regarding biodiversity, we are very pleased with the outcome in Nagoya. It is very unfortunate that the member did not attend the meetings that he was supposed to attend.
Why has the government been so slow to address water problems in the oil sands, the Horizon tailings pond mess, and the absence of emission targets for the oil industry, and why hasn't it named a real, full-time environment minister?
The question raises several specific issues â water problems in the oil sands, the Horizon tailings pond, and absent emission targets â but frames them rhetorically and buries them under a sarcastic question about a part-time minister, diluting the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, why is it so difficult to get the government to protect the environment, especially where the oil industry is concerned? It took a two-year Liberal-initiated study to get the government to admit that it has a water problem in the oil sands; it took complaints by aboriginal leaders to get the government to dispatch officials to look at the mess at the Horizon tailings pond; and the government still has not set emission targets for the oil industry. Why is it taking so long for the government to name a real, full-time environment minister? Then again, at least a part-time minister can only do half the damage.
The government created a panel of leading scientists from Canada on water monitoring in the oil sands, chaired by Dr. Elizabeth Dowdeswell, which will report on whether current practices are world class.
The parliamentary secretary references the creation of a panel of leading scientists chaired by Dr. Elizabeth Dowdeswell to review water monitoring in the oil sands, which is tangentially relevant but does not address the emission targets question or the full-time minister question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to making sure that the oil sands are developed in the most environmentally sensitive and responsible way. That is why we created a panel of leading scientists from Canada on water monitoring, chaired by Dr. Elizabeth Dowdeswell. That panel will report whether what we are doing is world class, and if it is not, it will be improved.
When will the federal government protect the Athabasca River and the First Nations who depend on it by setting a minimum water level below which all oil sands water withdrawals would be prohibited?
The question is specific â asking when the federal government will protect the Athabasca River and set a minimum water level below which all oil sands withdrawals would be prohibited â and identifies a clear federal jurisdiction and a concrete policy gap.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pendant qu'on parle d'eau, quand le gouvernement protégera-t-il la riviÚre Athabasca et les PremiÚres nations qui dépendent de ces eaux? Quand fixera-t-il un niveau d'eau minimal en dessous duquel tous les prélÚvements d'eau par l'industrie des sables bitumineux seraient interdits? Le gouvernement fédéral a compétence en cette matiÚre, mais il n'a pas la volonté. Pourquoi pas?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, speaking of water, when will the government protect the Athabasca River and the first nations that depend on those waters? When will it set a minimum water level below which any water removal by the oil sands industry would be prohibited? The federal government has jurisdiction over this, but it does not have the will to take action. Why not?
The government references the panel of leading scientists already mentioned and notes new chemical fingerprinting technologies to determine whether toxins are naturally occurring or coming from the oil sands.
The parliamentary secretary references the scientist panel already mentioned and adds new information about chemical fingerprinting technology to identify sources of toxins, which is tangentially relevant but does not address the specific ask about a minimum water level for withdrawals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member is well aware of the panel of leading scientists. I just answered that question. The member may not be aware that we have new technologies for chemical fingerprinting. We are going to find out where the toxins are coming from, whether they are naturally occurring or whether they are coming from the oil sands. This government is committed to making sure that the oil sands are developed in the most environmentally sensitive way.
Will the Bloc leader demand the resignation of the member for Marc-AurĂšle-Fortin, and what is the government doing to fight corruption?
This is a government-backbench softball that is primarily a partisan attack on the Bloc member for Marc-AurĂšle-Fortin, with a compound ask that mixes a question to the Bloc leader with a request for information about anti-corruption measures.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, lorsque le député bloquiste de Marc-AurÚle-Fortin était ministre de la Justice, il a forcé par sa propre loi 86 les policiers à dénoncer des actes illégaux. Force est de constater que ce principe ne s'appliquait pas à lui pendant 17 ans. Ce comportement irresponsable et irréfléchi le rend clairement inapte à exercer ses fonctions de porte-parole en matiÚre de justice. Maintenant que le chef du Bloc est revenu de ses vacances en Europe avec son salaire payé par les contribuables canadiens, va-t-il exiger sa démission sur-le-champ et est-ce que le secrétaire parlementaire du ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux peut nous dire ce que notre gouvernement fait pour lutter contre la corruption?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when the Bloc member for Marc-AurĂšle-Fortin was Quebec's justice minister, he used his own Law 86 to force police to report illegal activities. Apparently this principle did not apply to him for 17 years. His irresponsible and reckless behaviour clearly makes him unfit to carry out his duties as justice critic. Now that the Bloc leader has returned from his European vacation on a salary paid by Canadian taxpayers, will he force the member to resign immediately, and can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue tell us what our government is doing to fight corruption?
