Session overview
- Child care dominated the opening exchanges, with Thomas Mulcair pressing Stephen Harper on his nine-year-old promise to create 125,000 child care spaces â a commitment Harper did not address directly, instead citing tax reductions and benefits for families.
- Infrastructure was the session's most recurring theme, with NDP and Liberal members challenging the government over the Building Canada fund, the Ring of Fire, municipal needs, and housing, while Denis Lebel and Greg Rickford defended the $70 billion, ten-year infrastructure plan.
- The Social Security Tribunal backlog â 14,677 pending cases including nearly 10,000 disability appeals â was raised by three NDP members; Jason Kenney acknowledged the problem and committed to hiring up to 22 additional decision-makers through legislation in the budget implementation act.
- The 25th anniversary of Ed Broadbent's unanimous motion to end child poverty prompted two exchanges; Jason Kenney cited a decline in the low-income rate for children from over 18% under the Liberals to 8.5%, and invoked a UNICEF report to defend the government's record.
- Operation Impact received two exchanges, with Rob Nicholson reporting that CF-18 Hornets dropped four 2,000-pound bombs on an ISIL fighting position near Kirkuk, and that over 80 sorties have been conducted; the U.S. State Department confirmed destruction of at least 22 ISIL refineries, reducing refining capacity by at least 11,000 barrels a day.
- Access to information was challenged on two fronts: Justin Trudeau questioned the government's opposition to the transparency act, while Charlie Angus and Alexandre Boulerice highlighted a 9% budget cut to the Information Commissioner's office despite a 31% rise in complaints against government obstruction.
Jason Kenney made a specific, actionable commitment: legislation in the budget implementation act would allow hiring up to 22 additional decision-makers at the Social Security Tribunal, and he explained how reallocation from the EI reconsideration stream would accelerate the income security backlog.
Mulcair quotes the Prime Minister's own 2011 election words verbatim on a 6% ongoing increase for health transfers, then asks specifically why he broke that promise by reducing it to 3%.
Mulcair asked specifically why the federal government had delivered zero of the promised 125,000 child care spaces; Harper responded only that the NDP would remove benefits from Quebecers, entirely ignoring the arithmetic of the unkept promise.
Outstanding questions
- Thomas Mulcair (NDP) asked three times why the Prime Minister has delivered zero of the 125,000 child care spaces he specifically promised nine years ago â no numerical or programmatic answer was ever given.
- Thomas Mulcair (NDP) asked why the Prime Minister broke his 2011 election promise to maintain a 6% ongoing increase for health transfers, reducing it to 3%; Harper asserted the 6% increases are "continuing exactly as scheduled" without reconciling the future reduction.
- Charlie Angus (NDP) asked whether the minister would give the Information Commissioner the resources she needs given her budget was cut 9% while complaints rose 31%; the parliamentary secretary confirmed no formal request had been received but did not address whether current funding is adequate.
- David McGuinty (Lib) asked whether the Prime Minister would meet with Ontario's premier by the end of the year to support the Ring of Fire, citing 5,500 jobs and $25 billion in economic activity; Greg Rickford deflected by disputing Ontario's commitment rather than answering whether such a meeting would occur.
- Rathika Sitsabaiesan (NDP) asked whether the government would support NDP Motion No. 534 to create a national plan to eliminate child poverty; Jason Kenney said "yes" but then pivoted entirely to listing existing measures, never confirming support for the motion itself.
What concrete action will the Prime Minister take to deliver on his nine-year-old promise to create 125,000 child care spaces?
Mulcair cites a specific prior commitment (125,000 child care spaces, nine years ago) and asks a concrete accountability question, though the framing blends in the Ontario vote result as rhetorical context.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Ontario provincial parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of the NDP's plan for quality, affordable $15-a-day child care. What concrete action will the Prime Minister take to deliver on his solemn promise, made nine years ago, to parents in Ontario and across Canada to create 125,000 child care spaces?
Harper referenced the Ontario election result and spoke generally about making life more affordable, without addressing the child care spaces promise.
Harper deflects entirely to the Ontario election result and vague references to making life "more affordable," never addressing the 125,000 child care spaces promise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the other night in Ontario, some Ontarians voted pretty overwhelmingly against the NDP. We have put forward, over the past nine years, plans to make life more affordable for all Canadian families. That has had a very good effect across the board. We are continuing to move forward on that and we are pleased to see Canadians responding so positively.
Will the Prime Minister meet with the Premier of Ontario to discuss child care?
The question is precise and yes/no in nature, citing a specific request from the Premier of Ontario to meet and discuss child care spaces.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Ontario has said that she would like to meet with the Prime Minister to discuss how the provinces and territories can work with the federal government to deliver child care spaces. Will the Prime Minister meet with the Premier of Ontario to discuss child care?
Harper noted he has held some 300 meetings with provinces and territories, and said Ontario needs balanced budgets and lower taxes, but did not commit to a specific meeting.
Harper does not answer whether he will meet the Premier of Ontario specifically about child care, instead citing general meeting statistics and pivoting to Ontario's fiscal challenges.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have regular meetings with provinces and territories across the country, in fact some 300 since I have become Prime Minister. We understand the province of Ontario has pretty significant challenges. In the approach we are taking at our level, we have been able to balance the budget by lowering taxes and providing benefits to families. That is what the people of Ontario need.
When will the federal government fulfill its specific promise of 125,000 child care spaces, given that Quebec, Manitoba, and Ontario together represent 65% of Canadians who are ready to move forward?
Mulcair restates the specific unkept promise (125,000 spaces, zero delivered) and grounds the ask in geographic data (65% of Canadians in provinces ready to act), though the question is somewhat repetitive of the earlier exchanges.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister promised was 125,000 child care spaces. He has delivered none. Le QuĂ©bec est allĂ© de l'avant, le Manitoba est allĂ© de l'avant et l'Ontario est maintenant prĂȘt Ă aller de l'avant. Donc, 65 % des Canadiens habitent une province qui est prĂȘte Ă travailler pour la crĂ©ation de places en garderies abordables. Quand le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral va-t-il faire sa part? Quand le premier ministre va-t-il poser un geste concret pour respecter sa propre promesse formelle faite aux Canadiens de livrer 125 000 places en garderies? Il en a livrĂ© zĂ©ro jusqu'Ă prĂ©sent. Quand va-t-il commencer le travail?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre a promis 125 000 places en garderie. Il n'en a créé aucune. Quebec has gone ahead, Manitoba has gone ahead, and now Ontario is ready to go ahead with a plan. This means that 65% of Canadians live in a province that is ready to work on creating affordable child care spaces. When will the federal government do its part? When will the Prime Minister actually do something to keep the solemn promise he made to Canadians to deliver 125,000 child care spaces? He has not delivered any so far. When will he get to work?
Harper claimed the NDP is entirely wrong and said his government delivered tax reductions and benefits, and would ensure that money reaches Quebecers' pockets.
Harper claims the NDP is wrong but does not address the 125,000 spaces, instead pivoting to tax reductions and benefits, deflecting from the specific unmet commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le chef du NPD a tout à fait tort. Nous avons promis et nous avons donné des avantages, et nous avons mis des réductions de taxe dans les poches des contribuables du Québec et du reste du Canada. Le NPD veut retirer ces avantages aux Québécois. Notre gouvernement va s'assurer que cet argent arrive dans les poches des Québécois
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP is absolutely wrong. We promised and we have delivered benefits and tax cuts, putting more money in the pockets of taxpayers across Quebec and throughout Canada. The NDP wants to take those benefits away from Quebeckers. Our government will make sure that the money makes its way into the pockets of Quebeckers.
Why has the Prime Minister broken his 2011 election promise of a 6% ongoing increase for health transfers by reducing it to 3%?
Mulcair quotes the Prime Minister's own 2011 election words verbatim on a 6% ongoing increase for health transfers, then asks specifically why he broke that promise by reducing it to 3%.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made another specific formal promise during the 2011 election campaign. He stated: We are planning on a 6% ongoing increase for health transfers. We have been very consistent on this. Contrary to his promise, he is reducing it from 6% to 3%. Why has the Prime Minister broken his promise to Canadians? They want to know.
Harper stated that record amounts are being transferred, that 6% increases are continuing as scheduled, and that future increases will be a minimum of 3% with most years likely higher.
Harper acknowledges record transfers and confirms 6% increases are continuing "as scheduled" while noting a future floor of 3%, which partially addresses the question but does not reconcile the discrepancy between the promise of an "ongoing" 6% increase and the announced reduction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government is transferring record amounts of money to the provinces for health care. Those 6% increases are continuing exactly as scheduled. In the future, they will continue to increase by a minimum of 3%. Frankly, most years they will be much more than that. This government's record is unparalleled when it comes to supporting our health care system.
Now that the Prime Minister claims a budget surplus, why not use it to avoid the $36 billion in cuts to health transfers instead of reducing publicly funded health care?
