Session overview
- The dominant theme was ministerial accountability in the KAIROS affair, with opposition leaders pressing the Prime Minister to fire the Minister of International Cooperation for allegedly doctoring documents and misleading the House; the government defended the minister by asserting that elected ministers have the right to override officials' recommendations.
- The Bloc Québécois tabled a verbal note from the Tunisian ambassador dated January 24, 2011 requesting Canada freeze the assets of the Ben Ali family, directly contradicting the Minister of Foreign Affairs' earlier claim that no such request had been received.
- The Parliamentary Budget Officer's criticism of government secrecy over spending reduction plans and the costs of corporate tax cuts and justice bills was raised by both the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals, with the government offering no substantive disclosure.
- The Prime Minister announced that His Royal Highness Prince William and Ms. Catherine Middleton will make Canada their first official tour as a couple following their April royal wedding.
- The House gave unanimous consent for a take-note debate on the alarming deterioration of the human rights situation in Iran.
- Questions about CBSA border office closures and reduced hours at crossings in Quebec and Windsor drew specific responses from the Minister of Public Safety citing low traveller volumes and proximity of alternative ports of entry.
The Minister of Public Safety confirmed on the record that Fort Erie, Ontario had been chosen as the location for the new CBSA regional headquarters office for southern Ontario, providing a concrete and specific commitment about a disputed administrative decision.
Dorion cites a specific document â a verbal note from the Tunisian ambassador dated January 24, 2011 â that directly contradicts the Foreign Affairs Minister's stated position, and asks a clear and precise question about how the minister could have said he received no request.
When asked why the government was withholding documents from Parliament about the costs of corporate tax cuts and justice bills â a question directly about fiscal transparency â Poilievre responded entirely by attacking the Liberal tax position and referencing Catherine Swift of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, addressing nothing in the question.
Outstanding questions
- Bob Rae asked the Minister of International Cooperation directly what conversations she had with the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or the Prime Minister's Office that led her to conclude KAIROS was linked to anti-Semitism â John Baird did not address the substance of the question at all.
- Jean Dorion asked whether the government would take immediate provisional measures to freeze the Ben Ali family's assets before they could be transferred to tax havens â Rob Nicholson gave only a vague commitment to continue working with Tunisian officials without specifying any action or timeline.
- John McKay asked what specific Conservative government policy KAIROS and the Christian churches offended after being approved for the CIDA grant â John Baird deflected to committee testimony about who made the decision and never identified any policy basis for the denial.
- Daniel PaillĂ© asked the government to publicly release its spending reduction plan broken down by department, as was done in 2005 and 2006 â Stockwell Day offered only to personally field calls from the Parliamentary Budget Officer rather than committing to any public disclosure.
- Jean-Claude D'Amours asked directly and specifically whether the government planned to close the Morses Line, East Pinnacle, and Glen Sutton border posts â Vic Toews responded with general statistics about other crossings and never answered yes or no about those three named posts.
Ignatieff asks when the Prime Minister will fire the Minister of International Cooperation for allegedly doctoring documents and misleading the House.
The question is largely rhetorical, paraphrasing the Prime Minister's position as indifference and demanding the minister be fired, with no citation of specific documents or a precise accountable fact.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Prime Minister basically said, âI don't care whether my minister doctored documents. I don't care whether she misled the House. I don't care whether she told the truth. I just don't careâ. This kind of disrespect for democracy just has to stop. When will the Prime Minister start showing respect for the House, respect for the people who put us here and fire that minister?
Harper rejects the question's premise and argues that in a democracy elected ministers, not unelected officials, make decisions on how to spend taxpayer money.
Harper rejects the premise and offers a brief principled defence of ministerial decision-making authority but does not address the specific allegations of doctored documents or misleading the House.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of that question. The minister took a decision. The minister made clear that the decision was contrary to recommendations she received from unelected officials. In a democracy it is the elected officials who make decisions on how to spend taxpayer money.
Ignatieff repeats his demand that the Prime Minister ask for the minister's resignation, framing it as a question of respect for democracy.
This is a repetition of the previous question framed almost entirely in terms of democratic respect, with no new facts or documents cited.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la prémisse de la question, c'est le respect de la démocratie. Qu'est-ce que le premier ministre ne peut pas comprendre? Alors, je répÚte. Le manque de respect de ce premier ministre pour cette question montre ses valeurs, son manque de respect pour la démocratie, son manque de respect pour cette Chambre et son manque de respect pour les citoyens. Quand va-t-il demander la démission de cette ministre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question has to do with respect for democracy. What part does the Prime Minister not understand? I will say it again. The Prime Minister's disrespect regarding this issue illustrates his values, his disrespect for democracy, his disrespect for this House and his disrespect for Canadians. When will he call for the minister's resignation?
Harper reiterates that the minister took a decision contrary to her officials' advice and that elected ministers make decisions in a democracy.
Harper again restates that the minister made a decision contrary to her officials' advice and that elected ministers make decisions in a democracy, without addressing the misleading-the-House allegation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, la réalité est que la ministre a pris une décision qui était contraire au conseil de ses fonctionnaires. Dans une démocratie, ce sont les ministres élus qui prennent des décisions. C'est cela, la démocratie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, the reality is that the minister took a decision that was contrary to the recommendations of her officials. In a democracy, the elected ministers are the ones who make decisions. That is what democracy means.
Ignatieff accuses the Prime Minister of condoning a minister who deceived the House and falsified a document, and demands he fire her.
The question introduces the allegations of deceiving the House and falsifying a document but frames them within a rhetorical 'fish rots from the head' analogy and again asks only for the minister's firing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, they say a fish rots from the head and the rot has stopped at the top. We have a Prime Minister who lets a minister deceive the House of Commons, falsify a document and instead of reprimanding or dismissing her, gets up in the House and actually applauds her. This is bad for Canadian democracy. When will he stand up, take his responsibilities and fire that minister?
Harper defends the minister's decision and argues taxpayer foreign aid dollars should serve foreign aid purposes, not be entitlements to Canadian organizations.
Harper defends the minister's decision-making on foreign aid principles and notes her testimony was clear, but does not address the specific allegation of document falsification.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, so much for raising the tone of debate around here. The fact is the minister took a decision. She has been clear about that. It has been clear in the House. It was clear before committee. In terms of the use of taxpayer money, we want to ensure that foreign aid dollars are used for foreign aid. They are not entitlements to Canadian organizations. They are not decisions made by officials. They are decisions made by elected ministers, and the minister has made the correct decision.
Coderre compares the current minister's alleged document falsification to a prior incident involving a minister who left classified documents at a girlfriend's home, and asks why the current minister is still in cabinet.
Coderre draws a pointed comparison to a prior incident involving cabinet documents, names a specific allegation of document tampering, and asks a two-part question about why the minister remains in cabinet.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'adresse ma question au premier ministre. Qu'est-ce qui est plus grave: un ministre qui a oubliĂ© des documents du Cabinet chez sa petite amie du moment ou bien une ministre qui trafique et falsifie des documents ministĂ©riels et qui induit sciemment la Chambre en erreur? Le premier ministre n'a pas hĂ©sitĂ© Ă dĂ©truire la carriĂšre politique de la dĂ©putĂ©e de SimcoeâGrey sur de fausses allĂ©gations. On parle de faits, maintenant. Pourquoi cette ministre siĂšge-t-elle encore au Cabinet? Est-ce parce qu'il lui a demandĂ© de le faire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. What is worse: a minister who leaves some cabinet documents at his flavour-of-the-month girlfriend's house, or a minister who doctors and falsifies ministerial documents and who knowingly misleads the House? The Prime Minister did not hesitate to destroy the political career of the member for SimcoeâGrey based on false allegations. Now we are talking about facts. Why is that minister still in cabinet? Is it because he asked her to do it?
Baird states the minister was always clear that she alone made the decision not to fund the grant to the organization, saying so ten times in committee and in the House.
Baird reiterates the minister's consistency in claiming the decision was hers, made at least ten times in committee, but does not address the comparison Coderre raises or the document falsification allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about facts. The minister in question has always been very clear that she alone had made the decision not to fund the grant to this organization. She said that all along. She said it 10 times in committee and she said it in the House of Commons. The minister made a courageous decision, she made the correct decision and should be applauded.
Coderre invokes the Prime Minister's own ministerial conduct guide requiring ministers to tell the truth in Parliament, and asks when he will dismiss the minister.
