Session overview
- TPP trade negotiations dominated Question Period, with NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair pressing the Prime Minister three times to confirm whether Canada gave up concessions on supply management or generic drug access to gain admission; the Prime Minister answered 'nothing' but provided no specifics.
- The Parliamentary Budget Officer's mandate was contested across three exchanges, with NDP and Liberal members arguing the PBO has a legal right to financial data while the government cited a 2009 all-party committee report finding his approach inconsistent with his governing act.
- Refugee health care cuts came under sustained attack from NDP members, who raised specific cases including a child with epilepsy and a woman with post-traumatic stress syndrome losing coverage on July 1; Minister Jason Kenney defended the changes by distinguishing resettled refugees from rejected asylum claimants.
- Coast Guard station closures in British Columbia, including the Kitsilano base and three marine communication centres, were challenged by both NDP and Liberal members; Minister Keith Ashfield maintained the changes would not impact mariner safety and pointed to budget 2012 fleet renewal investments.
- The Corporal Langridge case was raised three times concerning the Military Police Complaints Commission's request for documents related to his suicide; Minister Peter MacKay refused to waive solicitor-client privilege, while NDP members specified three categories of information being withheld.
- The government announced a concrete change recognizing prior years of service of former Canadian Forces members who join the Public Service for vacation leave calculation purposes, and confirmed it is working to resolve a conflict between the fixed federal election date in fall 2015 and several provincial elections.
The Prime Minister concretely confirmed that the fixed election date in fall 2015 conflicts with several provincial elections, that the government is consulting with the provinces on how to resolve this, and committed to bringing forward a proposal well before the next election — a specific, newsworthy disclosure and commitment on electoral law.
The question is highly specific, citing the $7 billion Glencore-Viterra deal and asking three distinct, concrete questions: whether Glencore's past behaviour is under review, whether a bond will be posted to guarantee commitments, and how anti-competitive behaviour in farm input supply will be prevented.
Asked specifically why it took two years for Canada to be admitted to the TPP and what was given up, Minister Fast offered only a generic statement about economic growth, job creation, and long-term prosperity without addressing either part of the question.
Outstanding questions
- Did Canada agree to accept all clauses already negotiated in its absence during the first 12 rounds of TPP talks, and if not, which clauses is it seeking to reopen? (asked by Mr. Thomas Mulcair)
- Has the government placed supply management or access to generic drugs on the table in TPP negotiations, yes or no? (asked by Mr. Thomas Mulcair and Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau)
- Will the Minister of National Defence waive solicitor-client privilege to provide the Military Police Complaints Commission with the legal reasoning for denying Corporal Langridge a suicide watch, the denial of next-of-kin status, and the rationale behind DND's investigation? (asked by Mr. Jack Harris)
- Will the government reverse the cuts to refugee health care coverage taking effect July 1 that would deny medication to a refugee child with epilepsy and psychiatric care to a woman with post-traumatic stress syndrome? (asked by Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims and Mrs. Sadia Groguhé)
- How exactly does the Parliamentary Budget Officer go beyond his mandate when the government's own 2006 plan explicitly committed to giving him free and timely access to financial data from ministers and federal agencies? (asked by Bob Rae)
Mulcair asks whether the Prime Minister agreed to limit access to low-cost prescription drugs or to dismantle supply management in order to gain a seat at the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations.
The question names specific concessions (generic drugs, supply management) and demands a yes-or-no answer, but combines multiple asks and relies on hypothetical framings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for months the Conservative government has been begging to be let into the trans-Pacific trade negotiations. The question now is what the Prime Minister gave up just to get a seat at the table. Did he agree to limit access to low-cost prescription drugs? Did he sell out poultry, dairy and egg farmers by agreeing to dismantle supply management the way he dismantled the Wheat Board? Could the Prime Minister tell this House right now that he will not limit access to generic drugs and that he will not dismantle supply management? Could he simply tell us for once, yes or no?
Harper states the government made no such commitments and argues the Asia-Pacific region is important for Canadian exports and jobs.
Harper denies any commitments were made but pivots quickly to promoting trade and attacking NDP ideology rather than addressing the specific items named.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has made no such commitments. We have indicated for some time that Canada was more than willing to aspire to the same high ambitions that other members of the trans-Pacific partnership have. I know the depth of the NDP's ideological aversion to trade, but on this side of the House we believe very strongly that the Asia-Pacific region is a growing region. It is very necessary for this country to not just be part of this process, but to make sure we are able to increase exports in order to create jobs and growth for Canadian families.
Mulcair asks what the Prime Minister agreed to concede in exchange for Canada's admission to the trans-Pacific partnership table, given that 12 rounds of negotiations had already taken place without Canada.
Mulcair references the two-year history of negotiations and 12 rounds already completed, and presses on Harper's admission that he would not reopen what was already agreed, making the question grounded and specific.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre affirme qu'il n'a fait aucune concession, mais les négociations pour le Partenariat transpacifique ont commencé il y a deux ans. Il y a déjà eu 12 rondes de négociations. Le premier ministre a admis hier qu'il n'essaierait pas de défaire ce qui a déjà été fait. La question se pose donc quand même. Qu'est-ce que le premier ministre a accepté d'abandonner pour que le Canada soit admis à la table des négociations?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he has made no concessions, but the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations began two years ago. There have already been 12 rounds of negotiations. The Prime Minister said yesterday that he will not try to undo what has already been done. So the question is: What did the Prime Minister give up to get Canada a seat at the negotiating table?
Harper says Canada conceded nothing and that the negotiations are at a very preliminary stage, adding that trade is vital for the Canadian economy.
Harper answers 'nothing' but does not address the specific point about the 12 prior rounds or Harper's own admission about not undoing what was already negotiated, deflecting to trade rhetoric.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la réponse est: rien. Notre analyse de ces négociations, jusqu'à maintenant, est qu'elles en sont à des étapes très préliminaires. C'est important pour le Canada d'y participer. Selon nous, le commerce est bien important pour l'économie canadienne. Je connais très bien l'opposition du NPD à l'encontre de n'importe quel commerce international. C'est de l'opposition idéologique. Or pour les familles canadiennes, il est nécessaire que nos exportations aient accès aux marchés partout dans le monde, et surtout dans les régions en croissance, comme l'Asie-pacifique.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the answer is nothing. Our analysis of the negotiations to date indicates that they are at a very preliminary stage. It is important for Canada to be part of the negotiations. We believe that trade is very important to the Canadian economy. I am well aware of the NDP's aversion to any kind of international trade. It is an ideological aversion. It is in the best interests of Canadian families for our exports to have access to global markets, especially in growing regions such as the Asia-Pacific region.
Mulcair asks three yes-or-no questions: whether Canada accepted all clauses negotiated in its absence, whether supply management was put on the table, and whether access to generic drugs was put on the table.
Mulcair asks three distinct yes-or-no questions about specific concessions — accepting clauses already negotiated, putting supply management on the table, and putting generic drug access on the table — making it highly specific.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, tout ça est très vague. Les Canadiens ont le droit de savoir ce que les conservateurs vont sacrifier sur l'autel du Partenariat transpacifique. Alors, quelles concessions ont été faites par le premier ministre? A-t-il accepté toutes les clauses qui ont déjà été négociées en l'absence du Canada, oui ou non? A-t-il a accepté de mettre sur la table le démantèlement de la gestion de l'offre, oui ou non? A-t-il accepté de mettre sur la table l'accès aux médicaments génériques, oui ou non? Quelle est la réponse? Pourquoi ne pas être transparent et dire clairement, pour une fois, ce que le Canada a abandonné pour faire partie de ces négociations?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is all very vague. Canadians have the right to know what the Conservatives intend to sacrifice for the sake of the trans-Pacific partnership. What concessions did the Prime Minister make? Did he accept all the clauses that were negotiated before Canada arrived at the table, yes or no? Did he agree to dismantle supply management, yes or no? Did he agree to offer up access to generic drugs, yes or no? What is the answer? Why not be transparent and clearly state for once what Canada is giving up to be part of these negotiations?
Harper says Canada is at the table to promote and defend all its interests and references the party's record on free trade, without answering any specific question.
Harper does not answer any of the three yes-or-no questions directly, instead pivoting to a general defence of trade and claiming credit for the Canada-US free trade agreement.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, le Canada est à la table des négociations pour promouvoir et pour défendre tous nos intérêts. C'est la nécessité dans une économie mondiale. Je sais que le NPD prétend qu'on peut ignorer le monde du commerce, mais ce n'est pas la réalité économique. Ce parti est celui qui a établi notre accord de libre-échange avec les États-Unis, un grand succès pour notre pays, et nous avons l'intention de garder nos systèmes et de promouvoir nos exportations partout dans le monde.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, Canada is at the negotiating table to promote and defend all our interests. It is necessary in a global economy. I know the NDP thinks we can ignore the world of trade, but that is not the economic reality. Our party is the one that concluded the free trade agreement with the United States—a great success for our country—and we intend to maintain our systems and promote our exports throughout the world.
