Session overview
- Peter Penashue's resignation and upcoming Labrador by-election dominated Question Period, with opposition members citing $45,000 in illegal donations, 28 illegal cheques, and Elections Canada's ongoing investigation, while the government defended his record on the Trans-Labrador Highway, Lower Churchill project, CFB Goose Bay, and the seal hunt.
- The Parliamentary Budget Officer's findings that crime costs have risen 23% since 2006 while the crime rate fell 23% since 2002 â with provinces bearing 73% of justice costs â triggered sharp exchanges between NDP and Liberal members and the Minister of Justice.
- Financial institution regulation was contested on two fronts: high credit card interest rates reaching 29.9% and the Minister of Finance's alleged interference in mortgage rate-setting, with the opposition invoking the Competition Act and the Minister of State for Small Business's criticism of the finance minister.
- On the eve of Budget 2013, the government refused to reveal spending details while attacking the NDP's platform as a $56 billion spending plan with a $21 billion carbon tax and a $34 billion tax hike on small businesses; the Parliamentary Budget Officer's lawsuit over withheld budget documents was noted to begin the following day.
- Ashley Smith's death, the return to work of a warden responsible during her death, and a near-tripling of self-harm incidents in federal corrections under the Conservatives were raised, with the government stating that Correctional Service Canada hiring decisions are made independently of politicians and that it directed full co-operation with the coroner's inquest.
- On International Francophonie Day, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages gave an unambiguous commitment to renew funding under the Feuille de route sur la dualité linguistique expiring March 31, saying simply 'c'est oui.'
The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages made a concrete, specific commitment to renew the Feuille de route sur la dualité linguistique funding before its March 31 expiry, giving a direct 'c'est oui' answer that constitutes an on-the-record government promise.
Cites the Veterans Ombudsman's call, former ombudsman Pat Stogran, veterans organizations, a specific prior legal outcome, and over $60 million in legal fees, with a clear yes/no ask about settling.
Asked directly how Labradorians can trust Conservatives when they are giving Peter Penashue an unfair advantage through rule-breaking, Poilievre responded entirely by attacking the NDP's position on the seal hunt and the long gun registry, addressing none of the specific allegations of using ministerial office for spending announcements or campaigning before resigning.
Outstanding questions
- Jack Harris asked why Conservatives are putting Peter Penashue forward as a candidate knowing he may be subject to a five-year ban on running for federal office once Elections Canada's investigation concludes â no answer was given to this eligibility question.
- Charlie Angus asked who gave the other 22 illegal donations beyond the six from Pennecon in the 2011 Labrador Conservative campaign â the government did not answer.
- Guy Caron asked whether the government will implement a process to measure exactly how much tax evasion costs the public treasury, and whether all relevant information will be shared with the Parliamentary Budget Officer in the upcoming budget â neither was answered substantively.
- Randall Garrison asked what it will take for the Minister of Public Safety to take responsibility and fix the systemic problems in corrections identified by the correctional investigator following Ashley Smith's death â the minister deflected to hiring independence and the coroner's inquest without outlining any corrective plan.
- Thomas Mulcair asked why the finance minister is doing nothing about double-digit credit card rates â including a 29.9% rate cited for Salomon Rouimy of Laval â while intervening to raise mortgage rates for Canadian families; the Prime Minister responded only on mortgage rate levels without addressing credit card rates.
Mulcair asks what it says about the Conservative caucus that the Prime Minister considers Peter Penashue, described as a known lawbreaker, to be the best Conservative MP.
The question uses a factual premise (Penashue broke the law) but frames it as a rhetorical attack on the broader Conservative caucus rather than seeking a specific, answerable commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Peter Penashue broke the law. If our law and order Prime Minister considers Peter Penashue, a known lawbreaker, to be the best Conservative MP, what does that say about the rest of his caucus?
Oh, oh!
Harper disagrees with the characterization and lists Penashue's record of achievements for Labrador, including the Trans-Labrador Highway and the Lower Churchill project.
Harper disputes the characterization and pivots to listing Penashue's achievements (Trans-Labrador Highway, Lower Churchill project, gun registry), never addressing the lawbreaking premise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously, I disagree with that categorization. I am sad, but not surprised, to hear that kind of negative campaign from theâ
Mr. Speaker, in Labrador, minister Penashue will be able to point to a record of respecting his promises, working against the federal long gun registry and for such things as the Trans-Labrador Highway, the Lower Churchill project, and obviously, for the strong record he has presented to the people of Labrador.
Mulcair, citing constituent Salomon Rouimy paying 29.9% interest on his credit card, asks how it is acceptable for the Finance Minister to dictate higher mortgage rates to Canadian families while doing nothing about usurious credit card rates.
The question cites a specific constituent, a specific interest rate of 29.9%, and contrasts inaction on credit card rates with alleged intervention on mortgage rates, making it reasonably grounded, though the ask is somewhat compound.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai eu un appel de Salomon Rouimy de Laval. Il paie un taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt de 29,9 % sur sa carte de crĂ©dit, 29,9 %! Le ministre des Finances n'a rien fait pour empĂȘcher les banques de saigner les consommateurs comme Salomon avec des taux usuraires sur les cartes de crĂ©dit. Le premier ministre peut-il expliquer comment c'est acceptable pour son ministĂšre des Finances de dicter aux banques d'imposer un taux hypothĂ©caire plus Ă©levĂ© aux familles canadiennes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I received a telephone call from Salomon Rouimy in Laval. He is paying 29.9% interest on his credit cardâ29.9%. The Minister of Finance has done nothing to stop banks from gouging consumers like Salomon with exorbitant interest rates on credit cards. How can the Prime Minister justify allowing his finance department to tell banks to impose higher mortgage rates on Canadian families?
Harper states that mortgage rates are at their lowest level in Canadian history under his government and that the government wants to ensure the market remains affordable and stable long-term.
Harper responds only on mortgage rates being at their lowest in Canadian history and government intent to keep the market stable, entirely ignoring the 29.9% credit card rate raised in the question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la rĂ©alitĂ© est que le niveau des taux d'hypothĂšques est le plus bas de l'histoire canadienne, sous notre gouvernement. En mĂȘme temps, nous voulons assurer que les hypothĂšques restent abordables et stables, que le marchĂ© reste abordable et stable Ă long terme pour les familles canadiennes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that mortgage rates are at an all-time low in this country under this government. At the same time, we want to ensure that mortgages remain affordable and stable, that the market remains affordable and stable for Canadian families well into the future.
Mulcair asks why the Finance Minister is doing nothing about double-digit credit card rates while dictating higher mortgage rates, and which minister â the Minister of State for Small Business or the Minister of Finance â has the Prime Minister's confidence.
The question draws a contrast between the Finance Minister's intervention on mortgage rates and inaction on double-digit credit card rates, with a pointed ask about which minister has the PM's confidence, giving it some factual grounding but muddied by the rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is another constituent who is upset about the finance minister throwing his weight around with lenders. He is from the Beauce. He is the Minister of State for Small Business. Banks have been gouging small businesses on merchant fees for years. They have been gouging consumers with higher and higher interest rates. Why is the finance minister doing nothing about double-digit credit card rates while dictating higher mortgage rates for Canadian families? Which minister has the Prime Minister's confidence: the Minister of State for Small Business or the Minister of Finance?
Harper again states mortgage rates are at their lowest historical level and that the government is taking steps to ensure the market remains stable and affordable for Canadian families.
Harper repeats the same answer about historically low mortgage rates and market stability, making no attempt to address the credit card rate concern or the question of ministerial confidence.
Source text
Once again, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the issue I just addressed, as we all know, interest rates for mortgages in this country are at their lowest level ever, historically, in this country under this government. At the same time, obviously, this government has made it clear that it wants to make sure that we take steps to make sure that the market rests stable and affordable for Canadian families well into the future.
Boivin, citing a new PBO report showing skyrocketing crime and justice costs while crime rates drop, asks why the government is putting PR ahead of sound public safety policy.
The question references a specific Parliamentary Budget Officer report and notes rising crime and justice costs against a dropping crime rate, but the ask â why is the government putting PR ahead of sound public safety policy â is vague and rhetorically framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, more Conservative mismanagement was exposed today in a new report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Crime and justice costs are skyrocketing, while the crime rate was already dropping. This report proves that the Conservative crime agenda is more about photo ops and partisanship than about getting results. One does not draft laws just because one likes the photo ops. Why is the government putting PR ahead of sound public safety policy?
Nicholson rejects the premise, says the government makes no apologies for cracking down on crime, cites 30 pieces of legislation, and accuses the NDP of ignoring victims.
Nicholson dismisses the question as 'a bunch of nonsense,' cites 30 pieces of legislation, and deflects by claiming the NDP ignores victims, never engaging with the PBO report's findings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as usual on this issue, it is a bunch of nonsense coming from the NDP. Our Conservative government makes no apologies for cracking down on crime. Since we have come to office, we have introduced 30 pieces of legislation aimed at keeping our streets and communities safe. What the NDP always misses on these things is that the cost of crime, for the most part, is borne by victims. That is the side the New Democrats are never on.
