Session overview
- Labour disputes at Canada Post and Air Canada dominated Question Period, with the government announcing back-to-work legislation for postal workers and signalling the same for Air Canada workers, drawing sharp criticism from NDP and Liberal members over collective bargaining rights.
- G8 summit spending came under sustained attack, with NDP members pressing on the diversion of $50 million from the Border Infrastructure Fund to projects in the President of the Treasury Board's riding; John Baird defended the 32 infrastructure projects and accepted the Auditor General's recommendations.
- Youth unemployment, poverty, and manufacturing job losses were raised by NDP members, who questioned whether the government's economic policies were creating only low-wage part-time jobs; the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development announced $10 million in additional permanent funding for Canada's summer jobs program.
- The closure of maritime search and rescue centres in St. John's and Quebec City was challenged by Liberal members, who cited warnings from Winston Pitcher of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary in Newfoundland and Labrador that the closures could delay rescues and put public safety at risk.
- Canada announced at the UN Human Rights Council that it would seek to condemn the Assad regime in Syria for gross violations of human rights, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs calling on the regime to end killing, arbitrary arrests, torture and violence against peaceful demonstrators.
- The government introduced the supporting vulnerable seniors and strengthening Canada's economy act, with a July 1 deadline cited for 680,000 Canadians awaiting a top-up to their Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits.
Lisa Raitt made a specific, concrete commitment — that the government would that night be putting on notice legislation to restore mail delivery service for Canadians — directly informing the public of imminent government action.
The question is specific: it names Henk Tepper, identifies three months imprisonment in Lebanon due to a commercial dispute in Algeria, acknowledges the prior narrow consular answer, and asks a precise follow-up about personal political intervention with Lebanon.
Van Loan responded to a specific question about an 18% increase in hate crimes against the gay and lesbian community with only a generic statement that the government believes in protecting the rights of all Canadians, offering no measures, data, or commitments whatsoever.
Outstanding questions
- Jack Layton asked when the government would produce a real strategy for growth and job creation for workers, specifically addressing corporate tax cuts becoming executive bonuses — no strategy was presented (Exchange 1).
- Yvon Godin asked whether the Minister of Labour realised that precarious-status workers and people losing their pension plans do not help economic recovery — the minister did not address pensions or precarious work (Exchange 5).
- Frank Valeriote asked the agriculture minister to explain what the new Canadian Wheat Board model will look like, how it will be implemented, and whether it will continue to be supported by government guarantees — no model or implementation plan was provided (Exchange 30).
- Peter Julian asked whether the minister would commit to establishing a transparent public review of the Toronto Stock Exchange takeover bid before Parliament rises for the summer — no such commitment was made (Exchange 22).
- Jean Crowder asked when the minister would recognise the importance of the poverty problem, specifically that one in ten Canadians and nearly 700,000 children live in poverty — the minister attributed the rise to the global recession and cited job training without addressing the scale of child poverty (Exchange 9).
Layton argues that households are over-indebted, exports are struggling, and corporate tax cuts are becoming executive bonuses, and asks when the government will have a real growth and job-creation strategy.
The question frames employment around four economic factors (consommation, exportation, investissement, gouvernement) providing some structure, but the ask for 'une vraie stratégie' is vague and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'économie et la création d'emplois dépendent de quatre facteurs clés: la consommation, l'exportation, l'investissement et le gouvernement. Les foyers canadiens sont trop endettés, ils ne peuvent faire plus. Les exportations sont en difficulté. Les grandes entreprises ne réinvestissent plus parce que les réductions d'impôt données par les conservateurs deviennent des bonis pour les cadres. La balle est dans le camp du gouvernement. À quand une vraie stratégie pour la croissance et la création d'emplois pour nos travailleurs et nos Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the economy and job creation depend on four key factors: consumption, exports, investment and the government. Canadian household debt is far too high. Canadians are at a breaking point. Exports are declining. Corporations are no longer reinvesting because the tax cuts they are getting from the Conservatives are nothing but bonuses for senior management. The ball is in the government's court. When will there be a real strategy for growth and job creation for our workers and our Canadians?
Harper asserts Canada has the best job-creation record in the advanced world, that the recovery is private-sector-led, and that the budget will help continue it.
The Prime Minister cites Canada's job-creation record and references the budget but does not outline any specific strategy, only asserting a private-sector-led recovery.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Canada a le meilleur bilan en matière de création d'emplois dans le monde avancé. C'est une relance menée en ce moment par le secteur privé. Évidemment, le budget adopté par ce Parlement va nous aider à continuer cette relance.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada has the best job creation record in the industrialized world. We are currently seeing a private sector-led recovery. Obviously, the budget passed by this Parliament will help us continue this recovery.
Layton cites Statistics Canada data showing continued bleeding in manufacturing, auto, and aerospace, and asks when the government will recognize that its policies are creating low-wage part-time jobs and destroying Canada's balanced economy.
The question cites Statistics Canada data released that day and identifies manufacturing, auto, and aerospace job losses, but the ask — when will the government recognize its policies create low-wage part-time jobs — is more rhetorical than a sharp accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the facts run counter to what the Prime Minister is saying. Since the Conservatives came to power, the fact is we have lost hundreds of thousands of good paying manufacturing jobs. The latest data from Statistics Canada today confirms that the bleeding continues. Manufacturing, in particular, and the auto and aerospace industries are losing thousands of jobs. When are we going to realize that the policies are creating low wage part-time jobs and killing the balanced economy that we have been building in our country since the Second World War?
Harper states the Canadian economy has created over 550,000 jobs since the recession, focused in the private sector and high-paying jobs, and accuses Layton of wanting only government-led recovery.
Harper provides a specific number (550,000 jobs created since the recession) and specifies they are private-sector and high-paying, but does not address the manufacturing sector data cited by Layton.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy has created over 550,000 jobs since the recession. Those jobs have been focused in the private sector and on high paying jobs. Those are the facts. Obviously we would like to see more and that is why we passed the budget. The leader of the NDP said earlier that we could not create jobs through consumption, or investment or through exports, that we had to do it through government. On this side, we are aiming to have a private sector-led recovery.
Layton challenges the government's labour relations approach, citing the threat of back-to-work legislation hours after Air Canada workers struck and Canada Post's lockout of its own workers, and asks whether the Prime Minister considers this fair bargaining practice.
The question raises two specific cases — the Air Canada strike and the Canada Post lockout — and asks whether the Prime Minister considers threatening back-to-work legislation and locking out workers fair bargaining practice, but the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government does not have a plan to create jobs then. That is quite clear. Its only strategy is to prevent working people from the right to bargain. Labour disputes should be dealt with fairly at the bargaining table. First, the government threatens back to work legislation mere hours after Air Canada workers used their legitimate right to strike. Then it turns around, takes a government corporation and locks out its own workers, preventing Canadians from getting their mail. Does the Prime Minister consider that this could in any way be interpreted as fair bargaining practice?
Harper states both parties in the Air Canada and Canada Post disputes have been unable to reach a settlement and that the resulting threat to the Canadian economy is not acceptable, so the government will act to protect the Canadian public.
Harper acknowledges both disputes and the threat to the Canadian economy but does not address the question of fair bargaining practice, instead asserting the government will act to protect the Canadian public.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the two parties in both the Air Canada dispute and the Canada Post dispute have thus far been unable to reach a settlement. Due to their inability to reach a settlement, they are threatening greater damage on other parties in the Canadian economy. That is not acceptable to the government. This government will act to ensure that the Canadian economy and the wider interests of the Canadian public are protected.
Godin asks whether Canada Post's sudden lockout constitutes good-faith bargaining given the union's offer to suspend strikes and work under the old contract, and whether the minister is fine with Canada Post manufacturing a crisis to enable back-to-work legislation.
The question is grounded in a specific event (Canada Post's overnight lockout), notes the union's offer to suspend strikes and work under the old contract, and asks two pointed questions about the minister's response and whether she is enabling a manufactured crisis for back-to-work legislation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada Post suddenly locked out all postal workers late last night. Is this bargaining in good faith? The lockout is unnecessary. The union offered to suspend its strikes and work under the old contract during negotiations. What is the minister doing to ensure Canada Post negotiates fairly? Is she fine with Canada Post manufacturing a crisis so the government can step in with back-to-work legislation?
