Session overview
- Softwood lumber dominated Question Period with seven exchanges; the government repeatedly said negotiations were ongoing and pointed to President Obama's upcoming June 29 visit, but gave no timeline or details on a deal.
- The genocide recognition of Daesh against Yazidi, Shia, and Christians was sharply contested across three exchanges, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs defending the government's vote against recognition and referring to the motion by the member for Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs calling for referral to the International Criminal Court.
- CF-18 capability gap was disputed across four exchanges; the government maintained a gap exists while opposition members cited documents tabled in the House showing no CF-18 has been assigned a retirement date.
- The government announced approximately $69 million in immediate mental wellness funding for indigenous communities, including four crisis response teams, an expansion of mental illness teams from 11 to 43, and a 24-hour culturally safe crisis response line.
- Gender-based analysis was raised twice by NDP members; the Minister of Status of Women did not commit to introducing legislation in 2016 to make it mandatory across all departments.
- The government confirmed it is working toward lifting the Mexican visa requirement ahead of the Three Amigos summit but provided no criteria for the decision; Romania's potential use of visa requirements as leverage in CETA ratification was also raised.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health disclosed specific new commitments: approximately $69 million in targeted mental wellness funding, four crisis response teams, an expansion of mental illness teams from 11 to 43, training for culturally appropriate care, and a 24-hour culturally safe crisis response line for indigenous communities.
Cites Mexico's finance minister's public statement and senior Canadian officials' committee testimony to expose a specific contradiction, asking what criteria the Prime Minister is using to lift the visa requirement outside the standard evidenced-based review process.
Asked specifically why the government has not brought in legislation to cap unfair credit card merchant fees, the Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism ignored the question entirely and listed general economic measures — the middle-class tax cut, the Canadian child benefit, infrastructure, broadband, tourism marketing, incubators, and accelerators — none of which address credit card fees.
Outstanding questions
- Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill) asked what criteria the Prime Minister is using to lift the visa requirement for Mexico if the standard evidenced-based review has not been completed — no criteria were provided.
- Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie) asked twice whether the Prime Minister will call a full, independent public inquiry into the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan — the Minister of National Defence said officials would look into the allegations but made no commitment to an inquiry.
- Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) and Ms. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith) asked whether the government will introduce legislation in 2016 to make gender-based analysis mandatory across all departments — the Minister of Status of Women did not commit to any legislation.
- Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo) asked twice for a direct yes or no answer on whether first nations have a right to veto resource development under the government's framework — the Minister of Natural Resources did not answer yes or no.
- Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton) asked when the Minister of Justice will start appointing judges given an unprecedented backlog — the Parliamentary Secretary said only to expect 'some news very soon' with no date or number of appointments given.
Will the government respect the needs and requirements of the Canadian forestry industry in a new softwood lumber agreement?
The question references the 2006 agreement and its expiry date but the ask — whether the government will respect industry needs — is vague and wrapped in partisan framing about Obama photo ops.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en 2006, notre gouvernement conservateur signait un accord sur le bois d'oeuvre avec nos partenaires américains après des années de laxisme de l'ancien gouvernement libéral. Cet accord signé en 2006 s'est prolongé jusqu'au 30 octobre 2015, soit après la dernière élection. Ce gouvernement était donc déjà en place. L'ancien ministre du Commerce international avait déjà commencé les négociations. Probablement que le gouvernement et le premier ministre attendent la venue de M. Obama pour nous faire une belle et grande annonce en grande pompe. Est-ce qu'on respectera les besoins et les exigences de l'industrie forestière canadienne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the previous Liberal government ignored the softwood lumber issue for years, but in 2006, our Conservative government signed a softwood lumber agreement with our American partners. That 2006 agreement lasted until October 30, 2015, which was after the latest election. The current government was in place then. The former international trade minister initiated negotiations. Maybe the government and the Prime Minister are waiting for Mr. Obama's arrival to make a really big announcement with great pomp and ceremony. Will the government honour the needs and demands of Canada's forestry industry?
The parliamentary secretary said the issue is a government priority and that work is ongoing with Canadian and American counterparts, including Trade Representative Michael Froman, ahead of Obama's visit.
The answer confirms the issue is a priority and mentions talks with Michael Froman and the upcoming Obama visit, but provides no specifics on industry requirements or negotiating positions.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie l'honorable député de sa question. Nous avons été clairs dès le début en ce qui concerne cet enjeu, qui est une priorité de notre gouvernement. Nos représentants, la ministre, ainsi que les autres représentants du ministère travaillent depuis longtemps avec leurs homologues canadiens et américains pour trouver une solution juste et équitable dans le domaine. Nous parlons souvent au représentant au Commerce, Michael Froman, et nous aurons la visite du président Obama, plus tard ce mois-ci. Jusqu'à cette date et par la suite, nous allons continuer de travailler avec tous les partenaires.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. We have been clear from the start that this issue is a priority for our government. Our representatives, the minister, and other departmental representatives have been working with their Canadian and American counterparts for quite some time to find a fair and equitable solution for this sector. We frequently talk with Michael Froman, the trade representative, and President Obama will be visiting later this month. Until then and following his visit, we will continue to work with all of the partners.
Will the government sign a softwood lumber deal that accounts for changes made to forestry regimes in various provinces in recent years?
The question cites the Quebec premier's concern and the need to account for changes to provincial forestry regimes, but the ask remains broad and the Obama-show rhetoric reduces specificity.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, le premier ministre du Québec exprimait ses inquiétudes. Il s'attend bien sûr à avoir des négociations difficiles. Il a dit qu'il devait y avoir un véritable système de libre-échange avec les Américains. Bien sûr, nous croyons que ce gouvernement doit signer une entente qui tient compte des changements apportés au régime forestier dans plusieurs provinces, durant les dernières années. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut régler ce dossier-là? Nous savons que M. Obama va avoir un beau gros show avec des photos et des caméras. Nous savons cela, mais est-ce qu'il y aura enfin une entente pour aider l'économie de toutes les provinces du pays? La forêt en a besoin.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier of Quebec voiced his concerns. Of course he expects the negotiations to be difficult. He said that we need to have a true free trade system with the U.S. Of course we believe that the Liberal government should sign an agreement that takes into account the changes that have occurred in the forestry sector in many provinces in the last few years. Can the Prime Minister resolve this matter? We know that Mr. Obama will be treated to a nice big show, with lots of photo ops and cameras. We know that, but will an agreement finally be reached to help the economies of every province in the country? Our forestry needs it.
The parliamentary secretary said the government is aware of differences in provincial forestry regimes and committed to finding a durable, fair, and equitable agreement.
The answer acknowledges differences in provincial forestry regimes and commits to a durable agreement, but offers no timeline, framework, or detail on how provincial changes will be accommodated.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous sommes conscients des différences dans le régime forestier partout au pays. Nous sommes au courant des enjeux. Nous allons trouver un accès durable au marché américain, c'est le but, et nous allons enfin arriver à un accord qui est juste, équitable et bon pour le Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the differences in the forestry sector across the country. We are also well aware of the issues. We will achieve sustainable access to the American market. That is the goal. We will reach a fair and equitable agreement that is good for Canada.
Why is the government contesting the genocide label when the Islamic State itself admits it is committing genocide against apostates, Shia, Yazidi, and Christians?
The question presses the minister on why the government voted against genocide recognition when even ISIS self-identifies as committing genocide, but the question is cut off before being completed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we witnessed the shameful spectacle of the Liberal government denying the undeniable reality of a genocide happening in our own time against vulnerable religious minorities. The Minister of Foreign Affairs actually led the Liberals in applause to celebrate their vote against this genocide recognition. They say they need some group of lawyers to make a determination about this when the organization responsible, the so-called Islamic State, admits it is committing genocide. It is seeking to eliminate what they called apostates, Shia, and Yazidi, and to enslave so-called infidels, like Christians. Why are they contesting—
Oh, oh!
