Session overview
- Food safety dominated Question Period, with the NDP and Liberals pressing the government on the XL Foods E. coli recall â specifically why contaminated beef was allowed to be sold to Canadians for 14 days after the CFIA shut down exports to the United States on September 13.
- Ministerial responsibility for the XL Foods crisis was a recurring flashpoint: the NDP demanded the Minister of Agriculture's resignation, while the Prime Minister consistently deflected by attributing all decisions to the CFIA acting on scientific evidence.
- The government's election spending in Labrador â including alleged overspending of more than $20,000 beyond the Elections Canada limit, discounted airline invoices, and the appointment of the former official agent Reg Bowers to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board â drew sustained criticism from both the NDP and Liberals.
- The NDP challenged the government over Canadian soldiers serving in combat roles in Kandahar, arguing this violated a 2008 House vote and contradicted the Prime Minister's repeated assurances that combat operations had ended; the Prime Minister described the arrangement as a small exchange program of fewer than half a dozen individuals.
- Employment insurance reforms, the CNOOC-Nexen foreign investment review, the use of temporary foreign workers in B.C. coal mines, and the upcoming second budget implementation bill were also debated, with the government defending each file and the opposition alleging a lack of consultation and transparency.
- The Minister of Agriculture apologized unreservedly after a point of order was raised by the NDP for referring to an emergency debate on the XL Foods crisis as a 'silly emergency debate,' with the NDP arguing this impugned both the House and the Speaker.
The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development disclosed for the first time publicly that 60 people are directly affected by a multi-year investigation into alleged fraud and deliberate misrepresentations in the use of EI in northern Cape Breton, providing a concrete factual detail that had not been stated in earlier exchanges.
Mulcair cites a specific date (September 13), a specific action (shutting down beef exports from XL Foods), and asks a direct yes-or-no question about whether the Prime Minister stands by the minister's decision to allow contaminated beef to be sold to Canadian families for 14 more days.
Rather than addressing the specific allegation that the government failed to enforce conditions on foreign investors such as U.S. Steel, Rio Tinto, and Vale, Goodyear accused the NDP of sending an anti-trade mission to Washington and opposing free trade, making no attempt to engage with the factual record of broken investor commitments raised in the question.
Outstanding questions
- Thomas Mulcair asked why the Prime Minister would not fire the Minister of Agriculture given that, by September 13, the minister had determined beef from XL Foods was not safe for Americans yet allowed it to be sold to Canadians for another 14 days â no answer was given on this specific timeline or the minister's personal role in the decision.
- Thomas Mulcair asked the Prime Minister to immediately withdraw all Canadian soldiers still involved in combat missions in Afghanistan â the Prime Minister did not explain the legal or parliamentary basis under which the exchange program involving fewer than half a dozen soldiers in combat roles was authorized after the 2008 House vote.
- Bob Rae asked why the government would not accept the Senate amendment allowing the Auditor General to review the CFIA â the Prime Minister stated only that the Auditor General can audit any agency, without explaining the government's specific opposition to the proposed amendment.
- Alexandre Boulerice asked what the government promised the airline company in exchange for erasing more than $15,000 in invoices related to the member for Labrador's election campaign â the Parliamentary Secretary did not address the invoices or any arrangement with the airline.
- Carolyn Bennett asked why the Minister of Health was not allowing the Public Health Agency of Canada to speak directly to Canadians about the safety of their food and called for a televised press conference featuring the Public Health Agency â no commitment to such a press conference was made, and the Chief Public Health Officer's absence from public communications was not explained.
Does the Prime Minister recognize that his Minister of Agriculture is responsible because it is his program and his approach that put the lives of Canadians in danger?
Mulcair invokes the principle of ministerial responsibility and frames a clear accountability question about the Minister of Agriculture's responsibility for the program that endangered Canadians, though it is somewhat rhetorical in structure.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, 44 jours aprĂšs le dĂ©but de la crise de la viande contaminĂ©e, il y a encore un rappel de produits qui vient tout juste d'avoir lieu. Hier, le premier ministre Ă©vacuait complĂštement le principe de la responsabilitĂ© ministĂ©rielle en disant que ce n'Ă©tait pas de la faute du ministre, parce que ce n'est pas lui qui fait les inspections. Le premier ministre se rend-il compte que son ministre de lâAgriculture est responsable parce que c'est son programme, sa façon de faire, qui a mis la vie des Canadiens en danger?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, 44 days after the start of the tainted meat crisis, more products have just been recalled. Yesterday, the Prime Minister completely ignored the principle of ministerial responsibility by saying that it was not the minister's fault because he is not the one who does the inspections. Does the Prime Minister realize that the Minister of Agriculture is responsible because it is his program and his approach that have put the lives of Canadians in danger?
Harper says Canada has one of the best systems in the world, that the CFIA is responsible for inspections, and that the plant will remain closed until it is clearly safe.
Harper deflects to the CFIA's institutional role and the plant closure, avoiding the specific question of whether the minister bears ministerial responsibility for the program.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au contraire, le Canada a l'un des meilleurs systÚmes au monde à cet égard. L'Agence canadienne d'inspection des aliments est responsable des inspections. à cause de données recueillies, elle a décidé de prendre plusieurs mesures, y compris la fermeture de l'usine, finalement. L'usine restera fermée jusqu'à ce qu'elle soit clairement sécuritaire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, Canada has one of the best food inspection systems in the world. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for inspections. As a result of the information it collected, it decided to take a series of actions, up to and including shutting down the plant. It will not allow the plant to reopen until such time as it is convinced that the plant can operate safely.
Does the Prime Minister stand by his minister's decision to allow contaminated beef from XL Foods to be sold to Canadian families for another 14 days after the CFIA had determined it was not safe for Americans?
Mulcair cites a specific date (September 13), a specific action (shutting down beef exports from XL Foods), and asks a direct yes-or-no question about whether the Prime Minister stands by the minister's decision to allow contaminated beef to be sold to Canadian families for 14 more days.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on September 13, the CFIA shut down beef exports from XL Foods. The Minister of Agriculture determined that beef from XL was not safe enough to be sold to American families, but he allowed that same contaminated beef to be sold to Canadian families for another 14 days. I have a straightforward question. Does the Prime Minister stand by his minister's decision to allow contaminated beef to be sold to Canadian families for another 14 days after the CFIA had determined it was not safe for Americans?
Harper states it is the CFIA that makes decisions based on science, not politics, and that it has taken a series of actions up to and including shutting down the plant.
Harper pivots to the CFIA's science-based decision-making and the plant closure without directly addressing whether he stands by the 14-day gap during which contaminated beef was sold to Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that makes these decisions based on science, not on political decisions. The reality in this situation is that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has taken a series of actions, up to and including shutting down the plant. Obviously, it will not allow the plant to open until such time as it is convinced the plant can operate safely.
Given the specific timeline of events showing the minister withheld information from Canadians and allowed them to buy and eat contaminated meat, why will the Prime Minister not fire the minister?
Mulcair cites three specific dates and specific events (American inspectors discovering contamination on September 3, the minister learning XL was withholding E. coli testing data on September 6, and the export ban on September 13) and asks why the Prime Minister will not fire the minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, contaminated beef from XL Foods was first discovered by American inspectors on September 3. By September 6, the minister knew that XL was withholding E. coli testing data from Canadian inspectors. By September 13, the minister had determined that beef from XL was not safe enough to be sold to American families, yet the Minister of Agriculture withheld this information from Canadians. He let Canadians buy and eat contaminated meat. Since the minister will not accept his responsibility and resign for this scandal, why will the Prime Minister simply not fire him?
Harper says many statements in the question are clearly erroneous, that the CFIA makes decisions based on scientific information, and that an expert review of the processes is underway.
Harper dismisses the factual premises as 'clearly erroneous' without specifying which ones, then pivots to the CFIA's processes and an expert review, never engaging with the specific timeline or the call for dismissal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are many statements there that are clearly erroneous. It is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that takes decisions based on the scientific information available to it. It has taken a number of steps, up to and including shutting down the plant. As I have said, the plant will not be opened until the agency is convinced it can operate safely. In the meantime, as part of the reforms the government has put in to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, there is always an expert review of the processes followed in all of these matters.
Given that the minister's own spokesperson admitted Canadian troops were permitted to serve in combat roles in Kandahar, why did the Prime Minister break his word to Canadians and to Parliament?
Mulcair cites the 2008 House vote, the minister's public statements that combat operations had ended, and the minister's spokesperson's admission that troops were 'permitted to be in Kandahar province and to serve in combat roles,' forming a clear accountability question about breaking a commitment to Parliament.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on another issue, in 2008 the House voted to end Canada's presence in Kandahar. The Minister of National Defence told the House that combat operations had ended and that Canadians were not involved in combat. However, yesterday the minister's own spokesperson admitted that Canadian troops were âpermitted to be in Kandahar province and to serve in combat rolesâ. Time and again the Prime Minister stood and said that Canadian soldiers were no longer going to serve in combat, but they do. Why did he break his word to Canadians and to Parliament?
