Session overview
- Employment dominated Question Period, with NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair pressing the government on how bringing in more temporary foreign workers helps unemployed Canadians, and on EI reforms that he argued force workers to accept 30% pay cuts.
- The proposed CNOOC takeover of Nexen drew repeated NDP and Green Party questions about environmental records, oil spills, public consultation, the definition of 'net benefit to Canada,' and the fine print of a CanadaâChina investment deal signed September 8; the Minister of Industry gave no substantive answers.
- Aboriginal affairs featured prominently: NDP members challenged the government on the residential schools compensation deadline, a reported 16,000 backlogged claims, and across-the-board cuts to core funding for First Nations and MĂ©tis organizations, including an 80% cut to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.
- The Minister of National Revenue apologized on the floor of the House for a Canada Revenue Agency calculation error that deprived thousands of single-parent families of children's benefits, and announced she had asked the Taxpayers' Ombudsman to investigate.
- The government confirmed Canada would no longer oppose the inclusion of chrysotile on Annex 3 of the Rotterdam Convention, and announced a $50 million diversification fund for affected workers and regions.
- A CRA error shortchanging single-parent families, cuts to coast guard services, housing co-op mortgage penalties, youth unemployment at 15%, and the deportation of war resister Kimberly Rivera were among several additional issues that received no substantive government response.
Minister Gail Shea confirmed the CRA calculation error, offered a sincere apology to affected single-parent families, and made a specific commitment that the CRA itself would also apologize and that the situation would be resolved as soon as possible â the clearest concrete admission and commitment of the session.
Highly specific: names Corporal Stuart Langridge, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the $10,000 error on the death certificate, and asks three concrete things â apology, documents, and expense assistance.
Peter Julian asked specifically who the minister was consulting other than company lobbyists, why there were no public consultations, and how 'net benefit to Canada' would be defined for the CNOOC-Nexen deal; Paradis responded only that each transaction would be 'scrutinized very closely' and attacked NDP trade policy, addressing none of the three specific questions.
Outstanding questions
- Elizabeth May (SaanichâGulf Islands) asked when the public would see the fine print of the CanadaâChina investment deal signed September 8, and whether it would be released before the NexenâCNOOC decision â no answer was given.
- Jean Crowder (NanaimoâCowichan) asked whether the minister would extend the residential schools compensation deadline to cope with the last-minute rush and clear the reported 16,000 backlogged claims â the parliamentary secretary did not address either request.
- Niki Ashton (Churchill) asked when the government would reinstate funding to AMC, MKO, MMF, and other aboriginal organizations, and specifically whether cutting 80% of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs' budget while that body was leading calls for action on missing and murdered aboriginal women was intentional â no answer was given.
- Thomas Mulcair asked precisely how bringing in more temporary foreign workers and paying them up to 15% less than Canadian workers helps unemployed Canadians find jobs â the government responded only with job-creation statistics and carbon-tax attacks, never addressing the wage differential.
- Jinny Jogindera Sims (NewtonâNorth Delta) asked whether the minister would use humanitarian and compassionate grounds to allow Kimberly Rivera to remain in Canada rather than proceed with her deportation scheduled for the following day â the parliamentary secretary did not address the humanitarian and compassionate question at all.
Mulcair asks the Prime Minister to explain precisely how bringing in more temporary foreign workers will help unemployed Canadians find jobs.
The question references the prior day's exchange and poses a specific causal challenge about temporary foreign workers and unemployed Canadians, but it is somewhat rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister what his government was doing to help the unemployed. The Prime Minister's answer was to bring in more temporary foreign workers. Could the Prime Minister tell us exactly how bringing in more temporary foreign workers will help unemployed Canadians find jobs? Le premier ministre peut-il nous dire précisément comment le fait de laisser entrer plus de travailleurs étrangers temporaires peut aider les chÎmeurs canadiens à trouver un emploi?
Van Loan cites 770,000 net new jobs and attributes them to Conservative policies, then attacks the NDP's proposed carbon tax.
Van Loan pivots entirely to the 770,000 net new jobs figure and attacks the NDP carbon tax, never addressing how temporary foreign workers help unemployed Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our approach has been to help the unemployed by creating jobs. In fact, notwithstanding a very fragile global economy, Canada has actually been leading the developed economies with the strongest job-creation record: 770,000 net new jobs. That is 770,000 people who did not have a job, who have a job since the economic downturn, thanks to the policies of our Minister of Finance, our Prime Minister and this Conservative government, focused on job creation, economic growth, not job-killing carbon taxes proposed by the NDP.
Mulcair cites 300,000 more unemployed than before the 2008 recession and the rule allowing temporary foreign workers to be paid 15% less, asking if the government's message to the unemployed is to work for less or be replaced.
Mulcair grounds the question in a specific statistic (300,000 more unemployed than before 2008) and cites a concrete policy detail (the 15% pay differential for temporary foreign workers), making a pointed accountability challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are still over 300,000 more people unemployed today than before the 2008 recession. That is the fact. How will bringing in more temporary foreign workers help the unemployed in Canada? We wanted to help Canadians who are unemployed. The government is obviously helping the unemployed in another country. The Conservatives have changed the rules to make it legal to pay temporary foreign workers up to 15% less than Canadian workers doing the same job. Is that their message to the unemployed, âWork for less or we will bring in someone to replace you?â
Van Loan says the government's policies give preference to Canadians in immigration, then accuses the NDP of opposing job creation and proposes a $20 billion carbon tax.
Van Loan vaguely references preference for Canadians in immigration policy changes but never addresses the 15% wage differential or the 300,000 unemployment figure, pivoting to carbon tax attacks.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, our policies aim to create more jobs for Canadians. That is why we have brought in changes to our immigration policy that will actually put a preference on giving jobs to Canadians to see that Canadians get those jobs first. We want to see that happen. Those are changes New Democrats oppose because they do not support that kind of measure to help Canadian job creation in the same way they do not support our low-tax plan for jobs and growth. That is why they have proposed an over $20 billion carbon tax that would devastate our Canadian economy, hurt Canadian families in the pocketbook where it matters and bring the Canadian economy to its knees. We cannot afford those kinds of reckless NDP policies.
Mulcair asks whether the Conservative EI reform â which would force a legal secretary earning $37,000 to accept any job paying at least $12.95 an hour or lose EI â represents the government's plan for helping the unemployed.
Mulcair uses a specific concrete example â a legal secretary in Calgary earning just over $37,000 being forced to accept a job at $12.95 an hour â to illustrate the real-world impact of a 30% EI pay-cut rule, grounding the question in identifiable policy detail.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. Consider the Conservative plan to cut employment insurance. From now on Canadians will have to choose: take a 30% permanent pay cut or be kicked off EI. That means a legal secretary in Calgary, making a little over $37,000 a year, will be forced to take any job that comes along paying at least $12.95 an hour. That is what a 30% pay cut translates to in the real world. Is that the Conservative plan for helping the unemployed?
Oh, oh!
Van Loan says the government believes Canadians prefer jobs over EI, accuses the NDP of creating incentives for unemployment, and begins reading cap-and-trade revenue figures from the NDP's 2011 platform.
Van Loan does not address the 30% pay-cut scenario or the Calgary legal secretary example, instead pivoting to attacking the NDP's cap-and-trade revenues and reading from a platform document.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government's policies are very simple. We believe Canadians prefer to have a job and do not prefer to be on employment insurance. I know the NDP thinks it is better to create incentives for people to be unemployed. We believe it is better to create incentives and opportunity for people to work. That is exactly what our policies do. The problem is he will not address what he will do to kill jobs in Canada. He pretends it is not there, but it is here in black and white. It is called the âNew Democratic Platform 2011â and it says a total expenditureâsorry, âGreen Job Creationââsorry, âCap and Trade Revenues By Yearâ, $21.5 billionâ
Mulcair asks if the Conservatives understand the impact their EI changes would have on families, using the example of a financial officer at a Montreal caisse populaire who would be forced to accept work at $10.85 an hour or lose benefits.
Mulcair provides a second concrete example â a financial officer at a Montreal caisse populaire earning $31,000 forced to accept work at $10.85 an hour â making the policy impact tangible and the ask clear.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the other side very much for reminding Canadians about our plan to create green jobs. Parlons de leur plan pour les chÎmeurs. Un agent financier qui travaille pour une Caisse populaire de Montréal et qui gagne 31 000 $ par année serait obligé d'accepter le premier emploi qui se présente à 10,85 $ l'heure, sinon il perdrait son chÎmage. C'est ça, une coupe de 30 %. Les conservateurs sont-ils capables de comprendre l'effet que cela aurait sur les familles? Est-ce qu'ils n'ont rien que cela à offrir aux chÎmeurs du Canada?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, je remercie beaucoup les députés d'en face de rappeler aux Canadiens notre plan de création d'emplois verts. Let us consider the Conservative plan for unemployed workers. A financial officer who works at a credit union in Montreal and earns $31,000 a year will have to take the first job that comes along that pays at least $10.85 an hour or he will lose his employment insurance benefits. That is what a 30% pay cut translates to. Are the Conservatives able to understand the effect that this will have on families? Is this the only thing they have to offer unemployed workers in Canada?
