Session overview
- Temporary foreign workers dominated Question Period, with NDP and Liberal questioners pressing the government on why Canadian workers were being laid off and replaced while 1.4 million Canadians were unemployed; the government deflected by accusing NDP MPs and the Liberal leader of writing letters requesting more temporary foreign workers.
- The government faced sustained criticism over tariff increases on hundreds of everyday items â including baby carriages, vacuum cleaners, water heaters, bicycles, and saris â with Liberal and NDP members calling these hidden tax hikes on the middle class; the government insisted it had cut taxes by over $200 billion since 2006 and reduced the GST from 7% to 5%.
- The Minister of Natural Resources faced repeated questions over comments he made denying concern about a 2°C rise in global temperatures and attributing those views to scientists critics said do not exist; the Minister of the Environment responded on his behalf, reiterating the government's sector-by-sector regulatory approach to reducing GHGs.
- Employment Insurance clawbacks targeting seasonal workers â particularly the 80 workers at Les fruits de mer de l'Est du QuĂ©bec in Matane and 1,500 Aveos workers â generated multiple exchanges, with NDP members pressing the minister on retroactive repayment demands of up to $14,000 per worker; the minister cited an ongoing investigation into potentially false declarations.
- A question of privilege was raised by both Liberal and NDP members alleging that Conservative caucus members had seen the text of yet-to-be-introduced electoral reform legislation â referred to as 'An act to enact the Canada political financing act and to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts' â before it was tabled in the House; the Government House Leader denied any draft text was circulated or displayed at the caucus meeting.
- The dismantling of the Health Council of Canada and the unilateral reduction in health transfers drew criticism from both NDP and Liberal members; the Minister of Health noted the Health Council's 10-year mandate expires in 2014 and cited federal health transfer growth from $19 billion in 2005-06 to $27 billion in 2011-12, projecting $40 billion by end of decade.
The Minister of National Revenue provided specific, verifiable figures â nearly 400 more tax auditors than in 2006, a 40% increase in the international audit division, and $4.6 billion in unpaid taxes identified â constituting concrete information about CRA capacity that directly addressed the question about auditor cuts.
Cites the minister's own report on plans and priorities as a primary source, gives specific figures of $120 million and over 250 staff cuts from the reporting compliance section, and quotes the section's mandate ('risk assessment, audit, investigation'), making this a highly grounded accountability question.
Asked specifically about the government's plan to celebrate the 31st anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Moore announced the Canadian museum of history and then pivoted entirely to attacking the Liberal leader over temporary foreign worker letters, providing no information about any Charter anniversary activities.
Outstanding questions
- Libby Davies asked whether the Conservative government would rescind the unilateral imposition on the provinces and commit to continuing to fund the important work of the Health Council of Canada â no commitment was given and the question was not addressed.
- Megan Leslie asked the Minister of Natural Resources directly whether he would acknowledge that a 2° increase in global temperatures will cause feedback effects that cannot be reversed â the Minister of the Environment answered in his place without addressing the yes-or-no question.
- Justin Trudeau asked twice whether the government would cancel the new tariff-based tax on items including baby carriages, vacuum cleaners, water heaters, and bicycles, which he said would cost middle-class Canadians an additional $300 million â no cancellation was committed to.
- Pierre Dionne Labelle asked whether the government would stop pursuing EI clawbacks against Aveos workers â including a former machinist and father of six facing a $9,000 repayment â given that Aveos closed because the government refused to enforce the Air Canada Public Participation Act; the minister said only that she could not discuss specific cases.
- HĂ©lĂšne LaverdiĂšre asked the Minister of International Trade whether Canada would receive the same treatment as India â which successfully resisted European demands for major changes to intellectual property protection in trade negotiations â so as to avoid $2.8 billion in increased drug costs; the Parliamentary Secretary gave no commitment and appeared confused about which trade agreement was being asked about.
Mulcair cites a new Statistics Canada report showing only 200,000 jobs available against 1.4 million Canadians seeking work, and asks how the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism can still allow Canadian workers to be fired and replaced by temporary foreign workers.
Cites a specific Statistics Canada report and the ratio of 200,000 available jobs to 1.4 million unemployed, with a direct ask about the Immigration minister permitting replacement of Canadian workers by temporary foreign workers.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, un nouveau rapport de Statistique Canada dĂ©montre que le nombre d'emplois disponibles dans notre pays a encore une fois pĂ©riclitĂ©. Le mois dernier, il n'y avait plus que 200 000 emplois disponibles dans tout le pays, alors que 1,4 million de Canadiens sont Ă la recherche d'un emploi. Comment est-il possible que le ministre de la CitoyennetĂ©, de lâImmigration et du Multiculturalisme permette encore que des travailleurs canadiens soient congĂ©diĂ©s et remplacĂ©s par des travailleurs temporaires Ă©trangers, alors qu'aussi peu d'emplois sont disponibles chez nous?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a new Statistics Canada report shows that there has been another drop in the number of jobs available in Canada. Last month, only 200,000 jobs were available across the country. Meanwhile, 1.4 million Canadians are looking for work. How is it possible that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is still allowing Canadian workers to be fired and replaced by temporary foreign workers when there are so few jobs available here in Canada?
Moore claims the Conservative government was elected to prioritize jobs and the economy, cites budget 2013, and says Canada leads the G7 in job creation.
Does not address the specific question about temporary foreign workers or the Statistics Canada data, pivoting instead to the 2011 election mandate and general job-creation talking points.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on veut certainement créer des emplois ici au Canada. C'est pour ça que le 2 mai 2011, les Canadiens ont élu un gouvernement conservateur ayant comme priorité les emplois, la création d'emplois et l'économie. Voilà ce qu'on a sur la table: un budget de 2013 qui se concentre sur la création d'emplois pour les Canadiens. C'est pour ça que le Canada occupe le meilleur rang parmi tous les pays du G7 sur le plan de la création d'emploi, et on va continuer dans cette voie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, of course we want to create jobs here in Canada. That is why, on May 2, 2011, Canadians elected a Conservative government whose priorities are jobs, job creation and the economy. Budget 2013 focuses on creating jobs for Canadians. That is why Canada has the best job creation record among all G7 countries, and we are going to continue down that path.
Mulcair states 55,000 jobs were lost in March, notes a 7:1 ratio of job-seekers to vacancies, and challenges the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Human Resources to explain why temporary foreign workers are allowed to replace Canadians at 15% less pay.
Provides a specific figure of 55,000 jobs lost in one month and a 7:1 ratio of job-seekers to vacancies, and raises the concrete policy detail of the 15% wage differential allowed for temporary foreign workers, though the closing line is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 55,000 jobs were lost last month alone, and they are bragging about it and clapping. In March, for every job available in Canada, there were seven Canadians looking for work. Meanwhile, the Minister of Immigration is allowing Canadian workers to be laid off and replaced, and the Minister of Human Resources is allowing the temporary foreign workers who replaced them to be paid 15% less. That is an incentive to fire Canadians. Would either of these two ministers give Canadians some good news, like perhaps there will be a couple of jobs available in the Conservative cabinet in the next little while?
Moore cites a quote from Cisco Systems CEO John Chambers praising Canada as the easiest place to do business, then alleges that eight NDP MPs wrote letters asking the government to bring more temporary foreign workers into their ridings.
Does not address the 55,000 job losses, the 7:1 ratio, or the 15% wage differential, instead quoting a CEO endorsement and attacking NDP members for writing letters supporting temporary foreign workers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is some good news in response to our budget. John Chambers, the CEO of Cisco Systems, Inc. said: The easiest place in the world to do business is Canada. Their prime minister gets it. We are creating jobs in this country. However, it is interesting. The NDP, on the one hand, condemns the temporary foreign worker program, but on the other hand, we have letters from eight NDP members of Parliament begging the government to bring more temporary foreign workers into their ridings and to bend the rules to make it happen. Either they are in favour of the temporary foreign worker program or they are against it, but they are talking out of both sides of their mouths. Would the leader of the NDP finally bring some certainty to that position?
Mulcair notes that both the IMF and the Bank of Canada have downgraded Canada's 2013 growth forecasts, and asks why the Conservatives cut $6 billion in infrastructure investment and rely on temporary foreign workers as their only job-creation plan.
References both IMF and Bank of Canada downward revisions and cites a specific $6 billion cut to infrastructure investment, but the closing question 'pourquoi font-ils tout ce qui est possible pour tuer des emplois?' is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, aprÚs le FMI hier, c'est au tour de la Banque du Canada aujourd'hui de revoir à la baisse ses prévisions de croissance économique pour le Canada en 2013. Pourtant, les conservateurs ont décidé de couper 6 milliards de dollars dans les investissements en infrastructure, tuant des dizaines de milliers de bons emplois. Les Canadiens sont inquiets car l'instabilité économique provoquée par les conservateurs semble prendre de l'ampleur. Et le seul plan des conservateurs pour créer de l'emploi au Canada est l'embauche de travailleurs étrangers temporaires. Pourquoi font-ils tout ce qui est possible pour tuer des emplois au Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the IMF downgraded Canada's economic outlook for 2013, and today the Bank of Canada has done the same. Nevertheless, the Conservatives have decided to cut $6 billion from investments in infrastructure, killing tens of thousands of good jobs. Canadians are concerned because the economic instability that the Conservatives are causing seems to be getting worse, and the only plan the Conservatives have to create jobs in Canada is to hire temporary foreign workers. Why are the Conservatives doing everything possible to kill jobs in Canada?
Moore asserts the government is making the largest infrastructure investment in Canadian history and then pivots to accusing the NDP leader of hypocrisy on temporary foreign workers.