Harper says the government has no combat mission in Kandahar, that ongoing exchanges involve less than half a dozen Canadian Forces members and their NATO counterparts, and that this is a simple exchange program.
Harper addresses the exchange program and provides a specific number (less than half a dozen people) but does not directly address the contradiction between saying combat had ended and the spokesperson's admission of combat roles.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has no combat mission in Kandahar. That has been made very clear, as the minister said very clearly yesterday, and has been known in the House for a very long time. There are ongoing exchanges that do take place among small numbers of members of the Canadian Forces and their counterparts in the NATO alliance. I believe this involves less than half a dozen people who we are talking about. There is no combat mission. This is a simple exchange program of a handful of individuals.
Will the Prime Minister immediately withdraw all Canadian soldiers still involved in combat missions in Afghanistan, given that this decision was made without respecting the parliamentary motion and hidden from Canadians?
Mulcair directly demands the immediate withdrawal of all Canadian soldiers still involved in combat missions in Afghanistan, framing it as defiance of a parliamentary motion, though the demand is more rhetorical than a question seeking information.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre et son ministre de la Défense nationale peuvent essayer de jouer sur les mots, de parler de développement professionnel et de programme d'échange tant qu'ils le veulent. En réalité, il y a des soldats canadiens impliqués dans des combats en Afghanistan. Sans respecter la motion du Parlement, sans égard aux promesses du premier ministre, ils ont autorisé l'emploi de soldats canadiens pour la poursuite des combats. C'est une décision politique qu'ils ont cachée aux Canadiens. Je demande donc au premier ministre de retirer immédiatement tous les soldats canadiens toujours impliqués dans les missions de combat en Afghanistan.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence can try to play with words and talk about professional development and an exchange program as much as they want. The truth is that there are Canadian soldiers involved in combat in Afghanistan. In spite of the motion Parliament adopted and in spite of the Prime Minister's promises, they authorized the use of Canadian soldiers in combat roles. This is a political decision that they hid from Canadians. I am therefore calling on the Prime Minister to immediately withdraw all Canadian troops who are still involved in combat missions in Afghanistan.
Harper says operations in Kandahar are training operations, that there is no Canadian combat mission, and that exchanges with NATO allies involve about half a dozen people, adding 'There are no black helicopters here. There is no secret combat mission.'
Harper again describes the operations as training, references NATO exchanges involving roughly half a dozen people, and dismisses the premise with 'There are no black helicopters here' and 'There is no secret combat mission,' without addressing the parliamentary motion.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis un certain temps, nos opérations à Kandahar sont des opérations d'entraßnement. C'est clair qu'il n'y a pas de mission canadienne de combat... [A child heard crying in the gallery.]
Mr. Speaker, I have heard much worse noise here from adults. Pour terminer ma réponse, j'ajouterai qu'il y a, comme d'habitude et depuis longtemps, des échanges avec d'autres alliés de l'OTAN. On parle d'une demi-douzaine de personnes. There are no black helicopters here. There is no secret combat mission.
Why will the government not accept the Senate amendment allowing the Auditor General to review the CFIA, rather than having the minister conduct the review when the minister has already said everything is fine?
Rae asks a specific and concrete question about why the government would not accept a Senate amendment to have the Auditor General, rather than the minister, conduct the review of the CFIA, citing the minister's own statement that everything is fine as reason for conflict of interest.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is so confident, as he says is, that Canada has the best food inspection system in the world, I wonder why his government would not accept the very simple amendment that is now being considered in the Senate that would allow a third party, namely, the Auditor General, to do the review with respect to the activities of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the whole system, instead of asking the minister to do the review, because the minister has already said that everything is working fine, everything is just great. Why not let the Auditor General do that job?
Harper says the government does not direct the Auditor General's work and that the AG can audit the CFIA, and that an expert review of events will be conducted as part of performance stemming from the Weatherill report.
Harper notes that the government does not direct the Auditor General's work and that the AG can audit the CFIA, and references an expert review stemming from the Weatherill report, but does not address why the government opposed the specific Senate amendment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party, as an experienced parliamentarian, should know that the government does not direct the work of the Auditor General. The Auditor General can audit this and any number of other agencies. In fact, as part of the government's performance stemming from the Weatherill report, there will be an expert review of the events here and to ensure the processes of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency remain the best in the world.
Given evidence of overspending of over $20,000 in the member for Labrador's campaign against an $80,000 limit, what are the Prime Minister's standards for ministerial conduct, and why not call a byelection?
Rae cites specific figures (overspending of over $20,000 in a campaign with a limit of $80,000 by the member for Labrador) and asks a clear question about the Prime Minister's standards for ministerial conduct, with a pointed rhetorical close.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister could now tell us exactly what his standards are with respect to the conduct of ministers. There is substantial evidence now that there was overspending in the last election by the member for Labrador, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, by over $20,000 in a campaign that had a limit of $80,000. This is not simply a question about Elections Canada. This is a question about the standards of the Prime Minister of Canada with respect to the conduct of his candidates. Instead of buying elections, why not a byelection?
Harper says errors in the official agent's filings were conceded some time ago, a new official agent was named and has been working with Elections Canada to correct the problems, then pivots to the Liberal member for Guelph's illegal robocalls and Adam Carroll.
Harper acknowledges errors in the official agent's filings and the appointment of a new agent working with Elections Canada, but pivots to the Liberal member for Guelph's robocall case and Adam Carroll without addressing the specific standard question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as was conceded some time ago, there were errors in the filings of the official agent in this case. That was the individual responsible. A new official agent was named. That agent has been working for some time with Elections Canada to correct these problems. If the hon. gentleman wants to talk about standards, it was the Liberal member for Guelph whose campaign was found to have made $5,000 in illegal robocalls. That was a clear decision. No action was taken. The member told us that Adam Carroll would no longer be a staffer and he had no sooner said that and they brought him back into the Liberal Party.
The official agent responsible for the overspending was just appointed to an important federal board; given illegal overspending of $20,000 over the Elections Canada limit in Labrador, what will the Prime Minister do?
Rae adds a new specific detail â that the official agent in question was appointed to an important federal government board â and reiterates the $20,000 illegal overspending figure, asking what the Prime Minister will do, making it a reasonably specific follow-up.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'agent officiel dont parle le premier ministre vient d'ĂȘtre nommĂ© Ă un board important du gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral. C'est jusqu'Ă ce point qu'ils ont des standards! La question est lĂ . Il n'est pas question de quelques sous ou de quelques dollars. Ce sont 20 000 dollars qui ont Ă©tĂ© dĂ©pensĂ©s illĂ©galement, au-delĂ de la limite Ă©tablie par Ălections Canada. C'est clair qu'au Labrador, l'Ă©lection a Ă©tĂ© achetĂ©e. Que va faire le premier ministre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the official agent mentioned by the Prime Minister was just appointed to an important federal government board. Those are the kinds of standards they have. That is the issue. This is not about a few dollars. We are talking about $20,000 that was illegally spent in excess of the limit established by Elections Canada. It is obvious that the election in Labrador was bought. What is the Prime Minister going to do?
Harper says it has long been acknowledged that there were errors in Elections Canada reports, a new official agent was named, and then pivots to the Liberal leader accepting a member whose staff broke the law with robocalls.
Harper repeats his earlier acknowledgment of errors and the new official agent, then pivots again to the Liberals' robocall case and an employee who resigned, without addressing the appointment of the former official agent to a federal board.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on reconnaĂźt depuis longtemps qu'il y a eu des erreurs dans les rapports d'Ălections Canada. C'est la raison pour laquelle on a nommĂ© un nouvel agent officiel. Ce sont les agents officiels qui sont responsables dans de tels cas. Cependant, le chef du Parti libĂ©ral nous demande un standard complĂštement diffĂ©rent du sien. Il a acceptĂ© dans son parti un dĂ©putĂ© dont le personnel a enfreint la loi lors de sa campagne avec des appels automatisĂ©s. Il a aussi acceptĂ© un employĂ© qui a dĂ» dĂ©missionner.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have known for quite some time that there were errors in the Elections Canada filings. That is why a new official agent was named. The official agents are responsible in such cases. However, the leader of the Liberal Party wants us to adhere to a completely different standard to his own. His party accepted a member whose staff broke the law by making robocalls during his campaign. He also accepted an employee who had to resign.
What will the minister do to help workers and farmers bracing for the fallout from the XL Foods crisis, given that the company has told employees they will soon be unemployed and Brooks city council is already making plans?