The question references the Prime Minister's own guide on ministerial conduct but is wrapped heavily in rhetoric and a literary quotation, making the accountable ask vague.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le pire c'est que c'est ce mĂȘme premier ministre qui a signĂ© un guide donnant des directives Ă ses ministres. Ils sont obligĂ©s de se lever â or elle ne se lĂšve pas â non seulement pour donner l'heure juste, mais aussi pour rĂ©pondre la vĂ©ritĂ© aux questions du Parlement. Or il dĂ©fend cette ministre. Comme si ce n'Ă©tait pas assez, maintenant ce n'est plus sa faute, c'est rendu en plus que c'est le bras mĂ©canique. On n'a pas de poignĂ©e dans le dos! Le grand cinĂ©aste Claude Lelouch a dit: « Le mensonge est une option Ă laquelle tout un chacun a droit, Ă condition de le rembourser un jour. » Ce jour est arrivĂ©. Quand va-t-il se dĂ©barrasser de cette ministre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, even worse, it was this same Prime Minister who wrote a guide that gives specific instructions to his ministers. They are obligated to stand upâyet that minister will not stand upânot only to set the record straight but also to speak the truth when answering parliamentarians' questions. Yet he continues to defend the minister. As if that were not enough, now it is no longer her fault; it was done by a mechanical arm. We are not puppets here. The great filmmaker Claude Lelouch said âLying is an option that anyone can choose, but we always pay for it one day.â That day has arrived. When will he fire the minister?
Baird reaffirms the minister's decision, praises her foreign aid work, and implies that under the Liberals, Canadian NGOs felt entitled to grants every year.
Baird reiterates the minister's decision and pivots to criticizing Liberal-era entitlement culture rather than addressing the guide on ministerial conduct Coderre cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that was certainly a very colourful question from my colleague opposite. The minister has been very clear that she made the decision not to provide a grant to this particular organization. The minister has been very clear that she is the one who is trying to put foreign aid to help the vulnerable in the developing world. She has done an amazing job of doing that. Perhaps in some of the Liberal days Canadian NGOs felt that they were entitled to grants every year. The minister has done an outstanding job as the Minister of International Cooperation.
Duceppe points out that the minister had said her decision was based on her officials' advice, but that CIDA officials in fact recommended the KAIROS grant, and asks how the Prime Minister can continue to endorse a minister who says the opposite of the truth.
Duceppe specifically identifies the contradiction between the minister's claim that her decision was based on officials' advice and the documented fact that CIDA officials recommended the grant to KAIROS, giving the question clear factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement conservateur aime bien se réfugier dans les demi-vérités. Concernant le financement de l'organisme humanitaire KAIROS, le premier ministre nous a répondu que c'était la décision de la ministre de la Coopération internationale. Le problÚme, c'est que la ministre nous a répondu que sa décision était basée sur l'avis de ses fonctionnaires, et cela est faux. Les fonctionnaires de l'ACDI ont recommandé l'octroi de la subvention à KAIROS, et la ministre a renversé la décision. Comment le premier ministre peut-il continuer à cautionner une ministre qui dit le contraire de la vérité?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government likes to hide behind half-truths. With regard to funding for the humanitarian agency, KAIROS, the Prime Minister told us the decision was made by the Minister of International Cooperation. The problem is that the minister told us that her decision was based on the advice of her officials and that is not true. CIDA officials recommended the grant to KAIROS and the minister reversed the decision. How can the Prime Minister continue to stand behind a minister who does not tell the truth?
Harper states the minister has indicated in the House and at committee that she made the decision, and that it was the correct decision.
Harper responds only that the minister has been clear in the House and at committee that it was her decision, without addressing the specific contradiction Duceppe raises about what the minister said her decision was based on.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la ministre a indiqué ici à la Chambre et au comité que c'est elle qui a pris cette décision. C'était la bonne décision.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated here in the House and in committee that she was the one who made the decision. It was the right decision.
Duceppe argues the Prime Minister is himself saying the opposite of the truth, noting the minister had for a year claimed officials recommended her decision, and asks whether it is worthy of a Prime Minister to stand behind a minister who falsified documents.
Duceppe cites a specific pattern of the minister's statements over a year in committee, in the House, and to journalists as evidence of contradictory claims, and names document falsification, though the final ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre nous dit également le contraire de la vérité. Pendant un an, cette ministre nous a dit que les fonctionnaires lui recommandaient de prendre cette décision. Voilà ce qu'elle a dit en comité, voilà ce qu'elle a dit ici, voilà ce qu'elle a dit aux journalistes. Qui plus est, cette ministre a falsifié des documents, et le premier ministre se porte garant de cela. Est-ce digne d'un premier ministre d'agir ainsi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is also telling us the opposite of the truth. For a year, this minister told us that officials recommended that she take this decision. That is what she said in committee, that is what she said here, and that is what she said to journalists. What is more, this minister falsified documents and the Prime Minister condones that. Is it worthy of a Prime Minister to act that way?
Harper says the minister was clear multiple times in her committee testimony that she made the decision, and emphasizes the importance of using taxpayer money effectively for humanitarian aid.
Harper repeats that the minister's committee testimony was clear that she took the decision, and pivots to the importance of using taxpayer money effectively for humanitarian aid, not addressing the document falsification charge.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la ministre a Ă©tĂ© claire Ă plusieurs reprises dans son tĂ©moignage devant le comitĂ©, lorsqu'elle a dit avoir pris la dĂ©cision. Je pense que la ministre a pris la bonne dĂ©cision. Il est essentiel que l'argent des contribuables soit utilisĂ© de façon efficace pour l'aide humanitaire, la santĂ© et le bien-ĂȘtre des plus vulnĂ©rables et des plus pauvres du monde.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the minister was clear several times in her testimony before committee when she said that she was the one who made the decision. I think the minister made the right decision. It is essential for taxpayers' money to be used effectively for humanitarian aid and for the health and well-being of the poorest, most vulnerable people in the world.
Dorion presents a verbal note dated January 24, 2011 from the Tunisian ambassador asking Canadian authorities to freeze the Ben Ali family's assets, and asks how the Foreign Affairs Minister could have told the House he had received no such request.
Dorion cites a specific document â a verbal note from the Tunisian ambassador dated January 24, 2011 â that directly contradicts the Foreign Affairs Minister's stated position, and asks a clear and precise question about how the minister could have said he received no request.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le ministre des Affaires étrangÚres soutient qu'il n'a reçu aucune demande des autorités tunisiennes pour geler les avoirs de Ben Ali. Or nous avons reçu de l'ambassadeur tunisien une note verbale datée du 24 janvier 2011 priant les autorités canadiennes de « prendre les mesures nécessaires aux fins du gel » des avoirs financiers de la famille Ben Ali. Nous déposerons cette note. Devant ces faits, comment le ministre a-t-il pu nous dire qu'il n'a reçu aucune demande du gouvernement tunisien concernent le gel des avoirs de la famille Ben Ali?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs says that he has not received any requests from Tunisian officials to freeze Ben Ali's assets. But we received a verbal note from the Tunisian ambassador dated January 24, 2011, asking Canadian authorities to take the necessary steps to freeze the financial assets of Ben Ali's family. We will table this note. In light of this, how could the minister have told us that he did not receive any requests from the Tunisian government to freeze the assets of Ben Ali's family?
Nicholson says the government is prepared to assist Tunisia in any way it can in accordance with Canadian law and will continue to work with Tunisian officials.
Nicholson does not address the specific verbal note or the contradiction it creates with the minister's prior statement, offering only a general assurance that Canada will assist Tunisia in accordance with its laws.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is prepared to assist the government of Tunisia in any way we can in accordance with our law. We are going to continue to work with Tunisian officials on this issue. Obviously, we all have an interest in making sure that justice is done for the people of Tunisia.
Dorion warns that delays in freezing the Ben Ali family's assets risk allowing them to transfer funds to tax havens, and asks whether the minister recognizes Canada would be complicit in the diversion of assets belonging to the Tunisian people.
