Session overview
- Bill C-51 dominated Question Period, with NDP members pressing the government to define key terms such as 'interfere with economic stability' and to explain what new powers CSIS would receive, while the government defended the bill as common sense and necessary to counter terrorism.
- Liberal leader Justin Trudeau raised three distinct issues: the case of Mohamed Fahmy, the government's vaccination communications, and the Supreme Court's one-year deadline to legislate on medical assistance in dying.
- The NDP raised the deaths of two children from the Makwa Sahgaiehcan First Nation in a house fire, citing the lack of fire and emergency services on reserve and inadequate federal funding.
- The HSBC tax evasion scandal was raised twice, with the NDP pressing the Minister of National Revenue on what action Canada was taking while Swiss authorities were conducting raids; the minister responded with specific audit and voluntary disclosure figures.
- Liberals questioned a $9,200 after-the-fact speech-writing contract awarded to Guy Giorno, the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, with documents showing it contravened Treasury Board Contracting Policies; the government's parliamentary secretary did not address the substance of the allegation.
- The niqab at citizenship ceremonies was debated, with Liberals challenging the immigration minister after he incorrectly referred to the hijab rather than the niqab in a communication about the policy, and the minister defended the government's intention to appeal the court ruling.
The Minister of National Revenue provided concrete, specific figures in direct response to the question: over 8,600 international tax audits since 2006, over $5.6 billion in additional taxes identified, hundreds of HSBC-specific audits leading to over $21 million in taxes and penalties reassessed, and over 250 voluntary disclosures representing another $123 million.
Trudeau asks two precise, answerable questions grounded in a specific case: will the Prime Minister personally call President el-Sisi, and will the government make a formal submission at trial requesting Mohamed Fahmy's deportation?
When asked directly how the minister could find it acceptable that Treasury Board rules were violated to issue an after-the-fact contract to the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, Calandra dismissed the question by mocking its pre-election timing, pivoting to unrelated government announcements, and offering only to 'take a look' at the speech, without addressing the substance of the contracting violation.
Outstanding questions
- Thomas Mulcair asked the Prime Minister to give a single example of activity that would be captured by the new offence of promoting terrorism 'in general' that is not already captured by the existing offence of inciting someone to commit a terrorist act â no example was provided.
- Thomas Mulcair asked the Prime Minister to explain exactly what 'interfere with economic stability' means under Bill C-51 and to give a single concrete example of the new kind of economic interference CSIS would be charged with investigating â the Prime Minister never provided an example.
- Randall Garrison asked the Minister of Public Safety to commit to not railroading Bill C-51 through the House and to commit to hearing from experts at committee and then changing the bill to strengthen oversight â the minister made no such commitment.
- David McGuinty asked the minister to immediately produce a copy of the speech for which Guy Giorno was paid $9,200 under a contract that contravened Treasury Board Contracting Policies, and to explain why taxpayers paid for it if the department has no record of its existence â neither the speech nor an explanation was provided.
- Justin Trudeau asked the Prime Minister whether he would personally call President el-Sisi to request Mohamed Fahmy's return to Canada and whether the Government of Canada would make a formal submission at trial requesting his immediate deportation â neither specific action was committed to.
Mulcair asks the Prime Minister to give a single example of conduct that would be captured by the new offence of promoting terrorism generally but is not already captured by the existing offence of inciting a specific terrorist act.
Mulcair asks a specific, answerable question: can the Prime Minister give a concrete example of a situation covered by the new 'promoting terrorism' offence that is not already covered by existing law?
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au Canada, le fait d'inciter quelqu'un à commettre un acte terroriste est déjà un crime. Le premier ministre veut changer la loi pour faire en sorte que promouvoir le terrorisme en général soit maintenant un crime. Le problÚme, c'est que cette définition n'ajoute évidemment rien de concret. Le ministre de la Sécurité publique plaide qu'il ne veut pas s'enfarger dans les définitions. Le premier ministre peut-il donner aux Canadiens l'exemple d'une situation qui n'est pas déjà visée par la loi existante?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, inciting a terrorist act is already a crime in Canada. The Prime Minister wants to change the law so that promoting terrorism in general will now be a crime. The problems is that this definition does not add anything meaningful. The Minister of Public Safety claims that he does not want to get caught up in definitions. Can the Prime Minister give Canadians an example of a situation that is not covered by the existing legislation?
Harper states only that promoting terrorism 'obviously should be a crime' and calls it common sense, without providing any example.
Harper offers only the assertion that promoting terrorism 'should' be a crime and calls it 'gros bon sens,' providing no example and not addressing the specific ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est Ă©vident que le fait de promouvoir le terrorisme devrait ĂȘtre un crime au Canada. C'est une clarification de la loi qui a du gros bon sens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, obviously promoting terrorism should be a crime in Canada. This clarification of the law is just common sense.
Mulcair asks the Prime Minister to explain exactly what 'interfering with economic stability' means as a security threat under the bill.
Mulcair cites the bill's specific language â 'menace Ă la sĂ©curitĂ©' including interference with 'stabilitĂ© Ă©conomique' â and asks for a precise definition of that phrase.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, inciter quelqu'un Ă commettre un acte terroriste est dĂ©jĂ illĂ©gal. Le premier ministre est-il le seul qui ne l'a pas compris? En ce moment, le SCRS est dĂ©jĂ mandatĂ© pour faire enquĂȘte sur toute menace Ă la sĂ©curitĂ© du Canada. Aux termes du projet de loi du premier ministre, la dĂ©finition de « menace Ă la sĂ©curitĂ© » inclurait tout ce qui pourrait entraver la stabilitĂ© Ă©conomique. Mais qu'est-ce que cela veut bien dire? Le premier ministre peut-il dire aux Canadiens ce que signifie exactement « entraver la stabilitĂ© Ă©conomique » dans le cadre de sa loi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, inciting a terrorist act is already illegal. Is the Prime Minister the only one who does not understand that? Right now, CSIS already has the mandate to investigate any threat to Canada's security. Under the Prime Minister's bill, the definition of a threat to security would include anything that could interfere with economic stability. What does that mean? Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians exactly what his bill means when it refers to interfering with economic stability?
Harper argues terrorism can affect economic stability and notes the bill excludes lawful advocacy, protest, dissent, and artistic expression, but does not define the phrase.
Harper notes that terrorism can affect economic stability (citing 9/11) and quotes the bill's exemption for lawful advocacy, protest, and dissent, but never defines what 'entraver la stabilité économique' actually means.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est évident que le terrorisme peut affecter la stabilité économique du Canada. On peut voir les résultats des événements du 11 septembre 2001. The bill is very clear. It lists a range of national security threats to Canada, but it also makes clear that any activity undermining security does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or artistic infringements.
Mulcair asks for one concrete example of economic interference that would now fall under CSIS's new mandate that was not already covered.
Mulcair sharpens his earlier question, citing CSIS's existing mandate and asking for a single new example of economic interference CSIS would be charged with investigating under the bill.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, right now CSIS investigates security threats, but the Prime Minister's proposed bill would redefine security threats to include all activities that âinterfereâ with infrastructure and economic stability, to give only two examples. CSIS is already charged with investigating things like terrorist threats against our economic infrastructure. It is already there So what new kind of economic interference would CSIS now be charged with investigating? Can the Prime Minister give Canadians a single example?
Harper says the bill gives CSIS new authority to disrupt security threats in progress, subject to judicial oversight, without addressing the economic interference question.
Harper pivots entirely to CSIS's new disruption authorities and judicial oversight, which is a different provision from the definitional question asked about the scope of 'economic stability' threats.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, under present authority, CSIS does not have the authorization to disrupt security threats that are in stage. This bill gives CSIS those authorities to be exercised with judicial oversight and court authority.
Mulcair asks why the Prime Minister is grouping legitimate dissent together with terrorist activity in the bill's definitions of interference with infrastructure and economic stability.
Mulcair raises a legitimate concern about the bill lumping legitimate dissent with terrorism but frames it as a broad rhetorical question rather than a specific, answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, terrorism is a real threat and everyone agrees that public safety is the primary responsibility of any government, but Canadians do not have to choose between security and their rights. Interfering with infrastructure, interfering with economic stability, why is the Prime Minister lumping in legitimate dissent with terrorist activity?
Harper denies the bill does any such thing and attacks the NDP for claiming security measures undermine freedoms, without addressing the definitional concern.
Harper flatly denies the premise and pivots to attacking the NDP's general posture on security, without explaining how the bill distinguishes dissent from threats to economic stability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the bill, as I just outlined, does absolutely no such thing, not even remotely. This is, in fact, the attempt of the NDP to always say that anything that is in defence of our security somehow undermines our freedoms. That is simply not true. All we are seeing here is that as the NDP's positions on this issue become more and more irrelevant, more and more unconnected to Canadians' real concerns, their statements on the issue become more and more extreme.