The minister noted Sweden's parliament rejected a similar motion 268 to 43 and said he is proud that the House supports proper independent assessment of genocide rather than a political determination.
The minister deflects by citing Sweden's parliament rejecting a similar motion rather than addressing why ISIS's own admission is insufficient for Canadian recognition.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House that today the parliament of Sweden rejected the same kind of motion by a vote of 268 to 43. Facing the—
It is good to see, Mr. Speaker, that there are responsible parliaments that want the assessment of genocide to be done properly by an independent court. I am proud of the House of Commons and the vote we had yesterday. We are proud.
Why is Canada denying the genocide that ISIS itself admits it is committing, given that the EU parliament, American Congress, and UK Parliament have all unanimously recognized it?
The question specifically cites the EU parliament, American Congress, and UK Parliament all unanimously recognizing ISIS genocide, creating a concrete comparative challenge for the minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada used to be a moral leader. Are we now following Sweden? The European Union parliament said that ISIS is committing genocide. The American Congress unanimously said that all governments should call ISIL atrocities genocide. The U.K. Parliament unanimously recognized that genocide is being perpetrated. Why is the minister denying the genocide that ISIS itself admits it is committing?
The minister said the EU parliament is not followed by European governments, that the UK government (not parliament) agrees with Canada's approach, and that the proper way is an independent determination of genocide.
The minister claims the UK government (not parliament) said the same thing as Canada and that no government is following the Conservative approach, but does not address the unanimous U.S. Congress resolution or explain why ISIS's self-admission is insufficient.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the EU parliament is not being followed by any parliament in Europe, but the U.K. The government of the U.K. has said the same thing we said, that the proper way to do it is to follow the motion proposed by the Liberal member. This motion said that it must be done by an independent body to determine if it is really a genocide. That is the proper way to do it, not the way the Conservatives want to do it. No one government is following the way they want to do it.
Given Secretary Kerry's statement that Daesh is genocidal by self-proclamation and three parliaments' unanimous recognition, is the government's genocide denial covering up its decision to end Canada's combat role?
The question quotes Secretary Kerry directly, cites three legislative bodies' unanimous positions, and raises a pointed accountability question linking genocide denial to Canada's withdrawal from combat against ISIS.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Parlement britannique, le Congrès américain et le Parlement européen ont tous adopté une motion à l'unanimité. Secretary Kerry said, “Daesh is responsible for genocide”, and “Daesh is genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology, and by actions—in what it says, what it believes, and what it does.” Our Prime Minister said that to recognize it would be to trivialize it. What this government's genocide denial is doing is trivializing the suffering of these people and their attempted extermination. Is the government not just covering up for its ending the combat role of Canada against those responsible?
The minister read the motion by the member for Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs calling for independent investigation and referral to the International Criminal Court to formally determine the existence of genocide.
The minister reads out the Liberal member's motion but does not address the Kerry quote, the combat-role accusation, or explain why an independent court referral is preferable when ISIS self-identifies as committing genocide.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if members want to hear a responsible motion on this issue, I will read the one by the member for Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs. It says, “That the Government of Canada continue its efforts to have these atrocities properly investigated and, where appropriate, referred to the International Criminal Court to formally determine the existence of genocide and to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice”. This is a responsible motion.
Why is the minister refusing to take action on tax evasion, given a significant delay in the KPMG case approved by the Canada Revenue Agency?
The question references a specific delay in the KPMG court case approved by the Canada Revenue Agency, but the ask — why the minister refuses to act — is rhetorical and vague.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'écart entre les mieux nantis et tous les autres Canadiens est de plus en plus évident, et l'utilisation rampante des paradis fiscaux amplifie cet écart. Les riches et ceux qui ont les meilleures relations continuent de s'en tirer facilement, alors que le gouvernement continue de noyer le poisson quand il s'agit d'évasion fiscale. On apprend maintenant qu'il y a un retard important dans le procès de KPMG, approuvé par l'Agence du revenu du Canada. Pourquoi la ministre refuse-t-elle de mettre ses culottes dans le dossier de l'évasion fiscale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the gap between the rich and all other Canadians is growing and the rampant use of tax havens is further widening this gap. The rich and the well-connected continue to get away with this, while the government continues to dodge the issue of tax evasion. Now we learn that the significant delay in the court case against KPMG was approved by the Canada Revenue Agency. Why is the minister refusing to take a stand on tax evasion?
The minister said the Agency is continuing investigations into KPMG scheme participants, that complex court cases can face delays due to evidence requirements, and that the Agency is working to meet prescribed timelines.
The minister confirms the Agency is in court to obtain the list of KPMG scheme participants and cites Budget 2016 investments, partially addressing the delay question by noting complex cases can face delays due to evidentiary requirements.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'Agence poursuit les enquêtes sur les contribuables qui ont participé aux stratagèmes de KPMG. Nos investissements massifs nous permettront de barrer la route aux promoteurs de tels stratagèmes. Mon collègue n'est pas sans savoir que des dossiers complexes devant les tribunaux peuvent être soumis à des retards, notamment en raison des éléments de preuve à produire. L'Agence met tout en oeuvre pour que le dossier soit traité dans les délais prescrits. Notre gouvernement s'est engagé à préserver l'intégrité du système du régime fiscal. Je ne le dirai jamais assez, mais la trappe se referme.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the agency is investigating taxpayers who participated in KPMG's schemes. Our massive investment will help us stop the people who promote such schemes. As my colleague knows, complex cases before the courts can encounter delays, particularly to allow time to produce evidence. The agency is doing everything it can to ensure that the case is dealt with in a timely manner. Our government is committed to preserving the integrity of the tax system. I cannot say it enough, but the net is tightening.
When will the government stop defending inaction and sweetheart deals on KPMG-linked offshore tax cheats, given that a Federal Court judge reprimanded the Liberals for delays and foot-dragging?
The question specifically cites a Federal Court judge reprimanding the Liberals for delays and foot-dragging on KPMG-linked offshore tax cheats, grounding the accountability challenge in a concrete judicial event.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike Liberals, New Democrats and most Canadians believe even the wealthy and well-connected should pay their fair share of taxes. Just last week a Federal Court judge reprimanded the Liberals for delays and foot-dragging on a case of KPMG-linked offshore tax cheats. Tax havens rob Canadians of resources to pay for the services we need. They make growing inequality even worse. When will the government stop defending inaction and sweetheart deals, and when will Liberals act to defend the fairness of our tax system?
The minister said the Agency is before the courts to obtain the list of KPMG scheme participants and that Budget 2016 gives the Agency the means to combat tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.
The minister confirms the Agency is before the courts to obtain the list of KPMG scheme participants and cites Budget 2016 as providing resources to fight tax evasion, but does not address the judge's reprimand or the sweetheart-deal allegation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'Agence est présentement devant les tribunaux pour obtenir la liste des participants aux stratagèmes de KPMG. J'invite donc mon collègue à la prudence. Le budget de 2016 donne les moyens à l'Agence de combattre l'évasion fiscale et l'évitement fiscal abusif. En tant que ministre du Revenu national, c'est ma priorité, et c'est celle de notre gouvernement. Tous les Canadiens doivent respecter leurs obligations. Nous travaillons toujours en ce sens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the agency is currently before the courts to obtain the list of participants in KPMG's schemes. I would caution my colleague to be careful. Budget 2016 provides the agency with the means to combat tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. As Minister of National Revenue, that is my priority and that of my government. All Canadians must respect their obligations. That is what we are working toward.
Given new troubling allegations about detainee treatment in Afghanistan, does the Prime Minister still believe Canada needs to get at the truth, and will he call a full independent public inquiry?
