Session overview
- General Lawson's comments attributing sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces partly to 'biology' dominated the opening exchanges, with both Mulcair and Trudeau pressing the Prime Minister to dismiss the Chief of the Defence Staff; Harper defended the apology and noted the CDS had already announced his retirement.
- Ethics and Senate accountability featured heavily, with Mulcair questioning the Prime Minister on the Nigel Wright 'good to go from the PM' email, Senator Carolyn Stewart-Olsen's residency, Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais's mileage claims, and the upcoming Mike Duffy trial.
- Public safety and the gun registry generated exchanges after the Prime Minister confirmed his government had 'encouraged the RCMP to destroy documents,' with opposition members pressing on whether this constituted illegal activity and whether the Prime Minister had contacted police.
- Aboriginal affairs saw questions on mercury contamination in the English-Wabigoon river system affecting Grassy Narrows First Nation, the lack of a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women, and whether the Prime Minister personally asked Pope Francis to apologize for residential schools.
- Employment, manufacturing, and fiscal policy were contested, with Mulcair citing the loss of 400,000 manufacturing jobs and the rise of precarious work, while Harper countered with Statistics Canada figures of 1.2 million net new jobs since the recession.
- The Royal Canadian Mint expenses controversy saw Finance Minister Joe Oliver acknowledge wasteful spending on taxpayer-funded personal travel for employees and spouses, and confirm he had directed the Mint to adhere to Treasury Board guidelines.
Finance Minister Joe Oliver made a concrete, on-the-record commitment, stating that as soon as he was made aware of the expenses he instructed the Mint to adhere to Treasury Board guidelines on travel and hospitality â the clearest specific ministerial action disclosed during the session.
Mulcair cites specific RCMP evidence â Nigel Wright briefing the PM on media lines for the Duffy deal and the email phrase 'good to go from the PM' â and asks the PM to reconcile this with his claim of having given no instructions, making it highly specific.
When directly asked whether he had contacted police to report his own involvement in encouraging the RCMP to destroy documents â a yes-or-no question â Harper did not address the question at all, pivoting entirely to the government's commitment to abolishing the long-gun registry.
Outstanding questions
- Thomas Mulcair asked whether the Prime Minister had contacted police to report his own involvement in encouraging the RCMP to destroy documents, contrary to the law â no answer was given.
- Thomas Mulcair asked specifically where Senator Carolyn Stewart-Olsen lives, in the context of whether she meets Senate residency requirements â Harper did not answer and instead counter-attacked on NDP satellite offices.
- Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair both asked why the Prime Minister would not immediately dismiss the Chief of the Defence Staff following his 'biology' comments â Harper declined to answer directly, citing the CDS's announced retirement instead.
- Niki Ashton asked whether the government would support a comprehensive study of mercury levels and their impact on the health of people at Grassy Narrows First Nation â the minister did not give a yes-or-no answer.
- Thomas Mulcair asked whether the Prime Minister would commit to appearing as a witness if called to testify in the Mike Duffy trial â Harper said there was 'absolutely no reason' he would be before the court but did not directly answer whether he would appear if summoned.
Mulcair quotes General Lawson attributing sexual harassment partly to 'biology' and asks what the Prime Minister will do to change the culture in the Canadian Armed Forces regarding sexual harassment.
Cites General Lawson's specific quote about 'biologie' and asks a concrete accountability question about what the PM will do to change the culture, though the ask is somewhat broad.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le gĂ©nĂ©ral Lawson a dĂ©clarĂ© en entrevue que la question du harcĂšlement sexuel au sein des Forces armĂ©es canadiennes Ă©tait en partie due, et je le cite, « Ă la biologie ». Ăvidemment, cette dĂ©claration est totalement inadmissible. Qu'entend faire le premier ministre pour changer cette culture au sein des Forces armĂ©es canadiennes en ce qui concerne le harcĂšlement sexuel?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, General Lawson said in an interview that sexual harassment within the Canadian Armed Forces was partly due to, and I quote, âbiological wiringâ. Obviously that statement is completely unacceptable. What does the Prime Minister intend to do to change this culture of sexual harassment within the Canadian Armed Forces?
Harper calls the comments unacceptable, inappropriate, and offensive, notes the general apologized immediately, and says the Canadian Armed Forces and lieutenant-général Whitecross are implementing all recommendations of the rapport Deschamps.
Harper condemns the comments as unacceptable, notes the apology, and references the rapport Deschamps and General Whitecross implementing its recommendations â partial but relevant.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai trouvé les commentaires du général tout à fait inacceptables, inappropriés et offensants. Le harcÚlement sexuel ou l'inconduite sexuelle est inacceptable dans n'importe quelle institution. Le général s'est immédiatement excusé de ses commentaires. Les Forces armées canadiennes et la lieutenant-général Whitecross mettent en oeuvre toutes les recommandations du rapport Deschamps à ce sujet.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I found the general's comments to be completely unacceptable, inappropriate and offensive. Sexual harassment and sexual misconduct are unacceptable in any institution. The general did immediately apologize for his comments. The Canadian Armed Forces and Lieutenant-General Whitecross are in the process of implementing all of the recommendations set out in the Deschamps report.
Mulcair asks whether the Prime Minister himself will commit to implementing Justice Deschamps' recommendations to end the toxic culture of sexual assault and misconduct in the military.
Mulcair sharpens the ask by pressing the PM personally to commit to implementing the Justice Deschamps recommendations, citing the toxic culture, though it overlaps with the prior exchange.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce que le premier ministre vient de dire ne changera pas de fond en comble la culture qui rÚgne au sein des Forces armées. La question portait à savoir ce qu'il allait faire personnellement. General Lawson's comments are, of course, as wrong as they are a representation of everything that is pervasive in the military. Will the Prime Minister himself commit to implementing Justice Deschamps recommendations in order to put an end to this toxic culture within our military with regard to sexual assault and sexual misconduct? That culture is wrong. It has to be changed from the top. Will the Prime Minister act?
Harper reiterates that the comments were offensive and unacceptable, that the general apologized, and that the armed forces and General Whitecross are implementing the recommendations, while cautioning against slurring all military personnel.
Harper repeats his condemnation and mentions implementation of recommendations but does not make a personal commitment as asked, and adds a caution against slurring all military personnel.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said, I found the general's comments offensive, inappropriate and completely unacceptable. Sexual misconduct, sexual harassment are unacceptable in any institution. We are all very clear on that. There is no excuse for it. The general did immediately apologize for his comments. I would point out that the men and women in the military commissioned the report on this particular issue and gave a series of recommendations. The armed forces and General Whitecross are in the process of implementing those things immediately. We should not do anything that would slur all of the men and women in uniform.
Mulcair, referencing the PM's own statement that his government encouraged the RCMP to destroy documents, and noting an OPP investigation, asks whether the PM contacted police to report his own involvement in what Mulcair characterizes as illegal activity.
Mulcair cites a specific prior statement by the PM about encouraging the RCMP to destroy documents, notes an ongoing Ontario Provincial Police investigation, and asks a precise yes/no accountability question about whether the PM contacted police.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, le premier ministre a dĂ©clarĂ© que son gouvernement, et je cite, a « encouragĂ© la GRC Ă dĂ©truire des documents », mĂȘme s'il savait que c'Ă©tait contraire Ă la loi. La Police provinciale de l'Ontario mĂšne prĂ©sentement une enquĂȘte sur cette affaire. Le premier ministre a-t-il donc communiquĂ© avec la police pour signaler sa propre implication dans cette activitĂ© illĂ©gale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that his government, and I quote, âencouraged the RCMP to destroy documentsâ, even though he knew that that violated the law. The Ontario Provincial Police are even investigating this matter. Has the Prime Minister communicated with the police to indicate his own involvement in this illegal activity?
Harper states the government committed to abolishing the long-gun registry, that the RCMP acts according to the law, and that the government does as well â making no reference to the OPP investigation or police contact.
Harper pivots entirely to the long-gun registry commitment and a general assertion that the RCMP and government act according to the law, completely ignoring the specific question about contacting police.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce gouvernement s'est engagĂ© auprĂšs des Canadiens, surtout auprĂšs des Canadiens dans les rĂ©gions, Ă abolir le registre des armes d'Ă©paule, et nous avons fait adopter une telle loi par ce Parlement. Ăvidemment, la GRC agit selon la loi, et le gouvernement agit aussi selon la loi.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government made a commitment to Canadians, and especially Canadians in the regions, to abolish the long gun registry, and we passed legislation to do just that in this Parliament. The RCMP obviously complies with the law, as does the government.
Mulcair asks whether the Prime Minister still believes all senators meet residency requirements and specifically where Senator Carolyn Stewart-Olsen lives.