Raitt expresses disappointment that Canada Post and the union have been unable to reach a negotiated settlement and announces that the government will be putting on notice legislation to restore mail delivery service that evening.
Raitt directly announces that the government will be putting legislation on notice that evening to restore mail delivery, addressing the 'what are you doing' ask, though she does not address the 'manufacturing a crisis' allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has just indicated, in this case, Canada Post and the union have been unable to reach a negotiated settlement, which is a great disappointment for us because of the effect it has on Canadians and on the Canadian economy. As a result, tonight we will be putting on notice legislation to restore mail delivery service for Canadians.
Godin asks whether the Minister of Labour realizes that workers affected by the Air Canada dispute are also consumers who drive the economy, and that precarious workers and people losing their pensions do not help the economic recovery.
The question makes a specific argument — that workers in the Air Canada dispute are also consumers who drive the economy and that precarious workers and lost pensions do not help the recovery — and asks whether the minister realizes this, though the ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, dans le dossier d'Air Canada, la ministre du Travail ne cesse d'affirmer qu'il est nécessaire d'imposer une loi spéciale parce que la grève d'Air Canada pourrait nuire à la relance économique. On dirait qu'elle oublie que les travailleurs touchés par ce conflit sont aussi des consommateurs et qu'ils font rouler l'économie. La ministre du Travail réalise-t-elle que des travailleurs à statut précaire et des gens qui perdent leur régime de pension, cela n'aide pas à la reprise économique?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Air Canada, the Minister of Labour keeps saying that special legislation is necessary because the Air Canada strike could hinder our economic recovery. She seems to forget that the workers affected by this dispute are also consumers who keep the economy rolling. Does the Minister of Labour realize that vulnerable workers and people who lose their pensions are not going to help our country's economic recovery?
Raitt states that both parties have been unable to reach a collective agreement despite ample opportunity and government support, and that the government has acted on its mandate to ensure the economy recovers.
Raitt does not address the argument about precarious workers or pension losses and their effect on the recovery, instead restating that the parties have been unable to reach agreement and that the government has acted on its mandate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have two parties at the table who have been trying to negotiate a collective agreement for a very long period of time. They are unable to reach said agreement by themselves, even though they have had ample opportunity to do so, and much support from this government and Labour Canada in terms of reaching an agreement. Therefore, on behalf of Canadians in general and because we have a strong mandate on this economy to make sure it recovers, we have acted.
Rae states the Minister of Finance gave a speech in New York City siding with Republican fiscal hawks and asks since when does the Government of Canada interfere in U.S. domestic political issues.
Rae raises a specific claim — that the Minister of Finance gave a speech in New York siding with Republican fiscal hawks — but does not cite the speech's content and the asks ('since when does the government interfere' and 'branch plant of the Republican tea party') are largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have just learned that the Minister of Finance has just given a speech in New York City where, in the middle of a major political debate in the United States, the minister has chosen to side with the Republican fiscal hawks in the United States Congress. I would like to ask the Prime Minister, since when does the Government of Canada interfere in the domestic political issues in the United States, and since when does his government become a branch plant of the Republican tea party in the United States?
Harper says he does not know what Rae is talking about and speaks generally about G20 leaders working together to address the global economic situation and ensure a strong global recovery.
Harper does not address the substance of the Finance Minister's New York speech at all, instead speaking generally about G20 cooperation on the global economic situation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the leader of the Liberal Party is talking about, but I can tell him this. Throughout the global recession and recovery, the leaders of the G20 have been working together to address the global economic situation. What we do in each of our own countries in this global economy affects us all, and obviously we are working together to ensure a strong global recovery.
Rae quotes the interim Auditor General's finding that what the government did was 'unusual and troubling' with respect to the President of the Treasury Board's activities and asks the Prime Minister whether the Auditor General is telling the truth when he uses those words.
Rae quotes the interim Auditor General's specific language — 'unusual and troubling' — regarding the President of the Treasury Board's activities and poses a direct binary question about whether the Auditor General is telling the truth.
Source text
Speaking of double standards, Mr. Speaker, we now have another one. The Prime Minister is constantly saying that those of us who quote the Auditor General are not telling the truth. So let me simply quote the Auditor General very directly with respect to the activities of the President of the Treasury Board and ask him one simple question. The interim Auditor General said that he found what the government did unusual and troubling. I would like to ask the Prime Minister, is the Auditor General telling the truth when he says those words?
Harper says the government has looked at the Auditor General's report in its entirety, that it makes interesting recommendations and observations, and that the government will act on those recommendations in the future.
Harper acknowledges the Auditor General's report and states the government will act on its recommendations, but does not answer whether the Auditor General is telling the truth when he used the words 'unusual and troubling.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the government has said before, we have looked at the Auditor General's report in its entirety. It does make some interesting recommendations and observations. The government has made it very clear that it will take those into account in the future and act on those recommendations.
Rae asks why the government is moving quickly to introduce legislation against the Air Canada strike while being slow to respond to the Canada Post lockout, calling this a double standard.
Rae identifies a specific double standard — threatening back-to-work legislation against striking Air Canada workers while being slow to act on the Canada Post lockout — with some factual grounding, though the ask is framed as 'pourquoi ce double standard' which is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le troisième exemple de double standard de la part du gouvernement est la situation où nous nous trouvons avec Air Canada et Postes Canada. Avec Air Canada, il est clair qu'une grève légale a commencé hier. Les services sont encore offerts, mais le gouvernement est en train de présenter un projet de loi pour contrer cette grève. En ce qui concerne Postes Canada, le gouvernement est très lent à réagir pour les travailleurs qui sont en lock-out et pour les consommateurs de services. Pourquoi ce double standard?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the third example of the government's double standard is the situation we are in with Air Canada and Canada Post. With Air Canada, it is clear that a legal strike started yesterday. Services are still being offered, but the government is in the process of introducing a bill to put an end to the strike. As for Canada Post, the government is very slow to react on behalf of the workers who have been locked out and on behalf of consumers. Why this double standard?
Harper states that in both the Air Canada and Canada Post cases the parties have been unable to reach an agreement for several months, threatening significant damage to the Canadian economy, and the government will act to protect the Canadian economy and the population.
Harper addresses both cases and gives a consistent rationale (parties unable to reach agreement, threatening the Canadian economy), but does not explain any difference in speed or approach between the two cases.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, tant dans le cas d'Air Canada que de Postes Canada, les parties sont incapables, jusqu'à maintenant et depuis plusieurs mois, d'en arriver à une entente. Cela menace de causer des dommages importants à l'économie canadienne et à une grande partie de la population. Ce gouvernement va agir pour protéger les intérêts supérieurs de l'économie et de la population canadiennes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, so far, with both Air Canada and Canada Post, the parties have been unable to reach an agreement. This could cause serious damage to the Canadian economy and to a large part of the population. This government will take action to protect the best interests of the Canadian economy and the Canadian people.
Crowder cites new figures showing one in ten Canadians living in poverty including nearly 700,000 children, contrasts this with gazebo spending, and asks the minister when she will recognize the importance of the poverty problem.
Crowder cites figures — one in ten Canadians living in poverty including nearly 700,000 children — released that day and references gazebo spending as a contrast, but the ask to the minister to 'se rendre compte de l'importance du problème' is vague.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, des chiffres dévoilés aujourd'hui démontrent que la pauvreté au pays demeure à un niveau inacceptable. Un Canadien sur dix vit dans la pauvreté. Cela inclut près de 700 000 enfants. Pendant que ce gouvernement construit des gazebos, le revenu de la classe moyenne fait du sur place et le niveau de pauvreté augmente. Quand la ministre va-t-elle se rendre compte de l'importance du problème de la pauvreté?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, some numbers released today reveal that poverty in this country remains at an unacceptable level. One in ten Canadians lives in poverty. That includes nearly 700,000 children. While this government is building gazebos, middle-class incomes remain stagnant and poverty levels are increasing. When will the minister realize the seriousness of Canada's poverty issue?
