Session overview
- Economic inequality and job quality dominated Question Period, with NDP and Liberal members challenging the government over the loss of 72,000 full-time jobs in October, stagnant real wages, and the Occupy movement, while the government countered by citing 600,000 net jobs created since the recession and attacking the NDP's Washington lobbying against the Keystone XL pipeline.
- The F-35 procurement file generated four exchanges, with NDP and Liberal members pressing for an open competition after noting that allies including Israel, Australia, Turkey, Norway and the United States are reconsidering their orders; the Associate Minister of National Defence maintained the program is on track and on time.
- The Minister of Justice confirmed the government's support for Bill C-304 to repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, arguing the Criminal Code is the appropriate vehicle to prosecute hate propaganda and calling on the opposition to support forthcoming amendments to strengthen hate provisions.
- Canada's participation in trans-Pacific partnership negotiations and the protection of supply management generated debate, with the NDP alleging contradiction between the Minister of International Trade's initial reluctance and the Prime Minister's subsequent endorsement; the minister maintained Canada would only join if it were in the best interests of Canadians and that supply management would be defended.
- The Minister of Foreign Affairs declared Canada's sanctions against Iran are the toughest in the world and called on President Assad to step down, while the Minister of the Environment declined to grant opposition MPs accreditation to attend COP 17 in Durban, citing the government's majority mandate.
- A Point of Order on misleading the House was raised by the Liberal member for Halifax West regarding the Minister of State (Finance)'s claim that the Liberal Party voted against the RRSP-to-RRIF conversion extension; the minister ultimately attributed the vote to budget 2007 rather than Bill C-10 in 2009, without withdrawing the original remark.
The Minister of Justice made a specific, on-the-record government commitment to support Bill C-304 repealing section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and announced forthcoming government amendments to strengthen the hate provisions of the Criminal Code, giving the public concrete information about two legislative actions.
Cites Health Canada data (trihalomethane exceeding federal guidelines 87% of the time since 2004) for a specific First Nation (Fort McKay) and links it to documented health harms, making a clear accountability ask.
Rather than addressing the substantive question about how the government is handling the Keystone XL file and Canadian jobs, Oliver dismissed the NDP's Washington trip as a 'bizarre anti-trade mission,' invoked Buzz Hargrove, and closed with 'Send in the clowns,' providing no policy content whatsoever.
Outstanding questions
- Mr. Jamie Nicholls asked what the government will do for Montrealers if the Champlain Bridge has to close while a new one is built â the minister said he wanted to keep the bridge open and dismissed the question as mixing jurisdictions, but provided no contingency plan (Exchange 13).
- Mr. Mathieu Ravignat asked the Receiver General what specific steps have been taken to recoup rebate money received by 17 Conservative riding associations as a result of the scheme to which the Conservative Party of Canada pled guilty â the Parliamentary Secretary redirected entirely to NDP election-law violations without answering (Exchange 26).
- Ms. Linda Duncan asked how many more first nation children and elders must be exposed to trihalomethane levels exceeding federal guidelines 87% of the time in Fort McKay First Nation drinking water before safe water is provided â the minister cited ongoing investments and a forthcoming bill but gave no timeline or specific remedy for Fort McKay (Exchange 36).
- Mr. Charlie Angus asked whether the government supports the efforts of the member for Peterborough to intervene in a direct Federal Court action when the parliamentary law clerk has said doing so is unlawful â the heritage minister spoke about CBC accountability and campaign promises without ever answering yes or no (Exchanges 28â29).
- Denis Coderre asked the Minister of Justice specifically whether he agrees that Quebec should be able, by decree, to exempt itself from the obligation to publish the identity of a young offender under Bill C-10 â the Parliamentary Secretary listed past amendments made at provincial request but did not answer yes or no on the decree question (Exchange 30).
Turmel asks whether the Prime Minister has heard the Occupy movement's cry for help regarding unemployment and the growing income gap.
The question is largely rhetorical, invoking the Occupy movement as a symbol of economic disparity without citing specific data or posing a single answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the past few months, we have witnessed a protest movement on a scale never seen before. The occupy movement is denouncing economic disparity. People are fed up and they decided to act. The parks might be cleaned up, people may have to go home, but the economic problems will not go away. Unemployment is too high, especially for youth. The income gap is growing. Has the Prime Minister heard the cry for help?
Harper dismisses the question by attacking the NDP as unfit to govern and claiming Canada has one of the best records on jobs and economic growth.
Harper deflects entirely to attacking the NDP's record rather than addressing any aspect of economic disparity or the Occupy movement.
Source text
The real question, Mr. Speaker, is whether the NDP has heard any such cry. The focus of Canadians is on jobs and economic growth. That is what this government is focused on. That is why Canada has one of the best records in the world on that. This government does not go to another country to argue against job creation in Canada, but that is what the NDP did, a party that is totally unfit to govern or to even comment on the creation of jobs.
Turmel cites 72,000 full-time jobs lost the previous month and a CIBC finding that jobs created over the past seven months are all low-income, asking whether the Prime Minister recognizes this reality.
The question cites a specific figure (72,000 full-time jobs lost last month) and references a CIBC report on low-income job creation over seven months, grounding the accountability ask in identifiable data.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre doit comprendre que les indignĂ©s ne forment que la pointe de l'iceberg. Que ce soit Ă Calgary, Ă Toronto, Ă MontrĂ©al ou ailleurs, les indignĂ©s sont porteurs de l'Ă©coeurement gĂ©nĂ©ralisĂ© qui gagne la classe moyenne. Il y a 72 000 emplois Ă temps plein qui ont Ă©tĂ© perdus le mois dernier. Les nouveaux emplois dont se vante le gouvernement sont soit Ă temps partiel, temporaires, prĂ©caires ou simplement moins payants. MĂȘme la Banque CIBC dit que, depuis sept mois, les emplois crĂ©Ă©s sont tous Ă faible revenu. Est-ce que le premier ministre s'en rend compte?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must understand that the protesters are only the tip of the iceberg. Whether it is in Calgary, Toronto, Montreal or elsewhere, these people represent the general disgust that is spreading through the middle class. Last month we lost 72,000 full-time jobs. The new jobs the government has been bragging about are temporary, casual, part-time or low-paying jobs. Even CIBC has said that the jobs created in the past seven months have all been poorly paid. Does the Prime Minister realize that?
Harper responds only that Canadians roll up their sleeves in the face of difficulties and attacks the NDP, without addressing the cited statistics.
Harper ignores the CIBC data and the 72,000 job loss figure entirely, pivoting to a generic statement about Canadians rolling up their sleeves and attacking the NDP.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en tant que vrais Canadiens, quand on fait face Ă des difficultĂ©s, on retrousse ses manches et on travaille. C'est ce que font nos industries, malgrĂ© l'opposition du NPD qui est si extrĂȘme. De fait, le NPD va aux Ătats-Unis afin de s'opposer Ă la crĂ©ation d'emplois au Canada. C'est un parti qui n'est pas en mesure de gouverner ce pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when real Canadians face challenges, they roll up their sleeves and get to work. That is what our industries our doing, despite the NDP's extreme opposition. The NDP goes to the United States to oppose the creation of jobs in Canada. That party is not fit to govern this country.
Turmel asks why the Prime Minister is ignoring the economic reality that job quality is declining, minimum wage jobs are rising, and real wages and family purchasing power are falling.
The question raises several economic concernsâminimum wage jobs, real wages declining, purchasing powerâbut frames them broadly and rhetorically without a single sharp, answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre parti fait le travail que devrait faire le premier ministre. Pendant que la haute finance joue à la roulette avec les économies des gens et que les grandes compagnies engrangent profits et réductions d'impÎt, le vrai monde en paie le prix: la qualité des emplois diminue, les emplois au salaire minimum sont en hausse. En fait, les salaires ne suivent pas l'augmentation du coût de la vie. En clair, les salaires réels sont en baisse, le pouvoir d'achat des familles diminue, les gens ont de la misÚre à joindre les deux bouts. Pourquoi le premier ministre ferme-t-il les yeux sur cette réalité économique?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our party is doing the job that the Prime Minister should be doing. While the financial community is playing roulette with people's savings and major corporations are raking in huge profits and getting tax cuts, real people are paying the price. The quality of jobs is going down and minimum-wage jobs are on the rise. In fact, wages are not keeping up with the cost of living. Real wages are going down, the purchasing power of families is going down and people are having a hard time making ends meet. Why is the Prime Minister turning a blind eye to this economic reality?
Harper claims Canada has one of the best records on job creation and family support in the Western world, and attacks the NDP for focusing on the Occupy protest rather than job creation.
Harper repeats Canada's claimed record on job creation and attacks the NDP's focus on the Occupy protest, without addressing wages, purchasing power, or any specific claim made.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Canada a l'un des meilleurs bilans en matiÚre de création d'emplois et de soutien à nos familles, dans le monde occidental. C'est le bilan clair de ce gouvernement, parce que nous sommes axés sur l'économie. That is totally different from the NDP. The fact that the NDP has focused on the Occupy protest rather than on job creation tells us everything we need to know about the NDP. It is a party that is totally unfit to govern or to even comment on job creation.