Boivin argues that the crime rate has been declining since before the Conservatives took power while the costs of their law-and-order program keep rising, and that three-quarters of justice costs are borne by provinces and territories.
The question references a declining crime rate that predates the Conservatives and raises the cost-shifting to provinces and territories, providing some factual grounding, but is partly rhetorical and trails off without a sharp ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the PBO will be happy that they agree with one of his reports. I prefer not to be on the side of people like Bruce Carson, Peter Penashue, Patrick Brazeau, Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy. Those are examples of people who do not respect the law. Le taux de criminalité est en baisse constante, une tendance qui a débuté bien avant l'arrivée des conservateurs au pouvoir, sauf que les coûts du programme conservateur pour la loi et l'ordre sont en augmentation constante depuis 2006. Mais le pire, c'est que ce ne sont pas les conservateurs qui les paient, ce sont les provinces et les territoires, qui ramassent les trois quarts des coûts de la justice...
Nicholson contrasts the Prime Minister meeting with victims in Vancouver with the NDP leader meeting 'a convicted criminal' in Washington, making no reference to the cost-shifting claim.
Nicholson entirely ignores the fiscal cost-shifting argument and instead attacks the NDP leader for meeting 'a convicted criminal' during a trip to Washington, which is pure deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us decide who is on whose side. A couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister left Ottawa to visit Vancouver and he met with victims. Last week, the leader of the NDP left Ottawa to visit Washington and he got together with a convicted criminal. I and most Canadians are on the side of the Prime Minister, and that is the way it should be.
Rae alleges that Penashue's resignation was orchestrated, that he used government money for press conferences, that the Conservative Party transferred money to the Labrador riding association, and that the entire affair was orchestrated by the Prime Minister.
Rae raises specific allegations â press conferences financed with government money, Conservative Party transfers to the Labrador riding association, and orchestration of the resignation â but frames it as a speech rather than a focused, answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the victims of the latest Conservative crime are the people of Labrador. Those are the victims we need to stand up for. It is now clear that there was a completely âorchestrated from central castingâ resignation by the minister. Peter Penashue held press conferences. He used government money to hold press conferences. He placed ads. The Conservative Party transferred money to the riding association in Labrador. The entire thing was orchestrated by the Prime Minister of Canada and orchestrated by the Conservative Party of Canada.
Harper says the member for Labrador took the correct action, the people of Labrador will decide between a negative campaign and Penashue's record of positive achievement, and that the government will respect their decision.
Harper says the member for Labrador took the correct action, that the people of Labrador will decide, and pivots to attacking 'that kind of negative ugly campaign,' not addressing any of the specific allegations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member for Labrador has taken the correct action. The people of Labrador will decide. They will have the difference between that kind of negative ugly campaign and, on the other side, a record of positive achievement for the people of Labrador by minister Penashue. Obviously, we will respect the decision of the people of Labrador.
Rae argues this is about the rule of law with respect to Elections Canada, and that someone currently under investigation is carrying out a political campaign financed by the Government of Canada and the Conservative Party.
Rae focuses on the rule of law and Elections Canada investigation, and raises the specific point that someone under investigation is running a campaign financed by the Government of Canada and the Conservative Party, but the ask remains implicit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants to see ugly, he and his cabinet colleagues should simply look in the mirror and assess their own conductâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, if looking in the mirror produces unacceptable results, it is hardly the fault of the people who are asking the questions. Let us be clear. This is about the rule of law. This is about the rule of law with respect to Elections Canada. This is with respect to somebody who is currently under investigation by Elections Canada carrying out a political campaign financed by the Government of Canada and financed by the Conservative Party. That is theâ
Harper says the real problem is the Liberal Party's positions on issues important to Labradorians, including the seal hunt, infrastructure, Internet, and the Lower Churchill project.
Harper ignores the Elections Canada investigation entirely and lists Liberal positions on Labrador issues unfavourable to the region, which is a complete change of subject.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the real problem is the positions that the Liberal Party of Canada has on issues that matter to the people of Labrador. The people of Labrador value the seal hunt; they value investments in their infrastructure and in their Internet; and they certainly value the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project. These are all positive achievements by the member for Labrador, by minister Penashue, who has worked very hard and fulfilled his campaign commitments to those people.
Rae argues the Competition Act prohibits conspiring to fix prices, referencing the Member for Beauce's own words, and asks why the Prime Minister tolerates such activity from his Finance Minister.
Rae invokes the Competition Act and the Member for Beauce's own words about 'price-fixing,' making a specific legal argument about why the Finance Minister's conduct may be unlawful, though it stops short of a single precise ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la Loi sur la concurrence est claire: c'est contre la loi de comploter pour maintenir les prix ou, pour reprendre les paroles du député de Beauce, de « fixer les prix ». C'est contre la loi qu'il y ait des arrangements entre les institutions financiÚres. Pourquoi le premier ministre tolÚre-t-il une telle activité de la part de son ministre des Finances?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Competition Act is clear: it is against the law to conspire to maintain prices, or in the words of the member for Beauce, to set prices. It is against the law for financial institutions to make such arrangements. Why does the Prime Minister tolerate such action from his Minister of Finance?
Harper repeats that mortgage rates are at their lowest in Canadian history and that the government is acting to ensure the sector remains affordable and stable long-term.
Harper repeats the same answer about historically low mortgage rates and long-term stability, making no reference to the Competition Act or the price-fixing allegation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme je viens de le dire, la rĂ©alitĂ©, c'est que les taux hypothĂ©caires sont Ă leur niveau le plus bas de l'histoire du Canada. La rĂ©alitĂ©, c'est que nous voyons, partout dans le monde, des difficultĂ©s en ce qui a trait aux secteurs hypothĂ©caire et bancaire. Ăvidemment, notre gouvernement agit afin de s'assurer que ces secteurs demeurent abordables et stables Ă long terme pour les familles canadiennes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the reality is that mortgage rates are at their lowest historical levels in Canada. The reality is that there are problems in the mortgage and banking sectors around the world. Our government is taking action to make sure that these sectors remain affordable and stable for Canadian families well into the future.
Nash asks the Finance Minister to lay out the specifics about job cuts and services to be eliminated in tomorrow's budget, citing a lack of clear answers almost a year after the 2012 budget.
Nash notes it is almost a year since the 2012 budget and that Conservatives have not specified which regions will lose jobs or which services will be cut, and asks the Finance Minister to lay out specifics ahead of tomorrow's budget â a reasonably specific ask with a defined timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about budget transparency and fiscal accountability. Almost a year after the 2012 budget, Conservatives still have not given clear answers about which regions of the country will lose federal jobs or what services are going to be cut. Canadians deserve to know the truth about the government's plans. In the name of honesty, in the name of fiscal transparency, would the finance minister now agree to lay out the specifics about job cuts and services that he is planning to eliminate in tomorrow's budget?
Menzies jokes that Nash seems to know what is in tomorrow's budget, then attacks the NDP's proposed $56 billion tax hike and $21 billion carbon tax, promising these will not be in the budget.
Menzies quips that the member seems to know what is in tomorrow's budget, then pivots to attacking the NDP's '$56 billion tax hike' and '$21 billion carbon tax,' never addressing what regions or services are affected.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member actually seems to know what is in tomorrow's budget. We only have one more sleep until the budget is tabled in this House, but the Minister of Finance has done a good job of laying out what it will be and what it will not be. More importantly, what it will not be is increasing taxes on Canadians like the New Democrats would want to do with their $56 billion tax hike on Canadians and a $21 billion carbon tax. I can guarantee this entire House that will not be part of the budget.
Nash notes the Finance Minister once boasted he would never run a deficit then added over $120 billion to Canada's debt, and asks why the Conservatives are hiding planned cuts to food safety, VIA Rail, and Service Canada.
Nash cites the Minister of Finance's own prior boast about never running a deficit, the $120 billion added to Canada's debt, and specific planned cuts to food safety, VIA Rail, and Service Canada, giving factual grounding, though the ask conflates several issues.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we take no lessons from that party on fiscal accountability. Even the Minister of Finance's own cabinet colleague is now criticizing his inappropriate calls to private banks. The minister once boasted he would never run a deficit, and then added over $120 billion to Canada's debt. Now, the Conservatives are hiding the details about planned cuts to food safety, VIA Rail and Service Canada. Whatever happened to fiscal accountability? Why are the Conservatives hiding the truth from Canadians about their planned cuts?
Menzies attacks the NDP's uncosted platform, quoting an NDP spokesperson, and says the government's budget will contain real numbers, citing 950,000 net new jobs since the recession.