Mulcair cites a specific figure ($36 billion in cuts to health transfers) and invokes the surplus to press for a concrete reversal, but combines this with a rhetorical closing image about sick children and pay cheques.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il ne peut pas Ă©chapper Ă ses propres paroles. Durant la derniĂšre campagne Ă©lectorale, il a promis de maintenir cela Ă 6 %, et il a rompu cette promesse aussi. En fait, juste aprĂšs les Ă©lections, il a annoncĂ© unilatĂ©ralement, sans discussion, sans dĂ©bat, comme Ă son habitude, des coupes allant jusqu'Ă 36 milliards de dollars dans les transferts en matiĂšre de santĂ© dans ce pays. Maintenant que le premier ministre prĂ©tend avoir un surplus budgĂ©taire, pourquoi n'utilise-t-il pas d'abord et avant tout cet argent pour Ă©viter de couper dans notre assurance-santĂ© gratuite et publique? Veut-il revenir Ă une Ă©poque oĂč la taille du chĂšque de paie des parents dĂ©cidait si un enfant malade Ă©tait vu par un mĂ©decin?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, he cannot deny what he said. During the last election campaign, he promised to keep the increase at 6%, and he broke that promise too. In fact, just after the election, true to form, he unilaterally announced, without discussion or debate, up to $36 billion in cuts to health transfers in Canada. Now that the Prime Minister claims to have a budgetary surplus, why not use it first and foremost to avoid making cuts to our free, public health insurance? Does he want to go back to the days when the size of parents' paycheques determined whether a sick child was seen by a doctor?
Harper contrasted his government's record of annual increases to health transfers with the previous Liberal government's cuts, without addressing the $36 billion figure or the surplus argument.
Harper deflects to the Liberal government's record of cuts and claims of year-over-year increases, without addressing the $36 billion figure or the 6%-to-3% reduction specifically.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le bilan de notre gouvernement est clair. C'est tout à fait différent du gouvernement libéral précédent, appuyé par le NPD, qui a coupé dans les transferts aux systÚmes de santé des provinces. Au contraire, nous avons augmenté ces transferts chaque année, lesquels vont continuer à augmenter dans l'avenir. Notre bilan est tout à fait différent de celui de l'autre cÎté de la Chambre et il est sans précédent.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our government's record is clear. It is quite different from that of the previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP, which cut transfers to the provincial health care systems. On the contrary, we have increased these transfers every year, and they will continue to increase in the future. Our record is unparalleled and quite different from that of the party across the way.
Why does the Prime Minister oppose modernizing the access to information system, given that the transparency act would reduce red tape and enable faster, cheaper, digital access?
Trudeau cites specific claimed benefits of the transparency act (faster, cheaper, digital formats) and references the government's stated rationale (administrative burden), making the ask reasonably specific, though the framing is somewhat leading.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last night the government said that it would vote against transparency, citing the administrative burden. The transparency act would actually cut red tape and simplify the process. It would ensure that government information would be available faster, in a less costly way, and in digital, not paper, formats. Why does the Prime Minister oppose the modernization of our access to information system?
Harper cited his government's expansion of access to information to some 70 agencies and organizations, and attacked the Liberal Party's record on transparency, without addressing the specific modernization proposal.
Harper deflects to the Accountability Act's expansion of access to information coverage and attacks the Liberal Party's opposition record, without addressing the specific modernization proposal or the administrative burden claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it was this government that modernized the system by bringing some 70 agencies and organizations under access to information that were previously not under it, something opposed by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party not only opposed that Accountability Act, it opposed union transparency and it opposed transparency for people living on first nations reserves. We have nothing to learn on transparency from the Liberals.
Why was the government's promise that Building Canada fund projects would begin in the 2014 summer construction season broken, and why was the fund cut by 90%, while money is borrowed for income-splitting tax breaks?
Trudeau references a specific broken promise on the Building Canada fund's 2014 construction season and a stated 90% funding cut, giving factual grounding, though the question ends with a rhetorical contrast rather than a single precise ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government promised Canadian municipalities that the Building Canada infrastructure fund projects would begin in time for the 2014 summer construction season. That promise was broken, and the fund had its funding cut by 90%. Why borrow money for income-splitting tax breaks for the rich, but not invest in job-creating infrastructure?
Harper called the stated facts completely wrong and cited the $70 billion infrastructure program as the largest in Canadian history, while attacking the Liberal Party for voting against infrastructure plans.
Harper disputes the facts and cites the $70 billion infrastructure program announced over the next decade, but does not address the 2014 construction season promise or the 90% funding cut claim specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the facts laid out in that question are completely wrong. The government announced in the last two budgets the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history, some $70 billion over the next decade. The unfortunate reality is the Liberal Party voted against those infrastructure plans. That is the difference. On this side we are investing in infrastructure. On the other hand, all the Liberals want is tax hikes to pay bureaucracy.
Why was the Conservative government absent from the Je vois Montréal forum attended by Premier Couillard and Minister Poëti, and why does it refuse to be open to the ideas of Montrealers?
Trudeau references a specific event (Je vois Montréal forum, 1,300 participants, 200 projects) and names specific attendees, but the question is broad and somewhat rhetorical in asking why the government refuses to be open to Montrealers' ideas.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, plus de 1 300 personnes ont participĂ© au forum Je vois MontrĂ©al, oĂč plus de 200 projets ont Ă©tĂ© prĂ©sentĂ©s pour revitaliser cette mĂ©tropole. Bien que le premier ministre Couillard et le ministre PoĂ«ti Ă©taient prĂ©sents, ce gouvernement conservateur Ă©tait encore une fois absent pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois. Le premier ministre peut-il nous dire pourquoi son gouvernement refuse de s'ouvrir aux idĂ©es des MontrĂ©alais?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, over 1,300 people participated in the Je vois Montréal forum, where more than 200 projects to revitalize the city were presented. Premier Couillard and Minister Poëti were in attendance, but this Conservative government once again failed to be there for Quebeckers. Can the Prime Minister tell us why his government refuses to keep an open mind about Montrealers' ideas?
Harper stated he had been informed that the Government of Canada was represented at the conference, and expressed general interest in ideas for all regions of Canada.
Harper states that the Government of Canada was in fact represented at the conference, directly countering the premise of the question, though he provides no further detail or commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai été informé que le gouvernement du Canada avait été représenté à cette conférence. De plus, nous nous intéressons toujours aux idées non seulement pour la métropole, mais aussi pour toutes les régions du Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I was told that the Government of Canada was represented at that conference. What is more, we are always interested in hearing people's ideas, not only about Montreal but about all regions of Canada.
Will the government finally take concrete measures to eliminate child poverty, given that 25 years after Ed Broadbent's unanimous motion one in five Canadian children still lives in poverty?
Turmel anchors the question in the 25th anniversary of Ed Broadbent's unanimous motion and the specific statistic of one in five children living in poverty, but the ask is broad and the framing blends partisan critique with a general call to action.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il y a 25 ans, à l'initiative d'Ed Broadbent, le gouvernement canadien a promis de mettre fin à la pauvreté chez les enfants avant l'an 2000. Vingt-cinq ans de gouvernements libéral et conservateur nous ont menés à l'échec que l'on connaßt. Au Canada, un enfant sur cinq vit dans la pauvreté. Ici, chez nous, il faut agir maintenant. Au lieu de mettre en place des politiques fiscales qui ne profitent qu'aux mieux nantis, le gouvernement va-t-il enfin prendre des mesures concrÚtes pour éliminer la pauvreté chez les enfants?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago, on the initiative of Ed Broadbent, the Canadian government promised to put an end to child poverty by 2000. Twenty-five years have passed, and both Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to meet that goal. In Canada, one in five children is living in poverty. We need to take immediate action here at home. Rather than implementing tax policies that will benefit only the wealthy, will the government finally take practical measures to eliminate child poverty?
Kenney cited the decline in the low-income rate for children from over 18% under the Liberals to 8.5% currently, a reduction of over 700,000 children, and quoted UNICEF attributing Canada's relative success to tax credits, benefits, and fiscal measures for families.
Kenney provides a specific data point (rate declined from over 18% to 8.5%, 700,000 fewer children in poverty) and cites the UNICEF statement, engaging substantively with the child poverty question, though not committing to a new plan.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Ă©videmment, tous les Canadiens et tous les partis veulent continuer de diminuer la pauvretĂ© chez les enfants, et nous espĂ©rons l'Ă©liminer un jour. Toutefois, il y a de bonnes nouvelles. Le taux de faible revenu chez les enfants a diminuĂ© de façon significative, passant d'un pic de plus de 18 % sous le gouvernement libĂ©ral Ă 8,5 % actuellement. Il s'agit d'une diminution de plus de 700 000 du nombre d'enfants vivant dans la pauvretĂ©. Voici ce que l'UNICEF a dit Ă cet Ă©gard: Si le Canada sâen tire mieux que dâautres pays occidentaux, câest en raison des crĂ©dits dâimpĂŽts, prestations et mesures fiscales favorables aux familles maintenues ou mises en place pour contrecarrer les effets de la [pauvretĂ©].
