Session overview
- Health care dominated the opening exchanges, with Ignatieff challenging Harper over federal funding levels and the future of the Canada Health Act after the 2014 federal-provincial accords expire; Harper countered by citing a 30% increase in transfers and attacking the Liberal record of cuts in the 1990s.
- The F-35 procurement was contested sharply, with LeBlanc alleging that every key claim made by MacKay â sole-source justification, fixed price, exhaustive internal study, and prior competition â had proven false; MacKay responded by citing Canada's $168 million prior investment and industry economic benefits.
- Eastern Quebec flooding and coastal erosion prompted Bloc members to press the government to reinstate the waterfront protection program abolished in 1997, to replicate the 2007 exceptional DEC funding measure for businesses, and to commit to rapid repair of damaged small craft harbours; ministers offered sympathy and process references but no new commitments.
- The Minister of International Cooperation Bev Oda twice deflected questions about whether she knowingly misled the House over the KAIROS funding decision, pivoting each time to broad statements about the government's international aid priorities without addressing the prima facie contempt allegation.
- Bill C-31, Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act, was announced to be receiving royal assent the same day, meaning criminals including Clifford Olson serving in federal prison would no longer receive old age security and GIS benefits as of January 1.
- The NDP pressed on two linked economic themes â the loss of 1,000 Electrolux jobs as evidence of a failed manufacturing strategy, and the Competition Bureau's finding that merchants pay $5 billion a year in hidden credit card charges despite the government's voluntary code â receiving only general defences of corporate tax cuts and job creation numbers.
Minister Finley made a specific, verifiable commitment: Bill C-31, Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act, was scheduled to receive royal assent that day, with a concrete effective date of January 1 and a named beneficiary of the change (Clifford Olson) removed.
Gagnon cites a specific House motion of November 25, a specific trial date of January 2011, and a prior ministerial commitment, and asks for a concrete commitment to release specific documents before that trial.
Asked a direct yes-or-no question about whether the government would seek repayment of $2 million from Brian Mulroney following the Oliphant Commission report, Nicholson did not address Mulroney, the $2 million, or the Oliphant Commission at all, instead pivoting to criticising the NDP for opposing the faint hope bill.
Outstanding questions
- John McKay (ScarboroughâGuildwood) asked whether Minister Oda would stand after question period to respond to the prima facie contempt allegation that she knowingly misled the House on KAIROS; she did not answer this question.
- Thomas Mulcair (Outremont) asked directly whether the government would seek repayment of the $2 million paid to Brian Mulroney under false pretences as found by the Oliphant Commission; no answer was given.
- Gilles Duceppe (LaurierâSainte-Marie) asked whether the Prime Minister would reinstate the waterfront protection program abolished in 1997 given the emergency flooding situation in eastern Quebec; Harper offered no answer on reinstatement.
- Jean Dorion (LongueuilâPierre-Boucher) asked twice whether the government would commit to a parliamentary debate and vote on the security perimeter negotiations with the United States before signing any agreement; neither response engaged with that specific commitment.
- Anthony Rota (NipissingâTimiskaming) asked why the Minister of Industry cut funding to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre after the Minister of Public Safety had publicly commended it; no minister explained the funding cut or the apparent contradiction between the two ministers.
Ignatieff asks how Canadians can trust the government to protect the public health system given emergency room wait times, the Prime Minister's alleged desire to eliminate the Canada Health Act, and rejection of home care proposals.
The question raises wait times and home care but relies heavily on partisan framing about the Prime Minister wanting to 'jeter la Loi canadienne sur la santé' without citing a specific document or commitment, and the ask is compound and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les Canadiens attendent des heures dans les salles d'urgence des hÎpitaux et les patients traßnent dans les corridors. Le systÚme de santé canadien a besoin d'aide, mais le gouvernement a gardé le silence pendant quatre ou cinq ans. Le premier ministre a déjà dit qu'il aimerait jeter la Loi canadienne sur la santé. Il rejette toutes nos suggestions pour aider les familles à soigner leurs proches à domicile. Alors, comment veut-il que les Canadiens fassent confiance à son gouvernement pour protéger notre systÚme de santé public?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians wait for hours in hospital emergency rooms and patients languish in the hallways. The Canadian health system needs help, but the government has ignored the issue for four or five years. The Prime Minister has said that he would like to scrap the Canada Health Act. He has rejected all our suggestions for helping families to care for their loved ones at home. How can he expect Canadians to trust his government to protect our public health care system?
Harper says his government works with provinces and has increased health transfers to record levels, contrasting this with Liberal-era cuts of 25% to health transfers.
Harper counters with a claim about Liberal transfer cuts and record Conservative increases but provides no specific figures, making the response partially relevant but not directly addressing the trust question or the Canada Health Act allegation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce gouvernement travaille avec les provinces pour garder et améliorer notre systÚme de santé. L'ancien gouvernement libéral a réduit les transferts aux provinces de 25 p. 100 pour les soins de santé. Ce sont les faits. Ce gouvernement, quant à lui, a augmenté à un niveau record les transferts aux provinces pour les soins de santé, car nous croyons au systÚme de santé public canadien.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government works with the provinces to maintain and improve our health system. The former Liberal government reduced provincial health care transfers by 25%. Those are the facts. As for this government, it has increased provincial health transfers to record levels because we believe in the Canadian public health system.
Ignatieff asserts that all current government health spending was committed by the Liberal government in 2004, notes the accords expire in 2014, and asks how Canadians can trust the government to defend public health given five years of no federal leadership.
Ignatieff introduces the specific claim that the 2004 accords cover all current spending and notes they expire in 2014, giving some factual grounding, but the question remains compound and ends with a rhetorical trust framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, tout ce que ce gouvernement dépense était déjà accordé en 2004 par le gouvernement libéral. The federal-provincial accords run out in 2014. The government has no record on public health. There has been no federal leadership on this issue for five years. The Prime Minister is heard to muse about how he would like to get rid of the Canada Health Act and he says that any plan to bring help to families to look after their loved ones at home is reckless. How can Canadians trust the government to defend public health?
Harper repeats that the Liberal government slashed health transfers and claims his government increased them and worked with provinces, then challenges Ignatieff to confirm he uses the public health care system.
Harper again cites Liberal transfer cuts and claims the government has fully funded the health system, then pivots to a personal attack questioning whether Ignatieff uses the public health system, which does not address the 2014 accord expiry or the 'no new money' claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when that party was entrusted with the health care of Canada it dramatically slashed transfers for the health care system, which did enormous damage. It is this government that increased those transfers and has worked with the provinces to make sure that our health system is fully funded. Since the Leader of the Opposition made this personal, let me be clear. I and my family depend on and have always used the public health care system of Canada. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition can say the same thing.
Ignatieff states the government has not put a dime of new money into public health care and that every cent committed since 2006 was booked in 2004 by the Liberal government, contrasting this with spending on prisons, planes, and G8/G20.
Ignatieff makes a specific factual assertion that not a red cent of new money has gone to public health care since 2006 and that all committed funds were booked in 2004, providing a concrete and challengeable claim, though it devolves into a list of spending criticisms.
Source text
I can make that commitment, Mr. Speaker. Let me correct some facts. The government has not put a dime of new money into public health care, not a red cent of new money. Every cent that the government has committed to public health care since 2006 was booked in 2004 by the Liberal government. The government likes spending money on prisons, planes, photo ops, and waste on the G8 and G20 summits but not a red cent of new money--
Hear, hear!
Harper claims the Liberal government slashed health care funds booked in the 1990s, asserts his government increased transfers by 30%, and accuses Liberals of being 'health care cutters.'
Harper claims funds were slashed by Liberals in the 1990s, asserts a 30% transfer increase, and calls opponents 'health care cutters,' but does not directly rebut the specific 'not a red cent of new money since 2006' claim with evidence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not have to make a commitment to use the Canadian public health care system. That is what I have always used. Funds were booked for public health care back in the 1990s and the Liberal government slashed those out of the budget. The fact of the matter is, this is the government that funded public health care, increased the transfers 30%, and we are the ones who are going to protect and defend the system against these health care cutters.
LeBlanc asks when MacKay will tell the truth to Canadians, citing multiple specific instances where the minister's claims about the F-35 purchaseâfixed price, internal study, Canadian competition, sole-source necessityâhave been contradicted by his own officials and colleagues.
