Session overview
- The dominant theme was Canada's military role against ISIS, with the CPC demanding retention of CF-18 air strikes and the NDP pressing the Prime Minister to confirm whether the expanded training mission constitutes a combat mission.
- Bombardier's announcement of job losses affecting more than 7,000 workers â including 2,400 Quebec families â prompted repeated demands from both CPC and NDP for concrete government action, with the Prime Minister saying only that the government was examining how best to help.
- Fiscal accountability was sharply contested, with the CPC accusing the Liberals of breaking platform promises on the deficit cap of $10 billion and a cost-neutral middle-class tax change, while the Minister of Finance declined to state the projected deficit figure for 2016.
- Energy East and Canadian pipeline policy were debated across multiple exchanges, with CPC members citing a new poll showing 59% of Quebeckers prefer Canadian oil, and the Minister of Natural Resources defending a revised regulatory process without committing to the project.
- The Prime Minister confirmed that Canada will attend the Paris Agreement signing ceremony in April in New York, in direct response to a question from Elizabeth May, and announced a meeting with premiers on March 3 to further the climate framework.
- The Minister of Transport confirmed active investigation of a fatigue complaint lodged against CP, and the Minister of National Revenue announced simplified correspondence from the Agence du revenu du Canada as part of a customer-service mandate.
The Prime Minister made a specific, unambiguous commitment that Canada will attend the Paris Agreement signing ceremony in April in New York, directly answering both parts of Elizabeth May's question and providing a concrete, verifiable government action.
Mulcair quotes directly from the Liberal election platform â 'We will end Canada's combat mission in Iraq' â and lists specific operational realities (spotting for air strikes, front-line presence) to ask a binary yes-or-no question, making it highly specific and accountable.
Asked directly how much of the projected $30 billion deficit would come from Liberal platform spending promises, the Minister of Finance gave no figure whatsoever, pivoted to attacking the previous government's record with references to 'a couple of gazebos, and a fake lake,' and provided no substantive information on the deficit size or its composition.
Outstanding questions
- Thomas Mulcair (Exchange 8 and 9) asked directly whether Canada's expanded mission in Iraq â with troops tripled, on the front line, and spotting for air strikes â is a combat mission, yes or no; the Prime Minister called it a 'non-combat mission' without addressing the specific operational facts cited.
- Lisa Raitt (Exchange 18 and 19) asked the Minister of Finance to state the projected deficit figure for 2016 â specifically whether it would be $30 billion as reported â and received no figure in either response.
- Thomas Mulcair and Rona Ambrose (Exchanges 5, 6, and 7) asked what concrete action the government would take to help Bombardier and the more than 7,000 workers facing job losses; the Prime Minister only said the government was 'examining' how best to help.
- Peter Kent (Exchange 14) asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs to publicly condemn the Palestinian Authority for holding a memorial ceremony for a terrorist who attacked an Israeli border guard; the minister described the government's general aid criteria without addressing the specific condemnation requested.
- Karine Trudel (Exchange 29) asked when the government would issue the decree to bring Bill C-452 â against sexual exploiters â into force, after a mother had personally delivered a letter to the Prime Minister; the Parliamentary Secretary committed only to acting 'rapidly' without providing a date or timeline.
Why is the Prime Minister withdrawing Canada from the combat mission against the Islamic State and leaving allies to fight alone?
The question frames Canada's withdrawal of CF-18s as abandoning allies but offers no specific data or single answerable ask, relying mainly on rhetorical framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aprĂšs la pĂ©riode des questions, la Chambre va dĂ©battre d'une motion libĂ©rale qui va retirer le Canada de la lutte contre le groupe Ătat islamique. C'est honteux que nos alliĂ©s doivent combattre sans nous. Nos avions de chasse ne vont plus dĂ©truire les cibles du groupe Ătat islamique. Comment le premier ministre peut-il se retirer et laisser aux autres la mission de combat?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, after question period, the House will debate a Liberal motion to pull Canada out of the fight against ISIS. It is shameful that our allies will have to fight without us. Our fighter jets will no longer be eliminating ISIS targets. How can the Prime Minister withdraw from this fight and leave the combat mission to others?
Trudeau frames his plan as a responsible middle ground between parties wanting more or less military action, promising a plan that does what Canada does best.
The Prime Minister pivots to a left-right framing of opposing parties rather than addressing the specific accusation of abandoning allies.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce que nous sommes en train de voir aujourd'hui et ce que nous avons vu hier, c'est qu'il y a Ă la Chambre un parti qui veut que nous en fassions beaucoup plus sur le plan militaire dans la lutte contre le groupe Ătat islamique. Par ailleurs, il y a un autre parti qui veut que nous en fassions beaucoup moins contre le groupe Ătat islamique. Pendant les Ă©lections, nous nous sommes engagĂ©s Ă avoir un plan responsable dans le cadre duquel le Canada fait ce qu'il peut bien faire, en plus d'accorder une bonne aide. Nous allons appliquer ce plan et le concrĂ©tiser. C'est ce dont nous allons discuter aujourd'hui. J'ai bien hĂąte au dĂ©bat instructif que nous aurons Ă ce sujet.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing here today and what we saw here yesterday is that there is one party that wants us to take a lot more military action in the fight against ISIS and another party that wants us to take far less. During the election, we promised to come up with a responsible plan that involves Canada doing what it can do well and providing more aid. We are going to move forward with that plan and put it into action. That is what we are going to discuss today. I look forward to the informed debate we will have in this regard.
Why is the Prime Minister stepping back from the fight against terror by pulling CF-18s, rather than stepping up Canada's contribution?
The question invokes Canadian values and past precedent but contains no specific facts or data, and the ask â why step back on terror â is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada has always stood up for the most vulnerable, for innocent people under attack for nothing more than their beliefs. In the past, we have joined those fights with every tool at our disposal. By pulling our CF-18s out of the fight against ISIS, we signal to our allies, and to the world, that we will only do so much to fight terror. Why is the Prime Minister stepping back when he should be stepping up the fight on terror?
Trudeau claims allies are pleased with Canada's increased commitment and reiterates the mandate to do what Canada does best in a comprehensive way.
Trudeau again deploys the left-right framing and appeals to a mandate without addressing the specific charge of stepping back from the fight.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as we have highlighted many times and as we will continue to highlight, our allies are pleased with Canada's increased commitment to the coalition against ISIS. What we have right here is one party that always wants to do more militarily in the fight and another party that does not want to do anything militarily in the fight. Quite frankly, what we ran on and what Canadians voted for was a plan that did what Canada does best, which is to help out in meaningful ways and ensure that we are contributing in a strong, robust, comprehensive way to the fight against the Islamic State.
Why is the Prime Minister casting aside Canadian values â standing with allies, helping the vulnerable, and showing resolve against a brutal enemy?
The question is almost entirely values-based rhetoric with no specific facts, documents, or a single clear answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is wrong when he says his plan to deal with ISIS reflects Canadian values because it only reflects the values that he picks and chooses. Canadians value standing with our traditional allies. Canadians value helping the vulnerable and the threatened. Canadians value showing true resolve against a brutal enemy. Fighting for these values has always been proudly Canadian. Why is the Prime Minister choosing to cast these Canadian values aside?
Trudeau asserts Canada is standing with allies in a whole-of-government approach, increasing humanitarian aid and supporting refugees.
Trudeau offers a list of general commitments without engaging with the specific charge that he is casting Canadian values aside.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are standing in resolve with our allies in a comprehensive whole-of-government approach. We are helping in meaningful ways. We are standing in favour of helping the most vulnerable and indeed increasing our humanitarian aid and our support for refugees. We are doing what Canadians have asked their governments to do and that is exactly what we are delivering. We are very pleased to be having this discussion openly in the House of Commons today.
With the Conservative surplus â confirmed by the finance minister's own department in its final report â already spent in 100 days, how much more debt will the Prime Minister pile onto Canadians?
The question cites a specific claim â a Conservative surplus confirmed by the finance minister's own department's final report â and asks how much more debt the Prime Minister will add, giving it factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me turn to another flawed Liberal plan. In just 100 days the Prime Minister has burned through the Conservative surplus that he inherited.
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, it was a surplus confirmed by the finance minister's own department in its final report. While Canadians are tightening their belts across this country, the Prime Minister clearly has a spending problem. Can the Prime Minister tell us just how much more debt is he going to pile onto Canadians?
Trudeau claims the previous government left a deficit and says investments are needed to create growth lacking for 10 years, without specifying any debt figures.
Trudeau counters by claiming the previous government left a deficit without providing any figures on future debt levels, directly contradicting rather than answering the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the previous government left us with a deficit this year, as the numbers highlight very clearly. We have engaged with Canadians to actually create the kind of growth that has been lacking for 10 years because of mismanagement of the economy by the previous government. Canadians need investments in their communities, which we are putting forward. They need money in the pockets of the middle class, and help for those working hard to join the middle class. That is what Canadians elected this government to do, and that is exactly what we are delivering right now and with our budget.
