Session overview
- The Parliamentary Budget Officer's decision to seek Federal Court intervention over withheld financial data dominated the opening exchanges, with the NDP pressing the government on transparency and the Prime Minister insisting all relevant information had been provided.
- Foreign investment review of the CNOOC-Nexen deal drew repeated NDP challenges over job losses in past acquisitions (Falconbridge, Inco, Stelco, Alcan) and the secrecy of the government's negotiations; the Minister of Industry offered no specifics on what was being asked of CNOOC.
- Electoral fraud and robocalls generated multiple exchanges, with NDP and Liberal members pressing the government on the Conservative national toll-free number linked to fraudulent calls in the 2011 election; government responses deflected to NDP union donations and a former Liberal minister's charges.
- The Oxycontin generic drug licensing dispute saw Bob Rae pressing the Prime Minister to delay granting a drug information number given addiction epidemics in northern Ontario reserves, with Harper arguing the government could only act on legal use, not illegal circulation.
- Employment insurance reform drew criticism over Service Canada requiring seasonal workers to obtain employer-signed declarations of non-hiring, with some employers charging up to $30; the Minister of Human Resources acknowledged the practice was unacceptable and clarified that such letters and fees are not required.
- The Prime Minister's refusal to attend the premiers' economic summit in Halifax was contested across multiple exchanges, with the government citing over 250 meetings and phone calls with provincial heads since 2006 while deflecting questions about the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs's attendance.
The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development explicitly acknowledged that it is unacceptable for employers to charge fees for the required letters, clarified that claimants are not obligated to submit employer-signed letters, and stated that employers must not impose such fees â a concrete ministerial clarification of policy that directly affected EI claimants.
Cites a specific guilty plea to three labour code violations, names the deceased, and poses a single clear accountability ask â a public apology from the minister.
Asked specifically why cuts to national parks are hurting the tourism industry and why cruise ships would be steering away from Cape Breton, Kenney made no reference to national parks, Parks Canada, tourism funding, or Cape Breton, and instead attacked the Liberal Party over comments made about Alberta MPs.
Outstanding questions
- Thomas Mulcair asked why Conservatives are obstructing the Parliamentary Budget Officer â whom they created â by hiding key financial data, forcing him to seek Federal Court intervention; the Prime Minister did not address the specific allegation of withheld data or the court action. (Exchange 1)
- Peter Julian asked specifically what the government is asking CNOOC to agree to as part of the Nexen review; the Minister of Industry confirmed only that a review is underway and that net benefit must be proven, without disclosing any specifics of the conditions being negotiated. (Exchange 9)
- Robert Chisholm asked whether the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would attend the premiers' economic meetings in Halifax; the Minister of Finance answered instead with a history of federal-provincial co-operation and the question of the minister's attendance went unanswered. (Exchange 4)
- Scott Andrews asked why the Conservatives took no immediate action when Elections Canada traced fraudulent calls during the 2011 election to the Conservatives' national toll-free number, and whether they would support a Liberal bill to add strenuous fines to the Elections Act; neither the court-traced link nor the specific bill was addressed. (Exchange 30)
- Ăve PĂ©clet asked whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs was aware that Canada signed a lease in 2008 for a building in Moscow where diplomats cannot work until 2016, costing taxpayers eight years of rent on an empty building while staff work in an unsecured facility; the minister stated only that no memo was sent to his office. (Exchange 32)
Mulcair asks why Conservatives are obstructing the Parliamentary Budget Officerâwhose finding that 85% of cuts target front-line services they cannot fully verifyâforcing it to seek Federal Court intervention.
Cites the PBO's finding that 85% of cuts target front-line services and the specific step of going to Federal Court, giving factual grounding, but the ask is somewhat rhetorical ('what do they have to hide').
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are withholding information from Canadians about cuts to their vital public services. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 85% of Conservative cuts are aimed directly at front-line services, but the PBO cannot measure the full impact of these cuts because Conservative ministers are hiding key financial data. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has now been forced to take the extraordinary step of asking the Federal Court to intervene. Why are Conservatives obstructing the very office they created to provide objective financial information to Parliament? What do they have to hide?
Harper says the government has made all relevant information available to Parliament and Canadians and will continue to support the PBO's non-partisan work.
Harper flatly denies wrongdoing and asserts the government supplies information but does not address the Federal Court application or the PBO's inability to obtain the specific data requested.
Source text
Well, of course, nothing, Mr. Speaker. The government has made available to Parliament and to all Canadians all relevant information whenever it is available and we will continue to do so. We created the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer so he could do his non-partisan work and we will continue to supply information for that non-partisan workâ
Mulcair asks why the Prime Minister contradicted his Finance Minister's admission that the budget would still show an $8.6 billion deficit by March 2015, and how the PM explains an $8.6 billion miscalculation if the Minister was wrong.
Cites a specific figure ($8.6 billion deficit remaining by March 2015) from the Finance Minister's own economic update and poses a sharp dilemma: either the Finance Minister was truthful and the PM contradicted him, or the Minister made an $8.6 billion miscalculation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le ministre des Finances a dû admettre, lors de sa mise à jour économique, qu'il ne serait pas en mesure de combler le déficit conservateur dans les délais promis. Le plan du ministre était d'équilibrer le budget en mars 2015, mais il sera toujours dans le rouge à hauteur de 8,6 milliards de dollars. Contre toute attente, le premier ministre a immédiatement contredit son ministre en affirmant, malgré l'évidence, que l'équilibre serait bel et bien atteint comme prévu. Si le ministre des Finances a dit la vérité, pourquoi le premier ministre le contredit-il? S'il a tort, comment le premier ministre peut-il expliquer que son ministre des Finances ait fait une erreur de calcul de 8,6 milliards de dollars?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in his economic update, the Minister of Finance had to admit that he will not be able to eliminate the Conservative deficit by the time he promised. The minister's plan was to balance the budget in 2015, but he will still be in the red to the tune of $8.6 billion. Unexpectedly, the Prime Minister immediately contradicted his minister by stating, despite the evidence, that the budget would definitely be balanced on schedule. If the Minister of Finance was telling us the truth, why did the Prime Minister contradict him? If he is wrong, how can the Prime Minister explain the fact that his Minister of Finance made an $8.6 billion calculation error?
Harper says the government's objective is to balance the budget during the life of this legislature through spending control and by rejecting the NDP's proposed tax increases.
Harper restates the general goal of balancing the budget during the life of the legislature and pivots to attacking the NDP on taxes, without resolving the contradiction between his own statement and the Finance Minister's update.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au contraire, l'objectif du gouvernement est de rééquilibrer ce budget pendant la durée de vie de cette législature. Nous allons atteindre cet objectif par le contrÎle des dépenses, et ce, en refusant la hausse des taxes et des impÎts, telle que proposée par le Nouveau Parti démocratique.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the objective of the government is to bring the budget back into balance during this Parliament. We are going to achieve that objective by controlling expenses and not, as the New Democratic Party proposes, by raising taxes.
Mulcair asks why the Prime Minister refuses to attend the premiers' economic summit in Halifax this week, noting the IMF reports Canada's growth is now below that of the United States.
Cites IMF data showing Canadian growth now below U.S. growth and points to a specific upcoming premiers' summit in Halifax, making a clear and answerable ask about why the PM refuses to attend.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre a rĂ©cemment exprimĂ© sa frustration devant la faible croissance Ă©conomique aux Ătats-Unis. Or le Fonds monĂ©taire international rapporte que la croissance Ă©conomique au Canada est maintenant infĂ©rieure Ă celle des Ătats-Unis. Il faudrait donc que le premier ministre se rende compte de la situation et travaille de concert avec les autres ordres de gouvernement ici, au Canada. Justement, une rencontre des premiers ministres aura lieu Ă Halifax cette semaine. Ils se rencontreront, eux, pour discuter des difficultĂ©s Ă©conomiques du Canada. Pourquoi donc le premier ministre du Canada refuse-t-il d'aller au sommet Ă©conomique des premiers ministres Ă Halifax?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recently expressed his frustration with the weak economic growth in the United States. However, the International Monetary Fund is reporting that Canada's economic growth is now weaker than that of the U.S. The Prime Minister needs to realize this and work with the other levels of government here in Canada. In fact, the premiers will be meeting in Halifax this week to discuss Canada's economic problems. Why is the Prime Minister of Canada refusing to attend the premiers' economic summit in Halifax?
Harper asserts Canada has the best economic performance among major developed countries since the end of the recession and that the OECD predicts this will continue for 50 years.
Harper counters with OECD and general post-recession performance claims without addressing the IMF comparison or explaining his decision not to attend the Halifax summit.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis la fin de la récession économique mondiale, le Canada a la meilleure performance économique parmi les principaux pays développés, et l'OCDE prédit que cette situation continuera pendant 50 ans, en effet. Let me repeat that. It is very clear from all observers that Canada does have the best economic performance of all major developed countries over the period since the end of the recession. The OECD has just predicted that with the policies put in place by this Conservative government that should continue for the next 50 years.
Chisholm asks whether the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will attend the important premiers' meetings in Halifax, given the Prime Minister's refusal to go.
Asks a specific, answerable question about whether the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will attend the Halifax meetings, grounded in the concrete context of premiers expressing disappointment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we believe it is crucial for the Prime Minister to sit down with the premiers together. Canadians are worried about the economy and they will be watching the meetings in Halifax. Premiers are expressing disappointment that the Prime Minister is refusing to sit down with them. Disappointing as this may be, we do understand that the Conservatives have a Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and his mandate is to coordinate federal-provincial relations. Will the minister be attending these important meetings in Halifax?