Menzies attacks the NDP's uncosted platform using a quoted spokesperson, never addressing the deficit record, the debt figure, or the specific cuts to food safety, VIA Rail, and Service Canada.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member actually talks about a plan. Let me talk about the anti-job plan that the New Democrats talked about earlier in the week. This would be the one that the official spokesperson for the NDP, when asked what would be in this and whether it is actually costed, said, âI'm not going to...sayâ there is a price tag âbecause I think it's a shift in approach...â. âWe have not costed [our] specifics in terms of this campaignâ. As the Minister of Finance said, we will actually have numbers in our budget.
Caron asks whether the government will follow other major economies and implement a process to measure exactly how much tax evasion costs, noting that CRA officials confirmed the decision not to measure the tax gap was political.
Caron makes a specific argument that the Canada Revenue Agency has made a political decision not to measure the tax gap, notes cuts to the CRA, and asks whether the government will implement a process to measure the exact cost of tax evasion â a defined and answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les conservateurs ont tellement peur de divulguer de l'information qui concerne les finances publiques qu'ils ne sont mĂȘme pas foutus de mesurer l'Ă©cart de revenus crĂ©Ă© par l'Ă©vasion fiscale. Quand on pense qu'ils effectuent aussi des compressions Ă l'Agence du revenu du Canada, on ne peut pas vraiment dire qu'ils prennent ce problĂšme au sĂ©rieux. Ce sont d'Ă©normes sommes d'argent qui filent entre les doigts du TrĂ©sor public, des sommes qui pourraient ĂȘtre investies pour, par exemple, relancer l'industrie manufacturiĂšre. Cela fait sept ans que les conservateurs ne livrent pas la marchandise en matiĂšre de lutte contre les paradis fiscaux. Vont-ils enfin emboĂźter le pas aux autres grandes Ă©conomies et mettre en place un procĂ©dĂ© pour mesurer exactement combien l'Ă©vasion fiscale nous coĂ»te?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are so afraid of divulging information about public finances that they did not even bother to measure the revenue shortfall created by tax evasion. Given all the cuts they are making to the Canada Revenue Agency, it does not really seem as though they are taking this problem seriously. Enormous amounts of money are slipping through the government's fingers, amounts that could be invested in revitalizing the manufacturing industry, for example. For seven years now, the Conservatives have failed to deliver when it comes to cracking down on tax havens. Will they finally follow the lead of the other major economies and implement a procedure to measure exactly how much tax evasion is costing us?
Shea says the government takes tax evasion seriously and has increased its experts in the file by 40%, and that Canada works closely with international partners, then attacks the NDP leader for not raising the issue during his U.S. trip.
Shea says the government takes the issue seriously and has increased experts in the file by 40%, but does not address the specific request to measure the tax gap, then deflects by attacking the NDP leader's Washington trip.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is all the information we have received and we take this issue very seriously. We have increased our experts in this file by 40%. Tax evasion is an international problem and Canada works very closely with our partners to share information and best practices. If the New Democrats are so concerned with tax evasion, perhaps it is an issue the NDP leader could have raised during his trip to the United States instead of visiting with convicted cop shooters and bashing Canadian interests.
Caron asks whether the government will promise that all relevant information will be shared with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, noting CRA officials confirmed the revenue gap decision was political and that the PBO is taking the government to court over document access.
Caron cites CRA officials' confirmation that the decision not to measure the revenue gap was political, references the F-35 file as precedent for withholding information from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and asks whether all relevant information will be shared with the PBO â a specific and timely ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cela ne tient pas la route. Les fonctionnaires de l'Agence du revenu du Canada nous ont dit que la dĂ©cision de ne pas mesurer l'Ă©cart des revenus Ă©tait une dĂ©cision politique. Non seulement les conservateurs sabrent des milliards de dollars sans l'ombre d'une Ă©tude d'impact, mais ils vont mĂȘme jusqu'Ă refuser de partager l'information sur ces coupes avec le directeur parlementaire du budget, un poste qu'ils ont eux-mĂȘmes crĂ©Ă©. Chaque fois qu'un de leur dossier dĂ©rape, comme celui des F-35, ils s'empressent de refuser de lui transmettre les documents nĂ©cessaires. Enfin, le directeur n'a pas d'autre choix que de poursuivre les conservateurs en cour pour faire sa « job. » Eh, coĂŻncidence, cela commence demain, au moment du dĂ©pĂŽt du budget. Les conservateurs peuvent-ils promettre que, cette fois-ci, toute l'information pertinente sera partagĂ©e avec le directeur...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that does not cut it. Canada Revenue Agency employees told us that the decision not to measure the revenue shortfall was a political one. Not only are the Conservatives cutting billions of dollars without even thinking about an impact study, but they are even going so far as to refuse to share information about these cuts with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a position that they themselves created. Every time something goes wrong with one of their portfoliosâas with the F-35s, for exampleâthey are quick to refuse to send the PBO the documents he requires. The PBO then has no choice but to take the Conservatives to court so that he can do his job. And what a coincidence that the PBO's court case opens tomorrow, on the very day that the budget is being tabled. Can the Conservatives promise that, this time, all the relevant information will be shared with the Parliamentaryâ
Menzies says the relevant budget information is that Canadian businesses have created over 950,000 net new jobs since the recession and that the average family of four has $3,100 more in its pockets due to tax reductions.
Menzies pivots entirely to touting 950,000 net new jobs since the recession and tax reductions saving the average family of four $3,100, with no reference to the PBO information-sharing question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the relevant information that is provided in a budget will be the fact that Canadian businesses have created over 950,000 net new jobs since the end of the recession. Those are real numbers. Those are numbers that help Canadian families. In fact, the average Canadian family of four now has 3,100 more of its own dollars left in its pockets because of our tax reductions. We will continue on this low tax plan and we encourage the opposition members to actually read it before they decide to vote against it.
Moore asks whether the Conservatives understand that playing with people's lives by closing the Quebec City maritime rescue centre and allowing search and rescue capacity in Labrador to deteriorate is not an acceptable budget choice.
Moore raises the closure of the Quebec City maritime rescue centre and the deterioration of search and rescue in Labrador under Penashue, but frames it as a rhetorical attack and does not pose a precise, answerable question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, continuons Ă parler des mauvais choix budgĂ©taires des conservateurs. La fermeture du centre de sauvetage maritime de QuĂ©bec est l'une de leurs pires dĂ©cisions budgĂ©taires. Les conservateurs sont incapables de « livrer la marchandise » pour amĂ©liorer nos capacitĂ©s opĂ©rationnelles de recherche et de sauvetage. Ils refusent de maintenir le mĂȘme dĂ©lai de rĂ©ponse 24 heures sur 24. C'est pitoyable. Pire encore, quand Peter Penashue Ă©tait dĂ©putĂ©, les capacitĂ©s de recherche et sauvetage au Labrador se sont dĂ©tĂ©riorĂ©es. Les conservateurs comprennent-ils que jouer avec la vie des gens n'est pas un choix budgĂ©taire acceptable?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let us continue with the Conservatives' poor budget decisions. Closing the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre is one of their worst budget decisions. The Conservatives are incapable of making improvements to our operational search and rescue capacities. They refuse to maintain the same response times 24 hours a day. That is pathetic. What is worse, search and rescue capacities in Labrador deteriorated when Peter Penashue was an MP. Do the Conservatives understand that they are playing with people's lives and that this is an unacceptable budget decision?
Ashfield says the government is confident the Quebec City changes will have no negative impact on responding to distress incidents, citing 19 Coast Guard vessels including seven search and rescue lifeboats, two hovercraft, and six helicopters.
Ashfield provides some specifics â 19 Coast Guard vessels, seven search and rescue lifeboats, two hovercraft, six helicopters â to support the claim that there will be no negative impact, partially addressing the concern though not the Labrador-specific deterioration claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have every confidence that the changes in Quebec City will have no negative impact on our ability to respond to distress incidents on the water quickly, effectively and in both official languages. Quebec is served by 19 Coast Guard vessels, including seven search and rescue lifeboats, two hovercraft and six helicopters. We are ensuring that the Coast Guard has the tools to do its job.
Harris alleges that DND claimed three helicopters at CFB Goose Bay when there were only two until the Burton Winters tragedy in 2012 exposed this, and then claimed the helicopters had no dedicated stand-by role in search and rescue, and asks why Conservatives are threatening to punish Labradorians if they reject Peter Penashue.
Harris cites the specific case of Burton Winters in 2012, alleges DND claimed three helicopters at CFB Goose Bay when there were only two, and raises a specific DND claim that helicopters had no dedicated stand-by role in search and rescue, grounding the question in concrete facts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this shows that the Conservatives have played a shell game with search and rescue resources, especially in Labrador. Up until the tragic death of Burton Winters in 2012, DND was claiming there were three helicopters stationed at CFB Goose Bay, when in fact there were only two. After the Burton Winters tragedy, its cover was blown. Then DND claimed that the helicopters had no dedicated stand-by role in search and rescue. Labradorians are smarter than the government gives them credit for. Why are the Conservatives threatening to punish Labradorians if they reject Peter Penashue?
MacKay calls the member factually incorrect, asserts that search and rescue capacity increased at CFB Goose Bay while Penashue was minister, and cites historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces.