Finley acknowledges that the global recession has caused a rise in poverty in Canada, states that the Economic Action Plan was there to combat poverty, and says the best way to fight poverty is to create jobs and invest in training.
Finley acknowledges the rise in poverty as a result of the global recession and mentions the Economic Action Plan and unprecedented investment in training, but does not address the specific figures cited or provide concrete measures.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, malheureusement, un des résultats de la récession mondiale a été une hausse de la pauvreté ici, au Canada. Mais notre Plan d'action économique était là pour combattre la pauvreté. Nous croyons que le meilleur moyen de combattre la pauvreté est de créer des emplois. C'est pourquoi nous avons investi des montants sans précédent dans la formation des gens afin qu'ils puissent acquérir des compétences et occuper un emploi.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, one of the effects of the global recession has been an increase in poverty here in Canada. However, our economic action plan was there to fight poverty. We believe that the best way to fight poverty is to create jobs. That is why we have invested unprecedented amounts of money in training people so they can acquire skills and find work.
Crowder states that 634,000 children are living in poverty, that EI benefits are running out, and that people cannot find full-time jobs, and asks how the government can continue to hand out huge tax breaks to profitable banks and oil companies while ignoring Canadian families living in poverty.
Crowder provides a specific number (634,000 children living in poverty) and notes EI benefits running out, but the ask — how can the government hand out huge tax breaks to profitable banks and oil companies while ignoring families in poverty — is more rhetorical than a specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 634,000 children are living in poverty, and poverty, as the minister has just said, has been on the rise since the Conservatives took power. Too many have to rely on EI to get by, benefits are running out, and people still cannot find full-time jobs to replace the ones they have lost. How can the government continue to hand out huge tax breaks to profitable banks and oil companies while ignoring Canadian families living in poverty?
Finley says the NDP's concern for poverty is late in coming and lists Economic Action Plan measures — additional five weeks of EI, benefits for the self-employed, and training funding — that the NDP voted against.
Finley does not address the tax breaks cited or the specific poverty figure, instead pivoting to attack the NDP's voting record against Economic Action Plan measures, which is a deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the NDP's concern for poverty is a little late in coming. During the economic action plan, it was our government that tried to help those who were unfortunate enough to lose their jobs through no fault of their own by adding an additional five weeks and by making benefits available to the self-employed. We also provided unprecedented funding for training to help these people get the skills they needed for the jobs of the future. Unfortunately, the NDP voted against every one of those initiatives to help lift these people out of poverty.
Turmel notes announced personnel cuts at Human Resources, Canadian Heritage, and Environment Canada, describes them as arbitrary and unexplained, and asks the President of the Treasury Board to explain the logic behind the cuts.
Turmel identifies specific departments — Ressources humaines, Patrimoine canadien, Environnement Canada — facing cuts and asks for the logic behind them, providing some factual grounding, though the question is partly rhetorical in suggesting the cuts are arbitrary.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement a commencé à annoncer les coupures de personnel à travers les divers ministères: Ressources humaines, Patrimoine canadien, Environnement Canada. On dirait que ces coupures de personnel sont faites de façon arbitraire et que le gouvernement n'essaie même plus de fournir des explications aux Canadiens. On assiste à une véritable séance d'improvisation de la part du gouvernement. Le président du Conseil du Trésor pourrait-il nous expliquer la logique derrière ces coupures, s'il y en a une, bien sûr?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government has begun announcing staff cutbacks in many departments including HRSDC, Canadian Heritage and Environment Canada. It appears that these cuts have been made arbitrarily and that the government is no longer even trying to justify its actions to Canadians. The government really seems to be making things up as it goes along. Can the President of the Treasury Board explain the logic behind these cuts—that is, if there is any logic involved?
Clement says the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report does not paint the full picture, that the government's plans are on stream to rationalize some services and deliver them better to taxpayers, in line with the government's election mandate.
Clement references the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report and speaks of rationalizing services and delivering them better, but does not explain the logic behind the specific departmental cuts cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer which takes a look at part of our plans to ensure that we live within our means as departments, but it does not paint the full picture. Our plans are on stream. We are looking at rationalizing some services, but also delivering those services to taxpayers in a better way. That is our promise to taxpayers. That was what we ran on during the most recent election campaign and we have a strong mandate to do so.
Boulerice asks how the President of the Treasury Board can impose cuts on Canadians when he is responsible for wasting $50 million of taxpayers' money through the Fonds sur l'infrastructure frontalière on projects in his riding located 300 km from the border.
Boulerice asks a pointed question tying a specific allegation — the use of the Fonds sur l'infrastructure frontalière for projects 300 km from the border in the President of the Treasury Board's riding — to the government's current austerity cuts, providing geographic and financial specificity.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, maintenant qu'on sait que le président du Conseil du Trésor est en mesure de se lever, j'aimerais beaucoup lui redonner la chance, pour une troisième fois, de s'expliquer devant la population canadienne au sujet de l'utilisation du Fonds sur l'infrastructure frontalière pour des projets dans son comté, situé à 300 km de la frontière. Comment le président du Conseil du Trésor peut-il dire aux Canadiens qu'il va leur imposer des compressions dans leurs services alors qu'il est lui-même responsable du gaspillage de 50 millions de dollars de l'argent des contribuables?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, now that we know that the President of the Treasury Board is able to stand, I would like to give him a third opportunity to tell Canadians about his use of the border infrastructure fund for projects in his riding, which is 300 kilometres from the border. How can the President of the Treasury Board tell Canadians that he is going to cut their services when he himself is responsible for wasting $50 million of taxpayers' money?
Baird states there were 32 infrastructure projects including resurfacing a runway at the airport in North Bay, repaving a provincial highway, and building a community centre, all of which came in on time and under budget, and that the government accepted the Auditor General's recommendations.
Baird lists specific projects (runway resurfacing at North Bay airport, repaving a provincial highway, building a community centre) and states they came in on time and under budget and that the Auditor General's recommendations were accepted, but does not address why a border infrastructure fund was used 300 km from the border.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to this issue before. There were 32 infrastructure projects that went forward, including resurfacing a runway at the airport in North Bay, repaving a provincial highway, and building a community centre. All of those projects came in on time. All of those projects came in under budget. The Auditor General raised some legitimate concerns and observations about how the government could do a better job and this government has accepted those recommendations.
Angus asks the minister to apologize for the abuse of the public trust represented by spending $50 million on glow sticks and gazebos through the G8 legacy fund, comparing it to the mayor, hotel manager, and minister stuffing a porcine pinata.
Angus's question is dominated by colourful rhetoric — glow sticks, gazebos, 'three amigos,' 'porcine pinata,' baubles and booty — with only the $50 million figure providing factual grounding; the ask for an apology is more performative than accountability-seeking.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when Canadians pay their taxes, they expect that their hard-earned dollars are going to be treated with respect. If we look at how the President of the Treasury blew through $50 million on glow sticks and gazebos, it is as if the three amigos, the mayor, the hotel manager and the minister, stuffed the largest porcine pinata ever conceived and then whacked all those baubles and booty over the hills of Muskoka. When will the minister apologize for this abuse of the public trust?
Baird expresses disappointment at the level of debate and states that the 32 infrastructure projects in the legacy fund were all public infrastructure projects, that every single dollar was accounted for, and that all projects are now in the hands of municipalities, airport authorities, or provincial governments.
Baird again lists the 32 infrastructure projects, states every dollar was accounted for and all projects are now in the hands of municipalities, airport authorities, or provincial governments, providing relevant factual defence, though not addressing the specific accountability concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest when the new Leader of the Opposition said that he was going to come to the House of Commons and raise the level of debate. I am very disappointed by the comments made by the member opposite. With respect to the legacy fund, there were 32 infrastructure projects. They were all public infrastructure projects similar to projects done right across the country from coast to coast to coast. Every single dollar was accounted for. All the projects are now in the hands of municipalities, airport authorities, or provincial governments, and all providing good value for taxpayers.
Angus compares the Treasury Board President's use of public funds for partisan gain to Chuck Guité's conduct for which Guité went to jail, and asks when the minister from Muskoka will stand up in the House and be accountable for his misrepresentation of public funds.