Moore denies the premise and claims the government is making the largest infrastructure investment in Canadian history without engaging the $6 billion cut figure, then pivots again to NDP MPs' letters about temporary foreign workers.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est l'inverse. Nous sommes en train de créer des emplois pour les Canadiens. C'est pour ça que nous investissons dans l'infrastructure à un niveau jamais vu auparavant. Il s'agit du plus grand investissement dans l'infrastructure de l'histoire du pays. Again, on this question of temporary foreign workers, the leader of the NDP criticizes the temporary foreign worker program, while his members of Parliament ask the government to bring in more temporary foreign workers for businesses in their ridings. Would the leader of the NDP, for once, make it clear what his position is? He says he is against the program, but his members of Parliament are begging for the program to be expanded. Will you please stop the hypocrisy and--
Davies asks why the Conservatives are dismantling the Health Council of Canada, the body that monitors whether commitments in the health accords are being met, characterizing it as abandoning accountability on health care.
Names a specific organization being dismantled (the Health Council of Canada) and its monitoring function, and references $36 billion in funding cuts, but frames the question in highly partisan language ('attacking our public health care system').
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it seems that cutting $36 billion in health care funding just is not enough for the Conservatives. Now they are dismantling the Health Council of Canada, the organization that monitors whether commitments set out in the health accords are actually being met. This latest move is nothing less than abdicating all accountability to Canadians on our health care system. Why are the Conservatives attacking our public health care system?
Moore states that budget 2013 increases health care funding with a 6% escalator and that the federal rate of increase in health care spending is larger than that of any province, including NDP provincial governments.
Moore disputes the premise by citing a 6% escalator on health care funding and claims federal increases exceed those of any province, but does not address the elimination of the Health Council of Canada or its accountability function.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is a truly ridiculous attack. In fact, our government, again in budget 2013, is increasing funding for health care. At a 6% escalator, we have been increasing health care funding in every single year we have been in government, and we are increasing funding every year going forward, through until 2016. In fact, the federal government's rate of increase in health care spending is larger than that of any province in the country, including the NDP provincial governments. We take no lessons from the NDP on defending the principles of Canada's health care system.
Davies asks whether the Conservative government will rescind its unilateral imposition on the provinces and commit to continuing to fund the Health Council of Canada, with one year left in the current health accords and no negotiations in sight.
Raises the specific context of one year remaining in the current health accords with no negotiations in sight and asks for two concrete commitments â rescinding the unilateral imposition on provinces and continuing to fund the Health Council of Canada.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Health Council of Canada and the health accords are examples of federalism at its best, but with one year left in the current accords, no sign of negotiations on the horizon and $36 billion less in transfers, the future is very bleak indeed. Will the Conservative government rescind the unilateral imposition on the provinces and commit to continuing to fund the important work of the Health Council of Canada?
Oh, oh!
Moore says the government will continue with its record funding, then pivots to alleging that the new Liberal leader wrote a letter asking the government to rush temporary foreign workers from China to work in restaurants in his riding.
Moore says the government will continue 'record funding' without addressing the Health Council of Canada funding question or the lack of negotiations, then pivots entirely to attacking the Liberal leader over temporary foreign workers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we will continue with our record funding just as I described, but when it comes to the âdo as I say and not as I doâ position of the NDP, it is not just the NDP that is guilty of this, it is also the Liberal Party. The NDP criticizes the temporary foreign worker program. The Liberals had a motion before Parliament yesterday condemning the temporary foreign worker program. I have a letter here from theâ
Mr. Speaker, as I said, on the subject of credibility, which was raised by the NDP, my point is this: The new leader of the Liberal Party criticized yesterday the temporary foreign worker program, but I have a letter here from the new leader of the Liberal Party asking us to rush new temporary foreign workers from China to work in restaurants in his riding.
Trudeau asks the Minister of Canadian Heritage to inform the House of the government's plan to celebrate the 31st anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is a government-backbench-style softball asking the minister to describe the government's plan to celebrate the Charter's anniversary, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 31 years ago, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into being. The charter is more than part of our history; it is part of our life. It guarantees that no matter where one is from, no matter what one believes, no matter what one looks like or who one loves, Canada is a place where we can be who we are freely. Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage please inform the House of the government's plan to celebrate the anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms today?
Moore says the government believes in respecting Canada's history and is creating the Canadian museum of history, references section 15 of the charter, then pivots to questioning why Trudeau wrote a letter to bring in Chinese workers instead of creating jobs for his constituents.
Moore briefly mentions the Canadian museum of history and section 15 of the charter before pivoting to attacking Trudeau over the temporary foreign workers letter, providing little real information about Charter anniversary activities.
Source text
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we believe in respecting Canada's history. That is why we are creating the Canadian museum of history, which I hope the Liberal Party will support. Of course, we do believe in the central principles of the charter, not least of which is section 15, the equality clause of the charter that says that all Canadians should be treated equally. The question again to the leader of the Liberal Party is why he will not defend his constituents in creating jobs for his constituents instead of writing letters to bring in Chinese workers for businesses in his riding.
Trudeau cites the Bank of Canada's downgraded growth forecast and asks whether the government will cancel the additional $300 million tax on items including baby carriages and vacuum cleaners, noting it harms the middle class.
References the Bank of Canada's downgraded growth forecast and identifies a specific $300 million tax on specific items (baby carriages, vacuum cleaners), with a clear ask to cancel the new tax, though 'Will you cancel this new tax?' is direct.
Source text
For now I ask the questions, Mr. Speaker. Today, the Bank of Canada has downgraded its forecast for economicâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, today the Bank of Canada has downgraded its forecast for economic growth yet again. Growth is generated first and foremost by a thriving middle class, which makes the decision to hit them with an additional $300 million tax on items ranging from baby carriages to vacuum cleaners all the more damaging. For two days the government has refused to answer my question, so I will ask it again on behalf of middle-class Canadians. Will you cancel this new tax?
Moore asserts the government is the party of low taxes and contrasts it with the Liberal Party as the party of high taxes, then pivots to questioning why Trudeau wrote letters to bring in Chinese workers in Montreal's food industry.
Moore does not address the $300 million tax or the items cited, instead offering a general assertion that the government is the party of low taxes and pivoting to the temporary foreign workers letter.
Source text
Maybe he is in over his head, Mr. Speaker. On these two questions, they actually work in concert. It is pretty clear in this year's budget that we are the party of low taxes. The Liberal Party is the party of high taxes. When it comes to employment, it is this government that believes in standing up for creating Canadian jobs for Canadians. It is a pretty simple principle. Again, the question is to the leader of the Liberal Party. If there is sincerity behind his question on creating jobs for Canadians, why is he writing letters to bring in Chinese workers in the food industry in Montreal rather than helping us create jobs for Canadians in Montreal?
Trudeau lists items that will become more expensive due to the new tax â water heaters, ovens, sheets, saris, bicycles â and notes that the bike shop owner at the Finance Minister's press conference is himself complaining about the tax increase; he asks the minister to cancel the new tax on the middle class.
Lists specific consumer items (chauffe-eau, fours, draps, saris, bicyclettes) affected by the new tax and cites the concrete example of the bike shop owner at the Finance Minister's press conference complaining about higher taxes, with a clear ask to cancel.
Source text
Il reste encore deux ans, monsieur le PrĂ©sident. Ă cause de leur nouvelle taxe, les chauffe-eau seront plus chers, les fours seront plus chers, les draps seront plus chers, les saris seront plus chers et les bicyclettes seront plus chĂšres. MĂȘme le propriĂ©taire du magasin de bicyclettes oĂč le ministre des Finances a fait sa confĂ©rence de presse se plaint que les taxes pour ses clients augmentent. Le ministre va-t-il donc annuler cette nouvelle taxe pour la classe moyenne?
Hansard translation: There are still two years left, Mr. Speaker. With their new tax, water heaters will be more expensive, ovens will be more expensive, sheets will be more expensive, saris will be more expensive and bicycles will be more expensive. Even the owner of the bicycle shop where the Minister of Finance held his news conference is complaining that taxes are going up for his clients. Will the minister cancel this new tax on the middle class?
Moore says the government has reduced taxes by more than $200 billion since 2006, including reducing the GST from 7% to 5%, and lists categories of goods that are cheaper as a result.
Moore does not address the specific items or the bike shop owner's complaint, instead citing a general $200 billion tax reduction since 2006 and a GST reduction from 7% to 5%, listing other cheaper goods without addressing the new tax.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis qu'il a Ă©tĂ© Ă©lu en 2006, notre gouvernement a rĂ©duit les taxes des Canadiens de plus de 200 milliards de dollars. On a mĂȘme rĂ©duit la TPS de 7 % Ă 5 %. Les maisons sont moins chĂšres, les automobiles sont moins chĂšres, les livres sont moins chers, les affaires pour les familles sont moins chĂšres et tous les besoins des Canadiens sont moins chers. VoilĂ le rĂ©sultat du gouvernement conservateur.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, since our government was elected in 2006, it has reduced Canadians' taxes by more than $200 billion. We have even reduced the GST from 7% to 5%. Houses cost less, cars cost less, books cost less, family items cost less and everything that Canadians need costs less. That is what the Conservative government has accomplished.
Nash accuses the Conservatives of breaking their promise by raising taxes on thousands of everyday items including ballpoint pens and shampoo, and asks when they will abandon the plan and admit they misled Canadians.
Characterizes the tax changes as a 'bait and switch' and references price increases on ballpoint pens and shampoo, but the question is largely rhetorical, asking broadly when Conservatives will 'come clean' rather than posing a specific answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a little reality: Conservatives are breaking their promise. They are raising taxes and making life more expensive. Conservatives have really pulled a bait and switch. They pretended that prices were going down, and then they raised taxes on thousands of everyday items. The price of everything, from ballpoint pens to one's daily shampoo, is going up because of the Conservatives. When will they abandon this plan to make it harder for Canadians to make ends meet? When will they finally come clean and admit that they misled Canadians?
Menzies says the government has been reducing taxes for seven years and accuses the NDP of promoting cheap products from China that compete with Canadian companies.