MacKay denies the factual premise, asserts search and rescue capacity increased at CFB Goose Bay while Penashue was minister, and pivots to praising historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces â never addressing the specific helicopter count discrepancy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as is so often the case, the member is factually incorrect. While Mr. Penashue was the minister, search and rescue capacity increased at CFB Goose Bay. As is so often the case, we have seen from the member and his party that when we have made historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces, when we have increased their equipment, their infrastructure, the programs for members, their families, their ill and injured, the member and his party continually oppose those investments.
Harris, noting the 2011 Conservative campaign in Labrador admitted to illegal corporate donations and $18,000 in free flights, asks why the Conservatives are putting Penashue forward knowing he may face a five-year ban on running for federal office.
Harris cites specific allegations â illegal corporate donations, $18,000 in free flights, pre-purchased ads and a booked website, and a potential five-year ban on holding federal office â making a focused, factually grounded ask about candidate eligibility.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the 2011 Conservative campaign in Labrador readily admits it cheated. It tried to bury illegal corporate donations and $18,000 in free flights, but when Peter Penashue resigned, Conservatives had already purchased full-page ads and booked the website. All this was done while he was still a minister. Once the investigation is said and done, Mr. Penashue may be subject to a five-year ban on running for a federal office. Why are the Conservatives putting this candidate forward knowing full well that he may not in fact be eligible to take a seat in the House of Commons?
Poilievre says the NDP does not want Penashue to advertise because they do not want Labradorians to know of his achievements, including rebuilding the CFB Goose Bay runway, decontaminating the site, and increasing search and rescue.
Poilievre ignores the eligibility question entirely and lists Penashue's achievements at CFB Goose Bay (runway rebuilding, decontamination, search and rescue), ending with a partisan punchline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the reason the NDP members do not want Mr. Penashue to have the right to advertise in this campaign is because the NDP do not want Labradorians to know of his many achievements on their behalf. One of these is the cleanup and build-up of CFB Goose Bay: rebuilding the runway, improving the infrastructure, decontaminating the site around the area, increasing search and rescue, all of which generated economic opportunity. Peter Penashue delivered for Goose Bay. The NDP could only ever deliver a goose egg.
How can Labradorians trust Conservatives when they are willing to give Peter Penashue an unfair advantage through use of his ministerial office and early campaigning?
The question is dominated by partisan rhetoric and moral characterization of Penashue, with only a vague implicit ask about Conservative trustworthiness rather than a specific accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Peter Penashue has done everything he can to get a leg-up for his re-election campaign, even if it means cheating, even if it means breaking the rules. He used his ministerial office to make spending announcements. He gave himself an unfair advantage. He started campaigning before he even resigned. He is using the power of incumbency, which he only has because he cheated last time. Labradorians can see through Conservative talking points. How can they trust anything Conservatives say when Conservatives are willing to say anything to give Peter Penashue an unfair advantage?
The parliamentary secretary deflected to the NDP's opposition to the seal hunt and praised Peter Penashue for defending rural and remote communities.
The answer completely ignores the question and pivots to the seal hunt and the NDP's alleged opposition to it, with no connection to the ethics allegations raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the NDP reminds Newfoundlanders and Labradorians every day of how it is completely out of touch with their values, in particular on the seal hunt. The seal hunt is an ancient tradition and a way of life, not only for aboriginals but for people of European descent right across remote communities in this country. The NDP stands opposed to that tradition. Thank goodness we have proud Canadians like Peter Penashue who are standing up for the rural and remote community way of life by scrapping the long gun registry and protecting the seal hunt.
Given that 28 illegal cheques were accepted by Peter Penashue, six of which came from Pennecon, who gave the other 22 illegal donations?
The question cites specific facts â $45,000 in illegal donations, 28 illegal cheques, six from Pennecon â and asks a specific answerable question about who gave the other 22 illegal donations, though it is framed with partisan editorial.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one of the values of Labradorians and Newfoundlanders is they respect the rule of lawâ
Oh, oh!
Yesterday, we had a former Conservative MP who said that the Prime Minister is âscared of losing the seat to a more...honest person...someone [he] can't controlâ. What an extraordinary insight. No wonder the Conservatives do not want Elections Canada to finish its investigation of Mr. Penashue, who was forced to resign over $45,000 in illegal donations. There were 28 illegal cheques, of which six came from Pennecon, so who gave the other 22 illegal donations? Why will Conservatives not tell the Canadian people?
The parliamentary secretary attacked the NDP member for treating Newfoundlanders and Labradorians like criminals over gun ownership, and praised Peter Penashue as a strong voice for Labrador.
The answer entirely ignores the specific question about the 22 illegal donations and instead attacks the NDP member's record on long gun ownership, with no connection to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that he has finally admitted that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians follow the law, because he now wants to treat them like criminals simply for carrying out their traditional way of life, which includes hunting and responsible long gun ownership. That is a member who broke his word to his constituents and sold out to his big city bosses when he came to Ottawa, instead of standing behind the people of Timmins. Thank goodness the people of Labrador have had a strong voice in Peter Penashue, a voice that we believe will continue to speak loudly on their behalf.
Does the Prime Minister believe that calling a by-election can override the rule of law and halt the process of justice against Mr. Penashue and his party?
The question references the nearly $50,000 in cheques as evidence of rule-breaking and raises a specific point about whether a by-election can override the rule of law and ongoing sanctions, but the framing is argumentative rather than a clean factual ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in anybody's mind, writing cheques for nearly $50,000 is a clear admission that Conservatives broke just about every law in the book during the Labrador campaign and that they knew they broke them. With that said, the Prime Minister also knows that sanctions with serious consequences remain inevitable against Mr. Penashue and his party. With absolutely nothing left to lose under those circumstances, a by-election is about to be called to try to dull some of that reality. Does the Prime Minister really feel that holding a by-election could ever trump the rule of law in Canada and that the process of justice might actually be able to be turned off for a by-election?
The parliamentary secretary accused the Liberals of running a nasty negative campaign of slurs and listed Peter Penashue's accomplishments including protecting CFB Goose Bay.
The answer dismisses the question as a 'nasty, negative campaign full of slurs' and lists Penashue's accomplishments, with absolutely no engagement with the rule of law question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there those members go, launching a nasty, negative campaign full of slurs. Never did a slur create a job. Never did a slur protect a traditional aboriginal way of life for which Peter Penashue has fought. Never did a slur help a school child in a remote community have access to the world through high-speed Internet, the way Peter Penashue delivered. Never did a slur protect CFB Goose Bay. Slurs do not do that, but Peter Penashue did.
Is it not a slur to democracy that 28 cheques were written to undo the results of the Labrador election, and that Conservatives are telling Labradorians who their MP will be?
The follow-up is largely rhetorical, challenging Conservative interference in Labrador's democratic choice, with no specific new factual ask beyond a declaration that they will fight on election day.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is a slur to democracy is when someone writes 28 cheques to try to undo what happened during an election campaign to steal an election away from the people of Labrador. What people in Labrador do not want is someone from Ottawa, those in the big land, telling those who have a real sense of dignity and independence that they will be told who their MP is. That is what the Conservative Party is doing right now. Quite frankly, if the Conservatives want to get on with this, we will see them on election day.
The parliamentary secretary quipped that the Liberals only deal in cash to the tune of $40 million, and said Labradorians know Peter Penashue has delivered for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.
The answer deflects entirely to an attack on Liberal cash dealings referencing the $40 million sponsorship scandal, with no engagement with the question of democratic legitimacy in Labrador.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member is complaining about the writing of cheques. That is, of course, because the Liberal Party only deals in cash, and to the tune of $40 million. As for the decision that Labradorians will have to make, they know Peter Penashue has delivered for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. The members in the Liberal Party have opposed the projects that have delivered that prosperity. They should know that if they are not going to support the people who are getting the job done, at least they could get out of the way.
Given that Burton Winters's death was raised 27 times in the House of Commons, how can Peter Penashue claim to have represented the people of Labrador when he never once stood up in the face of that tragedy?
The question cites the Burton Winters petition with over 10,000 signatures and notes that his death was raised 27 times in the House, and asks why Penashue never stood up on the issue, but conflates election law sentencing with the search and rescue policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as Peter Penashue awaits sentencing for accepting illegal donations and overspending in the last election, over 10,000 people who signed the Burton Winters petition calling for full-time and fully operational search and rescue in Labrador remember Mr. Penashue failed to deliver. Following his tragic death, Burton Winters was brought up 27 times by opposition MPs in the House of Commons. How can Mr. Penashue say he represented the people of Labrador when he failed to stand up even one time in the face of such tragedy?
Peter MacKay acknowledged the tragedy of Burton Winters's death and said condolences had been expressed many times, but accused the member of using the tragedy for political purposes.
