Session overview
- Employment Insurance changes dominated QP, with multiple opposition parties pressing the government to define 'suitable employment' and reveal the full scope of EI reforms before the budget implementation bill is passed.
- The government faced sustained questioning over national security concerns related to Huawei's access to Canadian telecommunications assets, with opposition members citing warnings from Public Safety officials, the United States, and Australia.
- Old age security sustainability was contested repeatedly, with the opposition noting that neither the Prime Minister nor any minister could state how much money the OAS eligibility-age changes would save.
- The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food's findings on first nations food insecurity and drinking water prompted sharp exchanges, with the Minister of Health dismissing him as an 'ill-informed, patronizing academic'.
- The government's closure of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy drew criticism, with the opposition pressing the Minister of the Environment to disclose which Environment Canada programs would be cut and what climate change will cost Canada.
- A points-of-order exchange after QP included corrections to the record regarding the Minister of State (Finance)'s claim about 32,500 Newfoundlanders being unable to fill 1,500 mining jobs, and the UN Special Rapporteur's actual travel itinerary in northern Canada.
The Minister of Public Safety announced that the RCMP had made two new arrests in the MV Sun Sea human-smuggling case and that those arrested had been charged with illegally organizing entry into Canada â a specific, concrete factual disclosure.
Rae cites specific public statements by the Prime Minister (at Davos) and ministers about affordability, and then asks the pointed and logical question: if the government cannot say how much money will be saved by changes in 2023, how can it claim there is an affordability crisis â a tight, single, accountable ask.
Asked directly whether the government has an estimate of the cost of climate change to Canada and how it calculated its Kyoto cost estimate, Kent accused the NDP leader of fixation with carbon taxation and referred him to the Environment Canada website, answering neither question.
Outstanding questions
- What is the total value of the reduction that will be made directly on the retirement income of Canadians through the OAS changes? (asked by Thomas Mulcair, Exchange 1)
- If the Conservatives believe old age security is unsustainable, how much do they need to cut to make it sustainable, and how much will the 2023 eligibility-age change actually save? (asked by Thomas Mulcair and Scott Brison, Exchanges 2 and 18)
- What specific criteria will be used to determine a claimant's 'local area' and 'skill level' under the new EI suitable-employment rules, and will those criteria be provided before the legislation is voted on? (asked by Judy Foote, Exchange 19)
- Which specific Environment Canada programs will be eliminated as a result of the budget? (asked by Thomas Mulcair, Exchange 17)
- What does the government know about Huawei that led it to conclude that the national security concerns raised by its own Public Safety officials, the United States, and Australia had been addressed? (asked by Randall Garrison, Exchange 4)
Mulcair cites a government budget leaflet describing cuts to retirees' income and asks for the total dollar value of those reductions.
Mulcair cites a specific budget document (the budget leaflet tabled in the House) and asks for a single concrete number â the total value of the reduction to retirees' income â making it reasonably specific and factually grounded.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, le premier ministre a affirmĂ© que, dans le budget, il n'y avait aucune coupe dans la SĂ©curitĂ© de la vieillesse. Ce dĂ©pliant budgĂ©taire, qui fait partie des documents complĂ©mentaires au budget dĂ©posĂ© en cette Chambre par le gouvernement, explique en dĂ©tail les coupes que les conservateurs veulent faire dans les revenus de retraite des Canadiens. Ăvidemment, il manque un Ă©lĂ©ment crucial dans ce document â un chiffre qui n'est pas inclus non plus dans le budget. Quelle est la valeur totale de cette ponction qui sera faite directement sur les revenus des retraitĂ©s?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that there are no reductions to old age security in this budget. This pamphlet on the budget, which was one of the supplementary documents the government tabled in this House with the budget, gives a detailed explanation of the cuts the Conservatives want to make to Canadians' retirement income. Of course, this document is missing one vital piece of informationâa number, which is also not found in the budget itself. Exactly how much money do the Conservatives plan to take directly from pensioners?
Harper asserts there are no cuts to pensions and says the government is ensuring long-term sustainability, without providing any figure.
Harper asserts there are no cuts and mentions the option to delay participation, but does not address the document cited nor provide the requested figure, making the response tangential rather than directly responsive.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, il n'y a aucune coupe dans les pensions des retraités. Les retraités canadiens comprennent ça. Au contraire, ils auront l'année prochaine l'option de retarder leur participation au programme et d'augmenter ainsi leurs prestations. Ce gouvernement a été trÚs clair: nous assurons la viabilité de ce programme à long terme pour les générations futures.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, there are no cuts to people's pensions. Canadian pensioners know that. On the contrary, next year, they will have the option of delaying their participation in the program, thereby increasing their benefits. This government has been very clear: we are ensuring the long-term sustainability of this program for future generations.
Mulcair asks, given that the Parliamentary Budget Officer and other experts say old age security is sustainable, how much do the Conservatives need to cut to make it sustainable?
Mulcair sharpens the accountability by noting that the Parliamentary Budget Officer and other experts found the system sustainable, and asks directly how much the government needs to cut to make old age security sustainable â a clear, single, answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister claim that these cuts are intended to make old age security sustainable when the Conservatives cannot even tell us how much their cuts are supposed to save? The truth is this is not about sustainability; this about forcing seniors to work until they are 67 years old or else they will not be able to retire with dignity. I have a very simple question. Leaving aside the fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer and other experts have all concluded that the system is sustainable, if the Conservatives really believe old age security is unsustainable, how much do they need to cut to make it sustainable?
Harper says there are no reductions, that eligibility changes do not begin until 2023, and that spending on old age security and guaranteed income supplement will continue to rise in an affordable way.
Harper repeats that there are no reductions and provides some detail about no change to eligibility until 2023 and continued spending growth, but does not answer how much needs to be cut or saved, avoiding the core question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it does bear repeating that there are no reductions to old age security or other pensions in this budget. On the contrary, these things have been protected as we balance the budget. There will be no change as well to eligibility until the year 2023. In fact, between now and that time, and in fact after that time, the government's spending on old age security and guaranteed income supplement will continue to rise, but will rise in a way that is affordable and sustainable for future generations.
Mulcair asks why the Prime Minister ignored warnings from the United States and Australia about national security risks posed by allowing Huawei to buy key Canadian telecommunications assets.
Mulcair names a specific company (Huawei), cites concrete actions by two named allies (the United States and Australia) to block it from major telecom projects due to national security concerns, and asks why the Prime Minister chose to ignore their warnings â reasonably specific but the framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the Minister of Public Safety stood by a Conservative decision to roll out the red carpet for a Chinese company called Huawei. Huawei will be allowed to buy up key telecommunications assets in Canada, despite the fact that the United States and Australia have blocked it from major telecom projects due to serious national security concerns. The United States and Australia are two of our closest allies. They still see the risk. Why did the Prime Minister choose to ignore their warnings?
Harper says the concerns raised have been examined and addressed, and states that Canada does not take dictates on security from the United States.
Harper acknowledges 'contractual relationships' and vaguely says concerns 'have been addressed', but gives no specifics on what was examined or how, and deflects with the remark about not taking dictates from the United States.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP is speaking of some contractual relationships between some Canadian companies and foreign companies. The particular concerns that he raised in fact have been addressed. Those concerns have been examined and those concerns have been addressed in our mind. I would remind the leader of the NDP that we do not take dictates on security from the United States.
Garrison asks what the Minister of Public Safety knows about Huawei that the Americans do not, given US concerns about backdoor access to communications infrastructure.
Garrison references the government's own information security breach from Chinese servers, the Prime Minister's meeting with Huawei during his China visit, and the US policy blocking Huawei from major telecom companies, then asks a pointed question about what the government knows that the Americans do not.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows the government's own information security was compromised last year by attacks from Chinese servers, yet when the Prime Minister visited China, he was honoured to meet with Huawei, despite the Americans preventing Huawei from taking over any major telecom companies or participating in infrastructure projects. Its concern is obvious. It does not want this company getting backdoor access to its communications infrastructure. Could the Minister of Public Safety tell us, in the House today, what does he know about this company that the Americans do not know?
Toews says all carriers remain subject to Canadian law and cites the memo stating that Public Safety Canada is not opposed to the auction.
Toews says all carriers remain subject to Canadian law and then quotes from the same memo the CBC cited, where his official said Public Safety Canada 'is not in opposition to the auction', which provides some documentary engagement but does not answer what the government knows differently than the Americans.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what I can tell the member is that all carriers will continue to be subject to Canadian law. We will continue to ensure that Canadians can rely on a telecommunications infrastructure that is safe and secure. What the hon. member did not state, nor did the CBC in its story state, is that in the same memo cited by the CBC, my official stated that despite the concerns, âI want to stress that Public Safety Canada is not in opposition to the auctionâ.