Menzies claims seven years of tax reductions and accuses the NDP of promoting cheap imports from China, not addressing the specific tax increases on consumer goods raised in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for seven years now, we have been reducing taxes for Canadians. The NDP has voted against that tooth and nail every time. We continue to reduce taxes for Canadians, but at the same time, unbelievably, the NDP is promoting cheap products coming in from other countries. Competition for Canadian companies from companies in China is getting the support of the NDP.
Nash asks whether the minister will honour the Conservative electoral promise or maintain the new tax increases on consumer products including school supplies and dish soap.
Lists specific consumer categories (fournitures scolaires, savon Ă vaisselle) affected by price increases and poses a clear binary ask â honour the electoral promise or maintain the tax increases â but framing is highly partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians and New Democrats will never vote in favour of a Conservative budget that misleads Canadians and that raises taxes on family essentials. Pendant que les conservateurs mettent leurs lunettes roses, les Canadiens font les frais des mauvais choix des conservateurs. Ils vont piger directement dans les poches des Canadiens. Le prix de tous les produits de consommation va augmenter, des fournitures scolaires au savon Ă vaisselle. Le ministre va-t-il tenir sa promesse Ă©lectorale ou va-t-il maintenir ses hausses de taxe?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, les Canadiens et les néo-démocrates ne voteront jamais en faveur du budget conservateur qui induit les gens en erreur et qui augmente les taxes sur des articles essentiels pour la famille. While the Conservatives are wearing their rose-coloured glasses, Canadians are paying for their bad choices. They are going to take money directly out of Canadians' pockets. The prices of all consumer products will go up, from school supplies to dish soap. Will the minister keep his election promise or will he maintain the tax hikes?
Menzies says Canadians have the lowest tax rate in 50 years, accuses the NDP of fighting for tax breaks for companies in China and India, and says the government will fight against the NDP's proposed carbon tax.
Menzies claims Canadians have the lowest tax rate in 50 years and pivots to accusing the NDP of fighting for a tax break for companies operating in China and India and promoting a carbon tax, not addressing the specific tax increases on consumer goods.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have the lowest tax rate in 50 years because our government continues on a low-tax plan. Incredibly, the NDP is fighting for a tax break for companies that are operating in China and India. We will stand up for Canadians. We will fight for Canadians. We will fight against the NDP, who want to raise taxes on Canadians through their carbon tax or whatever tax they may come up with.
Rankin challenges the Revenue minister's previous claim that cuts only affect internal operations, citing a Le Devoir report that 221 auditor positions have been eliminated and the CRA's audit budget cut by $68 million, and asks why fighting tax evasion is not a priority.
Cites a Le Devoir report, a specific figure of 221 auditor positions eliminated, and a $68 million cut to the CRA's audit division budget, directly challenging the minister's previous day's claim that cuts only affect internal operations.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je ne suis pas d'accord sur la prémisse de cette réponse. Hier, la ministre du Revenu a prétendu que les compressions dans son ministÚre ne toucheront que les opérations internes, sauf que, comme le rapporte Le Devoir, 221 postes de vérificateurs ont été éliminés depuis qu'ils sont au pouvoir. Les conservateurs ont aussi réduit de 68 millions de dollars le budget du service de vérification des déclarations de l'ARC. Pourquoi la priorité des conservateurs n'est-elle pas la lutte contre l'évasion fiscale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with that answer. Yesterday, the Minister of National Revenue claimed that cuts to her department will only affect internal operations. However, Le Devoir reported that 221 audit positions have been eliminated since the Conservatives came to power. The Conservatives have also cut $68 million from the CRA returns compliance program. Why are the Conservatives not making combatting tax evasion a priority?
Shea rejects the premise, saying there are nearly 400 more tax auditors in CRA than in 2006, the international audit division has grown by over 40%, and the agency has identified nearly $4.6 billion in unpaid taxes.
Shea rejects the premise and provides a counter-figure of nearly 400 more tax auditors compared to 2006 and a 40% increase in the international audit division, plus $4.6 billion in unpaid taxes identified â partially engaging but not addressing the specific 221-position figure cited from Le Devoir.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of that question. There are nearly 400 more tax auditors today in CRA than there were in 2006. Our economic action plan 2013 commits to cracking down on those who avoid paying their taxes, to ensure tax fairness for all Canadians. We have increased the size of our international audit division by over 40% since forming government, and we have identified nearly $4.6 billion in unpaid taxes. Every time we bring forward a tax loophole to close, the NDP and the Liberals oppose it.
Rankin cites the minister's own report on plans and priorities to argue that $120 million and over 250 staff are being cut from the reporting compliance section responsible for risk assessment, audit, and investigation, and asks how the minister can claim these are only internal matters.
Cites the minister's own report on plans and priorities as a primary source, gives specific figures of $120 million and over 250 staff cuts from the reporting compliance section, and quotes the section's mandate ('risk assessment, audit, investigation'), making this a highly grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we reject the premise of that answer. The minister needs to check with her department before repeating herself. Her own report on plans and priorities, the one with her portrait on the front, says that $120 million and over 250 staff are going to be cut from the reporting compliance section, the ones whose job it is to detect non-compliance through ârisk assessment, audit, investigationâ. How can the minister not agree that she is cutting back on investigation? How can she say that these are only internal matters?
Shea says these are internal matters, claims there are over 400 more tax auditors than in 2006, and says the government has introduced over 75 measures to improve the integrity of the tax system, urging the NDP to vote for the 2013 economic action plan.
Shea again claims more than 400 additional tax auditors compared to 2006 and 75 measures to improve tax system integrity, but does not address the specific $120 million and 250-staff cut from the reporting compliance section cited from her own report.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is because they are internal matters. We have added over 400 more tax auditors than we had in 2006. We have introduced over 75 measures to improve the integrity of the tax system. If the New Democrats really are serious about fighting tax evasion, they will vote for the 2013 economic action plan.
Nicholls quotes verbatim the complex procedural language from the Enbridge public hearing participation form and asks the minister to explain what it means.
Quotes the specific procedural language from the Enbridge hearing participation form verbatim, but the question is essentially theatrical â asking the minister to decode bureaucratic text â rather than posing a clear policy accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, le ministre des Ressources naturelles, avec sa paresse intellectuelle lĂ©gendaire, Ă©vitait de rĂ©pondre aux questions. On va donc rĂ©essayer. Que veut dire cette phrase contenue dans le formulaire pour prendre la parole aux audiences publiques d'Enbridge: [...] reportez-vous aux lignes directrices concernant lâarticle 55.2 et la participation Ă une audience concernant des installations Ă lâannexe III de la prĂ©sente mise Ă jour procĂ©durale no 1, qui avaient aussi Ă©tĂ© incluses Ă lâannexe VI de lâordonnance dâaudience OH-002 [...] Qu'est-ce que tout cela?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources, who is known for his intellectual laziness, avoided answering questions. We will try again. The application to participate in the Enbridge public hearings contains the following phrase: ...refer to the Boardâs Guidance Document on Section 55.2 and Participation in a Facilities Hearing attached to the Hearing Order OH-002-2013 as Appendix VI, and again as Appendix III of Procedural Update No. 1 for OH-002... What is that all about?
Oliver dismisses the question as ridiculous, states the government is committed to a robust National Energy Board review, that every person with a direct interest must be heard, and that others can contact their MP.
Oliver dismisses the question as ridiculous, says every person with a direct interest must be heard by the NEB, and notes individuals can contact their MP, but does not explain the procedural language quoted.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that this member would repeat the ridiculous question that was asked during the hearing yesterday and take up the time of the hon. members attending the session. We are committed to a robust National Energy Board review. Every person with a direct interest must be heard by the NEB, and everyone with relevant expertise may be heard. This is consistent with the public policy objectives. Any other individuals who want to be heard can of course make their views known to their member of Parliament.
Gravelle quotes the same Enbridge hearing procedural text referencing Appendix VI and Appendix III of Procedural Update No. 1 for OH-002, and asks whether the minister thinks this is clear to ordinary Canadians who want to participate.
Again quotes the Hearing Order OH-002-2013 procedural text verbatim to challenge the minister, but like the previous exchange remains theatrical rather than raising a distinct policy accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a ridiculous question, but there certainly are some ridiculous answers and they are coming from that minister over there. Let us try again. Can he explain his advice to Canadians? ...refer to the Boardâs Guidance Document on Section 55.2 and Participation in a Facilities Hearing attached to the Hearing Order OH-002-2013 as Appendix VI, and again as Appendix III of Procedural Update No. 1 for OH-002... Now is that clear? Wellâ
Oliver says anyone with a direct interest can fill out the form in five to ten minutes by looking at three pages, then pivots to a jab about the NDP leader muzzling his party's socialist majority.
Oliver provides a partial practical response â claiming the form takes five to ten minutes to complete by looking at three pages â but then pivots to a quip about the NDP leader muzzling his caucus, only partially engaging with the accessibility concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, anyone with a direct interest in a hearing can, by looking at three pages, fill out that form in five to ten minutes without getting mired in the detail that the member opposite would like to perpetrate. However, let me just say that there is an implication of muzzling, and all this talk of muzzling reminds me of the NDP leader's muzzling of the embattled socialist majority of his party. Why not âlet a thousand flowers bloomâ?
Julian quotes the Minister of Natural Resources as saying people are not as worried about global warming of two degrees and that scientists have said fears on climate change are exaggerated, and asks whether it is appropriate for a G8 natural resources minister to be a climate-change denier.
Quotes specific statements attributed to the Minister of Natural Resources denying climate-change severity and asks a pointed accountability question about whether it is appropriate for a G8 natural resources minister to be a climate-change denier.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the minister is mired and he expects Canadians to figure it out on their own, when he could not understand the forms even with an entire department helping him. On top of that, the minister has not retracted his comments denying climate change. He said, âI think that people aren't as worried as they were before about global warming of two degrees...scientists have recently told us that our fears (on climate change) are exaggerated.â Unbelievable. Is it appropriate for the Minister of Natural Resources of a G8 country to be a climate-change denier?