Julian cites 72,000 full-time jobs lost last month, only 200,000 net jobs created since May 2008 against 450,000 new labour market entrants, leaving a 250,000-job gap, and asks why the PM denies this and fails to prioritize job creation.
Julian cites specific figuresâ72,000 full-time jobs lost last month, net 200,000 jobs since May 2008, 450,000 new labour market entrants leaving a 250,000-job shortfallâgiving the question meaningful factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je rappelle au premier ministre qu'il a prĂ©sidĂ©, le mois dernier, Ă la perte de 72 000 emplois Ă temps plein au Canada. Depuis le mois de mai 2008, l'Ă©conomie canadienne a crĂ©Ă© Ă peine 200 000 emplois net; des emplois beaucoup moins payants et plus prĂ©caires. Au cours de cette mĂȘme pĂ©riode, 450 000 personnes de plus se sont jointes au marchĂ© du travail. Il manque donc 250 000 emplois, juste pour revenir au mĂȘme niveau. Pourquoi le premier ministre nie-t-il l'Ă©vidence? Pourquoi ne fait-il pas de la crĂ©ation d'emplois une prioritĂ©? Pourquoi laisse-t-il tomber autant de familles canadiennes dans ce pays?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Prime Minister that last month, on his watch, Canada lost 72,000 full-time jobs. Since May 2008, the Canadian economy has created barely 200,000 net jobsâjobs that pay a lot less and are more precarious. Over the same period, 450,000 more people entered the job market. Therefore, some 250,000 more jobs are needed, just to return to the same level. Why is the Prime Minister denying the evidence? Why is he not making job creation a priority? Why is he leaving so many Canadian families behind?
Menzies calls the question fact-free and counters that over 600,000 Canadians are working who were not working at the end of the recession, with 90% in full-time jobs and 81% in the private sector.
Menzies disputes the figures and counters with 600,000 net jobs, 90% full-time and 81% private sector, engaging the data but not specifically rebutting the May 2008 baseline or the 250,000 shortfall calculation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if I can quote the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that is another fact free question. Most every comment in that question was false. I would like the member to tell that to over 600,000 Canadians who are working now who were not working at the end of the recession. Ninety per cent of those jobs are full-time jobs, and 81% of those are in the private sector. That is a good news story. I do not know how he could make it such a negative story.
Julian states that one in five Canadian men and one in three Canadian women earn less than two-thirds of the average wage, and that new jobs pay $10,000 less than jobs lost, asking why the government does not create family-sustaining, decent-wage jobs.
Julian cites statistics on wage distribution (one in five Canadian men, one in three Canadian women earning less than two-thirds of average wage) and a $10,000 wage gap, but the ask is broad and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is sad. Canadians are struggling with lost jobs and the Conservatives are struggling with bogus job numbers. We have seen, under this government, that the jobs that are created are low wage jobs. One in five Canadian men and one in three Canadian women now make less than two-thirds of the average wage, and the jobs they get pay $10,000 less than the jobs the Conservatives lost. Canadians cannot get back to work until the government does its job. Why does the government not do its job so Canadians can get back to work with family-sustaining jobs, with decent wage jobs, with the kind of jobs that build our economy in this country?
Menzies attacks the NDP's campaign platform $10 billion tax hike, arguing it would kill jobs, and references the 600,000 additional working Canadians since July 2009.
Menzies pivots entirely to attacking the NDP's proposed $10 billion tax hike from its campaign platform rather than addressing the wage statistics or the question about job quality.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can say what a $10 billion tax hike would do to jobs. That is what the NDP wants to load on us. It was in its campaign platform. It wants to download that onto Canadians. That would kill jobs. That would be the worst thing that Canadians could see and it would kill jobs. The 600,000 more Canadians who are working than were working in July 2009 would not appreciate that.
Rae asks what it will take to convince the government to review the F-35 contract and hold an open competition, given that allies are reviewing their orders and production delays are emerging.
Rae references allies reviewing the F-35 contract, a lower-than-anticipated order count, production delays, and asks a clear question about what it would take to trigger a Canadian competitionâreasonably specific but without citing a document.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a number of our allies are now reviewing the F-35 contract, which means that the total number ordered may be lower than anticipated. The Americans themselves are facing a great challenge with this. Now we hear that the production of the plane may in fact be delayed. I ask the Prime Minister, exactly what will it take to convince the government that this contract is one that needs to be reviewed by the Canadian government? We need to have a competition to produce the best possible price for the greatest possible Canadian security.
Harper says the previous government ran the international competition to select the next generation fighter, that CF-18s will reach end of life this decade, and that he has heard no concrete alternative suggestion from the Liberals.
Harper defends the procurement process and the need to replace aging CF-18s, but does not address the specific points about allied reviews, lower order numbers, or production delays, and deflects by saying he has heard no concrete Liberal suggestion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it was the previous government that ran a competition to select a company internationally to create the next generation fighter plane. The current CF-18s will begin to come to the end of their useful life in this decade. That is why we are proceeding with the purchase of new airplanes, with great support by the way from not just the men and women in uniform but also the industry. I have heard no concrete suggestion on how we would proceed from the Liberal Party.
Rae reiterates that a new, real competition is needed for Canadian security and industry needs, and accuses the government of adopting an ideological position that makes no sense.
Rae reiterates the call for a new competition and accuses the government of ideological rigidity, but offers no new specific facts and the ask is essentially repeated from Exchange 6.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je vais le dire encore une fois: il faut avoir une nouvelle, une réelle compétition pour le Canada, pour nos besoins canadiens, pour les besoins de l'industrie canadienne, pour les besoins de notre sécurité. C'est ça qu'il faut faire. Il faut regarder comment les faits sont en train de changer. Le gouvernement est en train d'adopter une position idéologique qui n'a aucun bon sens. Voilà la proposition concrÚte du Parti libéral du Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: Canada needs a new, real competition to meet our needs here in Canada, to meet the needs of the Canadian industry and to meet our security needs. That is what must be done. We need to look at how the facts are changing. The government is taking an ideological approach that makes no sense. That is the Liberal Party of Canada's concrete suggestion.
Harper states the F-35 purchase is supported by the Canadian Forces and the aerospace industry in Canada and Quebec, and frames the Liberal proposal as wanting to kill that industry.
Harper points to Canadian Forces and the aerospace industry including Quebec as supporters of the F-35 purchase, framing the Liberal position as threatening to kill the industry, but does not address competition or procurement details.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'achat des F-35 est appuyé non seulement par les Forces canadiennes, mais aussi par l'industrie aérospatiale au Canada, au Québec. La proposition de tuer cette industrie n'a aucun sens. C'est la raison pour laquelle on rejette le Parti libéral.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, procuring the F-35s is supported not only by the Canadian Forces, but also by the aerospace industry in Canada, particularly in Quebec. The proposal to kill this industry makes no sense. That is why the Liberal Party is getting the cold shoulder.
Rae notes direct spending on care and custody has doubled from $1.1 billion to $2.1 billion in five years and asks how the government can call for belt-tightening while maintaining islands of profligacy in defence and corrections.
Rae cites specific corrections spending figuresâ$1.1 billion to $2.1 billion in five years, a 100% increaseâgiving factual grounding, but combines two policy areas (defence and corrections) and is cut off before completing the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government will yet come to the conclusion that it has to have an open competition. That is an inevitable fact of life because the option that it is putting forward, the one it is going with, makes no sense. Another island of profligacy which seems to dominate the life of the Conservative Party is in corrections. Spending directly on care and custody has gone from $1.1 billion to $2.1 billion in the last five years. That is a 100% increase in direct spending on care and custody. What will it take for the government to realize that we cannot have islands of profligacy in defence and corrections if we are seriously asking Canadians to pull in their belts--
Harper says the only spending the Liberals oppose is cracking down on criminals or supporting the military, and asserts the government's responsibility to give soldiers the best equipment and keep dangerous and repeat offenders off the streets.
Harper characterizes Liberal priorities as opposing cracking down on criminals and supporting the military, asserting the government's responsibility to equip soldiers and keep dangerous offenders off streets, without addressing the spending figures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to observe the priorities of the Liberal Party. The only spending it opposes is anything to do with cracking down on criminals or supporting our men and women in uniform. For obvious reasons, our priorities on this side are very different. We have a responsibility to our men and women in uniform to give them the best equipment they deserve and we have a responsibility to keep dangerous and repeat offenders off the streets.
Stewart accuses the government of mishandling trade partnerships by exporting unrefined bitumen and killing Canadian jobs, and asks when the Conservatives will put Canadian jobs and the environment first.
Stewart references the Keystone delay and asserts the government is exporting unrefined bitumen and killing Canadian jobs, but the question is largely rhetorical and the ask is vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the failure on Keystone shows how this out-of-touch government is mishandling our key trading partnerships. The Americans understand that protecting the economy and the environment go hand in hand, yet our government has stuck its head in the oil sands, exporting unrefined bitumen and killing thousands of Canadian jobs. Thankfully for Canadians, New Democrat MPs have flown to Washington to help explain that most Canadians disagree with the Conservatives. When will the Conservatives start putting Canadian jobs and the environment first?