Garrison quotes the government memo warning that relaxing restrictions could create new vulnerabilities to cyber espionage and denial of service attacks, and asks what makes the minister confident when the US, Australia and his own department disagree.
Garrison quotes directly from the government memo â citing the specific language about 'new, and increase existing vulnerabilities' and 'cyber espionage and denial of service attacks' â and asks what makes the minister confident when the United States, Australia and his own department disagree.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we can selectively quote from the memo all we like, but the facts and the documents contradict the minister.
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, the other part the minister did not cite says: The lessening of current restrictions could create new, and increase existing vulnerabilities in our telecommunications networks, further exposing them...to an increased threat of cyber espionage and denial of service attacks. What makes the minister so confident when the United States, Australia and even his own department disagree?
Toews says the official noted concerns that had been addressed, then attacks the NDP for not recognizing security concerns in cyberspace a year or two ago.
Toews says the official pointed out concerns that were then addressed, but does not explain how they were addressed or why confidence is warranted; he then attacks the NDP's past record on security, which is a deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in fact what the official did do is point out certain concerns and then indicate that those concerns had been addressed. What I find surprising is that member is a member of a party that did not even recognize that there were any security concerns a year or two ago in respect of cyberspace.
Rae says that the budget bill repeals the law governing EI claims adjudication and replaces it with regulations that no one has seen, and demands that the government provide those regulations.
Rae identifies a specific structural change â replacing statutory protections with regulations â and demands that the regulations be tabled, which is a concrete ask, though the framing is somewhat combative and the question is compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for generations unemployed Canadians have had the protection of the law that was passed by Parliament with respect to when they could claim and how they could claim and how those claims would be adjudicated. Now the government is saying that those protections will be taken away because the law is being repealed with respect to those issues. It is being replaced by regulations, and no one knows what they are going to be. Not a single soul in this Parliament has a clue as to what the regulations are going to be. The ideas are in the heads of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources. Give us the regulations.
Harper says the government is consolidating multiple appeal bodies within Human Resources Canada into one more efficient process, and that appeal processes will still exist.
Harper corrects Rae's characterization by saying the change consolidates multiple appeal bodies for efficiency and that appeal processes will remain, which is partially responsive to the structural concern but does not table or describe the regulations as demanded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party is inaccurate once again. The government is changing the appeals body to find a more efficient way. Right now there are multiple appeal bodies within Human Resources Canada, and those are being consolidated. There will still be appeal processes for those who are seeking to claim benefits.
Rae charges that the Conservatives are replacing parliamentary statutory protections for unemployed workers with regulations approved by the Prime Minister himself, and asks what those regulations and laws will be.
Rae presses on the same issue of regulations replacing statutory worker protections and asks what those regulations will be, but the framing is more rhetorical ('Canada n'est pas une dictature') and the question repeats the prior exchange without adding new factual specificity.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre a entiĂšrement tort et refuse de reconnaĂźtre la situation rĂ©elle. Les conservateurs ont clairement dit aux travailleurs qui sont au chĂŽmage que leurs droits ne seront plus protĂ©gĂ©s par les lois adoptĂ©es par le Parlement, mais plutĂŽt par des rĂšglements approuvĂ©s et adoptĂ©s par le premier ministre lui-mĂȘme. Quels sont ces rĂšglements et ces lois? Le Canada n'est pas une dictature, mais plutĂŽt un pays dĂ©mocratique dans lequel les travailleurs ont le droit de savoir quelle loi les protĂ©gera.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is absolutely wrong and is refusing to acknowledge what is really going on. The Conservatives have made it clear to unemployed workers that their rights will no longer be protected by laws passed by Parliament, but by regulations approved and passed by the Prime Minister himself. What are those regulations and those laws? Canada is not a dictatorship. It is a democratic country in which workers have the right to know which law will protect them.
Harper says Canadians remain protected by law and that the changes will consolidate several tribunals to ensure a clearer and more efficient process.
Harper restates that Canadians are protected by law and that the changes consolidate tribunals for a clearer and more efficient process, which is a partial and somewhat formulaic response that does not provide the requested regulatory details.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les Canadiennes et les Canadiens sont toujours protégés par la loi. En ce qui a trait aux appels des décisions, il y aura, à l'avenir, une consolidation de plusieurs tribunaux pour assurer un processus plus clair et plus efficace pour les Canadiennes et les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are still protected by the law. With respect to appeals, several bodies will be consolidated in the future to ensure a clearer, more efficient process for Canadians.
Rae asks: if neither the Prime Minister nor ministers can say how much money will be saved by the changes to old age security in 2023, why do they claim there is a crisis of affordability?
Rae cites specific public statements by the Prime Minister (at Davos) and ministers about affordability, and then asks the pointed and logical question: if the government cannot say how much money will be saved by changes in 2023, how can it claim there is an affordability crisis â a tight, single, accountable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has stated that there is an affordability issue with respect to old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. That was what the Prime Minister said in Davos, and that has been said by the Minister of Human Resources and the Minister of Finance. The odd thing is that the government--neither the minister nor the Prime Minister--can tell us how much money is going to be saved by the changes they are introducing in 2023. If they cannot tell us how much money they are going to save, could they please explain to us why there is a crisis of affordability? It is a very simple question.
Harper says OAS and GIS are the largest programs of the Government of Canada, projected to grow three times over the next generation, and that since it is a program without a fund, measures beginning in 2023 are needed for sustainability.
Harper provides context â noting OAS and GIS are the largest programs and are projected to grow three times â and frames the sustainability argument, but does not provide the figure of how much will be saved, which was the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as has been noted by all experts, old age security and guaranteed income supplement are by far the largest programs of the Government of Canada. These will continue to grow over time. In fact, they are projected to grow three times over the next generation, three times what they are today. This is a program without a fund. That is why we are taking measures beginning in 2023 to make sure Canadians are prepared and that we have a system that is sustainable for future generations.
Nash asks the minister to disclose what EI changes are included in the budget implementation act, what their consequences will be, and when they come into effect.
Nash asks the minister to disclose what EI changes are in the budget implementation act, what their consequences will be, and when they take effect â three legitimate asks â but frames them with the rhetorical label 'cheval de Troie' which reduces specificity.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'arrogance des conservateurs est sans limite. Les ministres conservateurs insultent les Canadiens en leur jetant le blùme pour avoir perdu leur emploi. Ils vont aussi de l'avant avec des changements majeurs à l'assurance-emploi, mais refusent d'en fournir les détails. La ministre va-t-elle dire aux Canadiens quels changements à l'assurance-emploi, insérés dans leur cheval de Troie, sont prévus, quelles en seront les conséquences et quand ces changements seront effectifs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' arrogance knows no bounds. The Conservative ministers are insulting Canadians by blaming them for having lost their jobs. The Conservatives are also planning to make major changes to employment insurance, yet they refuse to provide any details. Will the minister tell Canadians what changesâhidden in their Trojan Horse billâare planned for employment insurance, what the consequences will be and when these changes will take effect?
Menzies quotes the NDP leader saying work is 'a colossal waste' and says the government is proud of Canadians who find jobs, without addressing the EI changes.
Menzies does not address the question at all, instead misquoting or paraphrasing the NDP leader's remark about work being 'a colossal waste' and praising Canadians who work â a pure deflection with no connection to the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the only changes that we are seeing are the changes in attitude in the House of Commons. We on this side of the House do not think that Canadians working are, and I quote the leader of the NDP, âa colossal wasteâ. We think Canadians are proud to work, and they should be. We are making sure that they have opportunities to work. It is a sustainable program that we put in place. We on this side of the House are proud of Canadians when they go out and find a job. There are unfortunately too many people still searching. We are helping them.
Nash cites the Minister of Human Resources saying the government wants the legislation to pass before revealing the EI changes, and asks someone in the government to define right now what constitutes suitable employment.
Nash quotes a specific statement by the Minister of Human Resources saying the government wants 'to make sure the legislation gets through first' before disclosing the changes, and asks concretely what constitutes suitable employment â a clear, single, answerable ask grounded in a direct quote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the biggest waste is Canadians who are unable to find a job because of the high level of unemployment created by the government. I know Conservatives are busy doing damage control around the comments of the Minister of Finance, but in trying to fix one problem they are creating others. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development gave us some insight on why members of her government are being so tight-lipped about these changes to EI. They said they want âto make sure the legislation gets through firstâ. They do not want to tell us until after the changes are passed. That is not accountability. Will someone in the government please outline right now what constitutes suitable employment?