Nash asks which Conservative position is correct — the 2010 parliamentary secretary's praise of the PBO or the foreign minister's recent claim that Kevin Page exceeded his mandate.
Nash cites a 2010 quote from the parliamentary secretary and contrasts it with the foreign minister's recent statement, creating a specific internal contradiction and asking who is correct.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en 2010, le secrétaire parlementaire du président du Conseil du Trésor a dit: « le bureau du directeur parlementaire du budget a amélioré la prise de décisions du Parlement ». Cependant, le ministre des Affaires étrangères n'est pas d'accord. Il a prétendu hier que le directeur parlementaire du budget est allé au-delà de son mandat. Encore de la discorde chez les conservateurs! Qui dit vrai? Est-ce que les conservateurs pensent vraiment que Kevin Page est allé au delà de son mandat?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board said, “the Parliamentary Budget Officer has improved how decisions are made by Parliament”. However, the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not agree. Yesterday he claimed that the Parliamentary Budget Officer had overstepped his mandate. Once again, there is trouble in the Conservative ranks. Who is telling the truth? Do the Conservatives really think that Kevin Page has overstepped his mandate?
Clement says it has never been government policy to interpret the PBO's mandate and cites a 2009 all-party committee report that found the PBO's approach inconsistent with his governing act.
Clement sidesteps the internal contradiction entirely by citing a 2009 all-party committee report critical of the PBO and reiterating a commitment to regular reporting, without reconciling the two Conservative positions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me state right off the top, it has never been the position of this government to interpret the mandate of the budget officer or the way he interprets his mandate. Indeed, we have echoes of that from opposition members. I recall the 2009 unanimous all-party committee report on the PBO that said, “The committee is of the opinion that the PBO's approach is inconsistent with the Act governing his position.” This seems to be a general consensus in this House. We simply ask that the PBO do his job, and of course we will do our job through the regular means of reporting to Parliament.
Nash states the PBO has a legal opinion supporting his right to timely financial data and asks whether the Conservatives will repeat their accusations about him breaking his mandate outside the House and provide specific examples.
Nash grounds the question in a legal opinion held by the PBO and makes a specific challenge — will the Conservatives repeat their accusations outside the House and provide examples — though the framing is somewhat combative.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday a different minister made outrageous accusations, and frankly he has it wrong. The PBO has a legal opinion backing him up. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has a legal right to free and timely access to any financial or economic data. The Conservatives have the nerve to accuse Kevin Page of breaking his legal mandate, even though it is the Conservatives who are breaking their own law by withholding information. If they actually believe their ridiculous accusations, will they repeat them outside this House and provide some examples?
Clement says the government relies on the all-party committee report finding the PBO's approach inconsistent with his act, and reiterates that the government reports to Parliament through regular means.
Clement again relies on the all-party committee report rather than addressing the legal opinion cited by Nash or accepting the challenge to provide examples outside the House.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is relying on lawyers. We are relying on an all party unanimous report from a committee of this Parliament that said that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's approach was inconsistent with the act governing his position. We are relying on that. At the same time, we are fully reporting to this Parliament through the regular means, through the quarterly reports, through the public accounts and through other means that we have available to Parliament to report to parliamentarians and to the people of Canada on the plans of the budget, which are designed to grow jobs and opportunity for all Canadians.
Rae cites the Conservatives' own 2006 plan committing to an independent PBO with timely and accurate information from ministers and federal agencies, and asks how Kevin Page is exceeding his powers.
Rae quotes directly from the Conservative Party's own 2006 plan committing to an independent PBO with timely access to information, making this highly specific and holding the government to its prior public commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, dans le plan du Parti conservateur de 2006, le document dit clairement que c'est un plan pour garantir la transparence de la budgétisation. Il dit créer un Bureau du directeur parlementaire du budget qui serait, et je cite, « indépendant », et qui exigerait des ministres et des organismes fédéraux qu'ils lui fournissent de l'information exacte et opportune. Alors, comment le directeur parlementaire du budget va-t-il au-delà de ses pouvoirs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party's 2006 plan clearly says that the plan is meant to ensure truth in budgeting. It announces the creation of a Parliamentary Budget Office that would be, and I quote, “independent” and that would demand timely and accurate information from federal departments and agencies. So how is the Parliamentary Budget Officer overstepping his mandate?
Harper says his government created the PBO, understands its mandate, and will provide information to parliamentarians through ordinary means.
Harper merely notes that his government created the PBO, says it understands the mandate, and promises information through ordinary means, without addressing how the foreign minister's characterization is consistent with the 2006 platform commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme le note le chef du Parti libéral, c'est ce gouvernement conservateur qui a établi ce bureau. Nous comprenons très bien le mandat de ce bureau. Comme d'habitude, nous donnerons toutes les informations aux parlementaires, en passant par les moyens ordinaires.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Liberal Party noted, it was the Conservative government that established this office. We are more than familiar with this office's mandate. As usual, we will give all the information to parliamentarians through the regular means.
Rae states that the PBO has been requesting information from departments in accordance with the act, consistent with the 2006 Conservative plan, and asks again how this constitutes going beyond his powers.
Rae again anchors his question in the specific act passed by the House and the Conservative Party's 2006 plan promising timely and complete information, asking a clear and direct question about how the PBO is exceeding his powers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the trouble with what has taken place is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has asked for information from departments and he has done so according to the act, which was passed by this House, with respect to giving him powers. The act, if I may say so, is consistent with the Conservative Party plan that it presented to people in 2006 in which it said that information from government departments will be given to the Parliamentary Budget Officer in a timely manner and in a timely manner that is also complete. My question is again for the Prime Minister. How is this going beyond his powers?
Harper says his government established the parliamentary budget office and is familiar with its intended mandate, and that information is given to all parliamentarians on a complete and timely basis through various means.
Harper restates that his government created the PBO and that information is provided on a complete and timely basis, but still does not address the specific legal or platform basis for the claim that the PBO has exceeded his powers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, as the leader of the Liberal Party noted, it was in fact this party, this government, that established the parliamentary budget office, so this government is more than familiar with its intention in terms of the mandate it set up. In terms of specific information, we give information to all parliamentarians on a complete and timely basis. There are a number of means through which we do that and we will continue to do so.
Rae asks whether the government still plans to proceed with an election in fall 2015 given the conflict with several provincial elections, and if the date will change, what it will be changed to.
Rae asks a specific and answerable question about whether the government still plans a fall 2015 election given the conflict with provincial elections, and asks what date it would be changed to.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, another feature of the Conservative plan of 2006 was that there would be something called fixed election dates. The fixed election date now is supposed to be sometime in the fall of 2015. My question is for the Prime Minister. Is it still the government's plan to proceed with an election in the fall of 2015 when there are several provinces that have an election on the same date? If the Prime Minister is going to change the date, could he tell us what he will change it to?
Harper acknowledges the conflict with provincial elections, says the government is consulting with the provinces on how to resolve it, and commits to bringing forward a proposal well before the next election.
Harper directly acknowledges the conflict with provincial elections, confirms the government is consulting with provinces, and commits to bringing forward a proposal well before the next election — a substantive partial answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I did not know the timing of the next election was still a subject in which the leader of the Liberal Party was keenly interested. We have noted, as he has just noted, that the date in law for the next election currently conflicts with several provincial elections that will occur at the same time. We are talking to our friends in the provinces about how to resolve this. I can assure parliamentarians we will bring forward a proposal on this well before the next election.
Leslie asks why the Conservatives are blocking environmental agreements at international negotiations rather than working with partners to promote sustainable development.
Leslie invokes a Fossil award and characterizes the government as blocking negotiations, but the ask — 'leave it to those who are serious' — is vague and more rhetorical than accountable.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la communauté internationale nous pointe encore du doigt pour notre blocage systématique des négociations en matière d'environnement: un nouveau prix Fossile pour un gouvernement conservateur préhistorique. Plutôt que de travailler avec nos partenaires, les conservateurs font tous les efforts pour saboter les accords environnementaux. On peut soit participer et favoriser le développement durable, soit bloquer le progrès. Pourquoi ne pas laisser travailler ceux qui sont sérieux, au lieu de faire du blocage?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the international community is once again accusing us of systematically obstructing environmental negotiations. The stone-age Conservative government has won yet another fossil of the day award. Rather than working with our partners, the Conservatives are doing everything in their power to sabotage environmental agreements. A government can either participate and support sustainable development, or it can block progress. Why not let those who are serious work, instead of blocking them?
