Session overview
- NAFTA and softwood lumber dominated Question Period, with CPC and NDP members pressing the government on whether the Prime Minister's openness to renegotiating NAFTA would jeopardize Canadian jobs in the forestry, beef, and pork sectors following Donald Trump's election.
- The proposed infrastructure bank faced sustained criticism from CPC and NDP members over unanswered questions about its design, governance, taxpayer risk, and the exclusion of small and medium municipalities from projects under $100 million.
- The government announced $25 million in funding to UNRWA, which the Minister of International Development defended by citing robust oversight mechanisms and consultations with allies including the Israeli government; CPC members challenged the decision given UNRWA's alleged ties to Hamas.
- Press freedom drew NDP scrutiny after Canada dropped 10 spots in the world press freedom index and reports emerged of journalists under government surveillance, including a VICE journalist threatened with jail time by the RCMP; the government declined to call a full national public inquiry.
- Indigenous financial transparency was contested through multiple exchanges, with CPC members calling on the minister to enforce the First Nations Financial Transparency Act and to release a KPMG audit to Blood Tribe members; the minister defended the government's rejection of a top-down approach.
- The government announced a new marine protected area in Darnley Bay in the Beaufort Sea following consultations with Inuvialuit partners, and confirmed that the $100 million family violence and child abuse funding at the Public Health Agency of Canada remains in place.
Minister Philpott confirmed on the record that the 10-year, $100 million family violence and child abuse funding is still in place at the Public Health Agency of Canada and committed to working on a gender-based violence strategy with the Minister of Status of Women.
Follows up directly on an unanswered question from the previous day, cites a specific program (10-year, $100 million investment to prevent, detect, and combat family violence and child abuse), and asks a single clear yes/no question about whether it is still in place at the Public Health Agency of Canada.
Duclos responded to a specific, substantive question about whether the government would accept amendments to Bill C-26 to include a drop-out provision for women and people living with disabilities by offering only general praise for CPP expansion, without addressing the omission at all.
Outstanding questions
- Rona Ambrose asked whether taxpayers will be on the hook when infrastructure bank projects go over budget â the minister did not answer yes or no. (Exchange 2)
- Thomas Mulcair asked what specifically the Liberals are willing to put on the table in NAFTA renegotiations before informing Canadians â the minister did not identify any specific negotiating positions. (Exchange 9)
- Thomas Mulcair asked whether the Liberal government agrees to a full national public inquiry into government surveillance of journalists â the minister declined to answer the yes-or-no question. (Exchange 6)
- Len Webber asked the Minister of Public Safety to confirm that China is the main source of illegal fentanyl and to specify what has been done to stop it â the minister acknowledged the problem but confirmed no specific action or country. (Exchange 38)
- Scott Duvall asked whether the government will accept proposed amendments to Bill C-26 to add a drop-out provision for women and people living with disabilities â the minister gave no answer on the amendments. (Exchange 22)
Why is the Prime Minister rushing to reopen NAFTA when beef and lumber jobs are at risk?
Names two specific industries (beef and lumber) and a concrete scenario, but the ask â why the PM is 'in a rush to open up NAFTA' â is partly rhetorical and conflates several concerns.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, within hours of the polls closing in the U.S., the Prime Minister was offering to sacrifice the Canadian jobs that depend on our most important trade deal as a welcoming gift to the new U.S. President. NAFTA has created jobs, helped our economy grow, and provided market certainty to Canadian exporters for years. The Prime Minister's actions have caused uncertainty when we can least afford it. Two specific industries, beef and lumber, are in the crosshairs. Why is the Prime Minister in a rush to open up NAFTA when there are so many jobs on the line?
The minister stated NAFTA is important to both countries, citing nine million U.S. jobs linked to Canada, and said softwood and beef are priorities, without specifying Canada's negotiating position.
The minister confirms NAFTA's importance and mentions softwood and beef as priorities but provides no specifics on what Canada will or will not put on the table, leaving the accountability ask unanswered.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite that the economies affected by NAFTA would definitely see the benefits associated with NAFTA. For example, in the United States, nine million U.S. jobs are related to the Canadian economy. NAFTA is very important to our economic prosperity. It is very important to the middle class, and that is why we will engage with the new administration. That is why we will work with Congress. With respect to the softwood lumber file and the beef file, we think these files are very important. It is a priority for us and we are focused on solutions.
When infrastructure projects go over budget, will taxpayers be on the hook for the infrastructure bank's losses, yes or no?
Cites a direct ministerial quote about unknowns in the bank's design and governance, and poses a clear binary yes-or-no accountability question about taxpayer liability for cost overruns.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities confessed to reporters about his bank, âObviously there are a lot of questions about the design of the bank, the governance of the bank, and the broad details around it, which we will be figuring out....â For taxpayers this sounds expensive. Billionaire investors will not be loaning the Liberals money out of the goodness of their hearts. They will expect a healthy return on their investment no matter what. My question is simple. When a project goes over budget, and many times they do, will taxpayers be on the hook, yes or no?
The minister praised the government's $181 billion infrastructure plan and said the bank will leverage private sector investment, but did not answer the question about taxpayer liability.
The minister pivots entirely to celebrating the $181 billion infrastructure commitment and attacking the opposition, never addressing the yes-or-no question about taxpayer liability for overruns.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to talk about our historic involvement in creating more infrastructure in this country than has ever been created before, $181 billion over the next 12 years. Yes, we will have green infrastructure, social infrastructure, public transit infrastructure, rail-trade corridor infrastructure, and yes, we will have a bank. That bank will leverage more investment from the private sector and that will create more infrastructure, which Canadians want. It will create jobs. It is good for the economy. What has the opposition got against infrastructure?
Why has the Prime Minister gone silent on Keystone XL after claiming during the election to support it, and why did he mislead energy workers?
Raises a specific pipeline (Keystone XL) and a verifiable claim about the PM's election position, but frames it as 'why did the PM mislead energy workers,' which is more rhetorical than a precise factual ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we do not have anything against it, we just want it to get built. We are waiting, but now we have a great opportunity before us. Keystone XL can help get our Canadian oil to the Gulf coast, get a better price for our oil, and create badly needed jobs. However, instead of proudly standing up for Canadian energy workers, the Prime Minister who, during the election, claimed that he supported Keystone, has gone silent. Why did the Prime Minister mislead energy workers?
The minister confirmed the government supports Keystone XL, stated all approvals north of the border are in place and will not expire, and said the government awaits the company's reapplication to the United States.
The minister directly confirms government support for Keystone XL, notes northern approvals are in place, and explains the status of the company's reapplication process, which substantially addresses the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government did support the Keystone XL energy project, and the government will continue to support the project. All of the approvals north of the border are in place. They will not run out. Now we await the company that will reapply to the United States. We await that decision as we are fully supportive of the project.
If the Prime Minister is willing to renegotiate NAFTA, what does he expect to obtain in exchange for jobs in the forestry and pork sectors?
