Session overview
- The economy dominated Question Period, with NDP and Liberal members pressing the government on unemployment (between 1.5 and 2 million Canadians out of work), household debt, and the IMF's downward revision of Canada's economic outlook; the government repeatedly cited 600,000 net new jobs and Canada's G7 rankings.
- Multiple NDP and Liberal members challenged the government's decision to spend $90,000 a day on outside consultants to plan cuts to government services, including Service Canada; ministers defended the practice by claiming every $1 spent on experts would yield $200 in savings.
- Opposition members raised concerns about cuts affecting seniors and rural Canadians relying on Service Canada, EI processing times, and the automation of EI applications; the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development stated front-line service standards would be maintained and cited 10-week processing times under the Liberals as a comparison.
- The World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre became a flashpoint, with Liberal and NDP members and Elizabeth May citing notices of potential layoff to the centre's sole program manager; the Minister of the Environment insisted no ozone monitoring services were being cut and that the government was 'optimizing and streamlining' data collection.
- Aboriginal affairs questions covered residential school survivor compensation, the disproportionate incarceration of aboriginal women, and the cancellation of funding for Sisters in Spirit; the government cited ongoing outreach and a $20 million contribution to the Native Women's Association of Canada.
- The omnibus crime bill's fiscal impact was contested, with NDP justice critic Joe Comartin demanding a cost estimate for taxpayers and provinces; the Minister of Justice deflected to the $99 billion cost of crime borne by victims and cited a $2.4 billion transfer to provinces in the last budget, without providing a specific cost figure for the bill.
The Minister of National Revenue concretely confirmed that CRA officials are working with the RCMP on an ongoing investigation into allegations involving a convicted fraudster, money laundering, $12 million in cash spent in casinos, and CRA private documents found in a safe belonging to a mobster â making this the exchange where the most specific and consequential factual disclosure occurred.
Angus poses two specific and pointed questions â whether bureaucrats who participated in secret meetings in Muskoka had an obligation to come clean with the Auditor General, and whether specific key players such as Mr. Sanjeev Chowdhury were later promoted for keeping to a code of silence â grounding the question in named individuals and the Auditor General's findings.
Rather than addressing Scott Brison's specific question about why the government outsources spending decisions that cabinet ministers are paid to make, Flaherty responded with an attack on the NDP and Liberal record in Ontario between 1990 and 1995, providing no substantive answer to the question asked.
Outstanding questions
- Mr. Joe Comartin asked what the omnibus crime bill will cost Canadian taxpayers and the provinces â the Minister of Justice cited the $99 billion cost of crime to victims and a prior $2.4 billion transfer to provinces but never provided a cost estimate for the bill itself.
- Mr. Charlie Angus asked whether bureaucrats who participated in secret G8 legacy fund meetings in Muskoka had an obligation to come clean with the Auditor General, and whether Mr. Sanjeev Chowdhury was later promoted for keeping to a code of silence â the Parliamentary Secretary did not address either question.
- Ms. Elizabeth May asked the Minister of the Environment to withdraw the letters threatening the jobs of the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Centre program manager, the ozone sonde program, and related international positions â the minister did not address the letters or commit to withdrawing them.
- Bob Rae asked why ending trade discrimination under buy American provisions and the labelling problem would not be made part of the perimeter security negotiations with the United States â the Minister of International Trade said these concerns could be 'separately addressed' but gave no explanation of why they were excluded from the perimeter negotiations.
- Ms. MylĂšne Freeman asked how communities can support families of victims of missing and murdered aboriginal women without federal resources after Conservatives severely hindered the Sisters in Spirit initiative â the minister cited funding to the Native Women's Association of Canada and law enforcement databases but did not explain the decision to end Sisters in Spirit funding.
Turmel asks how the Conservatives can claim the IMF report was good news given that between 1.5 and 2 million Canadians are out of work.
The question references the IMF report and cites an unemployment figure of 1.5 to 2 million, but the ask is vague and rhetorical ('how can they pretend') rather than a single clear accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister says that we are okay because we are not doing as badly as the others. That is not good enough. This week's dismal report of the Canadian economy by the IMF should be a wake-up call. How can the Conservatives pretend the IMF report was good news? How can they brag about doing well when between 1.5 and 2 million Canadians are out of work?
Flaherty lists Canada's comparative advantages â best fiscal position in the G7, lowest total government net debt to GDP ratio, best growth, best banking system, best place to invest â to argue Canada is doing relatively well.
Flaherty responds with a list of comparative metrics (G7 fiscal position, net debt to GDP, banking system ranking, Economist Intelligence Unit ranking) that are factually grounded but do not address the specific IMF report characterization or the unemployment figure raised.
Source text
Because it is true, Mr. Speaker. Canada is doing relatively well. That is what the IMF said yesterday. We have the best fiscal position in the G7. We have the lowest total government net debt to GDP ratio in the G7. We have the best growth in the G7. We have the best banking system in the world. Canada is the best place to invest and do business in the next five years according to the Economist Intelligence Unit. We have the best job creation in the G7 since the recession. All of this is true, and that is why we are doing relatively well.
Turmel argues that 420,000 jobs are still missing compared to pre-recession employment levels and asks why the minister is satisfied with 2 million Canadians out of work.
The question cites a specific figure of 420,000 missing jobs relative to pre-recession employment levels and raises poverty and unemployment trends, giving it some factual grounding, but the ask ('why is the minister happy to see 2 million Canadians unemployed') is rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les politiques des conservateurs ont augmentĂ© l'Ă©cart entre les riches et la classe moyenne. Le niveau de pauvretĂ© est Ă la hausse. Le taux de chĂŽmage est Ă la hausse. Le ministre peut jouer avec les chiffres, mais la vĂ©ritĂ© est que pour avoir le mĂȘme niveau d'emploi au Canada qu'avant la rĂ©cession de 2008, il manque 420 000 emplois. C'est ça la rĂ©alitĂ©. Pourquoi le ministre est-il content de voir 2 millions de Canadiens sans emploi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' policies have widened the gap between the rich and the middle class. The poverty level is rising. The unemployment rate is rising. The minister can play with the numbers, but the truth is that in order for Canada to achieve the same level of employment that we had before the recession in 2008, we need 420,000 more jobs. That is the reality. Why is the minister pleased to see that 2 million Canadians are out of work?
Paradis cites 600,000 net new jobs created since the recession and points to the upcoming hiring credit for SMEs as evidence the Economic Action Plan is working.
Paradis cites 600,000 net new jobs and the upcoming hiring credit for SMEs, engaging the jobs topic but not addressing the 420,000 jobs gap figure or the poverty and inequality claims Turmel raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la rĂ©alitĂ© est qu'on a eu et qu'on a toujours un Plan d'action Ă©conomique qui porte fruits. Ce sont 600 000 nouveaux emplois nets qui ont Ă©tĂ© crĂ©Ă©s au Canada depuis le dĂ©but de la rĂ©cession. On continue d'implanter notre budget, notamment avec un crĂ©dit Ă l'embauche Ă venir pour les PME. Comme mon collĂšgue le ministre des Finances le disait, on voit ici qu'on a le plus bas ratio de la dette nette. On a aussi la meilleure croissance au niveau des pays du G7 et, en plus, on est le meilleur endroit oĂč investir d'ici les cinq prochaines annĂ©es. Ce sont des rĂ©sultats et c'est ce Ă quoi les Canadiens s'attendent. Alors, grĂące au bon travail du ministre des Finances, on est sur la bonne voie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we had and still have a very successful economic action plan. A total of 600,000 net new jobs have been created in Canada since the recession began. We are still in the process of implementing our budget, including an upcoming hiring credit for SMEs. As my colleague the Minister of Finance, was saying, we see here that we have the lowest net debt to GDP ratio. We also have the best growth in the G7. Canada is the best place to invest in the next five years. These are results, and that is what Canadians expect. Thanks to the good work of the Minister of Finance, we are on the right track.
Turmel cites Banque Scotia's recession warning, Moody's concerns about household debt, and the IMF's downward revision of Canada's economic outlook, asking whether the minister is aware of these risks.