With Bombardier announcing job cuts affecting more than 2,000 Quebec families, does the Prime Minister understand that Canadians are losing confidence in his ability to manage the economy?
The question is grounded in a specific news event â Bombardier's announced job cuts affecting more than 2,000 Quebec families â but the ask slides into a broader rhetorical question about confidence in the Prime Minister's economic management.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, aujourd'hui, Bombardier a annoncé qu'elle allait supprimer des emplois pour plus de 2 000 familles québécoises. Ces familles auront de la difficulté à payer leurs factures. Elles devront prendre des décisions difficiles. Le premier ministre comprend-il que les Canadiens sont en train de perdre confiance en sa capacité à gérer notre économie?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today, Bombardier announced job cuts that will affect more than 2,000 Quebec families. Those families will have a hard time paying the bills. They will have to make difficult decisions. Does the Prime Minister realize that Canadians are losing faith in his ability to run our economy?
Trudeau expresses sympathy, pledges investment in economic growth and high-end manufacturing, and says the government is examining how to help Bombardier in the interest of the Canadian economy.
Trudeau expresses sympathy and says the government is examining how to help Bombardier, but provides no specifics on what action is being taken or planned.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Ă©videmment, dĂšs qu'il y a des pertes d'emplois, nous pensons avec beaucoup de sympathie aux familles qui vivent des moments trĂšs difficiles. C'est pour cela d'ailleurs que nous nous sommes engagĂ©s Ă investir dans la croissance Ă©conomique qu'on n'a pas eue depuis 10 ans, ainsi qu'Ă investir dans l'industrie haut de gamme et dans l'industrie manufacturiĂšre. Nous sommes en train d'examiner comment nous allons pouvoir aider Bombardier dans l'intĂ©rĂȘt de l'Ă©conomie canadienne. Nous sommes en train de travailler trĂšs fort pour crĂ©er cette croissance que nous n'avons tout simplement pas eue pendant 10 ans, sous leur gouverne.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, whenever people lose their jobs, we sympathize with the families, who are going through very hard times. That is why we committed to investing in economic growth the likes of which we have not seen for 10 years and investing in premium industries and the manufacturing industry. We are looking at how we can help Bombardier in ways that will benefit the Canadian economy. We are working very hard to generate the growth that we simply did not see during their 10-year reign.
Given 7,000 job losses and 2,400 Quebec families losing their livelihoods, what does the Prime Minister intend to do to help Bombardier and those families?
Mulcair cites the specific figure of 7,000 job losses and 2,400 Quebec families losing their livelihoods, and presses for concrete action rather than sympathy, making it reasonably grounded.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, devant la perte de 7 000 emplois â 2 400 familles du QuĂ©bec perdent leur gagne-pain â tout ce que notre premier ministre a Ă offrir, ce sont ses sympathies. Bombardier et ces familles ont besoin d'action, pas de phrases creuses. Qu'entend faire le premier ministre pour aider Bombardier et les familles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, 7,000 jobs are on the chopping block, and 2,400 Quebec families will lose their livelihoods, but all that our Prime Minister has to offer is his sympathy. Bombardier and those families need action, not empty rhetoric. What will the Prime Minister do to help Bombardier and those families?
Trudeau says the government is studying how best to help Bombardier in the interest of the Canadian economy while ensuring responsible use of public funds.
Trudeau acknowledges the need to study how best to help Bombardier and frames it as a beacon of aerospace industry, but still offers no specific action or timeline.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous avons Ă©tĂ© Ă©lus en vertu d'une plateforme dans laquelle nous nous sommes engagĂ©s Ă faire des investissements et Ă amĂ©liorer l'Ă©conomie canadienne, dont le taux de croissance. Effectivement, c'est dĂ©solant de voir des pertes d'emplois de ce genre. Nous avons beaucoup de travail Ă faire encore pour appuyer ces familles. Nos rĂ©formes et nos investissements vont les aider, mais en mĂȘme temps, nos investissements de fonds publics doivent ĂȘtre responsables. C'est pour cela que nous Ă©tudions comment nous pouvons le mieux aider, dans l'intĂ©rĂȘt de l'Ă©conomie canadienne, ce phare de l'industrie aĂ©rospatiale qu'est Bombardier non seulement pour le QuĂ©bec, mais pour le Canada tout entier.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we were elected on the basis of our commitment to invest and improve the Canadian economy, including the growth rate. Of course job losses like these are distressing. We still have a lot of work to do to support those families. Our reforms and investments will help, but we also have to be responsible in our use of public funds. That is why we are looking at how we can help Bombardier, a leading light of the aerospace industry not just in Quebec but in Canada as a whole, in ways that will help the Canadian economy.
With thousands of Canadians losing jobs at Bombardier, added to 400,000 manufacturing jobs lost under the Conservatives, and given the Prime Minister reportedly said manufacturing is a thing of the past, how many jobs have to be lost before he will finally act?
Mulcair adds the figure of 400,000 manufacturing jobs lost under the Conservatives and challenges the Prime Minister on a specific reported remark that manufacturing is a thing of the past, but the ask remains compound and somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, quatre mois plus tard, face à 7 000 pertes d'emplois, tout ce qu'il peut nous dire, c'est qu'il étudie le problÚme. C'est une honte. Thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs at Bombardier, adding to the 400,000 manufacturing jobs lost under the Conservatives. The Prime Minister has already said he thinks manufacturing is a thing of the past, but this is people's livelihoods we are talking about. It is about good jobs, their children's future. How many jobs have to be lost before the Prime Minister will finally act?
Trudeau dismisses the framing as inflamed rhetoric and says the government is working to bring the kinds of growth it was elected to deliver.
Trudeau dismisses the question as inflamed rhetoric and shouting without engaging the specific figures, the reported remark about manufacturing, or providing any concrete action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect us to be growing the economy in responsible ways and taking responsibility for the kind of investments that need to be made. Unfortunately, inflamed rhetoric and shouting is not going to solve the problem. What is going to solve the problem is working hard in a meaningful way to bring the kinds of growth, the kinds of effect on the Canadian economy that we were elected to deliver, and that is exactly what we are going to do.
Given the Liberal election platform said 'We will end Canada's combat mission in Iraq' and Canadian troops will be on the front line spotting for air strikes, is this a combat mission, yes or no?
Mulcair quotes directly from the Liberal election platform â 'We will end Canada's combat mission in Iraq' â and lists specific operational realities (spotting for air strikes, front-line presence) to ask a binary yes-or-no question, making it highly specific and accountable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals had no plan for the aeronautical industry in the election campaign, and people now understand why. They plan to do nothing in the face of thousands of job losses here in Canada. Yesterday, when we asked the Prime Minister whether or not our mission in Iraq was a combat mission, he could not answer, but a couple of months ago in his election platform he had this to say. âWe will end Canada's combat mission in Iraq.â We know our troops are going to be on the front line. We know they will be spotting for air strikes. We know they will be fighting. Yesterday, the Prime Minister even compared our mission to what happened with Canada's troops in the second and first world wars. This is a simple question. Is this a combat mission, yes or no?
Trudeau says the combat mission of dropping bombs on ISIL has ended and Canada is now engaged in training, support, and intelligence, which is not a combat role.
Trudeau directly asserts the mission is a non-combat training and support role and that the combat role of dropping bombs has ended, which partially addresses the binary question, though he does not acknowledge the front-line spotting activities Mulcair described.
Source text
We have been consistent, Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning in that we feel that the combat role that the Conservative government engaged us in, dropping bombs on ISIL, was not the best way for Canada to help. Therefore, we have ended that combat mission and we are engaged in training and support on the intelligence side, because this is something Canada can do that will meaningfully help our allies, help the coalition, and bring the fight directly to ISIL with the people on the ground who are going to be able to be most effective. This is what we are going to be debating and discussing today. I am pleased to see such a wide range of perspectives in the House of Commons.
Given Canada will continue to collaborate on bombings, troops are tripled and on the front line, and the Prime Minister himself compared the mission to the two world wars, why does he refuse to tell Canadians clearly that he is sending soldiers into a highly risky combat mission?
Mulcair highlights a specific internal contradiction â refusing the word combat while acknowledging collaboration on bombings, tripling troops on the front line, and citing world wars â making the question factually grounded and pointed.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme d'habitude, le premier ministre nage en pleine contradiction sur notre rĂŽle en Irak. Il refuse d'utiliser le mot « combat » pour dĂ©crire la mission. Pourtant, le Canada va continuer de collaborer aux bombardements. Nos militaires courageux, maintenant trois fois plus nombreux, seront prĂ©sents sur le thĂ©Ăątre des opĂ©rations et sur la ligne de front. Le premier ministre lui-mĂȘme fait rĂ©fĂ©rence aux deux guerres mondiales pour dĂ©crire la mission. Pourquoi le premier ministre refuse-t-il de dire clairement aux Canadiens qu'il envoie nos soldats dans une mission de combat hautement risquĂ©e? Pourquoi refuse-t-il de l'admettre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Prime Minister keeps contradicting himself on our role in Iraq. He refuses to use the word âcombatâ to describe the mission, and yet Canada will continue to co-operate on the air strikes. Our brave men and women in uniform, whose numbers have tripled, will be in the theatre of operations and on the front line. The Prime Minister himself has referenced the First and Second World Wars when talking about this mission. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to tell Canadians clearly that he is sending our troops into a high-risk combat mission? Why is he refusing to admit that?