Menzies cites a mining company in St. John's seeking 1,500 workers through the temporary foreign worker program as an example of why EI needs to be more effective.
Menzies gives an anecdotal example of a mining company in St. John's seeking 1,500 workers via the temporary foreign worker program and references 32,500 unemployed people, which is tangentially relevant but does not define suitable employment or address the accountability concern raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I actually have some examples here of what constitutes suitable employment. A mining company in St. John's, Newfoundland is looking to hire 1,500 people through the temporary foreign worker program. There are 32,500 people looking for work right now. That is why we are trying to make EI more effective, to help these mining companies get people to employ.
Day quotes the budget implementation act's provision allowing regulations to define 'suitable employment' and asks the minister to provide that definition in the House.
Day cites the specific language in the budget implementation act about regulations governing 'ce qui constitue un emploi convenable' and notes that ministers are contradicting each other, then asks the minister to give the new definition of suitable employment in the House â a focused, single, answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le problĂšme, c'est que la loi d'exĂ©cution du budget ne donne pas de rĂ©ponses et les ministres conservateurs se contredisent sur la portĂ©e des changements. Les conservateurs souhaitent modifier en profondeur le filet de protection sociale canadien et ils veulent le faire Ă toute vitesse et Ă huis clos. La ministre a mĂȘme dĂ©clarĂ© qu'elle voulait que la loi soit adoptĂ©e avant de dĂ©finir ce qu'est un emploi convenable. Je vais donner une autre chance Ă la ministre. Peut-elle donner en cette Chambre la nouvelle dĂ©finition d'un emploi convenable?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the budget implementation bill does not give any answers and the Conservative ministers are contradicting each other regarding the scope of the changes. The Conservatives want to make major changes to the Canadian social safety net and they want to do it quickly and behind closed doors. The minster even said that she wants the bill to pass before she defines suitable employment. I will give the minister another chance. Can she give this House the new definition of suitable employment?
Menzies cites the Nova Scotia shipbuilding contract creating over 15,000 jobs over 30 years and 45,000 Nova Scotians looking for work as examples of job availability.
Menzies offers more anecdotal job examples (Nova Scotia shipbuilding contract, 15,000 jobs over 30 years, 45,000 Nova Scotians looking for work) but does not provide the requested definition of suitable employment, making this largely a deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think I defined one suitable job, but I do want to clarify that the 32,500 people looking for work were actually in Newfoundland, as was the mining company that was looking for the 1,500 people. Another example I will give is that Nova Scotia's recent shipbuilding contract will create over 15,000 jobs over the next 30 years and the provincial government is already talking about importing workers. At this point there are 45,000 Nova Scotians looking for work. Does the House want some more examples?
Day quotes the budget implementation act's language on regulations for 'suitable employment', notes contradictions between Conservative ministers, and asks what the scope of changes to the definition of suitable employment will be.
Day quotes the exact statutory language from the budget implementation act ('permettre de prendre des rĂšglements concernant ce qui constitue un emploi convenable'), notes the contradiction between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources, and asks directly for the scope of changes to the definition of suitable employment â specific and grounded in the text.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, avec cette philosophie, on va envoyer les psychologues et les professeurs dans les mines. La loi d'exécution du budget...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with this philosophy, psychologists and teachers will be sent to work in the mines. The budget implementation billâ
Monsieur le Président, je disais qu'avec cette philosophie, on allait envoyer les psychologues et les professeurs dans les mines. La loi d'exécution du budget précise que la Loi sur l'assurance-emploi sera modifiée afin de « permettre de prendre des rÚglements concernant ce qui constitue un emploi convenable ». Je viens de donner l'occasion à la ministre de préciser cette modification, mais je n'ai toujours pas de réponse raisonnable. Le ministre des Finances dit une chose, la ministre des Ressources humaines en dit une autre. Pense-t-elle vraiment que le systÚme d'assurance-emploi est trop attrayant? Quelle sera la portée des changements à la définition d'emploi convenable?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that with this philosophy, psychologists and teachers will be sent to work in the mines. The budget implementation bill states that the Employment Insurance Act will be amended in order âto permit regulations to be made respecting what constitutes suitable employmentâ. I just gave the minister the opportunity to clarify this amendment, but I still have not received a reasonable answer. The Minister of Finance is saying one thing, and the Minister of Human Resources is saying another. Does she really think that the employment insurance system is too attractive? What will be the scope of the changes made to the definition of suitable employment?
Menzies says workers will not be expected to take jobs outside their skill set and no job seeker will be asked to relocate, and stresses that the goal is to fill vacant jobs.
Menzies provides some partial assurances â workers won't be expected to take jobs outside their skill set and no job seeker will be asked to relocate â which are partial substantive responses, though he does not define suitable employment or clarify the regulatory scope.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have been saying, there are available jobs out there, but we will ensure that Canadians will not be expected to take jobs that are not within their skill set. One other thing we need to exemplify is that no job seeker will be asked to relocate. The important part of these changes is toâ
Mr. Speaker, I thought I was done. I have lots more examples, but the important thing is that there are a lot of people who want to go to work. There are people who are on EI. We need to make sure it is effective and that the jobs that are still vacant can be filled.
Charlton quotes the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development calling EI 'attractive' and 'lucrative', notes she will define suitable employment only after legislation passes, and asks when she will give Canadians a straight answer about her plans for EI.
Charlton quotes the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development's characterizations of EI as 'attractive' and 'lucrative' and notes she will only define 'suitable employment' after legislation passes, asking when she will give a straight answer â moderately grounded but framed with considerable rhetorical editorializing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development keeps proving how much she does not understand about the reality facing unemployed Canadians. The minister says EI is âattractiveâ, as if being out of work is somehow delightful. She also said it is too âlucrativeâ, as if one's income being cut 45% is a rewarding experience. She will only tell us what she means by âsuitable employmentâ after the legislation has passed. When will she stand up and give Canadians a straight answer about her plans for EI?
Menzies quotes the NDP leader calling work 'a colossal waste' and says the government applauds Canadians working as restaurant workers, truck drivers, and food handlers.
Menzies again quotes the NDP leader's 'colossal waste' remark and praises Canadians who work as restaurant workers, truck drivers, and food handlers, with no connection to the question about suitable employment or the minister's comments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the NDP continues to insult Canadians who want to work, I would like to quote the leader of the NDP once more. We on this side of the House do not think it is, as he says, âa colossal wasteâ, when Canadians are actually working. We think Canadians working in restaurants, as truck drivers, as food handlers, are important contributors to the Canadian economy. We support and applaud those Canadians.
Leslie asks when the Minister of the Environment will be as honest as his colleague about the real reason for abolishing the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, implying it is because the Conservatives disapprove of its objective research.
Leslie references the previous day's ministerial statement about abolishing the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and implies the real reason is disapproval of its objective research, asking when the Minister of the Environment will be as honest as his colleague â somewhat specific in referencing the round table but the ask is vague and largely rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les chĂŽmeurs ne sont pas les seuls Ă qui le gouvernement cache des choses. Hier, le ministre de l'Environnement, aprĂšs avoir lancĂ© son collĂšgue sous l'autobus, a dit qu'il abolissait la Table ronde nationale sur l'environnement et l'Ă©conomie parce que c'est une organisation du passĂ©. Or on sait que les conservateurs n'approuvent tout simplement pas ses recherches objectives. C'est la discorde dans les rangs conservateurs. Quand le ministre de l'Environnement sera-t-il aussi honnĂȘte que son collĂšgue l'a Ă©tĂ©?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the unemployed are not the only ones from whom the government is hiding something. Yesterday, after throwing his colleague under the bus, the Minister of the Environment said he was abolishing the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy because it is a thing of the past. Now we know that the Conservatives simply do not like the organization's objective research. Furthermore, the Conservatives cannot agree among themselves. When will the Minister of the Environment be as forthcoming as his colleague was?
Kent attacks the NDP for lobbying against Canadian jobs abroad, the NDP leader for calling responsible resource development a disease, and says the official opposition should get its own house in order.
Kent does not address the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy or the reason for its abolition at all, instead attacking the NDP's record on responsible resource development â a pure deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about who is throwing whom under buses. My colleague travels abroad to lobby against Canadian jobs and responsible resource development. Her leader dismisses responsible resource development as a disease, playing one region of the country against another. Now he is saying that Ontario's forest industry is responsible and afflicted with this same disease. I would think that the official opposition should get its own house in order and organize its incoherent policy stances before it criticizes this government.