Mulcair again challenges the Prime Minister to identify what new activities would fall under CSIS's extended mandate under the bill, noting no example has been provided.
Mulcair reiterates his earlier challenge â the Prime Minister has not given a single example of new activities covered by the bill â but this is largely a repetition and partial speech rather than a sharply framed new question.
Source text
Of course, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister uses the word âextremeâ to define the opposition, and then he denies that this is about political opportunism, everybody can see right through it. Le SCRS a dĂ©jĂ le mandat d'enquĂȘter sur les menaces Ă la sĂ©curitĂ© et les attaques potentielles, quelles qu'elles soient, contre le Canada. Le projet de loi du premier ministre Ă©tendrait son mandat, mais Ă quoi, Ă quelles activitĂ©s? Il n'est pas capable de donner un seul exemple aux Canadiens.
Hansard translation: J'espĂšre bien, monsieur le PrĂ©sident, que tout le monde voit clair dans le jeu du premier ministre lorsqu'il nie que c'est par opportunisme politique qu'il emploie des mots comme « extrĂȘme » pour caractĂ©riser l'opposition. CSIS already has a mandate to investigate security threats and potential attacks of any kind against Canada. The Prime Minister's bill would expand its mandate, but to what? What activities? He is not able to give Canadians a single example.
Harper says the law is clear, that all agencies should have powers to counter threats and share information, and that a majority of Canadians support the bill, without giving any example.
Harper says the law is clear and cites broad public support, but still provides no example and contradicts himself by calling the bill both unchanged and excellent, without addressing the mandate-extension question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la loi est trÚs précise. Le chef de l'opposition dit que la loi ne change rien, mais elle est excellente. Toutefois, c'est le gros bon sens de s'assurer que toutes nos forces de police et toutes nos agences de sécurité ont les pouvoirs de contrer les menaces à la sécurité et de terrorisme, et aussi de partager des informations entre elles. C'est le gros bon sens et c'est la raison pour laquelle la population canadienne appuie ce projet de loi en grande majorité.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the bill is very specific. The Leader of the Opposition says that the bill changes nothing, but it is excellent. It only makes sense to ensure that all of our police forces and security agencies have the power to deal with security threats and terrorism and share information. That is common sense, and that is why the vast majority of Canadians support this bill.
Trudeau asks whether the Prime Minister will personally call President el-Sisi about Mohamed Fahmy's case and whether the government will make a formal submission at trial requesting Fahmy's immediate deportation.
Trudeau asks two precise, answerable questions grounded in a specific case: will the Prime Minister personally call President el-Sisi, and will the government make a formal submission at trial requesting Mohamed Fahmy's deportation?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last night I spoke with Mohamed Fahmy, and today I have two questions. First, will the Prime Minister pick up the phone and call President el-Sisi to personally ask for Mr. Fahmy to be returned to Canada? Further, will the Government of Canada make a formal submission at trial requesting his immediate deportation?
Harper says the government remains concerned, has expressed that concern at all levels to Egypt, and will continue until a satisfactory resolution, without committing to a personal call or formal submission.
Harper confirms concern about the case and that representations have been made 'at all levels,' but does not address either specific ask â the personal phone call or the formal trial submission.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, although Mr. Fahmy has been released on bail, the government remains very concerned about this case and about the process in question. We have expressed those concerns to the government of Egypt at all levels and we will continue to do so until we get a resolution of this that is satisfactory.
Trudeau asks the Prime Minister to cancel partisan advertising and instead launch a national public education campaign on the importance of vaccinating children.
Trudeau references the health minister's conduct and proposes a specific alternative (cancel partisan ads, launch a national vaccination education campaign), though it combines a substantive ask with partisan framing about 'wasteful' ads.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has a responsibility to educate Canadians about matters of public health, but yesterday the health minister simply pointed fingers at parents for not vaccinating children. Instead of blaming parents, will the Prime Minister cancel his wasteful partisan ads and start a national education campaign on the importance of vaccinating our kids?
Harper says he checked overnight and found no reduction in vaccination funding, notes the government's domestic and international vaccination programs, and urges all members to encourage Canadians to vaccinate.
Harper directly contests Trudeau's prior claim that vaccination funding was cut, asserts there has been no reduction, and promotes both domestic and international vaccination programs, though he does not address the partisan-ads-versus-education-campaign ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of a shuffle over there, because yesterday, the leader of the Liberal Party accused the government of having cut vaccination campaigns and vaccination funding. I checked on those numbers overnight and saw that there has been no reduction whatsoever. In fact, this government has not only continued doing what we have always done domestically, we are also involved in unprecedented programs internationally promoting vaccination. The Minister of Health has made this very clear, and I would encourage all members of the House to indicate to Canadians that medical science is absolutely clear that vaccinations are good and children should be protected.
Trudeau asks whether the Prime Minister will launch a parliamentary process on medical assistance in dying within the coming weeks, given the Supreme Court's one-year deadline, or whether he will wait until after the election.
Trudeau references the Supreme Court's one-year deadline and asks a specific, time-bound question: will the Prime Minister start the process in the coming weeks or force Canadians to wait until after the next election?
Source text
There has been a 23% cut since 2006, Mr. Speaker. La Cour suprĂȘme n'a donnĂ© qu'un an au gouvernement pour formuler une loi sur l'aide mĂ©dicale Ă mourir. Les parlementaires doivent pouvoir entendre les Canadiens et les experts et entamer une discussion respectueuse et responsable sur cette question importante. Le premier ministre va-t-il dĂ©marrer ce processus dans les prochaines semaines, ou va-t-il forcer les Canadiens Ă attendre aprĂšs les prochaines Ă©lections?
Hansard translation: Il y a eu des réductions de 23 % depuis 2006, monsieur le Président. The Supreme Court has given the government just one year to draft legislation on physician-assisted death. Parliamentarians must be able to hear from Canadians and experts and hold a respectful, responsible discussion on this important issue. Will the Prime Minister start this process in the coming weeks, or will he force Canadians to wait until after the next election?
Harper says the government will study the decision and hold broad consultations on all perspectives, without committing to a timeline or confirming action before the election.
Harper acknowledges the sensitivity of the issue and commits to studying the decision and holding 'vastes consultations,' but gives no timeline and does not answer whether the process will begin before the election.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il est évident qu'il s'agit d'un dossier sensible pour de nombreux Canadiens et Canadiennes et des convictions profondes sont exprimées des deux cÎtés. Nous étudierons cette décision et tiendrons de vastes consultations relativement à tous les points de vue liés à cette question difficile.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a sensitive topic for many Canadians, and there are strong opinions on both sides. We will examine this decision and hold broad consultations on all aspects of this difficult issue.
Doré Lefebvre asks why the Conservatives are presenting security legislation as a binary choice between liberty and security rather than protecting both.
DorĂ© Lefebvre asks why the Conservatives act as though Canadians must choose between freedom and security â a largely rhetorical question without a specific, answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, tout le monde est d'accord, ici, qu'il faut faire tout en notre pouvoir pour assurer la sécurité des Canadiens. Toutefois, nous ne pouvons pas le faire au détriment de ce que nous sommes, de nos valeurs et de notre façon de vivre. Nous ne devrions pas avoir à choisir entre notre sécurité et nos libertés et nos droits. Pourquoi les conservateurs font-ils comme si nous devions absolument choisir entre notre liberté et notre sécurité?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, everyone here agrees that we have to do everything in our power to keep Canadians safe. However, we cannot do that at the expense of our identity, our values or our way of life. We should not have to choose between our safety and our rights and freedoms. Why are the Conservatives acting as though we must choose between our freedom and our safety?
Blaney asserts there is no freedom without security, accuses the NDP of not reading the bill, and says security and freedom go hand in hand.
Blaney offers a talking-point rebuttal ('no freedom without security'), accuses the NDP of not reading the bill, and makes a general assertion about police and intelligence agencies protecting freedom, without substantively addressing the question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est trĂšs clair, il n'y a pas de libertĂ© sans sĂ©curitĂ©. Malheureusement, les nĂ©o-dĂ©mocrates ne semblent pas s'ĂȘtre donnĂ© la peine de lire plus loin que la page 3 du projet de loi. En effet, celui-ci prĂ©voit des dispositions pour faire en sorte que si nous faisons des activitĂ©s criminelles ou du terrorisme, nous ferons face Ă la loi. Je voudrais rappeler Ă ma collĂšgue que la sĂ©curitĂ© et la libertĂ© vont main dans la main et que nos corps policiers et nos agences de renseignements sont lĂ pour protĂ©ger notre libertĂ© et notre dĂ©mocratie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that freedom cannot exist without safety. Unfortunately, the NDP does not seem to have gone to the trouble of reading past page 3 of the bill. The bill includes provisions to ensure that anyone who engages in crime or terrorism will be prosecuted. I would like to remind my colleague that safety and freedom go hand in hand and that our police forces and our intelligence agencies exist to protect our freedom and our democracy.