Mulcair poses a sharp, specific yes/no question asking whether senators meet residency requirements and names a specific senator, Senator Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, making it highly concrete and answerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister still believe that all senators meet the residency requirements to sit in the Senate? If so, would he be kind enough to tell us where Senator Carolyn Stewart-Olsen lives?
Harper says the Senate conducted a complete audit and is responding to its recommendations, then attacks the NDP for taking public money for party organization at three times the level of all accusations against senators combined.
Harper does not address residency requirements or Senator Stewart-Olsen at all, instead attacking the NDP over taking public money for party organization and referencing the Senate audit.
Source text
Once again, Mr. Speaker, after a complete audit the leader of the NDP gets up and makes an accusation against someone who is accused of absolutely nothing. The fact of the matter is that the Senate has done an audit and the Senate is responding to its recommendations. What has not been responded to is NDP members taking public money and putting it into their own party organization. That is what was done in the sponsorship scandal. They have done that at a level of three times all of the accusations against senators combined. It is totally unacceptable. I look forward to Canadians passing judgment on them.
Mulcair asks whether the Prime Minister agrees with Conservative Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais, who believes his office has the right to claim taxpayer money for mileage he admits was never driven.
Mulcair identifies Senator Stewart-Olsen as senator for Ottawa-Moncton and then asks a specific question about Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais claiming the right to bill taxpayers for mileage he admits was never driven.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, the senator for Ottawa-Moncton. Est-ce que le premier ministre est d'accord avec son sénateur conservateur, Jean-Guy Dagenais, qui pense que son bureau a le droit de réclamer de l'argent des contribuables pour du kilométrage qui, il l'admet, n'a jamais été fait?
Harper says the Auditor General presented his report and the Senate is acting on it, then accuses Mulcair of inventing accusations and redirects to the $400,000 taken from taxpayers for his party.
Harper states only that the Auditor General presented a report and the Senate is acting on it, then pivots to attacking Mulcair personally over the $400,000, not addressing Dagenais or the mileage claim.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le vĂ©rificateur gĂ©nĂ©ral a prĂ©sentĂ© son rapport et le SĂ©nat agit selon le rapport. Ăvidemment, le chef du NPD est en train d'inventer des accusations contre certains individus. La rĂ©alitĂ© est que voilĂ un dĂ©putĂ© qui a pris 400 000 $ des contribuables, comme dans le scandale des commandites, pour son parti politique. C'est tout Ă fait inacceptable et la population aura la chance d'exprimer sa position.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General issued his report and the Senate is acting on it. The NDP leader is obviously trying to make up accusations against some individuals. The truth is that this member took $400,000 from taxpayers, as in the sponsorship scandal, for his own political party. That is completely unacceptable, and the public will have a chance to have its say.
Trudeau, agreeing that the comments were unacceptable and that the apology describing them as an 'awkward characterization' is insufficient, asks why the Prime Minister will not immediately dismiss his Chief of the Defence Staff.
Trudeau asks a specific, single-action question â why the PM will not immediately dismiss his Chief of the Defence Staff â with factual premises about the apology characterization, making it concrete and answerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is 2015. Sexual harassment in our military isâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, it is 2015, and sexual harassment in our military is unacceptable. Someone in a leadership role excusing it as biological wiring is unacceptable. An apology that says this was just an awkward characterization is unacceptable. The Prime Minister just said that he agrees, so why will the Prime Minister not immediately dismiss his Chief of the Defence Staff?
Harper mocks Trudeau's reference to the year, then repeats that the comments were offensive, inappropriate and inexplicable, that the general apologized immediately, and that the Canadian Armed Forces commissioned a report and is acting on its comprehensive recommendations.
Harper opens with a sarcastic jab about the year, then repeats his condemnation of the comments and references the commissioned report and implementation of recommendations, but does not address why he will not dismiss the Chief of the Defence Staff.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the leader of the Liberal Party has been briefed on the facts in terms of the year. In terms of the more serious issue, as I have said, obviously the comments made here are offensive. They are inappropriate, they are inexplicable, and the general did immediately apologize. As we have said repeatedly, sexual misconduct is unacceptable in any institution, government or non-governmental. The Canadian Armed Forces takes this issue very seriously. They commissioned a report, with a series of comprehensive recommendations, and they are acting on them.
Trudeau asks again, without joking this time, why the Prime Minister has not immediately asked for the resignation of the Chief of the Defence Staff given his unacceptable comments and inadequate apology.
Trudeau presses the same specific question as Exchange 6 â why the PM has not asked for the Chief of the Defence Staff's immediate resignation â explicitly noting the excuses are inadequate, making it a clear accountability ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le harcÚlement sexuel n'a pas sa place. Toute personne qui occupe un poste de leadership se doit de donner l'exemple. Le chef d'état-major des Forces armées canadiennes a tenu des propos inacceptables à ce sujet. Ses excuses sont inadéquates. Encore une fois, et sans blague cette fois-ci, est-ce que le premier ministre peut nous expliquer pourquoi il n'a pas demandé immédiatement la démission du chef d'état-major?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, sexual harassment is unacceptable. Those in leadership positions need to set an example. The Canadian Armed Forces Chief of the Defence Staff made unacceptable comments on that subject. His apology is not good enough. Once again, seriously this time, can the Prime Minister tell us why he did not immediately demand that the Chief of the Defence Staff resign?
Harper says the general apologized, his comments were inappropriate and unacceptable, the Canadian Armed Forces are acting on comprehensive recommendations, and notes that the chef d'Ă©tat-major has already announced his retirement with a named successor and an imminent transfer.
Harper addresses the question more directly this time by noting that the chef d'Ă©tat-major has already announced his retirement, that his successor is named, and that the transfer will happen soon â providing a concrete contextual reason without fully justifying inaction.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le général s'est immédiatement excusé. Comme je l'ai dit, ses commentaires sont tout à fait inappropriés, offensants et inacceptables. Les Forces armées canadiennes agissent sur des recommandations pour contrer le harcÚlement sexuel parmi les militaires avec un programme compréhensif. Dans le cas du chef d'état-major, il a déjà annoncé sa retraite, la personne qui va lui succéder est déjà nommée et le transfert va se passer prochainement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the general apologized immediately. As I said, his comments were inappropriate, offensive and unacceptable. The Canadian Armed Forces are acting on recommendations and taking a comprehensive approach to eliminating sexual harassment among military personnel. The Chief of the Defence Staff has already announced his retirement, his successor has been appointed, and the transition will take place soon.
Trudeau, alleging the PM has attacked the Supreme Court for ten years and made the nomination process partisan and closed, asks why the Prime Minister refuses to recognize the importance of having judges who understand both official languages.
Trudeau references changes to the Supreme Court nomination process and the Liberal plan for bilingual judges, but the question mixes several claims and the ask â why the PM refuses to recognize the importance of bilingual judges â is broad and somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis 10 ans, le premier ministre rĂ©pĂšte les attaques Ă l'endroit de la Cour suprĂȘme. Il a changĂ© le processus de nomination des juges le rendant partisan et fermĂ©. Le Parti libĂ©ral a un plan pour amener du vrai changement, pour rĂ©tablir un processus de nomination Ă la Cour suprĂȘme qui est inclusif, reprĂ©sentatif et transparent, un processus qui garantira que les juges soient bilingues. Pourquoi le premier ministre refuse-t-il de reconnaĂźtre l'importance d'avoir des juges qui comprennent nos deux langues officielles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the Prime Minister has repeatedly attacked the Supreme Court. He changed the judicial appointment process, making it partisan and closed. The Liberal Party has a plan for real change, to make the Supreme Court appointment process inclusive, representative and transparent again, a process that will ensure that judges are bilingual. Why does the Prime Minister refuse to acknowledge the importance of having judges who understand our two official languages?
Harper mocks Trudeau's multiple 'number one' recommendations, asserts that Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada are bilingual institutions, and states that requiring every single member to be bilingual is not the government's position.
Harper mocks Trudeau's '32 number one recommendations,' asserts that Parliament and the Supreme Court are bilingual institutions, and states bilingualism is not required of every individual member, engaging the topic but deflecting the specific ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis enchanté de voir les 32 recommandations no 1 du chef du Parti libéral. He has 32 number one recommendations, number one policies, none of which, of course, correspond to anything here his party has ever done in the past on this or any other issue. Our institutions are bilingual. The Parliament of Canada is bilingual. The Supreme Court of Canada is bilingual. Other institutions are. We do not require every single member of them to be bilingual.
Mulcair, citing RCMP evidence that Nigel Wright briefed the PM on media lines for the Duffy deal and an email stating he had the 'good to go from the PM', asks why the Prime Minister claimed he never gave Wright any instructions regarding the Duffy scandal.
