Session overview
- The dominant theme was the federal approval of the northern gateway pipeline, with NDP and Liberal members pressing the government on risks to British Columbia's coast, first nations consultation, and the absence of B.C. Conservative MPs defending the decision.
- The government repeatedly justified conditional approval of northern gateway by citing an independent science and fact-based review panel that held 180 days of hearings, heard from 1,500 participants, and reviewed nearly 200,000 pages of evidence, resulting in 209 conditions imposed on the proponent Enbridge.
- First nations consultation obligations were a recurring flashpoint, with multiple opposition members arguing the government cannot subcontract the honour of the crown to Enbridge, while the government cited 72 days of aboriginal hearings and financing of 41 first nations to participate.
- Privacy and Bill C-13 generated a separate line of questioning, with NDP members arguing that the Supreme Court's Spencer decision contradicted the government's legislative approach to warrantless access to subscriber information, while the Minister of Justice maintained the decision validated the existing framework.
- The Social Security Tribunal's wait times were disputed, with NDP members citing an eight-month average wait for decisions on EI appeals, while the Minister of State for Social Development denied any EI backlog and acknowledged only a CPP backlog.
- A points-of-order exchange at the end of the sitting saw Nathan Cullen seek unanimous consent to move a motion declaring that opponents of northern gateway are not radicals, following an alleged remark by the member for South ShoreâSt. Margaret's; the request failed and the member denied making the statement.
The Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities confirmed specific, verifiable facts: the gas tax fund had been doubled and made permanent with indexing, the new Building Canada fund was open for applications, one project (a public transit project in Edmonton) had already been approved, and applications had already been received from Prince Edward Island.
Quotes directly from yesterday's announcement that Enbridge 'clearly has more work to do' with Aboriginal groups and invokes the specific constitutional doctrine of the honour of the crown, making a precise and legally grounded accountability ask.
Rather than addressing why B.C. Conservative MPs were not publicly defending the northern gateway decision, the Prime Minister deflected entirely by attacking Mulcair over the NDP mailing and offices controversy, providing no substantive response to the question asked.
Outstanding questions
- Why are none of the 21 British Columbia Conservative MPs publicly defending the northern gateway pipeline decision to their constituents? (asked by Thomas Mulcair and repeatedly by Nathan Cullen)
- Given that the government's own spill-response plan relies on chemicals banned by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, how does the government justify the environmental risk of the northern gateway pipeline to B.C.'s coastal fisheries and tourism jobs? (asked by Thomas Mulcair)
- Will the government ensure that the process to replace Mr. Justice LeBel at the Supreme Court is open, transparent, accountable and participatory, and what steps are being taken to address the under-representation of women on the court? (asked by Irwin Cotler)
- Will the government tighten the rules on pyrrhotite to prevent further victims, given that the judge found the existing rules were not stringent enough and that the government has the capacity and duty to strengthen them? (asked by Robert Aubin)
- What specific measures has the Minister of Transport taken to ensure that airport screening requirements do not prevent transgender and gender-variant individuals from travelling to, from, or within Canada during WorldPride? (asked by Randall Garrison)
Mulcair asks the Prime Minister to explain why approving the northern gateway pipeline is worth putting 45,000 British Columbia coastal jobs at risk.
Cites a specific figure (45,000 coastal jobs) and a prior government characterization ('vital interest') but frames the ask with heavy partisan rhetoric about ministers hiding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for three years the Prime Minister and his cabinet have been out there shilling for the northern gateway pipeline, saying that it was of âvital interestâ. Now not a single Conservative minister is available to explain the decision to Canadians. If no B.C. Conservatives will defend this decision, will the Prime Minister please explain to us why approving this pipeline is worth putting 45,000 British Columbia coastal jobs at risk?
Harper says the government acted on the advice of an independent scientific panel and imposed its conditions, and that it is now up to the proponent to satisfy the regulator.
Deflects by attributing a blanket anti-development position to the NDP and offers only a general process defence without addressing the 45,000 jobs figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, we are well aware of the NDP's opposition to all resource development and its view that all resource development is a disease on the economy. The fact of the matter is that the government is acting on the advice of an independent scientific panel that thoroughly reviewed these matters. The government has applied the conditions demanded by that panel. It is now up to the proponent to assure the regulator going forward that it will indeed comply with those conditions.
Mulcair sarcastically asks why all 21 B.C. Conservative MPs are refusing to publicly defend the northern gateway pipeline approval.
Entirely rhetorical â the 'witness protection program' line is a taunt about the absence of B.C. Conservative MPs, with no factual grounding or answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in that case, can the Prime Minister please explain, if this reckless pipeline through British Columbia's most pristine wilderness is actually in the interest of all British Columbians, why every single one of his 21 British Columbia MPs has entered the witness protection program?
Harper deflects by comparing Mulcair's silence on his own office mailing and expenses controversy to ministers' willingness to answer questions.
Harper counter-attacks by referencing Mulcair's office mailing controversy rather than engaging with any aspect of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is interesting, coming from a leader who has apparently entered the witness protection program when it comes to the mailing and running of his own offices. I hope that he is just as ready to explain his actions when he is called upon, as, of course, all members of the government are.
Mulcair asks how the Prime Minister can claim the deck was not stacked in favour of the project given the removal of environmental assessment requirements and the exclusion of pipelines from the navigable waters protection law via an omnibus bill.
Raises specific legislative actions â the omnibus bill and changes to the navigable waters protection requirement for pipelines â to challenge the independence of the review process, though the ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre a enlevĂ© toutes les entraves Ă cet olĂ©oduc, allant jusqu'Ă saborder toutes les exigences lĂ©gislatives en ce qui concerne les Ă©valuations environnementales. Il est mĂȘme allĂ© jusqu'Ă utiliser la fameuse loi omnibus pour dire que dorĂ©navant, pour les olĂ©oducs seulement, la Loi sur la protection des eaux navigables n'existait plus. Si tel est le cas, comment le premier ministre peut-il oser prĂ©tendre qu'il n'a pas pipĂ© les dĂ©s en faveur de ce projet? C'Ă©tait dĂ©cidĂ© d'avance. Pourquoi ne l'avoue-t-il pas finalement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister removed all of the barriers to this pipeline, going so far as to scuttle all of the legislative requirements with respect to environmental assessments. He even went so far as to use one of his notorious omnibus bills to say that pipelines, and only pipelines, are no longer subject to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. If that is the case, how can the Prime Minister possibly deny that he stacked the deck in favour of the pipeline? It was a done deal. Why does he not just admit it?
Harper cites the scope of the independent panel's review â 180 days of hearings, 1,500 participants, 9,000 submissions, 200,000 pages of evidence, and 200 conditions â as evidence of rigour.
Harper provides concrete process statistics (180 days of hearings, 1,500 participants, 9,000 submissions, 200,000 pages, 200 conditions) but does not address the specific legislative changes Mulcair cited.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on doit examiner la réalité: un groupe d'experts indépendants a tenu des audiences publiques et a révisé des centaines de pages de preuves. Let me just speak to the fact that the inquiry panel held 180 days of hearings. It heard from 1,500 participants, received more than 9,000 written submissions, and reviewed almost 200,000 pages of evidence. It asked for some 200 conditions to be imposed on the project. That is what the government has done, and it is now up to the company to assure the regulator going forward that it will, in fact, implement those conditions.
Mulcair asks whether the Prime Minister expects Canadians to trust Enbridge given its poor record, exemplified by the Kalamazoo spill and the U.S. government's 'Keystone Kops' description, and given that the conservative spill response plan relies on chemicals banned by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Raises specific factual claims â chemicals banned by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in the spill response plan, and the U.S. government's 'Keystone Kops' characterization of Enbridge after the Kalamazoo spill â giving it reasonable grounding despite rhetorical framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on sait tous qu'un dĂ©versement sur la cĂŽte de la Colombie-Britannique mettrait en pĂ©ril des milliers d'emplois dans l'industrie des pĂȘches et du tourisme. Toutefois, le plan des conservateurs en cas de dĂ©versement dĂ©pend de produits chimiques qui sont pourtant interdits par PĂȘches et OcĂ©ans Canada. Bref, les conservateurs proposent de crĂ©er un dĂ©sastre Ă©cologique pour en rĂ©parer un autre. Ce n'est pas nous qui avons dit qu'Enbridge Ă©tait une bande de clowns. C'est le gouvernement amĂ©ricain qui les a traitĂ©s de « Keystone Kops », vu leur ineptie dans le dĂ©versement de Kalamazoo. Est-ce Ă eux que le premier ministre veut que le public canadien se fie? Veut-il qu'il se fie Ă Enbridge, qui a ce piĂštre bilan?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we all know that a spill on the British Columbia coast would put thousands of fishing and tourism jobs in jeopardy. However, the Conservatives' plan for cleaning up spills involves using chemicals that are banned by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Simply put, the Conservatives are proposing to create one environmental disaster to fix another. We were not the ones who called Enbridge a bunch of clowns. It was the American government that called them âKeystone Kopsâ because of how they bungled the Kalamazoo spill. Is that who the Prime Minister wants Canadians to trust? He wants them to trust Enbridge, with their pitiful record?