The question cites three named external sources â Banque Scotia, Moody's, and the FMI â making specific claims about recession risk, household debt, and revised economic forecasts, and asks whether the minister recognizes these warnings, giving it reasonable factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le ministre doit s'ouvrir les yeux. La Banque Scotia dit qu'on est sur le bord d'une récession. Moody's dit que les foyers sont trop endettés. Le FMI révise à la baisse les perspectives économiques du Canada. Ce n'est pas le NPD qui dit cela, ce sont ses amis. L'inflation est en forte hausse, ce qui va faire mal aux pauvres et à la classe moyenne et ralentir encore plus l'économie. Le ministre s'en rend-il compte?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the minister needs to open his eyes. Scotiabank is saying that we are on the verge of a recession. Moody's is saying that households are carrying too much debt. The IMF revised Canada's economic outlook downward. It is not the NDP that is saying these things. It is his friends. Inflation is way up, which will hurt the poor and the middle class and slow the economy down even further. Is the minister aware of this?
Paradis argues the IMF report actually projects Canada's best economic growth in the G7 over the next two years, then attacks the NDP's proposed $10 billion annual tax increases as an economic risk.
Paradis selectively reframes the IMF report to highlight Canada's projected growth and investment ranking, then pivots to attacking NDP tax proposals rather than addressing the recession risk, Moody's household debt warning, or the inflation concern raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, soyons clairs. De quoi parle ce rapport? Il dit qu'on aura la meilleure croissance Ă©conomique d'ici les deux prochaines annĂ©es au niveau des pays du G7, en plus d'ĂȘtre le meilleur endroit oĂč investir. Ce n'est pas peu dire aprĂšs tous les emplois qui ont Ă©tĂ© crĂ©Ă©s ici. Ă l'inverse, on voit que le NPD propose des plans d'augmentation de taxes et d'impĂŽts de 10 milliards de dollars par annĂ©e. Cela tuerait l'Ă©conomie et ce serait tout un fiasco Ă©conomique. Ce n'est pas ce que nous allons faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. What is this report saying? It is saying that over the next two years, we will have the best economic growth in the G7 and will be the best place to invest. That says something for all the jobs that were created here. On the other hand, the NDP is proposing plans to increase taxes by $10 billion a year. That would kill the economy. It would be an economic fiasco. That is not what we are going to do.
Nash argues job creation does not keep pace with labour force growth and asks why the government is generous with oil companies but does not do more for Canadian families facing rising fuel and food prices.
Nash raises a substantive point about labour force growth versus job creation and links fuel and food price inflation to family budgets, but the ask about oil companies is vague and combines multiple grievances.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la crĂ©ation d'emplois n'Ă©quivaut pas Ă la croissance de la population active. C'est loin d'ĂȘtre encourageant pour les familles des 2 millions de Canadiens qui sont au chĂŽmage, sous employĂ©s ou carrĂ©ment dĂ©couragĂ©s. La hausse des prix de l'essence et des aliments reprĂ©sente une pression additionnelle sur les budgets des familles. Les conservateurs sont trĂšs gĂ©nĂ©reux avec les pĂ©troliĂšres, mais pourquoi n'en font-ils pas plus pour les familles canadiennes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, job creation is not the same thing as growth in the labour force. It is far from encouraging for the families of the two million Canadians who are unemployed, underemployed or downright discouraged. The rising price of gas and groceries is putting additional pressure on Canadian families' budgets. The Conservatives are very generous with the oil companies, but why are they not doing more for Canadian families?
Flaherty defends oil companies by stating they pay the same taxes as other Canadian businesses, then attacks the NDP's proposal to raise taxes by about $10 billion per year as inflationary for Canadian families.
Flaherty does not address fuel and food prices or the labour force growth argument; instead he defends oil company tax treatment and pivots to attacking the NDP's $10 billion tax plan, answering a different question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the facts. The oil companies pay the same taxes as other Canadian businesses pay. It is high time that suggestions to the contrary are stopped, because they are not accurate. I know the member opposite wants to try to be accurate when she talks about tax matters in Canada and accurate, of course, about the NDP plan that that party advanced to the people of Canada in the last election to raise taxes by about $10 billion per year on businesses, which we all know will be passed along to individuals as part of the cost of doing business. That proposal by the NDP is inflationary for Canadian families.
Nash argues the government is doing almost nothing for the two million Canadians who need jobs and asks why the finance minister will not act.
The question repeats the oil company grievance and uses rhetorical framing ('almost nothing,' 'wait-and-see attitude'), with only an implicit ask about why the finance minister will not act on jobs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we all agree that the best antidote to household debt is a good job. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are doing almost nothing for the two million Canadians who need one. The government persists with its generous tax breaks for highly profitable oil companies, and yet takes a wait-and-see attitude toward creating jobs for the employed or getting the economy going again. Canadians want action on jobs now. Why will the finance minister not act?
Flaherty cites 600,000 net new jobs, Canada's unemployment rate relative to the United States, the accelerated capital cost allowance, a new tax credit for small businesses, and continued tax reductions as evidence of action on jobs.
Flaherty provides several concrete measures â accelerated capital cost allowance, new tax credit for small businesses covering more than 500,000 of them, and continued tax reductions â and cites 600,000 net new jobs, partially addressing the jobs action question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member opposite knows, our unemployment rate is too high, but it is much better than that in the United States, and that has not happened in more than a generation. The economic action plan actually is working and continues to work. We have about 600,000 net new jobs in Canada today since the end of the recession. We have the strongest job growth in the advanced economies in the world. All of that is true. Should we do more? Yes, and we are with the accelerated capital cost allowance; the new tax credit for small businesses, more than 500,000 of them, to hire people; and the continuation of our tax reductions, which is just the opposite of what the NDP proposes, which is to raise taxes again.
Rae cites public accounts data showing spending on professional and special services rose from $7.24 billion to over $10 billion, and asks the Minister of Finance what the chances are that the $20 million consultants will recommend cutting consultant use.
Rae cites specific public accounts figures â spending rising from $7.24 billion to over $10 billion, a cumulative increase of over $7 billion â and poses a pointed, specific question about the likelihood of $20 million consultants recommending cuts to consultant spending.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a review of public accounts shows that the government spending on professional and special services, including the use of consultants, has gone up from $7.24 billion to well over $10 billion, a cumulative increase of over $7 billion. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what he thinks the chances are that the $20 million consultants he just hired will come back and say, âDo you know what is a good way to save money? Cut the use of consultantsâ.
Flaherty attacks Rae's record as Ontario premier for big government, big deficits, and big debt, then briefly states that outside experts are needed to advise on government spending.
Flaherty ignores the specific figures and the consultant-cutting-consultants question entirely, instead attacking Rae's record as Ontario premier with big deficits and big debt, then briefly justifying outside review without addressing the irony raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know that the member opposite from Rosedale was very fond of big government during his days in Ontario: big government, big deficits, big debt. It was so bad he hung on until almost the last day because he knew the people of Ontario were going to throw him out of office because of his big deficits, big debt and accumulated public debt. Yes, we are having experts from outside look at government spending. Yes, we should. Government should not be the sole judge of the way it is run. We need advice from the outside. For every dollar spent--
Rae asks why ending trade discrimination, specifically the buy American problem and the labelling problem, would not be part of the perimeter security negotiations with the United States.
Rae poses a reasonably specific question about why ending trade discrimination â citing the buy American problem and labelling problem â is not part of the perimeter security negotiations, though it is somewhat broadly framed.
Source text
I think most of the noise was coming from the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could now explain--
Oh, oh!
I did not know knuckle grazing could cause so much noise, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could tell us, in negotiating with respect to perimeter security, why, when faced with the buy American problem, why, when faced with the labelling problem, would ending trade discrimination not be part and parcel of those negotiations?
Fast states the government is focused on reducing barriers to trade rather than raising new ones, and notes that 60 per cent of GDP and one in five Canadian jobs are trade-related.
Fast responds with general statements about reducing barriers to trade and the importance of trade to GDP and jobs, but does not address the specific question of why buy American or labelling discrimination is excluded from the perimeter security negotiations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on reducing barriers to trade, not raising new barriers, as some parties in the House have suggested. Sixty per cent of our GDP is comprised of trade. One in five Canadian jobs is directly or indirectly related to trade, so any suggestion that we should be adding to the barriers that face our businesses is absolutely wrong.
Rae asks why, given the real threat of discrimination against Canadian exports to the United States, the issue of trade discrimination is not incorporated into the perimeter security negotiations.