Poses a reasonably pointed question asking specifically what Canada expects to gain in exchange when trading away forestry and pork sector jobs in NAFTA renegotiation, though framed with partisan assertions.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'ALENA est l'accord commercial le plus important du Canada. Cet accord gĂ©nĂšre des milliers d'emplois pour les familles canadiennes. Ces familles souffrent dĂ©jĂ d'un premier ministre qui n'a pas crĂ©Ă© un seul emploi additionnel Ă temps plein. Maintenant, leur emploi est menacĂ© Ă cause de la naĂŻvetĂ© du premier ministre en ce qui concerne le libre-Ă©change. S'il est prĂȘt Ă renĂ©gocier l'ALENA, qu'est-ce qu'il espĂšre obtenir en Ă©change des emplois des secteurs forestier et du porc?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, NAFTA is Canada's most important trade agreement, as it generates thousands of jobs for Canadian families. These families are already suffering because the Prime Minister has not created even one new full-time job. Now, their jobs are at risk because the Prime Minister is naive when it comes to free trade. If he is prepared to renegotiate NAFTA, what does he hope to obtain in exchange for jobs in the forestry and pork industries?
The minister said the government will engage with the new administration and Congress to advance Canada's interests in trade and jobs, including softwood and beef, without detailing any specific objectives.
The minister again references nine million U.S. jobs linked to Canada and lists general priorities (trade, investment, softwood, beef) without specifying any Canadian negotiating objectives or concessions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that NAFTA is important for Canada, but it is also important for the United States. There are nine million jobs in the U.S. that are directly related to the Canadian economy. That is why we are engaged with the new administration. We will work with Congress and make sure that we advance Canada's national interests when it comes to trade, investment, when it comes to jobs and files around forestry and softwood and beef as well. It has been the priority of our government to advance economic interests, and we will continue to do so.
How can the government ensure its funding to UNRWA will not put Israeli citizens at further risk given documented incitement of terrorism in UNRWA-run schools?
References documented UNRWA curriculum concerns, the prior Conservative funding cut, and implies a specific concern about money funding terrorism, though the 'UN Security Council seat' accusation muddies the accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is well documented that schools run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency within the Palestinian authority have incited terrorism against Israel. The Conservative government rightly cut UNRWA's funding, because we had no assurances about where the money was going. While the Prime Minister claims to support Israel, his actions prove otherwise. How can he ensure these dollars will not put Israeli citizens at further risk, or is this just another down payment of Canadian tax dollars to win him a UN Security Council seat?
The minister said Canada is providing $25 million to UNRWA after conducting meaningful oversight and negotiating an agreement that includes robust control measures, and framed the funding as supporting security, development, and regional stability.
The minister directly states the amount ($25 million), the purpose, and importantly references 'meaningful oversight' and 'robust control measures' negotiated before the announcement, partially addressing the concern about safeguards.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Palestinian refugees are among the poorest and most vulnerable, and it is my mandate to help them. This is why, after conducting meaningful oversight and negotiating an agreement that includes robust control measures, I announced today that Canada is providing $25 million in funding to UNRWA for their security and development, but also for the stability of the region. I prefer to see these children in UN schools, in classrooms, than in the street.
Does the Liberal government agree to a full national public inquiry into government surveillance of journalists, yes or no?
Cites the world press freedom index ranking drop, a specific case (a VICE journalist threatened by the RCMP), and asks a clear yes-or-no question about a full national public inquiry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada has dropped 10 spots in the world press freedom index. There are cases across the country of journalists under government surveillance. We know that a VICE journalist is being threatened with jail time by the RCMP to force him to reveal his source. All the Liberal government has to say is that it believes in freedom of the press. Well, enough with the talking points. Does the Liberal government agree to a full national public inquiry, yes or no?
The minister said both the RCMP commissioner and CSIS director assured him no similar federal surveillance was occurring, and that all federal safeguards are being reassessed with input welcomed from journalists and lawyers.
The minister addresses federal surveillance practices and mentions assurances from the RCMP commissioner and CSIS director, but does not directly answer yes or no on a full national public inquiry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when these issues first emerged, we indicated very clearly that we were disturbed by the reports with respect to the Sûreté and the Montreal police force. We inquired as to whether any activity similar to that was happening at the federal level. Both the commissioner of the RCMP and the director of CSIS have assured us that the answer is no. All of the safeguards that are in place at the federal level are being reassessed to make sure they are strong enough, and we are welcoming any input from journalists, lawyers, or others if they have suggestions to make about how the law needs to be improved.
What concrete actions will the Liberals take to protect press freedom in Canada, given their refusal of a public inquiry, their refusal to repeal Bill C-51, and their refusal to fix Bill C-22?
References three specific legislative failures (public inquiry refusal, Bill C-51, Bill C-22) but the ask â 'qu'est-ce que les libĂ©raux vont faire de concret' â remains somewhat open-ended rather than a single precise ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, those journalists were on the Hill today calling for a full public inquiry. Le gouvernement n'a pas le droit d'espionner les journalistes, point Ă la ligne. Les libĂ©raux sont de grands parleurs et de petits faiseurs. Ils ont refusĂ© la tenue d'une enquĂȘte publique, ils ont refusĂ© d'abroger le projet de loi C-51, et ils ont refusĂ© de corriger le projet de loi C-22. Qu'est-ce que les libĂ©raux vont faire de concret pour protĂ©ger la libertĂ© de la presse au Canada?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, des journalistes sont venus sur la Colline aujourd'hui pour rĂ©clamer une enquĂȘte publique complĂšte. The government has no right to spy on journalists, period. The Liberals are all talk and no action. They refused to conduct a public inquiry. They refused to repeal Bill C-51 and they refused to fix Bill C-22. What concrete measures are the Liberals going to take to protect freedom of the press in Canada?
The minister said the government is examining all federal safeguards, including ministerial directives, and has invited journalists, lawyers, and others to submit proposals for improving the law.
The minister says federal safeguards including ministerial directives are being examined and reiterates the invitation for submissions from journalists and lawyers, but offers no concrete new measures or a timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is trying to make an argument where there is none. The fact of the matter is, we are examining all of the federal safeguards in place, including the ministerial directives, to make sure that they are appropriate in all the circumstances to respect freedom of the press. At the same time, we have invited journalists and others, and the legal community to make submissions if they have proposals to suggest how the law needs to be improved. Freedom of the press is a fundamental Canadian value, it is in the charter, and this government will defend it assiduously.
The Liberals have not yet concluded a new softwood lumber deal, and now suddenly the Prime Minister has shown openness to renegotiating NAFTA â where does that come from?
Raises a timely concern about softwood lumber workers amid Trump's election and the lack of a softwood deal, but 'd'oĂč est-ce que ça sort?' is a vague rhetorical close rather than a precise accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in words only but never in action, and that is the problem. Avec l'Ă©lection de Donald Trump, les travailleurs du secteur forestier sont, comme beaucoup d'autres, trĂšs inquiets. Les libĂ©raux n'ont pas encore rĂ©ussi Ă conclure une nouvelle entente sur le bois d'oeuvre et voilĂ que tout Ă coup, le premier ministre a manifestĂ© une ouverture Ă la renĂ©gociation de l'ALENA, ni plus ni moins. D'oĂč est-ce que ça sort?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, le problÚme, c'est que le gouvernement nous abreuve de belles paroles, mais qu'il ne passe jamais à l'action. With the election of Donald Trump, forestry workers, along with many others, are extremely worried. The Liberals have still not managed to reach a new softwood lumber agreement with the U.S., and now, all of a sudden, the Prime Minister has indicated that he is open to renegotiating NAFTA, no less. Where is that coming from?