Van Loan attacks Mulcair's commitment to a carbon tax, citing the NDP's 2011 platform figure of $21.5 billion and Mulcair's leadership race statements.
Van Loan entirely ignores the financial officer example and the 30% cut scenario, devoting his entire answer to attacking Mulcair's carbon tax commitment and leadership race statements.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le problÚme du leader du NPD, c'est que son engagement envers les Canadiens, c'est une taxe sur le carbone. It is in black and white. He denies it and pretends it does not exist, but the problem for him is that it is here. It is $21.5 billion and it goes up every year. He ran on it in the last election and he pretends it is not there now. Then, when he wanted the leadership of his party earlier this year, what did he say? He said that he would go even further. That is something he has to explain to Canadians because that will kill jobs and will kill growth. That is a dangerous, reckless plan for Canada's economy.
Mulcair cites a record $50 billion trade deficit, 500,000 manufacturing jobs lost, and record household debt, and asks when the government will wake up and offer real solutions instead of more corporate tax cuts.
Mulcair cites a record $50 billion trade deficit, 500,000 manufacturing jobs lost, and record household debt to challenge the government's corporate tax-cut solution, but the ask is somewhat broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Ă le voir aller avec les notes qu'il est en train de nous lire, on conclut que c'est lui qui a fourni, hier, la note disant que la solution au chĂŽmage Ă©tait d'importer au Canada plus de travailleurs temporaires. Ă ce rythme, je sais qui est le prochain chĂŽmeur au Canada: c'est lui. Un dĂ©ficit commercial record de 50 milliards de dollars, 500 000 bons emplois manufacturiers perdus, la dette mĂ©nagĂšre la plus Ă©levĂ©e de l'histoire du Canada, et quelle est leur solution? C'est davantage de rĂ©ductions d'impĂŽt pour les grandes sociĂ©tĂ©s. MĂȘme le ministre des Finances se rend compte que ça stagne au Canada. Quand vont-ils se rĂ©veiller et commencer Ă apporter des solutions Ă des problĂšmes rĂ©els qui affectent la vie des gens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, seeing the hon. member with the notes that he is reading us, we can only assume that he is the one who provided the note yesterday that said that the solution to unemployment is to bring more temporary foreign workers into Canada. At this rate, I know who the next unemployed worker in Canada is going to be: it is going to be him. A record trade deficit of $50 billion, 500,000 good manufacturing jobs lost, and the highest level of household debt in the history of Canada, and what is their solution? It is to lower taxes even further for big business. Even the Minister of Finance recognizes that Canada is at a standstill. When will the Conservatives wake up and start providing solutions to real problems that are affecting people's lives?
Van Loan defends lower taxes as benefiting average families by $3,300 and mocks the NDP's opposition day motion as amounting to calling 'a meeting in a couple of months.'
Van Loan briefly echoes the lower-taxes point, then pivots to mocking the NDP's opposition day motion as proposing only 'a meeting in a couple of months,' without addressing the trade deficit, manufacturing job losses, or household debt.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there actually is one thing the Leader of the Opposition has right. We actually believe the solution is lower taxes, not higher taxes and a carbon tax. That is why we have lowered taxes for the average Canadian family by $3,300, because that is what affects families and their personal pocketbooks and improves their standard of living. We finally got details of the NDP plan for the economy above and beyond the carbon tax. Tomorrow in its opposition day motion the NDP has set out its detailed economic plan. He has been asking for point-by-point details. What is the NDP plan? It is to have a meeting in a couple of months. That is his idea: more meetings. That is not going to solve the economy. We have a plan. We are delivering. We are delivering jobs and growth for Canada.
LeBlanc invokes a quote attributed to the Prime Minister that providing for the poor is not a federal responsibility, then asks why the government is balancing the books on the backs of the most vulnerable Canadians by rolling back OAS, failing to improve CPP, and imposing crippling mortgage rates on social housing.
LeBlanc invokes a Prime Minister quote about poverty not being a federal responsibility and references EI, CPP, OAS, and social housing in a compound way, but the ask is broadly rhetorical rather than specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister once said that providing for the poor is not a federal responsibility. He does not think it is his job to help those people. The Prime Minister was clearly having a Mitt Romney moment. EI recipients are worse off if they try to work. The government has failed to improve CPP while rolling back OAS. There are crippling mortgage rates on social housing. The Prime Minister does not care about those people. Why is the Prime Minister trying to balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable Canadians?
Van Loan says families pay $3,300 less in taxes than under the Liberals and lists several benefit programs, arguing the government has taken action to help vulnerable Canadians.
Van Loan lists several tax measures (basic personal exemption, age credit, universal child care benefit, child tax credit, working income tax benefit) but does not address the specific policies challenged â EI clawbacks, CPP, OAS rollback, or social housing mortgage rates.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, what we have been doing is helping Canadians. Indeed, we have been helping taxpaying, working Canadian families. That is why today they pay $3,300 less in taxes on average than they did when he was in government under the Liberal Party. In fact, we are doing a great deal to help vulnerable Canadians, those who are seeking that assistance. We have done it through reducing taxes, through taking hundreds of thousands of Canadians off the tax rolls by increasing the basic personal exemption. We are helping seniors by taking them off the tax rolls with increases to the age exemption and the age credit. We have introduced the universal child care benefit, the child tax credit, the working income tax benefit. We have been taking action. They have opposed--
LeBlanc asks when the government will realize it must govern for all Canadians, citing growing economic inequality, EI penalties for part-time work seekers, 15% youth unemployment, and the closure of job-search centres.
LeBlanc raises two specific issues â EI disincentives for part-time work and 15% youth unemployment combined with cuts to job-search centres â but frames them in a broadly partisan rhetorical question about governing for all Canadians.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'inégalité économique continue d'augmenter au Canada, et la solution des conservateurs est de punir les gens qui reçoivent de l'assurance-emploi et qui cherchent un emploi à temps partiel. Qui plus est, le taux de chÎmage chez les jeunes est rendu à 15 %, et la solution des conservateurs est de fermer les centres de recherche qui les aident à trouver un emploi. Quand ce gouvernement va-t-il réaliser qu'il doit gouverner au nom de tous les Canadiens et pas uniquement au nom de ceux et celles qui, selon lui, ont voté pour les conservateurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, economic inequality in Canada is continuing to grow, and the Conservatives' solution is to punish people who are receiving employment insurance benefits and who are looking for part-time work. What is more, the unemployment rate among young people has reached 15% and the Conservatives' solution is to close the employment centres that help them to find jobs. When will this government realize that it must govern on behalf of all Canadians and not just on behalf of those it thinks voted for the Conservatives?
Van Loan lists several programs for Canadians â including the universal child care benefit, labour market agreements for persons with disabilities, and the working income tax benefit â and says the government has achieved results for all Canadians.
Van Loan lists several programs (prestation fiscale canadienne pour enfants, prestation universelle pour la garde d'enfants, ententes sur le marché du travail, prestation fiscale pour le revenu de travail) without addressing the EI part-time disincentive or the closure of youth job-search centres.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, encore une fois, nous avons pris des mesures pour aider tous les Canadiens. Nous avons Ă©tabli, par exemple, la prestation fiscale canadienne pour enfants, la prestation universelle pour la garde d'enfants, les ententes sur le marchĂ© de travail visant les personnes handicapĂ©es, le travail pendant une pĂ©riode de prestations de lâassurance-emploi, la prestation fiscale pour le revenu de travail, et je peux continuer ainsi. Nous avons atteint des rĂ©sultats pour tous les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, we have taken measures to help all Canadians. For example, we have established the Canada child tax benefit, the universal child care benefit, labour market agreements for persons with disabilities, the working while on claim project, the working income tax benefit, and more. We have delivered results for all Canadians.
LeBlanc asks when the government will reverse destructive policies â including EI clawbacks for those working on claim, lack of pension reform, and OAS rollback â and begin to govern for all Canadians.
LeBlanc cites 165,000 young people giving up on work, a secret EI clawback for those working on claim, lack of pension plans, and OAS rollback, but the ask remains a broad rhetorical call to reverse policies.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister can continue, but the reality is 165,000 young people have simply given up looking for work. EI recipients who want to work while on claim are worse off financially. They suffer from a secret clawback. Millions of Canadians are without a pension plan and the government is rolling back the OAS. For our economy to thrive, all Canadians must be the object of federal government policy. When will it reverse these destructive policies and begin to govern for all Canadians, every one of them?