Rempel lists domestic environmental programs and says Canada is a world leader in environmental stewardship, dismissing the Fossil award as coming from false organizations.
Rempel lists environmental initiatives unrelated to the international negotiations at issue and dismisses the Fossil award as coming from 'false organizations,' failing to address the substance of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the chemicals management plan, the air quality health index, Technology Development Canada, world leader in corporate social responsibility practices and green accounting practices pioneered here by Statistics Canada, this is the real track record of Canada. This is our environmental track record. We are world leaders in environmental stewardship. We should be taking pride in this instead of taking pride in awards that are presented by false organizations.
Leslie states Canada won the fossil of the year award at the Earth Summit in Rio for watering down language aimed at protecting fisheries and oceans, and asks whether the Conservatives will provide real action on the environment both at home and abroad.
Leslie specifically cites watering down language to protect fisheries and oceans at the Earth Summit in Rio and references the Conservative Trojan Horse budget bill as context, but the ask — 'real action on environment' — remains vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, how can the Conservatives be proud when the international community is calling us out for our inaction? The last time I announced in the House that we had won the fossil of the year award, the Conservatives were foolish enough to applaud. Spoiler alert: it is not a good thing. We did it again. We won this dubious dishonour at the Earth Summit in Rio for watering down language aimed at protecting fisheries and oceans and trouncing on our environmental record with the Conservative Trojan Horse budget bill. Will the Conservatives provide real action on environment both here and abroad?
Rempel says Canada has doubled protected parkland since 1992, invested in Lake Simcoe and Lake Winnipeg, and is seeing stabilization of greenhouse gas emission growth while the economy grows.
Rempel cites greenhouse gas stabilization and protected parkland but does not address the specific accusation about watering down fisheries and oceans language at Rio or the budget bill's environmental provisions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since the last Rio conference in 1992, Canada has doubled its amount of protected parkland in this country. We have cleaned up Lake Simcoe. We have invested in Lake Winnipeg. For the first time we are seeing the stabilization of growth in greenhouse gas emissions while our economy grows. Our government understands that we can have environmental stewardship and economic growth, a principle the NDP does not understand. Our track record speaks for itself. Our environment is in good hands with the Conservative government. I hope the NDP will support our budgetary measures to continue this good work.
Julian cites three recent major oil spills, including a quarter-million-litre spill near Elk Point and a half-million-litre spill into the Red Deer River, and asks whether the Conservatives will stop cutting environmental protection rules for the northern gateway pipeline review.
Julian cites three specific recent oil spills with approximate volumes and locations, grounding the question in recent events and linking them to the northern gateway pipeline review cuts, though the ask is broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the last month has seen many major oil spills in Canada: a quarter of a million-litre oil spill near Elk Point, a half million-litre spill into the Red Deer River threatening the water supply, and, nearly a million litres in northern Alberta. The Conservatives response has been to cut corners on reviewing the northern gateway pipeline. British Columbians and all Canadians want strong rules that protect public health and the environment, and the NDP agrees with them. Will the Conservatives now listen to reason, listen to Canadians and stop gutting environmental protection rules?
Oliver notes the Elk Point pipeline falls under provincial jurisdiction and says the government is doubling verifications, increasing annual inspections by 50%, and imposing penalties on those who break laws.
Oliver addresses the Elk Point spill by noting provincial jurisdiction, then pivots to government pipeline safety measures including doubling verifications and increasing annual inspections by 50%, partially relevant but not addressing the specific northern gateway review cuts.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en ce qui concerne Elk Point, ce pipeline relève de la compétence provinciale. La technologie ne cesse de s'améliorer rendant le transport par pipeline plus sécuritaire. De plus, notre gouvernement prend des mesures concrètes pour améliorer la sécurité des oléoducs. Nous doublons le nombre de vérifications, augmentons le nombre d'inspections annuelles de 50 % et imposons des sanctions à ceux qui enfreignent nos lois. Ce sont des mesures auxquelles se sont opposés les partis de l'opposition.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Elk Point pipeline is under provincial jurisdiction. Technology is improving steadily, making oil pipelines even safer. Our government is taking steps to enhance pipeline safety. We are doubling the number of audits, increasing the number of annual inspections by 50% and penalizing those who break our laws. The opposition parties opposed these measures.
Julian states that more than half of pipeline companies inspected by the National Energy Board lack adequate safety mechanisms, and asks why the government is endangering public health and safety with irresponsible actions including giving cabinet powers to override experts.
Julian raises a specific statistic — more than half of pipeline companies inspected by the National Energy Board lack adequate safety mechanisms — but combines it with rhetorical framing about cabinet overriding experts and chainsaw metaphors.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the Conservatives have actually done is give cabinet special powers, allowing Conservative politicians to override experts and scientists. There are words for this: it is wrong. Les conservateurs ne passent pas seulement la scie à chaîne dans les évaluations, ils sabordent tout le processus. Plus de la moitié des compagnies de pipeline inspectées par l'Office national de l'énergie n'ont pas de mécanismes de sécurité adéquats en place. Au NPD, on croit que les familles canadiennes méritent mieux que ça. Pourquoi le gouvernement met-il en danger la santé et la sécurité de la population? Pourquoi ces actions irresponsables?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement a en fait accordé au Cabinet des pouvoirs spéciaux pour permettre aux politiciens conservateurs de ne pas tenir compte de l'avis des experts et des scientifiques. Il y a un mot pour qualifier cela: inacceptable. The Conservatives are not only using their chainsaws on assessments, they are eviscerating the whole process. Over half of the pipeline companies inspected by the National Energy Board do not have adequate safety mechanisms in place. The NDP believes that Canadian families deserve better. Why is the government putting people's health and safety at risk? Why is it being so irresponsible?
Oliver says the government is investing over $165 million to improve maritime and pipeline protection and that pipeline technology has improved over 50 years, and states no project will go ahead unless it is safe for Canadians.
Oliver cites the $165 million investment in maritime and pipeline protection and lists technological improvements, but does not address the specific statistic about inadequate safety mechanisms at inspected pipeline companies.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, we are increasing environmental protection. We are putting in over $165 million to improve maritime protection and pipeline protection. Pipeline technology has improved over the last 50 years with increased sophistication of leak detection systems, pipeline inspection technology and improvements in pipeline coating technologies. Manufacturing quality control has improved pipeline quality. In addition to that, we are continuing to focus on protection of the environment. No project will go ahead unless it is safe for Canadians.
Donnelly states the Conservative cuts will leave only two marine communication centres to monitor 27,000 kilometres of coastline and will delay response times off Vancouver, the busiest port, and asks whether the government will reverse these Coast Guard cuts.
Donnelly specifies two marine communication centres to monitor 27,000 kilometres of coastline and cites Vancouver as the busiest port, grounding his question in concrete details about the Coast Guard cuts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if members believe that, I have a pipeline for sale. British Columbians are very concerned about the closure of Coast Guard stations on our coast. They understand the Coast Guard is the front line of safety on the ocean, but so far the Conservatives have been deaf to their concerns. Conservative cuts will mean only two marine communication centres to monitor 27,000 kilometres of coastline and delay response times off Vancouver, the busiest port in the country. Will the Conservatives listen to the people of British Columbia and reverse these risky Coast Guard cuts?
Ashfield says the top priority is the safety of mariners, that efficiencies will have no impact on world-class rescue services, and that budget 2012 includes major investments in fleet renewal.
Ashfield says safety is the top priority and claims efficiencies will have no impact on rescue services, but provides no data or specifics to address the 27,000-kilometre coverage gap or delayed response time concerns raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, the top priority of the Canadian Coast Guard is the safety of mariners. Our government is committed to reducing the deficit and has found a fair, balanced and moderate savings to meet these goals. Canadians can be assured that the efficiencies planned will have no impact on the world-class rescue services that Canadians from coast to coast to coast have come to rely on. Our government remains steadfast in supporting the Canadian Coast Guard and that is why we have made major investments in budget 2012 in fleet renewal.
Donnelly asks whether the minister agrees that bureaucrats are responsible for the Coast Guard cuts or whether he will take personal responsibility for the decisions of DFO.