Mulcair cites specific RCMP evidence â Nigel Wright briefing the PM on media lines for the Duffy deal and the email phrase 'good to go from the PM' â and asks the PM to reconcile this with his claim of having given no instructions, making it highly specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Nigel Wright told the RCMP that he briefed the Prime Minister on the media lines for the Duffy deal. Wright said in an email that he had the âgood to go from the PMâ. Why did the Prime Minister claim that he had never given Wright any instructions regarding the Duffy scandal? âGood to goâ seems like a pretty clear instruction.
Harper claims the RCMP report, which had access to all documents, was very clear that he knew nothing of this particular matter, and then attacks Mulcair for signing papers that took money inappropriately and fraudulently from the House of Commons.
Harper claims the RCMP report cleared him of knowledge of the matter, which does not address the specific documentary evidence cited, and then attacks Mulcair personally over the $400,000, constituting a near-total deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the NDP knows very well, he is quoting from an RCMP report that thoroughly examined this matter. It was given access to all documents and was very clear that I knew nothing of this particular matter, unlike him, who signed all of the papers, that took the money, inappropriately and fraudulently, out of the House of Commons, for which he will have to answer.
Mulcair asks whether the Prime Minister, given the 'good to go' email, would appear and testify under oath if called as a witness at the Mike Duffy trial, or whether he would hide.
Mulcair uses the 'good to go' phrase to pivot to a concrete yes/no question about whether the PM will appear as a witness at the Mike Duffy trial if called, making it a clear accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the questionâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, the question is just that: Is the Prime Minister good to go? Is he good to go to swear to these statements under oath on a witness stand? If the Prime Minister is called to testify in the Mike Duffy trial, will he appear, or will he hide?
Harper states that those who investigated concluded he is neither a participant nor a witness, so there is no reason for him to appear in court, before inviting the RCMP to examine Mulcair's files on the $400,000 and the $3 million.
Harper states he is neither a participant nor a witness and therefore has no reason to appear in court, which partially addresses the question, but then pivots to attacking Mulcair over the $400,000 and the $3 million.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, as those who have investigated this have said that I am neither a participant nor a witness to any of these events, there is absolutely no reason why I would be before the court. However, I would invite him to have the RCMP look at his files on the $400,000 he personally took and the $3 million his party took out of the House of Commons.
Mulcair cites court convictions for cheating in the in-and-out scandal, the Dean Del Mastro affair, and the robocalls scandal, and asks what safeguards the Prime Minister has put in place to prevent his team from cheating in the next election.
Mulcair lists specific convictions â in-and-out scandal, Dean Del Mastro affair, robocalls scandal â but the concluding ask about safeguards is vague and the exchange is predominantly partisan framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, now that we have heard the Prime Minister talk about the Liberal-Conservative kangaroo court, why do we not look at what real courts have had to say about the Conservative record. In 2006, convicted in court of cheating in the in-and-out scandal; 2008, convicted of cheating in the Dean Del Mastro affair; 2011, convicted in court for cheating in the robocalls scandal. The Prime Minister's team has been convicted of cheating in every single election he has won. What safeguards has he put in place to try to ensure that his team does not cheat this time around?
Harper attacks the NDP for being found guilty of inappropriate robocalls, illegally raising union funds, and taking $2.7 million from the House of Commons for its own party offices, comparing it to the sponsorship scandal.
Harper does not address any safeguards or the listed convictions but pivots entirely to attacking the NDP over robocalls, union funds, and the $2.7 million taken from the House of Commons.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is a party that itself has been found guilty of inappropriate robocalls and has been forced to return union funds that it illegally raised, and knowingly did so, and of course, still, $2.7 million was taken out of the House of Commons by the NDP, not for any parliamentary purpose, for the use of its own party offices across the country. This is exactly the kind of thing that happened in the sponsorship scandal, and the NDP will be held accountable.
Mulcair, challenging the legality of Bill C-51, asks why the Prime Minister does not refer it to the Supreme Court prior to royal assent if he is so confident of its legality.
Mulcair asks a specific procedural question about whether the PM would refer Bill C-51 to the Supreme Court prior to royal assent to test its constitutionality, grounded in a claim about the government's confidence in its legality.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is using Bill C-51 to attack our rights and freedoms while offering no proof that this law will actually protect Canadians. If the Prime Minister is so confident of the legality of Bill C-51, why does he not simply refer it to the Supreme Court prior to royal assent?
Harper describes what Bill C-51 provides â information sharing between departments and peace bonds for imminent threats â and attacks the NDP for voting against every piece of security legislation, including an attack on Mulcair's views on Osama bin Laden and terrorism.
Harper lists what Bill C-51 does (information sharing, peace bonds) but does not address the specific ask about a Supreme Court referral, instead attacking the NDP's position on security legislation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 gives our law enforcement and security agencies all of the powers they typically have across major western governments to deal with very real security threats, things like sharing information between departments and having the ability to use peace bonds in case of imminent threat. I could go through those. Of course, the NDP is always against these things, always against this kind of thing, votes against every single piece of security legislation ever put forward because of its extreme and ideological positions. What would we expect from leader who thinks Osama bin Laden is still alive and there is no such thing as a terrorist attack in Canada?
Mulcair cites 400,000 manufacturing jobs lost, notes that 60% of jobs created over six years are precarious, part-time, or contract work (83% in Ontario), and asks if the Prime Minister's plan is for middle-class families to support themselves with part-time jobs.
Mulcair cites specific figures â 400,000 manufacturing jobs lost, 60% of jobs created being precarious, part-time or contract work, and 83% in Ontario â but the concluding ask is rhetorical and sarcastic rather than a precise policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 400,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost while this Prime Minister did absolutely nothing. Sixty percent of the jobs created over the past six years are precarious, part-time, or contract work. In Ontario, that number is a whopping 83%. Is that the Prime Minister's plan: for middle-class families to support themselves with part-time jobs?
Harper cites Statistics Canada's figure of 1.2 million net new jobs since the end of the recession, describes them as overwhelmingly full-time, high-paying, and in the private sector, calls it the best G7 record by a considerable stretch, and attacks Mulcair for not knowing the corporate tax rate.
Harper cites Statistics Canada's figure of 1.2 million net new jobs since the recession as overwhelmingly full-time and high-paying in the private sector and references the G7 record, but does not address the manufacturing job losses or precarious work statistics cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I say it again. It is very clear in Statistics Canada's report: 1.2 million net new jobs since the end of the recession, overwhelmingly full-time, high-paying, in the private sector. It is the best record in the G7 by a considerable stretch. But we should not expect the leader of the NDP to know his facts, because yesterday he was out there saying businesses need to pay higher taxes. When asked, âWhat is the tax rate exactly?â, he did not know and stated that it was three points lower than it actually is. That is typical of the NDP. It does not know what the taxes are; it just knows everybody's taxes have to be higher.
Mulcair cites the PM's $5-million cheque at Electro-Motive Diesel in London, Ontario (subsequently shut down with jobs shipped to the U.S.) and the Chevy Camaro assembly line in Oshawa (also shut down), and asks the PM to admit his plan is not working or at least to stop visiting assembly lines.
Mulcair cites two specific examples â the $5-million cheque at Electro-Motive Diesel in London and the Chevy Camaro assembly line in Oshawa, both subsequently shut down â but the concluding ask is partly rhetorical ('stop visiting assembly lines').
Source text
Mr. Speaker, heading into a previous election, the Prime Minister handed over a $5-million cheque at Electro-Motive Diesel in London, Ontario. The only problem is the plant shut down just a while later, and the jobs were shipped to the U.S. Heading into this election, the Prime Minister included footage of the Chevy Camaro assembly line in Oshawa. The only problem is that it was shut down, and the jobs have been shipped to the U.S. Will the Prime Minister admit that his plan is not working, or at the very least, will he please stop visiting assembly lines?
Harper touts the government's job creation record in global economic uncertainty, citing a balanced budget and lower taxes, and claims the automotive sector and exporters strongly support the government's economic action plan, while attacking NDP policy as 'snake oil'.
Harper does not address Electro-Motive Diesel or Oshawa at all, instead making general claims about the government's job creation record, balanced budget, lower taxes, and support from the automotive sector, while attacking NDP economic policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at least the leader of the Liberal Party knows when to stop getting up. The government's job creation record in a period of global economic uncertainty is not parallelled in major industrial countries. We have done that with a balanced budget and with lower taxes for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers and Canadian families. Every sectorâthe automotive sector, the exporters and manufacturersâis strongly supportive of the government's economic action plan, and nothing is going to convince those businesses or Canadian workers to buy the snake oil that somehow high taxes and big deficits are going to bring about greater prosperity. People can see what NDP policies have done in other countries. They are not going to have them here.