Allen references XL Foods' announcement to employees about unemployment and Brooks city council's crisis plan, asking what the minister will do to help workers and farmers, but the ask is somewhat broad and the rhetorical framing weakens the specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, XL Foods has told its employees that they will soon be unemployed again. In response, Brooks city council is releasing its plan to deal with the crisis. It is making plans and consulting the people affected. That is what a responsible government does and that is what the minister should be doing. Instead, he evades questions and makes up answers. What will the minister do to help workers and farmers now bracing for the fallout from this crisis?
Ritz says food safety and rebuilding consumer confidence are the first priority, that the CFIA is conducting an in-depth analysis, and that he met with industry participants and is meeting two or three times a week to find alternative movement for cattle stocks.
Ritz provides some substantive detail â meetings with industry participants two or three times a week, CFIA analysis, discussions about alternative movement for cattle stocks â though he does not outline a concrete plan for workers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, food safety remains our first priority and rebuilding consumer confidence after these issues have been dealt with at the Brooks plant. CFIA is conducting an in-depth analysis as we speak. Having said that, I met with a lot of the industry participants yesterday in ongoing meetings. We are meeting at least two or three times a week to discuss these issues and find alternative movement for our cattle stocks.
Why is the minister ignoring farmers, cattlemen, local communities and Canadian families, given that even the Alberta leader of the opposition called this a humanitarian crisis?
Allen's question is largely rhetorical â invoking television ads, food inspection cuts, and the Alberta opposition leader's 'humanitarian crisis' characterization â and the ask ('why is the minister ignoringâŠ') is a compound, vague accusation rather than a specific inquiry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, their first priority is actually buying television ads and then cutting food inspection. That is the real reality of their priorities. I know many members opposite count the Alberta leader of the opposition as their friend. Yesterday, she said that this made-in-Ottawa fiasco was becoming a humanitarian crisis. Are the Ottawa Conservatives so out of touch that they cannot even hear the warning sounds coming from their friends in Alberta? Why is the minister ignoring farmers, ignoring cattlemen, ignoring local communities and ignoring the concerns of Canadian families?
Ritz says he has been working daily with the member representing the Brooks area, that extra human resources staff are helping process EI applications with 500 or 600 already processed, and that he continues to meet biweekly or triweekly with the cattle industry.
Ritz provides some specific detail: working with the member representing the Brooks area, extra human resources staff processing EI applications (500 or 600 processed), and biweekly or triweekly meetings with the cattle industry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are doing no such thing. I have been working on a daily basis with the member representing the Brooks area. He has been in touch with his folks at home. We have extra staff in there from human resources to make sure all these folks have applications in for their EI. Some 500 or 600 have been processed already. I continue to meet on a biweekly or triweekly basis with the cattle industry to ensure it has the ability to move forward on this issue. We are very positively and proactively working on these issues.
Where is the plan to help the beef industry, given that the minister does nothing except defend his own reputation while cattle producers worry about his inaction?
Brosseau challenges the minister directly for not defending the interests of cattle producers and asks specifically where the aid plan for the beef industry is, though it is embedded in partisan framing about propaganda spending.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ils ont de l'argent pour de la propagande, mais pas pour les Ă©leveurs. Le premier ministre a accordĂ© un passe-droit au ministre, hier. Selon sa logique, puisque le ministre n'inspecte pas personnellement la viande, il n'est pas responsable de la sĂ©curitĂ© alimentaire. Mis Ă part cette ridicule affirmation, le ministre a la responsabilitĂ© de dĂ©fendre les intĂ©rĂȘts des Ă©leveurs. Ceux-ci s'inquiĂštent de l'inaction du ministre, qui ne fait rien sinon dĂ©fendre sa propre rĂ©putation. OĂč est le plan d'aide Ă l'industrie bovine?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, they have money to spend on propaganda, but not on farmers. Yesterday, the Prime Minister gave the minister a free pass. According to the Prime Minister, the minister is not responsible for food safety because he does not personally inspect the meat. Setting aside this ridiculous statement, the minister is responsible for defending farmers' interests. Farmers are worried by the inaction of the minister, who is doing nothing but defending his own reputation. Where is the assistance plan for the cattle industry?
Oh, oh!
Ritz says he does not just talk but acts, citing a conference call with provincial counterparts the previous afternoon about issues in the pork sector, and says he continues to work with all affected parties toward solutions.
Ritz mentions a conference call with provincial counterparts the previous afternoon and discussions about issues in the pork sector, but the answer is cut short by heckling and ends without providing a substantive plan for the beef industry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we do not just talk, we actually act. I had a conference call with my provincial counterparts as late as yesterday afternoon. We talked about the issues in the pork sector, as well as the--
Definite leadership material there, Mr. Speaker. We look forward to that. Having said that, we continue to work with all parties affected throughout this issue and we look forward to solutions very soon.
Will the Conservatives be honest with Canadians this time, or will they table another budget implementation bill that is a Trojan horse with disastrous consequences like the previous one?
Cullen references the previous budget implementation bill's hidden elements (attacks on the environment, seniors, the unemployed, and the Auditor General) and asks whether the Conservatives will be honest or table another 'Trojan horse,' but the question is largely rhetorical without a specific factual ask about the upcoming bill.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est un Ă©chec aprĂšs l'autre. La derniĂšre fois que les conservateurs ont dĂ©posĂ© une loi d'exĂ©cution du budget, il y avait des centaines d'Ă©lĂ©ments cachĂ©s, des attaques contre l'environnement, contre les aĂźnĂ©s, contre les sans-emploi et contre le vĂ©rificateur gĂ©nĂ©ral. Est-ce que, pour une fois, les conservateurs seront honnĂȘtes avec les Canadiens, ou dĂ©poseront-ils encore un cheval de Troie aux consĂ©quences dĂ©sastreuses?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the failures keep coming. The last time the Conservatives introduced a budget implementation bill, there were hundreds of things hidden in it: attacks on the environment, on seniors, on the unemployed, on the Auditor General. Will the Conservatives be honest with Canadians for once, or will they table yet another Trojan Horse with disastrous consequences?
Flaherty explains that the government follows each budget with two budget bills every year, and that the second budget bill, which will contain measures from the budget, is ready and will be introduced shortly.
Flaherty gives a procedurally relevant answer â explaining the two-budget-bill structure and that the second bill will contain measures from the budget â which is a partial substantive response, though it does not address concerns about hidden non-budgetary measures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, which is the first question I have had this session, not that the economy is not important for our country. When we do a budget we follow it up with two budget bills, and we do that every year. The second budget bill is ready and will be introduced shortly. It contains, not surprisingly, measures that are in the budget.
Will the government work with opposition parties and allow parliamentarians to do their jobs rather than again tabling a budget bill that weakens environmental protection, guts the Fisheries Act, and cuts EI?
Cullen argues that budget bills should contain only budgetary measures, references the spring bill's weakening of environmental protection, gutting of the Fisheries Act, and EI cuts, and asks whether the government will work with opposition parties and respect Parliament, but the ask is diffuse and heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I hate to attack the minister's fragile ego but Parliament still goes on when he is not here. The opposition has been asking questions despite his lack of attendance. Let us try this challenging line of logic. Budget bills should be used for what things that are in--
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, budget bills should be used for things that are in the budget, but last spring the Conservatives--
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, the foreign affairs minister has a certain set of skills that are unique to his position. Last spring, the Conservatives presented a bill that not only killed more jobs than it created, it weakened environmental protection, gutted the Fisheries Act and further cut EI to Canadians. Across the country, people were clear in saying that this was not how Parliament should work. However, it is not too late for the Conservatives to do the right thing. Will the government work with opposition parties and respect Parliament, do what even the Prime Minister used to believe and allow parliamentarians to do their jobs?
Flaherty says the budget is an economic action plan for 2012 and beyond, that the second budget bill will complete the work outlined in the budget, and cites the creation of more than 800,000 net new jobs.
Flaherty references the Economic Action Plan 2012, the two-bill process, and the creation of more than 800,000 net new jobs, but does not address the specific concern about non-budgetary measures being included in budget bills.
Source text
As the member opposite knows, Mr. Speaker, the budget this year is an economic action plan for 2012 and beyond that. We have had the first budget bill and now we will have the second budget bill to complete the work that was outlined in the budget. The results of all of this have been the creation of more than 800,000 net new jobs. We will continue with the plan as will be contained in the second budget bill to create more jobs, more growth and more prosperity in Canada.
What did the ministry promise in exchange for an airline erasing over $15,000 in invoices to prevent the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs' campaign from visibly exceeding its spending limit?