Angus draws a specific comparison to Chuck Guité's criminal conviction for misusing public funds, asks why the minister from Muskoka got the keys to the Treasury Board instead of accountability, and asks when the minister will be accountable for his misrepresentation of public funds — but the question is heavily rhetorical and relies on a hyperbolic analogy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP would certainly like to raise the level of debate, but to do that we would have to raise up somebody from the dead. He seems to be either hiding in the doghouse or he was put in the doghouse since he got whacked by the Auditor General. When Chuck Guité played around with public funds for partisan gain, he got sent to jail. When the minister from Muskoka played around with public funds for partisan gain, he got the keys to the Treasury Board. What kind of message does this send to Canadians? When will this minister stand up in the House and be accountable for his misrepresentation of public funds?
Baird says he deeply regrets that the question was slanderous and character assassination and that he expected better from the New Democratic Party.
Baird does not address any factual element of the question, instead characterizing it as 'slanderous and character assassination' and expressing regret — a pure non-answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that, I deeply regret to say, was slanderous and character assassination. I expected better from the New Democratic Party.
Cash notes that Toronto businesses including the owner of the Horseshoe Tavern are still waiting for G20 compensation a year later, and asks when the government will stop stonewalling, treat Toronto with respect, and get their compensation out the door quickly.
Cash grounds the question in a specific case — the owner of the Horseshoe Tavern still waiting for compensation a year after the G20 — and asks when the government will stop stonewalling and get compensation out the door, giving it reasonable specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a year later and Toronto is still waiting for the government to accept full responsibility for the fallout of the G20 mess. Some Toronto councillors are pushing for long-term solutions, but the immediate financial needs still require action. Last week, New Democrats met, for example, with the owner of the Horseshoe Tavern which is one of the businesses still waiting for compensation. When will the government stop stonewalling, treat Toronto with respect, and get their compensation out the door quickly?
Baird asserts the government has always treated Toronto with respect, references the May 2 election results in the GTA, and repeats his offer from the previous week that if the member provides him with the name of any business awaiting compensation, he will ensure it is rectified as quickly as possible.
Baird references his prior offer from last week to act on specific businesses named by the member, and reiterates the invitation, but does not provide a timeline or explain why compensation has been delayed a year, making it a partial response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government has always treated the city of Toronto with respect, and let me tell members that on May 2 the people of Toronto showed their support and their respect for this government. Not only did we sweep the GTA with all but one, but we won the most seats in the city of Toronto. I said to the member opposite when he asked this question last week, and I said to my friend from Parkdale—High Park, if there is any business, and the member provided the name of one, that is awaiting compensation, give it to me, I will be very happy to ensure that it is rectified as quickly as possible.
Chow asks why Toronto businesses faced burdensome paperwork and mostly dismissed or insulted claims in G20 compensation while Muskoka recipients faced no such process.
The question raises a concrete policy contrast between Muskoka and Toronto G20 compensation processes but frames it rhetorically and ends with a vague 'what did Toronto businesses do to deserve' rather than a sharp answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives rewarded their friends in Muskoka, no applications were required, no documentation was needed. However, in Toronto, they piled on paperwork and told Toronto businesses that they have to go into a process that is slow, bureaucratic, unfair and opaque, and then dismissed most of the claims or insulted them with a tiny amount. What did Toronto businesses do to deserve such poor and shabby treatment?
Baird says he is happy to move expeditiously on the four or five outstanding cases and then praises Toronto's newly elected Conservative MPs.
Baird offers to expedite outstanding cases (four or five) but pivots to congratulating Toronto's newly elected Conservative MPs, deflecting from the substantive complaint about the compensation process being slow, bureaucratic, and unfair.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if there are any businesses in the city of Toronto that are waiting for compensation, as I said last week, and I will say again, I got the name of one from the member for Davenport, and if the member for Trinity—Spadina knows of any businesses that are awaiting a response, I understand there are four or five yet to be determined, we would be very happy to move as expeditiously as possible. I can say this. Boy, oh, boy, in the last 30 years, the people in Toronto elected the best crop of MPs that we have seen in that city in a long time.
Rafferty asks whether the President of the Treasury Board will apologize for diverting $50 million from the border infrastructure fund to communities in the minister's riding while ignoring border regions like northwestern Ontario.
The question cites a specific dollar figure ($50 million diverted from the border infrastructure fund) and a specific grievance (northwestern Ontario border wait times), making a fairly grounded accountability ask, though the apology framing is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during tourist season in northwestern Ontario, visitors can wait more than three hours to cross the border. For our communities, tourism is a key part of the economy. Yet, the government diverted $50 million from the border infrastructure fund to beautify communities in the minister's riding, using the fund as a private wish list, while ignoring border regions like northwestern Ontario. Is the President of the Treasury Board finally ready to apologize?
Baird denies that any funds were diverted, states the existing authorities in the fund were used under three specific categories, and notes the Auditor General raised concerns about transparency which the government accepted.
Baird directly contests the factual premise — stating no funds were diverted — and references the Auditor General's concerns about transparency, which partially addresses the question, though he does not address northwestern Ontario border wait times.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to correct the record. No such funds were diverted. We used the existing authorities in this fund to provide support under three specific categories. The Auditor General has raised some legitimate concerns about the transparency and the clarity to the House of Commons in the approving of those estimates, and we have fully accepted her advice. However, I am very pleased to clarify that not a single dollar was moved that otherwise would have been spent on border infrastructure for this project. So, I know he will be very pleased with that.
Foote asks whether the minister will admit a mistake was made in closing maritime search and rescue centres in St. John's and Quebec City, citing expert Winston Pitcher's warning to the Prime Minister that the closures could delay rescues and put public safety at risk.
The question cites a specific named expert (Winston Pitcher, head of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary in Newfoundland and Labrador) and his direct warning to the Prime Minister, and asks a pointed question about whether the minister will admit a mistake regarding the closure of maritime search and rescue centres.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans wants us to believe that the closure of maritime search and rescue centres in St. John's and Quebec City will not affect lifesaving services. However, yesterday, Winston Pitcher, the head of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary in Newfoundland and Labrador, told the Prime Minister that these closures could delay rescues and put public safety at risk. Where are the government's priorities? It makes massive increases to its own offices while cutting lifesaving rescue centres. When will the minister admit a mistake has been made and start listening to search and rescue experts?
Ashfield says the government is finding efficiencies and aligning resources but is absolutely not putting the lives of Canadians at risk, and that safety and security remain the top priority.
Ashfield provides only a vague assurance that the government is 'absolutely not putting the lives of Canadians at risk' without addressing Winston Pitcher's specific warning, the closures in St. John's and Quebec City, or whether any mistake has been made.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government has been clear about finding efficiencies and aligning our resources, but we are absolutely not putting the lives of Canadians at risk. Our top priority will continue to be the safety and security of all Canadians.
Simms cites quotes from Merv Wiseman (search and rescue coordinator and former Conservative candidate) and the Prime Minister warning about the consequences of closing search and rescue centres, and asks the regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador to rise and condemn the cuts.
The question deploys two specific named quotes — from Merv Wiseman (maritime search and rescue coordinator and former Conservative candidate) and from the Prime Minister himself — to hold the government to its own words, and asks the regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador to condemn the cuts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, regarding the closure of the search and rescue centre in Newfoundland and Labrador, here is a quote: “A call centre? I am offended because it diminishes my role and the essential work that we do for human safety.” Who said that? It was Merv Wiseman, maritime search and rescue coordinator and a former Conservative candidate. Here is another quote: The closure may have saved the Liberal government a few dollars, but Newfoundland and Labrador have had to suffer the consequences. Who said that? The Prime Minister. Will the regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador, that is right, the member of Parliament for Labrador, rise in this House, finally, and condemn these cuts?
Ashfield attacks the former Liberal government for decimating the Canadian Coast Guard and cites $1.4 billion in fleet renewal and a 33% increase in Coast Guard positions in Newfoundland and Labrador since 2006.