The question quotes the Prime Minister's own 2009 statement about getting at the truth on Afghan detainees and asks whether he still holds that view, making it a pointed accountability question, though the ask for a public inquiry is a binary yes/no.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are new and very troubling allegations today surrounding the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan. Let me quote the Prime Minister from 2009 when he spoke on this issue. He said, “We need to get at the truth. The international reputation of Canada and our military is at stake.” Does the Prime Minister still believe this? Will he call a full, independent public inquiry?
The minister said the government takes human rights obligations under Canadian and international law very seriously, that previous investigations and inquiries have been conducted, and that the government will do its utmost to keep human rights at the forefront.
The minister says the government takes human rights obligations seriously and references previous investigations, but does not address whether the Prime Minister stands by his 2009 quote or commit to a full independent public inquiry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government and I take our obligation for human rights in accordance with Canadian and international law very seriously. There has been a number of investigations and inquiries done. Many feature allegations we take very seriously. We, in the Canadian Armed Forces and our government, will be doing our utmost, making sure that human rights are always at the forefront of what we do.
Given new allegations from military police about Afghan detainees and the news that Canada is the second largest arms exporter to the Middle East, will the Prime Minister launch an independent public inquiry into the treatment of Afghan detainees?
The question specifically links new allegations from military police about Afghan detainees with Canada being the second largest arms exporter to the Middle East on the same day, and explicitly asks for an independent public inquiry.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la question ne portait pas seulement sur les droits de la personne. La question porte sur une enquête publique indépendante. Le jour même où on apprend que le Canada est le deuxième exportateur en importance d'armes au Moyen-Orient, à des pays comme l'Arabie saoudite et d'autres, le dossier des détenus afghans revient dans l'actualité avec de nouvelles allégations venant rien de moins que de policiers militaires. Le gouvernement se doit d'agir. Le premier ministre s'engage-t-il à lancer une enquête publique indépendante sur le traitement des détenus afghans?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the question was not just about human rights. The question is about an independent public inquiry. The very day that we learned that Canada is the second-largest exporter of arms to the Middle East, to countries like Saudi Arabia, the Afghan detainee file is back in the news with new allegations by military police officers, no less. The government must take action. Will the Prime Minister undertake to launch an independent public inquiry into the treatment of Afghan detainees?
The minister said he was just made aware of the article, that the government takes the allegations very seriously, and that officials will look into them using independent institutions within the Canadian Armed Forces.
The minister says he was just made aware of the article, that officials will look into the allegations, and references independent institutions in the Canadian Armed Forces, but does not commit to or address the specific request for an independent public inquiry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was just made aware of the article where the allegations were made. We take this very seriously. Our government is committed to upholding our Canadian and international law obligations. My officials will be looking into these allegations, and any allegations that are made. We have a number of institutions in the Canadian Armed Forces that are independent and have the ability to look into these matters.
Given that tabled documents show no CF-18 retirement dates have been set and the minister himself said CF-18s will be extended to 2025, will the minister tell the Prime Minister to hold an open and fair competition to replace them?
The question cites documents tabled in the House confirming no CF-18 retirement dates have been set and the minister's own statement extending CF-18s to 2025, directly challenging the capability-gap rationale for avoiding open competition.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, documents tabled in the House confirmed what we have been saying all along. The Liberals' capability gap for our CF-18s is imaginary. The Minister of National Defence reported that the Liberals have yet to determine when any of our CF-18s will need to be retired. The minister himself has said the CF-18s will be extended to 2025. Will the defence minister tell the Prime Minister to put aside his ill-advised campaign promise and hold an open and fair competition?
The minister blamed the previous government's mismanagement of the file and asserted there is a capability gap, while confirming the government is working to get the right information to select the right fighter.
The minister asserts there is a capability gap due to previous government mismanagement but provides no evidence, dates, or specifics to rebut the documents tabled in the House, and does not address the open competition request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to replacing our fighters. Because of the mismanagement of this file by the previous government, that is why we are in this state. Yes, there is a capability gap, but we are working toward making sure that we have all the right information and making sure that we have the right fighter for the Canadian Armed Forces.
Given that the RCAF commander testified jets will fly until 2025 and tabled documents confirm no CF-18 has been assigned a retirement date, will the minister admit the capability gap is a complete fabrication?
The question cites a $400 million budget commitment, testimony from the RCAF commander, and documents tabled by the minister's own representatives confirming no CF-18 retirement date, pressing the minister on a specific factual claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, the only capability gap is on the Liberal bench. Conservatives wisely budgeted $400 million to extend the life or our CF-18s. Last month, the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force testified that our fighter jets will fly until 2025. Documents tabled yesterday by the minister's representatives confirmed that not one CF-18 has been assigned a retirement date. Will the Minister of National Defence finally admit that his imaginary capability gap is a complete fabrication?
The minister confirmed 26 aircraft have been through the extension process, asserted a capability gap exists and offered to discuss the classified basis privately, and reiterated the previous government should have replaced the fighters long ago.
The minister confirms 26 aircraft have been extended and claims a capability gap exists, offering to discuss a declassified reason privately, but does not rebut the specific documentary evidence or address the open competition request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as for taking advice from the previous government, given the fact that it mismanaged the file from the beginning, it should have replaced our fighters a long time ago and then we would not be in this situation. Right now we are extending our CF-18s, and 26 have gone through the process. A lot more work needs to be done, but we would not be here if we had replaced the fighters 10 years ago.
Given official information tabled by the government showing no CF-18 retirement dates have been established, will the government hold an open tender to replace the CF-18s?
The question reiterates the official information tabled by National Defence showing no CF-18 retirement dates have been set, and asks the specific question of whether an open tender will be held, but largely repeats the previous exchange's argument.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, selon l'information fournie à la Chambre par le ministre de la Défense nationale, la date de retrait de service de tous les CF-18 n'a pas encore été établie. C'est une autre preuve que les libéraux ont créé de toute pièce leur manque de capacité. À l'exception des banquettes libérales, le manque de capacité n'existe pas. À la lumière de l'information officielle, je le répète: officielle, que le gouvernement a fournie, le gouvernement va-t-il tenir un appel d'offres ouvert pour remplacer nos CF-18?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, according to the information provided to the House by the Minister of National Defence, the retirement date for all the CF-18s has not yet been set. That is more proof that the Liberals have fabricated a capability gap, which exists only on the Liberal bench. In light of the official, and I stress official, information provided by the government, will the government hold an open competition to replace our CF-18s?
The minister said the CF-18s should have been replaced long ago by the previous government to avoid the current spending on life extensions, and reiterated that a capability gap exists and the government is working to replace them as quickly as possible.
The minister again asserts the CF-18s should have been retired long ago and that a capability gap exists, but provides no new evidence to address the tabled documents and does not answer the open tender question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I stated, the CF-18s should have been retired a long time ago. They should have been replaced so that we did not have to spend all this money in extending their lives, so that our men and women in the air force could have the right aircraft for their needs. But we are in this situation. There is a capability gap and our government is working toward replacing them as quickly as possible.
Now that tabled documents confirm National Defence does not know when CF-18s will be retired and there is no capability gap, will the Liberals hold an open tender competition?
The question specifically references documents tabled at the request of the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman showing National Defence does not know when CF-18s will be retired, and asks directly whether an open tender will be held.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'information en question a été déposée à la Chambre par la Défense nationale à la demande de mon collègue de Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. Les documents déposés dépeignent un tout autre portrait que celui avancé par les libéraux. La Défense nationale ne sait pas quand chacun de nos CF-18 devront être retirés du service. Il n'y a pas de déficit de capacité. C'est une invention libérale. Maintenant que l'on sait qu'on a le temps de tenir un appel d'offres ouvert, est-ce que les libéraux vont en tenir un?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the information in question was tabled in the House by the Department of National Defence at the request of my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. The documents tabled paint an entirely different picture than the one presented by the Liberals. National Defence does not know when each of our CF-18s will have to be retired from service. There is no capability gap. That is a Liberal invention. Now that we know that there is time for an open bidding process, will the Liberals hold one?