LeBlanc lists several specific contradictions in MacKay's stated positions on the F-35âfixed price, internal study, competition, sole-source justificationâgrounding the question in identifiable public claims, though the cumulative framing weakens the single-ask clarity.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ministre de la DĂ©fense nationale a peur de la vĂ©ritĂ©. Il dit que l'achat des F-35 est planifiĂ© depuis longtemps, mais ses propres collĂšgues disent le contraire. Il dit que seul le F-35 rĂ©pond aux besoins, mais nous savons maintenant que c'est faux. Il disait qu'il y aurait une compĂ©tition canadienne, mais il n'y en a pas eue. Il disait avoir fait une Ă©tude interne, mais il n'avait mĂȘme pas les renseignements nĂ©cessaires pour la faire. Il prĂ©tend qu'il y a un prix fixe, mais ses hauts fonctionnaires, encore une fois, disent le contraire. Quand le ministre va-t-il dire la vĂ©ritĂ© aux Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is scared to tell the truth. He says that the purchase of the F-35s has been in the works for a long time, but his own colleagues are saying the complete opposite. He says that only the F-35 meets our needs, but we now know that is not true. He said that there would be a Canadian competition, but there was not. He said that there had been an internal review, but they did not even have the information they needed to conduct one. He claims that there is a set price, but, once again, his senior officials are saying the opposite. When will the minister tell the truth to Canadians?
MacKay claims the cancellation of the F-35 purchase could cost up to $1 billion and compares the situation to the Liberal cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter contract, without addressing the specific contradictions raised.
MacKay does not address any of the specific contradictions raised and instead pivots to the cost of cancellation and the Liberal EH-101 helicopter cancellation precedent, fully deflecting from the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Beauséjour and welcome him back from his celebrity tour. Here is the truth. The truth is that the cancellation of the F-35 purchase could cost this country up to $1 billion. The truth is the member opposite is a member of a party that knows well about the cancellation of contracts. The cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter contract cost the country $1 billion. As a result, the Canadian Forces are still flying up to 45-year-old helicopters. That is older than he or I.
LeBlanc asserts that every claim MacKay has made about the F-35 has proven falseâsole suitability, Canadian competition, exhaustive internal study, fixed priceâand asks why the minister will not come clean with Canadians.
LeBlanc reiterates that the F-35 is not the only aircraft meeting Canada's needs, there was no Canadian competition, no exhaustive internal study, and the price is not fixed as statedâthese are specific falsifiable claims, though the 'come clean' ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, everything the minister has said about the F-35 has turned out to be false. The F-35 is not the only aircraft that can meet Canada's needs. There was no Canadian competition under any government. There was no exhaustive internal study. In fact, he did not even bother to ask for the information to compare. Most shockingly, he now complains that the price is fixed, when the colonel in charge of the program says the price will go up. Why does the minister not dig himself out of his foxhole and for once come clean with Canadians on this transaction?
MacKay notes Canada invested $168 million in the F-35 program under the Liberal government, quotes Héroux-Devtek CEO Gilles Labbé praising the program's $12 billion opportunity for Canadian aerospace, and asks LeBlanc to return to his original position supporting the purchase.
MacKay cites Canada's $168 million investment in the F-35 program and quotes Gilles Labbé of Héroux-Devtek on a $12 billion aerospace opportunity, which is relevant context but does not address the specific allegations about misleading statements on price, competition, or the internal study.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should know that Canada has already invested $168 million in the F-35 program. How would he know that? He was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence when it happened under his government. But let us take it out of the realm of parliamentary rhetoric. Let us listen to Gilles Labbé, president and chief executive officer of Héroux-Devtek, a company in Montreal. This program will give Canadian companies access to opportunities on partner fees valued at around $12 billion. He says this is an outstanding opportunity for the Canadian aerospace industry. Why does the hon. member not come back to his original position and support this purchase?
Duceppe asks whether the Prime Minister will reinstate the waterfront protection program abolished in 1997 to help residents affected by current flooding and bank erosion emergencies in eastern Quebec.
Duceppe cites the specific 1997 abolition of the programme de protection des rives and links it to current emergency flood conditions in the Gaspésie peninsula, making a concrete and answerable ask about reinstating the program.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, alors que des pluies importantes s'abattent sur l'est du Québec et provoquent des inondations qui accélÚrent l'érosion des berges, plusieurs municipalités de la péninsule gaspésienne ont décrété des mesures d'urgence. En 1997, le gouvernement fédéral a aboli le programme de protection des rives, qui aidait les riverains ayant subi des pertes importantes en raison de l'érosion des berges. Compte tenu de la situation d'urgence dans laquelle l'est du Québec est plongé, le premier ministre va-t-il remettre sur pied le programme de protection des rives afin de donner un coup de pouce aux citoyens des régions touchées par les inondations?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with heavy rain pounding eastern Quebec and causing flooding that is accelerating shoreline erosion, many municipalities on the Gaspé peninsula have declared a state of emergency. In 1997, the federal government abolished the shoreline protection program, which helped people living along the shore who suffered major losses due to shoreline erosion. Given the emergency situation in eastern Quebec, will the Prime Minister restore the shoreline protection program to help people in the areas affected by the flooding?
Harper expresses sympathy for affected families and businesses, praises first responders, and says all requests for assistance will be processed under current existing agreements, without addressing the programme de protection des rives.
Harper expresses sympathy and says requests for help will be processed under existing agreements, but does not address the specific ask to reinstate the programme de protection des rives abolished in 1997.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, évidemment, nous exprimons notre sympathie aux familles et aux entreprises qui sont touchées par les inondations. J'applaudis les premiers intervenants et leurs efforts à cet égard. Le gouvernement se tient aux cÎtés des Canadiens lorsqu'il y a de telles catastrophes, et toutes les demandes d'aide seront traitées dans le cadre des accords en vigueur actuellement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we express our sympathy to the families and the businesses affected by the flooding. I applaud the first responders for their efforts. The government stands with Canadians when disaster strikes, and all requests for assistance will be handled under the agreements currently in effect.
Duceppe asks whether the government will, as it did following the 2007 RiviÚre-au-Renard floods, allow businesses, enterprises, and non-profit organizations in the Gaspésie to access DEC financial assistance outside normal program eligibility criteria.
Duceppe references a specific 2007 precedent at RiviĂšre-au-Renard where the Conservative government provided exceptional DEC funding beyond normal criteria, making a precise and historically grounded ask for the same exceptional measure now.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je rappelle au premier ministre qu'en plus de ces accords, un programme a Ă©tĂ© aboli; je lui demande de le remettre sur pied. Ăgalement, en aoĂ»t 2007, suite Ă des inondations Ă RiviĂšre-au-Renard, en GaspĂ©sie, le gouvernement conservateur avait proposĂ© une mesure exceptionnelle, en plus de l'entente avec QuĂ©bec, qui permettait d'octroyer de l'aide financiĂšre aux commerces et entreprises via le programme de DEC. Le premier ministre va-t-il, comme en 2007, indĂ©pendamment des critĂšres habituels liĂ©s Ă l'accĂšs au fonds de DEC, permettre aux commerces, entreprises et organismes Ă but non lucratif de bĂ©nĂ©ficier de cette aide financiĂšre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Prime Minister that in addition to these agreements, there was a program that was abolished; I am asking him to restore that program. As well, in August 2007, when RiviÚre-au-Renard in the Gaspé was flooded, the Conservative government introduced an extraordinary measure, over and above the agreement with Quebec, whereby businesses and companies could receive financial assistance through the CED program. Will the Prime Minister allow businesses, companies and not-for-profit organizations to receive this financial assistance without having to meet the usual criteria for CED funding, as in 2007?
Lebel says the situation is terrible news for Gaspésie residents, notes that public safety programs exist, defers to the province of Quebec as the first point of contact, and says the department is closely monitoring the situation.
Lebel expresses sympathy, mentions public safety programs, says the province of Quebec is the first point of contact, and pledges to follow the situation closely, without addressing the specific DEC exceptional-criteria ask or the 2007 precedent.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est pour nous une terrible nouvelle ce qui arrive aux gens de la région de la Gaspésie. Notre ministÚre est toujours trÚs prÚs de tout ce qui se passe dans l'ensemble des régions du Québec. Comme l'a dit le premier ministre, il y a des programmes de sécurité publique. La province de Québec est d'abord interpellée. Nous félicitons les premiers intervenants et nous suivons la situation de trÚs prÚs.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what is happening to the people in the Gaspé is terrible. Our department is always very aware of what is happening in all the regions of Quebec. As the Prime Minister said, there are public safety programs. The Province of Quebec has primary responsibility. We congratulate the first responders and we are monitoring the situation very closely.
Guimond asks when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will understand that the government's inaction on maritime infrastructureâspecifically the refusal to build a breakwater at the Rimouski wharfâendangers vessels and the safety of port facility users.