Van Loan cites 770,000 net new jobs and accuses the Liberal Party of voting against the youth employment strategy, EI hiring credit, apprenticeship incentive grant, and targeted initiative for older workers.
Van Loan repeats the 770,000 net new jobs figure and then pivots to listing Liberal votes against specific programs, rather than addressing the EI clawback, pension gap, OAS, or the 165,000 discouraged workers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, indeed, we are doing that. That is why we are happy to see that Canadians, 770,000 more of them, have jobs today than after the economic downturn. That is 770,000 people whose families are benefiting from an income, who have a job, who are benefiting from the prosperity, notwithstanding a global economy that remains uncertain. When we look south of our border, when we look across to Europe, we see conditions far worse than ours. They are thankful for our measures. However, the Liberals keep voting against them, against the youth employment strategy, against the EI hiring credit, against the apprenticeship incentive grant, against the targeted initiative for older workers. I could go on, but we can see who is really taking it out on vulnerable Canadians. It is the Liberal Party.
Julian notes the 24-day deadline for the proposed CNOOC takeover of Nexen, cites CNOOC's poor environmental and human rights records and contaminated sites in Burma, and asks why the minister will not allow Canadians concerned about this deal to be heard.
Julian specifies the 24-day deadline, names CNOOC by full name, cites its poor environmental and human rights records and contaminated sites in Burma, and asks a specific question about why public consultations are being refused.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is now only 24 days until the deadline for the proposed takeover of Canadian Nexen by CNOOC. The China National Offshore Oil Corporation has poor environmental and human rights records and has left behind massive contaminated sites in Burma. Yesterday, the Minister of Industry had no answer for people concerned about this deal. He is refusing to consult and is even ignoring growing concerns from within his own caucus. Why will the minister not allow Canadians concerned about this deal to be heard?
Paradis says Canada's investment review process is sound and ensures a net benefit to Canada, and states he will take the time required to carefully examine the proposed acquisition.
Paradis offers only that the investment review process is 'sound' and that he will take time to examine the acquisition, without addressing the refusal of consultations, CNOOC's environmental record, or concerns from within his own caucus.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's investment review process is sound and ensures that foreign investment is a net benefit to Canada. Our government has a clear track record of encouraging economic growth, job creation and prosperity in Canada. I will take the time required to carefully examine the proposed acquisition. We will not take lessons from the NDP, whose reckless economic policy would deter investment, kill jobs and hurt Canadian families.
LeBlanc cites a 2011 oil spill at a CNOOC-held field that took a month to be made public and asks whether these spills are being discussed in closed-door meetings with CNOOC and Nexen lobbyists.
LeBlanc cites a specific 2011 oil spill at a CNOOC-held field, notes it took a month for the public to be informed, references multiple additional spills, and asks a specific question about whether these spills are being discussed in closed-door meetings with CNOOC and Nexen lobbyists.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les conservateurs continuent d'inventer des histoires, mais il n'en demeure pas moins qu'en 2011, il y a eu un important dĂ©versement dans un champ de pĂ©trole au large de la Chine. On parle ici d'un champ dĂ©tenu par la compagnie CNOOC. Ăa a pris un mois avant que le public soit informĂ©. Et ce n'est pas le seul dĂ©versement: plusieurs rĂ©cents dĂ©versements pĂ©troliers ont impliquĂ© cette compagnie. Les conservateurs tolĂšrent-ils ce genre de comportement? Est-il question de ces dĂ©versements de pĂ©trole derriĂšre les portes closes avec les lobbyistes de CNOOC et de Nexen?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives keep making things up, but the fact is that in 2011, there was a major spill in a CNOOC oil field off the coast of China. The public was kept in the dark for a month. And that was not the only incident. This company has been involved in several oil spills recently. Are the Conservatives okay with that kind of behaviour? Has the oil spill issue come up behind closed doors with CNOOC and Nexen lobbyists?
Paradis says the investment review process is sound and each proposed transaction is scrutinized to ensure a net benefit to Canada, without addressing the oil spills or lobbyist meetings.
Paradis repeats that the review process is sound and each transaction is scrutinized, without addressing the 2011 oil spill, the one-month delay in public notification, or the question about lobbyist meetings.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le processus d'examen des investissements au Canada est solide, et on doit s'assurer que toute transaction projetée procurera un avantage net au Canada. C'est cela qui est évalué. Chacune des transactions est scrupuleusement étudiée, et ce sera le cas dans le cadre de la transaction projetée. Je le répÚte encore une fois, on n'a pas de leçon à recevoir du NPD à ce sujet, alors qu'il prÎne des politiques économiques irresponsables qui auraient pour effet d'éliminer des emplois et qui auraient des effets négatifs sur les familles canadiennes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada's investment review process is watertight, and we make sure that every proposed transaction will provide a net benefit to Canada. That is what we assess. Every single transaction is scrutinized very closely, and this proposed transaction will be no exception. As I said before, the NDP is not in a position to tell us how we should do things because its irresponsible economic policies would result in job losses and negative outcomes for Canadian families.
Julian asks who the minister is consulting beyond company lobbyists and why the government will not allow Canadians to be heard on this takeover, given refusal of public consultations and failure to address CNOOC's human rights record and environmental history.
Julian asks specifically who besides company lobbyists the minister is consulting and why Canadians will not be allowed to provide input, but the question is somewhat compound and embedded in rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, instead of taking all this energy just to make stuff up, the government should invest energy in listening to Canadians. That is what it should be doing. The minister is refusing public consultations. He refuses to say how it will define a net benefit to Canada. He will not address CNOOC's human rights record or its history of oil spills and environmental devastation. This type of takeover needs more than this kind of shoddy backroom treatment. Other than company lobbyists, who is the minister talking to? Why will the government not take advice from Canadians? Why will it not consult with Canadians?
Paradis says each proposed transaction will provide a net benefit to Canada and will be scrutinized closely, and accuses the NDP of wanting to get away from trade tables and put certain industries out of business.
Paradis does not name any parties consulted, does not define net benefit, and does not address CNOOC's human rights record or oil spill history, instead attacking NDP economic policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the NDP policy is to get away from trade tables. The NDP wants to put certain types of industries out of business. We will not do it. We will make sure that each transaction that is proposed here in Canada will provide a net benefit for this country. Each single transaction will be scrutinized very closely. We will not go down the path proposed by the NDP that would kill jobs and hurt Canadian families.
Crowder notes today is the final day for residential schools survivors to apply for compensation, flags a last-minute rush in claims, and asks whether the minister will extend the deadline for those who could not apply in time.
Crowder identifies that today is the final day for residential schools survivors to apply for compensation, notes a recent surge in claims, and asks a specific and time-sensitive question about whether the minister will extend the deadline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today is the final day for residential schools survivors to apply for compensation for abuse that they suffered. We know that many survivors, for many reasons, have not been able to apply. We also know that in the last three months we saw a huge increase in the number of claims. How will the government ensure that the survivors who could not make the deadline still have the chance to access compensation for the abuse they suffered? Will the minister extend the deadline to cope with this last-minute rush?
Rickford says the government is committed to a fair and lasting resolution under the Indian residential schools settlement agreement, which is court supervised and was agreed to by multiple parties, and that it will honour its obligations under the agreement.
Rickford affirms commitment to the settlement agreement and notes it is court supervised, but does not answer whether the deadline will be extended or how survivors who missed it will be accommodated.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government remains committed to achieving a fair and lasting resolution to the legacy of Indian residential schools. The Indian residential schools settlement agreement is court supervised and was agreed to by multiple parties, including legal counsel for most students and the Assembly of First Nations. The most important thing our government has done and will continue to do is respect the terms and honour its obligations under the Indian residential schools settlement agreement.
Crowder notes that first nations organizations were stunned last week by across-the-board cuts to their core funding, which will affect their capacity to support healing for residential schools survivors, and asks whether the Conservatives will reverse these cuts.
Crowder references a specific recent event (across-the-board cuts to core funding announced last week that stunned first nations organizations) and links it to the healing process for residential schools survivors, asking whether the cuts will be reversed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have seen flexibility in these deadlines before and we call on the government to have that flexibility once again. This compensation is an important part of reconciliation. Survivors need more than just words from the government. Instead, last week first nations organizations across this country were stunned to hear about the across-the-board cuts to their core funding. This will affect their capacity to deliver programs which, among other things, support the healing process for residential schools survivors. Where is the commitment to building a new relationship with first nations? Will the Conservatives reverse these reckless cuts?
Rickford says the government wants to ensure funding for aboriginal organizations is focused on essential services and programs in education, economic development, and community infrastructure, developed through shared priorities with aboriginal leadership.