Harper says an independent scientific panel analysed the project and its findings did not confirm the effects the NDP leader described, and closes by accusing the NDP of ignoring facts regarding its own parliamentary budget.
Harper says the independent scientific panel's findings did not confirm the effects Mulcair described, but does not address the banned chemicals claim or the Kalamazoo record, then deflects to NDP's parliamentary budget.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, un groupe d'experts scientifiques indépendants a analysé ce projet et le gouvernement a agi selon ses recommandations. In terms of the various effects that the hon. leader of the NDP laid out, those were not the findings of the panel. It was quite the contrary. The government has to base its findings on the facts and on the hearings as they transpired. The government is not as free as the NDP to simply ignore the facts and ignore the rules, as it does with its own parliamentary budget.
Mulcair, quoting yesterday's announcement that Enbridge 'clearly has more work to do' with Aboriginal groups, asks whether the Prime Minister understands that the honour of the crown in dealing with first nations is the government's constitutional responsibility and cannot be subcontracted to Enbridge.
Quotes directly from yesterday's announcement that Enbridge 'clearly has more work to do' with Aboriginal groups and invokes the specific constitutional doctrine of the honour of the crown, making a precise and legally grounded accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here are the facts: the highest level of the U.S. administration, after Enbridge was responsible for the worst spill in U.S., called Enbridge âthe Keystone Kopsâ. It called them a bunch of clowns, not us. Yesterday's announcement said that Enbridge: âclearly has more work to do in order to fulfill the public commitment it has made to engage with Aboriginal groups and local communities along the route. Does the Prime Minister not understand that it engages the honour of the crown to deal with first nations? That is the government; that is his responsibility. He cannot subcontract the honour of the crown to Enbridge.
Harper says Aboriginal consultation is part and parcel of the review process and cites 72 days of Aboriginal hearings and financing of 41 first nations to participate, before accusing the NDP of lobbying in Washington against Canadian projects.
Harper provides some specific figures on Aboriginal consultation (72 days of hearings, 41 first nations financed) but does not address the constitutional argument about the honour of the crown being non-delegable to Enbridge, then deflects to NDP lobbying in Washington.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, of course that is not the case. Aboriginal consultation is part and parcel of the review process. I would just point out that there were 72 days of hearings from aboriginal groups to share their views, including on traditional knowledge, and 41 first nations were, indeed, financed to enhance their participation in the project. There are a range of views among those groups. Those are the facts. Speaking of the American government, we know about the lobbying of the NDP in Washington to actually block Canadian projects from going forward. That is how fanatical the NDP is in its opposition to development, something that Canadians do not support.
Trudeau asks why the Prime Minister approved northern gateway given that the B.C. government says it has not met the crucial condition of being in B.C.'s economic interest, and that B.C. first nations and communities say it threatens thousands of jobs.
Grounds the question in the B.C. government's specific stated position that the pipeline has not met the condition of being in B.C.'s economic interest, and identifies a clear ask, though the framing is fairly standard opposition rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the British Columbia government says that the northern gateway pipeline has not met the crucial condition of being in B.C.'s economic interest. B.C. first nations and communities have been clear that this project threatens the thousands of jobs that rely on a healthy Pacific north coast. If the province, its citizens and first nations firmly oppose this pipeline, why did the Prime Minister say yes?
Harper says the government is obliged by law to respond to the findings of an independent scientific panel and that it has imposed some 200 conditions, with the regulator now tasked with ensuring compliance.
Harper restates the government's legal obligation to respond to the independent panel and the 200 conditions, but does not address B.C.'s stated economic-interest objection at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is obliged by law to respond to the findings of an expert scientific independent panel. It spent many months examining this project and consulting the public and other affected interests. As a consequence, the government has imposed some 200 conditions on the project and the regulator is now tasked with ensuring that the company, the proponent fulfills those conditions moving forward.
Trudeau asks why the Harper government approved northern gateway over the objections of B.C., first nations and environmental groups, citing a 2007 Conservative pledge to preserve the Great Bear Rainforest for generations to come.
Cites a specific 2007 Conservative commitment to preserve the Great Bear Rainforest 'for the generations to come' and a promise to co-operate with B.C., first nations and environmental groups, giving it some factual grounding, but the ask is broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government's approval of the northern gateway pipeline places the Great Bear Rainforest at extreme risk, quite a difference from 2007 when the Conservatives said that this was an ancient forest whose integrity had to be preserved for the generations to come. After promising to co-operate with the B.C. government, first nations and environmental groups to protect the Great Bear and its economy, why did the Harper government approve a pipeline over all their objections?
Oh, oh!
Harper invokes the former Trudeau government's hostility to western energy and says this government acted to promote the Great Bear Rainforest, adding that the scientific finding does not confirm the threat and that 200 conditions remain to be fulfilled.
Harper dismisses the threat claim by saying the scientific finding does not confirm it and mentions 200 conditions, but does not address the 2007 commitment or explain why co-operation with B.C. and first nations was abandoned; he deflects with a reference to the former Trudeau government.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, we are all familiar with the long history of the deep hostility of the former Trudeau government to everything in the western energy industry. The reality is that this government has acted to promote the Great Bear Rainforest, something not supported by the Liberal Party at the time. That is what this government did. The scientific finding does not confirm any such threat as the member indicated. However, there are some 200 conditions that will have to be fulfilled for the regulator to approve any work going forward.
Trudeau asks the Prime Minister to withdraw approval of the northern gateway pipeline, arguing that environmental considerations and Indigenous community views were not taken into account and that the project poses enormous risk to B.C.'s coastal economy.
Asks the Prime Minister to withdraw approval, framed with general assertions about the environment and Indigenous communities and the B.C. coast economy, but offers no new specific facts beyond prior exchanges.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, contre vents et marées, le premier ministre a approuvé le projet d'oléoduc Northern Gateway, hier. Non seulement les considérations environnementales et l'opinion des communautés autochtones n'ont pas été prises en considération, mais le risque est énorme pour l'économie cÎtiÚre de la Colombie-Britannique. Ce n'est pas le bon endroit pour un oléoduc. Ce premier ministre va-t-il enfin écouter la population et retirer son approbation?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, going against the tide, the Prime Minister approved the northern gateway pipeline project. Environmental considerations and the opinion of aboriginal communities were not taken into account. Not only that, but the risk to British Columbia's coastal economy is tremendous. It is not a good location for a pipeline. Will this Prime Minister finally listen to the public and reverse his decision to approve this project?
Harper says the government is following the recommendations of many scientists and independent experts and has imposed more than 200 conditions, accusing the Liberal Party of preaching but not practising evidence-based decision making.
Harper restates the independent panel process and 200 conditions and pivots to accusing the Liberal Party of not practising evidence-based decision making, without engaging the withdrawal request.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement suit les recommandations de nombreux scientifiques, experts et indépendants qui ont examiné ce projet pendant des mois. Il a imposé plus de 200 conditions pour la poursuite de ce projet. Once again, as I said, we are obviously following expert scientific advice here. This is something the Liberal Party preaches but never actually practices, and that is evidence-based decision making.
Leslie asks why the government is taking on all the risks of a pipeline carrying more than half a million barrels of bitumen per day across two mountain passes, 800 waterways, and difficult coastal waters at Kitimat â with a spill response plan relying on environmentally dangerous chemicals â instead of simply saying no to northern gateway.
Cites specific operational details (half a million barrels per day, two mountain passes, 800 waterways, difficult navigation at Kitimat) and raises the dangerous spill-response chemicals issue, but the ask â simply say no â is more rhetorical than analytically grounded.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le projet d'olĂ©oduc Northern Gateway va transporter plus d'un demi-million de barils de bitume par jour Ă travers deux cols montagneux et 800 cours d'eau. Ă Kitimat, les superpĂ©troliers devront transporter ce bitume le long de la cĂŽte de la Colombie-Britannique, oĂč il est trĂšs difficile de naviguer. Tout cela alors que le plan de sauvetage des conservateurs en cas de dĂ©versement est dangereux pour l'environnement. Pourquoi prendre tous ces risques au lieu de simplement dire non Ă Northern Gateway?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the northern gateway pipeline will move more than half a million barrels of bitumen a day through two mountain passes and 800 waterways. In Kitimat, supertankers will have to ship this bitumen along the coast of British Columbia, which is very difficult to navigate. What is more, the Conservatives' contingency plan in the event of a spill is not environmentally sound. Why take all these risks instead of just saying no to northern gateway?
Rickford says the decision is based on an independent scientific review committee's conclusions and that 209 conditions have been imposed, noting the panel heard from nearly 1,500 participants and reviewed nearly 175,000 pages of evidence.
