Session overview
- The Liberals' unilateral move to change House rules dominated QP, with CPC and NDP accusing the government of undermining parliamentary democracy and opposition rights; the government argued it was simply extending sitting hours to allow more debate.
- Electoral reform generated intense exchanges, with opposition parties (CPC and NDP) demanding a referendum and questioning whether a parliamentary committee could consult enough Canadians; Minister Monsef defended the all-party committee process without providing specifics on outreach methods.
- Veterans' affairs saw repeated accusations that the Liberals were breaking campaign promises by continuing the Equitas court case against veterans with the same lawyers and arguments used by the previous Conservative government.
- The Alberta Court of Appeal ruling that Bill C-14 (medical assistance in dying) contradicted the Supreme Court's Carter decision was raised by both NDP and Green Party, pressing the government to amend the bill or refer it to the Supreme Court.
- The Magnitsky Act drew three exchanges, with CPC members accusing the Minister of Foreign Affairs of trading appeasement with Russia for a seat at the International Syria Support Group table; the government's parliamentary secretary pointed to existing tools under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and a review of the Special Economic Measures Act.
- Minister Goodale announced concrete steps on Bill C-51 reform, including planned legislation for a parliamentary oversight committee before the summer recess and a new counter-radicalization office funded in the budget, alongside acknowledging that unauthorized RCMP surveillance of journalists was unacceptable and had been stopped.
Minister Goodale provided a specific, sequenced plan for Bill C-51 reform: legislation for a parliamentary oversight committee before the summer recess (step one), a new counter-radicalization office already funded in the budget (step two), and forthcoming national consultations â concrete commitments the public could hold the government to.
May cites a specific unanimous court decision (Alberta Court of Appeal, yesterday) and a specific quote from it challenging the government's interpretation, then asks a precise question about whether the government will entertain amendments at report stage to make Bill C-14 charter-compliant.
When Jason Kenney laid out a specific, step-by-step argument that the Liberal majority would control the committee, the cabinet decision, and the final House vote on electoral reform, Monsef responded only with a single sentence implying Conservatives used to abuse majorities, entirely failing to address the substance of the question.
Outstanding questions
- Nathan Cullen (SkeenaâBulkley Valley) asked the minister to commit, yes or no, not to pass any changes to the electoral act without the support of at least one opposition party â no answer was given.
- Thomas Mulcair asked whether the Prime Minister would either refer Bill C-14 to the Supreme Court or make the necessary changes to make it constitutional in light of the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling â the Prime Minister did not address the referral option.
- Alain Rayes asked Minister Monsef to explain specifically, beyond a reference to Twitter, what methods would be used to consult Canadians on electoral reform and whether a parliamentary committee could consult more than 13 million Canadians in under six months â no specific methods were provided.
- Thomas Mulcair asked why the Prime Minister was breaking his promise to restore door-to-door mail delivery at Canada Post, given a September 3 campaign video â the Prime Minister did not acknowledge the specific video or confirm whether the promise stood.
- Erin O'Toole asked the justice minister to denounce the tactic of sending lawyers back to court against veterans in the Equitas case â the Minister of Veterans Affairs answered instead and did not address whether the Justice Department's legal strategy would change.
Rona Ambrose asked the Prime Minister how he could justify changing House rules to eliminate accountability and take power away from opposition parties. Trudeau responded that the government was extending sitting hours to allow more debate, but did not directly address the accusation of reducing opposition rights.
- CPC Rona Ambrose
- Lib Right Hon. Justin Trudeau
Source text
Mr. Speaker, now we know what the Prime Minister really thinks about democracy. During the election he said, âWe will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny.â Now, without any justification, he has changed the rules to eliminate accountability and take power away from the opposition parties. Instead of a government and an opposition, he just wants a government and an audience. How can the Prime Minister justify such a lack of respect for Parliament?
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have tremendous respect for Parliament. That is why we are proposing to extend sitting hours to allow members of Parliament to contribute thoughtful, responsible interjections on a broad range of topics. We made the commitment to Canadians that we would make this government work for them, that we would put forward the kinds of issues that mattered to them and that they voted for in the election. That is exactly what we are doing. We are putting forward an agenda on which they have asked us to deliver. We are inviting all members in the House to speak at length and share their perspectives on all the legislation.
Rona Ambrose, in French, again accused the Prime Minister of treating parliamentary democracy as a farce and asked how he could justify this lack of respect for Parliament. Trudeau responded that the government was offering opposition members more time to share their views, without directly addressing the accusation.
- CPC Rona Ambrose
- Lib Right Hon. Justin Trudeau
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we knew that the Prime Minister admired basic Chinese dictatorship, but we did not think he would actually emulate it. Cette semaine, nous sommes en train de découvrir la vraie nature du premier ministre. La démocratie parlementaire est simplement une farce pour lui. Au lieu d'avoir un gouvernement et une opposition, les libéraux ont créé un gouvernement et un auditoire. Comment le premier ministre peut-il justifier ce manque de respect envers le Parlement?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, nous savions déjà que le premier ministre admirait la dictature chinoise, mais jamais nous n'aurions cru qu'il en reproduirait carrément les méthodes. This week, we are discovering the Prime Minister's true nature. Parliamentary democracy is just a joke to him. Instead of having a government and an opposition, the Liberals have created a government and an audience. How can the Prime Minister justify this lack of respect for Parliament?
Monsieur le Président, nous avons été élus sur la base d'une plateforme ambitieuse pour les Canadiens, afin d'introduire du changement et d'honorer les engagements solennels que nous avons pour eux. La réalité est que nous sommes en train d'offrir aux députés de l'opposition beaucoup plus de temps pour faire part de leurs points de vue et de leurs perspectives. Nous croyons réellement à l'engagement robuste qui doit se faire ici, mais nous croyons aussi que les Canadiens s'attendent à ce que ce gouvernement respecte les promesses pour lesquelles ils nous ont élus.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we were elected because of our ambitious platform for Canadians and to introduce change and honour the serious commitments we made to them. We are actually offering opposition members much more time to share their opinions and perspectives. We truly believe in the robust participation that must happen here, but we also believe that Canadians expect this government to keep the promises that brought it to power.
Ambrose argues that changing the rules of democracy requires every Canadian to have a say, and asks why the Prime Minister will not hold a referendum.
The question raises a concrete democratic-process issueâwhether every Canadian should have a say via referendum when electoral rules changeâbut the ask ('why is it not obvious') remains rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, speaking of a lack of respect, the Prime Minister is also intent on changing the rules of democracy without giving every Canadian a say. This House belongs to Canadians. When we change the rules of democracy, every Canadian should have a say. It is obvious to Canadians that the only way this process will be transparent and open is if we have a referendum. Why is it not obvious to the Prime Minister?
Trudeau attacks the opposition's 'unfair elections act' record and reiterates the commitment to consult broadly, including minority and under-represented groups, but does not explain the referendum position.
Trudeau deflects to attacking the 'unfair elections act' and restates the platform commitment to consult broadly, without addressing why a referendum is or is not warranted.
Source text
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am always bemused to hear the members opposite talk about how important it is to engage and consult Canadians when they brought in the unfair elections act, ramming it through to try to help them get re-elected. The fact is that we committed to making this past election the last one in our country under first past the post. We committed to consult broadly with Canadians and pay particular attention to minority groups and under-represented groups, which would be allowed to weigh in on how to make our electoral system and indeed our governance better. That is exactly what we will do.
Lebel quotes the Prime Minister's campaign promise not to use 'legislative tricks' and asks why he is now doing the opposite of what he said during the election campaign.
Lebel cites the Prime Minister's specific campaign quote about 'subterfuges législatifs' and asks why he is doing the opposite of what he promised, providing some factual grounding, though the framing is rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre parle de plateforme. Que disait-il? Il a dit: « Nous nâuserons pas de subterfuges lĂ©gislatifs ». C'est un constat d'Ă©chec parce que, d'ores et dĂ©jĂ , le premier ministre ne respecte pas ce qu'il avait dit lors de la campagne Ă©lectorale. Il n'aime pas avoir une opposition forte devant lui. Nous allons continuer Ă poser des questions. Il disait vouloir donner plus de pouvoir et de muscle aux parlementaires, mais ils les musellent plutĂŽt. Le premier ministre peut-il dire aux Canadiens et aux QuĂ©bĂ©cois pourquoi il fait le contraire de ce qu'il a dit lors de la campagne Ă©lectorale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister mentioned the Liberal platform. What did he say? He said, âWe will not resort to legislative tricks...â. The Prime Minister has failed, because he is already breaking his campaign promises. He does not like answering to a strong opposition. We are going to continue asking questions. He said he wanted to give parliamentarians more power and muscle, but instead he is muzzling them. Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians and Quebeckers why he is doing the opposite of what he said he would do during the election campaign?