Oliver calls the NDP's Washington trip a bizarre anti-trade mission, cites Buzz Hargrove's support for the Keystone project as evidence the NDP is out of touch, and dismisses the NDP as clowns.
Oliver attacks the NDP's Washington trip as an anti-trade mission, cites Buzz Hargrove's support for Keystone, and ends with 'Send in the clowns,' offering no substantive policy response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in a bizarre anti-trade mission the NDP has travelled to Washington to fight against the creation of Canadian jobs. Apparently, those NDP members forgot to ask for permission from their union bosses. Today, Buzz Hargrove supported the Keystone project because it would generate thousands of jobs. The NDP is totally out of touch with ordinary Canadians and economic reality. Send in the clowns.
Stewart asks when the Conservatives will stop acting as oil sands cheerleaders and agree to consult with and protect British Columbian communities, including first nations opposed to the Enbridge and TMX pipelines.
Stewart raises the specific concerns of first nations communities in B.C. regarding the Enbridge and TMX pipelines and asks a clear question about consultation, but the framing remains largely rhetorical with multiple sub-points.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the opposition leader, the Prime Minister appeared on Fox News and criticized the Canadian government for refusing to go to Iraq. Conservatives know what our MPs are doing in Washington. What the Conservatives failed to do was stand up for Canadian jobs and the environment. Like Americans with Keystone, first nations communities in B.C. do not want the risky Enbridge and TMX pipelines going through their communities. When will the Conservatives stop playing oil sands cheerleader and agree to consult and protect British Columbian communities?
Oliver highlights Canada's third-largest proven oil reserves and claims the project will generate hundreds of thousands of jobs and trillions of dollars, then dismisses the NDP as star-struck by Hollywood stars.
Oliver cites the scale of Canada's oil reserves and the economic benefits of the project in general terms, without addressing first nations consultation or the specific Enbridge and TMX pipeline concerns raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are extremely fortunate to have the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world. This project will generate hundreds of thousands of jobs, trillions of dollars in economic activity and revenue to support social services, including education and health. Are the NDP members so star-struck by jet-setting Hollywood stars that they are blind to the needs of Canadian workers and their families?
PĂ©clet asks whether the government will follow the American example and take time to truly evaluate the environmental and economic consequences of the Keystone project, given that the U.S. delayed due to environmental concerns.
PĂ©clet references the U.S. decision to extend review of the Keystone pipeline project due to environmental concerns and poses a clear ask about whether Canada will follow suit and evaluate environmental and economic consequences, with some factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce gouvernement ne comprend pas qu'au XXIe siĂšcle, les emplois et l'environnement vont de pair. C'est pourquoi deux de mes collĂšgues sont prĂ©sentement Ă Washington pour faire le travail Ă la place de ce gouvernement. Les Ătats-Unis ont dĂ©cidĂ© de se donner plus de temps pour Ă©tudier le projet d'olĂ©oduc Keystone parce qu'ils sont notamment inquiets des consĂ©quences environnementales. Cependant, ici, les conservateurs continuent d'avancer les yeux fermĂ©s. Ce gouvernement suivra-t-il l'exemple de nos voisins du Sud et prendra-t-il le temps de vĂ©ritablement Ă©valuer les consĂ©quences environnementales et Ă©conomiques du projet Keystone?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government does not understand that in the 21st century, jobs and the environment go hand in hand. That is why two of my colleagues are currently in Washington to pick up the government's slack. The United States has decided to allow more time for studying the Keystone pipeline project because it is concerned about the environmental impact. However, on this side of the border, the Conservatives continue to move forward with blinders on. Will this government follow the example of our neighbours to the South and take the time to truly assess the environmental and economic impact of the Keystone pipeline project?
Oliver states Keystone XL will generate tens of thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity to fund social services, and accuses the NDP of travelling to Washington determined to harm the project and Canadian job prospects.
Oliver responds with general economic benefits of Keystone XL and attacks the NDP's Washington trip, without addressing the question of whether Canada will conduct a more thorough environmental and economic evaluation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Keystone XL gĂ©nĂ©rera des dizaines de milliers d'emplois et des milliards de dollars en activitĂ©s Ă©conomiques. Ces revenus aideront Ă financer d'importants services sociaux, tels que la santĂ© et l'Ă©ducation. Toutefois, le NPD s'est rendu aux Ătats-Unis, dĂ©terminĂ© Ă nuire Ă ce projet et aux perspectives d'emploi des Canadiens. La position du NPD serait comique si seulement elle n'Ă©tait pas si nĂ©faste Ă l'intĂ©rĂȘt national du Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Keystone XL will create tens of thousands of jobs and generate billions of dollars in economic activity. These revenues will help fund important social services such as health care and education. Nonetheless, the NDP has gone to the United States, determined to hinder this project and job prospects for Canadians. The NDP position would be laughable if it were not so harmful to Canada's national interests.
PĂ©clet notes that several refineries have already closed in Montreal-Est causing thousands of job losses, argues Keystone will export more jobs abroad, and asks when the government will develop a sustainable development plan for Canadian resources and the jobs that go with them.
PĂ©clet cites closed refineries in Montreal-Est and jobs lost in her riding as concrete examples of exported jobs, and asks for a sustainable development plan for Canadian resourcesâa reasonably specific ask with some local factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, mes collĂšgues sont Ă Washington pour montrer aux AmĂ©ricains que la majoritĂ© des Canadiens veulent que les ressources naturelles soient exploitĂ©es de façon durable. Cependant, en plus de l'environnement, des milliers d'emplois sont en jeu. Plusieurs raffineries ont dĂ©jĂ fermĂ© leurs portes Ă MontrĂ©al-Est, causant la perte de milliers d'emplois, notamment dans ma circonscription. Les faits sont lĂ et parlent d'eux-mĂȘmes. Maintenant, ce que le gouvernement veut faire, c'est exporter des milliers d'emplois Ă l'extĂ©rieur du pays. C'est exactement ce que fera le projet Keystone. Quand ce gouvernement Ă©laborera-t-il un plan de dĂ©veloppement durable pour nos ressources canadiennes et pour les emplois qui vont avec elles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are in Washington to tell Americans that the majority of Canadians want natural resources to be developed in a sustainable manner. Both the environment and thousands of jobs are at risk. Several refineries have already closed their doors in Montreal East resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs, especially in my riding. The facts are there and speak for themselves. Now the government wants to export thousands of jobs outside the country. That is exactly what will happen with the Keystone project. When will this government prepare a plan for the sustainable development of Canadian resources and the accompanying jobs?
Oliver claims the project would generate hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs and millions in economic activity, and asks whether the NDP cares at all about Canadian workers and their families.
Oliver repeats the project's economic benefit claims without acknowledging the refinery closures or the question about a sustainable development plan, and dismisses the NDP as ideologically blind.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the NDP seems oblivious to the facts and does not listen very well either. This project would generate hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs and millions of dollars in economic activity. Does the NDP care at all about Canadian workers and their families? Is it so ideologically driven that it is blind to the interests of Canadians?
Nicholls asks what the government's plan is for Montrealers if the Champlain Bridge has to close while they wait for a new one, given reports of crumbling concrete and eroding steel.
Nicholls references reports of crumbling concrete and eroding steel on the Champlain Bridge, notes the minister failed to answer the same question the previous day, and poses a single clear question about the government's contingency plan if the bridge must close.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about families. Yesterday, the minister accused me of using scare tactics, but the fact is that Montreal families are worried that the Champlain Bridge might collapse. Reports tell of crumbling concrete and eroding steel. Yesterday, I asked the minister if he had a plan for Montrealers if their bridge is shut down while they wait for a new one. He did not have an answer. I will ask again today. If the Champlain Bridge has to close, what is the government going to do about it?
Lebel says the difference is that the NDP wants to close the bridge while the government wants to keep it open and safe, accusing the NDP of caring about political ideas rather than the population.
Lebel does not provide any contingency plan and instead frames the exchange as the NDP wanting to close the bridge while the government wants to keep it open and safeâa deflection that does not address the specific question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the difference between them and us is that they want to close the bridge and we want to keep it open and work on it to keep it safe. That is the only difference. Those members do not care about the population. They care about political ideas. We are doing the job.
Nicholls asks when the government will present a plan that truly meets Montrealers' needs, warning that the new Champlain Bridge plan risks making South Shore access more congested than it already is.
Nicholls raises a concrete concern that Montrealers may avoid the new bridge and overload alternate South Shore routes, asking whether this is really the government's solution to traffic congestion, with an implicit ask for a comprehensive plan.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le plan du gouvernement pour le nouveau pont Champlain risque de créer plus de problÚmes qu'il ne va en régler. Les Montréalais envisagent sérieusement de contourner le nouveau pont et d'emprunter les autres. Les accÚs à la Rive-Sud vont se retrouver encore plus congestionnés que maintenant. C'est ça, la solution du gouvernement aux problÚmes de circulation? Quand le gouvernement va-t-il présenter un plan qui répond vraiment aux besoins des Montréalais?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government's plan for the new Champlain Bridge may cause more problems than it will solve. Montrealers are seriously considering avoiding the new bridge and using the others. Access to the south shore will be even more congested. Is that the government's solution to traffic problems? When will the government present a plan that truly meets the needs of Montrealers?