The minister said the softwood agreement expired under the previous government and the current government is working with the U.S. administration to find a solution, and looks forward to engaging the president-elect.
The minister pivots to blaming the previous government for the softwood agreement expiring and offers only general assurances of ongoing engagement, without addressing the specific concern about PM's NAFTA opening offer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows that the agreement expired under the previous government. This is why we are working with the current U.S. administration and engaging with it to find a solution on softwood. We also look forward to working with the new president-elect and his administration in Congress in advancing this issue. This is a very important relationship that we take very seriously. The United States is an important ally, friend, and partner, and we will continue to engage with it in our national interest.
How can the Prime Minister put an entire trade deal on the table before telling Canadians what Canada is looking for in return?
Poses a focused question about what Canada is actually willing to put on the table in NAFTA renegotiation and why the PM would open the entire deal before communicating objectives to Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we all know Trump's priority. What we are trying to figure out is what are the Liberals willing to put on the table. We have not heard a word about that. It does not bode well for softwood lumber and it does not bode well for Canadian workers, becauseâthis just inâTrump is not concerned with protecting Canadian interests. How can the Prime Minister put an entire trade deal on the table before he says anything to Canadians about what he is looking for?
Oh, oh!
The minister said the government is looking for good-quality Canadian jobs, is engaged with the United States as an important trading partner, and cited the COOL resolution as evidence of dealing with tough issues.
The minister's response of 'jobs, jobs, jobs' and general pro-trade statements entirely avoids specifying any Canadian negotiating positions or explaining the rationale for the PM's public offer, amounting to near-deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what we are looking for is jobs, jobs, jobs, good quality Canadian jobs, jobs that will help our forestry sector, jobs that will helpâ
Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the members opposite have a problem with respect to good quality Canadian jobs, because that is the priority for our government. We have been very clear from day one that we will engage with the United States because it is a very important trading partner of ours. We are going to focus on jobs, good quality Canadian jobs, and growing the economy. We are willing to deal with the U.S. on tough issues around softwood and beef. We are the party and the government that found a solution for COOL as well.
The Trump transition team is reportedly recommending a more protectionist renegotiation of the softwood lumber agreement â how will Canada protect its jobs?
Cites a specific news report about the Trump transition team recommending a more protectionist softwood renegotiation and asks concretely how Canada will protect its jobs, though the final question is somewhat broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is what we are looking for too: jobs, jobs, jobs. They have not created any full-time jobs; not one since they have been in government. Ce matin, on a appris que l'équipe de transition du nouveau président américain lui recommande de renégocier au complet l'accord sur le bois d'oeuvre en étant plus protectionniste. Quelle mauvaise nouvelle pour l'industrie forestiÚre canadienne! On nous parle de résultats. A moment ago, the minister talked about nine million jobs in the U.S.A., not in Canada. How do we protect ours?
The parliamentary secretary said the government has been engaged on this file since the start of its mandate, continues to negotiate with Americans and hold consultations across the country, and will find an agreement but not just any agreement.
The parliamentary secretary acknowledges ongoing negotiations and consultations but provides no details on Canada's strategy or positions to protect forestry jobs, offering only general assurances in French.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie mon honorable collÚgue de sa question. Nous sommes trÚs impliqués dans ce dossier, et ce, depuis le début de notre mandat. Nous continuons à négocier avec les Américains et nous demeurons en contact avec eux de plusieurs façons. Nous continuons à tenir des consultations partout au pays, justement afin de faire avancer nos dossiers. Nous allons trouver un accord, mais pas n'importe quel.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. We have been working hard on this file since taking office. We are negotiating with the Americans, and we are keeping several lines of communication open. We are holding consultations across the country to move these files forward. We will reach an agreement, but it has to be a good agreement.
How can the Prime Minister expect to win a negotiation when he has already revealed Canada's position before discussions have even begun, like a poker player showing his cards?
Uses a vivid poker analogy to make a pointed observation about the PM showing his hand before negotiations begin, but the ask is more rhetorical than a precise accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nĂ©gocier des accords commerciaux mondiaux, c'est trĂšs dĂ©licat. C'est incroyable que le premier ministre du Canada ait annoncĂ© ses couleurs Ă l'avance, avant mĂȘme d'avoir entamĂ© les discussions. C'est comme si on s'asseyait Ă une table de poker et qu'on mettait ses cartes sur la table. Comment peut-il penser gagner une nĂ©gociation ou accomplir des choses pour notre pays s'il se donne dĂ©jĂ aux AmĂ©ricains?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, negotiating global trade agreements is very sensitive. I cannot believe the Prime Minister of Canada revealed his intentions before discussions even got started. He basically showed his hand the minute he sat down at the poker table. How does he expect to come out on top of negotiations or accomplish anything for our country if he rolls over for the Americans right off the bat?
The parliamentary secretary cited the government's trade record â COOL resolution, beef markets in China and Mexico, CETA â and said it is normal to improve treaties, especially after 20 years, and Canada will negotiate in good faith.
The parliamentary secretary lists past trade accomplishments (COOL, beef markets, CETA) and asserts that tweaking NAFTA after 20 years is normal, but does not address the specific concern about pre-negotiation signalling.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le bilan de notre gouvernement en matiÚre de commerce international est impeccable. Nous avons trouvé une solution en ce qui concerne l'étiquetage indiquant le pays d'origine, nous avons ouvert les marchés du boeuf en Chine et au Mexique, et nous avons rescapé l'AECG avant la fin. C'est nous qui avons fait cela, et nous continuerons. Pour ce qui est de l'ALENA, c'est normal qu'on puisse améliorer les traités et les accords, surtout aprÚs 20 ans. Nous allons négocier de bonne foi avec nos partenaires américains.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our government's record on international trade is impeccable. We found a solution to the country-of-origin labelling problem, we opened the Chinese and Mexican markets for our beef, and we saved CETA at the eleventh hour. We did all that, and that is the kind of thing we will keep doing. As for NAFTA, agreements, especially 20-year-old ones, can certainly stand for some improvement. We will negotiate in good faith with our American partners.
When the Prime Minister offered to reopen NAFTA, did he realize that beef and pork producers were at the centre of the new President's NAFTA target?
Names specific commodities (beef and pork), references the country-of-origin labelling battle as prior context, and asks whether the PM understood agricultural producers were the target of the new President's NAFTA focus.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is not just about softwood. Canadian agriculture, specifically beef and pork exports, is being targeted as well. We fought for 10 years, and we won the country-of-origin labelling battle. Now this Liberal government's offer to renegotiate NAFTA has given the U.S. the green light to reopen this contentious and costly issue. When he made his offer to reopen NAFTA did the Prime Minister realize that our beef and pork producers were the bull's eye at the centre of the new President's NAFTA target?
The minister said the U.S. is Canada's closest partner and took credit for resolving the COOL issue and opening beef markets, contrasting the government's record with that of the previous government.
The minister pivots to claiming credit for resolving COOL and opening beef markets, comparing his government favourably to the previous one, without addressing whether the PM considered agricultural exposure before offering to reopen NAFTA.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the United States is Canada's closest friend and partner, and it is a very important economic relationship. I would like to inform my hon. colleague that it was not his government that resolved the COOL issue. It was not his government that opened the beef market to Mexico. It was not his government that opened a lot of markets. Our government is going to make sure that the agricultural sector continues to thrive in our country.