Rae rephrases his previous question more precisely, asking specifically why trade discrimination against Canadian exports to the United States is not placed within the border security negotiations, making the ask clear and identifiable.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je crois que le ministre a mal compris la question que j'ai posĂ©e. Ătant un homme charitable, je vais reformuler la question dans ma deuxiĂšme langue. Ce que je veux dire est trĂšs simple. Au moment oĂč nous sommes en face d'une vraie menace de discrimination contre l'Ă©conomie canadienne en ce qui concerne nos exportations aux Ătats-Unis, pourquoi ne pas mettre cette question de la discrimination au sein de nos nĂ©gociations avec les AmĂ©ricains sur la question de la sĂ©curitĂ©?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister misunderstood the question I asked. Being a charitable man, I will repeat the question in my second language. What I am trying to say is very simple. At a time when we are facing a real risk of discrimination against the Canadian economy with regard to our exports to the United States, why not make this issue of discrimination part of our negotiations with the Americans on security?
Fast states the border vision initiatives are about deepening and strengthening the world's greatest trade relationship, and that buy American concerns are being addressed separately given the strong and mature relationship with the United States.
Fast invokes the Prime Minister's statement from two days prior about the border vision initiatives deepening the trade relationship, and claims buy American concerns are being addressed separately, partially engaging the question but not explaining why they are separated.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the member listened to my answer. Had he been listening to the Prime Minister two days ago, he would know that the Prime Minister was very clear. The border vision initiatives are about deepening and strengthening the world's greatest trade relationship. Given our strong and mature relationship with the United States, we can separately address our concerns regarding the buy American provisions. This government will stand up for ordinary, hard-working citizens. Why will those members not?
Crowder asks why the government is spending $90,000 a day on a consultant to plan service cuts when that money could keep 230 front-line employees on the job for over a year.
Crowder cites a specific cost of $90,000 a day for a consultant and calculates it could keep 230 front-line employees on the job for over a year, giving the question concrete grounding, though the ask is somewhat rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are outraged that the government is spending $90,000 a day for a consultant to help plan cuts to services that Canadians rely on. If we add it up, we could keep 230 front-line employees on the job for over a year. Why is the government throwing money at high-priced consultants while cutting staff who actually deliver services to Canadians?
Flaherty argues there is waste in government that should be identified with outside expertise, and states that for every $1 spent on experts the government expects $200 of savings.
Flaherty acknowledges the existence of government waste and justifies outside advice, and provides the $200 savings for every $1 spent on experts figure, but does not address the specific trade-off between consultant costs and front-line employee cuts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I know this would be contrary to NDP ideology, but there actually is some waste in government. Governments can actually reduce their expenses. We should not do it ourselves solely. We should get advice and expertise from the private sector. For every $1 of spending on experts, we expect $200 of savings, which is a pretty good deal.
Crowder cites the IMF's downward revision of Canada's economic outlook and rising unemployment forecast, and asks when Conservatives will focus on Canadian families instead of spending $90,000 a day on high-priced consultants.
Crowder links the IMF's revised unemployment forecast to the consultant spending, repeating the $90,000 a day figure, but the question is partly rhetorical and the ask ('when will Conservatives focus on Canadian families') is vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the International Monetary Fund has reversed its predictions about Canada's economy, and is now warning that our unemployment rate is just going to keep climbing. While Canadians worry about the economy, Conservatives are throwing $90,000 a day at high-priced consultants, planning even deeper cuts. The minister is turning his back on communities that depend on these positions. When will Conservatives focus on Canadian families instead of throwing money at high-priced consultants?
Flaherty cites 600,000 net new jobs and quotes an IMF spokesman from the previous day saying Canada is 'doing quite well' on a relative basis with 2% growth and no financial crisis.
Flaherty cites 600,000 net new jobs and directly quotes the IMF spokesman's statement from the previous day characterizing Canada as 'doing quite well,' which substantively addresses the IMF framing raised in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are focused as a top priority on jobs and the economy. The record on jobs is about 600,000 net new jobs as a result of the economic action plan. Let us see what the IMF actually said. Here is what the spokesman said just yesterday: âCanada is actually matching up quite well on a relative basis...growth rates are 2%, the recession was not too deep, they haven't had a financial crisis to the extent that the U.S. has had or the Europeans are having it, and so, all in all, Canada is actually doing quite well.â
Mathyssen asks when the government will stop spending $90,000 a day on outside consultants to plan cuts that will harm seniors without Internet access and those with limited access to public transit in rural regions.
The question repeats the $90,000 a day consultant figure and raises concerns about seniors without Internet access and rural communities, but the ask is vague and rhetorical ('when will the government realize') without a specific accountability hook.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are spending $90,000 a day for a high-priced outside consultant to plan service cuts. These cuts will have a direct and negative impact on Canadians, especially in rural regions. Seniors without Internet access and with limited access to public transit are being left behind by the government. When will the government realize that paying private contractors top dollar to do its dirty work while short-changing seniors is certainly not the change Canadians were looking for?
Flaherty states the deficit reduction action plan is necessary for the path to balanced budgets, argues some programs have completed their usefulness, and repeats that for every $1 spent on experts the government expects $200 of savings.
Flaherty defends the deficit reduction action plan and the principle of reviewing programs, mentioning that not every program should go on forever, but does not address the specific impact on seniors or rural communities raised in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the deficit reduction action plan is necessary as we move on the fiscal track to balanced budgets. The member opposite should know that there is some waste in government, that it is possible to review programs, that not every program should go on forever, that sometimes there are new programs, sometimes there are programs that have completed their usefulness. Certainly, it is the obligation of government to get the best advice we can, including the advice we will get from outside consultants. As I said, for every $1 spent on experts, we expect $200 of savings.
Dubé asks the minister to explain how cuts to Service Canada will better serve seniors, citing a reported suggestion that those unable to transact online would be unworthy of the 21st century.
Dubé poses a specific and direct question about how cuts to Service Canada will better serve seniors, referencing the minister's apparent suggestion that those who cannot use the Internet are unworthy of the 21st century, giving it moderate accountability value.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nos aßnés méritent mieux. En réduisant massivement les services dans les centres de Service Canada, le gouvernement conservateur n'a aucune considération pour nos aßnés. Il semble que, selon la ministre, ceux qui ne pourront transiger avec Service Canada par l'Internet seront indignes du XXIe siÚcle. C'est inacceptable. La ministre peut-elle aujourd'hui nous dire comment les coupes à Service Canada vont mieux servir nos aßnés?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our seniors deserve better. By significantly reducing the services offered at Service Canada centres, the Conservative government is showing no consideration whatsoever for our seniors. Apparently, according to the minister, anyone who cannot communicate with Service Canada over the Internet is unworthy of the 21st century. That is unacceptable. Can the minister tell us here today how the cuts to Service Canada will better serve our seniors?
Finley states the government wants to modernize the employment insurance system by automating what is currently a paper-based process, which will give Service Canada employees more time to help seniors at lower cost.
Finley explains the rationale â moving from paper-based to automated processing to free up Service Canada employees to help seniors at lower cost â which directly addresses the question about how cuts will better serve seniors, though without specific numbers.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous voulons moderniser notre systÚme d'assurance-emploi, surtout le traitement des demandes. En ce moment, le traitement se fait principalement par papier. Cela ne fonctionne pas. En automatisant le systÚme, les employés de Service Canada auront plus de temps pour aider les aßnés et cela coûtera moins cher à ces derniers. Nous avons promis aux Canadiens de respecter leur argent, et c'est ce que nous faisons.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we want to modernize our employment insurance system, especially the processing of claims. At this time, processing is done mainly on paper. This is not working. With an automated system, Service Canada employees will have more time to help seniors, and this will be more affordable for seniors. We promised Canadians that we would respect their money and that is what we are doing.
Mai asks the government to explain allegations that Canada Revenue Agency bureaucrats helped a convicted fraudster escape taxes, citing money laundering, $12 million in cash spent in casinos, and CRA private documents found in a safe in a building belonging to a mobster.
Mai cites specific details â $12 million in cash spent in casinos, CRA private documents found in a convicted fraudster's safe in a building belonging to a mobster â and asks for an explanation of what is happening at the Canada Revenue Agency, giving the question strong factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, instead of spending $90,000 a day on learning how to cut public services, the government should put more resources into investigating how the Canada Revenue Agency bureaucrats were able to help a convicted fraudster escape paying taxes. Money laundering, $12 million in cash spent in casinos, and CRA private documents found in his safe in a building belonging to a mobster; after these troubling allegations, can the government explain what is going on at the Canada Revenue Agency?