Doré Lefebvre asks why the Conservatives refuse to include measures such as increased oversight of CSIS and a counter-radicalization strategy in Bill C-51.
DorĂ© Lefebvre asks why the Conservatives refuse to include increased CSIS oversight and a counter-radicalization strategy in the bill â a compound but identifiable ask buried in partisan framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, franchement, nous voyons trÚs bien que le projet de loi C-51 s'attaque directement à notre liberté et qu'il est carrément inefficace. Ce projet de loi va beaucoup trop loin, point final. On rejette des mesures qui fonctionnent et qui réduisent déjà la menace terroriste. On les remplace par quoi? On les remplace par un projet de loi qui mine nos libertés et nos droits. Pourquoi les conservateurs refusent-ils de faire preuve de gros bon sens et d'inclure des mesures logiques et essentielles, comme de la surveillance accrue au SCRS et une stratégie contre la radicalisation?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, frankly, it is very clear that Bill C-51 is a direct attack on our freedom and that it will quite simply not work. This bill goes way too far, period. The government is getting rid of measures that work and that are already reducing the threat of terrorism. What is it replacing them with? With a bill that undermines our rights and freedoms. Why are the Conservatives refusing to use common sense and include logical, necessary measures, such as increased oversight of CSIS and an anti-radicalization strategy?
Blaney lists two new preventive measures in the bill â intelligence agencies informing parents of radicalized youth and shutting down jihadist propaganda websites â without addressing oversight or a radicalization strategy.
Blaney dismisses the question as 'enflure verbale néo-démocrate,' then lists two concrete new measures in the bill (intelligence agencies speaking to parents of at-risk youth, shutting down terrorist websites), without addressing the oversight or radicalization strategy asks.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au-delà de l'enflure verbale néo-démocrate, dont on ne doit pas s'étonner puisque jamais ils n'appuient des mesures pour protéger les Canadiens contre la menace terroriste, dans le projet de loi qui nous concerne, il y a des mesures concrÚtes pour prévenir le terrorisme, notamment du cÎté des services de renseignement, qui vont pouvoir parler à des parents dont un enfant pourrait sombrer dans la radicalisation et qui vont pouvoir mettre fin à des sites Web qui font de la propagande terroriste ou djihadiste. Il y a donc de trÚs bonnes raisons. Encore une fois, j'ai hùte aux discours pour parler davantage de cette excellente mesure.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats are blowing things out of proportion, which comes as no surprise to anyone because they never support measures to protect Canadians from the terrorist threat. The bill before us contains concrete measures to prevent terrorism. For example, it enables intelligence services to talk to parents whose child could fall prey to radicalization and to shut down websites that engage in terrorist or jihadist propaganda. Clearly, there are some very good reasons. Once again, I am looking forward to the speeches for more on this excellent measure.
Garrison asks the minister to commit to not rushing Bill C-51 through the House and to allow open and meaningful debate.
Garrison asks a specific procedural commitment â will the minister commit to not 'railroading' Bill C-51 through the House â but the question is heavily laden with partisan rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the issue of countering terrorism in Canada and doing what is necessary to protect Canadians while preserving our rights and freedoms is a profoundly serious debate. Canadians expect that all parliamentarians will do their jobs and stand up against any legislation that would erode our Canadian way of life. It is imperative that the government allow for an open and meaningful debate on Bill C-51. We cannot afford to allow this sweeping legislation to be rushed through the House. Would the minister commit now to not railroading Bill C-51 through the House?
Blaney says the government will open debate right after question period and frames the bill as a reasonable, well-balanced approach to the terrorist threat, without committing to extended debate.
Blaney reframes who the real threat is (terrorists, not the government), then says debate will open right after question period, but does not commit to the full, open debate Garrison requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think there is a misunderstanding among the opposition. Those who are threatening our way of life, those who are threatening this very Parliament, and who have indeed done so, the terrorists, are why we need to table a sound, reasonable, well-balanced approach to tackle the terrorist threat. That is the first duty of our government. I am more than happy to open the debate right after question period so we can debate this issue and get the bill through so we can protect Canadians.
Garrison asks the government to commit to hearing from Canadians and experts at committee and then to change Bill C-51 to strengthen oversight and protect Canadian freedoms.
Garrison asks two specific things: a commitment to hearing from experts at committee and a commitment to amend the bill to strengthen oversight and protect freedoms â identifiable asks, though framed with partisan characterizations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a commitment to full debate. All I heard was a reference to starting the debate. This is not the kind of approach that Canadians expect from their government on this serious issue. The Conservatives have put forward legislation that would simply go too far, a bill so vague that the minister cannot even explain its key provisions. Bill C-51 must be changed to remove the threat it would pose to our rights and freedoms. Would the government commit to listening to Canadians and hearing from experts at committee, and then change its bill to strengthen oversight and to protect Canadian freedoms?
Blaney lists two past instances where the NDP opposed Conservative security legislation and says the government is open for debate but will take measures to keep Canadians safe, without addressing committee hearings or amendments.
Blaney recites the NDP's opposition to the Combating Terrorism Act and to dual-citizenship stripping rather than addressing either the committee process or the oversight amendment request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, two years ago we introduced the Combating Terrorism Act. We wanted to protect Canadians against terrorists. What did the NDP do? They opposed it. We wanted to remove citizenship from those convicted of terrorism. Once again, regarding dual citizenship, the NDP opposed it. It is not surprising that they oppose this common-sense and reasonable bill, because they seem to be ideologically opposed to any measure that would protect Canadians. We are open for debate but, more importantly, Canadians are expecting us to take measures to keep them safe.
Quach asks when the government will put forward a plan to help small and medium enterprises and create jobs for the middle class, citing multiple retail closures and 400 job losses.
Quach cites specific retail closures and job losses and names real communities affected, but her ask â a 'plan to help SMEs and create jobs for the middle class' â is vague and compound.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le commerce au détail vit une crise majeure. C'est symptomatique de l'état général de l'économie. AprÚs Target, Mexx, Jacob et Smart Set, c'est au tour de Bikini Village de fermer ses portes. Ce sont 400 emplois perdus. Dans ma circonscription, les commerçants de Salaberry-de-Valleyfield sont inquiets. Le centre-ville perd ses commerces un à un. à Ormstown, plusieurs autres commerçants craignent aussi de devoir fermer boutique. Le gouvernement conservateur aide les 15 % les plus riches, mais à quand un plan pour aider les PME et créer des emplois pour la classe moyenne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the retail sector is going through a major crisis, and this is symptomatic of the general state of the economy. Like Target, Mexx, Jacob and Smart Set, now Bikini Village is going out of business, and another 400 jobs will be lost. In my riding, merchants in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield are worried. Downtown businesses are disappearing one by one. In Ormstown, many other merchants are afraid of being pushed out. The Conservative government is helping the richest 15%, but where is the plan to help SMEs and create jobs for the middle class?
Moore says the government reduced taxes in last year's budget, touts Canada's G7 employment performance, and promises new approaches in this year's budget, without specifying measures for retail or SMEs.
Moore references last year's budget tax reductions and Canada's G7 employment figures and promises new approaches in the upcoming budget, without offering any specific plan for retail or SMEs.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est certainement essentiel d'avoir une approche, une politique et des budgets qui vont protéger et promouvoir la création d'emplois partout au Canada. C'est pourquoi, dans notre budget de l'année derniÚre, on a réduit les impÎts, afin de s'assurer d'une approche qui va garantir et créer des emplois. Aujourd'hui, on a de meilleurs chiffres relatifs à l'emploi que n'importe quel autre pays du G7. On va certainement avoir de nouvelles approches et politiques dans notre budget de cette année pour assurer la prospérité dans l'avenir.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, of course it is crucial to have a plan, a policy and budgets in place to protect and promote job creation across Canada. That is why, in last year's budget, we cut taxes to ensure we have an approach that will guarantee and create jobs. Today we have the best employment numbers out of all G7 countries. We will certainly have new plans and policies in this year's budget to ensure Canada's future prosperity.
Mathyssen asks why the Conservatives are turning their backs on southwestern Ontario given the loss of more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs under the current government.
Mathyssen cites 400,000 manufacturing job losses and references the previous day's exchange about EI, but her ask â why are the Conservatives turning their backs on southwestern Ontario â is geographically broad and vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the new so-called jobs minister had no answer for unemployed Canadians who cannot get EI benefits. Maybe he does not realize just how big the problem has grown under the current government's watch. We have lost more than 400,000 good manufacturing jobs under the Conservatives so far, and too many of them in my region. The NDP has a plan to boost innovation in manufacturing and to create good jobs. Why are the Conservatives turning their backs on southwestern Ontario?