Ashfield does not address either quote, the named individuals, or the regional minister's silence, instead pivoting to attacking the former Liberal government's record and citing $1.4 billion in fleet renewal and a 33% increase in Coast Guard positions in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is from a fine source, the former Liberal government that decimated the Canadian Coast Guard through its neglect. Since 2006, our government has made unprecedented investments in the protection of Canadians to the tune of $1.4 billion invested in fleet renewal. In Newfoundland and Labrador, there has been a 33% increase in Canadian Coast Guard positions since we came to office. We have also relocated two of Canada's heaviest and most capable icebreakers, the Terry Fox and the Louis S. St-Laurent.
Murray asks how the minister explains to 93-year-old retired Major Gordon MacLean Logan, wounded six times in WWII, that partisan advertising spending up 215% is helping him live with dignity while he struggles to reach his Veterans Affairs case worker.
The question personalizes the accountability ask with a named veteran (retired Major Gordon MacLean Logan, 93, wounded six times in WWII) and cites a specific statistic (government advertising exploded by 215%), creating a concrete contrast, though the ask conflates two separate issues.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 93-year old retired Major Gordon MacLean Logan, who was wounded six times during World War II, dedicated his life to serving Canadians. For the past three years, he has had to pull teeth to speak to his Veterans Affairs case worker, thanks to a lack of resources. Is this how the Conservative government honours our veterans? While Mr. Logan's health is failing, government advertising has exploded by 215%. Can the minister please explain to Mr. Logan and his family how partisan overspending is helping him live with dignity?
Blaney says the government cares for veterans' well-being and has invested and will keep investing in their mental and physical health.
Blaney offers only a generic assurance that the government cares for veterans and will keep investing in their mental and physical health, without addressing the named veteran's case, the advertising spending figure, or the access-to-caseworker problem.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member has raised an important issue. We on this side of the House, and I hope on all sides of the House, care for the well-being of all of our veterans. This is why we have invested and keep investing in the health of our veterans, whether it be their mental or physical health. We will keep on investing and will take care of all of our veterans here, today and tomorrow.
Julian asks whether the minister will produce new foreign investment rules to determine if a takeover is in the public interest before deciding on the sale of the Toronto Stock Exchange.
Julian cites a pattern of foreign takeovers with unmet commitments (Vale Inco, Stelco, Custom House) and makes a specific and time-sensitive ask — that new foreign investment rules be established before a decision is made on the Toronto Stock Exchange sale.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, voilà des mois que le gouvernement se traîne les pieds dans le dossier des investissements étrangers. Entretemps, la liste des compagnies étrangères qui trahissent leurs engagements par des mises à pied s'allonge: Vale Inco, Stelco et maintenant Custom House, à Victoria. Il faut adopter de nouvelles règles en matière d'investissements étrangers pour déterminer si, réellement, une prise de contrôle est dans l'intérêt public et quelles garanties s'imposent. Est-ce que le ministre va produire ces nouvelles règles avant de décider à qui la Bourse de Toronto sera vendue? Je dis bien « avant ».
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for months the government has been dragging its feet on the issue of foreign investment. In the meantime, the list of foreign companies that are reneging on their commitments through layoffs continues to grow: Vale Inco, Stelco and now Custom House in Victoria. We need new regulations governing foreign investment to determine whether takeovers are truly in the public interest and to determine what guarantees are required. Will the minister develop these new regulations before—yes, before—deciding who the Toronto Stock Exchange will be sold to?
Paradis says the government favours better competition, supports foreign investment review, and wants to give more choice to consumers, without addressing the specific ask about new rules or the TMX timeline.
Paradis offers only generic talking points about competition, consumer choice, and economic stewardship without addressing the specific ask about new rules or the TMX timeline.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous sommes clairs, de ce côté-ci de la Chambre. Nous voulons favoriser une meilleure compétition. L'examen des investissements étrangers est essentiel. Nous voulons donner plus de choix aux consommateurs. Ce que mon collègue tente de faire ici, c'est de mêler toutes sortes de dossiers. Mais une chose est certaine: nous continuerons d'aller de l'avant avec nos politiques pour être de bons gardiens de l'économie et pour que la reprise économique puisse s'ancrer une fois pour toutes et solidement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have been clear on this side of the House. We want to promote increased competition. Studying foreign investments is essential. We want to give consumers more choice. The hon. member is trying to mix different issues and muddy the waters. One thing is clear: we will continue to move forward with our policies in order to safeguard the economy and ensure that the economic recovery takes solid hold once and for all.
Julian cites that only two of 13,500 takeovers have been blocked since Investment Canada was created, notes the government moved the TMX review deadline into the summer when Parliament is not in session, and asks the government to commit to a transparent public review of the Toronto Stock Exchange takeover bid.
Julian cites a specific statistic (only two out of 13,500 takeovers blocked since Investment Canada was created), references specific cases (Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan and MacDonald Dettwiler), and makes a clear ask about a transparent public review of the Toronto Stock Exchange takeover before Parliament rises.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer. The truth is that only two out of 13,500 takeovers have been blocked since Investment Canada was created. The takeovers of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan and MacDonald Dettwiler were only stopped after the NDP held the government to account for its lack of transparency. We did the heavy lifting. Now the minister has moved the deadline of the TMX takeover review into the summer when Parliament is not in session. Will the government commit to acting now to establish a transparent public review of the Toronto Stock Exchange takeover bid?
Paradis says foreign investment is key to Canada's economic growth, the government will continue to encourage it, and significant investments will remain reviewable under the Investment Canada Act as a net benefit for Canada.
Paradis acknowledges that significant investments remain reviewable under the Investment Canada Act as a net benefit for Canada, but does not address the specific ask for a transparent public review of the TMX bid or the deadline being moved to the summer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, foreign investment is key to the growth of the Canadian economy and our government will continue to encourage it. We believe in a strong economy. That being said, significant investments will continue to be reviewable under the Investment Canada Act, and always as a net benefit for Canada.
Morin cites a statistic showing an 18% increase in hate crimes against the gay and lesbian community — with more than half involving violence — and asks what measures the government intends to take to combat this increase.
Morin cites a specific statistic (18% increase in hate crimes against the gay and lesbian community) and notes that more than half involve violence rather than property crimes, making a specific policy ask about measures to combat this trend.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les dernières statistiques démontrent une augmentation de 18 p. 100 des crimes haineux contre la communauté gay et lesbienne. Alors que la plupart des autres crimes haineux sont principalement perpétrés contre la propriété, plus de la moitié de ceux commis contre les gays et lesbiennes impliquent de la violence. C'est inacceptable. Quelles mesures le gouvernement entend-il prendre pour combattre l'augmentation des crimes haineux contre les gays et lesbiennes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the latest statistics show an increase of 18% in hate crimes against the gay and lesbian community. While most other hate crimes are committed mainly against property, over half of those committed against gays and lesbians involve violence. This is unacceptable. What measures does the government intend to take to combat the increase in hate crimes against gays and lesbians?
Van Loan says the government strongly believes in protecting the rights of all Canadians regardless of their background and that this continues to be its position.
Van Loan responds only with a generic statement that the government believes in protecting the rights of all Canadians regardless of background, with no reference to the cited statistics or any specific measures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government's track record is clear. We believe strongly in protecting the rights of all Canadians regardless of their background, regardless of their roots. That continues to be the position of our government.
Garrison notes that transgender Canadians remain unprotected against hate crimes and discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Code, cites that the House passed legislation to address this in its last session with the Minister of Justice's support, and asks the government to act now.
Garrison identifies a specific legal gap (transgender Canadians not protected under hate crimes law or the Canadian Human Rights Code), references that the House already passed legislation to address this in its last session with support from the Minister of Justice, making a concrete and specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, sadly and unjustly, transgender Canadians are still not protected against hate crimes nor are they protected against discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Code. In its last session, this House passed legislation to provide those protections, legislation that was supported by the Minister of Justice. This is a question of equality for Canadians who are our brothers and sisters, our daughters, our sons, our neighbours and our friends. Will this government act now to protect the rights and safety of transgender Canadians?
Van Loan repeats that the government's commitment to the equality of all Canadians remains as firm as it has always been.