No summary.
No answer was recorded in the source text for this exchange.
Why is the government breaking its promise to bring soldiers home from Afghanistan in 2011 and its promise to put such matters to a parliamentary vote?
The question invokes two specific prior commitments â removing soldiers from Afghanistan by 2011 and putting military engagements to a parliamentary vote â but frames them rhetorically rather than pressing for specific detail on the new training mission.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister came to office campaigning on accountability and promising to bring decisions on military engagements to Parliament for a vote. Time and again, the Prime Minister has assured this House and Canadians that our soldiers would be out of Afghanistan in 2011. These promises and principles are now out the window. Why is this government breaking its promise to bring our soldiers home in 2011? Why is it breaking its promise to put such important matters to a vote?
Canada will move to a new non-combat phase involving training, reconstruction, and development in Afghanistan, and because it is a non-combat role, it does not require the same type of parliamentary resolution as seen previously.
MacKay explains the new phase involves training and non-combat roles and argues this does not require the same type of parliamentary resolution, which partially addresses the broken-promise framing but does not fully account for the 2011 withdrawal commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has been clear. Obviously this is an issue of great importance to Canada and to the international community. We have contributed mightily over the last number of years in Afghanistan. Now we will move to a new phase that involves training. We will continue with the reconstruction and development. We will continue to invest in all the good programs there, such as immunizing children, educating children, democracy building and infrastructure. The reality is that this is now a non-combat role, thus not requiring the same type of resolution that we saw in the previous Parliament.
Can the Conservatives explain why they broke their word to Canadians and to Afghans by building only 19 of 50 promised schools and training fewer than half of 3,000 promised teachers, with no progress on Afghan reconciliation?
The question is grounded in specific benchmarks â 50 schools promised vs. 19 built, 3,000 teachers targeted vs. fewer than half trained â making it factually specific and directly testable against government commitments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, among all the broken promises this week, the most devastating for Afghans was the Conservatives' cutting of development commitments to the people of Kandahar. We promised to build 50 schools, but only 19 have been built. We promised to train 3,000 teachers, but we have not even reached half that target. We committed to be partners in Afghan reconciliation, but the government has no progress to show there. Can the Conservatives explain why they broke their word to the people of Canada, and most importantly, why they broke their word to the people of Afghanistan?
26 schools have been completed with the remaining under construction, 158 teachers have been trained, seven million children will receive polio vaccinations, and two million girls are now attending schools where none existed before.
Oda contests the numbers, citing 26 schools completed with the rest under construction, 158 teachers trained, seven million children to receive polio vaccinations, and two million girls attending school, which partially addresses the question but does not reconcile the discrepancy on teacher training targets.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are keeping our promise to the Afghan people, particularly to the children and youth of Afghanistan. In fact, we have now completed 26 schools and the remaining schools are currently under construction. Seven million children will receive polio vaccinations. Where there were no schools for girls before, there are now and two million girls are attending. There have been 158 teachers trained, with better curriculums that Canada is supporting to improve.
Why did the government oppose Bill C-343, the Bloc bill providing financial support to families of persons who have been murdered or have disappeared, as called for by the AFPAD?
The question is specific â it identifies Bill C-343, cites Conservative committee opposition, references the AFPAD by name, and asks the minister to explain why the government opposed the Bloc bill providing financial support to families of victims.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce gouvernement manque de crédibilité en matiÚre de soutien aux familles des victimes d'actes criminels. Au Comité permanent des ressources humaines, du développement des compétences, du développement social et de la condition des personnes handicapées, les députés conservateurs ont été les seuls à s'opposer à l'adoption du projet de loi C-343 qui offre un soutien financier aux proches des victimes. Cette aide monétaire est notamment réclamée par l'AFPAD, l'Association des Familles de Personnes Assassinées ou Disparues. Est-ce que le ministre aura le courage de nous dire pourquoi son gouvernement s'est opposé au projet de loi du Bloc québécois visant à aider les proches des victimes d'actes criminels?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government lacks all credibility when it comes to supporting the families of victims of crime. At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Conservative members were the only ones who voted against Bill C-343, which provides financial support to victims' loved ones. The AFPAD, the murdered or missing persons' families' association of Quebec, has been calling for this kind of financial assistance. Will the minister have the courage to tell us why her government opposed the Bloc Québécois bill meant to help the families of victims of crime?