Trudeau says Canadians watching must be confused because the government is offering opposition MPs more time to share views and give speeches, and Canadians expect the government to keep its ambitious promises.
Trudeau restates the claim that opposition members are being given more opportunities to speak, directly ignoring the contradiction between the campaign quote and current actions.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au contraire, je crois que les Canadiens qui écoutent cet échange sont perplexes, parce qu'ils savent que nous sommes en train d'offrir plus d'occasions aux députés de l'opposition pour partager leurs points de vue et prononcer des discours, afin que les parlementaires de tous les partis puissent communiquer leurs opinions à la Chambre. Les Canadiens s'attendent à ce que nous honorions les promesses ambitieuses que nous avons faites. C'est exactement ce qu'ils s'attendent à ce que nous fassions.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I believe that the Canadians who are watching at home are confused because they know that we are giving opposition members more opportunities to share their opinions and give speeches so that parliamentarians from all parties have a chance to express their views in the House. Canadians expect us to keep the ambitious promises that we made. That is exactly what they expect us to do.
Lebel argues that pre-determined choices undermine genuine consultation and asks whether the Prime Minister will respect Canadians by allowing them to vote in a referendum on their electoral future.
Lebel raises a specific and answerable questionâwhether the Prime Minister will hold a referendumâgrounding it in the consultation commitment and pointing to a concrete tension between pre-determined choices and genuine consultation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'entente était que c'était la derniÚre élection conduite de cette façon. On dit qu'on veut les consulter, mais d'ores et déjà , on a fait des choix. Quand on consulte les Canadiens, on écoute ce qu'ils ont à dire et on prend en compte ce qu'ils nous disent. DÚs maintenant, par ses choix, ce premier ministre manque de respect envers les députés de la Chambre. Va-t-il au moins respecter la population canadienne et lui laisser le droit de voter dans un référendum sur leur avenir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the agreement was that the most recent election would be the last one that was conducted in that way. The Liberals say they want to consult Canadians, but they are already making decisions. Consulting Canadians means listening to what they have to say and taking their opinions into account. The decisions that the Prime Minister is currently making show a lack of respect for members of the House. Will he at least show some respect for Canadians and give them the right to vote in a referendum about their future?
Trudeau states that 60% of Canadians voted for parties that committed to changing the voting system and reiterates the government's commitment to consult and listen to Canadians.
Trudeau cites a specific statistic (60% of Canadians voted for parties committed to electoral change) but does not address the referendum request directly, instead reiterating the consultation commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, 60 % des Canadiens ont voté en faveur de partis qui se sont engagés à changer le mode de scrutin actuel. Les Canadiens se sont prononcés trÚs clairement sur le fait qu'ils veulent que la plus récente élection soit la derniÚre sous cette forme. Nous nous sommes engagés à consulter les Canadiens, à les écouter et à parler de quel genre de démocratie et de processus ils veulent, afin de leur donner un meilleur gouvernement. C'est exactement ce que nous allons faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, 60% of Canadians voted in favour of parties that promised to change the current voting system. Canadians clearly indicated that they wanted the most recent election to be the last one conducted under the existing system. We promised to consult Canadians, listen to them, and talk about what type of democracy and process they want in order to give them a better government. That is exactly what we are going to do.
Mulcair cites the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling that the physician-assisted dying bill contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling and asks the Prime Minister to either refer the bill to the Supreme Court or make changes to make it constitutional.
Mulcair cites a specific, named court ruling (Alberta Court of Appeal) on the physician-assisted dying bill and offers two concrete, answerable options: refer to the Supreme Court or amend the bill to make it constitutional.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, even the Conservatives on their worst days never tried to stifle democracy the way the Liberals are doing it today. On the very important issue of physician-assisted dying, after Liberals shut down debate, the Alberta Court of Appeal has now declared that the government is contradicting the Supreme Court's ruling. This is exactly as most experts had predicted. With this new court ruling, will the Prime Minister either refer the bill to the Supreme Court or make the necessary changes to make it constitutional?
Trudeau says the government is creating a 'responsible regime' on medical assistance in dying that defends rights while protecting the vulnerable, but does not respond to either option Mulcair proposed.
Trudeau defends the approach as 'responsible' and aimed at protecting the 'most vulnerable' but does not address either of the specific options Mulcair proposed, nor the court's finding of unconstitutionality.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first, it amazes me that the member opposite could think that offering more opportunities for the members opposite to weigh in and give speeches in the House would somehow count as limiting democracy. Second, on the issue of medical assistance in dying, we understand that this is a big step for Canada. We are creating a responsible regime that will allow us to move forward in a thoughtful way that defends Canadians' rights and freedoms while protecting the most vulnerable. That is what Canadians expect us to do. That is exactly what we are doing.
Mulcair says the Alberta Court of Appeal has warned that the government's physician-assisted dying proposal is unconstitutional and asks the Prime Minister to explain this broken promise to people who need the law.
Mulcair again references the Alberta Court of Appeal warning about unconstitutionality and asks how the Prime Minister will explain the broken promise to those who need the law, providing some factual grounding but the ask is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, quelle trahison de leur promesse et quelle arrogance! Ils sont en train de s'attaquer au fondement mĂȘme de la dĂ©mocratie au Canada. AprĂšs avoir promis une vĂ©ritable discussion sur l'aide mĂ©dicale Ă mourir, ce gouvernement Ă©touffe le dĂ©bat Ă chaque Ă©tape. La Cour d'appel de l'Alberta vient de nous prĂ©venir que la proposition du gouvernement est anticonstitutionnelle. Comment le premier ministre va-t-il expliquer cette promesse brisĂ©e aux gens qui ont besoin de cette loi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what arrogance. They are breaking their promise. They are attacking the very foundation of democracy in Canada. After promising a real discussion on medical assistance in dying, this government is shutting down debate at every stage. The Alberta Court of Appeal just warned us that the government's proposal is unconstitutional. How will the Prime Minister explain that he has broken his promise to the people who need this law?
Trudeau says the Alberta Court of Appeal decision shows the need for a legislative framework so that citizens seeking medical assistance in dying can obtain it without their doctor being prosecuted.
Trudeau acknowledges the Alberta Court of Appeal decision but uses it to argue for the need for legislation rather than addressing the broken-promise framing or the constitutional concern directly.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au contraire, ce que la dĂ©cision de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta nous indique, c'est que nous avons besoin d'un encadrement lĂ©gislatif pour que les citoyens qui cherchent de l'aide mĂ©dicale Ă mourir l'obtiennent tout en sachant que le mĂ©decin ne sera pas poursuivi Ă cause de cela. Il nous faut un encadrement lĂ©gislatif. Le grand pas que nous fait faire cette loi en tant que sociĂ©tĂ© se doit d'ĂȘtre franchi de façon responsable, et c'est exactement ce que nous faisons.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the ruling by the Alberta Court of Appeal indicated that we need a legislative framework to ensure that Canadians who are seeking medical assistance in dying can do so, knowing that the physician will not face legal repercussions as a result. We need a legislative framework. This bill represents a big step forward for our society, and we must be responsible about it. That is exactly what we are doing.
Mulcair cites the Prime Minister's commitment made with Denis Coderre to restore door-to-door mail delivery and asks why he is breaking that promise by instead creating a committee.