Why would the Liberal Prime Minister offer to renegotiate a trade deal when he had no idea what the Americans wanted to discuss?
Contains a pointed question about why the PM offered to renegotiate NAFTA without knowing what the Americans wanted to discuss, but is diluted by personal attacks on the PM and a sarcastic aside.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, they clearly did not know what the President was going to focus on. If they are so brilliant, why did they offer to negotiate even before being asked? This is the kind of ongoing failure of leadership that we have seen from the Prime Minister. Maybe it is better he keeps travelling. He seems to do less damage when he is out of the country than when he is in it. It took 10 years to prove that the U.S. country-of-origin labelling rules violated international trade law. Why would the Liberal Prime Minister offer to renegotiate a trade deal when he had no clue what the Americans wanted to discuss?
The parliamentary secretary said NAFTA has been a success and that tweaking treaties over time is a normal part of the process, noting other agreements including free trade agreements with Israel and Chile are also up for tweaking.
The parliamentary secretary explains that treaties occasionally need tweaking and cites other agreements in the minister's mandate letter as precedent, providing some relevant context but not directly addressing the specific accountability concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the United States is our biggest trading partner and NAFTA has been a huge success over the past 20 years. It is clear that with time, treaties occasionally need to be tweaked. We are prepared to do that in good faith. It is a normal part of the process. Other treaties are within the minister's mandate letter for tweaking, including the free trade agreements with Israel and Chile. This is a normal part of the process. NAFTA has been tweaked already over the past 20 years. We will continue to negotiate in good faith.
With $35 billion in tax dollars at risk and the infrastructure minister admitting he has not figured out the bank's design and governance, who is protecting taxpayers?
Cites the minister's own quote about unknowns in the bank's design and governance, specifies $35 billion at risk, and asks concretely who is protecting taxpayers, making it a reasonably grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the devil is in the details and because the infrastructure minister fears the devil, he avoids the details altogether. Of his new infrastructure bank, he said: Obviously there are a lot of questions about the design of the bank, the governance.... He had better figure it out. Some $35 billion in tax dollars are at risk. If the minister responsible does not have a clue how it will work, billionaire foreign bankers will eat him and our tax dollars for lunch. Who is protecting taxpayers?
The minister said the government will get the details right, that the bank will leverage private sector funding to build infrastructure, and criticized the previous government for not pursuing such an approach.
The minister says the government 'will get the details right' and praises private sector leveraging, but provides no specifics on governance, liability, or taxpayer protections, effectively deflecting the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, actually, this government is doing something the previous government never even dreamed or thought of doing. We are doing something that is going to be extremely important for this country, and we are going to get the details right. What this will do is to leverage private sector funding to build infrastructure in this country, which is something the previous government did not do. It will create jobs. It will be good for the economy. The private sector wants to get involved. What is so difficult to understand about that?
With only projects over $100 million qualifying for the infrastructure bank â covering just 1% of projects â and $15 billion redirected away from cities, will anyone stand up for small and medium municipalities across Canada?
Cites specific figures ($15 billion redirected, $100 million minimum project threshold, 1% of projects qualifying) to argue small and medium municipalities are excluded from the infrastructure bank, making a well-grounded critique.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, voici la logique des libéraux: on crée une banque de l'infrastructure, on prend 15 milliards de dollars qui étaient dédiés aux villes et on met en plus un critÚre afin que seuls les projets de 100 millions de dollars et plus soient acceptés, sachant trÚs bien que seulement 1 % des projets sont de plus de 100 millions de dollars, c'est-à -dire inaccessibles aux petites et moyennes municipalités. C'est comme les cocktails de financement du Parti libéral qui sont destinés à 0,01 % des plus riches. Y a-t-il quelqu'un de l'autre cÎté de la Chambre qui va se lever pour défendre les régions de partout au Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is the Liberal logic: we create an infrastructure bank, we take away $15 billion that was earmarked for municipalities, and we add the condition that only projects over $100 million will be approved, knowing full well that only 1% of the projects are over $100 million and therefore out of reach for small and medium-sized municipalities. This is just like the Liberal Party's cocktail fundraisers, which are intended for the wealthiest 0.01%. Is anyone over on that side of the House going to stand up for Canada's regions?
The minister cited $2 billion set aside for rural communities in the fall economic statement and argued the infrastructure bank will amplify and multiply infrastructure investments for all Canadians.
The minister references $2 billion set aside for rural communities in the fall economic statement, which is partially relevant, but does not address the specific $100 million threshold concern or the allegation that $15 billion was redirected away from municipalities.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, oui, je vais me lever et rappeler Ă mon collĂšgue que dans notre Ă©noncĂ© Ă©conomique de cet automne, nous avons mis de cĂŽtĂ© 2 milliards de dollars pour les communautĂ©s rurales. De plus, nous faisons des investissements majeurs dans les infrastructures. Avec cette banque de l'infrastructure, nous allons pouvoir amplifier et multiplier le nombre d'investissements dans les infrastructures. Les Canadiens veulent des infrastructures modernes. Cela crĂ©e des emplois et cela nous permet d'ĂȘtre plus concurrentiels sur le plan de l'Ă©conomie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am going to stand up and remind my colleague that in our economic statement this fall, we set aside $2 billion for rural communities. On top of that, we are making significant investments in infrastructure. This infrastructure bank will enable us to increase our infrastructure investments in number and in scope. Canadians want modern infrastructure. This creates jobs and helps keep our economy competitive.
When did the Liberals commit to funding infrastructure through tolls and user fees that would deliver 7% to 9% returns to private investors, contrary to their platform promise to use the government's credit rating?
Cites a specific return range of 7% to 9% for private investors and contrasts it with the Liberal platform promise on credit ratings, but the ask is framed rhetorically ('when did the Liberals say they would line their Bay Street and Wall Street friends' pockets').
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in their platform, the Liberals argued that the government would use its strong credit rating and leading lending authority to meet municipalities' infrastructure needs. Mayors assumed that a government bank would lend at a lower rate to help facilitate the building of infrastructure. Yet now we find out that private investors are expecting a return in the range of 7% to 9%, which can only come through tolls and user fees. When did the Liberals say they would line their Bay Street and Wall Street friends' pockets with tolls and user fees?
Garneau cited Canada's best-in-G7 credit rating and the $182 billion infrastructure commitment without addressing private investor returns or tolls.
Garneau deflects entirely to Canada's G7 credit rating and the $182 billion commitment without addressing the 7%â9% return figure or the toll/user-fee concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do want to talk about something the hon. member said, and that is our credit rating. It is the best in the G7. That is a fact. That is good news. I also want to say again that we have committed to an unprecedented investment in infrastructure of $182 billion over the next 12 years. This is something that our municipalities across the country have been asking for for a very long time. We are the government that is acting on that. This is a solid plan for green, public transit, and social infrastructure. Canadians are very pleased with our decision to invest in infrastructure.
Why will Canadians pay five times more through a private infrastructure bank yielding 7%â9% to investors when the government borrowed at 1.3% last month?