Leslie asks, yes or no, whether the government has an estimate of the long-run cost of climate change to Canada, noting that the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has done that study and has those numbers.
Leslie notes that the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has conducted a study on the long-run cost of climate change to Canada and asks a direct yes-or-no question â does the government have an estimate of the cost of climate change to Canada â which is specific, factually grounded, and highly answerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister was as coherent as his colleague was on Monday about the real reason for closing down the round table. The round table has something the Minister of the Environment does not have, and that is numbers. We know the Conservative inaction on climate change will cost Canadians in the long run. How much will climate change cost us in the long run? Well, last night the minister did not have an answer, even though the round table has done that study and has those numbers. I would like to ask the minister again: does the government have an estimate of the cost of climate change to Canada, yes or no?
Kent says the government's sector-by-sector approach is working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and attributes past inaction to the previous Liberal government.
Kent does not answer yes or no, does not provide or reference any cost estimate, and instead touts the government's sector-by-sector approach and attacks the previous Liberal government's 'decade of environmental lip service and inaction' â a complete deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague again for her question. The government is acting. In fact, we are the first government in this country that has taken real action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our sector-by-sector approach to reduce GHGs is working. It is leading to innovation, fuel efficiencies, new technologies and real reduction of GHGs. There was a delay before our government came to power in 2006, of course. We only need to look to the previous Liberal government's decade of environmental lip service and inaction.
Mulcair asks the Prime Minister to explain exactly how the Conservatives calculated their Kyoto cost estimate and to state how much it will cost to meet Canada's Copenhagen undertakings.
Asks two specific questions â how the Kyoto cost estimate was derived and what meeting Copenhagen undertakings will cost â but pairs them together and lacks citation of specific documents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the government's priorities. How can we debate in this Parliament if it does not give us basic information? What are the numbers? What are the costs? These are simple questions, and the government has to start providing answers. For instance, will the Prime Minister explain exactly how the Conservatives came up with their Kyoto cost estimate? Will they tell Canadians exactly how much it will cost to meet Canada's Copenhagen undertakings?
Kent accuses Mulcair of fixating on carbon taxation, reaffirms the government will not impose a carbon tax, and refers him to the Environment Canada website.
The minister ignores both specific questions entirely, pivots to opposing carbon taxation, and directs Mulcair to the Environment Canada website without providing any figures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again the hon. Leader of the Opposition shows his fixation with carbon taxation, which is something this government has repeatedly said it will not impose on Canadians. We will not attack jobs. We will not threaten investment or our recovering economy. With regard to the cost of inaction on climate change, those costs would run into many billions of dollars. I would ask my colleague to familiarize himself with the Environment Canada website.
Mulcair invokes the Prime Minister's own guide for ministers on ministerial accountability and asks the Prime Minister to name specifically which Environment Canada programs will be eliminated following the budget.
Cites the Prime Minister's own ministerial accountability guide, asks a single clear and specific question â which Environment Canada programs will be cut under the budget â and demands programs be named.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les députés ont la responsabilité de débattre, d'étudier et d'analyser. Pour ça, ça prend des réponses, pas ce qu'on vient d'entendre. De quoi ont-ils si peur au juste? Pourquoi refusent-ils de répondre? Le guide du premier ministre à l'intention de ses ministres est trÚs clair: « Comme ministre [...] vous devez répondre à toutes les questions se rapportant à vos domaines de responsabilité [...] » On a justement vu le contraire. Voici une question claire à laquelle son ministre de l'Environnement refuse toujours de répondre. Le premier ministre va-t-il enfin dire quels programmes d'Environnement Canada seront supprimés à la suite de l'adoption du budget? Il faut nous nommer les programmes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, members of Parliament have a responsibility to debate, study and analyze. To that end, we need answers, not the type of response we just heard. What exactly are they afraid of? Why are they refusing to answer? The Prime Minister's guide for ministers if very clear: âAs a minister...you must answer all questions pertaining to your areas of responsibility...â We have just seen the opposite. Here is a clear question that the Minister of the Environment continues to refuse to answer. Will the Prime Minister finally disclose which Environment Canada programs will be eliminated by the budget? We want the names of the programs.
Oh, oh!
Harper says the government does not want to impose costs on the Canadian economy and contrasts his approach of economic growth with environmental progress against what he characterizes as the NDP's desire to shut down industries.
Harper does not name any programs, instead pivoting to a general economic-vs-environment framing and attacking the NDP's supposed interest in shutting down industries.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce gouvernement ne souhaite pas imposer des coĂ»ts Ă l'Ă©conomie canadienne. Nous cherchons Ă faire des progrĂšs en matiĂšre d'environnement en mĂȘme temps que nous stimulons la croissance Ă©conomique. I think the leader of the NDP and ourselves are really on different wavelengths here. We are not interested in identifying which industries we are going to call diseases and shut down. Our government is interested in the growth of the Canadian economy while making environmentalâ
Brison asks whether the public service has provided the Minister of Finance with an estimate of how many dollars the government will save by raising the OAS age from 65 to 67, and demands a yes or no answer.
Extremely precise yes-or-no question asking whether the public service provided the Minister of Finance with a specific cost estimate for raising the OAS age from 65 to 67.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, has the public service provided the Minister of Finance with an estimate of how many dollars the government will save by raising the OAS age from 65 to 67, yes or no?
Wong states there will be no reductions to seniors' pensions, describes the changes as putting old age security on a sustainable path, notes changes begin in 2023 and come into full effect in 2029, and mentions the option to defer OAS.
Wong does not answer yes or no, instead stating there will be no reductions to seniors' pensions and pivoting to a broader defence of the OAS sustainability rationale.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there will be no reductions to seniors' pensions. The opposition parties are missing the point. This is not about savings. Our changes will put old age security on a sustainable path so it will be there when Canadians need it. Changes made will be gradual, beginning in 2023 and coming into full effect in 2029. We are also providing Canadians with the option to defer OAS and collect later at a higher rate, if they wish.
Foote cites the minister's own claim that Canadians will be expected to take jobs appropriate to their skill level in their area, notes those provisions are being deleted from the EI act, and asks what specific criteria will define 'local area' and 'skill level' before the legislation is voted on.
Quotes the minister's own public claim about jobs appropriate to skill level and local area, notes the government is deleting those very provisions from the current EI act, and asks for the specific criteria that will define 'local area' and 'skill level' before the legislation is voted on.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while the minister responsible for EI continues to be evasive and refuses to say what the changes to EI will mean, Canadians are afraid of what will happen to them if they should suddenly lose their job in this fragile economy. She claims: Canadians will be expected to take jobs appropriate to their skill level in their area. However, she is deleting those very provisions from the current EI act. Can the minister reveal what specific criteria will be used to determine what she defines as their âlocal areaâ and âskill levelâ before the legislation is voted on?
Menzies speaks generally about skills shortages, the need to help unemployed Canadians connect with jobs they are capable of performing, but provides no specific criteria for 'local area' or 'skill level.'
Menzies provides no specific criteria for 'local area' or 'skill level,' instead speaking generally about skills shortages and the need to connect unemployed Canadians with jobs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we all understand that any one Canadian unemployed is too many, but we are also facing unprecedented skills shortages. We need to make sure that we help people find those jobs. We need to help the unemployed connect with jobs that they are capable of taking part in. There is a skills shortage; we have unemployed Canadians. We are not asking them to do anything more than apply for jobs that they are skilled to perform.
LeBlanc cites budget language about taking into account claimants' antécédents d'assurance-emploi, warns it will punish seasonal workers and those who have previously claimed parental leave, and asks whether this represents a 'three strikes and you're out' rule or a two-tier EI regime.
Cites a specific phrase from the recent budget about taking into account EI claimants' antécédents d'assurance-emploi, identifies potential harm to seasonal workers and parents who claimed parental leave, and asks whether this is a 'three strikes and you're out' or two-tier EI regime.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, dans le récent budget, une autre phrase au sujet de l'assurance-emploi fait peur à plusieurs travailleurs. Selon cette phrase, la ministre tiendra compte des antécédents d'assurance-emploi des prestataires. Cela punira les travailleurs saisonniers, les parents qui ont déjà réclamé des congés parentaux et tous les gens qui ont déjà eu besoin de l'assurance-emploi dans le passé. Pourquoi les conservateurs veulent-ils diminuer ou éliminer complÚtement leurs prestations? Est-ce l'arrivée du « three strikes and you're out » ou est-ce un régime d'assurance-emploi à deux vitesses?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in the recent budget, another sentence pertaining to employment insurance has many workers worried. These words suggest that the minister would take into account an individualâs past history with the EI program. This will punish seasonal workers, parents who have already been on parental leave and anyone who has needed employment insurance in the past. Why do the Conservatives want to cut or completely eliminate their benefits? Is âthree strikes and you're outâ the new program or will there be a two-tiered employment insurance program?