The minister confirmed 26 aircraft have been extended and the goal is to extend all to 2025, asserted a capability gap exists and offered a private declassified discussion, and committed to replacing the fighters.
The minister confirms 26 aircraft have been extended and that all are being extended to 2025, asserts a capability gap exists and offers a private declassified briefing, and commits to replacing the fighters, but still does not address the open competition question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said, 26 aircraft have been extended. We are trying to extend all the aircraft up to 2025. There is a capability gap that does exist. I am happy to talk to some of the members privately on this with a declassified reason behind that. However, we are committed to replacing the fighters and we need to replace them now.
Why will the government not issue a commemorative medal for the 150th anniversary of Confederation, continuing the tradition begun in 1867?
The question cites a specific historical tradition of commemorative medals dating from 1867 and asks why there will be no medal for Canada's 150th anniversary, but frames it heavily as a 'Liberal war on history and tradition.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the proud tradition to issue commemorative medals on important anniversaries of Canada was started in 1867 when each Father of Confederation was among the many citizens receiving a medal. It happened again on the diamond anniversary. The 1967 centennial and the 125th anniversary recognized accomplished Canadians, but the Liberal government jumps at every chance to kill a proud tradition. Apparently there will not be a medal to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Why not acknowledge worthy Canadians? Why this ongoing Liberal war on history and tradition?
The minister said Canada 150 will be a great year celebrating history, with community and signature projects throughout the country in every riding to recognize local leadership and engage Canadians.
The minister assures the colleague that Canada 150 will be a great year with community and signature projects in every riding, but does not address the specific question of whether a commemorative medal will or will not be issued.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague about the fact that Canada 150 will be a great year, and that we will celebrate, of course, history. I want to add that we have a positive message. This will be the 150th anniversary of our Confederation. We have community and signature projects throughout the country in every riding. We want to recognize local leadership and we want to engage Canadians. That is exactly what we will be doing.
Given that previous confederation anniversary medals honoured Canadians for service, merit, and significant contribution to community and country, why is the 150th anniversary the time to stop honouring such Canadians with a medal?
The question provides specific criteria language from three historical medals — 1867, 1967 Centennial, and Canada 125 — to argue for a 150th anniversary medal, but the ask is still framed as a rhetorical 'war on history' rather than a precise policy demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the 1867 Confederation Medal is described as the “first honour of the Dominion”. The criteria? It was awarded for service or merit, and open to anyone. How Canadian. The Centennial Medal was for having provided valuable service to Canada. The Canada 125 medal went to those who made a significant contribution to their fellow citizens, to their community, or to Canada. What is it about the 150th anniversary of Confederation that makes it the time to stop honouring Canadians who care about their country and community? Why this Liberal war on history?
The minister said the government favours both a top-down and bottom-up approach, will feature ambassadors from Nobel laureates to local leaders, and began to reassure the colleague before her time expired.
The minister references ambassadors including Nobel Peace Prize and Nobel Prize in Physics recipients and local leaders, signalling a different recognition approach, but does not answer whether a medal will be issued or explain the decision not to follow the historical tradition.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, throughout the country we know we have amazing Canadians. We also think that we should not only be taking a top-down approach, but also a bottom-up approach. That is why we will ensure we have amazing ambassadors, from Nobel Peace Prize and Nobel Prize in Physics recipients to great artists, but also local leaders from throughout the country. I want to reassure my colleague that of course that idea of—
Why are Liberals moving ahead with the TPP without meaningful consultations with indigenous peoples, given the commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its requirement for prior and informed consent?
Cites AFN national chief's testimony and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to ground a specific accountability ask about why the TPP is proceeding without meaningful consultations with indigenous peoples.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the national chief of the AFN testified that first nations have serious concerns about the TPP deal, but all he received from the minister was a phone call. First nations have not been consulted. Liberals have promised to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which means prior and informed consent from indigenous peoples on all decisions that affect them. Why are Liberals moving ahead with the damaging TPP without meaningful consultations with indigenous peoples in Canada?
The parliamentary secretary noted the trade committee heard from indigenous groups, that Chief Bellegarde had spoken with the minister, that further meetings are planned for the end of the month, and that he personally met with Clément Chartier of the Métis National Council, while acknowledging more needs to be done.
Acknowledges the concern, confirms the committee hearing, a call with Chief Bellegarde, planned meetings, and the parliamentary secretary's meeting with Métis National Council — partial but substantive engagement with the specific consultation question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we agree that consulting with indigenous peoples is critical to the process of consulting on the TPP. We are pleased that the trade committee heard from indigenous groups yesterday morning. However, as the member said, Chief Bellegarde did say that he had spoken to the minister. Further meetings have been planned and have already been set toward the end of this month. I, as parliamentary secretary, met with Mr. Clément Chartier of the Métis National Council. However, we agree with the member opposite that we need to do more, and we are committed to continuing consultations with first nations on a nation-to-nation basis.
Will the Minister of Health end the practice of requiring indigenous patients to fail two trials of out-of-date drugs before the department accepts a doctor's psychiatric prescription, which the member characterizes as discriminatory and dangerous during a suicide crisis?
Raises a specific and serious practice — requiring two failed trial periods with out-of-date drugs before accepting a doctor's diagnosis for psychiatric prescriptions — and asks the minister to take responsibility and end it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has yet to explain why it is okay for her officials to interfere with doctor treatments for indigenous patients. We have a brutal suicide crisis across this country, yet her department routinely denies psychiatric prescriptions for new drugs to deal with depression, anti-psychotic behaviour, and suicide. In fact, the department will force patients to go through two failed trial periods with out-of-date drugs before they will accept the doctor's diagnosis. It is putting people's lives at risk. Will the minister take responsibility for her office, and end this discriminatory and dangerous practice?
The parliamentary secretary stated that Health Canada's NIHB program covers over $1 billion in health benefits annually and that nearly 99% of pharmacy claims and 90% of dental claims were approved, without addressing the specific prescription practice raised.
The parliamentary secretary cited the NIHB program's overall coverage and approval rates without addressing the specific allegation about mandatory failed drug trials before accepting psychiatric prescriptions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Health Canada has committed to providing medically necessary services to first nations and Inuit clients through the non-insured health benefits program. The NIHB program covers over $1 billion in health benefits for first nations and Inuit every year. Nearly 99% of pharmacy claims and 90% of dental claims were approved.
Will the Prime Minister follow the advice of his own senior PCO official and platform co-author Matthew Mendelsohn, who wrote that no serious electoral change can be made without a referendum, and hold a referendum?
Cites a specific named PCO official (Matthew Mendelsohn), his authorship of the Liberal election platform promise, and his co-authored paper stating it is 'a given that no serious change can be made to the electoral system without its being approved by referendum,' making a pointed, documented ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Matthew Mendelsohn is one of the principal authors of the Liberal election platform containing that famous promise about the 2015 election being the last election under the current electoral system. Now Mr. Mendelsohn is a senior PCO official, specializing in what the government refers to as “results and delivery”, whatever that means. Mr. Mendelsohn is also the co-author of a fascinating paper on electoral reform. He writes that it is “a given that no serious change can be made to the electoral system without its being approved by referendum”. Will the Prime Minister take his adviser's excellent advice and hold a referendum, or would a referendum get in the way—
The minister wished public servants a happy National Public Service Week and described the all-party committee process, without addressing Mendelsohn's paper or the referendum question.
The minister wished public servants a happy National Public Service Week and offered generic assurances about consulting experts, academics, and 338 MPs, entirely ignoring the specific question about Mendelsohn's paper and a referendum.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all public servants a happy National Public Service Week. We count on their professional, non-partisan, and dedicated efforts to serve this country. I can assure the member opposite that we will be relying on our public-service teams, as well as experts and academics, but also on all 338 members of the House who will reach out to their constituents and ensure their voices are reflected in this process.