Flaherty says the Prime Minister has had more than 250 meetings and phone calls with provincial heads of government since 2006 and that ministers meet regularly with their provincial counterparts, before pivoting to criticize the NDP's record on the stimulus plan.
Flaherty, not the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, responds by listing the PM's past meetings and phone calls (250 since 2006) and his own meetings with provincial counterparts, never directly answering whether the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will attend Halifax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister meets regularly with the premiers and has done so since 2006. He has had more than 250 meetings and phone calls with the heads of other governments in Canada since 2006. I meet regularly with my provincial colleagues. We will be getting together next month. The other ministers do as well. We certainly worked well with the provinces at the time of the fiscal crisis several years ago during the recession with the stimulus plan. We worked very well together and it helped Canada recover faster than any other country during that difficult time. Of course the New Democrats voted against that stimulus plan and nowâ
Chisholm demands to know why Conservatives are not taking the premiers seriously if the economy is the top priority, and suggests the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs should be fired for not answering.
Largely rhetorical follow-up with a vague ask ('why are the Conservatives not taking the premiers seriously') and a partisan attack on the previous minister's silence, lacking new factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the minister cannot even get to his feet and answer a simple question in his area, then the Prime Minister should fire him. Premiers expect better than that from the federal government. Times are tough. Canada needs a common economic plan from coast to coast to coast. If the economy is not the top priority, why are the Conservatives not taking the premiers seriously?
Flaherty says jobs and prosperity are the number one priority and cites Canada's best fiscal performance in the G7, then quotes the NDP leader as having said there was no reason to talk to premiers.
Flaherty asserts jobs and economy are the top priority and cites best fiscal performance in the G7, then attacks the NDP leader's alleged attitude toward premiers, without engaging the specific Halifax attendance question.
Source text
Of course we take the premiers seriously, Mr. Speaker, and we take the finance ministers seriously. Jobs, the economy and prosperity are the number one priority of this government. The record shows that over the years we have been able to demonstrate the kind of competence, at least the best fiscal performance in the G7 here, in co-operation, I might add, with the provinces. This is unlike the leader of the NDP, who has a different attitude toward the premiers. He said that there was no reason to talk to premiers because they were just the Prime Minister's messengers.
Rae asks why the government is not addressing the Oxycontin addiction public health crisis in northern reserves, citing estimates of 10,000 of 45,000 affected and the Minister of Health's power to delay granting a licence.
Cites specific estimates (10,000 of 45,000 people addicted to Oxycontin in northern Ontario reserves), quotes the chief of the Nishnawbe First Nation, and references the Minister of Health's specific legal power to delay a licence, making a grounded and accountable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it has been estimated that in the northern reserves of northern Ontario as many as 10,000 of the 45,000 people are addicted to the drug Oxycontin. The chief of the Nishnawbe First Nation has said that the decision not to deal with this crisis by the Minister of Health is another blow to nations that are currently combatting an addiction epidemic. The Minister of Health has the clear power to delay the granting of a licence to a drug where there is a public health crisis. I would like to ask the Prime Minister this. Why is the government not addressing this public health crisis?
Harper says the Minister of Health is taking appropriate measures given the government's legal responsibilities and that the government is prepared to work with the provinces on addressing the illegal misuse of the drug.
Harper acknowledges the seriousness of the problem and states the government is prepared to work with the provinces, but does not explain why the Minister is not exercising the specific power to delay the licence, which was the precise ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health is taking the appropriate measures, given the government's legal responsibilities. Obviously there is a serious problem here, as the leader of the Liberal Party said, in terms of the illegal misuse of this drug. This government is certainly prepared to work with the provinces on addressing that concern.
Rae asks why the Prime Minister's minister will not sit down cooperatively with provincial health ministers and exercise her powers to delay granting a drug information number to the generic Oxycontin product, as requested by the Council of Family Physicians and all provincial ministers of health.
Adds the Council of Family Physicians and all provincial ministers of health as joint requesters to delay the drug information number, sharpening the accountability ask with specific stakeholders and a specific regulatory action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Council of Family Physicians and every minister of health across the country, both of them together, have asked the government to delay granting a drug information number to this generic product, which is now coming on the market. They have asked that it be done. There is an epidemic, particularly in isolated communities across the country, but not only in isolated communities, it is on the street as well. Why would the Prime Minister's minister not sit down with the ministers of health and act with them co-operatively to deal with this question, and specifically to exercise her powersâ
Harper says the government can only act to forbid products based on their legal use, characterizes the problem as illegal circulation of substances, and says the Minister of Health is prepared to work with the provinces on those criminal matters.
Harper repeats his framing that the government can only act based on legal use and classifies the problem as criminal/illegal, still not addressing why the Minister will not exercise her powers as specifically requested by the Council of Family Physicians and provincial health ministers.
Source text
Once again, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the government can only act in terms of forbidding products based on their legal use and this is a substance that has to be used and prescribed legally and properly. The problem the member refers to is the illegal use and circulation of these substances. This is a criminal matter and the Minister of Health is prepared to work with the provinces to address those problems.
Rae asks why the government will not stop the marketing of the generic Oxycontin product, as requested by indigenous chiefs, all provincial health ministers, and the CollÚge des médecins de famille, given the addiction epidemic in the North.
Reiterates the concrete askâstopping the marketing of the generic drugâbacked by the joint request of all provincial health ministers and the CollĂšge des mĂ©decins de famille, though it is now the third iteration of essentially the same question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la rĂ©ponse au problĂšme, c'est de ne pas mettre en prison les gens qui prennent de la drogue parce qu'ils en sont dĂ©pendants; la solution n'est pas de les mettre en prison, comme le suggĂšre le premier ministre. Voici un exemple. Tous les ministres de la SantĂ© de partout au pays ont fait une demande Ă cet Ă©gard Ă la ministre, et en mĂȘme temps, le CollĂšge des mĂ©decins de famille a demandĂ© exactement la mĂȘme chose. Je sais bien que la ministre veut m'interrompre, mais je pose la question au premier ministre. Pourquoi ne pas arrĂȘter la mise en marchĂ© de ce mĂ©dicament gĂ©nĂ©rique qui, comme le disent les chefs autochtones, causerait une Ă©pidĂ©mie dans le Nord?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the solution to the problem is not to jail people who are taking the drug because they have an addiction. The solution is not to put them in prison as the Prime Minister is suggesting. Here is an example. Every health minister across the country and the College of Family Physicians has requested the same thing of the minister. I am well aware that the minister wants to interrupt, but I am asking the Prime Minister the question. Why not stop the approval process for this generic drug, since, according to aboriginal leaders, it is going to cause an epidemic in northern Canada?
Harper says he already answered, restates that decisions must be based on legal use of medications and that the Minister of Health is ready to work with provinces on illegal use, then uses his remaining time to criticize what he calls anti-Alberta attitudes in the Liberal Party.
Harper says he already answered, repeats the legal-use framing, offers to work with provinces, then pivots to an unrelated attack on the Liberal Party's alleged anti-Alberta attitudes, providing no new substantive response.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je viens de rĂ©pondre Ă cette question. Nous devons prendre nos dĂ©cisions en fonction de l'usage lĂ©gal de ces mĂ©dicaments. Nous savons qu'il y a des usages illĂ©gaux de ces mĂ©dicaments et la ministre de la SantĂ© est prĂȘte Ă travailler avec les provinces pour aborder ce problĂšme. While I am on my feet, it is incumbent upon me to raise the issue of statements made by another member in the House. I find it shameful, not surprising, that 30 years after the national energy program, these anti-Alberta attitudes are still close to the surface in the Liberal Party.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question. We must make our decisions based on the legal use of these drugs. We know that these drugs are sometimes used illegally, and the Minister of Health is prepared to work with the provinces to address this problem. Pendant que j'y suis, je crois qu'il m'incombe de revenir sur la déclaration d'un député. Je trouve scandaleux, mais nullement surprenant, que, 30 ans aprÚs le Programme énergétique national, le Parti libéral demeure animé d'un sentiment d'hostilité envers l'Alberta.
Julian asks what specifically the government is asking CNOOC for in the ongoing Investment Canada review of Nexen, and why the process is being conducted behind closed doors.
References leaked information that the government is asking CNOOC for something and raises process concerns (missed deadlines, middle-of-the-night decisions), but the core ask ('what is that something') is somewhat rhetorical given that Julian clearly knows the answer is unlikely to be given publicly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' lack of clarity on investment Canada has become an embarrassing mess. They are missing their own deadlines, deciding on deals in the middle of the night, confusing investors and refusing to consult Canadians. Considering how badly they are bungling this, it is no wonder they are hiding behind closed doors. However, it has now leaked out that they are apparently asking CNOOC for something. What is that something? The House wants to know and Canadians want to know. If the Conservatives are not embarrassed about selling out Canadian natural resources, then why are they hiding behind closed doors?
Paradis says the government will always act in the best interest of Canadians and is taking the time to fully scrutinize the proposed transaction to ensure net benefit for Canada.
Paradis states the government will act in the best interest of Canadians and that every foreign investment decision must prove net benefit for Canada, but provides no specifics about what conditions are being sought from CNOOC.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. Our government will always act in the best interest of Canadians. Every decision that will be made regarding foreign investment will have to prove net benefit for Canada. This is exactly what we are reviewing. We take the time to fully scrutinize a proposed transaction to ensure that a decision is made in the best interest of Canadians.