Mulcair accuses the Prime Minister of failing, notes the retirement age was raised to 67 without disclosure in the last election campaign, and asks what the PM is hiding for the next election.
Mulcair frames the exchange with partisan rhetoric about the PM's 'last question period' and while he raises the retirement age increase to 67 as a specific policy, the final ask ('what are you hiding up your sleeve') is vague and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of arrogance that could mean that this is the Prime Minister's last question period, so I hope he does not mind that we have a couple more. The Prime Minister's plan is not working. The Prime Minister has failed. That is why Canadians want change. As families struggle to make ends meet, the Prime Minister is telling seniors they will have to wait an extra two years to retire, raising the retirement age to 67. The Prime Minister forgot to mention that in the last election campaign. Can he please tell Canadians today what he is hiding up his sleeve for the next time around?
Harper reminds Mulcair that Canadians, not he, will decide the election results, and touts a balanced budget, lower taxes for Canadian families, businesses and workers, and more money going to senior citizens and families, dismissing NDP high-tax policy as 'snake oil'.
Harper does not address the retirement age change to 67 at all, instead making general claims about a balanced budget, lower taxes, money going to seniors and families, and attacking NDP tax policy as 'snake oil'.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I remind the leader of the NDP that it will be Canadians, not him, who decide the results of the next election. Canadians understand that we are living in a global economy that is very troubled. They also understand, as they look around the world, that there is absolutely no better place to be than this country, Canada. We have a balanced budget. We have lower taxes for Canadian families, businesses, and workers. We have more money that is going into the pockets of our senior citizens and families. I do not believe anyone is going to blow that by buying the high-tax snake oil of the NDP.
Did the Prime Minister ask Pope Francis to apologize on behalf of the Catholic Church for its involvement in the horrors of residential schools â yes or no?
Mulcair asks a specific yes/no question grounded in a concrete event â whether Harper directly asked Pope Francis for an apology â though the rhetorical framing slightly blunts the sharpness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have already decided, and they want change. Did the Prime Minister ask Pope Francis to apologize on behalf of the Catholic Church for its involvement in the horrors of residential schools? Je ne veux pas savoir quel document a été transmis. Il a rencontré le pape. A-t-il demandé des excuses, oui ou non? Did he ask for an apology, yes or no?
Harper said the government has apologized and brought the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to the attention of the Pope and the Catholic Church, leaving the response up to the Church, before pivoting to a partisan contrast on economic policy.
Harper confirms he 'brought to the attention of the Pope and the Catholic Church the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission' but never directly answers yes or no whether he asked for an apology, then pivots to partisan attack.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government has apologized for that. We have brought to the attention of the Pope and the Catholic Church the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It will be up to the Catholic Church to decide how to respond to the recommendations that are pertinent to it. The kind of change Canadians are seeking is change that means more prosperity, lower taxes and greater trade. That is the kind of change they are looking for. They are not looking for the high tax, protectionist, anti-prosperity agenda of the NDP.
Will the Prime Minister commit to reopening the nine veterans offices that were closed, as a show of good faith to veterans?
Mulcair cites three specific grievances â closed veterans service centres, military suicides, and a minister berating veterans â and ends with a clear ask to commit to reopening nine veterans offices, but the rhetorical setup weakens its accountability precision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, instead of asking Canadians to give up their freedoms, the Prime Minister ought to be showing a little respect for the people who fought for our freedoms: our veterans. The Prime Minister has closed veterans service centres, ignored a rash of military suicides and let his minister literally berate those who served our country. Will the Prime Minister make a show of good faith and commit to reopening those nine veterans offices?
Harper said Canadian veterans services under this government are the best in the world and that more points of service have been provided than ever before, without addressing the specific ask to reopen the nine offices.
Harper claims Canadian veterans services are 'the best in the world' and that more points of service were provided, but does not address the specific ask of committing to reopening nine veterans offices, and pivots to attacking the NDP.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadian veterans services under this government are the best in the world. We have augmented those services across all fronts and have provided more points of service to Canadian veterans than ever before. The men and women who serve in uniform and have served in uniform can witness the kind of slur made earlier on them by the leader of the NDP. They know who is on their side and it is this party.
Did the Prime Minister pressure the RCMP to break the law by destroying government documents, and does he believe he is above the law?
Easter references a specific allegation â that the Prime Minister encouraged the RCMP to violate the law and destroy government documents â but the question is compound, rhetorical in framing, and asks whether the PM believes he is above the law rather than a precise answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister confirmed yesterday it was on his encouragement that the RCMP was instructed to violate the law and destroy government documents. If anyone needed any more proof that Ottawa is broken, they need look no further than a Prime Minister who puts direct pressure on the national police force to break the law. Has the Prime Minister become so out of touch that he thinks he can ask the RCMP to break the law and then write himself a nice little bill to absolve himself of responsibility? Does the Prime Minister really believe he is above the law?
Blaney confirmed the government's commitment to ending the long-gun registry and accused the Liberals of wanting to reinstate it, without addressing the allegation about the RCMP and document destruction.
Blaney does not address the allegation about the RCMP being instructed to violate the law or destroy documents at all, instead defending the elimination of the long-gun registry and attacking the Liberals for wanting to reinstate it.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'aimerais confirmer Ă mon honorable collĂšgue que notre gouvernement s'Ă©tait engagĂ© Ă mettre fin au registre coĂ»teux et inefficace des armes Ă feu. C'est ce que nous avons fait. Une chose est claire toutefois: les libĂ©raux voudraient rĂ©instaurer le registre et traiter comme des citoyens de seconde classe tous les chasseurs et les pĂȘcheurs de ce pays. Nous allons continuer Ă nous tenir debout pour renforcer les lois pour la sĂ©curitĂ© publique sans nuire Ă ceux qui pratiquent les sports de chasse.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm to my hon. colleague that our government promised to get rid of the costly and ineffective firearms registry. That is what we did. One thing is clear: the Liberals would reinstate the registry and treat hunters and fishers in this country like second-class citizens. We will continue to stand up for stronger public safety laws without hindering those who hunt for sport.
Given the devastating job losses in manufacturing in cities like Toronto, Kitchener-Waterloo, and Windsor, when will the Conservatives produce a real manufacturing strategy?
Sgro cites specific job-loss figures for named cities and contrasts them with record trade deficits, making the factual grounding reasonable, though the final ask for 'a real manufacturing strategy' is vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after 10 years, the Conservatives' complete neglect of the manufacturing sector has had a devastating toll. In Toronto, one-quarter of its manufacturing jobs have simply vanished. Kitchener, Waterloo, Quebec City, Sherbrooke each have lost one-third of their jobs and in Windsor it is nearly 40%. The Conservatives' only response is to spend millions on partisan ads while posting record trade deficits. Instead of trying to deceive Canadians with their own money, when are the Conservatives going to produce a real manufacturing strategy?
Moore cited Stats Canada figures showing 22,000 new manufacturing jobs created in May and listed specific budget measures including the capital cost allowance, automotive supplier fund, automotive innovation fund, and tech demo program, noting the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters endorsed the government's budget.
Moore cites Stats Canada numbers showing 22,000 new manufacturing jobs in May and lists specific programs â capital cost allowance, automotive supplier fund, automotive innovation fund, tech demo program â and references Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters endorsement, engaging the topic substantively though not fully refuting the city-specific job loss data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have. As my colleague may well know, the Stats Canada numbers on jobs in the month of May show that not only 60,000 new jobs were created that month, but that 22,000 new jobs were created in the manufacturing sector about which the member asks. She asks equally for a plan and for some action by our government on manufacturing. We have done so and have put forward effective measures in our government's budget, from the capital cost allowance to the automotive supplier fund, the automotive innovation fund, the tech demo program. We are supporting manufacturers, which is why the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters endorsed our budget and attacked the Liberal leader for his saying that Canada needs to move away from manufacturing. We support our manufacturers. We deliver for them, and we will never do what the Liberal leader does.
Is the government going to fund the green line and deliver transit and jobs to Calgary, given that infrastructure funds are reportedly sitting unused?