Cites a specific recent government borrowing rate of 1.3% and contrasts it with the 7%â9% private investor return figure, grounding the question in concrete numbers from the Liberal platform and current market conditions.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce que les libĂ©raux essaient de nous faire croire, finalement, c'est qu'ils pensent que l'argent du privĂ© va tomber du ciel sans condition. Pendant la campagne Ă©lectorale, les libĂ©raux disaient: « Les taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt sont historiquement bas, nos infrastructures actuelles prennent de l'Ăąge [...] Le moment est venu d'investir. » La derniĂšre fois que le gouvernement a empruntĂ©, le mois dernier, le taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt Ă©tait trĂšs faible, Ă 1,3 %. Or les investisseurs privĂ©s qui vont investir dans cette banque demandent un rendement de 7 % Ă 9 %. Le rĂ©sultat est qu'on va demander aux Canadiens de payer cinq fois plus pour venir enrichir les poches de leurs amis libĂ©raux Ă Wall Street et Bay Street. Pourquoi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals would have us believe that private-sector money is going to fall from the sky without any strings attached. During the election campaign, the Liberals said, âInterest rates are at historic lows, our current infrastructure is aging rapidly....Now is the time to invest.â The last time the government borrowed money, last month, the interest rate was very low, 1.3%. The private investors who are going to invest in this bank are looking for a 7% to 9% return on their investment. In other words, Canadians are being asked to pay five times as much in order to line the pockets of Liberal cronies on Wall Street and Bay Street. Why?
Garneau questioned the origin of the figures, restated the $182 billion commitment, and cited the FCM's infrastructure deficit of $600â$1,000 billion without addressing the interest-rate comparison.
Garneau questions the source of the figures without rebutting them specifically, then pivots to the $182 billion commitment and the FCM's $600â$1,000 billion deficit estimate, ignoring the cost comparison entirely.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je ne sais pas oĂč mon collĂšgue obtient ses chiffres, mais je dirai que nous allons investir 182 milliards de dollars dans les infrastructures au cours des 12 prochaines annĂ©es. La FĂ©dĂ©ration canadienne des municipalitĂ©s reconnaĂźt que nous avons un dĂ©ficit en infrastructure de 600 milliards Ă 1 000 milliards de dollars. Nous avons besoin d'investir dans les infrastructures. Le gouvernement va en faire beaucoup, mais nous voulons aussi utiliser l'effet de levier de cette banque pour crĂ©er d'autres investissements en infrastructure. C'est une bonne chose Ă faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where my colleague is getting those numbers. I will say that we are investing $182 billion in infrastructure over the next 12 years. According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, our infrastructure deficit is between $600 billion and $1,000 billion. We need to invest in infrastructure. The government is going to do a lot, but we also want to leverage this bank in order to create other investments in infrastructure. It is the right thing to do.
Will the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs release the KPMG financial audit results to the Kainai Nation today?
References a specific named audit (KPMG financial audit on behalf of the Blood Tribe), a specific minister, and a clear ask for release of the results today, though it is partly rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for more than a year I have been asking the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs both personally and in the House to release the KPMG financial audit on behalf of the Blood Tribe in Alberta. I keep getting the same non-answer. She makes claims about transparency but refuses to be transparent. What does someone actually have to do to get an answer from the minister? What hoops do my constituents have to jump through before the minister will take action? Can the minister do the right thing and provide Kainai Nation with the financial audit results today?
Bennett said any member of the Kainai Nation who wants the information should approach her department and it will be provided.
Bennett gives a brief but concrete commitment â any member of the Kainai Nation who wants that information should approach her department and it will be provided â which partially addresses the ask but does not explain why the audit results were not already released.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I hope that any member of the Kainai Nation who wants that information would approach my department and we will get it for them.
Why does the minister claim to support transparency while blocking community members from accessing information needed to hold their own leadership accountable?
Raises a substantive accountability concern about stonewalling in the minister's department, but the question is largely rhetorical and compounds several charges without a single sharp ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the message that I have been getting from a minister of the crown is that it is okay to tell first nations' leadership that it is fine to break the law. The minister makes it sound so easy to get this information, that all anyone has to do is to ask. Either the minister is completely oblivious to the stonewalling in her own department or she opposes empowering community members finding out this information. Why does the minister claim to be all about transparency and yet refuses to let community members get access to the information they need to hold their own leadership accountable?
Bennett stated that first nation chiefs and councils are accountable to their members and to her department, and that any member seeking information can approach the department.
Bennett repeats essentially the same answer as in Exchange 18 â that members can approach her department â without addressing the allegation of stonewalling or the claim that the minister told leadership it is fine to break the law.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the first nation's chief and council are accountable to their members and to my department. If any member wants information, they can approach my department and we will help them get it.
Why is the minister forcing Charmaine Stick to incur court expenses to see the books when ministerial expenses and public accounts are easily accessible to all?
Names a specific individual (Charmaine Stick), references a specific legal action, and draws a pointed contrast with publicly available ministerial expenses, yielding a clear and grounded ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to equate providing basic information to band members as demonizing the leadership. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ministers are expected to post expenses. We have public accounts. The information is readily and easily available. But Charmaine Stick is now being forced to take her leadership to court in order to see the books. Why is the minister forcing Charmaine to incur court expenses to see the information that should be easily provided to allâ
Bennett said first nations members have the right to see the books through a password-protected website, town halls, or the band office, and noted she cannot comment on the specific matter before the courts but understood the member had seen the information at a public meeting.
Bennett outlines existing mechanisms (password-protected website, town halls, band office) and notes the matter is before the courts, but does not directly address why Charmaine Stick must go to court or why easier access is not available.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, members of all first nations have the right to see the books of their first nation. These are provided in a variety of ways, on a password-protected website, at town hall meetings, or tabled in a band office. I cannot deal with something that is before the courts but I do understand that there was a public meeting where the member did see that information.
When will the minister enforce the First Nations Financial Transparency Act to empower first nations community members?
References a specific piece of legislation (First Nations Financial Transparency Act) and mentions hundreds of emails received, but the ask is broad and the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, people do not have to go to a public meeting to see what the minister or her department spends. It is easily accessible. It is easily available to all. The minister, like me, has been getting hundreds of emails just in the last two days from Canadians who think this is wrong. This is about basic transparency. This is about basic good governance and it should be available to all. When will the minister start ensuring and empowering first nations communities and enforce the First Nations Financial Transparency Act?
Bennett said the First Nations Financial Transparency Act did not work because it was imposed top-down and accidentally penalized first nations businesses to predatory practices by competitors, and that transparency should be a relationship between first nations and their membership rather than to the whole world.
Bennett directly addresses the First Nations Financial Transparency Act by name, explaining why the government considers it flawed (imposed top-down, accidentally penalized first nations businesses to predatory practices by competitors), and articulates the government's position on appropriate transparency, though she does not commit to any new action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that the First Nations Financial Transparency Act did not work because it was imposed top-down and it accidentally penalized first nations businesses to predatory practices by competitors. It is extraordinarily important that members have access to the statements, as do we, but it is not appropriate for these to be transparent to the whole world. This is a relationship between first nations and their membership.
Will the government accept the NDP's proposed amendments to Bill C-26 to include a drop-out provision for women and people living with disabilities before rushing the CPP expansion into law?