Rickford says funding should focus on essential services and programs in education, economic development, and community infrastructure, but does not address the specific across-the-board core funding cuts or commit to reversing them.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that funding for aboriginal organizations is focused on the delivery of essential services and programs in key areas, such as education, economic development and community infrastructure. That makes sense. After all, we have developed these shared priorities with aboriginal leadership. Our government will continue to take concrete steps that create conditions for healthier and more self-sufficient, self-sustaining aboriginal communities.
Genest-Jourdain accuses the minister of making reckless cuts to First Nations organizations while survivors wait for over 16,000 pending files to be processed, asking when the minister will treat these matters with the seriousness First Nations deserve.
Genest-Jourdain cites a specific backlog of over 16,000 pending residential schools files alongside the funding cuts to First Nations organizations, framing a pointed question about ministerial seriousness, though the ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le ministre peut continuer d'éviter de répondre à ces questions, mais ce qui est clair, c'est que les conservateurs refusent de prendre au sérieux la tùche de rebùtir une relation constructive avec les PremiÚres Nations. Le ministre a sabré de maniÚre inconsidérée dans les organisations des PremiÚres Nations partout au pays, et maintenant, les survivants des pensionnats doivent attendre qu'on traite plus de 16 000 dossiers en attente. Quand le ministre traitera-t-il ces questions avec tout le sérieux que méritent les PremiÚres Nations?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the minister can continue to avoid answering these questions, but it is clear that the Conservatives are refusing to take rebuilding a constructive relationship with first nations seriously. The minister made ill-considered cuts to first nations organizations across the country, and now residential school survivors have to wait while the government processes a backlog of 16,000 cases. When will the minister start taking these first nations issues as seriously as they deserve to be taken?
Rickford says the government remains committed to shared priorities flowing from the CrownâFirst Nations Gathering and will continue to work with first nations community members and leadership.
Rickford references the CrownâFirst Nations Gathering and shared priorities but does not address the 16,000-file backlog, the funding cuts, or provide any concrete plan to address the processing delay.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, whether we are talking about Indian residential schools or our ongoing commitment to support healthier, self-sustaining communities, we remain committed to shared priorities. Flowing from the CrownâFirst Nations Gathering, we will continue to work with first nations community members and with their leadership to ensure that our shared priorities are met.
Hughes notes that aboriginal people face unique health challenges linked to the traumatic effects of residential schools and asks how the minister thinks that slashing funding to the few organizations specifically addressing those challenges will solve the problem.
Hughes links the specific health challenges of aboriginal people â tied to the traumatic effects of residential schools â to cuts to the few organizations specifically addressing those challenges, and asks a direct question about the minister's rationale for further reducing their resources.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives like to talk about partnership, but first nations in my constituency and throughout Canada feel ignored by the government. Aboriginal people face unique and serious health challenges linked to traumatic effects of residential schools, yet the government has slashed funding to the few organizations in the country that specifically address challenges faced by our aboriginal communities. Now these groups face additional cuts to their core funding. How could the minister think that the best way to solve this problem is to further reduce resources to these organizations?
Rickford says the government wants these aboriginal organizations to continue prioritizing the delivery of essential services and programs, particularly in education, economic development, and community infrastructure, as shared priorities identified with first nations leadership.
Rickford reiterates that funding should be directed to essential services in education, economic development, and community infrastructure, without addressing the specific organizations focused on residential school trauma or explaining why reducing their resources helps solve the problem.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, we want to ensure that these aboriginal organizations which have done great work in the delivery of essential services and programs continue to place the priority on just that, the delivery of essential services and programs, particularly in the areas of education, economic development and community infrastructure. As I said earlier, that makes perfect sense, because over the past couple of years we have identified these shared priorities with first nations leadership, and we are taking concrete action to move forward on those shared priorities.
Ashton asks when the government will reinstate funding to AMC, MKO, MMF and other aboriginal organizations, citing an 80% cut to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs budget.
Cites a specific figure (80% budget cut to Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs) and names specific organizations (AMC, MKO, MMF), but the ask is compound and framed around a broad 'silencing' narrative.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us call this what it really is: the government is trying to silence anybody who speaks out against the government's agenda. It has targeted first nations and MĂ©tis organizations that speak out on behalf of aboriginal people. In Manitoba, the federal government has cut 80% of the budget of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, a leader in calling for action for something as critical as missing and murdered aboriginal women. When will the government recognize that aboriginal Canadians will not be silenced? When will it reinstate funding to AMC, MKO, MMF, and other aboriginal organizations?
Rickford says the NDP has voted against every resource allocation for first nations and that the government must manage finances carefully to preserve investments in shared priorities.
Deflects entirely by attacking NDP voting record rather than addressing the 80% cut to AMC or the question of reinstating funding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is most unfortunate about the member's comments and the position of her party is that every time we have moved forward with allocations for resources to shared priorities with first nations leadership, that party has voted against them. Let us be clear on that. Like all Canadians, the government has a responsibility to manage finances carefully. Savings realized will preserve our ability to make important investments in key shared priorities for and with first nations. We will continue to take that action to ensure strong and self-sustaining first nations communities.
Harris asks the minister to apologize, hand over withheld documents to the Military Police Complaints Commission inquiry, and help the Langridge family recover over $10,000 paid to correct a DND error on Corporal Stuart Langridge's death certificate.
Highly specific: names Corporal Stuart Langridge, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the $10,000 error on the death certificate, and asks three concrete things â apology, documents, and expense assistance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Fynes family is in Ottawa today to attend hearings of the Military Police Complaints Commission concerning the death of their son, Corporal Stuart Langridge. The family deserves assurances that the minister is listening and will accept responsibility. The family even had to pay over $10,000 to correct an error made by DND in Corporal Langridge's death certificate and the minister is still withholding documents from the inquiry. Will the minister apologize, hand over the documents and help the Langridge family with these expenses?
MacKay says the case is before the arm's-length Military Police Complaints Commission, that the Government of Canada has paid $2.5 million for the hearing, and accuses Harris of wanting to interfere with the process.
MacKay mentions $2.5 million paid and continued cooperation with the commission but does not address the apology, the withheld documents specifically, or the $10,000 death certificate error expenses.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there he goes again. The member continues, sadly, to want to argue this case, which is before the arm's-length Military Police Complaints Commission, on the floor of the House of Commons. He ignores legal precedent, even though he is a lawyer. He overlooks the fact that the Government of Canada, through the Department of National Defence, has paid now $2.5 million and has given additional funds for this hearing to continue. This is a very tragic case. We continue to work with the commission. We continue to provide information. We continue to encourage the witnesses to give their testimony in an impartial way. The member wants to interfere with the process.
Cuzner challenges the minister's claim that workers on EI who work two or three days benefit under the new rules, asserting that low wage earners actually lose money under the new rules.
References a specific policy outcome (low wage earners losing money under new EI rules) and challenges the minister's prior statements, but the rhetorical framing and personal jabs dilute the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I stand again today to hopefully have the minister lay down her talking points and answer this serious issue. The last three times she has responded, she said that anyone who worked two or three days while on EI would benefit. The fact is that low wage earners actually lose money under the new rules. I know the minister feels no obligation to those people, but the math does not lie. I would encourage the minister to maybe lay off some communications people in her office and hire someone with grade 10 math to walk her through this. People are being hurt. They are losing money. Maybe somebody on the front bench might have a calculator. The ministerâ
Finley says the majority of people who work while on claim will benefit, then attacks the Liberal Party's voting record against various employment programs.
Finley asserts the majority will benefit but does not address the specific claim about low wage earners losing money; pivots to NDP/Liberal voting record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can assure members that under this new program the majority of people who work while they are on claim will benefit from this and be better off. However, let us look at the hypocrisy of the member and the Liberal Party. They pretend that they care about hard-working Canadians and yet they voted against the youth employment strategy. They voted against the EI hiring credit, the apprenticeship incentive grant, targeted initiatives for older workers, tool tax credits and foreign credential recognition. We are trying to help Canadians back to work. They are not.
Casey asks whether the Conservatives intend to spend time and money fighting RCMP retirees in court over pension clawbacks, or will instead include them in current discussions on the issue.
References the $800,000 spent fighting Dennis Manuge veterans, draws an analogy to RCMP retirees' pension situation, and poses a clear binary choice: litigate or include them in current discussions.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les conservateurs ont dépensé tout prÚs de 800 000 $ pour lutter contre les anciens combattants représentés par Dennis Manuge. La situation des retraités de la GRC est analogue. Eux aussi ont dû renoncer à une partie de leur pension. Les conservateurs ont-ils l'intention de gaspiller temps et argent pour traßner les anciens de la GRC devant les tribunaux, ou bien vont-ils faire ce qui s'impose et les inclure dans les discussions qui ont lieu actuellement dans ce dossier?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives spent close to $800,000 to fight the veterans represented by Dennis Manuge. RCMP veterans are in the same position. They have also had to give up part of their pension. Do the Conservatives intend to waste time and money dragging RCMP veterans before the courts, or are they going to do the right thing and include them in the discussions that are currently taking place on this issue?