Trudeau reiterates that it is a non-combat mission focused on training and support of local fighters, acknowledging it is risky but insisting Canada must be engaged against the Islamic State.
Trudeau directly states it is a non-combat mission focused on training and support, but does not address the contradictions Mulcair identified regarding collaboration on bombings and the world-war comparison.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce que je viens juste de dire, c'est que nous savons que nous nous engageons dans une mission risquĂ©e, mais c'est une mission de non-combat. Nous nous concentrons sur la formation et l'aide sur le terrain afin de permettre aux combattants locaux de mener le combat directement contre le groupe Ătat islamique. C'est ce que nos alliĂ©s veulent de nous et c'est ce que nous allons faire. Le troisiĂšme parti de l'opposition s'est toujours opposĂ© Ă quelque engagement que ce soit, et la rĂ©alitĂ©, c'est que nous savons que nous nous devons d'ĂȘtre de la partie contre le groupe Ătat islamique. C'est ce que nous allons faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I just said a moment ago that we know that we are involved in a very dangerous mission, but it is a non-combat mission. We are focusing on training and support on the ground, so that local forces can bring the fight directly to ISIL. That is what our allies want from us and that is what we will do. The third opposition party has always opposed engagement of any kind, and the reality is that we know that we need to contribute to the fight against ISIL. That is what we plan to do.
With CF-18 air strikes decimating ISIS funding and weapons and ISIS on the run, why is the Prime Minister abandoning the fight when Canada's contribution is so invaluable?
Bezan makes specific claims about CF-18s eliminating fighting positions, cutting supply lines, and ISIS fleeing to Libya, but the concluding ask is rhetorical and presupposes a false premise about ISIS being on the run.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for more than a year, our CF-18s have been eliminating ISIS fighting positions and taking out its critical supply lines. Every successful bombing has limited its ability to threaten civilians and has weakened ISIS' capacity. ISIS has now fled to countries like Libya because air strikes have decimated its funding and weapons. ISIS is on the run. Why is the Prime Minister abandoning the fight when our contribution to the air strikes is so invaluable?
Sajjan directly contradicts the premise, stating ISIS is not completely on the run with pockets of enemy in Mosul and other places, and argues this war cannot be won from the air, hence tripling the training mission and doubling intelligence capacity.
Sajjan directly challenges the premise that ISIS is on the run, cites specific locations like Mosul, and explains why ground training is necessary to win, engaging substantively with the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the current situation in Iraq is that ISIS is not completely on the run. There are pockets of enemy in Mosul and other places. This war against ISIS cannot be won from the air. It has to be won on the ground. That is the exact reason why we are tripling the training mission and doubling our intelligence capacity as well.
Does the Prime Minister actually believe reasoning with genocidal terrorists would be more effective than missile strikes by our CF-18s?
The question makes broad assertions about air strikes working but offers no specific data or documents, and the closing ask â whether reasoning would be more effective than missile strikes â is a loaded rhetorical device rather than a genuine question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the air strikes are working. The global terrorist threat is real. It has taken the lives of Canadians, both here at home and abroad. The government's priority should be ensuring the safety of Canadians. Our CF-18s are important in the fight to destroy ISIS, so it cannot threaten Canadians. Does the Prime Minister actually believe reasoning with genocidal terrorists would be more effective than missile strikes by our CF-18s?
Sajjan argues the fight against atrocities like ISIL's cannot be won strictly with one capability and must focus on local security forces and regional stability.
Sajjan engages the broader strategic question by arguing ISIL's atrocities cannot be countered with one capability alone and emphasizes the need for local security forces and regional stability, though he does not address the specific CF-18 question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member, the fight against atrocities like ISIL's cannot be won strictly with one capability. We need to look at the wider picture. We need to look at not just the current fight but the stability of the region, hence, the reason this can only be won by the local security forces. This is what the coalition needs and this is why we have stepped up, as a nation, shoulder to shoulder with our coalition partners.
Why are the Liberals going against the wishes of Canadians and leaving allies to do most of the work in the fight against the Islamic State by withdrawing CF-18s, while breaking other campaign promises like the $10-billion deficit cap?
Clement draws a contrast between a broken deficit promise and the CF-18 promise being kept, and cites majority Canadian opposition to the decision, but the ask remains broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les libĂ©raux ont reniĂ© plusieurs promesses faites lors de la campagne Ă©lectorale, y compris celle de limiter le dĂ©ficit Ă 10 milliards de dollars. Pourtant, ils citent une promesse de campagne pour retirer nos CF-18. La majoritĂ© des Canadiens s'opposent Ă la dĂ©cision du premier ministre. Pourquoi les libĂ©raux vont-ils Ă l'encontre des souhaits des Canadiens et laissent-ils nos alliĂ©s faire la majoritĂ© du travail dans la lutte contre l'Ătat islamique?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have broken several election promises, including the promise to limit the deficit to $10 billion. However, they cite the promise to withdraw our CF-18s. The majority of Canadians oppose the Prime Minister's decision. Why are the Liberals going against the wishes of Canadians and why are they leaving it to our allies to do the heavy lifting in the fight against the Islamic State?
Dion asserts that the coalition has no shortage of air strike forces, that the pressing need is for training of local fighters which Canada is tripling, and that Canada is also doubling its intelligence capacity.
Dion directly claims the coalition has no shortage of air strike capacity, cites specific increases â tripling training and doubling intelligence â and challenges the opposition to say whether it opposes those measures, engaging substantively though not fully answering the question about Canadian public opinion.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je pense que mon collĂšgue admettra que la trĂšs grande majoritĂ© des experts conviennent que la coalition ne manque pas de forces de frappe aĂ©riennes. Toutefois, lĂ oĂč les besoins sont pressants â et c'est ce que les alliĂ©s ont toujours dit â, c'est dans la formation des combattants locaux. Nous triplons la formation pour les combattants locaux. L'opposition est-elle contre cela? Nous doublons la capacitĂ© d'avoir des renseignements sur le groupe terroriste. L'opposition est-elle contre cela? Je pourrais faire une longue liste des choses que nous faisons qui aident la coalition et qui font du Canada un meilleur partenaire pour combattre ce groupe terroriste.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague would agree that the vast majority of experts acknowledge that there is no shortage of air strike capabilities among the coalition. However, our allies have always maintained that there is an urgent need for training for local fighters. We are tripling the training for local fighters. Is the opposition against that? We are doubling the capacity to gather intelligence on the terrorist group. Is the opposition against that? I could provide a lengthy list of the things that we are doing to help the coalition, things that make Canada a better partner in combatting this terrorist group.
With more than 300 supporters of Canadian Reverend Hyeon Soo Lim on Parliament Hill, can the Minister of Foreign Affairs update the House on measures being taken to secure his release from a North Korean prison camp?
The question identifies a specific individual â Canadian Reverend Hyeon Soo Lim â held in a North Korean prison camp, notes supporters on Parliament Hill that day, and asks for a concrete update on measures being taken, making it reasonably specific though framed cooperatively.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on another subject, there are more than 300 supporters of Canadian Reverend Hyeon Soo Lim on Parliament Hill today, praying and advocating for his release from a North Korean prison camp. We stand with his congregation and supporters in the hope that Reverend Lim will soon be free. Can the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs please update this House as to the measures being taken to secure the release of this beloved pastor and human rights advocate?
Alghabra confirms the government is providing consular service to Reverend Lim and his family, that he has met with advocates and will do so again after question period, and pledges continued engagement until the case is resolved.
Alghabra confirms ongoing consular services, personal meetings with advocates including that day, and a commitment to continued engagement until the case is resolved, which addresses the ask substantively.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, like the family and friends of Pastor Lim, we are very concerned about his well-being and his rights. We continue to be engaged in this case, providing consular service to him and his family. I have met with advocates for Pastor Lim and members of the Canadian-Korean community, including today. I will be meeting with them after question period. I can assure the House that we will continue to be engaged in this file until we resolve this case.
Will the minister publicly condemn the Palestinian Authority for holding a memorial ceremony for a terrorist who attacked an Israeli border guard, given the wide coverage by Palestinian official media?