Identifies a specific legislative omission (drop-out provision for women and people living with disabilities in Bill C-26), references stakeholder and union agreement, and asks a clear yes/no question about accepting proposed amendments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after two days of our raising the issue in the House, it is obvious that the Liberals forgot to consider the needs of women and people living with disabilities in their legislation to expand the Canada pension plan. Stakeholders and union leaders agree that Bill C-26 is flawed because of the omission of the drop-out provision for these groups. It is a simple fix. We are proposing changes and asking for the current government's support. Instead of rushing this expansion into law, will the government take the time to fix it by accepting our proposed amendments and make this right for all Canadians?
Duclos praised the CPP expansion as a historic change benefiting current and future generations and contributing to a more inclusive society, without addressing the specific amendments or the drop-out provision.
Duclos does not mention the drop-out provision, women, people living with disabilities, or the proposed amendments, offering only generic praise for CPP expansion and inclusion without addressing the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all members of the House, including our new colleague from Medicine Hat, are honoured and pleased to take part in this important debate, which signals a historic change in the way that the CPP will assist not only Canadians of this generation, but also Canadians of future generations. We can be proud because this will lead to a more inclusive society, with greater growth both now and in the future.
When will the minister match the results Unifor achieved by negotiating a billion dollars' worth of new auto investment in Canada, given the industry's decline from second to tenth in the world?
References a specific outcome (Unifor negotiating a billion dollars' worth of new investment) and a decline from second to tenth in the world, but the ask is vague and the exchange is largely rhetorical and combative.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is not âall membersâ, because the Liberals have excluded women and persons with disabilities by their own purpose and intent. The Liberals and Conservatives' trade and economic policies have driven the Canadian auto industry from second to tenth in the world, costing tens of thousands of jobs. For more than a year, the Liberals have copied the Harper Conservatives at the expense of workers in Canada, with zero results. The Liberals now have a bailout from the auto workers and Unifor who, unlike the government, successfully negotiated a billion dollars' worth of new investment in Canada. The workers have done their job. When will the minister do his? If he is looking for jobs, they are right here. He just has to come and get them.
Bains cited the extended automotive innovation fund in the budget and GM Canada's expansion creating 1,000 new engineering and high-tech positions as evidence of positive results.
Bains cites the automotive innovation fund from the budget and the specific example of GM Canada expanding its engineering and software development with 1,000 new positions, partially engaging with the jobs theme but not addressing the ranking decline or the Unifor negotiation directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the member opposite now understands our government's priority when it comes to good quality Canadian jobs. This is a priority for us. That is why in the budget we extended the automotive innovation fund to attract investments into Canada, particularly in the auto sector, to create jobs. We have been engaged with the auto sector, we have been engaged with the unions, and we have seen positive results because of that. Most recently, GM Canada expanded its engineering and software development in Canada and plans to open a new software centre, creating 1,000 new engineering and high-tech positions. That is creating jobs.
How will the government promote gender equality during Canada's 150th anniversary in 2017?
A government-backbench softball asking the minister to describe how the government will promote equality in 2017, with no accountability content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, next year Canada will celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation. During the year, we will be celebrating our history, our achievements, and our common values, which include gender equality. Can the Minister of Status of Women inform the House how our government will promote equality in 2017?
Hajdu announced a call for proposals to bring together 150 women leaders, advocates, and feminist organizations to engage them in local projects to advance gender equality as part of the 150th anniversary.
Hajdu provides a concrete program â a call for proposals to bring together 150 women leaders, advocates, and feminist organizations for local projects to advance gender equality â giving the exchange some informational value.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie ma collÚgue de Nouveau-Brunswick-Sud-Ouest de sa question. L'égalité entre les sexes est une priorité de notre gouvernement. To mark the 150th anniversary of Confederation, I launched a call for proposals to bring together 150 women leaders, advocates, and feminist organizations to engage them in local projects to advance gender equality. We understand the importance of advocacy, making real progress toward equality, and leaving a lasting legacy for future generations.
Given a report showing terrorist groups have obtained heavy weapons from African government stockpiles, will the minister tell Canadians where troops are going, whether they will be in combat, and how long they will be there?
References a specific report published that week on terrorist groups obtaining heavy weapons from government stockpiles in Africa, and asks three clear questions about destination, combat role, and duration, though somewhat bundled.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Africa is considered to be one of the most dangerous and unstable regions in the world. A report published this week shows that terrorist groups have obtained a wide range of heavy weapons from government stockpiles throughout Africa. All the defence minister has told Canadians is that conflicts are very complex. Will the minister finally be honest with Canadians and tell us where our troops are going, will they be in combat, and how long will they be there?
Sajjan acknowledged the complexity of threats and weapons, said a whole-of-government analysis is underway, and committed to informing the House and Canadians of the destination and rationale when ready.
Sajjan acknowledges the complexity, mentions whole-of-government analysis, and commits to informing the House when confident â engaging the framing of the question but providing no specifics on destination, combat role, or timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. In terms of the complexity of the threats and weapons systems out there, when we are looking at the threats we need to take our time to make sure that we have all of the necessary information, and allow the military to do its analysis as well, and also that we do a whole-of-government analysis. When we feel confident with the information, we will dutifully inform the House and Canadians of where we are going, and why we will be doing it as well.
Why is the defence minister abandoning Canada's traditional allies in the war on terror to pursue a UN Security Council seat by placing troops under UN command in Africa?
Includes a colourful General Hillier quote and raises a pointed question about UN command versus traditional allies, but the framing is largely rhetorical and the UN Security Council allegation makes it partly a talking-point exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are getting tired of waiting for those answers. In Afghanistan, the Canadian Armed Forces heroically fought al-Qaeda, alongside our NATO allies. Today, our troops are battling ISIS in a U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. Africa is full of al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorists, but the Liberals want our troops under UN command. Former General Rick Hillier described the UN as being unable to conduct âa one-man rush to the outhouseâ. Why is the defence minister abandoning Canada's traditional allies in the war on terror? Is it only to get a seat at the UN Security Council for the Prime Minister?
Sajjan said the allies he consults for counter-ISIL meetings are the same allies for UN peace operations, that conflicts are interlinked requiring coordinated efforts, and offered to explain further analysis to the member in person.
Sajjan makes the substantive point that counter-ISIL allies and UN peace operations allies are the same partners and that conflicts are interlinked, which partially engages the question, but does not address the UN command concern or the Security Council allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that the allies whom I consult with for the counter-ISIL meetings are the same allies I work with on United Nations peace operations, because all the conflicts actually are interlinked. I am making sure that we all work together and not just look at one region of the world. They are interlinked, and we need to be able to coordinate these efforts. That is a level of conversation that we are having, and I am happy to be able to explain in further detail in a short time. I will be happy to explain in person to the hon. member the analysis that is going to be ongoing.
Why is the government committing new funds to UNRWA given documented allegations of redirection of aid, storage of weapons, and incitement to violence against Israel in UNRWA-operated schools?
Cites specific allegations (redirection of aid funds and materiel, storage of weapons, incitement to violence in UNRWA-operated schools) and references a report published that week, grounding a clear question about why new funds are being committed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency was established in 1949 to support Palestinian refugees, but for years, UNRWA has been manipulated by Gaza's corrupt Hamas government in flagrant contradiction of the UN stated policy of neutrality. Human rights organizations in Canada and abroad cite unacceptable redirection of aid funds and materiel, storage of weapons, and incitement to violence against Israel in UNRWA-operated schools. Why is the government committing new funds to this flawed UN agency?