Menzies speaks generally about EI's purpose as a temporary support for unemployed Canadians, and states people are expected to seek jobs within their skill set and within reasonable distance of their homes, without addressing the antécédents provision.
Menzies does not address the antécédents provision or the two-tier concern, instead making general statements about EI's purpose and asking Canadians to seek jobs within their skill set and reasonable distance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, employees and employers across this country contribute to unemployment insurance. It is there when people lose their jobs. All Canadians expect to be temporarily unemployed. That is what EI is for. We also expect people to seek a job that is within their skill set. That is only fair and reasonable. We are also only asking those Canadians to seek that within reasonable distance of their own homes.
LeBlanc asks why the Conservatives are trying to sneak risky measures for foreign telecom ownership into their budget bill, despite a Public Safety ministry warning that telecommunications systems are too strategic to be left in foreign hands.
References a warning from the Ministry of Public Safety about telecommunications systems being too strategic to leave in foreign hands, but frames the question partly rhetorically by characterizing the budget bill as a 'cheval de Troie' and asking why the government is sneaking through risky measures.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'ouverture du marché canadien aux entreprises étrangÚres de télécommunication n'aidera pas les consommateurs, bien au contraire. Le ministÚre de la Sécurité publique a lancé un avertissement l'an dernier. Les systÚmes de télécommunication sont trop stratégiques pour les laisser entre les mains des entreprises étrangÚres. Le ministre de l'Industrie ignore les recommandations de son collÚgue le ministre de la Sécurité publique. Encore une fois, c'est la discorde. Pourquoi les conservateurs veulent-ils faire adopter en douce ces mesures risquées incluses dans leur cheval de Troie?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, opening up the Canadian market to foreign telecommunication companies will not help consumers; quite the opposite, in fact. Last year, the public safety department issued a warning about this. Telecommunications systems are too strategic to be left in the hands of foreign companies. The Minister of Industry is ignoring the recommendations of his colleague, the public safety minister. Once again, the Conservatives cannot agree. Why do the Conservatives want to sneak these risky measures through by including them in this Trojan Horse?
Toews says the government has taken strong steps to benefit consumers and open markets to competition, stresses all carriers will remain subject to Canadian laws, and characterizes the public safety official as not being in opposition to the auction.
Toews partially engages by affirming all carriers will be subject to Canadian laws and mischaracterizes the public safety official's memo as not being in opposition to the auction, but does not address the specific strategic security concern raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Industry has indicated, our government has taken strong steps to benefit consumers and open up the market to competition, but I must stress that all carriers will continue to be subject to Canadians laws. We will continue to ensure that Canadians can rely on telecommunications infrastructure that is safe and secure. That is essentially what the official from public safety indicated: that he was not in opposition to the auction that is occurring.
Harris cites public safety officials warning that full foreign ownership of Canadian telecom companies would pose a considerable risk to public safety and national security and would hinder the security and intelligence community's ability to fulfill their mandate, and asks if the minister is willing to ignore that for the sake of selling off the telecom sector.
Quotes directly from a public safety officials' document warning that full foreign ownership of Canadian telecom companies would 'pose a considerable risk to public safety and national security and would hinder the security and intelligence community's ability to fulfill their mandate,' and asks if the minister is willing to ignore that warning.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Trojan Horse budget bill conceals changes that would expose Canadians to new threats. Conservatives are proposing changes that would allow full foreign ownership of Canadian telecom companies, even though, in contradiction to what the minister just said, public safety officials warn this would: ....pose a considerable risk to public safety and national security and would hinder the security and intelligence community's ability to fulfill their mandate... Is the minister so eager to sell off our telecom sector that he is willing to ignore the safety and security of Canadians?
Toews accuses Harris of relying on a partial CBC report, quotes the full memo where the official stressed that Public Safety Canada's perspective is not in opposition to the 700 MHz auction, and suggests Harris read the entire letter.
Toews directly challenges the source of the quote, notes the CBC reported only half of the memo, and cites the full context where the official stressed '...I want to stress that Public Safety Canada's perspective is not in opposition to the 700 MHz auction,' partially addressing the concern but not fully resolving the security risk question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the member that he not let the CBC do his research for him. The CBC reported half of the story, half of the memo. Yes, the official, as he should have done, indicated what possible concerns there were. He also indicated, and I note, â...I want to stress that Public Safety Canada's perspective is not in opposition to the 700 MHz auctionâ. Perhaps he should read the entire letter, as opposed to simply relying on a CBC report.
Stewart notes that MDA was forced to lay off 100 employees because the government has refused to sign a contract for RADARSAT, and asks the minister to explain the gap between his claims of commitment to RADARSAT and his refusal to act.
Cites a specific fact â MDA was forced to lay off 100 employees because the government has refused to sign a contract â and asks the minister to explain the gap between his words of commitment and his refusal to act, but frames it with rhetorical flourish ('really lost in space').
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is really lost in space when it comes to protecting the public and protecting jobs. The minister repeatedly claims the government is committed to RADARSAT, but the facts contradict him. MDA was forced to lay off 100 employees because the government has refused to sign a contract, and even more high-tech jobs are in jeopardy. Will the minister explain the gap between his words and his refusal to act?
Paradis says the government is fully committed to RADARSAT and wants to deliver it in the most cost-effective way, and notes a review of space and aerospace has been launched for the first time.
Paradis reaffirms commitment to RADARSAT and mentions a cost-effective delivery approach and the launch of a space and aerospace review, but does not explain why no contract has been signed or address the 100 layoffs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are fully committed to the RADARSAT project. It is an important project, but we want to deliver it in the most cost-effective way. That is what we will do. I would like to remind the member that for the first time we have launched a review of space and aerospace because we want to remain the leaders in this sector. This is real action, not just talk.
Liu asks whether the minister will accept that the Comité permanent de l'industrie, des sciences et de la technologie meet with MDA representatives in public, and asks how many high-level jobs must be lost before the minister acts.
Asks a specific procedural question â whether the minister will allow the ComitĂ© permanent de l'industrie, des sciences et de la technologie to meet with MDA representatives in public â and links it to ongoing job losses at MDA.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si le ministre est si certain de l'avenir de RADARSAT, va-t-il accepter que le ComitĂ© permanent de l'industrie, des sciences et de la technologie rencontre les reprĂ©sentants de MDA en public? RADARSAT est un programme essentiel de surveillance maritime, de gestion de catastrophe et d'observation de l'environnement. Nos plus grands scientifiques et ingĂ©nieurs ont dĂ©veloppĂ© ce programme. Les paroles vides des conservateurs n'arrĂȘteront pas les pertes d'emplois et l'exode des cerveaux. Combien d'emplois de haut niveau devront ĂȘtre perdus avant que le ministre n'agisse?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is so sure about the future of RADARSAT, will he allow the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to meet with representatives of MDA in public? The RADARSAT program is essential to marine surveillance, disaster management and environmental monitoring. It was developed by Canada's leading scientists and engineers. The Conservatives' empty rhetoric will not prevent job losses or stop the brain drain. How many high-level jobs need to be lost before the minister will do something about it?
Paradis defends the government's commitment to RADARSAT, notes NDP members voted against budget 2010 funds for the project, and references the David Emerson aerospace and space review as work in progress aimed at maintaining world leadership.
Paradis does not answer the committee meeting question at all, instead defending the government's RADARSAT commitment, noting budget 2010 funds, and referencing the David Emerson review.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, soyons clairs. RADARSAT est un projet qui dure depuis longtemps. Des fonds importants ont notamment été votés dans le budget de 2010, et les députés du NPD ont voté contre. Si ça ne dépendait que d'eux, il n'y aurait pas de projet RADARSAT. On a dit qu'on s'était engagés dans ce projet et qu'on allait le livrer au meilleur rapport qualité-prix. Cela dit, je rappelle à ma collÚgue qu'une revue de l'aéronautique et du domaine spatial dirigée par David Emerson a été lancée. C'est un travail en cours. Pourquoi? C'est parce qu'on veut rester les leaders au niveau mondial dans ce domaine névralgique.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. RADARSAT has existed for quite some time. Considerable funding for that program was included in budget 2010, but the NDP voted against that. If it were left up to them, there would be no RADARSAT. We have said that we are committed to this project and we would deliver it in the most cost-effective way. That being said, I would remind my hon. colleague that we have launched a review of our aerospace and space sectors, to be led by David Emerson. That work is under way. Why? Because we want to remain world leaders in this key sector.