Julian asks why Canadians should trust the Conservatives to keep Nexen jobs in Alberta given that jobs were lost after the sales of Falconbridge, Inco, Stelco, and Alcan.
Lists specific past cases (Falconbridge, Inco, Stelco, Alcan) as evidence of broken promises, but the question is largely rhetorical and compound, asking why Canadians should trust the government rather than a single answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, how can the Conservatives expect Canadians to trust them? They hide information from the public, they negotiate in secret and they let foreign companies break their promises with impunity. Remember when they sold out Falconbridge? Hundreds of jobs were lost. They sold out Inco and hundreds of jobs were lost. They sold out Stelco and hundreds of jobs were lost. They sold out Alcan and hundreds of jobs were lost. Now, with CNOOC and Nexen, they are doing it again. Why should Canadians trust the Conservatives to keep Nexen jobs in Alberta when they have sold us out every other time?
Paradis says the government will act in the best interest of Canadians and welcomes foreign investment that creates jobs, then attacks the NDP's $21.5 billion carbon tax and anti-trade agenda.
Paradis briefly reaffirms the net benefit standard, then pivots entirely to attacking NDP policies (carbon tax, anti-trade agenda), without engaging the specific historical cases cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first, with regard to the review, we will act in the best interest of Canadians. We welcome foreign investment and we believe in it. It can put out enterprises in the global value chain and it creates jobs and growth for the economy. However, if we were to follow the NDP policy, everything would be lost from the outset, with a $21.5 billion carbon tax and an anti-trade and high-tax agenda. We will not go there.
LeBlanc asks why it would be different this time if Conservatives allow a Chinese state company to control Canadian natural resources, given job losses at Caterpillar in London, Electrolux in L'Assomption, and Xstrata in Sudbury.
Cites three specific cases (Caterpillar in London, Electrolux in L'Assomption, Xstrata in Sudbury) as evidence of Conservative failure to defend jobs, but the final question is broad and rhetorical rather than pinpointing a specific ask about the CNOOC review.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, quand Caterpillar a fermĂ© ses portes Ă London, mettant Ă la porte des centaines d'employĂ©s, ce n'Ă©tait pas dans l'intĂ©rĂȘt des Canadiens. Quand Electrolux a dĂ©mĂ©nagĂ© son usine de L'Assomption Ă Memphis, congĂ©diant plus d'un millier de travailleurs, ce n'Ă©tait pas dans l'intĂ©rĂȘt des Canadiens. Quand Xstrata a congĂ©diĂ© des centaines d'employĂ©s Ă Sudbury, ce n'Ă©tait pas dans l'intĂ©rĂȘt des Canadiens. Trop souvent, les conservateurs n'ont pas dĂ©fendu les emplois et l'intĂ©rĂȘt des Canadiens. Pourquoi serait-ce diffĂ©rent s'ils permettent Ă une sociĂ©tĂ© d'Ătat chinoise de contrĂŽler nos ressources naturelles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when Caterpillar closed its doors and laid off hundreds of employees in London, it was not in the interests of Canadians. When Electrolux moved its factory in L'Assomption to Memphis and laid off over a thousand workers, it was not in the interests of Canadians. When Xstrata laid off hundreds of employees in Sudbury, it was not in the interests of Canadians. Too often, the Conservatives have failed to stand up for Canadian jobs and interests. Why would it be any different if they allow a Chinese state-owned company to control our natural resources?
Paradis says the government will act in the best interest of Canadians and take the time to ensure net benefit for Canada, then attacks NDP policies including the $21.5 billion carbon tax.
Paradis restates the net benefit review process and then attacks the NDP's carbon tax and tax positions, entirely ignoring the three specific job-loss cases cited in the question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en ce qui concerne la transaction projetĂ©e, on va agir dans le meilleur intĂ©rĂȘt des Canadiens. On va prendre tout le temps nĂ©cessaire pour Ă©valuer la transaction de façon minutieuse afin de s'assurer que cela va apporter un bĂ©nĂ©fice net pour le Canada. Mais ce qui n'est pas dans l'intĂ©rĂȘt des Canadiens, c'est de proposer une taxe sur le carbone de 21,5 milliards de dollars, et ensuite de s'opposer Ă des mesures lorsque vient le temps de baisser les taxes et les impĂŽts pour les Canadiens, et la TPS et la taxe pour les petites entreprises au plus bas taux de 15 %. Ce parti s'oppose virtuellement Ă tout. Ăa, ça tue l'Ă©conomie, et ce n'est pas dans l'intĂ©rĂȘt des Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the proposed transaction, we will act in the best interests of Canadians. We are going to take as much time as we need to carefully assess the transaction in order to ensure that it will provide a net benefit to Canada. What is not in the best interests of Canadians is to propose a $21.5 billion carbon tax and then oppose measures to lower taxes for Canadians, lower the GST and lower taxes for small businesses to an all-time low of 15%. The NDP is opposed to practically everything. That would kill the economy and is not in the best interests of Canadians.
Caron asks why the Finance Minister does not work with the provinces to improve the existing passport system for securities regulation rather than persisting with a single-commission approach that the Supreme Court struck down and that drew opposition from Montreal to Victoria to Calgary.
References the Supreme Court rebuke of the single securities commission proposal and the opposition from Montreal to Victoria to Calgary, and asks a specific question about working with provinces on the existing passport system rather than repeating a similar unconstitutional approach.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, inventer des histoires, exporter nos emplois et cĂ©der le contrĂŽle de nos ressources, c'est ça le bilan le conservateur. Il semblerait aussi que l'entĂȘtement du ministre des Finances ne connaisse pas de limites. MĂȘme si la Cour suprĂȘme l'a rabrouĂ© dans son projet d'une commission unique des valeurs mobiliĂšres, et mĂȘme si, de MontrĂ©al Ă Victoria en passant par Calgary, il y a eu une levĂ©e de boucliers contre son projet, il persiste et signe. Au lieu de s'obstiner et de travailler contre les provinces, pourquoi ne pas travailler avec elles, pour faire changement, afin d'amĂ©liorer l'actuel rĂ©gime de passeport en matiĂšre de valeurs mobiliĂšres?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' record includes making up stories, exporting our jobs and handing over control of our resources. It seems as though the Minister of Finance's stubbornness knows no bounds. Even though the Supreme Court rejected his plan to create a single securities commission, and even though there was an outcry from Montreal to Calgary to Victoria, he refuses to budge. Instead of stubbornly working against the provinces, why not work with them to bring about change, in order to improve the existing passport system for securities?
Flaherty says the government will respect provincial jurisdiction, acknowledges that the Supreme Court found both levels of government have competence, and says discussions are currently ongoing.
Flaherty acknowledges the Supreme Court decision on dual competence and says discussions with provinces are ongoing, which partially addresses the question, though he does not specifically engage with improving the existing passport system.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous allons respecter les compĂ©tences des provinces Ă cet Ă©gard. La Cour suprĂȘme du Canada a dĂ©cidĂ© que les gouvernements provinciaux et le gouvernement du Canada avaient des compĂ©tences Ă ce sujet. Nous devons travailler davantage et discuter ensemble, ce que nous faisons prĂ©sentement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we will respect the provinces' jurisdiction here. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that the provincial governments and the Government of Canada had jurisdiction over this issue. We need to work on this some more and talk together, which we are currently doing.
Caron asks why the Finance Minister is obsessed with centralizing the securities commission when his previous attempt was unconstitutional, drew opposition from Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia, and risks eliminating jobs and provincial expertise.
Links the Minister's securities commission push to job and expertise losses in the provinces and asks why he is obsessed with centralizing the securities commission, but the framing is somewhat rhetorical and the PM's Halifax absence is used as a rhetorical foil rather than a precise new ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si les conservateurs voulaient vraiment travailler avec les provinces sur cet enjeu Ă©conomique important, le premier ministre serait rendu ou se rendrait Ă Halifax pour rencontrer ses homologues provinciaux. Lors de sa premiĂšre tentative, le ministre des Finances a choisi de faire la guerre au QuĂ©bec, Ă l'Alberta et Ă la Colombie-Britannique et, aprĂšs avoir subi une cuisante dĂ©faite en Cour suprĂȘme, il revient Ă la charge avec un projet semblable. La proposition du ministre fera disparaĂźtre des emplois, une autonomie dĂ©cisionnelle et une expertise prĂ©cieuse dans les provinces. Pourquoi le ministre est-il si obsĂ©dĂ© par la centralisation de la commission des valeurs mobiliĂšres?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives truly wanted to work with the provinces on this important economic issue, the Prime Minister would have gone to Halifax to meet with his provincial counterparts or would be on his way there. During his first attempt, the Minister of Finance chose to go to war with Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia, and after suffering a crushing defeat at the Supreme Court, he is at it once again with a similar plan. The minister's proposal will eliminate jobs, decision-making autonomy and valuable expertise in the provinces. Why is the minister so obsessed with centralizing the securities commission?
Flaherty says several provinces with substantial capital markets are engaged in substantive discussions with the federal government, that he has spoken with Quebec's finance minister, and that the Supreme Court's finding of dual constitutional competenceâespecially on systemic riskârequires working together.