Bibeau announced $25 million in funding to UNRWA, said serious verification of allegations had been conducted and a robust oversight mechanism negotiated, and argued the funding serves the security and development of Palestinian refugees and regional stability.
Bibeau directly addresses the funding announcement ($25 million to UNRWA that morning), mentions serious verification of allegations, a negotiated agreement with robust oversight mechanisms, and a policy rationale, though she does not detail what specific safeguards were put in place.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les réfugiés palestiniens comptent parmi les personnes les plus pauvres et les plus vulnérables, et mon mandat est justement de les aider. C'est pourquoi aprÚs avoir effectué de sérieuses vérifications sur les allégations et avoir négocié une entente qui inclut de robustes mécanismes de contrÎle, j'ai annoncé ce matin un financement de 25 millions de dollars à UNRWA. Pour leur sécurité, pour leur développement et pour la stabilité de la région, je préfÚre voir les enfants en classe plutÎt que dans la rue.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Palestinian refugees are among the poorest and most vulnerable, and it is my mandate to help them. This is why, after conducting a thorough investigation of the allegations and negotiating an agreement that includes robust control measures, I announced this morning that Canada is providing $25 million in funding to UNRWA. For their safety and development and for the stability of the region, I would prefer to see these children in classrooms than on the street.
Is the risk of Canadian tax dollars funding jihadist terrorists through UNRWA's ties to Hamas really worth a UN Security Council seat?
References the specific $25 million UNRWA announcement and UNRWA's known ties to Hamas as a designated terrorist organization, but the UN Security Council framing makes the question partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continue their UN Security Council ambition by compromising security itself. The Minister of International Development just announced funding to UNRWA to the tune of $25 million. UNRWA is a UN organization with known ties to Hamas. Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. Is the potential to have hard-working Canadian tax dollars fund jihadist terrorists really worth the UN Security Council seat for the government?
Bibeau said all necessary verification was done in co-operation with allies and the Israeli government, that the announcement includes a robust oversight mechanism and stronger accountability framework, and that the funding is crucial for regional security.
Bibeau confirms verification was done in co-operation with allies and even the Israeli government, and that the funding includes a robust oversight mechanism and stronger accountability framework, directly addressing the accountability concern though not the Security Council allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wish to reassure my colleague that we have done all the necessary verification in co-operation with our allies and UNRWA, and even the Israeli government, before making this decision. The funding announcement includes a robust oversight mechanism and a stronger accountability framework. This funding is crucial for the security of the region.
Does the Liberal plan for abandoned vessels include any preventive measures, or will it leave taxpayers and local governments on the hook?
References a specific ministerial announcement (the oceans protection plan) and identifies a specific gap (no preventive measures for abandoned vessels), but the ask is compound and partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport's announcement last week left us hopeful for real action on abandoned vessels and wrecks, but it is now clear that the Liberal plan does not go nearly far enough. There is nothing to prevent abandoned vessels from becoming a hazard in the first place. Will the plan really leave taxpayers and local governments on the hook for action? Is the government really excluding any preventive measures? Why are the Liberals wasting this opportunity to clean up our coasts?
Garneau directed the member to the oceans protection plan, citing initiatives on owner accountability, provincial and territorial cooperation, and long-term cleanup of wrecks on Canada's three coasts.
Garneau refers members to the oceans protection plan and mentions initiatives to make owners accountable, working with provinces and territories, and cleaning up wrecks on three coasts, but does not specifically address whether preventive measures are included or who bears the costs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would highly encourage my colleague across the way to read what we said in the oceans protection plan, because there is some very clear indication there, with respect to derelict and abandoned vessels, of a large number of initiatives that we are going to make in order to make owners accountable; also working with the provinces and territories as part of the mechanisms to clean up and, also in the long term, begin the process of cleaning up these hundreds of wrecks that are on our three coasts.
Can the minister confirm that Groupe St-Pierre now has the expertise to carry out the Kathryn Spirit work, given it had to cease dismantlement five years ago for lacking both expertise and a certificat d'autorisation?
Names a specific company (Groupe St-Pierre), a specific contract amount ($7.9 million), a specific vessel (Kathryn Spirit), and a specific prior failure (ceased work five years ago lacking expertise and a certificat d'autorisation), yielding a precise and verifiable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il n'y a prĂ©sentement absolument rien qui empĂȘcherait l'arrivĂ©e d'une autre Ă©pave Ă Beauharnois, par exemple. J'apprĂ©cie que le ministre des Transports ait donnĂ© le coup d'envoi pour le dĂ©mantĂšlement du Kathryn Spirit la semaine derniĂšre, sauf que le contrat de 7,9 millions de dollars pour construire le muret autour de l'Ă©pave ira au Groupe St-Pierre, la mĂȘme compagnie qui a dĂ» cesser les travaux de dĂ©mantĂšlement il y a cinq ans parce qu'elle avait ni l'expertise ni le certificat d'autorisation. Le Kathryn Spirit a dĂ©jĂ coĂ»tĂ© 4 millions de dollars aux contribuables. Le ministre des PĂȘches, des OcĂ©ans et de la Garde cĂŽtiĂšre canadienne peut-il confirmer aux citoyens de ma circonscription que le Groupe St-Pierre a maintenant l'expertise pour effectuer ces travaux?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there is currently nothing stopping another wreck from docking in Beauharnois, for example. I am grateful that the Minister of Transport gave the go-ahead for the dismantling of the Kathryn Spirit last week, but the $7.9-million contract to build a barrier around the wreck is going to Groupe St-Pierre, the same company that had to stop dismantling work on the Kathryn Spirit five years ago because it did not have the required expertise or certificate of authorization. The Kathryn Spirit has already cost taxpayers $4 million. Can the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard assure my constituents that Groupe St-Pierre now has the expertise to carry out this work?
Garneau confirmed the Groupe St-Pierre contract at $7.9 million to build a batardeau to isolate the vessel from the St. Lawrence, noted the five-year delay under the previous government, and said dismantlement will follow a call for tenders in the spring.
Garneau confirms the Groupe St-Pierre contract and the $7.9 million amount, explains the rationale (speed of action on a five-year-old problem), and outlines the two-phase plan (batardeau now, tender for dismantlement in spring), though he does not directly confirm whether Groupe St-Pierre now has the required expertise and certificat d'autorisation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la raison pour laquelle nous avons choisi le Groupe St-Pierre, c'est parce que nous voulons absolument nous débarrasser le plus vite possible du Kathryn Spirit. Il est là depuis cinq ans et c'est le temps d'agir. Cela n'a pas été fait par le gouvernement précédent et nous allons le faire. Nous paierons 7,9 millions de dollars pour faire bùtir un batardeau pour isoler le navire du fleuve Saint-Laurent. Au printemps, aprÚs un appel d'offres, nous procéderons au démantÚlement de ce navire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the reason we chose Groupe St-Pierre is that we want to get rid of the Kathryn Spirit as quickly as possible. It has been there for five years, and it is time to take action. The previous government did not deal with this issue, but we will. We will pay $7.9 million to build an embankment to isolate the ship from the St. Lawrence River. In the spring, we will put out a tender for the ship's dismantling.
Will the transport minister approve Woodfibre LNG's export permits immediately so construction can begin and jobs can be saved?