Lebel clarifies that the federal government owns two bridges and 50% of another in the Montreal region, says traffic planning within the city is a provincial and municipal jurisdiction, and commits to building a new bridge and investing in securing the current one.
Lebel clarifies the federal government's jurisdictional scope (owning two bridges and 50% of a third) and states the government will build a new bridge and invest in securing the current one, which partially addresses the planning question but not the traffic congestion concern.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme Ă l'habitude, ce dĂ©putĂ© mĂȘle les compĂ©tences. Il veut maintenant qu'on fasse des plans pour les MontrĂ©alais Ă la place de la Ville de MontrĂ©al. Le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral est propriĂ©taire de deux ponts et de 50 p. 100 de l'autre dans la rĂ©gion de MontrĂ©al. On va gĂ©rer ça et laisser Ă la province sa compĂ©tence, ce qu'il ne comprend pas. Il veut toujours tout mĂȘler. Nous allons travailler sur des faits, et non sur des hypothĂšses dans 10 ans. Nous allons rĂ©aliser un nouveau pont et nous investissons pour sĂ©curiser le pont actuel.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as usual this member is mixing up jurisdictions. He now wants us, rather than the City of Montreal, to make plans for Montrealers. The federal government owns two bridges and 50% of another bridge in the Montreal area. We will manage what falls under our jurisdiction and let the province manage what falls under its jurisdiction, which he does not understand. He always wants to mix everything up. We are working with facts and not with hypotheses about what will happen in 10 years. We will build a new bridge and we are investing in the existing bridge to make it safer.
Rousseau asks whether the government will admit that by entering free trade talks with countries opposed to supply management, it is threatening the livelihoods of Quebec and Ontario livestock farmers and using supply management as a bargaining tool.
Rousseau identifies a specific tension between free trade talks with countries opposed to supply management and the livelihoods of Quebec and Ontario dairy farmers, asking directly whether the government will admit it is using supply management as a bargaining chipâa pointed, identifiable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement conservateur veut s'engager dans des pourparlers sur le libre-échange avec des pays qui sont clairement opposés à la gestion de l'offre. Les éleveurs du Québec et de l'Ontario tiennent à ce systÚme qui permet aux fermes familiales de survivre. Est-ce que ce gouvernement va admettre qu'en allant de l'avant avec ces pourparlers, il menace leur gagne-pain? Va-t-il reconnaßtre qu'il veut utiliser la gestion de l'offre comme un outil de marchandage?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government wants to engage in free trade talks with countries that are clearly opposed to supply management. Producers in Quebec and Ontario want to keep this system, which allows family farms to survive. Will this government admit that it is threatening producers' livelihoods by going ahead with these talks? Will the government recognize that it wants to use supply management as a bargaining tool?
Fast states the government will continue to defend and promote Canada's interests including supply management, and references the TPP framework released Saturday, saying Canada determined it can meet and exceed that ambition as it does in EU negotiations.
Fast commits to defending supply management in all negotiations and references the TPP framework released Saturday, stating Canada can meet or exceed its ambition, which is relevant but does not specifically address the bargaining chip accusation or the risk to dairy farmers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to defend and promote Canada's interests in every sector of our economy, including supply management. After a review of the framework that was released on Saturday by the trans-Pacific partnership, TPP, partners, we determined that Canada can lead and even exceed the ambition set out in that framework. All countries approach negotiations with a view to protecting their interests. Canada's approach to the TPP will not be any different from our free trade negotiations with the European Union.
The member asked whether the government will defend the interests of Canadian dairy and poultry producers given the apparent contradiction between the trade minister and the Prime Minister on joining trans-Pacific free trade negotiations.
Cites a specific contradiction between the minister's statement and the Prime Minister's the following day, with a clear yes/no ask about defending Canadian producers, but framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, encore une fois, le gouvernement dit une chose et fait le contraire. On ne peut pas lui faire confiance. La semaine derniĂšre, le ministre du Commerce international affirmait qu'il n'Ă©tait pas dans l'intĂ©rĂȘt du Canada de participer Ă ces nĂ©gociations pour la crĂ©ation d'une zone de libre-Ă©change transpacifique. Mais le lendemain, le premier ministre lui-mĂȘme s'est prononcĂ© en faveur de ces nĂ©gociations. Soit le gouvernement improvise, soit il cĂšde aux pressions. Et ce sont les producteurs laitiers et de volaille qui risquent d'en payer le prix. Est-ce que le gouvernement peut enfin nous donner l'heure juste? Va-t-il, oui ou non, dĂ©fendre les intĂ©rĂȘts de nos producteurs canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is saying one thing and doing the opposite. The government cannot be trusted. Last week, the Minister of International Trade said that it was not in Canada's interest to participate in negotiations to create a trans-Pacific free trade zone. However, the next day, the Prime Minister himself voiced his support for these negotiations. Either the government is improvising or it is giving in to pressure. And, it is the dairy and poultry producers who may have to pay the price. Can the government finally set the record straight? Is it going to stand up for Canadian producers, yes or no?
Fast stated he had always been clear, that Canada supports supply management, and that after reviewing the negotiation framework Canada formally expressed willingness to join the TPP negotiations.
Fast addresses the apparent contradiction and confirms joining TPP negotiations, but does not specifically explain how supply management interests will be protected in those negotiations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have always been clear. We would only join negotiations if it were in the best interests of Canadians. We are standing up for supply management. Unlike the NDP, we do our due diligence first. Last Saturday we reviewed the negotiation framework for the trans-Pacific partnership and are now confident that Canada can meet that ambition and even exceed it. As such, we formally expressed our willingness to join the TPP negotiations. We know that increasing Canada's ties to the Asia-Pacific countries will bring more jobs and opportunities and greater prosperity to hard-working Canadians in every region of our country.
The member asked whether the government is dismantling supply management, pointing to the minister's earlier broken commitment to hold a vote before dismantling the Wheat Board.
Draws on a specific prior ministerial commitment â a vote by prairie farmers before dismantling the Wheat Board â and poses a clear yes/no question on supply management, giving it reasonable factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is another about-face between a minister and the Prime Minister. Wheat farmers saw it last spring when the Minister of Agriculture told them that he would not dismantle the Wheat Board without a vote by prairie farmers. Six months later, there was no vote. Now the government wants dairy and poultry farmers to just âtrust itâ. Farming families are asking for a simple answer to a simple question: Is the government dismantling supply management, yes or no?
Ritz stated that the government values the supply management sector and confirmed 'yes, we are with the supply management sector,' citing the campaign platform and throne speech.
Ritz gives a direct 'yes' that the government is with the supply management sector but does not address the broken commitment on a prairie farmer vote, deflecting instead to NDP platform comparisons.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we value the supply management sector in this country. We had it in our campaign platform, unlike the NDP. We brought it forward in a throne speech, which those members voted against. Yes, we are with the supply management sector.
The member asked, citing statistics that only 32% of incoming EI calls are answered within required times and 51% are hung up on, whether the Prime Minister will tell his minister to fix the Service Canada call centre mess rather than cutting 600 jobs.
Cites specific statistics â 32% of calls answered within required times, 51% hung up on, 600 call centre job cuts â and a concrete ask for the Prime Minister to intervene.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 40,000 more Canadians were unemployed this month than last but the minister remains committed to cutting 600 call centre jobs at the EI centres. Statistics show that only 32% of incoming calls are being answered within required times and 51%, over half, are being hung up on. It is time for the Prime Minister to get involved in this file. Will he walk over and tell his minister to fix this mess? He should walk over, because if he calls he will probably not get through.
Finley said the government is overhauling service delivery programs to modernize them and noted Canadians can access Service Canada through call centres, the Internet, or in person.
Finley mentions overhauling service delivery and alternative access channels but disputes the statistics without providing her own numbers and does not address the specific job cuts or the Prime Minister intervening.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is overhauling all of our service delivery programs so that we can modernize them to provide better service to Canadians. There are numerous ways that Canadians looking for help from Service Canada can access it. One is through the call centres, which have a much better record than what the member purports, but they can also click on the Internet and they can show up in person, because all of our front-line services are still there to serve Canadians.
The member invoked the 2006 precedent of the Prime Minister directing Monte Solberg to restore summer student jobs, and asked whether the Prime Minister will similarly direct his minister to fix the Service Canada EI call centre situation hurting unemployed Canadians.
Uses a historical anecdote about Monte Solberg as framing and describes hardship faced by unemployed Canadians, but the ask â for the Prime Minister to tell his minister to fix the mess â is largely rhetorical and repetitive of the prior exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 2006 Monte Solberg was minister for Service Canada, and he went to cut the jobs for summer students. The opposition made such a fuss that the prime minister went over and told Monte, âFix this, Monteâ. To his credit, he had that program put back in. Canadian unemployed are hurting. They are missing monthly payments. They are going six weeks without cheques. They are running their households on maxed-out credit cards. Will he walk over and tell his minister, âFix this messâ?
Finley said the government is improving service through automation and consolidation of EI processes to make them more efficient, effective, and affordable.