Kent cites Canada's billions in aid to the Palestinian Authority over the years, identifies a specific incident this week â a memorial ceremony for an 18-year-old terrorist by the Palestinian education ministry with wide coverage in Palestinian official media â and asks a clear yes-or-no question about condemnation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada has contributed billions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority over the years: humanitarian aid, justice building, policing, and education. This week, the Palestinian education ministry held a memorial ceremony for an 18-year-old terrorist who was killed after an attack on an Israeli border guard. Palestinian official media gave the event wide coverage. Will the minister publicly condemn the Palestinian Authority for its continuing incitement of deadly attacks on Israelis?
Dion says the government has rigorous criteria for humanitarian aid and monitors all aspects to ensure aid is properly delivered, including in the case the member mentioned, but does not condemn the Palestinian Authority.
Dion speaks only to general criteria for humanitarian aid and due diligence, never directly condemning the Palestinian Authority or the specific incident Kent described.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement a des critÚres trÚs rigoureux pour déterminer à qui il offre une aide humanitaire et avec quels groupes il travaille. Nous contrÎlons tous les aspects, de A à Z. Nous nous assurons que l'aide est clairement donnée. Nous le ferons dans tous les cas, y compris dans le cas que vient de mentionner notre collÚgue. Jamais le gouvernement ne donnera une aide sans avoir l'assurance qu'elle sera bien dispensée.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government has very stringent criteria for determining whom it will provide humanitarian aid to and with which groups it will work. We control every aspect from A to Z. We ensure that the help is clearly provided. We will do so in every case, including the one our colleague just mentioned. The government will never provide aid without assurances that it will be properly delivered.
Can the minister assure all Canadians that all government ministers will make Israel's right to exist a direct point in every contact with Iranian counterparts, as Chancellor Merkel has committed to doing?
Kent cites a specific declaration by German Chancellor Angela Merkel â that normal relations with Iran will not be restored as long as Iran refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist â and asks for a comparable assurance from all Canadian government ministers, making it a reasonably specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on another topic, as the government rushes to normalize relations with Iran and the Iranian regime, the government should consider the forthright declaration of the German Chancellor. Angela Merkel says normal relations with Iran will not be restored as long as Iran refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist. Chancellor Merkel says she and all of her ministers make that point directly in every contact with Iranian counterparts. Could the minister assure all Canadians that all government ministers will do the same?
Dion states Canada asks the whole world to recognize Israel, that there will be no normal relations with Iran, and that relations with Iran will be used especially to speak for Israel.
Dion directly states there will be no normal relations with Iran and that Canada asks the whole world to recognize Israel, and notes relations with Iran will be used to speak for Israel, partially addressing the specific ask about ministerial conduct in contacts with Iranian counterparts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first, we ask the whole world to recognize Israel. Second, there is no way that we will have normal relations with Iran. What we are saying, though, is that we will have relations with Iran, and especially when it is time to speak for Israel.
Ramsey asks how the minister can continue promoting the TPP without a study to back it up, citing the Ford Canada CEO's warning of no positive outcome for Canadian manufacturing.
Cites a specific CEO quote and raises concrete concerns about jobs and drug costs, but the ask â 'how can the minister keep pushing such a dangerous deal with no study' â is more rhetorical than a single answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have had lots of Canadians telling me they are worried about the TPP. They are worried about their jobs, about impacts on environmental regulations, and about rising drug costs. The CEO of Ford Canada said â...there will be no positive outcome for Canadian manufacturingâ. However, the Liberals do not seem to be listening to these serious concerns. They signed the deal without studying it and still have not told Canadians what the impacts will be. How can the minister keep pushing such a dangerous deal with no study to back it up?
Freeland states the government is doing exactly what it promised â conducting wide consultations, including more than 50 by herself and over 200 whole-of-government â and commits to a full parliamentary debate before ratification.
Responds to the consultation process question with specific numbers (50 and 200 consultations) but does not address the substance of the CEO's concern or the claim that no study backs the deal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the TPP, we are doing exactly what we promised we would do during the election campaign. We told Canadians that we would take the time to listen to Canadians and to consult widely on this deal. I myself have been part of more than 50 consultations, and our whole-of-government approach has included more than 200. This is an important deal for Canadians to talk about. I hear perspectives both pro and con, and we will have a full parliamentary debate before any issue of ratification.
Brosseau asks how the government can justify ratifying the TPP given its threat to 60,000 jobs, dairy producers, the auto sector, and innovation, with no impact study conducted.
Cites a specific figure of 60,000 jobs at risk and references dairy and auto sectors, but the ask on ratification justification is broad and somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Partenariat transpacifique n'annonce rien de bon pour notre économie: 60 000 emplois sont en jeu, sans parler des pertes pour les producteurs laitiers et pour le secteur de l'automobile. De plus, il y a plusieurs obstacles à l'innovation. L'économie tourne au ralenti et ce n'est pas le temps de mettre en péril des emplois au Canada. Les libéraux avaient annoncé du vrai changement, mais ils mettent en avant l'accord proposé par les conservateurs, et ce, sans aucune étude d'impact. Comment le gouvernement peut-il justifier la ratification d'un tel accord?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the trans-Pacific partnership is bad news for our economy. A total of 60,000 jobs are at risk, not to mention losses for dairy farmers and the automotive industry. What is more, the TPP creates a number of roadblocks to innovation. The economy is in a downturn, and now is not the time to jeopardize Canadian jobs. The Liberals promised real change, but they are moving forward with the agreement proposed by the Conservatives, without even conducting an impact assessment. How can the government justify ratifying such an agreement?
Freeland accuses the NDP of opposing the TPP without reading it and without consulting Canadians, and notes that signing is not the same as ratification.
Deflects entirely by attacking the NDP for opposing the TPP without reading it, and repeats the signing-versus-ratification distinction without addressing the 60,000 jobs claim or the absence of an impact study.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le NPD s'oppose au PTP sans mĂȘme l'avoir lu et sans avoir consultĂ© les Canadiens. Nous faisons exactement ce que nous avons dit que nous allions faire. Le NPD sait que la signature de l'accord n'est pas la mĂȘme chose que la ratification. Il le sait et il doit dire la vĂ©ritĂ© aux Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the NDP is opposing the TPP without even having read it or consulted Canadians. We are doing exactly what we said we were going to do. The NDP knows that signing the agreement is not the same as ratifying it. The NDP knows that, and it should tell Canadians the truth.
Raitt asks the Minister of Finance to confirm whether the deficit will be $30 billion, citing broken promises on tax changes, a $10 billion deficit cap, and a balanced budget commitment.
Lists three specific broken platform promises with some factual grounding and directly asks whether the deficit will be $30 billion as reported, but packages it in heavy partisan framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, tax changes that do not cost taxpayers a dime, $10 billion deficit caps, and a balanced budget at the end of the mandate; what are these three things? They are broken Liberal promises, straight out of the platform. It is actually breathtaking to see how quickly these platform promises have been broken in the last 100 days. Canadians care about balanced budgets, and they care about deficits, because they pay for them at the end of the day through loss of jobs and higher taxes. Therefore, let us ask the Minister of Finance again today. Could he please level with Canadians, because they do care, and tell us how much the deficit is going to be? Is it going to be $30 billion, as we are reading in the reports?
Morneau speaks only of making smart, necessary, and long-overdue investments for the middle class and says budget 2016 will provide more details.
Morneau does not address the $30 billion figure or any deficit number at all, pivoting to general talking points about smart investments and the middle class.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we will be making smart, necessary, and long-overdue investments to grow our economy to make a real difference for the Canadian middle class and those most vulnerable. That is our plan. It is the plan that Canadians elected us on, it is the right plan for Canada, and we look forward to budget 2016 to give more details.
Raitt asks how much of the projected $30 billion deficit is driven by Liberal platform spending promises, referencing the pre-budget committee consultations held the previous day.
References the pre-budget committee consultations as a factual anchor and specifically asks how much of the $30 billion deficit is attributable to Liberal platform spending promises, which is a focused and answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we look forward to the budget of 2016 as well, because we will actually get a sense as to what the Liberals are going to be doing to the country to not put it on the right track. We began pre-budget consultations yesterday in committee. That is important because for the first time ever the Canadian public is hearing the costs associated with Liberal platform promises for spending. Spoiler alert: it is in the billions, and it is a big-ticket item. Again for the Minister of Finance, how much of his $30 billion deficit is actually going to be in these spending promises made in their Liberal platform?
Morneau claims the right plan is underway, cites tax reductions for nine million Canadians, then attacks the previous government's record of $150 billion in debt, gazebos, and a fake lake.
Morneau again avoids the $30 billion figure entirely, pivots to tax cuts for nine million Canadians, and then attacks the previous government over $150 billion in debt, a fake lake, and gazebos.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have the right plan to grow the economy and we have already started. We have started by reducing taxes on nine million Canadians, and we will have measures in budget 2016 that will make a real difference for the most vulnerable and help us to grow the economy. I will take no advice from the members across the way, who left us with an additional $150 billion worth of debt. What do we have to show for it but the lowest growth since the Great Depression, a couple of gazebos, and a fake lake?