Blaney says the government is maintaining all veterans' benefits and following the Defence Minister's decision to ensure that those penalized are no longer penalized.
Blaney speaks vaguely about maintaining veterans' benefits and following the Defence Minister's decision but does not address RCMP retirees specifically or whether they will be included in current discussions.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est trÚs clair. De ce cÎté-ci, comme vous le savez, nous maintenons l'ensemble des bénéfices aux vétérans et nous accompagnons la décision du ministre de la Défense nationale de faire en sorte que ceux qui ont été pénalisés ne le soient pas, autant les militaires que les anciens combattants. Alors, nous allons continuer à nous assurer que nos anciens combattants ont droit à tous les programmes et services dont ils ont besoin et qu'ils méritent pleinement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear. As you know, over here we are maintaining all the veterans' benefits, and we support the decision by the Minister of National Defence to ensure that the individuals who have been penalizedâboth the men and women of the military and veteransâwill no longer be. We are going to continue to ensure that our veterans are entitled to all the programs and services they need and fully deserve.
McCallum asks the minister to re-evaluate CMHC policies that impose charges on housing co-ops refinancing their mortgages that are far higher than those of commercial banks, citing a Winnipeg co-op with a 13.25% CMHC mortgage.
References a specific Winnipeg housing co-op case involving a 13.25% CMHC mortgage and charges higher than commercial banks, making it reasonably grounded, though the 'Romney moment' rhetoric weakens it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week we learned of a Winnipeg housing co-op wanting to refinance its 13.25% CMHC mortgage and being crippled by CMHC charges far higher than would be applied by a commercial bank. Will the minister re-evaluate these mean-spirited policies and ensure that housing co-ops have the support they need? Or is this another Romney moment: proof the Conservatives think it is not their job to help those people?
Finley explains that the housing co-operatives entered into fixed, closed mortgage agreements with CMHC at below-market interest rates and are expected to honour those agreed terms.
Finley directly addresses the specific CMHC case, explaining that the co-operatives agreed to fixed closed mortgage terms in exchange for below-market rates, which is a substantive if partial answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is very pleased to be supporting 605,000 affordable housing households across this country. The case to which the member refers is where these housing co-operatives made a deal with CMHC to get below market rate interest rates for fixed, closed mortgages. That means that the rate does not change, and individuals agree to that because they get a benefit. Those are the terms that these individuals agreed to and those are the terms that we expect them to honour, just as we will honour those terms.
Chow asks the minister to vote yes for a national transit strategy, citing mayors, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, CUTA, and transit authorities as supporters, and noting that gridlock costs the Canadian economy billions.
Mentions FCM, CUTA, and transit authorities supporting a national transit strategy, but the rhetorical 'ditch his cozy limo, get on the bus' framing dominates and the ask is more of a taunt than a substantive question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are tired and frustrated with traffic jams, overcrowded buses or no bus at all. They want fast, reliable and accessible public transit. Gridlock is costing the Canadian economy billions of dollars. That is why mayors, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, CUTA, transit authorities, all want a national transit strategy. Will the minister ditch his cozy limo, get on the bus and vote yes for the national transit strategy this afternoon?
Fletcher says the government has invested over $5 billion in transit infrastructure since 2006 and respects provincial and municipal jurisdictions.
Fletcher corrects a personal claim and cites $5 billion in transit infrastructure investment since 2006, which is relevant context, but does not address why the government won't support a national transit strategy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to correct the member. I do not drive a limo. I think she can see that. Our government has invested over $5 billion in transit infrastructure across Canada since 2006. We respect the jurisdictions of the provinces and the municipalities. We work with them. The NDP seems to vote against all our initiatives rather than support our initiatives. Why?
Aubin asks the minister to take seriously the productivity loss from congestion â estimating $1.4 billion annually and 77 million hours lost in Montreal â and to support the installation of a national public transit strategy.
Cites specific figures â $1.4 billion annual congestion cost in Montreal and 77 million hours lost at work â and ties it to the 'En ville sans ma voiture' event, but the question is a general ask about supporting a national transit strategy.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il y a toute une marge entre le fait d'investir et le fait d'avoir une vision à long terme qui appuie ces investissements. Au Québec, la journée « En ville sans ma voiture » a lieu cette semaine. Chaque année, le nombre de participants à cet événement augmente. à Montréal, on estime que la congestion coûte 1,4 milliard de dollars par année et que 77 millions d'heures sont perdues au travail. C'est un coup dur pour l'économie. Le ministre prendra-t-il au sérieux ce problÚme de perte de productivité et appuiera-t-il l'installation d'une stratégie nationale de transport en commun?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there is quite a difference between investing and having a long-term vision that supports those investments. Quebec will mark âCar Free Dayâ this week. Each year, the number of participants goes up. In Montreal, it is estimated that congestion costs $1.4 billion a year and that 77 million working hours are lost. That is a serious blow to the economy. Will the minister take this loss of productivity seriously and support a national public transit strategy?
Poilievre says the government respects municipal and provincial jurisdictions, notes that municipal revenues have increased 70% over 10 years, and claims the NDP's transit plan amounts to a carbon tax.
Poilievre cites a 70% revenue increase for municipalities over 10 years but does not address congestion costs, the 77 million hours lost, or reasons for rejecting a national transit strategy; pivots to carbon tax attack.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, premiÚrement, je dois dire que nous respectons les champs de compétence des municipalités et des provinces. DeuxiÚmement, il y a 20 ans, les municipalités fonctionnaient sans aucun investissement du gouvernement fédéral en ce qui a trait aux infrastructures. Depuis 10 ans, le montant des revenus pour ces municipalités a augmenté de 70 % malgré le fait que l'inflation et la croissance de la population aient été de 30 %. Finalement, le plan pour le transport en commun des néo-démocrates, c'est une taxe sur le carbone, ce qui rendra impossible de pouvoir payer pour l'essence.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let me first say that we respect municipal and provincial jurisdictions. Second, 20 years ago, municipalities operated without any federal investment in infrastructure. Over the past 10 years, the revenue of those municipalities has increased by 70% despite the fact that inflation and population have grown by 30%. Finally, the NDP public transit plan is a carbon tax, which would make it impossible to pay for gas.
Thibeault asks how high gas prices must climb â noting a 36% increase and record prices of $1.53 a litre â before the Conservatives take action against gouging.
Cites a 36% price increase and a record price of $1.53 a litre under the Conservatives, but the ask ('how high will prices have to climb before Conservatives act?') is rhetorical and vague about what action is sought.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives make up facts they are silent about a real problem: high gas prices. Under the Conservatives, prices at the pump have skyrocketed a whopping 36%. Record prices of $1.53 a litre have been spotted in some communities, yet Conservatives do nothing but rail against policies that do not exist. How high will prices have to climb? Canadians deserve more than fake facts. How much gouging will they have to endure before Conservatives act?
Paradis cites the 2% GST reduction, strengthened Competition Bureau powers, and the Fairness at the Pumps Act as government actions, then attacks the NDP's proposed carbon tax.
Paradis references the GST reduction, Competition Bureau powers, and the Fairness at the Pumps Act as relevant actions taken, but pivots to the carbon tax attack rather than addressing the specific price gouging concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us go with the facts. We reduced the GST by 2%, strengthened the powers of the Competition Bureau and brought in the Fairness at the Pumps Act. In addition, when the Competition Bureau finds evidence of behaviour that violates the Competition Act, it does not hesitate to take law enforcement action to protect competition and consumers. What about the $20 billion fact? What about the carbon tax that those guys over there are proposing? That is where the real question is.
Papillon asks what the Conservatives' concrete solutions are on gas prices, contrasting them with NDP proposals to tighten anti-collusion rules and create an ombudsman to monitor market prices.
Cites the 36% price increase and proposes specific NDP measures (tightened rules against collusion and an ombudsman to monitor market prices), making it somewhat substantive, but the framing remains heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pendant que les conservateurs se racontent des histoires, les gens se font arnaquer chaque fois qu'ils passent à la pompe. Les conservateurs dorment au gaz. Sous leur gouvernement, la seule chose qui monte plus vite que la dette nationale, c'est le prix de l'essence: 36 % d'augmentation depuis l'arrivée de Stephen Harper au pouvoir. Le NPD propose...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are fooling themselves, and people are being scammed every time they pull up at the pump. The Conservatives are asleep at the wheel. Under their government, the only thing rising faster than the national debt is the price of gas: we have seen a 36% increase since Stephen Harper took power. The NDP proposesâ
Depuis l'arrivée du premier ministre, il y a eu une augmentation de 36 % du prix de l'essence. Le NPD propose de resserrer les rÚgles pour mettre fin à la collusion et créer un poste d'ombudsman pour surveiller les prix du marché. Ce sont là des solutions concrÚtes. Quelles sont celles des conservateurs?