Dorion raises a specific and time-sensitive concern about asset flight to tax havens and asks whether the minister recognizes Canada would be complicit in diverting Tunisian public assets by delaying freezing measures.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'ambassadeur craint qu'en tardant Ă geler les avoirs de la famille Ben Ali, le gouvernement ne fasse le jeu de ces experts en Ă©vasion fiscale, qui pourront en toute quiĂ©tude transfĂ©rer leur argent dans des paradis fiscaux. Le ministre est-il conscient que sans des mesures provisoires immĂ©diates pour geler ces avoirs, il se rend complice du dĂ©tournement et du vol de ces biens qui appartiennent au peuple tunisien? Le Canada doit ĂȘtre du cĂŽtĂ© des Tunisiens, pas des criminels.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the ambassador is worried that by not freezing the assets of Ben Ali's family immediately, the government is playing into the hands of these tax evasion experts, who can transfer their money into tax havens with complete peace of mind. Is the minister aware that without immediate interim measures to freeze these assets, he is an accomplice to the misappropriation and theft of these assets, which belong to the Tunisian people? Canada should be supporting Tunisians, not criminals.
Nicholson deflects with a jab at the Bloc and repeats that Canada will continue to work with Tunisian officials to ensure justice is done for the people of Tunisia.
Nicholson opens with a partisan jab at the Bloc and then repeats the same boilerplate assurance about working with Tunisian officials without addressing the asset-flight concern or the complicity question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are certainly not on the side of the Bloc. That being said, we will continue to work with Tunisian officials. We all have an interest in making sure that justice is done for the people of Tunisia, and that is what we will continue to do.
Layton asks how Canadians can trust a Prime Minister who condoned forging documents and misleading the House, and what kind of leadership that represents.
Layton shifts focus from the minister to the Prime Minister and raises the specific acts of forging documents and misleading the House, but the question is partly rhetorical and the ask is vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the KAIROS affair, the question is no longer about a discredited minister. The question now has to do with the Prime Minister. Yesterday in this House the Prime Minister condoned forging documents and condoned misleading this House. How can Canadians trust a Prime Minister who would have such contempt for this place? He tries to claim that the minister has the right to make decisions, but there is no right to forge documents. There is no right to mislead the House. What kind of leadership is that?
Harper quotes three specific passages from page 3 of the minister's committee testimony showing she said at least ten times that the decision was hers, and notes the CIDA president confirmed the minister indicated she disagreed with her recommendation.
Harper directly quotes from the minister's committee testimony on page 3, citing at least three specific passages to demonstrate she repeatedly claimed the decision was hers, which engages the substance though not the document-forging allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the president of CIDA herself has said that the minister indicated she did not agree with her recommendation. Let me read quotations from the very testimony that the hon. members purport to represent. The minister said on page 3 of her testimony, âUltimately, it's the minister's responsibility and it's the minister's decisionâ. Again on page 3, it âreflects the decision of the governmentâ and the minister. Again on page 3, âI was entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the government's policies are being followedâ. I could go on. There are at least 10 different references to the minister saying it was clearly her decision.
Layton argues the minister is unworthy of her position because she made the wrong decision against government experts' advice, forged a document, and used the bureaucracy as cover, and asks where the Prime Minister's leadership is.
Layton lists specific grounds â wrong decision, against expert advice, forged document, used bureaucracy as cover â but the question reduces to a rhetorical 'where is the Prime Minister's leadership' with no specific ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la ministre de la CoopĂ©ration internationale ne mĂ©rite plus son poste. Tout le monde s'entend lĂ -dessus. Elle a pris la mauvaise dĂ©cision en coupant les fonds Ă KAIROS. Elle l'a fait contre l'avis des experts du gouvernement. Elle l'a fait en forgeant un document. Et elle l'a fait en utilisant la bureaucratie pour couverture. Elle n'est pas digne d'ĂȘtre ministre. OĂč est le leadership du premier ministre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Cooperation no longer deserves her position. Everyone is in agreement about that. She made the wrong decision by cutting funding to KAIROS. She did so against the advice of government experts. She did so by forging a document. And she did so by using the bureaucracy as a cover-up. She does not deserve to be a minister. Where is the Prime Minister's leadership?
Harper acknowledges the agency gave advice different from the minister's decision and says elected ministers, not officials, bear that responsibility, and the government supports the minister.
Harper acknowledges the agency gave different advice than the minister's decision and asserts ministerial responsibility as the governing principle, which is partially responsive but does not address the document-forging allegation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la vérité est que l'agence a donné un conseil différent de la décision qu'a prise la ministre. La ministre l'a indiqué. Elle a indiqué que c'était sa décision. C'est la nature de notre responsabilité ici. Ce ne sont pas des fonctionnaires qui prennent de telles décisions; ce sont des ministres élus. La ministre a pris sa responsabilité, et le gouvernement l'appuie dans ses efforts.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the agency gave advice that differed from the decision made by the minister. The minister said that. She said that it was her decision. That is the nature of our responsibility here. Officials do not make those types of decisions; elected ministers do. The minister took responsibility and the government supports her efforts.
Layton argues the KAIROS decision was driven by partisan politics rather than merit, and demands the Prime Minister take responsibility and restore funding to KAIROS.
Layton makes a specific final demand â restore funding to KAIROS â and alleges a pattern of partisan politics, forging documents, and covering up, but the question is heavily rhetorical and conflates several issues.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the denial of funding has nothing to do with merit or effectiveness as evaluated by the bureaucracy. It has everything to do with politics, politics right out of the Prime Minister's playbook; politics that say it is fine to play partisan games with no accountability, to forge documents, to make things up, to come up with arbitrary political decisions, and then let them cover up afterwards and, even worse, let them mislead Parliament. That does not matter; that is fine according to the politics of the Prime Minister. When will he take some responsibility and restore the funding for KAIROS? That is the bottom line.
Harper argues it is wrong for governments to slavishly follow advice that results in taxpayer money not being used for its intended purpose of helping the developing world, and says the minister has followed correct foreign policy and humanitarian objectives.
Harper defends the principle that government should not slavishly follow advice resulting in misused taxpayer money, and restates foreign policy objectives, but does not address the KAIROS funding restoration request or the document-forging allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is wrong is when governments slavishly follow advice that results in taxpayer money used, not for the purpose it was supposed to be used for, which is to help the people in the developing world, help the poorest and the most vulnerable, but instead for other purposes. The government has been very clear that it expects taxpayer money to be used not to reward Canadian organizations, but to promote the foreign policy and the humanitarian objectives of the government. That is exactly what the minister has done.
Foote asks whether the Prime Minister will not let the minister resign, and why the minister is allowing herself to be manipulated rather than defending her own integrity.
The question is largely speculative and rhetorical, asking whether the Prime Minister will not let the minister resign and whether she would prefer to defend her own integrity, with no specific factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we now know the Prime Minister supports his minister's contempt for Parliament. He supports her mistakes, and shamefully, he even says it was the right thing to do. Is it because, as he said, he makes the rules? Why is the minister allowing herself to be manipulated by the Prime Minister? Is it because he will not let her resign? Is that why she will not defend herself? Certainly she would prefer to defend her own integrity and answer for her own actions.
Baird highlights the minister's record on doubling Canadian aid to Africa and calls her decision on the grant courageous and correct, without addressing Foote's questions about the minister's ability to resign.
Baird praises the minister's foreign aid record and calls the decision courageous, but does not address any of the specific speculative questions Foote posed about the minister's ability to resign or defend herself.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is quite rich. Let me tell the House about the minister. The minister has done good work in helping millions of people around the world get the help and the assistance they require in very vulnerable situations. She is the minister who helped double Canadian aid to Africa, helping some of the most vulnerable people on the planet. She is a minister who made a difficult and courageous decision when it came to not awarding a grant in this regard. It was the correct decision. It was the right decision, and the government stands behind that decision.
Foote quotes the Prime Minister's own words that ministers must answer honestly and accurately about their areas of responsibility, and asks where the accuracy, honesty, and minister are.
Foote quotes the Prime Minister's own stated standard â that ministers must answer honestly and accurately â and asks where the accuracy, honesty, and minister are, giving the question some factual grounding through the direct quotation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of integrity. It is about dignity and honesty. It is about respect not only for the position the minister holds, but for the people she is supposed to represent. If she really believes Canadians and her own constituents think she is in the right, why can she not just say so? I quote, âMinisters must be present in Parliament to answer honestly and accurately about their areas of responsibilityâ. Who said that? The Prime Minister. Where is the accuracy? Where is the honesty? Where is the minister?
Baird states the Minister of International Cooperation attended committee on Thursday, December 9 and was incredibly clear more than ten times that it was her decision not to give the particular non-governmental organization a grant.