Flaherty provides some substantive contentânaming specific provinces with capital markets that are engaged in discussions and referencing a conversation with Quebec's finance ministerâand explains the Supreme Court's dual-competence ruling on systemic risk, partially addressing the centralization concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is out of step with what is happening in these discussions in Canada, where a number of provinces, with substantial capital markets, have engaged in very substantive discussions with the Government of Canada on this subject. I have also had a discussion with the minister of finance in Quebec. The reality is, what the Supreme Court of Canada has said is that the provinces have some legislative competence in this area, constitutionally, and so does the Government of Canada, particularly with respect to systemic risk, which means we must work together if we are to accomplish the goal of greater security for Canadians, an appropriate place internationally forâ
Nash asks whether the Finance Minister will change his attitude and listen, given that the Supreme Court shut down his unconstitutional attempt to force provinces to agree to a single securities regulator.
Characterizes the previous approach as unconstitutional and asks whether the Minister will change his attitude and listen, but the ask is vague ('will he change his attitude') and largely rhetorical rather than tied to a specific policy commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what we are expecting this time around is that the Minister of Finance has learned his lesson. He did try to force the provinces to agree to his demands and he was shut down by the Supreme Court. His approach was nothing short of unconstitutional. Therefore. the finance minister's bully tactics will not work. Neither he nor the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, understand that their role is to work with the provinces. Will he change his attitude and will he listen?
Flaherty explains that the Supreme Court established dual constitutional competence and invites the opposition to read the decision; he cites the Ontario finance minister's visit the previous day as evidence that provinces and the federal government are actively working together.
Flaherty engages with the Supreme Court decision, explains that dual constitutional competence means both levels of government must work together, and cites the Ontario finance minister's visit as a concrete example of ongoing collaboration, substantively addressing more than was asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wish the member opposite had listened to my answer to the last question. I do not want to repeat all that about what the Supreme Court of Canada decided. I invite the members opposite, including the member who asked the question, to read the decision of the court. It is very plain that there is dual constitutional competence here. What does that mean? The opposition says that we should work together with the provinces. We are and the provinces are working together with us. The minister of finance for Ontario was here yesterday having a discussion with me about this subject and some other subjects. The members want us to be working together, we are working together and we intend to achieve the goal together.
Nash asks whether the Finance Minister's alleged unilateral cuts to transfer payments and mismanagement of an economy with 350,000 more unemployed than in 2008 and slower growth than the U.S. explain why he and the Prime Minister refuse to meet the premiers.
Combines a specific claim (350,000 more unemployed than at the start of the 2008 recession and growth slower than the U.S.) with a vaguer allegation about unilateral transfer payment cuts, making the overall ask compound and partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in fact his attitude so far has been to make future cuts to transfer payments without any consultation. Is that what he means by working with the provinces? He attacks the finance ministers for not implementing his own vision while he is mismanaging an economy that will now grow at a slower rate than the United States, with 350,000 more unemployed in Canada today than when the recession hit in 2008. Is this why he and the Prime Minister refuse to meet with the premiers?
Flaherty states that transfers have not been reduced but have grown to a record level of $60.9 billion annually and will continue to grow each year, directly contradicting the transfer-cut claim.
Flaherty directly refutes the transfer payment reduction claim with a specific figure ($60.9 billion annually at a record level) and states it will continue to grow each year, which is a factual, specific response to one part of the question, though he does not address the unemployment or growth-rate claims.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says that transfers have been reduced. Nothing could be further from the truth. Transfers, in all respects, in equalization, in the Canada health transfer, in the Canada social transfer, have grown to a record level in Canada from this government to the provinces. If the member opposite does not want to look it up, I can help with the number. Federal support has reached the level of $60.9 billion annually and will continue to grow each and every year. As we have made clear, we will notâ
After Public Works pled guilty to three labour code violations related to the Fleet Street plant boiler explosion that killed Peter Kennedy, will the minister apologize to the workers and families for the department's failure?
Cites a specific guilty plea to three labour code violations, names the deceased, and poses a single clear accountability ask â a public apology from the minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Public Works pled guilty to three labour code violations in relation to the Fleet Street plant boiler explosion, which three years ago claimed the life of engineer and father of four, Peter Kennedy, and injured two others. Those losses may have been prevented had the department complied with the law requiring hazard training. Will the minister, today, after taking three years to plead guilty, stand in this place and apologize to those workers and families for the harm and loss suffered because of her department's failure?
The minister called it a terrible tragedy, expressed thoughts and prayers for the family, and outlined enhanced training and management oversights introduced since the incident, including cooperation with union head Donna Lackie.
The minister expresses condolences and describes post-incident measures, but does not issue the apology that was specifically requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this has been a terrible tragedy. All the employees at Public Works have been feeling this for the last three years with this employee's family. It has been a very difficult time for the family and for the employees who worked with the deceased. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family. Since this happened, we have introduced enhanced training and management oversights for all heating and cooling plants in the national capital region. We have been working closely with the union and the union head, Donna Lackie, has said that they are confident that the measures we have put in place will ensure the proper training so this does not happen again. Again, our thoughts and prayers go out to the family.
Given that there were more than 1,000 fatal workplace accidents in Canada in 2010 and the tragic death of Peter Kennedy, what will the minister do to ensure the tragedy does not repeat itself?
Cites a figure of more than 1,000 fatal workplace accidents in 2010 and references the Kennedy case, but the ask is broad and rhetorical â 'what does the minister intend to do' â rather than targeting a specific policy or commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, s'il y a un dossier que les conservateurs ne devraient pas prendre à la légÚre, c'est bien celui de la sécurité de leurs propres employés. Les conservateurs n'ont rien fait pour freiner la hausse constante du nombre d'accidents de travail mortels au Canada. Il y en a eu plus de 1 000 en 2010. Le tragique décÚs de Peter Kennedy devrait servir de déclic à la ministre. La protection des travailleurs canadiens dans leur lieu de travail doit redevenir une priorité absolue. Qu'est-ce que la ministre entend faire pour s'assurer que la tragédie ne se répÚte pas?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing the Conservatives should not take lightly, it is the safety of their own employees. The Conservatives have done nothing to stem the growing number of fatal workplace accidents in Canada. There were more than 1,000 in 2010. The tragic death of Peter Kennedy should serve as an impetus for the minister. Protecting Canadian workers at their workplace must become a top priority again. What does the minister intend to do to prevent such a tragedy from happening again?
The minister stated that the government takes health and safety seriously, leads on protecting workers in federal jurisdiction, and has introduced violence-in-the-workplace regulations as a forward-looking measure.
The minister speaks in generalities about federal health and safety leadership and violence-in-the-workplace regulations without addressing the specific statistic cited or any concrete plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question on health and safety in our country because it is indeed a very important matter, which we take very seriously, both here in the government and governments across the country. Although we only have a small portion of the total employees in Canada, we lead the way in terms of making sure it is of utmost concern that the people who work in the federal jurisdiction are protected through health and safety measures. We actually bring boundaries to ourselves, in terms of making sure we are the first to deal with violence in the workplace regulations. Those are the kinds of things that are forward looking, and those are the things I will continue to do.
Given veterans' protests over the closure of the Veterans Affairs office in Sydney (one of nine offices being closed), will the minister reverse this short-sighted decision?
Identifies a specific decision (closing nine Veterans Affairs offices including Sydney), references a recent protest, and asks the minister to reverse the decision, though framed with some rhetorical flourish.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday a protest was held by veterans and their families over their outrage at the government's decision to close the Veterans Affairs office in Sydney. In total, nine offices are to be closed across this country. As I stated in the House during Veterans Week, Cape Breton soldiers have gone above and beyond the call of duty. The government needs to understand the importance of this in-person service. Veterans were there for us; now we need to be there for them. Will the minister stand up for our veterans and change this short-sighted decision?
The parliamentary secretary said veterans will receive services at five locations instead of one, that there will be no reduction in services, and accused the opposition of defending union rather than veterans' interests, adding that the government has eliminated two and a half million forms or phone calls or faxes.
The parliamentary secretary claims services will expand to five locations and attacks the opposition for defending union interests, but does not address the specific in-person service concerns or the Sydney closure directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, veterans will now receive services at five locations instead of the one location where they were previously receiving service. There will be no reduction in services to local veterans. In fact, those veterans who require home services will continue to receive them. The opposition is just trying to defend union interests. Here on this side of the House we actually defend veterans' interests. It is because of our Conservative government, under the leadership of this Prime Minister, that veterans now need to complete two and a half million fewer forms or phone calls or faxes, because we have eliminated the need for them to have to provide receipts for certain services. Weâ
With Canada's $79 billion tourism industry unhappy, and cruise ships steering away from Cape Breton after Labour Day because parks now close a month earlier, why is the government undermining tourism and the jobs important to communities?
Cites the $79 billion tourism industry, a specific example of cruise ships steering away from Cape Breton after Labour Day due to earlier park closures, and asks a clear question about the government's rationale.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, leaders of Canada's $79 billion tourism industry are in Ottawa today, and they are not happy with the government. The list of reasons is long, so here is one: cuts to our national parks and our national monuments are hurting shops and restaurants right across the country. It is so bad that cruise ships will be steering away from Cape Breton after Labour Day because the area's parks now close a month earlier than before. That amounts to thousands of customers for every ship that is no longer going there. What is the government thinking? Why undermine tourism and the jobs that are so important to our communities?
The minister asserted the government supports tourism, then pivoted entirely to attacking a Liberal MP from Ottawa South for saying Alberta MPs should go back to Alberta and run for municipal council.