Rickford cites the independent panel (209 conditions, 1,500 participants, 21 communities, 175,000 pages) but does not address the specific concerns about the mountain passes, the 800 waterways, the navigation difficulty at Kitimat, or the banned chemicals in the spill plan.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre décision est fondée sur les conclusions d'un comité d'examen scientifique indépendant. Nous avons imposé 209 conditions pour assurer que ce projet répond à des normes de sécurité élevées. Le comité a écouté prÚs de 1 500 participants de 21 communautés et revu prÚs de 175 000 pages de preuves. Le promoteur aura alors plus de travail, mais pas de consultations à faire auprÚs des communautés.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we made our decision based on the findings of an independent scientific review panel. We imposed 209 conditions to ensure that this project meets high safety standards. The panel listened to almost 1,500 participants from 21 communities and reviewed close to 175,000 pages of evidence. The developer will have more work to do, but will not have to hold consultations with communities.
Leslie asks why the Conservatives are not respecting B.C. citizens given that the majority of Canadians, the province as a whole, and virtually every municipality that held a referendum have said no to northern gateway, and given the Finance Minister's characterization of opponents as radicals.
Invokes polling (majority of Canadians opposed), municipal plebiscite results, and a ministerial characterization of opponents as 'radicals', but the ask â why not respect B.C. citizens â is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le ministre des Finances a traité tous ceux qui s'opposent à Northern Gateway de radicaux. Les conservateurs ont attaqué tous les opposants et bùillonné les communautés directement touchées par ce projet dangereux. Ce qu'ils ne réalisent pas, c'est que la majorité des Canadiens s'y opposent. La Colombie-Britannique a dit non en bloc. Les villes qui ont tenu un plébiscite ont aussi dit non. Pourquoi les conservateurs ne respectent-ils pas les citoyens de la Colombie-Britannique?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance called those who are opposed to northern gateway âradicalsâ. The Conservatives attacked all the opponents and muzzled the communities directly affected by this dangerous project. What they do not realize is that the majority of Canadians are opposed to this project. British Columbia roundly rejected this project. Cities that held a plebiscite also said no. Why are the Conservatives not respecting the people of British Columbia?
Rickford restates that the decision is based on an independent science and fact-based review panel, that 209 stringent conditions have been imposed, and that the proponent has said there is more work to do with communities along the route.
Rickford restates the independent panel process and 209 conditions verbatim from his prior answer, acknowledging only that the proponent has more work to do with communities, without addressing the 'radicals' remark or the poll and plebiscite figures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our decision is based on the conclusions of an independent science and fact-based review panel. We have imposed 209 stringent conditions to ensure this project meets the highest safety standards. The panel heard from nearly 1,500 participants in 21 communities and reviewed more than 175,000 pages of evidence. The proponent clearly has said that there is more work to do with communities along this route.
Rankin asks how the government can put tens of thousands of jobs and the multi-billion dollar tourism and fisheries industries at risk given that one study puts the likelihood of an oil spill on the B.C. coast at 90%.
Cites a study putting spill likelihood at 90% and the multi-billion dollar tourism and fisheries industries at risk, but the ask is broad and the study is not identified, limiting accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the northern gateway pipeline proposal is just wrong, wrong for British Columbia and wrong for Canada. The Conservatives want to force British Columbians to accept a pipeline that will put our communities, our environment and our economy at risk. The fact is that an oil spill on the pristine coast of British Columbia is almost a certainty. One study puts the likelihood at 90%. How can the government put tens of thousands of jobs and the multi-billion dollar tourism and fisheries industries at risk?
Rickford says projects will only move forward if safe for Canadians and the environment, cites the independent regulator's report and 209 stringent conditions, and says the proponent must show the regulator and Canadians that these conditions have been met.
Rickford restates the 209 conditions and the proponent's obligation to demonstrate compliance, but does not address the 90% spill-likelihood figure or quantify the risks to tourism and fisheries.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been clear that projects will only move forward if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. After carefully reviewing the independent regulator's science and fact-based report, the government accepts the recommendation to impose 209 stringent conditions on the project. It will be up to the proponent to show the regulator and to show Canadians that these conditions have been met.
Crowder asks whether the minister understands that the government's constitutional duty to consult first nations cannot be privatized, citing 130 first nations in opposition and the Prime Minister's own appointee Douglas Eyford's finding that the government failed to properly consult.
Cites a specific number (130 first nations in opposition) and names the Prime Minister's own appointee Douglas Eyford and his specific finding that the Conservative government failed to properly consult first nations, then poses a precise constitutional question about whether the duty to consult can be privatized.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is running roughshod over the rights of first nations and ramming through a pipeline that B.C. does not want. One hundred and thirty first nations have come out in opposition to northern gateway. Even the Prime Minister's own appointee, Douglas Eyford, says that the Conservative government has failed to properly consult with first nations. The minister says that it is now up to Enbridge. Does he understand his government's constitutional duty to consult cannot be privatized?
Rickford says the proponent has more work to do to re-engage with communities, references the government's response to the Eyford report as a first step, and says first nations are the largest private-sector beneficiaries of natural resources development.
Rickford acknowledges the proponent has more work to do and references the Eyford report response as a first step, but does not address the constitutional argument that the duty to consult cannot be privatized or delegated to Enbridge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the proponent has more work to do to re-engage with communities along this route. Our government is working to build a stronger relationship with Canada's first nations. Our response to the Eyford report is a first step to building stronger relationships with first nations on these opportunities. The natural resources sector is the largest private employer of first nations in Canada. First nations have, and will continue, to contribute and benefit as full partners in the development of our natural resources, in environmental stewardship and its economic benefits.
Davies asks why B.C. Conservative MPs, and specifically the Minister of Industry as senior federal minister for B.C., are ignoring their constituents given that over 60% of British Columbians, the UBCM and virtually every municipality along the pipeline route have said no to northern gateway.
Cites a 60% opposition polling figure and the UBCM plus virtually every municipality along the route, but the closing question shifts to demanding a specific B.C. minister respond, which dilutes the accountability focus.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives refuse to listen. It is not only first nations that have said no to northern gateway; it is all of B.C. Over 60% of British Columbians have said that they do not want northern gateway threatening their coast and communities. The UBCM and virtually every municipality along the pipeline route has said no. Therefore, why are B.C. Conservative MPs ignoring their constituents? Let us start with the senior federal minister for B.C. What does the Minister of Industry have to say, or is he ducking under his desk?
Rickford repeats that the decision is based on an independent science and fact-based review panel and that 200 stringent conditions will be imposed, and that projects will only be approved if safe for Canadians and the environment.
Rickford repeats the boilerplate about the independent review panel and 200 conditions without addressing the polling figure, the UBCM resolution, or the absence of B.C. Conservative ministers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our decision is based upon the conclusions of an independent, science and fact-based review panel. After carefully reviewing the report, the government is accepting the recommendation to impose 200 stringent conditions upon the project. Our government has always been clear. The projects will only be approved if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.
Cullen asks what part of 'no' the Conservative government does not understand, given that 130 first nations, the province, municipalities, and two-thirds of all British Columbians have clearly and repeatedly said no to the northern gateway pipeline.
Reiterates the 130 first nations figure, the province, municipalities, and two-thirds of British Columbians opposing the pipeline, but 'exactly what part of no do you not understand' is a rhetorical ask with no specific answerable content.
Source text
However, Mr. Speaker, apparently it is not safe for any Conservative MP to stand and actually defend this project. There is something fundamental Conservatives do not seem to understand about this bad pipeline. The people of British Columbia just do not want it. A hundred and thirty first nations have said no. The province, the municipalities and two-thirds of all British Columbians have told the current government clearly, time and time again, ânoâ. Exactly what part of ânoâ does the Conservative government not understand?
Rickford repeats that projects will only move forward if safe for the environment and Canadians, that the government accepts the panel's recommendation to impose 209 conditions, and that the proponent must show the regulator these conditions have been met.
Rickford delivers an identical boilerplate answer about the independent panel and 209 conditions without engaging with the specific claim that a democratic majority in B.C. opposes the project.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been clear. The projects will only move forward if they are safe for the environment and safe for Canadians. After carefully reviewing the independent regulator's science and fact-based report, the government accepts the recommendation from the panel to impose 209 conditions upon the project. It will be up to the proponent to show the regulator, to show Canadians that these conditions have been met.
Cullen invokes a former Conservative principle against imposing energy projects in western Canada without western agreement, accuses the government of stacking the deck, gutting environmental laws and bullying first nations, and asks whether any B.C. Conservative MP is willing to stand and defend the northern gateway project.
Invokes a historical conservative principle against imposing energy projects without western agreement and accuses the government of stacking the deck and gutting environmental laws, but the central ask â will any B.C. Conservative MP stand up â is purely rhetorical and unanswerable as posed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, suddenly the members of The Flat Earth Society believe in science in making decisions. I remember the days when Conservatives used to say that we should never impose energy projects in western Canada without the agreement of western Canadians. Then along came the Enbridge northern gateway and a Conservative government stacking the deck, gutting environmental laws and trying to bully first nations. The time has come for these guys to stand up for western Canada. Is any Conservative B.C. MP willing to stand on his or her feet to defend this bad project?
Rickford says Canada's environmental standards are stronger than ever, praises the independent panels, says the government has improved pipeline, marine and offshore safety, and that companies rather than taxpayers are held responsible in the remote case of an incident.