Hansard translation: Since the Prime Minister came to power, gas prices have risen by 36%. The NDP proposes tightening up the regulations to put an end to collusion and creating an ombudsman position to oversee market prices. Those are concrete solutions. What are the Conservatives' solutions?
Paradis says the NDP's plan would cost Canadians $20 billion more in taxes via a carbon tax, and cites the GST reduction, Competition Bureau powers, and the Loi sur l'équité à la pompe as government actions.
Paradis repeats the same three measures (GST cut, Competition Bureau, Fairness at the Pumps Act) without engaging the NDP's specific proposals of anti-collusion rules or an ombudsman; pivots entirely to the carbon tax.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, soyons clairs, si ce parti avait été élu, ce serait 20 milliards de dollars de plus en taxes par année. C'est ce que les Canadiens paieraient à cause d'une taxe sur le carbone. Est-ce ça l'arnaque? Les faits sont les suivants: le gouvernement conservateur a réduit la TPS de deux points, a renforcé les pouvoirs du Bureau de la concurrence et a aussi mis en place la Loi sur l'équité à la pompe. Ce sont de telles actions concrÚtes qui font en sorte que les prix de l'essence sont contenus. Ce serait vraiment dramatique si ces gens arrivaient et qu'ils mettaient en place une taxe sur le carbone avec des hausses de plus de 10 ¹ par litre. Qu'ils s'expliquent et disent carrément la vérité aux Canadiens pour une fois.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. If that party had been elected, we would have an additional $20 billion in taxes a year. That is what Canadians would pay through the carbon tax. Is that the scam? Here are the facts: the Conservative government reduced the GST by 2%, strengthened the powers of the Competition Bureau and brought in the Fairness at the Pumps Act. These are concrete actions that ensure that gas prices are contained. It would be really shocking if these people came in with their carbon tax and prices jumped 10Âą a litre. They should explain themselves and tell Canadians the truth for once.
Wilks asks the parliamentary secretary to explain how the government is standing up for Canadian exporters, citing free trade agreements with nine countries and investment protection agreements with eleven more.
This is a government-backbench softball: Wilks praises the government's trade record and asks the parliamentary secretary to share how the government is standing up for exporters, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the NDP continue to mislead Canadians on trade. They forget that one in five Canadian jobs is generated through exports. While the NDP snipes from the sidelines, our government is busy opening new markets for our exporters. We have signed free trade agreements with nine countries, investment protection agreements with eleven more, and are negotiating with some of the largest and most dynamic markets in the world. Could the parliamentary secretary please share with the House how our government is standing up for Canadian exporters?
Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that the NDP wants to hide from its anti-trade record. Its members opposed free trade with Norway. They opposed free trade with Liechtenstein. They opposed NAFTA. The NDP member for BurnabyâNew Westminster even worked against Canadian exporters, calling Buy American a perfectly logical policy. The NDP wants a Canada that hides from the world. Only our government's ambitious pro-trade plan is creating new opportunities for our workers and our exporters.
Keddy attacks the NDP's record of opposing free trade agreements with Norway, Liechtenstein, and NAFTA, and accuses an NDP member of working against Canadian exporters on Buy American.
Keddy focuses almost entirely on attacking the NDP's anti-trade voting record rather than providing substantive information about how the government is standing up for Canadian exporters.
Saganash challenges the minister's statement that there were no cuts to his department, citing $320 million less for CIDA in the 2012 budget and a falling percentage of GDP devoted to international aid, and asks whether the government will continue cutting aid to the poorest countries.
Cites a specific figure ($320 million less for CIDA in the 2012 budget) and references the minister's prior public statement denying cuts, creating a direct accountability challenge, though slightly compound.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la semaine derniÚre, le ministre de la Coopération internationale a dit qu'il n'y avait pas de coupes dans son ministÚre. Pourtant, il y a 320 millions de dollars de moins pour l'ACDI dans le budget de 2012 et le pourcentage du PIB consacré à l'aide internationale est en chute libre. Je sais qu'il s'agit d'un nouveau dossier pour le ministre, mais a-t-il pris le temps de s'informer correctement? Va-t-il poursuivre la tradition conservatrice de couper dans l'aide aux pays les plus pauvres?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of International Cooperation said that there had been no cuts in his department. However, CIDA's 2012 budget was cut by $320 million, and the percentage of GDP allocated to international aid is in free fall. I know that this is a new portfolio for the minister, but did he take the time to get the right information? Will he continue the Conservative tradition of cutting aid to the poorest countries?
Fantino states there have been no cuts to the humanitarian side of the CIDA budget and accuses the NDP of exploiting human tragedy, noting they voted against any increase to the budget.
Fantino claims there have been no cuts to the humanitarian side of the CIDA budget but does not address the $320 million figure or the falling percentage of GDP devoted to international aid; accuses the member of exploiting human tragedy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again I find it shameful that the member from the NDP would focus on the desperate situations affecting so many people. There have been no cuts to the humanitarian side of the CIDA budget. It is the exploitation of human tragedy that we are hearing here with no concern whatsoever. This is the party that voted against any increase to our budget, period.
Saganash states that most countries cut by the Conservatives are in the bottom 25% of the UN human development index and asks the minister to acknowledge that the government is cutting aid to some of the poorest nations.
Grounds the claim in a specific data point (most cut countries are in the bottom 25% of the UN human development index) and asks the minister to acknowledge cuts to the poorest nations, making it reasonably specific.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, avec le fiasco qu'il nous a servi dans le cas des F-35, je devine que le ministre ne comprend pas les chiffres. Most of the countries that have been cut by the Conservatives are in the bottom 25% of the UN human development index. These cuts hurt the people most in need around the world. We must do our share in the world. Will the minister acknowledge that the government is cutting aid to some of the poorest nations in the country? Is that what he means by being selective?
Fantino says the government is not cutting aid on a humanitarian level, is meeting all commitments, and that Canada is receiving praise worldwide for its generosity.
Fantino flatly denies cutting humanitarian aid and says Canada is meeting all commitments and receiving global praise, but does not address the UN human development index data or the selectivity question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are not cutting aid to nations on a humanitarian level. We are meeting all of our commitments. Canada is lifting way above its level. I might also add that in spite of the criticism from that member, we are getting praise all over the world for the kindness and generosity of Canadians in helping those with greater needs. It is a shame that the NDP does not recognize that.
Mai asks the minister to apologize to the thousands of single-parent families deprived of millions of dollars due to a CRA calculation error, and asks how long they will have to wait to be reimbursed.
Identifies a specific, current error at CRA affecting thousands of single-parent families deprived of millions in children's benefits, and asks two concrete questions: will the minister apologize and when will families be reimbursed.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on va essayer d'obtenir des rĂ©ponses dans un dossier. J'ai posĂ© plusieurs questions Ă la ministre concernant sa mauvaise gestion de l'Agence du revenu du Canada. Sa rĂ©ponse, c'Ă©tait de couper dans les services. On apprend aujourd'hui que des milliers de familles monoparentales ont Ă©tĂ© privĂ©es de millions de dollars Ă cause d'une erreur de calcul. Cet argent devait servir Ă acheter des fournitures scolaires, des vĂȘtements et de la nourriture. La ministre va-t-elle s'excuser auprĂšs de ces familles pour cette grossiĂšre erreur? Combien de temps ces familles devront-elles attendre avant d'ĂȘtre remboursĂ©es?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are looking for answers. I asked the minister a number of questions about her poor management of the Canada Revenue Agency. Her response was to make cuts to services. We are learning today that thousands of single-parent families have been deprived of millions of dollars because of a miscalculation. That money should have been used to buy school supplies, clothing and food. Is the minister going to apologize to those families for this serious mistake? How long will those families have to wait before they are reimbursed?
Shea apologizes sincerely to affected families, says she expressed strong concern to the CRA commissioner, and expects the situation to be resolved as soon as possible, adding that CRA will also apologize.
Shea directly apologizes, expresses strong concern to the CRA commissioner, and commits to resolving the situation as soon as possible, addressing the apology ask substantively if not providing a specific reimbursement timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was very disturbed to learn that so many Canadian families had not received their full children's benefits. I have expressed very strong concern to the commissioner at the CRA and my clear expectation that this situation be resolved as soon as possible. I want to sincerely apologize to the Canadian families who have been affected. I can also assure members that the CRA will be apologizing to the Canadian families affected by this error as well.
Mai asks when the minister will take responsibility for the CRA error affecting families and what concrete steps she is taking to clean up the mismanagement.