The minister â who is the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, not tourism â ignores the question entirely and pivots to attacking a Liberal MP for comments about Alberta MPs, with no connection to tourism or parks.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are supporting, not undermining, tourism. However, the Liberal Party is now undermining the unity of this country by attacking members of Parliament from Alberta for representing their constituents. The member of Parliament for Ottawa South actually said, speaking of Alberta MPs, that they should really go back to Alberta and run for municipal council. These Alberta MPs were elected, on average, with 67% of the support of their constituents to defend their constituents and Canada's economy, and they will not be lectured by the arrogance of the Liberal Party.
Will the minister accelerate the processing of spousal sponsorships for people in Syria, a country in crisis, given the 20-month processing time and the minister's circular-letter response to a written inquiry?
Lists multiple specific grievances â polls on personal ratings, visa withdrawals, privacy violations, 19 regional office closures, a backed-up call centre, and 20-month spousal sponsorship delays â and closes with a single yes/no question on Syria sponsorships.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est la pagaille à l'immigration. Le ministre gaspille en sondages sur sa cote personnelle...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, things are a complete mess at immigration. The minister is wasting time on self-congratulatory petitionsâ
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
Monsieur le Président, c'est la pagaille à l'immigration. Le ministre gaspille en sondages sur sa cote personnelle, retire des visas qu'il dit avoir accordés par erreur, viole la vie privée des détenteurs de visas, ferme 19 bureaux régionaux, engorge le télécentre de Montréal et prend 20 mois pour accepter le parrainage d'époux en Syrie. Je lui ai écrit sur le terrible cas de la Syrie. Sa réponse: une lettre circulaire. Va-t-il accélérer le traitement des parrainages dans un pays en crise, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, things are a complete mess at immigration. The minister is wasting time on self-congratulatory petitions, cancelling visas that he says were granted by mistake, invading the privacy of visa holders, closing 19 regional offices, overloading the Montreal call centre and taking 20 months to approve sponsorship of spouses in Syria. I wrote to him about the terrible situation in Syria. His response: a form letter. Will he speed up the process for sponsorships for a country in crisis, yes or no?
The minister said 'yes, we have already done so' but then devoted the remainder of his answer to criticizing a Liberal MP who said Alberta MPs don't belong in the House of Commons.
The minister says 'yes' in one word but then immediately pivots to attacking a Liberal MP's comments about Alberta MPs and does not provide any details on accelerating spousal sponsorship processing in Syria.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, oui, nous l'avons dĂ©jĂ fait. Quand ce dĂ©putĂ© Ă©tait ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales, il n'a jamais dit que les dĂ©putĂ©s du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois devaient retourner au QuĂ©bec. Il n'a jamais dit qu'ils n'avaient pas leur place ici pour reprĂ©senter leurs concitoyens. Or un dĂ©putĂ© libĂ©ral d'Ottawa-Sud vient de dire que les dĂ©putĂ©s albertains Ă©lus n'ont pas le droit d'ĂȘtre ici pour reprĂ©senter les intĂ©rĂȘts de leurs Ă©lecteurs. C'est Ă©pouvantable. Tous les dĂ©putĂ©s ont le droit et le mandat dĂ©mocratique d'ĂȘtre ici au nom de leurs concitoyens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yes, we already have. When that member was the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he never told the members of the Bloc Québécois to go back to Quebec. He never said they had no business being here to represent their constituents. A Liberal member for Ottawa South just said that elected members from Alberta have no right to be here to represent the interests of their constituents. It is outrageous. All members have the right and the democratic mandate to be here on behalf of their constituents.
Will the government strengthen the electoral law or will it condone electoral fraud, and why are Conservative MPs making absurd diversions when questioned about their electoral fraud?
Combines unrelated issues (Senate housing allowances and electoral fraud) into one question, and the ask â will you strengthen the Electoral Act or condone electoral fraud â is compound and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il y a parfois des injustices dans la vie. Une chance qu'on a des scandales pour nous rappeler qu'on a des sĂ©nateurs. Se faire payer une prime pour une rĂ©sidence qui ne nous appartient mĂȘme pas, ça n'a aucun bon sens. Puisqu'ils n'ont de comptes Ă rendre Ă personne, j'imagine que les conservateurs trouvent cela acceptable. Or ceux qui ont des comptes Ă rendre, soit les dĂ©putĂ©s d'en face, font de loufoques tentatives de diversion, plus puĂ©riles les unes que les autres, quand on leur parle de leur fraude Ă©lectorale. Ăa, c'est un vrai problĂšme. J'ai une question toute simple Ă leur poser: vont-ils renforcer la loi Ă©lectorale ou cautionner la fraude Ă©lectorale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, sometimes life is not fair. Luckily, scandals remind us that we have senators. It does not make sense for a senator to be given an allowance for a residence that does not even belong to him. Since senators are not accountable to anyone, I imagine that the Conservatives find this acceptable. However, those who are accountable, namely the members opposite, are using all sorts of ludicrous diversion tactics, each more juvenile than the next, when we mention electoral fraud. That is a real problem. I have a very simple question for the Conservatives: will they strengthen the Canada Elections Act or will they condone electoral fraud?
The government House leader said it is normal for senators and MPs to maintain residences in both their constituency and Ottawa, and that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has been asked to ensure Senate policies are respected.
The government House leader addresses only the Senate housing allowance issue and the Standing Committee referral, completely ignoring the electoral fraud question that was explicitly flagged.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il est tout à fait normal que les sénateurs et les députés aient une résidence dans leur circonscription et une autre ici, à Ottawa. Nous avons demandé au Comité permanent de la régie interne, des budgets et de l'administration du Sénat de s'assurer que les politiques du Sénat sont respectées et, sinon, de prendre des mesures correctives.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly normal for senators and members of Parliament to have one residence in their riding and another here in Ottawa. We have asked the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to ensure that senators are complying with Senate policies and to take corrective action if they are not.
The Conservatives adopted an NDP motion to help Elections Canada prevent electoral fraud but have shelved it â will they support cleaner elections or protect those responsible for electoral fraud?
Reminds the House the government adopted a motion to help Elections Canada prevent electoral fraud and then shelved it, presenting a clear either/or choice, though the framing is heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je rappelle que j'ai posĂ© une question qui concerne la fraude Ă©lectorale. Ce gouvernement fatiguĂ© n'est que façade et artifices tape-Ă -l'Ćil, l'un aprĂšs l'autre. Les conservateurs sont de grands parleurs, petits faiseurs. Ils ont adoptĂ© notre motion pour aider Ălections Canada Ă prĂ©venir la fraude Ă©lectorale, mais ils la mettent maintenant sur une tablette et ils regardent ailleurs en sifflant. Un choix clair est Ă faire: soit ils veulent des Ă©lections plus propres, soit ils veulent protĂ©ger leurs amis responsables de la fraude Ă©lectorale. Dans quel camp se rangeront-ils?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I remember asking a question about electoral fraud. This tired government is all about smoke and mirrors. The Conservatives are all talk, no action. They adopted our motion to help Elections Canada prevent electoral fraud, but now they have put that motion on a shelf and are happily looking the other way. There is a clear choice to be made: either they want cleaner elections or they want to protect their friends who committed electoral fraud. Which side are they on?
The parliamentary secretary cited the Federal Accountability Act as already establishing clean election financing rules, then accused the NDP of accepting more than $300,000 in illegal union money and questioned the member's past donations to the separatist party.
The parliamentary secretary pivots entirely to attacking the NDP for accepting more than $300,000 in illegal union money and questions the member's separatist party donations, never addressing the motion or clean elections question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous avons dĂ©jĂ mis en place la Loi fĂ©dĂ©rale sur la responsabilitĂ©, ce qui a permis d'Ă©tablir des rĂšgles en ce qui concerne le financement des Ă©lections et l'objectivitĂ© d'Ălections Canada. C'est cette mĂȘme loi que les nĂ©o-dĂ©mocrates ont enfreinte en acceptant plus de 300 000 $, de l'argent syndical et illĂ©gal. Speaking of transparency, maybe the member will take this occasion finally to rise on the question of political finance. After his 29 donations to the separatist party, is he now a federalist?
Given that the member for Saint Boniface had to recant her claim of being a victim of electoral fraud and the trail leads back to Conservative Party headquarters, will someone stand up and take responsibility?
References a specific incident involving the member for Saint Boniface going on national TV, claiming to be a victim of electoral fraud, having to recant, and allegations linking the trail to Conservative Party headquarters, asking who will take responsibility.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, speaking of bizarre attempts to deflect, let us talk about the member for Saint Boniface, who went on national TV and tried to pass herself off as a victim of electoral fraud and claimed Elections Canada had ignored her concerns. However, then she had to recant because Elections Canada had red flagged her campaign. Now the trail is leading right back to Conservative Party headquarters. Defrauding Canadians of their right to vote is not ethical or clean behaviour. Will someone over there stand up and take responsibility? Will they stand up, please, and do the right thing?
The parliamentary secretary defended his party's clean and ethical campaign and accused the NDP of defrauding workers of $340,000 in illegal union money, without addressing the member for Saint Boniface or Conservative headquarters.
The parliamentary secretary claims the party ran a clean and ethical campaign and pivots entirely to attacking the NDP for taking $340,000 in illegal union money, never addressing the member for Saint Boniface or Conservative headquarters.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, of course I am prepared to stand up and defend the clean and ethical campaign that our party ran in the last election. The question is whether that member is prepared to do the same. His party defrauded workers of $340,000, which it took in illegal union money. The reason union donations are illegal is that workers do not have the power to consent to giving the money. Do those members really expect us to believe they did not know, when all this money was coming in, that it was illegal? Did they really believe we would not find out? Why does he not stand and answer that question?