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, obviously all Canadians and all parties want to continue to alleviate child poverty, and we hope to one day eliminate it. However, there is good news. The low-income rate for children has declined significantly from a peak of over 18% under the Liberal government to 8.5% currently. That means that there are over 700,000 fewer children living in poverty. Here is what UNICEF had to say on the subject: If Canada is faring better than other western countries in this regard, it is due to measures that are favourable to families, like tax credits, fiscal measures and benefits that are maintained or put in place to counter the effects of [poverty].
Will the government commit to taking immediate action to eliminate child poverty in Canada, 25 years after the unanimous House motion?
Sitsabaiesan invokes the 25-year anniversary of Ed Broadbent's motion and the one-in-five statistic, but the ask ("commit to taking immediate action to eliminate poverty") is broad and largely rhetorical rather than specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago the House unanimously adopted Ed Broadbent's motion to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000, yet child poverty levels have remained tragically high. That is an entire generation of children who have needlessly grown up in poverty. One in five Canadian children lives in poverty today. There is no excuse for such a wealthy country like ours not to look after our most vulnerable members, our children. Will the government commit to taking immediate action to eliminate poverty in Canada?
Kenney cited the reduction in the child low-income rate from over 18% to 8.5%, with over 700,000 fewer children in low-income families, and credited government benefits and UNICEF's recognition of Canada's relative performance.
Kenney gives specific numbers (18% peak to 8.5% current, 700,000 fewer children) and cites UNICEF, offering substantive data in response, though he does not commit to a new specific action or plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yes, we will. We have already done so. While we all continue to hope for the elimination of child poverty one day, the NDP refuses to recognize that there has been progress made. In fact, the low-income rate for children has declined significantly from a peak of over 18% under the Liberal government to 8.5% currently, with over 700,000 fewer Canadian children living in low-income families. This is in part because of the enormous benefits created by the government for low-income families, which led UNICEF recently to say that if Canada was faring better than other western countries in this regard, it was due to measures that were favourable to families, like tax credits, fiscal measures and benefits that were maintained or put in place to counter the effects of the global crisis.
Will the government support NDP Motion No. 534 to create a national plan to eliminate child poverty?
Sitsabaiesan challenges the UNICEF framing from the previous answer and asks a specific yes/no question about supporting NDP Motion No. 534, though the question blends rhetorical critique with the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, giving a huge tax break to the wealthiest families, while completely ignoring the poorest families, is not an answer to poverty. That same UNICEF report is the one that is saying that one in five Canadian children lives in poverty today. Those children deserve better. Poverty impacts their ability to learn, to develop, to be healthy, to be fully integrated in their communities, and they need real action. Will the government support NDP Motion No. 534 to create a national plan to eliminate child poverty?
Kenney said "yes" but focused on existing measures including the GST cut, the universal child care benefit of over $1,900 per family, and lifting a million low-income families off the tax rolls, without specifically addressing Motion No. 534.
Kenney gives a nominal "yes" but then pivots to defending existing measures (GST cut, universal child care benefit, million families off tax rolls) rather than specifically committing to support Motion No. 534.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yes, we will. However, unlike the NDP, we will take more than just rhetorical measures. We are taking real, concrete action. This is the government that cut the GST by two points while maintaining the low-income GST rebate at 7%, meaning a $1.1 billion benefit for low-income families. This is the government that has lifted a million low-income families off the tax rolls altogether. This is the government that introduced the universal child care benefit, which provides now and next year over $1,900 for each family. That means a single mom with two kids under the age of six will be receiving $3,800 in cash benefit that the NDP would take away.
Why has the minister allowed the Social Security Tribunal backlog to reach 14,677 cases with an estimated 11-year catch-up period for the income security section, despite Brazeau's regular warnings for over a year?
Aubin cites specific data from testimony two days earlier (14,677 cases, 11-year backlog estimate for the income security section), names the tribunal president Brazeau, and asserts over a year of unheeded warnings to the minister, making it well-grounded.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, mardi, la présidente du Tribunal de la sécurité sociale a confirmé qu'il y avait d'importants retards dans le traitement des dossiers: 14 677 dossiers dorment sur son bureau. à ce rythme, juste pour la section de la sécurité du revenu, cela va prendre 11 ans pour rattraper le retard. C'est une honte! Depuis plus d'un an, Mme Brazeau interpelle réguliÚrement le ministre à propos du manque d'effectifs au tribunal, mais le ministre dort au gaz. Comment le ministre peut-il permettre un tel bordel administratif?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the chair of the Social Security Tribunal confirmed that there are significant delays in the processing of cases: 14,677 cases are languishing on her desk. At this rate it will take 11 years to clear the backlog just for the income security section. That is shameful. For over a year, Ms. Brazeau has been in regular contact with the minister about the lack of staff at the tribunal, but the minister is asleep at the switch. How can the minister allow such an administrative nightmare?
Kenney cited a 90% reduction in EI appeals thanks to his ministry's efficiency, and noted that Quebec has its own appeal process for Régime de rentes du Québec matters not falling under the Social Security Tribunal.
Kenney deflects to a 90% reduction in EI appeals and notes that Quebec has its own appeal process for the Régime de rentes du Québec, neither addressing the 14,677-case backlog nor the 11-year estimate raised by Aubin.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, grĂące Ă l'efficacitĂ© de mon ministĂšre, on a vu une diminution de 90 % du nombre d'appels pour l'assurance-emploi. Cela veut dire que presque 90 % des cas sont rĂ©glĂ©s par les fonctionnaires, sans appel. Le service est plus rapide. Ăvidemment, pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois, le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec a son propre processus d'appel en ce qui concerne les prestations du RĂ©gime de rentes du QuĂ©bec, qui ne relĂšve pas du Tribunal de la sĂ©curitĂ© sociale.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, thanks to my department's efficiency, we have seen a 90% decrease in employment insurance appeals. That means that almost 90% of cases are handled by public servants, without appeal. The service is quicker. In the case of Quebeckers, the Government of Quebec has its own appeal process for benefits paid by the Quebec pension plan, which does not fall under the Social Security Tribunal.
Why did the minister not take action sooner to address the backlog of over 14,600 cases at the Social Security Tribunal, given that the tribunal chair had been in continuous contact with him for 18 months about understaffing and lack of performance standards?
Sims references specific testimony from the previous day, names the tribunal chair, specifies 18 months of inaction, cites the 14,600-case figure, and identifies understaffing and lack of performance standards as concrete problems.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the chair of the Social Security Tribunal told the human resources committee that she had been in continuous contact with the minister regarding the backlog, yet for 18 months now, that backlog has continued to grow, while the tribunal has been understaffed and working without performance standards. More than 14,600 Canadians are now waiting for a hearing. Why did the minister not take action sooner to address the enormous mess at the Social Security Tribunal?
Kenney described the new reconsideration process resolving 90% of EI refusals in weeks, and noted that additional decision-makers are being added and administrative measures taken to address CPP cases before the tribunal.
Kenney explains the reconsideration process and the 90% resolution rate for EI refusals, and mentions adding decision-makers for CPP cases, partially addressing the backlog issue but not fully explaining the 18-month delay in acting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, in fact our ministry did take action by introducing a new approach toward reconsideration of EI refusals. That now happens quickly, by a public servant who, remarkably, actually picks up a phone and calls the person who has asked for a reconsideration, and sorts it out, often getting additional documentation. This means that we are now resolving about 90% of those refusals at a reconsideration stage in a matter of weeks, without having to go through a lengthy multi-month quasi-judicial process. In terms of the CPP cases before the tribunal, we are adding additional decision-makers and taking other administrative measures to speed up the process.
Will the minister commit to eliminating the backlog at the Social Security Tribunal, given that nearly 10,000 of the waiting Canadians are living with a disability and cannot wait years for a hearing?
Sullivan adds a specific subset (nearly 10,000 disability cases) and asks for a specific commitment to eliminate the backlog, providing human context, though the ask is fairly general and builds on prior exchanges.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, behind every one of those numbers is a person who needs to put food on the table and pay the bills. People cannot wait years for the government to get its act together. Nearly 10,000 Canadians still waiting for an appeal are living with a disability. In many cases the uncertainty and stress of financial insecurity makes their medical conditions worse. Will the minister commit to eliminate the backlog and finally give these Canadians the justice they need and deserve?
Kenney committed to addressing the backlog, citing legislation in the budget implementation act to hire up to 22 additional decision-makers, and explained how the 90% reduction in EI caseload allows decision-makers to be reallocated to the income security division.
Kenney provides a specific commitment, cites pending legislation (budget implementation act) to hire up to 22 additional decision-makers, and explains the reallocation of EI decision-makers to the income security division, substantively addressing the backlog question.
Source text
Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker. That is, in part, why we have legislation before the House in the budget implementation act, which we hope the NDP will support. This would allow us to hire up to an additional 22 decision-makers at the tribunal. I am very pleased to highlight that the faster informal reconsideration process for refused EI applications means a 90% reduction in the caseload for EI, meaning we can reallocate those decision-makers over to the income security division. This means we will get at that backlog of cases so we can provide the kind of service that Canadians expect and deserve.
Will the Conservatives listen to the NDP and municipal elected officials and protect federal investments in social housing, given that more than 1.5 million families are poorly housed in Canada?