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs still agree with his own 2012 statement that precedents make a referendum unavoidable in Canada to change the voting system?
Directs the question specifically to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, citing his own 2012 public statement that precedents make a referendum unavoidable in Canada to change the voting system, making it a precise accountability question grounded in a documented prior commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, d'après la façon dont le dossier de la réforme électorale est géré par la ministre, il est clair qu'il y a des malaises chez les libéraux. Comment explique-t-on qu'un homme aussi respecté que le ministre des Affaires étrangères doive se taire sur un enjeu aussi fondamental? La ministre nous dit qu'elle veut écouter et permettre à toute la population de s'exprimer. Ma question ne s'adresse pas à la ministre, mais au ministre des Affaires étrangères. Peut-il nous dire s'il est toujours en accord avec cette affirmation qu'il a faite en 2012: « Les précédents rendent un référendum incontournable au Canada: pour changer de mode de scrutin, il faut obtenir l’appui du peuple »?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the way the Minister of Democratic Institutions is managing the electoral reform that something is not right with the Liberals. How else can you explain the fact that a man as respected as the Minister of Foreign Affairs is not allowed to speak about such a fundamental issue? The Minister of Democratic Institutions said that she wants to listen and give all Canadians the opportunity to share their views. My question is not for the Minister of Democratic Institutions, but for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In 2012, he said, “Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support”. Can he tell us whether he still feels the same way?
The Minister of Democratic Institutions described the Monday deadline for party submissions to the all-party committee and the committee's mandate to consult experts, academics, and constituents, without addressing the Foreign Affairs minister's 2012 statement.
The minister described the upcoming deadline for committee nominations and the committee's mandate without engaging with the Foreign Affairs minister's 2012 statement or whether a referendum is required.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite what the process is. Come Monday, which is the final day that all parties will have an opportunity to submit the names of the individuals they would like to have represented on the all-party committee, the committee can be established and begin its work. That work includes reaching out to experts and academics. That work includes reaching out to those constituents in our riding who do not have an opportunity to be part of this process traditionally. That work includes a commitment, on behalf of all 338 members, that we will go out of our way to ensure those voices are heard.
If the formal evidenced-based visa review has not been completed, what criteria is the Prime Minister using to lift the visa requirement on Mexico, given that senior Canadian officials confirmed the review was not done?
Cites Mexico's finance minister's public statement and senior Canadian officials' committee testimony to expose a specific contradiction, asking what criteria the Prime Minister is using to lift the visa requirement outside the standard evidenced-based review process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Mexico's finance minister implied that lifting the visa requirement that Canada had imposed on Mexico was a done deal. However, at committee last Thursday, senior Canadian officials confirmed that a formal evidenced-based visa review had not been completed. If the Prime Minister has told Mexico that he will immediately be lifting the visa requirement, and the government is not using the standard evidenced-based review process, what criteria is he using to lift this visa requirement?
The parliamentary secretary said the government is committed to lifting the Mexican visa as a campaign commitment and is undertaking necessary reviews, but gave no specific criteria.
The parliamentary secretary confirmed the government intends to lift the Mexican visa as a campaign commitment and that reviews are underway, but provided no criteria whatsoever, directly avoiding the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is very much looking forward to hosting the first three amigos summit on Canadian territory in some time, an event that was cancelled by the previous government when relationships were so frayed that a meeting was not possible. However, at that meeting, we are looking forward to meeting our campaign commitment, which is to lift the Mexican visa. We are undertaking the reviews necessary to ensure this is done appropriately.
Given the Prime Minister has not explained what criteria he is using to lift Mexico's visa requirement, what is he telling Romania, which is signalling it will raise its Canadian visa requirements as leverage in CETA ratification?
Links the unanswered Mexico visa criteria question to a concrete diplomatic consequence — Romania signalling it will raise its Canadian visa requirements as leverage in CETA ratification — making an identifiable ask about what the Prime Minister is telling Romania.
Source text
So no criteria, Mr. Speaker. This is where it gets interesting. Romania is signalling that it is going to raise its Canadian visa requirements as a wrench in the CETA ratification process. These countries have had visa requirements with Canada in place for many years. However, if the Prime Minister will not tell Canadians what criteria he is using to lift the visa requirement for Mexico, as the parliamentary secretary just said, what is he telling the Romanians right now?
The parliamentary secretary said the government is engaging in dialogue with Romanian and Bulgarian officials, that the minister has met with such individuals, and that the Romanian delegation is present in Canada, framing it as a serious issue being actively addressed.
The parliamentary secretary confirmed dialogue with Romanian and Bulgarian officials, noted the Romanian delegation is present, and said the situation is being taken seriously, giving some relevant context but not addressing what criteria or message the Prime Minister is conveying.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with respect to Romania, as well as Bulgaria, because the two go part and parcel in terms of dealing with the EU, we take our commitment to the EU and our relationship with the EU very seriously. The steps we are taking are that we are engaging in dialogue with both Romanian and Bulgarian officials. The minister has met with such individuals, as have I. In fact, the Romanian delegation is here today. We are taking this situation very seriously in terms of expanding a dialogue to address the visa issue so we can move forward with a productive relationship.
Will the government introduce legislation before the end of 2016 to make gender-based analysis a mandatory requirement across all of the Government of Canada, as Auditor General reports found the lack of mandatory requirements was a major barrier?
Cites two Auditor General reports, a specific identified barrier (lack of mandatory requirements), and a 20-year history to ask for a concrete legislative commitment before the end of 2016 to make gender-based analysis mandatory.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, the Liberal government promised that Canada would use gender-based analysis for all programs, policies, and laws. However, two Auditor General reports found the little done was piecemeal and inadequate. As the Auditor General said, a major barrier was lack of mandatory requirements. Women's equality cannot be left up to the whims of any government or cabinet. Therefore, will the government introduce legislation before the end of 2016 to make gender-based analysis a mandatory requirement across all of the Government of Canada?
The minister highlighted that over 1,000 parliamentarians, staff, and bureaucrats participated in a gender-based analysis training competition and said the government is working to strengthen that capacity, without addressing the legislative commitment.
The minister cited a gender-based analysis training competition with over 1,000 participants and expressed commitment to strengthening capacity, but gave no response to the specific ask for legislation before the end of 2016.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it was my extreme pleasure to see that well over 1,000 parliamentarians, staff members, and bureaucrats took part in the gender-based analysis competition that we had just a few weeks ago, and received their certificates. It is a fantastic indication of the interest in gender-based analysis. We take this very seriously. It is an important tool of the government to ensure we have equity woven throughout our programs and policies. We will be working very carefully to ensure we strengthen that capacity.
Will the government commit to implementing gender-based analysis in all departments in 2016, after more than 20 years since the original 1995 Liberal commitment?
Grounds the ask in the 20-year delay since the 1995 Liberal commitment and asks specifically whether the government will implement gender-based analysis in all departments in 2016, though it largely repeats Exchange 22's ask with less additional specificity.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'analyse comparative entre les sexes au sein du gouvernement fédéral n'est pas un nouveau concept. En fait, un gouvernement libéral s'était engagé à l'instaurer en 1995. Parce qu'on est en 2016, cela fait donc plus de 20 ans qu'on attend, 20 ans que les ministères ont pris des décisions sans devoir considérer les conséquences pour les femmes systématiquement. Le gouvernement s'engage-t-il à mettre fin au délai et à mettre en oeuvre l'analyse comparative entre les sexes dans tous les ministères pendant qu'on est encore en 2016?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, gender-based analysis within the federal government is nothing new. In fact, a Liberal government committed to introducing it in 1995. It is now 2016, which means we have been waiting for over 20 years. For 20 years, the departments have been making decisions without having to systematically consider the impact they would have on women. Will the government commit to stop dragging its feet and implementing gender-based analysis in all departments before the end of 2016?