Will the intergovernmental affairs minister explain why he hired Chris Crawford, described as a key operative in the Guelph scandal, as his director of parliamentary affairs?
Identifies a specific individual, Chris Crawford, described as a key operative in the Guelph scandal working in the intergovernmental affairs minister's office as director of parliamentary affairs, and asks the minister to explain his role, though the framing is heavily sarcastic.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, God help them when they are hiding behind those pathological excuses. Speaking of excuses, we have the intergovernmental affairs minister, who has refused to explain the role the Guelph political operative Chris Crawford is playing in his office. Here is the thing. The Conservatives are telling us they are really glad the beleaguered minister is flying around his riding in his province using his ministerial budget, so then why does he need a director of parliamentary affairs? Are we really to believe that he hired one of the key operatives in the Guelph scandal to book him rooms at the Sinbad's motel in Gander? Is he going to stand up and explain himself?
The parliamentary secretary said it would only be a scandal for the NDP for an MP to spend time in his constituency, and attacked the questioner for having voted against abolishing the wasteful billion dollar Liberal long gun registry after promising to do so.
The parliamentary secretary ignores Chris Crawford entirely and pivots to attacking the questioner for voting against abolishing the long gun registry, with no connection to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, only for the NDP would it be a scandal for a member of Parliament to spend too much time working in his constituency with the people he serves. It is a scandal because that member would not want to go back to his riding to have to explain to them why he ran, time after time, on the promise of abolishing the wasteful billion dollar Liberal long gun registry, and then, when he had a chance to do something about it, he betrayed those very same constituents. I am proud to stand with this minister.
When will the Liberals understand that Alberta's energy industry brings prosperity and jobs across the country, and can the minister update the House on the government's commitment to Canada's energy industry?
A government backbench MP invokes the national energy program to set up a question asking the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to comment on the government's commitment to the energy industry â a classic softball setup.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the 1980s, the Trudeau Liberals brought in the national energy program that absolutely destroyed the economy and cost my constituents and Alberta families their jobs, their homes and billions of dollars. Comments yesterday by the senior Liberal spokesperson for natural resources show that the Liberals have not changed much since then. When will the Liberals understand that Alberta's energy industry brings incredible prosperity and jobs right across the country? Can the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism update the House on our government's commitment to Canada's energy industry?
The minister said the government recognizes the energy industry as a real engine of growth and that hundreds of thousands of Canadians work in it, then asked when the Liberal leader would fire his natural resources critic for attacking Alberta MPs.
The minister praises the energy industry and Alberta workers but spends most of the answer demanding that the Liberal leader fire his natural resources critic, rather than providing substantive information about energy policy commitments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government was elected to work for the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity of all Canadians. We recognize that one of the real engines of growth in our economy is the energy industry, and that Albertans and people across the country, hundreds of thousands of them, work very hard in that industry. They expect to have MPs who represent them and the interests of our national economy. We have a question for the leader of the Liberal Party. When is he going to fire his critic for natural resources for having attacked the members of Parliament from Alberta for simply representing their constituents, as they are expected to do?
Service Canada is requiring seasonal workers to prove job searches by having potential employers sign a declaration, with some employers charging up to $30 â how does the minister justify making unemployed workers pay to access their benefits?
Identifies a specific Service Canada practice of requiring seasonal workers to get employer-signed declarations, notes that some employers charge up to $30 for this, and asks the minister to justify charging unemployed workers to access their benefits.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les conservateurs n'ont aucune considération pour les chÎmeurs. Service Canada force maintenant les travailleurs saisonniers à prouver qu'ils sont à la recherche d'emploi en demandant à des employeurs potentiels de signer une déclaration affirmant qu'ils n'embauchent pas. à cause des démarches administratives, certains employeurs demandent des frais pouvant aller jusqu'à 30 $. Quand on n'a pas d'emploi, on n'a pas d'argent pour payer un formulaire de recherche d'emploi. Comment la ministre justifie-t-elle le fait de faire payer les chÎmeurs pour qu'ils aient accÚs à leurs prestations?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have no concern for the unemployed. Service Canada is now forcing seasonal workers to prove that they are looking for work by asking potential employers to sign a declaration stating that they are not hiring. Because of the administration involved, some employers are charging fees as high as $30. When you have no job, you have no money to pay for a job search form. How does the minister justify making unemployed Canadians pay to get access to their benefits?
The minister said it is unacceptable for employers to charge fees for such a letter, that this is not how the process is meant to work, and that claimants are not required to submit an employer letter and employers must not impose charges.
The minister directly states that employers charging fees for such letters is unacceptable, clarifies that claimants are not required to submit employer letters, and says employers must not impose charges â substantially addressing the question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est inacceptable que des employeurs demandent des frais pour une telle lettre. Ce n'est pas ainsi que nous voulons que ce soit fait. Les chÎmeurs sont responsables de démontrer qu'ils sont en train de chercher un emploi, c'est vrai, mais il y a plusieurs autres moyens de le faire. Ils ne doivent pas soumettre une lettre des employeurs, et surtout, les employeurs ne doivent pas imposer de frais pour une telle lettre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable for employers to ask for a fee for a letter of that kind. That is not the way we want things to be done. The unemployed are responsible for showing that they are looking for work, it is true, but there are a number of other ways of doing that. They do not have to provide a letter from employers and, certainly, employers must not charge fees for such a letter.
Given that even the Conservative MP for MonctonâRiverviewâDieppe is asking for changes to the EI reform because it does not account for regional economic realities, will the minister listen to her backbencher and support the NDP's position?
References a Conservative backbench MP from MonctonâRiverviewâDieppe calling for changes to the EI reform and frames the question around the NDP's position, but the ask is rhetorical and partisan rather than specific.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la rĂ©forme de l'assurance-emploi est tellement mal foutue que mĂȘme les dĂ©putĂ©s conservateurs, qui n'ont habituellement pas de coeur, demandent maintenant des changements Ă la ministre. Le dĂ©putĂ© de MonctonâRiverviewâDieppe vient de se rendre compte que ses concitoyens ne sont pas contents. Il est temps! Ăa fait six mois qu'on dit que la rĂ©forme ne tient pas compte des rĂ©alitĂ©s Ă©conomiques rĂ©gionales. Si les conservateurs avaient fait des consultations, ce ne serait pas arrivĂ©. La ministre va-t-elle Ă©couter son dĂ©putĂ© d'arriĂšre-ban et appuyer maintenant la position du NPD? La rĂ©forme du gouvernement n'a pas de sens!
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, employment insurance reform is so messed up that even Conservative members, who are usually heartless, are now asking the minister for changes. The hon. member for MonctonâRiverviewâDieppe has just realized that his constituents are not happy. It is about time. We have been saying for six months that the reform does not reflect regional economic realities. If the Conservatives had held consultations, this would not have happened. Is the minister going to listen to her colleague from the back benches and support the NDP position now? The government's reform makes no sense.
The minister said the NDP's position is a 45-day work year which is unacceptable to employers, and emphasized that the government helps unemployed workers develop skills and find positions with employers who need their talent.
The minister mischaracterizes the NDP's position as a 45-day work year and promotes the government's training initiatives without addressing the specific concern about the reform not accounting for regional economic realities.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la position du NPD est d'avoir une année de travail de 45 jours. Ce n'est pas acceptable pour les employeurs du pays qui cherchent des travailleurs compétents et talentueux. C'est notre gouvernement qui aide ces chÎmeurs à développer des compétences et qui leur offre la formation nécessaire pour qu'ils puissent avoir ces postes. Il y a des employeurs qui ont besoin de leur talent. Nous aidons les chÎmeurs à combler ces postes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the NDP position is to have a 45-day work year. That is not acceptable for the employers in this country who are looking for skilled and talented workers. Our government is helping Canadians without jobs to develop their skills and is providing them with the training they need to get those positions. There are employers who need their talent. We are helping the unemployed to get those jobs.
Why have the Conservatives decided to eliminate winter maintenance and security services at parc Forillon, ending cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, winter activities, and tourism revenues in the Gaspésie region?
Identifies a specific decision to eliminate winter maintenance and security services at parc Forillon, with concrete implications for cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and tourism revenues, though framed with heavy rhetorical flourish.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, aprÚs leur « job de bras » à l'assurance-emploi dans toutes les régions du Canada, les conservateurs continuent de s'acharner sur la Gaspésie. Ils ont décidé d'éliminer les services d'entretien et de sécurité d'hiver au magnifique parc Forillon. Fini le ski de fond, la raquette, les activités hivernales et les revenus touristiques. « Mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est l'hiver ». Cependant, pour les conservateurs, l'hiver, on hiberne. Pourquoi les conservateurs veulent-ils condamner la Gaspésie à fermer l'hiver?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, after having their way with employment insurance all over Canada, the Conservatives are continuing to wreak havoc on the GaspĂ©. They have decided to eliminate winter maintenance and security services in the magnificent Forillon Park. No more cross-country skiing, no more snowshoeing, no more winter activities, and no more tourist revenue. The song says âmy country is the winterâ, not âmy country is shutting down for the winterâ, as the Conservatives would like. Why do the Conservatives want to make the GaspĂ© shut down for the winter?
The minister said parc national Forillon will remain accessible in winter, that some parking lots will continue to be plowed for wildlife viewing, skiing and snowshoeing, and that Parks Canada is aligning seasonal hours of operation to better reflect patterns of visitation to meet deficit reduction obligations.
