Session overview
- The Canadian Wheat Board dominated Question Period, with NDP and Liberal members arguing the government was violating the law requiring a producer vote before abolishing the board's single-desk mandate, while the Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture defended the move as a democratic mandate from western Canadian farmers.
- Taxation and family affordability were challenged by NDP members who cited stagnant median family incomes, record household debt, and rising CEO salaries; the Minister of Finance countered with claims of $3,000 in annual tax relief per family and 650,000 net new jobs since the recession.
- Canada-U.S. trade tensions arose on multiple fronts, including buy American provisions, a proposed tariff on cargo through Canadian ports, FATCA implications for Canadian banks, and the perimeter security deal, with the Minister of International Trade defending Canada's position while opposition members accused the government of failing to stand up to U.S. protectionism.
- LGBT rights were raised in three consecutive exchanges: NDP members pressed the Minister of Foreign Affairs to commit Canada to decriminalizing homosexuality at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Perth, and a separate case of two gay Mexican men â David Perez and Pablo Gonzalez â facing imminent deportation was put to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.
- The G8 legacy infrastructure fund controversy continued, with NDP members pressing for a full parliamentary investigation into the role of the member for Parry SoundâMuskoka; the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirmed he personally approved all 32 projects and said the government fully accepted the Auditor General's report and recommendations.
- The national shipbuilding strategy and the marketing freedom for grain farmers act were promoted by government backbenchers in planted questions, with ministers announcing that the fairness monitor confirmed the shipbuilding procurement was free from political influence, and that the grain act would sustain funding for entities such as the Canadian International Grains Institute and the Western Grains Research Foundation.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs made a concrete and specific disclosure â that none of the mayor, the hotel manager, nor the member for Parry SoundâMuskoka approved any of the 32 G8 infrastructure projects, and that he himself did â which is a direct factual admission of personal ministerial responsibility that was not previously on the public record in this session.
Turmel quotes the specific statutory text requiring a producer vote before any bill affecting the Wheat Board can be introduced, making this a precise, document-grounded accountability question.
After the Leader of the Opposition read the relevant statutory provision a second time, the Prime Minister did not address the legal text at all and instead repeated a broad claim about a democratic mandate from western Canadian farmers and dismissed the NDP as not representing those people, offering no legal or procedural justification for proceeding contrary to the statute.
Outstanding questions
- Mrs. Nycole Turmel asked why the Prime Minister would not respect the statutory requirement for a producer vote before introducing legislation to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board's single-desk mandate; the Prime Minister never addressed the specific legal provision and offered only a constitutional principle about one Parliament not binding another.
- Bob Rae asked why the Prime Minister would not hold a plebiscite on the Canadian Wheat Board given his stated confidence in having majority support from western farmers; the Prime Minister did not explain why a plebiscite was unnecessary beyond asserting that farmers' views were already well-known.
- Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet asked what specific measures the government was taking to ensure that violence against David Perez, Pablo Gonzalez, and other members of the gay community in Mexico would be taken seriously before their deportation; the minister responded only by describing the general refugee determination process without addressing the specific case or the imminent removal date.
- Scott Brison asked what Canada specifically received in return for the perimeter deal with the U.S., citing the absence of amnesty for Canada-U.S. dual citizens facing U.S. fines on Canadian savings and the absence of privacy protections against U.S. disclosure demands on Canadian banks; the Minister of Finance addressed only the FATCA file and did not answer the broader question about the perimeter deal's benefits for Canada.
- Mr. Charlie Angus asked whether the minister responsible for the G8 legacy fund would commit to a full parliamentary investigation of his role in the fund; the Minister of Foreign Affairs said the government looked forward to appearing before the public accounts committee but did not commit to a full parliamentary investigation as specifically requested.
Why is the government dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board against the wishes of farmers who voted to keep it?
The question references farmers' expressed wishes and a referendum result but is framed broadly and rhetorically without citing specific data or a precise answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les conservateurs ignorent les besoins des agriculteurs des Prairies en démantelant contre leur gré la Commission canadienne du blé. Les agriculteurs se sont clairement exprimés: ils veulent conserver la Commission canadienne du blé. Mais les conservateurs refusent de les écouter. Ils refusent d'accepter les résultats du référendum sur la Commission canadienne du blé. Pourquoi démanteler la Commission canadienne du blé contre le souhait des agriculteurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are ignoring the needs of Prairie farmers by dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board even though that is not what they want. Farmers made it clear: they want to keep the Canadian Wheat Board. But the Conservatives are refusing to listen. They are refusing to accept the results of the referendum on the Canadian Wheat Board. Why dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board even though that is not what farmers want?
Harper asserts that western Canadian farmers have long sought the freedom to market their grain, just like farmers in Quebec and eastern Canada.
Harper pivots to a general assertion about western farmers wanting marketing freedom and draws a contrast with Quebec and eastern Canada, without addressing the referendum result or the specific objection raised.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les agriculteurs de l'Ouest parlent d'une voix forte depuis longtemps. Western Canadian farmers have long been looking for the freedom to market their grain, just like farmers in Quebec and other parts of eastern Canada have. We are going to give them that freedom.
Turmel quotes the law requiring producer approval before a bill affecting the Wheat Board can be introduced, and asks why the Prime Minister will not respect the law, the producers, and keep the Canadian Wheat Board in place.
Turmel quotes the specific statutory text requiring a producer vote before any bill affecting the Wheat Board can be introduced, making this a precise, document-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is what the law says: The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley...unless (a) the Minister has consulted with the board...; and (b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension.... That is the law of the land. Why will the Prime Minister not respect the law, respect the producers and keep the Canadian Wheat Board in place?
Harper argues that constitutionally a previous government cannot bind a future government to its policy, and that his government has a democratic mandate from western Canadian farmers.
Harper responds with a constitutional doctrine that a previous government cannot bind a future one, effectively sidestepping the specific statutory obligation cited and invoking an electoral mandate instead.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the law of our constitutional system is extremely clear. A previous government cannot bind a future government to its policy. This government received a mandate from western Canadian farmers, who did not vote for that party or anyone over there, to make sure that these people have the freedom that other people in this country have long taken for granted, and we are going to give it to them because that is what they want us to do.
Turmel repeats that the law requires producers to vote in favour of changes before a bill can be introduced, and asks why the Prime Minister will not respect farmers, democracy, and the law of the land.
Turmel reiterates the specific statutory requirement already cited and sharpens the ask around legality and democratic legitimacy, though it is largely a rephrasing of the previous question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to have forgotten about the law and order government. I just read the law to the Prime Minister. It says that the minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill impacting the Wheat Board's mandate unless the producers have voted in favour of these changes. It has not happened. Why will the Prime Minister not respect our farmers, respect democracy, and respect the law of the land?
Harper claims his party has a strong democratic mandate from western Canadian farmers and dismisses the NDP as not speaking for or representing those people.
Harper entirely ignores the legal argument and deflects by claiming a democratic mandate from western Canadian farmers and dismissing the NDP's standing to speak for those farmers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this party has for a long time received a strong mandate from western Canadian farmers in a democratic election for the platform on which we are proceeding. That party over there does not speak for those people, does not care about those people, does not represent those people. We do and we are going to act in their interests.
Martin notes that the U.S. filed 13 trade tribunal complaints against the Wheat Board and lost all 13, and asks why the Conservative government is now doing the Americans' dirty work for them.
Martin provides a factual assertion about 13 failed U.S. trade tribunal complaints against the Wheat Board, framing a pointed question about whose interests the government serves, though the framing is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the ink was not even dry on the free trade agreement before the Americans started gunning for the Wheat Board. That is because they know that the Wheat Board is a huge advantage to Canadian farmers. Thirteen times they filed complaints at trade tribunals and 13 times they were defeated because the American trade tribunal knows there is nothing unfair about Canadian farmers acting collectively in their own best interests. Why is the Conservative government now doing the Americans' dirty work for them?
Ritz points to world-class Canadian traders like Viterra, says the Canadian Wheat Board will survive on a voluntary basis and be able to broker grains, and claims farmers have benefited wherever this approach has been implemented.
Ritz mentions Viterra, the pulse and canola industries, and voluntary continuation of the Canadian Wheat Board, but does not address the 13 tribunal complaints or the specific accusation of doing the Americans' dirty work.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite should well know, there are some world-class Canadian traders, such as Viterra. The pulse industry and canola industry will now be able to handle those crops working with customers that they have worldwide. The Canadian Wheat Board will survive on a voluntary basis. They will be able to move on grains they are not pooling now. They will be able to broker grains. Everyone will be better off all the way around. Anywhere in the world this has been implemented, farmers have benefited.
Using a beaver metaphor, Martin asks why the government is so willing to surrender Canadian trade advantages â as on softwood lumber and now the Canadian Wheat Board â and whose side it is on.