Van Loan repeats nearly verbatim his answer to Exchange 23 — a generic commitment to equality for all Canadians — without addressing the specific legislation, the legal gap, or any commitment to act on transgender protections.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I already indicated to this House, the commitment of this government to the equality of all Canadians remains as firm as it has always been. That continues to be our position and will be in the future.
Sorenson asks the Minister of Foreign Affairs to update the House on the Conservative government's latest steps to support the Syrian people amid the crackdown by the Assad regime.
This is a government backbench softball question asking the Minister of Foreign Affairs to update the House on steps taken regarding Syria, with no accountability pressure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to ignore the current unrest in Syria and the plight of its people. As we speak, innocent civilians who have been protesting peacefully are being arbitrarily arrested, tortured and in some cases even killed by the Assad regime. Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs please update the House on the Conservative government's latest steps to further support the Syrian people?
Baird announces he has asked Canada's UN Human Rights Council delegation to introduce and seek support for a motion to condemn the Assad regime's actions as a gross violation of human rights, and calls on the regime to end the killing, arbitrary arrests, torture, and crackdown on peaceful democratic demonstrations.
Baird provides a specific and timely answer — announcing that he has asked Canada's UN Human Rights Council delegation to introduce a motion to condemn the Assad regime — along with concrete calls for action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that today I have asked our Canadian delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Council to introduce and seek the support of like-minded nations to condemn the actions of the Assad regime in Syria as a gross violation of human rights. The Government of Canada, and I believe all parties in this place, calls on the Syrian regime to immediately end the killing, the arbitrary arrests, the torture and other acts of violence against its people. We also call on the Assad regime to stop trying to divert domestic and international attention from its brutal crackdown on peaceful, democratic demonstrations. The situation in Syria is completely unacceptable, and Canada will continue to show its support for people seeking freedom in Syria.
Nicholls asks when the Mercier Bridge will be repaired and where the government's plan is, citing broken election promises from 2008 and 2011 and the imminent burden of extended wait times for South Shore residents.
The question references broken election promises (2008 and 2011) and the concrete immediate crisis of the Mercier Bridge closure, and asks for a repair timeline, though the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la fermeture d'une partie du pont Mercier annoncée hier est une autre tuile qui tombe sur la tête des gens de la Rive-Sud. Ils vivront des heures interminables d'attente. Lors de l'élection de 2008, on a promis des ponts pour Montréal. En 2011, d'autres promesses ont été faites. Action: zéro! Où est le plan? Quand le pont sera-t-il réparé?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the partial closure of the Mercier Bridge announced yesterday is yet another blow to the people of the south shore. Wait times will be interminable. During the 2008 election, Montreal was promised bridges. In 2011, more promises were made. What has been done? Nothing. Where is the plan? When will the bridge be repaired?
Lebel explains that the Mercier Bridge is owned 50% by the Quebec government and 50% by the federal government, that the federal government has invested $135 million in repairs to the federal portion since 2006, and that all options are on the table to ensure safety.
Lebel clarifies joint ownership (50% Quebec, 50% federal), cites a specific investment figure ($135 million since 2006 for the federal portion of the Mercier Bridge), and states all options are on the table for safety — partially responsive but does not provide a repair timeline.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme doit probablement le savoir mon confrère, ce pont est la propriété à 50 p. 100 du gouvernement du Québec et à 50 p. 100 du gouvernement fédéral. Depuis l'arrivée de notre gouvernement en 2006, nous avons investi 135 millions de dollars pour réparer la partie fédérale du pont Mercier et continuer les travaux. Comme on le fait dans tous les dossiers des ponts de Montréal, on va continuer à assurer la sécurité, et toutes les options sont sur la table pour sécuriser le secteur.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member likely knows, ownership of this bridge is shared 50-50 between the Government of Quebec and the federal government. Since our government took office in 2006, we have invested $135 million in repairing the federal government's share of the Mercier Bridge and in continuing the work. As with all bridges in Montreal, we will continue to ensure that the Mercier Bridge is safe, and all options are on the table to keep the area safe.
LeBlanc asks when the federal government will understand that Montreal's entire economy is at stake due to years of infrastructure inaction that has produced the current crisis, criticizing vague promises of a long-term infrastructure plan.
LeBlanc asks a broad rhetorical question about when the federal government will understand that Montreal's entire economy is at stake, citing six years of inaction, without a specific and answerable policy ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'été va être très chaud. Des bouchons monstres sont à prévoir dans toute la grande région métropolitaine. Le ministre nous a offert de vagues promesses d'un plan à long terme en infrastructures. L'inaction du gouvernement au cours des six dernières années nous amène à la crise que nous vivons aujourd'hui. Quand le gouvernement fédéral va-t-il comprendre que c'est toute l'économie de Montréal qui est en cause?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the summer is going to be very hot, and major traffic jams are expected to affect the entire greater metropolitan area. The minister has made vague promises about a long-term infrastructure plan. The government's inaction over the past six years has led us to the crisis we are experiencing today. When will the federal government understand that Montreal's entire economy is at stake?
Lebel argues that if there are traffic jams it is because there is construction, and that construction exists because the government completed 28,000 projects through the Prime Minister's Economic Action Plan.
Lebel dismisses the concern by arguing that traffic jams are proof of construction work and credits the Economic Action Plan with 28,000 projects nationally — a deflection that does not address the Montreal infrastructure crisis.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ma consoeur vient de donner la réponse dans sa question. S'il y a des bouchons, c'est parce qu'il y a des travaux. Et s'il y a des travaux, c'est parce qu'on a réalisé 28 000 projets grâce au Plan d'action économique de ce premier ministre, qui prend en considération tous les travaux partout au pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just answered her own question. If there are traffic jams, it is because there is work being done. If work is being done, it is because we have carried out 28,000 projects across the country under the Prime Minister's economic action plan.
Stewart asks where the minister's plan is to help young Canadians find work, citing a 15% youth unemployment rate (double the general rate) that is getting worse.
Stewart cites the specific youth unemployment rate (15%, double the general rate) and contextualizes the impact on students and new graduates, making a reasonably grounded ask about the government's plan for youth employment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, young Canadians are facing a tough summer. The unemployment rate for young Canadians stands at 15%, and it has been getting worse. That is double the general rate. This means that university students will be forced to take out more loans and new grads will not find that critical first job. The government's approach to youth employment has clearly failed. Where is the minister's plan to help young Canadians find work?
Finley announces the launch of Canada's summer jobs program with an additional $10 million in permanent funding, creating an additional 3,500 jobs for students each year going forward.
Finley announces a specific recent program — an additional $10 million in permanent funding for Canada's summer jobs program, creating an additional 3,500 jobs annually — which directly responds to the question about the government's plan for youth employment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we do want to help students get prepared, not just for summer jobs but also for their careers in the long term. That is why I was very pleased to announce last week the launch of Canada's summer jobs program for this summer with an additional $10 million in permanent funding. That is an additional 3,500 jobs for students each and every year going forward. These funds will help them get the jobs they need to get experience, and also help pay for their studies going forward so they will not have to go as far into debt.
Caron asks what the government intends to do to reduce youth unemployment, citing a 15% rate among those aged 20 to 25, heavy student debt, and an increasing prevalence of precarious and poorly paid jobs.
Caron cites the 15% unemployment rate among youth aged 20 to 25 and raises the issue of precarious and poorly paid jobs beyond just summer employment, but the ask is broad and largely repeats Exchange 28.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, de toute évidence, ce gouvernement ne saisit pas l'ampleur du problème que représente le manque d'emplois pour les jeunes de ce pays. Avec un taux de chômage de 15 p. 100 chez les jeunes de 20 à 25 ans, tous ceux et celles qui ont besoin d'un emploi d'été pour financer leurs études sont inquiets. Non seulement nos jeunes s'endettent-ils fortement pour s'instruire, mais de plus en plus, ils ne peuvent trouver que des emplois précaires et mal payés. Qu'est-ce que ce gouvernement entend faire pour réduire le chômage chez les jeunes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government obviously does not understand the extent of the problem of the lack of jobs for the youth of this country. With an unemployment rate of 15% for youth between the ages of 20 and 25, all those who need summer jobs to pay for their education are worried. Not only do our young people go into a great deal of debt to attend school, but, increasingly, they are finding only insecure and poorly paid jobs. What does this government intend to do to reduce youth unemployment?