Guimond cites the specific case of the Rimouski wharf and a request for a breakwater, links it to increasing frequency of major tides causing damage, and asks a pointed question about the minister's refusal to invest in maritime infrastructure security.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cet automne, l'est du QuĂ©bec a Ă©tĂ© Ă©branlĂ© par des grandes marĂ©es qui ont causĂ© d'importants dommages. Malheureusement, cette situation est de plus en plus frĂ©quente, et pourtant, le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral refuse d'investir pour consolider les infrastructures maritimes. Les utilisateurs du quai de Rimouski, par exemple, demandent la construction d'un brise-lames afin de sĂ©curiser les lieux. Quand la ministre des PĂȘches et des OcĂ©ans comprendra-t-elle que l'immobilisme de son gouvernement met en pĂ©ril les embarcations maritimes, mais surtout la sĂ©curitĂ© des utilisateurs de ces installations portuaires?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this fall, eastern Quebec was rocked by high tides, resulting in major damage. Unfortunately, this is happening more frequently, yet the federal government is refusing to invest in reinforcing marine infrastructure. For example, people who use the Rimouski wharf are asking that breakwaters be built in order to make the area safer. When will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans understand that her government's lack of action is putting both boats and the people using these docks in danger?
Shea says the government inherited a massive backlog of small craft harbour work in 2006 and has since invested under the Economic Action Plan, with work completed or under way at 270 harbours across the country.
Shea touts Economic Action Plan investments at 270 harbours without addressing the specific Rimouski breakwater request or the question of whether the government will invest in consolidating maritime infrastructure against increasingly frequent storm damage.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 2006, we inherited a massive backlog of needed work at our small craft harbours. Wharves were rotting and fishers were not getting the facilities they needed to work safely. That is why, under our economic action plan, we invested and work has now been completed or is under way at 270 harbours across the country. We are getting the job done for fishers.
Blais asks the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to commit to rapidly repairing wharves under her responsibility that have been damaged by the extreme weather, citing specific damage at Carleton-sur-Mer in the Baie-des-Chaleurs.
Blais cites specific current conditionsâflooding, state of emergency in GaspĂ©, route 132 closures, damage at Carleton-sur-Mer wharvesâand makes a single concrete ask for a commitment to rapidly repair wharves under the minister's responsibility.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les importantes pluies, les vents violents et les grandes marĂ©es qui s'abattent sur l'est du QuĂ©bec provoquent des inondations et beaucoup de destruction matĂ©rielle. Les riviĂšres dĂ©bordent, l'Ă©tat d'urgence a Ă©tĂ© dĂ©crĂ©tĂ© Ă GaspĂ© et la route 132 est fermĂ©e Ă plusieurs endroits. J'ai personnellement constatĂ© que plusieurs quais ont subi d'importants dĂ©gĂąts, notamment Ă Carleton-sur-Mer dans la Baie-des-Chaleurs. La ministre des PĂȘches peut-elle au moins s'engager Ă rĂ©parer rapidement les quais sous sa responsabilitĂ© qui ont Ă©tĂ© endommagĂ©s Ă la suite des intempĂ©ries extrĂȘmes que l'on connaĂźt?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the pounding rain, violent wind and high tides that are slamming eastern Quebec are causing floods and significant property damage. Rivers are overflowing, Gaspé has declared a state of emergency, and highway 132 is closed in multiple places. I myself have seen the numerous wharves that have been seriously damaged, notably in Carleton-sur-Mer in the Baie-des-Chaleurs. Can the Minister of Fisheries at least commit to quickly repairing any wharves under her jurisdiction that were damaged by the extreme weather we have been experiencing?
Shea says there has been some damage in the recent storms and her department is currently assessing it and will respond accordingly, while urging the Bloc to support the budget that invests in small craft harbours.
Shea acknowledges storm damage has occurred, says her department is currently assessing it and will respond accordingly, which directly addresses the ask, though she adds a partisan note about the Bloc supporting the budget.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I just said, we have invested heavily in small craft harbours across the country. There has been some damage done in the recent storms, and my department is currently assessing the damage and will respond accordingly. If the Bloc wants us to invest money in small craft harbours, it should support the budget that does that.
Layton cites Stats Canada data on stagnating productivity, the loss of 1,000 jobs at Electrolux, and the claim that Conservative policy has created mostly precarious part-time work, asking when the government will introduce a manufacturing job strategy.
Layton cites Stats Canada data on stagnating productivity, references the specific loss of 1,000 jobs at Electrolux, and asks for a manufacturing job strategy, giving the question some factual grounding, though it combines multiple critiques.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is more evidence today of the government's failure to create quality jobs in Canada. Stats Canada says that productivity is stagnating and the Conservatives' short-sighted economic policy has created mostly precarious part-time work. Billions that should have been targeted towards creating well-paid jobs was wasted on across-the-board giveaways to banks and oil companies. Aujourd'hui mĂȘme, on apprend que plus de 1 000 emplois seront perdus chez Electrolux. Quel gĂąchis! With the loss of 1,000 jobs at Electrolux, when are we going to see a manufacturing job strategy for this country?
Harper says the economy and jobs remain the government's top priority, cites 450,000 new jobs created since the height of the recessionâmore than were lostâand says Canada is the only advanced country to have achieved this, urging the NDP to stop voting against job creation measures.
Harper cites the figure of 450,000 new jobs created since the height of the recession and claims Canada is the only advanced country to recover all jobs lost, which is substantive but does not address the specific Electrolux job losses or the request for a manufacturing job strategy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the economy and jobs remain our number one priority. We realize there are still significant challenges out there, but that should not blind anyone in the House to the performance of the Canadian economy. Since the height of the recession, this economy has created 450,000 new jobs, more jobs than were actually lost during the recession. We are the only advanced country in the world to do that. I would encourage the NDP and others to cease voting against the job creation measures that this government has been bringing forward.
Layton says the Competition Bureau confirms the government's voluntary credit card code has not protected Canadian businesses and asks the government to impose mandatory rules to protect Canadian small and medium enterprises from credit card companies.
Layton references a Competition Bureau confirmation that the voluntary credit card code has not protected Canadian businesses and makes a specific ask for mandatory rules, giving the question identifiable factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives keep claiming that corporate tax cuts make us more competitive, but these numbers prove that they are wrong. Ils font des cadeaux à leurs amis de l'industrie pétroliÚre et de Bay Street, mais les PME en arrachent. Elles sont à la merci des compagnies de cartes de crédit. Le Bureau de la concurrence confirme que le code volontaire du gouvernement n'a pas protégé les entreprises canadiennes. Le gouvernement va-t-il enfin imposer des rÚgles obligatoires qui protÚgent vraiment les PME canadiennes contre les compagnies de cartes de crédit?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les conservateurs n'arrĂȘtent pas de dire que les rĂ©ductions de l'impĂŽt des sociĂ©tĂ©s nous rendent plus concurrentiels, mais ces chiffres prouvent qu'ils ont tort. They hand out gifts to their friends in the oil industry and on Bay Street, while small and medium-sized businesses are struggling. They are at the mercy of the credit card companies. The Competition Bureau confirms that the government's voluntary code has not protected Canadian businesses. Will the government finally impose mandatory rules to truly protect Canadian SMEs from credit card companies?
Harper dismisses the idea of raising taxes on employers and job creators as ridiculous, and credits lower taxesâfor companies, families, and individualsâas the reason for Canada's exceptional job creation record, without addressing the credit card rules question.
Harper dismisses the premise by focusing only on the corporate tax cut portion of the question and claiming job creation success, without addressing the Competition Bureau finding or the ask for mandatory credit card rules.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, d'aprÚs la premiÚre partie de la question du chef du NPD, je présume qu'il pense que les hausses des taxes pour les employeurs et les créateurs d'emplois vont créer des jobs. C'est ridicule. Une des raisons pour lesquelles le Canada a un bilan exceptionnel dans la création d'emplois, c'est qu'on a baissé les taxes et les impÎts, pas seulement pour les compagnies, mais aussi pour les familles et les individus.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, based on the first part of the NDP leader's question, I presume he thinks that tax hikes for employers and job creators will create jobs. That is ridiculous. One of the reasons for Canada's exceptional job creation record is that we lowered taxes not only for companies, but also for families and individuals.
Layton cites the Competition Bureau's finding that merchants pay $5 billion a year in hidden credit card charges, notes the finance minister failed to get voluntary cooperation from banks, and asks when the Conservatives will impose tough mandatory rules to protect Canadian small businesses.
Layton cites the specific Competition Bureau finding that merchants pay $5 billion a year in hidden credit card charges, notes the finance minister's failed attempt to get bank cooperation, and makes a clear ask for tough mandatory rules.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is the government that added the HST to the cost of small business. The Conservatives' voluntary credit card code simply is not working. The Competition Bureau tells us today that merchants pay $5 billion a year in hidden credit card charges. I have been talking with some of these businesses and they are fed up. The finance minister goes cap in hand to the big banks and asks for help; they tell him no and he just accepts it. Under the Conservatives, credit card companies continue to gouge small businesses. When will the Conservatives have the political courage to impose tough, mandatory rules to actually protect Canadian small businesses?