Finley again references automation and consolidation of EI processes without addressing the specific job cuts, the service statistics raised, or the historical precedent cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are making every effort to improve the service that we provide to Canadians. The way we are doing it is through automation. That is the best way to get fast service. We are consolidating our EI processes to make them more efficient as well, because Canadians deserve their assistance quickly. That is why we are working to make the system more efficient, more effective and more affordable.
The member challenged the junior finance minister's false claim that the Liberals voted against extending the RRSP-to-RRIF conversion time, and asked why the government will not give seniors more time to convert their RRSPs into RRIFs to rebuild their value.
Specifically contests a false claim made by the junior finance minister the day before and asks a clear policy question about extending the RRSP-to-RRIF conversion deadline for seniors.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the junior finance minister falsely claimed this party voted against an extension of the time to convert RRSPs to RRIFs during our recent recession. The fact is we suggested this measure, we supported this measure, and I voted for this measure. It is sad to see this Conservative government shamelessly misleading the House to hide the fact that it is refusing to help these seniors. Why will they not give seniors more time to convert their RRSPs into RRIFs so that they can at least try to rebuild their value?
Menzies said the government extended the RRSP-to-RRIF conversion age from 69 to 71, and highlighted the tax-free savings account as an opportunity for retirement savings, while attacking the Liberal voting record.
Menzies does not address the false claim corrected by the questioner, instead pivots to the Liberal voting record and the tax-free savings account, only tangentially noting the age extension from 69 to 71.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals vote against so much that it is hard to keep track of what they vote for and what they vote against. There is very little that we have put forward that they have voted in favour of. We actually have extended, from 69 to 71, the age for seniors to roll their RRSPs into RRIFs. I will say what I know is factually correct: they voted against the tax-free savings account. This measure has been tremendously successful. It is an opportunity for people to save, tax protected, for their retirement, and I am quite sure that they voted against that. In fact, they may stand up and admit it.
The member cited Norway, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands as reconsidering or withdrawing from the F-35 program, contradicting the associate minister's claim that allies understand its importance, and asked whether the government will hold a transparent call for tenders for a new aircraft.
Names specific allied countries â Norway, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands â as reconsidering or withdrawing from the F-35 program, directly contradicts the minister's prior statement, and poses a clear ask for a transparent call for tenders.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, le ministre associĂ© de la DĂ©fense nationale a affirmĂ© que nos alliĂ©s comprennent lâimportance du programme des F-35. Apparemment, il n'a pas reçu leurs mĂ©mos. Les AmĂ©ricains sont sur le point de se retirer complĂštement du programme. La NorvĂšge, l'Australie et le Royaume-Uni songent aussi Ă se retirer, et les Pays-Bas l'ont dĂ©jĂ fait. Visiblement, c'est le gouvernement qui ne comprend pas le message de nos alliĂ©s. Le gouvernement va-t-il enfin faire un appel d'offres transparent pour un nouvel avion?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Associate Minister of National Defence said that our allies understand the importance of the F-35 program. Apparently, he did not get their memos. The Americans are on the verge of withdrawing from the program entirely. Norway, Australia and the United Kingdom are also considering withdrawing, and the Netherlands has already backed out. It is quite clear that the government is not getting the message from our allies. Will the government finally launch a transparent bidding process for a new plane?
Fantino accused the member of fearmongering and stated the F-35 program is critical to sovereignty, military support, and aerospace jobs, and that Canada is on track and staying with the program.
Fantino accuses the member of fearmongering and makes generic claims about sovereignty and jobs without addressing any of the named ally withdrawals or the call for a tender process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is engaging in fearmongering about the importance of the F-35 program, a program that is critical to maintaining Canada's sovereignty, supporting our military men and women and creating aerospace jobs for Canadians. We are on track, we are on time and we are staying with the program.
The member argued that if other allies withdraw from the F-35 program Canada may be the only buyer, making the price unaffordable, and asked whether the government has a plan B for replacing the CF-18s and why it insists on the F-35 when no one else wants it.
Raises a specific economic argument â that F-35 prices will not decrease if Canada is the only buyer â and asks the concrete question of whether there is a plan B for replacing the CF-18s.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si le gouvernement mettait ses culottes et exigeait des clauses de retombées économiques dans un appel d'offres pour des avions de chasse, l'industrie canadienne bénéficierait d'emplois de toute façon. Le gouvernement nous dit que le prix des F-35 va baisser quand les usines qui fabriquent ces avions vont tourner à plein régime, mais ça risque de ne jamais arriver puisqu'on sera probablement les seuls à en commander. Pourquoi ce gouvernement tient-il tant à gaspiller l'argent des contribuables pour des avions dont personne ne veut? Puisque le programme des F-35 ne va nulle part, le gouvernement a-t-il un plan B pour remplacer nos CF-18?
Hansard translation: If the government would show leadership and demand that economic spinoff clauses be included in a bidding process for fighter jets, the Canadian industry would benefit from more jobs anyway. The government is saying that the price of the F-35s will drop once the factories making the planes are running full throttle, but that may never happen because we will likely be the only ones ordering these planes. Why is this government so bent on wasting taxpayers' money on planes that no one wants? The F-35 program has stalled; does the government have a plan B for replacing our CF-18s?
Fantino said there is a plan B but did not describe it, and noted Canada is one of nine international nations in the program, attributing its origins to the Liberal government.
Fantino claims there is a plan B without describing it at all, then deflects to blaming the Liberal government for initiating the program, providing no substantive information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, not only is there a plan B, but there is a plan A to ensure that we acquire the best possible equipment for our men and women. Moreover, we are one of nine international nations that are part of this program. It was the Liberal government of the day that got us involved in this to begin with.
The member cited Israel, Australia, Turkey, Norway, and the United States as reconsidering or withdrawing from the F-35 program, described the purchase as a fiasco, and asked when the government will admit its mistake and put the contract out to public tender.
Names specific countries â Israel, Australia, Turkey, and Norway â as reconsidering orders and the Americans as considering full withdrawal, directly challenges the minister's prior statement, and asks a clear question about public tender.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the point is that plan A is not working here. Yesterday the associate minister of defence claimed again that our allies â...understand the importance of this programâ. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, he missed the memo. Let me share the news: Israel, Australia, Turkey, and Norway are all reconsidering their orders, and the Americans are talking about pulling out entirely. The Conservatives insist everything is fine. The F-35 purchase has become a fiasco. When will the government admit its expensive mistake and put this boondoggle of a contract out to public tender?
Fantino said Canada and its closest military allies understand the importance of the F-35 program and cited Secretary Panetta's warning to Congress about reckless short-sighted proposals, stating the government will not cancel the equipment.
Fantino invokes Secretary Panetta's warning to Congress as support for staying the course but does not address any of the named countries reconsidering, nor the call for public tender.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government and our closest military allies understand the importance of this program to the protection of our sovereignty. Canada is not the only country among our closest allies warning critics of the damage their reckless plans would cause to our military and aerospace workers. I am pleased that Secretary Panetta has taken a similar action to warn Congress of the reckless short-sighted implications such a proposal could have. If our opposition members had their way, they would cancel the equipment our air force agrees is the best it needs to do its job in safety and to key effect.
The member argued that if the Americans pull out of the F-35 program the price will skyrocket and the plane will be unaffordable, and asked what the government's backup plan is and why it is committed to a plane that everyone else is walking away from.
Restates the economic argument about F-35 pricing if the Americans pull out, asks a concrete question about a backup plan, but is largely repetitive of exchanges 21â23 and somewhat rhetorical in tone.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is the same line again. To the associate minister and the Prime Minister, living in denial is a dangerously expensive and irresponsible approach to military procurement. The facts here are simple. The economics are simple. The government says the F-35 price tag will go down when the planes are in full production, but when we are the only ones ordering them, that price can only skyrocket. If the Americans pull out of the F-35 program, this plane is unaffordable, so what is the government's backup plan? Why is the government hell-bent on blowing the budget on a plane that everyone else is walking away--
Fantino stated it is absolutely untrue that anyone is walking away from the F-35 program, that aircraft are coming off the production line and being delivered, and that Canada's program is on track and on time.
Fantino flatly denies allies are walking away without addressing the specific pricing argument or providing any detail about a backup plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely untrue. There is no indication that anybody is walking away from the F-35 program. The aircraft are coming off the production line. Pilots are flying them. They are being delivered to countries. Our program is on track and on time, and we are staying with it.
The member asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs to reiterate Canada's position regarding the actions of the Assad regime against the Syrian people.
A government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to reiterate a known government position, with no specific challenge or accountability element.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, week after week, month after month, Syria's brutal regime is cracking down on innocent civilians by killing them in cold blood. We know that Canada has been an active and vocal opponent of these atrocities. Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs please reiterate to the House Canada's position regarding actions of the Assad regime against the Syrian people?
Baird stated Canada has called for President Assad to step down, imposed tough sanctions on the regime and key actors, and strongly advised Canadians in Syria to leave through commercial options while available.
Baird provides a substantive answer outlining Canada's position â calling for Assad to step down, imposing tough sanctions, and advising Canadians to leave Syria â which contains real information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the campaign of violence and terror against the Syrian people must end. This government has called for President Assad to step down. Our government has taken decisive action by imposing very tough sanctions on the regime and on the key actors who are causing the violence. Canada stands with the Syrian people in their time of need. While I have this opportunity, I would like to strongly advise any Canadians currently in Syria to leave through commercial options while they are still available.