The government will not support a bill that rewards criminals; under the bill, if a criminal is injured while committing a crime, their parents would be eligible for employment insurance benefits to care for that criminal.
Finley mischaracterizes Bill C-343 as rewarding criminals â claiming it would make parents of injured criminals eligible for EI benefits â rather than directly engaging with the bill's stated purpose of supporting families of victims, making this largely a deflection.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous n'appuierons jamais un tel projet de loi qui récompense les criminels. Il est important de noter qu'avec ce projet de loi, si un criminel est blessé en commettant un crime, ses parents seront admissibles à des prestations d'assurance-emploi pour soigner ce criminel. C'est injuste et offensant pour les victimes et les familles.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we would never support such a bill that rewards criminals. It is important to note that, under that bill, if a criminal is injured while committing a crime, his or her family would be eligible for employment insurance benefits to care for that criminal. It is unfair and offensive to victims and their families.
Why is the government cutting the budget of the federal ombudsman for victims of crime and leaving half the victims' compensation fund undistributed in 2009-2010, while claiming to support victims?
The question is grounded in specific claims â a pending budget cut to the federal ombudsman for victims of crime and half of the victims' compensation fund going undistributed in 2009-2010 â making it factually specific and directly accountable.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pour ces gens-lĂ , tout le monde doit payer, mĂȘme les familles. Le gouvernement continue son grand spectacle et se vante d'aider les victimes d'actes criminels. Or le budget de l'ombudsman fĂ©dĂ©ral des victimes d'actes criminels sera bientĂŽt coupĂ©, et la moitiĂ© de l'argent du fonds d'indemnisation des victimes d'actes criminels n'a pas Ă©tĂ© distribuĂ© en 2009-2010. Pourtant, les familles, les groupes d'appui et les organisations non gouvernementales ont d'immenses besoins. Pourquoi ce gouvernement met-il tant d'argent sur les criminels et si peu de ressources pour aider les victimes et leurs familles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, everyone must pay for those people, even the families. While the government continues to grandstand and boast that it is helping victims of crime, the budget of the ombudsman for the victims of crime is about to be cut and half of the money in the criminal injuries compensation fund was not distributed in 2009-10, despite the tremendous needs of families, support groups and non-government organizations. Why is this government spending so much on criminals and so little on resources to help victims and their families?
The minister deflected by accusing the Bloc of blocking every attempt to help victims and challenging the member to explain why the Bloc voted against mandatory sentencing for those convicted of trafficking children.
Nicholson deflects entirely by attacking the Bloc's voting record on mandatory minimum sentences for child trafficking, without addressing the budget cut to the ombudsman or the undistributed victims' compensation funds.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc would use every opportunity to block every attempt to help victims in this country. While the member is on her feet, maybe she could explain why those members support mandatory minimum sentences for white collar crime, but they voted against mandatory sentencing for the people who are convicted of trafficking children. Are they not victims too? Why does the Bloc not stand up for children?
Documents show Infrastructure Canada disbursed less than one-quarter of Economic Action Plan funds last year; why is the government now imposing an arbitrary deadline that endangers hundreds of projects when it failed to get the money out on time?
The question cites documents showing Infrastructure Canada disbursed less than one-quarter of planned Economic Action Plan funds the previous year and raises a specific tension between slow disbursement and an arbitrary deadline threatening hundreds of projects.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, des documents révÚlent que l'an dernier, Infrastructure Canada a déboursé moins du quart des sommes prévues dans le Plan d'action économique. Non seulement ils n'ont pas investi les sommes promises, mais maintenant, ils veulent imposer une date limite arbitraire qui met en danger des centaines de projets. Ils n'ont pas sorti l'argent à temps et maintenant, ils veulent couper avant le temps. C'est de l'incompétence ou de la mauvaise foi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, documents show that last year, Infrastructure Canada disbursed less than 25% of the money allocated in the economic action plan. Not only did it not invest the amount promised, but now it wants to impose an arbitrary deadline that is jeopardizing hundreds of projects. It did not release the money on time and now they want to cut it off early. Is this a matter of incompetence or bad faith?
No money has been cut off; jobs and stimulus are already in place through 430,000 new jobs, and bills must be submitted by the provinces before payment can be made.