Rickford offers generic talking points about Canada's environmental standards being stronger than ever and improved pipeline and marine safety, without addressing the historical principle cited, the gutting of environmental laws allegation, or the challenge for B.C. MPs to stand and respond.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's environmental standards are stronger than ever. We appreciate the hard work of these independent, science and fact-based panels to do their important work. We have improved pipeline, marine and offshore safety and are ensuring that companies, not taxpayers, are held responsible in the remote case of an incident. The provinces and territories agree. Important progress is being made to reform our regulatory system and strengthen environmental protection.
Cullen challenges Conservative MPs to stand up to the Prime Minister and the oil lobby and stand up for British Columbians on the northern gateway issue.
The question is almost entirely rhetorical, challenging Conservative MPs' courage rather than posing a specific, answerable question about policy or commitments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives obviously underestimate the power and the commitment of the people of my province. They underestimate the strength of first nations people. They underestimate the fact that they are more united now, that first nations and non-first nations are standing shoulder to shoulder against the government and its plans for our provinces. When are Conservative MPs going to find even an ounce of courage to stand up to the Prime Minister, stand up to the oil lobby and stand up for British Columbians?
Rickford states the proponent has more work to do to re-engage communities, references the Eyford report, and highlights the natural resource sector as the largest private employer of first nations people.
The minister offers general talking points about the Eyford report and first nations employment in natural resources without addressing the specific challenge posed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the proponent has more work to do to re-engage all communities along the route. Our government is working to build a stronger relationship with Canada's first nations. A response to the Eyford report is a first important step to building a relationship with first nation communities. The natural resource sector is the largest private employer of first nations people in Canada. First nations have, and will continue, to benefit and contribute to the environmental stewardship and economic benefits of responsible resource development.
Cullen challenges B.C. Conservative MPs, specifically the member for Port Moody, to justify supporting Enbridge northern gateway against the wishes of British Columbians and first nations.
The question is largely rhetorical, directed at unnamed Conservative MPs rather than the minister, with no specific answerable ask beyond partisan confrontation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, how about one last chance for one of these Conservative MPs, shall we? How about the member for Port Moody, the senior Conservative MP from B.C.? He can stand and tell the people of his riding why he is abandoning them in favour of serving the Prime Minister. The people of British Columbia understand that Enbridge northern gateway is a bad project for them, a terrible idea for first nations and a disaster waiting to happen for our environment. B.C. Conservatives are going to get the message now, or they are going to get it at the ballot box in 2015. How about standing now and showing a little courage in their convictions?
Rickford defends the decision by citing the independent science and fact-based review panel's conclusions, 209 stringent conditions, and the extensive review process involving nearly 1,500 participants and more than 175,000 pages of evidence.
Rickford provides concrete figures â 209 stringent conditions, nearly 1,500 participants, 21 communities, more than 175,000 pages of evidence â grounding the decision in the independent science and fact-based review panel, though he does not address the political challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our decision is based on the conclusions of an independent science and fact-based review panel. We have proposed 209 stringent conditions to ensure this project meets the highest standards. The panel heard from nearly 1,500 participants, 21 communities and reviewed more than 175,000 pages of evidence. There is no question that the proponent has more work to do with communities along the route.
Brison asks whether the Conservatives will reverse cuts to infrastructure spending â which he characterizes as 90% for next year â and invest in infrastructure to create full-time jobs, as recommended by experts like David Dodge.
Brison cites a specific figure â 27,000 full-time jobs lost since last year and a 90% cut in infrastructure spending for next year â and references a named expert, David Dodge, making the ask reasonably specific though also rhetorically framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are out of touch with the reality that people cannot raise a full-time family on part-time work. Since last year Canada has lost 27,000 full-time jobs. Wages are stagnant, and families are falling behind. However, we can fix this. Smart investments in infrastructure can create good full-time jobs, but the Conservatives have actually cut infrastructure spending by 90% for next year. Will the Conservatives listen to experts like David Dodge? Will they reverse these cuts? Will they invest in infrastructure and create good full-time jobs for Canadians right across the country?
Braid asserts the member is incorrect and misleading the House, claiming the government is making record investments, has doubled the gas tax fund, and is balancing the budget, without addressing the specific 90% cut figure.
Braid dismisses Brison's figures as incorrect without providing counter-data and pivots to general talking points about record investments, the gas tax fund, and budget balance without addressing the specific 90% cut claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again the member is incorrect. He is misleading the House. Here is the approach of our Conservative government with respect to infrastructure: We are making record investments. We have doubled the gas tax fund. Municipalities and provinces identified their own infrastructure priorities. We are spending within our means, and we are balancing the budget within the next year. On this side of the House, we will take that approach to the bank any day.
Easter asks why the government will not sign agreements with the provinces, citing a P.E.I. construction company that cut employees from 40 to 16 due to the 90% reduction in Building Canada fund funding until 2019.
Easter cites a specific source â Joe Murphy, executive director of the P.E.I. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association â and a concrete example of a company reducing employees from 40 in 2012 to 16 today, grounding the accountability question in real evidence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the reality of the government's decision to cut funding in the Building Canada fund by 90% until 2019 is having a devastating impact on jobs and the economy. Joe Murphy, executive director of the P.E.I. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association, said that jobs are being lost every day because the work cannot be done without the federal infrastructure dollars. One island construction company has reduced the number of employees from 40 in 2012 to 16 today. That is a cut of 60%. First the Conservatives cut, and now they will not deliver. Why will the government not sign on with the provinces?
Braid states the new Building Canada plan is open for business, the gas tax fund has been doubled, made permanent and indexed, one project has been approved in Edmonton, and Prince Edward Island has already submitted applications.
Braid provides some specifics â the doubled and indexed gas tax fund, the new Building Canada fund open for applications, one approved project in Edmonton, and applications received from Prince Edward Island â but does not directly respond to the job losses cited or the signing-on-with-provinces question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is the update on the new Building Canada plan. The gas tax fund has been doubled. It has been made permanent, and will be indexed moving forward. The new Building Canada fund is open for business. Applications are being received. One project has already been approved by the federal government, an important public transit project in Edmonton. The hon. member may not be aware, but project applications have already been received by his home province of Prince Edward Island.
Cotler asks what the minister is doing to ensure the process to replace juge Lebel will be open, transparent, accountable, and participatory, given concerns that appointing juge Mainville could contravene the Nadon decision and prolong the underrepresentation of women.
Cotler raises two specific concerns â potential conflict with the Nadon decision and underrepresentation of women â and asks a direct, answerable question about what the minister is doing to ensure an open, transparent, accountable, and participatory process for replacing the judge Lebel.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aprĂšs une deuxiĂšme nomination juridique contestĂ©e, le ministre et le premier ministre laissent planer le doute quant Ă la possibilitĂ© que le juge Mainville soit nommĂ© Ă la Cour suprĂȘme. Une telle nomination pourrait non seulement contrevenir Ă la dĂ©cision de la cour dans l'affaire Nadon, mais prolongerait la sous-reprĂ©sentation des femmes au plus haut tribunal. Cela Ă©tant et avec tant de juges quĂ©bĂ©cois de haut calibre, que fait le ministre pour s'assurer que le processus pour remplacer le juge Lebel sera ouvert, transparent, responsable et participatif?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, after a second disputed judicial appointment, the minister and the Prime Minister are raising suspicions about the possibility that Justice Mainville will be appointed to the Supreme Court. Not only could that appointment contravene the court's decision in the Nadon case, but it would prolong the under-representation of women on the highest court. Therefore, with so many high-calibre Quebec judges, what is the minister doing to ensure that the process to replace Justice Lebel will be open, transparent, responsible and participatory?
MacKay states that the Prime Minister made clear the Mainville appointment to the Appeal Court of Quebec has nothing to do with the Supreme Court opening, that the opening is not until November, and that no process has begun yet.
MacKay clarifies that the Mainville appointment is unrelated to the Supreme Court opening, notes the opening is not until November, and states no process has been undertaken, but does not address the specific asks about openness, transparency, accountability, and participation in the selection process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, as I believe he was here, the Prime Minister said clearly yesterday that the appointment of Mr. Justice Mainville to the Appeal Court of Quebec has nothing to do with the opening at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court opening of course is not available until November of this year, and in fact there has been no process undertaken to date with respect to the replacement of Mr. LeBel. I ask that the hon. member look forward to the future with optimism. We have a full complement of judges representing the province of Quebec. We are very aware of the need to keep that complement, and that is exactly what we will do.
Borg asks why the minister is sacrificing the right to privacy given that certain provisions of Bill C-13 â allowing companies to transmit personal information without judicial authorization â directly contradict the Spencer ruling.