The member noted the Conservative Party's guilty plea under the Canada Elections Act, the 17 riding associations that received illegitimate rebate money, and asked the Receiver General what steps the government has taken to recoup this money from the Conservative Party of Canada.
Specifically references the guilty plea to violating the Canada Elections Act, the maximum fine, the 17 Conservative riding associations that received illegitimate rebate money, and directs a precise question to the Receiver General about recouping funds.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week the Conservative Party of Canada pled guilty to violating the Canada Elections Act, exceeding spending limits and improper reporting. It was charged the maximum fine allowed under the law. As a result of the Conservative scheme, 17 Conservative riding associations received illegitimate rebate money, and Elections Canada has outlined which Conservative riding associations benefited from this illegal scheme. My question is for the Receiver General. What steps has the government taken to recoup this ill-gotten money from the Conservative Party of Canada?
Poilievre pivoted to accusing the NDP of breaking Canadian election law and stated that every Conservative accused of wrongdoing has been cleared, without addressing the question about recouping money.
Poilievre ignores the question to the Receiver General entirely and pivots to an attack on NDP election law violations, providing no information about steps to recoup the money.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member was rising today to apologize on behalf of the NDP. Just last week the NDP had to admit that it broke the Canadian election law, that it violated the law in attempting to use the power of the political donation tax credit in order to fund a third party organization. It did so in violation of the law. It has now had to admit it. On this side of the House, every single Conservative accused of wrongdoing has now been cleared. We are very pleased with the outcome. We will continue to stand by the fact that we followed all the rules.
The member argued that taxpayer money was illegally given to the Conservative Party, that Elections Canada has identified which riding associations received illegal funds and how much, and asked when the Conservatives will repay taxpayers.
Identifies that Elections Canada has specified which riding associations received illegal money and how much, and makes a direct ask for the Conservatives to repay taxpayers, with reasonable factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est effrayant! Ils ne sont mĂȘme pas capables de faire la diffĂ©rence entre un don, fait Ă la suite de la mort de notre chef, et un processus illĂ©gal pour contourner la loi. Est-ce possible? L'argent des contribuables a Ă©tĂ© donnĂ© au Parti conservateur de maniĂšre illĂ©gale. Ălections Canada a dĂ©jĂ indiquĂ© quelles associations de circonscription ont reçu de l'argent illĂ©gal et combien elles ont reçu. Les conservateurs admettent qu'ils ont enfreint la loi. Ils savent combien d'argent illĂ©gal ils ont pris. Qu'attendent-ils? Vont-ils faire ce qui doit ĂȘtre fait et rembourser les contribuables?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible. They are unable to even differentiate between a donation made following the death of our leader and an illegal procedure to get around the law. Is that possible? Taxpayers' money was given to the Conservative Party illegally. Elections Canada has already indicated which riding associations received illegal money and how much they received. The Conservatives have admitted that they violated the act. They know how much illegal money they took. What are they waiting for? Are they going to do what needs to be done and reimburse the taxpayers?
Poilievre stated that it was the NDP that admitted violating the Canada Elections Act and called on NDP members to apologize, without addressing repayment of funds.
Poilievre again deflects entirely to the NDP's admission of violating the Canada Elections Act without addressing the question of repaying taxpayers.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'honorable député a oublié de mentionner que c'est son parti qui a avoué avoir violé la Loi électorale du Canada. C'est leur propre admission. Les députés néo-démocrates devraient se lever dans la Chambre des communes afin de s'excuser auprÚs de tous les Canadiens. Tous les députés de notre parti qui ont été accusés ont maintenant été blanchis. Nous en sommes fiers. Nous avons suivi les rÚgles et nous allons continuer de les suivre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member forgot to mention that it is his party that admitted to violating the Canada Elections Act. They have admitted it. The NDP members should rise in the House of Commons and apologize to all Canadians. Every member of our party accused of wrongdoing has now been cleared. We are proud of this outcome. We followed all the rules and we will continue to do so.
The member asked whether the government supports the member for Peterborough's attempts to interfere in Federal Court proceedings and the work of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics regarding CBC, which the parliamentary law clerk has deemed unlawful.
Cites specific actions by the member for Peterborough â pressuring to bring a judge before committee and seeking full document access deemed illegal by the parliamentary law clerk â and asks a direct yes/no question about government support for these actions.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le député de Peterborough a clairement dit que c'était son intention d'interférer dans le travail de la Cour fédérale et du Comité permanent de l'accÚs à l'information, de la protection des renseignements personnels et de l'éthique concernant Radio-Canada. Il a donc fait pression afin de faire venir un juge devant le comité, et, quelle surprise, il a été ridiculisé! Maintenant, il demande l'accÚs aux documents complets, ce que le légiste du Parlement juge illégal. Le gouvernement appuie-t-il l'attaque du député contre le systÚme judiciaire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peterborough clearly said that he planned on interfering with the work of the Federal Court and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the CBC matter. He has put pressure to bring a judge to the committee andâsurprise, surpriseâhe was mocked. Now he is asking for access to the full documents, which the parliamentary law clerk has deemed unlawful. Does the government support this member's attack on the justice system?
Moore stated the government supports the member for Peterborough's efforts to hold CBC accountable, noted the committee can decide its own business, and attacked the member for TimminsâJames Bay for breaking a promise on the long gun registry.
Moore defends the member for Peterborough's CBC accountability efforts and deflects to attacking the member for TimminsâJames Bay on the long gun registry, never addressing the specific question about supporting intervention in a Federal Court action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what we support, believe in and applaud is the member for Peterborough's efforts to hold CBC accountable for the money it gets from taxpayers. The committee the member is referencing can decide its own business, what witnesses to call and what documents to ask for. What the member for Peterborough is simply doing is what he promised his constituents he would do, which is to stand up for value for taxpayers' dollars. Unlike the member for TimminsâJames Bay, who promised he would stand up in the House of Commons and vote against the long gun registry, he has a record of standing up for his constituents; the member opposite has a record of abandoning his.
The member asked directly whether the government supports the member for Peterborough's efforts to intervene in a direct court action when the parliamentary clerk says it is unlawful.
Repeats the specific question about the member for Peterborough intervening in a direct court action when the parliamentary clerk says it is unlawful, with a yes/no ask, but is somewhat diluted by rhetorical commentary on why the heritage minister is answering.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the duck hunter across the way heard the question or not, because I do not know what the heritage minister is doing standing and responding to a question about undermining parliamentary convention. Maybe it is his desire to attack the CBC. Maybe he is just excited and wants to talk about guns. The other day he got up about the Wheat Board. However, he is not answering the fundamental question. Does the government support the efforts by the member for Peterborough to intervene in a direct court action when the parliamentary clerk says it is unlawful--yes or no?
Moore said the committee can decide its own business and witnesses, cited delivered campaign promises on the Wheat Board, gun registry, and CBC accountability, and attacked the member for breaking promises to his constituents.
Moore again invokes campaign promises on the Wheat Board, gun registry, and CBC accountability without addressing the specific question of whether the government supports intervention in a court action deemed unlawful by the parliamentary clerk.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, the committee can decide its own business and its own witnesses all at once. The member opposite raised three issues. He talked about the Wheat Board. We said what we would do in the campaign; we delivered. He talked about the gun registry. We said what we would do in the campaign and we delivered. With regard to accountability for the CBC, we said in the campaign that we would demand accountability. We are delivering for the member for Peterborough. We have a record of standing up, making promises to Canadians, fulfilling those promises, and getting re-elected. The member made promises to his constituents and abandoned them. He should be ashamed of himself.
The member asked the Minister of Justice whether he agrees that Quebec should be able, by order-in-council, to opt out of the obligation to publish the identity of a young offender under Bill C-10, referring to it as sustainable safety.
Cites a specific legislative proposal from the Quebec government regarding Bill C-10, raises the issue of an inadequate French version, and asks a precise yes/no question about whether the minister agrees Quebec should be able by order-in-council to opt out of the obligation to publish a young person's identity.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le Parti libĂ©ral du Canada appuie les amendements proposĂ©s par le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec pour le projet de loi C-10. Le fĂ©dĂ©ral a beau avoir la compĂ©tence de lĂ©gifĂ©rer en matiĂšre criminelle, ce sont le QuĂ©bec et les autres provinces qui gĂšrent l'administration de la justice et qui sont poignĂ©s avec les consĂ©quences. Le gouvernement n'est mĂȘme pas foutu de faire une version française adĂ©quate. Ma question au ministre de la Justice est simple. Est-il d'accord pour que le QuĂ©bec puisse, par dĂ©cret, se soustraire Ă l'obligation de la publication de l'identitĂ© d'un adolescent? On appelle cela de la sĂ©curitĂ© durable. Est-il d'accord, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada supports the amendments to Bill C-10 proposed by the Government of Quebec. The federal government may well have jurisdiction to legislate on criminal matters, but Quebec and the other provinces manage the administration of justice and are stuck dealing with the consequences. The government did not even bother to come up with a proper French version. My question for the Minister of Justice is simple. Will he agree to allow Quebec, by decree, to opt out of the requirement to publish the identity of a minor? They call this lasting security. Will he agree, yes or no?