The minister said she is pleased the standing committee studied gender-based analysis and is looking forward to reading the report and responding fulsomely in this Parliament, without committing to action in 2016.
The minister noted the standing committee's study of gender-based analysis and said she looks forward to responding to the report, which is tangential to the specific ask about implementing it in all departments in 2016.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was really pleased that the standing committee, which looks at Status of Women Canada, took it upon itself to study gender-based analysis and how we could strengthen the use of that tool throughout government. I am very much looking forward to reading the report and responding fulsomely in this Parliament.
Would the Minister of Health inform the House on the steps the government is taking to address the mental health crisis in indigenous communities, particularly rural, remote, and isolated ones?
A government backbench softball setup asking the minister to inform the House about steps being taken on indigenous mental health — no accountability dimension, no specific challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, many indigenous communities in Canada, particularly those located in rural, remote, and isolated areas, are facing a distressing mental health crisis. These communities too often lack proper access to vital services and support, and the services that do exist are not always culturally appropriate or properly aligned with community needs. Would the Minister of Health please inform the House on the steps the government is taking to help address this tragic and unacceptable state of affairs?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River for his hard work and dedication. Building upon our investment of $8.4 billion in budget 2016, the Prime Minister announced new funding this week of approximately $69 million in immediate and targeted mental wellness support. That includes four crisis response teams and an increase of mental illness teams, from 11 to 43, training to ensure that care services are culturally appropriate, and a 24-hour culturally safe crisis response line.
The parliamentary secretary announced approximately $69 million in new mental wellness funding, including four crisis response teams, an increase in mental illness teams from 11 to 43, culturally appropriate care training, and a 24-hour culturally safe crisis response line, building on $8.4 billion in budget 2016.
The parliamentary secretary cited specific figures: $8.4 billion in budget 2016, $69 million in new mental wellness funding, four crisis response teams, mental illness teams increasing from 11 to 43, and a 24-hour culturally safe crisis response line — a substantive, data-rich answer.
Do first nations have the right to veto energy and pipeline developments, yes or no?
References the AFN chief's testimony about 130 first nations opposing pipelines and the rest demanding an absolute veto, and asks whether first nations have a veto yes or no — a direct binary ask, though somewhat simplified.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the AFN chief said that more than 130 first nations were dead set against pipelines and energy development. The rest were demanding an absolute veto over any proposed developments. As can be imagined, this creates great uncertainty for investors. Could the Prime Minister clarify for all Canadians whether first nations have the right to veto, yes or no?
The minister said the former government did not meaningfully consult indigenous communities, announced principles on January 27, and described a ministerial panel going up and down the pipeline line for consultation, without answering the veto question.
The minister deflected to criticizing the former government's consultation record and described the January 27 principles and ministerial panel process without giving any yes or no answer on the veto question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, indigenous communities have not been meaningfully consulted about major energy projects. Because the former government did not do a very good job, we have decided to do a better one. We announced a set of principles on January 27, the centre point of which was that kind of meaningful consultation. We have asked a ministerial panel of three individuals to go up and down the line for that kind of consultation. Two out of those three representatives are aboriginal women.
Do first nations have a veto over resource development, as Chief Bellegarde stated with 'the right to say yes, and the right to say no' — yes or no?
Cites Chief Bellegarde's direct quote about 'the right to say yes, and the right to say no' and presses for a simple yes or no answer on veto, but is largely a repeat of Exchange 25 with added characterization of Liberal confusion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as members can see, both the minister and the Prime Minister continue to do a dance on this issue of a veto. When they promised to implement the UN declarations, the expectation of first nations, clearly, was they would have a veto over resource development. As Chief Bellegarde said, “the right to say yes, and the right to say no”. The Liberals are creating confusion. Again, we need a simple answer, yes or no?
The minister cited constitutional and moral obligations to meaningfully consult indigenous people on major resource projects and many public policy elements, stating that consultation over the last 10 years was insufficient and the government is committed to doing better.
The minister again avoided the yes or no question on veto, instead citing constitutional and moral obligations to consult and criticizing the previous government's insufficient consultation record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have a constitutional and a moral obligation to meaningfully consult indigenous people, not only about major resource projects but about many elements of public policy in Canada. We know that consultation over the last 10 years was insufficient. It was insufficient, using both constitutional and moral arguments. That is why we are committed to doing a better job.
Will the minister restore compliance measures of the First Nations Financial Transparency Act to support economic opportunity and accountability for first nations bands?
Cites new research from the Canada Public Policy Forum identifying lack of transparency as a governance barrier, frames the First Nations Financial Transparency Act as an accountability tool, and asks the minister to restore compliance measures — reasonably specific with identifiable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, new research from the Canada Public Policy Forum has found the lack of transparency is a governance barrier facing first nation communities. The First Nations Financial Transparency Act was a way for indigenous governments to demonstrate their own credibility and accountability to potential investors and partners. Will the minister agree to undo the damage the government has done to economic opportunity for first nations bands and start to enforce the First Nations Financial Transparency Act?
The minister cited over 200 bands engaged with the First Nations Financial Management Board, and noted the existing requirement for every first nation to submit audited statements to the department and share them with members, without addressing restoration of compliance enforcement.
The minister described over 200 bands engaged with the First Nations Financial Management Board and noted the requirement to submit audited statements to the department and share with members, which is somewhat relevant but does not address the compliance enforcement question directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the member's question by celebrating the over 200 bands that have engaged with the First Nations Financial Management Board, with all the training that this requires. We are encouraging way more. However, the member needs to know that there is a requirement for every first nation to submit the audited statement to my department and to share it with their members. If they are unable to get that report, they can get it from my department.
Will the minister heed the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations' support for public transparency and restore the compliance measures of the First Nations Financial Transparency Act?
Cites a specific quote from the executive director of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations supporting transparency and accountability to press the minister to restore compliance measures of the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, though it largely repeats Exchange 27's ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the executive director of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations said: Our chiefs fully support public transparency and full accountability to our First Nations members and disclosure of our audited financial statements. Our chiefs support good governance and the improvement of conditions for all our people Will the minister listen to the Atlantic Policy Congress, stop ignoring the law, and restore the compliance measures of the First Nations Financial Transparency Act?
The minister praised the Atlantic Policy Congress leadership, affirmed the importance of accountability and transparency, and said the government is working on these goals bottom-up rather than through top-down decisions, without addressing the First Nations Financial Transparency Act.
The minister praised the Atlantic Policy Congress leadership and said accountability and transparency are important, then stated that top-down decisions do not work and the government is working bottom-up, without addressing the compliance measures or the law.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we celebrate the leadership of the Atlantic Policy Congress, and we are very keen. Accountability and transparency are the goals of all first nations and they are really important. Top-down decisions do not work. We are working on transparency and accountability with first nations bottom-up. This is the only thing that is going to work.
When will the government cap credit card fees for SMEs, given the burden those fees place on small and medium businesses and the Liberals' own prior opposition to the voluntary code?
Uses the Walmart-Visa dispute as a concrete current example to highlight the burden on SMEs and calls out the Liberals' own opposition to the voluntary code, asking specifically when the government will cap credit card fees for SMEs.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cette semaine, Walmart a menacé de ne plus accepter la carte Visa dans ses magasins parce que les coûts de transaction coûtent trop cher. Trop cher pour Walmart! Imaginons le dilemme des petites et moyennes entreprises qui doivent maintenant choisir entre le fait d'accepter des coûts exorbitants ou bien d'accepter de perdre de la clientèle. Dans l'opposition, les libéraux étaient contre le code de conduite volontaire des conservateurs; maintenant au pouvoir, ils en font la promotion. C'est incompréhensible. Quand le gouvernement va-t-il enfin agir et plafonner les frais de carte de crédit pour nos PME?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this week, Walmart threatened to stop accepting Visa cards in its stores because the transaction fees are too high. Too high for Walmart. Imagine the dilemma for small and medium-sized businesses that must now choose between accepting the exorbitant fees or losing customers. In the opposition, the Liberals opposed the Conservatives' voluntary code of conduct, and now, in power, they are promoting it. This makes no sense. When will the government finally take action and cap credit card fees for our SMEs?