Mulcair names a specific individual (Denis Coderre), a specific promise (restoring door-to-door mail delivery), and points to a concrete broken-promise scenario with the creation of a committee instead, making it a reasonably grounded question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce qui est de plus en plus clair, c'est qu'il ne comprend rien au dossier. On ne compte plus les promesses rompues de l'autre cĂŽtĂ© de la Chambre. Avec M. Marteau-piqueur lui-mĂȘme, Denis Coderre, le premier ministre s'est engagĂ© Ă rĂ©tablir le service de courrier Ă domicile. Maintenant au pouvoir, il crĂ©e un comitĂ©. Les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et les Canadiens se sont dĂ©jĂ exprimĂ©s pendant la campagne Ă©lectorale: ils veulent que la livraison Ă domicile soit rĂ©tablie, tel que l'ont promis les libĂ©raux. Pourquoi le premier ministre est-il en train de briser cette promesse aussi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that he does not have a clue about that issue. We have lost track of how many promises the people on the other side of the House have broken. Together with Mr. Jackhammer himself, Denis Coderre, the Prime Minister promised to restore home mail delivery. Now that he is in power, he is setting up a committee. Quebeckers and Canadians said what they wanted during the election campaign. They want home mail delivery back, as the Liberals promised. Why is the Prime Minister breaking this promise too?
Trudeau references his platform on liberal.ca and says the government committed to consulting Canadians and mayors to find the best way to deliver the postal services Canadians expect.
Trudeau references the party platform on liberal.ca in general terms and frames the committee consultation as fulfilling a commitment, without addressing the specific promise of restoring door-to-door delivery.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, par désir de transparence, nous avons toujours maintenu notre plateforme électorale complÚte disponible sur le site www.liberal.ca. Il pourrait la consulter pour voir que nous nous sommes engagés à nous assurer que les Canadiens reçoivent les services nécessaires à un prix responsable pour les Canadiens. C'est pour cela que nous nous sommes engagés à faire ce que l'ancien gouvernement n'a pas fait: consulter les Canadiens, parler avec les maires et s'engager à trouver la façon d'offrir le meilleur service auquel les Canadiens s'attendent en matiÚre de poste.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of transparency, our complete election platform is still available at www.liberal.ca. If he checks the website, he will see that we promised to make sure Canadians are getting the services they need at a reasonable price. That is why we pledged to do what the former government did not: consult Canadians, talk to mayors, and work on figuring out how to provide Canadians with the quality postal service they expect.
Mulcair cites a video of the Prime Minister promising to end the Conservative court case against veterans and asks him to stop taking veterans to court, noting veterans themselves call it 'a betrayal.'
Mulcair cites a specific video (September 3, online), a specific promise (ending the Conservative court case against veterans), and quotes veteran reactions ('It's a betrayal,' 'They have turned the Liberal election campaign into a lie'), making it a well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the video of him promising to restore door-to-door mail delivery, September 3, is online as well. After campaigning on a black and white promise to end the Conservative court case against veterans, the Liberals are now taking veterans back to court with the same lawyers and the same arguments to try to block them from getting the benefits they deserve and the Liberals promised. It is disgusting. The reaction from veterans is âIt's a betrayalâ and âThey have turned the Liberal election campaign into a lieâ. Will the Prime Minister show a shred of decency and stop taking our veterans to court?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau says veterans deserve more than 'playing politics on their backs,' highlights budget 2016 measures to address ten years of neglect, and references the Minister of Veterans Affairs reopening offices and providing more support.
Trudeau pivots to budget 2016 measures and attacks the previous government's 'ten years of neglect,' citing office re-openings, without addressing the specific question about continuing the court case against veterans.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, veterans who have served this country extraordinarily well deserve more than people trying to play politics on their backs. Veterans across this country know that, in budget 2016, we put forward historic measures that would fix the 10 years of neglectâ
Mr. Speaker, the 10 years of neglect by the government opposite left us an awful lot to do to make things right for veterans. This is why I am so proud of our Minister of Veterans Affairs who has been working with them, listening, and putting forward concrete measures to reopen closed offices and offer them more support. We, of course, are looking forward to continuing to work with veterans and advocacy groups across this country, to deliver.
Scheer accuses the Prime Minister of suppressing House rules in a 'vindictive act of spiteful retribution' and asks whether he is showing 'clear disdain for Parliament' and contradicting his campaign promises.
Scheer touches on veterans' court case and caucus attendance before pivoting to the broad claim about suppressing House rules, making the question compound and rhetorical despite some factual hooks.
Source text
On that issue, Mr. Speaker, it is not about delivering something more. It is about not doing something: not taking veterans to court. The Prime Minister was a little embarrassed on Monday, because 25% of his caucus was caught taking the day off. He promised to make Parliament more independent by empowering individual MPs and opposition parties. Now his pride has got the best of him, and he is planning on suppressing every rule that he does not like. Everything the Prime Minister ever said about respecting Parliament was obviously a sham. This is simply a vindictive act of spiteful retribution. By suppressing the rules of our House of Commons, is the Prime Minister not showing a clear disdain for Parliament and contradicting everything he said during the campaign?
LeBlanc says the government seeks to allow more MPs to speak on government legislation and notes that he proposed the same wording for extended debate hours that the opposition had proposed, only to have it rejected.
LeBlanc engages the procedural substance by noting he proposed the same wording for extending debate hours that the opposition had proposed and that it was turned down, providing a partial but relevant factual response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my friend across the aisle knows very well that what we are seeking to do, in fact, is to allow more members of Parliament to speak to ensure that important government legislation can have a full and complete debate in this House. That is why we were disappointed when, yesterday, I proposed exactly the same wording that my friend in front had proposed to extend the hours of debate on government legislation. What a surprise when it was turned down.
Scheer argues the rule changes remove opposition accountability tools rather than add debate time, and asks how the Prime Minister can be trusted to manage electoral system changes given his reaction to being held to account.
Scheer distinguishes between extended debate time and removing accountability tools, and ties the question to the upcoming electoral reform process, but the framing ('tyrannical') is hyperbolic and the ask remains vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, the Prime Minister said he wanted Parliament to hold the government to account. Well, we did, and his response is nothing short of tyrannical. Now that the opposition has become an inconvenience to the Prime Minister, he has lost his temper. This is not about giving members of Parliament more time to debate. This is about taking away the tools that exist for the opposition to hold the government to account. If this is how the Prime Minister reacts when the House of Commons holds him to account, how can we trust him to manage the changes to the democratic electoral system this summer?
Oh, oh!
LeBlanc says it is ironic for Conservatives to speak of accountability, names the ability to move adjournment as an example of a tool being temporarily suspended, and notes that more than 20 committee witnesses were disrupted that day.
LeBlanc provides a concrete example of an accountability tool being suspended (the ability to move adjournment) and notes the practical cost of committee disruptions (more than 20 witnesses), offering partial substantive engagement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, it is a bit ironic that a Conservative member would talk about government being accountable to Parliament. One of the tools that my friend may be upset that we will temporarily suspend would be his ability to get up in the middle of the day and try to adjourn the House of Commons. We are here to work, and in no other workplaceâ
Mr. Speaker, in no other workplace is it acceptable to arrive at work, pull the fire alarm, and make all of one's colleagues cancel their meetings in committees. Today alone, more than 20 witnesses will be disrupted at committees.
Rayes asks the minister to explain specifically how she intends to consult the population and how the proposed methods would be better than a referendum, noting she has only referenced Twitter so far.
Rayes makes a concrete askâexplain specifically what consultation methods beyond Twitter will be used and how they are better than a referendumâgrounding the question in the minister's own prior statements.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la ministre responsable de la rĂ©forme Ă©lectorale rĂ©pĂšte sans arrĂȘt que six mois suffiront pour Ă©tudier les diffĂ©rents modĂšles de rĂ©forme, grĂące Ă de nouveaux moyens de communication du XXIe siĂšcle. Par contre, Ă part faire rĂ©fĂ©rence Ă Twitter, elle n'a donnĂ© aucune information supplĂ©mentaire sur les moyens qui seront utilisĂ©s. La ministre nous accuse de parler seulement du rĂ©fĂ©rendum. Je lui offre donc de nous expliquer comment elle entend consulter la population et surtout comment les moyens qu'elle propose seraient mieux qu'un rĂ©fĂ©rendum.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for electoral reform keeps repeating that six months will be enough to study the various models for reform thanks to the new methods of communication we have in the 21st century. Apart from a reference to Twitter, she has not provided any other information on the methods that will be used. The minister is accusing us of focusing too much on a referendum, so I want to give her a chance to explain how she plans to consult Canadians, and above all, how the methods she is proposing would be better than a referendum.