Martin's question is largely rhetorical and uses an extended colourful metaphor; the ask about whose side the government is on and why it surrenders trade advantages is vague and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, folklore has it that the Canadian beaver will bite off its own testicles when it is threatened and offer them up to its tormentors. I think that is a fitting metaphor for the way our Canadian government reacts to bullying on trade issues, by carving off pieces of our nation and offering them to the Americans. Whether it is on softwood lumber or now the Canadian Wheat Board, why is our government so willing and eager to unilaterally surrender what little trade advantages we have? Whose side is it on? Why is it selling out Canadian interests?
Ritz says the metaphor is fitting because the member for Winnipeg Centre is impotent to stand in the way of farmers getting freedom.
Ritz responds only with a personal insult about Martin being impotent, offering no substantive engagement with the questions about trade advantages or softwood lumber comparisons.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very fitting metaphor because the member for Winnipeg Centre is impotent to stand in the way of farmers getting freedom.
Rae asks that if the Prime Minister is confident he has the support of the majority of western farmers, why will he not put the question to a plebiscite and let prairie farmers decide for themselves.
Rae poses a fairly sharp and answerable question â if the Prime Minister is confident he has majority farmer support, why not hold a plebiscite â though it is partly interrupted and somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the same subject, with a slightly different tone. In his first answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I heard the Prime Minister clearly state that he was confident that he had the full support of the majority of western farmers. I will ask him a simple question. If the Prime Minister is so confident that he does have that support, why will he not put this question in a plebiscite? We have had a referendum. Why not have a plebiscite and let the prairie farmers themselves decides what is going to them. Let them--
Oh, oh!
Harper claims the government has a democratic mandate from western Canadian farmers and that their long-standing preference for dual marketing is well-known, suggesting there is really no debate about this.
Harper opens with a joke about Martin, then claims a democratic mandate and asserts that farmers have long favoured dual marketing by a large majority, but does not explain why a plebiscite is unnecessary or inappropriate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I cannot let go of the earlier exchange. I just hope the member for Winnipeg Centre' bark is not as bad as his bite. In terms of the question put by the hon. member, we know we have a democratic mandate from western Canadian farmers. Their views are well-known. They have long favoured, by a large majority, dual marketing. There is really no debate about this. The only reason the Liberal Party does not understand that is that it does not have people on the ground in western Canada who know this.
Following the American ambassador's speech on Buy American policy, Rae asks whether the Prime Minister called President Obama, and what Obama said when they spoke.
Rae references a specific triggering event â the American ambassador's speech on Buy American â and asks a pointed question about a phone call with President Obama, though the premise about the call is assumed rather than established.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'aimerais poser une autre question au premier ministre. Je suis absolument certain qu'aprĂšs le discours d'hier de l'ambassadeur amĂ©ricain sur la politique « Buy American », le premier ministre a tĂ©lĂ©phonĂ© au prĂ©sident Obama pour discuter non seulement de cette question, mais Ă©galement de tous les autres cas oĂč le Canada fait face Ă une discrimination profonde en raison du protectionnisme amĂ©ricain. Le premier ministre peut-il nous dire ce qu'a dit le prĂ©sident Obama quand ils se sont parlĂ©, hier?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister another question. I am absolutely certain that, after the American ambassador's speech yesterday about the buy American policy, the Prime Minister called President Obama to discuss this issue and all the other cases in which Canada is facing severe discrimination as a result of American protectionism. Can the Prime Minister tell us what President Obama said when they spoke yesterday?
Harper says the government speaks regularly with American counterparts, that they know Canada's position on Buy American, and that protectionism is a barrier to growth rather than an aid.
Harper acknowledges regular contact with American counterparts and states Canada's opposition to Buy American, but does not confirm or deny a call with Obama, leaving the specific question unanswered.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous parlons réguliÚrement avec nos homologues américains. Ils connaissent trÚs bien notre position à l'égard de la politique « Buy American ». Il me semble que le protectionnisme est une barriÚre pour la croissance, pas une aide, et nous encourageons nos amis américains à éviter de prendre de telles mesures.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are in regular contact with our American counterparts. They are well aware of our position on the buy American policy. It seems to me that protectionism is a hindrance to growth rather than a help, and we are encouraging our American friends not to take such action.
Rae challenges the government's $74.6 million cost estimate for Criminal Code changes as lacking credibility, and asks why the Prime Minister is taking Canada down the same path that American conservatives are now abandoning as too expensive and ineffective.
Rae cites the government's specific figure of $74.6 million and references the American conservative experience with criminal justice costs, but wraps a pointed cost-credibility question in considerable partisan rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government have come up with this completely unrealistic number of $74.6 million as the cost for the changes in the Criminal Code that have been proposed by his government. There is not a person out there in the field who believes any of these numbers. They have absolutely no credibility with anybody. Just at the moment, when the American conservative movement, to which the Prime Minister has paid such tribute his entire political career, is suddenly giving its head a shake and realizing just how wrong this path is, how expensive it is, how ineffective it is and how it is not, in fact, achieving any of the results it wants, why is the Prime Minister taking this country down exactly that same path?
Harper disputes the premise, notes that U.S. incarceration rates are many times higher than Canada's making it a different approach, and states that the financial numbers have been provided to Parliament on multiple occasions.
Harper disputes the premise by distinguishing Canadian and U.S. incarceration rates and asserts the numbers have been provided to Parliament on multiple occasions, but does not substantiate the $74.6 million figure or address the credibility challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with the premise of that question. In fact, as members know, incarceration rates in much of the United States are many times higher than those in Canada. It is a different approach. In any case, in terms of the financial costs of the bill, these numbers have been provided to Parliament on multiple occasions. It does not matter whether the leader of the Liberal Party believes them. Those are the numbers.
Nash cites the average family income of just over $68,000 unchanged since 1976 and CEO average pay of $6.6 million, and asks why Conservatives are adding to this inequality instead of helping struggling Canadian families.
Nash cites specific figures â average family income of just over $68,000 unchanged since 1976 and top CEO average of $6.6 million â but the question is broadly framed around inequality and the ask is vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, young families are feeling the squeeze from all sides. They are struggling to raise their kids, pay their bills, take care of their parents. The cost of living is skyrocketing while incomes have stalled. The average family makes just over $68,000, the same as in 1976, and yet Canada's top CEOs now average whopping $6.6 million a year. Why are Conservatives adding to this inequality? Why will they not help out struggling Canadian families?
Flaherty says the government has made substantial tax reductions of about $3,000 per year for a typical Canadian family, cut taxes in every way government collects them, and created 650,000 net new jobs since the end of the recession.
Flaherty responds with concrete claims: $3,000 per year in tax reductions for a typical Canadian family, tax cuts across every collection method, more Canadians paying no federal tax, and 650,000 net new jobs since the recession, engaging the economic substance though not the inequality framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have made substantial tax reductions for Canadian families, a total, for a typical Canadian family, of about $3,000 a year. We have cut taxes in every way that the government collects them. We have increased the amount Canadians can earn tax free. We have fewer Canadians now paying any federal tax all. As well, there have been the creation of 650,000 net new jobs since the end of the recession.
Nash asserts families have a lower standard of living than their parents, CEO salaries are one hundred times the average, and asks why the government and the minister are ignoring the needs of young Canadian families.
Nash's second question is largely rhetorical and repetitive, citing CEO salaries at one hundred times the average but offering no new specific ask beyond repeating the charge of ignoring young families.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, clearly, things are getting so much worse for young families. Families are tired of the same old failed Conservative policies, no plan to create jobs and no plan to make life more affordable. Families today have a lower standard of living than their parents. CEO salaries are now one hundred times that of an average Canadian. Banks get richer. Young families are squeezed by bills and debt. Why are the government and the minister ignoring the needs of young Canadian families?
Flaherty asks why the official opposition has voted against every tax measure to help families, specifically citing the NDP's vote against the working income tax benefit, which he calls the most important social reform since the RRSP.
Flaherty deflects by attacking the NDP for voting against every tax measure, specifically the working income tax benefit, rather than addressing the standard-of-living or inequality claims raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, why is the official opposition continually voting against every tax measure we bring into the House to help families in Canada and to help those who are on social assistance and who want to work? It was the party opposite that voted against the working income tax benefit, which is probably the most important social reform since the RRSP, but the NDP members voted against it.
Citing a new University of British Columbia study on the difficulty of raising families amid housing price increases and income stagnation, Mai asks why the government is not making life more affordable for families instead of lowering taxes on large companies.
Mai references a new University of British Columbia study and cites housing price increases, income stagnation and service reductions, forming a reasonably grounded question, though the ask conflating all these issues with corporate tax cuts is somewhat compound.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, une nouvelle étude de l'Université de la Colombie-Britannique confirme qu'il est de plus en plus difficile pour les Canadiens d'élever leur famille. Ceux-ci font face à une augmentation du prix des logements, à une stagnation de leurs revenus et à des diminutions des services. Les familles ont de plus en plus de difficulté à joindre les deux bouts. Pourquoi ce gouvernement ne rend-il pas la vie plus abordable pour ces familles au lieu d'abaisser les impÎts des grandes compagnies?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a new study from the University of British Columbia confirms that it is becoming increasingly difficult for Canadians to raise their families. Families are facing an increase in housing costs, a stagnation of income and a decrease in services. They are having more and more trouble making ends meet. Why does this government not make life more affordable for these families rather than lowering the taxes of large corporations?