Cannan provides background on the MV Sun Sea bringing 492 irregular migrants to Canada in August 2010 as part of a human smuggling operation, and asks the Minister of Public Safety to update the House on the status of investigations.
A government-backbench softball setup providing background on the MV Sun Sea human smuggling operation and asking for a status update, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in August 2010, the MV Sun Sea brought 492 irregular migrants to Canada as part of an elaborate human smuggling operation. Human smuggling is a terrible crime in which the most vulnerable are taken advantage of, often for the financial gain of criminals and terrorists. Can the Minister of Public Safety please update the House on the status of efforts into investigating this matter?
Toews reports that the RCMP has made two new arrests with charges of illegally organizing entry into Canada, and calls on the NDP to stop delaying the protecting Canada's immigration system act.
Toews provides a substantive update â two new arrests with charges of illegally organizing entry into Canada â though he pivots to attacking the NDP for delaying the protecting Canada's immigration system act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his hard work on this important file. I am advised by the RCMP that two new arrests have been made in this case and that they have been charged with illegally organizing entry into Canada. We are a welcoming country to newcomers, but we will not tolerate abuse of our generous immigration system for financial gain through the despicable crime of human struggling. I would encourage the NDP to stop the needless delays of the protecting Canada's immigration system act so that we can finally give authorities the necessary tools they need to crack down on both this type of activity and futureâ
Crowder cites the UN food rapporteur's observation of 'very desperate conditions and people who are in extremely dire straits' in aboriginal communities, notes the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs refused to meet with him, and asks the minister to act on the rapporteur's recommendations.
References the UN food rapporteur's findings with a direct quote about 'very desperate conditions and people who are in extremely dire straits,' notes the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs refused to meet with him, and asks whether the minister will act on the rapporteur's recommendations â but the ask is somewhat vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again the Conservatives are ignoring one of Canada's most shameful situations. We saw the extent of poverty in first nations when the NDP visited Attawapiskat last fall. Now, after visiting aboriginal communities in Canada, the UN food rapporteur has said that he has seen âvery desperate conditions and people who are in extremely dire straitsâ, yet the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs refused to meet with him when he came to Ottawa. How can this minister continue to deny there is a problem? Will he wake up and act on the rapporteur's recommendations?
Aglukkaq says she met with the individual and found him to be an ill-informed, patronizing academic studying aboriginal people and Canada's Arctic from afar, and says she took the opportunity to educate him about Canada's north.
Aglukkaq says she met with the individual but dismisses him as an 'ill-informed, patronizing academic studying aboriginal people...from afar,' and does not address the rapporteur's findings or recommendations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I met with the individual this morning and I found him to be an ill-informed, patronizing academic studying aboriginal people, the Inuit and Canada's Arctic from afar. I took the opportunity to educate him about Canada's north and the aboriginal people who depend on the wildlife that they hunt every day for food security.
Genest-Jourdain notes that the rapporteur found indigenous peoples in Canada face not only food shortages but also difficulty accessing potable water, and asks whether the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will take the UN rapporteur's work seriously and act on his recommendations.
References the rapporteur's findings on both food shortage and access to potable water, frames it as a question of political will, and asks whether the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will take the UN rapporteur's work seriously and act on his recommendations â but the ask remains general.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce n'est pas une question d'acccÚs aux fonctionnaires du ministÚre, c'est une question de volonté politique. Selon le reporteur, les Autochtones au pays ne font pas seulement face à une pénurie de produits alimentaires; ils ont également de la difficulté à ...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of access to departmental officials. It is a question of political will. According to the rapporteur, first nations Canadians are not only facing a food shortage, but they are also having difficultyâ
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ils ont Ă©galement de la difficultĂ© Ă avoir de l'eau potable. Le ministre des Affaires autochtones va-t-il encore garder la tĂȘte dans le sable, ou va-t-il finalement prendre au sĂ©rieux le travail du reporteur de l'ONU et agir selon ses recommandations?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, they are also having difficulty getting clean drinking water. Is the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development going to keep his head buried in the sand, or will he finally take the UN rapporteur's work seriously and act on his recommendations?
Aglukkaq states that neither the UN nor the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food delivers any food to anyone anywhere in the world, and recites statistics about global hunger in seven countries including India, China, and sub-Saharan Africa.
Aglukkaq does not address the question of political will, access to potable water, or the rapporteur's recommendations, instead stating that neither the UN nor the Special Rapporteur delivers food anywhere and reciting global hunger statistics that have no connection to the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, neither the UN nor the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food delivers any food to anyone anywhere in the world. Sixty-five per cent of the world's hungry live in only seven countries: India, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and sub-Saharan Africa, where 239 million people are going hungry in the World Food Programme.
Bevington accuses the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of misleading the House by claiming a vote against the budget bill is a vote against increasing territorial borrowing limits, and asserts that what the Trojan Horse budget bill actually does is change the three northern constitutions to increase federal control.
Directly accuses the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of misleading the House on a specific point â that a vote against the budget bill is a vote against increasing territorial borrowing limits â and specifies that the Trojan Horse budget bill would actually change the three northern constitutions to increase federal control.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development misled this House when he said a vote against the budget bill is a vote against increasing the borrowing limits of the three territories. The minister needs to do his homework, because in no way would the bill set borrowing limits. What the Trojan Horse budget bill would do is change the three northern constitutions to increase federal control. Is the minister completely out of touch with what his government is trying to do, or was he trying to mislead the House?
Aglukkaq speaks about cutting red tape for mineral exploration project approvals in the north and accuses the NDP and Liberals of voting against progress and development in the north, without addressing the constitutional change allegation.
Aglukkaq does not address the specific allegation of misleading the House, the constitutional change to increase federal control, or the borrowing limits question, instead speaking generally about cutting red tape for mineral exploration and attacking the NDP and Liberals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is taking steps to improve the economy in the north and in the Northwest Territories by cutting red tape for mineral exploration project approvals. We want northerners to benefit from economic development opportunities that major resource projects can offer. Despite the efforts of the NDP and Liberal membeers, who vote against progress and development in the north, our government is working hard with northerners to ensure they have full, vital, dynamic and strong economic futures.
Bevington cites testimony before the aboriginal affairs committee from a senior official with the Government of the Northwest Territories opposing federal control over borrowing, and asks why the government will not respect the political rights of northerners by allowing their legislatures to control their financial affairs just like the provinces.
Cites specific testimony before the aboriginal affairs committee from a senior official with the Government of the Northwest Territories opposing federal control over borrowing, identifies that the budget bill would change the northern constitutions, and asks why the government will not respect the political rights of northerners by allowing their legislatures to control their financial affairs like the provinces.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the one hand the government is cutting regulations on the environment and on the other it is increasing regulations on the territorial governments. Last year, testimony before the aboriginal affairs committee from a senior official with the Government of the Northwest Territories made it clear they do not want federal control over borrowing. Instead of listening to the people in the north, the government wants to increase control by changing the northern constitutions without publicly consulting northerners. Why will the government not respect the political rights of northerners by allowing their legislatures to control their financial affairs, just like the provinces?
Aglukkaq says the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency is supporting economic development organizations in the north, and lists that territorial governments asked for increased borrowing limits, a highway between Inuvik and Tuk, and devolution â all things she says Bevington voted against.
Aglukkaq does not address the testimony, the constitutional change, or the political rights question, instead listing initiatives the territorial governments asked for and claiming Bevington voted against each of them.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency is supporting a host of economic development organizations throughout the north to be more efficient and reflective of the real needs of northerners over the long term. Canadian taxpayers' dollars will benefit youth by implementing sound business models in the north that will make a better use of technology and whatnot. The territorial governments asked for increased borrowing limits; that member voted against that idea. The territorial governments asked for a highway between Inuvik and Tuk; that member voted against it. The territorial governments asked for devolution; that member voted against it.
Bennett cites the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food's description of 'very desperate conditions and...in extremely dire straits,' notes the Minister of Health has no strategy for aboriginal suicide, OxyContin abuse, or food insecurity, and asks when she will accept the invitation of first nations to visit their communities.
Quotes the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food's description of 'very desperate conditions and...in extremely dire straits,' identifies three specific gaps â no strategy for aboriginal suicide, OxyContin abuse, and food insecurity â and asks when the Minister of Health will accept the invitation of first nations to visit their communities, but the question trails off before completion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food reported that many first nations in Canada are, in his words, in âvery desperate conditions and...in extremely dire straitsâ. We know, sadly, that the Minister of Health has no strategy for aboriginal suicide, for OxyContin abuse and, today, for food insecurity. When will the Minister of Health actually accept the invitation of first nations in Canada to visit their communities to see first-hand the results of her failure to implement--
Aglukkaq says she met with the UN representative again that day, dismisses him as ill-informed and patronizing, and describes him as an academic studying aboriginal people in Canada's Arctic without ever setting foot on the ground or walking in their kamiks for a day.