Harper says the government created rules for credit card companies that the NDP voted against, then pivots to defending the GST reduction from 7% to 5% and criticizing the Nova Scotia NDP government for raising the sales tax.
Harper says the government created rules for credit card companies but pivots to a lengthy argument about the HST and NDP provincial sales tax increases in Nova Scotia, only briefly touching on the credit card rules without addressing why mandatory rather than voluntary rules are sufficient.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, working with the small business communities and others, this government has created rules for credit card companies that, of course, the NDP voted against. I would like to return to the NDP leader's comment on the sales tax. This is the government that lowered the federal sales tax by two percentage points, from 7% to 6% to 5%, against the opposition of the NDP and its coalition partners. What did we see in Nova Scotia? As soon as an NDP government took office, up went the sales tax by two percentage points, and it would be exactly the same thing here if those members ever got their chance.
McKay asks whether Minister Oda will stand following question period to respond to serious allegations raised in a question of privilege that she knowingly misled the House regarding cuts to KAIROS' funding, noting that a prima facie case of contempt may have been made.
McKay references the specific question of privilege, the admission by the former parliamentary secretary, and asks a single clear yes-or-no procedural question about whether the minister will stand after question period to respond to the prima facie contempt allegations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Cooperation has had serious allegations raised against her on a question of privilege alleging that she knowingly misled the House in her responses to questions concerning the cuts to KAIROS' funding. After the admission by her former parliamentary secretary and submissions by other members, a reasonable person might well conclude that a prima facie case of contempt has been made. Will she stand following question period today and respond to those allegations?
Oda ignores the contempt allegation and procedural ask entirely, instead describing the government's international assistance priorities of keeping children and mothers alive, food, education, and health in developing countries.
Oda completely ignores the specific procedural ask about standing to respond to the contempt allegations and instead delivers a boilerplate statement about effective international assistance and aid priorities.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. The response that Canadians deserve is what we are doing with international assistance. The government is choosing to make its international assistance more effective and more focused. We want to ensure that we have value for our aid dollars, which means keeping children and mothers alive, more food, more education and better health for those in developing countries. This is what Canadians want and this is what we are delivering.
Valeriote asks how Canadians can trust a government that knowingly hides the truth, citing allegations that the Minister of International Cooperation did not tell the truth about the KAIROS de-funding decision and that others at the cabinet level contributed to that decision.
Valeriote raises the specific allegation that others at cabinet level contributed to the decision to de-fund KAIROS and that the minister misled the House both in oral responses and in order paper questions, though the final trust question is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Cooperation is facing very serious allegations that she did not tell the truth to the House, mistruths which were repeated by the minister both in the House and in response to order paper questions that she is also now evading. However, the evidence paints a more disturbing picture. Clearly there were others at the cabinet level who contributed to the decision to de-fund KAIROS. How are Canadians to trust a government and a Prime Minister who knowingly hide the truth from them? What does that say about their moral character?
Oda says Canadians can trust the government because it led the world to improve the health of mothers and children, and describes aid efforts for Pakistan flood victims and earthquake survivors, without addressing the KAIROS or contempt allegations.
Oda again completely ignores the KAIROS de-funding allegations and the specific question about cabinet-level involvement, instead listing international aid accomplishments on maternal health, Pakistan floods, and earthquake relief.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. Canadians can trust this government because under this Prime Minister we led the world to improve the health of mothers and children. We are going to save the lives of infants who never had a chance in developing countries. We are making sure that those who are now facing floods in Pakistan and earthquakes in various countries are getting the food, water and medical help they need. In fact, we are leaders when it comes to making sure that development and aid are effective.
Foote asks what the finance minister will do to ensure that stakeholder input is not ignored after an employee in the office of the member for SaskatoonâRosetownâBiggar leaked a draft copy of the finance committee's pre-budget consultation report to Conservative-friendly lobbyists, derailing the process for the first time since 1994.
Foote cites the specific 1994 mandate for the finance committee's pre-budget consultation process, the specific allegation that a leaked draft report went to Conservative-friendly lobbyists via an employee in the office of the member for SaskatoonâRosetownâBiggar, and asks what the finance minister will do to ensure stakeholder input is not ignored.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 1994, the previous Liberal government mandated the finance committee to spend each fall meeting with everyday Canadians and to report what they heard back to the House. This year, for the very first time since the process began, the Conservatives derailed the process when an employee in the office of the member for SaskatoonâRosetownâBiggar leaked a draft copy of the report to Conservative-friendly lobbyists. What is the finance minister going to do, besides his online budget chat room, to ensure that the valuable input by stakeholders and individuals is not ignored?
Baird sardonically says the finance minister will consult Hansard for verbatim transcripts of committee testimony, be briefed by the parliamentary secretary, and rely on government MPs consulting Canadians across the country on job creation, without addressing the leak or its consequences.
Baird deflects entirely by joking about Hansard transcripts and the parliamentary secretary briefing the finance minister, and pivots to government MPs consulting Canadians across the country, without addressing the leak allegation or what will be done to protect the pre-budget consultation process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I expect what the finance minister will do is pull out the Hansard where every single person who appeared before the committee has a verbatim transcript. I am sure the Minister of Finance will then visit the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who will fully brief him on the excellent input that was received for next year's budget. I am sure that we will also listen to all members of Parliament who are fanning out right across the country to tell us what else we can do to create more jobs, more hope and more opportunity in this country.
Foote asks whether the finance minister is using the destruction of the committee's work â caused by a Conservative employee â as a pretext to ignore public input as he drafts a fourth consecutive deficit budget.
The question cites 157 witnesses and 400 briefs but frames a conspiracy-style accusation rather than a single answerable ask, making it mostly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the committee heard from 157 witnesses and received well over 400 briefs from individuals, charities, small businesses and others. All of that is now headed for the shredder because of a Conservative employee, all of this goodwill betrayed, millions of dollars wasted, and for what? Is it not convenient that the finance minister now has the excuse he wanted in order to ignore the people of Canada as he drafts his fourth consecutive deficit budget?
Baird states that verbatim transcripts and the 400 briefs remain available to the minister, and that the Finance Minister always listens and has been named best finance minister in the world.
Baird does not address the allegation of a Conservative employee shredding committee work, instead pivoting to praise for the Finance Minister and a job-creation talking point.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the finance committee, which I can say is very ably chaired by the member for EdmontonâLeduc, as she said, held public hearings. All verbatim transcripts are available to the minister. It got 400 briefs and I know the Minister of Finance is going to spend the entire Christmas holiday reading each one of those 400 briefs, listening as he always does. There is a pattern here. Whenever the Minister of Finance presents a budget, more jobs are created. Whenever the Minister of Finance talks economy, in fact he is named the best finance minister in the world.
Dorion asks whether the Prime Minister will commit to holding a parliamentary debate and vote on the security perimeter negotiations before signing anything with the United States.
Dorion raises a specific, answerable question about whether the Prime Minister will commit to a parliamentary debate and vote before signing any security perimeter agreement, grounding it in the scope of the negotiations.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, alors que le gouvernement conservateur négocie un « périmÚtre de sécurité » derriÚre des portes closes et qu'une entente avec le gouvernement américain semble imminente, les représentants de la population à la Chambre sont tenus dans le noir. Puisque les négociations sur le périmÚtre de sécurité ont une portée comparable à un traité, est-ce que le premier ministre s'engage à tenir un débat et un vote sur cette question avant de signer quoi que ce soit?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is negotiating a âsecurity perimeterâ behind closed doors, and an agreement with the U.S. government seems imminent. And yet, the people's representatives in the House of Commons are being kept in the dark. Since security perimeter negotiations are comparable in scope to treaty negotiations, will the Prime Minister promise to hold a debate and a vote on this matter before signing anything?
Cannon says the government's priority has always been job creation and the economy, and that Canada works with the United States to keep borders open while protecting against terrorism.
Cannon does not address the request for a debate or vote, instead offering a generic statement about job creation, the economy, and keeping borders open.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis la prise du pouvoir de ce gouvernement, notre prioritĂ© a toujours Ă©tĂ© la crĂ©ation d'emplois et l'Ă©conomie. Ă cet Ă©gard, nous avons toujours travaillĂ© avec les Ătats-Unis d'AmĂ©rique pour pouvoir maintenir ouvertes nos frontiĂšres tout en protĂ©geant nos pays contre les menaces de terrorisme. Chaque fois que nous le pouvons, nous faisons avancer notre dossier Ă©conomique en vue de crĂ©er des emplois pour tous les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, since this government came to power, our priority has always been job creation and the economy. In that regard, we have always worked with the United States in order to keep our borders open all the while protecting our countries from terrorist threats. We take advantage of every opportunity to strengthen our economy in order to create jobs for all Canadians.
Dorion asks whether the government will commit to a parliamentary debate and vote before formally engaging with the Americans on the security perimeter.