Kent says the government takes the reality and science of climate change very seriously, cites urgent sector-by-sector regulatory action to reduce GHGs, and claims this is the first Canadian government to actually reduce GHGs, noting Liberal GHG emissions grew by over 30%.
Kent, substituting for Oliver, asserts the government takes climate change seriously, cites sector-by-sector regulatory action on GHGs, and claims to be the first Canadian government to actually reduce GHGs, engaging the topic but not addressing whether the quoted statements are appropriate or accurate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government takes very seriously the reality and the science of climate change. That is why we are taking urgent sector-by-sector regulatory action to reduce GHGs. This House will recall that under the previous Liberal government GHG emissions grew by over 30%. By their incoherent and costly proposed policies, there is no reason to expect that the New Democrats would do any better. I remind this House again, this is the first Canadian government to actually reduce GHGs.
Why does the Minister of Natural Resources say Canadians are not concerned about a 2° Celsius warming, when that threshold is considered a point of no return by scientists?
Cites a specific temperature threshold (2°), quotes the newspaper's editor-in-chief's response, and asks a clear causal question about why the minister downplays climate threat.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister is doing a fine job of re-clarifying the denial of his colleague's retraction. Le ministre des Ressources naturelles a dit que les Canadiens et lui ne sont pas prĂ©occupĂ©s par un rĂ©chauffement de la planĂšte de 2°. L'Ă©ditorialiste en chef du journal oĂč il a tenu ces propos a Ă©crit en rĂ©ponse que l'ignorance du ministre Ă©tait sidĂ©rante. Un rĂ©chauffement de 2° est la limite supĂ©rieure que l'on peut atteindre avant de franchir le point de non-retour. Pourquoi le ministre affirme-t-il que la menace climatique est exagĂ©rĂ©e?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, le ministre a trÚs bien réussi à rendre limpide le refus de son collÚgue de se rétracter. The Minister of Natural Resources said that he and Canadians are not worried about global warming of two degrees. The editor-in-chief of the newspaper that reported these comments responded that the minister's ignorance was astounding. Global warming of two degrees marks the point of no return. Why is the minister claiming that the threat of climate change is exaggerated?
The minister cited budget 2013 environmental measures including $250 million for the Meteorological Service of Canada, clean technology support, and support for the Nature Conservancy of Canada.
Completely ignores the question about the minister's comments and instead pivots to budget 2013 measures, never addressing the 2° threshold or the Natural Resources Minister's statements.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that answer has been offered to the previous member, but I would remind the opposition of budget 2013 and all of the good environmental news that is contained therein: strengthening the Meteorological Service of Canada by fully one-quarter of a billion dollars, supporting clean technologies, supporting the Nature Conservancy of Canada, and new tax support for clean energy generation. I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the House to support this budget.
Will the Minister of Natural Resources acknowledge that a 2° increase in global temperatures will cause feedback effects that cannot be reversed?
Highly specific yes/no ask about whether a 2° increase causes irreversible feedback effects, grounded in the concrete allegation that the minister cited non-existent scientists.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is very simple. The minister told a newspaper that he is not concerned about a 2° Celsius increase in global temperatures and to back that up he attributed comments to scientists who do not exist. Since then he has proudly stood by his comments and his imaginary science. This is about the future of our planet. Will the Minister of Natural Resources acknowledge that a 2° increase in global temperatures will cause feedback effects that cannot be reversed, yes or no?
The minister asserted the government takes climate change seriously through a sector-by-sector regulatory approach and attacked the NDP's proposed $21 billion carbon tax.
Refuses to answer the yes/no question, instead making a general claim about taking climate change seriously and attacking the NDP's proposed $21 billion carbon tax.
Source text
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate that our government clearly and tangibly takes very seriously both the reality and the science of climate change and that is why we are achieving through our sector-by-sector regulatory approach, by investing in adaptation as well as mitigation. We are taking very seriously climate change where past Liberal governments have not and there is no indication that the NDP through its proposed $21 billion carbon tax, which would go into general revenues, would reduce a single megaton of GHGs.
Why not cancel the tariff increases on hundreds of products that will cost Canadian consumers over $300 million annually rather than foreign companies?
Cites a specific figure ($300 million in additional annual tariff taxes) and makes a clear ask to cancel the tariff increase, though could be sharper on which specific products or legislation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement conservateur fait preuve d'incohérence. D'un cÎté, il se pÚte les bretelles pour avoir baissé certains tarifs, mais de l'autre, il refuse de reconnaßtre que l'augmentation des taxes tarifaires sur des centaines de produits impliquera plus de 300 millions de dollars de taxes annuelles additionnelles. Contrairement à ce que le gouvernement insinue, ce ne sont pas des compagnies étrangÚres qui auront à payer ces taxes additionnelles, mais bel et bien les consommateurs canadiens. Alors, pourquoi ne pas tout simplement annuler cette taxe sur la classe moyenne canadienne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is inconsistent. It is bragging about lowering certain tariffs, but at the same time it refuses to acknowledge that the increased tariffs on hundreds of products will mean more than $300 million in additional taxes per year. Unlike what this government would have us believe, foreign companies are not the ones who will have to pay these additional taxes. Canadian consumers will. Why not simply cancel this tax on the middle class?
The minister claimed Liberals oppose tax reductions and accused them of wanting special breaks for companies operating in China and India.
Completely deflects by accusing Liberals of not understanding tax reductions and mischaracterizing the question as about special breaks for companies in China and India, never addressing the $300 million tariff figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously the Liberals do not understand and do not support tax reductions that we have put in every successive budget since we formed government. We continue to reduce taxes while the Liberals and the NDP want to create special breaks for companies that are operating in China and India. We will continue to stand up for Canadians. We will continue to reduce their taxes and pay no attention to what the Liberals and the NDP want to do.
Why is the government hiking prices on everyday items like school supplies, playpens, and bicycles, and why is it driving customers to shop across the border?
Names specific consumer items (school supplies, playpens, bicycles) and raises the border-shopping impact on small businesses and border towns, but the ask is compound and partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is conveniently in denial about its hidden tax hike on thousands of everyday items. It is middle-class Canadians who are being hit hardest by these price increases and parents are paying more now for school supplies, for playpens, and even bicycles. Could the Minister of Finance explain why, and could he explain why he is hitting small businesses and our border towns by sending their customers across the border to shop in the U.S.? The government should admit these are tax hikes, apologize, and cancel them.
The minister defended the GST reductions from 7% to 5% and argued that the government wants Canadian companies to compete internationally.
Ignores the specific items cited and the border-town impact entirely, instead defending GST reductions and misrepresenting the question as opposition to tax reduction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the Liberal Party members oppose every tax reduction that we have put in place, from reducing the GST from 7%, to 6%, to 5% and they stand in the House and want special services to be brought in from these different countries. These are competitive countries. We would rather that Canadian companies be able to compete internationally. We would hope that the opposition would kindly understand that.
With the Bank of Canada and IMF downgrading the Canadian economy and 55,000 jobs lost last month, why are Conservatives hiking taxes on everything from toothbrushes to kids' bikes?
Grounds the question in two concrete data points (Bank of Canada and IMF downgrades, loss of 55,000 jobs last month) and links them to specific tariff hikes on named items.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, these taxes are not hurting China, they are hurting middle-class Canadian families. Yesterday, the Bank of Canada joined with the IMF in downgrading the Canadian economy. This is after Canada lost 55,000 jobs just last month. Yet the Conservatives are hiking taxes on everything from toothbrushes to kids' bikes. With the economy getting weaker and with it becoming even more difficult for Canadians to make ends meet, why are the Conservatives attacking middle-class Canadian families with higher taxes?
The minister quoted the IMF's statement that Canada is in an enviable position with broadly appropriate policies, and noted that Bank of Canada GDP growth numbers align with those in the budget.
Partially engages by quoting the IMF's actual statement about Canada being in an enviable position and referencing budget GDP growth numbers, but never addresses the 55,000 jobs figure or the specific tariff hikes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the question should be: Why do the Liberals want to give a special break to companies that are operating in China and India? We need to remember what the IMF said just yesterday and that is, â...Canada is in an enviable position....The policies that are being deployed are, in our minds, broadly appropriate...â In fact, the Bank of Canada, if the hon. member had read the budget, knows those GDP growth numbers are in line with what is in the budget.
Can the Minister of International Trade confirm that Canada will receive the same treatment as India, given that Europeans dropped their demands for major intellectual property changes that would raise drug costs by $2.8 billion?
Cites a specific cost figure ($2.8 billion in drug cost increases), references a concrete recent development (Europeans dropping IP demands in India negotiations), and asks a clear yes/no confirmatory question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les EuropĂ©ens ont demandĂ© que toute nouvelle entente commerciale conclue avec le Canada comprenne des changements majeurs Ă notre systĂšme de protection de la propriĂ©tĂ© intellectuelle, ce qui occasionnerait des hausses du coĂ»t des mĂ©dicaments d'environ 2,8 milliards de dollars. Cependant, cette semaine, les EuropĂ©ens ont annoncĂ© qu'ils avaient abandonnĂ© cette requĂȘte dans leurs nĂ©gociations commerciales avec l'Inde. Le ministre du Commerce international peut-il nous confirmer que le Canada bĂ©nĂ©ficiera du mĂȘme traitement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Europeans have asked that any new trade agreement signed with Canada include major changes to our system for the protection of intellectual property, which would raise the cost of medications by about $2.8 billion. However, last week, the Europeans announced that they had dropped this demand in their trade negotiations with India. Can the Minister of International Trade confirm that Canada will receive the same treatment?
The parliamentary secretary admitted he may not have heard the full question and only committed to negotiating both CETA and the India free trade agreement in the best interests of Canadians.