Boulerice asks a specific question: what the government promised in exchange for an airline erasing over $15,000 in invoices to hide overspending in the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs' campaign, citing a concrete dollar figure, though it is embedded in partisan framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la mĂ©canique machiavĂ©lique des projets de loi mammouths du ministre des Finances ne sont pas plus acceptables que les stratagĂšmes utilisĂ©s par le ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales, qui a complĂštement ignorĂ© le plafond des dĂ©penses lors des derniĂšres Ă©lections. Ăa me fait penser Ă quelque chose. Ah oui, les milliers de dollars de dĂ©penses en trop des conservateurs en 2006! C'est ça! On a donc appris qu'une compagnie aĂ©rienne a dĂ» effacer pour plus de 15 000 $ de factures pour Ă©viter que le dĂ©passement de ses dĂ©penses soit trop exagĂ©rĂ©. On n'est pas loin de l'achat pur et simple d'Ă©lections. Peut-on savoir ce que le ministĂšre a promis en Ă©change de la disparition miraculeuse de ces factures?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's Machiavellian process of introducing mammoth bills is no more acceptable than the schemes used by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who completely ignored the spending limits during the last election. That reminds me of something. Oh yes, the thousands of dollars the Conservatives overspent in 2006. That is it. We learned that an airline had to write off over $15,000 in expenses so that the overspending would not be too excessive. This is getting close to buying an election. I would like to know what the department promised in exchange for the miraculous disappearance of these invoices.
Poilievre says the official agent who made errors has been replaced and the new agent will answer outstanding questions, then pivots to asking whether an NDP member who donated 29 times to a separatist party is a federalist.
Poilievre gives a single sentence acknowledging errors and the replacement of the official agent, then completely pivots to attacking an NDP member for donating 29 times to a separatist party, which has no connection to the question about the airline invoice erasure.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'agent officiel qui a fait les erreurs a déjà été remplacé et le nouvel agent va donner des réponses aux questions laissées en suspens. We have disagreements all the time in the House of Commons over various issues. There is one very fundamental question that comes up, though, about a member of the official opposition donating 29 times to the hardest line separatist party in Quebec. It is a very simple question but a very important one. Does he believe in a united Canada? Is he a federalist?
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs justify the 21% overspending above Elections Canada's electoral spending limit in his campaign?
Boulerice asks a direct question: can the minister justify the 21% overspending above Elections Canada's electoral spending limit in the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs' campaign, citing a specific percentage, though it largely repeats the previous exchange.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je comprends la prĂ©occupation du secrĂ©taire parlementaire du ministre des Transports, de l'Infrastructure et des CollectivitĂ©s pour les problĂšmes de transport du ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales, mais visiblement, il ne prend pas ça assez au sĂ©rieux. Faire le clown, c'est drĂŽle une fois, deux fois, mais quand c'est tout le temps, on finit par perdre sa crĂ©dibilitĂ© Ă un moment donnĂ©, quoiqu'il ne lui en reste pas beaucoup, d'ailleurs. Ce n'est pas en essayant d'effacer leurs traces et leurs empreintes qu'ils vont amĂ©liorer leur rĂ©putation. La campagne du ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales a visiblement Ă©tĂ© jalonnĂ©e de graves erreurs. Le ministre peut-il justifier le dĂ©passement de 21 % du plafond des dĂ©penses Ă©lectorales d'Ălections Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is concerned about the transportation problems of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, but he clearly is not taking this very seriously. Clowning around is fun for a bit, but after a while, the person loses credibilityâalthough he does not have much left to lose. They are not going to improve their reputation by covering their tracks. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs' campaign clearly made some serious mistakes. Can the minister justify going over the Elections Canada spending limit by 21%?
Poilievre says he already answered the question and the answer remains the same, then asks why the NDP member will not say he is a federalist given his 29 donations to separatists.
Poilievre says he already answered the question and the answer remains the same, then entirely pivots to the NDP member's 29 donations to separatists â a complete non-answer to the specific justification question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question and the answer remains the same. However, the member across refuses to answer the question that Canadians are posing to him. He donated, not once, not twice, but 29 times. He is the gift that keeps on giving. The problem is that he keeps giving to the separatists. He could put the whole matter to rest by simply rising and saying that he is a federalist and he believes in a united Canada. Why will he not just do that?
Harris asks what the government is doing to hold the Minister for Labrador accountable for an alleged unethical financing scheme in which $24,000 worth of flights was obtained for $7,000, reportedly brokered by the member's brother-in-law after the election.
Cites specific figures ($24,000 worth of flights for $7,000) and names the brokering arrangement, but the ask â 'what is the government doing to hold the minister to account' â is vague and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, no amount of bafflegab can erase the unethical financing scheme that helped elect the member for Labrador in the last election: $24,000 worth of flights for $7,000 is clearly not fair market value, and apparently this deal was brokered by the member's brother-in-law months after the election was over. All they could afford to pay was $7,000 after all their misspending. I want to know what the government is doing to hold the minister to account for his rule-breaking election campaign.
Poilievre defends the member for Labrador's integrity and pivots to accusing the NDP of funnelling illegal tax-subsidized money to the Broadbent Institution and promoting a carbon tax.
Poilievre deflects entirely to the Broadbent Institution and a carbon tax, never addressing the election financing figures or the accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member for Labrador, the minister, is a man of tremendous integrity who was elected to serve the people of Labrador, and we stand behind him. The member across the way is part of a party that funnelled illegal tax subsidized money to the Broadbent Institution which, this week, spoke about the NDP's plan, âGreen taxes, such as a carbon tax, and higher taxes on natural resourcesâ. Why will the member not recognize that the people in Labrador, in fact, people right across this country, want a low tax plan for jobs and growth, not high taxes that will put them out of work.
Harris asks why the Conservatives rewarded Reg Bowers â whom he characterises as having broken election rules â with a patronage appointment to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.
Harris names Reg Bowers specifically, links his removal as official agent to a named appointment (Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board), and poses a clear accountability question about rewarding rule-breaking with patronage.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have an old refrain here, âConservative Party stepping in to scapegoat a supposedly inexperienced official agentâ. He proved unable to competently run a local election campaign within the rules, but Reg Bowers was still so well regarded by the Prime Minister that he was awarded with a plum appointment to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. He is qualified, apparently, to help direct the billion dollar oil industry but not competent to keep a local riding campaign on budget. Why did the Conservatives reward someone for breaking all the rules with a plum patronage post?
Poilievre notes the official agent has been replaced by a new one who will provide information to Elections Canada, then attacks the NDP's carbon tax plan as harmful to Newfoundland.
Poilievre briefly acknowledges the official agent has been replaced, which addresses one element, but then pivots entirely to the NDP's carbon tax and its alleged effect on Newfoundland.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have already told the opposition that the official agent has been replaced by a new one, who will provide the proper information to Elections Canada. With that said, the NDP engaged in an illegal process to forward tax-subsidized money to the Broadbent Institute. That same institute has revealed that the NDP's carbon tax plan would devastate, not Canada in general, but Newfoundland and its new prosperity in particular. Why will a member for Newfoundland not stand up for the taxpayers and the hard-working people from his province?
Andrews alleges the member for Labrador overspent by $20,000, accepted corporate donations and illegal loans, and won by fewer than 80 votes, then asks whether the member will take responsibility and resign, and whether the official agent should be fired from the C-NLOPB.
Andrews lists specific alleged infractions (overspending, corporate donations, fraudulent invoicing, illegal loans) and a margin of victory of under 80 votes, but the ask conflates multiple demands and ends with a call to resign.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is more Conservative disregard for election laws. The plot thickens around the member for Labrador: overspending, corporate donations, fraudulent invoicing and illegal loans. The minister overspent by $20,000. This guy lost by less than 80 votes. He bought the election. Election spending is the responsibility of the candidate. Now that he has gotten rid of the official agent and given him a posh patronage job, he should fire him from the C-NLOPB as well. I ask, will the member take responsibility for his own actions and resign?
Poilievre counters by referencing nearly half a million dollars in alleged illegal loans by four Liberal leadership candidates, making no reference to the specific allegations against the member for Labrador.
Poilievre ignores the specific allegations entirely and pivots to illegal loans by four unnamed Liberal leadership candidates, never addressing the member for Labrador's conduct.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member has the audacity to ask about illegal loans. An illegal loan is when someone takes money from a powerful interest and refuses to pay it back. Then it becomes an illegal donation. Interestingly, there are four Liberal leadership candidates who have done just that over the last six years, amounting to almost a half a million dollars in illegal money. Why will that member not help clean up the half million dollar ethical mess and stop throwing rocks when he lives in a little red glass house?
Andrews began to raise the in-and-out scheme and called the member for Labrador a cheater before the exchange was cut off by disorder.
Andrews' exchange was cut off by disorder after referring to the in-and-out and calling the member for Labrador a cheater, with no complete question formed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I guess that member has forgotten all about the in-out that he stood behind. The government cannot humorously repeat that it is co-operating with Elections Canada. The member for Labrador is a cheater. He tried to fixâ
Oh, oh!
No answer was given.
No answer was given as the exchange was interrupted.
Byrne asks whether Treasury Board policies permit continued discretionary language training, travel status expenses, and government-funded legal services for a public servant subject to a Public Service Commission termination order contesting the ruling at Federal Court.