Poilievre says the majority of eligible EI applicants receive benefits within 28 days and attacks the NDP's 45-day work-year plan as costing $4 billion in job-killing payroll taxes.
Poilievre addresses the EI portion with a specific statistic (majority of eligible applicants receive benefits within 28 days) but spends most of the answer attacking the NDP's '45-day work-year plan' rather than addressing manufacturing jobs or southwestern Ontario.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the only plan the NDP has is to raise job-killing taxes on workers and the businesses that employ them. On the question of EI, the majority of eligible applicants receive their benefits within 28 days. However, the New Democrats are trying to distract from their irresponsible 45-day work-year plan, which would cost Canadian taxpayers $4 billion in job-killing payroll taxes. On this side of the House, we will reduce taxes to create more jobs.
Nash asks why the Conservatives refuse to support good middle-class manufacturing jobs given unemployment up 200,000 since the recession and ongoing plant closures.
Nash cites unemployment up by 200,000 since the recession and the lower dollar's missed opportunity for manufacturers, but her ask â why do the Conservatives refuse to support good middle-class jobs â is rhetorical and vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unemployment is up by 200,000 since before the recession, and somehow the minister thinks he is doing a good job. The fact is we have seen so many plant closures on the Conservatives' watch that the sector cannot even take advantage now that we have a lower dollar. In order to help manufacturers compete and create jobs, we need to support investments in equipment and innovation, which is exactly what the NDP plan would do. Why do the Conservatives refuse to support good middle-class jobs for Canadians?
Moore quotes Jason Myers of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters calling the NDP plan 'a joke' that would raise taxes and erode investment, and notes the government lowered taxes while the NDP voted against it.
Moore quotes Jason Myers of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters calling the NDP plan 'a joke' and notes the government lowered taxes while the NDP voted against it, providing a named external source but not directly addressing Nash's unemployment figures or the lower-dollar point.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Jason Myers, the president of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, says the NDP plan is, to put it bluntly, a joke. He says that the NDP plan would result in higher taxes and would erode investment and put Canadian jobs at risk. The New Democrats pretend to be in favour of lower taxes, but we actually lowered taxes and they voted against it. The Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters understand that, which is why they have supported our budget. They also recognize that the ideas of the NDP have failed everywhere they have been tried. The public understands that and knows that our government is the only government that is on the side of manufacturers.
Rankin asks why the government is doing nothing about HSBC helping up to 1,800 Canadians avoid taxes, while the CRA is being gutted.
References the specific HSBC case and a figure of 1,800 Canadians, but the ask â 'start really going after tax cheats' â is vague and rhetorical rather than a single sharp accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are letting tax cheats of the hook and are doing nothing to help middle-class Canadians. The media report that a single bank, the HSBC, has helped as many as 1,800 Canadians avoid paying their taxes. However, while the Swiss and American authorities are going after HSBC for money laundering and fraud, the current Conservative government does nothing but make excuses. Billions of dollars are being lost every year to tax-evasion schemes, while the current government guts the Canada Revenue Agency. When will the minister start really going after tax cheats?
Findlay cites hundreds of CRA audits of HSBC leading to $21 million reassessed, 250 voluntary disclosures representing $123 million, and over $5.6 billion in additional taxes identified internationally since 2006.
Directly addresses HSBC with specific numbers: hundreds of audits, $21 million in taxes and penalties reassessed, 250 voluntary disclosures representing $123 million, plus broader CRA statistics since 2006.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government has zero tolerance for tax evasion. Since 2006, the CRA has audited over 8,600 international tax cases, identified over $5.6 billion in additional taxes being collected, and we have not reduced our audit forces. Regarding HSBC, the CRA has conducted hundreds of audits, leading to over $21 million in taxes and penalties being reassessed. Further, CRA has received over 250 voluntary disclosures relating to Canadians with an HSBC account. That represents another $123 million.
Dionne Labelle asks what the minister is doing to catch white-collar fraudsters and their accomplices at HSBC, noting Swiss authorities have begun searches that very day.
Adds context about money laundering, drug trafficking, and terrorism financing, and notes Swiss authorities conducting searches that day, but the ask â what the minister is doing to catch fraudsters and their accomplices â remains fairly broad.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la banque HSBC est au coeur d'un immense scandale de fraude fiscale et de blanchiment d'argent liĂ© au trafic de drogue et au financement du terrorisme. Mille huit cents clients canadiens avaient un compte auprĂšs de cette banque suisse. S'ils ont pu y cacher de l'argent, c'est souvent parce que des institutions peu scrupuleuses d'ici ont facilitĂ© les transferts de fonds. Alors qu'on apprend que les autoritĂ©s suisses ont commencĂ© Ă faire des perquisitions aujourd'hui mĂȘme, est-ce que la ministre peut nous dire ce qu'elle fait pour attraper les fraudeurs Ă cravate et serrer la vis Ă leurs complices?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the HSBC Bank in embroiled in a huge scandal involving tax fraud and money laundering linked to drug trafficking and the financing of terrorism. Some 1,800 Canadian clients had accounts with that Swiss bank. Often it was unscrupulous institutions here that facilitated the transfer of funds, allowing people to hide money with HSBC. Now that we know that Swiss authorities began conducting searches today, can the minister tell us what she is doing to catch white collar fraudsters and crack down on their accomplices?
Findlay restates the hundreds of CRA audits leading to $21 million reassessed and 250 voluntary disclosures representing $123 million, citing a zero-tolerance policy for tax evasion.
Repeats the same HSBC-specific figures from Exchange 16 and references the voluntary disclosure program, which partially addresses the question but does not speak to complicit institutions or the Swiss raids mentioned.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre gouvernement a une politique de tolérance zéro en ce qui concerne l'évasion fiscale. As I have stated with respect to the HSBC accounts, when non-compliance was expected, the CRA conducted hundreds of audits. This has led to over $21 million in taxes and penalties being reassessed. Further, our voluntary disclosure program, which is more robust than ever when it comes to international tax evasion, has brought forward 250 voluntary disclosures representing another nearly $123 million in previously undisclosed amounts.
McGuinty asks why the then-minister of natural resources's office ordered a $9,200 after-the-fact speech-writing contract for Guy Giorno that his own department said contravened Treasury Board Contracting Policies.
Cites specific documents, a date (March 2013), a specific dollar amount ($9,200), a named individual (Guy Giorno), the specific Treasury Board violation, and asks a clear question about who authorized the payment and why rules were broken.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board contracting rules are in place to prevent corruption and political favouritism. Yet documents show that in March 2013, the office of the then minister of natural resources, now the Minister of Finance, ordered his department to approve a $9,200 payment that, according to his own department, âcontravenes...Treasury Board...Contracting Policiesâ. This was an after-the-fact speech-writing contract for the minister. Who was the money for? It was for none other than Guy Giorno, the Prime Minister's former chief of staff. Why were proper contracting rules violated?
Calandra says the government expects Treasury Board guidelines to be followed, then pivots to claiming the Liberal Party has $40 million in outstanding taxpayer funds.
Calandra does not address the contracting violation, the $9,200 payment, Guy Giorno, or the specific documents cited, instead deflecting entirely to a claim about $40 million in Liberal Party funds.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we expect all Treasury Board guidelines to be followed. Having said that, we know that the Liberal Party still has some $40 million of taxpayer funds outstanding. Now that there is a new member over there, I wonder if she might help them search for that $40 million, maybe give them a bit of a leg up.
McGuinty asks the minister to produce a copy of the speech paid for by the $9,200 contract and to explain why taxpayers paid for it when the department has no record of its existence.
Sharpens the prior question by citing that the procurement was 'inappropriately actioned,' notes the amount was just under the $10,000 disclosure limit, and makes a specific request to produce a copy of the speech.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, government documents make it clear that this procurement was âinappropriately actionedâ. The amount charged was conveniently just under the $10,000 public disclosure limit, but what is really distressing is that the department has no copy of the speech or any record of whether or where it was actually delivered. Can the minister immediately produce a copy of this speech, and can he advise why taxpayers paid for it if the department has no record of its very existence?
Calandra says Treasury Board guidelines should be followed, attacks the Liberal leader for paid speeches as an MP, then pivots to job creation, tax cuts, and infrastructure without addressing the specific request.
Calandra ignores the request to produce the speech and the specific contracting concerns entirely, instead attacking the Liberal leader for accepting speaking fees and pivoting to jobs and infrastructure talking points.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, of course we expect all Treasury Board guidelines to be followed. When it comes to giving speeches and being paid for those speeches, I suggest that the member actually ask the leader who sits in front of him, who we know accepted huge contracts, while being a member of Parliament, to speak at places like school boards, unions, and churches. We are going to focus on what matters to Canadians: safety and security and the economy. Our plan has created over 1.2 million jobs. We are getting people back to work. We are cutting taxes. We are investing in infrastructure. We are going to continue to do that for a very long time to come.