Strahl explains that the stimulus is already in place through job creation and that bills must be submitted by provinces before payment, which is relevant context, but he does not address the specific claim about less than one-quarter being disbursed or the endangered projects.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, no money has been cut off at all. Let me walk my colleague through the way the system works. The jobs start right away, people get employed, and the economy gets stimulated, 430,000 new jobs. The jobs are in place, the money is in place, but the bills have to be submitted by the provinces. As they submit the bills, we are eager to pay them. The provinces have to submit the bills. The economic activity and the stimulus is already taking place.
Why did the government manage to shovel $1 billion out the door in 72 hours for a summit but only invest 3% of its green infrastructure fund and one-quarter of its infrastructure stimulus fund, while Canada is still missing 115,000 full-time jobs compared to October 2008?
The question provides specific data points â 115,000 full-time jobs still missing compared to October 2008, $1 billion for a 72-hour summit, 3% of the green infrastructure fund invested, and one-quarter of the infrastructure stimulus fund disbursed â grounding the accountability ask in concrete figures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada is still missing 115,000 full-time jobs compared to October 2008. The government had no trouble shovelling $1 billion out the door in record time for a 72-hour summit, but it only managed to invest 3% of its green infrastructure fund last year and only one-quarter of the infrastructure stimulus fund. Can the Conservatives not understand that money that does not get out the door fails to create or save a single job?
Using a house-renovation analogy, Strahl argued that bills cannot be paid before jobs are done and inspections completed, implying the Liberal Party would pay before work is finished.
Strahl uses a house-renovation analogy to defend the payment process and attacks the Liberals, without engaging with the specific percentages cited or the comparison to the G8/G20 summit spending, making this largely a deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we can see why the member is a trained economist. Let me explain again. Say, for example, someone is going to replace the roof on his or her house. That individual employs a contractor. The people go to work on the house. They buy the materials. The engineers do their job. The inspectors do their work. Who in that house would pay the bill before the job was done or the bills were submitted or the inspection was done? I will tell the House who would do that. The Liberal Party of Canada would do it.
Ashton asks where the promised net benefit is for Thompson, Manitoba, and what the government will do to save the 600 jobs being cut by Vale following the Inco takeover the government approved.
Cites the specific Vale-Inco takeover, identifies 600 jobs being cut in Thompson, and asks a clear accountability question about the net benefit promised and what the government will do.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have been born and raised in Thompson, Manitoba. Thompson and communities like it are the heart and soul of our country. Three years ago, the government allowed Vale to take over Inco, claiming this would benefit Canada. Today, Vale ripped the heart out of Thompson. It announced the closure of surface operations. Where is the net benefit for my home community? What is the government going to do to stand by these Canadians, people in my hometown, and save the 600 jobs that are being cut by this foreign-owned company?
Clement states Vale announced $10 billion in future investments across Canada, including Saskatchewan, Sudbury, and Voisey's Bay, while acknowledging the centralization of certain operations affects the member's riding.
Clement acknowledges the announcement and cites the $10 billion investment figure, but does not address the net benefit question or what the government will do for the 600 workers losing jobs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I understand that today Vale made an announcement about a $10 billion, that is billion with a âbâ, further investment throughout Canada, where it has Canadian operations. That includes investments in Saskatchewan, and I am sure the member for Wascana would like to know that. It also includes investments in Sudbury, Voisey's Bay, and throughout the country. There are certain operations that it is now centralizing and it apparently affects the hon. member's riding. I can understand why she is upset. But I would like hon. members to know that this happened on a day when the company is making 10 billion dolalrs' worth of future investments.
Ashton asks when the government will commit to a meeting with the people of Thompson, the City of Thompson, the steelworkers, and the stakeholders, and when it will commit to being part of the solution to save jobs.
Asks two specific questions â a meeting commitment with Thompson stakeholders and a commitment to help save jobs â grounded in the prior net benefit promise, though framed with some rhetorical accusation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I invite the minister to come to my hometown in Thompson and explain his position to the Canadians who are losing their jobs. The government allowed the takeover of Inco and is directly responsible for today's announcement, an announcement that it said would not happen because it would bring jobs, not take them away. What the Conservatives need to do is admit that they dropped the ball on foreign takeovers and are taking advantage of communities like mine. When will the government commit to a meeting with the people of Thompson, the City of Thompson, the steelworkers, and the stakeholders? When will the government commit to being part of the solution and help to save our jobs?
Clement references the $10 billion investment figure again and accuses Ashton and her caucus of voting against tax cuts and economic stimulus measures.