Monsef says electoral reform requires the collective will of every member of the House and challenges the opposition to engage constructively, without naming any specific consultation methods.
Monsef does not describe any specific consultation methods, instead issuing a broad call for 'collective will' and challenging the member to 'come to the table,' which does not address the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging what a great honour it is to be in this House, today especially. I recognize that electoral reform, democratic reform overall, will not be easy. It has never been easy. It requires the collective will of every single member of this House to come to the table and work together to ensure that the voices of those in their communities, who are often unheard and ignored, are included in this conversation. My challenge to the member opposite is to come to the table with constructive and effective conversations that can allow us to meet our mutual goal.
Rayes calculates that even a 50% referendum turnout would produce 13 million participants and asks the minister whether she truly believes a parliamentary committee can consult more than 13 million Canadians in under six months.
Rayes performs a specific numerical calculationâ26 million registered voters, 50% turnout equals 13 millionâand poses a precise, answerable question about whether a parliamentary committee can consult more than 13 million Canadians in six months.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, encore lĂ , on voit que la ministre n'a aucunement rĂ©pondu Ă la question que je lui ai posĂ©e. Pour la ministre, le rĂ©fĂ©rendum n'est pas un bon moyen de consultation. Elle nous l'a encore expliquĂ©. Faisons donc un petit calcul ensemble. Prenons le nombre d'Ă©lecteurs inscrits au Canada: 26 millions. Prenons l'Ă©ventualitĂ© oĂč seulement 50 % des Ă©lecteurs canadiens votent dans un rĂ©fĂ©rendum sur la question. Cela nous donne donc 13 millions. La ministre peut-elle nous dire si elle croit vraiment qu'un comitĂ© parlementaire sera en mesure de consulter plus de 13 millions de Canadiens et de Canadiennes en moins de six mois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, the minister did not answer my question. The minister says that a referendum is not the right way to consult Canadians. She repeated that yet again. Let us do a little math together. Let us take the number of registered voters in Canada, which is 26 million. Let us assume that only 50% of those individuals would vote in the referendum in question. That is still 13 million. Can the minister explain how she thinks a parliamentary committee would be able to consult over 13 million Canadians in less than six months?
Monsef says it is not only the committee's responsibility and that further outreach methods will be announced soon, but does not engage with the 13 million figure or the six-month feasibility question.
Monsef says it is not just the committee's job but 'all of us in this House' and promises further outreach announcements 'in the days and weeks to come,' but does not address the 13 million figure or the feasibility question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned on numerous occasions over the past week in this House, it is not just up to the committee to do this work. It is up to all of us in this House to do this work. My parliamentary secretary and I will be announcing further methods of outreach in the days and weeks to come. However, if there is no collective will by all members of this House, we will not do this process the justice it deserves. Let us work together to serve the best interests of Canadians and not our political parties.
Harder lists specific grievances about the committee process and asks the Prime Minister to do the right thing and agree to hold a referendum.
Harder makes three specific chargesâcommittee set up without consulting the opposition, majority used to push through a self-serving system, refusal to hold a referendumâand asks a clear yes/no question about a referendum, but the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has set up a special committee without consulting the opposition; he is using his artificial majority of seats that he, himself, says is illegitimate in order to ram through a system that only benefits Liberals; and he refuses to consult Canadians in a referendum. Canadians should have the final say on this matter. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and agree to hold a referendum?
Monsef argues that democracy is more than voting, and draws an analogy to the extension of the vote to women and indigenous persons without a referendum, calling on all parties to work together to do the right thing.
Monsef draws a historical analogy about extending voting rights to women and indigenous persons without a referendum, which is tangentially relevant, but does not directly address the specific charges or the referendum request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, democracy is more than just about voting. It is about working together to ensure that every voice and every perspective is engaged and included in governance. In the past, the Progressive Conservative Party extended the right to vote to women and indigenous persons. The party did not hold a referendum. It came to Parliament and collectively worked together to do the right thing. Let us do the right thing. Let us work together and modernize our electoral system.
Harder cites polling showing two-thirds of Canadians want a referendum on electoral reform, argues this exceeds what a committee can achieve, and quotes the minister's own commitment to put Canadians first, asking why the Liberals will not hold a referendum.
Harder cites a specific polling figure (two-thirds of Canadians want a referendum), contrasts it with the limited reach of a committee, and quotes the minister's own words ('put the interests of Canadians ahead of party interests') back at her, making it a reasonably grounded question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of Canadians would like us to have a referendum with regard to this issue. The minister of democratic reform does not understand that the voice of millions of Canadians in a referendum is far better than the hundreds that a committee might be able to hear. She has claimed countless times that she would like to âput the interests of Canadians ahead of party interestsâ. I would encourage her, then, to live up to her words of commitment and to put Canadians first. Why will the Liberals not let Canadians have the final say by holding a national referendum?
Monsef says democratic reform requires leadership to consult and act, and repeats the analogy about extending voting rights to women and indigenous persons without a referendum, calling on the House to demonstrate true leadership.
Monsef again invokes the historical analogy about extending voting rights without a referendum and speaks of 'true leadership' without addressing the two-thirds polling figure or the contrast between committee reach and referendum scale.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, democratic reform requires leadership, leadership to engage and to consult Canadians, but also leadership to act and do the right thing. When this right was extended to women and to indigenous persons, without restrictions, this House did so by demonstrating true leadership. Let us do that again. Let us work together to ensure that the voices of those who do not traditionally get an opportunity to be included in this process are included this time.
Will the Liberals commit to requiring the support of at least one opposition party for any changes to the electoral system?
The question references a specific event ('camisole de force parlementaire présentée par les libéraux hier') and makes an identifiable ask about opposition support, but is heavily framed in partisan rhetoric about 'fausse majorité.'
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il est rare d'obtenir la chance d'avoir une véritable discussion sur notre systÚme électoral. Nous avons une occasion historique de mettre fin à un systÚme archaïque qui crée de fausses majorités, comme celle obtenue par le Parti libéral à la derniÚre élection. Or, avec la camisole de force parlementaire présentée par les libéraux hier, il est difficile de croire qu'ils n'utiliseront pas leur fausse majorité pour imposer leurs vues. Aujourd'hui, les libéraux peuvent-ils assurer à la Chambre qu'ils feront la seule chose digne pour améliorer notre vie démocratique et avoir l'appui d'au moins un parti de l'opposition?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is rare to have the opportunity to have a real discussion on our electoral system. We have an historic opportunity to put an end to an archaic system that creates false majorities, like the one the Liberal Party got in the last election. With the parliamentary straitjacket the Liberals presented yesterday, I find it hard to believe that they are not going to use their false majority to impose their views. Can the Liberals assure the House today that they will do the only honourable thing to improve our democratic life and get the support of at least one opposition party?
The minister says she has been seeking opposition support since the start of her mandate but implies blame rests with opposition members who are not coming to the table constructively.
The minister deflects by questioning the opposition's willingness to engage rather than addressing whether the government would require support from at least one opposition party.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have been seeking the support of the opposition since I began my mandate. We need to do this work together. However, if the members opposite have already made up their minds and are not coming to the table with progressive and constructive options, then they cannot criticize us for not doing the work that we promised we would do to the Canadians who elected.
Will the minister commit not to pass any changes to the electoral act without the support of at least one opposition party, yes or no?
The question is specific, citing concrete grievances (shooting down opposition ideas, stacking the committee) and poses a clear binary yes/no ask about passing electoral changes without opposition support.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have a historic opportunity to finally get rid of first past the post, but Canadians are growing increasingly worried and disappointed with the government. The minister claims that she wants to work together with opposition, then Liberals shoot down exactly every idea we give them. She claims she wants to be non-partisan, then Liberals stack the deck on the committee choosing the new system. Let us have a clear answer to a clear question. Will the minister respect the millions of Canadians represented by the opposition and agree not to pass any changes to our electoral act without the support of one of those parties, yes or no?
The minister points to the inclusion of the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party as proof of collaborative intent and expresses hope for working together, without answering yes or no.