Byrne poses a precisely framed procedural question about Treasury Board policies covering three specific expenditure types â language training, travel status, and legal services â for an employee under a Public Service Commission termination order, with a named institution (Federal Court).
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. I would like to ask, is it consistent with Treasury Board policies and guidelines for the Government of Canada to continue to provide ongoing discretionary language training expenses, as well as ongoing travel status expenses, to a member of the public service who has been otherwise subject to a termination order by the Public Service Commission of Canada, and is it within Treasury Board guidelines to provide funds for legal services to an employee to assist the employee in contesting such a ruling by a federal institution at the Federal Court? Would the Treasury Board president please answer this question?
Keddy states the matter is not political, that the commissioner found problems with the public service hiring process but no political interference by ministers or ministerial staff, and that the matter is now before the courts.
Keddy states the matter is before the courts and that the commissioner found problems with the hiring process but no political interference, engaging the general context but not addressing whether those specific expenditures are consistent with Treasury Board policies.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the hon. member's question, and the hon. member would know, number one, that this is not a political issue; number two, the public court record states that the commissioner found problems with the way the public service ran its hiring process but did not find any political interference by ministers or ministerial staff. He would also know that the matter is now before the courts.
LeBlanc questions the replacement of Investment Canada director Simon Kennedy just as the CNOOC-Nexen deal is concluding, the absence of a defined net benefit concept, and the exclusion of Canadians from the debate, then asks whether the government believes a foreign government should control Canadian natural resources.
LeBlanc raises the specific context of Simon Kennedy's replacement and the undefined 'net benefit' concept, but her closing ask â whether a foreign government should control Canadian natural resources â is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la gestion du dossier CNOOC-Nexen est de plus en plus problĂ©matique. Cette semaine, les conservateurs ont annoncĂ© que le directeur d'Investissement Canada, M. Simon Kennedy, serait remplacĂ© tout juste aprĂšs la conclusion de l'entente. On s'assure donc que personne n'a de comptes Ă rendre pour cette dĂ©cision. Leur approche est dĂ©sordonnĂ©e depuis le dĂ©but. Ils ont empĂȘchĂ© les Canadiens de participer au dĂ©bat et ils n'ont pas dĂ©fini le concept d'avantage net. Voici donc une question simple. Est-ce qu'ils pensent qu'un gouvernement Ă©tranger devrait contrĂŽler les ressources naturelles canadiennes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the CNOOC-Nexen deal is going from bad to worse. This week, the Conservatives announced that Simon Kennedy, the director of Investment Canada, will be replaced as soon as the takeover bid is approved, which is another way of ensuring that no one will have to answer for this decision. The Conservatives have had an uncoordinated approach from the start. They have prevented Canadians from joining the debate and they have not defined the concept of net benefit. I have a simple question. Do the Conservatives think that a foreign government should have control over Canada's natural resources?
Goodyear asserts the government always acts in the best interests of Canada, that the transaction will be scrutinized closely, and that the Investment Canada Act provides protections for national security.
Goodyear gives a general assurance that the government acts in Canada's best interests and notes national security provisions in the Investment Canada Act, but does not address the Kennedy replacement, the net benefit definition, or the lack of public consultation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear about this. The government has always, and will always, act in the best interests of Canada and Canadians. This transaction will be scrutinized very closely. I will mention to the member opposite that the Investment Canada Act already provides for issues to protect national security.
Julian argues that the government failed to enforce conditions on U.S. Steel in Hamilton, Rio Tinto, and Vale, and asks why Canadians should trust the Conservatives on Nexen given that repeated enforcement pattern.
Julian cites three named cases â U.S. Steel in Hamilton, Rio Tinto, and Vale â where he alleges broken promises went unenforced, building a factual case for why Canadians should not trust the government on Nexen, with a clear implied ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have good reasons for doubting the government, because it has failed Canadians every time. Take Hamilton, for example, where U.S. Steel broke promises to employed Canadians and, when meekly challenged by the government, was able to get the Conservatives to give way simply by making more promises. What about the broken promises of Rio Tinto, the broken promises of Vale? Time after time after time the government backs down, rolls over and does not enforce conditions. Why are Conservatives asking Canadians to trust them on Nexen when they cannot get it right anywhere else?
Goodyear accuses the NDP of sending an anti-trade mission to Washington, opposing every trade deal including free trade with the United States, and wanting to politicize the review to impose an anti-trade agenda.
Goodyear ignores Hamilton, Rio Tinto, Vale, and the enforcement record entirely, pivoting to accusations that the NDP sent an anti-trade mission to Washington and opposes trade deals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the NDP sent an anti-trade mission to Washington to advocate against Canadian jobs. The NDP has opposed every trade deal we have ever brought before this House, including free trade with the United States. Let me be clear. The opposition members want to politicize this review so that they can impose their anti-trade, job-killing agenda on the country and scare away all foreign investment.
Julian, citing majority Canadian opposition to the CNOOC-Nexen takeover, asks when the Conservatives will hold a full public review of the deal and answer questions about job protection, environmental safeguards, and enforcement of conditions.
Julian asks for a full public review of the CNOOC-Nexen takeover and raises job protection, environmental safeguards, and enforcement of conditions, but the framing is heavily rhetorical and the asks are compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the majority of Canadians oppose this takeover. On this side of the House, we are actually listening to Canadians. The Conservatives should give it a try sometime. Why would Canadians support this deal when the government simply will not give them any answers to questions like: will the Conservatives protect jobs, the environment and our resources? Why do the Conservatives never enforce conditions on any deal? We do not know the answers because the Conservatives refuse to bring this deal before the public. When will the Conservatives do the right thing and hold a full public review of this takeover? When will they listen to Canadians?
Goodyear points to 800,000 jobs created under the economic action plan and opposition to a $21 billion carbon tax, stating the government will look at the bill carefully and always act in the best interest of Canada.
Goodyear references 800,000 jobs and a $21 billion carbon tax, asserting the government will look at the bill carefully, without addressing the call for a full public review or the enforcement questions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we obviously have listened to Canadians, and that is where we bring up our economic action plan, which has produced 800,000 jobs in this country. It is about decreasing taxes. We have listened to Canadians, who have said very clearly that they do not want a $21 billion carbon tax that would hurt seniors, students and small business. We are in fact going to look at this bill very carefully and, as always, we will do what is in the best interest of Canada and Canadians.
Sims asks why the government will not defend Canadian workers given that companies plan to hire up to 2,000 temporary foreign workers for B.C. coal mines and the government has allowed those workers to be paid 15% less than Canadian workers.
Sims cites a specific figure (2,000 temporary foreign workers in B.C. coal mines) and the 15% wage differential policy, grounding the question factually, though the closing ask is broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that Canadians cannot trust Conservatives. Companies are planning to hire as many as 2,000 temporary foreign workers to work in B.C. coal mines. Conservatives have encouraged more foreign workers by allowing companies to pay them 15% less than Canadian workers. This is from the same government whose junior minister of finance told out-of-work Canadians that they should go and get a job in the mines. Why will the government not defend Canadian workers?
Finley states that companies must prove no Canadians are available before hiring foreign workers, that pay comparability rules are strictly enforced by the provinces, and that sanctions exist to prevent future foreign worker usage by rule-breakers.
Finley directly addresses the requirement to prove no Canadians are available, the comparable pay rules, provincial enforcement, and sanctions for rule-breaking, engaging substantively with the policy question if not the B.C. coal mines specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are doing exactly that. For any company to bring in offshore workers, they must first prove that there are no Canadians available to do the job. We want to make sure that Canadians get first crack at every job in this country. There are rules in place to make sure the pay is comparable to what Canadians get paid, and those rules are very strictly enforced by the provinces. If a company breaks those rules, there are sanctions that will keep them from being able to bring in foreign workers in the future.
Butt asks the Minister of Public Safety to update the House on the government's plans to achieve a more secure, stable, and resilient digital infrastructure, citing the 2010 cyber security strategy.
Butt's question is a classic government-backbench softball setup, praising Canada's first cyber security strategy of 2010 and simply asking the minister for an update on plans for secure digital infrastructure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know that the private information they entrust to government will stay private. That is why our Conservative government takes cyber security so seriously. In 2010, we unveiled Canada's first cyber security strategy, which is something that the previous Liberal government failed to do. Can the Minister of Public Safety please update this House on how our Conservative government plans to achieve a more secure, stable and resilient digital infrastructure?
Toews announces significant new funding to further implement Canada's cyber security strategy, notes enhanced security of government networks and systems against malicious cyber threats, and commits to protecting the personal information of Canadians who interact with government online.