Clement repeats the $10 billion investment point without addressing either specific ask, then pivots to attacking Ashton's voting record on taxes and stimulus, which is a deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that the hon. member is upset, and I understand that she is seeking to defend her community. The fact of the matter is that this announcement today is $10 billion of future investment in this country, throughout this country. That is good news for Canada. The hon. member talks about helping Thompson, Manitoba, yet she voted with her caucus and with her party. Every time we wanted to cut taxes, every time we wanted to help communities, every time we wanted to stimulate the economy, she and her caucus voted against it.
Cadman asks the minister to state the Conservative government's position on Bill C-343, which she characterizes as rewarding young criminals through EI benefits.
This is a government-backbench softball setup framing Bill C-343 as rewarding criminals and asking the minister to state the government's position, with no genuine accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at committee I was shocked to see the Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition band together yet again to support Bill C-343. This bill would provide thousands of dollars through EI to pay for parents to stay home with youth criminals who have been injured while committing a crime such as robbery or gang activity. Can the minister state our Conservative government's position on this coalition bill that would reward young criminals?
Finley states the government will never support the bill, characterizes it as rewarding criminals, notes it would increase EI premiums for law-abiding citizens and employers, and says the government supports victims not criminals.
Finley directly states the government's position and provides a rationale referencing EI premium impacts and the principle of supporting victims, which is substantive relative to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we will never, ever, support a bill that rewards criminals, as this coalition bill does. Not only would it reward criminals, it would also increase EI premiums paid by law-abiding citizens, hard-working Canadians, and their employers to pay for the care of youth criminals. This is unjust, and it is offensive to real victims and their families. We will only support bills that support the victims of crime, not the criminals who terrorize those victims.
Easter asks why the government is breaking trust with beef and hog farmers by demanding repayment of emergency advances despite the minister's earlier statement that payments would not be required until prices improved.
Easter cites a specific prior ministerial statement about repayment conditions on emergency advances, identifies beef and hog producers facing default, and asks a pointed question about why the government is breaking trust with farmers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food continues to fail farmers, especially those faced with market and weather turmoil. Beef and hog producers are being driven into default by unrealistic repayment terms on emergency advances. These repayments are being demanded by the government itself. The minister stated when introducing the emergency advance that payments would not be required until such time as prices improve. Prices have not improved substantially. Farmers cannot afford the government's demand. Why is the government breaking trust with farmers?
Ritz states he met with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and is meeting pork farmers later, says extensions have been given on cash advances, and offers to read quotes from industry groups.
Ritz claims to have met with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and mentions extensions on cash advances but does not address the specific allegation about breaking the repayment condition promise, and teases quotes rather than substantively answering.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. I had a great meeting this afternoon with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, and I am meeting with the pork farmers later today. They are both excited about the extensions we have given them on the cash advances. Of course, I have some tremendous quotes here. If the member opposite has a second question, I would be happy to read them to him.
Faille asks whether the former minister of Public Works approved a strategy to threaten a company with a three-year debarment after it questioned a tendering process it believed was biased in favour of firms with ties to Conservative Party contributors, and calls for an impartial public inquiry.
Faille asks a specific question about whether the former minister approved a strategy to silence a company that denounced a biased tendering process favouring firms linked to Conservative Party contributors, and calls for a public inquiry.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, plusieurs anomalies ont Ă©tĂ© observĂ©es Ă l'occasion du renouvellement d'un important contrat en technologie de l'information par Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada. DĂšs que l'entreprise a remis en question les pratiques de Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada, le gouvernement conservateur l'a menacĂ©e de radiation pour une pĂ©riode trois ans. L'ex-ministre des Travaux publics et des services gouvernementaux et actuel ministre des Ressources naturelles peut-il nous dire s'il a approuvĂ© cette stratĂ©gie visant Ă faire taire une entreprise ayant dĂ©noncĂ© un processus d'appel d'offres qu'elle estime biaisĂ© en faveur d'une firme comptant plusieurs contributeurs du Parti conservateur? Ă quand une enquĂȘte impartiale et publique?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a number of anomalies were detected in a major information technology contract renewal by public works and government services Canada. As soon as the company questioned the practices of Public Works and Government Services Canada, the Conservative government threatened to bar the company for three years. Can the former minister of Public Works and Government Services and current Minister of Natural Resources tell us whether he approved this strategy to silence a company for criticizing a bidding process that it felt favoured a firm full of Conservative party donors? When will there be an impartial public inquiry?
Ambrose states that Public Works always follows all contracting regulations in place with the Government of Canada.