Boutin-Sweet grounds the question in the FCM's visit to Ottawa and the specific figure of more than 1.5 million poorly housed families, but the ask is broad ("protect federal investments in social housing") without specifying amounts or timelines.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cette semaine une centaine d'élus municipaux de la Fédération canadienne des municipalités sont à Ottawa pour rappeler au gouvernement qu'un Canada fort se bùtira sur des communauté fortes. Ils réclament notamment un investissement important pour désamorcer la crise du logement au Canada. Il y a plus d'un million et demi de familles mal logées au Canada. C'est inacceptable. Les conservateurs vont-ils enfin écouter le NPD et nos élus municipaux et protéger les investissements fédéraux dans le logement social?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this week about 100 municipal officials with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities are in Ottawa to remind the government that a strong Canada is built on strong communities. They are calling for significant investment to deal with the housing crisis in Canada. There are more than 1.5 million families living in inadequate housing in Canada. That is unacceptable. Will the Conservatives finally listen to the NDP and our municipal officials and protect federal investments in social housing?
Bergen cited unprecedented investments in housing helping over one million families and individuals, and described the homelessness partnering strategy with a Housing First focus, without specifically committing to protect future social housing investment levels.
Bergen cites over one million families and individuals helped with affordable housing and mentions the homelessness partnering strategy with a Housing First focus, but does not address the specific concern about protecting or increasing federal investments in social housing going forward.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been working together with the provinces and the municipalities. We have made unprecedented investments in housing. In fact, our investments have helped over one million families and individuals with affordable housing. As well, we have our homelessness partnering strategy, with the focus on Housing First, so we can help people who are chronically and episodically homeless, actually solving the problem, working together with our partners in cities, municipalities, and the provinces.
When will Conservatives stop shortchanging cities and commit to investing now in infrastructure and affordable housing?
The question is largely rhetorical partisan framing about a "infrastructure deficit" and "downloading," with a vague compound ask about when Conservatives will "commit to investing" without citing specific figures or documents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, representatives of municipalities from across Canada are in Ottawa today, calling on the Conservatives to stop ignoring the infrastructure deficit. Decades of downloading and underfunding have left our cities struggling, with crumbling roads and bridges, inadequate water supplies, and an affordable housing crisis. The New Democrats are ready to work as partners with municipalities and provide the support they need to build livable communities for Canadians. When will Conservatives stop shortchanging our cities and commit to investing, now, in infrastructure and affordable housing?
The minister claims the government has supported municipalities more than any previous government, citing $70 billion over ten years, and notes the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been involved from the start.
The minister cites a $70 billion figure for ten years and references the Federation of Canadian Municipalities as a partner, which is relevant context, but does not address the specific claim of "shortchanging" or the affordable housing ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, jamais, dans l'histoire de ce pays, jamais un gouvernement n'a soutenu les municipalités autant que nous. Je comprends que cela déplaise à mes confrÚres parce qu'ils votent chaque fois contre les plans d'infrastructure. Il y a 70 milliards de dollars pour les 10 prochaines années. La Fédération canadienne des municipalités est associée à ce processus depuis le début. Nous allons continuer à travailler avec elle.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, never in the history of this country has a government supported municipalities as much as we have. I realize that my colleagues do not like this, because they always vote against infrastructure plans. We are providing $70 billion over the next 10 years. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been involved in this process from the beginning. We will continue to work with the federation.
Why do the Conservatives continue to nickel-and-dime northern Ontarians regarding the Ring of Fire, and where is the federal leadership this project needs?
The question references the Ring of Fire and a specific claim that the minister "flatly refused to invest in the infrastructure required," but the ask about "federal leadership" is vague and the "blame game" framing adds rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, despite their claims, the Conservatives do not support the Ring of Fire. Their actions speak louder than their words. The minister has flatly refused to invest in the infrastructure required to unlock the jobs and economic potential of our region, saying that we must fight for scraps of a fund the Conservatives already slashed by billions of dollars. Why do the Conservatives continue to nickel-and-dime northern Ontarians and play the blame game with the province? Where is the federal leadership this project so badly needs?
The minister says the government recently met with Mattawa communities and remains optimistic that once the province submits its list of infrastructure priorities including the Ring of Fire, the federal government will be there.
The minister references meeting with Mattawa communities and says the government will be there once the province submits infrastructure priorities, which is tangentially relevant but does not address the specific accusation of refusal to invest.
Source text
It is right here, Mr. Speaker. We met with Mattawa communities just a couple of days ago. We remain very optimistic that once the province has submitted its list of priorities for infrastructure projects, which should include infrastructure projects to support the Ring of Fire, we will be there.
When will the government fund infrastructure programs now and deliver money now to cities and towns across Canada, citing examples including Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, Halifax, and Iqaluit?
The question strings together several specific examples â Montreal bridge, Toronto public housing, Calgary flooding, Vancouver transit, Halifax water, Iqaluit housing â but the ask is a compound rhetorical series of "when will it" questions rather than a single accountable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a bridge collapses in Montreal, and the government offers a tax break. Public housing built in Toronto by the federal government starts to fall apart, and it cuts the program. In Calgary, the city gets flooded, roads are washed away, and the government says, âWait until the budget is balanced before we help.â Vancouver needs transit, Halifax needs a water system, Iqaluit needs housing, and the list is getting longer and longer. When will the government finally answer the calls of cities and towns across the country? When will it fund the programs now? When will it deliver the money now? Why will it not stand up for Canada's cities and towns?
The minister recalls receiving no money from the Liberal government during his time as mayor and claims the current government has tripled the investment in infrastructure.
The minister deflects by recalling his time as mayor and criticizing the Liberal government's past record, then offers only a vague claim of having "tripled the investment," without addressing any of the specific examples cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I remember the years I was mayor. We had no money from the Liberal government. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, we have tripled the investment in infrastructure. We will continue to do so.
Do the Conservatives not realize that their 90% cut to the Building Canada fund will have a devastating effect out west, given that western premiers have called for federal partnership in infrastructure?
The question cites western premiers' calls for federal partnership and references a specific claim of a "90% cut to the Building Canada fund," but conflates infrastructure with income splitting and the ask is somewhat compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the western premiers have called on the federal government to be a partner in building the critical infrastructure they need for getting their products to markets. The government is spending billions on extra tax breaks for the rich by way of income splitting, but refuses to invest in the roads, rail, and bridges that will make our export markets stronger and help all Canadians and the economy. Do the Conservatives not realize that their 90% cut to the Building Canada fund will have a devastating effect out west?
The minister calls the preamble totally false and notes that all municipalities already have access to gas tax fund money, pledging continued support for infrastructure and the economy.
The minister calls the preamble "totally false" and references the gas tax fund being available to all municipalities, which partially engages the topic but does not address the specific "90% cut to the Building Canada fund" claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the preamble to this question is totally false. On the gas tax fund, all municipalities in the country already have the money available, which was announced all across the country, and municipalities know it. We will continue to support the development of our economy in supporting the development of infrastructure all across the country in core support and to help the economy of this country.
Will the Prime Minister meet with Ontario's premier by the end of this year to support the Ring of Fire, a project involving 5,500 jobs and $25 billion in economic activity, with Ontario having brought $1 billion to the table?
The question is well-grounded with specific figures â 5,500 jobs, $25 billion in economic activity, Ontario's $1 billion commitment â and poses a clear, single, time-bound ask for the Prime Minister to meet with Ontario's premier by year end.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is what is at stake for Canada in the Ring of Fire: 5,500 jobs; $25 billion in economic activity for our financial services, wholesale, retail, utilities, infrastructure, and manufacturing sectors; full participation of first nation communities. Ontario has brought $1 billion to the table. An independent development corporation has been set up. Corporate investors are on standby. Time is of the essence. Will the Prime Minister meet with Ontario's premier by the end of this year, do his job, and support this project of national significance?
The minister states that Ontario has not committed a red cent and that the development corporation is not supported by first nation communities or the private sector, adding that the federal government has made significant investments and will continue working with first nations and the province.
The minister directly contests the premise by stating Ontario has not committed a red cent and that the development corporation is not supported by first nations communities or the private sector, which substantively engages the question, though he does not address the meeting request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Ontario has not committed a red cent and has set up a development corporation that is not supported by first nation communities the private sector, and it is not a policy option for this government in its current form. We have made significant investments in the Ring of Fire and will continue to demonstrate our commitment by working with first nation communities and the provincial government should it identify the Ring of Fire as an actual priority.
How much will the Conservative government's mismanagement of the navy's resupply capacity â resulting in a seven-year gap â cost Canadians?
The question references a specific "seven-year period with no resupply capacity" and the existence of options before the minister, and asks a clear cost question, though it relies on an implicit premise about "mismanagement" without citing a specific document.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, because of Conservative mismanagement, our navy now faces a seven-year period with no resupply capacity. The minister's original plan has clearly fallen through. His promises that the navy's capabilities would be unaffected are in doubt. The minister will soon have before him a number of options to deal with this service gap. Could he share with us how much the Conservative government's mismanagement will cost Canadians?