Goguen stated the government values the provinces' recommendations and incorporated changes requested by Quebec and other provinces on pre-trial detention, adult sentences, and deferred custody orders, without answering the specific opt-out question.
Goguen references past provincial recommendations that were incorporated into Bill C-10 on pre-trial detention and other measures but does not answer the specific yes/no question about Quebec's proposed order-in-council opt-out on publication of a young person's identity.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les Canadiens nous ont donné un mandat fort afin de garder nos rues et nos communautés sécuritaires, et c'est ce que nous faisons. Les provinces nous ont fait part de plusieurs de leurs recommandations dans le passé. Nous les avons prises en considération lorsque nous avons formulé ce projet de loi. Entre autres, nous avons fait des changements, demandés par le Québec et les autres provinces, concernant la détention avant procÚs, les peines pour adultes, l'ordonnance différée de placement sous garde et de surveillance. Nous protégerons les Canadiens et continuerons à les protéger, contrairement au Parti libéral.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians gave us a strong mandate to keep our streets and communities safe, and that is what we are doing. The provinces have given us a number of recommendations in the past. We took them into consideration when we created this bill. We have made changes that were requested by Quebec and the other provinces, regarding pretrial detention, adult sentences, and deferred custody and supervision under order. We will protect Canadians and will continue to protect them, unlike the Liberal Party.
Duncan asks whether the government will commit to providing opposition MPs access to Canada's meetings at the Durban climate conference, citing past precedents of inclusion at COP 12 and COP 14.
Cites specific precedents (COP 12 Nairobi, COP 14 Poznan) and makes a clear, answerable ask about accreditation access for opposition MPs at Durban.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for decades Canadian delegations to international conferences have been understood to represent Canada, not just the governing party. The Conservative government broke this tradition in 2006 for COP 12 in Nairobi. Opposition MPs were again included at COP 14 at Poznan. Since the government is again refusing to include opposition MPs, we are travelling on our own. Will the government commit today to providing access for us to Canada's meetings?
Kent says he told critics he would not take a large entourage to Durban and argues that pairing practices from the minority government era are no longer appropriate under a majority Conservative government.
The minister addresses the delegation-size rationale but does not directly answer whether access to Canada's meetings will be provided, pivoting instead to a majority-government talking point.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I conveyed a respectful message to my critics across the floor some weeks ago, explaining that I would not, and we would not, be taking a large entourage to Durban. I would also remind my colleague that pairing practices that were relevant during our previous minority government are no longer appropriate now that Canadians have elected a strong, stable, environmentally sensitive Conservative government.
Labelle notes the CRTC rejected wholesale usage-based billing but argues 94% of consumers using large ISPs are still unprotected, and asks when the Conservatives will present a real plan protecting all Canadian consumers.
Cites a specific CRTC decision on wholesale usage-based billing and the statistic that 94% of consumers are left unprotected, making a reasonably specific ask for a plan covering all consumers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the CRTC has now rejected an attempt by large Internet companies to enforce wholesale usage-based billing. That is good news for Canadians using smaller ISPs, but it does nothing to protect customers of other Internet providers, leaving 94% of consumers behind. When will the Conservatives finally present a real plan for digital issues that protects all Canadian consumers from being ripped off?
Paradis credits the government and the President of the Treasury Board for prompting the CRTC re-examination and states that the government's policy is to encourage competition, increase consumer choice, and minimize regulation.
Paradis references the UBB decision and states general policy principles (competition, consumer choice, minimal regulation) but does not present a concrete plan addressing the 94% gap identified.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at our government's request and thanks to the hard work of the President of the Treasury Board at the time, the CRTC has re-examined the issue of usage-based billing to ensure fairness for consumers of small Internet service providers. Canadians have been very clear in expressing concern with earlier UBB decisions. Let me clear. Our government's policy will always be to encourage competition, increase consumer choice and minimize regulation. This is the plan. We have a vision, not those guys.
Labelle argues that almost all Canadians receive Internet from large providers and the CRTC decision does nothing for them, asking whether the government will finally recognize affordable Internet access as a basic need for all.
Reiterates the 94% figure and asks whether the government will recognize affordable Internet access as a basic need, but the ask is broader and more rhetorical than the first exchange.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce qu'on comprend, c'est que le gouvernement est en train de tourner le dos à la majorité des utilisateurs d'Internet. En effet, presque la totalité des Canadiens reçoivent leur service Internet de grands fournisseurs. La décision rendue hier ne fait absolument rien pour eux. Quatre-vingt-quatorze pour cent des utilisateurs d'Internet au pays sont abandonnés par ce gouvernement qui protÚge encore ses amis des grandes compagnies plutÎt que les Canadiens et Canadiennes. Ce gouvernement va-t-il enfin reconnaßtre qu'un accÚs Internet abordable est devenu un besoin de base pour tous?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what we understand is that the government is turning its back on the majority of Internet users. Indeed, nearly all Canadians get their Internet service from the big suppliers. Yesterday's decision does absolutely nothing for them. Some 94% of Internet users have been abandoned by this government, which is once again protecting its friends in large corporations rather than ordinary Canadians. Will this government finally admit that affordable Internet access has become a basic need for everyone?
Paradis repeats the competition-and-choice policy vision, cites the Broadband Canada program launched in 2010 to cover 98% of Canadian territory, and accuses the NDP of inconsistency by voting against it.
Paradis restates the same policy principles, mentions the Broadband Canada program, and attacks NDP inconsistency without addressing the specific question about recognizing Internet access as a basic need.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, encore une fois, c'est trĂšs simple. Il faut accroĂźtre la concurrence, accroĂźtre le choix pour les consommateurs et diminuer la rĂ©glementation. C'est ça le plan, c'est ça la vision. On a lancĂ© le programme Large bande Canada en 2010. Avec ce programme, on veut couvrir 98 p. 100 du territoire canadien. Qu'est-ce que ces gens ont fait? Ils ont votĂ© contre. Et pas plus tard qu'hier, le dĂ©putĂ© de TimminsâBaie James disait que c'Ă©tait une grande journĂ©e pour les Canadiens, compte tenu de la dĂ©cision du CRTC. Alors franchement, pour l'incohĂ©rence, regardez en face, il y en a en masse, monsieur le PrĂ©sident.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, it is very simple. We need to increase competition and choice for consumers and reduce regulation. That is the plan; that is our vision. We introduced the Broadband Canada program in 2010. The goal of that program is to reach 98% of Canada's vast territory. What did those folks do? They voted against it. And just yesterday, the member for TimminsâJames Bay said that it was a great day for Canadians, because of the CRTC's decision, so frankly, Mr. Speaker, if you want inconsistency, look no further than across the floor.
Storseth promotes his Bill C-304 to repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and asks the Minister of Justice to state the government's position on it.
Softball government-backbench setup promoting the member's own Bill C-304, with no accountability challenge; designed to elicit a supportive ministerial statement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country are increasingly concerned that section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act infringes upon our most important human right, namely the freedom of expression. This is the reason why I was pleased to introduce Bill C-304, which will repeal section 13. My bill has the wide-ranging support of journalists, civil libertarians and the Muslim Canadian Congress. People from all points of the political spectrum agree that this part of Canada's Human Rights Act needs to be repealed. Can the Minister of Justice please inform this House of the government's position on Bill C-304, protecting freedom?
Nicholson says the government believes section 13 is not an appropriate or effective means for combatting hate propaganda, that the Criminal Code is the best vehicle, urges support for Bill C-304, and announces forthcoming amendments to strengthen hate provisions in the Criminal Code.
Nicholson clearly states the government's position that section 13 is not appropriate for combatting hate propaganda, endorses Bill C-304, and announces forthcoming Criminal Code amendments strengthening hate provisions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for WestlockâSt. Paul for introducing this legislation, and for his commitment to the promotion and protection of free speech among all Canadians. Our government believes that section 13 is not an appropriate or effective means for combatting hate propaganda. We believe the Criminal Code is the best vehicle to prosecute these crimes. Therefore, I urge all members to support Bill C-304 and our government's forthcoming amendments to strengthen the hate provisions of the Criminal Code. I say to the opposition, get on side with the media. Maclean's magazine, the National Post and even the Toronto Star say this section should go.
Cotler cites the Iranian regime's accelerated nuclear weaponization, state-sponsored terrorism, and domestic repression, and asks the government to sanction the Central Bank of Iran, list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity, sanction the Iranian crude oil sector, and expand sanctions against human rights violators.
Highly specific, multi-part ask citing evidence of nuclear weaponization, state sponsorship of terrorism, and genocidal incitement, with named measures (Central Bank of Iran sanctions, IRGC terrorist listing, crude oil sector sanctions) requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as per the evidence, the Iranian regime has accelerated its nuclear weaponization program, continued its state sponsorship of terrorism and genocidal incitement, and intensified its massive domestic repression. Will the government sanction the Central Bank of Iran, put the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the terrorist list, this epicentre of the Iranian threats, sanction the Iranian crude oil sector and those companies that trade with IRGC entities, and expand the orbit of sanctions against those entities and individuals engaged in the massive assault on human rights in Iran?