The minister directly states that parc national Forillon will remain accessible in winter, that some parking lots will continue to be plowed, and frames the changes as aligning seasonal hours to patterns of visitation under deficit reduction obligations â a reasonably substantive response.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce n'est pas vrai. Le parc national Forillon demeurera accessible durant la saison hivernale. Some parking lots will continue to be plowed and be maintained, allowing visitors to enjoy wildlife, to ski and snowshoe. However, my colleague has to remember that to meet our deficit reduction obligations in Parks Canada, as across all agencies and departments, Parks Canada is aligning its seasonal hours of operation to better reflect patterns of visitation.
With mayors and councillors in Ottawa asking for help with crumbling infrastructure, will the minister take the politics out of infrastructure projects and say yes to the FCM's demand for long-term predictable infrastructure funding?
Notes FCM representatives are in Ottawa and references a specific demand for long-term predictable infrastructure funding, contrasting it with gazebos and insider deals, but the framing is partially rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, mayors and councillors from across the country are here on Parliament Hill asking for help to fix our crumbling infrastructure, and what did they get? They got fabricated stories about the NDP. It is a sad day for thousands of cities and communities when the Conservatives choose to ignore the calls for partnership. Instead of gazebos and insider deals, will the minister take the politics out of infrastructure projects and say yes to the FCM's demand for long-term predictable infrastructure funding?
The minister said the NDP has ideas like a carbon tax of $21.5 billion and a new tax increasing the GST by $6 billion a year, accusing the party of wanting to dig deeper into the pockets of hard-working Canadians.
The minister ignores the FCM's demand for long-term predictable infrastructure funding entirely and pivots to attacking the NDP's carbon tax and GST proposals, with no connection to the specific infrastructure question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member and her party have ideas like a carbon tax of $21.5 billion, which would increase the cost of every single item for municipalities across the country. They have other ideas like imposing a new tax that would increase the GST by $6 billion a year. Clearly, the party opposite only has one priority, getting deeper and deeper into the pockets of hard-working Canadians.
Since Elections Canada traced fraudulent calls about moved polling stations to the Conservatives' national toll-free number during the 2011 election, why did the Conservatives not take immediate action, and will the government vote to pass a Liberal bill today adding strenuous fines to the Elections Act?
Cites a specific Elections Canada finding that fraudulent calls tracing back to the Conservatives' national toll-free number during the 2011 election, asks why no immediate action was taken, and references a specific Liberal bill before the House today adding strenuous fines.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during the 2011 election campaign, Elections Canada told the Conservatives that fraudulent calls claiming that polling stations had been moved were traced back to the Conservatives' national toll-free number. Why did the Conservatives not take immediate action and take the steps necessary to investigate? Why is there no evidence that anyone in their party tried to work with Elections Canada to shut that down? Are the Elections Act penalties too low? Will the government vote to pass a Liberal bill today that adds strenuous fines to the Elections Act to stop criminal fraud like this from happening in the future?
The parliamentary secretary expressed mock speechlessness that the Liberal Party raised criminal fraud on the same day a former Liberal minister was charged with three counts in connection with using federal funds to pay for his son's wedding, making no reference to the question asked.
The parliamentary secretary ignores every element of the question â the toll-free number allegation, the failure to act, and the Liberal bill â and pivots entirely to a former Liberal minister being charged in connection with using federal funds to pay for his son's wedding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, they did not just ask about criminal fraud. My ears must deceive me. The Liberal Party of Canada rose today to talk about criminal fraud, the same day that a former Liberal minister was charged with three counts in connection with using federal funds to pay for his son's wedding. I am almost speechlessâand that never happens as all members know. As Talleyrand said of the Bourbon dynasty, âThey have learned nothing and forgotten nothingâ.
Andrews asks why the government will not reveal all information it has on the robocall scam, noting the new parliamentary secretary's company made 96 contracts worth $49,000 in 2008 robocalls without CRTC-required address tag lines.
Cites specific figures (96 contracts, 49 grand, 2008 election) and a regulatory requirement (CRTC address tag lines), with a clear ask about revealing robocall information, though the closing 'Pierre Poutine' jab adds rhetorical colour.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the question of robocalls the new parliamentary secretary is finding himself getting sucked into the same ethical hole as his predecessor. His company, 3D Contact Inc., made big bucks making robocalls for the Conservatives, securing some 96 contracts and 49 grand in the 2008 election, and none of those robocalls had address tag lines as required by the CRTC. When will the government take the issue seriously and reveal to Canadians all the information it has on the robocall scam, or will we get another robocall answer from Pierre Poutine?
Poilievre accuses the Liberal Party of falsely accusing others of things for which its members have already been found guilty and fined, and pivots to criticism of Liberal energy policy.
Poilievre deflects entirely to Liberal regulatory fines and the national energy program, never addressing the specific figures cited or the ask about releasing robocall information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to see the Liberal Party stand in the House of Commons and falsely accuse others of things for which its members have themselves already been found guilty and fined by the regulatory agencies for. I guess we should not be surprised. After all, that is the Liberal way. They forget nothing but they learn nothing, and not just in this area. They also want to revive the same sentiments that led to the disastrous national energy program in Alberta. We will never stand by and support the kind of arrogant and nasty comments that we saw from the Liberals just yesterday.
PĂ©clet asks whether the minister was aware that Canada signed a 2008 lease for a Moscow building where diplomats cannot work until 2016, leaving staff in an unprotected building, and why he did not correct the situation.
PĂ©clet cites a specific 2008 lease, an eight-year gap before occupancy (until 2016), security vulnerabilities, and asks whether the minister knew and why he did not act, making it a reasonably grounded accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en raison de l'incompĂ©tence des conservateurs, le Canada a signĂ© en 2008 un bail pour un Ă©difice oĂč nos diplomates en poste Ă Moscou ne pourront mĂȘme pas travailler avant 2016. Cela correspond Ă huit ans pendant lesquels l'argent des contribuables est dĂ©pensĂ© pour un Ă©difice vide, alors que le personnel canadien doit travailler dans un immeuble qui n'offre aucune protection contre les attaques terroristes, ni mĂȘme l'espionnage. Appeler la GRC pour enquĂȘter sur une fuite de documents, ce n'est pas une solution. Le ministre est-il au courant de cette solution? Si oui, pourquoi n'a-t-il pas rectifiĂ© le tir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, because of the Conservatives' incompetence, Canada signed a lease in 2008 for a building in which our diplomats posted to Moscow will not be able to work until 2016. This means that, for eight years, taxpayers' money will be spent on an empty building, while Canadian staff are being forced to work in another building that offers no protection against terrorist attacks or espionage. Calling on the RCMP to investigate leaked documents is not a solution. Is the minister aware of this solution? If so, why has he not rectified the situation?
Baird states only that no memo was sent to his office on this issue.
Baird's one-sentence reply that no memo was sent to his office skirts any substantive engagement with the lease details, the security failures, or the RCMP leak investigation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, no memo was sent to my office on this issue.
Dewar asks whether the government's priority is protecting diplomats from terrorism and espionage at the Moscow embassy or protecting itself from transparency by calling in the RCMP to investigate the leak.
Dewar raises real security concerns about the Moscow embassy and poses a pointed either/or question about priorities, but the framing is partly rhetorical and lacks new documentary specifics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, maybe I will refresh the minister's memory about the following. We have an embassy building in Moscow that does not meet security standards, that is vulnerable to terrorist attacks and opens the door to foreign spies. Instead of calling in authorities to protect our diplomats, Conservatives are calling on the RCMP to investigate the leak. What is the priority for these guys? Is it protecting our diplomats from terrorism or is it about protecting themselves from transparency?
Baird accuses Dewar of having criticized the government last month for closing the Tehran embassy and of wanting robust diplomacy with Iran while breaking ties with Great Britain.
Baird does not address the Moscow embassy security issue or the RCMP leak investigation priority question, instead attacking Dewar's past position on the Tehran embassy closure and Iran relations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange by this member, who just last month was criticizing the government for moving too quickly to ensure the safety and security of our employees. He criticized this government for taking the necessary step of closing down our embassy in Tehran to ensure the safety and security of our employees. The member wants us to have robust diplomacy with Iran and somehow break off ties with Great Britain. That is something this government will not do.
Bezan asks the minister to explain why swift passage of the helping families in need act is needed, noting the House unanimously voted for it the previous night.
A government-backbench softball asking the minister to explain why swift passage of the helping families in need act is needed, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last night the House unanimously voted in favour of the helping families in need act. This important legislation would help families by providing assistance when they need it the most, when caring for a critically ill child or when a child is murdered or goes missing because of a Criminal Code offence. Can the minister please tell the House why swift passage of this legislation is needed?
Finley says the law supports parents caring for critically ill children or holding families together after a child has been subject to a crime, confirms implementation is ready for January, and urges the Senate to expedite passage.
Finley provides substantive content: names the beneficiaries (parents of critically ill children or crime victims), confirms the unanimous House vote, and gives a January implementation target, though it is a promotional rather than accountability answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for SelkirkâInterlake for his longstanding efforts on this file. I was very pleased to see the unanimous support of the House for this government bill to support families when they need it most. This new law would demonstrate our support for parents who need time to care for critically ill children or to hold their families together once their child has been subject to a crime. We are ready to start implementing this legislation in January. I only hope that the other place will expedite the passage of this bill so we can do that.
Bennett asks who changed the campaign paperwork for the minister from Labrador, given that former official agent Reg Bowers claims everything was correct when he signed off, in light of alleged anonymous and corporate donations, interest-free loans, illegally discounted air travel, and spending over the legal cap.