Vaughan references a specific Conservative MP's complaint about infrastructure funds sitting unused and asks specifically about funding the green line in Calgary, giving the question identifiable factual grounding, though it is somewhat compound and rhetorically framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the more the government announces, the less it seems to happen. The MP for Calgary Centre found this out the hard way, because she just found out what the rest of the country has known for a couple of years now: there is no infrastructure money flowing to major cities in this country. We have now lost two full construction seasons. There are lots of promises, lots of billboards, lots of ads, but the funds, as the Conservative MP said herself, are sitting there unused. She tried to blame the mayor of Calgary for this and he told her to go hire a fact checker. Since the Conservative government is more interested in slamming the mayor of Calgary than helping that city, let me ask the question: Is the government going to fund the green line? Is the government going to deliver transit and jobs to Calgary or is it going to tellâ
Lebel said the Conservative government has invested six times more on average in provincial and municipal infrastructure than during the Liberal years and listed several Ontario transit projects, without addressing the green line or the unused funds allegation.
Lebel makes a general claim about unprecedented infrastructure investment since 2006 and lists Ontario projects, but does not address the specific question about funding the green line in Calgary or the allegation that funds are sitting unused.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government's investments in provincial and municipal infrastructure are unprecedented. Since 2006, we have invested six times more on average than was invested during the Liberal years of darkness and inaction in infrastructure. Talking about Ontario, we have invested in the Scarborough subway, Sheppard light rail transit, the Union Station revitalization, the KitchenerâWaterloo rapid transit, and the list is very long. Twice a year we are transferring the money for the gas tax fund to the provinces and municipalities. That is being done.
Will the government support the comprehensive study on the impact of mercury levels on the health of the Grassy Narrows First Nation, as called for by a new report â yes or no?
Ashton cites a new report revealing increasing mercury levels in the English-Wabigoon river system, identifies the Grassy Narrows First Nation as the affected community, and asks a precise yes/no question about supporting a comprehensive study called for by the report.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, four decades after the waterways around Grassy Narrows were contaminated, a new report has revealed that the mercury levels in parts of the English-Wabigoon river system are increasing. The mercury is an obvious risk to the health of the Grassy Narrows First Nation, but despite this, there has not been any adequate study of the impact of these levels on people's health. A new report calls for a comprehensive study to be concluded. Will the government support this study, yes or no?
Valcourt said the health and well-being of first nations is a priority and that the government continues to work with the Mercury Disability Board and the Province of Ontario, but did not commit to or decline the specific comprehensive study requested.
Valcourt states the government is working with the Mercury Disability Board and the Province of Ontario but does not answer yes or no on whether the government will support the specific comprehensive study called for by the new report.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the health and well-being of first nations is a priority for our government, and we continue to work with the Mercury Disability Board and the Province of Ontario to support their work in addressing the issue of mercury contamination. We have been working in partnership with the first nation and the Province of Ontario for a number of years, and that good co-operation and work will continue.
When will the government take seriously the national epidemic of missing and murdered indigenous women, particularly in light of the forthcoming RCMP report and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation for an inquiry?
Ashton references an expected forthcoming RCMP report and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation for an inquiry, giving some factual grounding, but the ask â when will the government take seriously the national epidemic of missing and murdered indigenous women â is broad and vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is yet no answer to this question for the people of Grassy Narrows First Nation. Let us move on to the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women. This Friday, the RCMP is expected to publish a report talking about this ongoing tragedy. Indigenous people have called for the full analysis and details of what numbers are out there so that all systemic factors can be addressed and analyzed. This evidence should come before an inquiry as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has also recommended. When will the government take seriously the issue of the national epidemic that is missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada?
McLeod said the RCMP's own study showed the vast majority of cases are addressed through police investigations, that over 40 studies have already been done, and that the government intends to move forward with an action plan to improve the lives of women and children living on reserves.
McLeod references the RCMP's own study stating cases are addressed through police investigations, says there have already been over 40 studies, and points to an action plan, but does not address the specific question about the forthcoming RCMP report or the TRC's recommendation for an inquiry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, these are terrible crimes against innocent people, and the RCMP said in its own study that the vast majority of these cases are addressed and solved through police investigations. We do not need another study. We have already had over 40 studies that have been done. We need to move forward with the action plan that is going to improve the lives of women and children living on reserves.
Why has the Conservative government made it harder to vote through new voter ID requirements, and why is it relying on voter suppression tactics that will prevent seniors, youth, and first nations from voting?
Angus references Elections Canada sounding alarm bells about new voter ID requirements affecting seniors, youth, and first nations, but the question is heavily rhetorical and compound, asking both why it is harder to vote and alleging voter suppression tactics, making it difficult to answer precisely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the dying days of the 2011 election, Elections Canada warned Canadians about a Conservative voter suppression scheme. However, Elections Canada officials are sounding the alarm bells months before the next election. They are telling people they need to act urgently to get the new voter ID requirement. Why is it so much harder to vote? Is it because the Conservative Party does not believe it can win a fair fight? The fact is many Canadians, seniors, youth, first nations, will go to vote and will be told âSorry, you are not allowed to vote this timeâ. Why is the corrupt government relying on voter suppression tactics in order to try to cling to power?
Poilievre said 87% of Canadians agree people should bring ID when they vote and that is why the Fair Elections Act was passed, without addressing Elections Canada's specific concerns or the impact on vulnerable groups.
Poilievre dismisses the question as 'loony-left' positioning, cites an 87% approval figure for ID requirements, and references the Fair Elections Act, but does not address the specific concern about Elections Canada's alarm about the new voter ID requirement or the groups who may be disenfranchised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is yet another example of the loony-left in the NDP, which does not even believe people should bring ID when they vote. The good news is 87% of Canadians agree that they should bring ID when they vote. That is why we passed the Fair Elections Act. Canadians overwhelmingly agree with the Fair Elections Act, and we expect that they will agree with our overall common-sense agenda in the coming election.
Why are the Conservatives attacking the fundamental right to vote through their electoral reform legislation, and what guarantees exist that they will not attempt to cheat again?
Boulerice lists past electoral scandals â the in-and-out scandal, robocalls, Dean Del Mastro, Penashue â as context but the questions are compound and rhetorical, asking why Conservatives attack the fundamental right to vote and what guarantees they won't cheat again, with no single answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pour les conservateurs, enfreindre les lois Ă©lectorales est devenu un espĂšce de rĂ©flexe, que ce soit le scandale des « in-and-out », les robocalls mensongers, Dean Del Mastro, Penashue, et j'en passe. Il a fallu qu'ils en ajoutent une couche avec leur « dĂ©forme » Ă©lectorale qui va rendre encore plus difficile de voter. Aujourd'hui, Ă quatre mois du scrutin, Ălections Canada sonne l'alarme. Pour certains citoyens, cela va ĂȘtre vraiment plus difficile. Comment cela se fait-il que les conservateurs s'attaquent Ă ce droit fondamental? Pourquoi veulent-ils empĂȘcher les gens de voter? Qu'est-ce qui nous garantit qu'ils ne vont pas encore essayer de tricher?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, breaking election laws has become basically an automatic reflex for the Conservatives. The in and out scandal, the misleading robocalls, Dean Del Mastro and Peter Penashue, come to mind, just to name a few. They had to add another layer to their electoral âdeformâ, which will make it even harder to vote. Now, with voting day four months away, Elections Canada is sounding the alarm. Voting is going to be a lot harder for some Canadians. How can the Conservatives justify their attack on this fundamental right? Why do they want to prevent people from voting? What guarantee do we have that they will not try to cheat again?
Poilievre cited 87% of Canadians supporting ID requirements to vote and said this is why the projet de loi sur l'intégrité des élections was introduced, without addressing the list of electoral scandals or providing any guarantees.
Poilievre repeats the same answer as Exchange 23 verbatim in French â citing 87% support for ID requirements and the projet de loi sur l'intĂ©gritĂ© des Ă©lections â without addressing the specific electoral scandals mentioned or the guarantee question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est un autre exemple de l'extrĂȘme gauche, les nĂ©o-dĂ©mocrates, qui croit que les gens ne devraient mĂȘme pas apporter une piĂšce d'identitĂ© pour voter. Quatre-vingt-sept pour cent des Canadiens s'entendent pour dire que les gens devraient prĂ©senter une piĂšce d'identitĂ© afin de voter aux Ă©lections. C'est la raison pour laquelle nous avons mis cela dans notre projet de loi sur l'intĂ©gritĂ© des Ă©lections. Les Canadiens sont grandement d'accord avec cette approche. C'est la raison pour laquelle ils nous appuient.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the far left, the New Democrats, believing that people should not even have to bring a piece of ID to vote. Some 87% of Canadians agree that people should have to show ID in order to vote. That is why we included that in our fair elections act. Canadians generally agree with this approach, which is why they support us.
Could the Minister of State for Finance give the House an update on the government's position on CPP payroll taxes, given the NDP and Liberal leaders' support for higher payroll taxes?