The minister sidesteps the yes/no question entirely, pivoting to the inclusion of the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party as evidence of non-partisanship, never answering the core commitment ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if working with other parties was not important to us, we would not have demonstrated the leadership that we did when we ensured that the two unrecognized parties in the House, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party, would be included in this important conversation. I am looking forward to my meetings with all my critics, and I hope that this is an issue on which we can work together and ensure that Canada displays and continues to display the leadership it needs to on this agenda of democratic reform.
Given that a referendum is a final step allowing Canadians to ratify or reject the consultation outcome, why would the minister not hold one?
The question challenges a specific ministerial argument made the previous day (that referendums are non-inclusive) and articulates a logical counter-position, with an identifiable ask about why a referendum would not be held.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the bizarre spectacle yesterday of the minister arguing that referendums are non-inclusive shows that she has no idea how they work. A referendum will not and does not replace the minister's ultra-inclusive, super-de-duper consultation process, which has been received with such accolades in the media over the last few days. Rather, a referendum is a final step. It is the one in which Canadians get to say yes or no to what came before, including finding out whether or not the government will pay any attention at all to what took place in their consultation process. Why, therefore, would she not hold a referendum?
The minister urges the member to come to the table with constructive feedback and emphasizes the need to include those who face barriers to participation, without addressing the referendum argument.
The minister does not address the logical argument about referendums as a final ratification step, instead pivoting to rhetoric about including marginalized voices and urging constructive feedback.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while I would appreciate a different tone from the member opposite, I do not expect it. That said, the people of this country, those in the pockets, who do not normally get engaged in this conversation, those who face barriers above and beyond what members opposite can even comprehend, they deserve to be included in this conversation. I urge the member opposite to come to the table with constructive feedback on how we can work together to ensure that those voices are heard.
Why does the minister oppose giving 35 million Canadians a final say via referendum, instead of leaving the decision solely to cabinet?
The question presents a structured logical sequence (committee â cabinet â referendum) to challenge the minister's claim of inclusiveness, making a specific and clear ask about why cabinet alone decides.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about inclusiveness. We have a parliamentary committee that meets with, say, 1,000 people over the next six months, which would be quite an accomplishment: inclusive. Then as the minister said, it goes off to the cabinet for a final decision: not inclusive. Then, if she takes the advice we are giving here, it goes to 35 million Canadians for ratification or rejection. That is inclusive. Why is the minister opposed to inclusiveness? Why does she think that only her cabinet colleagues get to decide whether or not we getâ
The minister clarifies that the final decision on electoral reforms will belong to all 338 members of the House, not cabinet alone, calling any other assumption undemocratic.
The minister's response corrects a factual premise â saying the final decision belongs to all 338 MPs, not cabinet â which is marginally responsive but does not engage with the referendum proposal itself.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, allow me to take this opportunity to remind all members of the House that the final decision on what reforms we bring forward will be the decision of all 338 members of the House, and to believe otherwise is undemocratic.
Given that Liberals control every stage of the electoral reform process, why not allow Canadians to protect the legitimacy of elections through a referendum?
The question references the minister's prior statement and lays out a specific chain of Liberal control over the process, with an identifiable ask about a referendum, but is heavily partisan in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister just said that the electoral reform stacked process she is recommending is designed to serve the best interests of Canadians and not political parties. Let us be clear. The government wants the Liberal majority controlling the committee to opt for the preferred Liberal system to be approved by the Liberal cabinet, to be adopted by the Liberal majority in the House, notwithstanding any dissent, including from 35 million Canadians. Nothing could be clearer. The Liberals are trying to rig the system by and for the Liberal Party. Why not allow Canadians to protect the legitimacy of our elections through a referendum?
The minister asserts that taking advantage of a majority was the norm under the former government but is not the culture of the current government, offering no further response.
The minister's one-sentence response dismisses the premise by contrasting Liberal culture with the 'former government' without engaging the referendum question or any factual rebuttal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while taking advantage of their majority may have been the norm within the former government, that is not the culture within our government.
Is the only reason the Liberals refuse a referendum that Canadians would veto the Liberal electoral system?
The question is largely rhetorical and accusatory, asserting the Liberals refuse a referendum because Canadians would veto their system, with no new factual grounding and a vague compound ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, so it is not the Liberal culture to respect the majority of Canadians on the precise question of how they elect their representatives to their Parliament. This place does not belong to the Liberal Party, and the very question of legitimacy is at stake here. It is absolutely clear if the Liberals thought they could get a majority of Canadians to endorse their rigged system, they would hold a referendum. Is it not true? The only reason they refuse to do so is because Canadians would veto the Liberal rigged electoral system.
The minister highlights the creation of an all-party committee as a first step on electoral reform and calls on all members to display collective leadership.
The minister describes the first step taken (establishing an all-party committee) and appeals to collective House leadership, but does not address the referendum question or the accusation about rigging.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this time last week, we took the first step. We delivered on a promise that we made to Canadians to bring together an all-party committee to review various options to study electoral reform and consider the possibility of online voting and mandatory voting. That was a first step. That step and every other step from here on requires the collective will and leadership of every member of the House. We need to display that leadership, because the people who put us here are counting on it.
When will the minister honour his promise to review Bill C-51, given ongoing civil liberties concerns including unauthorized RCMP surveillance of journalists?
The question raises two distinct issues â unauthorized RCMP surveillance of journalists and the unfulfilled promise to review Bill C-51 â making it compound and somewhat rhetorical, though both are grounded in real events.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on apprend que des journalistes ont Ă©tĂ© Ă©piĂ©s sans autorisation par la GRC. Il nous faut une enquĂȘte lĂ -dessus. Pendant ce temps, les libĂ©raux n'ont toujours rien fait, malgrĂ© leur promesse, pour revoir le projet de loi C-51, pour lequel ils avaient votĂ©. Le projet de loi C-51 est une mesure liberticide qui donne des pouvoirs inĂ©dits Ă nos services de renseignements, sans aucune responsabilitĂ©. Quand le ministre respectera-t-il sa promesse, et quand agira-t-il pour respecter nos libertĂ©s civiles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it has come to our attention that RCMP officers spied on journalists without authorization. There needs to be an investigation into this. In the meantime, the Liberals still have not made good on their promise to revisit Bill C-51, which they voted for. Bill C-51 is an affront to liberty and gives unprecedented powers to our intelligence services without any accountability. When will the minister keep his promise and take action to respect our civil liberties?
The minister states that the unauthorized surveillance was entirely unacceptable, contrary to a ministerial directive and RCMP policy, was stopped when RCMP headquarters became aware, and that the investigators have been reprimanded.
The minister directly addresses the journalism surveillance issue with specific facts (unauthorized, contrary to ministerial directive and RCMP policy, stopped when headquarters became aware, investigators reprimanded) but does not address Bill C-51.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, freedom of the press is a fundamental Canadian value that is enshrined in the charter. The unauthorized surveillance was entirely unacceptable. It was contrary to a ministerial directive. It was contrary to RCMP policy. It was stopped when RCMP headquarters became aware of it, and the investigators have been reprimanded.
Why are the Liberals breaking their promise on Bill C-51 and leaving Canadians' civil liberties at risk, seven months after the election?
The question cites a specific election promise ('without delay'), notes seven months of inaction, and references current events (unauthorized RCMP spying), making it reasonably well-grounded with an identifiable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after voting in favour of Bill C-51, the Conservatives' dangerous and ineffective spy bill, the Liberals changed their tune during the election, when they promised to repeal problematic elements of the draconian bill âwithout delayâ. Seven months later, the minister has accomplished nothing. Meanwhile, we have reports of unauthorized spying on journalists by the RCMP, and Canadians are increasingly worried about their civil liberties. Why are the Liberals breaking their promise on Bill C-51 and leaving Canadians' civil liberties at risk?
The minister outlines two steps: legislation on a new parliamentary oversight committee expected before the summer recess, and a new counter-radicalization office funded in the budget, with national consultations to follow.
The minister outlines a two-step plan with some specificity â legislation on a parliamentary oversight committee before summer recess and a counter-radicalization office from the budget â partially addressing the timeline concern, though not the 'without delay' promise directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the plan with respect to Bill C-51 was laid out very clearly in our election platform. Step one, in respect of that, will be taken, hopefully, before this Parliament rises for the summer. That is the presentation of legislation having to do with a new overview mechanism, involving a committee of parliamentarians. Step two was in the budget. That was the creation of a new office on counter-radicalization. We will be conducting major national consultations with Canadians to determine what further they want to see to happen.