The Minister of National Defence acknowledged the tragedy of Burton Winters's death and expressed condolences but deflected the specific accountability question about Penashue's silence by accusing the member of politicizing a tragedy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the loss of young Burton Winters was a tragedy. That expression of condolence was expressed numerous times in the House of Commons. I know Mr. Penashue felt that grief in the community, in Newfoundland and Labrador, as I know the member does. What is distasteful now is to try to use that in some kind of a political forum in the face of that horrible loss for the family, for the community. Let us not sink to that level when it comes to the politics of this place.
Given that a warden responsible for Ashley Smith's death has returned to work and the correctional investigator has twice warned of further tragedies, what will it take for the minister to take responsibility and fix the broken system?
The question references a specific event â the return of a warden responsible for Ashley Smith â and the correctional investigator's twice-repeated warnings, grounding the accountability ask in concrete facts, though the final ask is broadly framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Ashley Smith's death too was a tragedy, but a preventable tragedy if only the proper policies and resources had been in place. A warden responsible for Ashley Smith is now back at work. Her return underscores that Ashley's death was the result of systemic problems under the minister, not just the acts of individuals. The correctional investigator has twice warned that another tragedy like this could happen unless urgent changes are made. What will it take for the minister to finally take responsibility and fix this broken system?
The minister expressed condolences to Ms. Smith's family, noted the government directed Correctional Service Canada to fully co-operate with the coroner's inquest, and said hiring decisions are made independently of politicians.
The minister acknowledged the sad case and noted the government directed Correctional Service Canada to fully co-operate with the coroner's inquest, but addressed the hiring question only by saying hiring decisions are made independently of politicians, not substantively engaging with the systemic reform ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, this is a very sad case and our thoughts and prayers go out to Ms. Smith's family. The government directed Correctional Service Canada to fully co-operate with the coroner's inquest. With respect to the specific hiring, as the member knows, hiring decisions by Correctional Service Canada are made independently of politicians.
Given that the number of self-harm incidents has almost tripled under the Conservatives and the correctional investigator has repeatedly raised alarms, what resources and action plan will the government deploy to prevent further tragedies like Ashley Smith's?
The question cites a specific statistic â that the number of self-harm incidents has almost tripled under the Conservatives â and asks for a concrete action plan to address self-harm among inmates with mental health issues, which is a specific and factually grounded ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Ashley Smith est dĂ©cĂ©dĂ©e pour avoir lancĂ© une pomme. Si le ministre prenait rĂ©ellement au sĂ©rieux la mort tragique d'Ashley Smith, il agirait enfin sur les recommandations de l'enquĂȘteur correctionnel. Ce dernier a sonnĂ© l'alarme Ă maintes reprises sur la situation des dĂ©tenus souffrant de troubles mentaux et pratiquant l'automutilation. Les conservateurs n'ont pas agi. Les derniĂšres statistiques sont effroyables. Sous les conservateurs, le nombre d'incidents d'automutilation a presque triplĂ©. Quelles ressources vont-ils dĂ©ployer pour s'attaquer au problĂšme? Quel est leur plan d'action pour Ă©viter d'autres tragĂ©dies?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Ashley Smith lost her life for throwing an apple. If the minister truly took Ashley Smith's tragic death seriously, he would follow through on the correctional investigator's recommendations. The investigator raised a number of red flags about detainees who have mental disorders and who self-harm. The Conservatives have not taken action. The latest statistics are frightening. Under the Conservatives, the number of incidents of self-harm have nearly tripled. What resources will they allocate to address this problem? What is their plan to avoid further tragedies?
The minister reiterated condolences to Ms. Smith's family, directed Correctional Service Canada to fully co-operate with the coroner's inquest, and said hiring decisions are made independently of politicians.
The minister repeated the same boilerplate response as in Exchange 21 â condolences, co-operation with the coroner's inquest, and independent hiring â without engaging with the tripling of self-harm incidents or providing any action plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad case and our thoughts and prayers go out to Ms. Smith's family. Our government directed Correctional Service Canada to fully co-operate with the coroner's inquest. I am certain that the coroner will come back with a fulsome report. Hiring decisions by Correctional Service Canada are made independently of politicians.
Now that the Turkish ambassador has contradicted the minister's claim that Turkey does not allow Syrian refugees to leave, what is the minister's plan to facilitate family reunification for Syrian Canadians?
The question references a specific claim by the minister about Turkey not allowing Syrian refugees to leave, which was contradicted by the Turkish ambassador, and asks what concrete plan the minister has for family reunification for Syrian Canadians.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, lorsque les Canadiens d'origine syrienne ont demandĂ© l'aide du gouvernement pour qu'ils puissent ĂȘtre rĂ©unis avec leur famille qui vit dans la terreur en Syrie, le ministre de l'Immigration a bĂȘtement refusĂ© de les rencontrer. Il leur a aussi dit que la Turquie ne permettait pas aux rĂ©fugiĂ©s syriens de sortir du pays, sauf que l'ambassadeur turc a dĂ©menti ces accusations sans fondement. Maintenant que le ministre ne peut plus se rĂ©fugier dans de fausses excuses, peut-il nous dire comment il compte favoriser la rĂ©unification familiale pour les Canadiens d'origine syrienne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when Syrian Canadians asked the government to help them reunite with family members who are living in terror in Syria, the Minister of Immigration flatly refused to meet with them. He also told them that Turkey is not allowing Syrian refugees to leave the country. However, the Turkish ambassador refuted this false statement. Now that the minister can no longer hide behind bogus excuses, can he tell us how he intends to foster family reunification for Syrian Canadians?
The parliamentary secretary said the minister has met with Syrian Canadians on many occasions, explained that Turkey does not allow potential refugees to leave until the UNHCR refers their case, and said the government is focused on processing applications as quickly as possible.
The parliamentary secretary engaged with the Turkey claim by providing a rationale â that Turkey does not allow potential refugees to leave until the UNHCR makes a decision â and noted action on processing applications, partially addressing the question though without a specific family reunification plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration has met and spoken with Syrian Canadians across the country on many occasions about the crisis in Syria. The fact is that Turkey does not allow potential refugees to even leave the country until the UNHCR has made a decision on their case and refers their case to a country for resettlement. We are focused on this and we are doing what we can. The minister has worked extremely hard to assist those in Syria.
Will the minister apologize for blaming the Turkish government for Conservative inaction, and will the Conservatives live up to their commitment to save those in Syria?
The question references that Turkey has a second time called out a Conservative minister for not telling the truth, and asks for an apology and a commitment to help those in Syria, but the framing is more rhetorical than a precise factual ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Conservatives have actually damaged our reputation on this. Now, for the second time, Turkey has had to call out a Conservative minister for not telling the truth. People are being killed by the millions and are being displaced, Canadians are worried about the safety of their family members, yet the minister had the gall to try to blame the Turkish government for Conservative inaction. Will the minister stand and apologize? Will the Conservatives actually live up to their commitment to save those in Syria now?
The parliamentary secretary rejected the NDP's premise, noted that almost all spousal sponsorships have been finalized, and said that visa officers are issuing temporary resident visas in compelling family class cases while applications are processed.
The parliamentary secretary provided some substantive details â that spousal sponsorships have been finalized and that visa officers are issuing temporary resident visas in compelling cases â which partially addresses the question of action on Syria, though does not address the apology ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with the premise on which the NDP members are trying build this case. First, officials are working to process family class and privately sponsored refugee applications from Syria as quickly as possible. Let us not forget the difficult environment they are working within. Second, almost all spousal sponsorships that were pending have been finalized. In family class cases where compelling circumstances exist, visa officers are issuing temporary resident visas to allow applicants to come to Canada while their application is being processed. We are on this and we are going to stay on it.
Will the Minister of State for Finance inform the House of what Canadians should not expect from Canada's economic action plan 2013?
This is a classic government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to tout the economic action plan, with no real accountability dimension whatsoever.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while the NDP members call for billions in new spending they do not know how to pay for, our Conservative government has a low-tax plan for jobs and growth. It is a responsible plan that keeps more money where it belongs, which is in the pockets of Canadian families and businesses to create jobs. While the NDP may not like it, responsible spending and lower taxes help promote economic growth and put Canadians to work. Will the Minister of State for Finance please inform the House of what Canadians should not expect from Canada's economic action plan 2013?
The minister said the budget will not contain the NDP's $56 billion in risky spending, a $21 billion carbon tax, or a $34 billion tax hike on small businesses, and promised action to promote jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.
The minister provided some specific numbers â $56 billion in NDP spending, a $21 billion carbon tax, and a $34 billion tax hike on small businesses â framed as what will not be in the budget, which contains some factual content but is largely partisan framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. Most people ask what is in the budget and of course we cannot tell them. However, I can, as I mentioned earlier, tell the House what will not be in the budget. There will not be, as the NDP would wish, $56 billion in risky spending. There will not be a $21 billion carbon tax that it wants to put in. There will not be a $34 billion tax hike on small businesses. There will be action to promote jobs, growth and the long-term prosperity of our country. We are looking for support to get that completed.