Flaherty says the NDP's solution is a new $10 billion tax that was rejected by Canadians, argues families need tax relief and jobs, and urges the member to vote for the hiring credit for new hires in the second budget bill.
Flaherty deflects to attacking the NDP's $10 billion tax proposal from the last election rather than addressing the UBC study's findings on housing, income or services, though he does make a general point about tax relief and job creation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I know that the NDP's solution to all of this is a new $10 billion tax, which it put forward to the Canadian people during the last election and which was resoundingly rejected. What the Canadian people and Canadian families need is tax relief. They can pay less tax and they need jobs, so we are creating jobs as well. I hope the member opposite will vote for the hiring credit for new hires that is in the bill before the House, the second budget bill.
Mai notes that since the mid-1970s average family income has stagnated while housing prices have risen 76 percent and Canadian families carry record debt, and asks when the Conservatives will address the needs of this generation being pushed into over-indebtedness.
Mai cites a specific statistic â housing prices up 76 percent since the mid-1970s while average family income has remained stable â but the question is broad and the ask about when the government will address a generation being pushed into over-indebtedness is vague.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, aujourd'hui, les familles canadiennes ont un niveau de vie inférieur à celui qu'avaient les baby-boomers à leur ùge. Depuis le milieu des années 1970, le revenu annuel moyen des familles canadiennes est resté stable, mais le prix des maisons a augmenté de 76 p. 100. Les familles canadiennes ont un niveau d'endettement record. Quand les conservateurs se préoccuperont-ils de cette génération à qui on retire des services et que l'on pousse dans le gouffre du surendettement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today, Canadian families have a lower standard of living than baby boomers did at their age. The average annual income of Canadian families has remained stable since the mid-1970s, but the cost of housing has increased by 76%. Canadian families have record levels of household debt. When will the Conservatives take care of this generation, which is losing services and being pushed into excessive debt?
Flaherty argues that Canada is relatively well off with the best debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, the best employment and job creation record in the G7, and recognition from Forbes, The Economist and the IMF as the best place to invest over the next five years.
Flaherty responds with macro-level comparisons â best debt-to-GDP in the G7, best job creation record in the G7, endorsements from Forbes, The Economist and the IMF â which are tangentially relevant but do not address household debt levels or the specific intergenerational living-standard comparison raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows or should know, Canada is relatively well off. We have the best debt to GDP number in the G7. We have the best employment job creation record in the G7. Forbes magazine, The Economist and the IMF say that Canada is the best place to invest in the world in the next five years. These are all matters with which Canadians can be proud. We have to be cautious. It is a fragile economic recovery globally and we are working hard to resolve the crisis in Europe. However, having said that, Canada is relatively well off.
Citing a report from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canada China Business Council that says the Conservatives have fumbled economic dealings with Asia and given Canada a bad reputation, Chisholm asks how Canadians can trust the Conservatives on trade.
Chisholm references a report from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canada China Business Council claiming Canada has fumbled economic dealings with Asia and earned a bad reputation, but the ask is broadly framed around trustworthiness rather than a specific policy failure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a new report from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canada China Business Council says that the Conservatives have fumbled economic dealings with the region so badly that Canada now has a bad reputation with Asia. Once again, the Conservatives are blundering relations with yet another important trade partner. How can Canadians trust the Conservatives to move Canada forward on trade when every time they sign a deal they set the country back?
Fast says he was in China demonstrating what Canada has to offer, that negotiations on a FIPA with China are moving forward, and that he signed Canada's first trade and investment framework agreement with Asia while in Indonesia the previous week.
Fast responds with concrete recent activities â travel to China, FIPA negotiations, a trade and investment framework agreement with Indonesia â but does not address the specific report's claim that Canada has a bad reputation with Asia or that Conservative dealings have been fumbled.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government understands that closer and deeper economic ties between Canada and Asia will benefit both our countries by creating more jobs, opportunities and prosperity. The facts are this. I was in China last week demonstrating what Canada has to offer and to help expand our trade and investment relationship. Negotiations are moving forward on a FIPA with China. The week before I was in Indonesia and I signed Canada's first trade and investment framework agreement with Asia. We are getting it done for hard-working Canadians.
Chisholm says even the government's friends say it fumbled dealings with the U.S., that Canada is being excluded from another round of U.S. stimulus, and asks when the Conservatives will stop folding on trade negotiations and start standing up for Canadians.
Chisholm makes a general accusation that Conservatives keep fumbling deals and mentions U.S. stimulus exclusion and a closed-door deal with Europe, but the ask is vague and compound with no specific policy or commitment cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that even the government's friends say that it has fumbled another deal. Again today, we heard that the Conservatives have continued to mess up the relations with the U.S. Another round of U.S. stimulus has meant that Canada is being excluded. The Conservatives continue to ask Canadians to trust them while they negotiate a massive, closed door deal with Europe. Every time the Conservatives make a deal, Canada loses. When will the Conservatives stop folding on trade negotiations and start standing up for Canadians?
Fast says he was in Washington dealing with his counterpart and meeting key decision-makers, states the government will continue to demand removal of buy American measures, and warns that protectionist measures in the American jobs bill are a danger to the global economic recovery.
Fast says he was in Washington meeting his counterpart and key decision-makers, states the government will continue to demand removal of buy American measures, and argues deeper trade ties create jobs, but does not address the specific accusation of fumbling the Asian file or the closed-door Europe deal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while that member was here grandstanding, I was in Washington dealing with my counterpart and meeting with key decision-makers and business people in the United States. In these challenging times, deeper trade ties are the best way to create jobs on both sides of the border. We will continue to demand the removal of buy American measures. They are hurtful to both economies on both sides of our border. Protectionist measures, as proposed in the American jobs bill, are a danger to our fragile global economic recovery.
Ravignat asks whether the government commits to removing the supply management system from the Canada-EU trade negotiations to protect the dairy and cheese farmers whose system has functioned effectively for 40 years.
Ravignat asks a specific and answerable yes-or-no commitment question: will the government remove the supply management system from the table in Canada-EU trade negotiations, with a clear rationale about the threat from a 650-million-person market.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la faiblesse de sa réponse démontre la faiblesse qu'ils ont à la table des négociations. Le Canada est en train de négocier un accord économique avec l'Union européenne, qui risque de bouleverser nos marchés locaux de produits laitiers et fromagers, en raison de l'arrivée abondante de produits en provenance de marchés de 650 millions de personnes. Notre systÚme de gestion de l'offre, qui fonctionne efficacement depuis 40 ans, en est menacé. Ce gouvernement s'engage-t-il à retirer le systÚme de gestion de l'offre de la table des négociations et à protéger les familles qui dépendent de cette industrie?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, his weak response is a reflection of their weakness at the bargaining table. Canada is in the process of negotiating a trade agreement with the European Union that could disrupt our local dairy and cheese markets because of the massive influx of products from a market of 650 million people. Our supply management system, which has been working effectively for 40 years, is in jeopardy. Does this government commit to taking the supply management system off the bargaining table and protecting the families who depend on this industry?
Fast states that the government has made clear time and time again that it is defending supply management and standing up for farmers and their families, and accuses the NDP of being opposed to trade.
Fast makes a clear but unsubstantiated commitment that the government is defending supply management, but provides no specifics about what that means at the negotiating table, and deflects by accusing the NDP of being opposed to trade.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear, time and time again, that we are defending supply management. We are standing up for the farmers and their families of this country. The truth is that the NDP is opposed to trade. That is the reality of it and the proof is in the pudding. The NDP members talk big about trade and about fair trade but what they really mean is no trade at all.
The member asks what the Conservative government's plan is for high-speed rail (TGV) starting in Quebec City, noting a leaked report held since January shows it would benefit the Canadian economy and that Canada is the only G8 country without such infrastructure.
Cites a specific leaked report held since January and identifies Canada as the only G8 country without high-speed rail infrastructure, but the ask â 'where is the plan?' â is fairly open-ended.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Ă la suite d'une fuite d'information, nous apprenons aujourd'hui que le gouvernement, depuis le mois de janvier, est en possession d'un rapport. Ce rapport rĂ©vĂšle qu'un train Ă grande vitesse, un TGV, commençant Ă QuĂ©bec sera bĂ©nĂ©fique pour toute l'Ă©conomie canadienne. Le Canada est le seul pays du G8 Ă ne pas avoir d'infrastructures pour des TGV. C'est un « dĂ©ficit » qui nous place en position de dĂ©savantage concurrentiel. OĂč est le plan conservateur pour un TGV, afin que le Canada rattrape le reste du monde?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, an information leak revealed that the government has been in possession of a report since January. This report shows that a high-speed train originating in Quebec City would benefit the entire Canadian economy. Canada is the only G8 country that does not have infrastructure for high-speed trains. That is a deficit that puts us at a competitive disadvantage. Where is the Conservatives' plan for a high-speed train to bring Canada up to speed with the rest of the world?