Baird provides a specific factual response â the minister attended committee on December 9 and was clear more than ten times that it was her decision â which partially addresses the honesty and accountability question, though not where the minister is now.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Cooperation attended at committee on Thursday, December 9. On more than 10 times she was incredibly clear that it was her decision not to give this particular non-governmental organization a grant. She was very clear about that. She was once again clear about it earlier this week in this place.
McKay, noting that CIDA and possibly the minister had approved the KAIROS grant before the word 'not' was inserted into the document, asks what specific Conservative government policy the Christian churches offended to warrant the reversal.
McKay asks a sharply specific question: what Conservative government policy did the Christian churches offend after being approved for the CIDA grant, implying the approval was reversed for political rather than policy reasons.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious by now that CIDA, and possibly the minister, approved the KAIROS grant. Then persons unknown inserted the ânotâ in the document and doctored it to make it look like CIDA turned down the application. What specific Conservative government policy did the Christian churches offend after being approved for the CIDA grant?
Baird refers McKay to the December 9 committee transcript where the deputy minister responsible said the inclusion of the word 'not' simply reflects the minister's decision.
Baird directs the member to the committee transcript of December 9 and cites the deputy minister's statement that the word 'not' simply reflects the minister's decision, which is partially responsive to the document question but does not answer what specific policy the churches offended.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member opposite to look at the committee transcript from December 9, where the deputy minister responsible said the inclusion of the word ânotâ is just a simple reflection of what her decision was. That is exactly what she said.
McKay asks whether the Prime Minister will fire the minister for doctoring a document to make it appear as someone else's decision, given that the Speaker had already intervened.
The question references a specific finding by the Speaker and asks a pointed yes/no accountability question about ministerial consequences, but frames it dramatically rather than grounding it in documentary evidence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is the right of every minister to make ministerial decisions. However, it is not the right of a minister to make a decision and then doctor a document and make it appear as if it is someone else's decision. Mr. Speaker, until you blew the whistle, the minister was perfectly content to mislead the House. Is the Prime Minister prepared to fire the minister, or will he have Parliament do it?
Baird says the opposition disagreed with the minister's decision, that the government supports it, and that she made the correct decision.
The government house leader entirely ignores the question about firing the minister and simply restates support for the minister's decision, offering no substantive answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is certainly very clear is the member opposite did not agree with the decision the minister made. Those of us on the government side of the House agree that the minister made the right decision. She made the correct decision. We support that decision.
Paillé asks why the government invokes cabinet secrecy to withhold documents from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and Parliament, and demands the spending reduction plan be made public.
The question cites the Parliamentary Budget Officer's testimony before the Standing Committee on Finance, references cabinet secrecy as a specific obstacle, and asks for the spending reduction plan â a concrete, identifiable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le directeur parlementaire du budget a dénoncé, devant le Comité permanent des finances, l'obscurantisme du gouvernement. Il s'indigne que les conservateurs invoquent trop souvent le secret du Cabinet pour refuser de fournir des documents essentiels à son travail et au nÎtre. Le plan de réduction des dépenses en est un exemple. Vont-ils comprendre un principe élémentaire, soit que c'est le Parlement qui autorise les dépenses? Le gouvernement va-t-il cesser ses cachotteries et nous fournir son plan de réduction des dépenses?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has spoken out against the government's obscurantism before the Standing Committee on Finance. He was annoyed that the Conservatives too often use the cloak of cabinet confidence to withhold documents that he and we need to do our jobs. The expenditure reduction plan is one example. Will they understand that it is a basic principle that Parliament authorizes expenditures? Will the government stop hiding things and give us its expenditure reduction plan?
Day says he met with the Parliamentary Budget Officer the day before and told him to call if he has trouble obtaining documents, and notes that certain rules govern document transmission.
Day says he met with the Parliamentary Budget Officer and offered to help find documents, but does not address the specific demand to release the spending reduction plan.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la question est intéressante. Hier, justement, j'ai eu une autre rencontre avec le directeur parlementaire du budget et je lui ai dit que s'il y a des documents qu'il a de la difficulté à obtenir, il n'a qu'à m'appeler et on va vérifier s'il y a des documents. Par ailleurs, des rÚglements ont été établis ici, à la Chambre, qui permettent parfois de faire parvenir certains documents. Alors, il faut juste qu'il m'appelle.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. Just yesterday I met with the Parliamentary Budget Officer and told him that if he was having trouble obtaining any documents, all he had to do was call me and we would verify whether there are any documents. Regulations have been established here, in the House, that make it possible to provide certain documents. He just needs to call me.
Paillé invokes Kevin Page's call for greater budgetary transparency and asks why the government has made the spending cuts secret, as they had been public in 2005 and 2006.
The question cites Kevin Page's statement about the need for greater budgetary transparency and references the 2005 and 2006 practice of publishing cuts by department, but devolves into a rhetorical list of insults rather than a focused ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il peut bien aller prendre une biÚre avec Kevin Page, mais ça fait longtemps que la liste est connue. Voyons donc! Kevin Page a dit que le « Parlement a besoin d'une plus grande transparence budgétaire ». Comme ils l'ont fait en 2005 et en 2006, ils doivent rendre publiques les coupes par ministÚre. Ces informations nous sont nécessaires. Pourquoi est-ce devenu secret? Qu'a à cacher le gouvernement ? Son incompétence? Son intransigeance? Son incapacité? Son inaptitude? Toutes ces réponses?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, he may very well go out for a beer with Kevin Page, but the list has been known for a long time. Come on. Kevin Page said that âParliament needs more fiscal transparencyâ. As they did in 2005 and 2006, they must make the cuts public, department by department. We need this information. Why has it become a secret? What does the government have to hide? Its incompetence? Its intransigence? Its inability? Its ineptitude? All of the above?
Day jokes there was no beer, references the previous government's alcohol policy, and says the Parliamentary Budget Officer himself indicated the government's deficit reduction plan is advanced by $5 billion.
Day addresses the substance partially by noting that the Parliamentary Budget Officer himself said the deficit reduction plan is advanced by $5 billion, suggesting he has the plan, but deflects with a joke about alcohol policy.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il n'y avait pas de biĂšre hier, parce que nous avons changĂ© la politique de l'ancien rĂ©gime, de l'ancien gouvernement, quant Ă l'alcool lors des rencontres. Hier, ce directeur a aussi dit que notre plan pour rĂ©duire le dĂ©ficit est avancĂ© â pour 5 milliards de dollars. Ce n'est pas nĂ©cessairement notre avis, mais il a indiquĂ© qu'il pensait que nous Ă©tions plus avancĂ©s. Il peut dire quelque chose comme ça, car il a le plan, absolument.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there was no beer yesterday because we have changed the former government's policy regarding alcohol at meetings. Yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer also said that our plan to reduce the deficit is aheadâby $5 billion. That is not necessarily our opinion, but he said that he thought we were further ahead. He can say that because he has the plan, absolutely.
Cardin asks the minister to explain how his December 10, 2009 directive to the CRTC to protect Bell and Rogers on wholesale service requirements is consistent with his current reversal on usage-based billing.
The question cites a specific ministerial directive to the CRTC dated December 10, 2009, and asks the minister to explain an apparent volte-face on usage-based billing versus protection of Bell and Rogers.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le 10 dĂ©cembre 2009, le ministre de lâIndustrie donnait instruction au CRTC de vĂ©rifier « si lâincidence de ces exigences liĂ©es aux services de gros nuit indĂ»ment Ă la capacitĂ© des compagnies de tĂ©lĂ©phone titulaires dâoffrir de nouveaux services convergents ». Comment le ministre peut-il expliquer sa volte-face dans le dossier de la facturation Ă l'utilisation, alors qu'il y a un an Ă peine, il demandait au CRTC de mieux protĂ©ger les intĂ©rĂȘts de Bell et de Rogers, au dĂ©triment des consommateurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on December 10, 2009, the Minister of Industry instructed the CRTC to determine âwhether the impact of these wholesale requirements unduly impairs the ability of incumbent telephone companies to offer new converged servicesâ. How can the minister explain his flip-flop on usage-based billing when barely a year ago he was asking the CRTC to better protect the interests of Bell and Rogers, at consumers' expense?
Lake says the premise is completely untrue and states the government has expressed serious concerns about the CRTC decision and asked it to review the decision in the interest of consumers and small businesses.