Given that the Canadian Institute for Health Information report shows wait times for priority surgeries are still too long despite commitments in the health accords, when will the minister take action?
The question references a specific report from the Canadian Institute for Health Information on wait times and clear commitments in the health accords, but the ask â when will the minister take action â is broad rather than pinned to a specific commitment or timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are failing our health care system. The latest report from the Canadian Institute for Health Information shows that wait times for priority surgeries are still too long. This is despite clear commitments that were made in the health accords. This utter mismanagement of Canada's health care system is simply unacceptable and the minister must be held to account. How much longer do Canadians have to wait before she takes action, or will the minister admit that she has no respect for the accords at all?
The minister cited $6.5 billion in targeted investments and a long-term stable funding arrangement that will see transfers reach a historic level of $40 billion, and said the government will continue to work with provinces and territories on wait times in priority areas such as cancer care, cardiac care and diagnostic testing.
The minister cited specific funding figures â $6.5 billion in targeted investments and transfers reaching $40 billion â and mentioned priority areas, but did not directly address the specific question about wait times remaining too long despite the health accords.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we respect the provinces and territorial jurisdiction in the area of health care to help the provinces and territories address the issue of wait times. We have made targeted investments of $6.5 billion. We are also providing long-term stable funding arrangement that will see transfers reach a historic level of $40 billion. Our government will continue to work with the provinces and the territories on wait times in priority areas such as cancer care, cardiac care and diagnostic testing.
Given that the new funding formula is insufficient to cover inflation and population aging and wait time targets are now regressing, what is the minister's plan to ensure Canadians no longer wait too long for surgery?
The question makes a specific argument that the new funding formula is insufficient to cover inflation, population growth and aging, and notes that wait time targets were met early but are now regressing, asking for a specific plan to address surgical wait times.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les conservateurs auront beau dire ce qu'ils voudront sur les transferts, en réalité, leur nouvelle formule est insuffisante pour couvrir l'inflation, l'augmentation de la population et son vieillissement. La réduction des temps d'attente était pourtant un des éléments clés des accords en santé. Nous avons atteint les cibles au cours des premiÚres années, mais on assiste maintenant à un recul. Quel est le plan de la ministre pour s'assurer que les Canadiens n'auront plus à attendre plus longtemps pour leur chirurgie?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives can say whatever they want about health transfers, but the reality is that their new formula does not cover inflation, population growth or population aging. Wait time reductions were one of the key elements of the health accords. Although targets were reached initially, wait times have now increased. How does the minister plan to ensure that Canadians do not have longer wait times for surgeries?
The minister said that unlike previous governments the Conservatives have committed long-term stable funding to the provinces and territories, with health transfers growing by nearly 35% since forming government, reaching a historic level of $40 billion.
The minister cited health transfer growth of nearly 35% since forming government and the $40 billion historic level, but did not address the specific argument about the formula's insufficiency or provide any concrete plan for wait time reduction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous governments that balanced the books on the backs of the provinces and the territories, we have committed long-term stable funding to the provinces and territories that will see a historic level of $40 billion. Since we have formed government, health transfers from Ottawa to the provinces and territories have grown by nearly 35%. We will continue to work in partnership with the provinces and territories.
Given that the Port of Quebec falls under the minister's responsibility, what does the minister intend to do to shed full light on the abnormally high nickel dust levels in the Limoilou neighbourhood and protect the health of Quebec City residents?
The question references a specific and ongoing public health concern about abnormally high nickel dust levels in the Limoilou neighbourhood of Quebec City, cites the minister's prior public position that the port authority is independent, and asks what the minister intends to do to shed light on the matter and protect public health.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, parlons-en de la santé. Depuis que nous questionnons les conservateurs au sujet du taux anormalement élevé de poussiÚre de nickel dans le quartier Limoilou, à Québec, le ministre des Transports, de l'Infrastructure et des Collectivités a tourné en dérision les inquiétudes de la population. Selon lui, l'administration portuaire est indépendante et prend ses responsabilités. Quoi qu'en dise le ministre, le Port de Québec est sous sa responsabilité. Qu'entend faire le ministre pour faire toute la lumiÚre sur cette affaire et protéger la santé des gens de Québec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about health. Since we have been questioning the Conservatives about the abnormally high rate of nickel dust in the Limoilou sector of Quebec City, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has ridiculed the public's concerns. In his opinion, the port authority is independent and is doing its job. As the minister knows, the Port of Quebec is his responsibility. What does the minister intend to do to get to the bottom of this matter and protect the safety of the people of Quebec City?
The minister said the Port of Quebec is an independent organization that manages its own affairs and that things are being done by the port and its partners to resolve the problem, accusing the NDP of wanting to centralize all organizations in Ottawa.
The minister repeated that the Port of Quebec is an independent organization that manages its own affairs, accused the NDP of wanting to centralize everything in Ottawa, and gave no concrete answer about what actions would be taken to protect public health in Limoilou.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est intéressant d'entendre que tout ce qui se passe dans le secteur de Limoilou dépend du Port de Québec. Le Port de Québec est une organisation indépendante qui fait partie du systÚme portuaire du Canada et qui gÚre ses affaires. Bien sûr, le NPD voudrait gérer toutes les organisations du pays et les centraliser à Ottawa. Le NPD ne s'occupe pas de placer des gens de confiance et bons administrateurs à un conseil d'administration. Nous allons respecter cela. Il y a des choses qui sont présentement faites par le port et ses partenaires, et ils vont solutionner le problÚme.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear that everything that happens in the Limoilou sector depends on the Port of Quebec. The Port of Quebec is an independent organization that is part of Canada's port system and manages its own affairs. Of course, the NDP would like to run all the organizations in Canada and centralize them in Ottawa. The NDP does not worry about placing trustworthy people and good administrators on a board of directors. We will respect that. There are things that are currently being done by the port and its partners, and they are going to resolve the problem.
Given that mortality rates in Limoilou are up to twice as high as in other parts of Quebec City, and that the mayor of Quebec and the provincial minister are calling for federal intervention on the nickel dust issue, will the minister take his responsibilities seriously and study this alarming phenomenon?
The question cites a specific statistic from the Direction rĂ©gionale de santĂ© publique â that mortality rates in Limoilou are up to twice as high as in other parts of Quebec City â and notes that the mayor of Quebec and the provincial minister are calling for federal intervention, making for a well-grounded and specific ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est une question sérieuse qui mérite qu'on lui porte une attention sérieuse. Selon la Direction régionale de santé publique, le taux de mortalité dans Limoilou est jusqu'à deux fois supérieur à celui observé dans d'autres secteurs de la ville de Québec. Avec les récents événements liés à la poussiÚre de nickel qui affecte ce quartier, les citoyens sont inquiets, et je les comprends. Le maire de Québec et la ministre responsable de la région à l'Assemblée nationale demandent que le fédéral intervienne. Pour une fois, le ministre va-t-il prendre ses responsabilités et étudier sérieusement cet inquiétant phénomÚne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue that deserves serious attention. According to the Direction régionale de santé publique, the mortality rate in Limoilou is up to two times higher than in other sectors of Quebec City. With the recent events related to the nickel dust that is affecting this area, residents are concerned, and I can understand that. The mayor of Quebec City and the minister responsible for the region in the National Assembly are asking the federal government to step in. Will the minister for once do his job and seriously look into this worrisome situation?
The minister said the Administration portuaire de Québec is doing its duty in concert with its partners and clients, and accused the opposition of frightening people by mixing up provincial health reports.
The minister said the Administration portuaire de Québec is doing its job and attacked the opposition for frightening people and mixing up provincial health reports, providing no concrete commitment or plan to address the mortality and nickel dust concerns.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'Administration portuaire de Québec fait son travail à cet égard. D'ailleurs, c'est son devoir de le faire de concert avec ses partenaires, soit les clients du port. Faire peur aux gens, c'est la vocation quotidienne de l'opposition. Prendre des rapports de santé du provincial, mélanger les choses, faire une belle grosse boulette avec tout ça pour faire peur aux gens, ils ne sont bons qu'à ça! Nous allons continuer de faire les choses en respectant les gens avec qui nous travaillons.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Port Authority is doing its job in this respect. Moreover, it is its duty to work in collaboration with its partners, the port's clients. Scaring people is the opposition's daily task. Taking provincial health reports, mixing things up and turning it all into something to scare people, that is the only thing they are good at. We will continue to do things with respect for the people with whom we work.
Given Parliamentary Budget Officer data showing crime rates down 23% since 2002 but costs up 23% and provinces bearing 73% of the bill, does the government intend to help the provinces with the ever-growing costs for courts and prisons?