The minister confirms the report has been received, notes it was funded by Quebec, Ontario, and Canada, and says the government will wait for Ontario to name a new transport minister before holding discussions and announcing a decision.
The minister acknowledges the report, identifies the three funding partners, and explains the next step (waiting for Ontario to name a transport minister), which is a partial but genuine procedural answer.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce rapport est arrivé. Nous en prenons connaissance. C'est un rapport qui a été financé par trois partenaires: le gouvernement du Québec, le gouvernement de l'Ontario et le gouvernement du Canada. Et comme il se doit, selon les usages normaux, on va attendre que la province de l'Ontario nomme son prochain ou sa prochaine ministre des Transports. Nous aurons des discussions avec ces gens et une décision ultérieure sera communiquée.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we received the report and are reviewing it. This report was funded by three partners: the Government of Quebec, the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada. And, as is appropriate, we will wait for the Province of Ontario to appoint its next transportation minister. We will speak with these people and a decision will be made public.
The member asks whether the minister will create a stakeholder working group today to advance high-speed rail from Windsor to Quebec City connecting to Chicago, citing U.S. investment and warning the leaked report suggests abandoning passenger rail in southern Ontario.
References the leaked report and U.S. investment in high-speed rail with a specific ask (create a stakeholder working group today for Windsor-Quebec City-Chicago corridor), but combines multiple demands and rhetorical flourishes including the Uzbekistan comparison.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is a very slow read. This leaked report is suggesting that we abandon passenger rail in southern Ontario and ignore its connections with the U.S. High-speed rail from Quebec City to Windsor and on to Chicago should be a priority. The United States is moving forward, investing hundreds of millions of dollars, while Canada just studies the issue. Even Uzbekistan is rolling right past us, building high-speed rail. Will the minister create a stakeholder working group today to ensure that high-speed rail from Windsor to Quebec City happens and we connect into Chicago? Will the minister act and bring the stakeholders in and see some action for a change?
The minister references his work on a new Windsor-Detroit bridge and repeats that the government will study the report and discuss it with Ontario's new transport minister once named.
The minister pivots to the Windsor-Detroit bridge and repeats the Ontario minister waiting line from Exchange 16, not addressing the specific stakeholder working group request or the U.S. investment comparison.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that MP already knows I will work hard for a new bridge between Windsor and Detroit. He knows it is long. We have a lot of démarche to do and we have a lot of work with the U.S.A. and now we want to be getting something for Chicago. How many years does the member think it will take? For now, the study has been received by the government. We will study it and then the province of Ontario will name its new minister of transport and we will discuss it with him or her.
The member asks why the Minister of International Trade is consistently allowing a sellout to U.S. interests, citing the U.S. ambassador's refusal to change the buy-American stance and the government's move against the Canadian Wheat Board.
Touches on two distinct issues (U.S. buy-American protectionism and the Canadian Wheat Board) without precise data or a single focused ask, making the question compound and rhetorically framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the U.S. ambassador basically told the Minister of International Trade that it was lovely having a chat but that the United States will maintain its protectionist stance denying Canadian participation in stimulus. Now, on this very day, the government is selling out farmers' marketing rights to United States interests. After winning 14 challenges with the U.S., now the Prime Minister serves up the Canadian Wheat Board on a silver platter. Why is the Minister of International Trade consistently allowing a sellout to U.S. interests?
The minister states he met with his U.S. counterpart and key decision-makers to argue that trade barriers hurt both countries, and claims the government stands up for hard-working Canadians.
The minister gives a generic statement about standing up for Canadians and creating jobs, turns the question back on Liberals, and does not address either the U.S. protectionist stance or the Wheat Board allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear, time and time again, that we are focused on building Canada's economy and on creating jobs. I was in the United States yesterday and the day before meeting with my counterpart and meeting with key decision-makers in the United States making it very clear that barriers to trade hurt both of our countries. We will continue to stand up for hard-working Canadians. Why will the Liberals not?
The member asks why the Conservative government is abandoning Canadian businesses and ports by failing to confront U.S. legislators' formal consideration of a new tariff on U.S.-bound cargo transported through Canadian ports.
Identifies a specific and current threat â U.S. legislators considering a new tax on U.S.-bound cargo through Canadian ports â and asks why the government is not fighting it, though the framing is somewhat partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for weeks U.S. legislators have mused about putting a new tax on U.S.-bound cargo transported through Canadian ports. Instead of confronting this job killing threat head on, the Conservative minister has essentially said, âDon't worry, be happyâ. Well he should worry and he should act. The U.S. government is formally considering this unfair new tariff. Why is the Conservative government abandoning Canadian businesses and ports? Why is it refusing to fight this next protectionist attack on Canadian jobs?
Oh, oh!
The minister rejects the premise, cites U.S. Ambassador Jacobson's assurances that no new taxes on Canadian cargo will be forthcoming, and states he raised the issue with FMC Commissioner Lidinsky and Ambassador Kirk while affirming Canada's ports and railways compete fairly.
The minister cites U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson's assurances and mentions specific contacts with FMC Commissioner Lidinsky and Ambassador Kirk, providing partial substantive engagement, though the response does not fully address why it took so long or what concrete steps were taken.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of that question. As I have repeatedly said, any new tax, any new barrier at the border raises consumer costs--
Mr. Speaker, we welcome the U.S. ambassador's, David Jacobson, assurances that no new taxes on cargo entering the United States from Canada will be forthcoming. We also share his view that the Canada-U.S. trading relationship is the very best on earth. We will defend Canada's competitive advantages, especially with respect to its ports. I have made this clear to the FMC Commissioner Lidinsky and my U.S. counterpart, Ambassador Kirk. Canada's ports and railways are competing fairly and the Asia-Pacific gateway initiative is working--
The member asks what Canada got in return from the perimeter deal negotiations, citing no amnesty for dual citizens facing U.S. fines on Canadian savings, no privacy protections against U.S. bank disclosure demands, and no protection for Canadian workers from buy-American provisions.
Lists three specific concrete gaps in the perimeter deal â no amnesty for dual citizens facing FACTA fines, no privacy protections, no protection from buy-American â making it reasonably specific, though the overall framing is broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when Conservatives negotiated their perimeter deal with the U.S., what exactly did Canada get in return? There was no amnesty for Canada-U.S. dual citizens who are facing U.S. fines on their Canadian savings. There are no privacy measures to stop the U.S. from forcing Canadian banks to disclose personal information on Canadians. There is nothing for Canadian workers who stand to lose their jobs facing U.S. protectionism and buy American provisions. Why will the Conservatives not stand up for Canada when they are negotiating with America?
The minister addresses only FACTA, stating he has reviewed its far-reaching implications with Canadian banks, raised it with the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, and is hopeful of reaching an arrangement that would not require needless expense.
The minister addresses only the FACTA issue specifically, confirming he reviewed it with Canadian banks, raised it with the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, and is pursuing an arrangement, but ignores the buy-American and privacy points entirely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, FACTA has far reaching implications as it would require Canadian banks to collect a great deal of information and at a very substantial expense. I have reviewed this with all of our Canadian banks. I have also raised it with the secretary of the treasury and my officials continue to discuss it with them. We are hopeful that we will be able to arrive at an arrangement with the Americans that would not require this needless expense.
The member asks whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs will commit to using Canada's prominent role at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Perth to make LGBT rights a high priority, noting that being gay is illegal in 41 of 54 Commonwealth states.
Cites the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group report, provides the specific statistic that 41 of 54 Commonwealth states criminalize homosexuality, and asks a clear, single commitment question tied to the upcoming Perth meeting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group has called on member states to address human rights directly and make it a priority at their upcoming meetings in Perth. In 41 of 54 Commonwealth states being gay is still illegal, meaning people who are otherwise law-abiding could be arrested and prosecuted just for being gay. Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs commit to using Canada's prominent role in the Commonwealth to ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights are a high priority at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting next week in Perth?
The minister commits Canada to taking a very active role at Perth to keep human rights front and centre, citing specific proposals including a Commonwealth charter, more democracy and freedom, and explicitly affirms this includes the rights of gays and lesbians.
The minister commits Canada to an active role at Perth, references specific proposals including a Commonwealth charter and human rights measures, and explicitly includes LGBT rights, though without specifying what Canada will do beyond pushing the issue.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada will be taking a very active role in Perth to ensure the issue of human rights is front and centre. There are substantial proposals that will be before Commonwealth leaders, including issues with respect to human rights, a Commonwealth charter, more democracy and more freedom. That certainly includes the rights of gays and lesbians. The member opposite and the House can be assured that Canada will continue to push human rights at the Commonwealth summit.
The member asks whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs will commit to using Canada's diplomatic influence to end the criminalization of homosexuality worldwide, framing it as a fundamental human rights issue and a key step in fighting HIV-AIDS, citing the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group's recommendation.