Toews provides substantive information about new funding announcements, enhanced security of government networks and systems, and the commitment to protecting Canadians' personal information online.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is continuously working to defend against electronic threats, hacking and cyber espionage. That is why I announced significant new funding to further implement Canada's cyber security strategy. To ensure a continued secure reliable service, we have enhanced the security of government networks and systems to protect against malicious cyber threats. More and more Canadians interact with their government online. We are committed to ensuring that the personal information of Canadians remains private and protected from those who wish to harm us.
Day asks whether the minister will commit to consulting Canadians â including workers, employers, and provinces â rather than making unilateral decisions that she argues are devastating employment insurance for seasonal workers.
Day raises specific impacts of the EI changes (wage reductions, effects on seasonal workers, restricted access) and the absence of consultation with workers, employers, and provinces, but the closing ask is broad.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est toujours formidable d'entendre la capacité d'auto-gratification du gouvernement. La ministre des Ressources humaines et du Développement des compétences a annoncé des changements majeurs à l'assurance-emploi. Ceux-ci entraßneront des baisses de salaire, auront des conséquences graves sur les travailleurs saisonniers et limiteront l'accÚs au programme. Les conservateurs ont apporté des changements sans consulter qui que ce soit, ni les travailleurs et les employeurs qui paient pour l'assurance-emploi, ni les provinces qui devront boucher les trous avec l'aide sociale. La ministre s'engage-t-elle enfin à consulter les Canadiens au lieu de prendre des décisions unilatérales qui font des ravages dans l'assurance-emploi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is always quite something to witness the government's ability to toot its own horn. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has announced major changes to employment insurance that will result in lower salaries, have serious consequences for seasonal workers, and limit access to the program. The Conservatives have made changes without consulting anyone: not the workers or the employers who pay for employment insurance, nor the provinces that will have to fill the gaps with social assistance. Will the minister finally commit to consulting Canadians instead of making unilateral decisions that are wreaking havoc on employment insurance?
Finley argues there is a labour shortage across the country alongside too many unemployed Canadians, and that the government's approach connects people with available positions in their regions to improve their living conditions.
Finley references the labour shortage and the goal of connecting unemployed Canadians with available positions but does not address the consultation question, the wage reduction concern, or the impact on seasonal workers.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si la députée avait parlé avec les employés de partout au pays, elle aurait appris qu'il y a une pénurie de main-d'oeuvre partout au pays. Il y a aussi trop de monde au chÎmage. Ce que nous essayons de faire, par contraste avec le NPD, c'est de connecter ces gens et les postes disponibles dans leur région pour qu'ils puissent avoir de meilleures conditions de vie, eux, leur famille et leur communauté. C'est cela que nous faisons.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had spoken to employees across the country, she would know that there is a labour shortage across the country. Also, too many people are unemployed. What we are trying to do, unlike the NDP, is to connect the unemployed with the jobs that are available in their region so that they can have better living conditions for themselves, their family and their community. That is what we are doing.
Charlton, citing a ratio of five unemployed Canadians for every job vacancy and the parliamentary secretary's admission that reforms will force Canadians to move across the country, asks whether the minister will listen to workers, employers, and provinces instead of unilaterally destroying EI.
Charlton cites a 5-to-1 ratio of unemployed Canadians to job vacancies, references the parliamentary secretary's admission about forced relocation, and notes that workers, employers, and provinces have all objected, making a specific ask for consultation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for every job vacancy there are five unemployed Canadians. The unemployed do not need to be punished; they need jobs. However, instead of coming up with a job creation strategy, the government came up with punitive reforms that even the parliamentary secretary now admits will force Canadians to move across the country. Workers, employers and the provinces have all said that the proposed changes do not work. However, the minister did not consult any of them. Will the minister now make things right and listen to Canadians instead of arbitrarily and unilaterally destroying EI?
Finley points to 800,000 net new jobs created, significant investments in skills upgrading for over a million people, and job matching initiatives, arguing the government is helping Canadians get back to work.
Finley references 800,000 net new jobs, skills upgrading investments for over a million people, and job matching, but does not address the 5-to-1 ratio, the relocation admission, or the consultation request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is making it possible for people to work so they do not need EI. So far, over 800,000 net new jobs have been created in this country. They are high-quality jobs, and 90% of them are full-time. That is much better money than people can earn on EI. We are helping Canadians who have lost their job, through no fault of their own, get access to other jobs, through significant investments for over a million people, in upgrading their skills for new jobs, by making them aware of jobs in their skill range in their areas. We are helping Canadians get back to work. The NDP should try doing that for a change themselves.
Toone asks the minister to enumerate the criteria on which projects are selected after nine projects in his constituency were supported for months by DĂ©veloppement Ă©conomique Canada before being suddenly cut when the minister arbitrarily changed the norms.
Toone cites nine specific projects in his constituency that received months of support from DĂ©veloppement Ă©conomique Canada before being cut by an arbitrary criteria change, and asks the minister to enumerate the criteria used to select projects.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le problÚme des conservateurs, c'est qu'ils prennent des décisions arbitraires, sans consultation. Dans ma circonscription, neuf projets ont été épaulés pendant des mois par Développement économique Canada, et soudainement, le ministre a changé les normes de façon arbitraire, privant ces projets du soutien dont ils ont besoin. Au lieu de venir chez nous se faire prendre en photo devant des pancartes de propagande budgétaire, le ministre peut-il énumérer les critÚres sur lesquels il se fonde pour sélectionner les projets?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Conservatives is that they make arbitrary decisions without consulting anyone. Nine projects in my riding were supported for months by Canada Economic Development, but then the minister suddenly and arbitrarily changed the parameters, thereby depriving those projects of the necessary funding. Instead of coming into our communities and posing for photo ops in front of budget propaganda signs, can the minister outline the criteria he uses when selecting projects?
Gourde states that all DĂ©veloppement Ă©conomique Canada projects are evaluated on merit in regional offices and praises the minister for his attention to Quebec's regions, then attacks the NDP carbon tax.
Gourde states only that all DĂ©veloppement Ă©conomique Canada projects are evaluated on merit in regional offices, offers no criteria, and pivots to congratulating the minister and attacking the NDP carbon tax.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, tous les projets de Développement économique Canada sont étudiés au mérite dans les bureaux régionaux, et je tiens à féliciter le ministre de Développement économique Canada, qui accorde une trÚs grande importance aux régions du Québec, contrairement au NPD avec sa taxe sur le carbone qui va nuire aux grandes régions du Québec.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, all Canada Economic Development projects are assessed on their merit at regional offices, and I would like to congratulate the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada, who always makes Quebec's regions a priority, unlike the NDP with its plans to introduce a carbon tax, which will be bad for Quebec.
Cleary asks why the Conservatives will not release the full Public Service Commission report on Kevin MacAdam's appointment, if they are confident it backs their claims, noting the Conservatives are currently quoting only from court documents filed by MacAdam himself.
Cleary names Kevin MacAdam, identifies the Public Service Commission ruling, links the appointment to the Minister of National Defence, and poses a specific and answerable question about releasing the full Public Service Commission report.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives continue to cut ACOA while keeping a political appointee on salary. The Public Service Commission ruled against Kevin MacAdam's appointment, the appointment of the Minister of National Defence's buddy. Now the Conservatives' only defence is to quote from court documents filed by Mr. MacAdam himself. If the Conservatives are so confident that the Public Service Commission report backs up their claims, why do they not release the report in full?
Oh, oh!
Keddy states it is not a political issue, that the public court records show the commissioner found problems with the public service hiring process but no political interference by ministers or political staff, and that the matter is before the courts.
Keddy repeats the same response as Exchange 20 â no political interference found, matter before the courts â without addressing the specific request to release the full Public Service Commission report.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the answer is pretty simple. This is not a political issue. The public court recordsâ
Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised that they do not want to hear the answer, because the answer is the same every time. The public court records state that the commissioner found problems with the way that the public service ran its hiring process. However, they did not find any political interference by ministers or political staff. The matter is now before the courts. Why is that not good enough for the hon. member?
Bennett, citing the National Advisory Committee on SARS and the Public Health Agency of Canada Act, asks why the minister is not allowing the Public Health Agency of Canada to serve as the leading national voice and speak directly to Canadians about food safety during the E. coli outbreak.
Bennett cites the National Advisory Committee on SARS report and the Public Health Agency of Canada Act to ground her question about the Chief Public Health Officer's role, asking specifically why the minister is not allowing the Public Health Agency of Canada to speak directly to Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health finally, but lamely, answered a question on the E. coli outbreak, saying that the Public Health Agency was working with the provinces and the territories. The National Advisory Committee on SARS stated that the Chief Public Health Officer should serve as the leading national voice for public health, particularly in outbreaks and other health emergencies. Such language is echoed in the Public Health Agency of Canada Act. Where is the trusted voice of public health, and why is the minister not allowing the Public Health Agency of Canada to speak directly to Canadians about the safety of their food?
Ritz states that CFIA began work on September 4, the Public Health Agency of Canada joined on September 6, and that Public Health has participated in every technical briefing over the past two to three weeks.