Shea clarifies that many of the allegations date back more than a decade, confirms CRA officials are working with the RCMP on an ongoing investigation, and states the government will not tolerate these types of activities as alleged.
Shea clarifies that many allegations date back more than a decade, confirms CRA officials are working with the RCMP, states the investigation is ongoing, and acknowledges the seriousness of the issue, which partially addresses the question but without detail on internal accountability measures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to clarify that many of these allegations date back more than a decade. They are not new allegations. CRA officials are working with the RCMP, and the investigation is ongoing. We do appreciate that this is a very serious issue and we will not tolerate these types of activities as they are alleged.
Mai asks the government to assure the House that it will get to the bottom of the serious allegations at the Agence du revenu du Canada.
Mai asks for assurance that the government will investigate the serious allegations at the Agence du revenu du Canada, framing it around fiscal responsibility, but the question is largely a follow-up seeking commitment rather than new specifics.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si le gouvernement tient tant Ă faire des compressions, peut-ĂȘtre devrait-il couper les vivres aux fraudeurs, plutĂŽt que des services offerts aux citoyens honnĂȘtes. Les Canadiens travaillent fort pour leur argent. On ne peut certainement pas leur reprocher d'ĂȘtre inquiets quand ils constatent une si mauvaise gestion des fonds publics. On doit faire la lumiĂšre sur ce qui se passe Ă l'Agence du revenu du Canada. Le gouvernement peut-il nous assurer qu'il ira au fond des choses et qu'il fera enquĂȘte sur ces allĂ©gations graves?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the government is so determined to make cuts, then perhaps it could cut off fraudsters instead of cutting services to honest citizens. Canadians work hard for their money. We cannot blame them for being worried when they see how badly public funds are being managed. We have to shed light on what is happening at the Canada Revenue Agency. Can the government assure us that it will get to the bottom of things and investigate these serious allegations?
Shea assures the House that the RCMP is investigating the matter, that CRA officials are working with the RCMP, and that the government will get to the bottom of the issue.
Shea directly provides the assurance requested â that the RCMP is investigating, CRA officials are working with the RCMP, and they will get to the bottom of the issue â which substantively answers the specific ask for a commitment to investigate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and the House that the RCMP is investigating this matter. It is a very serious matter. CRA officials are working with the RCMP, and we will get to the bottom of the issue.
Angus asks the President of the Treasury Board whether bureaucrats who participated in secret meetings in Muskoka had an obligation to come clean with the Auditor General, and whether key players such as Mr. Sanjeev Chowdhury were later promoted for keeping to a code of silence.
Angus poses two specific and pointed questions â whether bureaucrats who participated in secret meetings in Muskoka had an obligation to come clean with the Auditor General, and whether specific key players such as Mr. Sanjeev Chowdhury were later promoted for keeping to a code of silence â grounding the question in named individuals and the Auditor General's findings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while senior bureaucrats in the Summit Management Office, Infrastructure Canada and Industry Canada categorically told the Auditor General they had no direct involvement in the G8 legacy fund, we know that is not true. Either they were misrepresenting the facts, or perhaps they were simply moved beyond the reach of the Auditor General. Here are simple questions for the President of the Treasury Board. Did the bureaucrats who participated in the secret meetings in Muskoka not have an obligation to come clean with the Auditor General? Were any of these key players later promoted, for example, Mr. Sanjeev Chowdhury, for keeping to this code of silence?
Obhrai states the facts have not changed, that the Auditor General made observations and gave pointers, that every dollar is accounted for, and that all 32 projects came in on or under budget with the project itself under $5 million.
Obhrai does not address either specific question about bureaucrat obligations to the Auditor General or the promotion of Mr. Sanjeev Chowdhury, instead reasserting that the facts have not changed, that every dollar is accounted for, and that all 32 projects came in on or under budget.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. As I said yesterday, the facts have not changed. The Auditor General has made some observations with respect to the administration of this program and has given us some pointers. We must not forget about the good news coming out of this. The good news is that every dollar is accounted for. All 32 projects came in on or under budget. And guess what? The project itself was under $5 million.
Angus asks whether the President of the Treasury Board personally arranged meetings with the Prime Minister to make money flow to mayors, and whether he guaranteed other pet projects outside the Muskoka slush fund.
The question cites a specific dollar figure ($50 million) and poses two concrete factual asks about the minister's alleged personal role with local mayors, though it relies on unverified allegations rather than documents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, diverting $50 million from border infrastructure to build outhouses in Muskoka is not a simple thing to pull off. The President of the Treasury Board has been sitting down for weeks refusing to explain how he pulled it off. Again, I would like to ask him a couple of simple questions so we can get to the bottom of this. Is it not true that he went to local mayors and said that he personally would set up the meeting with the Prime Minister to make the money flow? Would the minister also confirm that he told mayors that for other pet projects that were outside the Muskoka slush fund, he would guarantee they got the money?
Obhrai denies the claim and lists examples of infrastructure projects the funding supported, such as North Bay airport rehabilitation and a community centre.
The answer flatly denies the allegation then pivots to listing infrastructure projects without addressing either specific question about the minister's personal dealings with mayors.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, that is incorrect, but let me talk about the good news on this infrastructure funding. This infrastructure funding was recommended by the municipalities. It enhanced the municipalities' infrastructure program. I will tell members what infrastructure programs the money was spent on: rehabilitation of the airport in North Bay, fixing up the provincial highway, and building a community centre that was used during the summer. What is wrong with that picture?
Cash asks why the government will not reimburse Toronto businesses damaged during the G20 summit and when it will fix the deeply flawed summit management protocol.
The question raises a specific grievance (unreimbursed Toronto businesses after G20 damage) and asks two identifiable things â why the government won't reimburse and when the summit management protocol will be fixed â though the dual ask dilutes the focus.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at last year's G20 meeting, my city was shut down. It was shaken. It was vandalized. A year later the government will still not pick up the tab. Gazebos, yes, but Toronto business owners with smashed windows is another story. If it is not pork-barrelling, why will the government not reimburse Toronto businesses? When will it fix the deeply flawed summit management protocol so that the next time small businesses will not get hung out to dry?
Obhrai says the losses are regrettable, that the claims process is independent and has been in place since 2001, and that Toronto businesses were treated the same as those at Quebec City and Kananaskis summits.
The answer engages the topic by referencing the independent claims process and linking it to previous summits (Quebec City and Kananaskis), providing some relevant context, but does not address the specific question about fixing the summit management protocol.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the losses and damages to Toronto businesses are regrettable. The claims process is an independent process that has been in place since the previous government in 2001 and has been used successfully at previous summits. Following this review, Toronto businesses were treated the same as those affected at summits at Quebec City and Kananaskis. This government is committed to providing a fair share to Toronto businesses.
Brison asks why Cabinet ministers cannot make their own spending decisions instead of wasting $90,000 per day on consultants to tell them where to cut government spending.
Brison cites a specific cost figure ($90,000 per day on consultants) and asks a pointed question about why Cabinet ministers cannot make spending decisions themselves, though the final rhetorical flourish softens accountability value.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les Canadiens ne peuvent pas se permettre le gaspillage et la mauvaise gestion de ce gouvernement conservateur. Il gaspille 90 000 $ par jour pour que des consultants puissent lui dire oĂč couper dans les dĂ©penses du gouvernement. Pourquoi les ministres du Cabinet ne peuvent-ils pas prendre ces dĂ©cisions eux-mĂȘmes? Les Canadiens paient ces ministres pour faire quoi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot put up with this Conservative government's waste and mismanagement. It is wasting $90,000 a day to have consultants tell it where to cut government spending. Why can the cabinet ministers not make these decisions themselves? What exactly are Canadians paying these ministers to do?
Flaherty defends seeking private-sector advice, arguing governments should not rely solely on self-examination, and states that for every $1 spent on experts the government expects $200 of savings.
Flaherty engages the substance by defending the use of private-sector advice and offers a specific ratio ($1 spent yields $200 in savings), partially addressing the question about why outside expertise is sought.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we do not share the view that the member opposite clearly has that governments are the font of all wisdom and all knowledge and that governments should just examine themselves and come to their own conclusions without getting advice that is available in the private sector in Canada, very good advice. Therefore, yes, we are seeking that advice. For every $1 of spending on experts, we expect $200 of savings.