Focuses on the specific Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group recommendation for decriminalization of homosexuality and links it to HIV-AIDS prevention, with a clear single ask directed at the minister, though it overlaps substantially with Exchange 21.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le Groupe de personnalitĂ©s Ă©minentes du Commonwealth demande aux Ătats membres de prendre position en faveur de la dĂ©criminalisation de l'homosexualitĂ©. C'est un enjeu fondamental des droits de la personne ainsi qu'une Ă©tape importante dans la lutte contre la propagation du VIH-sida. Est-ce que le ministre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres s'engage Ă utiliser l'influence diplomatique du Canada afin qu'on puisse enfin mettre fin Ă la criminalisation de l'homosexualitĂ© dans le monde? On est en 2011, c'est le temps.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, The Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group is calling on member states to support the decriminalization of homosexuality. This is a fundamental human rights issue and an important step in the fight against the spread of HIV-AIDS. Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs commit to using Canada's diplomatic influence to put an end to the criminalization of homosexuality around the world? This is 2011âit is about time.
The minister confirms absolutely, citing the Prime Minister's past action at the last Commonwealth summit raising objections to Uganda's bill, and commits to continue fighting for human rights including LGBT rights at Perth.
The minister confirms Canada's commitment and cites the specific precedent of the Prime Minister raising Uganda's bill at the last Commonwealth summit, providing concrete evidence of past action and a commitment to continue at Perth.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, absolutely. At the last Commonwealth summit, the Prime Minister was able to bring the objections of all members of this House to the government of Uganda for an outrageous bill that was before its parliament. At the Commonwealth summit in Perth, we will continue to fight for human rights to ensure that Canadian values are promoted and advanced at these international summits, and that certainly includes the rights of gays and lesbians.
The member asks whether the minister will intervene to stop the forced deportation of David Perez and Pablo Gonzalez to Mexico before tomorrow, given that the Canada Border Services Agency refused to delay their removal until their humanitarian appeal is heard.
Identifies two specific named individuals (David Perez and Pablo Gonzalez) facing deportation the next day, states the Border Services Agency refused to delay their removal pending a humanitarian appeal, and asks a clear single yes/no intervention question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si le ministre de la Citoyenneté, de l'Immigration et du Multiculturalisme n'intervient pas avant demain, deux jeunes homosexuels, David Perez et Pablo Gonzalez, seront déportés vers le Mexique. Les deux hommes craignent pour leur sécurité s'ils y retournent, mais l'Agence des services frontaliers du Canada a refusé de retarder leur extradition jusqu'à ce que leur appel humanitaire soit entendu. Le ministre va-t-il intervenir et stopper leur extradition forcée tant et aussi longtemps qu'une décision n'aura pas été rendue sur la base de motifs humanitaires?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism does not intervene by tomorrow, two young homosexual men, David Perez and Pablo Gonzalez, will be deported to Mexico. The two fear for their safety if they return to Mexico, but the Canada Border Services Agency has refused to delay their removal pending an appeal on humanitarian grounds. Will the minister intervene and stop this forced removal until the appeal is heard?
The minister states that the asylum system is a legal, not political, system and that it is inappropriate for MPs or ministers to overturn legal decisions made by quasi-judicial bodies such as the Immigration and Refugee Board.
The minister explains the legal framework of the asylum system and why political or ministerial intervention would be inappropriate, which is a relevant principled response, but does not address the specific case or the humanitarian appeal timing issue.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il faut comprendre que nous avons un systĂšme d'asile trĂšs juste, mais c'est un systĂšme lĂ©gal, pas un systĂšme politique. C'est aux tribunaux, aux organisations quasi judiciaires, comme la Commission de l'immigration et du statut de rĂ©fugiĂ©, et Ă la Cour fĂ©dĂ©rale de dĂ©cider si les gens sont des rĂ©fugiĂ©s qui ont besoin de la protection du Canada. C'est tout Ă fait inappropriĂ© que les dĂ©putĂ©s ou mĂȘme les ministres renversent les dĂ©cisions lĂ©gales de notre systĂšme juste et lĂ©gal.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have a very fair asylum system, but it is a legal system, not a political system. It is up to the courts, to the quasi-judicial bodies such as the Immigration and Refugee Board, and to the Federal Court, to decide whether or not people are refugees who need Canada's protection. It is totally inappropriate for members of Parliament or even ministers to reverse the legal decisions of our just legal system.
The member provides additional details that Perez and Gonzalez were attacked repeatedly by authorities in Mexico before coming to Canada, and asks what measures the government is taking to ensure violence against gay men and the homosexual community in Mexico is taken seriously.
Follows up with additional specific details about Perez and Gonzalez facing repeated attacks by authorities before coming to Canada, and broadens to ask what measures the government is taking on violence against the homosexual community in Mexico, though the ask becomes somewhat diffuse.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on sait qu'à leur retour au Mexique, les menaces, les violences, la persécution à l'endroit de ces deux hommes et de leur famille se poursuivront. Avant de venir au Canada, ils ont été attaqués à de nombreuses reprises par les autorités qui devaient pourtant assurer leur protection. MM. Perez et Gonzalez ont des motifs légitimes de craindre pour leur vie s'ils quittent le Canada. Quelles mesures prend ce gouvernement pour s'assurer que les violences à l'endroit de ces hommes et des autres membres de la communauté homosexuelle du Mexique seront prises au sérieux?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we know that when they return to Mexico, these two men and their family members will again be subjected to threats, violence and persecution. Before coming to Canada, they were attacked many times by the authorities that should have been protecting them. Mr. Perez and Mr. Gonzalez have legitimate reasons to fear for their lives if they leave Canada. What steps is this government taking to ensure that violence against these men and other members of Mexico's homosexual community is taken seriously?
The minister reiterates that the Immigration and Refugee Board, the pre-removal risk assessment process, and the Federal Court are all available to analyze asylum claims under the law, characterizing the system as fair and equitable for all claimants.
The minister outlines the multi-step legal process available to asylum claimants (CISR, pre-removal risk assessment, Federal Court review) without addressing the specific case or the broader question about Mexican LGBT community violence.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce Parlement a crĂ©Ă© la Commission de l'immigration et du statut de rĂ©fugiĂ© pour analyser les demandes d'asile en vertu de la preuve et des critĂšres propres Ă nos lois. C'est Ă la commission de dĂ©cider si quelqu'un fait face Ă des persĂ©cutions ou si la sĂ©curitĂ© personnelle de cette personne est menacĂ©e. C'est Ă la Cour fĂ©dĂ©rale de rĂ©viser ces dĂ©cisions-lĂ . Il y a mĂȘme une Ă©valuation des risques avant renvoi. S'il y a une dĂ©cision nĂ©gative, un autre appel Ă la Cour fĂ©dĂ©rale est possible. Cela veut dire que nous avons un systĂšme juste et Ă©quitable pour tous les demandeurs d'asile.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this Parliament created the Immigration and Refugee Board to examine asylum claims on the basis of evidence and the criteria permitted by our laws. It is up to the board to decide if a person is being persecuted or if the personal safety of that person is threatened. It is up to the Federal Court to review those decisions. There is even a pre-removal risk assessment. If the appeal is denied, another appeal to the Federal Court is possible. That means that we have a fair and just system for all asylum seekers.
During Small Business Week, the member asks the minister responsible for small business and tourism to inform the House of measures taken to support small and medium-sized enterprises.
A classic government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to inform the House of measures taken to support small and medium-sized businesses during SME week, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cette semaine est consacrée aux petites et moyennes entreprises qui créent de la richesse et des emplois, partout au Canada. Elles jouent un rÎle vital dans notre économie. Le ministre responsable des petites entreprises et du tourisme peut-il informer cette Chambre des mesures que nous avons prises pour les appuyer?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this week is dedicated to small and medium-sized businesses that create wealth and jobs throughout Canada. They play a vital role in our economy. Can the minister responsible for small business and tourism tell the House what measures have been taken to support these businesses?
The minister cites a reduced tax rate of 11% for small businesses and the creation of the Commission sur la réduction de la paperasse to reduce red tape and allow entrepreneurs to spend more time creating jobs.
The minister provides specific substantive information â the 11% tax rate for small businesses and the creation of the Commission sur la rĂ©duction de la paperasse â giving real policy content in response to the setup.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cela me fait plaisir d'expliquer à la Chambre ce qu'a fait ce gouvernement pour les petites et moyennes entreprises. Nous avons réduit leur taux d'imposition à 11 p. 100. Nous avons aussi fait en sorte de créer la Commission sur la réduction de la paperasse. En effet, nous savons que le temps, c'est de l'argent pour ces petits entrepreneurs, et ceux-ci doivent prendre moins de temps pour remplir la paperasse gouvernementale et doivent passer plus de temps à faire ce qu'ils font le mieux, soit créer des emplois au Canada. Nous appuyons les entrepreneurs et nous en sommes fiers.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to tell the House what this government is doing for small and medium-sized businesses. We have cut their tax rate to 11%. We have created the Red Tape Reduction Commission. We know that time is money for small businesses and they need to spend less time filling out government paperwork and more time doing what they do bestâcreating jobs in Canada. We support entrepreneurs and we are proud of them.