McGuinty asks how the minister can find it acceptable that Treasury Board rules were violated for an after-the-fact contract to the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, with no copy of the speech on record.
Adds the detail of year-end panic spending and the absence of any record of the speech, maintaining focus on the specific contracting irregularity, though the ask is somewhat open-ended.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les rĂšgles du Conseil du TrĂ©sor ont Ă©tĂ© violĂ©es afin d'offrir un contrat aprĂšs le fait Ă l'ancien chef de cabinet du premier ministre. Le bureau du ministre des Ressources naturelles de l'Ă©poque a mĂȘme insistĂ© pour que ce paiement soit dĂ©boursĂ©, dans une panique de fin d'annĂ©e financiĂšre. Pire encore: le ministĂšre ne trouve aucune copie de ce discours et ne sait mĂȘme pas de quoi il s'agissait. Comment le ministre peut-il trouver cela acceptable?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board rules were broken in order to give an after-the-fact contract to the Prime Minister's former chief of staff. The office of the then minister of natural resources even insisted that the payment be made in the fiscal year-end panic. Even worse, the department cannot find a copy of the discussion and does not even know what it is about. How can the minister find this to be acceptable?
Calandra dismisses the question as trivial, mentions looking for the speech sarcastically, and lists government priorities including taxes, families, infrastructure, and the Iraq mission.
Calandra mockingly characterizes the question as asking for 'a copy of a great speech,' offers to look into it, and pivots to tax cuts and other government priorities without substantively engaging.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me just get this straight. It is 2:45. We are a number of months ahead of an election, and the best the Liberals have is they want to see a copy of a great speech, apparently, that the Minister of Natural Resources gave. They do not want to talk about cutting taxes. They do not want to talk about the fact that we are giving parents, every single family in this country, more money in their pockets. They do not want to talk about the massive infrastructure program the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs has brought forward. They do not want to talk about the mission we are taking right now in Iraq. The best they have is âCan you please send us a copy of a speech that was given by the Minister of Natural Resources?â I will take a look, and I will see what other great speeches he has delivered.
Ashton asks how two children from Makwa Sahgaiehcan First Nation could die in a house fire when no emergency fire response existed in the community.
Grounds the question in a specific, named tragedy (Makwa Sahgaiehcan First Nation), describes the concrete circumstances (no fire response, no fire services), and poses a direct question about how this could happen.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today we are mourning the lossâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, today we are mourning the loss of two children from the Makwa Sahgaiehcan First Nation in Saskatchewan who lost their lives in a devastating house fire. Their bodies were carried out of their burning home by their father when the RCMP finally arrived. There was no fire response. No one responded to the emergency call in a community with no fire services. My question to the minister is simple. How could this happen?
Valcourt accuses the NDP of using the children's deaths for political points, offers thoughts and prayers to the family, and says the government will continue to work with first nations to prevent such tragedies.
Valcourt accuses Ashton of scoring cheap political points, offers condolences, and makes only a vague forward-looking commitment without explaining why there were no fire services or what happened.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I know I have to be careful with the words I am going to be using. For that member and that party to try to score cheap political points over the death of children on a reserve is just unacceptable. Our thoughts and prayers are with that family that has been through this disaster. We will continue to work with these first nations to prevent such in the future.
Ashton notes that people on a first nation are 10 times more likely to die in a house fire, links this to inadequate federal funding for fire and emergency services, and asks when the government will show leadership to prevent such tragedies.
Cites a specific statistic (10 times more likely to die in a house fire on a first nation) and links it to a clear policy ask about federal funding for fire and emergency services.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister may already know that people living on a first nation in Canada are 10 times more likely to die in a house fire than in any other community in our country. This has everything to do with the lack of federal funding to first nations when it comes to fire and emergency services. The family deserves better. First nations across the country deserve better. When will the federal government stand up and show some leadership so that tragedies like the one that happened in Makwa Sahgaiehcan do not happen again?
Valcourt states the government provides funding for fire protection infrastructure, fire protection training, and operations and maintenance on reserve, and notes first nations manage their own fire protection services.
Valcourt states that funding is provided for operations and maintenance, fire protection infrastructure, and fire protection training, but does not address the adequacy of funding or the specific funding gap implied by the statistic.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member may yell if that makes her feel good, but it does not change the situation. The fact of the matter is that we provide funding to first nations to support operations and maintenance, fire protection infrastructure, and fire protection training on reserve. First nations manage the fire protection services on reserve to meet the needs of their communities, and we also know that education and awareness play an integral role in fire safety, and that is what we are funding.
Papillon asks why the minister does not consider prevention as a means to fight homelessness and why she imposes a Housing First approach that Quebec organizations find ill-adapted to complex local needs.
References Quebec organizations' views on diversifying intervention practices and critiques the Housing First strategy as simplistic, but the ask about prevention is somewhat rhetorical and lacks specific data.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'approche des conservateurs en matiÚre de lutte contre l'itinérance est mal adaptée aux besoins du milieu. En privilégiant une stratégie centrée sur le logement, la ministre répond de maniÚre simpliste à un problÚme complexe. Les organismes de partout au Québec croient que la meilleure façon de lutter contre l'itinérance est de diversifier les pratiques d'intervention. Pourquoi la ministre ne considÚre-t-elle jamais la prévention comme moyen de lutter contre l'itinérance? Ne croit-elle pas qu'il vaut mieux prévenir que guérir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' approach to homelessness does not meet the needs of the people involved. By opting for a strategy based on housing, the minister is providing a very simplistic response to a complex problem. Organizations across Quebec believe that the best way to fight homelessness is to use varied approaches. Why does the minister never consider prevention as a way to fight homelessness? Does she not believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?
Bergen defends Housing First as an evidence-based approach, notes a joint federal-provincial committee in Quebec addresses local needs, and says the homelessness partnering strategy allows flexibility.
Bergen defends Housing First as evidence-based, mentions a joint federal-provincial committee in Quebec, and offers flexibility, but does not address the specific concern about prevention or the Quebec organizations' critique.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are using an evidence-based approach to fight homelessness. It is called Housing First. We know that the NDP members are opposed to evidence-based solutions. Instead, they are committed to their ideology. In fact, in Quebec, decisions are made through a joint committee of federal and provincial officials who look at the local needs in that particular area. We will continue with our homelessness partnering strategy, focusing on Housing First across this country.
Papillon asks why the government imposes a one-size-fits-all strategy that has severely affected 26 Quebec organizations, naming several, and why it does not build on what already works.
Names specific organizations affected (Maison de LauberiviÚre, Maison Dauphine, Armée du Salut, Point de repÚres, RAIIQ) and cites 26 organizations impacted, making the question more specific than the previous exchange.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en raison de cet entĂȘtement Ă imposer une nouvelle stratĂ©gie de lutte contre l'itinĂ©rance, 26 organismes de QuĂ©bec sont gravement touchĂ©s. Ă QuĂ©bec, je pense Ă la Maison de LauberiviĂšre, Ă la Maison Dauphine, Ă l'ArmĂ©e du Salut, Ă Point de repĂšres et Ă tant d'autres qui vivent avec une Ă©pĂ©e de DamoclĂšs au-dessus de leur tĂȘte. Pour les organismes du RAIIQ, il s'agit d'un des plus grands reculs depuis des annĂ©es. Pourquoi le gouvernement conservateur ne mise-t-il pas sur ce qui fonctionne? Pourquoi impose-t-il Ă QuĂ©bec une stratĂ©gie mur Ă mur?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' pigheaded determination to impose a new strategy to fight homelessness is causing chaos for 26 Quebec organizations. In Quebec City, organizations such as Maison de LauberiviÚre, Maison Dauphine, Armée du Salut, Point de repÚres and others are operating with the sword of Damocles over their heads. RAIIQ member organizations believe that this is one of the biggest backward steps in years. Why is the Conservative government not going with what works? Why impose a one-size-fits-all strategy on Quebec?
Bergen says HPS focuses on Housing First but allows flexibility in each region, lets community entities consult advisory boards, and offers to brief the member.
Bergen reiterates that HPS allows flexibility and community consultation but does not address the 26 named organizations facing cuts or explain why the transition is harming them.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is so good about our HPS strategy is two things. First of all, it focuses on Housing First, but it allows flexibility in each one of the regions and major cities across Canada. We are allowing each of the community entities to consult with their community advisory boards and to be able to look at which projects should be funded. Yes, we are focusing on Housing First, and yes, we are allowing flexibility. I would be happy to brief the member on HPS.
Dreeshen invites the Minister of National Defence to update the House on the ISIL mission in response to a Liberal MP's characterization of air strikes as 'overkill.'