Dorion reiterates the specific ask for a parliamentary debate and vote before any formal commitment, adding policy substance about terrorism, trade, and immigration as reasons for consultation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, justement, la lutte contre le terrorisme, l'accroissement des échanges économiques et l'intégration des politiques d'immigration sont des sujets trop importants pour le Québec pour donner un chÚque en blanc aux conservateurs. Il faut que les parlementaires soient consultés avant qu'on prenne des engagements au nom de la population. Est-ce que le gouvernement va s'engager à tenir un débat et un vote sur cette question avant de s'engager formellement avec les Américains?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, fighting terrorism, boosting trade and integrating immigration policies are matters that are too important to Quebec to give the Conservatives carte blanche. Parliamentarians must be consulted before commitments are made on behalf of the people. Will the government promise to have a debate and a vote on this matter before making a formal commitment to the Americans?
Cannon notes there is no agreement, as the Prime Minister stated the previous day, and emphasizes the importance of trade with the United States, citing $1.6 billion in daily bilateral trade.
Cannon partially engages by noting the Prime Minister said there is no agreement yet, but does not commit to a debate or vote, then pivots to trade statistics.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme le premier ministre l'a mentionnĂ© hier, il n'y a pas d'entente. Je rappelle Ă mon ami l'importance des Ă©changes Ă©conomiques avec les AmĂ©ricains. Nous sommes un pays exportateur; le QuĂ©bec exporte Ă©normĂ©ment vers les Ătats-Unis. Nos Ă©changes commerciaux quotidiens avec les AmĂ©ricains s'Ă©lĂšvent Ă 1,6 milliard de dollars. Notre premier travail est de protĂ©ger les emplois au Canada et de faire en sorte de pouvoir progresser en ce sens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, there is no agreement. I would remind my friend of the importance of trade with the U.S. We are an exporting country; Quebec exports to the U.S. are very significant. Daily trade with the U.S. totals $1.6 billion. Our priority is to protect Canadian jobs and to make progress in that regard.
Brunelle asks whether the government will stop subsidizing oil companies and invest the billions saved into green energy development, citing a Société royale du Canada report criticizing federal laxness on oil sands environmental risks.
Brunelle grounds her question in a specific Société royale du Canada report and asks a clear policy question about redirecting oil sands subsidies to green energy, though framed rhetorically.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la Société royale du Canada vient de produire un rapport concernant l'exploitation des sables bitumineux dans lequel elle dénonce le laxisme du gouvernement fédéral. Le rapport souligne le manque de leadership du gouvernement fédéral, qui ne reconnaßt pas les risques considérables liés aux répercussions de cette industrie sur l'environnement. Le gouvernement ne pense-t-il pas qu'il pourrait commencer par cesser de subventionner les pétroliÚres et leur pétrole sale et investir les milliards de dollars ainsi économisés dans le développement d'énergie verte?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Society of Canada has just released a report on oil sands development, which criticizes the federal government's lack of action. The report states that the federal government is failing to demonstrate leadership and does not recognize the considerable risk this industry poses to the environment. Does the government not think that a good place to start would be to stop subsidizing oil companies and their dirty oil and, instead, invest these billions of dollars in the development of green energy?
Baird says the government read the approximately 500-page report, agrees on protecting the environment, and claims it eliminated the subsidies that the Liberal Party had granted for years.
Baird acknowledges reading the approximately 500-page report and claims the government eliminated Liberal subsidies, but does not address investing the savings in green energy development.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on apprécie le bon travail de la Société royale du Canada. On a lu le rapport d'environ 500 pages et on est tout à fait d'accord pour protéger l'environnement compte tenu de l'expansion des sables bitumineux. C'est notre gouvernement qui a éliminé les subventions accordées par le Parti libéral pendant plusieurs années. Encore une fois, notre ministre des Finances a fait du bon travail.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the good work done by the Royal Society of Canada. We have read its report, which is approximately 500 pages long, and we completely agree that, with the expansion of the oil sands, we must protect the environment. It is our government that eliminated the subsidies that the Liberal Party had been granting for a number of years. Our Minister of Finance has done a great job once again.
Brunelle asks why the Conservative government does not invest more in renewable energy development instead of subsidizing profitable oil companies, citing that Canada invests 14 times less per capita in renewables than the United States.
Brunelle cites a specific comparative statistic â Canada investing 14 times less per capita in renewable energy than the United States â and asks a clear policy question about redirecting subsidies.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si l'on tient compte de la population, le Canada a investi 14 fois moins d'argent dans les énergies renouvelables que le gouvernement américain. PlutÎt que de subventionner à coups de milliards de dollars les pétroliÚres qui nagent dans les profits, pourquoi le gouvernement conservateur n'investit pas plus afin de développer les énergies renouvelables, ce qui permettrait de s'affranchir éventuellement de notre dépendance au pétrole?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, per capita, the American government has invested 14 times more in renewable energy than Canada. Rather than providing billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil companies, which are turning profits hand over fist, why does the Conservative government not invest more in the development of renewable energies that would eventually free us from our dependence on oil?
Baird highlights that Canada's electricity generation is very green and mostly renewable, notes Quebec's use of green energy, mentions attending a UN meeting to support provincial efforts, and says his party respects provincial jurisdiction over energy.
Baird does not address the per capita renewable energy investment comparison or the subsidy question, instead pointing to Canada's green electricity grid, Quebec hydro, and a UN meeting.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au Canada, la gĂ©nĂ©ration d'Ă©lectricitĂ© est trĂšs verte et cette Ă©nergie est l'une des plus renouvelables au monde. Au QuĂ©bec, la grande majoritĂ© de l'Ă©nergie provient de l'Ă©nergie verte. La semaine derniĂšre, j'ai participĂ© Ă une rĂ©union des Nations Unies oĂč j'ai appuyĂ© fortement les efforts du QuĂ©bec et des provinces, car l'Ă©nergie est de compĂ©tence provinciale. Notre parti respecte les compĂ©tences provinciales. J'espĂšre que le dĂ©putĂ© du Bloc va suivre notre exemple.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, electricity generation in Canada is very green and this energy is one of the most renewable in the world. In Quebec, most of the energy is green energy. Last week, I attended a United Nations meeting where I strongly supported the efforts of Quebec and other provinces, since energy falls under provincial jurisdiction. Our party respects that provincial jurisdiction. I hope that the Bloc member will follow our example.
Scarpaleggia asks why CMHC refuses mortgage guarantees for seniors' housing with fewer than 50 units and what justifies this arbitrary threshold.
Scarpaleggia identifies a specific CMHC policy â the 50-unit minimum threshold for mortgage guarantees on seniors' housing â and asks for the rationale behind it, making it a reasonably targeted question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is an urgent need in communities across this country for quality seniors' housing, yet Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is an obstacle to this necessary real estate market adjustment because it refuses mortgage guarantees to seniors' housing that has fewer than 50 units. Why 50? What is so magical about that number? Why this arbitrary threshold on the part of this inflexible and short-sighted Conservative government?
Finley says CMHC is world-renowned for providing stability during the global recession and that its policies are designed to prevent speculation and a housing bubble.
Finley does not address the 50-unit threshold or its rationale, instead offering broad praise for CMHC's stability role during the global recession.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, CMHC is world renowned for the stability it has provided to our economy throughout the global recession. In fact, it is the envy of the world when it comes to that. Part of that process is making sure that we have policies in place that prevent speculation, that will prevent a housing bubble, whether it is in the residential area or in the commercial market. That is what CMHC is doing. It is protecting Canadians and the Canadian economy.
Scarpaleggia asks why smaller seniors' residences, which Quebec is ready to partner with for intermediate health care, do not merit CMHC support from this government.
Scarpaleggia strengthens the question by noting Quebec's readiness to contract with smaller residences for intermediate health care, providing policy context, though the ask remains somewhat broad.
Source text
You are right, Mr. Speaker. This is not answer period. Ces rĂ©sidences conviennent parfaitement au gouvernement du QuĂ©bec. QuĂ©bec est prĂȘt Ă signer des accords de sous-traitance avec ces plus petites rĂ©sidences pour offrir des soins de santĂ© intermĂ©diaires aux rĂ©sidents et libĂ©rer les salles d'attente dans les hĂŽpitaux. Pourquoi ces plus petites rĂ©sidences ne mĂ©ritent-elles pas l'appui de ce gouvernement conservateur? Croit-il que seules les grandes rĂ©sidences appartenant parfois Ă des entreprises anonymes sont en mesure d'offrir de bons soins?
Hansard translation: Vous avez raison, monsieur le Président, ce n'est pas une période de réponses. These residences are perfectly acceptable to the Government of Quebec. Quebec is prepared to sign sub-contracting agreements with these smaller residences to offer intermediate health care to residents and free up hospital waiting rooms. Why do these smaller residences not deserve the support of this Conservative government? Does it think that only large residences, sometimes belonging to anonymous corporations, are better able to provide good care?