Can the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour update the House on the government's commitment to flexible work?
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to update the House on a campaign commitment, with no accountability pressure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, many of our commitments were focused to better help Canadian families. Measures such as the Canada child benefit and added flexibility for parental leave will help improve the situation of many Canadian families. However, another popular commitment was in regard to flexible work. Can the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour update the House on the government's commitment to flexible work?
The minister states that flex work benefits families, workers, and businesses, citing the U.K. as a model showing improved employee loyalty, innovation, and work-life balance, and encourages Canadians to share their views.
The minister provides some substantive content, citing international comparisons (the U.K.) and listing specific benefits of flex work, though the answer is cut off before a full policy update.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, flex work is good for families, workers, and businesses. We know, from other countries that have implemented a modern flextime system, like the U.K., that it results in greater employee loyalty, innovation, satisfaction, and higher sales. At the same time, it also improves the work-life balance for working Canadians. I encourage everyone to participate in sharing their views on a modern flextime work system forâ
Did the Minister of Foreign Affairs abandon the Liberal campaign promise to implement the Magnitsky Act in order to secure participation in the International Syria Support Group?
The question makes a specific allegation â that the Minister of Foreign Affairs traded the Magnitsky Act for a seat at the International Syria Support Group â but is heavily partisan in framing and does not cite documentary evidence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, now the cat is out of the bag. The Minister of Foreign Affairs caved in to the Putin regime in exchange for a seat at the International Syria Support Group table this week. It is clear that the minister broke a Liberal campaign promise to implement the Magnitsky Act in order to secure an invite from his new friend, Putin. However, members of the Liberal caucus support the Magnitsky Act. Our allies support the act. Why is the minister turning his back on his colleagues and allies, and instead embracing Putin and his thugs?
The parliamentary secretary speaks only to Canada's restored role on the international stage through participation in Syrian peace talks, making no mention of the Magnitsky Act.
The parliamentary secretary entirely ignores the Magnitsky Act allegation and pivots to praising Canada's participation in Syrian peace talks, answering a different question entirely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the opportunity to profile the promise we made to restore Canada's place on the international stage. Canadians are proud that Canada is participating in Syrian peace talks. After 10 years, we are being asked for our advice and our involvement. Engagement is giving Canada a place and a voice at the table. Our participation means that we are better placed to help restore peace and provide crucial humanitarian aid. As well, we call on all parties to return to UN-led intra-Syrian peace talks.
When will the Minister of Foreign Affairs enact the Magnitsky Act instead of pursuing changes to the Special Economic Measures Act?
The question cites a specific alternative the minister is allegedly pursuing (changes to the Special Economic Measures Act), identifies the broken promise on the Magnitsky Act, and makes a clear ask about when the legislation will be enacted.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is the point of being sought for our advice when we are turning away from Canada's values and Canada's interests? Instead of implementing the Magnitsky Act as promised, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is now musing vaguely about making changes to Canada's Special Economic Measures Act, another Liberal weak-kneed response, another broken promise. What this amounts to is the Minister of Foreign Affairs tiptoeing around Vladimir Putin. Why is the minister shying away from the Magnitsky Act when our allies around the world have already signed on? When will he stand up to Putin and enact this legislation?
The parliamentary secretary notes that Canada can already ban individuals involved in the Magnitsky case under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is reviewing the Special Economic Measures Act.
The parliamentary secretary addresses the Magnitsky Act directly by noting existing tools under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the committee review of the Special Economic Measures Act, providing some relevant context but not answering when or whether the Magnitsky Act will be enacted.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the former Conservative government did nothing to address, concretely, the Magnitsky case. There are two aspects here and it is important to understand Canadian legislation. First, we already have the ability to ban individuals involved in the Magnitsky murder from entering Canada under our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Second, with regard to sanctions, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has been tasked with reviewing the Special Economic Measures Act. That is where our sanctions take place and we all look forward to its report.
Will the Prime Minister follow through on the Liberal campaign promise to support the Magnitsky bill?
The question is mostly rhetorical, invoking Sergei Magnitsky by name as a rhetorical device and framing Russia engagement as appeasement, with the ask about the Magnitsky bill somewhat buried.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is willing to trade appeasement with Russia for a membership in the International Syria Support Group and turn a blind eye to human rights abusers is appalling, to say the least. Innocent victims like Sergei Magnitsky are routinely subject to unjustified arrest, torture, and murder at the hands of corrupt officials. Will the Prime Minister follow through on the Liberal campaign promise and support the Magnitsky bill?
The parliamentary secretary condemns Russia's human rights record and says the policy of engagement allows Canada to speak more broadly about holding Russia to account, without addressing the Magnitsky bill.
The parliamentary secretary condemns Russia's human rights record and acknowledges the Magnitsky case is horrendous, but does not address the specific ask about the Magnitsky bill, instead defending engagement policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the attention that is being paid to the Magnitsky case. It is a horrendous situation and we obviously condemn Russia's human rights record. But I would like to say that our policy of engagement is allowing us to speak more clearly and more broadly to the world about our role and our constructive contribution to holding Russia and its deplorable human rights record to account.
Why create an office of everything that will accomplish nothing rather than restoring funding to projects the previous office of religious freedom was already successfully operating?
The question references a specific government announcement, critiques it with the 'Yes Minister' analogy, and asks why an 'office of everything' was created rather than restoring funding to existing projects, making it reasonably substantive though rhetorically framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, finally the government has announced a replacement to the office of religious freedom, but its proposal sound more like something out of the British comedy, Yes Minister. It is quite simply an office of everything. In spite of lofty ideas, it is not clear at all what the functions of the office would be on a day-to-day basis. The government could take some concrete action on international human rights by restoring funding to projects on the ground that the previous office was already successfully operating. Why create an office of everything that will accomplish nothing?
The parliamentary secretary announces the office of human rights, freedoms, and inclusion, confirms the external advisory committee on religious freedom will remain, and states that the budget is being significantly increased.
The parliamentary secretary responds with specifics about the new office of human rights, freedoms, and inclusion, confirms the external advisory committee on religious freedom will stay, and notes a significant budget increase, partially addressing the concerns raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are proud to announce the office of human rights, freedoms, and inclusion, which reflects our ongoing commitment to advancing human rights at home and abroad. It is a comprehensive vision that includes all human rights, of course including religion. I would like to assure the House that the expanded office builds on the work of the previous office. For example, the external advisory committee on religious freedom will stay. To support our enhanced approach, we are significantly increasing the budget. The office of human rights, freedoms, and inclusion reflects the fact that human rights are universal, indivisible, and interdependent.
Why are the Liberals dragging wounded veterans back into court to deny them fair benefits, breaking their promises and turning their backs on veterans?
The question is largely rhetorical, labelling Liberal actions a disgrace without citing specific legal proceedings or dollar figures, though it references the general topic of veterans in court and a broken promise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, another day, another broken Liberal promise. Liberals are dragging wounded veterans back into court to deny them fair benefits. After Conservatives spent $700,000 fighting our veterans, Liberals are taking another cruel hit at them. Veterans have earned our respect. They deserve the benefits they are owed. This is a disgrace. It is shameful. The Liberals must recognize Canada's moral, social, legal, and financial covenant with veterans. Why are they breaking their promises and turning their backs on our veterans?
The minister states he remains committed to re-establishing lifelong pensions as an option for veterans as per his mandate letter, but says it would be inappropriate to comment further as the matter is before the courts.
The minister acknowledges the mandate to re-establish lifelong pensions as an option and commits to it, but declines to comment further on the specific court matter, which is a partial but defensible response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge the significant contributions veterans and Canadian Armed Forces members have made and continue to make in protecting peace and security for all Canadians. I was given a mandate to re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for veterans and remain committed to this, as to all items in my mandate letter. Veteran stakeholders have asked us to get this right, not rushed. As this matter is currently before the courts, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.
When will the minister honour the commitment in his mandate letter and restore fish habitat protections in the Fisheries Act, as called for by over 35 environmental organizations?