Ritz provides specific dates (September 4 for CFIA, September 6 for the Public Health Agency of Canada), notes technical briefings over the past two to three weeks, and states that Public Health has been at every briefing, directly countering the premise of the question though not addressing the communications role of the Chief Public Health Officer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have done exactly that. CFIA began working on these issues on September 4. On September 6, the Public Health Agency of Canada became involved. We have had a number of technical briefings over the last two or three weeks. Public Health has been at every one and has taken part.
Bennett asks whether the Minister of Health will call a televised press conference and allow the Public Health Agency of Canada to speak directly to Canadians about the ongoing E. coli situation.
The question is largely rhetorical (iPad/Angry Birds framing dominates) but ends with a specific, answerable ask about a televised press conference.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, E. coli has been in the food chain for over a month, but for question period after question period the Minister of Health sits in her chair playing on her iPad. I have been asked if the minister has been playing Angry Birds and to let her know that Canadians are angrier than Angry Birds, because she has refused to tell worried Canadians the facts about this ongoing publicâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, will the minister call a televised press conference and allow the Public Health Agency of Canada to speak directly to Canadians?
Ritz states that televised technical briefings have already been held with media invited, and offers another technical briefing for the opposition.
Ritz claims technical briefings have already been held and media was invited, which partially addresses the ask, but dismisses the opposition's emergency debate rather than fully engaging with the public communication concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member has been for the last three or four weeks. We have been doing exactly that. There have been televised technical briefings. The media has been invited. We actually tried to put one together for the opposition members, and instead of taking advantage of that, they decided to have a silly emergency debate that went nowhere. We will certainly have another technical briefing, should they decide to do one.
Aubin asks why the Conservatives are putting traveller safety at risk through $19.4 million in cuts that have contributed to failed negotiations with Securitas for the 600 pre-boarding screening workers at Montréal airport.
Aubin cites specific figures (600 workers, $19.4 million in cuts, $60 million by 2015) and links them to a failed negotiation, making a reasonably grounded accountability question, though the causal link is assumed.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les 600 travailleurs qui effectuent le contrÎle de préembarquement à l'aéroport de Montréal ont rejeté massivement les derniÚres concessions demandées par leur employeur, Securitas. L'échec des négociations avec Securitas survient aprÚs des compressions conservatrices de l'ordre de 19,4 millions de dollars. En 2015, ces coupes atteindront 60 millions de dollars par année. Si les agents n'ont pas les conditions nécessaires pour bien faire leur travail, c'est la sécurité des voyageurs qui est compromise. Pourquoi les conservateurs mettent-ils en jeu la sécurité des voyageurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the 600 security screeners at the Montreal airport overwhelmingly rejected the latest concessions being demanded by their employer, Securitas. Negotiations with Securitas broke down after Conservative cuts of about $19.4 million. In 2015, cuts will total $60 million a year. If officers do not have the working conditions they need to do their job properly, passenger safety will be compromised. Why are the Conservatives jeopardizing passenger safety?
Poilievre says aviation safety is Transport Canada's main priority and that the government manages resources to achieve the best results, not based on cost.
Poilievre offers only a generic statement that aviation safety is Transport Canada's top priority and that results matter more than cost, without addressing the specific cuts, the Securitas negotiations, or the safety risk raised.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la sécurité aérienne est la principale priorité de Transports Canada. C'est la raison pour laquelle nous essayons de bien gérer les ressources disponibles et de s'assurer qu'elles sont distribuées le mieux possible. Nous ne jugeons pas le succÚs par le coût des choses, mais par les résultats.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, aviation safety is Transport Canada's top priority. That is why we are trying to properly manage available resources and ensure that they are distributed in the best possible way. The outcome, not the cost, of an activity is how we judge success.
Cash asks whether the Conservatives will finally take action to address the Toronto jobs crisis following 700 job losses at Loblaws in Brampton.
Cash cites a specific event (700 Loblaws workers in Brampton) and links it to EI and cost-of-living concerns, but the ask â 'take action and address the Toronto jobs crisis' â is vague and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there was another hard blow to the greater Toronto area yesterday when 700 workers lost their jobs at Loblaws in Brampton. Now that is Conservative corporate tax giveaways working. It means 700 families will have to make ends meet with less, with less EI, in a very expensive city. With the Ontario Liberals giving up on governing the province altogether, will the Conservatives finally take action and address the Toronto jobs crisis?
Flaherty highlights the auto sector's recovery and the strength of financial services in the GTA, and pledges to continue the jobs, growth and prosperity agenda, urging support for the second budget bill.
Flaherty acknowledges the GTA context and cites the auto and financial sectors as positives, but does not address the specific Loblaws layoffs or any concrete action on the Toronto jobs situation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Toronto area has done relatively well, particularly in the auto sector, which has made a remarkable comeback since our government made sure that the sector could survive in Canada. The financial services sector is also very strong in the GTA, and continues to grow and show the kind of strength that Canada has in that sector and internationally. We will continue on the agenda for jobs, growth and prosperity. I hope the member will support the second budget bill.
Dreeshen asks the Parliamentary Secretary to update the House on the status of the faster removal of foreign criminals act.
This is a government-backbench softball setup that recites the bill's endorsements and asks for a status update, providing no real accountability challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has introduced the faster removal of foreign criminals act, which would remove the endless appeals currently available to dangerous foreign criminals that allow them to delay their deportations. The bill has been praised by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, and Victims of Violence, among other groups. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please update this House on the status of this important bill?
Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to provide an update on the bill itself, but I would like to express my disappointment and inform Canadians that yesterday the Liberal Party shamefully voted against the faster removal of foreign criminals act. They voted against ending the loopholes for criminals who come here to this country and delay their deportation, allowing them more time here in Canada to potentially commit more crimes. The Liberals do not have to listen just to us on this issue. They can listen to police associations and victims' groups. They are the ones who have told us to move forward on this. I hope the Liberals listen to them.
Dykstra reports that the Liberal Party voted against the faster removal of foreign criminals act and urges them to heed the advice of police associations and victims' groups.
Dykstra provides a status update (the Liberals voted against the faster removal of foreign criminals act) and reiterates support from police associations and victims' groups, delivering some real information while pivoting to partisan attack.
Eyking asks which Atlantic fishing community will be targeted next by EI cuts, citing the case of widow Crystal MacKinnon from Bay St. Lawrence and letters showing her EI is being cut because she works for a relative.
Eyking grounds the question in a specific constituent case (Crystal MacKinnon) and references letters as evidence, but the closing ask â 'what Atlantic fishing community is next on your hit list' â is rhetorical and undermines the factual setup.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the human resources minister accused northern Cape Bretoners of being criminals. Crystal MacKinnon is a widow from Bay St. Lawrence, with two small children. She has been working hard for 20 years on her uncle's boat. They are cutting her EI and many others', because they work for a relative. It is right here in these letters. The minister accuses me of scoring political points. It is my job to fight for the people I represent and I will continue to fight against these attacks on the good people of northern Cape Breton. Minister, what Atlantic fishing community is next on your hit list?
Finley confirms family members may work for relatives under the rules, but states that the current situation involves a multi-year investigation into alleged fraud and deliberate misrepresentations in EI use affecting 60 people and potentially millions of dollars.
Finley acknowledges family employment rules, discloses the existence of a multi-year investigation involving 60 people and alleged fraud worth millions of dollars, and explains next steps, partially addressing the concern without speaking to the specific constituent.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are definitely cases where family members can work for other family members, but they must do that according to the rules. The situation that is going on right now, without getting into details, involves 60 people who are directly affected by a multi-year investigation into alleged fraud and deliberate misrepresentations in the use of EI, which may have bilked Canadians out of millions of dollars in EI funds. This investigation is ongoing. However, if the results are proven to be true, then the appropriate authorities will be contacted and they will take the appropriate actions.
Ashton invites the minister and parliamentary secretary to join the Women's Forum at the government conference centre on Persons Day, focused on women's equality in the economy, society, and communities.
Ashton's question is essentially an invitation to a forum rather than an accountability question, offering no factual grounding or genuine ask for government action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow on Persons Day, I will be hosting the Women's Forum at the government conference centre. The focus is women's equality in the economy, in society, and in our communities. Over 250 women from across Canada will be joining us, with many others following online. We all need to work together to achieve gender equality. Would the minister and the parliamentary secretary care to join us?
Ambrose says she is aware of the forum and will see what she can do to attend, and takes the opportunity to congratulate the recipients of the Governor General's Persons Award, noting two youth recipients for the first time.
Ambrose engages positively with the invitation, notes awareness of the forum, and volunteers substantive information about the Governor General's Persons Award including the new youth recipient category.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's invitation. I am aware of the forum and I am very pleased to see that it is being held. I will see what I can do to get there. However, I would like to take this opportunity, and I am sure she would join me, to congratulate the recipients of the Governor General's Persons Award who will be receiving them tomorrow. We are very proud of them, and for the first time there are two youth recipient awards this year.