Baird says the government is concerned about infrastructure needs and seniors' contributions, and claims no other government has done more to support seniors, citing the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.
Baird does not address the CMHC threshold, the Quebec sub-contracting arrangements, or seniors' housing at all, offering only a generic statement that the government has done more for seniors than any other.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously we are concerned about the infrastructure needs and the important contribution that seniors have made to our community. We believe that more can be done. That is why we have taken a good number of efforts and measures. No other government has done more to support seniors than this government, particularly the efforts of the Minister of Finance and particularly the efforts of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.
Rota asks why the Prime Minister is allowing the Minister of Industry to cut Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre funding days after the Minister of Public Safety publicly praised it as critical to fighting fraud that costs Canadians $30 billion annually.
Rota cites a specific cost figure ($30 billion annually), a specific date (November 10), a direct ministerial quote, and identifies a contradiction between two ministers' actions, making it a well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, fraud costs Canadians $30 billion annually, hitting seniors the hardest. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police recognizes the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre as critical of the fight on fraud. On November 10, the Minister of Public Safety commended the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, stating, âFraud has a devastating impact on individuals, families, businesses and damages Canada's economic integrityâ. Days later, the Minister of Industry cut the funding. Why is the Prime Minister allowing his ministers' egos to get in the way of protecting seniors?
Toews says the government works closely with law enforcement and provinces, and has increased resources available to police and will ensure they have appropriate legislative tools.
Toews does not address the cut to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre's funding or the contradiction between his own statement and the Industry Minister's action, instead speaking generically about increased police resources.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is of course working very closely with law enforcement officials across the country and with the provinces. Under our government, we have increased resources available to the police and we intend to ensure that they also have the appropriate tools in respect of legislation to ensure that individuals who are in fact breaking the law are punished.
Rota asks why the Minister of Industry ignored the Minister of Public Safety's recommendations by cutting funding to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre as identity theft and mass marketing fraud increase.
Rota asks specifically why the Minister of Industry chose to ignore the Minister of Public Safety's recommendations when cutting Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre funding amid rising fraud complexity.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, alors que le vol d'identitĂ© et les fraudes pour marketing de masse ne cessent d'augmenter en nombre et en complexitĂ©, le financement du Centre d'appel antifraude du Canada a Ă©tĂ© coupĂ© par le ministre de lâIndustrie. Ainsi, il y a de plus en plus de Canadiens ne pouvant pas obtenir l'aide dont ils ont besoin. Pourquoi le ministre de lâIndustrie a-t-il choisi d'ignorer les recommandations du ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, cases of identity theft and mass marketing fraud are increasing in number and complexity, but funding for the Canadian anti-fraud call centre has been cut by the Minister of Industry. This means that more and more Canadians cannot get the help they need. Why did the Minister of Industry choose to ignore the recommendations of the Minister of Public Safety?
Toews attacks the Liberal Party for opposing legislation that holds criminals accountable, specifically citing filibustering of pardon legislation at committee.
Toews completely ignores the question about the funding cut and the inter-ministerial contradiction, instead attacking the Liberals for opposing pardon legislation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is quite amazing that the party opposite continually stands in the House to object to legislation that in fact holds criminals accountable. For example, we have bills before committee in respect to the pardon legislation, and who is filibustering and stopping it? The Liberal Party and the coalition partners. If they were truly serious about fighting crime, they would support the legislation that we have before the House and hold criminals accountable.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Senate passed our bill to eliminate pension entitlements for prisoners. Our Conservative government stands beside victims and law-abiding Canadians in supporting this important reform, but we know much more needs to be done. We have introduced legislation to get tough on crime, but thanks to the Liberal-led coalition, victims continue to wait. Can the Minister of Public Safety update the House on the proposed pardon reforms that would put the rights of victims over the rights of criminals?
Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome the member, and I am happy that the people of Vaughan will be represented by a member who, unlike the Liberal-led coalition, knows what it really means to get tough on crime. We introduced a bill that would deny child sex offenders the right to ever receive a pardon. The member for AjaxâPickering says he supports the bill. Yet so far all he has done is stall its progress and advocate on behalf of who? Criminals. Again I call on the opposition to stop playing politics with victims and support our pardons reforms.
Mulcair asks whether the government will ask Brian Mulroney to repay the $2 million paid to him under false representations, given that the Minister of Justice had promised to read the Oliphant Commission report before deciding.
Mulcair references the Oliphant Commission report, the $2 million payment to Brian Mulroney, and the Minister of Justice's prior public commitment to read the report before deciding, making it a specific accountability question with a yes/no ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, lorsque la Commission d'enquĂȘte Oliphant a publiĂ© son rapport, les Canadiens ont appris que l'ancien premier ministre conservateur, Brian Mulroney, avait bel et bien entretenu une relation avec le lobbyiste Karlheinz Schreiber, contrairement Ă ce que M. Mulroney avait prĂ©tendu. Le ministre de la Justice nous a alors demandĂ© d'ĂȘtre patients, nous disant qu'il avait besoin de lire le rapport avant de pouvoir nous dire s'il allait rĂ©clamer Ă M. Mulroney le remboursement des 2 millions de dollars que le gouvernement lui avait payĂ©s. Il a eu le temps de le lire. Le gouvernement va-t-il demander Ă Brian Mulroney de rembourser les millions de dollars qu'il s'est fait payer sous de fausses reprĂ©sentations, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when the Oliphant commission of inquiry published its report, Canadians learned that former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney did have a relationship with lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber, contrary to what Mr. Mulroney had claimed. The Minister of Justice asked us to be patient, saying that he needed to be able to read the report before he could tell us whether he would ask Mr. Mulroney to reimburse the $2 million that the government had paid him. He has had time to read the report. Will the government ask Brian Mulroney to reimburse the millions of dollars he was paid under false pretences, or will it not?
Nicholson says the government reads all reports presented to Parliament and expresses disappointment that the NDP opposed the faint hope bill the previous day.
Nicholson does not address whether the government will seek repayment from Brian Mulroney, instead attacking the NDP for opposing faint hope legislation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike the NDP, we read all the reports that are presented to Parliament. I have to tell the House that many of those reports are in support of the legislation that we have before Parliament. I want to tell the member how disappointed I was yesterday when we brought in the bill on faint hope that would reduce victimization in Canada, and the NDP members were the first ones on their feet applauding opposing that. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Mulcair asks when the Conservative government will close the revolving door of lobbyist access, citing examples of big tobacco, big oil, and credit card companies gaining government access.
Mulcair's question is largely a rhetorical speech listing lobbyist access examples rather than a specific accountability ask, though it concludes with a question about closing the revolving door.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, like everything else, the Conservatives are all talk and no action when it comes to victims. Canadians are the victims here. They lost their two million bucks. The Conservatives are following in Liberal footsteps and they have thrown open the doors of the government to lobbyists: âAre you from big tobacco here to shut down tough new labelling laws? Come on in, the health minister will see you right nowâ; âAre you from big oil and don't want to pay your environmental costs? No problem. We've got an environment minister that's all yoursâ; âAre you from a credit card company that wants another billion dollar handout while fleecing Canadians? The Minister of Finance is in your pocketâ. Canadians are saying enough is enough. When will Conservatives finally close the lobbyists' revolving door access to our government?
Day says this government brought in the Federal Accountability Act, the Lobbying Act, and provisions requiring lobbyists to report, all in response to Liberal scandals, and asks where $40 million that disappeared went.
Day deflects by listing the Federal Accountability Act and the Lobbying Act as government achievements, and counters by asking about $40 million from the Liberal scandal rather than addressing lobbyist access.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it was this government that brought in the Federal Accountability Act, in fact to deal with a Liberal scandal. It was this government that brought in the Lobbying Act. It was this government that brought in the provisions to require lobbyists to report. It is this government that has taken this initiative. We will continue to do that. We remind people that it was done in the light of the Liberal leadership scandal. I echo the question from my friend from Medicine Hat. Where is that $40 million that disappeared?
Gagnon asks whether the Minister of National Defence will publicly release the water system analysis documents for the Valcartier military base required by the House motion before the class action trial begins in January 2011.