Borg identifies a specific legal conflict between the Spencer ruling and provisions in Bill C-13 allowing companies to share personal information without judicial authorization, making a reasonably specific challenge to the minister.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ministre de la Justice prĂ©tend qu'un rĂ©cent jugement unanime de la Cour suprĂȘme dans l'arrĂȘt Spencer correspond Ă l'esprit de son projet de loi sur la cyberintimidation. Une chance que le ridicule ne tue pas! Certaines dispositions du projet de loi C-13 vont complĂštement Ă l'encontre de ce jugement. Il permet aux entreprises de transmettre des renseignements personnels sur leurs clients, et ce, sans avoir obtenu l'accord d'un juge. Le ministre n'est pas obligĂ© de sacrifier le droit Ă la vie privĂ©e pour lutter contre la cyberintimidation. Pourquoi le faire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice claims that a recent unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in Spencer is in keeping with the spirit of his cyberbullying bill. Fortunately, making a fool of oneself is not harmful to one's health. Some provisions of Bill C-13 run completely contrary to this ruling. The bill allows businesses to turn over their clients' personal information without a warrant from a judge. The minister does not have to sacrifice privacy in order to fight cyberbullying. Why is he doing that?
MacKay describes the Spencer decision as upholding a child pornography conviction, states the government will respect the Supreme Court decision, and asserts that Bill C-13 balances privacy rights with giving police the ability to enforce the law.
MacKay characterizes the Spencer case as a child pornography conviction and asserts Bill C-13 will respect the Supreme Court decision, but does not address the specific provision allowing companies to transmit personal information without a judge's authorization.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to do it. In fact, it is very important, as the member has pointed out, that we respect privacy but at the same time allow the police to do their important work. I remind the member and this House that the decision in Spencer was a child pornography case in which the Supreme Court in fact upheld the conviction on the possession and sent the distribution charge back for retrial. With respect to that charge, we will wait to see what happens. Regarding Bill C-13, the elements of this bill remain before Parliament. We will respect the Supreme Court's decision. We also believe that there are very compelling reasons to proceed forward and to ensure that we are putting the most protection in the hands of the police as far as their ability to enforce the law is concerned.
Angus asks why the Attorney General is misrepresenting the Spencer decision â which he says clearly establishes that obtaining private IP information without a warrant is illegal â in order to support the Conservatives' attack on the privacy rights of Canadians.
Angus poses a pointed accusation grounded in the Spencer decision and Bill S-4 with a clear accountability question, though framed in highly partisan language that somewhat dilutes its specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Liberal senators failed to stand up for the privacy rights of Canadians in their review of the snooping provisions in Bill S-4, and the Minister of Justice stands in the House and tries to tell Canadians that the Spencer decision last Friday was somehow a validation of the government's attack on privacy. The Supreme Court was clear. Obtaining private IP information on Canadians without a warrant is illegal. Why is the Attorney General, the man entrusted with upholding the Constitution, standing in Parliament and misrepresenting the conditions decided by the Supreme Court in order to support the Conservatives' attack on the privacy rights of Canadians?
MacKay quotes paragraph 73 of the Supreme Court decision on the declaratory provision and cites a statement by the member for WindsorâTecumseh supporting additional tools for police dealing with cyber crimes.
MacKay quotes paragraph 73 of the Supreme Court decision and cites a quote from the member for WindsorâTecumseh, but does not directly address the accusation of misrepresenting the conditions decided by the Supreme Court.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the actual Supreme Court decision, paragraph 73. It is a declaratory provision that confirms the existing common law powers of police officers to make enquiries as indicated by the fact that the section begins with the phrase âfor a greater certaintyâ. That is exactly what we have been saying. It is the same provision of Bill C-13. Here is another interesting quote: âour ability, with these amendments, to give additional tools to our police and prosecutors around what are cyber crimes. Some of that is cyber bullying...but it also expands our ability to deal with child pornography over the Internet. It would give some additional tools to the police for that purpose.... Who said that? The member for WindsorâTecumseh.
Boivin asks whether the minister intends to let Bill C-4, Bill C-13, and Bill C-31 pass into law only to be struck down, or whether he will redraft them to respect the court's rulings as his own people are recommending.
Boivin specifically names three bills â Bill C-4, Bill C-13, and Bill C-31 â and poses a binary choice between letting them pass to be struck down or redrafting them in line with court rulings, making it a reasonably specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister loves to do creative reading. The minister sees his laws being struck down and then claims somehow that he is winning. He is not fooling anyone, least of all the Supreme Court. The way the government is trying to roll back Canadians' privacy rights is not constitutional. Does the minister intend to allow bills like Bill C-4, Bill C-13, and Bill C-31 to pass into law just so they can also be struck down later, or will he respect the court's rulings and redraft these bills as even his own people are recommending?
MacKay quotes the Spencer ruling confirming that neither PIPEDA nor the Criminal Code voluntary disclosure provision gives police legal authority to access subscriber information, and states the government is bringing provisions to protect people from bullying online while giving police the ability to police the Internet.
MacKay quotes the Spencer decision on PIPEDA and the Criminal Code voluntary disclosure provision and asserts the government will balance privacy rights with police powers, but does not directly address whether the named bills will be redrafted.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where quoting exactly from the Supreme Court becomes creative reading, but let me note that upon the conviction of Mr. Spencer for possession of child pornography, the Supreme Court confirmed that neither PIPEDA nor the Criminal Code voluntary disclosure provision, re-enacted in Bill C-13, gives police the legal authority to access subscriber information related to the Internet protocol address. This is exactly what we have been saying. This is why we are not only bringing in provisions to protect people from bullying online, but we are also giving the police the ability to police the Internet and ensure that the law is being respected, and balancing that with privacy rights.
Boivin asks when the Conservatives will end their guerrilla war against the Supreme Court, citing their attempts to circumvent rulings, politicize judicial appointments, attack the Chief Justice, and freely interpret court decisions for partisan purposes.
Boivin raises multiple broad concerns â rolling back privacy rights, politicizing judicial appointments, attacking the Chief Justice, and misrepresenting court rulings â without focusing on a single specific answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court also says that you need a warrant to obtain people's information. Les Canadiens n'acceptent pas la guerre que mĂšnent les conservateurs contre la Cour suprĂȘme. Ils n'acceptent pas que les conservateurs tentent de contourner les jugements du plus haut tribunal. Ils n'acceptent pas que les conservateurs politisent le processus de nomination des juges. Ils n'apprĂ©cient vraiment pas que le premier ministre traĂźne dans la boue la juge en chef et que le ministre de la Justice interprĂšte librement les jugements de la Cour suprĂȘme selon ses intĂ©rĂȘts partisans, comme on vient de l'entendre. Quand les conservateurs vont-ils mettre fin Ă leur guĂ©rilla contre la Cour suprĂȘme?
MacKay states there is no war, that the Prime Minister has said he intends to respect the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court's decision, and defends juge Mainville's qualifications with 33 years as a member of the Quebec bar.
MacKay pivots almost entirely to defending juge Mainville's qualifications under section 3 of the Judges Act and his years at the Quebec bar, without addressing the broad question about ending the alleged guerrilla war against the Supreme Court.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il n'y a pas de guerre. Le premier ministre a dit clairement qu'il avait l'intention de respecter la lettre et l'esprit de la dĂ©cision de la Cour suprĂȘme. Let us be very clear. Mr. Justice Mainville is an eminently qualified Quebec jurist, with 33 years as a member of the Quebec bar. I think that is more than the member opposite. Under section 3 of the Judges Act, he is eminently qualified and eligible to join the Quebec Court of Appeal. I do not know what the member opposite has against judges serving on the supreme court of her province.
Goldring asks the Minister of State for Social Development to explain what the evidence shows about the Housing First model.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to explain evidence on Housing First, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, to reduce the plight of the chronically homeless, our Conservative government champions an evidence-based model called Housing First, saying the most effective way the government could support the homeless is to find them a place to live. Housing First recognizes that without a home, it is extremely difficult for anyone to move forward to overcome other challenges, then to aspire to total independence. Would the Minister of State for Social Development please explain what the evidence shows about Housing First?
Bergen states the Mental Health Commission of Canada's At Home/Chez Soi project results show Housing First addresses homelessness and that for every $10 invested there is a $21 return.
Bergen provides a specific return-on-investment figure â $21 return for every $10 invested â and references the Mental Health Commission of Canada's At Home/Chez Soi project results, delivering real information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question and the great work he has done on behalf of the homeless throughout his career. Housing First works. The evidence is in. The Mental Health Commission of Canada just released its results from the At Home/Chez Soi project which occurred across the country. It shows that not only does Housing First help in addressing homelessness, but it is a smart investment. In fact, for every $10 invested, there is a $21 return. That makes good sense in terms of policy, and good sense in helping the homeless.
Sims asks why the Conservatives broke the EI appeal system, given that wait times have quadrupled to an average of eight months since the creation of the Social Security Tribunal, and what they will do to fix it.
Sims cites a specific claim â wait times quadrupled and unemployed Canadians waiting on average eight months for a decision â and grounds the question in the government's own stated rationale for creating the Social Security Tribunal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives created the new Social Security Tribunal, they said it was because the old system was âslow and ineffectiveâ. Now we learn that wait times have quadrupled. Unemployed Canadians are waiting on average eight months just to get a decision. This is simply ridiculous. EI premiums pay for the tribunal, but when Canadians need it, the system is not there for them. Why did the Conservatives break the appeal system and what are they going to do to fix it?