The member asks whether the minister will commit to a full parliamentary investigation of his role in the G8 slush fund, noting the Auditor General found rules were broken, the paper trail was hidden from her, and 131 days have passed without accountability.
References the Auditor General's findings that rules were broken and the hidden paper trail, and asks for a specific commitment to a full parliamentary investigation, but is heavily laden with rhetorical framing ('slush fund', 'hibernation', '131 days').
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, after 131 days of dodging accountability, the Muskoka minister finally peered up over his desk. He made a quick little joke and he went back into hibernation. However, he did not say âsorryâ. He did not explain why he ran a slush fund from his office. He did not explain why the paper trail was hidden from the Auditor General. The Auditor General said that the rules were broken and Parliament must investigate. Will the minister do the right thing? Will he come out of hibernation, stand in this House, and commit to a full parliamentary investigation of his role in the G8 slush fund?
The minister states the government fully accepted the Auditor General's thorough report and all her recommendations, and that he and the President of the Treasury Board look forward to appearing before the public accounts committee in very short order.
The minister states the government fully accepted the Auditor General's report and all recommendations and mentions appearing before the public accounts committee, but does not commit to a full parliamentary investigation as specifically asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it will not come as any surprise to my friend from northern Ontario that I do not agree with the premise of his question. The Auditor General has thoroughly looked into this issue. She has come out with a strong report. This government has fully accepted the report and fully accepted all the recommendations that she has represented. I know the President of the Treasury Board is just as excited as I am to be able to appear before the public accounts committee. We look forward to that opportunity in very short order.
The member again asks for a commitment to a full investigation of the minister responsible for the G8 legacy infrastructure fund, alleging a slush fund of $50 million was spent often through untendered contracts with no oversight by the mayor of Huntsville, a hotel manager, and the minister.
Cites specific figures ($50 million, untendered contracts, three named actors), references the Auditor General's finding that rules were broken, and asks for a clear commitment to a full investigation of the 'rogue minister', though rhetoric is still prominent.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, clearly, after 132 days the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not get it either, that pork barrel boondoggles do not come in under budget. The Auditor General does not approve them. They set up a slush fund with the three amigos: the mayor, the hotel manager and the minister. They blew through $50 million, often in untendered contracts, with no oversight. I am asking again, the Auditor General said the rules were broken, will he stand up and commit to a full investigation of this rogue minister? Unless we fix the rules, this will happen again and again under his watch.
The minister briefly corrects the record, stating that none of the three individuals named by the member approved any of the 32 projects â he did.
The minister's answer is notably brief and corrects one factual claim â that he personally approved all 32 projects â which is a direct factual response but does not address the call for a parliamentary investigation or the untendered contracts allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to correct the record for my friend opposite. None of the three individuals he mentioned approved any of the 32 projects. I did.
The member asks whether the President of the Treasury Board is trying to cut the Auditor General's funding as retaliation, given that she found the member for Parry SoundâMuskoka responsible for breaking rules and hiding information during her investigation.
Raises the specific allegation that the Auditor General found the member for Parry SoundâMuskoka did not respect the rules and hid information, and asks whether the President of the Treasury Board wants to cut the Auditor General's funding as retaliation, blending a pointed allegation with a speculative rhetorical question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, 131 jours, c'est le temps que cela a pris pour que le prĂ©sident du Conseil du TrĂ©sor se lĂšve et rĂ©ponde Ă nos questions. Cependant, comme il a dĂ©bitĂ© un paquet de balivernes, on est restĂ© un peu sur notre appĂ©tit, surtout quand on sait que la vĂ©rificatrice gĂ©nĂ©rale a dĂ©clarĂ© que le dĂ©putĂ© de Parry SoundâMuskoka Ă©tait responsable, qu'il n'a pas respectĂ© les rĂšgles et qu'il a cachĂ© des informations lors de son enquĂȘte. Est-ce pour cela que le prĂ©sident du Conseil du TrĂ©sor veut se venger et couper les vivres au vĂ©rificateur gĂ©nĂ©ral?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it took the President of the Treasury Board 131 days to stand up and respond to our questions. However, since he merely spouted a few silly comments, we were left less than satisfied, especially knowing that the Auditor General said that the member for Parry SoundâMuskoka was the one responsible, that he disobeyed the rules and that he concealed information during the investigation. Is that why the President of the Treasury Board is seeking revenge and cutting the Auditor General's funding?
The minister states the government fully co-operated with the Auditor General, cites that all 32 projects came in on or under budget with every dollar accounted for for public infrastructure, and claims the Auditor General voluntarily offered to participate in the Treasury Board President's spending review initiative.
The minister provides specific figures (32 projects, every dollar accounted for, every project on or under budget, fund under spent) and claims full co-operation with the Auditor General, but does not address the retaliation allegation and redirects to the Treasury Board President's initiative.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government fully co-operated with the Auditor General. Sheila Fraser did an outstanding job for Canadians. She reviewed the 32 projects where every single dollar has been accounted for. Every single dollar went for public infrastructure. Every single project came in on or under budget. The fund itself was under spent. With respect to the Auditor General, the Auditor General saw the leadership that the President of the Treasury Board was taking to try to rein in government spending and offered to voluntarily participate. That is leadership. Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, we look forward to you participating too.
The member challenges the minister's previous claim that all 308 ridings received equal infrastructure funding, citing Huntsville (18,000 inhabitants, $30 million) as an example of ministerial favouritism, and sarcastically asks whether all ridings got a media centre never used by media or a campus not attended by students.
Challenges the minister's previous claim that all 308 ridings received infrastructure money equally, citing the specific example of Huntsville (18,000 inhabitants receiving $30 million) and asking pointedly whether all ridings got equivalent legacy items, mixing specific facts with sarcasm.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, le ministre nous affirmait que les 308 comtĂ©s avaient reçu de l'argent du fonds d'infrastructure. Mais il faut croire que quand on est ami avec le ministre, c'est beaucoup plus facile de mettre la main sur l'argent de sa caisse occulte. Parlez-en au maire de Huntsville: 18 000 habitants, 30 millions de dollars. Maintenant qu'on sait que le ministre peut ou pouvait se lever et parler, peut-il nous dire si tous les comtĂ©s ont reçu un centre des mĂ©dias qui n'a jamais Ă©tĂ© utilisĂ© par les mĂ©dias, un campus qui n'est pas frĂ©quentĂ© par les Ă©tudiants, ou ont mĂȘme la chance d'avoir un ministre qui ne rĂ©pond pas du tout?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister told us that all 308 ridings received infrastructure funding. But, clearly, being friends with the minister makes it much easier to get in on that slush fund. The mayor of Huntsville should know: 18,000 residents, $30 million. Now that we know that the minister is able, or was able, to rise and speak, can he tell us if all ridings received a media centre that was never used by the media and a campus that is not being used by any students or are lucky enough to have a minister who never answers any questions?
The minister deflects by quoting the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre from committee hearings as saying the infrastructure money was fairly well distributed and NDP ridings did fairly well.
The minister deflects entirely by quoting an NDP member for Winnipeg Centre praising the distribution of infrastructure money in NDP ridings, which does not address the Huntsville spending disparity or the question about equal treatment of ridings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would command the member to review the committee hearings on infrastructure where he will see the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre being quoted as saying, âI believe the money was fairly well distributed. NDP ridings did fairly wellâ, and I agree.
Quoting directly from the Official Languages Commissioner's report, the member asks when the government will clearly state that Part VII of the Official Languages Act and improving the situation of minority communities remain a priority, five years after amendments to the Act.
Quotes directly from the Official Languages Commissioner's report, specifying that five years after amendments to the Official Languages Act the government has still not affirmed Part VII as a priority, and asks a clear commitment question directed at the Prime Minister.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je m'adresse au premier ministre sur la question des langues officielles et le rapport du commissaire. Dans son rapport, le commissaire dit clairement: « Cinq ans aprĂšs les modifications Ă la Loi sur les langues officielles, le gouvernement du Canada nâa toujours pas affirmĂ© haut et fort que le respect proactif et intĂ©gral de la partie VII de la Loi constitue une prioritĂ©. » Quand le gouvernement dira-t-il clairement que la partie VII et l'amĂ©lioration de la situation des communautĂ©s minoritaires restent une prioritĂ© pour le gouvernement canadien?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am addressing my questions regarding official languages and the commissioner's report to the Prime Minister. In his report, the commissioner clearly states, âFive years after amendments were made to the Official Languages Act, the Government of Canada has still not affirmed, loudly and clearly, that full and proactive compliance with part VII of the Act is a priority.â When will the government clearly affirm that part VII and improving the situation of minority communities are still priorities for the Canadian government?
The minister quotes a different passage from the same Commissioner's report highlighting the government's systematic consultations with official language communities through working groups, federal councils, and co-operation agreements, claiming this demonstrates success.