Brison asks why Conservatives outsource their thinking to consultants when consultant spending is up $3 billion per year, and whether the Prime Minister trusts consultants more than his own ministers.
Brison cites a specific figure (spending on consultants up by $3 billion per year), references his personal experience on the cabinet expenditure review committee, and asks a focused question about why the Conservatives outsource decision-making.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, under the Conservatives, spending on consultants is up by $3 billion per year. I served on the cabinet expenditure review committee led by the member for MarkhamâUnionville. As ministers, we took our jobs seriously. We went through every spending item line by line and we made the decisions. Why do the Conservatives outsource their thinking? Is it because the Prime Minister trusts consultants more than his own ministers? What exactly are Canadians paying those ministers to do if not to make decisions about the expenditures of government?
Flaherty attacks the Liberal and NDP governments' record in Ontario from 1990 to 1995, accusing them of cutting hospitals, teachers, education, and nurses, with no reference to consultant spending.
Flaherty completely ignores the question about consultant spending and instead attacks the Liberal and NDP record in Ontario between 1990 and 1995, with no connection to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as if the leader of the Liberal Party then and the NDP did not do enough damage to Ontario between 1990 and 1995, now we have the member from the third party here saying that the Liberals did a good job on deficit reduction through their work. Sure, they did. They reduced funding for hospitals. They reduced funding for teachers, for education. They reduced funding for nurses in the province of Ontario. This is shameful.
Duncan asks the minister to admit that the person in charge of the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre program is losing his job and that the government is effectively terminating this program.
Duncan asks a specific, verifiable factual question about whether the person in charge of the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre program is losing his job and whether the government is effectively terminating this program.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the world looks to Canada when it comes to the vital research that is done by the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre. Despite the minister's denial, the Conservative government is once again turning its back on scientific research. Will the minister admit that the person who is in charge of this program is losing his job and his government is effectively terminating this program?
You're firing the guy.
Oh! Oh!
Kent denies ending ozone monitoring services or closing the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre, saying the government is optimizing and streamlining the way it monitors and measures ozone.
Kent directly denies the allegation about closing the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre but does not address the specific claim about the program manager losing his job, and offers only the vague explanation of 'optimizing and streamlining.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the assumption of my hon. colleague is absolutely false. We are not ending any of our ozone monitoring services or closing down the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre. We areâ
No, we are optimizing and streamlining the way we monitor and we measure ozone to operate more effectively. That is what we were elected to do.
Comartin asks when one of the two ministers will tell the House what the omnibus crime bill will cost Canadian taxpayers, citing that a single part of the bill will create several thousand plus additional people going into jail.
Comartin asks a specific, timely question about the fiscal cost of the omnibus crime bill â noting it will create several thousand plus additional people going into jail â and calls for budgetary transparency from one of two named ministers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the omnibus crime bill was tabled in the House. Itâ
Say thank you.
Conservatives are in complete denial over there about the serious financial consequences this is going to have to the budgetary process in our country, both provincially and federally. For instance, a single part of the bill will create several thousand plus additional people going into jail that we are going to have to pay for. We all deplore the cost of crime, but we have to have budgetary transparency. When will one of the two ministers stand in the House and tell us what this bill is going to cost Canadian taxpayers?
Nicholson dismisses Comartin's fiscal concerns as newfound and instead argues that the cost of crime is borne mainly by victims, citing a 2008 study placing the cost of crime at $99 billion with 83% borne by victims.
Nicholson mocks Comartin's fiscal conservatism and pivots entirely to the cost of crime to victims ($99 billion, 83% borne by victims), never addressing the question about what the bill will cost taxpayers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the hon. member has now become a fiscal conservative. He is worried about government expenditures. This certainly is something new. If he is worried, I can assure him that most of the cost of crime is borne by victims. A study in 2008 said that the cost of crime in the country was $99 billion, and 83% was borne by victims of crime. Why do those members not stand up for victims of crime for a change? Why not make that a priority?
Comartin asks the minister to state how much the omnibus crime bill will cost the provinces, noting that provinces are already short of resources and are asking for help.
Comartin sharpens his earlier question by focusing specifically on the cost to provinces that are already short of resources and demanding a concrete dollar figure, making it a focused, answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all the minister and the government are going to do is dump more costs onto that $99 billion figure, which is really questionable. C'est inacceptable que le gouvernement refuse de révéler ces coûts. Ce projet de loi transférera les responsabilités financiÚres aux provinces, qui sont déjà à court de ressources. Les provinces demandent de l'aide, mais le gouvernement refuse de les écouter. Est-ce que le ministre peut dire combien ce projet de loi va coûter aux provinces? Combien?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, avec ce projet de loi, le ministre et le gouvernement ne feront qu'alourdir les coûts qui se chiffrent déjà à 99 milliards de dollars, ce qui est vraiment contestable. It is unacceptable that the government is refusing to disclose these costs. This bill will transfer the financial responsibilities to the provinces, which are already short on resources. The provinces are asking for help, but the government is refusing to listen to them. Can the minister tell us how much this bill is going to cost the provinces? How much?
Nicholson says provinces across the country have been supportive of these government initiatives and that the last budget included an increase of more than $2.4 billion to the provinces, without providing any cost estimate for the bill.
Nicholson claims provincial support for the initiatives and cites a $2.4 billion increase to provinces in the last budget but never provides a cost estimate for the bill itself, pivoting to a call for Comartin to support the bill.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have good news for the hon. member. Provinces right across the country have been supportive of these government initiatives. I can also tell him that just in the last budget an increase of more than $2.4 billion was given to the provinces. If that individual wants to get on board with this, he should start standing up for victims, people who are the victims of sexual exploitation, do something about drug trafficking in the country and get behind this bill and support it right now.
Borg asks the government to confirm that it will once and for all listen to experts and the majority of the population who oppose warrantless surveillance, noting it is not part of the omnibus crime bill.
Borg asks a specific yes/no question about whether the government will confirm it has dropped warrantless Internet surveillance from the omnibus crime bill for good, grounding it in the NDP's prior opposition, though it is somewhat leading.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, lors de la derniĂšre lĂ©gislature, le NPD s'est battu pour empĂȘcher les conservateurs de lĂ©gifĂ©rer afin de permettre aux policiers d'espionner les citoyens sur Internet sans mandat lĂ©gal. Puisque cela ne fait pas partie du projet de loi omnibus sur le crime, c'est une victoire pour le NPD et pour tous les Canadiens. Est-ce que le gouvernement peut confirmer qu'il va, une fois pour toutes, Ă©couter les experts et la grande majoritĂ© de la population qui s'opposent Ă l'espionnage sans mandat?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament, the NDP fought to stop the Conservatives from passing legislation allowing police officers to spy on citizens on the Internet without a warrant. Since this measure is not included in the omnibus crime bill, it is a victory for the NDP and all Canadians. Can the government confirm that it will, once and for all, heed the experts and the vast majority of the population, who are opposed to surveillance without a warrant?
Toews calls the claims outrageous fabrications, explains that linking an Internet address to subscriber information is on par with a phone book, and states that private communications will not be accessed without a warrant.
Toews denies warrantless interception of private communications and explains that linking an Internet address to subscriber information is comparable to a phone book, but does not directly confirm whether the warrantless surveillance measure has been permanently dropped.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, outrageous claims like that one, that private communications will be intercepted without a warrant, are a complete fabrication. Our proposed approach of linking an Internet address to subscriber information is on par with the phone book linking phone numbers to an address. What this will not allow for is access to private communications without a warrant. Our message is clear. If someone wants to commit a crime, we will ensure that laws are in place to ensure that individual is apprehended, and those laws will be done in an appropriate lawful manner.
Dusseault asks the minister to confirm that the government has set aside its initiative to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance of Canadians, noting that even former Conservative minister Stockwell Day was against it, and to guarantee it is dropped for good.