Aglukkaq again dismisses the UN representative as ill-informed and patronizing and an academic studying aboriginal people in Canada's Arctic without ever setting foot on the ground, without addressing any of the three specific policy gaps identified.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again I met with the UN representative today. The member is very ill-informed and patronizing. Again it is an academic studying aboriginal people in Canada's Arctic without ever setting foot on the ground and walking in our kamiks for a day to get a good understanding of the limitations and opportunities we have as aboriginal people in this country. Again, another academic comes to our region, studies us from afar and draws a conclusion as though he has the answer to everything.
McCallum asks when the government will provide full program-by-program details of its spending cuts, citing contradictory tweets by the President of the Treasury Board and an earlier promise by his parliamentary secretary.
Cites two specific false tweets by the President of the Treasury Board and a parliamentary secretary's prior commitment, with a clear ask for program-by-program spending cut details and a timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, two days ago the President of the Treasury Board tweeted that the Standing Orders prevented him from giving us the full details of his spending cuts, which is false. Then he tweeted that we already had these details, which is also false. Three weeks earlier, his parliamentary secretary said we would get those details âsoonâ. What is going on? Will the government give us the full details, program by program, of those spending cuts, and if so, when?
Clement says the government is following normal parliamentary procedure through quarterly reports and estimates and will do so for the budget as well, without specifying a timeline or committing to program-level details.
Clement deflects with a joke about Twitter followers and gives only a vague assurance about following 'normal course and normal rules of parliamentary procedure' without committing to any timeline or program-level details.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am heartened that the member is following me so assiduously on Twitter. I always like to have new followers. Let me reiterate that on this side of the chamber we are following the normal course and normal rules of parliamentary procedure in terms of our quarterly reports, our estimates and all the other ways that we are accountable to this chamber and thence to the people of Canada. We will do so with respect to the budget as well.
Davies asks whether the minister agrees that the human rights impact assessment on the CanadaâColombia free trade agreement should actually address human rights, noting the tabled report contains only basic economic information.
Davies cites the tabled human rights impact assessment and notes it contains no human rights analysis, asking a pointed if somewhat narrow yes/no question about whether the minister agrees the report should address human rights.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the human rights impact assessment on the CanadaâColombia free trade agreement tabled yesterday leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Mysteriously, the report contains no human rights analysis. Instead, it simply recites basic economic information we already know. Increased trade is good. New Democrats want more global trade. However, Canadians also want democratic values to beâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, Canadians also want democratic values to be respected by our trade partners. Does the minister agree that a human rights impact assessment should actually address human rights?
Fast explains that the agreement was only in force for four and a half months of 2011, making comprehensive analysis impossible, and states that analysis will be completed in 2013.
Fast gives a specific factual reason â the agreement had only been in force four and a half months of 2011, providing insufficient data â and commits to a comprehensive analysis in 2013, directly engaging the substance of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the CanadaâColombia free trade agreement specifies that a human rights report be tabled annually covering the previous calendar year. As the agreement had only been in force for the last four and a half months of 2011, there was not enough available data to do a comprehensive analysis. That analysis will be done in 2013. Our government remains committed to deepening our trade relationship with Colombia. It is only through engagement that we will be able to lift more Colombians out of poverty and inspire them to join the family of nations that respect human rights.
Marston asks whether the government will commission an independent human rights assessment on Colombia for the next report, noting 17 trade unionists have been murdered since the trade agreement came into effect.
Marston cites 17 trade unionists murdered in Colombia since the trade agreement came into effect and asks a specific question about commissioning an independent human rights assessment, but frames it heavily in partisan rhetoric including a Prime Minister quote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister used to say, âI don't think Canadians want us to sell out Canadian values, our belief in democracy, freedom, human rightsâ.
Hear, hear!
Mr. Speaker, members can cheer and clap on the other side, but I ask what happened to that Prime Minister. The government's report on human rights in Colombia shamefully has nothing on human rights, yet since that trade agreement came into effect, 17 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia. I will ask again, will the government now consider for the next report, an independent assessment on human rights in Colombia?
Fast says the government is focused on economic growth, job creation and long-term prosperity, and expresses hope that engagement with Colombia will draw it into a robust human rights regime, without addressing the request for an independent assessment.
Fast does not address the request for an independent assessment or the 17 murdered trade unionists, instead pivoting to NDP's opposition to trade and government priorities of economic growth and job creation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike the NDP, this government remains focused like a laser beam on the issues that are important to Canadians. Those issues are economic growth, job creation and long-term prosperity. We are very pleased that Colombia has ratified its trade agreement and it is now in effect. We continue to respect human rights. We hope to draw Colombia, as we engage with it, into the family of nations that actually do have a robust human rights regime.
Benoit asks the parliamentary secretary to describe the direct and indirect jobs created through responsible resource development across Canada, framed as a rebuttal to the NDP leader's characterization of resource industries as a 'disease.'
A government-backbench softball that mischaracterizes the NDP leader's words and asks a broad question about resource-sector jobs, with no factual grounding or accountability purpose.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader is not just calling the jobs created by the resource sector in western Canada a âdiseaseâ. He has upped the ante and said that the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario and the shale gas in the Maritimes are all part of a problem. In his latest rant against western Canada, he called anyone who disagrees with him a messenger of our government. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities tell the House about the direct and indirect jobs that are created through responsible resource development right across this great country?
Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader said that the disease is now spreading beyond oil sands workers and now includes natural gas workers in the Maritimes and forestry workers in northern Ontario. It is a pandemic of jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for which his only cure is a carbon tax. One thing is clear. If Canadians are suffering from a disease, it is that they are sick of his talk of higher taxes and shutting down jobs.
Poilievre uses the 'pandemic of jobs' metaphor to mock the NDP leader and attacks the NDP's carbon tax proposal, providing no data on resource-sector employment.
Poilievre stays entirely on partisan attack lines about a 'pandemic of jobs' and a carbon tax, providing no actual data on direct and indirect jobs created through resource development as the question nominally requested.
Dion asks why the Prime Minister and his democratic reform minister are weakening British Columbia and Alberta through a Senate reform plan that would leave each province with only six senators in a 105 elected-member Senate, citing Roger Gibbins of the Canada West Foundation.
Dion cites a named critic (Roger Gibbins, Canada West Foundation) and specific numbers (six senators each for Alberta and British Columbia in a 105 elected-member Senate) to argue the Senate reform plan is unconstitutional and unfair, with a reasonably direct ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, each day more westerners raise their voices against the government's ill-conceived and unconstitutional Senate reform. Even Roger Gibbins, head of the Canada West Foundation, warns against this unfair plan, which would leave Alberta and British Columbia terribly under-represented, with only six senators each in a 105 elected-member Senate. Why are the Prime Minister and his democratic reform minister weakening British Columbia and their province of Alberta?
Uppal asserts Canadians support term limits and Senate elections, accuses opposition members of dragging their feet on Senate reform, and calls on them to bring the Senate reform act to a vote.
Uppal does not address the under-representation figures, the constitutional concerns, or Gibbins' criticism, instead asserting Canadians support term limits and Senate elections and challenging the opposition to vote on the Senate reform act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we know where Canadians stand. Canadians support term limits for senators and Senate elections. That is why we introduced the Senate reform act. Frankly, it is not surprising to hear the opposition members say anything to justify dragging their feet on Senate reform and supporting the status quo in the Senate. They know they are wrong on that side of the issue, and that is why they are afraid to vote on it. We call on the opposition members to stop hiding behind their empty rhetoric and bring the Senate reform act to a vote. We want Canadians to have a say in the Senate. Why do they not?
Papillon asks why the government is depriving the city of Quebec of its heritage and history by abolishing 45 Parks Canada positions and removing thousands of artifacts from a UNESCO World Heritage city while spending millions on War of 1812 and jubilee celebrations.