The minister responds with a counter-quote from the same report highlighting consultations with official language communities, but does not commit to making Part VII a stated priority or address the Commissioner's central criticism.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, voici une citation tirĂ©e du rapport: « [Notre gouvernement] consulte systĂ©matiquement les communautĂ©s de langue officielle par le truchement de groupes de travail, des conseils fĂ©dĂ©raux et dans le cadre de lâĂ©laboration dâententes de coopĂ©ration entre le MinistĂšre et les provinces ainsi que les territoires. » Les besoins des communautĂ©s de langue officielle sont non seulement bien connus de ce gouvernement, mais ils sont aussi pris en compte lors de la conception et de la mise en oeuvre de ces programmes. VoilĂ des rĂ©ussites, voilĂ des rĂ©sultats, voilĂ un gouvernement conservateur.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, here is a quotation from the report: â[Our government] systematically consults official language communities through working groups and federal councils, and when developing co-operation agreements with provinces and territories.â This government is well aware of the needs of official language communities and it takes those needs into account during the development and implementation of these programs. These are achievements. These are results. This is a Conservative government.
Coderre asked why Canada Post is cutting work hours by 53% in Quebec compared to 4â8% in other provinces, and whether political riding affiliation is being used as an evaluation criterion.
Cites a specific statistic (53% cuts in Quebec vs. 4â8% elsewhere) and raises a pointed accountability question about political criteria in Canada Post evaluations, though the closing rhetorical flourish weakens it.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on a appris hier que Postes Canada procĂšde Ă des compressions inadĂ©quates et disproportionnĂ©es des heures de travail dans les bureaux de poste du QuĂ©bec, par rapport au reste du pays. On parle de 53 p. 100 au QuĂ©bec. La moyenne dans les autres provinces est de 4 Ă 8 p. 100. Comme si ce n'Ă©tait pas suffisant, dans les critĂšres d'Ă©valuation des marchĂ©s, Postes Canada s'intĂ©resse tout Ă coup Ă l'appartenance politique du comtĂ© oĂč est situĂ© le bureau de poste. Ces 53 p. 100 s'expliquent-ils par le rejet du Parti conservateur par la vaste majoritĂ© des QuĂ©bĂ©cois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday that Canada Post is going ahead with cuts to work hours in post offices in Quebec that are unfair and disproportionate compared to the rest of the country. We are talking about 53% in Quebec, while the average in other provinces is 4% to 8%. As though that were not enough, in the market assessment criteria, Canada Post was suddenly much more interested in the political affiliation of the riding in which the post office is located. Is this 53% cut the Conservative Party's response to the fact that it was rejected by the vast majority of Quebeckers?
Fletcher said all permanent Canada Post employees keep their jobs, that postal demand has declined in Quebec, and that Canada Post makes its own operational decisions without government involvement.
Fletcher rejects the premise and offers a general explanation about shifting postal demand in Quebec but does not address the 53% figure, the disparity with other provinces, or the allegation about political riding criteria.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the member's question. The fact is that everyone who has a permanent job with Canada Post will continue to do so. There is some fluctuation in operations. This year there has been a reduction in postal demand in Quebec, but that just goes with the territory of a shifting market. Canada Post makes decisions based on its own operations. The government does not get involved. The member should support the good work that Canada Post is doing.
CÎté cited an Industry Canada bulletin showing SME financing has stagnated and asked whether the government will reduce the small business tax rate as the NDP proposes.
References an Industry Canada bulletin on SME financing stagnation and frames a specific policy ask (reduce small business tax rates), but the rhetorical framing about large corporations dilutes the specificity.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en cette Semaine de la PME, la situation des petites entreprises au pays est alarmante. Selon le plus rĂ©cent bulletin d'Industrie Canada, le financement des PME stagne depuis l'arrivĂ©e des conservateurs au pouvoir. MĂȘme si les entrepreneurs doivent travailler d'arrache-pied, ce gouvernement prĂ©fĂšre accorder d'Ă©normes rĂ©ductions d'impĂŽt aux grandes entreprises, mĂȘme si on sait qu'elles sont inefficaces. Ce gouvernement va-t-il Ă©couter le NPD et rĂ©duire le taux d'imposition des petites entreprises?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Small Business Week, the situation of small businesses in the country is alarming. According to Industry Canada's most recent newsletter, funding for small business has levelled off since the Conservatives came to power. Business owners have to work extremely hard, but this government prefers to give enormous tax cuts to corporations, even though we know such cuts are ineffective. Will this government listen to the NDP and lower the tax rate for small businesses?
Bernier said the government has already reduced the small business tax rate to 11% and criticized the NDP for simultaneously calling for tax cuts and more spending.
Bernier notes the small business tax rate was reduced to 11%, which is relevant, but spends most of the answer attacking NDP spending positions rather than directly engaging the Industry Canada bulletin or the financing stagnation claim.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'aime entendre le NPD prĂŽner des rĂ©ductions d'impĂŽt. C'est un discours un peu difficile en ce moment, parce qu'en mĂȘme temps, d'autres de ses collĂšgues prĂŽnent davantage de dĂ©penses gouvernementales, un plus gros gouvernement, une plus grosse dette. Au lieu de stimuler l'Ă©conomie, ils veulent lui donner un sĂ©datif en faisant des dĂ©penses qu'on ne peut pas se permettre. Ce qui est important pour les petites entreprises, c'est que nous ayons rĂ©duit leur taux d'imposition Ă 11 p. 100, afin de leur permettre d'avoir plus d'argent dans leurs poches et de faire ce qu'elles doivent faire le mieux: crĂ©er des emplois.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I like hearing the NDP advocating tax cuts. The hon. member's argument is a bit awkward because, at the same time, some of his colleagues are advocating more government spending, bigger government and a larger debt. Instead of stimulating the economy, they want to give it a sedative by spending money that we do not have. The important thing for small businesses is that we have cut their tax rate to 11% so they can keep more money in their pockets and do what they have to do best: create jobs.
CĂŽtĂ© noted that young entrepreneurs are increasingly struggling to obtain financing despite SMEs creating 60â70% of jobs, and asked whether the government will introduce a job-creation tax credit as the NDP proposes.
Raises a concrete concern about youth entrepreneur financing and the 60â70% job-creation share of SMEs, and asks specifically for a job-creation tax credit, though the framing remains partly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je tiens à ce qu'on n'en reste pas à un petit saupoudrage de 30 sous pour les petites entreprises. Regardons un autre fait. Sous ce gouvernement, les jeunes entrepreneurs ont de plus en plus de difficulté à obtenir du financement, alors que les PME sont à l'origine de la création de 60 p. 100 à 70 p. 100 des emplois. Cette situation est insoutenable, surtout quand on sait que le taux de chÎmage chez les jeunes est à un niveau inquiétant. Ce gouvernement va-t-il enfin instaurer un crédit d'impÎt à la création d'emplois, comme le demande le NPD?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to see the government simply tossing quarters here and there for small businesses. Let us look at something else. Under this government, it is becoming increasingly difficult for young entrepreneurs to get funding, yet small businesses are responsible for creating 60% to 70% of jobs. This situation is unsustainable, especially knowing that the youth unemployment rate is at a worrisome level. Will this government finally introduce a job creation tax credit, as the NDP has been asking for?
Bernier cited a $20 million budget contribution to the Fondation canadienne des jeunes entrepreneurs, enabling approximately 1,000 young entrepreneurs to receive loans of about $15,000 each.
Bernier provides a specific and concrete answer: a $20 million contribution to the Fondation canadienne des jeunes entrepreneurs yielding loans of ~$15,000 to 1,000 young entrepreneurs, directly addressing youth financing access.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je veux informer mon collĂšgue que j'Ă©tais Ă MontrĂ©al hier avec la Fondation canadienne des jeunes entrepreneurs, qui alloue des prĂȘts d'environ 15 000 $ aux jeunes entrepreneurs qui veulent dĂ©marrer une affaire et crĂ©er de la richesse. En accordant Ă cette fondation une contribution de 20 millions de dollars dans le dernier budget, nous avons permis Ă 1 000 jeunes entrepreneurs de partout au pays de crĂ©er leur emploi et de crĂ©er des emplois pour d'autres Canadiens. C'est ça, appuyer concrĂštement les jeunes entrepreneurs!
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the hon. member that I was in Montreal yesterday with the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, which provides $15,000 loans to young entrepreneurs who want to start a business and create wealth. By giving that foundation a contribution of $20 million in the last budget, we have enabled 1,000 young entrepreneurs across the country to create their own jobs, as well as jobs for other Canadians. That is what it means to support young entrepreneurs.
Benoit asked the Minister of Agriculture to explain what positive changes the marketing freedom for grain farmers act would bring to research and development in western Canada.
This is a government-backbench softball setup: Benoit asks his own minister to tout the marketing freedom for grain farmers act's benefits for research and development.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the government introduced the historic marketing freedom for grain farmers act. This legislation will allow farmers in my riding to market their wheat and barley to any buyer of their choice, just like farmers in eastern Canada. This is legislation that farmers want and expect to see passed by Parliament and it will modernize research in the grain sector in western Canada. Would the Minister of Agriculture please tell the House what positive change the bill would bring to research and development in western Canada?
Ritz said the act includes a voluntary point of sale check-off to fund research entities such as the Canadian International Grains Institute, the Western Grains Research Foundation, and the Malt Barley Technical Centre.