Follows up on the CRA error and asks when the minister will take responsibility and what she is doing to clean up the mess, but the 'anything goes at CRA' and 'corruption allegations' framing makes it somewhat compound and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is going to take more than words to pay back those families. Under the Conservatives, it has been anything goes at CRA. Not only have corruption allegations been mounting, but now we find the agency cannot even follow its own rules. More Conservative mismanagement means families across the country are being shortchanged. When will the minister finally take responsibility and what is she doing to clean up the mess?
Shea says she has asked the Taxpayers' Ombudsman to conduct an investigation to ensure this type of situation never happens again.
Shea announces a concrete step â asking the Taxpayers' Ombudsman to conduct an investigation â which directly addresses what is being done, though she does not address the corruption allegations or provide a timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we certainly do regret when these kinds of unfortunate errors occur and the impact that they have on Canadian families. I can assure the hon. member that we are doing something. I have asked the Taxpayers' Ombudsman to conduct an investigation into this issue to ensure that this type of situation never happens again.
Garneau challenges the Prime Minister to commit to MP pension reform through a single stand-alone bill, not mixed into omnibus legislation like Bill C-38, so Liberals can vote for it unequivocally.
References 165,000 young Canadians giving up on finding a job and rising trade deficits, and makes a specific procedural demand â a single stand-alone bill on MP pension reform not mixed with other bills like Bill C-38 â making it reasonably grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with unemployment stubbornly high with 165,000 young Canadians giving up on finding a job, with trade deficits rising and median income falling, it is time for MPs to bite the bullet on their own pensions. If Canadians need to suck it up, so do we. Liberals are ready for it. I challenge the Prime Minister to commit today to that reform in the form of a single stand-alone bill that is not mixed in with other bills, like Bill C-38, so that Liberals can unequivocally vote for it.
Clement says the government has previously indicated it is fair for parliamentarians to move to a 50-50 cost share on their pension plan and that the House will be seized of the issue in due course.
Clement confirms the government's position of moving parliamentarians to a 50-50 cost share on pensions and says the House will be seized of this in due course, which is a partial but relevant engagement with the ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his exuberance. He must be ready for takeoff on some project of his own. Insofar as the business of the House is concerned, of course, we have previously indicated that we think it is fair for parliamentarians to move up to a 50-50 cost share when it comes to their pension plan. Certainly the House will be seized of this issue in due course.
Murray asks whether the Prime Minister will meet with Vancouver's mayor, who has requested a meeting to explain why cutting the Kitsilano coast guard base â which a City of Vancouver analysis shows will put lives at risk â is a bad decision that must be reversed.
Cites a specific City of Vancouver analysis, names the Kitsilano coast guard base as the busiest in Canada, and poses a clear, answerable ask about whether the Prime Minister will meet with the mayor.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the City of Vancouver released its analysis showing that the cutting of the Kitsilano coast guard base, the busiest one in Canada, will put people's lives at risk. Perhaps the Conservatives do not think it is their job to worry about those people and that is why they are trying to pass the buck. However, the City of Vancouver cannot pick up the slack from that service gap and that is why our mayor has asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister, to explain to him why this is a bad decision and must be reversed. Will the Prime Minister meet with the mayor, and if so, when?
Ashfield asserts that the Coast Guard's primary concern is mariner safety, that the changes will have no negative impact on response capability, and that round table working group meetings were held over the summer to ensure a smooth transition.
The minister reiterates that safety is the top priority and references summer round tables but does not address whether the Prime Minister will meet with Vancouver's mayor, which was the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated many times, the first and foremost concern of the Canadian Coast Guard is the safety of mariners. The Coast Guard is confident that the changes proposed to the search and rescue network in Vancouver have been completed. There will be no negative impact on our ability to respond quickly and effectively to distress incidents on the water. In fact, the Coast Guard held a series of round table working group meetings in Vancouver over the summer to ensure a smooth transition to the new system.
Martin asks why the government does not join the rest of the developed world and ban asbestos in all of its forms, including its production, sale, and export, citing it as the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known.
The question combines rhetorical framing about asbestos being 'the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known' with a substantive but broad compound ask â ban production, sale, and export â rather than a single sharp accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I know that you would be concerned to learn that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known. In fact, more Canadians now die from asbestos than from all other industrial causes combined, never mind the made in Canada epidemic that we have been exporting to third world countries and developing nations. Putting a warning label on a sack of asbestos simply is not good enough. Why does the government not join the rest of the developed world and ban asbestos in all of its forms, ban the production, sale and export of this terrible carcinogen, as the World Trade Organization, the WHO and everyone else agrees should be done?
Paradis announces that Canada will no longer oppose the inclusion of chrysotile on Annex 3 of the Rotterdam Convention list, and that a $50 million diversification fund has been announced for workers and families in affected regions.
Paradis provides a concrete policy announcement â that Canada will no longer oppose inclusion of chrysotile on Annex 3 of the Rotterdam Convention â and cites a $50 million diversification fund, which is relevant and factual, though it does not address the ask for an outright ban.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, vendredi dernier, j'Ă©tais dans ma propre circonscription pour annoncer la position du Canada: il ne s'opposerait plus dorĂ©navant Ă l'inclusion du chrysotile Ă l'annexe 3 de la liste de la Convention de Rotterdam. En mĂȘme temps, on a annoncĂ© un fonds de diversification de 50 millions de dollars pour les travailleurs et les familles des rĂ©gions affectĂ©es. Notre gouvernement se soucie de la prospĂ©ritĂ© future des rĂ©gions et des familles affectĂ©es. Ces derniĂšres peuvent donc compter sur le gouvernement conservateur.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I was in my riding last Friday to announce Canada's position: Canada will no longer oppose adding chrysotile asbestos to annex III of the Rotterdam Convention. At the same time, I also announced $50 million in diversification funds for the workers and families of the affected regions. Our government cares about the future prosperity of the regions and families affected, and they can count on our Conservative government.
Lapointe asks whether the Minister of Industry will do what is right and admit that asbestos is harmful to public health, arguing that not opposing the Rotterdam Convention classification is insufficient and that Canada must actively support it.
Lapointe draws a precise distinction between not opposing and actively supporting the Rotterdam Convention classification, and asks a specific yes/no question about whether the minister will admit asbestos is harmful to public health.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, aprÚs des mois, on a réussi à briser la cassette. Yeah! Mercredi dernier, les conservateurs annonçaient qu'ils allaient cesser de s'opposer à la classification de l'amiante comme substance toxique et à son inscription à la Convention de Rotterdam. Il ne manque qu'un petit bout, et on va essayer d'y remédier. Il n'est pas suffisant de ne pas s'y opposer; il faut appuyer la classification. C'est une question de santé publique et de réputation du Canada. Le ministre de l'Industrie va-t-il enfin faire ce qui s'impose et admettre que l'amiante est un produit néfaste pour la santé publique?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it has taken months, but we finally fixed the broken recordâhooray! Last Wednesday, the Conservatives announced that they would stop opposing the classification of asbestos as a toxic substance and its inclusion in the Rotterdam Convention. Just one tiny piece is missing, and we will try to fix that. It is not enough to simply stop opposing it: the government must support the new classification. It is a question of public health and Canada's reputation. Will the Minister of Industry do the right thing and admit that asbestos is harmful to public health?
Paradis reiterates that Canada's position is to not oppose the inclusion of chrysotile on Annex 3 of the Rotterdam Convention list, and references the diversification fund announced for affected regions.
Paradis reiterates the position of not opposing inclusion of chrysotile on Annex 3 and mentions the diversification fund again, but does not directly answer whether he will admit that asbestos is harmful to public health.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, juste au cas oĂč mon collĂšgue n'aurait pas compris ma rĂ©ponse, je rĂ©itĂšre que la position du Canada est de ne pas s'opposer Ă l'inclusion du chrysotile Ă l'annexe 3 de la liste de la Convention de Rotterdam. Cela dit, j'ai eu le privilĂšge d'annoncer un fonds de diversification pour les rĂ©gions affectĂ©es dans ma propre circonscription vendredi dernier. Les familles et les rĂ©gions affectĂ©es peuvent compter sur un gouvernement conservateur pour leur prospĂ©ritĂ© future.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in case my colleague did not understand my answer, I repeat that Canada's position is to no longer oppose the inclusion of chrysotile in annex III of the Rotterdam Convention. That said, in my own riding last Friday, I had the privilege of announcing a diversification fund for the regions affected. The families and regions affected can count on a Conservative government for their future prosperity.
James asks whether it is too much to ask that repeat criminals convicted of serious violent and sexual crimes be required to prove they do not pose a risk to society, referencing an Ontario judge's ruling that such a requirement breaches individual rights.