Lake flatly denies the premise and pivots to general talking points about consumer protection and innovation, never addressing the specific 2009 ministerial directive cited in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is completely untrue. Our government has expressed serious concerns about the CRTC decision and the wide-reaching implications it has for consumers, innovation and the competitiveness of small- and medium-size businesses. That is why the minister and the Prime Minister both expressed concern last week. That is why they decided to ask the CRTC to review that decision. This government will always stand up for Canadian consumers, for innovation and for advancement in technology in this country.
Cardin asks when the Conservatives will comply with the Telecommunications Act rather than appeal the Federal Court ruling that Globalive is controlled by foreign interests.
The question references the Telecommunications Act, the CRTC ruling, and the Federal Court decision on Globalive as grounds, and asks when the government will comply with the law â a reasonably grounded ask but somewhat rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'entĂȘtement des conservateurs dans le dossier Globalive est dĂ©routant. Alors que la Loi sur les tĂ©lĂ©communications, le CRTC et la Cour fĂ©dĂ©rale contredisent le gouvernement conservateur, voilĂ qu'il porte sa cause en appel. Les conservateurs doivent cesser de gaspiller des fonds publics et admettre que Globalive est une entreprise contrĂŽlĂ©e par des intĂ©rĂȘts Ă©trangers. Quand les conservateurs se plieront-ils Ă la Loi sur les tĂ©lĂ©communications plutĂŽt que de vendre nos ondes Ă des entreprises Ă©trangĂšres?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' stubbornness on the Globalive issue is disconcerting. Even though the Telecommunications Act, the CRTC and the Federal Court contradict the Conservative government, it is launching an appeal. The Conservatives must stop wasting public money and admit that Globalive is a corporation controlled by foreign interests. When will the Conservatives comply with the Telecommunications Act rather than selling our airwaves to foreign corporations?
Lake says he is confused by the two questions, and asserts the government acted in the interests of Canadian consumers and more competition in the Canadian marketplace with the Globalive decision.
Lake claims confusion about the question and offers only a boilerplate statement about acting in the interests of Canadian consumers and competition, without addressing the legal contradiction or the appeal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat confused right now after listening to that question because the member has asked two questions and has taken a different position on each one. Of course with the Globalive decision, consistent with the decision we have just talked about, the government has acted in the interests of Canadian consumers and in the interests of more competition in the Canadian marketplace. We will always do that.
Crombie asks which other groups CIDA recommended for funding but had that recommendation overruled with a handwritten 'not,' in light of the minister's admission.
The question asks about other organizations that CIDA recommended for funding but received a handwritten 'not,' which is a specific and answerable ask, but is embedded in rhetorical framing about an iceberg and fraud.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, KAIROS is just the tip of the iceberg. Many hard-working organizations from across Canada have been left twisting in knots, their funding cut without reason and without explanation by the government. With the minister's admission of fraud, can others be wondering, did we suffer the same fate? What other groups did CIDA recommend for funding but received a handwritten ânotâ? Will the minister tell us or not?
Baird denies any admission of fraud and says the minister exercised her legitimate authority, believing funding should go to vulnerable people in the developing world rather than to a Canadian NGO.
Baird denies there was any admission of fraud, re-characterizes the minister's decision as legitimate, and does not address the question about other CIDA-recommended groups that may have been overruled.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister made no such admission because there was not one. The minister made a decision, as she is entitled to do. She was very clear that she was the one who made that decision. She believed that funding would better go to support vulnerable people in the developing world rather than to a Canadian NGO.
Crombie asks whether the Prime Minister will reverse the ideological cuts to organizations such as the Canadian Council for International Co-operation and the Canadian Teachers' Federation, and fire the minister.
The question lists several defunded organizations including the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, the Canadian Teachers' Federation, MATCH, AIDS groups, women's groups, and human rights groups, but combines this with a demand to reverse cuts and fire the minister, making it a compound rhetorical ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, clear, I think not. The Canadian Council for International Co-operation, the Canadian Teachers' Federation, MATCH, AIDS groups, women's groups, human rights groups, dozens have had their funding cut. The Prime Minister makes the rules. The message is clear: ideology over reason, âcross him and you are finished.â Will he do the right thing? Will he reverse these ideological cuts and will he fire that minister today?
Baird praises the minister's work on Haiti, support for vulnerable mothers and children, and commitment to education for girls and women in Afghanistan.
Baird ignores both asks entirely and pivots to praising the minister's record on Haiti, maternal health, and girls' education in Afghanistan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member what the minister has done. She has done an outstanding job supporting the people of Haiti during a very difficult circumstance. She has led the way by providing millions of the world's most vulnerable mothers, children and infants with the medicine and care they so desperately need. She has also committed to ensuring that millions of girls and women in Afghanistan are getting an education today, an education that was denied to them for many years by the Taliban terrorists.
Rae asks the Minister of International Cooperation what conversations she had with the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or the Prime Minister's Office that led to the false conclusion that KAIROS was anti-Semitic and linked to the boycott movement.
The question cites a specific speech by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism on December 16, 2009 in Jerusalem linking KAIROS to the boycott movement, and asks the Minister of International Cooperation what conversations she had with him, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or the PMO that led to her decision â a pointed, traceable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on December 16, 2009, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism gave a speech in Jerusalem in which he linked KAIROS to the Canadian Arab Federation and Canadian Islamic Congress as being part of an anti-Semitic approach to public policy. He said that KAIROS was taking a leadership role in the boycott movement and that was the reason for the de-funding. My question is actually for the Minister of International Cooperation. I would like to ask the minister this simple question. What conversations did she have with the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, or with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or with the Prime Minister's Office that would lead her to that false and unfair conclusion--
Baird says he has not read the speech in question, praises the minister of immigration's work, and notes the Minister of International Cooperation said more than 10 times at the December committee that she made the decision.
Baird says he has not read the speech, pivots to complimenting the opposition critic for reading the minister's speeches, and deflects by noting the minister said 10 times at committee she made the decision herself.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I certainly have not read the speech in question by the minister of immigration. I am pleased that the foreign affairs critic for the official opposition is reading the speeches by the minister. He could certainly learn a terrific amount. The minister of immigration has done an outstanding job. I believe what we have seen is that, at the committee in December, the Minister of International Cooperation said more than 10 times that she was the one who made the decision.
Rae quotes the minister's March 8 written answer attributing the decision to stop funding KAIROS to CIDA's overall assessment, and asks why she did not say on March 8 that it was her own decision rather than CIDA's.
The question quotes verbatim a written ministerial response from March 8 attributing the KAIROS funding decision to CIDA, and asks why the minister did not say on that date that it was her own decision â a highly specific, document-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on March 8, in response to a question from my colleague from London North Centre, the minister answered this way. Elle a donc rĂ©pondu ceci par Ă©crit: « La dĂ©cision de l'ACDI de cesser d'accorder le financement Ă KAIROS a Ă©tĂ© prise en fonction de l'Ă©valuation globale de la proposition, et non pas d'un critĂšre en particulier. » Ma question Ă la ministre, la mĂȘme ministre qui refuse toujours de rĂ©pondre aux questions aujourd'hui, est la mĂȘme: pourquoi n'a-t-elle pas dit le 8 mars que c'Ă©tait sa dĂ©cision, et non pas la dĂ©cision de l'ACDI?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le 8 mars, en rĂ©ponse Ă une question de mon collĂšgue de London-Centre-Nord, la ministre a dĂ©clarĂ© ce qui suit. She responded in writing as follows: âThe CIDA decision not to continue funding KAIROS was based on the overall assessment of the proposal, not on any single criterion.â My question for the minister, the same minister who is still refusing to answer questions today, is the same: why did she not say, on March 8, that it was her decision and not CIDA's decision?
Baird suggests it is probably because the minister had already said it 10 times at the parliamentary committee on December 9 when the member was present.
Baird dismisses the question with a one-line deflection saying the minister had already said it 10 times on December 9 at committee, completely ignoring the contradiction between the March 8 written answer and those earlier statements.
Source text
Probably because, Mr. Speaker, she had said it 10 times on December 9 when she appeared before the parliamentary committee, when the member opposite was right there.
Richards asks the Prime Minister to update the House on the government's plans regarding Prince William and Ms. Catherine Middleton.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the Prime Minister to update the House on the royal couple's plans â pure information-prompting with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians and our government were very happy to learn that His Royal Highness Prince William and Ms. Catherine Middleton are to be wed in April. I ask the Prime Minister, could he please update the House as to the government's plans with regard to the royal couple?