The parliamentary secretary admitted not fully hearing the question and gave no substantive answer beyond saying both agreements would be negotiated in the best interests of Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I may not have heard all of the question. The member started out on the CETA with the European Union and then started talking about a free trade agreement with India. I am not quite certain which answer she would like. We will negotiate both agreements in the best interests of Canadians.
Will the minister commit to standing firm against European demands on intellectual property protection in CETA, as India did, to protect Canadian seniors from higher drug costs?
References Canada's existing patent protection regime, India's specific successful resistance to European demands, and makes a clear ask for a commitment to protect Canadian seniors.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 2015 Canadians look forward to rejecting the premise of the government. Let me clarify this for the hon. member. The fact is, Canada already has one of the strongest patent protection regimes in the world. There is no justification for acceding to European demands. In tough economic times the last thing we need is Conservatives negotiating a trade deal that would benefit large European pharmaceutical companies at the expense of Canadian seniors. India stood up to the pressure and Europe dropped its demands. Will the minister commit to doing the same for Canadian seniors?
Oh, oh!
Oh, oh!
Oh, oh!
The parliamentary secretary repeatedly asked why the NDP opposes every trade agreement the government negotiates, characterizing the party as anti-trade, without addressing the IP protection question.
Ignores the question about patent protection and Canada's negotiating position entirely, pivoting to attacking the NDP for opposing trade agreements before being repeatedly interrupted.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, you have to ask yourself a question. Why would the NDP--
Because we speak through you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I ask myself the question, and I am sure every member in the House does, why does the NDP consistently--
Mr. Speaker, we all ask ourselves the question: Why does the NDP consistently oppose every trade agreement that this government negotiates? Members can check the record. They can check individual members' statements. That party is anti-trade and antiâ
Why is the minister cutting the CFIA budget and firing hundreds of employees after promising Bill S-11 would give CFIA more tools and resources?
Cites Bill S-11 specifically, references the minister's prior commitment of more tools and resources, and juxtaposes it with specific planned budget cuts and hundreds of employee firings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, brought in major changes to food inspection. Thousands of new import licences will be required and that is going to require more resources, not less. The minister promised that Bill S-11 would give the CFIA more tools and more resources. The minister oversaw two of the largest recalls in Canadian history and now he is planning to cut CFIA's budget and fire hundreds of employees. Why is the minister telling Canadians one thing and doing the exact opposite?
The minister said the government is in the consultation phase on Bill S-11, working with domestic and international groups, and will plan its course of action and allocate funding once that plan is in place.
Engages partially by explaining the ongoing consultation phase for Bill S-11 and the need to understand import volumes before allocating resources, but does not address the contradiction with the minister's earlier promises or the planned cuts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are in the consultation phase on Bill S-11. We are working with a number of groups both domestically and abroad that would import food into this country. We have to have an idea of what is coming so that we know what is there when a traceability situation is asked for. We will have these consultations and then we will plan our course of action and put monies to that course once that plan is in place.
Why is the minister cutting food safety resources by firing 300 food safety program employees, contrary to the promise in Bill S-11 of more resources?
Cites a specific number of 300 food safety program employees to be fired and frames the contradiction with Bill S-11's promise clearly, though largely mirrors Exchange 23.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le ministre a été incapable de gérer les deux derniÚres crises, et sa seule solution, c'est de couper davantage dans son ministÚre. Le projet de loi S-11 présentait une promesse simple: il y aura plus de ressources pour inspecter nos aliments. Malheureusement, le ministre fait le contraire: il accorde moins de ressources et demande aux employés d'en faire plus. C'est la recette de la catastrophe. Trois cent employés du programme de la sécurité alimentaire seront congédiés. La question est simple: pourquoi le ministre coupe-t-il dans la sécurité alimentaire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the minister was unable to manage the two latest crises and his only solution is to make more cuts within his department. Bill S-11 made a simple promise: more resources for food inspection. Unfortunately, the minister is doing the opposite: he is allocating fewer resources and asking the employees to do more. That is a recipe for disaster. Three hundred food safety employees will be let go. My question is simple: why is the minister making cuts to food safety?
The minister disputed the NDP's numbers, cited $150 million added to the CFIA budget over the last two budgets and a 20% increase in front-line capacity, while noting the government is also seeking efficiencies.
Contests the NDP's numbers, cites $150 million invested over two budgets and a 20% increase in front-line capacity, but does not specifically address the 300 food safety employees or explain why cuts are happening alongside increased workload.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the NDP members continue to do faulty research. They have their numbers wrong. We as a government continue to build the capacity of CFIA. We have put some $150 million into its budget over the last two budgets in this cycle. We have also added 20% to its capacity at the front line. We continue to do that while we are looking for efficiencies in the agency, and in every other department across the government, to make sure we are spending money properly on behalf of Canadian taxpayers and making sure their food is safe at the same time. We will continue to do that. NDP members will continue to vote against all that.
Could the Minister for the Status of Women update the House on what the government is doing to protect women in aboriginal communities?
Classic government-backbench softball setup inviting the minister to tout the government's bill protecting aboriginal women, with no real accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for decades, women on reserves have been without the legal protections that are available to all other Canadians. In situations of family violence women have been victimized and kicked out of their homes with nowhere to go. Aboriginal women, international associations and the NDP government in Manitoba all agree that something must change now. Could the Minister for the Status of Women please update the House on what our government is doing to protect women in aboriginal communities?
The minister stated the government's bill will allow judges to enforce emergency protection orders and remove violent partners from the home, addressing a 25-year gap in legal protection for aboriginal women on reserve.
Provides concrete information about what the bill does (emergency protection orders, removing violent partners from the home) and notes the quarter-century gap in protection, though also attacks the opposition.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am so proud that our government is committed to giving aboriginal women the same protection and rights as all Canadian women. For over a quarter of a century, aboriginal women living on reserve have been without access to the legal protection they need when it comes to domestic violence. Our bill will protect thousands of aboriginal women and children. In situations of family violence, it will allow judges to enforce emergency protection orders and remove a violent partner from the home. How the NDP and Liberals can continue to oppose this is incomprehensible to me. Our government will make sure aboriginal women have equal rights.
Why did HRSDC suddenly reverse a long-standing policy allowing companies like the fish processing plant in Matane to help workers qualify for EI, and why are workers being forced to repay benefits they received under that old policy?
Names a specific company (fish processing plant in Matane, Quebec), references a specific prior policy and a specific consequence (workers repaying benefits), and asks two related but clear accountability questions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative mismanagement of EI just keeps getting worse. For years HRSDC was sensitive to regional economies by allowing companies like the fish processing plant in Matane, Quebec, to help workers become eligible for EI. Suddenly there is an about-face. To add insult to injury, the Conservatives are forcing the workers to repay the government for benefits they collected under their old policy. If there really was a long-standing problem, why did it take so long for the Conservatives to act, and why are they making the workers pay for their incompetence?
The minister cited an ongoing investigation into potentially false declarations and misrepresentations that could have cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, and noted that ineligible claimants have the right to appeal.
Partially engages by acknowledging an ongoing investigation into potentially false declarations and the right to appeal, but does not address why the policy changed so abruptly or why workers are being made to repay.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is an ongoing investigation involving potentially false declarations and misrepresentations, which could have cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Any individuals who have been deemed ineligible for claims have the right to appeal the decision, but it is unfair to those who pay into unemployment insurance if we do nothing to try to uncover those who would abuse the system.
Why are the Conservatives targeting unemployed workers rather than tax fraudsters, without having conducted an impact study on EI changes?
Raises the lack of impact studies and contrasts EI inspectors for unemployed workers with alleged protection of Senate friends, but the question is compound, rhetorical, and lacks specific factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Ă©videmment, tout ce que dit la ministre est faux. Si les conservateurs avaient vraiment voulu amĂ©liorer le programme d'assurance-emploi, ils auraient consultĂ© les provinces, les industries saisonniĂšres et les travailleurs. Ils n'ont mĂȘme pas fait d'Ă©tude d'impact sur les changements qu'ils imposent. Quelle bande d'administrateurs incompĂ©tents! Pendant qu'ils protĂšgent leurs amis au SĂ©nat et coupent le nombre d'inspecteurs qui luttent contre l'Ă©vasion fiscale, ils envoient des agents dans les maisons des chĂŽmeurs qui peinent Ă joindre les deux bouts. Pourquoi les conservateurs s'en prennent-ils aux chĂŽmeurs plutĂŽt qu'aux fraudeurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there is no truth to what the minister is saying. If the Conservatives truly wanted to improve the system, they would have consulted the provinces, seasonal industries and workers. They did not even conduct an impact study on the changes they are making. What a bunch of incompetent administrators. At a time when they are protecting their friends in the Senate and cutting the number of inspectors who fight tax evasion, they are sending investigators into the homes of the unemployed, who can barely make ends meet. Why are the Conservatives going after the unemployed instead of fraudsters?
The minister said the government expanded the Job Alert system so unemployed workers receive information about available positions more quickly, and that EI will be there for those who cannot find work in their field and region.
Does not address the lack of impact studies or the allegation about sending agents to unemployed workers' homes, instead promoting the expanded Job Alert system as a way to help unemployed workers find jobs.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous essayons d'aider les chÎmeurs à trouver un nouvel emploi. C'est pourquoi nous avons élargi le systÚme Alerte-Emploi. Les chÎmeurs reçoivent des renseignements sur les postes disponibles dans leur région plus rapidement et plus souvent qu'auparavant, afin de les aider à trouver un bon emploi, chez eux. Toutefois, s'il n'y a pas de travail dans leur domaine de compétence et dans leur région, l'assurance-emploi sera là pour eux, comme toujours.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to help the unemployed find new work. That is why we have enhanced the job alert system. Unemployed Canadians are notified of positions available in their region more quickly and more frequently than before so that they can find a good job at home. However, if there are no jobs in their field in their region, employment insurance will be there for them, as always.