Deltell asks when the government will regain control of public finances, citing the $10 billion deficit now being a minimum rather than a cap, and the $1.7 billion cost of the tax changes.
Cites specific broken promises â the $10 billion deficit cap now described as a minimum and the $1.7 billion cost of the tax changes â but the closing ask about 'reprendre le contrĂŽle des dĂ©penses' is vague.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le moins qu'on puisse dire, c'est que le gouvernement a complĂštement perdu le contrĂŽle des finances publiques. On se souvient du premier ministre qui, lors de la campagne Ă©lectorale, parlait d'un maximum de 10 milliards de dollars de dĂ©ficit. Maintenant, ce montant est rendu le minimum. On se souvient aussi que les changements Ă l'impĂŽt devaient se faire Ă coĂ»t nul. Le rĂ©sultat est que cela nous met dans le trou de 1,7 milliard de dollars. Ăgalement, le premier ministre n'est mĂȘme pas capable de garantir l'Ă©quilibre budgĂ©taire dans quatre ans. La question est simple. Quand le gouvernement va-t-il vraiment reprendre le contrĂŽle des dĂ©penses publiques?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government has completely lost control of the public purse, and that is putting it mildly. Members will remember that, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister spoke of a maximum deficit of $10 billion. Now, that amount has become the minimum deficit. Members will also recall that the tax changes were supposed to be revenue-neutral, when in actual fact, they are going to put us $1.7 billion in debt. To top it all off, the Prime Minister cannot even guarantee a balanced budget in four years. My question is simple. When will the government really regain control of the public purse?
Morneau highlights the middle-class tax cut benefiting nine million Canadians and announces the Canada Child Benefit and major investments as part of budget 2016.
Morneau responds with middle-class tax cuts and mentions the Canada Child Benefit and infrastructure investments but does not address the specific broken promises cited or the loss-of-control framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous avons été élus avec le plan de faire croßtre l'économie et nous l'avons déjà amorcé. Nous avons commencé par une réduction des impÎts pour la classe moyenne, et neuf millions de Canadiens ont plus d'argent dans leurs poches. Dans le budget de 2016, il y aura d'autres mesures pour améliorer notre niveau de croissance. Nous allons ajouter l'Allocation canadienne aux enfants et nous allons faire des investissements trÚs importants pour faire croßtre l'économie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we were elected with a plan to grow the economy, and we have already begun to do so. We began by cutting taxes for the middle class, and nine million Canadians have more money in their pockets. In budget 2016, there will be other measures to improve our economic growth. We are going to introduce the Canada child benefit and make significant investments to grow our economy.
Deltell asks who the Minister of Finance trusts for public finances, citing his own department's Financial Review showing a $1 billion surplus and the Liberals' vote against a motion expressing confidence in the Deputy Minister of Finance.
Cites the Financial Review from the minister's own department showing a $1 billion surplus from April to November 2015, and raises the specific committee vote against confidence in the Deputy Minister of Finance, making for a precise and factually grounded question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ma question s'adresse directement au ministre des Finances. Dans La revue financiÚre, son propre ministÚre a dit que, d'avril à novembre 2015, il y avait un excédent budgétaire de 1 milliard de dollars. Dans notre bilan, il y a des surplus, le leur, des déficits. Hier, on a présenté une motion visant à exprimer la confiance à l'égard du sous-ministre des Finances et de son équipe. Or, les libéraux ont voté contre. La question est simple. Si le ministre des Finances ne fait pas confiance à son sous-ministre et à son équipe, à qui fait-il confiance pour les finances publiques?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the question is for the Minister of Finance. His own department reported in the Fiscal Monitor that from April to November 2015 there was a $1 billion budget surplus. We post surpluses, while they post deficits. Yesterday, we voted on a motion to express confidence in the Deputy Minister of Finance and his team. The Liberals voted against it. The question is simple. If the Minister of Finance does not have confidence in his deputy minister and his team, who does he trust with public finances?
Morneau asserts that only Conservatives believe the previous government left a surplus, explains that a monthly Financial Review is a snapshot and does not tell the whole story, and says the 2015â2016 deficit is rooted in Conservative actions and inactions.
Morneau dismisses the surplus claim as a Conservative invention and explains the monthly snapshot limitation of the Financial Review, but does not address the committee vote on the Deputy Minister or answer whom he trusts for public finances.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les seules personnes qui croient que le gouvernement conservateur prĂ©cĂ©dent a laissĂ© un surplus sont les conservateurs eux-mĂȘmes. Les Canadiennes et les Canadiens ne sont pas dupes. Ne nous mĂ©prenons pas. Le gouvernement du Canada va afficher un dĂ©ficit pour l'annĂ©e financiĂšre 2015-2016, et ce dĂ©ficit repose sur les actions et inactions du gouvernement conservateur. Une revue financiĂšre pour un mois quelconque est une reprĂ©sentation instantanĂ©e de l'Ă©poque. Elle ne raconte pas l'histoire entiĂšre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the only people who believe that the previous Conservative government left a surplus are the Conservatives. Canadians are not fools. Make no mistake, the Government of Canada will post a deficit for fiscal 2015-16, which is the result of the Conservative government's actions and inactions. A fiscal monitor for a given month is a snapshot of that time. It does not tell the whole story.
Duncan invokes the 30th anniversary of the Hinton rail disaster and asks how many more disasters must occur before the minister takes action on engineer fatigue.
Grounds the question in the 30th anniversary of the Hinton rail disaster with specific casualties (26 dead, 95 injured), links engineer fatigue to Lac-MĂ©gantic, and asks for a concrete commitment on action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 2016 marks the 30th anniversary of the Hinton, Alberta rail disaster where 26 people died and another 95 people were injured. Engineer fatigue was identified as one cause of that tragedy. Thirty years later, worker fatigue is still a major factor in derailments, including at Lac-MĂ©gantic. The Minister of Transport is mandated to improve rail safety, yet communities along rail lines are left waiting for government action. How many more disasters will there be before the minister finally takes action on engineer fatigue?
Garneau says he has taken action on a fatigue complaint lodged with CP and that rail safety is his number one priority, with active investigation currently under way.
Garneau confirms he has taken specific action on a fatigue complaint lodged with CP and states rail safety is his number one priority, which is responsive, though 'actively looking into' is not a firm commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this question because I have been speaking extensively about rail safety since I received my mandate to do so. On the question of fatigue, the member will be glad to know that I have taken action with respect to a complaint that was lodged with CP concerning fatigue of those who are responsible for driving CP trains. We are actively looking into that at the moment. Rail safety is my number one priority and that of this government. We will be vigilant with respect to that, because so many Canadians are concerned about it.
Dubé asks when the government will present a real rail safety plan, citing nearly three years since Lac-Mégantic and ongoing waits for stronger safety rules, better inspections, removal of dangerous tanker cars, and increased surveillance.
References the Lac-MĂ©gantic tragedy and lists specific asks â stronger safety rules, better inspections, removal of dangerous tanker cars, and increased surveillance â giving the question reasonable substance, though it lacks hard data.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, de plus en plus de pétrole est transporté par train dans nos communautés sans que le gouvernement assure un encadrement sécuritaire et adéquat. Avec de nouveaux projets sur la table, on ne peut pas se contenter du statu quo laissé par les conservateurs. Les municipalités et les citoyens sont inquiets. Presque trois ans aprÚs la tragédie de Lac-Mégantic, on attend toujours un renforcement des rÚgles de sécurité, de meilleures inspections, le retrait des wagons dangereux et une surveillance accrue. Quand le gouvernement démontrera-t-il que c'est une priorité et présentera-t-il un vrai plan de sécurité ferroviaire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, more and more oil is being transported by rail through our communities, but the government has not created a safe and appropriate framework. There are new projects on the table, and the status quo the Conservatives left us is not good enough. Municipalities and Canadians are worried. Nearly three years after the Lac-MĂ©gantic tragedy, we are still waiting for more stringent safety rules, improved inspections, the removal of dangerous cars, and increased monitoring. When will the government show that this is a priority and present a real rail safety plan?
Garneau acknowledges initiatives taken since July 2013 following Lac-MĂ©gantic, notes they were begun by the previous government, and says there is still work to do to ensure safe railways.
Garneau acknowledges post-Lac-MĂ©gantic initiatives and commits to further work but provides no specifics on any of the four measures listed, and deflects partially by attributing existing measures to the previous government.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie mon collÚgue de sa question. Je suis heureux d'aller dans les détails et de faire part à mon collÚgue des initiatives prises depuis juillet 2013, à la suite de la tragédie de Lac-Mégantic. Ces initiatives ont été prises par le gouvernement précédent. Je les ai examinées et il y a encore du travail à faire. Nous allons faire ce travail pour assurer aux Canadiens que leurs systÚmes de chemin de fer sont sécuritaires.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am happy to share some details and to tell my colleague about the initiatives that have been taken since July 2013, after the tragedy in Lac-MĂ©gantic. These initiatives were taken by the previous government. I have examined them, and there is still work to be done. We will do what is necessary to assure Canadians that their rail systems are safe.