Dusseault grounds his question in a specific reference to former Conservative public safety minister Stockwell Day's opposition to warrantless electronic surveillance and asks for confirmation that the measure has been permanently dropped.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, mĂȘme l'ancien ministre conservateur responsable de la sĂ©curitĂ© publique, Stockwell Day, Ă©tait contre l'espionnage Ă©lectronique sans mandat lĂ©gal. Est-ce que le ministre peut nous confirmer que son gouvernement admet que cette initiative d'espionner de façon encore plus intrusive la vie des Canadiens a Ă©tĂ© Ă©cartĂ©e? Peut-il aujourd'hui garantir qu'elle est Ă©cartĂ©e pour de bon?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, even former Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day was opposed to electronic surveillance without a warrant. Can the minister confirm that his government is admitting that this surveillance initiative, an even greater intrusion into the lives of Canadians, has been abandoned? Can he guarantee today that it has been abandoned once and for all?
Toews says he does not understand where the member gets his information, calls the claims outrageous, and states that legislation will come with appropriate judicial oversight for access to private conversations.
Toews calls the claims outrageous and says lawful access legislation will come with appropriate judicial oversight, but does not directly confirm or deny that the warrantless surveillance initiative has been permanently set aside.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand where the member is getting his information from. This type of outrageous claim that lawful access would not be appropriately enacted by our government is simply that, outrageous. The legislation will come. It will provide for appropriate judicial oversight in respect of access to private conversations. Rather than repeating fabrications, the member might want to come and talk to me about what we are actually planning.
Toet asks the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to update the House on what the Prime Minister is doing at the United Nations to support Canada's economic position, citing a senior IMF official's positive comment about Canada.
This is a government-backbench softball setup that cites a general IMF comment and asks the parliamentary secretary to update the House on the Prime Minister's activities, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada has become the envy of the world when it comes to our economic position. Just yesterday a senior International Monetary Fund official said of our economy âall in all Canada is doing quite wellâ. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister please update the House on what the Prime Minister is doing today in support of Canada's economic position while at the United Nations for international meetings?
Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister held a round table at the New York Stock Exchange with leading executives from global financial firms to discuss the current economic situation as well as trade and investment between Canada and the United States. As members know, our government's top priority remains completing the economic recovery, and that is our Prime Minister's top priority as well. Canadians gave our Conservative government a strong mandate to stay focused on what matters, creating jobs and economic growth. That is what our Prime Minister does each and every day. That is what he was doing today in New York.
Del Mastro says the Prime Minister held a round table at the New York Stock Exchange with leading executives from global financial firms to discuss the current economic situation and trade and investment between Canada and the United States.
Del Mastro provides concrete information about the Prime Minister's round table at the New York Stock Exchange with leading executives from global financial firms, giving the answer some factual content.
Linda Duncan asks what the government will do to ensure all residential school survivors, including the most vulnerable such as the homeless, are fairly compensated after the application deadline has passed.
Duncan raises a specific concern about the most vulnerable residential school survivors â such as the homeless â who may not be compensated after the application deadline has passed, and asks what the government will do to reach out to those being left behind.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, how many ways are the Conservatives going to fail aboriginal people? It has been three years since the Prime Minister apologized for the residential school system, yet many of the most vulnerable survivors, such as the homeless, may not be compensated. The application deadline has passed, and Conservatives are doing nothing to reach out to those being left behind. What will the government do to ensure all residential school survivors are fairly compensated?
John Duncan says the government remains committed to fair compensation and describes a grassroots outreach strategy implemented in 16 aboriginal languages by the Assembly of First Nations and other aboriginal organizations, which was approved by the courts and all parties to the settlement.
John Duncan describes the grassroots outreach strategy conducted in 16 aboriginal languages by the Assembly of First Nations, notes it was developed by all parties and approved by the courts, but does not address what will be done for survivors who missed the deadline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government remains committed to ensuring that victims from this dark chapter in our history are fairly compensated. We have conducted a grassroots outreach strategy implemented by the Assembly of First Nations and other aboriginal organizations. We did this in 16 aboriginal languages, English and French. This overall outreach strategy was developed by all parties to the settlement and approved by the courts. It has been deemed highly effective by the courts and all the parties to the agreement. The outreach is ongoing.
Linda Duncan asks why the government will not invest in better education and job creation for aboriginal Canadians instead of building more jails, citing National Chief Shawn Atleo's statement that aboriginal high school students are more likely to be incarcerated than to graduate.
Duncan cites a specific statistic from National Chief Shawn Atleo about aboriginal high school students being more likely to be incarcerated than to graduate, and asks a focused policy question about investing in education and job creation instead of building more jails.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, National Chief Shawn Atleo has told us aboriginal high school students are more likely to be incarcerated than to graduate. Aboriginal women make up a whopping one-third of women in custody. Anyone who commits a crime must face justice, but is it not equally important to prevent involvement in criminal activities in the first place? Instead of building more jails, why will the government not invest in better education and job creation for aboriginal Canadians?
John Duncan claims the government has made major investments in education and references a national panel on K to 12 education going across the country, appointed jointly with the Assembly of First Nations and National Chief.
John Duncan claims major investments in education and references a national panel going across the country on K to 12 education appointed in collaboration with the Assembly of First Nations, but provides no specific figures or programs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have made major investments in education and in other developments to a degree that no other government has ever done. We have, right now, a national panel going across the country on K to 12 education. We did that in collaboration. The Assembly of First Nations, the National Chief and myself appointed the panel. It is working quite independently. This is a major development with positive outcomes. This is the right way to go, and we are making those kinds of investments.
Freeman asks why the government is shutting out the voices of families and affected communities by refusing to renew funding for Sisters in Spirit, which tracked cases of missing and murdered aboriginal women and gave voice to affected communities.
Freeman grounds her question in a specific event (the Walk 4 Justice gathering on Parliament Hill), a specific program (Sisters in Spirit), and a specific government action (refusing to renew funding in February), asking why the government is shutting out voices of families and affected communities.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Walk 4 Justice gathered on Parliament Hill, asking for answers about the hundreds of missing and murdered aboriginal women in Canada. Back in February, Conservatives refused to renew funding they promised for Sisters in Spirit. This project tracked cases and gave a voice to communities facing this violence, yet Conservatives have severely hindered this groundbreaking initiative. Why is the government shutting out the voices of the families and the affected communities?
Ambrose says the government is working closely with community organizations in aboriginal communities through a national strategy's community fund component, giving the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake as an example of organizations providing information sessions on access to justice for victims of family violence.
Ambrose describes the national strategy's community fund component and gives one example (Mohawk Council of Kahnawake) but does not address the specific defunding of Sisters in Spirit or explain why that groundbreaking initiative was severely hindered.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. Through our national strategy to deal with this very difficult issue of murdered and missing aboriginal women, we have a community, a fund component that we are working very closely with community organizations in aboriginal communities across the country. I can list one of them. I have dozens here that I could use as examples. For instance, the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake is providing information sessions that will enhance knowledge and access to justice for victims of family violence. The community organizations are from aboriginal communities and are working closely with the public safety, justice and status of women departments to ensure we get them the help that they need.
Freeman asks how communities can support families of victims without federal resources, noting that Walk4Justice added 37 names to its list of missing women in the last three months.
Freeman cites a specific recent statistic (37 names added to the Walk4Justice list in the last three months) and asks how communities can support families of victims without federal help, grounding the question in an urgent factual context.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pour un gouvernement qui se dit ĂȘtre le champion de la loi et de l'ordre, l'attitude des conservateurs quant Ă la violence faite aux femmes autochtones est incomprĂ©hensible. Au cours des trois derniers mois, Walk4Justice a dĂ» ajouter 37 noms Ă sa liste de femmes disparues. Des ressources fĂ©dĂ©rales sont nĂ©cessaires pour protĂ©ger ces victimes sans voix. Comment les communautĂ©s peuvent-elles rĂ©ussir Ă apporter un soutien aux familles des victimes sans l'aide de ce gouvernement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for a government that claims to be the champion of law and order, the Conservatives' attitude towards violence against aboriginal women is hard to understand. In the last three months, Walk4Justice has had to add 37 names to its list of missing women. Federal resources are needed to protect these victims who have no voice. How can communities provide support to the families of the victims without the assistance of this government?
Ambrose notes that the Native Women's Association of Canada alone has received almost $20 million from the government, and lists measures including the RCMP's new missing persons' centre, a public website for tips, enhanced law enforcement databases, and work with women's aboriginal organizations at the community level.