Bergen asserts there is no wait time for EI appeals and that the Social Security Tribunal is up to date with EI claims, acknowledging a backlog only on CPP claims.
Bergen flatly disputes the claim about EI wait times and draws a distinction between EI appeals and CPP claims, but provides no supporting data or timeline for resolving the CPP backlog.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member needs to check her facts because, in fact, there is no wait time for EI appeals. If she had done some research, she would have seen, in fact, that the Social Security Tribunal is right up to date with EI claims. There is a backlog on CPP claims. They are dealing with that and getting through it, just like they are with the EI claims.
Groguhé asks what the government will do concretely to fix the Social Security Tribunal situation, given that the old EI appeal system guaranteed a hearing within 30 days while workers now wait eight months without benefits.
GroguhĂ© cites a specific prior standard â hearings within 30 days under the old EI appeal system â and contrasts it with the current eight-month wait, making a reasonably specific accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les conservateurs ont créé le Tribunal de la sécurité sociale. Ils ne peuvent pas prétendre qu'ils ne sont pas responsables des retards qui ne cessent de s'y accumuler. L'ancien systÚme d'appel de l'assurance-emploi garantissait une audience dans les 30 jours. Les chÎmeurs doivent maintenant passer huit mois sans prestation en attendant qu'une décision soit rendue. Encore une fois, les Canadiens font les frais de la mauvaise gestion des conservateurs. Que comptent-ils faire concrÚtement pour corriger cette situation désastreuse et s'assurer que les travailleurs sont traités justement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives created the Social Security Tribunal. They cannot claim that they are not responsible for the ever-increasing number of delays. The old EI appeal system guaranteed a hearing within 30 days. Unemployed workers must now wait eight months without benefits before a decision is rendered. Once again, Canadians are paying the price for the Conservatives' mismanagement. What practical solutions are they going to take to fix this disaster and ensure that workers are treated fairly?
Bergen states that in April of this year, 282 incoming EI cases came to the Social Security Tribunal and 426 cases were processed, arguing there is no backlog on EI claims.
Bergen provides April 2014 figures â 282 incoming cases and 426 cases processed â to dispute the EI backlog claim, but does not address the specific 30-day standard or the broader question of what will be done concretely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just like the NDP like to free-wheel with taxpayers' dollars, they like to free-wheel with the facts. Here are the facts on EI claims: In April of this year, 282 incoming cases were brought to the Social Security Tribunal. It got through 426 cases. If the NDP members want to talk about CPP, we realize there is a backlog, but on EI, there is no backlog.
LaverdiĂšre asks whether the minister will ensure all WorldPride delegates are treated with dignity and welcomed properly upon arriving in Canada, in light of the treatment of Avery Edison earlier this year.
LaverdiĂšre grounds the question in the specific case of Avery Edison and the upcoming WorldPride conference on human rights, making it somewhat specific, though the ask is fairly general.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les employés de l'Agence des services frontaliers ont le devoir de traiter les personnes transgenres qui arrivent au Canada de façon équitable et respectueuse. Toutefois, ce ne fut pas le cas pour Avery Edison, qui a subi un traitement injuste à son arrivée au Canada plus tÎt cette année. Alors que la conférence WorldPride sur les droits de la personne s'ouvrira à Toronto la semaine prochaine, le ministre veillera-t-il à s'assurer que tous les délégués seront traités avec dignité et bien accueillis à leur arrivée au Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada Border Services employees have a duty to treat transgender people who are coming to Canada fairly and respectfully. However, that was not the case for Avery Edison, who was treated unfairly when she came to Canada earlier this year. With the WorldPride Human Rights Conference starting next week in Toronto, will the minister ensure that all of the delegates will be treated with dignity and properly welcomed when they arrive in Canada?
Blaney asserts that the Canada Border Services Agency treats people with great respect and dignity, and that mechanisms are in place to resolve incidents.
Blaney assures that the Canada Border Services Agency treats people with dignity and that mechanisms exist to address incidents, but does not specifically address what measures will be taken for WorldPride delegates.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie ma collĂšgue de sa question. Effectivement, des millions de passagers traversent nos frontiĂšres chaque annĂ©e. Les agents des services frontaliers se font un devoir de les accueillir avec le plus grand respect. Ăvidemment, je peux assurer Ă ma collĂšgue que notre agence des services frontaliers traite les gens avec beaucoup de dignitĂ©. Dans le cas d'incidents, des mĂ©canismes sont en place pour rĂ©gler ces situations.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Millions of passengers cross our borders every year. Border Services officers have a duty to welcome them with the utmost respect. I can obviously assure my colleague that our Border Services Agency will treat people with great dignity. If an incident arises, there are mechanisms in place to deal with it.
Garrison asks what measures the Minister of Transport has taken to ensure that the discriminatory airport screening policy â requiring a traveller's appearance to match the gender listed on their ID â does not interfere with those attending WorldPride travelling to, from, or within Canada.
Garrison references a specific policy requiring a traveller's appearance to match the gender listed on their ID, notes he raised this two years ago, and poses a clear question about what measures the Minister of Transport has taken, giving it reasonable specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, two years ago I raised the problem of airport screening requirements that can result in transgender and gender variant individuals being banned from flying. The Conservatives ignored and even scoffed at these concerns about requiring a traveller's appearance to match the gender listed on their ID, something that has nothing to do with security. Again, given the imminent opening of WorldPride in Toronto, what measures has the Minister of Transport taken to make sure this discriminatory policy does not interfere with the ability of those attending WorldPride to travel to, from, or within Canada?
Alexander, rather than the Minister of Transport, responds by stating the government is committed to making the WorldPride conference a success, has made progress on visa issuance, and is working with organizers to ensure smooth entry into Canada.
Alexander â not the Minister of Transport â responds with general assurances about visa processing and conference success, entirely failing to address the specific screening policy or any measures taken by the Minister of Transport.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all of us on this side of the House, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister of Transport and myself are committed to making this conference a success. We have made progress on the issuance of visas. We are working closely with the organizers to make sure those attending the conference enter Canada smoothly. We trust it will be a great success for Toronto, for Ontario, and for Canada as a whole.
Foote asks the Minister of Transport what she has done to make Marine Atlantic reverse its decision to increase fares and cut crossings between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, which is harming tourism and the broader economy.
Foote cites specific harms â increased fares, cut crossings, impact on tourism and the economy of Newfoundland â and explicitly holds the minister accountable by asking what she has done since the issue was last raised, making it a pointed accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, protests are taking place in Port aux Basques today against Marine Atlantic's decision not only to increase fares but also to cut the number of crossings between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. This is not only crippling the tourism business but hurting the entire economy in Newfoundland, because goods that are exported and imported are being delayed and jobs are being lost. I ask the Minister of Transport, what has she done to make Marine Atlantic reverse this harmful decision since I last raised this issue with her?
Raitt states that Marine Atlantic is an arm's-length crown corporation responsible for ensuring investments by Canadian taxpayers are best used and for serving the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Raitt provides only a boilerplate description of Marine Atlantic as an arm's-length crown corporation without addressing what action, if any, she has taken since the issue was previously raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, indeed Marine Atlantic is an arm's-length crown corporation. It has the responsibility to ensure that investments by Canadian taxpayers are best used and to continue to operate in the best interests of serving the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador and its citizens.
Dion asks where preparations stand for the 150th anniversary of Confederation celebrations, referencing a taxpayer-funded poll, and implies the government is waiting to insert the Prime Minister's name into the festivities.
The question references a taxpayer-funded survey and names specific items Canadians want celebrated, but the ask is muddled between a status update on preparations and a partisan jab about the PM's name being added to a list.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la ministre a appris, par un sondage payĂ© par les contribuables, ce que les Canadiens savaient dĂ©jĂ , soit qu'Ă l'occasion du 150e anniversaire de la ConfĂ©dĂ©ration, ils veulent fĂȘter la Charte des droits, l'assurance-santĂ©, les missions de paix, le multiculturalisme, le bilinguisme, Tommy Douglas, Terry Fox, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, etc. Peut-elle enfin dire oĂč en sont les prĂ©paratifs de cette fĂȘte, ou attend-elle dĂ©sespĂ©rĂ©ment que quelqu'un, quelque part, ajoute le nom de son patron Ă la liste des personnages Ă cĂ©lĂ©brer?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the minister commissioned a survey paid for by taxpayers to find out what Canadians already know: on the 150th anniversary of Confederation, they want to celebrate the charter of rights, health insurance, peacekeeping missions, multiculturalism, bilingualism, Tommy Douglas, Terry Fox, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and so on. Can she tell us how far preparations for the celebration have progressed, or is she desperately waiting for someone somewhere to add her boss's name to the list of people worth celebrating?
Glover says the 150th anniversary will be a celebration of the whole country, touts the consultation process, and criticizes the Liberal Party for not consulting in their ridings.