Ambrose gives a one-sentence boilerplate response stating Public Works follows all contracting regulations, with no engagement with the specific allegations about silencing a company or the alleged bias in the tendering process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with regard to any contracts that we deal with at Public Works, we always follow all of the contracting regulations in place with the Government of Canada.
Duncan asks why the government has not yet endorsed Edmonton's bid to host Expo 2017 and calls for an immediate endorsement, noting the theme of energy and our planet aligns with the government's stated clean energy priorities.
Duncan identifies a specific risk to Edmonton's Expo 2017 bid from the government's failure to endorse, links it to the government's stated clean energy priorities, and asks for an immediate endorsement, though the framing includes some rhetorical pressure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, by not yet endorsing Edmonton's bid to host Expo 2017, the government is putting Canada's only bid at risk. Edmonton's Expo theme is energy and our planet. It would showcase innovations in clean energy technology and sustainability, initiatives the government claims are among its priorities. Supporting this bid would help deliver on the government's stated clean energy policy. Where are the Edmonton Conservative MPs? Will the government immediately endorse Edmonton's bid to host Expo 2017 for Canada?
Moore confirms the government is aware of the bid, that he and the Minister of Finance met with Mayor Mandel, that they are doing due diligence on the large price tag, and that a response will be given to the city very soon.
Moore confirms awareness of the bid, discloses that he and the Minister of Finance met with Mayor Mandel, explains the concern about the large price tag, and commits to giving a response very soon, which is a substantive partial answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are aware that the City of Edmonton has put together a proposal to host Expo in 2017. As a matter of fact, Mayor Mandel was in Ottawa last week, and the Minister of Finance and I met with him. I should let the member know that we are doing our due diligence on this project. We are concerned about the large price tag associated with this. We are doing our due diligence and we will give our response to the city very soon.
Gallant asks the Minister of State for Democratic Reform to explain the importance of passing Bill C-10, the Senate term limits bill.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the minister to explain the importance of Bill C-10, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have clearly shown a desire for reform of the Senate. Our government has taken steps to bring forth Senate legislation, to modernize the Senate so it can better reflect a 21st century democracy. Today Bill C-10, the Senate term limits bill, will resume debate. Could the Minister of State for Democratic Reform tell this House the importance of passing this bill?
Fletcher states Canadians feel term limits of up to 45 years are too long, notes the Senate term limit legislation is up for debate today, and calls on opposition parties to support the will of Canadians and support democracy.
Fletcher explains that Canadians find term limits of up to 45 years too long, notes the legislation is up for debate, and calls on opposition parties to support it, which provides some context but is largely partisan framing rather than substantive information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians feel that term limits of up to 45 years are just too long, and since forming the government, we have pursued Senate term limits. Today the Senate term limit legislation is up for debate, and if the opposition parties were keen on Senate reform, they would support our motion. I ask the opposition to support the will of Canadians, to support democracy, and to support our Senate term legislation.
Easter asks whether the minister will act today with dollars to assist cash crop and livestock producers in the Interlake area of Manitoba and Saskatchewan facing lost crops, ruined pasture land, and swamped feedlots.
Easter identifies specific regional problems in the Interlake area of Manitoba and Saskatchewan â lost crops, ruined pasture land, swamped feedlots â and asks for concrete dollar assistance, though the framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister's previous answer makes a mockery of so-called putting farmers first. Not only are Canada's livestock producers in serious trouble, but there are added problems in the Interlake area of Manitoba and Saskatchewan for both cash crop and livestock producers facing lost crops, ruined pasture land, and swamped feedlots. The minister has turned his back on farmers in trouble. Those farmers require assistance. Will the minister act today with dollars? Farmers need action, not excuses by the organization's bureaucrats in Ottawa.
Ritz reads quotes from Jurgen Preugschas of the Canadian Pork Council and Travis Toews of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association praising the government's extensions on cash advances as helping producers manage their financial obligations.
Ritz reads quotes from Jurgen Preugschas of the Canadian Pork Council and Travis Toews of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association praising extensions on cash advances, which is tangential to the specific Interlake flooding and crop disaster issues raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member thinks he can decry the bureaucrats by putting on a ridiculous disguise, but he cannot get away with it. Here are some great quotes. Jurgen Preugschas from the Canadian Pork Council said, âThis will strengthen our industry by providing producers the opportunity of time to review their cash flow, manage their financial obligations, and focus on farming. Travis Toews, president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, said, âThis flexibility strikes a good balance of working to clear up outstanding amounts while allowing producers to focus on the futureâ. We are helping them out.