Seeback asks the finance minister how economic action plan 2012 is helping Canadian small businesses, framed around small business week.
This is a government-backbench softball that frames the question around small business week and asks the minister to trumpet government achievements, with no accountability element.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this week is small business week, which marks the important contributions that small businesses make to the Canadian economy. These job creators employ the largest number of Canadians, which is why our Conservative government is constantly looking for ways to lower their taxes and help small business grow. Would the finance minister tell the House how economic action plan 2012 is helping Canadian small businesses get ahead, unlike the NDP and its plans for a job-killing carbon tax?
Flaherty states the government has reduced the small business tax rate to 11% and introduced the hiring credit for small business, both of which the NDP voted against.
Flaherty provides specific information â the small business tax rate reduced to 11% and the hiring credit for small business â though the answer pivots to attacking the NDP's voting record rather than fully detailing economic action plan 2012 measures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government recognizes the importance of small business for job creation in Canada. That is why, since 2006, we have lowered their taxes to help them succeed, including reducing the small business tax rate to 11%, which the NDP voted against. Even worse, the NDP voted against the jobs that are created by the hiring credit for small business. The NDP actually voted against making it easier for small business to hire new workers. The NDP should drop its high-tax agenda--
Nantel asks why the government is spending $25 million to change the vocation of the country's most popular museum while cutting heritage department budgets by $200 million, and why it is cutting archives to rebrand the museum.
Nantel cites a specific spending figure ($25 million) against a $200 million budget cut and questions the rationale for changing the vocation of the most popular museum in the country, making a reasonably substantive challenge.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, alors que son ministÚre doit composer avec un budget amputé de 200 millions de dollars, le ministre du Patrimoine canadien et des Langues officielles dépensera 25 millions de dollars pour changer quoi? Un formule gagnante, celle du musée le plus populaire au pays, ce que, clairement, personne n'aurait souhaité. L'actuel Musée canadien des civilisations consacre déjà une bonne partie de ses ressources à l'histoire canadienne, mais ne se limite pas à cela. C'est ça qu'on aime, et c'est ça qui fait sa force. La vision archivistique, muséale et culturelle de ce gouvernement est dangereusement obtuse, fermée et rétrograde. Pourquoi couper dans les archives pour changer la vocation d'un musée aussi populaire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, while his department has to make do with a budget that has been cut by $200 million, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages is going to spend $25 million to change what? He is going to change a winning formulaâthat of the most popular museum in the countryâsomething that, obviously, nobody wants. The current Canadian Museum of Civilization already focuses a large portion of its resources on Canadian history, but that is not all it does. That is what people like and that is what makes the museum great. The government's vision of archives, museums and culture is dangerously obtuse, narrow-minded and outdated. Why make cuts to the archives to change the purpose of such a popular museum?
Moore states that BibliothÚque et Archives Canada will be integrated into the process, and cites John McAvity of the Association des musées canadiens calling the museum's name change essential and positive for Canadians' access to heritage and history.
Moore asserts that BibliothÚque et Archives Canada will be integrated and quotes John McAvity of the Association des musées canadiens by name in support, but does not address the $200 million budget cut or explain the $25 million expenditure directly.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce n'est pas le cas. BibliothÚque et Archives Canada sera intégré dans ce processus. Toutefois, contrairement au NPD, nous croyons qu'il faut célébrer l'histoire du Canada. Nous sommes fiers de notre patrimoine. On aura maintenant une institution, le nouveau Musée canadien de l'histoire, qui aura cette capacité. Le directeur exécutif de l'Association des musées canadiens, John McAvity a déclaré que le changement du nom du musée était essentiel, qu'il s'agissait d'une bonne nouvelle, et qu'il donnerait aux Canadiens un meilleur accÚs à leur patrimoine et à leur histoire. Voilà ce qu'on fera: célébrer le patrimoine et l'histoire du Canada fiÚrement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, such is not the case. Library and Archives Canada will be involved in this process. However, unlike the NDP, we believe that we must celebrate Canada's history. We are proud of our heritage. We will now have an institution, the new Canadian Museum of History, that will do just that. The executive director of the Canadian Museums Association, John McAvity, said that the renaming of the museum is essential, that it is good news and that it will give Canadians greater access to their heritage and history. This is what we are going to do: we are going to proudly celebrate Canada's history and heritage.
Mourani asks what the Minister of Transport has done to correct the security flaw at Montréal airport after terminal plans including security checkpoints were found in garbage bins and ADM confirmed there is no security protocol for airport plans.
Mourani raises a specific incident â airport terminal plans with security details found in garbage bins at MontrĂ©al airport â and cites ADM's admission of no security protocol for airport plans, making a pointed and specific accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les conservateurs se font les apĂŽtres de la sĂ©curitĂ©, mais ils nĂ©gligent les prĂ©cautions de base, soit la sĂ©curitĂ© de nos aĂ©roports. En effet, Ă l'aĂ©roport de MontrĂ©al, des plans des terminaux, qui incluaient des Ă©lĂ©ments prĂ©cis liĂ©s Ă la sĂ©curitĂ© comme les points de contrĂŽle, ont Ă©tĂ© retrouvĂ©s dans des poubelles. Pour l'administration de l'aĂ©roport, il n'y a pas de problĂšme. Je me suis mĂȘme fait dire par ADM qu'il n'y avait pas de protocole de sĂ©curitĂ© pour tous les plans de l'aĂ©roport. C'est d'une dĂ©sinvolture totale! Qu'est-ce que le ministre des Transports, de l'Infrastructure et des CollectivitĂ©s a fait pour corriger cette faille dans la sĂ©curitĂ© Ă l'aĂ©roport de MontrĂ©al?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives claim to be advocates of security, but they are neglecting basic precautions such as airport security. Blueprints of the Montreal airport terminal, which included specific security elements, such as checkpoints, were found in the garbage. The airport's administration saw no problem with that. I was even told by ADM that there was no security protocol for airport blueprints. It was a very flippant reaction. What has the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities done to correct this lapse in security at the Montreal airport?
Poilievre states that aviation safety is the top priority, that the government has invested in and well-managed the security system, which is recognized worldwide as one of the best, and hopes the opposition will work with them.
Poilievre gives a wholly generic response about aviation safety being the top priority and the system being world-renowned, without addressing the specific incident of plans found in garbage bins or any action taken.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en ce qui concerne l'industrie aéronautique et le transport aérien, la sécurité est notre principale priorité. C'est la raison pour laquelle nous avons investi dans notre systÚme de sécurité. Nous avons bien géré notre systÚme de sécurité, qui est reconnu partout dans le monde comme étant l'un des meilleurs. Nous allons travailler afin de protéger les Canadiens, et nous espérons que l'opposition travaillera avec nous pour atteindre ce but.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, security is our top priority when it comes to the aerospace industry and air transport. That is why we have invested in our security system. We have managed our security system well, and it is recognized as one of the best in the world. We will work to protect Canadians, and we hope that the opposition will work with us towards that goal.
Malcolm Allen (NDP) rose on a point of order to ask the Minister of Agriculture to apologize for calling the emergency debate 'silly,' arguing this impugned both the House and the Speaker, since only the Speaker has authority to grant an emergency debate. Gerry Ritz (CPC) offered an unequivocal apology for any impugning of the Speaker's motives, but maintained concerns about what he called the silliness of the opposition's conduct during that debate. A separate point of order by Kellie Leitch to table a document to correct remarks made by the member for Hamilton Mountain was not agreed to by the House.
- NDP Mr. Malcolm Allen
- CPC Gerry Ritz
- Ms. Kellie Leitch
- Some hon. members
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the onset I would like to invite the Minister of Agriculture to rise in his place and to apologize to the House and to you for his remarks during question period, which were âsilly emergency debateâ. As all hon. members know in this place, only you, Mr. Speaker, can grant an emergency debate. All of us in this place can come to you to request it, but it is only you who has the authority to grant that emergency debate to those who would seek it. I would suggest that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has not only impugned the House by suggesting that emergency debates are silly, but indeed has impugned you as the Speaker. I find that absolutely reprehensible and would hope that he would apologize not only to the House but to you and as well.
Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I unequivocally apologize if I have impugned your motives in bringing forward an emergency debate. In reviewing the blues, what I do have some concern with is some of the silliness that was brought by the opposition to that debate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a document that I would like to table. The member for Hamilton Mountain made a comment today that actually misrepresents me and I would like to clear the record based on submitting this article.
Agreed. No.
Gordon O'Connor asked that the House proceed immediately to the vote on Ways and Means Motion No. 13, with no further debate or discussion recorded.
- Gordon O'Connor
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I ask that we proceed with the vote immediately.