Donnelly asks a pointed accountability question about whether the minister agrees bureaucrats are responsible for the cuts or will take personal responsibility, but surrounds it with partisan rhetoric about the HST and B.C. Conservative MPs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister just does not get it. Perhaps if there were somebody in his caucus who could explain to him the seriousness of this, the minister would understand that these cuts are bad for the west coast. Just like the HST, the Conservatives are imposing changes onto British Columbia without any consultation. The B.C. Conservative MPs end up saying one thing to their constituents while voting a different way here in Ottawa. Does the minister agree that bureaucrats are responsible for these cuts or will he take responsibility for the decisions of DFO?
Ashfield reiterates that efficiencies are being found within the Coast Guard without putting mariners at risk, and states he personally would never put anyone at risk through efficiency gains.
Ashfield repeats that efficiencies are being found and no one is being put at risk, and offers a personal assurance, but does not address whether bureaucrats or the minister bear responsibility for the decisions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my previous answer to the member opposite, we are finding efficiencies within the Coast Guard and we are not putting anybody at risk, certainly not our mariners. This is a top priority of the Canadian Coast Guard and it is something that Canadians want us to do: provide service and save Canadian tax dollars at the same time. We believe we are doing that. I, personally, would never put anybody at risk or in jeopardy through efficiencies gained.
Moore asks the Minister of National Defence to release all documents related to the suicide of Corporal Langridge as requested by the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, so that the family can receive answers.
Moore identifies a specific request — the release of documents related to Corporal Langridge's suicide death as requested by the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission — and uses her personal service as a medical assistant to ground the question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, le ministre de la Défense nationale a rejeté du revers de la main la demande du président de la Commission d'examen des plaintes concernant la police militaire au sujet des documents entourant le décès, par suicide, du caporal Langridge. La famille a droit à des réponses. J'ai servi dans les forces comme adjointe médicale. J'ai vu de mes propres yeux comment la détresse psychologique peut être présente et comment nos troupes sont parfois laissées à elles-mêmes. Le ministre adore parler de son appui envers les troupes. Qu'il en fasse la preuve et qu'il dépose enfin tous les documents.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence totally dismissed a request from the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission regarding documents related to the suicide of Corporal Langridge. The corporal's family has a right to answers. I served in the armed forces as a medical assistant. I saw first-hand how psychological distress can take its toll and how our troops are sometimes left on their own. The minister loves talking about how much he supports the troops. Now he can prove it by handing over all the documents.
MacKay says the government supports the Military Police Complaints Commission, has provided additional funding, and has met with Mrs. Fynes, but accuses the opposition of arguing the case on the floor of the House rather than letting the MPCC do its work.
MacKay mentions additional funding for the MPCC and a meeting with Mrs. Fynes but does not address whether the documents will be released as requested by the MPCC chair, instead deflecting by accusing the opposition of arguing the case in the House.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Military Police Complaints Commission, we are supporting it. We have, in fact, provided additional funding. I have met with Mrs. Fynes on this very tragic case. What is unfortunate is that the member and members of the opposition continue to argue this case on the floor of the House of Commons rather than letting the Military Police Complaints Commission do its important work. We will continue to support that process. In the meantime, we will continue to work toward doubling the number of mental health professionals that we have in the employment of the Canadian Forces. We will continue to support joint personal support units and make investments in the care and well-being of the members of the military and their families. However, the member and her caucus will vote against it.
Why does the minister want to hold back information about Corporal Langridge's case, given the trauma he experienced and the Military Police Complaints Commission chair's request for disclosure?
The question cites specific facts about Corporal Langridge's case — self-admission to hospital, suicide watch denial, the Military Police Complaints Commission chair's request — and asks a clear accountability question about why the minister is withholding information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence made quite a statement yesterday when he said that his own desire to keep information secret trumps the Fynes family's need for closure and the truth and the request from the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission. What Corporal Langridge saw in Afghanistan was so traumatic--
Telephone. Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, what Corporal Langridge saw in Afghanistan was so traumatic that he could not explain it to his family or his therapist. He self-admitted to hospital. He needed to be on suicide watch but he was not given that protection. What is it about this case that makes the minister want to hold back information?
MacKay says the member's claims are untrue, invokes solicitor-client privilege upheld by Mr. Justice LeSage, and accuses the member of selectively quoting sources.
MacKay dismisses the facts as untrue, deflects to solicitor-client privilege and Mr. Justice LeSage's report, and does not address why the specific information is being withheld.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think that was the hon. member's truth calling but he is not answering. None of what he said is actually true. Again, arguing the facts of this case on the floor of the House of Commons is completely inappropriate. Last night I heard his seatmate, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, say that Mr. Justice LeSage understands the military justice system. He is one of the experts in the country. Just this past week, I tabled a report from the same Mr. Justice LeSage. What did he say in the report? He upheld the solemnity of solicitor-client privilege. Why does the hon. member so selectively quote from the Supreme Court and Mr. Justice LeSage?
The chair of the commission is seeking three specific things — legal reasoning for denying suicide watch, who denied next-of-kin status and why, and the rationale behind DND's flawed investigation — so why won't the minister, who has authority to waive privilege, disclose these?
The question is highly specific, enumerating three discrete items the commission chair is seeking — legal reasoning on the suicide watch denial, the decision on next-of-kin status, and DND's investigation rationale — and notes the minister has authority to waive privilege.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that he has the authority to waive it. The chair of the commission is looking for three things: one, the legal reasoning why a suicide watch was not given to Corporal Langridge; two--
Telephone. Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, two, who decided to deny the next-of-kin status to Corporal Langridge's family and why; and three, the rationale behind DND's flawed investigation. What is it about those three things that threatens and scares the minister so much? Do we need to wait for a new minister to be appointed before we get this disclosure?
MacKay reiterates that solicitor-client privilege has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court and accuses Harris of trying to play out the facts of the case in the House before the hearing has reached its conclusions.
MacKay repeats the solicitor-client privilege argument and accuses Harris of wanting to interfere with the public hearing, without addressing any of the three specific items enumerated in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the member is a lawyer. He understands, I am sure, basic law, which is the solicitor–client privilege, which has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court. He knows this is to protect clients, including Canadian Forces members and military police. Why does he not want to have military police be able to avail themselves of the same protections that are so important in our legal system? Why does he want to interfere with a public hearing by playing out the facts of the case before the House of Commons before the hearing has reached its conclusions?
Will the Parliamentary Secretary commit to showing up at the ethics committee to respond to serious allegations of election fraud, or will he step aside?
The question identifies a specific motion at the ethics committee and asks whether Poilievre will appear and support it or step aside, giving it some factual grounding, though it is wrapped in heavy partisan framing about 'Conservative corruption.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is an expert in baseless smears against his opponents. However, when it comes time to take accountability for his own actions, the member disappears. I will be moving a motion tomorrow at the ethics committee to call the parliamentary secretary so he can respond to these very serious allegations of election fraud. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who sits on the ethics committee, commit here and now to showing up and supporting the motion, or will he step aside while this cloud of Conservative corruption hangs over his head?
Poilievre accuses the member of using parliamentary privilege to make unproven and counterfactual allegations without having to prove them, and references the member's failure to repeat his allegations outside the House.
Poilievre does not address whether he will appear at the ethics committee or support the motion, instead attacking the member for using parliamentary privilege to make unproven allegations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we all know why this member wants to drag his smears before a parliamentary committee. It is because there he will have the same privilege that he has here, which is to make any allegations, however unproven and counterfactual, without ever having to prove them. That is a privilege to which most Canadians are not entitled and one he claimed he would give up late last week when he bragged that he was going to run outside and repeat his allegations, something he failed to do.
Will the Prime Minister admit that spending $8 million on advertising for the new OAS plan is hurting low-income soon-to-be seniors?
The question cites a specific spending figure of $8 million for advertising but frames it misleadingly as 'taking $8 million out of the pockets of low-income soon-to-be seniors,' mixing a factual figure with heavy rhetorical distortion about the OAS changes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has launched his OAS pension tax grab, a plan imposing a $30,000 tax on the poorest of the poor. The Prime Minister says he needs this money more than low-income seniors struggling to make ends meet. He says this while spending $8 million to advertise the new plan. Would the Prime Minister please admit that taking $8 million out of the pockets of low-income soon-to-be seniors to print things like boastful brochures is hurting some of Canada's most vulnerable seniors?
Leitch states there will be no reductions in seniors' pensions and that the age of eligibility will gradually be raised from 65 to 67 between 2023 and 2029 to ensure sustainability of OAS.