The minister offers only platitudes about Canada's history and the consultation process, deflecting the specific ask about where preparations stand with an attack on the Liberal Party's failure to consult.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'histoire du Canada est faite de risques, de sacrifices et de détermination. Les Canadiens ont sans cesse triomphé contre vents et marées pour construire un pays fort, fier et libre. Le 150e anniversaire de la Confédération sera une célébration de tout le pays. Nous sommes fiers d'avoir mené des consultations. Je me demande pourquoi ce député et son parti ont laissé passer l'occasion de consulter les Canadiens dans leurs comtés. De notre cÎté, nous allons poursuivre avec fierté les préparatifs pour cette célébration.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada's history is one of risk, sacrifice, and determination. Canadians have triumphed over all manner of adversity to build a strong, proud, and free country. The 150th anniversary of Confederation will be a celebration of the whole country. We are proud to have carried out consultations. I would like to know why the member and his party missed the opportunity to consult Canadians in their ridings. For our part, we will proudly continue to prepare for this celebration.
Dubé notes that about sixty Olympic athletes, coaches, and amateur sport stakeholders denounced cuts to Radio-Canada, arguing it is essential for amateur sport visibility and sponsorship, and asks whether the government realizes athletes and young athletes will pay the price.
The question cites a concrete group of about sixty Olympic athletes, coaches, and amateur sport stakeholders who denounced cuts to Radio-Canada, and asks whether the government realizes athletes and young athletes will pay the price, though the ask remains somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, une soixantaine d'athlĂštes olympiques, d'entraĂźneurs et d'intervenants du milieu sportif amateur ont dĂ©noncĂ© les compressions imposĂ©es Ă Radio-Canada, un outil essentiel pour soutenir le sport amateur. La visibilitĂ© qu'offre Radio-Canada Ă nos athlĂštes facilite l'acquisition de commanditaires et favorise la participation sportive chez les jeunes. Si on ne se fiait qu'aux diffuseurs privĂ©s, on ne verrait les sports amateurs que tous les deux ans, au moment des Olympiques. Est-ce que le gouvernement rĂ©alise qu'en rĂ©duisant les fonds accordĂ©s au diffuseur public, ce sont nos athlĂštes et nos jeunes sportifs qui en paieront le prix? S'il rĂ©alisait cela, il montrerait peut-ĂȘtre plus de passion qu'il n'en montre en ce moment.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, about 60 Olympic athletes, coaches and stakeholders in the amateur sports world have spoken out against the cuts to the CBC, an essential tool for supporting amateur sport. The visibility that CBC gives our athletes makes it easier for them to find sponsors and encourages young people to participate in sports. If we relied solely on private broadcasters, we would only be able to watch amateur sports every two years, during the Olympics. Does the government realize that our athletes and young sports enthusiasts are the ones who will be paying the price of the cuts it is making to the CBC? Perhaps if the government realized that, it would be showing more enthusiasm than it is right now.
Glover says the government recognizes Radio-Canada's importance and is proud of athletes, but insists the decisions announced by Radio-Canada are Radio-Canada's own and not the government's.
Glover acknowledges Radio-Canada's importance and athletes' value, but deflects the specific concern about cuts' impact on amateur sport by claiming the decisions were Radio-Canada's alone and unrelated to the government.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme nous l'avons répété plusieurs fois, nous reconnaissons l'importance de Radio-Canada et nous sommes trÚs fiers de nos athlÚtes. Les décisions qui ont été prises et annoncées par Radio-Canada n'ont rien à voir avec le gouvernement. C'est à Radio-Canada de décider comment elle gÚre ses activités. Elle reçoit une somme significative des contribuables. Encore une fois, c'est à Radio-Canada qu'il faut poser ces questions.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as we have said on a number of occasions, we recognize the importance of the CBC and we are very proud of our athletes. The decisions that were made and announced by the public broadcaster have nothing to do with this government. It is up to the CBC to decide how it manages its operations. The CBC receives a significant amount of funding from taxpayers. Once again, the CBC is the one that should be being asked these questions.
Nantel accuses Conservatives of being present for Olympic photo-ops but absent when it comes to concretely supporting amateur sport, and asks whether the Minister of State for Sports realizes that reducing Radio-Canada's funding is undermining a central pillar of amateur sport.
Nantel contrasts Conservative photo-ops with Olympic athletes against their support for Radio-Canada cuts and asks the Minister of State for Sport whether he realizes that reducing Radio-Canada's funding undermines a central pillar of amateur sport, but the framing is heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, que les conservateurs continuent Ă fermer les yeux sur les consĂ©quences de leurs gestes. Quand nous avons reçu nos athlĂštes olympiques sur le parquet de la Chambre des communes, les conservateurs couraient littĂ©ralement au devant d'eux pour se faire photographier. Cependant, quand vient le temps de soutenir concrĂštement le sport amateur et de donner de la visibilitĂ© Ă nos athlĂštes, c'est vers la porte de sortie qu'ils courent. Radio-Canada est le principal vĂ©hicule de diffusion pour soutenir le sport amateur et pour favoriser les saines habitudes de vie. En rĂ©duisant le financement de Radio-Canada, les conservateurs se dĂ©chargent de leurs responsabilitĂ©s. Est-ce que le ministre d'Ătat aux Sports rĂ©alise qu'en rĂ©duisant le financement de Radio-Canada, les conservateurs sont en train de miner un pilier central du sport amateur ici au pays?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are continuing to turn a blind eye to the consequences of their actions. When we welcomed our Olympic athletes on the floor of the House of Commons, the Conservatives literally could not run fast enough to have their picture taken with the athletes. However, when it comes time to provide real support for amateur sport and raise the profile of our athletes, the Conservatives are running for the door instead. The CBC is the main broadcaster for supporting amateur sport and promoting healthy lifestyle habits. By cutting the CBC's funding, the Conservatives are washing their hands of their responsibilities. Does the Minister of State for Sport realize that by cutting the CBC's funding, the Conservatives are undermining a key pillar of amateur sport in Canada?
Glover again asserts that the decisions were Radio-Canada's, not the government's, and notes that Radio-Canada indicated it will continue to represent athletes and Canada at the Olympics.
Glover repeats the same deflection as in Exchange 32âthat the decisions were Radio-Canada'sâand adds only that Radio-Canada said it will continue to well represent athletes at the Olympics, which is tangential to the specific question about the minister of State for Sport's awareness.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je l'ai déjà dit, c'est Radio-Canada qui a annoncé ces décisions et c'est elle qui les a prises. Cela n'a rien à voir avec les décisions gouvernementales. Je le répÚte: nous sommes fiers de nos athlÚtes. Radio-Canada a indiqué que dans le cas des Olympiques, elle va continuer à bien représenter nos athlÚtes et le Canada en entier.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I already said, it was the CBC that announced and made those decisions. That has nothing to do with government decisions. I repeat: we are proud of our athletes. The CBC has indicated that it will continue to properly represent our athletes and our entire nation at the Olympics.
Dreeshen asks the Minister of Canadian Heritage to tell the House what the government is doing to ensure Canadians can forever pay tribute to the victims of Communist oppression through the national victims of Communism monument.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to describe what the government is doing for the national victims of Communism monument, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today our Conservative government announced the next step in the creation of a national victims of Communism monument. In conjunction with Tribute to Liberty, a charitable organization devoted to remembering the more than 100 million lives lost under Communist oppression, the second phase of the national design competition is ready to launch. Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage please tell the House what our government is doing to ensure that Canadians can forever pay tribute to the victims of this poisonous ideology?
Glover announces that six world-class teams have been chosen to develop concepts for the national victims of Communism monument, their designs will be presented to a jury in August, fulfilling a throne speech promise.
Glover provides concrete information: six world-class teams have been chosen to develop concepts, designs will be presented to a jury in August, and the initiative fulfils a throne speech promise, making this a substantive and informative answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Red Deer for his dedication to all victims. I am honoured to launch the next step today in the creation of the national victims of Communism monument. Our government, along with Tributes to Liberty, has announced that six world-class teams have been chosen to develop their concepts for this long-awaited memorial. These teams will spend the coming weeks perfecting their designs, which will then be presented to a jury in August. Today, we come even closer to fulfilling the promise that we made in our throne speech to pay tribute to the precious lives lost under Communist regimes around the world.
Bennett cites the government's own 2011 assessment showing first nations' water systems were in crisis, notes all parties voted for urgent action, and asks how the minister can justify leaving first nations children in third world conditions given legislation without consultation, downloaded responsibility, and no new resources.
Bennett cites the government's own 2011 assessment showing first nations' water systems were in crisis, references an all-party motion, lists specific government failures, and notes Alberta first nations are now in court, making it a reasonably well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 2011 the government's own assessment showed that first nations' water systems were in crisis. All parties voted for a Liberal motion calling for urgent action. So far, the government's response has been legislation without consultation, downloading responsibility and liability, and no new resources. Alberta's first nations are now in court, demanding the safe water that most Canadians take for granted. How can the minister justify leaving first nations children in third world conditions?
Valcourt calls the member's statement totally false, cites the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, and references $323 million proposed in economic action plan 2014 for the next two years.