The minister said the government recognizes the voluntary agreement among credit card companies, is looking forward to the report on that voluntary agreement, and is committed to ensuring the market stays competitive, without indicating any plans to cap fees.
The minister acknowledged the voluntary agreement, said the government is awaiting its report, and affirmed commitment to a competitive market, which is tangentially related but does not address the specific ask of capping fees or when action will come.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we recognize there is a voluntary agreement among the credit card companies to look at their fees. We are looking forward to the report on that voluntary agreement. It is important that there be a competitive market in credit card fees so consumers can be well treated. We are committed to responsibly taking a look at that report and understanding how we can ensure this market stays competitive in the future.
Why has the Liberal government not brought in legislation to stop unfair credit card merchant fees that are gouging Canadian businesses, given the Liberals demanded action on this issue while in opposition?
Contrasts the Liberals' in-opposition position demanding action with their current government stance on credit card merchant fees, and asks specifically why the government has not brought in legislation to stop unfair fees — a reasonably grounded accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unfair credit card merchant fees are out of hand and putting small businesses and jobs at risk. While Walmart announced it will no longer accept Visa, small businesses do not have that luxury. They are left at the mercy of credit card companies and a voluntary code that has failed to protect consumers or small businesses. In opposition, the Liberals demanded long overdue action. Why has the Liberal government not brought in legislation to stop these unfair fees that are gouging Canadian businesses?
The parliamentary secretary listed government investments — the middle-class tax cut, the Canadian child benefit, infrastructure, broadband, tourism marketing, incubators, and accelerators — as support for small business, without addressing credit card fees or legislation.
The parliamentary secretary listed unrelated middle-class tax cuts, the Canada child benefit, infrastructure, broadband, tourism marketing, incubators, and accelerators without any reference to credit card merchant fees or legislation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we do like to talk about small businesses and the things we are doing to help them. Small business owners and operators tell us that they want and need a robust economy. We are making investments to ensure we support that growth. They want consumers, so we have given them the middle-class tax cut, the Canadian child benefit, investments in infrastructure, broadband, tourism marketing, incubators, accelerators, and the list goes on. All of this definitely supports small business and those in it.
Ritz asks why the Prime Minister has failed to deliver a new softwood lumber agreement within his promised 100 days, given that the previous Conservative government negotiated an extension under similar U.S. election-year conditions.
Cites the Prime Minister's specific 100-day promise and references a prior government achievement under comparable circumstances, giving the question factual grounding, though the ask is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister famously promised Canadians to have the structure of a new softwood lumber agreement completed within 100 days of his family reunion in Washington. While we were in government, we negotiated an extension to the softwood lumber agreement during a U.S. election year. The member for Abbotsford did the job with President Obama under the same circumstances we see in the U.S. today. What is the Prime Minister's excuse for failing Canada's forestry workers and putting thousands of good-paying jobs at risk?
Lametti says the government started at a disadvantage due to the previous government's inaction, that officials have been engaged from day one, and that a presidential visit is expected to advance progress.
The parliamentary secretary deflects by blaming the previous government rather than addressing the 100-day commitment or explaining what progress has been made.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on the trade committee. It is clear that we started off at a disadvantage because of the lack of work done by the previous government on this file. Our officials have been engaged on this file from day one. We are continuing engagement at all levels, from the ministerial level all the way down. We are gearing up toward a visit with the President in which we hope we will further advance our progress toward a deal which will ensure stable access to the American market.
Godin asks when the minister will renew the softwood lumber agreement, noting it expired in October 2015 and that the sector represents more than $20 billion in the Canadian economy.
Godin cites the October 2015 expiry of the agreement and the $20-billion economic value of the forestry sector, giving some factual grounding, though the ask is broadly 'when will the minister fix this.'
Source text
Monsieur le Président, tout ce que ce gouvernement touche n'avance pas. Pour revenir à la question de mon collègue, l'entente sur le bois d'oeuvre est échue depuis le mois d'octobre 2015. Le renouvellement de cet accord entre le Canada et les États-Unis permettrait à l'industrie forestière de remettre les gens des régions au travail. Il faut sécuriser ce secteur qui représente plus de 20 milliards de dollars dans l'économie canadienne. Toutes les régions du Canada sont touchées par l'inaction de ce gouvernement. C'est quoi, le problème? Quand la ministre va-t-elle régler le dossier et soutenir nos régions?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, nothing this government touches ever gets done. To get back to what my colleague asked, the softwood lumber agreement expired in October 2015. Renewing this agreement between Canada and the United States could help the forestry industry get people in the regions back to work. We need to help secure this sector, which accounts for more than $20 billion of Canada's economy. All of these Canadian regions have experienced the effects of this government's inaction. What is the problem? When will the minister resolve this issue and support our regions?
Lametti says the government is very active on the file, understands the regional differences, is making progress, and is working with provincial and American counterparts toward a deal ensuring stable access to the American market.
Lametti acknowledges regional complexity and claims progress but provides no timeline, no specific measures, and no answer to when the minister will resolve the file.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au contraire, nous sommes très actifs dans ce dossier. Nous comprenons les enjeux, et nous comprenons que les enjeux sont différents dans chaque région du pays. Malgré la complexité du dossier, nous y travaillons très fort, nous faisons des progrès, et nous sommes en train de travailler avec nos homologues provinciaux et américains pour en arriver à un accord qui va assurer un accès stable au marché américain.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we are very active on this file. We understand the issues and we understand that the issues are different in each region across the country. Although this is a complex issue, we are working very hard on it, we are making progress, and we are working with our provincial and American counterparts to reach an agreement that will provide stable access to the U.S. market.
Bergen asks whether the Prime Minister will stand up for 200,000 jobs and get something accomplished on the softwood lumber deal specifically on June 29.
Bergen anchors the question to the specific June 29 date and the 200,000 jobs figure, but the framing is heavily rhetorical and conflates Keystone XL with softwood lumber.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals like to brag about their so-called great relationship with Barack Obama, but the Prime Minister has been able to accomplish absolutely nothing for Canadian natural resources jobs. He did not have the courage to bring up Keystone XL and nothing is happening on softwood lumber. On June 29 will the Prime Minister stand up for 200,000 jobs in Canada? Will he stand up to the United States? Will he get something accomplished on June 29 on the softwood lumber deal?
Lametti says the government is leaving no stone unturned to get a fair and equitable deal ensuring Canadian access to the American softwood lumber market.
Lametti repeats boilerplate about leaving no stone unturned and working at all levels, without addressing the June 29 date or offering any concrete commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are leaving no stone unturned in our quest to get a fair and equitable deal that ensures Canadian access to the American softwood lumber market. We are working at all levels through all contacts, ministerial, all the way down through the ministries. We are consulting our partners within the Canadian industry across the country, and we will get a good deal done.
Spengemann asks what steps the government is taking to make published books available in accessible formats for the more than three million Canadians who are print disabled.
A government-backbench softball setup citing 800,000 Canadians with visual impairment and three million print-disabled Canadians as a prompt for the minister to announce a funding measure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, more than 800,000 Canadians live with a visual impairment and around three million Canadians are print disabled, yet very few published books are ever made available in an accessible format, such as an audiobook or a Braille conversion. Could the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities inform this House on steps the government is taking to eliminate these types of obstacles?