Shanahan asks the Minister of Natural Resources to describe the model of collaboration from the green energy MOU signed with US and Mexican counterparts in Winnipeg and explain its benefits for Canadian investment.
Classic government-backbench softball asking the minister to describe and explain the benefits of a memorandum of understanding he himself just signed, providing no accountability function.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la semaine derniĂšre, le ministre des Ressources naturelles a rencontrĂ© ses homologues des Ătats-Unis et du Mexique Ă Winnipeg. Lors de cette rencontre, ils ont signĂ© un protocole d'entente sur une collaboration en matiĂšre d'Ă©nergie verte. Le ministre peut-il dĂ©crire ce modĂšle de collaboration et en expliquer les bienfaits en ce qui a trait aux investissements canadiens en matiĂšre d'Ă©nergie verte, d'efficacitĂ© Ă©nergĂ©tique et d'industries d'Ă©nergie verte?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, last week in Winnipeg, the Minister of Natural Resources met with his counterparts from the United States and Mexico. At this meeting, they signed a memorandum of understanding on green energy collaboration. Can the minister describe this collaboration model and explain the benefits it will have for Canadian investments in green energy, energy efficiency, and green energy industries?
Carr confirms he hosted US and Mexican energy counterparts in Winnipeg where they signed a trilateral memorandum of understanding on climate change and energy collaboration, building on previous government work and delivering on sustainable development promises.
Carr names the specific trilateral memorandum of understanding signed in Winnipeg on climate change and energy collaboration, credits the previous government's groundwork, and links it to jobs, prosperity, and sustainable development.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I hosted our United States and Mexican energy counterparts in Winnipeg, where we signed a trilateral memorandum of understanding on climate change and energy collaboration. I will say that this MOU builds on the good work done by the previous government. It delivers on our government's promise to ensure that the energy sector remains a source of jobs, prosperity, and opportunity in a world that values sustainable development.
Bergen asks whether there is a double standard â opposing Canadian oil and pipelines while welcoming greenhouse-intensive oil from Saudi Arabia â pressing the minister on a question he ignored the previous day.
References an unanswered question from the previous day and raises a pointed double-standard argument about Canadian versus Saudi oil, but the solar power and hemp-woven ships rhetoric undercuts the factual core.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Natural Resources if there were a double standard when it came to greenhouse gas emissions: one for Canadian oil and jobs, and one for Saudi Arabian oil coming into Canada. The minister completely ignored the question, and so I will give him a chance to answer it today. The Liberals unfortunately are saying no to only Canadian oil and pipelines. I am wondering if the minister thinks that foreign oil extracted from the ground and shipped to Canada is done so using solar power and hemp-woven ships.
Carr says the previous government prejudged the National Energy Board, muzzled climate scientists, ignored traditional knowledge, and short-circuited processes, and pledges not to follow that path of failure.
Carr does not address the double-standard question about Saudi oil at all, pivoting entirely to attacking the previous government for prejudging the National Energy Board, muzzling climate scientists, and short-circuiting processes.
Source text
No, Mr. Speaker, but I need more. Had the previous government not spent so much time prejudging the National Energy Board, muzzling climate scientists, ignoring traditional knowledge, and finding ways to short-circuit the process, perhaps major resource projects would carry the confidence of Canadians. Our government will not follow the lead of the previous administration on its path of failure.
Bergen asks when the government will champion responsibly extracted and transported Canadian oil instead of welcoming greenhouse-intensive oil from Saudi Arabia, where women have few rights and dissidents are executed.
Adds the human-rights dimension regarding Saudi Arabia and asks when the government will champion responsibly extracted Canadian oil, but the question is largely rhetorical and builds on a prior exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is no answer, and the Liberal government continues to put roadblocks in the way of Canadian oil and the kinds of jobs that pay the mortgages of Canadians. Canadian oil is extracted responsibly, and environmental protection is at the forefront of the Canadian energy industry. Meanwhile, the Liberals welcome greenhouse-intensive oil from countries like Saudi Arabia, where women have virtually no rights and dissidents are executed. When will the government be a champion for responsibly extracted and transported Canadian oil?
Carr says all projects under review will be put through different lenses to ensure economic growth and environmental sustainability, and references the Prime Minister's obligation to get natural resources to market sustainably.
Carr says all projects under review will be examined through multiple lenses and invokes the Prime Minister's commitment to getting natural resources to market sustainably, but does not address the Saudi oil double-standard at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are in the process of doing. What we are doing is ensuring that all projects that are currently under review will be put through a number of different lenses. We know on this side of the House that we cannot have economic growth without environmental sustainability. We cannot have a regular process that does not carry the confidence of Canadians. We intend to do all of those things. As the Prime Minister has said, it is a major obligation to get our natural resources to market sustainably.
Bernier asks whether the Prime Minister will finally support Energy East, citing a new poll showing 59% of Quebeckers prefer Canadian western oil and broad support from Ontario, Atlantic provinces, the West, and Quebec.
Cites a new poll with a specific figure of 59% of Quebeckers preferring Canadian western oil and lists provinces supporting Energy East, giving some factual grounding, but the ask to the Prime Minister is vague.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, un nouveau sondage rĂ©vĂ©lait hier aux Canadiens qu'une grande majoritĂ© de QuĂ©bĂ©cois appuient le transport par olĂ©oduc de produits pĂ©troliers. De plus, 59 % des QuĂ©bĂ©cois prĂ©fĂ©reraient acheter des produits pĂ©troliers provenant d'ici, du Canada, de l'Ouest canadien. La question est bien simple. Maintenant, l'Ontario, l'Atlantique, les provinces de l'Ouest et le QuĂ©bec sont en faveur du projet Ănergie Est. Le premier ministre peut-il enfin ĂȘtre derriĂšre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a new poll released yesterday showed that the vast majority of Quebeckers support transporting oil products via pipeline. Furthermore, 59% of Quebeckers would rather purchase oil products originating in western Canada. My question is very simple. Ontario, the Atlantic provinces, the western provinces, and Quebec all support the energy east project. Will the Prime Minister finally get behind it?
Carr acknowledges divergent views on pipelines from various actors and says the government will use science-based evidence, indigenous knowledge, and a credible process before deciding.
Carr acknowledges multiple competing opinions on pipelines and says the government will use science-based evidence, indigenous knowledge, and a good process to decide, but does not engage with the polling data or the claim of broad provincial support.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have had many opinions expressed in the House about pipelines. We have one over here, we have a second one there, and a third one over there. We have mayors who are weighing in. We have premiers who are weighing in. The only way we are going to get a process that carries credibility with Canadians is to ensure that they all have an opportunity to give their views and, ultimately, by looking at science-based evidence, indigenous knowledge, and a good process, the government will decide.
Bernier asks the Prime Minister to support Energy East, citing a new poll showing 59% of Quebeckers prefer western Canadian oil and broad regional support from the Atlantic, West, Ontario, and Quebec.
Reiterates the 59% polling figure, disputes Denis Coderre's representative standing, and lists four regions of support for Energy East, making a more direct ask about the Prime Minister's support, though it largely repeats the previous exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, Denis Coderre was not speaking for Quebeckers when he opposed energy east. According to a new poll, Quebeckers consider pipelines to be the safest means to transport oil. Fifty-nine per cent would prefer to buy their oil from western Canada. The Atlantic, the west, Ontario, and now Quebec support energy east. Will the Prime Minister understand that and support that project for Canadians?
Carr says major resource projects must carry the confidence of Canadians and criticizes the previous government for not getting one major pipeline built to tidewater while a majority government, pledging a new credible process.
Carr welcomes the nation-building framing but deflects to attacking the previous government for not getting one major pipeline built to tidewater during its majority, without addressing Energy East specifically or the polling evidence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to learn that the members opposite see major resource projects as nation-building, as these should be, but the only way these are going to happen is if they carry the confidence of Canadians, not the failed process of the previous government that did not get one major pipeline built to tidewater while it was a majority government. Why would we want to follow a failed practice? We are going to follow a new one that has faith in the credibility and the judgment of Canadians.
Trudel asks when the minister will issue the decree to bring into force the law against exploiters, citing a mother who personally delivered a letter to the Prime Minister and the absence of action at a recent Cabinet meeting.