Valcourt cites the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act and $323 million over two years from economic action plan 2014, which are relevant facts, but does not address the specific claims about lack of consultation, downloading of responsibility and liability, or the Alberta court action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that statement by the hon. member is totally false. She knows that this government passed the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, which aims to provide first nation communities with drinking water and wastewater standards comparable to provincial and territorial standards off reserve. On the issue of funding, I recall that economic action plan 2014 proposes to continue implementing our action plan with $323 million for the next two years.
Aubin corrects what he says was a misrepresentation of the judge's ruling on pyrrhotite, noting the judge said the rules were not strict enough and that the government had the capacity and duty to tighten them, and asks whether the government will tighten pyrrhotite rules to prevent further victims.
Aubin references a judge's ruling, corrects what he describes as a mischaracterization by the government earlier in the week, and makes a specific ask about tightening rules on pyrrhotite, though the final rhetorical flourish weakens it.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, quand ma collĂšgue de BerthierâMaskinongĂ© a interrogĂ© le gouvernement plus tĂŽt cette semaine sur les rĂ©cents dĂ©veloppements dans le dossier de la pyrrhotite, eh bien, les conservateurs ont encore une fois rĂ©pondu n'importe quoi. Le juge n'a jamais dit que l'industrie Ă©tait responsable des rĂšgles. Il a dit que les rĂšgles n'Ă©taient pas assez sĂ©vĂšres et que ce gouvernement avait la capacitĂ©, voire le devoir de les resserrer. Les conservateurs vont-ils corriger le tir et resserrer les rĂšgles sur la pyrrhotite pour empĂȘcher qu'il n'y ait d'autres victimes, ou sont-ils vraiment dĂ©cidĂ©s Ă gagner le championnat du monde de l'incompĂ©tence?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, my colleague from BerthierâMaskinongĂ© asked the government about recent developments in the pyrrhotite file, and once again, the Conservatives' answer was full of bunk. The judge never said that the industry was responsible for the rules. He said that the rules were not strict enough and that the government had the ability and the duty to make them stricter. Will the Conservatives remedy the situation and implement stricter rules on pyrrhotite so that nobody else has to suffer from this, or are they determined to win the world cup of incompetence?
Bergen says pyrrhotite and building codes fall under provincial jurisdiction, and states the court ruling found industry entirely responsible, with about 70% attributable to SNC-Lavalin.
Bergen asserts provincial jurisdiction over building codes and claims the court ruling found industry 100% responsible with SNC-Lavalin bearing about 70%, which engages the subject matter, but does not address the federal government's capacity or duty cited by the member, nor the ask about tightening rules.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are two issues that I would like to clarify for the member. First of all, the pyrrhotite issue falls directly under provincial jurisdiction. Building codes fall under provincial jurisdiction. Secondly, the recent court ruling did rule that industry was entirely responsible. In fact, it was 100% responsible. About 70% of it was SNC-Lavalin. The member needs to become familiar with the case and with what is under provincial jurisdiction.
Gallant asks the Minister of Foreign Affairs to comment on the latest P5+1 negotiations with Iran, noting Iran is refusing to cut its number of centrifuges and halt nuclear fuel production.
This is a government-backbench exchange where Gallant asks the minister to comment on P5+1 negotiations with Iran, referencing Iran refusing to cut centrifuges, but it is a soft setup for the minister to make a statement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, reports coming out of the P5 +1 negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program are deeply concerning. Today we learned that Iran is refusing to cut its number of centrifuges and to halt nuclear fuel production. This development should come as no surprise. Iran has a history of deception and stonewalling international efforts over its nuclear program. Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs please comment on these latest rounds of negotiations over Iran's nuclear program?
Baird expresses concern about Iran's nuclear program, human rights record, and support for terror, and states that Canada has been clear Iran must give up 20,000 operating centrifuges.
Baird provides some specificity by citing the figure of 20,000 operating centrifuges that Iran must give up and restating the government's position clearly, though he does not address what Canada is doing concretely in response to the breakdown.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are immensely concerned about Iran's nuclear program. We remain concerned about its abysmal and deteriorating human rights record and its material support for terror. Before these P5 +1 talks started, we were very clear, most recently this week, that Iran must give up 20,000 operating centrifuges. There is no reason for it to have them. If it seeks nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, it is essential that Iran heed international calls, do the right thing and get rid of these 20,000 centrifuges.
Christopherson notes it has been six months to the day since the government announced the Randle Reef cleanup was funded and a go, states Environment Canada has said the project will be put on hold again, and asks the government to commit to taking all steps necessary to ensure the cleanup starts this year.
Christopherson notes it has been exactly six months since the government announced funding and a go-ahead for the Randle Reef cleanup, cites new information from Environment Canada that the project will be put on hold, and makes a specific ask for a commitment to start the cleanup this year.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again the people of Hamilton are left in limbo regarding the future of the Randle Reef cleanup. It has been six months to the day since the government announced that funding was there and that the project was a go. Now we learn from Environment Canada that the project will be put on hold yet again. Hamiltonians are tired of delays and false starts. Will the government commit today to take all steps necessary to ensure that the Randle Reef cleanup starts this year?
Aglukkaq says the government committed significant money in budget 2012 and more in the main estimates to clean up contaminated sediments at Randle Reef in Hamilton Harbour, and will continue working with Ontario, municipalities, and industry.
Aglukkaq references budget 2012 commitments and main estimates without specifying amounts, says the government will continue working with Ontario, municipalities, and industry, and commits to keeping the community informed, but does not address the specific hold or commit to starting this year.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government has played a leadership role when it comes to protecting our environment. In budget 2012, we committed to spending a significant amount of money to help clean up the contaminated sediments at Randle Reef in Hamilton Harbour. In the main estimates this year, we are committing even more. We will continue to work with Ontario municipalities and industry on this project, and we will keep the community informed as the project moves forward.
Patry says forestry workers in SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean are worried about the progression of the tordeuse des bourgeons de l'Ă©pinette, a biologist is warning of a real catastrophe, and asks when the minister for RobervalâLac-Saint-Jean will demand his government do more to protect forestry workers in the region.
Patry identifies a specific threatâthe tordeuse des bourgeons de l'Ă©pinetteâto workers in SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean, cites a biologist sounding the alarm about a catastrophe, and asks the minister to demand his government do more, making it reasonably specific though somewhat regional in framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les travailleurs forestiers de chez nous, au SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean, sont inquiets de la progression de la tordeuse des bourgeons de l'Ă©pinette. Ils vont subir de plein fouet les ravages de cette chenille. Un biologiste du QuĂ©bec sonne l'alarme et craint une vraie catastrophe pour les forĂȘts de la rĂ©gion. C'est clair que les efforts d'Ottawa sont insuffisants pour arrĂȘter cet insecte. Quand le ministre et dĂ©putĂ© de RobervalâLac-Saint-Jean va-t-il exiger que son gouvernement en fasse plus pour protĂ©ger les travailleurs forestiers du SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean, sa rĂ©gion?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, forestry workers in my region, SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean, are concerned about the spread of the spruce budworm. This caterpillar is going to have a devastating effect on the region. A Quebec biologist has raised the alarm and is concerned that this could be catastrophic for the region's forests. It is clear that Ottawa is not doing enough to stop this insect. When will the minister, the member for RobervalâLac-Saint-Jean, demand that his government do more to protect forestry workers in his region, SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean?
Rickford says the government understands forestry's importance for job creation and growth, touts economic action plan 2014's focus on innovation, pest protection, and market diversification, and cites a tenfold increase in softwood lumber exports to China.
Rickford gives a generic response about the importance of forestry, economic action plan 2014's focus on innovation, pest protection, and market diversification, and touts a tenfold increase in softwood lumber exports to China, without addressing the tordeuse des bourgeons de l'Ă©pinette threat or SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for asking a question on an important economic driver for rural communities across Canada. This government understands how important forestry is for job creation and economic growth and the protection of those forests. I am proud that economic action plan 2014 builds on the government's success by focusing on innovation, protecting forests from the threat of pests, and on diversifying markets for our forest products. We have increased softwood lumber exports to China tenfold. These are successes that we should be applauding.
This exchange records the presence of guests in the gallery and contains no substantive question or answer.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Nathan Cullen (SkeenaâBulkley Valley, NDP) raised a point of order alleging that the member for South ShoreâSt. Margaret's yelled 'They are radicals' during question period in reference to first nations and British Columbians opposed to northern gateway, and sought unanimous consent to move a motion stating those opponents are not radicals; the request was denied. Gerald Keddy (South ShoreâSt. Margaret's, CPC) denied making the remark.
- NDP Mr. Nathan Cullen
- Some hon. members
- CPC Mr. Gerald Keddy
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be seeking unanimous consent to present a motion. During question period, in response to the MP for Halifax reminding the Conservatives of their offensive remarks calling first nations and British Columbians opposed to Enbridge northern gateway âradicalsâ, I clearly heard the member for South ShoreâSt. Margaret's yell out, âThey are radicals.â This is beneath any government. This is deeply offensive to the people of British Columbia, and first nations in particular. I therefore request the unanimous consent of the House to move that in the opinion of this House, two-thirds of British Columbians and the 130 first nations of British Columbia opposed to northern gateway are not radicals.
Agreed. No.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is incorrect. That is not what I said.