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the Minister of State for Finance to contrast the government's position on CPP payroll taxes with those of the NDP and Liberal leaders, designed to generate a favourable talking point rather than hold government to account.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the NDP leader reaffirmed his support for higher CPP payroll taxes. The Liberal leader has also committed to imposing the Ontario Liberals' dramatic payroll tax increases. Could the Minister of State for Finance please give the House an update on the government's position on these?
Sorenson said the government is providing historic tax relief putting $6,600 back into the pockets of a typical two-earner family of four and rejected the Liberal leader's $1,000 tax hike on middle-class workers.
Sorenson provides a specific figure â $6,600 back into the pockets of a typical two-earner family of four â and characterizes the Liberal leader's proposal as a $1,000 tax hike on middle-class workers, offering some concrete content though largely in a partisan frame.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hard-working member for Chatham-KentâEssex for that question. Our Conservative government understands that Canadians want low taxes and the freedom to make their own financial decisions. We are proud to be providing historic tax relief that is putting $6,600 back into the pockets of a typical two-earner family of four. We reject the Liberal leader's $1,000 tax hike on middle-class workers. Canadians know now is not the time for risky schemes and untested leadership.
Will the minister restore door-to-door mail delivery, given Canada Post's record profits and reports that some neighbourhoods are being exempted from the cancellation while others are not?
DorĂ© Lefebvre references Canada Post's record profits and a news report about uneven neighbourhood exemptions from the home delivery cancellation, providing some factual grounding, but the ask â to restore door-to-door delivery â is broad policy advocacy rather than a specific accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les citoyens de Laval sont choquĂ©s par la dĂ©cision de Postes Canada de mettre fin Ă la livraison Ă domicile. MalgrĂ© des profits records, Postes Canada s'entĂȘte Ă abolir un service essentiel pour nos aĂźnĂ©s et nos PME. Or on apprend aujourd'hui que certains quartiers seraient exemptĂ©s et d'autres non. Postes Canada nage dans l'improvisation complĂšte. C'est un autre exemple de la mauvaise gestion des conservateurs. La ministre va-t-elle enfin poser le seul geste raisonnable et restaurer le service de livraison Ă domicile?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, people in Laval are outraged by Canada Post's decision to put an end to home delivery. Despite record profits, Canada Post insists on doing away with an essential service for our seniors and SMEs. Today, we learned that some neighbourhoods will be exempt while others will not. Canada Post is making things up as it goes along. This is another example of the Conservatives' mismanagement. Will the minister finally do the only reasonable thing and restore home delivery service?
Raitt said Canada Post is losing a significant amount of money and that community mailboxes are $178 per address cheaper, and that restoring door-to-door service would cost upwards of half a billion dollars.
Raitt provides a specific figure â community mailboxes are $178 per address cheaper â and says restoring door-to-door service would cost upwards of half a billion dollars, engaging the economic substance, though she does not address the improvisation allegation or the neighbourhood exemptions issue.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us get to the facts of the matter. Canada Post is losing a significant amount of money. As a result, it is converting to community mailboxes, which are $178 per address cheaper. This is the way it is going to be self-sufficient in the future. Let us contrast that with what the opposition wants to do, which is to reinstate some, all, partâI do not knowâof door-to-door service, which will cost upwards of half a billion dollars. This is not the way to manage finances. Canadians know exactly who can manage the finances in this place, and it is this government.
Given Canada Post's almost $200 million in profits last year and the revelation that some neighbourhoods are receiving special concessions, will the minister admit the Canada Post plan is flawed and tell it to restore home delivery?
Mathyssen cites a specific profit figure â almost $200 million â and references the newly revealed neighbourhood concessions as evidence the Canada Post plan is flawed, making for a reasonably specific question with an identifiable ask to restore home delivery.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada Post made almost $200 million in profits last year. However, it is still going ahead with the plan to end door-to-door service for over five million Canadians; that is unless one lives in a certain neighbourhood. Today we found out that Canada Post is allowing some neighbourhoods special concessions. Why will the minister not admit that the Canada Post plan is flawed in all areas and tell it to go back to the drawing board to restore home delivery?
Raitt disputed the profit claim by noting a $1.4 billion pension payment had to be made in 2014 that was forgiven, and accused the opposition of not understanding economics, without addressing the neighbourhood concessions issue.
Raitt disputes the profit figure by citing a $1.4 billion pension payment made in 2014 that was forgiven, which is relevant context, but does not address the specific allegation about neighbourhood concessions or directly engage the claim that the plan is flawed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition should admit that it is flawed in anything to do with economics because what it does not realize is this. There is no profit at Canada Post. It had a $1.4 billion pension payment that had to be made in 2014. That was forgiven, because we are trying to get Canada Post back on its right footing. The members of the opposition should stop talking to the members of CUPW and they should start speaking on behalf of Canadians who want to make sure their tax dollars are well looked after.
Why are Conservative appointees at the Canadian Mint using taxpayer funds for post-conference vacations for employees and their spouses, and when did the government become just like the corrupt Liberals it replaced?
Rankin references a CBC investigation and a specific allegation about a Conservative appointee at the Canadian Mint approving post-conference vacations for employees and spouses, but frames it primarily through a partisan comparison with David Dingwall rather than asking a precise accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, CBC has uncovered yet another Conservative appointee wasting tax dollars. This time it is at the Canadian Mint. He okayed post-conference vacations for employees and their spouses. Do members remember back when the Conservatives attacked the Liberals for David Dingwall being âentitled to his entitlementsâ when he was at the Mint? Now the Conservatives' appointees are jetting off on taxpayer-funded vacations, putting even Mr. Dingwall to shame. What happened to them? When exactly did they become just like the corrupt Liberals they replaced?
Oliver said abuse of taxpayers' dollars is unacceptable, that as soon as he was made aware of the expenses he instructed the Mint to adhere to Treasury Board guidelines on travel and hospitality expenses, and affirmed the Mint's responsibility to manage public funds properly.
Oliver states that abuse of taxpayers' dollars is unacceptable, says as soon as he was made aware of the expenses he instructed the Mint to adhere to Treasury Board guidelines, and acknowledges the Mint's responsibility to manage public funds properly â a reasonably substantive and direct response to the allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, abuse of taxpayers' dollars is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by our government. As soon as I was made aware of the expenses, I instructed the Mint to adhere to appropriate management and oversight of travel and hospitality expenses by staff and board members, consistent with Treasury Board guidelines. While the Mint manages its own expenses like other crown corporations, it has a responsibility to ensure public funds are managed properly and in the best interests of taxpayers.
Can the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the Royal Canadian Mint, explain how senior Mint officials spent more than $160,000 in public funds on personal trips to Mexico, Thailand, Australia, and Vienna, including their spouses?
Dionne Labelle cites a specific dollar figure â more than $160,000 in public funds â and names specific destinations including a five-star hotel in Mexico and trips to Thailand, Australia, and Vienna, giving the question solid factual grounding with a clear ask to the responsible minister.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les hauts placés de la Monnaie royale canadienne, ceux qui fabriquent notre argent, se paient aussi de beaux voyages personnels, pour eux et leurs conjoints, « sur le bras » des contribuables: un hÎtel cinq étoiles au Mexique, ou des voyages en Thaïlande, en Australie et à Vienne. Il n'y a rien de trop beau pour la classe royale de la Monnaie royale. Plus de 160 000 $ de fonds publics leur ont permis de se la couler douce, les orteils dans le sable chaud. Le ministre des Finances, responsable de la Monnaie royale canadienne, peut-il nous expliquer comment tout cela est possible?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, senior executives from the Royal Canadian Mint, those who manufacture our money, have been using taxpayers' money to pay for wonderful personal vacations for themselves and their spouses: five star hotels in Mexico and trips to Thailand, Australia and Vienna. Nothing is too good for the royals at the Royal Canadian Mint. They spent over $160,000 in public funds to relax with their toes in the warm sand. Can the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the Royal Canadian Mint, explain how all this is possible?
Oliver repeated that no abusive use of taxpayer money would be tolerated, that as soon as he learned of the questionable expenses he instructed the Royal Canadian Mint to adhere to proper management and oversight of expenses, consistent with its obligations as a Crown corporation.