The minister cites the $36.6 billion national shipbuilding project, notes the joint supply ships will replace the Protecteur-class vessels, and says the government is considering options for medium-term resupply, while attacking the NDP's opposition to military spending.
The minister cites the $36.6 billion national shipbuilding project and mentions consideration of medium-term options, but does not answer the specific question about what the capability gap will cost Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will share this with the hon. member. Every cent that we have committed to the military and to the navy has been opposed by the NDP, which the member would of course know, but our national shipbuilding project represents a $36.6 billion investment that will contribute to our surface fleet for decades. The joint supply ships will replace the navy's current Protecteur-class vessels and, of course, we are considering options that will ensure that our navy can be resupplied in the medium term.
How much will the government's incompetence in renewing resupply capacity on time cost Canadians, given that new ships won't arrive until 2021 and the navy will go seven years without the necessary resupply ships?
The question identifies a specific seven-year gap without resupply ships and new ships not arriving until 2021, and asks a direct cost question, though it largely mirrors Exchange 21 without adding new specifics.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les conservateurs sont incapables de mener à terme leur plan d'acquisition militaire. C'est échec par-dessus échec. En raison de la mauvaise gestion des conservateurs, la marine canadienne va devoir se débrouiller pendant sept ans sans avoir les navires de ravitaillement nécessaires. Les nouveaux navires, eux, n'arriveront qu'en 2021. L'incompétence du gouvernement à renouveler à temps sa capacité de ravitaillement va coûter combien aux Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are incapable of following through on their military procurement plan. It is failure after failure. As a result of the Conservatives' mismanagement, the Canadian navy now faces a seven-year period with no re-supply capacity. The new ships will not arrive until 2021. How much will the government's failure to renew its supply capacity on time cost Canadians?
The minister again attacks the NDP's record of opposing military spending, references the Halifax class modernization program as on track and on schedule, and says the government is considering options to ensure medium-term resupply.
The minister repeats the same response as Exchange 21 â attacking NDP opposition to military spending and referencing the Halifax class modernization program â without addressing the cost question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear again. Every cent that has ever been committed to our military has consistently been opposed by the NDP. They do not want us to spend anything on our armed forces and our navy. We have undergone the Halifax class modernization program to give our frigates new equipment, sensors, and weapons. These will have world-class, multi-role capabilities. The program is on track, on schedule, and we are considering options that will ensure that our ships are resupplied in the medium term.
Does the Minister of Veterans Affairs realize that his lack of listening and belligerent behaviour â including excluding critics of the New Veterans Charter and disabled veterans from his upcoming Quebec City meetings â is why so many veterans are boycotting his photo opportunities?
The question references a specific upcoming visit to Quebec City and the specific exclusion of critics of the New Veterans Charter and disabled veterans, but frames the ask rhetorically about the minister's "lack of listening" and "belligerent behaviour."
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pour la premiÚre fois depuis des mois, le ministre des Anciens Combattants se rendra à Québec pour participer à des rencontres avec des groupes d'ex-militaires. Toutefois, ceux qui critiquent la Nouvelle Charte des anciens combattants seront exclus des discussions. D'ailleurs, aucun ancien combattant invalide n'est attendu à cette rencontre. Le ministre des Anciens Combattants réalise-t-il que c'est son manque d'écoute et son comportement belliqueux qui font en sorte qu'autant d'anciens combattants sont en colÚre au point de boycotter ses séances photos?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for the first time in months, the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be going to Quebec City to meet with groups of former soldiers. However, those who have criticized the new veterans charter will be excluded from the discussions. Furthermore, not a single disabled veteran is expected to attend this meeting. Does the Minister of Veterans Affairs realize that so many veterans are angry and are boycotting his photo ops because of his failure to listen and his belligerent behaviour?
The parliamentary secretary says the government looks forward to meeting with representatives from Canada's major veterans' groups this week and has had the privilege of meeting with thousands of veterans.
The parliamentary secretary says the government looks forward to meeting with representatives of major veterans' groups and claims to have met with thousands of veterans, without addressing the specific allegations of exclusion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this week we look forward to meeting with representatives from Canada's major veterans' groups. Our government is proud to say that we have had the privilege of meeting with thousands of veterans, including the very people mentioned by the member opposite.
When will the government honour the recommendations of major veterans' groups, veterans' advocacy groups, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and the ombudsman by ensuring reservists injured or killed in the line of duty receive the same benefits as regular force members?
The question thanks the government for a specific action regarding Corporal Nathan Cirillo's family, then pivots to a clear, specific, and well-grounded ask about extending equal benefits to all reservists injured or killed in the line of duty, citing multiple authorities who have recommended this.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to publicly thank the Department of Veterans Affairs for tweaking the benefit package of the late Corporal Nathan Cirillo so that his family will receive all of the benefits of a regular force person, as he was a reservist. The problem is that many other reservists who become injured or die in the line of duty will not get the same benefits as those of a regular force person who is injured or dies in the line of service. The major veterans' groups, all veterans' advocacy groups, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and the ombudsman have asked repeatedly that reservists who are injured or die in the line of duty get the same benefits as regular force members. When will the government honour those recommendations and do the right thing for the reservists of our country?
The parliamentary secretary confirms that Veterans Affairs and National Defence officials have been directed to provide complete regular force benefits to the families of the two recently fallen veterans, and says the government is working to fix the discrepancy for other reservists killed in the line of duty.
The parliamentary secretary confirms benefits for the families of the two recent fallen veterans and says the government is working to fix the discrepancy for other reservists killed in the line of duty, which partially addresses the ask but gives no timeline or detail.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government has directed Veterans Affairs and National Defence officials to provide the complete benefits and programs available to regular force members to the dependent family members of those two remarkable Canadian veterans. Our government is working to fix the discrepancy for the other reservists killed in the line of duty as well.
Can the Minister of National Defence update the House on the latest activities of the Canadian Armed Forces as part of Operation Impact?
This is a government-backbench softball setup referencing 80 sorties and asking the minister to update the House on Operation Impact, designed to give the minister a platform rather than hold him to account.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada continues to make a significant contribution to the coalition campaign against ISIL. I understand that our planes have flown at least 80 sorties and, along with our coalition allies, have significantly degraded the military capacity of this terrorist group. Can the Minister of National Defence please update the House as to the latest activities of the Canadian Armed Forces as a part of Operation Impact?
The minister reports that late last night two CF-18 Hornets dropped four 2,000-pound bombs on an ISIL fighting position in the desert near Kirkuk, Iraq, denying the enemy use of the position and extending the security buffer between ISIL and Iraqi security forces, following Monday's successful air strike on a warehouse used to manufacture improvised explosives.
The minister provides highly specific operational details â two CF-18 Hornets, a pre-planned mission, four 2,000-pound bombs, an ISIL fighting position in the desert near Kirkuk, Iraq â directly responding to the update requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in addition to Monday's successful air strike on a warehouse being used to manufacture improvised explosives, late last night two CF-18 Hornets, in a pre-planned mission, dropped four 2,000-pound bombs on an ISIL fighting position in the desert near Kirkuk, Iraq. These significant strikes have denied the enemy the use of this position and has further extended the security buffer between ISIL and Iraqi security forces. As always, I congratulate the members of our armed forces for another successful mission. Needless to say, Canada will continue to do its part in the fight against terrorism.
Will the minister continue undermining the Information Commissioner's work â given her budget has been cut by 9% while complaints against government obstruction are up 31% â or will he give her the resources she needs?
The question cites specific figures â a 9% budget cut and a 31% increase in complaints â and references the Information Commissioner's own statement that she cannot do her job without adequate funding, with a clear ask about whether the minister will give her the resources she needs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's attack on the Access to Information Act continues. First it denied the Information Commissioner the order-making tools she requires to keep the government honest. Now it is cutting the resources she needs to handle investigations. Her budget has been cut by 9%, while complaints against government obstruction are up a whopping 31% just this year. She has said that without adequate funding, she will not be able to do her job. Maybe that is what the minister wants. Could he clarify if he is going to continue undermining her work or going to give her the resources she needs so that she can keep the government on the straight and narrow?
The parliamentary secretary says independent commissioners are responsible for managing their own funds, that agents of Parliament needing extra funding should make a formal Treasury Board submission, and that the President of the Treasury Board has not yet received a formal request from the Information Commissioner.
The parliamentary secretary explains the formal Treasury Board submission process and states no formal request has been received, which is procedurally relevant but sidesteps the policy question of whether the government will provide adequate resources.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the independent commissioners of Parliament are responsible for managing the funds in their offices, and we expect this to be done in a way that is fair to the taxpayer. If agents of Parliament believe they need extra funding, they should respect the process and make a formal request through a Treasury Board submission. The Treasury Board gives fair consideration to all submissions for additional funding in the supplementary estimates. Currently, the President of the Treasury Board has not received a formal request for additional funds from the Information Commissioner.
Will the minister respect his word and the will of Parliament by ceasing to stifle the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada and giving it the means to serve citizens, given that it already spent 99.8% of its budget last year with growing demand?