Baird states that Canada today has the toughest sanctions against the Iranian regime in the world and expresses concern about the IEA nuclear report, the Saudi assassination plot, and Iran's human rights record, pledging to continue working with allies.
Baird affirms Canada has the toughest sanctions and references the IEA report and Saudi assassination plot as concerns, but does not address any of the specific measures requested (Central Bank, IRGC listing, oil sector sanctions).
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mount Royal for his question and his work in this regard. Canada today has the toughest sanctions against the Iranian regime in the world. We are incredibly concerned by the IEA report on its nuclear weaponization program. We are tremendously concerned about the Saudi assassination plot. We are tremendously concerned by the abysmal and terrible record on human rights. We will continue to work with our allies to ensure that we continue to have the toughest sanctions on this despicable regime.
Duncan cites Health Canada data showing trihalomethane levels in Fort McKay First Nation drinking water exceeded federal guidelines 87% of the time since 2004, notes associated health risks, and asks when the government will provide a safe water source.
Cites Health Canada data (trihalomethane exceeding federal guidelines 87% of the time since 2004) for a specific First Nation (Fort McKay) and links it to documented health harms, making a clear accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since 2004 Health Canada has reported that levels of trihalomethane in Fort McKay First Nation drinking water have exceeded federal guidelines 87% of the time. Exposure to this substance can cause low birth weight, miscarriage, birth defects and some forms of cancer. Residents are already suffering severe skin rashes. How many more first nation children and elders must suffer before the government finally provides a safe source of drinking water?
John Duncan cites major investments in the water action plan since 2006, a national assessment to set priorities, forthcoming legislation with enforceable standards, and a comprehensive monitoring system for the Alberta area.
Duncan references the water action plan since 2006, a national assessment, forthcoming legislation, and a comprehensive monitoring system for Alberta, but does not address the specific situation at Fort McKay First Nation or commit to a timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have made major investments in our water action plan for first nations since 2006. It is ongoing. We have done a national assessment, so we know where to set our priorities and focus our resources. We will be introducing legislation on water so we can have enforceable standards, and we will develop regulations with our first nation partners. In addition, the government has implemented a comprehensive monitoring system for this area of Alberta to make sure that the water quality is being appropriately sampled.
Anders promotes the Keystone XL pipeline as creating 140,000 jobs and asks the Minister of Natural Resources to inform the House about the NDP's 'anti-jobs plan,' citing NDP leadership candidate Brian Topp's alleged call for a moratorium on oil sands development.
Pure government-backbench softball attacking the NDP with a leading question about an 'anti-jobs plan'; no real accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a key economic priority for our government is the Keystone XL pipeline that will create over 140,000 jobs in Canada. However, the opposition parties seem to disagree. They do not want these jobs, or any jobs, in the oil sands. NDP leadership candidate Brian Topp and the former environment critic have openly called for a moratorium on oil sands development. Could the Minister of Natural Resources inform the House about the latest NDP anti-jobs plan?
Oliver attacks NDP members for going to the United States to advocate against Canadian exports, calling it the most bizarre foreign trade mission he has ever heard of, and declares them unfit to govern.
Oliver attacks the NDP for travelling to the United States to advocate against Canadian exports rather than providing any factual information about Keystone XL or jobs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to have domestic policy disagreements. It is another to go to the United States, our largest trading partner, and advocate against Canadian exports. It is perhaps the most bizarre foreign trade mission I have ever heard of. NDP members are apparently proud of what they should be ashamed of. They undermine what they should support. They take trips to foreign capitals when they should stay home. They are lost and unfit to govern.
Davies identifies Sayed Sharifi, an Afghan interpreter praised by Canadian soldiers, whose life is at risk after Taliban death threats, notes his application under the Afghan interpreter visa program was denied, and asks the minister to ensure he receives the visa.
Names a specific individual (Sayed Sharifi), describes his service as an Afghan interpreter, references the specific visa program, cites death threats from the Taliban, and asks a clear and direct question about his case.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Sayed Sharifi is an Afghan interpreter who risked his life to help Canadian soldiers. They have hailed Mr. Sharifi's bravery under fire and his integrity and say he is the most skilled interpreter they have ever encountered. His life is at risk after receiving death threats from the Taliban. He is exactly the kind of person the Afghan interpreter visa was designed for. However, Mr. Sharifi's application was denied after he expressed concern with the program's inefficiency. Will the minister do the right thing and ensure this brave servant of our troops gets the visa he so richly deserves?
Kenney explains the special program's criteria (one year of service and individualized risk), states the process is conducted by trained public servants, and says this particular application was reviewed three times and found to have credibility problems and contradictions.
Kenney describes the program's eligibility criteria and explains that the application was reviewed three separate occasions with credibility problems and contradictions found, directly addressing why the visa was denied, though without engaging the moral dimension of the case.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government created a special program to provide opportunities to resettle in Canada for Afghan nationals who worked with our troops in Afghanistan for a period of at least one year and who are facing individualized risk to their life or safety. There is a process in place. The process is not one where politicians arbitrarily decide who qualifies based on media reports. It is an assessment done by highly trained public servants from several departments who have, in this particular case, reviewed this application on three separate occasions and found that there are credibility problems and contradictions in this application. He has been given the same access as everyone else who has qualified for the program, and the officials in charge have determined that he does not qualify.
May notes that accreditation is a stroke of the pen and asks whether the government will commit to ensuring opposition MPs who pay their own way can attend Durban as representatives of Canada.
Builds on the prior exchange with a more specific framing â accreditation as a stroke of the pen and opposition members paying their own way â making it a reasonably focused procedural ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, moments ago the member for Etobicoke North asked the Minister of the Environment about the inclusion of opposition members of Parliament concerned with climate change. The accreditation process is a stroke of the pen. Where opposition members of Parliament are prepared to pay their own way, will the government commit to ensuring that opposition members of Parliament go to Durban as representatives of Canada?
Kent says he will not take a critic from an opposition party opposed to every responsible position on climate change, greenhouse gas reduction, and adaptation, but notes that the case of the minister who asked the question is under consideration.
Kent refuses to take a climate-opposing critic to Durban but ends with 'it is under consideration' for the questioner herself, partially engaging without committing or fully explaining the accreditation process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, just commented, political disagreements over the policies of our government are appropriate in this House, but I will not take a critic from an opposition party, which is opposed to every single responsible position we take with regard to climate change, greenhouse gas reduction and adaptation. With regard to the minister who asked this question, it is under consideration.
Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle (NDP) raised a point of order in French asking the Prime Minister to apologize for mocking him with gestures during his questions. Government House Leader Peter Van Loan responded in English that nothing the member raised constituted unparliamentary language and suggested the member should be proud he inspired enthusiasm in the House.
- NDP Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle
- CPC Peter Van Loan
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est un recours au RĂšglement visant l'honorable premier ministre. Quand j'ai posĂ© mes questions, le premier ministre a tentĂ© de me ridiculiser par sa gestuelle. Et en tentant de me ridiculiser, il se ridiculisait lui-mĂȘme. Je lui demande des excuses, trĂšs honorablement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this point of order concerns the Hon. Prime Minister. When I asked my questions, the Prime Minister tried to ridicule me by mimicking me. By trying to ridicule me, he made himself look foolish. I very respectfully ask that he apologize.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that anything the member has raised poses a question of unparliamentary language. I know that there is often lots of enthusiasm in the House and he should be proud that he inspired some enthusiasm today.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Lib) raised a point of order claiming that the Minister of State for Finance had misled the House by falsely stating that the Liberal Party voted against an extension of time to convert RRSPs to RRIFs, and invited him to apologize. Minister of State (Finance) Ted Menzies did not apologize, maintaining that the Liberals voted against the actual bill.
- Lib Geoff Regan
- CPC Ted Menzies
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out today in question period, yesterday the Minister of State for Finance falsely claimed that the Liberal Party voted against an extension of time to convert RRSPs to RRIFs during the recent recession. In fact, the Liberal Party voted for clause 15 of Bill C-10 and the bill itself in 2009. He misled the House. In view of the fact that my friend failed to take the opportunity during question period to stand up and do the right thing and apologize for misleading the House, I want to invite my friend to do what I know he has the class to do and to do so now. Perhaps while he is up, he could tell seniors why the government is refusing to give them more time to convert their RRSPs.
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have an extension of question period. As I said in my answer, it is hard to keep track of how much the Liberals vote against because most everything they vote against. The actual bill, they voted against.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Lib) continued his point of order, stating that his party voted for Bill C-10 in 2009 and again inviting the Minister of State (Finance) to withdraw his remark. Minister of State (Finance) Ted Menzies did not withdraw the remark, contending that Regan was referring to the wrong budget and that the Liberals voted against the measure when it was introduced in budget 2007.
- Lib Geoff Regan
- CPC Ted Menzies
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it could become a question of privilege. In fact, this party voted for Bill C-10 in 2009. My hon. friend is misleading the House and I would invite him to withdraw his remark.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, the hon. member is speaking about the wrong budget that it was initiated in. It was actually budget 2007 and the Liberals did vote against it in budget 2007.