Mr. Speakerâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Canadians and our government are pleased to inform the House that His Royal Highness Prince William and Ms. Catherine Middleton will make Canada their very first official tour as a couple following the royal wedding in April.
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, His Royal Highness and Ms. Middleton will visit all regions, meet Canadians from all walks of life and experience first-hand the beauty and vastness of this country. I am sure Canadians will be as wildly enthusiastic in their reception of this visit as all members of the House appear to be.
Harper announces that His Royal Highness Prince William and Ms. Catherine Middleton will make Canada their very first official tour as a couple following the royal wedding in April, visiting all regions and meeting Canadians from all walks of life.
The Prime Minister directly and specifically announces that His Royal Highness Prince William and Ms. Catherine Middleton will make Canada their very first official tour as a couple following the royal wedding, providing real and new information.
Bevington cites the case of Dawood Hepplewhite, trapped in Canada due to the U.S. no-fly list, and asks whether the government will scrap Bill C-42 and negotiate a new deal that better protects travellers' rights.
The question cites the specific case of Dawood Hepplewhite of Sheffield, England and Bill C-42 by name, providing a concrete example, and asks whether the government will scrap Bill C-42 and negotiate a new deal â reasonably specific with a clear ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Dawood Hepplewhite of Sheffield, England cannot leave Canada because he is on the U.S. no-fly list. Why? Because he once went for a job interview in Yemen. The Conservatives' Bill C-42 would hand over passenger information to the United States and cases like this would dramatically increase. Will the Conservatives wake up and realize this is a bad deal for Canadians? Will they finally scrap Bill C-42 and negotiate a new deal with the United States that better protects the rights of travellers?
Toews says the government is working with the Americans on trade and perimeter security, and explains that Bill C-42 relates to the use of American airspace and the requirements that the American Congress has placed on people flying over that country.
Toews references the perimeter security agreement with the United States and explains that Bill C-42 relates to the use of American airspace and Congressional requirements, but does not address the specific case cited or whether the government will reconsider the bill.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is very interested in working with the Americans not only in respect of our trade relationship but in respect of a perimeter security. I was very pleased to hear that the Prime Minister and the President arrived at some agreement to move forward in that respect. In respect of Bill C-42, that issue relates to the use of American airspace and the requirements that the American Congress has placed on people flying over that particular country.
Masse asks why the Conservatives are shutting down the Windsor CBSA office and relocating it to Fort Erie in a Conservative minister's riding 400 kilometres away, alleging partisan interference with public safety implications.
The question identifies a specific decision to close the Windsor border services office and move regional headquarters to a Conservative minister's riding 400 kilometres away, framing it as partisan interference â reasonably specific but rhetorically charged.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are shutting down the border services office in Windsor. The new office is being set up not at Canada's busiest and biggest border gateway, but in the riding of a Conservative minister 400 kilometres away. Weakening the Windsor CBSA will mean more drugs and more guns crossing our border and getting onto our streets. Why are the Conservatives putting political games ahead of public safety? Will the minister come clean about this decision and take responsibility for his partisan interference?
Toews confirms the CBSA announced the merger to increase efficiency and save taxpayer money, that Fort Erie was chosen as the regional headquarters, and that he supports that selection.
Toews confirms the Canada Border Services Agency announced the merger of administrative services in southern Ontario for efficiency and savings, names Fort Erie as the chosen location, and says he supports that selection â directly addressing the decision but not the allegation of partisan interference.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Canada Border Services Agency announced that merging its administrative services in southern Ontario would be done to increase efficiency and save taxpayer money. Fort Erie, Ontario has been chosen as the location for the new regional headquarters office. This was the decision that was made, and allow me to say I support the selection of Fort Erie.
Mourani asks when the government will abandon its plan to reduce services at three border posts and eliminate two others in Montérégie and Estrie, arguing it harms regional economic development and public security.
The question identifies specific border post reductions in MontĂ©rĂ©gie and Estrie â three reduced-service posts, two eliminated posts, and four internal customs offices â and raises both economic and security concerns, making it reasonably specific.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, alors que nos voisins amĂ©ricains ont plus que jamais besoin d'ĂȘtre rassurĂ©s quant Ă la sĂ©curitĂ© des frontiĂšres, le gouvernement conservateur coupe dans des postes frontaliers en MontĂ©rĂ©gie et en Estrie. Les services de trois postes frontaliers seront rĂ©duits, deux postes seront tout simplement Ă©liminĂ©s, ainsi que quatre bureaux de douane intĂ©rieurs. Quand ce gouvernement va-t-il entendre raison et renoncer Ă son projet qui nuit au dĂ©veloppement Ă©conomique de nos rĂ©gions et met en pĂ©ril la sĂ©curitĂ© publique?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, at a time when our American neighbours need more than ever to be reassured about border security, the Conservative government is making cuts at border crossings in the Montérégie area and the Eastern Townships. Service at three border crossings will be reduced, and two crossings and four inland customs offices will simply be eliminated. When will this government listen to reason and abandon its plan, which jeopardizes the economic development of our regions and threatens public safety?
Toews dismisses it as Bloc propaganda, states that careful consideration was given to CBSA's ability to provide continued services and proximity to other ports of entry, and provides specific traffic data for Jamieson's Line and Franklin Centre with nearby 24-7 alternatives.
Toews provides specific usage data (12 travellers a day at Jamieson's Line, no commercial vehicles, a port of entry 10 kilometres away; 56 travellers a day at Franklin Centre, 3 commercial vehicles) demonstrating the basis for the decision, though he dismisses the question as 'Bloc propaganda.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc propaganda continues. Careful consideration was given to CBSA's ability to provide continued services as well as to the proximity of another port of entry. Currently CBSA has 1,200 service points across the nation and processes over 91 million travellers annually. Jamieson's Line, for example, in Quebec sees an average of 12 travellers a day and no commercial vehicles. There is a port of entry 10 kilometres distant. Franklin Centre sees an average of 56 travellers a day and 3 commercial vehicles.
Ouellet asks how the government can reduce border post hours in BromeâMissisquoi to eight hours per day starting April 1 without consulting local elected officials or considering the needs of the population.
The question specifies three border posts in BromeâMissisquoi with hours to be reduced to eight hours per day starting April 1, raising security and economic concerns â specific enough but without documentary or data grounding from the questioner's side.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans BromeâMissisquoi, trois postes frontaliers verront leurs heures d'ouverture rĂ©duites Ă seulement huit heures par jour, et ce, dĂšs le 1er avril prochain. Cette dĂ©cision aura des effets nĂ©gatifs tant du point de vue de la sĂ©curitĂ© publique que du point de vue de notre Ă©conomie. Comment le gouvernement peut-il prendre une telle dĂ©cision sans tenir compte de l'avis des Ă©lus locaux et des besoins de la population? Ăa, ce n'est pas de la propagande.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in BromeâMissisquoi, the hours of operation of three border crossings will be reduced to just eight hours per day, effective April 1. This decision will have a negative impact on public safety and our economy. How can the government make such a decision without taking into consideration the views of local elected officials and the needs of the public? That is not propaganda.
Toews says the decision was carefully considered by local CBSA officials and provides traffic data: Jamieson's Line averages 12 travellers a day with no commercial vehicles and a 24-7 port 10 km away; Franklin Centre averages 56 travellers a day with 3 commercial vehicles and a 24-7 port 16 km away.
Toews provides specific traffic statistics for both Jamieson's Line (12 travellers a day, no commercial vehicles, 24-7 port 10 km away) and Franklin Centre (56 travellers a day, 3 commercial vehicles, 24-7 port 16 km away), directly justifying the decision with data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this was a decision that was very carefully considered by local CBSA officials. For example, the Jamieson's Line in Quebec sees an average of 12 travellers a day and no commercial vehicles. There is a 24-7 port of entry 10 kilometres distant. The Franklin Centre in Quebec sees an average of 56 travellers a day and 3 commercial vehicles. There is a 24-7 port of entry 16 kilometres distant.
Brison asks why the Conservatives stonewalled Parliament's finance committee by refusing to provide the costs of corporate tax cuts and U.S.-style justice bills.