The question cites the specific fact that the commissioner spent 99.8% of her budget last year and references increasing demand, and asks whether the minister will respect his word and the will of Parliament, though it largely repeats Exchange 26 without adding substantial new specifics.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, afin de museler la commissaire à l'information, les conservateurs ont sabré son budget. L'an dernier, déjà , elle avait dépensé 99,8 % de son budget et il y a de plus en plus de demandes. Cela déborde! Cacher la vérité fait probablement l'affaire des conservateurs, mais les citoyens sont en droit d'obtenir leurs informations sans attendre une éternité. Le ministre va-t-il respecter sa parole et la volonté du Parlement? Va-t-il cesser d'étouffer le Commissariat à l'information du Canada, et va-t-il lui donner les moyens de servir nos concitoyens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives cut the budget of the Information Commissioner as a way of muzzling her. As of last year she had already spent 99.8% of her budget, and there are more and more requests. They are piling up. The Conservatives probably like hiding the truth, but the public has a right to obtain information without having to wait an eternity. Will the minister keep his word and respect the wishes of Parliament? Will he stop stifling the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada and will he give the office the tools it needs to serve the public?
The parliamentary secretary repeats that independent commissioners manage their own funds, that a formal Treasury Board submission is required for additional funding, and that no such formal request has been received from the Information Commissioner.
The parliamentary secretary repeats the same procedural response about the Treasury Board submission process and the absence of a formal request, which is relevant but fails to address the specific claim that 99.8% of the budget was spent and demand is growing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les commissaires sont indĂ©pendants du Parlement et sont responsables de la gestion des fonds dans leurs bureaux. Nous nous attendons Ă ce que cela soit fait de maniĂšre Ă©quitable pour les contribuables. Si les agences du Parlement estiment avoir besoin de fonds supplĂ©mentaires, elles devraient respecter le processus et faire une demande formelle par l'entremise d'une prĂ©sentation au Conseil du TrĂ©sor. The Treasury Board gives fair consideration to all submissions for additional funding in the supplementary estimates, and currently the President of the Treasury Board has not received a formal request for additional funds for the Information Commissioner. The government will not negotiate a requestâ
Is the minister not ashamed of using a budget bill to deprive refugee claimants of social assistance based on immigration status, leaving the most vulnerable without a lifeline, especially those who have not yet received a work permit?
The question references about a hundred social groups denouncing the measure and raises the specific concern about depriving refugee claimants of social assistance based on immigration status, but the ask â "does the minister not feel ashamed" â is rhetorical rather than substantive.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, une centaine de groupes sociaux dénoncent l'attaque sournoise des conservateurs contre les demandeurs d'asile. Priver des réfugiés de l'aide sociale sur la base du statut d'immigration, c'est priver les plus vulnérables de notre société d'une bouée de sauvetage dont leur vie dépend, surtout que plusieurs n'obtiennent pas immédiatement un permis de travail. Est-ce que le ministre n'a pas honte de profiter d'un projet de loi budgétaire pour poignarder dans le dos les plus démunis de notre société?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, some 100 social groups are condemning the Conservatives' underhanded attack on refugee protection claimants. Denying refugees social assistance based on their immigration status is like denying a lifeline to the most vulnerable members of our society. That is particularly true for those who do not immediately obtain a work visa. Is the minister not ashamed of using a budget bill to backstab the most vulnerable members of our society?
The minister says the government is not ashamed of fulfilling its responsibility to taxpayers, providing quality health care to refugees, and appealing the court decision that risks giving fraudulent asylum seekers health care superior to that received by Canadians.
The minister references the government's obligation to taxpayers and the court decision being appealed, and makes the specific claim that fraudulent asylum seekers risk receiving superior health care to Canadians, which is relevant to the topic but does not address the social assistance concern raised.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, non, nous n'avons pas honte d'exercer notre responsabilité auprÚs des contribuables, de fournir des soins de santé de qualité aux réfugiés et de contester en appel la décision de cette cour, qui fait déjà en sorte que les demandeurs d'asile dont les demandes sont frauduleuses risquent de recevoir des soins de santé supérieurs à ceux reçus par les Canadiens. Cela est irresponsable, et ce gouvernement va continuer de protéger et les réfugiés et les contribuables.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, no, we are not ashamed of exercising our responsibility to taxpayers, of providing quality health care to refugees, and of appealing the court's ruling. That ruling means that people whose refugee protection claims have been found to be fraudulent could receive better health care than Canadians receive. That would be irresponsible, and this government will continue to protect refugees and taxpayers.
Why has the minister accepted just 200 Syrian refugees when his own department told him Canada could accept thousands more, given the UN has called the Syrian refugee situation "a mega crisis"?
The question references the UN's characterization of the Syria situation as "a mega crisis," cites a specific claim that the minister's own department said Canada could accept thousands more Syrian refugees, and contrasts that with the specific figure of 200 accepted, making it reasonably specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, talk about responsibility. The UN has called the flood of refugees in Syria âa mega crisisâ. Just to put it in perspective, if Canada were Syria, it would mean that the entire population of Toronto right now was internally displaced. The minister was told by his own department that Canada could accept thousands more Syrian refugees. Instead, the minister has accepted just 200. His inaction is inexplicable. It is unacceptable. Canada should and could be saving lives right now. Why is the minister not acting?
The minister says 1,857 Syrian refugees have arrived in Canada, that the government has surpassed its commitment to government-assisted refugees and met its commitment to bring 20,000 Iraqis more than a year in advance, and challenges the NDP to explain why it is not prepared to face up to ISIL and other terrorist groups.
The minister provides the specific figure of 1,857 Syrian refugees arrived, claims the government has surpassed its commitment to government-assisted refugees and met its commitment to bring 20,000 Iraqis ahead of schedule, but does not address the specific departmental advice claim or explain the gap between capacity and intake.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Franz Kafka rides again. He has clearly taken out a membership card in the NDP. Today, the number of Syrian refugees that have arrived in this country has risen to 1,857. We have surpassed our commitment to government-assisted refugees and we have met our commitment to bring 20,000 Iraqis to this country more than a year in advance. That is all good news for refugees. That is something Canadians can be proud of. In a crisis where there are millions of internally displaced, millions of refugees fleeing terrorist violence, the NDP needs to explain why it is not prepared to do a single thing to face up to ISIL and other terrorist groups.
Why is the government willing to risk the safety of those who earn a living at sea by cutting by half the number of area managers in Newfoundland and Labrador, leaving eight people responsible for 335 harbours and 205 harbour authorities?
The question cites specific figures â half the area managers cut, eight people responsible for 335 harbours and 205 harbour authorities in Newfoundland and Labrador â and asks a clear accountability question about safety, grounded in a concrete operational change.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the small craft harbours program has seen drastic cuts in recent budgets, but the latest action by DFO brings into question the very existence of the program. Without consultation, DFO is cutting by half the number of area managers in Newfoundland and Labrador, leaving eight people in total responsible for 335 harbours and 205 harbour authorities. Volunteers run harbour authorities. They apply for funding to fix aging federal infrastructure and should receive a timely response. Why is the government willing to risk the safety of those who earn a living at sea?
The minister says the government is investing over $30 million in small craft harbours in Newfoundland and Labrador this year and that the proposed organizational changes to area offices will result in less being spent on administration and more on actual harbours.
The minister cites over $30 million being invested in small craft harbours in Newfoundland and Labrador this year and notes proposed organizational changes will shift spending from administration to actual harbours, which partially engages the question but does not address the specific safety concern or the workload implications of the staffing reduction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the important role that small craft harbours play in many coastal communities. We do recognize the valuable role that small craft harbour volunteers play in their communities and we thank them for that. In recent years we have made unprecedented investments in small craft harbours across this country. In fact, we are investing in Newfoundland and Labrador alone this year over $30 million in small craft harbours. The region has proposed making some organizational changes to its area office, which will see less being spent on administration and more being spent on actual harbours.
LeBlanc asks when the minister will act to help the people of Richibucto and repair the port on rue Principale, referencing requests from mayor Roger Doiron and Mi'kmaq fisher Cyril Polchies of the harbour authority.
The question is grounded in a specific port (Richibucto on rue Principale), names real local stakeholders (mayor Roger Doiron and pĂȘcheur micmaque Cyril Polchies), and asks a clear question about funding and a long-term plan, though it lacks cited documents or dollar figures.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le port de Richibucto, situĂ© sur la rue Principale, a sĂ©rieusement besoin de rĂ©parations et d'un plan Ă long terme. Ă la demande du maire, Roger Doiron, qui est Ă Ottawa aujourd'hui, j'ai souvent demandĂ© Ă la ministre des fonds et un plan Ă long terme. J'ai rĂ©cemment rencontrĂ© Cyril Polchies, un pĂȘcheur micmaque de l'autoritĂ© portuaire qui a insistĂ© aussi sur l'importance de ce port pour la communautĂ©. Quand est-ce que la ministre va enfin agir pour aider les gens de Richibucto et rĂ©parer le port sur la rue Principale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Richibucto harbour, on Principale Street, is in serious need of repairs and a long-term plan. At the request of the mayor, Roger Doiron, who is in Ottawa today, I have often asked the minister for funding and a long-term plan. I recently met with Cyril Polchies, a Mi'kmaq fisherman with the harbour authority, who also reiterated how important this harbour is to the community. When will the minister finally take action to help the people of Richibucto and repair the harbour on Main Street?