Qualtrough announces $2 million in funding to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to produce alternate format published material, which will increase available titles by at least 1,300.
Qualtrough directly answers with a specific funding figure ($2 million), the recipient (Canadian National Institute for the Blind), and a concrete output (at least 1,300 additional titles).
Source text
Mr. Speaker, ensuring greater accessibility and opportunities for Canadians with disabilities in their communities and workplaces is a priority for our government. An increased access to print materials is a path to inclusion. Earlier this week I was proud to announce $2 million in funding this year to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, to support its production of alternate format published material for people with print disabilities. This funding will increase the number of titles available by at least 1,300 titles. Our government will continue to work with the CNIB and other organizations to eliminate barriers and increase inclusion.
Cooper asks when the Minister of Justice will start appointing judges, noting that one month after she promised action 'in the very near future,' no appointments have been made despite an unprecedented court backlog.
Cooper quotes the minister's own words from the previous month ('in the very near future'), notes one month has elapsed with zero appointments made, and asks a single, clear, answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last month the Minister of Justice said in this House that she would put in place short-term procedures to appoint judges “in the very near future”. One month later, the minister has yet to appoint a single judge, notwithstanding an unprecedented backlog in our courts. When will the Minister of Justice stop talking and start appointing?
Casey acknowledges pressing vacancies particularly in Alberta and says the Minister of Justice has been hard at work on the file, with news expected very soon.
Casey acknowledges the pressing vacancies and says the minister has been hard at work and news can be expected 'very soon,' but does not provide any specifics, timeline, or number of pending appointments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent work on the justice committee and his advocacy on this issue. We are well aware of the pressing vacancies within the ranks of the judiciary across this country, and in particular, in the province of Alberta. I can tell the hon. member that the Minister of Justice has been hard at work on this file, and he can expect some news very soon.
Masse asks when the Liberal government will update Canada's weak privacy laws, citing the University of Calgary paying $20,000 after a hack and BlackBerry routinely sharing customer information without a warrant.
Masse cites two specific recent incidents (the University of Calgary's $20,000 ransom payment and BlackBerry's warrantless data sharing) to ground his call for updated privacy laws, though the ask is broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's out-of-date privacy laws are failing Canadians. Two recent privacy breaches shone a spotlight on the risk to Canadians. The University of Calgary paid $20,000 to buy back students' and faculty members' personal data after it was hacked, and we learned BlackBerry routinely shares customer information with no warrant and with no notifying those affected, including going overseas. Our privacy laws are not up to these challenges. When will the Liberal government stop putting privacy at risk and update Canada's weak privacy laws?
Goodale says privacy is governed by statute and strict court approaches including the Federal Court, and that police applications must be proportionate and justified with rigorous standards applied.
Goodale's answer addresses police authority applications and court oversight under the Federal Court of Canada but does not mention the University of Calgary breach, BlackBerry, or any plan to update privacy laws.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, privacy in this country is governed by not only statute but also by very strict approaches in the court system, including the Federal Court of Canada. The applications that are made by police authorities need to be proportionate, they need to be justified on the grounds of the subject matter under investigation. The courts ensure when an application appears before them that the appropriate standards are in fact applied rigorously.
Dabrusin asks what steps the Minister of Public Safety is taking to help those experiencing difficulty with aviation security lists.
A government-backbench setup about constituents experiencing airport delays due to misidentification on aviation security lists, prompting the minister to announce a new measure.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, des gens de ma circonscription m'ont parlé de leurs préoccupations après que leur enfant ait subi des retards à l'aéroport pour cause de mauvaise identification. Je sais que c'est un dossier que le ministre de la Sécurité publique suit de très près depuis que nous avons été élus. My constituents are concerned about the ongoing impact this may have. Can the minister please share with the House the steps his department is taking to help those experiencing difficulty with aviation security lists?
Goodale acknowledges a design flaw in the passenger protect program, announces the launch of a new passenger protect inquiries office as an interim measure, and says structural changes are underway.
Goodale identifies a specific 'design flaw' in the passenger protect program, announces the launch of a new passenger protect inquiries office as an interim measure, and frames the broader structural fix underway.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie la députée de Toronto—Danforth de sa question. Je partage ses préoccupations et je comprends la frustration des voyageurs touchés. There was a design flaw embedded in the passenger protect program when it was first created a number of years ago. We are working to make the necessary structural changes, but last week, as an interim measure, I announced the launch of a new passenger protect inquiries office that will help people who experience difficulties related to aviation security lists. We want a safe system that treats Canadians with respect.
Viersen asks why the Liberals are doing nothing to end human trafficking, arguing that front-line NGOs and survivors need real support rather than a review of the Criminal Code.
Viersen references the parliamentary secretary's own prior response about a Criminal Code review and cites front-line NGOs and survivors as stakeholders, but the question remains broadly rhetorical and the ask is vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on Friday I asked the Liberals why they have no plan to combat human trafficking. The parliamentary secretary for justice replied that the government's only priority is to review the Criminal Code. Front-line anti-human trafficking NGOs and survivors do not need a review of the Criminal Code, they need real support from a government that takes this issue seriously. Why are the Liberals doing nothing to end human trafficking?
Casey rejects the premise, cites the inquiry into murdered and missing aboriginal women, and says the government will review Bill C-36 to develop an evidence-based solution to human trafficking.
Casey rejects the premise, references the inquiry into murdered and missing aboriginal women, and commits to reviewing Bill C-36, but does not address what specific actions are being taken to support front-line anti-human trafficking NGOs and survivors.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of that question. This government is very committed to attacking the scourge of human trafficking in this country. We are well seized of this issue. We were the ones who instituted an inquiry into murdered and missing aboriginal women. We are also going to be reviewing in detail the provisions of Bill C-36, the flawed piece of legislation that was brought in by the previous government. We are seized of it, we are acting on it, and we will indeed come up with an evidence-based solution to this terrible scourge.
May asks the Minister of Transport where the matter of LNG tanker exclusion zones stands within his department and when such zones can be expected.
May identifies a specific regulatory gap—exclusion zones around LNG tankers—references international comparators, and ties the question to a current policy pressure (B.C.'s push for LNG), making for a reasonably specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the transportation of liquefied natural gas poses very specific and different risks from any other substance. In countries around the world there are regulations to deal with this threat that have exclusion zones around tankers. As the British Columbia government is pushing for LNG, we desperately need regulations to ensure the safety of transport. I would ask the hon. Minister of Transport where that matter stands within his department and when we can see exclusion zones.
Garneau says Canada complies with IMO safety standards for LNG tankers operating in Canadian waters, including the international code for the construction of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk, enforced through the port state control program.
Garneau cites Canada's compliance with the IMO's international code for the construction of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk and the port state control program, which is relevant but does not directly address whether exclusion zones exist or when they might be established.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada, as a member of the International Maritime Organization, complies with safety standards for internationally operated vessels, including LNG tankers, when they operate in Canadian waters. This includes the IMO's international code for the construction of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk. We further enforce international requirements on foreign vessels operating in Canada through the port state control program.
Kenney seeks unanimous consent to table motions from the EU parliament, the U.S. Congress, and the Westminster parliament recognizing the genocide being committed by Daesh in the Middle East.
Kenney references motions from the European Union parliament, the Congress of the United States, and the Westminster parliament recognizing a Daesh genocide, but this is procedurally a request for unanimous consent to table documents rather than a substantive question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during question period, I made reference to motions adopted by the parliament of the European Union, the Congress of the United States, and the Westminster parliament, in which each one of these legislatures recognized the reality of the genocide being committed by Daesh in the Middle East. I would, therefore, seek the unanimous consent of the House to table these motions.
Agreed. No.
No ministerial answer was given; the House was divided on the unanimous consent request.
The exchange ends with a divided response to a tabling request and no ministerial answer is provided.