Will the minister intervene so that Service Canada respects its agreements with the Les fruits de mer de l'Est du Québec plant and the 80 workers in Matane who face retroactive repayment demands of up to $14,000 for benefits Service Canada itself deemed legitimate?
Names the specific company (Les fruits de mer de l'Est du Québec), the specific location (Matane), 80 specific workers, the retroactive repayment amount (up to $14,000), the time period (since 2011), and the fact that Service Canada itself had endorsed the arrangement.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les quotas imposĂ©s par les conservateurs dans leur rĂ©forme de l'assurance-emploi continuent de produire des effets nĂ©fastes et pervers. Service Canada s'apprĂȘte Ă forcer les 80 travailleurs de l'usine Les fruits de mer de l'Est du QuĂ©bec Ă rembourser les prestations d'assurance-emploi qu'ils ont reçues depuis 2011 en vertu d'un programme d'alternance travail-chĂŽmage entĂ©rinĂ© par Service Canada. Un remboursement rĂ©troactif peut atteindre 14 000 $ de prestations que l'usine, les employĂ©s, mais surtout Service Canada jugeaient lĂ©gitimes. La ministre va-t-elle intervenir pour que Service Canada respecte ses ententes avec l'usine et les travailleurs de Matane?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the quotas imposed by the Conservatives in their employment insurance reform continue to produce adverse effects. Service Canada is forcing 80 workers at the Eastern Quebec Seafoods plant to repay the government for benefits they have received since 2011 under a Service Canada work-unemployment program. Plant employees might have to repay as much as $14,000 in benefits that the plant, the employees, but most of all Service Canada deemed to be legitimate. Will the minister step in and ensure that Service Canada honours its agreements with the plant and the workers in Matane?
The minister stated that a serious investigation is underway regarding potentially false declarations and misrepresentations, and that any person deemed ineligible can appeal the decision.
Repeats the generic answer about a serious investigation into false declarations and the right to appeal, without addressing the specific endorsed arrangement with Les fruits de mer de l'Est du Québec or the retroactive clawback.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il est trĂšs important de reconnaĂźtre qu'une enquĂȘte trĂšs sĂ©rieuse est vraiment faite concernant le potentiel de fausses dĂ©clarations et de dĂ©clarations trompeuses qui ont coĂ»tĂ© des centaines de milliers de dollars aux Canadiens qui ont cotisĂ© au systĂšme d'assurance-emploi. Toute personne dont la demande de prestation aura Ă©tĂ© jugĂ©e non-admissible peut toujours en appeler de la dĂ©cision.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is very important to recognize that a very serious investigation is under way involving potentially false declarations and misrepresentations, which have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to Canadians who contribute to the employment insurance system. Anyone whose claim for employment insurance has been deemed ineligible can always appeal the decision.
Why are Conservatives demanding repayment of EI benefits from Aveos workers like a father of six who owes $9,000, when those workers lost their jobs because the government refused to enforce the Air Canada Public Participation Act?
Names a specific constituent (former Aveos machinist, father of six children), a specific repayment amount ($9,000), 1,500 affected Aveos workers, and directly ties the situation to the government's refusal to enforce the Air Canada Public Participation Act.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans ma circonscription, les conservateurs rĂ©clament Ă un ancien machiniste d'Aveos, pĂšre de six enfants, 9 000 $ en prestations d'assurance-emploi. C'est lui et 1 500 autres travailleurs d'Aveos qui sont visĂ©s. Pourquoi? Parce qu'Aveos a dĂ» fermer ses portes en raison du refus du gouvernement conservateur d'appliquer la Loi sur la participation publique au capital d'Air Canada. Pourquoi les conservateurs s'entĂȘtent-ils Ă faire porter l'odieux de leurs mauvaises dĂ©cisions sur le dos des prestataires d'assurance-emploi? Vont-ils sacrer patience aux travailleurs d'Aveos?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in my riding, the Conservatives are ordering a former machinist at Aveos, a father of six, to pay back $9,000 in employment insurance benefits. He and 1,500 other Aveos workers are in the government's crosshairs, all because Aveos shut down when the Conservative government refused to enforce the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Why are the Conservatives so determined to make employment insurance claimants pay the price for the government's bad decisions? Will they get off the backs of Aveos workers?
The minister expressed concern for Aveos workers but said she cannot discuss specific situations, noting the government is working with the company and employees to verify that rules were followed.
The minister acknowledged concern for Aveos workers and noted that rules apply, but declined to address the specific case or the link to the government's failure to enforce the Air Canada Public Participation Act.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous sommes inquiets concernant les travailleurs d'Aveos, bien sûr. Cependant, il y a toujours des rÚgles qui s'appliquent à des situations. Je ne peux pas parler de situations précises dans ce cas, mais je peux affirmer que nous travaillons avec la compagnie et les employés pour vérifier que les rÚgles ont été suivies.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the Aveos workers. However, there are always rules that apply in certain situations. I cannot talk about specific situations, but I can say that we are working with the company and the employees to check that the rules were followed.
Did the Minister of Health know that dismantling the Health Council of Canada and cutting health transfers by 50% would lead to the dismantling of medicare, or was that always the government's plan?
References the Health Council of Canada's founding in 2003 by Prime Minister Chrétien and the premiers, and its mandate of accountability and equality of access, but the question is partly rhetorical and the ask about a 'master plan' undermines its factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, health care groups are alarmed over the government's decision to dismantle the Health Council of Canada, which was set up in 2003 by Prime Minister Chrétien and the premiers in order to ensure accountability and equality of access to health care across the country by all Canadians. This, plus its decision unilaterally to cut 50% off health transfers, signals clearly that the government wants to walk away from medicare. Did the Minister of Health actually know that these decisions would lead to the dismantling of medicare, or was that always part of her government's master plan anyway?
The minister stated that the Health Council of Canada's 10-year mandate expires in 2014 making continued federal funding unnecessary, and cited health transfer growth from $19 billion in 2005-06 to $27 billion in 2011-12, projected to reach $40 billion by end of the decade.
Provides concrete funding figures (health transfers growing from $19 billion in 2005-06 to $27 billion in 2011-12, reaching $40 billion by end of decade), correctly notes the Health Council's 10-year mandate expires in 2014, and rebuts the 50% cut claim, though does not directly address the accountability function being lost.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it was that party that cut health transfers in Canada. The Health Council of Canada's 10-year mandate expires in 2014, meaning there is no need to continue federal funding. Our government announced long-term stable funding transfers to the provinces and territories to help them achieve their health care priorities. Federal health transfers have grown from $19 billion in 2005-06 to $27 billion in 2011-12 and will reach $40 billion by the end of the decade.
Fry asks when the minister will stop blaming the provinces for the diluted chemotherapy incident affecting about 1,200 Canadians, arguing that drug safety is a federal responsibility.
The question cites a specific incident (diluted chemotherapy endangering about 1,200 Canadians), identifies a jurisdictional claim, and asks the minister to stop blaming the provinces, but the ask is cut off and partially implicit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, those increases and transfers were put in place by a Liberal government. Recently, diluted chemotherapy endangered the lives of about 1,200 Canadians, yet the Minister of Health shrugs it off and blames the provinces when she knows full well that the provinces only have responsibility for pharmacies and that it is the federal government that has responsibility for drug safety. Canadians have lost confidence in their medications. Hospitals cannot trust drug labels and the instructions on them. When will the minister stop blaming the provincesâ
Aglukkaq asserts that patient care, pharmacy practice and admixing fall under provincial jurisdiction, notes Ontario said it would regulate these sites, and says Health Canada officials were instructed to co-operate with the Wynne government investigation.
The minister acknowledges the provincial jurisdiction argument and states she instructed Health Canada officials to co-operate with the Wynne government investigation, but deflects to Liberal health care cuts before partially engaging the jurisdictional question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was the finance minister for Nunavut dealing with the Liberal health care cuts. Patient care in a hospital, the practice of pharmacy and admixing all fall under the provincial jurisdiction. The Ontario government has said it would be regulating these sites. I have instructed Health Canada's officials to co-operate fully with the investigation that the Wynne government has been leading. If the review determines that there is a federal role, we will seriously consider any changes that are recommended.
Cullen asks the Minister of Natural Resources to open up the regulatory process and allow Canadians to speak, noting that the 4,000 Canadians who testified about the northern gateway pipeline would not have made it through under the new rules.
Cullen quotes the minister's own phrase 'gaming the system,' cites 4,000 Canadians who testified on the northern gateway pipeline, and asks a clear yes/no question about opening up the process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us give the Minister of Natural Resources one more chance to try to explain himself. He let slip that this unintelligible form that he created exists to stop the public from âgaming the systemâ. In reality, these are obstacles to regular people trying to raise their voices about important issues. Under these new rules, the 4,000 Canadians who testified about the northern gateway pipeline would never have made it through the door. Will he now agree to open up this process and allow Canadians to speak, even the ones he happens to disagree with?
Oliver disputes the numbers, saying about 4,400 signed up but only about 1,400 showed up, characterises many registrations as intended to repeat 'canned messages' and undermine the process, and asserts everyone with a direct interest will be heard by the National Energy Board.
Oliver disputes the 4,000 figure by contrasting sign-ups (4,400) with attendees (about 1,400), but characterises participants as delivering 'canned messages' rather than addressing whether the process should be opened up.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the member opposite to get his facts right. Some 4,400 people signed up for the hearings, but only about 1,400 actually showed up, which indicated what the purpose of those registrations were. They were there to repeat the same canned message. They were there to undermine the process. Everyone who has a direct interest has every right to appear, and they will be heard by the National Energy Board.
Cullen asks whether any Conservative will denounce the Minister of Natural Resources's claim that people's fears about climate change are exaggerated, and whether Conservatives still believe scientists are not worried about a two-degree rise in the planet's temperature.