Leitch addresses the OAS eligibility change with specific figures (age 65 to 67, from 2023 to 2029) and asserts no reductions in seniors' pensions, but does not address the specific $8 million advertising expenditure raised in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again I will state in this House that there will be no reductions in seniors' pensions. In order to ensure the sustainability of OAS, the age of eligibility will gradually be raised from 65 to 67 from 2023 to 2029. Our government is committed to sustainable social programs and a secure retirement for all Canadians.
Given that Conservative MP the member for Nanaimo—Alberni warns that B.C.'s earthquake risk and hovercraft maintenance issues make the Kitsilano Coast Guard base closure dangerous, will the government reverse this decision?
The question cites specific concerns raised by the member for Nanaimo—Alberni — B.C.'s earthquake risk, communication station vulnerability, and hovercraft maintenance issues at Vancouver port — and asks the government to reverse the decision to close the Kitsilano Coast Guard base and three marine communication centres.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Conservative MPs like the member for Nanaimo—Alberni are openly criticizing their government's decision to close the Kitsilano Coast Guard base and three marine communication centres in B.C. He correctly points out that B.C. is prone to regular earthquakes that can shut down communication stations and that maintenance issues with hovercraft will affect the crowded Vancouver port in English Bay. If the government will not listen to this House or to experts, will it at least listen to its own members and reverse this dangerous decision—
Ashfield asserts the changes will not impact the safety of mariners in any way, shape or form, and that Canadian Coast Guard service will continue safely and efficiently, noting significant budget 2012 funding for Coast Guard renewal.
Ashfield gives only a general assurance that the changes will not impact safety and mentions budget 2012 funding for Coast Guard renewal, but does not address the specific concerns about earthquake risk, hovercraft maintenance, or the member for Nanaimo—Alberni's criticism.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the changes that were proposed to move the Canadian Coast Guard would not impact on the safety of mariners in any way, shape or form. As I said before, Canadians can be assured that the service that is provided by the Canadian Coast Guard from coast to coast will continue, as it has in the past, in a safe and efficient manner. I will again mention that we have committed a huge amount of money in budget 2012 for the renewal of the Canadian Coast Guard.
Why did it take two years for Canada to be admitted to the TPP talks, and what exactly did Canada give up to gain admission, given that the U.S. trade office says Canada cannot change anything agreed on by the original nine members?
The question cites specific facts — 12 rounds of TPP negotiations, Canada's exclusion from the 13th round in July, nine rounds of CIDA negotiations — and poses a clear dual ask: why did it take two years to be admitted and what did Canada give up?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government says that the TPP talks are in a preliminary stage. The fact is that there have been 12 rounds of negotiations, and Canada will not be allowed to join the 13th in July. In contrast, the Conservatives claim that the CIDA negotiations are nearing completion, and that is after only nine rounds. The truth is that the TPP talks are well advanced, and the U.S. trade office says that Canada cannot change anything agreed on to date by the original nine members. Will the minister explain why it took two years for Canada to be admitted and what exactly we gave up to do so?
Fast says the Conservative government is focused on economic growth, job creation, and long-term prosperity through expanding trade in Asia-Pacific economies, and urges the member to join in building economic prosperity.
Fast does not address the specific facts about negotiating rounds, Canada's delay in joining, or what was conceded, instead offering only generic statements about economic growth, job creation, and trade as a driver of prosperity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government remains focused on the priorities of Canadians, which are economic growth, job creation and long-term prosperity. That member should understand that trade is a key driver of economic growth, which is why we are so focused on expanding trade in the Asia–Pacific economies. I wish that member would join with us in building economic prosperity, rather than shooting from the sidelines.
Are the Conservatives prepared to say what is currently on the table in the TPP negotiations, given concerns that supply management is being put at risk to gain a seat at the table without any guarantees, veto, or concessions in return?
The question references concrete past examples — bois d'oeuvre and the Buy American clause — and raises the specific concern that supply management is now on the table in TPP negotiations without any guarantee of benefits, veto, or concessions, asking what is currently on the negotiating table.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous sommes en faveur d'accords de libre-échange au bénéfice des Canadiens, mais les conservateurs, eux, sont toujours prêts à sacrifier les intérêts des Canadiens sans rien obtenir en retour. On n'a qu'à penser au bois d'oeuvre ou à la clause Buy American. Les conservateurs mettent maintenant en jeu la gestion de l'offre pour s'asseoir à la table du Partenariat transpacifique sans garantie de retombées, sans veto, sans quoi que ce soit. Les conservateurs sont-ils prêts à nous dire ce qui est maintenant sur la table des négociations?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we support free trade agreements that benefit Canadians. The Conservatives, on the other hand, are always ready to sacrifice the interests of Canadians without getting anything back in return. The buy American clause is a perfect example. Now the Conservatives are jeopardizing supply management in order to join the trans-Pacific partnership without any guarantee of economic spinoffs, any veto power or anything at all. Are the Conservatives prepared to tell us what is on the negotiating table now?
Fast says the NDP has it wrong, that the government will vigorously promote Canadian interests across all sectors seeking a balanced outcome, and criticizes the NDP for voting against every single free trade agreement Canada has ever passed into law.
Fast does not address what is on the negotiating table or the supply management concern, instead accusing the NDP of ideological opposition to trade and listing their votes against free trade agreements.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as usual, the NDP has it all wrong. As with all of our international trade obligations, our government will vigorously promote Canadian interests across all sectors. What we seek is a balanced outcome. That has been the case in every single free trade agreement that Canada has ever signed. Of course, the NDP members are ideologically opposed to trade. In fact, they voted against every single free trade agreement that Canada has ever passed into law. Shame on them.
Why have the Conservatives broken their promises on health care wait times, given the Wait Time Alliance's report showing wait times are rising and the government's funding formula shortchanges provinces and territories by over $30 billion?
The question references the Wait Time Alliance's report and the figure of over $30 billion in shortchanged provincial funding, but combines these with a broad rhetorical charge about broken promises, making the ask somewhat diffuse.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, six years ago the Conservatives promised to reduce health care wait times, but this promise, like so many others, has been broken. The Wait Time Alliance's report shows that wait times are now on the rise. This comes on top of the Conservatives' unilaterally imposed funding formula, which shortchanges provinces and territories by over $30 billion. Can the minister explain why the Conservatives have broken their promises and failed Canadians so miserably on health care?
Aglukkaq says progress has been made with provinces and territories but room for improvement remains, and notes federal health transfer funding is being increased to record levels reaching $40 billion by the end of the decade.
Aglukkaq acknowledges room for improvement and cites the $40 billion federal health transfer figure, but does not directly address the Wait Time Alliance's report findings or the $30 billion shortchanging figure raised in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have made progress working with the provinces and the territories on wait times, but there is obviously still room for improvement in the health care system. To help the provinces and territories make even more improvements, we are increasing the federal health transfer funding to record levels, reaching $40 billion by the end of the decade. More than that, we are investing significantly in health research and innovation that we hope will help people avoid the hospital altogether.
What does the minister plan to do about rising health care wait times, and are the commitments made in the health accords — including home care, long-term care, and cheaper medication — worth the paper they are written on?
The question ties specific health accord commitments — home care, long-term care, cheaper and more accessible medication — to a concrete ask about what the government plans to do about rising health care wait times, giving it reasonable specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that our health system is in need of reforms to provide services such as home care and long-term care and to provide cheaper and more accessible medication, all things that her government committed to in the health accords. Can the minister tell us what she plans on doing now about rising health care wait times, or are her government's commitments made in the health accords not worth the paper they are written on?
Aglukkaq states the government has been working with provinces, increased transfers to $40 billion, and made significant investments in health research, aboriginal suicide prevention, physical activity, tobacco reductions, and diabetes.
Aglukkaq references increased transfers to provinces and lists several investment areas but does not address the specific commitments made in the health accords or provide any concrete plan for addressing rising wait times.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have stated before, we have been working with the provinces. We have increased the transfers to the provinces, which the Liberal Party cut back in the day. The $40 billion will be invested in areas of priority by the provinces and territories. In addition to that, we have made significant investments in areas of health research, aboriginal suicide prevention, physical activity, tobacco reductions, diabetes and much more.
Would the minister comment on the vandalism of 11 headstones in a Belgian war cemetery, including that of Canadian Second World War pilot Joseph Beasley?
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to comment on the vandalism of 11 headstones in a Belgian war cemetery, including that of Canadian Second World War pilot Joseph Beasley, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is truly important that we seek to remember and commemorate those who have fought and died in the service of Canada. They made the ultimate sacrifice, and we owe them a debt that cannot be repaid. I was shocked and dismayed to hear that 11 headstones were vandalized in a war cemetery in Belgium. The vandalized graves included the headstone of Canadian Second World War pilot Joseph Beasley. Would the minister please comment on this senseless and shameful act of vandalism?