The question cites specific Parliamentary Budget Officer data â crime rates down 23% since 2002 but costs up 23%, with provinces bearing 73% of the bill â and asks a clear and specific question about whether the government will help provinces with these growing costs.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le directeur parlementaire du budget nous apprend que le taux de criminalitĂ© a diminuĂ© de 23 % depuis 2002, mais que les coĂ»ts ont augmentĂ© de 23 %, particuliĂšrement depuis 2006. Ce sont Ă©videmment les provinces qui se font refiler la facture: 73 %. Ma question est trĂšs simple. Est-ce que ce gouvernement a l'intention d'aider les provinces, qui, bien sĂ»r, n'ont aucun choix et doivent payer ces coĂ»ts sans cesse croissants pour les tribunaux et pour les prisons? Est-ce que ce gouvernement est prĂȘt Ă les aider?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that the crime rate has gone down 23% since 2002, but costs have increased by 23%, especially since 2006. The provinces obviously end up stuck with the bill for 73% of those costs. My question is very simple. Does the government plan on helping the provinces, which have no choice but to pay the ever-increasing court and prison costs? Is the government prepared to help them?
The minister said transfers to provinces have been growing at record levels with an increase of over $20 billion since the government took office, and that the government is doing its part and assisting provinces in the fight against crime.
The minister cited that transfers to provinces have grown at record levels with an increase of over $20 billion since the government took office, which is partially responsive but does not directly address the criminal justice cost-sharing issue raised in the PBO data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that transfers to the provinces have been growing at record levels, and will continue to grow. There has been an increase of over $20 billion just since this government has taken office. The hon. member should be aware of that. We all have a role to play in the fight against crime. We are doing our part and we are assisting provinces as well.
Why are Conservatives spending over $20 billion a year on crime policies while cutting old age pension and services for seniors and the mentally ill?
Cites a specific spending figure ($20 billion) and a declining crime-rate trend, but the ask is compound and rhetorically framed around contrasting spending priorities.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, despite more than 30 years of declining crime rates, taxpayers are now spending over $20 billion a year to pay for Conservative crime policies that even U.S. Republicans are calling outdated and ineffective. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are funding their wasteful agenda by slashing vital programs like the old age pension and cutting services for seniors and the mentally ill. Why is it that Conservatives continue to find endless pots of money for their prisons, but cannot find money to help seniors and other Canadians who need help?
Nicholson accused Liberals of lacking priorities and cited a $100 billion price tag for crime borne by victims, claiming the government stands for victims.
Nicholson dismisses Liberal priorities and cites a $100 billion cost-of-crime figure without addressing the question about prison spending versus seniors and mental-health services.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the lack of Liberal priorities. I think it is fair to say that any money spent on fighting crime in this country would not have the support of the Liberal Party. That said, they missed the fact that $100 billion is the price of crime, most of which is borne by victims of crime. That is who we stand for and that is who we represent in this Parliament and in Canada.
Will the government renew and index funding for the Feuille de route sur la dualité linguistique, which expires on March 31, to ensure official-language minority communities can maintain their vitality?
Identifies a specific program (Feuille de route sur la dualité linguistique) with a precise deadline (31 mars) and asks a clear, answerable question about renewal and indexation of funding.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, alors qu'on célÚbre aujourd'hui la Journée internationale de la Francophonie, on se demande si le gouvernement entend renouveler son engagement envers la Feuille de route sur la dualité linguistique, qui vient à échéance le 31 mars. Le financement de la feuille de route est primordial pour assurer des services qui sont essentiels à la pérennité des communautés de langue officielle en milieu minoritaire. Est-ce que le gouvernement va renouveler et indexer son financement pour s'assurer que les communautés de langue officielle au pays peuvent maintenir leur vitalité?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on this International Day of La Francophonie, I want to know whether the government plans on renewing its commitment to the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality, which expires on March 31. This roadmap needs funding so that we can provide the services needed to sustain official language minority communities. Will the government renew and index its funding to ensure that this country's official language communities continue to flourish?
Moore said yes, noting the government conducted 22 roundtables across the country with francophone and anglophone minority communities to inform its continued commitment to Canada's two official languages.
Moore answers 'yes' directly, references 22 roundtables held across the country as evidence of consultation, though he does not address the indexation component specifically.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est oui, tout simplement. C'est pourquoi, l'annĂ©e derniĂšre, on a eu des tables rondes et des discussions partout au pays. On a fait 22 tables rondes, dans chaque rĂ©gion de notre pays, et on a eu des discussions avec les communautĂ©s francophones en situation minoritaire â au QuĂ©bec, avec les communautĂ©s anglophones en situation minoritaire â pour les assurer que notre gouvernement protĂ©gera toujours les intĂ©rĂȘts des deux langues officielles du Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in a word: yes. That is why we held round tables and discussions across the country last year. We held 22 round tables, in every region of the country, and we held discussions with francophone minority communitiesâand with anglophone minority communities in Quebecâto ensure that our government will always protect the interests of both official languages in Canada.
Why are Conservatives endangering the safety of ship pilots on the St. Lawrence who have the right to work in French, given that icebreaker crews cannot communicate in French with them?
References a specific complaint filed with the Commissioner of Official Languages about French-language communication on the St. Lawrence and links it to a concrete safety concern, though the causal framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, restons dans le dossier de la langue. Les pilotes qui naviguent sur le fleuve Saint-Laurent entre Montréal et Québec ont été obligés de déposer une plainte au commissaire aux langues officielles, parce qu'ils sont incapables de communiquer en français avec l'équipage des brise-glace qui oeuvrent sur le Saint-Laurent. Déjà qu'avec la fermeture du centre de recherche et de sauvetage maritime de Québec, on devait s'attendre à moins de service à français, là c'est rendu franchement dangereux. En cette Journée internationale de la Francophonie, pourquoi les conservateurs mettent-ils en péril la sécurité des pilotes des navires, qui ont le droit de travailler en français?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let us stay on the topic of language. The pilots who travel on the St. Lawrence River between Montreal and Quebec City have had to file a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages because they are unable to communicate in French with the icebreaker crew working on the St. Lawrence. Already with the closure of the maritime search and rescue centre in Quebec City, we had to expect less service in French, but now things are downright dangerous. On this International Day of La Francophonie, why are the Conservatives jeopardizing the safety of ship pilots, who have the right to work in French?
Ashfield said the question was entirely wrong and stated that the Coast Guard makes every attempt to ensure bilingual capacity and that marine communications and traffic services centres provide services in both official languages.
Ashfield denies the premise and asserts Coast Guard bilingual capacity and bilingual marine communications centres, but does not address the specific complaint or the safety concern raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the question from the person opposite is entirely wrong. The Coast Guard does make every attempt to ensure that each vessel working in Quebec has a bilingual capacity to communicate with other vessels. Marine communications and traffic services centres will continue to provide services in both official languages. These centres are the main point of contact for all vessels.
Could the Minister of Natural Resources update the House on the Keystone XL pipeline, noting NDP opposition and union support?
A government-backbench softball setup that invites the minister to tout Keystone XL while attacking the NDP, with no specific factual ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the Keystone XL pipeline is in Canada's national interest. It will create tens of thousands of jobs on both sides of the border, but the NDP opposes it. Canada's building trade unions strongly support the Keystone pipeline and have a very strong message for Canadians: the NDP would be very bad for workers and the entire Canadian economy. Could the Minister of Natural Resources please update the House on the Keystone XL pipeline?
Oliver called it shameful that the NDP leader argues against Canada's national interest, cited Canadian building trades unions' support, and said the government bases decisions on science and facts.
Oliver attacks the NDP leader rather than providing substantive information about the Keystone XL pipeline's status, offering no facts, numbers, or timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that the NDP leader continues to argue against Canada's national interest. On this side of the House, we stand up for thousands of Canadians, including those represented by the Canadian building trades unions who are counting on the Keystone jobs. Unlike the NDP members, who reject science when it is inconvenient for them, we base our decisions on science and the facts. Supporting this important project is just one more way to create jobs.
Will the government talk directly with disabled RCMP veterans and settle the class action lawsuit, given the Veterans Ombudsman's call and the costly precedent of over $60 million in legal fees from the Canadian Forces veterans case?
Cites the Veterans Ombudsman's call, former ombudsman Pat Stogran, veterans organizations, a specific prior legal outcome, and over $60 million in legal fees, with a clear yes/no ask about settling.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Veterans Ombudsman called on the Conservatives to settle a class action lawsuit with disabled RCMP veterans. Former ombudsman Pat Stogran and veterans organizations have also called for a settlement in order to avoid repeating the costly mistake of fighting disabled Canadian Forces veterans in court for five years. The Conservatives lost that case, resulting in legal fees of over $60 million. Instead of making the same mistake twice, will the government now talk directly with disabled RCMP veterans, settle the issue and give these veterans the fairness they deserve?
Clement said the government supports disabled persons and veterans but stated only that the matter is before the courts and could say nothing more.
Clement offers only a general statement of support for disabled veterans and invokes the courts, without addressing whether the government will talk directly with RCMP veterans or settle the case.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, of course we on this side of the House support disabled persons and disabled veterans and disabled public employees. The matter is before the courts, and that is as much as I can say at this particular moment.
Will the Conservatives abandon their plan to raise OAS eligibility and force Canadians to work two years longer, given that experts have said OAS is sustainable?