Cites a specific event â a mother personally delivering a letter to the Prime Minister on Monday â and references a specific law adopted unanimously, asking for a concrete decree with clear urgency.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le trafic et l'exploitation sexuelle de nos filles continue d'inquiéter au Québec. Lundi, la mÚre d'une fugueuse est allée personnellement remettre une lettre en mains propres au premier ministre. Elle lui a demandé de mettre en application la loi contre les exploiteurs, une loi adoptée ici par tous les partis. Pourtant, hier, il y a eu une réunion du Conseil des ministres, mais il n'y a toujours pas de décret. C'est bien beau les belles paroles, mais c'est d'action que nous avons besoin. Qu'attend la ministre pour rendre la vie plus difficile aux exploiteurs afin de protéger nos filles? à quand le décret?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, human trafficking and the sexual exploitation of our young women continues to be a concern in Quebec. On Monday, the mother of a runaway personally handed a letter to the Prime Minister. She asked him to enforce the law against traffickers, a law that was passed here by all parties. Yesterday there was a cabinet meeting, but there is still no order in council. It is all very fine to talk about this, but what we need is action. What is the minister waiting for to make it tougher for traffickers and to protect our young women? When will we see an order in council?
The Parliamentary Secretary expresses sympathy for the families and commits to acting quickly to achieve the important objectives of Bill C-452 in a manner reflecting the government's values and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Parliamentary Secretary offers sympathy and a general commitment to act quickly in a manner consistent with the Charter, but does not give a date or timeline for the decree asked about.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ces jeunes femmes et leurs familles sont dans nos priÚres et nos pensées. La disparition d'un enfant est une tragédie, tout particuliÚrement dans ces circonstances. Nous sommes déterminés à atteindre les objectifs importants du projet de loi C-452. Je peux garantir que nous agirons rapidement d'une façon qui reflÚte nos valeurs et la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, these young women and their families are in our thoughts and prayers. The disappearance of a child is a tragedy, especially in these circumstances. We are determined to achieve the important objectives of Bill C-452. I can guarantee that we will quickly take action that is in keeping with our values and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Garrison asks the Liberal government to restore the police officer recruitment fund, cancelled by the Conservatives in 2013, so communities like Halifax, Montreal, Winnipeg, and Surrey have the police resources they need.
Cites a specific policy â the police officer recruitment fund cancelled in 2013 â and names specific communities (Halifax, Montreal, Winnipeg, Surrey) with a single clear ask to restore the fund.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, communities across the country are working hard to tackle this problem and so many other public safety challenges, but despite all the talk from the previous government, police forces across the country still do not have the resources they need. To make matters worse, in 2013 the Conservatives cancelled the police officer recruitment fund. The NDP has consistently called for the restoration of this fund so that communities like Halifax, Montreal, Winnipeg, and Surrey have the police officers and the resources they need to keep their communities safe. Will the Liberal government now restore the police officer recruitment fund?
Goodale commits that the officer complement at the Surrey detachment will be on target by spring, and says the Liberal platform includes a new fund through provinces to combat guns, gangs, and drugs.
Goodale addresses Surrey specifically with a concrete commitment that the promised number of officers will be added by spring, and references a new platform fund for guns, gangs, and drugs through provinces, but does not directly say whether the police officer recruitment fund will be restored.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman makes a specific reference to Surrey. I can assure him that the commitment made of the number of officers to be added to that detachment will be honoured by this spring, on target, as planned originally. I will also tell him that our platform included a very useful suggestion for a new fund to work through the provinces and with local police forces across the country to combat the awful scourge of guns and gangs, and drugs. We are being very proactive on this file.
When will the Prime Minister stop obstructing the export of Canadian oil and the creation of jobs?
Mostly rhetorical framing built on a list of assertions about the Prime Minister's understanding, with only a vague ask to 'get out of the way' without citing any specific policy, document, or decision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister does not understand that Canada is an energy-rich country. He does not understand that Canada is an exporting country. He does not understand that oil is one of our biggest exports. He does not understand that those exports create jobs all across Canada. Canada's international customers are waiting with open wallets to buy Canada's energy. They will buy as much as we can provide. When will this Prime Minister get out of the way so that we can export more of our oil around the world, and create jobs here at home?
The minister stated that the government's priority is getting natural resources to market sustainably through a credible process, contrasting it with the previous government's failed approach.
Engages broadly with the theme of getting natural resources to market but pivots to attacking the previous government's process rather than addressing any specific action or commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said many times that one of the major responsibilities of the Government of Canada is to get our natural resources to market sustainably. If we want to access these foreign markets, if we want to create more jobs in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador, the only way that will be done is if the Canadian people see that the process that takes us to a decision is a credible one, not like the failed process of the previous government.
Why did the Minister of Transport overrule Toronto City Council and the Toronto Port Authority to block the Toronto island airport expansion, thereby harming Bombardier's business opportunities?
Identifies a specific decision (blocking Toronto island airport expansion), names concrete actors (Toronto City Council, Toronto Port Authority), and links it to Bombardier employment, though the causal chain is somewhat simplified.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Bombardier is a huge employer in Canada, particularly in Quebec, and the minister's home city of Montreal. Yet the Minister of Transport has killed a major business opportunity for Bombardier. He overruled Toronto City Council and the Toronto Port Authority, and blocked expansion of the Toronto island airport. Why will the Minister of Transport not let Bombardier create Canadian jobs by allowing the Toronto island airport to expand?
The minister celebrated Air Canada's purchase of 45 C-series 300 aircraft with options for 30 more, praising Bombardier's aircraft, without addressing the airport expansion question.
Does not address the Toronto island airport decision at all, instead deflecting entirely to Air Canada's C-series purchase announcement, which is a different subject.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everyone in this chamber, on both sides of the House, is delighted with the news today that Air Canada has decided to purchase 45 airplanes from the C-series 300 and has options for 30 more. We care deeply about the Bombardier aircraft. I, myself, have had the pleasure of sitting in the cockpit. This is the best airplane in the world in its class, and all of us should be hoping that Bombardier is going to be selling hundreds of these aircraft in the months and years to come.
Will the government commit to supporting Energy East and improving employment insurance for Albertans who have lost their jobs?
Raises two identifiable asks â commitment to Energy East and improvements to employment insurance â but wraps them in heavy partisan rhetoric, making the question compound and imprecise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, provinces like Alberta have been hit hard by job losses and, as we have heard today, they are not going to get much help from the Liberal government. There is absolutely no plan to get Canadians back to work. There is absolutely no support for energy east. What Albertans are asking this Liberal government for is a commitment to energy east, a commitment to improve employment insurance to ensure that Albertans who have lost their jobs can take care of their families and keep their homes. In our biggest time of need, will the government stand up, support Albertans, and help them get back to work, instead of just saying, âHey, hang in thereâ?
The minister stated that the government wants to move natural resources to market through a credible regulatory process that includes indigenous communities, contrasting it with the previous government's failures.
The minister speaks only generally about moving natural resources to market and critiques the previous government's regulatory process, entirely ignoring the employment insurance component and offering no commitment on Energy East.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has a priority. It wants to move our natural resources to market. The previous government was unable to move natural resources to tidewater, because it continued to follow a process that failed and that did not have the confidence of the Canadian people. Why would we want to repeat those mistakes? Rather, we are embracing a process that reaches out to Canadians, that reaches out to indigenous communities to build confidence in the regulatory process, to meet our combined objectiveâ
What work has the Minister of National Revenue undertaken to make the Canada Revenue Agency more client-service oriented, as directed by the Prime Minister's mandate letter?
A government-backbench softball setup referencing the minister's mandate letter, inviting her to describe work already underway with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, dans sa lettre de mandat, le premier ministre a demandé à la ministre du Revenu national de faire de l'Agence du revenu du Canada une institution axée sur le service à la clientÚle. Le gouvernement doit s'assurer que les contribuables canadiens sont toujours traités avec respect. Ce respect doit se refléter dans les relations qu'il entretient avec les citoyens. La ministre peut-elle nous dire quels travaux elle a amorcés en ce sens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in his mandate letter, the Prime Minister instructed the Minister of National Revenue to turn the Canada Revenue Agency into a client-focused institution. The government must ensure that Canadian taxpayers are always treated with respect. That respect must permeate the way it interacts with citizens. Can the minister tell us what she has done so far?
The minister announced improvements to CRA correspondence unveiled the previous Thursday, simplifying tax information to include only the most important details for taxpayers, with ongoing consultations planned.
The minister provides a specific and recent action â improvements to CRA correspondence announced the previous Thursday â and outlines the approach of simplifying content for taxpayers, constituting real informational content.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai eu le plaisir d'annoncer, jeudi dernier, des améliorations à la correspondance de l'Agence du revenu du Canada qui rendent les renseignements sur l'impÎt plus simples et plus faciles à comprendre. Le contenu a été simplifié pour inclure uniquement les renseignements les plus importants pour le contribuable. Nous allons continuer de consulter les Canadiens et de nous inspirer des meilleures pratiques pour nous assurer que l'amélioration de nos services répond vraiment aux besoins des citoyens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, I was pleased to announce improvements to Canada Revenue Agency correspondence to make tax information simpler and easier to understand. The content has been streamlined to include only the information most important to the taxpayer. We will continue to consult with Canadians and draw on best practices to make sure our service improvements truly meet Canadians' needs.