This is a government-backbench softball setup quoting a Liberal MP to invite the minister to defend the ISIL mission; there is no real accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, according to the Liberal MP for WestmountâVille-Marie, air strikes against the ISIL death cult are âoverkillâ. For the benefit of the member for WestmountâVille-Marie, can the Minister of National Defence update the House on the mission against ISIL and why it is so important?
Kenney attacks the Liberal critic and Mr. Leslie for suggesting displaced persons are the biggest threat, and defends Canadian strikes against Daesh as responsible action to prevent genocide.
Kenney attacks the Liberal critic and the Liberal leader's security expert, Mr. Leslie, defends the mission against Daesh with rhetorical flourishes, but provides no operational update or specific facts about the mission.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, sadly, the comments of the Liberal critic echoed those of the so-called security expert of the Liberal leader, Mr. Leslie, who said that the biggest threat in the Middle East is those internally displaced persons, the refugees, the minorities, who have fled the death cult of Daesh. We could not disagree more profoundly. We do not think that it is overkill for Canadian troops and airmen to be striking this genocidal death cult that is seeking to kill tens of thousands of innocent people and that just decapitated 21 people because of their faith. No, this is responsible action by Canadians to defend international security and our own.
Davies notes that Americans now receive 10-year multiple-entry visas to China while Canadians can only get one-year visas, and asks the government to support his Motion No. 558 and negotiate 10-year multiple-entry visas for Canadians.
Cites a specific policy disparity between Canadian and American visa access to China, references a specific motion (Motion No. 558), and makes a clear ask for government support.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, thanks to negotiations between the U.S. and Chinese governments, Americans are now able to get 10-year multiple-entry visas to China, and even though Canada gives Chinese nationals 10-year visas, Canadians can only get a one-year visa for travel to China. This is unfair to Canadians who want to visit China or conduct business there, harms businesses, limits families, drives up costs, and makes our business sector less competitive. Will the government support my Motion No. 558 and immediately work with the Chinese government to obtain 10-year multiple-entry visas for Canadians?
Alexander says the government has enhanced the business relationship with China, that one-quarter of all visas issued went to Chinese citizens with 10-year multiple-entry visas, and that the government will continue to work with China to expand the relationship.
Alexander notes one-quarter of all visas issued went to Chinese citizens with 10-year multiple-entry visas, and says the government will continue to work with China, but does not directly address support for Motion No. 558 or commit to seeking 10-year visas for Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member obviously thinks we have our Canadian policies so right that they do not even deserve a motion from him. He needs a motion to go after Chinese policies for visas for Canadians. We have enhanced the business relationship with China in every way. There are more direct flights. There are more visas being issued. One-quarter of all the visas we issued in the world last year were issued to Chinese citizens, most of them 10-year multiple-entry visas, and yes, we will continue to work with the Chinese to ensure that more tourists come, that business expands, and that business people have every opportunity to grow a vital trade and investment relationship.
Blanchette-Lamothe presses the minister again to show leadership by supporting her colleague's motion and negotiating 10-year multiple-entry visas for Canadians with China, as the U.S. has already done.
Reiterates the specific policy gap from Exchange 26 and the Motion No. 558 ask, framing it around months of inaction, but adds little new specificity beyond the prior exchange.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, malheureusement, le ministre n'a manifestement pas l'intention de faire preuve de leadership dans ce dossier. Pourtant, cela fait des mois que l'on pousse, et il n'y a toujours rien de concret de la part du ministre. Pendant que les Américains, eux, ont réussi à négocier avec la Chine des visas permettant la libre circulation, notamment pour les gens d'affaires, le Canada est encore à la traßne. Le gouvernement va-t-il enfin faire preuve de leadership? Va-t-il appuyer la motion de mon collÚgue et travailler avec le gouvernement chinois afin d'obtenir un visa à entrées multiples de 10 ans pour les Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the minister clearly has no intention of showing any leadership here. We have been pressing the minister for months and he has yet to do anything tangible. The Americans managed to negotiate with China to get visas that allow unrestricted movement, including for business people. Canada is still lagging on this. Will the government show some leadership? Will it support my colleague's motion and work with the Chinese government to obtain a 10-year multiple-entry visa for Canadians?
Alexander attacks the NDP for voting against the investment protection agreement and immigration reforms, calling their position hypocritical, without addressing the 10-year visa request or Motion No. 558.
Alexander accuses the NDP of hypocrisy for voting against the investment protection agreement and immigration reforms benefiting Chinese nationals, without addressing the visa reciprocity issue or Motion No. 558.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est vraiment riche venant des nĂ©o-dĂ©mocrates de nous demander d'appuyer une motion pour faire changer les politiques de visas du gouvernement de la Chine, alors qu'ils ont eux-mĂȘmes votĂ© contre l'accord de protection des investissements et qu'ils ont eux-mĂȘmes votĂ© contre toutes les rĂ©formes de nos programmes d'immigration pour favoriser l'arrivĂ©e de gens d'affaires, de touristes et d'Ă©tudiants de la Chine au Canada. De nouveau, c'est de l'hypocrisie du cĂŽtĂ© du NPD. De notre cĂŽtĂ©, nous allons continuer Ă favoriser une relation Ă©conomique trĂšs dynamique avec la Chine.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich for the NDP to ask us to support a motion to change the Chinese government's visa policies, when the NDP themselves voted against the investment protection agreement, and when they themselves voted against all our immigration reforms to help Chinese business people, tourists, and students come to Canada. This is just more NDP hypocrisy. The Conservatives, however, will continue to promote a very dynamic relationship with China.
Boutin-Sweet asks whether the minister will amend the tax convention to protect Canadian-American citizens with disabilities who are taxed both by the U.S. at the time of deposit and by Canada at withdrawal from their registered disability savings plan.
Identifies a specific problem â double taxation of Canadian-American citizens contributing to a registered disability savings plan â and makes a specific ask to amend the tax convention.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous n'encourageons vraiment pas un citoyen ayant deux nationalitĂ©s, canadienne et amĂ©ricaine, Ă cotiser Ă un rĂ©gime enregistrĂ© d'Ă©pargne-invaliditĂ©. La situation actuelle est complĂštement injuste. Il sera imposĂ© par les Ătats-Unis au moment du dĂ©pĂŽt de l'argent et, surprise, il sera imposĂ© de nouveau par le Canada quand il va le retirer. Le ministre va-t-il faire modifier la convention fiscale afin de protĂ©ger des milliers de citoyens vivant avec un handicap?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we would not recommend that a person with dual Canadian-American citizenship contribute to a registered disability savings plan. The current situation is completely unfair. The person is taxed by the United States when the money is deposited and, surprise, taxed again by Canada when the money is withdrawn. Will the minister change the tax treaty in order to protect the thousands of citizens living with a disability?
Bergen praises the registered disability savings plan as the only one of its kind in the world, credits the late Jim Flaherty, and encourages families with disabled children to invest, without addressing double taxation or the tax convention.
Bergen praises the registered disability savings plan and encourages families to invest but completely ignores the double taxation issue and the request to amend the tax convention.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the registered disability savings plan, the only one of its kind in the world. It was created and really birthed by the late Jim Flaherty. It is one that allows families to save for their children or adult children who have disabilities, because for most parents, a very deep concern is what is going to happen to their children when they are gone. We are absolutely very proud of our registered disability savings plan. We are proud that there has been more and more uptake on it, and we encourage any family that has a child with a disability to invest, because we are providing a huge amount of grant money for that.
Sullivan asks why the minister is not amending the tax treaty to stop the double taxation of Canadian-American parents investing in their disabled children's registered disability savings plan.
Frames the double-taxation issue clearly, names it as a Conservative failure, and asks a specific question about amending the tax treaty, though it is somewhat more rhetorical than Exchange 28.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is double-taxing the disabled. That is a Conservative failure. Canadian-American citizens are being taxed twice, once by Canada and once by the U.S., when contributing to their child's disability savings plan. Money invested is meant to increase the financial security of children living with a disability throughout their lifetime. Why is the minister not listening to families and amending our tax treaty? Why are Conservatives penalizing parents for saving to secure their children's futures?
Sorenson speaks about historic tax relief, the family tax cut, and increasing the amount Canadians can earn tax free, without addressing the registered disability savings plan or the tax treaty.
Sorenson speaks only about historic tax relief, the family tax cut, and keeping money in Canadians' pockets, with no connection to the specific registered disability savings plan double-taxation issue or the tax treaty request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, we are delivering historic tax relief, leaving money in all Canadians' pockets. We have increased the amount Canadians can earn tax free. We have introduced the family tax cut. We continue to bring forward measures to keep money in the pockets of Canadians.
Vaughan asks when the government will commit new money for housing, noting the Toronto announcement involved no new money, only 60 units will be built next year, and the waiting list is now 1,500 years.