Blaney calls the vandalism unacceptable, praises the member's private member's bill to protect war memorials, and confirms he has instructed officials to ensure repairs are and will be made.
Blaney praises the member's private member's bill protecting war memorials, states that acts of heartless vandalism are unacceptable, and confirms he has instructed officials to ensure repairs are made, providing a concrete response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to praise the hard work of the member for Dufferin—Caledon for bringing a private member's bill in this House so that every member can support a bill that will support and protect war memorials and the memory of our brave Canadians. Regarding what happened in Belgium, acts of heartless vandalism against the graves of our fallen heroes are truly unacceptable. That is why I have instructed my officials to make sure that repairs are and will be made. Nous nous souviendrons d'eux.
On World Refugee Day, will the minister reverse the cuts that will leave some pregnant refugee claimants with no prenatal or obstetrical care as of July 1?
The question raises a specific date (July 1), a specific affected group (pregnant refugee claimants without prenatal or obstetrical care), and an occasion (World Refugee Day) to ground the ask, though the framing is emotionally charged.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada Day is coming up, but it will not be a happy one for many refugees who lose their health care coverage on July 1. After that date, some pregnant women who arrive in Canada as refugee claimants will have no prenatal or obstetrical care at all. Where does the minister expect these women to give birth? Today, on World Refugee Day, will the minister reverse these reckless and short-sighted cuts?
Kenney says resettled refugees and the vast majority of asylum claimants will receive care, but argues that failed and false asylum claimants should not continue receiving federally funded health benefits including supplementary benefits unavailable to taxpaying Canadians.
Kenney asserts that resettled refugees and the vast majority of asylum claimants will still receive care, but pivots to arguing against coverage for failed and false asylum claimants rather than addressing the specific case of pregnant women arriving as refugee claimants losing prenatal care.
Source text
In fact, Mr. Speaker, after these changes, all of the re-established refugees whom we welcome and the vast majority of asylum claimants would receive that kind of care. However, it seems to be the NDP's position that even failed and false asylum claimants who have had the benefit of due process, whose claims have been rejected by our fair legal system and who want to stay in Canada illegally for several years should continue receiving federally funded health benefits, including supplementary benefits that are not available to taxpaying Canadians, and we fundamentally disagree.
Will the minister deny essential medicine — specifically epilepsy medication — to refugee children in Canada as of July 1?
The question cites the specific example of a refugee child suffering from epilepsy losing medication as of July 1 and the concrete impact of seizures in classrooms, making a specific ask about denying essential medicine to children.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, those comments are so misleading and so callous. These cuts will harm the most vulnerable. A refugee child suffering from epilepsy in Canada will no longer get medication as of July 1. As a teacher, I can say that when a child has seizures in the classroom, it affects the learning environment of every single child. What does the minister have to say to the parents of these children? Will the minister deny essential medicine to children in Canada?
Kenney states that resettled refugees and the vast majority of asylum claimants will continue to receive comprehensive medically necessary care, and that only supplementary benefits such as dental care and glasses not available to Canadians through their taxpayer-funded system will be removed.
Kenney addresses the scope of care maintained for resettled refugees and most asylum claimants and specifies that only supplementary benefits such as dental care and glasses are being removed, but does not address the specific case of epilepsy medication for children.
Source text
Once again, Mr. Speaker, all resettled refugees and the vast majority of asylum claimants will continue to receive comprehensive medically necessary care, the same kind of care that is available to all Canadian residents and citizens through their tax-funded provincial health systems. We will, however, remove supplementary benefits, such as dental care and glasses, that are not available to Canadians through their taxpayer-funded system, and we will not continue to give federal health insurance to rejected failed asylum claimants who, after all, have lost the privilege of remaining in Canada.
Will the Conservatives reverse their decision to cut health care access for refugees, given that women with post-traumatic syndrome will lose antidepressants or psychiatric treatment and newly arrived mothers and children will be ineligible for care?
The question uses specific examples — a woman with post-traumatic syndrome denied antidepressants or psychiatric care, and a newly arrived mother and child — to ground the ask about reversing the refugee health care cuts, though the framing is emotionally driven.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, à la fin du mois, plusieurs réfugiés vont perdre leur accès à des soins de santé. Comment pouvons-nous dire à une femme qui souffre de syndrome post-traumatique qu'elle ne peut plus recevoir d'antidépresseurs ou voir un psychiatre pour recevoir un traitement? Comment pouvons-nous dire à une mère récemment arrivée au pays pour fuir le danger et la guerre que ni elle ni son enfant ne sont admissibles à des soins? Les conservateurs vont-ils revenir sur leur décision de couper l'accès aux soins de santé aux réfugiés?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, at the end of the month, many refugees will lose their access to health care. How can we tell a woman who is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder that she can no longer get anti-depressants or see a psychiatrist for treatment? How can we tell a mother who has recently come to Canada to flee danger and war that she and her child are not eligible for care? Will the Conservatives reverse their decision to cut access to health care for refugees?
Kenney says all resettled refugees and the vast majority of asylum claimants will continue to receive basic health insurance for all services available under provincial programs, but supplementary coverage not available to Canadian taxpayers will be eliminated, as will health insurance for rejected asylum claimants.
Kenney directly addresses the scope of coverage maintained for resettled refugees and the majority of asylum claimants, clarifies that supplementary coverage not available to Canadian taxpayers will be eliminated, and states that health insurance for rejected asylum claimants will end, though without addressing the psychiatric care example specifically.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, tous les réfugiés réétablis, soit la grande majorité des demandeurs d'asile, vont continuer de recevoir l'assurance-maladie de base pour tous les services disponibles sous les programmes provinciaux. Toutefois, on va éliminer la couverture de certaines assurances supplémentaires qui ne sont pas disponibles pour les contribuables canadiens. De plus, on va terminer l'assurance-maladie pour les demandeurs d'asile déboutés qui ont perdu le privilège de rester au Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, all resettled refugees, or the vast majority of asylum seekers, will continue to receive basic medicare for all the services available under the provincial programs. Nonetheless, we are eliminating coverage for some of the supplementary insurance that is not available to Canadian taxpayers. What is more, we are ending medicare for failed asylum claimants who have lost the privilege of staying in Canada.
When will the Conservatives stop their attacks on refugees and implement a system that is both effective and fair, given that the Haut Commissariat de l'ONU pour les réfugiés is sounding the alarm about the Conservative mandatory detention policy?
The question references the Haut Commissariat de l'ONU pour les réfugiés sounding the alarm on the Conservatives' mandatory detention policy, but the ask — when will the Conservatives stop their attacks on refugees and implement a system that is both effective and fair — is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, par le passé, le Canada était souvent cité en exemple comme étant un pays avec un système d'immigration équilibré offrant un refuge pour ceux et celles fuyant la guerre, les menaces et la souffrance. Maintenant, le Haut Commissariat de l'ONU pour les réfugiés sonne l'alarme sur la politique des conservateurs relative à la détention obligatoire des réfugiés. Quand les conservateurs vont-ils enfin arrêter leurs attaques contre les réfugiés et mettre en place un système qui est à la fois efficace et juste?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in the past, Canada was often cited as an example of a country with a balanced immigration system offering refuge to those fleeing from war, threats and suffering. Now, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees is raising concerns about the Conservatives' policy on mandatory detention of refugees. When will the Conservatives' stop attacking refugees and establish a fair and efficient system?
Kenney says Canada accepts one in ten resettled refugees worldwide, accepts more resettled refugees per capita than any other developed country, and has increased resettled refugee numbers and refugee assistance program funding by 20%.
Kenney disputes the framing by citing Canada's per capita resettlement rate as the highest among developed countries and notes a 20% increase in resettled refugees and refugee assistance program funding, but does not address the UNHCR's specific concerns about mandatory detention.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le NPD s'attaque toujours à la générosité du Canada. Le fait est que notre pays accepte un réfugié rétabli sur dix à l'échelle mondiale. Le Canada accepte per capita plus de réfugiés rétablis que n'importe quel autre pays développé du monde. Ce gouvernement augmente le nombre de réfugiés rétablis de 20 % et augmente aussi l'assistance au programme d'aide des réfugiés de 20 %. Le Canada fait plus que n'importe quel autre pays développé pour aider les réfugiés et leur donner une protection.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the NDP is always attacking Canada's generosity. The fact is that our country accepts one out of every ten refugees resettled globally. Canada accepts more resettled refugees per capita than any other developed country in the world. This government is accepting 20% more resettled refugees and is also increasing funding for the assistance program by 20%. Canada is doing more than any other developed country to help and to protect refugees.