Finley repeats that the government has announced funding to create 3,600 additional jobs this summer for students to help them gain experience and fund their return to post-secondary education.
Finley largely repeats her answer from Exchange 28, this time citing 3,600 additional jobs (slightly different from the 3,500 cited previously), which provides some relevant information but does not address the broader issue of precarious employment.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je viens de le dire, nous voulons aider ces jeunes, ces étudiants, à acquérir de l'expérience et des compétences non seulement pendant l'été, mais aussi pour une carrière à long terme. C'est pourquoi nous venons d'annoncer un montant très important qui va permettre de créer 3 600 emplois de plus cet été pour nos étudiants afin de les aider à acquérir de l'expérience et à avoir des fonds pour retourner à leur formation postsecondaire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, we want to help these young people, these students, acquire experience and skills, not just during the summer but also as part of a long-term career. That is why we have just announced a very large amount of money that will result in the creation of 3,600 additional student jobs this summer in order to help young people obtain experience and earn money to continue their post-secondary education.
Valeriote asks the minister to explain what the new Canadian Wheat Board model will look like, how it will be implemented, and whether it will continue to be supported by government guarantees, warning that western farmers are currently in a weak negotiating position.
Valeriote identifies a specific sector ($5.1 billion wheat industry), articulates specific functions at risk (negotiations for wheat sales, railcar contracts, agricultural research funding), and asks three distinct but clearly related questions about the new board model, implementation, and government guarantees.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister has declared that the Wheat Board will be transformed, without disclosing his new model. The $5.1 billion wheat industry relies on the strength of the Wheat Board in negotiations for the sale of wheat, the procurement of contracts for railcars and the funding of agricultural research. With the future of the Wheat Board undefined, the minister has placed our western farmers in a weak negotiating position, and farmers are at risk of incurring huge losses. Will the minister explain what his new board model will look like, how it will be implemented and whether it will continue to be supported by government guarantees?
Ritz says the government wants the Wheat Board to move forward in an open and accountable way to the farmers it serves, similar to the operation in Ontario, and cites Keith Degenhardt of the Western Grains Research Foundation on check-off collection methods.
Ritz offers only a vague reference to an Ontario-style open model and cites Keith Degenhardt on check-off collection methods — without addressing what the new board model will look like structurally, how it will be implemented, or whether government guarantees will continue.
Source text
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House want to ensure that the Wheat Board has the ability to move forward, not in a single desk way but in a way that is open and accountable to the farmers it serves, very similar to the operation we see in Ontario. I would like to cite Keith Degenhardt from the Western Grains Research Foundation, as the member opposite brought up how we do the check-off. Mr. Degenhardt says that the Canadian Wheat Board method of collecting the check-off is certainly not the only method of collecting wheat and barley check-offs. They look forward to working with us.
Why is the government destroying the Canadian Wheat Board and why will prairie farmers not be allowed a plebiscite vote?
The question identifies specific consequences (producer car-loading rights, Port of Churchill, Winnipeg jobs) but is compound and rhetorically framed, with the plebiscite ask buried in partisan language.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, skip the quote and have the plebiscite. That is what the farmers in the Prairies want to see. The government has demonstrated that it does not care what the prairie farmer has to say, as the Prime Minister himself has decided to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. At what cost? Producer car-loading rights will be destroyed, the Port of Churchill will be devastated, hundreds of good-quality jobs will be lost in Winnipeg. Why is the government destroying the Canadian Wheat Board and tell us why the farmers will not be allowed to have a vote? Why no plebiscite for prairie farmers?
The minister quoted a Manitoba farmer and vice-president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association supporting the end of the CWB monopoly as good for farmers and investment.
The minister deflects entirely by quoting a Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association member rather than addressing the plebiscite ask or the specific harms cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, western Canadian farmers have been inundated with advice from Ontario members and members from downtown Winnipeg, but what they do is listen to their own. This is what a farmer from Manitoba, the vice-president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, said: —this change is all about improving the bottom line for farmers, restoring our property rights and creating greater prosperity throughout the prairies— Ending the CWB monopoly creates the opportunity to reverse that trend and encourage much-needed investment in the wheat and barley industry throughout western Canada, including Winnipeg.
Why is the minister not aggressively protecting children's health by requiring drug companies to disclose information on drug effects on children?
The question identifies a specific regulatory gap — Health Canada not requiring drug companies to disclose drug effects on children — but the ask is broad and somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health is well aware that children in Canada are at risk to the improper use of medications, because Health Canada does not require drug companies to disclose information on drug effects on children. It seems astounding that Health Canada would allow this to happen. Drug safety is a huge public concern, so why is the minister not aggressively protecting the health of children and all Canadians with strict regulations for drug safety?
The parliamentary secretary cited Canada's drug approval system, the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, and MedEffect Canada as evidence of a safe system.
The parliamentary secretary cites the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network and MedEffect Canada but does not address the specific issue of mandatory disclosure of drug effects on children.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member and all Canadians that we have one of the safest drug approval systems in the world. We have made significant investments in the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network. As well, our government also created MedEffect Canada, a one-stop resource for health product safety information and adverse reaction reporting.
Will the minister commit to regulations requiring full disclosure by drug companies on the effects of medications on children, given that Canada lags behind the U.S. and Europe?
The question sharpens the previous exchange by referencing the Canadian Medical Association Journal, comparing Canada unfavourably to the U.S. and Europe, and making a specific ask for regulations requiring full disclosure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary should get up to speed, because the Canadian Medical Association Journal certainly does not seem to think the government has addressed this issue in any adequate way. In both the U.S. and Europe, regulatory and legislative changes ensure drug testing and disclosure on the effects of medications on children, but Canada lags far behind. Will the minister commit today to regulations that require full disclosure by drug companies so that children are not at risk when they are taking their medications?
The parliamentary secretary cited incentives for manufacturers to submit pediatric information, a six-month data protection for pediatric indication filings, and an independent pediatric expert advisory committee.
The parliamentary secretary mentions encouraging manufacturers to submit pediatric information, a six-month data protection incentive for pediatric indication, and an independent pediatric expert advisory committee, partially engaging the topic but not committing to mandatory regulations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member and Canadians that we are up to speed. We encourage manufacturers to submit pediatric information and to introduce an additional six-month data protection for drugs if they are filed for pediatric indication. In addition, our government created an independent pediatric expert advisory committee to provide advice on the development, licensing and vigilance of products.
Could the Minister of State for Finance explain why swift passage of the supporting vulnerable seniors and strengthening Canada's economy act is critical?
This is a government-backbench softball setup citing the new legislation and economic statistics to invite the minister to tout it, with no accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while Canada has seen over 560,000 net new jobs created since July 2009 and seven straight quarters of economic growth, too many Canadians unfortunately are still looking for work and the global economic recovery remains fragile. That is why we need to stay the course and move forward with the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. Indeed, our Conservative government did that today with the introduction of the supporting vulnerable seniors and strengthening Canada's economy act. Could the Minister of State for Finance please inform the House why swift passage of this legislation is critical for Canada--
The minister stated that 680,000 Canadians are waiting for a GIS top-up and that legislation must pass before the July 1 deadline to deliver it.
The minister provides a specific and actionable answer, citing 680,000 Canadians waiting for a GIS top-up and a firm July 1 deadline, giving real information about the urgency of the legislation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that question reminds us that there are 680,000 Canadians who are now waiting for the July 1 deadline or they will not get this top-up for their GIS. We need quick movement through the House for this legislation. These seniors worked hard throughout their lives to support our economy. The least we can do, as members of Parliament, is to move this through quickly so that we meet the deadline we set of July 1.
Why has the minister not personally intervened with her counterpart in Lebanon to seek the safe return of New Brunswick potato farmer Henk Tepper, imprisoned there for almost three months?