The question cites the minister's mandate letter, references 35 environmental organizations' calls to action, and makes an identifiable ask about restoring fish habitat protections in the Fisheries Act, though the ask is not tied to a specific timeline or mechanism.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is shameful. The Liberals are betraying our country and betraying our veterans. During the campaign election, the Liberals promised to restore environmental protections to the Fisheries Act. It is even in the minister's mandate letter. Over 35 environmental organizations have called on the government to immediately reinstate previous habitat protections in the Fisheries Act. It is time for the minister to act. When will the minister make good on this commitment and restore the fish habitat protections?
The minister affirms his mandate to restore lost protections of the Fisheries Act and says he looks forward to consulting with scientists, environmentalists, and indigenous people, assuring the member it will be done right.
The minister affirms the mandate and commits to consulting scientists, environmentalists, and indigenous people, but provides no timeline or specific steps, offering general reassurance rather than a substantive answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows and we agree, the Fisheries Act is an essential tool to support conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat and the sustainability of fisheries. I take very seriously my mandate to restore the lost protections of the Fisheries Act and look forward to consulting with scientists, environmentalists, and indigenous people in finding the best path forward to safeguard our oceans and waterways. We are currently looking at options to move forward. I want to assure the member and everyone that we will do it and we will do it right.
O'Toole asks whether the justice minister will denounce tactics used against veterans in the Equitas lawsuit, given the Prime Minister's promise to uphold the sacred obligation to veterans.
The question identifies a specific legal event (the Equitas lawsuit truce collapsing) and ties it to a prior public commitment by the Prime Minister, but the ask ('denounce these tactics') is more rhetorical than a precise accountable demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the justice minister has allowed a truce in the Equitas veterans lawsuit to fall apart and her lawyers are back attacking veterans in court. The Prime Minister promised to uphold the sacred obligation our country owes to our veterans, yet his justice minister has turned her lawyers on veterans. Will the justice minister denounce these tactics and treat our veterans with care, compassion, and respect?
Hehr says the government remains committed to treating veterans with care, compassion, and respect, citing budget 2016 and his mandate letter, without addressing the Equitas lawsuit.
The minister does not address the Equitas lawsuit, the truce, or the justice minister's legal tactics, instead pivoting to general mandate-letter commitments and budget 2016 items.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as stated earlier, we remain committed to treating veterans with care, compassion, and respect by implementing the mandate letter as given to me by our Prime Minister. Budget 2016 delivered on a lot of those items, including financial security for many of our most disabled veterans. We will continue to work through our mandate items and deliver for veterans and their families going forward. This will be a new day for veterans, and our government is following through for them.
Clarke asks how the minister explains the government's re-engagement in the Equitas case, which seeks to reduce veterans' rights, given broken promises such as the return of the lifetime disability pension.
Clarke cites the Equitas case resuming and references a specific broken electoral promise (the return of the lifetime disability pension), giving the question factual grounding, though the ask is somewhat general.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la presse nous apprend que la cause judiciaire d'Equitas, laquelle met en confrontation un groupe de vétérans et le gouvernement canadien, a repris de plus belle. Dans cette affaire, le gouvernement conservateur avait réussi à sceller une entente. AprÚs de multiples promesses électorales non tenues, telles que le retour de la pension d'invalidité à vie, le ministre renchérit en engageant son gouvernement dans une cause qui cherche à réduire les droits de nos vétérans. Comment le ministre explique-t-il cet affront?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the press is reporting that the Equitas lawsuit between a group of veterans and the Canadian government is back in full swing. The Conservative government managed to secure an agreement in this case. After countless broken election promises, such as reinstating the lifetime disability pension, the minister is getting his government involved in a case that seeks to reduce our veterans' rights. How does the minister explain this affront?
Hehr attacks the Conservative government's record over ten years and lists budget 2016 measures including extending the earnings loss benefit and expanding the career impact allowance.
Hehr deflects entirely to attacking the Conservative record over ten years and listing budget 2016 items, with no engagement on the Equitas lawsuit or the specific broken promise of the lifetime disability pension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The last 10 years under the Conservative government were nothing but a sham in terms of treating veterans with care, compassion, and respect. We have delivered on this extensively in budget 2016. We are moving on financial security for our most disabled veterans. We are expanding the career impact allowance and the disability award. We remain committed to our mandate letter. We will be returning to the table to ensure that veterans and their families are treated with care, compassion, and respect, and in a better fashion than they were under the former government.
Clarke asks whether the Minister of Veterans Affairs still believes in the sacred obligation to veterans, given that the Department of Justice is preventing veterans from obtaining benefits the minister's party had promised.
Clarke asks whether the minister still believes in the sacred obligation to veterans, framing it around the contradiction between the minister's promises and the Department of Justice's legal position in the Equitas case, but the question is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs appears to be two-faced with respect to the Veterans Affairs files. The minister is now siding with the Department of Justice, which has chosen to prevent veterans from obtaining benefits that the minister and his party had promised during the last election. Does the Minister of Veterans Affairs no longer believe that the government has a sacred obligation to veterans?
Hehr lists specific budget 2016 deliverables including extending the earnings loss benefit to 90% of pre-release salary, expanding the career impact allowance, retroactively paying the disability award, and reopening nine offices.
Hehr lists several specific budget 2016 measures (earnings loss benefit at 90%, career impact allowance, retroactive disability award, nine offices reopened) that are relevant but do not address the contradiction at the heart of the question regarding the Equitas case.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am uncertain if my critic has been paying attention to what this government has done, so I will remind him. In budget 2016, we delivered significantly for our veterans and their families. We delivered on extending the earnings loss benefit from 75% to 90% of pre-release salary. We expanded the career impact allowance. We retroactively paid the disability award. We are opening the nine offices that his government closed, and restoring staff to the front lines. We are doing things better. The member should applaud us for what we are doing.
Grewal asks the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development for an update on the Canadian Space Agency and next steps in human space travel.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking for an update on the Canadian Space Agency and human space travel, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, everyone loves space, and space exploration is a source of inspiration, but also a rich source for research and innovation. The investments we make to deepen our research work in space increases our innovation capabilities. It also captures the minds of young people and promotes their interest in science and technology. Could the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development please give this House an update on the progress of the Canadian Space Agency and the next steps of human space travel?
Bains announces the $379-million commitment in budget 2016 to support the Canadian Space Agency and that David Saint-Jacques will be the next Canadian astronaut to go aboard the international space station.
Bains provides a specific funding figure ($379 million from budget 2016) and names David Saint-Jacques as the next Canadian astronaut to go aboard the international space station, giving the answer real informational content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Brampton East for his tireless commitment to helping our Canadian youth. We are proud of the $379-million commitment in budget 2016 to support the Canadian Space Agency. That is why I was honoured to announce that David Saint-Jacques will be the next Canadian astronaut to go aboard the international space station. This is a proud moment for all Canadians. This is an exciting new chapter for space and of course for the next generation of Canadians.
Saroya asks why the Liberals have failed to resettle Afghani Sikhs to Canada under section 13, noting their population has dwindled from over 200,000 to fewer than 2,000 and that they face social discrimination and physical intimidation.
Saroya cites specific facts (over 200,000 Sikhs once in Afghanistan, fewer than 2,000 today) and references a specific legal mechanism (section 13), making it a reasonably specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a few decades ago, over 200,000 Sikhs lived in Afghanistan. That number has dwindled to less than 2,000 today. Afghani Sikhs continually encounter social discrimination and physical intimidation and now remain stuck in the surrounding countries. Why have the Liberals expressed an attitude of indifference toward the plight of Afghani Sikhs and failed to resettle them to Canada under section 13?
McCallum says the government is highly aware of the situation of Sikhs in Afghanistan and is looking into it with great interest and attention, but provides no specifics on section 13 or resettlement plans.
McCallum acknowledges awareness of the situation of Sikhs in Afghanistan but provides no specific information on whether or how section 13 is being applied, offering only a vague assurance of attention.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, I certainly do not think he is suggesting we have displayed an indifference toward refugees in general. That has been one of our major commitments. We are also highly aware of the situation of refugees in other countries, including the Sikhs in Afghanistan. I can assure the hon. member this is one of the areas we are looking into with great interest and attention.
Nantel asks whether the minister commits, yes or no, to making all scenarios for the Maison de Radio-Canada public, invoking her own promise from the previous day that all board documents would be released.