Given the OECD report released yesterday found that Canada lacks a clear and consistent vision for development aid, will the Prime Minister admit he has no strategy for overseas development assistance and when will he fire the minister?
The question references the OECD report released yesterday and its finding that Canada lacks a clear and consistent vision for development aid, but combines this with a call to fire the minister, making the ask compound and partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the OECD released a report on Canada's international aid program. The report raised concerns that Canada lacks a clear and consistent vision for development aid. This shows a total lack of leadership and direction from the very top. The Prime Minister likes to lecture the world on how to handle its finances. When will the Prime Minister admit that he has no strategy for Canada's overseas development assistance and when will he fire the minister, who should have no confidence in the House?
Oda says the OECD report also found Canada to be a more concentrated and effective donor, praised its untied aid that delivers 30% more food to those in need, and recognized that Canada met its commitments by doubling international assistance and its commitment to Africa, resulting in 8,000 farmers receiving 3% more income.
Oda directly engages with the OECD report, citing specific findings that praise Canada — including being a more concentrated and effective donor, untied aid providing 30% more food, and meeting commitments by doubling international assistance and commitment to Africa — and provides a specific result figure of 8,000 farmers receiving 3% more income.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in fact, the report also said that Canada was a more concentrated donor than it was previously and thus a more effective one. It also praises Canada for its international aid programs. It untied its aid, which means there is 30% more food getting to the people who need it. It also recognized that we met our commitments. We doubled our international assistance and we doubled our commitment to Africa. This means we are getting results. It means that 8,000 farmers are now receiving 3% more income for their families in Africa.
Given the deteriorating cairn on Walpole Island First Nation containing the remains of Chief Tecumseh, what will it take for the government to work with the chief and council to fix it, given all the money being spent to mark the War of 1812?
The question is grounded in a specific, observable fact — the deteriorating cairn on Walpole Island First Nation containing the remains of Chief Tecumseh — and asks a clear, actionable question about government cooperation with the chief and council.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first nations and Métis served honourably during the War of 1812. Their invaluable role in that conflict should receive appropriate gratitude and celebration. On the Walpole Island First Nation, there is a cairn containing the remains of Chief Tecumseh. The mortar is falling out from between the stones. There is no picture. There is no story of how he fought for Canada and died. With all the government is spending to mark the War of 1812, what will it take for it to work with the chief and council to fix this?
The minister agrees that those who served in the War of 1812 deserve respect, states that substantial money has been set aside for such markers, and says the government is looking across the country for projects like this one.
The minister expresses agreement and gestures toward existing spending and a national search for projects, but does not address the specific cairn or commit to any action regarding Walpole Island First Nation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first, I agree with the member opposite that the House and our country are indeed very proud of those who served and fought in the War of 1812. It was the fight for Canada. We have set aside a substantial amount of money to ensure that these kinds of markers of our past are shown due respect and are recognized. It is unfortunate that opposition parties have attacked our government for doing exactly what the member suggests we ought to be doing. We are going across the country, looking for projects around the country, like this one, to ensure that those who served and fought in the fight for Canada, the War of 1812, get the respect they are indeed due.
How will Conservative members justify the harmful EI changes to their constituents, given the negative impact on youth, minorities, people with disabilities, temporary foreign workers, and seasonal workers?
The question lists several groups allegedly harmed by EI changes but the ask — how will Conservatives justify the changes — is rhetorical and not specifically answerable with facts or policy detail.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the Conservatives put the finishing on their irresponsible changes to employment insurance, I would like to remind Conservative members across the aisle about our youth, minorities, people with disabilities, temporary foreign workers and seasonal workers. These are all hard-working Canadians who will be hurt this summer by the changes to EI. My question is simple. As the Conservatives head back to their ridings, how will they justify these harmful changes to their constituents?
The parliamentary secretary says constituents in her riding of Simcoe—Grey are delighted with the changes and that the government's top priority is economic growth and getting Canadians back to work.
The parliamentary secretary pivots to her own riding's approval of the changes and repeats general economic talking points about skills shortages, not addressing the specific groups or harms cited in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the individuals who live in my riding of Simcoe—Grey are delighted with these changes. Our government's top priority is economic growth and getting Canadians back to work. The government is making improvements to the employment insurance system to ensure a fair system that continues to meet the needs of Canadians and is responsive to local needs and local market demands. As we face unprecedented skills shortages across the country, it is critical that we work directly to help Canadians find the jobs they need.
Why are the Conservatives attacking businesses that drive the economic vitality of the Shefford region, given that the tourism industry there is worried about finding qualified seasonal staff under the EI reforms?
The question references a specific regional impact — the tourism industry in Shefford facing difficulty finding qualified seasonal staff — but frames the ask in rhetorical terms about 'attacking' businesses rather than seeking a concrete policy response.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le seul plan qu'ils ont, c'est de diminuer les salaires de tous les travailleurs. Les réformes bâclées des conservateurs en matière d'assurance-emploi ne passent pas. L'industrie touristique de Shefford s'inquiète des conséquences de l'attaque des conservateurs contre les travailleurs saisonniers. Compte tenu de ces mesures irresponsables, il sera difficile de trouver du personnel qualifié pour la saison touristique. Pourquoi les conservateurs attaquent-ils les entreprises qui assurent le dynamisme économique de ma région?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the only plan they have is to lower all workers' wages. The Conservatives' botched reform of the employment insurance program is unacceptable. The Shefford tourism industry is worried about the consequences of the Conservatives' attacks on seasonal workers. These irresponsible measures will make it difficult to find qualified staff for the tourist season. Why are the Conservatives attacking the businesses that drive the economic vitality of my region?
The parliamentary secretary states that people running seasonal industries in her riding of Simcoe—Grey are delighted with the changes and cites 700,000 net new jobs created through economic action plan 2012 and previous plans.
The parliamentary secretary again cites her own riding of Simcoe—Grey and repeats the 700,000 net new jobs figure without addressing the tourism industry of Shefford or the seasonal worker concern raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Simcoe—Grey, the people who are running seasonal industries are delighted with these changes, because it means they will have people to work in their local industries. Our government's top priority is the economy. That is why, through economic action plan 2012 and previous plans, we have created 700,000 net new jobs in the country. We have done a great job creating jobs. I encourage the members opposite to support our plan to create jobs in our country.
Could the President of the Treasury Board outline the changes implemented so that prior service of troops is honoured when they move to the public sector regarding vacation leave entitlement?
This is a government-backbench softball setup framed with a partisan attack on the Liberals' 'decade of darkness,' asking the President of the Treasury Board to outline changes already implemented.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the record of our government is proud and clear. We stand up tall for our troops. After the decade of darkness when the Liberals were in power, this government has taken unprecedented action at home and abroad to ensure that our troops can serve with dignity. This is especially true with reference to forces members who move to the public sector and their rightful claims to vacation leave entitlement. Could the President of the Treasury Board outline for the House the changes that have been implemented so prior service of troops is honoured when they move to the public sector?
The President of the Treasury Board announces that the government has moved ahead with changes to recognize prior years of service of former Canadian Forces members who join the Public Service for the purposes of calculating vacation leave, with details available at www.tbs-sct.gc.ca.
The President of the Treasury Board provides a substantive, specific answer: changes have been made to recognize prior years of service of former Canadian Forces members joining the Public Service for vacation leave calculation purposes, with details available at a named website.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first, let me honour the hon. member who has done such a great job in his advocacy role for the brave women and men in uniform who put their lives on the line for our country. In recognition of this and following up our budget 2012, our economic action plan commitment, I am pleased to announce that the government has moved ahead with changes to recognize prior years of service of former members of the Canadian Forces who join the Public Service of Canada for the purposes of calculating vacation leave. Details are available at www.tbs-sct.gc.ca. Our government will always stand by our women and men who have served their country in our military.
Does the minister's review of Glencore's $7 billion foreign takeover of Viterra include examination of Glencore's controversial past behaviour, will a bond be posted to guarantee promises about a Regina headquarters and $100 million in new investment, and how will anti-competitive behaviour in the farm input supply business be prevented?
The question is highly specific, citing the $7 billion Glencore-Viterra deal and asking three distinct, concrete questions: whether Glencore's past behaviour is under review, whether a bond will be posted to guarantee commitments, and how anti-competitive behaviour in farm input supply will be prevented.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has extended the time for reviewing Glencore's foreign takeover of Viterra. This is a $7 billion deal involving Canada's biggest grain company. Does the minister's review include an examination of Glencore's controversial past behaviour? Will a bond be posted to guarantee Glencore's promises about a Regina regional headquarters and $100 million in new investment? How will the government exactly prevent anti-competitive behaviour in the farm input supply business?