Oliver repeats the same substantive response as Exchange 28 â that he instructed the Mint to adhere to proper management and oversight of expenses as soon as he learned of them â which directly addresses the accountability question, though it is essentially identical to his previous answer.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme je l'ai dit, aucun emploi abusif de l'argent des contribuables ne sera tolĂ©rĂ© par notre gouvernement. DĂšs que j'ai appris l'existence de dĂ©penses discutables, j'ai donnĂ© Ă la Monnaie royale canadienne l'instruction d'adhĂ©rer Ă la gestion et Ă une surveillance adĂ©quate des dĂ©penses. Comme toutes les autres sociĂ©tĂ©s d'Ătat, la Monnaie royale canadienne doit s'assurer que les fonds publics sont toujours gĂ©rĂ©s dans le meilleur intĂ©rĂȘt des contribuables.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I said, any abuse of taxpayers' dollars will not be tolerated by our government. As soon as I was made aware of the questionable expenses, I instructed the Royal Canadian Mint to adhere to appropriate management and oversight of expenses. Like all other crown corporations, the Royal Canadian Mint has a responsibility to ensure public funds are always managed in the best interests of taxpayers.
Will the Attorney General stand and apologize in the House for making comments about operational matters that were beneath the dignity of his office, given that CSIS cleared Michael Chan four years ago and the Premier of Ontario has called the charges baseless?
McCallum provides specific context â CSIS told Michael Chan four years ago he was no longer under investigation, the Premier of Ontario said the charges are baseless â and asks a specific request for the Attorney General to apologize for comments on operational matters, giving it reasonable factual grounding though the framing is partly a character defence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Michael Chan has been a good friend of mine for 15 years, and I know he is a loyal, patriotic Canadian. Four years ago, CSIS told him he was no longer under investigation, and the Premier of Ontario has said the charges against him are baseless. Do Conservatives believe it is wrong to maintain strong ties with one's country of origin? Yesterday's comments by the Attorney General on operational matters were beneath the dignity of his office. Will he stand and apologize in this House?
Blaney said simply that this is a matter for the Ontario government and that he had no further comments to make.
Blaney says only that this is a matter for the Ontario government and that he has no further comment, which is a minimal response that neither engages the substance of the allegation about the Attorney General's comments nor addresses the apology request.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est trÚs simple. Il s'agit d'une affaire qui relÚve du gouvernement de l'Ontario. Je n'ai pas d'autres commentaires à faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. This is a Government of Ontario matter. I have no further comment.
Scarpaleggia asks why consultation requirements for cell tower installation do not apply when antennas are placed on existing structures like hydro poles, and calls on the minister to close this loophole.
The question identifies a specific regulatory loophole (antennas on existing structures), cites a concrete local example on Taywood Drive, and makes a clear ask for the minister to close it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the regulations governing the installation of cell towers require companies to consult local municipalities beforehand, but there is a glaring loophole. If the antenna is to be installed on an existing structure, such as a hydro pole or telephone pole, there is no obligation to consult. Why not? Whether it is on a new or existing structure, residents like those on Taywood Drive in my riding have the same concerns about an antenna's proximity to their home, especially if children are involved. Will the minister close this loophole as soon as possible?
Moore asserts the regulations do not actually permit the loophole as described and offers to look into the specific situation in the member's riding.
The minister disputes the loophole exists but offers no specific regulatory citation or evidence, and pivots to a general statement about the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, without actually committing to any action or directly addressing the claimed exemption.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the regulations, when applied, actually do not allow for that loophole. I am happy to talk to the member and find out exactly what is happening in his district as he describes it. The regulations that we put in place were proposed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Of course, the vastness of this country, the geographic dynamics, and the demand by all Canadians to have access to high-speed cellular connectivity is critically important for our government. However, we want to do this in a way that coincides with the demand for communities to build their communities with an aesthetic that makes sense. I am happy to look into the matter with the member.
Moore asks why the minister refuses to regulate trans fats given a Parliament-adopted NDP motion 11 years ago, Health Canada's own recommendations projecting $9 billion in health savings, the abandoned 2010 regulation, and U.S. action to ban trans fats.
The question is well-grounded, citing a specific NDP motion from 11 years prior, a $9-billion savings figure from Health Canada recommendations, the abandoned 2010 regulatory plan, and the U.S. comparison, with a clear ask about why the minister refuses to regulate trans fats.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il y a 11 ans, une motion du NPD adoptĂ©e par le Parlement demandait de rĂ©glementer l'usage des gras trans. Depuis, non seulement les conservateurs n'ont pas suivi les recommandations de SantĂ© Canada, qui nous permettraient d'Ă©conomiser 9 milliards de dollars en santĂ©, mais pire encore, ils ont dĂ©cidĂ© d'abandonner la rĂ©glementation qui Ă©tait pourtant prĂ©vue en 2010. De leur cĂŽtĂ©, les Ătats-Unis, eux, ont annoncĂ© qu'ils aboliraient l'utilisation des gras trans. Pourquoi la ministre refuse-t-elle de rĂ©glementer l'usage des gras trans, qui sont pourtant si nocifs pour la santĂ©?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago, an NDP motion to regulate trans fats was adopted by Parliament. Since then, not only have the Conservatives not followed Health Canada's recommendations, which would result in health care savings of $9 billion, but even worse they decided to abandon the regulations, which were expected in 2010. The United States announced that they would abolish the use of trans fats. Why is the minister refusing to regulate the use of trans fats, which are so harmful to health?
McLeod highlights Canada's status as first country to require mandatory trans fat labelling and cites a 60% decrease in intake, while leaving open the possibility of further action.
McLeod touts mandatory labelling and a 60% decrease in intake but does not address why planned regulation was abandoned, does not engage the $9-billion figure, and gives no commitment on future regulation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been very focused on making sure Canadians have the information they need to make healthy choices. We were the first country in the world to require mandatory labelling to decrease trans fat levels in food. This is working, and we are working with industry. The approach has actually decreased intake by 60% in the last two decades. However, we are always willing to examine further action if it is going to benefit families.
Martin argues that labelling poison is not sufficient and asks whether Canadians will have to wait for an NDP government before trans fats are banned, referencing 11 years of inaction and U.S. action.
The question is largely rhetorical and uses emotive language like 'toxic goop' and 'clogging our children's arteries,' though it references the 11-year timeline and U.S. action; the closing ask is explicitly partisan and hypothetical rather than a direct policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is not okay to put poison in our food just because it is properly labelled. Banning trans fat will save lives, full stop, period, yet 11 years after Parliament directed government to ban trans fat, we are still clogging our children's arteries with this toxic goop. The United States has taken direct action and banned trans fat in all its forms. Will Canadians have to wait until the NDP forms the next government before we can protect consumers from this public health hazard?
McLeod again cites the 60% decrease in trans fat intake and states the government will examine further action.
McLeod repeats the same 60% decrease figure and vague openness to further action from Exchange 32, neither addressing the rhetorical framing nor providing any new substantive commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have taken important and significant action on this particular issue. I would like to note that there has been a 60% decrease in the intake of trans fat. Also, I did note that we will work to see if further action will benefit families.
Warawa asks the Minister of Justice to update the House on what the Conservative government is doing to crack down on impaired driving.
This is a government-backbench softball setup with no specific facts, documents, or accountability element, simply asking the minister to update the House on what the Conservative government is doing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are tough on donuts, but let us talk about saving lives. Impaired driving is a very serious crime that kills and injures thousands of Canadians every year. Can the hard-working Minister of Justice please update this House on what our Conservative government is doing to crack down on impaired driving?
MacKay states impaired driving is the number one criminal cause of death in Canada and references introduced legislation to increase mandatory minimum penalties for transportation offences including impaired driving involving bodily harm or death.
MacKay provides relevant factual content by identifying impaired driving as the number one criminal cause of death in Canada, referencing introduced legislation to increase mandatory minimum penalties for transportation offences including impaired driving involving bodily harm or death, though no bill number or specific figures are cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member has been an outspoken advocate on this issue for many years. Impaired drivers pose a significant risk to Canadians. It is the number one criminal cause of death in Canada. To make offenders more accountable for their crimes, we have introduced legislation to increase mandatory minimum penalties for many transportation offences, including impaired driving involving bodily harm or death. This would also increase efficiency for police officers to investigate impaired driving and for the prosecution to go forward with these serious cases. I encourage all members of this House to support this important bill, which targets the scourge of impaired driving that is causing carnage on Canadian highways.
BĂ©langer asks whether the government will temporarily suspend approximately 650 planned deportations of Burundian nationals given intensifying violence ahead of July 15 elections, citing the case of a recently deported young woman who had to flee Burundi immediately after being deported.