Nantel asks a direct yes-or-no question about whether the minister commits to making all six scenarios for the sale of the Maison de Radio-Canada public, grounding it in a specific prior ministerial promise from the previous day.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il aura donc fallu que le NPD mette le conseil d'administration de Radio-Canada au pied du mur pour qu'il daigne enfin donner signe de vie. On aurait dit un conclave pontifical. J'ai quasiment vu une petite fumée blanche sortir. Quelle était son annonce? Il a choisi six scénarios secrets pour la vente de la Maison de Radio-Canada à Montréal. Toutefois, on ne saura pas lesquels, parce que c'est secret. Un conseil d'administration partisan et conservateur qui se réunit en secret pour prendre des décisions en secret, la ministre a bien reconnu hier que cela posait problÚme. Elle nous a promis que tous les documents du conseil d'administration seraient rendus publics. La ministre s'engage-t-elle, oui on non, à rendre publics tous les scénarios pour la Maison de Radio-Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the NDP had to back CBC/Radio-Canada's board of directors into a corner for it to finally show any sign of life. It was like a papal conclave. I almost saw a little plume of white smoke rising. What did it announce? It has chosen six secret options for the sale of Maison de Radio-Canada in Montreal. However, we will not know what they are, because it is a secret. Yesterday, the minister acknowledged that a partisan, Conservative board of directors that meets in secret to make secret decisions is problematic. She promised that all the board's documents would be made public. Will the minister promise to make all the options for Maison de Radio-Canada public, yes or no?
Joly says Radio-Canada has two projects on its current site and that she expects Radio-Canada to proceed in full transparency and in continuous discussion with stakeholders, invoking Radio-Canada's independence without directly committing to releasing all scenarios.
Joly discusses Radio-Canada's two projects and emphasizes transparency and consultation with stakeholders but does not answer yes or no to the specific commitment to release all scenarios, deflecting to Radio-Canada's independence.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai l'honneur de dire que notre diffuseur public est enfin tourné vers l'avenir. Radio-Canada présente deux bons projets sur son site actuel qui respectent la responsabilité historique et sociale du gouvernement fédéral par rapport au quartier. Maintenant, je m'attends à ce que Radio-Canada entame les prochaines étapes du processus, bien entendu, en toute transparence et en discussion continue avec les acteurs du milieu, que ce soit les syndicats, les employés ou encore son quartier. Je rappelle l'indépendance de Radio-Canada, et c'est à Radio-Canada également de faire la démonstration de la qualité des projets retenus à l'ensemble des parties prenantes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that our public broadcaster is finally looking to the future. CBC/Radio-Canada has presented two good proposals for its current site that respect the federal government's historic and social responsibility towards the neighbourhood. I now expect CBC/Radio-Canada to take the next steps in the process in a transparent manner and hold ongoing discussions with the unions, employees, and other local stakeholders. I would remind members that CBC/Radio-Canada operates at arm's length from the government and it must also prove the quality of the selected proposals to all stakeholders.
Ayoub asks what Canada is doing to combat the Zika virus domestically and internationally.
This is a government-backbench softball asking for an update on Canada's response to the Zika virus, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, quand les populations mondiales sont touchĂ©es par des Ă©pidĂ©mies comme celle du Zika, le Canada fait ce qu'il faut pour protĂ©ger ses citoyens et appuyer les efforts Ă l'Ă©tranger. Bien que les risques posĂ©s par le virus Zika au Canada demeurent trĂšs faibles, nous nous devons d'ĂȘtre Ă la fois vigilants et prĂ©parĂ©s. La ministre de la SantĂ© peut-elle informer la Chambre de ce que fait le Canada pour combattre le virus Zika ici et sur la scĂšne internationale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when the world's population is affected by epidemics such as Zika, Canada does what it takes to protect its citizens and support the work being done abroad. Although the risk that Zika poses in Canada is very small, we still need to be vigilant and prepared. Can the Minister of Health inform the House of what Canada is doing to combat the Zika virus both here and abroad?
Philpott announces a nearly $5-million investment in the global fight against the Zika virus, covering research, improved testing, prevention through mosquito control, and humanitarian funding.
Philpott provides a specific dollar amount (nearly $5 million announced the previous week) and lists concrete uses including research, improved testing, prevention through mosquito control, and humanitarian funding.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie mon collÚgue de ThérÚse-De Blainville de sa question. Nous prenons toutes les mesures nécessaires pour protéger les Canadiens contre cette maladie infectieuse. La semaine derniÚre, la ministre du Développement international et moi avons eu le plaisir d'annoncer que le Canada investissait prÚs de 5 millions de dollars dans la lutte mondiale contre le virus Zika. Cet argent sera consacré à davantage de recherches, à des tests améliorés, à une prévention accrue de la transmission au moyen d'un contrÎle plus efficace des moustiques et à du financement humanitaire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from ThérÚse-De Blainville for his question. We are doing everything we can to protect Canada from this infectious disease. Last week, the Minister of International Development and I were pleased to announce that Canada will be contributing close to $5 million to the global fight against Zika. This money will be used to conduct more research, develop improved diagnostic tests, better prevent the transmission of the disease through more effective mosquito control measures, and contribute to humanitarian aid.
Albrecht asks when the minister will make good on promises to unite Syrian refugee families with their private sponsors, noting that organizations raised up to $70,000 and were told refugees would arrive in February but have waited three months with nothing.
Albrecht grounds the question in a specific concrete situation (organizations and churches raising up to $70,000 for private sponsorship and waiting three months), making it reasonably specific with an identifiable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have shown strong support to resettle thousands of refugees from Syria to Canada. Unfortunately, it seems that the number of Syrian refugees is more important than the care they receive. Organizations and churches that raised up to $70,000 to privately sponsor a refugee family were told they would arrive in February. Here we are, three months later, and nothing. There has been nothing in three months. When will the minister make good on these promises and unite these refugees with their sponsors?
McCallum acknowledges the department has not been able to keep up with demand and commits that for all who applied by the end of March of this year, the refugees will be here by the end of this year or early next year.
McCallum frankly acknowledges the problem, explains the cause (overwhelming demand outpacing department capacity), and provides a specific commitment (all applicants by end of March will have refugees arrive by end of this year or early next year), though he does not address the specific waiting sponsors.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am proud, as a Canadian, of the overwhelmingly positive welcome Canadians have afforded to the Syrian refugees. The downside is, to be frank, the welcome has been so enormous that my department has not been able to keep up with the number of refugees generous Canadians have been demanding. We have taken measures to guarantee that for all those who applied by the end of March of this year, the refugees will be here by the end of this year or early next year. Canadians have been overwhelminglyâ
May cites yesterday's unanimous Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Carter, which found the government's interpretation of the ruling unsustainable, and asks whether the government will entertain report-stage amendments to ensure Bill C-14 is compliant with the charter.
May cites a specific unanimous court decision (Alberta Court of Appeal, yesterday) and a specific quote from it challenging the government's interpretation, then asks a precise question about whether the government will entertain amendments at report stage to make Bill C-14 charter-compliant.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and I want to start by quoting this from yesterday's unanimous decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal: ...the declaration of invalidity on Carter does not require that the applicant be terminally ill.... The decision itself is clear. No words in it suggest otherwise.... The interpretation urged on us by [the Government of] Canada is not sustainable. In light of this, would the government be willing to entertain the amendments now before this place at report stage to ensure that Bill C-14 is compliant with the charter?
Trudeau says the Alberta decision underscores the need for a proper framework for evaluating requests for medical assistance in dying, which the bill provides, and that amendments have already been studied at committee and determinations made.
Trudeau references the Alberta decision but only notes it underscores the need for a proper framework, then states that amendments have already been studied at committee and determinations made, without engaging with the court's specific finding that the government's interpretation is not sustainable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that came out of that Alberta decision was, indeed, the need for a proper framework whereby requests for medical assistance in dying can be evaluated. That is why in the bill we put forward there is a strong framework for consultation of physicians and participation in that. With regard to amendments, they have already been studied at committee and we have made our determinations around those.
This exchange consists only of members responding with 'Hear, hear!' to a presence in the gallery announcement and contains no substantive question or answer.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Hear, hear!