Given that the equalization formula does not account for sudden drops in oil and gas prices, will the minister commit to addressing its problems and treating Saskatchewan and Alberta fairly?
Cites the Minister of Finance's own statement from the previous day about the territorial funding formula, identifies a specific asymmetry in the equalization formula affecting Saskatchewan and Alberta, and asks for a concrete commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance indicated that he would amend the territorial funding formula to take into account recent changes in the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut. As the minister well knows, western provinces have seen a sudden and dramatic drop in the price of oil and gas, however, the equalization formula does not allow these unexpected changes to be taken into account. This means that Saskatchewan is sending money to other provinces while its own resource economy is struggling. Will the minister commit to treating Saskatchewan and Alberta fairly and address the problems in the equalization formula?
The minister explained the resolution of the territorial funding formula issue caused by a Statistics Canada calculation change, then pivoted to the government's infrastructure investments as a way to help all Canadians.
The minister explains the territorial formula fix but does not address the specific question about the equalization formula or commit to treating Saskatchewan and Alberta differently, pivoting instead to infrastructure investments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer this question. We were very pleased to deal with the situation in the northern territories over a couple of months of discussion. Statistics Canada changed its calculation method which left it in a difficult situation. We found a way to improve that situation. Happily, what we have also done is found ways that we can help people in other provinces through the plan we put forward. We are going to be making real investments in the Canadian economy through investments in infrastructure, investments that will help people in the middle class and those most vulnerable. We believe that our plan has the best shot in improving our economy for all Canadians.
Will the government enhance the Guaranteed Income Supplement by 10% in budget 2016 as promised during the election campaign, given that senior poverty has risen from 4% to 11% over 12 years?
Cites specific data from the Broadbent Institute study (poverty rising from 4% to 11% over 12 years, 30% for single women), references the Liberals' specific electoral commitment to a 10% Guaranteed Income Supplement increase, and poses a clear yes/no question about budget 2016.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'étude de l'Institut Broadbent qui a été rendue publique hier confirme que la pauvreté chez nos aßnés est à la hausse. En 12 ans, la proportion de nos aßnés vivant sous le seuil de faible revenu est passée de 4 % à 11 %, et chez les femmes seules, on parle maintenant de 30 %. Les libéraux se sont clairement engagés, pendant la campagne électorale, à bonifier immédiatement le Supplément de revenu garanti de 10 %. Or, hier, la réponse du ministre des Finances a été on ne peut plus vague. La question, elle, est claire: le gouvernement va-t-il bonifier le Supplément de revenu garanti dans le budget, comme il l'avait promis durant la campagne électorale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Broadbent Institute study released yesterday confirms that seniors' poverty rates are increasing. Over the past 12 years, senior poverty has increased from 4% to 11%. Some 30% of single senior women are living below the poverty line. During the election campaign, the Liberals promised to increase the guaranteed income supplement by 10% right away, but yesterday's response from the Minister of Finance could not have been more vague. The question is clear: will the government increase the guaranteed income supplement in the budget as promised in the election campaign?
The minister stated the government is looking toward measures in budget 2016 to help retired Canadians and toward a CPP enhancement, but did not confirm the specific 10% Guaranteed Income Supplement increase.
The minister acknowledges the commitment to helping retirees and signals measures in budget 2016, but does not confirm the specific 10% Guaranteed Income Supplement increase promised during the campaign, remaining vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during the course of our campaign, we talked about the importance of helping people to retire in dignity. We talked about the importance of helping those people who have already retired. We are looking toward making significant progress on helping Canadians to retire in dignity over the course of this year through a CPP enhancement. We are also looking toward measures in budget 2016 that will help those Canadians who are currently retired and facing a difficult situation.
What is the government doing to support Canadian small businesses in accessing global export opportunities?
A government-backbench softball asking the minister to update the House on support for small businesses, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in my riding of London North Centre, small businesses are central to the economy. Many small business owners tell me it is very difficult to be competitive as unlocking new markets to move their goods and services is not an easy task. Would the Minister of International Trade be able to update the House on what is being done to ensure Canadian small businesses are given the necessary support required to take advantage of global export opportunities and create more quality jobs at home?
The minister described CanExport, a $50 million five-year program, noting that 29 companies have already been approved for funding since its unveiling last month.
The minister provides specific program details â CanExport, $50 million over five years â and the concrete result that 29 companies have already been approved for funding since the program launched last month.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for London North Centre for his hard work on this file. CanExport is a $50 million five-year program that gives small- and medium-size companies the support they need to explore new export opportunities. We unveiled CanExport last month and it was with great pleasure that the hon. Minister of Small Business and I announced just last week that 29 companies have already been approved for funding. This is a great program. I encourage all of us to get the small- and medium-size companies in our ridings from coast to coast to coast to apply. Let usâ
What will the Minister of Public Safety do to give law enforcement the tools needed to detect drug-impaired drivers, given that no device has yet been approved in Canada for rapid roadside drug detection?
References the Throne Speech commitment on marijuana legalization, identifies a concrete gap (no approved roadside drug detection device), and asks specifically what the Minister of Public Safety will do to address this for law enforcement and families.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, dans son discours du TrÎne, le premier ministre a indiqué qu'il allait légaliser et décriminaliser la marijuana. Depuis cette annonce, les représentants des forces de l'ordre ont mentionné ne pas avoir les outils nécessaires pour lutter efficacement contre la drogue au volant. Contrairement à l'alcool, aucun dispositif n'a encore été approuvé au Canada pour détecter rapidement la présence de drogue chez les conducteurs. Le ministre de la Sécurité publique peut-il nous expliquer ce qu'il entend faire pour rassurer nos corps policiers, mais également les familles canadiennes qui craignent un plus grand nombre de conducteurs intoxiqués sur nos routes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in his throne speech, the Prime Minister indicated that he would legalize and decriminalize marijuana. Law enforcement officials have since said that they do not have the tools they need to effectively deal with drug-impaired driving. A device to quickly detect whether a driver has consumed drugs, like the one used to screen for alcohol, has not yet been approved in Canada. Can the Minister of Public Safety explain what he intends to do to reassure our police forces and Canadian families, who are afraid that there will be more impaired drivers on our roads?
The parliamentary secretary committed generally to working with the House and law enforcement to ensure they have the tools necessary to keep communities safe as part of the marijuana legalization process.
The parliamentary secretary offers only boilerplate commitments to community safety and working with law enforcement, without addressing the specific gap of roadside drug detection devices or any concrete measure planned.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes the importance of keeping our communities safe. We are absolutely committed to working with the House to ensure that law enforcement agencies across this country have the tools necessary to keep our communities safe. It is an important part of the work that we will be doing in the future as we go forward to make our communities safe and to protect our kids, through the legalization and regulation of marijuana.
Will the Prime Minister personally attend the Paris agreement signing ceremony on Earth Day and will he bring a new, more robust emissions target consistent with the agreement's objectives?
Poses two identifiable specific questions â whether the Prime Minister will personally attend the Paris agreement signing on Earth Day and whether he will bring a more robust target â grounded in the specific UN Secretary-General invitation and Paris agreement context.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. All of us in the House are proud of the progressive role Canada played in concluding the agreement in Paris last year. The Paris agreement will be open for signing at the United Nations headquarters this spring on Earth Day. My question to the Prime Minister is twofold. Will he personally accept the invitation of the Secretary-General to be there to sign the agreement, and more importantly, will he bring with him Canada's new, more robust target to meet the objectives of the agreement?
The Prime Minister confirmed Canada will attend the signing ceremony in April in New York and mentioned a meeting with premiers on March 3, but did not address whether a new, more robust target would be brought.
The Prime Minister directly confirms Canada will attend the April signing ceremony in New York, but does not address the second and more substantive part of the question about bringing a new, more robust emissions target.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to be in Paris with premiers and so many Canadians to reach that extraordinary agreement. I am looking forward to meeting with the premiers on March 3 to further build on this framework. In direct answer to the member's question, Canada will be attending the signing ceremony in April in New York to move forward on this important landmark historic agreement out of Paris.
Members of the House acknowledged the presence of guests in the gallery with expressions of approval. No question was asked and no substantive answer was given.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Bravo!
Hansard translation: Hear, hear!
Hear, hear!
GĂ©rard Deltell (CPC) sought unanimous consent of the House to table the November 2015 edition of the Financial Review, a publication of the Department of Finance. The House did not give consent.
- CPC Mr. GĂ©rard Deltell
- Some hon. members
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'invoque le RÚglement. Je sollicite le consentement de la Chambre pour déposer le document suivant: La revue financiÚre, publication du ministÚre des Finances, numéro de novembre 2015.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the consent of the House to table the following document: âFinancial Monitorâ, a Department of Finance publication, November 2015 issue.
non.
Hansard translation: No.