Bennett enumerates specific alleged irregularities (anonymous and corporate donations, interest-free loans, illegally discounted air travel, spending over the legal cap) and names Reg Bowers as a source, then asks a pointed question about who changed the paperwork, though the Bev Oda and in-and-out comparisons add rhetorical clutter.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister from Labrador has had every opportunity to provide an innocent explanation for his messy campaign finances, including anonymous and corporate donations, interest-free loans, illegally discounted air travel and campaign spending way over the legal cap. Now Reg Bowers, his former official agent, claims everything was right when he signed off on the paperwork. If that is so, will the sitting minister stand and tell the House who changed the paperwork? Was it Bev Oda's autopen or was it the people who changed the invoices for the in and out scheme?
Poilievre attacks the Liberal Party for the sponsorship scandal, describes it as the biggest criminal conspiracy in Canadian history, and notes a former Liberal minister was charged that day with using public funds for his son's wedding.
Poilievre does not address the specific allegations about the minister's campaign finances or who changed the paperwork, instead attacking the Liberal Party's record with the sponsorship scandal and a former minister's charges.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is not just that the Liberals accuse other people of things for which they have already been found guilty themselves; it is not just that they had the biggest criminal conspiracy in Canadian history, the sponsorship scandal; it is not just that today a former minister of theirs was charged with using public funds to pay for his son's wedding, but that they are prepared to stand and throw rocks and are not even embarrassed about it. One really has to admire the astonishing degree of arrogance over there.
Lapointe asks whether the minister will act on renewed cuts to the Commission canadienne du tourisme's budget, given Canada's drop from 7th to 15th place in international tourism over the last decade.
Lapointe cites Canada's drop from 7th to 15th place in international tourism over the decade and the reduced budget of the Commission canadienne du tourisme, asking whether the minister will act, making it factually grounded though the closing jab weakens it slightly.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'industrie touristique gĂ©nĂšre 10 % des emplois au pays et rapporte des milliards de dollars en revenus. Le Canada est cependant passĂ© de la 7e Ă la 15e place au cours de la derniĂšre dĂ©cennie en ce qui a trait Ă la frĂ©quentation du tourisme international. C'est donc contre toute logique que les conservateurs ont Ă nouveau rĂ©duit le budget de la Commission canadienne du tourisme. Le ministre d'Ătat Ă la petite entreprise et au tourisme sait pertinemment que le sous-financement du CCT ne pourra que nuire Ă notre industrie touristique. Va-t-il agir, ou est-il si occupĂ© Ă rĂ©pĂ©ter des histoires inventĂ©es qu'il en oublie de dĂ©fendre les consensus de l'industrie touristique?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the tourism industry generates 10% of jobs in Canada and brings in billions of dollars in revenues. However, over the past decade, Canada has dropped from 7th to 15th place when it comes to the number of international visitors. It therefore makes absolutely no sense that the Conservatives have once again reduced the Canadian Tourism Commission's budget. The Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism knows full well that underfunding the CTC will only hurt our tourism industry. Will he do something about this, or is he so busy recounting fictitious tales that he has no time to stand up for the tourism industry?
Bernier says the tourism industry, worth $78 billion, has seen progressive growth for three consecutive years and that he is proud to represent it, without addressing the ranking decline or budget cuts.
Bernier cites a $78-billion industry figure and three consecutive years of progressive growth but does not address the ranking decline, the budget cut to the Commission canadienne du tourisme, or whether he will act on underfunding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'avais justement l'honneur d'ĂȘtre aujourd'hui avec des entrepreneurs de l'industrie touristique canadienne. Je peux affirmer que ces gens sont trĂšs fiers de travailler pour cette industrie. Ils sont des crĂ©ateurs d'emplois et de richesse au Canada. Cette industrie de 78 milliards de dollars a eu un taux de croissance progressif qui a augmentĂ© pendant les trois derniĂšres annĂ©es de façon consĂ©cutive. Cette industrie touristique se porte trĂšs bien, et je suis fier d'en ĂȘtre le reprĂ©sentant.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, just today, I had the honour of meeting with some entrepreneurs from the Canadian tourism industry. I can assure this House that these people are very proud to work in that industry. They are creating jobs and wealth in Canada. This $78 billion industry has enjoyed steady growth for the past three years in a row. Our tourism industry is doing fine, and I am proud to represent it.
Block asks what the government is doing to address the fact that first nation governments under the Indian Act are the only level of government in Canada not obligated to make basic financial information public.
Block's question is a government-backbench setup asking the parliamentary secretary to describe what the government is doing, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for years I have heard from first nation band members across Canada and their message is loud and clear. First nations expect and deserve the same level of transparency and accountability from their elected officials as all Canadians. Currently, first nation governments operating under the Indian Act are the only level of government in Canada not obligated to make basic financial information public. Can the parliamentary secretary please tell the House what our government is doing to address this?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for SaskatoonâRosetownâBiggar for her outstanding work on this initiative. Our government is responding to first nations' calls for greater accountability and transparency from their elected officials. The first nations financial transparency act would ensure that first nations have access to basic financial information such as the salaries and expenses of their chiefs and councils, and increase investor confidence for economic development on reserve. I urge the NDP and the Liberals to stop standing in the way, do the right thing, and vote in favour of this great legislation.
Rickford says the first nations financial transparency act would ensure first nations have access to basic financial information such as salaries and expenses of chiefs and councils, and increase investor confidence for economic development on reserve.
Rickford names the first nations financial transparency act, specifies that it would make salaries and expenses of chiefs and councils publicly available, and adds a claim about investor confidence, providing substantive content though closing with a partisan call.
Rafferty asks why the government has abandoned resource communities and hard-working families in Northern Ontario, citing 239 layoffs at the Fort Frances mill representing 37% of that economy and more than 30,000 forestry jobs lost in northern Ontario since the Conservatives took office.
Rafferty cites the specific Resolute Forest Products announcement of 239 layoffs in Fort Frances representing 37% of the local economy, and the figure of more than 30,000 forestry jobs lost in northern Ontario since the Conservatives took office, making it factually grounded, though the gazebos and fake lakes reference is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Resolute Forest Products announced 239 layoffs at the Fort Frances mill, which accounts for 37% of the economy in Fort Frances. While the government spends millions on TV ads bragging about Canada's resource wealth and building gazebos and fake lakes, this is cold comfort to the workers and their families hit by these layoffs. In fact, since the Conservatives took office more than 30,000 forestry jobs have been lost in northern Ontario alone. Why has the government abandoned resource communities and hard-working families in Northern Ontario?
Lebel says the forestry industry is still going through difficult times due to market conditions, that the government will never manage private companies, expresses sympathy for workers, and attributes the industry's problems to market and product shifts including reduced paper use.
Lebel acknowledges market difficulties facing the forestry industry and expresses sympathy for affected workers, but does not address the specific layoffs, the job-loss figure, or what the government will do for resource communities.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme nous le savons tous, l'industrie forestiĂšre vit encore des moments difficiles. Cela est dĂ» Ă une question de marchĂ©. Ăvidemment, notre gouvernement ne gĂ©rera jamais les entreprises privĂ©es. Au nom de celles-ci, nous sympathisons avec les travailleurs de cette rĂ©gion qui, malheureusement, ont eu de mauvaises nouvelles hier. Bien sĂ»r, c'est trĂšs difficile pour les familles, et nous le comprenons bien. Les problĂšmes de l'industrie forestiĂšre sont des problĂšmes de marchĂ© et de produit. On utilise tous Internet, et on utilise moins le papier qu'auparavant. C'est une tendance mondiale.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the forestry industry is still going through a difficult period. This is the fault of the market. Obviously, our government will never manage private companies. We sympathize with the workers in this region who unfortunately received bad news yesterday. It is obviously very difficult for the families, and we understand that. The problems with the forestry industry are the result of market and product issues. We all use the Internet and use less paper than before. That is a global trend.
May asks the Prime Minister whether Canada could demonstrate its commitment to democratic values to the People's Republic of China by submitting the Canada-China investment treaty for a debate and vote in the House, as India's parliament will have the opportunity to vote on the Canada-India investment treaty before ratification.
May makes a factually grounded comparative argument referencing the Canada-India investment treaty and India's parliamentary ratification process, and poses a specific ask about submitting the Canada-China investment treaty for a House debate and vote, though the framing leans somewhat diplomatic rather than sharply accountability-focused.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I want to begin by thanking him for not yet ratifying the Canada-China investment treaty. His recent trip to India brought to light that the Canada-India investment treaty signed two years ago is not yet ratified, because the parliament of India will have the opportunity to vote on the treaty before ratification. Could we not demonstrate our commitment to democratic values to the People's Republic of China by submitting the treaty now for a debate and vote in the House?
Harper states that May has her facts wrong because no foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with India has been concluded, though it remains an objective he and Prime Minister Singh committed to pursuing.
Harper directly corrects May's factual premise by stating that no foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with India has been concluded, which addresses the core factual basis of her question, though he does not address her specific ask about submitting the Canada-China treaty to the House.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the leader of the Green Party has her facts wrong. As a matter of fact, we have not concluded a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with the Government of India. We are obviously hopeful that we will do that. It is a commitment that Prime Minister Singh and I made. We will continue to work hard to complete those negotiations. An agreement is not yet completed, but we do have that as our ultimate objective.
Members recognized the presence of guests in the gallery with expressions of approval.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Bravo!
Hansard translation: Hear, hear!