Ambrose cites a specific funding figure (almost $20 million to the Native Women's Association of Canada alone) and describes several concrete measures including the RCMP's new missing persons' centre, a public website for tips, and enhanced databases, which partially addresses the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, funding is important. Just to put it into perspective, just one organization, the Native Women's Association of Canada, has received almost $20 million from our government alone. However, what I think is most important is that now we are working with law enforcement agencies across the country, including the RCMP's new missing persons' centre. We have created a public website for tips from the public to help find missing and murdered aboriginal women. We have enhanced our databases for all law enforcement agencies across the country. However, more importantly, we are working with women's aboriginal organizations at the community level to help support them.
Cuzner asks when the minister will stop the cuts in Service Canada, noting that it currently takes five to six weeks to complete an EI claim and that fewer workers will mean longer tie-ups for the most vulnerable Canadians who lose their jobs.
Cuzner cites a specific current service standard problem (five to six weeks to complete an EI claim) and asks directly when the minister will stop the cuts in Service Canada, grounding it in a concern about the most vulnerable Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Finance wags his finger at small business in Canada and tells them to hire more people, the minister from Service Canada is heading them out the door in droves. We know it is not just the job losses; it is the services that are going to be lost to those who lose their jobs in this country. Right now it is taking five to six weeks to complete an EI claim. We know that with fewer workers we will see longer tie-ups, and these are people who are most vulnerable, most in need in this country. When will the minister stop this ridiculous scheme and stop the cuts in Service Canada?
Finley explains that staff were hired temporarily during the recession to process EI claims, that more Canadians are now at work thanks to the economic action plan reducing the need, and that service standards have improved compared to the 10 weeks it took under the Liberals.
Finley explains why temporary staff were hired during the recession to process EI claims, argues that fewer claims are now needed thanks to the economic action plan, and offers a comparative benchmark (10 weeks under the Liberals vs. improved standards now), partially addressing the service standard concern but not the specific question about stopping the cuts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during the recent recession we did take on some people to make sure that Canadians who have lost their jobs receive their first payment in a timely manner. We increased the standards. We increased the speed with which we provided those first payments, I am pleased to say, but those people were hired on a temporary basis. They were hired only to process EI claims. Fortunately, thanks to our economic action plan, more Canadians are at work now than ever before, so there is not the same need to hire people to process the claims. The individuals knew that they were temporary jobs, but service standards have improved compared to the 10 weeks it took when the Liberals were in power.
Why are Service Canada jobs being cut in high-unemployment areas like Gander (17.5%) and Glace Bay (16%) while centres in low-unemployment areas like Edmonton (5.5%) and Laval (under 5%) are kept open?
Cites specific unemployment rates for multiple cities (Kitchener 6%, Halifax 6%, Edmonton 5.5%, Laval under 5%, Gander 17.5%, Glace Bay 16%) to challenge the logic of where Service Canada jobs are being cut, though the question is cut off before a formal ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely asinine. The minister says the back-end workers are the only thing that is being changed. Service Canada workers know what she is doing to their back end. I will tell the House what makes no sense: keeping centres in areas that have low records of unemployment. In Kitchener and Halifax, it is about 6%; in Edmonton it is at 5.5%, and Laval is under 5%, but they are ripping jobs out of Gander, where it is 17.5%, and Glace Bay, where it is 16%. Of all the dumb, mean-spirited, ludicrous ideas, this--
The minister says the government is modernizing the paper-based EI system through automation, honouring commitments to efficient service, keeping taxes down, and maintaining front-line delivery standards.
The minister defends automation of the EI system and promises front-line service will not change, but does not address the specific geographic disparity in job cuts that the member raised with data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the current EI system is essentially paper based. We want to bring the system into the 21st century by automating applications for EI and the processing of them. That will honour our commitment to Canadians to provide more efficient, more effective service to them. It will keep their taxes down, and we are going to make sure that we maintain the front-line standards of delivery. These changes are taking place in the backroom. Front-line service will not be changed.
Given that the government cut the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency budget by 43%, if assessing and mitigating industrial impacts on the environment is not a core service, what is?
Cites a specific figure (43% budget cut to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency) and the minister's own Monday statement, then asks a pointed definitional question about what qualifies as core services.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, lundi, encore une fois, le ministre de l'Environnement a dit que le ministÚre pouvait se séparer de centaines de scientifiques sans que cela n'ait d'effet sur les services de base. Toutefois, ce gouvernement a coupé de 43 p. 100 le budget de l'Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale. Alors, si l'évaluation et l'allÚgement des répercussions industrielles sur notre environnement ne sont pas des services de base, que sont-ils?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on Monday once again the Minister of the Environment said that the department could lose hundreds of scientists without any effect on basic services, but this government has cut 43% of the budget of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. If assessing and reducing industrial impacts on our environment are not considered basic services, then what is?
The minister asserts that the environment remains a government priority and that budget 2011 can cover all departmental programs without compromise, even with some resource reassignments.
The minister offers a general assurance that budget 2011 can cover department programs without compromise, but does not define core services or address the 43% cut figure cited.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ma collÚgue sait bien que l'environnement demeure une priorité du gouvernement du Canada en cette période de restriction budgétaire. I can assure her that budget 2011, while it did reassign some resources, can cover without compromising any of the programs of my department.
Given that the only employee running the ozone data centre has already received notice of potential layoff, can the minister show evidence of the impacts of these cuts, as asked on Monday, Tuesday, and again today?
References a specific, verifiable fact (the sole employee running the ozone data centre has received a layoff notice) and persistently repeats the same ask over three consecutive days, giving the question clear accountability grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday and then again today, the minister claimed that the crucial ozone data centre is not closing, but the only employee who runs the centre has actually already received notice of potential layoff. If the minister thinks that the centre can run all by itself, I suggest that maybe he agree to optimizing and streamlining his own office. It might make it a little harder to optimize and streamline the truth. I asked on Monday, I asked on Tuesday, and I am going to ask again today: can the minister show us evidence of the impacts of these cuts?
The minister says there is a difference between workforce adjustment letters and actual separation, and that all positions may be accommodated through attrition, with proof to come as services continue.
The minister distinguishes between workforce adjustment letters and actual separation without addressing whether the ozone centre will close, and provides no evidence of the impacts of cuts as specifically requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can again say there is a great difference between letters to employees of Environment Canada advising them that they may be affected by workforce adjustment and separation from the department. It is entirely possible that all of the positions will be accommodated through attrition. The proof will be in the pudding as we continue to deliver the services for cleaner air and for protecting our great public spaces for the good of the people of Canada.
Given Canada's top-three ranking in Newsweek's survey on best places to be a woman, what is the government doing to make Canada an even better place for women?
A government-backbench softball that references a Newsweek survey ranking but essentially invites the minister to list accomplishments with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in a recent survey conducted by the American news outlet Newsweek, Canada was ranked among the top three best places in the world to be a woman. Canada was ranked a world leader on the key indicators of justice, health, education, economics and political involvement. Can the Minister for Status of Women tell this House what the government is doing to make Canada an even better place for women and the girls who will follow in their footsteps?
The minister says the government has increased funding for women to its highest level ever and is pursuing measures on job creation, elder abuse, health care, and ending violence against women, noting Canada ranks third behind Iceland and Sweden.
The minister provides some concrete claims (funding at highest level ever, Canada ranked third behind Iceland and Sweden) and lists specific policy areas, giving the answer real informational content beyond pure boilerplate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from Miramichi for her tireless work for women. Our government has increased funding for women to its highest level ever, and we are working hard with women across the country to ensure they achieve their full potential. Women can count on our government to pursue measures that create jobs and growth, to end elder abuse, to protect our health care system, and of course to end violence against women and girls. We are very proud that Canada is ranked third-best place to be a woman in the world, third only to Iceland and Sweden.
Will the Minister of Transport introduce legislation clarifying Air Canada's official languages obligations, as repeatedly requested by the Official Languages Commissioner and unanimously demanded by 252 MPs in May 2010, unlike his two immediate predecessors who promised but failed to act?