The minister notes the takeover was overwhelmingly accepted by Viterra shareholders, says the process follows the same protocol as when the Liberals were in government, and refers competition concerns to the Competition Bureau.
The minister notes that shareholders accepted the deal, deflects to the Competition Bureau for competition issues, and tells the member to follow standard protocol, without addressing the bond, Glencore's past behaviour review, or the farm input supply concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Glencore takeover was overwhelmingly accepted by the Viterra shareholders. It has gone to industry. The member opposite, spending all those years in government, should know the protocol that is involved. It is exactly the same as it was when he was there. As it comes to the competition side, it is the Competition Bureau that takes a separate look at it. We are looking forward to those results as well.
Why is the government raising the age of eligibility for Old Age Security, which the member characterizes as stealing the bread from the mouths of the most vulnerable seniors who have worked all their lives?
The question characterizes the OAS eligibility age change as 'stealing' from seniors, which is highly rhetorical framing, and the ask — 'why steal from seniors rather than help them' — is more partisan attack than a genuine policy question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en repoussant l'âge d'admissibilité à la Sécurité de la vieillesse, les conservateurs ont lancé une attaque de front contre les aînés les plus vulnérables de notre société. Des milliers de gens qui ont travaillé toute leur vie vont voir les conservateurs leur enlever le pain de la bouche au moment où ils ont le plus besoin d'aide. C'est inacceptable de voler les aînés de la sorte. Pourquoi voler les aînés plutôt que les aider?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, by increasing the eligibility age for old age security, the Conservatives have launched a direct attack on our society's most vulnerable seniors. The Conservatives will be stealing food from the mouths of thousands of people who have worked their entire lives, just when they need help the most. It is unacceptable to steal from seniors like this. Why steal from seniors instead of helping them?
The parliamentary secretary states that seniors benefits will not be reduced and that the age of eligibility will be gradually increased from 65 to 67 between 2023 and 2029 to maintain the sustainability of OAS.
The parliamentary secretary provides the specific policy detail: the age of eligibility will be gradually increased from 65 to 67 between 2023 and 2029 to maintain OAS sustainability, and clarifies that seniors benefits will not be reduced.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned before in the House, seniors benefits will not be reduced. In order to maintain the sustainability of OAS, the age of eligibility will be gradually increased from 65 to 67, from 2023 to 2029. We are focused on ensuring that social programs in our country are sustainable, unlike the opposition.
How is the government assisting Canadian athletes as they train for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in London?
This is a government-backbench softball asking the Minister of State for Sport to tell the House how the government is assisting athletes training for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is proud to support Canada's athletes and all those who benefit from the Canadian sports system. We have also supported the hosting of national and international sporting events, including the Canada Games and the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics. Soon our athletes will travel to London to take on the world at the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Could the Minister of State for Sport please tell the House how our government is assisting our athletes as they train for these prestigious events?
The minister states the government is continuing its record level support for the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic committees, national sports organizations, and Own the Podium so athletes can reach the podium.
The minister mentions continued support for the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic committees, national sports organizations, and Own the Podium, but provides no specific figures or details about the nature or level of assistance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think I speak for everyone in the House when I say that Canada's athletes are a source of pride and inspiration for all Canadians across the country. That is why we are proud to continue our record level support for the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic committees and the national sports organization, Own the Podium, so that our athletes can reach the podium at every opportunity. I encourage all Canadians to join together this summer to support our athletes as they take on the world's best in London. Let's go, Canada.
Is the Sherbrooke airport still an important infrastructure project for the Conservative government, given that the Prime Minister himself acknowledged its importance during his April visit to Sherbrooke but the government has remained silent since?
The question identifies a specific infrastructure project — the Sherbrooke regional airport — cites the Prime Minister's own visit and acknowledgment of the project's importance in April, and asks whether it remains an important infrastructure project for the government.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les conservateurs ont délaissé les régions dans leur plus récent budget. Ma circonscription a un besoin criant d'infrastructures, et notamment d'un aéroport régional fonctionnel pour aider son développement économique, pour créer des emplois et conserver ceux qui existent déjà. En avril dernier, lors de sa visite à Sherbrooke pour se faire prendre en photo, le premier ministre lui-même a reconnu l'importance de ce projet pour notre région. Pourtant, les conservateurs restent muets depuis ce temps. L'aéroport de Sherbrooke est-il toujours un projet d'infrastructure important pour ce gouvernement conservateur?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in their most recent budget, the Conservatives have abandoned the regions. My riding has a desperate need for infrastructure, particularly an operational regional airport, to help its economic development, create jobs and maintain existing jobs. In April, when he visited Sherbrooke for a photo op, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged the importance of this project for our region, yet, the Conservatives have remained silent since that time. Is the Sherbrooke airport still an important infrastructure project for the Conservative government?
The minister states that the City of Sherbrooke is the owner and promoter of the file, that the government will not substitute itself for local decision-makers, and that the government will follow the file and support local stakeholders when called upon.
The minister clarifies that the City of Sherbrooke is the owner and promoter of the file and that the government will not substitute itself for local decision-makers, but does not confirm or deny government funding support or next steps.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai le plaisir de faire le tour du Québec régulièrement pour annoncer partout au Québec des projets soutenus par ce gouvernement concernant le développement économique. Bien sûr, le NPD ne comprend pas ce que signifient les compétences puisqu'il n'est jamais à l'intérieur. C'est la Ville de Sherbrooke qui est propriétaire et qui est le promoteur de ce dossier. Le NPD voudrait encore une fois qu'on se substitue aux gens du milieu pour prendre leurs décisions. Bien au contraire, nous soutiendrons les gens du milieu. M. le premier ministre a dit que c'était un dossier important pour nous, nous allons le suivre, mais comme nous n'en sommes pas les promoteurs, nous allons attendre qu'on nous interpelle.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tour Quebec on regular basis to announce economic development projects supported by this government throughout the province. Of course, the NDP does not understand what jurisdiction means because they never act within it. The City of Sherbrooke is the owner and developer in this case. The NDP once again wants us to take the place of people in the community and make decisions for them. Instead, we will support the people of the community. The Prime Minister has said that this is an important file for us and that we are going to monitor it, but since we are not the developers, we are going to wait until we are called upon.
Why is the government giving the new vessel built specifically for the needs of researchers at the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne in Mont-Joli to Newfoundland and Labrador, after having promised in 2009 that it would replace the old ship dedicated to that institute?
The question is specific: it cites a 2009 promise to replace the vessel dedicated to the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne, alleges the new vessel is being redirected to Newfoundland and Labrador despite being built for Quebec researchers' needs, and asks why.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les conservateurs ont encore une fois monté un bateau au Québec. Alors qu'ils promettaient en 2009 que le vieux navire dédié à l'Institut Maurice-Lamontagne allait être remplacé par un nouveau bateau adapté à ses besoins, voici qu'ils font marche arrière et privent les scientifiques du centre de recherche de Mont-Joli du navire flambant neuf qui allait leur être livré prochainement. Le bateau ira plutôt à Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador, même s'il a été construit pour les besoins particuliers des chercheurs québécois. Pourquoi le gouvernement donne-t-il ce bateau à Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador, alors qu'il était prévu pour le Québec? Pensait-il vraiment que cette décision ne ferait aucune vague?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have once again been sailing under false colours in Quebec. Even though they promised in 2009 that the old ship dedicated to the Maurice Lamontagne Institute would be replaced by a new ship adapted to the Institute's needs, the Conservatives have now changed their minds. Scientists at this Mont-Joli research centre will no longer be getting the brand new ship they were promised. The ship will instead go to Newfoundland and Labrador, even though it was built to the specifications of the Quebec researchers. Why is the government giving this ship to Newfoundland and Labrador, when it was destined for Quebec? Did it really think that this decision would not make any waves?
The minister states that the government has made major investments in the Canadian Coast Guard, that fleet renewal is a priority in budget 2012, and that the Canadian Coast Guard and its science boats are an important part of the government's business.
The minister speaks only in generalities about major investments in the Canadian Coast Guard and fleet renewal through budget 2012, without addressing the specific vessel, the 2009 promise, the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne, or the allegation of reallocation to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have made major investments in the Canadian Coast Guard and continue to do so. We are renewing our fleet. In part of our budget 2012, it is very clear that we set that as a priority to renew the fleet of the Canadian Coast Guard. We are moving forward and will continue to do so. The Canadian Coast Guard is an important part of our business, as well as the science boats that are involved through the Coast Guard network.