Shea says she cannot speak specifically to Richibucto's plans but highlights unprecedented investments in the small craft harbours program, including a $10 million base budget increase and $40 million over two years, plus half a million dollars in dredging in Beauséjour.
Shea acknowledges she cannot speak specifically to Richibucto's plans, offers general program figures ($10 million base increase, $40 million over two years), and mentions half a million dollars in dredging in Beauséjour, but does not address the long-term plan or the specific port repairs asked about.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak specifically to the plans for Richibucto, but I want to be clear that we have made unprecedented investments in the small craft harbours program. We have increased the base budget by $10 million and we have invested an additional $40 million over the last two years alone. We are committed to working with the harbour authority associations and the volunteers, because I believe that they play a big role in their communities. Those increased investments have allowed us to invest half a million dollars in dredging in the riding of Beauséjour alone.
Nicholls asks whether the minister will implement the recommendations of the official languages commissioners to ensure francophone minority communities benefit from francophone immigration, noting that barely 2% of francophone newcomers settle outside Quebec.
The question cites the findings of both federal and Ontario official languages commissioners, identifies a specific statistic (barely 2% of francophone newcomers settle outside Quebec), and asks a clear question about implementing the commissioners' recommendations.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les commissaires aux langues officielles du Canada et de l'Ontario estiment que les communautés francophones en situation minoritaire ne bénéficient pas suffisamment de l'apport de l'immigration francophone. à peine 2 % des nouveaux arrivants francophones s'installent hors Québec. Le ministre compte-t-il mettre en place les recommandations des commissaires afin de s'assurer que nos communautés francophones en milieu minoritaire bénéficient de l'apport des nouveaux arrivants francophones?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada's and Ontario's official languages commissioners say that francophone minority communities are not reaping the benefits of francophone immigration. Barely 2% of francophone newcomers settle outside of Quebec. Will the minister implement the commissioners' recommendations to ensure that our francophone minority communities reap the benefits of welcoming francophone newcomers?
Alexander says the government is working on this daily, references a target of 4.4% francophone immigration outside Quebec by 2018, and outlines plans to mobilize francophone immigration networks and employers through the Express Entry system.
Alexander engages the substance by citing the 4.4% francophone immigration target outside Quebec by 2018, mentions a recent meeting with the New Brunswick official languages commissioner, and references Express Entry mobilization, partially addressing the recommendation question but not specifying which recommendations will be implemented.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on travaille Ă cela tous les jours. La semaine passĂ©e, j'ai eu l'occasion de rencontrer la commissaire aux langues officielles du Nouveau-Brunswick; selon l'objectif qu'on a fixĂ©, 4,4 % de notre immigration hors QuĂ©bec doit ĂȘtre francophone d'ici 2018. On fait des progrĂšs. Dans le cadre du nouveau systĂšme d'immigration, EntrĂ©e express, on veut mobiliser tous nos rĂ©seaux d'immigration francophone et tous nos employeurs partout au Canada pour avoir des milliers d'immigrants francophones dans toutes les provinces et dans tous les territoires du Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is something we work on every day. Last week, I met with the Commissioner of Official Languages for New Brunswick. The goal is for 4.4% of immigration outside Quebec to be francophone by 2018. We are making progress. As part of the new immigration system, express entry, we want to mobilize all of our francophone immigration networks and all employers across Canada to get thousands of francophone immigrants in all of our provinces and territories.
Godin asks whether the minister will implement the official languages commissioners' recommendations and apply the FCFA's proposal to add a francophone stream to Express Entry to accelerate applications from francophones wanting to settle in minority francophone communities â yes or no.
Godin cites a specific organization (Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada) and its specific proposal (adding a francophone stream to Express Entry), and asks a direct yes-or-no question about implementing the official languages commissioners' recommendations and the FCFA proposal.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on a besoin d'outils pour appuyer l'immigration francophone dans les milieux minoritaires. La FĂ©dĂ©ration des communautĂ©s francophones et acadienne du Canada demande que le programme EntrĂ©e express soit modifiĂ© pour y ajouter un volet francophone. Il faut accĂ©lĂ©rer le processus de demande des francophones qui veulent s'installer dans les communautĂ©s oĂč le français est en situation minoritaire. Le ministre va-t-il mettre en place les recommandations des commissaires aux langues officielles et appliquer la proposition de la FCFA, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we need tools to support francophone immigration to minority communities. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada wants the express entry program to include a francophone component. We need to speed up processing of applications from francophones who want to settle in communities where French is the minority language. Will the minister implement the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the FCFA's proposal or not?
Alexander does not say yes or no, instead asserting that all Canadian immigration is francophone and anglophone, citing francophone population figures for the Yukon, and referencing collaboration with the ACFA and the feuille de route without addressing the specific FCFA proposal.
Alexander does not answer yes or no, deflects by saying all immigration is francophone and anglophone, cites a dubious statistic about the Yukon, and references collaboration with the ACFA without addressing the specific FCFA proposal or the commissioners' recommendations.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il n'y a pas seulement un volet francophone à notre immigration; toute l'immigration au Canada est francophone et anglophone. Nous sommes fiers d'accueillir des francophones partout au pays. En fait, 30 % de la population du Yukon est francophone maintenant. Nous offrons des services aux nouveaux immigrants partout au Canada. Nous avons fait beaucoup de progrÚs à cet égard, y compris en étroite collaboration avec l'ACFA. Nous sommes fiers de nos réseaux d'immigration francophone qui existent partout au Canada grùce à la feuille de route.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our immigration system does not just have a francophone component. All immigration to Canada is francophone and anglophone. We are proud to welcome francophones to communities across the country. Actually, 30% of Yukon's population is now francophone. We offer services to new immigrants across Canada. We have made a lot of progress on that, and we have worked closely with the ACFA. We are proud of the francophone immigration networks we have across Canada thanks to the roadmap.
Carmichael asks the Minister of National Defence to update the House on the efforts Canadian armed forces are making in the fight against ISIL, noting U.S. State Department confirmation that air strikes have eliminated much of ISIL's oil refining capacity.
This is a government-backbench softball setup that cites a U.S. State Department confirmation about air strikes eliminating ISIL oil refining capacity but is designed to invite the minister to promote the government's position rather than hold it to account.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the terrorist group ISIL has largely funded its military activities by refining and selling crude oil on the black market. ISIL has profited by millions of dollars every day in this way. Yesterday the U.S. State Department confirmed that air strikes have eliminated much of ISIL's oil refining capacity and have clearly reduced its revenue. This is clear evidence that despite what the NDP and Liberals have said, air strikes are reducing the capacity of ISIL to continue committing mass atrocities. Can the Minister of National Defence please update the House on the efforts our armed forces are making in the fight against these extremists?
Nicholson states that at least 22 ISIL refineries have been destroyed and ISIL's refining capacity has been reduced by at least 11,000 barrels a day, and reports that the RCAF has conducted over 80 sorties during Operation Impact.
Nicholson provides specific figures â at least 22 ISIL refineries destroyed, refining capacity reduced by at least 11,000 barrels a day, and over 80 RCAF sorties under Operation Impact â which constitute real information in response to the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, illicit oil sales are a substantial source of revenue for ISIL. That is why we are pleased to hear that the United States State Department said that at least 22 of ISIL's refineries have been destroyed. This means that since the air campaign began, ISIL's refining capacity has been reduced by at least 11,000 barrels a day. Let there be no doubt that air strikes have significantly diminished the capacity of ISIL to fund its military operations. The RCAF has now conducted over 80 sorties during Operation Impact. As always, Canada will continue to do its part in fighting tyranny and oppression.
Dion asks whether the government will compensate provinces for prison population increases caused by Bill C-10 â citing 10% in Saskatchewan, 11% in Quebec, and 18% in Manitoba â and whether it will eliminate the six-month mandatory minimum for marijuana possession.
Dion cites a Le Devoir study with specific provincial prison population increases (10% in Saskatchewan, 11% in Quebec, 18% in Manitoba) linked to Bill C-10, and asks two identifiable questions â compensation for provinces and removal of the six-month mandatory minimum for marijuana possession â though combining two asks weakens focus.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous l'avons dit: le projet de loi C-10, ce fourre-tout idéologique et inefficace, est onéreux et gonfle la population carcérale, notamment dans les prisons provinciales, malgré un taux de criminalité en déclin. Une étude réalisée par Le Devoir le confirme: en deux ans, il y a eu une hausse de 10 % de la population carcérale en Saskatchewan, de 11 % au Québec et de 18 % au Manitoba . Le gouvernement va-t-il compenser les provinces, qui n'ont pas à pùtir des mauvaises décisions des conservateurs, et va-t-il supprimer la peine minimale insensée de six mois pour possession de marijuana?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as we have already said, Bill C-10 is an ineffective, ideological grab bag that will simply inflate prison costs and prison populations, especially in provincial prisons, despite falling crime rates. A study conducted by Le Devoir confirms it: in two years, the prison population rose by 10% in Saskatchewan, 11% in Quebec and 18% in Manitoba. Will the federal government compensate the provinces, which should not have to pay for the Conservatives' bad decisions, and will it remove the ridiculous six-month minimum sentence for possession of marijuana?