The question references the finance committee's request for costs of corporate tax cuts and U.S.-style justice bills and the government's refusal to provide documents, but combines this with rhetorical framing about a 'right-wing agenda' and links it to the KAIROS document issue, diluting the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, whether forging documents or hiding them altogether from Canadians, the Conservatives are deceiving Canadians. They are operating an agenda of deception. When the finance committee asked for the costs of the corporate tax cuts and the U.S.-style justice bills, the Conservatives said ânoâ. They refused to provide the documents to Parliament. Why are the Conservatives stonewalling Parliament and why are they trying to hide the true costs of their right-wing agenda from Canadian taxpayers?
Oh, oh!
Poilievre accuses the member of misrepresenting the Canadian Federation of Independent Business's position on a $6 billion tax increase on job creators, citing Catherine Swift's correction, and demands an apology.
Poilievre completely ignores the question about withholding documents from the finance committee and instead attacks the member for allegedly misrepresenting the Canadian Federation of Independent Business position, pivoting to demand an apology.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the question is why is the hon. member attempting to hide the true position of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business? That is a member who stood in the House and claimed that the organization representing small businesses all across Canada supported his $6 billion tax increase on job creators. We found out only moments later from Catherine Swift that it was not the position of the CFIB. I suggest the hon. member rise and apologize because Catherine Swift has corrected the record.
Brison cited the Parliamentary Budget Officer's warning that Parliament is 'losing control' of the public purse due to government secrecy and asked why the government is hiding the true cost of its agenda from Canadians.
Cites the Parliamentary Budget Officer's specific statement about Parliament 'losing control' of the public purse and references a concrete comparator (previous Liberal government publishing documents on the web), giving it reasonable factual grounding, though the closing framing is partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Parliamentary Budget Officer was absolutely clear when he said that Parliament is âlosing controlâ of the public purse because of this government's secrecy. He said that in his 25 years of public service, the documents that we have asked for were never covered by cabinet confidence. The previous Liberal government even published these documents on the web. Why are these big spending Conservatives breaking the rules to hide the true cost of their right-wing agenda from Canadians?
Poilievre attacked the Liberal plan to raise taxes on job creators by $6 billion and promoted the government's low-tax plan, making no reference to the Parliamentary Budget Officer or cabinet confidence documents.
Completely ignores the Parliamentary Budget Officer's accountability finding and pivots to attacking the Liberal tax plan, with no connection to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week Catherine Swift of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business was absolutely clear: she does not support, as the Liberal member suggested, the Liberal plan to raise taxes on job creators by $6 billion in the middle of an economic recovery. We need a low tax plan to create jobs, not a high tax Liberal plan that will kill jobs. We need a stable government led by a solid prime minister, not a risky coalition that will risk the recovery and put Canadians out of work.
Crowder asked the Minister of Public Works to recommit to an inclusive, fair and made-in-Canada shipbuilding strategy, citing worker concerns about closed-door negotiations with Britain over Canadian naval ships.
Identifies specific shipyards (Victoria, Esquimalt, Nanaimo) and a specific concern about closed-door talks with Britain, making it reasonably grounded, though the ask is somewhat broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, shipbuilders on the west coast are nervous about talks with Britain to jointly discuss the building of Canadian naval ships. The government promised that these new vessels would be made in Canada, yet workers are worried that they may be sold out in these closed door negotiations. Workers at the shipyards of Victoria, Esquimalt and Nanaimo are looking for answers. Will the Minister of Public Works come clean and recommit to an inclusive, fair and made-in-Canada shipbuilding strategy?
Ambrose affirmed full commitment to the national shipbuilding strategy, citing 75 million person hours of work, and stated that ships for the navy and coast guard will be built by Canadians.
Ambrose reaffirms commitment to the national shipbuilding strategy and cites 75 million person hours of work, which partially addresses the commitment question but does not address the closed-door talks with Britain.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I remember the day that we announced the national shipbuilding strategy. One of the member's colleagues from Halifax was there, and he said that it was a great day for Halifax. I can tell her that our government is fully committed to the national shipbuilding strategy. It is a historic commitment. Our strategy will create more than 75 million person hours of work for the Canadian shipbuilding industry. At the end of the day, this is great news for shipbuilders across the country. Our ships for our navy and our coast guard will be built by Canadians.
Stoffer asked what the closed discussions with Britain regarding jointly building Canadian naval vessels are about, and demanded a full recommitment to building entire ships in Canada by Canadian workers.
Stoffer grounds the question in a specific source (the House of Commons in Britain) and asks explicitly about the content of the closed discussions and for a recommitment to building entire ships in Canada, giving it identifiable factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that we have to go the House of Commons in Britain to find out that Britain and Canada are having closed discussions regarding the possibility of jointly building naval ships. If the government is so committed to the NSPS, why is it having discussions with Britain regarding the building of our Canadian vessels? We would like to know what those discussions are about. We would also like the government to recommit once and for all to building the entire ship for the navy and the coast guard, lock, stock and barrel, from stem to stern, with everything in it, in Canada by Canadian workers in Canadian shipyards.
Ambrose reiterated full commitment to the national shipbuilding strategy and the 75 million person hours figure, and restated that ships will be built in Canada by Canadians, without addressing the British discussions.
Ambrose repeats the same 75 million person hours figure and commitment language but still does not address the closed discussions with Britain or their content, though she does reaffirm the made-in-Canada commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said, our government is fully committed to the national shipbuilding strategy. The member knows that this is an historic commitment to our shipyards across the country. It is going to create 75 million person hours of work for the Canadian shipyards from coast to coast to coast. He knows full well, being from Halifax, that this is a very competitive process, but it is good news. At the end of the day our ships for the navy and coast guard will be built in Canada by Canadians.
Armstrong asked the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why the government should focus on jobs and the economy rather than an election Canadians do not want, referencing a possible Bloc-Liberal-NDP coalition.
A government-backbench softball setup asking why Parliament should focus on jobs rather than an election, with no real accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is reserving the possibility of entering a coalition with the Liberal leader and the NDP in the event of another minority Parliament. This scheming by the former reckless Liberal-led coalition is opposed by Canadians. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister please inform us why we should focus on jobs and the economy and not an election that Canadians do not want?
Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote Le Devoir from Monday. It says, âOn Saturday at their general council meeting, the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois added a phrase to their election platform stipulating that: 'The Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois reserves the possibility to enter a coalition of parties' in the event of another minority government.â That risky coalition would drive up job-killing taxes and threaten our recovery. We need a low tax plan to create jobs. We need, and we have, a prime minister who is solid, steady and strong.
Poilievre quoted Le Devoir reporting that the Bloc Québécois added coalition language to its platform, and warned that such a coalition would drive up job-killing taxes and threaten the recovery.
Poilievre quotes Le Devoir citing the Bloc Québécois platform language about a coalition, which provides a specific factual citation, but the answer is largely a partisan attack rather than substantive policy content.
D'Amours asked the minister to confirm clearly whether the customs posts at Morses Line, East Pinnacle, and Glen Sutton in the BromeâMissisquoi region would be closed by April.
D'Amours names three specific border crossings (Morses Line, East Pinnacle, Glen Sutton) and asks a binary yes-or-no question about planned closures by April, making it highly specific and answerable.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pendant que nos voisins amĂ©ricains convoquent le premier ministre pour discuter d'une entente secrĂšte sur la sĂ©curitĂ© frontaliĂšre et que cette entente inquiĂšte les Canadiens, que font les conservateurs? Ils se prĂ©parent Ă fermer trois autres postes frontaliers d'ici le mois d'avril. Le ministre peut-il nous dire clairement si, oui ou non, il prĂ©voit fermer les postes de douane de Morses Line, East Pinnacle et Glen Sutton dans la rĂ©gion de BromeâMissisquoi? La question est simple, est-ce oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, while our American neighbours have been inviting the Prime Minister to discuss a secret perimeter security agreement that is causing Canadians concern, what are the Conservatives doing? They are preparing to close three other border crossings by April. Can the minister clearly tell us whether or not he intends to close the border crossings at Morses Line, East Pinnacle and Glen Sutton in the BromeâMissisquoi region? The question is simple: yes or no?
Toews cited CBSA data on traveller volumes and distances to nearby 24/7 ports of entry for Jamieson's Line and Franklin Centre, Quebec, but did not directly answer yes or no about the three named crossings.