The question cites a specific country crisis context, an imminent date (July 15 presidential elections), a concrete deportation case of a young woman, and a specific number of approximately 650 planned deportations of Burundian nationals, with a clear ask to temporarily suspend them.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au Burundi, la crise et la violence s'intensifient à l'approche des élections présidentielles du 15 juillet. Le gouvernement canadien devrait, à mon avis, accélérer le traitement des demandes de réunification familiale. De plus, à la fin mai, nous avons déporté une jeune femme qui a immédiatement dû fuir le Burundi car les forces policiÚres voulaient l'emprisonner. Elle aurait probablement été torturée ou violée en prison. Le gouvernement va-t-il donc temporairement suspendre les quelques 650 déportations prévues de ressortissants burundais?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the crisis and violence in Burundi are worsening with the approach of the July 15 presidential election. In my opinion, the Canadian government should expedite family reunification applications. Furthermore, at the end of May we deported a young woman who had to immediately flee Burundi because the police wanted to put her in jail. She probably would have been tortured or raped in prison. Will the government temporarily stop the 650 or so scheduled deportations of Burundian citizens?
Alexander states that Canada is monitoring the situation in Burundi closely and that decisions will be taken carefully by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and that Canada intends to continue family reunification and to welcome people from Burundi.
Alexander says Canada is monitoring the situation closely and decisions will be made carefully, but he does not address the 650 pending deportations, the specific deportation case, or the ask for a temporary suspension.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous suivons de prĂšs la situation au Burundi. Les dĂ©cisions Ă cet Ă©gard, comme toujours dans le cas des pays en conflit, seront prises de façon trĂšs soigneuse par le ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique et de la Protection civile et le ministre de la CitoyennetĂ© et de lâImmigration. Nous avons l'intention de continuer Ă rĂ©unir les familles et Ă accueillir les gens du Burundi ici au Canada, dans la mesure du possible.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are closely following the situation in Burundi. Decisions about that country, or any country in conflict, are always carefully considered by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. We intend to continue reuniting families and welcoming Burundians to Canada, to the extent possible.
Harris asks whether the minister will investigate the bureaucratic blunder at Citizenship and Immigration Canada that nearly denied a cancer patient in his riding life-saving surgery due to a lost application sent to the wrong province.
The question is grounded in a specific constituent case with concrete details â advanced cancer patient, lost application sent to Alberta mixed with someone else's paperwork, two-month delay before surgery â and asks for a ministerial investigation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a man with advanced cancer in my riding was nearly denied life-saving surgery all because of a mistake at Citizenship and Immigration Canada. He could not renew his health card without verification of his immigration status, but immigration lost his application and then sent it to Alberta, mixed in with someone else's paperwork. Thankfully, after two months, he finally got the life-saving surgery that he needed, but this is unacceptable. Will the minister investigate this horrendous bureaucratic blunder so that it never happens again?
Alexander cites the Privacy Act to decline comment on individual cases and then attacks the NDP for not supporting a bill on forced marriage and honour-based violence.
Alexander invokes the Privacy Act to avoid the case, then launches a partisan attack on the NDP's failure to support an unrelated bill on early and forced marriage, showing no connection to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, we cannot speak about individual cases in this place. The Privacy Act forbids it. Decisions are made by highly trained and highly professional public services. However, the member would do well in this near-final question period of this Parliament not to politicize the cases of individuals, not to politicize the suffering of families, and to answer to the House why the NDP was unable to support a bill yesterday at third reading that would protect women and girls from early and forced marriage, from polygamy, and from honour-based violence. Why has the NDP done nothing to protect Canadians from abuse in our immigration system?
Lizon asks the Minister of Finance to update the House on the government's policy on taxes for job creators.
This is a pure government-backbench softball with no factual grounding, no specific ask, and no accountability element, simply inviting the Minister of Finance to reiterate government tax policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government believes in low taxes for employers and employees. In fact, we have been lowering taxes on job creators since we took office. Can the Minister of Finance please update the House on our government's policy on taxes for job creators?
Oliver attacks the NDP leader for admitting he did not know the business tax rate and asserting NDP belief that taxes should be higher, offering only a vague assurance that the government believes taxes need to remain low to create jobs and growth.
Oliver does not provide any facts or figures about tax policy for job creators and instead uses the entire answer to mock the NDP leader for not knowing the business tax rate, pivoting entirely to partisan attack.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hard-working member for Mississauga EastâCooksville for the important question. Today we saw the NDP leader's ideological position on taxes. When asked what the business tax rate is, first he made a mistake and then he admitted that he did not know but still believed they should be higher. This is the NDP position on taxes. Even when it is clueless about fiscal policy, it is convinced that taxes need to be higher. I want to assure the House that our position on taxes is just as clear but starkly different. We understand that taxes need to remain low to create jobs and growth.
Godin asks why the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans authorized the transfer of Cyrennus Dugas's snow crab fishing licence based on false information while the transfer question was still before the Court of Appeal.
The question identifies a specific named individual (Cyrennus Dugas), a specific fishery (snow crab fishing licence), a specific province (New Brunswick), alleges the transfer was authorized on the basis of false information while the matter was still before the Court of Appeal, and asks why the minister did not respect the judicial process.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aprĂšs plusieurs annĂ©es devant les tribunaux, la situation du permis de pĂȘche du crabe des neiges de Cyrennus Dugas, pĂȘcheur du Nouveau-Brunswick, n'est toujours pas rĂ©solue. PĂȘches et OcĂ©ans Canada ne lui permettait pas de transfĂ©rer son permis de pĂȘche. Or il semble que la ministre des PĂȘches et des OcĂ©ans ait autorisĂ© le transfert du permis en se basant sur de fausses informations et malgrĂ© le fait que la question du transfert soit toujours devant la Cour d'appel. Pourquoi la ministre ne respecte-t-elle pas le processus judiciaire? Quelle Ă©tait l'urgence de transfĂ©rer ce permis de pĂȘche?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, after several years before the courts, there is still no resolution in the case of Cyrenus Dugas, a fisherman from New Brunswick, and his snow crab licence. Fisheries and Oceans Canada would not allow him to transfer his fishing licence. However, it appears that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has authorized the licence to be transferred on the basis of incorrect information and despite the fact that the transfer is still before the Court of Appeal. Why does the minister not respect the legal process? Why was it so urgent to transfer this fishing licence?
Shea states that the issue has been before the courts for some time, that the court has ruled, and that DFO acted upon that ruling.
Shea's one-sentence answer claims a court ruling was made and DFO acted on it but does not address the allegation that the matter was still before the Court of Appeal or that the transfer was based on false information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this issue has been before the courts for quite some time. The court has ruled and DFO acted upon that ruling.
Fortin asks the Minister of Transport to ensure that the recreational-tourism development project for the Carleton-sur-Mer wharf â encompassing commercial fishing, mariculture, pleasure boating, and tourism â will be processed quickly, given that Transport Canada owns the wharf.
The question identifies a specific wharf in Carleton-sur-Mer, a specific recreational-tourism development project with multiple described components, notes that Transport Canada owns the wharf, and asks the minister to ensure rapid processing, though there is no specific data or document cited.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je serai prĂ©sent, le samedi 20 juin prochain, au grand rassemblement de Carleton-sur-Mer, en GaspĂ©sie, pour manifester mon appui au projet de dĂ©veloppement rĂ©crĂ©o-touristique du quai souhaitĂ© par la communautĂ©. Le but est d'en faire une infrastructure propice Ă la pĂȘche commerciale, Ă la mariculture, aux activitĂ©s de plaisance et du tourisme, un projet complet qui aura des retombĂ©es majeures pour Carleton-sur-Mer. Pour aller de l'avant, il faut maintenant l'accord de Transports Canada, qui possĂšde le quai. La ministre des Transports va-t-elle s'assurer que le projet de dĂ©veloppement du quai de Carleton-sur-Mer, un projet important et rassembleur pour la GaspĂ©sie, sera rapidement traitĂ©?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, June 20, I will attend a rally in Carleton-sur-Mer, in the GaspĂ©, to show my support for the community's recreational and tourism plan for its wharf. The goal is to make the wharf conducive to commercial fishing, mariculture, and leisure and tourism activitiesâa comprehensive plan that will have significant benefits for Carleton-sur-Mer. To move forward, the community now needs the approval of Transport Canada, which owns the wharf. Will the Minister of Transport ensure that the development plan for the Carleton-sur-Mer wharf, an important and unifying project for the GaspĂ©, will be processed quickly?
Raitt references the ports asset transfer program that entered its sales phase on Monday of that week and confirms that discussions will continue with municipalities and that the province also has a role in working with Transport Canada officials.
Raitt references a specific ports asset transfer program that entered its sales phase that week, confirms discussions will continue with municipalities, and notes the province's role, partially addressing the ask without committing to a timeline for the Carleton-sur-Mer project specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have in place a ports asset transfer program which just entered the sales phase on Monday of this week. Je peux assurer à l'honorable député que le programme de cession existe pour cette raison. Les discussions continueront avec les municipalités. However, the province has a role as well, and I expect that the municipality and the province will work with Transport Canada officials to make sure that we can transfer this into the hands of the local municipalities.