The question is specific: it names Henk Tepper, identifies three months imprisonment in Lebanon due to a commercial dispute in Algeria, acknowledges the prior narrow consular answer, and asks a precise follow-up about personal political intervention with Lebanon.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday when we asked the minister of state about the case of Henk Tepper, a New Brunswick potato farmer imprisoned for almost three months in Lebanon as a result of a commercial dispute in Algeria, the minister gave us a narrow technical answer about consular services offered to Mr. Tepper. Mr. Tepper's wife and children want to ask the minister why she has not personally intervened with her counterpart in Lebanon to ask for Mr. Tepper's safe return to Canada. Why the refusal to use political means with the government of Lebanon to have this Canadian farmer safely returned to Canada and end the ordeal in Lebanon?
The minister noted many exchanges between Canada's consular services and Lebanese authorities and explained that Canada cannot expect other countries to exempt Canadian citizens from their legal processes.
The minister acknowledges exchanges between Canada's consular services and Lebanese authorities but pivots to a general explanation of why Canada cannot simply extract citizens from foreign legal processes, without addressing the specific ask of personal ministerial intervention.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there have been many exchanges between Canada's consular services and authorities in Lebanon. However, I think Canadians understand that there is no simple way to transfer a Canadian citizen, who is in the legal process in another country, back to Canada. Canada would not allow another country to simply say, “Don't deal with one of our citizens in your legal system”, and we cannot expect other countries to exempt--
Why did the government allow the elder abuse awareness initiative to end on March 31 with nothing in its place to protect seniors?
The opposition question is specific in identifying Elder Abuse Prevention Day, naming the elder abuse awareness initiative, and citing its end date of March 31 with nothing in its place, making a clear accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today is Elder Abuse Prevention Day, a time to recognize the abuse many seniors face in our neighbourhoods. Sadly, too many seniors are being physically, sexually and mentally abused by caregivers and loved ones. This should not be a day just to recognize elder abuse, but a day to take action and protect some of our most vulnerable people. Could the minister tell the House and the seniors across this country why the government allowed the elder abuse awareness initiative to end on March 31, with nothing in its place to protect seniors in our country?
The minister stated the government has introduced an extensive awareness campaign and committed additional funds in budget 2011 to support elder abuse awareness.
The minister references an awareness campaign and additional funds in budget 2011 but does not explain what replaced the elder abuse awareness initiative after March 31, which was the specific question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, any form of abuse is unacceptable. Our government is committed to supporting seniors by combatting elder abuse in all its forms. That is why we have introduced an extensive awareness campaign to take action on this serious issue. We have also committed additional funds in budget 2011 to further support elder abuse awareness. Our government is taking action to protect vulnerable seniors and we will continue to work hard to do so.
Mr. Speaker, today Canada joins countries around the world to mark World Elder Abuse Awareness Day and collectively speak out against all forms of abuse. I would like to ask the minister of state responsible for seniors what the Government of Canada is doing to combat elder abuse.
Mr. Speaker, elder abuse is unacceptable and we as Canadians need to take action against it. Our government is doing just that. Building on the momentum of our elder abuse initiative, budget 2011 provides increased funding to further support elder abuse awareness and we intend to move forward on our Speech from the Throne commitments. No one deserves to be mistreated or exploited and our government will not tolerate it.
How does the government intend to help the pulp and paper industry in crisis and when will it put in place measures to protect jobs in Trois-Rivières, following Kruger's announcement of nearly one hundred new layoffs?
The question is grounded in a specific recent event — Kruger announcing nearly one hundred layoffs in Trois-Rivières — and asks directly what measures the government will put in place to protect jobs, though the ask is somewhat open-ended.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il fut un temps où l'industrie des pâtes et papiers était au coeur de l'économie de Trois-Rivières. Dernièrement, la compagnie Kruger annonçait de nouvelles mises à pied pour près d'une centaine de travailleurs de chez nous. Dans ma région, les pertes d'emplois liées à ce secteur se multiplient depuis des années et l'on craint que l'hémorragie se poursuive. Comment ce gouvernement entend-il venir en aide à cette industrie en crise et quand mettra-t-il en place des mesures permettant de protéger ces emplois à Trois-Rivières?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, at one time the pulp and paper industry was the economic heart of Trois-Rivières. The Kruger company recently announced almost another hundred local layoffs. In my region, job losses in this sector have been on the rise for years and we fear the bleeding will continue. What does this government intend to do to help this industry in crisis and when will it take action to protect these jobs in Trois-Rivières?
The minister attributed the crisis to a structural market shift toward digital media, said new products and markets must be found, and cited $60 million in the last budget for research and development of new products, to the satisfaction of the Association des produits forestiers canadiens.
The minister acknowledges the structural market problem and cites $60 million in the last budget for research and development of new products, referencing the Association des produits forestiers canadiens, which partially addresses the question but does not speak to Trois-Rivières specifically.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il fut un temps où tous les livres que nous lisions étaient sur un support papier. Aujourd'hui, c'est majoritairement sur un support informatique. Il fut un temps où nous avions 50 p. 100 plus de demandes pour les pâtes et papiers que nous n'en avons aujourd'hui. Il faudrait qu'on arrive en 2011 et 2012 tout le monde ensemble pour qu'on parle. Pour trouver des remèdes, il faut d'abord trouver la maladie. Aujourd'hui, c'est une question de marché. Malheureusement, il faut travailler sur de nouveaux produits et de nouveaux marchés. Notre dernier budget vient d'annoncer 60 millions de dollars pour appuyer la recherche et le développement de nouveaux produits, à la grande satisfaction de l'Association des produits forestiers canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there was a time when all the books we read were printed on paper. Today, most are in an electronic format. There was a time when the demand for pulp and paper was 50% higher that it is today. We should all get together in 2011 and 2012 to talk about this. To find solutions, we must first identify the problem. Today, it comes down to markets. Unfortunately, we have to look at new products and new markets. Our recent budget provided $60 million to support research and development for new products, to the satisfaction of the Forest Products Association of Canada.
How can the Minister of Labour endorse her government's attitude of threatening back-to-work legislation, which exacerbates tensions and undermines genuine collective bargaining, as seen at the Victoriaville post office?
The question raises a pointed argument that threats of back-to-work legislation undermine collective bargaining, references a specific incident at the Victoriaville post office, but is partly rhetorical in its framing of ministerial intent.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la ministre du Travail a beau dire qu'elle souhaite des règlements négociés à Postes Canada et Air Canada, les agissements de son gouvernement prouvent tout le contraire. En brandissant des menaces de lois spéciales, le message des conservateurs aux sociétés d'État est clair: rien ne sert de négocier avec les employés puisqu'au premier moyen de pression, le fédéral imposera les conditions de travail. Comment la ministre du Travail peut-elle cautionner l'attitude de son gouvernement qui exacerbe les tensions, comme on vient de le voir au bureau de poste de Victoriaville, chez nous, sinon parce qu'elle-même souhaite museler les travailleurs syndiqués?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is all well and fine for the Minister of Labour to say she is hoping for negotiated settlements at Canada Post and at Air Canada, but the actions of her government prove the complete opposite. By threatening to introduce special legislation, the Conservatives are sending the crown corporations a clear message: there is no point in negotiating with employees since the federal government will impose back-to-work legislation at the first hint of pressure. How can the Minister of Labour condone the attitude of her government, which is exacerbating the tensions, as we just saw at the Victoriaville post office back home, unless she too wants to muzzle unionized workers?
The minister confirmed that notice has been placed on the order paper for back-to-work legislation in both the Postes Canada and Air Canada disputes, explaining it is not done with pleasure but is necessary because the disputes are affecting the Canadian economy and third-party Canadians.
The minister directly states that notice has been placed on the order paper for back-to-work legislation in both disputes, acknowledges it is not done with pleasure, and explains the rationale of economic harm to third-party Canadians, substantially engaging the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, regarding both disputes, we have indicated to the House that in one case we have already put notice on the order paper and in the second we are putting notice on the order paper for back-to-work legislation. It is not with great pleasure that we do that, because it is a fact that the best deal that can be had is the one that the parties themselves actually reach through their collective bargaining. However, they have not been able to do that. It is now affecting the Canadian economy and it has effect on third party Canadians who are not part of this dispute but are the ones who are suffering from the hardship.