Papillon cites 45 specific job cuts at Parks Canada in Quebec and the removal of artifacts from a UNESCO World Heritage city, contrasting these with government spending on War of 1812 and jubilee celebrations, with a clear ask about heritage policy.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, dans sa série de compressions draconiennes, le gouvernement abolira 45 postes chez Parcs Canada à Québec, une ville inscrite au patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO. De plus, les conservateurs vident Québec de milliers d'artéfacts. C'est un autre coup dur pour Québec et pour notre crédibilité auprÚs de l'UNESCO. Pendant ce temps, le gouvernement dépense à coup de millions de dollars dans les célébrations de la guerre de 1812 et dans les célébrations du jubilé de la reine. Or, ce matin encore, nos archéologues faisaient des découvertes historiques importantes à Québec. Pourquoi ce gouvernement veut-il priver la ville de Québec de son patrimoine et de son histoire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, through a series of draconian cuts, the government is abolishing 45 positions at Parks Canada in Quebec City, a city recognized by UNESCO as a world heritage site. What is more, the Conservatives are emptying Quebec City of thousands of artifacts, which is another harsh blow to Quebec City and to our credibility with UNESCO. In the meantime, the government is spending millions of dollars on festivities to commemorate the War of 1812 and the Queen's jubilee. Yet, just this morning our archeologists made some important discoveries in Quebec City. Why is this government depriving Quebec City of its heritage and its history?
Kent says the artifacts will be stored and will remain in Quebec in the short term, and that the government is looking at opportunities to display them in appropriate museum locations in Quebec.
Kent confirms the artifacts will remain in Quebec and be stored short-term, and says the government is seeking museum locations in Quebec, partially addressing the artifacts concern but not responding to the 45 positions abolished or the UNESCO credibility argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I provided an answer to this question when it was raised by the Bloc Québécois more than a week ago. That answer is we appreciate that these valuable artifacts should be on display, where possible, in museums appropriate for their exhibition. In the short term, there is no location. They will be stored. They will remain in Quebec. We are looking at a number of opportunities for those artifacts to be displayed again in museums in appropriate locations in Quebec.
Lobb asks the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to explain how the NDP's reckless comments about proposed changes to the processing sector are hurting the processing industry and misleading Canadians.
A government-backbench softball that asks the minister to rebut NDP comments on food safety rather than holding the government to account, with no factual grounding and a compound leading question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on creating jobs and long-term economic prosperity. The NDP is playing politics with food safety. Currently, changes are being proposed that would streamline red tape in the processing sector and help cattle producers earn a living from the marketplace while maintaining the integrity of Canada's food safety system. Could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food explain to the House how the NDP's reckless comments are hurting the processing industry and misleading Canadians? When it comes to agriculture, the leader of the NDP and his caucus do not know anything about agriculture. It is time to wake up and tell the truth.
Ritz says Canada's food processors would never allow dead stock or road kill into the food system and calls the NDP's comments an insult to food safety professionals, without describing the specific regulatory changes being proposed.
Ritz praises the question and attacks the NDP member for Welland for 'fearmongering' about dead stock and road kill in the food system, providing no substantive policy information about the proposed changes to the processing sector.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what a great question. I want to thank the member for his work on the agriculture committee. Of course, Canadians and consumers know we would never jeopardize our food safety. Our largest manufacturing sector, the food processing sector, like our resource sector, is now under attack by the NDP. Contrary to the NDP's fearmongering, Canada's hard-working food processors would never allow dead stock or road kill into our food system. Farmers and industry agree. The comments by the member for Welland and his party are irresponsible, an absolute insult to the hard-working professionals who ensure the safety of Canadian food from farm to fork. While this government focuses on ensuring the safety of Canadian food, the NDP must apologize for misleading Canadians and attacking ourâ
Hughes asks how the government can address first nations mental health problems â identified as a top priority in Canada's new mental health strategy â when the budget abolishes the First Nations Statistical Institute, leaving no money and no data.
Hughes links the budget's abolition of the First Nations Statistical Institute to the new mental health strategy's identification of first nations mental health as a top priority, making a substantive if somewhat rhetorical ask about how success is possible without data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives say they want to improve first nations' mental health, they table a budget that does the exact opposite. Instead of giving people the proper tools, the Conservatives are taking them away, like the First Nations Statistical Institute. There is a huge need to address first nations' mental health concerns. First nations' mental health issues have been identified as one of the top six priorities of Canada's new mental health strategy. However, with no money and no data, how can we possibly hope to have success in addressing the mental health problems that Canada's first nations face?
Aglukkaq says three elected aboriginal leaders requested the wind-down of the National Aboriginal Health Organization, notes the government commits $30 million a year on aboriginal health research, and says the government will implement the recently released mental health strategy.
Aglukkaq addresses the National Aboriginal Health Organization wind-down (a somewhat different body than the First Nations Statistical Institute cited by Hughes) by noting three elected aboriginal leaders requested it, mentions $30 million annually in aboriginal health research, and references the mental health strategy, but does not address the data gap created by losing the First Nations Statistical Institute.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the issue of the National Aboriginal Health Organization is very simple. The three elected aboriginal leaders wrote to me and asked me to wind down that organization. I accepted their recommendation, and we are working on that. Our government commits $30 million a year on aboriginal health research available to all Canadians. The member is well aware that we recently released the mental health strategy for Canada. We will be following through on implementation.
Fortin asks why the federal government will not accede to the Conseil national des chĂŽmeurs et chĂŽmeuses demand to transfer responsibility for employment insurance to Quebec, rather than weakening the EI system by requiring unemployed workers to accept jobs outside their field and region.
Fortin invokes the Finance Minister's statements about Bill C-38 EI changes and the Conseil national des chĂŽmeurs et chĂŽmeuses request to transfer EI responsibility to Quebec, offering a specific policy ask, but frames it heavily in partisan rhetoric about workers' expertise being disrespected.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les conservateurs n'arrivent plus Ă cacher l'ampleur des changements Ă l'assurance-emploi qu'ils proposent dans le projet de loi C-38. Leur nouvelle trouvaille pour affaiblir le rĂ©gime semble ĂȘtre, comme le laisse entendre le ministre des Finances, d'imposer aux chĂŽmeurs des emplois qui ne correspondent ni Ă leurs aspirations ni Ă leurs qualifications et qui ne sont mĂȘme pas dans leur rĂ©gion. C'est un vrai mĂ©pris de l'expertise des travailleurs. PlutĂŽt que de saboter durablement le rĂ©gime d'assurance-emploi, pourquoi le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral n'accĂšde-t-il pas Ă la demande du Conseil national des chĂŽmeurs et chĂŽmeuses de transfĂ©rer au QuĂ©bec la responsabilitĂ© de l'assurance-emploi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives can no longer hide the scope of their proposed changes to employment insurance in Bill C-38. Their new brainwave for weakening the system, according to what the Minister of Finance is saying, seems to be to force the unemployed to take jobs that do not correspond to their aspirations or their qualifications and that are not even in their region. The Conservatives have real contempt for workers' expertise. Instead of permanently undermining the employment insurance system, why does the federal government not agree to the request of the Conseil national des chĂŽmeurs et chĂŽmeuses and transfer responsibility for employment insurance to Quebec?
Menzies says the opposition has voted against every jobs and growth measure in three budgets and criticizes them for opposing the EI hiring tax credit, without addressing the transfer-to-Quebec proposal or the concern about workers being assigned unsuitable jobs.
Menzies does not address the proposal to transfer EI to Quebec or the concern about forcing unemployed workers into jobs outside their qualifications or region, instead attacking the opposition for voting against EI and hiring tax credit measures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every policy that we have put forward in the last three budgets to promote jobs and growth in this economy, the member and his colleagues, in fact all members on the other side of the House, have voted against. We have EI in place as a tool to help those people who have lost their jobs. It certainly does not help when initiatives, such as the EI hiring tax credit for businesses in this country, are put forward and the opposition votes against them. That is unacceptable.
Niki Ashton (NDP) rose to clarify the record about the UN special rapporteur's visit to northern Canada, and Jack Harris (NDP) raised a point of order accusing the Minister of State for Finance of misleading the House by suggesting 32,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians could not fill 1,500 jobs at a mine. Ted Menzies responded directly, clarifying that he was giving an example that there were 32,500 people in Newfoundland who were not working.
- NDP Ms. Niki Ashton
- NDP Mr. Jack Harris
- CPC Ted Menzies
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the record from statements by members today. The member for Yukon stood on a statement about the UN special rapporteur. His visit did take him to northern Canada. He went to Gods River in northern Manitoba and I--
Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Minister of State for Finance misled the House by suggesting that there were 32,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who could not take 1,500 jobs for a mine in St. John'sâ
Mr. Speaker, this is either a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, or an outrageously negligent comment about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, similar to what the Prime Minister said a few years ago when he talked aboutâ
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify. I was simply giving an example that there were 32,500 people in Newfoundland who were not workingâ