MacKay acknowledges shared jurisdiction over prisons, defends mandatory minimum penalties as a response to public outcry over serious offences, and attacks the Liberal leader for pledging to eliminate mandatory minimums for offences including distribution of date rape drugs and child pornography.
MacKay does not address provincial compensation, does not address the six-month mandatory minimum for marijuana possession, and instead pivots to attacking the Liberal leader's position on mandatory minimums for distribution of date rape drugs and child pornography.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I am sure, there is shared jurisdiction with respect to prisons, but let us be frank: it was our government that took the necessary steps to respond to the outcry from the public that we were hearing over very serious offences, including violent sexual offences. That resulted in some mandatory minimum penalties. I remind the member opposite that contrary to the public view, his leader and his party have pledged to do away with mandatory minimum sentences when it comes to some serious offences, such as distribution of date rape drugs and child pornography.
Hughes asks whether the Minister of Health will save money by purchasing cart-based scanners at a one-time cost of $15,000 each for 16 remote Nishnawbe Aski Nation communities, rather than spending hundreds of thousands of dollars transporting people to a central location for ultrasound scans.
Hughes is highly specific: she identifies the mobile ultrasound program serving Nishnawbe Aski Nation in 16 remote communities, the imminent retirement of the sonographer, a concrete alternative (cart-based scanners at a one-time cost of $15,000 each), and contrasts it with the cost of centralized scanning â making it a clear, answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the mobile ultrasound program has dramatically improved maternal health outcomes for the Nishnawbe Aski Nation in northwestern Ontario. The current sonographer will retire soon. Any replacement will cart hundreds of pounds of equipment to 16 remote communities. This rules out many qualified women. One option is to equip these communities with cart-based scanners at a one-time cost of $15,000 each. Another option spends hundreds of thousands of dollars bringing people to a central location for scans. Will the Minister of Health decide to save money and buy the scanners?
Ambrose says the government invests heavily in aboriginal health and maternal health on First Nations and offers to look into the specific issue and get back to the member.
Ambrose only acknowledges heavy investment in aboriginal and maternal health in general terms and promises to look into the specific issue, without addressing the cart-based scanner option, the $15,000 cost, or the Nishnawbe Aski Nation program.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we invest very heavily in aboriginal health on first nations, but also specifically in the area of maternal health. I am happy to look into her specific issue and get back to her.
Warkentin asks the Minister of Employment and Social Development to update the House on meaningful tax cuts the government is providing to hard-working Canadian families, framing it against a Liberal candidate's comment that tax cuts are a bad idea because Canadians will spend the money on the wrong things.
This is a government-backbench softball that references a Liberal candidate's comment in BanffâAirdrie as a pretext to invite the minister to promote government tax measures, with no real accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it was not long ago that Liberals were attacking the idea of providing support for families, saying that parents would simply spend the money on âbeer and popcorn.â The candidate for BanffâAirdrie has shown that Liberals have not changed their ways. He recently said that tax cuts are a bad idea because Canadians will spend the money on the wrong things. Can the Minister of Employment and Social Development update the House on the meaningful tax cuts that this government is providing hard-working Canadian families?
Kenney attacks the Liberal candidate in Banff for opposing tax cuts and argues that Liberals want to eliminate the family tax cut, take back the choice in child care benefit, and opposed the GST cut, without specifying the tax cuts being provided to families.
Kenney largely attacks the Liberal candidate and the Liberal Party's positions on the GST cut, the choice in child care benefit, and the family tax cut rather than providing specific information about the tax cuts being offered to Canadian families.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was disturbed but not surprised to hear the Liberal candidate in Banff say that he was opposed to tax cuts for families because it is âhanding people money for what? Arguably nothing.â That is an echo of the Liberals saying that parents would spend money on âbeer and popcornâ. We believe that parents of kids will invest in their children, not in âbeer and popcornâ, not in nothing. This is why the Liberals were opposed to the GST cut, it is why they want to take back the choice in child care benefit, it is why they want to eliminate the family tax cut. It is because they think Liberals know how to spend money better than families. Weâ
Borg asks whether the end of home delivery is simply a conservative stratagem to privatize Canada Post, noting that private companies are currently offering to take over from Canada Post for $30 per month.
Borg grounds the question in a specific community (Blainville), mentions private companies offering to replace Canada Post for $30 per month, and asks whether the end of home delivery is a conservative stratagem to privatize Canada Post, but the question is partly rhetorical and the privatization framing dominates over a factual ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce sera bientĂŽt le tour des citoyens de Blainville de se voir privĂ©s de la livraison du courrier Ă domicile. Pour avoir tenu des consultations publiques sur le sujet, je peux dire que les citoyens n'acceptent pas de perdre la livraison du courrier Ă domicile. De plus, on voit que des compagnies privĂ©es offrent actuellement de prendre le relais de Postes Canada pour 30 $ par mois. Cela n'a aucun sens. L'arrĂȘt de la livraison Ă domicile est-il simplement un stratagĂšme conservateur pour privatiser Postes Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, pretty soon the people of Blainville will be the ones to lose their home mail delivery service. I have held public consultations on the matter and I know for a fact that the people of my riding will not accept this loss. Furthermore, now private companies are offering to take over home mail delivery from Canada Post for $30 a month. It makes no sense. Did the Conservatives put an end to home mail delivery as part of a scheme to privatize Canada Post?
Watson calls the privatization claim nonsense, states that Canada Post's five-point action plan does not propose privatization, and accuses the NDP of denying the financial crisis at Canada Post and therefore opposing necessary action.
Watson denies that Canada Post's five-point action plan proposes privatization and accuses the NDP of denying the financial crisis, but does not address the private company offers at $30 per month or the specific situation in Blainville.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. Canada Post, in its five-point action plan, in order to turn around its finances, has not proposed privatization. Instead, it proposed a number of other measures, but it is only that party opposite that seems to suggest there is no crisis at Canada Post and therefore no need for action by Canada Post. We disagree. It has its five-point plan and it will carry that out.
Bellavance asks whether the Minister of Natural Resources will guarantee that TransCanada will be required to provide all correct documents to the National Energy Board, after the UMQ revealed that the techniques and route submitted by TransCanada were not up to date and did not reflect negotiations with municipalities.
Bellavance cites a specific concern raised by the Union des municipalités du Québec during its tour, identifies a concrete allegation that TransCanada's techniques and route submitted to the National Energy Board were not up to date and did not reflect municipal negotiations, and asks a clear accountability question about whether the minister will guarantee that correct documents are provided.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aprĂšs s'ĂȘtre arrĂȘtĂ©e Ă Victoriaville, la prĂ©sidente de l'Union des municipalitĂ©s du QuĂ©bec poursuit sa tournĂ©e au Centre-du-QuĂ©bec aujourd'hui. Un des sujets qui prĂ©occupent l'UMQ est le projet d'OlĂ©oduc Ănergie Est de TransCanada et ses consĂ©quences sur la sĂ©curitĂ©, la protection de l'environnement et l'amĂ©nagement du territoire. L'UMQ dĂ©voile aujourd'hui que les techniques utilisĂ©es et le tracĂ© dĂ©posĂ© par TransCanada Ă l'Office national de l'Ă©nergie n'Ă©taient pas Ă jour et ne reflĂ©taient pas les nĂ©gociations que les municipalitĂ©s avaient eues avec la compagnie. Le ministre des Ressources naturelles peut-il nous garantir que TransCanada devra fournir tous les bons documents pour que l'Office national de l'Ă©nergie puisse faire son travail?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, after stopping in Victoriaville, the president of the Union des municipalités du Québec will be continuing his tour today in the Centre-du-Québec region. One of the concerns of the UMQ is TransCanada's energy east pipeline project and the impact it will have on safety, environmental protection and land use. Today the UMQ discovered that the techniques used and the route that TransCanada proposed to the National Energy Board were not up to date and did not reflect the negotiations that took place between the municipalities and the company. Can the Minister of Natural Resources guarantee that TransCanada will have to provide all the proper documentation so the National Energy Board can do its job?
Rickford says the proponent's communication strategy does not play a role in the government's decision-making process and asserts that the project will undergo a rigorous science- and fact-based review to determine if it is safe for Canadians and the environment.
Rickford dismisses the proponent's communication strategy as irrelevant to decision-making and gives a generic assurance of a rigorous science- and fact-based review, without addressing the specific allegation that the documents submitted to the National Energy Board by TransCanada were inaccurate or outdated.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the proponent's communication strategy does not play a role in our decision-making process. The project will undergo a rigorous science- and fact-based review to determine if it is safe for Canadians, safe for communities, and safe for the environment. We have been clear that projects will only proceed if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.
The Speaker drew the attention of the House to guests in the gallery; members responded with applause. No question was asked and no substantive answer was given.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!