Toews provides specific data on traveller volumes and nearby port distances for some crossings, which is substantively relevant, but does not directly answer yes or no about the three named crossings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, currently the CBSA has 1,200 service points across Canada and processes over 91 million travellers annually. Jamieson's Line, Quebec, sees an average of 12 travellers a day and no commercial vehicles. There is a 24/7 port of entry 10 kilometres distant. Franklin Centre, Quebec, sees an average of 56 travellers a day and three commercial vehicles. There is a 24/7 port of entry 16 kilometres distant.
Bonsant asked whether the government had revised its position and would support Bill C-343 to provide better support for families of crime victims, noting endorsement by the Association des familles des personnes assassinées ou disparues.
Bonsant names a specific bill (C-343), a specific supporting organization (Association des familles des personnes assassinées ou disparues), and asks whether the government has revised its position, making it a concrete and answerable question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce soir, les conservateurs, qui disent appuyer les victimes d'actes criminels, auront l'occasion de passer de la parole aux actes en votant en faveur du projet de loi C-343 visant à offrir un meilleur soutien aux familles des victimes. L'Association des familles des personnes assassinées ou disparues appuie ce projet de loi qui permet de démontrer un peu de compassion. Le premier ministre peut-il nous dire si son gouvernement a révisé sa position et s'il entend appuyer notre projet de loi visant à aider concrÚtement les familles des victimes d'actes criminels?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, tonight, the Conservatives, who claim to support victims of crime, will have the opportunity to move from talk to action by voting in favour of Bill C-343, which is designed to provide better support to victims' families. The Murdered or Missing Persons' Families' Association supports this bill, which makes it possible to show a bit of compassion. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his government has reconsidered its position and whether it intends to support our bill to provide tangible assistance to crime victims' families?
Finley stated the government would never support the bill because it would reward criminals who injure themselves committing offences, calling it an insult and injustice to families, victims, and Canadian taxpayers.
Finley gives a clear no and provides a specific reasonâthat the bill would reward criminals who injure themselves committing crimesâwhich directly addresses the government's position, though it does not engage with the bill's stated purpose for families of victims.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous n'appuierons jamais un tel projet de loi qui récompense les criminels. S'il arrivait qu'un criminel se blesse en perpétrant une infraction criminelle, ce projet de loi permettrait le versement de milliers de dollars pour prendre soin de lui. C'est une insulte et une injustice envers les familles, les victimes et les contribuables canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we will never support a bill such as this one that rewards criminals. If a criminal gets injured while committing a crime, this bill would allow thousands of dollars to be paid out for his care. This is unfair and insulting to the victims, their families and Canadian taxpayers.
Marston asked when the government would expand the Canada pension plan so that all Canadians can retire with dignity, citing the inadequacy of current CPP levels and the unaffordability of RRSPs for middle-class families.
Marston raises the CPP expansion issue with some context (RRSP deadline, HST on fees), but the ask is broad and the framing contains partisan characterizations of 'Liberal and Conservative neglect.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with the deadline for RRSPs just around the corner reminding Canadians, they are very worried about their retirement. After years of Liberal and Conservative neglect, the Canada pension plan will not be enough. Many middle-class families cannot afford to buy RRSPs and those that can, cannot afford the high fees plus the HST. The Canada pension plan must be expanded. It is our most secure, reliable and least costly option. When will this government expand the CPP so that all Canadians, regardless of income, can retire with dignity?
Flaherty cited $2 billion in annual tax cuts for seniors including pension splitting, mentioned the pooled registered pension plan being developed with provinces, and stated there is no present consensus with provinces on CPP reform.
Flaherty cites a specific figure ($2 billion in annual tax cuts for seniors), mentions pension splitting, and addresses the CPP directly by noting no present consensus with provinces, giving a partial but substantive response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have cut taxes for seniors and pensioners by over $2 billion annually since becoming the government, including the very important reform and saving for retired persons of pension splitting, which we brought in. We are working on the new pooled registered pension plan proposal with the provinces. This is an area in which the provinces and the federal government are obliged to and do work together. We look forward to implementing that. There is no present consensus with the provinces with respect to proposed reforms to the Canada pension plan.
Généreux asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to inform the House what the Conservative government is doing to fight street gangs and crime.
A government-backbench softball asking the Parliamentary Secretary to explain what the Conservative government is doing to fight street gangs and crime, with no factual grounding or accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les gangs de rue et la criminalité sont des enjeux trÚs importants pour les familles de toutes les régions du Québec. Le Bloc québécois, lui, préfÚre écouter les gauchistes du Plateau et d'autres grands penseurs déconnectés de la réalité des régions. Le secrétaire parlementaire du ministre de la Justice pourrait-il informer cette Chambre sur ce que le gouvernement conservateur fait pour lutter contre les gangs de rue et la criminalité?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, street gangs and crime are major challenges for families in every region of Quebec. The Bloc Québécois prefers to listen to the leftist urban elite of Quebec and other leading thinkers who are disconnected from real life in the regions. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice tell this House what the Conservative government is doing to deal with street gangs and crime?
Monsieur le Président, notre gouvernement est le seul à l'écoute des régions du Québec et de ses priorités. C'est pourquoi nous continuons de lutter contre les gangs de rue et de protéger les familles québécoises. Récemment, nous avons adopté un projet de loi qui prévoit des peines minimales pour ceux qui font la traite et le trafic des mineurs. Malheureusement, le Bloc a écouté ses amis du Plateau et pas les régions; il a voté contre. Heureusement, le projet de loi a été adopté malgré le Bloc. Notre gouvernement continue d'écouter les familles du Québec et les régions du Québec, et nous allons continuer à lutter contre les criminels, peu importe ce qu'en pensent le Bloc et ses amis du Plateau.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our government is the only one listening to the regions of Quebec and their priorities. That is why we are continuing to deal with street gangs and to protect Quebec families. We recently passed a bill with minimum sentences for human trafficking, particularly involving minors. Unfortunately, the Bloc listened to its friends among the urban elite and not to the regions. The Bloc voted against the bill. Fortunately, the bill passed without the Bloc. Our government continues to listen to the families and the regions of Quebec and we are going to continue to fight crime, regardless of what the Bloc and its urban friends might think.
Petit cited a recently passed bill providing minimum sentences for those who traffic and exploit minors, noting the Bloc voted against it, and affirmed the government's commitment to fighting criminals.
Petit mentions a specific legislative measure (minimum sentences for trafficking and exploitation of minors) and notes the Bloc voted against it, providing some concrete content, but the bulk of the answer is partisan attack.
John Baird (CPC) sought and received unanimous consent for a take-note debate pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 on the alarming deterioration of the human rights situation in Iran. Gordon O'Connor (CPC) then sought and received unanimous consent for a motion that no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received during the debate.
- CPC John Baird
- Some hon. members
- CPC Gordon O'Connor
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In our ongoing efforts to make Parliament work, I believe you will find the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That a take-note debate take place today, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on the subject of the alarming deterioration of the Human Rights situation in Iran.
Agreed.
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, during the debate tonight pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Judy Foote (Lib) sought unanimous consent to table the document 'Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State' but consent was not granted. Christiane Gagnon (BQ) then sought unanimous consent to table letters from the Tunisian ambassador to the leader of the Bloc québécois regarding requests to freeze and safeguard assets belonging to the family of former president Ben Ali located in Canada, but consent was also not granted.
- Lib Ms. Judy Foote
- Some hon. members
- Ms. Christiane Gagnon
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to request unanimous consent to table the document, âAccountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of Stateâ, which says: Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the use of all powers vested in them. This demands constant attention to their parliamentary duties, including being present in Parliament to answer honestly and accurately about their areas of responsibilityâ
Agreed. No.
Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais avoir le consentement de la Chambre pour déposer les lettres envoyées par l'ambassadeur de Tunisie au chef du Bloc québécois concernant les demandes de la Tunisie pour le gel et la sauvegarde des biens meubles ou immeubles et des avoirs financiers appartenant à la famille de l'ex-président Ben Ali, qui se trouvent sur le territoire canadien. On sait que ces biens appartiennent au peuple tunisien. Avant qu'il ne soit trop tard, il faut agir. Est-ce que j'ai le consentement de la Chambre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent of the House to table the letters sent by the ambassador of Tunisia to the leader of the Bloc Québécois about Tunisia's requests to freeze and protect the real or personal property and financial assets belonging to the family of former President Ben Ali, currently on Canadian soil. We know that these assets belong to the people of Tunisia. We must take action before it is too late. Do I have the consent of the House?
D'accord. Non.
Hansard translation: Yes. No.