Cites a specific unanimous 252-MP vote from May 2010, the Official Languages Commissioner's repeated requests, and holds the current minister to his two predecessors' unfulfilled promises, making a precise and historically grounded ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ma question s'adresse au ministre des Transports. Le commissaire aux langues officielles a demandĂ© Ă maintes reprises au gouvernement de prĂ©senter un projet de loi clarifiant les responsabilitĂ©s d'Air Canada et de ses filiales par rapport Ă l'offre des services en français et en anglais. En mai 2010, 252 dĂ©putĂ©s ont demandĂ© unanimement au gouvernement de faire la mĂȘme chose. Les deux prĂ©dĂ©cesseurs immĂ©diats du ministre l'ont promis mais ne l'ont pas fait. Le ministre des Transports va-t-il, lui, respecter l'engagement de son gouvernement ou faire comme les deux autres, et prouver l'adage « jamais deux sans trois »?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Commissioner of Official Languages has asked the government several times to introduce a bill to clarify the responsibilities of Air Canada and its affiliates with regard to providing services in French and English. In May 2010, 252 hon. members unanimously called on the government to do the same. The minister's two immediate predecessors promised to do so, but did not. Will the Minister of Transport keep his government's promise or will he follow the other two and prove the old saying, âBad things come in threesâ?
The minister says Air Canada is responsible for respecting official languages obligations with its partner companies and that the government will continue to ensure official languages are respected.
The minister gives a vague assurance that official languages are respected and will continue to be, without addressing the specific request for legislation clarifying Air Canada's obligations that the Official Languages Commissioner and 252 MPs unanimously demanded.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme le sait mon collĂšgue, Air Canada est responsable de respecter les obligations en matiĂšre de langues officielles avec ses compagnies partenaires. Nous nous assurons que les langues officielles sont respectĂ©es, et nous allons continuer Ă faire de mĂȘme.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Air Canada is responsible for meeting its official language requirements with its partner companies. We are ensuring that the official languages are respected and we will continue to do so.
Given three government workers have come forward with allegations of bribery and fraud totalling over $400 million in the Prince Edward Island provincial nominee program, will the government conduct an inquiry?
Identifies specific allegations (bribery and fraud totalling over $400 million) from three named government workers within the PEI provincial nominee program and asks a clear yes/no question about a federal inquiry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prince Edward Island provincial nominee program has raised alarm bells for Islanders and all Canadians. Recently three government workers have come forward with allegations of bribery and fraud within this program. These total over $400 million, apparently in violation of the rules, with no accountability but with political interference. Islanders and all Canadians deserve to know the truth. Will the government conduct an inquiry into the disturbing allegations staining this federal program?
The parliamentary secretary says the allegations are new, have been provided to the RCMP, and that because they are under investigation it would not be fair for the government to comment further.
The parliamentary secretary directly states that the allegations have been provided to the RCMP and explains why the government cannot comment further, which is a substantive and procedurally relevant answer to the inquiry question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, these are new allegations and they were recently provided to officials at the ministry. Those allegations have been provided to the RCMP. To be fair, because they are under investigation, it would not be fair for the government to comment further.
Can the Minister of State for Science and Technology update the House on how the government helped bring a world-leading facility to Canada and to KitchenerâWaterloo?
A government-backbench setup that opens with self-congratulatory talking points and simply invites the minister to announce a local facility with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has invested more in science and technology than any other government in Canadian history. When it comes to supporting basic discovery-oriented university research, Canada is ranked number one among the G7 countries. Our government's commitment to science and technology is paying dividends. Can the Minister of State for Science and Technology please update the House on how our government has helped to bring a world-leading facility to Canada and to my riding?
The minister announces the opening of the Stephen Hawking Centre at the Perimeter Institute, federally funded and set to make it the largest theoretical physics research and academic organization in the world, with additional government investment this year.
The minister provides specific factual content â the Stephen Hawking Centre at the Perimeter Institute, describing it as the largest theoretical physics research and academic organization in the world with new federal investment this year â giving the answer real informational value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for joining me at the grand opening of the Stephen Hawking Centre at the Perimeter Institute just recently. This brand new federally funded facility will make the Perimeter Institute the largest theoretical physics research and academic organization the world. This year we have invested more in the Perimeter Institute, showing our government's ongoing commitment to building a stronger economy, creating those job opportunities of the future and improving the standard of living for all Canadians through science and technology.
When will the Conservatives admit their error and replace M. Persichilli, given that hiring a communications director who insulted francophones shows disrespect for official languages?
Raises a legitimate official languages accountability issue regarding the hiring of a director of communications who insulted francophones, but frames it as a demand for an admission of error rather than a precise factual ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre manque de respect envers les francophones de tout le pays en embauchant un directeur des communications qui a déjà insulté les francophones. Il est impossible de travailler auprÚs du premier ministre sans avoir plus de respect pour les deux langues officielles. Ce choix en dit long sur ce que les conservateurs pensent du Québec, de l'Acadie et des francophones ailleurs au pays. Quand les conservateurs vont-ils avouer leur erreur et remplacer M. Persichilli?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has demonstrated his lack of respect for francophones across the country by hiring a director of communications who has insulted francophones. It is impossible to work with the Prime Minister unless you have more respect for the two official languages. This choice speaks volumes about what the Conservatives think about Quebec, Acadia and francophones elsewhere in Canada. When will the Conservatives admit they were wrong and replace Mr. Persichilli?
The minister notes the Prime Minister distanced himself from M. Persichilli's comments and pivots to listing accomplishments for Quebec, including resolving the fiscal imbalance, a UNESCO seat, and recognition of the Quebec nation.
The minister does not address the specific question about M. Persichilli's replacement, instead pivoting to a list of Quebec-related accomplishments (fiscal imbalance, UNESCO seat, recognition of the Quebec nation) as deflection.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'espérais qu'avec cette nouvelle Chambre, on irait au-delà des procÚs d'intention. On sait que le premier ministre s'est dissocié des propos de M. Persichilli. Au lieu de faire des procÚs d'intention, je vais donner des faits. On a réglé le déséquilibre fiscal, on a donné un siÚge au Québec à l'UNESCO, on a reconnu le Québec comme nation québécoise. Les compétences du Québec n'ont jamais été aussi bien respectées, aprÚs un déni de 13 ans de la part des libéraux et à voir un parti de l'opposition en face qui veut tout centraliser. ...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that with this new Parliament we would be above such unfounded allegations. We know that the Prime Minister has distanced himself from Mr. Persichilli's remarks. Instead of impugning motives, I will state the facts. We resolved the fiscal imbalance, we gave Quebec a seat at UNESCO and we recognized the Quebec nation. Quebec's jurisdictions have never been so well respected, after 13 years of denial by the Liberals and now an opposition party that wants to centralize everythingâ
Can the minister reassure everyone by withdrawing the letters threatening the jobs of the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Centre program manager, the ozone sonde program, and related staff?
References a specific and verifiable concern (layoff letters for the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Centre program manager and ozone sonde program staff) and makes a concrete ask for withdrawal of those letters, though the question is cut off mid-sentence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. Years ago, it was my great privilege to be part of the Canadian negotiating team for the Montreal Protocol on the ozone layer. My question follows those of other colleagues. We have heard today in the House that the minister says we will streamline and optimize our ozone measurements. I hear from academics around Canada that we will streamline our ozone measurements program right out of existence. I would like to ask the hon. minister to make it very clear for us, to reassure everyone and to withdraw the letters threatening the jobs of the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Centre program manager, the ozone sonde program and the international--
The minister asserts that no ozone monitoring services are being cut and the centre is not closing, while stating that data collection methods are being optimized and streamlined to spend taxpayer dollars prudently.
The minister flatly denies cutting ozone monitoring services or closing the centre and says data collection is being optimized, but does not address the specific request to withdraw the layoff letters mentioned in the question.
Source text
First, Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her efforts in the past in working on the Montreal Protocol, but I can assure her that we are not cutting any ozone monitoring services or closing the centre. Yes, we are optimizing and streamlining the way we collect data to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent in the most prudent but still environmentally correct way. That is what we were elected to do.
The member sought unanimous consent for a motion that the Minister of Immigration should prevent the deportation of Ms. Paola Ortiz on humanitarian grounds.
This is a request for unanimous consent for a motion rather than a genuine question, with minimal factual grounding and no accountability interrogation of a minister.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'aimerais demander le consentement unanime pour l'adoption de la motion suivante: « Que, de l'avis de la Chambre, le ministre de lâImmigration devrait empĂȘcher l'expulsion du Canada de Mme Paola Ortiz, et ce, pour des raisons humanitaires. » Je demande le consentement unanime Ă ce sujet.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: That, in the opinion of the House, the Minister of Immigration should halt the deportation of Paola Ortiz from Canada for humanitarian reasons. I seek unanimous consent.
Non.
Hansard translation: No.
Unanimous consent was denied.
The only response is a denial of unanimous consent ('Non') with no substantive answer provided.