The question is heavily rhetorical, cataloguing ministerial incompetence and partisan attacks, with the actual ask â whether anyone will denounce the minister's denial of climate change science â buried under the rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is coming from a minister who knows nothing but canned messages. It is an insult to the Canadians who came forward to defend their interests and raise their voices in defence of their communities and homes. However, this is only the latest minister from a long line of incompetents, from Bev Oda to Peter Penashue to the former minister of aboriginal affairs. Under the current Prime Minister, shocking incompetence seems to be the fast track to cabinet, and now we have a minister who denies the science of climate change. Is there not anyone over there who will stand up and denounce this bogus claim, or do the Conservatives still believe that all scientists are not actually worried about a two-degree rise in this planet's temperature?
Kent asserts the government takes the science of climate change very seriously, is abiding by its commitment to the Copenhagen accord, and is halfway to achieving its 2020 targets, while attacking the NDP carbon tax.
Kent affirms the government takes climate change science seriously and references the Copenhagen accord and 2020 targets, partially addressing the climate science question but pivoting to attacking the NDP carbon tax proposal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this gives me a chance again to say that our government in fact does take very seriously the science of climate change and does take real actions, not the picking of the pockets of hard-working Canadians for a carbon tax that will increase the cost of just about everything but not reduce a single megatonne of greenhouse gases. We are abiding by our commitment to the Copenhagen accord and we are halfway to achieving our 2020 targets.
Norlock asks the Minister of Public Safety to update the House on actions taken to ensure Canadians are kept safe following the Boston Marathon explosions.
This is a government-backbench softball setup giving the minister an open platform to comment on the Boston Marathon explosions with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on Monday we were shocked to see the explosions that rocked the finish line of the Boston Marathon. We have seen many moving stories of exhausted runners reaching the finish line only to continue running to the nearest hospital to give blood. In light of this act of senseless violence, can the Minister of Public Safety please update this House on actions taken by our government to ensure Canadians are kept safe from those who wish to harm us?
Toews expresses condolences, states Canadian authorities are at a heightened state of vigilance, that Canada stands ready to assist American neighbours, and that CBSA and the RCMP are working to keep Canadians safe.
Toews expresses condolences, states that Canadian authorities are at a heightened state of vigilance, and specifies that CBSA and the RCMP are working to ensure Canadians are kept safe, providing relevant operational context.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I want to express my deepest sympathies to the families of those who lost their lives in this horrific crime as well as those were injured. Canada condemns these senseless acts of violence. We stand ready to assist our American neighbours in any way we can. I also want to assure Canadians that our authorities are at a heightened state of vigilance, and we are assisting Canadians on the ground. CBSA and the RCMP are working to ensure that Canadians are kept safe from those who wish to harm us.
Duncan challenges the Minister of Natural Resources for claiming people are not as worried about climate change as they once were, and asks how he expects to be taken seriously in Washington next week given $162 million in cuts to the clean energy fund.
Duncan quotes the Minister of Natural Resources's specific claim, cites a $162 million cut to the clean energy fund, and poses a pointed question about credibility ahead of a Washington trip, though the ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources made the outrageous claim that people are not as worried about climate change as they once were and that their fears are exaggerated. His misguided beliefs are reinforced by the drastic cuts he has made to his department, including $162 million from the clean energy fund. How does the minister expect to be taken seriously when he goes to Washington next week to sell Canada's pipeline when he is living in fantasyland?
Kent deflects to the Liberal government's 13-year record, arguing GHG emissions actually went up more than 30% despite their Kyoto commitment, and states the current government has a plan that is working.
Kent deflects entirely to the Liberal government's record on Kyoto and rising GHG emissions, never addressing the $162 million clean energy fund cut or the Washington trip credibility question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government is always delighted to compare our record against that of the previous Liberal government. For 13 years the Liberals merely paid lip service to the environment. Despite their signature on a hastily conceived and hastily considered commitment to the Kyoto accord, GHG emissions in Canada actually went up more than 30%. We have a plan. Our plan is working.
Donnelly asks the minister to reopen the Kitsilano Coast Guard station, citing the death of a man on a freighter in English Bay and a nearly 40-minute paramedic response time following the station's closure.
Donnelly cites a specific recent death on a freighter in English Bay and the 40-minute response time, linking it directly to the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station, and poses a clear reopening demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the death of a man on a freighter in English Bay last week has raised new questions about the reckless Conservative decision to close the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. It took paramedics nearly 40 minutes to reach the patient. It was a reckless and dangerous decision to close this station. Will the minister now do the right thing and reopen the Kitsilano Coast Guard station before another tragedy occurs?
Ashfield states that since the closure on February 19, 2013, the Sea Island station responded to 37 search and rescue incidents involving 47 lives at risk, with the CCG hovercraft consistently achieving a reaction time of less than 10 minutes, well within the national service standard of 30 minutes.
Ashfield provides specific operational data â 37 search and rescue incidents, 47 lives at risk, and a reaction time of less than 10 minutes since the February 19 closure â directly countering the claim about inadequate response, though he does not address the specific freighter death.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the facts are that since the closure of the Canadian Coast Guard station in Kitsilano base on February 19, 2013, the Canadian Coast Guard Sea Island station has responded to 37 search and rescue maritime distress incidents in the greater Vancouver area. These incidents involved 47 lives at risk. In all cases the CCG hovercraft has consistently had a reaction time of less than 10 minutes after receiving the tasking, which is well within the national service standards of 30 minutes.
Sopuck asks the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages how Margaret Thatcher will be remembered and honoured in Canada.
This is a government-backbench commemorative softball with no accountability dimension, purely inviting the minister to eulogise Margaret Thatcher.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today our Prime Minister, alongside Her Majesty The Queen and with many other dignitaries from around the world, is among the many mourners in London remembering and honouring the life of a truly inspiring leader, Margaret Thatcher. Baroness Thatcher, also affectionately known as the Iron Lady, will always be remembered as one of the greatest politicians and leaders of our age. She changed history. Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages please tell this House how Margaret Thatcher will be remembered and honoured in Canada?
Moore recalls Thatcher's humble origins as a grocer's daughter, her rise to become the first female prime minister of Great Britain, her three terms, and her legacy as a champion of freedom and liberty and of fighting Communism, saluting her life and legacy on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Moore provides substantive biographical and political content about Thatcher's three terms, her origins, and her legacy as a champion of freedom and fighting Communism, delivering a complete and informative tribute on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today we do remember the life of Margaret Thatcher, who rose from humble beginnings as a grocer's daughter to become the first female prime minister of Great Britain. Margaret Thatcher was a true leader who had a strong vision for her country and was proud of her values and her principles. During her three terms as prime minister, Margaret Thatcher was a true champion of freedom and liberty and of fighting Communism around the world. She inspired millions around the world to the cause of freedom. On behalf of the Prime Minister, I join all Canadians in saluting the life and legacy of Lady Thatcher.
Freeman states that constituents had their EI benefits cut without notice, contrary to assurances from the directeur de territoire des Laurentides et de l'Outaouais, and asks when the Conservatives will stop attacking Canadians.
Freeman cites a specific assurance from a directeur de territoire that benefits would not be cut without all parameters being considered, and references constituents whose benefits were cut without notice, but the ask ('when will Conservatives stop attacking Canadians') is vague.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ça paraĂźt qu'en matiĂšre d'assurance-emploi, les conservateurs n'ont pas fait d'Ă©tude d'impact. Plusieurs de mes concitoyens se sont fait sauvagement « couper » leurs prestations sans prĂ©avis. Le directeur de territoire des Laurentides et de l'Outaouais nous avait pourtant assurĂ© qu'il Ă©tait impossible que des prestations soient « coupĂ©es » sans que tous les paramĂštres aient Ă©tĂ© pris en compte. On nous a dit que jamais les prestataires ne verraient leurs prestations « coupĂ©es » sans prĂ©avis. Quand est-ce que les conservateurs vont arrĂȘter de s'attaquer aux Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Conservatives have not done an impact study on changes to employment insurance. A number of my constituents have had their benefits cruelly cut off, without any forewarning. Yet the director of the Laurentides and Outaouais area had assured us that there was no way any benefits would be cut off without all factors being taken into account. We were told that claimants would never see their benefits cut off without warning. When are the Conservatives going to stop these attacks on Canadians?
Finley states that the EI system is there to support unemployed workers, that improvements were made to help people find jobs, and that the government will continue helping people find employment, unlike the NDP.
Finley describes the purpose of employment insurance and improvements to job-search support without addressing the specific cuts without notice or the directeur de territoire's assurance.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le systÚme de l'assurance-emploi est là pour fournir un soutien financier aux chÎmeurs lorsqu'ils perdent leur emploi. Nous avons amélioré le systÚme pour qu'il les appuie dans leur recherche d'emploi. Nous y avons ajouté des moyens de voir les postes disponibles dans le domaine de leurs compétences et dans leur région. Nous allons continuer à aider les gens à trouver un autre emploi, contrairement au NPD.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, employment insurance is there to provide financial support to people who have lost their jobs. We have improved the system so that it can support people during their job search. We have added ways for people to see the jobs that are available in their field and their region. Unlike the NDP, we will continue to help people find new jobs.
Fortin asks whether the Prime Minister will make public the information contained in federal archives regarding the events leading to the proclamation of the Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, noting that all parties at the Assemblée nationale du Québec unanimously called for this.