Gagnon cites a specific House motion of November 25, a specific trial date of January 2011, and a prior ministerial commitment, and asks for a concrete commitment to release specific documents before that trial.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le 25 novembre, à la suite de la motion adoptée par la majorité de la Chambre donnant ordre de produire les rapports d'analyse du systÚme d'aqueduc de la base militaire de Valcartier depuis 1970, le ministre de la Défense m'a promis qu'il rendrait les documents publics. Nonobstant les documents reçus la semaine derniÚre, qui ne correspondent en rien à ceux exigés dans la motion, le ministre peut-il s'engager à rendre publics les documents exigés par la Chambre avant le procÚs qui débutera en janvier 2011, comme le réclament les avocats du recours collectif des victimes de l'eau contaminée à Shannon?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on November 25, after a motion was adopted by the majority of the House ordering that reports on the analysis of the Valcartier base water supply system dating back to 1970 be produced, the Minister of Defence promised me that he would make these documents publics. Notwithstanding the documents received last week, which have nothing to do with those mentioned in the motion, can the minister commit to making public the documents requested by the House before the trial beings in January 2011, as is being called for by the lawyers in the class action suit by the victims of contaminated water in Shannon?
MacKay says the matter before the courts complicates the issue significantly, but that per the parliamentary motion the documents will be properly examined and released in due course.
MacKay acknowledges the parliamentary motion and says documents will be examined and released in due course, but does not commit to the specific pre-January 2011 trial deadline requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member has partly answered her own question. Because the matter is before the courts, this complicates the issue significantly. However, as per the parliamentary motion, these documents will be properly examined and released in due course.
Gagnon asks whether the Minister of Transport will go further than writing a letter to the board of directors and personally ensure that the Canada Marine Act and the Port of Quebec's code of ethics are respected regarding the controversial CEO appointment.
Gagnon asks a specific question about whether the minister will go beyond writing a letter to personally ensure the Canada Marine Act and the Port of Quebec's code of ethics are respected, referencing the previous day's answer.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, le ministre des Transports nous a répondu que le port de Québec est une institution indépendante, laissant entendre qu'il n'a pas l'intention de prendre ses responsabilités dans le dossier de la controversée nomination du PDG du port de Québec. Le ministre ira-t-il plus loin que d'écrire une simple lettre au conseil d'administration, et veillera-t-il personnellement à ce que la loi maritime et le code de déontologie de l'Administration portuaire de Québec soient respectés?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport told us that the Quebec City port authority is an arm's-length body, implying that he has no intention of shouldering his responsibilities in terms of the controversial appointment of the Quebec City port authority's CEO. Will the minister do more than just write a letter to the board of directors, and will he personally ensure that the Canada Marine Act and the Quebec City port authority's code of conduct are followed?
Baird says the government respects the role and independence of the courts, and that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities will table annual reports in Parliament and continue to ensure the Canadian economy and the Port of Quebec are well served.
Baird does not address the Port of Quebec nomination controversy, the letter, or the Canada Marine Act, instead speaking generically about respect for court independence and the annual ministerial report.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously the government respects the role the courts play in Canada. We respect their independence and we respect the right of them to take decisions as they deem appropriate. Obviously once a year theMinister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities will table reports in this place and will continue to ensure that the Canadian economy and the port of Quebec are well served.
Bennett asks when the government will restore the mandatory long form census, arguing the 2011 census will cost up to $660 million â nearly $100 million more than 2006 â for less reliable information.
Bennett cites specific cost figures ($660 million vs. approximately $100 million less for 2006) to argue the government is paying more for less reliable data, and asks a clear question about restoring the mandatory long form census.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the total cost of the 2011 census could reach $660 million. We know that the 2006 census cost almost $100 million less than that. What does that mean? Millions of dollars more for less reliable information. The government is paying Cadillac prices for a used Chevy Pinto without an engine. When will the government do the right thing and restore the mandatory long form census?
Clement confirms Statistics Canada and the Government of Canada will spend $660 million on the 2011 census and says the government wants to ensure that money is spent wisely for a successful census and national household survey.
Clement confirms the $660 million figure and acknowledges it is a good deal of taxpayers' money requiring wise spending, but does not address the mandatory long form census restoration ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can join me at the next auto show, and maybe that will help her learn about the auto sector. In serious response to her question, I believe that Statistics Canada and the Government of Canada more importantly will be spending $660 million on the 2011 census. That is a good deal of money. It is taxpayers' money. We want to make sure it is spent wisely and it in fact leads to a successful census and a national household survey, as well.
Bennett asks whether the government will stop fearmongering about census privacy, noting that outreach budgets have been slashed, and restore the mandatory long form census.
Bennett raises a specific concern about budget reallocation undermining census participation and fearmongering about privacy, and asks the government to restore the mandatory long form census, though the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, experts have expressed serious concern that the government's incessant fearmongering on the long form census will have disastrous effects on Canadians being willing to fill out the short form census. Now we learn that the government has slashed and reallocated that very budget to persuade Canadians to participate in the census. Will the government stop misleading Canadians about the privacy of the census data, start telling the truth and restore the mandatory long form census?
Clement says there is a $15 million fund to help Canadians understand the importance of filling out the mandatory census, that the Chief Statistician agrees this is adequate, and that there is a whole outreach strategy for the national household survey as well.
Clement provides a specific figure ($15 million outreach fund), mentions his discussions with StatsCan, and says the Chief Statistician agrees it is adequate for messaging about the mandatory short form census and the national household survey outreach strategy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House that I have had discussions with StatsCan. There is a $15 million fund that will help Canadians learn why it is important to fill out the mandatory census. The Chief Statistician and I agree that that is an adequate amount to get the message out on how important it is to fill out the mandatory short form census. In fact, we have a whole outreach strategy for the national household survey as well.
Godin asked whether the Conservative government prefers giving money to banks and big oil companies rather than helping workers who have lost their jobs, in the context of the 840-hour pilot project ending on December 5.
The question references a specific pilot project (840 heures) and its end date but frames the ask as a rhetorical either/or between helping banks versus workers rather than a precise, answerable question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le projet pilote sur les 840 heures s'est terminé le 5 décembre. Quand j'ai posé la question à la ministre des Ressources humaines et du Développement des compétences, elle a répondu que le projet pilote des 840 heures coûtait trop cher et que ce n'était pas un bon projet. S'il coûtait si cher que cela, c'est parce que des travailleurs et des travailleuses l'utilisaient. Au lieu de cela, la ministre ou le gouvernement conservateur aiment mieux accorder des baisses d'impÎt aux banques et aux grosses pétroliÚres. Ma question s'adresse à la ministre. Est-ce que son gouvernement conservateur aime mieux donner de l'argent aux banques et aux grosses pétroliÚres ou aider les travailleurs qui ont perdu leur emploi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the pilot project for qualification after 840 hours ended on December 5. When I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development about it, she replied that the pilot project was too expensive and that it was not a good program. It was expensive because workers were using it. Instead of this program, the minister and the Conservative government would rather give tax cuts to the banks and big oil companies. My question is for the minister. Would her government rather give money to the banks and big oil companies, or help workers who have lost their jobs?
Finley said the pilot project did not achieve its objectives, was very costly, and that the government has a responsibility to spend taxpayers' money well, adding the program should have helped unemployed workers obtain training for future jobs.
Finley addresses why the pilot project ended (it did not meet its objectives and was costly) but does not engage with the comparison to corporate tax cuts and gives only a vague statement about what the program should have done.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le projet pilote dont parle de député servait à tester des idées. Il n'a pas bien fonctionné. En fait, il n'a pas atteint ses objectifs et il coûtait trÚs cher. Nous avons la responsabilité de bien dépenser l'argent des contribuables, et ce programme ne faisait pas cela. Il aurait dû nous appuyer en aidant les chÎmeurs à atteindre la formation nécessaire pour obtenir les emplois du futur.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the pilot project the member is referring to was meant to test some ideas. It did not really work out. It did not achieve its objectives and was very costly. It is our responsibility to spend taxpayers' money wisely, and this program was not doing that. The member should have supported us in helping unemployed workers get the training they need to get the jobs of the future.
Atamanenko asked the minister to put an end to Canada Post's policy of cutting hours for part-time rural workers, citing a constituent whose hours were reduced from seven to three hours per week and salary from $560 to $220 per month.
Atamanenko provides concrete details â 60 part-time workers, a specific constituent's hours cut from seven hours per week to three hours, salary cut from $560 to $220 per month â and asks the minister to end a specific policy, making it reasonably grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we see where the priorities of the government are. Canada Post continues to wreak havoc in our rural B.C. communities. Sixty part-time workers will have their hours cut. The notice went out as a Christmas present. A woman in my riding who is barely making ends meet will have her hours cut back from seven hours per week to three hours. Her $560 monthly salary is now cut back to $220 per month. What a slap in the face to our rural communities. At the same time Canada Post is making huge profits and is mandated to turn over part of these profits to the federal government. Will the minister finally put an end to this ruthless and ridiculous policyâ
Merrifield stated that under the collective agreement no Canada Post employees can be terminated, and that the government has invested in and allowed Canada Post to borrow to revitalize and sustain the postal system.