References the Toronto announcement and a specific claim of a 1,500-year waiting list, but mixes substantive concerns with rhetorical framing about a 'Tory praising a Tory' and the prior exchange, weakening the specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, $9,000 did not buy much of a speech for our last question, but we will try again. The finance minister and another minister showed up in Toronto last week to re-announce no new money for housing for Toronto. No doubt the government's response to this is going to be about a Tory praising a Tory, but let me tell the House that it is fake praise in Toronto. Just yesterday, their Tory was in Ottawa talking to us all about what he needs for that city to get better. What they need is money for transit, money for infrastructure, andâguess what?ânew money for housing. Celebrating the status quo means that only 60 units of housing are going to be built in Toronto next year. The waiting list now is 1,500 years for someone on the wait list. When will the government commit new money for housing? When will it build new housing with new money?
Bergen says the government announced $86 million for homelessness partners in Toronto and quotes Tim Richter praising the policy shift, without addressing the new money request or the waiting list figure.
Bergen cites the $86 million HPS announcement in Toronto and quotes Tim Richter of the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, but does not address the new money request, the 60 units figure, or the 1,500-year waiting list claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we were very pleased to be in the city of Toronto with the Minister of Finance and the mayor of Toronto to announce $86 million for our homelessness partners. What did Tim Richter, head of the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, say? He said: The policy shift that the federal government announced in its budget this year is going to radically overhaul Canadaâs response to homelessness. We will keep making these announcements, working together with our partners and working on evidence-based solutions to end homelessness.
Freeland points out that the immigration minister's email wrongly referred to the 'hijab' instead of the 'niqab' and asks whether the Conservatives can at least get the facts right when restricting Muslim women's rights.
Cites a specific factual error in a ministerial email (confusing 'niqab' with 'hijab') and asks for accuracy, but frames it as a rhetorical broadside rather than a single answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in an email to the Conservatives about his plans to strip Muslim women of their right to wear the niqab at citizenship ceremonies, the immigration minister got the basic facts wrong. In a cynical political ploy, the government, he said, will appeal a court decision âallowing people to wear the hijab while taking the oathâ. Surely the minister, of all people, ought to know the difference between a niqab and a hijab. As the Conservatives seek to restrict the rights of Muslim women, can they not at least pay them the courtesy of getting the facts right?
Alexander argues that in majority-Muslim countries the hijab has been used to cover the face just as the niqab and burka have, and insists such practices have no place at citizenship ceremonies.
The minister does not correct the factual error, acknowledge the email, or address the niqab/hijab distinction; instead he pivots to a defence of the policy and personal experience in Muslim-majority countries.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may not have had the honour of living in a majority Muslim country where the hijab has been used to cover the face of women just as the niqab has been used and just as the burka has been used under the terrible influence of the Taliban in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. Those practices have no place in our citizenship ceremonies, where we insist on confirming the identity and confirming the commitment of new citizens to our laws, to our sovereign, to our values, and to our traditions.
LaverdiĂšre asks why Vladimir Yakunin, president of Russian Railways and a long-time friend and co-founder of a company with Putin, is missing from the latest round of Canadian sanctions against Russia.
Names a specific individual (Vladimir Yakunin), describes his relationship to Putin, and asks why he is absent from the sanctions list â a concrete, answerable accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la nouvelle ronde de sanctions contre la Russie rate encore une fois la cible. Vladimir Yakounine, prĂ©sident de la compagnie des chemins de fer russes, manque toujours Ă la liste des personnes visĂ©es par les sanctions. Yakounine est un ami de longue date de Poutine et ils ont mĂȘme cofondĂ© une entreprise ensemble. Pourquoi des individus clĂ©s, comme Yakounine, sont-ils absents des plus rĂ©centes sanctions contre la Russie? Pourquoi les conservateurs mĂ©nagent-ils certains amis du rĂ©gime?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the new round of sanctions against Russia is missing the mark yet again. Vladimir Yakunin, president of the Russian Railways company, is still not on the sanctions list. Yakunin is an old friend of Putin's and they even co-founded a company together. Why are key individuals such as Yakunin not included in the most recent sanctions against Russia? Why are the Conservatives sparing certain friends of the regime?
Nicholson asserts that Canada has the toughest sanctions record in the world with 270 sanctioned individuals and entities announced just yesterday, without addressing Yakunin's absence.
Nicholson boasts about 270 sanctioned individuals and entities and Canada's overall sanctions record but never addresses why Yakunin specifically is not on the list.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member could not be more wrong. Nobody is tougher on Putin and those associated with him than this government in its support for Ukraine. This is why just yesterday we announced further sanctions. We have now placed sanctions against 270 individuals and entities. That is the toughest sanctions record in the world. The member should be applauding that.
Dewar asks why both Yakunin and Igor Sechin â Putin's former deputy aide and former deputy prime minister who met with Putin the previous week â are not on Canada's sanctions list.
Names two specific individuals (Igor Sechin and Yakunin), notes Sechin's recent meeting with Putin, and poses a single direct question about why both are absent from the sanctions list.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister just told us Yakunin is not on the list, but it gets worse. Including Yakunin, we have Putin's former deputy aide and former deputy prime minister, Igor Sechin. He is not on the list. He just had a meeting with Putin last week, and this person is not on the list. Why are the Conservatives protecting Putin's friends? It is a very simple question: why are Sechin and Yakunin not on the list?
Nicholson repeats that Canada has the toughest sanctions regime in the world and invites the NDP to support Canada's record on Ukraine, without mentioning Sechin or Yakunin.
Nicholson does not address Sechin or Yakunin by name at all, instead repeating the claim of having the toughest sanctions regime and challenging the NDP to support Canada's Ukraine policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, nobody has a better record of supporting Ukraine than this government. Why does the NDP not get behind that, just for a change, just to mix it up? We have been very clear. We have the toughest sanctions regime in the world. We are very proud of that, and it should have the support of the NDP.
Butt asks the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to explain why the government intends to file a notice of appeal regarding the court decision on face coverings at citizenship ceremonies.
A government-backbench softball that sets up the minister to explain the appeal decision, providing no accountability challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I attend many citizenship ceremonies in Mississauga. Becoming a Canadian citizen is a proud time when newcomers commit themselves to Canada and embrace all of the rights and privileges that come with being Canadian. A very important step in joining the Canadian family is reciting the oath of citizenship. Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please explain to this House why the government intends to file a notice of appeal in this matter?
Alexander explains that the oath of citizenship is a public declaration of commitment to Canadian values and that most Canadians find it offensive for someone to conceal their identity at that moment, framing the appeal as a matter of principle.
Alexander explains the principle behind the government's position â that the oath is a public declaration and concealing one's face contradicts joining the Canadian family â offering a substantive rationale even if he does not detail the legal grounds for the appeal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for MississaugaâStreetsville for his hard work for his constituents and for Canadian citizenship, because Mississauga is one of the places in this country where we swore in a record number of citizens in 2014, and we did it through a public declaration. The oath of citizenship is a statement that one is joining the Canadian family and that he or she is committed to Canadian values and traditions. That is why most Canadians find it offensive that someone would conceal their identity at the very moment when they are joining and expressing their commitment to Canadian laws, values, and traditions. It is not a matter of practical policy. This is a matter of principle. The oath of citizenship is something we do publicly. Someone keeping his or her face hidden from view at the moment he or she joins our countryâ
Dion cites specific unilingual English social-media messages from the Minister of Health (on vaccination and smoking) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (on fishermen's compliance deadline) and asks why francophones do not have access to these public-interest messages.
Cites three specific social-media messages from two named ministers (Health and Fisheries) that were posted only in English, directly challenging the bilingualism obligations and asking why francophones are excluded from those public-interest messages.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au sujet des ministres qui ne communiquent Ă©lectroniquement que dans une langue, la ministre du Patrimoine m'a rĂ©pondu qu'il s'agissait de messages personnels. Pourrait-elle expliquer pourquoi les francophones n'ont pas droit aux messages personnels suivants de la ministre de la SantĂ©? âIt is important to vaccinate your children. Download free information hereâ or âIf you smoke, read more in my message here.â Il y a celui-ci de la ministre des PĂȘches et des OcĂ©ans. âImportant reminder: fishermen have until April 12 to comply.â Pourquoi les francophones n'ont-ils pas droit Ă ces messages d'intĂ©rĂȘt public?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage told me that the ministers who were communicating electronically in just one language were sending out personal messages. Could she explain why francophones are not entitled to personal messages from the Minister of Health? « It is important to vaccinate your children. Download free information here » et « If you smoke, read more in my message here », c'est-Ă -dire « Il est important de faire vacciner vos enfants. TĂ©lĂ©chargez des renseignements gratuits ici » et « Si vous fumez, prenez un instant pour lire mon message ». This one is from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. « Important reminder: fishermen have until April 12 to comply », c'est-Ă -dire « Rappel important: les pĂȘcheurs ont jusqu'au 12 avril pour rĂ©pondre aux exigences ». Why are francophones not entitled to get these public service announcements?