This is a government-backbench softball that describes a court ruling in detail to set up a rhetorical 'is that too much to ask?' rather than posing a genuine accountability question to the minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday a judge in Ontario decided that repeat violent and sexual offenders should not be forced to prove they are not dangerous offenders, that it was âA breach of an individual's...rightsâ. The individual in question is a repeat sexual offender who attempted to choke one victim by putting lace around her neck, and another victim was wounded, maimed and disfigured while the individual committed aggravated sexual assault. Parliament has already decided that repeat criminals convicted of serious violent and sexual crimes should have to prove that they do not pose a risk to society. Is that too much to ask?
Nicholson states the government will vigorously defend the constitutionality of its legislation to the highest courts if necessary, and notes that provincial attorneys general and law-abiding Canadians supported the legislation.
Nicholson commits to vigorously defending the legislation to the highest courts and notes support from provincial attorneys general, providing some substantive context, but the answer is largely a partisan broadside rather than a direct response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is not at all too much to ask, and our Conservative government will vigorously defend the constitutionality of all our legislation to the highest courts in this country if necessary. We have acted to protect Canadian communities from repeat violent criminals. In fact, provincial attorneys general supported this legislation, law-abiding Canadians have supported it, and even the chronically soft-on-crime opposition parties voted for it. This government will not rest when it comes to strengthening our justice system and standing up for the rights of victims. That is what Canadians want.
Hsu asks what CRA has prepared to protect the level of service to vulnerable people â such as indigent clients who rely on in-person interviews to pass security checks â given that in-person CRA office service is being cut.
Hsu grounds the question in a specific, named constituent (Chris McBride of Kingston), a concrete program (in-person CRA interviews), a specific barrier faced by vulnerable clients, and a clear ask about what CRA has prepared to protect service levels.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every year Chris McBride of Kingston helps 300 indigent people do their taxes and get their GST credit and Trillium benefit. Some have trouble passing the security tests on the phone because, for example, they go for years without filing and they move several times a year and do not know their last filing addresses. This used to be fixed with an in-person interview at their local CRA office, but that service is being cut. Do the Conservatives think that it is not their job to worry about those vulnerable people? What has been prepared at CRA to protect the level of service to them?
Shea states that the way Canadians file taxes and access CRA information is changing toward online services, that in-person interactions accounted for only 2.5% of all interactions last year, and that Canadians can visit their local Service Canada location for assistance.
Shea provides a relevant statistic (in-person interactions were 2.5% of all interactions) and mentions Service Canada locations as alternatives, which partially addresses the service gap, but does not explain what specific measures protect the identified vulnerable population.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House previously, the way that Canadians file their taxes is changing. The way that Canadians access information from CRA is changing. There are more and more services being offered online. Therefore, in-person interactions with the agency only accounted for about 2.5% of all interactions with the agency last year. A dwindling number of people are using the service. Canadians can visit their local Service Canada location for assistance and the CRA will provide in-person meetings for issuesâ
Ravignat asks what the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will do immediately to help farmers in the Pontiac who are facing catastrophic crop conditions, lack of drinking water, and lack of food for livestock due to the summer drought.
Ravignat describes specific conditions (drought, lack of drinking water and livestock feed in the Pontiac) and poses a clear, time-sensitive ask about immediate government action, though it lacks specific program or dollar references.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la sĂ©cheresse de l'Ă©tĂ© menace le gagne-pain de milliers d'agriculteurs et d'Ă©leveurs canadiens. Dans le Pontiac, des hommes et des femmes qui ont toujours travaillĂ© d'arrache-pied pourraient perdre leur ferme Ă cause de l'Ă©tat catastrophique de leurs cultures. Ils manquent d'eau potable et de nourriture pour le bĂ©tail. Cela fait dĂ©jĂ des mois que ça dure, et toujours aucune aide de la part du gouvernement. Ce n'est pas dans un an qu'il faudra agir, c'est maintenant; dans un an, il sera trop tard. Le ministre de lâAgriculture et de lâAgroalimentaire peut-il nous dire ce qu'il va faire dĂšs aujourd'hui pour venir en aide Ă nos fermiers?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this summer's drought is threatening the livelihood of thousands of Canadian farmers. In the Pontiac, hard-working men and women may lose their farms because of the disastrous state of their crops. They do not have water and feed for their livestock. This has been going on for months, and there has been no assistance from the government. They need help now, not a year from now, when it will be too late. Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell us what he is going to do today to help our farmers?
Ritz states that federal and provincial programming exists to address these issues, attributes assessment delays to the Quebec election, and says he looks forward to working with the incoming Quebec cabinet on the issue.
Ritz acknowledges programming exists at federal and provincial levels but attributes delay to the Quebec election and offers no concrete immediate action, which was the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as in every region of this country, we have programming at the federal level and the provincial government levelâour partners in this enterpriseâto address these types of issues. There was a little thing in Quebec called an election, which has slowed down the assessment. We are more than willing to get back to work. I understand the new cabinet will be named later today. I look forward to working with my new provincial colleague from Quebec on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, today the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, reiterated that our government's decision to deliver marketing freedom to western Canadian farmers is a positive change for Canada. While the opposition wants to impose a job-killing carbon tax on food production and groceries, can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House how our government is supporting farmers?
Mr. Speaker, the member for Medicine Hat is absolutely right. His farmers, my farmers and farmers from all across western Canada are embracing the opportunities that they now have available to them under the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act that we passed earlier this spring. Today's OECD report said that the end of the single desk âis a positive step to enhance proactive risk management by farmersâ. We absolutely agree. What farmers really consider risky is the NDP leader and his cohorts' job-killing carbon tax that would immediately raise costs for farmers and destroy their bottom lines. We will not let that happen.
Sims asks whether the minister will do the humanitarian and compassionate thing and allow Kimberly Rivera â a war resister with two Canadian-born children who is scheduled for deportation tomorrow â to stay in Canada.
The question names a specific individual (Kimberly Rivera), cites concrete facts (two Canadian-born children, deportation scheduled for tomorrow), and poses a clear binary ask, but the humanitarian framing reduces its accountability sharpness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, like other war resisters, Kimberly Rivera came to Canada because she did not want to serve in the Iraq war, a war she believed was unjust. She built a life here in Canada. Two of her children were born here. Yet she is scheduled for deportation tomorrow. Will the minister do the humanitarian and compassionate thing? Will he do the right thing and allow Ms. Rivera to stay?
Dykstra states that military deserters from the democratic United States are not refugees under the internationally accepted meaning of the term, and that once individuals have exhausted all legal avenues they are expected to respect immigration laws and leave Canada.
Dykstra addresses the general principle that military deserters from the democratic United States are not refugees and that individuals must exhaust legal avenues, but does not directly address Rivera's specific case or the humanitarian and compassionate ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, military deserters from the democratic United States are not refugees under the internationally accepted meaning of the term. However, all individuals have the right to due process, and once they have exhausted all of those legal avenues we expect them to respect our immigration laws and leave Canada. The one thing on this side of the House that we understand is that President Obama's administration does not persecute American soldiers. Just a warning to the other side: I hope members agree with that statement.
May asks when the fine print of the Canada-China investment deal signed by the Prime Minister and President Hu on September 8 will be made public, and whether it will be released before the Nexen/CNOOC takeover is approved, given that CNOOC may have more rights than Nexen to challenge environmental laws under that deal.
May identifies two specific deadlines (the Nexen/CNOOC takeover review and the Canada-China investment deal signed September 8 with President Hu in Russia), raises a specific legal concern about CNOOC's rights under the deal, and asks two clear, linked questions about timing and transparency.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. We have two looming deadlines coming up. One is the proposed takeover of Nexen by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, and the other is to see the fine print of the deal that the Prime Minister signed with President Hu of China just this September 8, when he was in Russia. Under such an investment deal, CNOOC may have more rights than Nexen did to challenge environmental laws. When will we see the fine print of the investment deal and will we see it before the Nexen deal gets approved?
Paradis states that the proposed Nexen transaction will be scrutinized to ensure it provides a net benefit for Canada, and reiterates that government policies will ensure outcomes are good for the economy and job creation.
Paradis merely restates that the Nexen transaction will be scrutinized for net benefit to Canada and does not address the fine print of the investment deal, when it will be released, or whether it will be released before the Nexen decision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the proposed transaction of Nexen will be scrutinized very closely. Our job here is to ensure that it provides a net benefit for Canada. This is what we will do. I want to reiterate that our policies will always ensure that this is good for the economy, job creation and will not hurt Canadian families, as is proposed by the other side of the House.
This exchange contains no substantive question or answer â it is a procedural acclamation only.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
No summary.
This is a procedural acknowledgement related to Canada's Olympic and Paralympic athletes, not a question.
Source text
Hear, hear!
No summary.
There is no ministerial answer to score.