Fortin notes that all parties at the Assemblée nationale du Québec united across partisan lines to demand access to federal archives on the events leading to the proclamation of the Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, posing a specific access request to the Prime Minister.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, tous les partis reprĂ©sentĂ©s Ă l'AssemblĂ©e nationale du QuĂ©bec, autant les partis fĂ©dĂ©ralistes que les partis souverainistes, se sont Ă©levĂ©s au-dessus des lignes partisanes dans un dossier fondamental pour la nation quĂ©bĂ©coise. Ensemble, ils ont parlĂ© d'une voix pour rĂ©clamer que toute la lumiĂšre soit faite sur les Ă©vĂ©nements qui ont conduit Ă la proclamation de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982. Ils ont demandĂ© que le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral donne accĂšs Ă toute l'information contenue dans ses archives. Est-ce que le premier ministre va agir et ĂȘtre Ă la hauteur de sa fonction dans ce dossier, dĂ©laisser toute partisanerie dans laquelle se complaisent aussi les libĂ©raux et le NPD et rendre publics les renseignements?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, all of the parties represented in the Quebec National Assemblyâboth federalist and sovereignist partiesârose above party lines to address an issue that is fundamental to the Quebec nation. They joined together to call for clarification on the events leading to the proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1982. They are asking the federal government to give access to all the information contained in its archives. Will the Prime Minister take action, rise to the occasion, set partisanship asideâpartisanship that the Liberals and the NDP were all too happy to participate inâand make this information public?
Lebel says the government is not interested in reviving old constitutional quarrels, states that the Supreme Court of Canada is addressing what happened under the 1982 Liberal Trudeau government, and says decisions on federal documents rest with lawyers and officials responsible for access to information decisions under the law.
Lebel refuses to engage with the specific archival access request, states the government is not interested in reviving old constitutional quarrels, and redirects to the economic action plan.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous ne sommes pas intĂ©ressĂ©s Ă ranimer de vieilles querelles constitutionnelles. La Cour suprĂȘme du Canada s'occupe de dĂ©terminer ce qui s'est passĂ© Ă l'Ă©poque du gouvernement libĂ©ral Trudeau de 1982. La dĂ©cision en ce qui a trait aux documents fĂ©dĂ©raux relĂšve des avocats et des fonctionnaires chargĂ©s de prendre les dĂ©cisions relativement Ă l'accĂšs Ă l'information, conformĂ©ment Ă la loi. Nous, nous avons un plan d'action Ă©conomique, et c'est Ă cela qu'on va travailler.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have no interest in revisiting old constitutional squabbles. The Supreme Court of Canada is responsible for determining what happened during the time of Trudeau's Liberal government in 1982. Lawyers and public servants are responsible for making decisions regarding access to information for federal documents, in accordance with the law. We have an economic action plan and that is what we will be working on.
Mauril BĂ©langer (Lib) and Craig Scott (NDP) raised a question of privilege, arguing that a Globe and Mail article by Steven Chase suggested Conservative caucus members had seen the text of the electoral reform bill while it was still on notice and before it was introduced in the House, which they said constituted a breach of parliamentary privilege and contempt of the House. Peter Van Loan (CPC), Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, responded that no draft copies of the legislation were circulated, displayed, or provided at any Conservative caucus meeting that day, and that the members raising the privilege question were relying on facts asserted in a news article written by someone who was not present at the meeting.
- Lib Mauril BĂ©langer
- NDP Mr. Craig Scott
- CPC Peter Van Loan
- Mr. Marc Garneau
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning the disclosure of information contained in legislation not yet introduced in the House of Commons. This arises from a story written by Steven Chase in The Globe and Mail and published this afternoon at 1:36 eastern daylight time. I would like to quote portions of that article. âThe...government is temporarily delaying the introduction of its electoral reform legislation following a discussion in Conservative caucus Wednesday morningâ. Sources say Tory MPs, in the closed-door meeting, âraised concernsâ about how some sections of the bill were drafted and suggested rewrites. âAsked for comment Wednesday afternoon...the minister of state for democratic reform said the Tories found some last-minute problems with the new billâ. One of the lines that I quoted implies that instead of any general briefing and discussion on the orientation of the awaited bill, the Conservative caucus may have been provided with actual text of the draft bill, which is yet to be introduced, and as such, should have remained secret. This is why, whether they are private bills or government bills, when they are being drafted, they are printed secretly. It is also worth noting that the Conservative caucus may imply that some persons other than the Conservative parliamentarians may have had access to this. We have in our caucus non-parliamentarians who participate, and I suspect it may be the same for other caucuses as well. If the yet-to-be-seen text has already been introduced specifically, this may very well constitute a serious breach of parliamentary privilege. I would like to quote the 40th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in 2001, where such an incident had occurred. The Committee reiterates its position that it views the disclosure of bills prior to their tabling in the House of Commons, while on notice, with extreme seriousness. Members of the committee are committed to protecting the privileges of the House of Commons and of its Members in this regard. Given the possibilities that are before us, I would ask that you undertake an investigation to see exactly what happened, and if indeed text of legislation that was yet to be introduced had been presented to a caucus. That would be a serious breach of privilege. If you do find that a prima facie case of privilege exists, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reinforce the points that were just made. It has been reinforced many times that the normal procedure for a government bill, once placed on notice, is that the bill be kept confidential until introduced in Parliament. If what we heard is true, for a few select parliamentarians to be able to view the content of government bills prior to the rest of their colleagues in the House damages the integrity, the dignity and the authority of the House of Commons. I do believe that there is a prima facie case of contempt of the House and breach of privileges, my privilege as the member for TorontoâDanforth, as well as the breach of privileges of all my colleagues in this House who have yet to see the contents of the aforementioned bill. The reports that appeared earlier this afternoon, at 1:07 p.m. precisely, in an article by Steven Chase of The Globe and Mail, do suggest that certain members of the Conservative caucus had access to the content of this new bill, which is currently on the notice paper, prior to the rest of the members of this House. Given the seriousness of the matter of prematurely disclosing the content of a bill, it is my duty as a member of Parliament to bring this question to the attention of the Chair and to this House at the earliest opportunity. In that article, Steven Chase said that sources say Tory MPs, in the closed door meeting, âraised concernsâ about how some sections of the bill were drafted and suggested rewrites. The bill being mentioned, I should emphasize, if that is not clear, is the one that has been put on the notice paper yesterday by a minister of cabinet, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, entitled âAn act to enact the Canada political financing act and to amend the Canada Elections Act and other actsâ. The Globe article, by advancing that some MPs have expressed concerns about specific sections of the bill, clearly implies that those Conservative MPs have had access to a copy of the bill that is still on the notice paper and has yet to be introduced for first reading in this House. We will definitely need clarification on whether or not they have seen the text of the bill. The question of the premature disclosure of a bill has been raised multiple times before this House. For instance, on March 14, 2001, the member for Provencher at the time, who is now the Minister of Public Safety, rose on a question of privilege regarding a briefing the Department of Justice held for members of the media where there was discussion regarding a bill not yet introduced in the House, Bill C-15 of the 37th Parliament, while denying access of the same information to all members of Parliament. Speaker Milliken at the time ruled that this constituted a prima facie case of contempt. He said the following: In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation. These were in the Debates of March 19, 2001. In a similar case raised on October 2001, the member for West VancouverâSunshine Coast at the time rose on a question of privilege regarding Bill C-36 in the 37th Parliament, arguing that before the tabling of the bill the National Post newspaper had reported its content and indicated it had been briefed by officials from the Department of Justice. On October 15, Speaker Milliken ruled there was a prima facie case of privilege, noting the matter was similar to the one I just discussed from March 2001. In October 2009, the member for Joliette raised a question of privilege regarding Bill C-52, and again this question of privilege was validated by the Speaker. Finally, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose on a question of privilege, in 2010, concerning the premature disclosure of a private member's bill, arguing that the member for St. Paul's had been given notice of a bill and then posted a copy of the draft on her website before it was read a first time in the House. The matter was dropped when the member apologized, but the Speaker did remind members: It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills that it will consider. Therefore, there is abundant precedent that establishes that a bill, once placed on notice, must be kept confidential until introduced in Parliament. For a few selected parliamentarians to have been able to view the content of the bill in question today prior to the rest of their colleagues is unacceptable and seriously damages the integrity, dignity and authority of the House of Commons. I believe that this matter should not be taken lightly and should be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a complete study. I would add that it is all the more serious that the interventions within the Conservative caucus resulted in it being decided that the bill would not be tabled on the day the minister said it would be. That means that they have had an earlier vantage point on the bill than we have had. Under the minister's announced scheme, we would be debating this next Wednesday in the House. If he had not been convinced to pull it back, the members of the Conservative caucus would have seen it a week in advance of any attempt by our caucus to discuss the same bill. It is not just the fact that this was looked at today and withdrawn; it is the fact that had nothing occurred and the bill had gone forward, the Conservative caucus would have had a week's advantage.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my two hon. friends for raising this point, as they have done, at the earliest possible opportunity. That is one of the disadvantages they labour under. The other disadvantage is that they are asserting facts about a meeting that they did not attend and are relying on assertions from a news article written by somebody who also was not in attendance at the subject meeting. I can clarify this matter fairly simply to make it clear that in the case of this caucus meeting on this particular legislation that is on notice in draft form, there were no draft copies of this legislation circulated at any caucus meeting that the Conservative Party held today. There were no draft copies displayed for anybody to review at this meeting. There were no sections of the bill on display, and there were no excerpts provided. None of what he is alleging, in fact, happened. I can assure him, with 100% certainty, notwithstanding the normal practice of not discussing what happens in caucus, that this is something that did not happen in caucus. Therefore, I feel quite comfortable discussing it here on the floor of the House for all Canadians to hear. While the hon. member for TorontoâDanforth, I agree, has an abundance of precedents, what he lacks are any facts. The fact is that what the members are alleging simply did not occur.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your attention a correction required in the written record of Hansard on Monday, during the debate on the NDP opposition motion. After the member for KamloopsâThompsonâCariboo spoke, I had the opportunity to ask her a question, which was, essentially, how the government would deal with the more than $100 billion it has added to the national debt. Unfortunately, in the written record of Hansard, it says $100 million. Now, $100 million is a lot of money, but it is still 1,000 times less than the debt the government has added in the past seven years. I wanted everyone to know that the figure is over $100 billion.