Glover states that official government communications are always bilingual, characterizes the messages as personal Twitter accounts not subject to the Official Languages Act, and says ministers are encouraged â but not required â to post personal messages in both languages.
Glover acknowledges the messages are on personal accounts and argues personal Twitter accounts are not subject to the Official Languages Act, which is a relevant legal distinction, but does not engage with the public-interest content of the specific messages cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for repeating messages that are important to all Canadians. First and foremost, official communications of the government are always in French and English. The fact that our ministers take the time to also put out messages on personal accounts is exactly that: they can do it personally. We encourage them, of course, to send out messages that have to do with official communications in French and English. However, these are personal Twitter accounts that we are talking about, and they are not subject to the Official Languages Act.
Boulerice describes community mailboxes as a disaster â surrounded by trash, covered in graffiti, uncleared of snow â and notes that a Montreal social development commission recommends immediately ending the rollout, asking when the Conservatives will listen to citizens.
Raises concrete problems (debris, graffiti, uncleared snow around community mailboxes) and cites a specific commission recommendation to halt the rollout, but the ask â when will the government listen? â is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'imposition de boĂźtes postales communautaires tourne Ă la catastrophe, voire au cauchemar. Postes Canada ne respecte mĂȘme pas ses promesses. Ces fameuses boĂźtes sont entourĂ©es de dĂ©chets, sont pleines de graffitis et, souvent, ne sont mĂȘme pas dĂ©neigĂ©es. Ce n'est pas fini. On imagine un peu quand ils vont vouloir les implanter sur Mont-Royal, Beaubien ou la 9e Avenue. Cela va ĂȘtre un bordel gigantesque. Contrairement Ă Postes Canada, la Commission sur le dĂ©veloppement social et la diversitĂ© montrĂ©alaise, elle, a menĂ© des consultations auprĂšs du public. Or, quelle surprise, elle recommande de mettre fin immĂ©diatement Ă cette imposition. Quand les conservateurs vont-ils finalement Ă©couter les citoyens et les citoyennes de MontrĂ©al et de partout au QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the community mailboxes being forced on communities are a disasterâand some might say a nightmare. Canada Post is not following through on its promises. These much-touted boxes are surrounded by garbage, covered in graffiti and are often not cleared of snow. That is not all. We can only imagine what will happen when these mailboxes are installed on Mount Royal, Beaubien or 9th Avenue. It will be an epic disaster. Unlike Canada Post, the commission on social development and Montreal diversity conducted public consultations. Surprise, surprise, it recommended that Canada Post immediately reverse this decision. When will the Conservatives finally listen to the public in Montreal and throughout Quebec?
Raitt says Canada Post's five-point plan includes converting one million households to community mailboxes, and that Canada Post has an obligation to work with municipalities on appropriate siting while consultations are ongoing.
Raitt acknowledges Canada Post's five-point plan and community mailbox conversion, and affirms Canada Post's obligation to work with municipalities on siting, which is partially responsive but does not address the specific complaints (snow, graffiti, debris) or the commission's recommendation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is implementing a five-point plan to ensure that it remains self-sustaining going into the future. One aspect of that plan is the conversion of one million households to community mailboxes. However, in doing so, and I want to be very clear, Canada Post has the obligation to work with the municipalities to ensure that the siting is appropriate. I know that consultations are ongoing and I encourage Canada Post to continue on with that process.
Van Kesteren asks the Minister of Transport to update the House on the plan of arrangement signed regarding the U.S. customs plaza for the new Detroit River international crossing between Windsor and Detroit.
A government-backbench softball asking for an update on a project the government just concluded, with no accountability challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, free and open trade generates jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. Today Canada, the U.S. federal government, and the State of Michigan have concluded and signed a plan of arrangement regarding the U.S. customs plaza with a new Detroit River international plaza between Windsor and Detroit. Can the Minister of Transport please update this House on this important project?
Raitt confirms that all parties and partners have signed the arrangement allowing the U.S. customs plaza to be incorporated into the public-private partnership building the bridge, and reiterates that financial considerations will not impede progress.
Raitt confirms the arrangement has been signed by all parties, explains it incorporates the U.S. customs plaza into the public-private partnership, and signals the government's commitment not to let financial considerations delay the bridge project â substantive detail.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to thank the member for Chatham-KentâEssex for that excellent question. I would also like to commend the member for Essex, my parliamentary secretary, for all the great work that he has done on this project. I can confirm for the House that an arrangement has been signed by all parties and all partners in the project to allow the U.S. customs plaza to be incorporated into the public-private partnership that will be building the other aspects of the bridge. We said very clearly that we were not going to allow financial considerations to get in the way of having progress on this bridge, and indeed that is the case. I think it is important to note as well that the entire amount will be compensatedâ
CÎté reports that overnight nickel transshipment by Arrimage Québec in the port again degraded air quality in Limoilou, that Quebec's Environment Ministry warned children and the elderly could be affected, and asks when the Conservative government will take the health of Quebec City residents seriously.
References a specific overnight incident (nickel transshipment by Arrimage QuĂ©bec in the port of Quebec), notes a two-year-long problem and a Quebec Environment Ministry warning, and asks when the federal government will take the health of Quebec City residents seriously â reasonably specific but the ask is somewhat diffuse.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cette nuit, alors qu'Arrimage QuĂ©bec faisait le transbordement de nickel dans le port, la qualitĂ© de l'air dans Limoilou s'est encore dĂ©tĂ©riorĂ©e. Le ministĂšre de l'Environnement du QuĂ©bec a sonnĂ© l'alarme en avertissant que les enfants et les personnes ĂągĂ©es pourraient ĂȘtre touchĂ©es. Le problĂšme existe depuis deux ans et le gouvernement refuse d'agir. Le premier ministre est passĂ© encore en coup de vent Ă QuĂ©bec, mais il n'a rien annoncĂ© pour faire face Ă ce problĂšme. Quand le gouvernement conservateur prendra-t-il au sĂ©rieux la santĂ© des gens de QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, overnight, while Quebec Stevedoring was moving nickel concentrate in the port, the air quality in Limoilou deteriorated even more. Quebec's environment minister sounded the alarm, warning that children and seniors could be affected. This problem has been ongoing for two years and the government refuses to take action. The Prime Minister popped by Quebec City but did not make any announcements about addressing this problem. When will the Conservative government take the health of people in Quebec City seriously?
Raitt lists four measures the Port of Quebec has undertaken: a full review of the company's operations, installation of sensors in sensitive areas, fully operational sprinkler systems, and washing stations for vehicles, stating the port is working with tenants to protect citizens.
Raitt lists four concrete measures the Port of Quebec says it has undertaken (full review, sensors, sprinkler systems, washing stations), which is substantively responsive, though she does not explain federal action or a timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this matter with the Port of Quebec, and this is what I am told it has undertaken: a full review of the company's operation, installation of sensors in sensitive areas to ensure monitoring of dust emissions, fully operational sprinkler systems in transmission, and washing stations in order to ensure that vehicles returning are free of dust. The Port of Quebec is working with its tenants to ensure that the citizens of Quebec are actually protected from this.
May asks the Prime Minister to reconcile the Conservative talking point that opponents of Bill C-51 haven't read it or are ideologically opposed, with the fact that The Globe and Mail editorial board â which has consistently supported the Conservative Party â has read the bill and condemns it as a secret police act.
Cites a specific source (The Globe and Mail editorial board) and its characterization of Bill C-51 as a 'secret police act,' but the ask â to square that with Conservative talking points â is more rhetorical than a concrete, answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, through you to the Prime Minister, in response to the very important decision today of the official opposition to oppose Bill C-51, I see that the Conservatives' talking points are to accuse opponents of the bill of either not having read it or of being forever ideologically opposed to anything the Conservative Party does. I wonder if the Prime Minister would square that point with the fact that The Globe and Mail editorial board, which has consistently supported the Conservative Party, has read the bill and condemns it as a secret police act.
Blaney rejects the argument that Bill C-51 threatens freedoms, asserts that Canadians understand freedom and security go hand in hand, and invites May to support the bill.
Blaney does not address The Globe and Mail editorial, the 'secret police act' characterization, or the specific tension May identifies; he instead restates the government's general talking point that freedom and security go hand in hand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we reject the argument we hear every time we talk about security that our freedoms are threatened. Canadians understand that their freedom and security go hand in hand. Canadians expect us to protect both, and there are protections in this legislation to do that. I invite the member to take part in the debate and eventually support the bill. It is important for our country.