Merrifield does not address the specific cuts to part-time workers' hours or the constituent's situation, instead noting the collective agreement and the government's investment in Canada Post, deflecting from the actual question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me help my hon. colleague with some information. With regard to Canada Post, there is a very solid collective agreement. There are no Canada Post employees who can actually be terminated under their contract. When it comes to revitalization of Canada Post for the future, we are very proud of our government that has invested in and allowed Canada Post to be able to borrow, to be able to revitalize and sustain the best postal system in the world as it moves forward.
McLeod asked the Minister of HRSDC to update the House on the status of Bill C-31, the Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act, which would stop prisoners from receiving tax-funded old age security benefits.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to update the House on Bill C-31, a bill the government itself introduced, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is putting an end to the wrong and unfair practice of prisoners receiving tax-funded old age security benefits through Bill C-31, Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act. Prisoners already have their basic needs met at the expense of taxpayers. Canadians should not be paying for these criminals twice. Could the Minister of HRSDC please update this House as to the status of our bill to take these benefits away from prisoners?
Finley announced that Bill C-31 is scheduled to receive royal assent that day and that as of January 1, prisoners like Clifford Olson serving time in federal prison will no longer receive taxpayer-funded old age security and GIS benefits.
Finley directly answers the question by announcing that Bill C-31, Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act, is scheduled to receive royal assent the same day and specifying that as of January 1 prisoners such as Clifford Olson will no longer receive old age security and GIS benefits.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to announce that Bill C-31, Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act is scheduled to receive royal assent today. This means that as of January 1, criminals like Clifford Olson who are serving time in a federal prison will no longer receive taxpayer-funded old age security and GIS benefits. This is just another example of how our Conservative government is putting victims first, not criminals.
Wilfert asked whether the government is prepared to take concrete action to save the life of Canadian resident Saeed Malekpour, who has been held in Iran's Evin prison, allegedly tortured into confessing, and sentenced to death, while the government has done nothing for two years.
Wilfert identifies a named individual (Saeed Malekpour), a specific prison (Evin prison), a specific situation (death sentence after torture-induced confession), and a two-year timeline of alleged government inaction, making it well-grounded, though the final ask is broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for two years this government has done nothing while Canadian resident, Saeed Malekpour, has languished in Iran's notorious Evin prison. It did nothing when he was kidnapped and thrown into jail, nothing when he was forced to confess under torture, and nothing when he was sentenced to death. The Prime Minister's Office and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have voiced concerns about other detainees who have done nothing in terms of connections to this country, while Mr. Malekpour has received barely a passing mention by the parliamentary secretary. Is this government actually prepared to do anything to save the life of Mr. Malekpour?
Obhrai said the government remains deeply concerned about Iran's disregard for human rights and cited Canada's leadership on the UN General Assembly resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran adopted for the eighth consecutive year, but made no specific reference to Malekpour.
Obhrai expresses concern and references Canada's leadership on a UN General Assembly resolution on human rights in Iran for the eighth consecutive year, but does not address any specific action taken or planned for Saeed Malekpour's case.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government remains deeply concerned by the continued flagrant disregard by the Iranian authorities for the rights of Iranians. This appears to be another case in which someone in Iran is facing a death sentence after a highly questionable process. Canada, with the international community, is striving to hold Iran accountable for such human rights violations. This includes Canada's leadership on the resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran that was recently adopted in the third committee of the UN General Assembly for the eighth consecutive year.
Beaudin asked how the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development can justify cutting $10 million from the Emplois d'été Canada budget for 2011, given a Statistics Canada study showing students' employment rate fell 7% during the recession, the largest drop since 1982.
Beaudin cites a specific recent Statistics Canada study, a specific statistic (7% drop in employment rate among students, the largest since 1982), and asks about a specific $10-million cut to the Emplois d'été Canada budget for 2011, making it well-grounded and pointed.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, une étude récente de Statistique Canada vient confirmer que ce sont les jeunes travailleurs qui ont subi les pires contrecoups de la crise économique, particuliÚrement les étudiants, dont le taux d'emploi pendant l'été a chuté de 7 p. 100 durant la derniÚre récession, soit la plus importante diminution depuis 1982. Dans ce contexte, comment la ministre des Ressources humaines et du Développement des compétences peut-elle amputer de 10 millions de dollars le budget du programme Emplois d'été Canada de 2011?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a recent Statistics Canada study confirms that young workers were the hardest hit by the economic crisis, especially students, whose summer employment rate dropped 7% during the most recent recession. This is the biggest drop since 1982. In light of these findings, how can the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development slash $10 million from the budget for the 2011 Canada summer jobs program?
Finley said youth unemployment is taken seriously despite being lower than in other countries, referencing $10 million per year added and 3,500 jobs created each summer under the economic action plan, and criticized the Bloc for not supporting those efforts.
Finley does not address the $10-million cut to Emplois d'été Canada at all; she instead references adding $10 million per year and creating 3,500 summer jobs under the Plan d'action économique, and criticizes the Bloc for not supporting those efforts.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, malgré le fait que le taux de chÎmage chez nos jeunes est beaucoup moins élevé que celui des autres pays, nous le prenons trÚs au sérieux. C'est pourquoi nous avons introduit et élargi plusieurs programmes dans notre Plan d'action économique pour aider les jeunes. Par exemple, nous avons ajouté 10 millions de dollars par année pour aider les jeunes et créé 3 500 emplois chaque été. Il est dommage que le Bloc québécois n'ait pas appuyé cet effort de notre part.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, although our youth unemployment rate is much lower than in other countries, we take it very seriously. That is why we introduced and expanded a number of programs in our economic action plan to help young people. For example, we added $10 million a year to help young people and create 3,500 jobs each summer. It is too bad the Bloc Québécois did not support our efforts.
Ashton asked when the federal government will act decisively to end the third world living conditions facing Canada's aboriginal people, citing high rates of diabetes, fatal flu outbreaks, and tuberculosis rates in Nunavut 62 times the national average, following a visit by the Grand Chief of the MKO.
Ashton references a specific visit by the Grand Chief of the MKO and cites a concrete statistic (tuberculosis rates in Nunavut 62 times the national average), but the ask â 'act decisively' â is broad and vague rather than tied to a specific policy or commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today the Grand Chief of the MKO representing northern Manitoba first nations brought a message to Ottawa that it is high time we tackled the underlying causes behind the third world diseases that aboriginal people face in Canada, such as the high rates of diabetes, another fatal flu outbreak, and the shocking rates of tuberculosis which in Nunavut are 62 times the national average. When is the federal government going to act decisively to put an end to the third world living conditions facing Canada's aboriginal people?
Aglukkaq cited $285 million committed to federal aboriginal health programs, including $9.6 million for the TB elimination strategy, $110 million for the aboriginal diabetes initiative, $95 million for the aboriginal youth suicide prevention strategy, and funding for child and maternal health.
Aglukkaq provides specific funding figures ($285 million total, TB elimination strategy $9.6 million, aboriginal diabetes initiative $110 million, aboriginal youth suicide prevention strategy $95 million) directly relevant to the health conditions raised, though she does not address the MKO Grand Chief's visit or third world living conditions specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as former health minister of the north, I understand the impact of the geographic location as well as the unique culture of aboriginals in our communities that require specific health care considerations. That is why our government has committed $285 million to federal aboriginal health programs. This funding will assist over 150 community-based projects such as: the TB elimination strategy, $9.6 million; the aboriginal diabetes initiative, $110 million; the aboriginal youth suicide prevention strategy, $95 million; and child and maternal health. We are getting the job done.
Sopuck asked the Minister of State for Transport to tell the House about the program in place to help families and friends of soldiers serving in Afghanistan stay connected during the holiday season.
This is a government-backbench softball that is essentially a tribute to Canadian Forces with a vague ask about a program for families to stay connected with troops, containing no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every day our Canadian Forces work to make the world a safer place. In the face of danger and away from their families, friends and loved ones, these brave men and women are examples of all the good things Canadians are capable of. Our largest overseas deployment is serving in Afghanistan and this winter they will be celebrating the holidays without the comforts of home. Would the Minister of State for Transport please tell the House about the program in place to help the families and friends of these soldiers stay connected with our troops during the holiday season?
Merrifield announced that Canada Post is allowing free parcel delivery for the fifth consecutive year for the friends, family, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast to send packages to troops overseas.
Merrifield provides a concrete, specific answer â Canada Post is allowing free parcel delivery for troops overseas for the fifth consecutive year â which is genuinely informative even if the question was a setup.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I welcome my hon. colleague to the House with his first great question. It is truly amazing what our troops do overseas every day of the year for us, especially at the holiday season. They have chosen to leave the comforts of home and country to do the outstanding work that we are very proud of every day. It is a great pleasure for me to inform the House that Canada Post is allowing, for the fifth consecutive year, free parcel delivery for the friends, family and Canadians from coast to coast to coast to our troops overseas. We welcome everybody to exercise this right.