References expert opinion and the OAS eligibility change but frames the ask in broad rhetorical terms ('reckless and punitive cuts') without citing specific experts or data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in an ideal world the budget would help people, but in Conservative Ottawa, budgets are used to weaken retirement security and cut old age security. In Conservative Ottawa, Canadians are forced to work two years longer before they can retire. Expert after expert after expert has contradicted the government and said OAS is sustainable. Will the Conservatives now abandon their reckless and punitive cuts, abandon their plan to force Canadians to work longer and restore the OAS eligibility to age 65?
Finley said the government is making changes to ensure OAS is sustainable for future retirees and that those changes will not begin to take effect until at least 2023.
Finley addresses the OAS sustainability rationale and specifies that changes will not take effect until at least 2023, which is relevant context, but does not engage with the sustainability experts cited or the ask to restore eligibility to 65.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that the old age security system is there for Canadians when they retire, not just now but also in the future. To make it sustainable, we are making changes that will not begin to take effect until at least 2023 because we want to make sure that OAS will be there for Canadians when they need it.
Could the Minister of Transport highlight the importance of the government's commitment to the Francophonie on International Francophonie Day?
A government-backbench puff question asking a minister to 'souligner l'importance' of the government's Francophonie commitment, with no factual ask or accountability element.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, notre gouvernement sait combien la langue française est importante dans l'histoire de notre pays et il dĂ©montre cet attachement jour aprĂšs jour, tant ici au Canada qu'au sein de la Francophonie et partout dans le monde. Le ministre de la Francophonie a d'ailleurs rĂ©cemment rencontrĂ© le SecrĂ©taire gĂ©nĂ©ral de l'Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, de mĂȘme que son homologue française, afin de rĂ©affirmer le soutien indĂ©fectible du Canada envers la Francophonie. Est-ce que le ministre des Transports, de l'Infrastructure et des CollectivitĂ©s pourrait souligner l'importance de l'engagement de notre gouvernement envers la Francophonie?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our government knows how important the French language is in Canada's history, and it shows this attachment day after day, here in Canada, within la Francophonie and around the world. The Minister for La Francophonie recently met with the secretary general of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, as well as with his French counterpart, to reaffirm Canada's unwavering support for la Francophonie. Could the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities touch on the importance of our government's commitment to la Francophonie?
Lebel noted that French is the fourth most spoken language in the world, that Canada is one of its largest contributors, and that Canada hosted the Forum mondial de la langue française in Quebec City in July 2012.
Lebel offers talking points about Canada's role as a major contributor and the 2012 Forum mondial de la langue française in Quebec, but provides no specific figures or commitments.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous reconnaissons le rĂŽle essentiel que joue la Francophonie dans la promotion de la quatriĂšme langue la plus parlĂ©e dans le monde. C'est d'ailleurs pour cette raison que le Canada est l'un des plus grands contributeurs. C'est aussi pour cette raison que le premier ministre, peu importe oĂč il se trouve, commence ses allocutions en français. Par ailleurs, en juillet 2012, nous avons Ă©tĂ© l'hĂŽte du premier Forum mondial de la langue française, tenu Ă QuĂ©bec, et de la Rencontre internationale de la Francophonie Ă©conomique qui s'y est tenue. Nous souhaitons Ă tous et Ă toutes une excellente JournĂ©e internationale de la Francophonie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we recognize the essential role that la Francophonie plays in promoting the fourth most spoken language in the world. That is why Canada is one of the biggest contributors. That is also why the Prime Minister begins his speeches in French, no matter where he is. Furthermore, in July 2012, we hosted the first French Language World Forum and the International Meeting of the Economic Francophonie, which were held in Quebec City. We wish everyone an excellent International Day of La Francophonie.
Is the federal government currently in discussions with Quebec and Montreal regarding the prolongement de la ligne bleue du métro de Montréal?
Identifies a specific infrastructure project (prolongement de la ligne bleue du métro de Montréal) and asks a concrete question about whether federal discussions with Quebec and Montreal are underway, though it conflates two separate issues.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, dans mon comté, les élus locaux, les citoyens et les commerçants veulent tous aller de l'avant avec le prolongement de la ligne bleue du métro de Montréal. C'est un projet d'infrastructure mobilisateur, bon pour l'économie locale, mais difficile à réaliser sans le soutien du gouvernement fédéral. Malgré les difficultés du ministre des Transports à s'entendre avec Québec au sujet du financement du transport en commun sur le pont Champlain, peut-il nous dire s'il est présentement en discussion avec Québec et Montréal pour le projet du métro?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, local elected officials, individuals and businesses in my riding all want to move forward with the Montreal metro blue line extension. It is an infrastructure project that has strong support and is good for the local economy, but it will be hard to undertake without support from the federal government. Despite the difficulty that the Minister of Transport is having agreeing with Quebec on funding for public transit on the Champlain Bridge, can he tell us if he is currently in discussions with Quebec and Montreal about the metro project?
Lebel disputed the premise about the Champlain Bridge transit funding, stated that the metro falls under the jurisdiction of the City of Montreal and the Province of Quebec, and said the federal government will remain a partner but will not replace provincial and municipal decision-makers.
Lebel clarifies jurisdictional responsibility for the metro project and disputes the premise about the Champlain Bridge, but does not directly confirm or deny whether federal discussions about the metro extension are currently taking place.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, tout d'abord, dans la question, il y a une affirmation qui est totalement fausse. Le gouvernement du Québec a trÚs bien clarifié quel était le rÎle du gouvernement fédéral au sujet du nouveau pont sur le fleuve Saint-Laurent et son choix sur le transport en commun. Des enveloppes étaient dédiées aux provinces. Les choix ont été faits par la province. Encore là , le métro relÚve de la Ville de Montréal et de la province de Québec. Encore une fois, madame voudrait qu'on gÚre leur quotidien et qu'on prenne des décisions à leur place. Le fédéral va demeurer partenaire des provinces et des municipalités, mais on ne les remplacera pas.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, to begin, there was a statement in that question that is completely untrue. The Quebec government was very clear on the federal government's role in the new bridge over the St. Lawrence and in its choice about public transit. Envelopes were given to the provinces, and the provinces made their own decisions. Similarly, the metro is the responsibility of the City of Montreal and the Province of Quebec. Once again, the member wants us to manage their day-to-day work and make decisions for them. The federal government will continue to partner with the provinces and municipalities, but we will not replace them.
Will the Minister of Francophonie act to stop treating francophones as second-class citizens, given the rejection of loi 101 for federally regulated businesses, cuts affecting francophone civil servants, and loss of French-language services like maritime emergency services and scientific libraries?
Lists several specific grievances (loi 101, budget cuts to francophone civil servants, maritime emergency services, scientific libraries) but wraps them in a broad rhetorical accusation and a vague ask for the minister to 'act.'
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en cette JournĂ©e internationale de la Francophonie, le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral a bien peu Ă cĂ©lĂ©brer. En s'appuyant sur un rapport bidon pour rejeter l'application de la loi 101 aux entreprises de compĂ©tence fĂ©dĂ©rale, en faisant payer durement aux fonctionnaires francophones les compressions budgĂ©taires et en privant les QuĂ©bĂ©cois de services en français, comme les service d'urgence en mer et les bibliothĂšques scientifiques, le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral nĂ©glige le français et traite les francophones comme des citoyens de seconde classe. Le ministre de la Francophonie va-t-il agir et arrĂȘter de traiter les francophones comme s'ils Ă©taient des citoyens de derniĂšre catĂ©gorie?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, while today is the International Day of La Francophonie, this government has very little to celebrate. By justifying its refusal to apply Bill 101 to companies under federal jurisdiction based on a bogus report, making francophone public servants pay a high price for budget cuts and depriving Quebeckers of services in French, including emergency marine services and scientific libraries, the federal government is neglecting French and treating francophones like second-class citizens. Will the Minister for La Francophonie do something and stop treating francophones like second-class citizens?
Moore called the accusations entirely false and quoted Marie-France Kenny, president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, as saying the government's commitment and efforts for official languages results should be saluted.
Moore denies the accusations and quotes Marie-France Kenny of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada praising the government, but does not address any of the specific grievances raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ces accusations sont tout Ă fait fausses. Marie-France Kenny, prĂ©sidente de la FĂ©dĂ©ration des communautĂ©s francophones et acadienne du Canada, a dit, et je cite: il faut saluer lâengagement et les efforts dĂ©ployĂ©s par ce gouvernement pour en arriver Ă ces rĂ©sultats pour les langues officielles. She said the commitments and efforts of this government for the results that we have received in protecting Canada's official languages should be saluted.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, those accusations are completely false. Marie-France Kenny, president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, said, and I quote: We salute the commitments and efforts of this government for the results that they've received in protecting Canada's official languages. Je répÚte que Mme Kenny a dit que la fédération tenait à saluer l'engagement et les efforts déployés par le gouvernement, lesquels donnent des résultats et protÚgent les langues officielles du Canada.