Ritz provides substantive detail, naming specific institutions (Canadian International Grains Institute, Western Grains Research Foundation, Malt Barley Technical Centre) and describing the voluntary point of sale check-off mechanism.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as a farmer, my friend and colleague from VegrevilleâWainwright knows the value of innovation and research to the farm sector. That is why the government has been proud to partner with industry, academia, the provinces and so on to put forward a good, solid research-based scientific funding initiative. We will continue to do that under that marketing freedom for grain farmers act, with a voluntary point of sale check off, which will keep the funding flowing for those great entities like the Canadian International Grains Institute, the Western Grains Research Foundation and the Malt Barley Technical Centre.
Cuzner asked the minister to state clearly whether the Province of Nova Scotia is solely responsible for removing the MV Miner wreck, noting Premier Dexter could not get an answer from Ottawa.
Cuzner asks a single, clear, binary yes/no accountability question: is the Province of Nova Scotia solely responsible for removing the MV Miner, explicitly referencing Premier Dexter's inability to get an answer from Ottawa.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it has become obvious to all Nova Scotians that in the case of the MV Miner it is not just the rotting carcass of the abandoned freighter that has been cut loose by the government, but the Province of Nova Scotia finds itself cut adrift as well. Premier Dexter says that he cannot get an answer from Ottawa, so I will give the minister an opportunity to respond today. Will the minister state clearly here today whether he believes the responsibility to remove that ship lies solely with the Province of Nova Scotia? It is a very simple question. Is the Province of Nova Scotia solely responsible for the removal of that wreck?
Lebel said Transport Canada determined the MV Miner is not polluting the marine environment and is not a threat to navigation, and characterized it as provincial jurisdiction, but did not explicitly say the province bears sole responsibility.
Lebel says it is provincial jurisdiction and Transport Canada found no pollution or navigation threat, which implies the answer is yes, but he never directly says so and the deflection to ongoing cooperation with the province avoids the explicit answer requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the premier has already had some discussions with the minister of this government. We gave him the answer we gave here in the House. Transport Canada's role is to ensure that Canada's waterways provide safe navigation, free of ship source pollution. We have determined that the MV Miner is not polluting the marine environment and is not a threat to navigation. That is provincial jurisdiction, and we will continue to work with the province.
Marston described Bill C-331, his pension protection act, which would give pensions priority over junk bondholders and bank investments in bankruptcies, and asked whether the government will work with New Democrats to protect pensioners.
Marston references a specific bill he tabled (Bill C-331, the pension protection act) and frames a clear ask for government cooperation, grounded in the concrete problem of pensioners ranking behind junk bondholders and bank investments in bankruptcies.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the last five years, many workers across Canada have seen their pensions drastically reduced because their employers went out of business. Yesterday, I tabled Bill C-331, my pension protection act, which is designed to give pensions priority at the time of bankruptcies. At the present time pensioners must wait behind junk bondholders and bank investments. This is done before they can get their pensions, their deferred wages. This is clearly wrong. Will the government work with New Democrats to give pensioners the protection they need?
Menzies said the NDP voted against government pension protection legislation in 2009 that required full funding on planned termination and gave pensioners more negotiating power.
Menzies deflects by attacking the NDP's 2009 vote against pension legislation rather than addressing Bill C-331 or the specific issue of pension priority in bankruptcies.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wish the New Democrats would have worked with us when we moved legislation to protect those pensions to which he referred. In fact, in 2009 they voted against protecting pensions by requiring companies to fully fund pension benefits on planned termination. We also ensured that pensions would be stable for those seniors and we gave pensioners more negotiating powers in their own pensions. The NDP voted against all of those pieces in that legislation.
Block asked the minister to respond to the NDP leader's call for the government to politically intervene and award the national shipbuilding strategy contract to all three bidding shipyards.
Block's question is a government-backbench setup, framing the NDP leader's call for political intervention as a foil and inviting the minister to defend the arm's-length process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the national shipbuilding strategy will result in the creation of thousands of new jobs and billions in economic growth in the cities and communities all across Canada. This is an arm's-length process, independent from the government. The leader of the official opposition is calling, at this late stage, for the government to politically intervene and provide the contract to all three shipyards that submitted bids. Could the minister please respond to this call?
Ambrose said the process will create 15,000 jobs annually for 30 years, the two-shipyard decision was made in consultation with the shipyards themselves, and the fairness monitor's final report confirmed the decisions were objective, free from political influence, open, competitive, transparent, and compliant.
Ambrose provides substantive detail: 15,000 jobs annually for 30 years, two Canadian shipyards, and notably cites the fairness monitor's final report confirming objectivity, absence of political influence, and compliance with openness and transparency.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government made the historic decision to build our ships for the navy and coast guard right in Canada and that will result in the creation of 15,000 jobs annually for the next 30 years. The decision to have two Canadian shipyards build our large ships was made in consultation with the shipyards themselves. The national shipbuilding strategy was designed to generate a competitive environment that would result in the best value for taxpayers. I am also happy to inform the House that I met with the fairness monitor yesterday. He has submitted his final reports and has said that the decisions were made objectively, free from personal favouritism and political influence and encompass the elements of openness, competitiveness, transparency and compliance.
Cleary cited an incident off Bell Island, Newfoundland, where a Coast Guard vessel took over three hours to respond after flares were fired, and a provincial ferry full of passengers was used instead, asking how long the minister would be prepared to wait in icy water.
Cleary cites a specific Bell Island incident where a provincial ferry was used and the Coast Guard vessel took over three hours to arrive, grounding the question in a concrete event, though the closing rhetorical question weakens the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada has one of the worst search and rescue response times in the world. A recent incident off Bell Island, Newfoundland showed just how bad it was. After emergency flares were fired in the area, the Coast Guard called in a provincial ferry, full of passengers, to help the search and rescue effort. It then took the Canadian Coast Guard vessel over three hours to arrive on the scene. This is not about a limo service from a fishing lodge; this is about human lives. How long would the minister be prepared to wait in icy water before being rescued?
Ashfield explained that search and rescue relies on a network of responders including the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard auxiliary, the Canadian Forces, and vessels of opportunity, and asked the member to help communicate this to the public.
Ashfield explains the network of responders and the vessel-of-opportunity protocol, which is somewhat relevant, but does not address the three-hour response time, the use of a passenger-laden ferry, or what remedial action the government plans.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows full well that the search and rescue system is made up of a network of potential responders that includes the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard auxiliary, the Canadian Forces and any vessel of opportunity. Any vessel within the vicinity of a search and rescue call can be asked to assist. When the flares are discharged, the CCG will treat it as a matter of distress. If the member would like to be constructive, he would help us to take this message back to the public so that lives are not put at unnecessary risk.
Plamondon noted that the Barreau du Québec has called on the parliamentary committee not to appoint the unilingual anglophone judge, and asked whether the Minister of Justice will reverse the decision to appoint him out of respect for the French language.
Plamondon cites the unanimous approval of a unilingual anglophone justice by all recognized parties and the Barreau du Québec's formal rejection, and asks a specific yes/no question about whether the government will reverse its decision.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, malgrĂ© la reconnaissance de la nation quĂ©bĂ©coise, les trois partis reconnus en cette Chambre ont unanimement approuvĂ© la nomination d'un juge anglophone unilingue Ă la Cour suprĂȘme, montrant le peu de cas qu'ils font de la langue française. En plus d'ĂȘtre dĂ©noncĂ© par les citoyens, ce choix est rejetĂ© par le Barreau du QuĂ©bec, qui demande au comitĂ© parlementaire chargĂ© d'examiner ces recommandations de ne pas nommer le juge unilingue. Le ministre de la Justice peut-il indiquer aux QuĂ©bĂ©cois et aux QuĂ©bĂ©coises qu'il respecte leur langue et que, par consĂ©quent, son gouvernement reviendra sur sa dĂ©cision de nommer un juge unilingue anglophone?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, despite the recognition of Quebec as a nation, the three parties recognized in this House unanimously approved the appointment of a unilingual anglophone judge to the Supreme Court, demonstrating their lack of concern for the French language. In addition to being criticized by the public, this choice was also rejected by the Barreau du Québec, which asks the parliamentary committee tasked with examining these recommendations not to appoint the unilingual judge. Will the Minister of Justice tell Quebeckers that he respects their language and that, as a result, his government will reconsider its decision to appoint a unilingual anglophone judge?
Nicholson said the Supreme Court has an excellent record on both official languages and that the recommended nominees were chosen based on merit and legal excellence.
Nicholson praises the Supreme Court's bilingual record and says nominees were chosen on merit and legal excellence, but does not address the specific objection about unilingualism, the Barreau du Québec's position, or whether the decision will be reconsidered.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first, I should point out for the hon. member that the Supreme Court has an excellent reputation and record in facilitating both official languages of our country. I have every confidence that will continue. The individuals whose names have been unanimously approved and recommended by the committees of the House of Commons are based on merit and legal excellence. That should be important for the hon. member as well.