Cites a specific project (Woodfibre LNG), identifies a specific pending action (export permits), and makes a clear ask, though the Trump comparison is rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, president-elect Trump has made the development of $50 trillion worth of natural resources a top priority, but here in Canada the Liberals are going in the opposite direction. Woodfibre LNG has received the environment minister's approval, but is still waiting for the transport minister to sign its export permits to begin construction. As the U.S. becomes a major energy exporter, Canadian producers need access to Asian markets. Will the minister save the Woodfibre LNG jobs and approve their export permits immediately?
The parliamentary secretary confirmed the project received environmental approval and that the government is collaborating with British Columbia and the proponent to move it forward, noting the company made its investment decision two weeks ago.
Confirms the environmental approval and notes the company's recent investment decision, but does not address the export permit specifically or give any timeline, leaving the core ask unanswered.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change approved the Woodfibre project proceeding under Canada's environmental assessment legislation. We are working, actively, with the Province of British Columbia to see that project moving forward. As the member may know, there was a decision announced by the company to move forward with an investment decision only two weeks ago. We continue to collaborate with British Columbia and with the proponent to move the project forward.
Will the Liberals scrap the carbon tax given its alleged harm to economic competitiveness and Canadian families?
Dominated by partisan rhetoric about the carbon tax harming families and competitiveness; the ask ('scrap the carbon tax') is a vague ideological demand rather than a specific accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was elected by people who understand that Liberal policies, especially the carbon tax, destroy economic opportunities and drive up costs for families in my riding. Carbon taxes diminish our competitiveness, hurt our economy, and negatively impact Canadians who are already struggling to make ends meet. Will the Liberals finally listen to hard-working Canadians and scrap the carbon tax?
The parliamentary secretary attacked the previous Conservative government for inaction on climate change and stated the government plans to transition to a low-carbon economy to create middle-class jobs.
Deflects entirely by attacking the previous Conservative government's record on climate change and referencing the U.S. political context, without addressing the specific concern about the carbon tax's economic impact.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives of the previous government had a Democrat in the White House for almost a decade, and they accomplished nothing to address climate change. Now with a Republican in the White House, they want Canada to continue to do nothing. That is not the approach we plan to take. Canadians voted for a government that would transition to a low-carbon economy to stimulate growth, provide access to new markets, and create good, middle-class jobs. That is exactly what we are going to do.
When will the government confirm its support for the Beauport 2020 project, the Anse au Foulon promenade project, and the Ross Gaudreault cruise terminal, given a prior $60 million Conservative commitment?
Cites a specific dollar commitment ($60 million for Beauport 2020) from a specific prior government, names three specific projects, and asks when the current government will confirm its support.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en juillet 2015, notre gouvernement conservateur s'est engagé à verser 60 millions de dollars dans le projet le projet Beauport 2020 du Port de Québec. Ce projet est trÚs important pour la vitalité économique de Québec. C'est justement pourquoi le maire de ma ville appuie ce projet. Pourtant, depuis son élection, le gouvernement libéral se fait silencieux non seulement en ce qui concerne Beauport 2020, mais aussi eu égard aux projets de la promenade de l'Anse au Foulon et du terminal de croisiÚres Ross Gaudreault. Le premier ministre essaie-t-il de punir les résidants de Québec qui ont voté conservateur? Quand va-t-il confirmer son appui à ces projets d'envergure?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in July 2015, our Conservative government pledged to commit $60 million to the Port of Québec's Beauport 2020 project. This project is very important for the economic vitality of Quebec City. That is precisely why the mayor of my city supports it. However, since coming to power, the Liberal government has said nothing about Beauport 2020, or the Anse au Foulon harbour walkway project and the Ross Gaudreault Cruise Terminal. Is the Prime Minister trying to punish the residents of Quebec City for voting Conservative? When will he confirm his support for these major projects?
The minister said the Port of Quebec is close to his heart as his birthplace and that the government is working on the file, promising to announce something when ready.
The minister offers only a vague assurance that the Port of Quebec is important to him personally and that the government is working on the file, providing no timeline or commitment on any of the three named projects.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le port de Québec me tient à coeur. La ville de Québec est ma ville natale et c'est un port important. Nous sommes en train de travailler sur ce dossier, et quand nous aurons quelque chose à dire, nous le dirons.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Port of Québec is dear to my heart. I was born in Quebec City and its port is important. We are working on this file and when we have something to report, we will do so.
Can the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard update the House on steps being considered to protect the marine environment in Darnley Bay?
A government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to 'update the House' on steps being considered to protect Darnley Bay, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for many years, the people of the lnuvialuit communities, especially Paulatuk, and environmental and conservation organizations have been advocating to protect the sensitive ecosystem in Darnley Bay, in my riding of Northwest Territories. I wonder if the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard might update the House on what concrete steps the government is considering to ensure this beautiful and pristine marine environment is protected for current and future generations?
The minister announced the designation of a new marine protected area in Darnley Bay in the Beaufort Sea following consultations with stakeholders and Inuvialuit partners, bringing the government closer to its 5% goal by next year.
The minister delivers concrete, specific information: the designation of a new marine protected area in Darnley Bay in the Beaufort Sea and links it to the government's 5% marine protection goal by next year.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Northwest Territories not only for that very incisive question, but also for his excellent work on this important issue. I am pleased to inform the House, and my friends are obviously excited as well, that after consultations with stakeholders and our Inuvialuit partners, we have designated a new marine protected area in Darnley Bay, located in the Beaufort Sea. Today, we are taking important steps to provide much-needed protection for sensitive marine habitat. The new marine protected area will take us closer to our 5% goal by next year.
Is the 10-year, $100 million investment to prevent, detect, and combat family violence and child abuse still in place at the Public Health Agency of Canada?
Follows up directly on an unanswered question from the previous day, cites a specific program (10-year, $100 million investment to prevent, detect, and combat family violence and child abuse), and asks a single clear yes/no question about whether it is still in place at the Public Health Agency of Canada.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition reminded this House of the 10-year, $100 million investment our party put in place to prevent, detect, and combat family violence and child abuse, including funding for aboriginal women who are the most vulnerable of victims. She asked the health minister to confirm that this funding has not been cut, but no clear answer was provided. So again, is this funding still in place at the Public Health Agency of Canada?
The minister confirmed the funding is still in place and being used by the Public Health Agency of Canada, and added that she is working with the Minister of Status of Women on a gender-based violence strategy to be introduced in the near future.
The minister directly confirms the funding is still in place and being used by the Public Health Agency of Canada, then adds relevant information about a forthcoming gender-based violence strategy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform this House that in fact this funding is still in place and is being used by the Public Health Agency of Canada. I am also pleased to inform this House that, to expand on that, I am very happy to work with my colleague the Minister of Status of Women on the development of a gender-based violence strategy. We look forward to introducing the details of that in the very near future.
Will the minister make the Sherbrooke airport security screening project a priority at the cabinet table and resolve it once and for all without further delay?
Identifies a specific ongoing issue (security screening at Sherbrooke airport) with a history of delay, and asks whether the minister will champion the project at cabinet and resolve it promptly, though the ask is somewhat compound.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai Ă©tĂ© consternĂ© d'entendre les propos de la ministre et dĂ©putĂ©e de ComptonâStanstead au sujet du dossier de l'aĂ©roport de Sherbrooke qui est encore repoussĂ© Ă plus tard. J'espĂšre que ce n'est pas un autre Ă©pisode de vieilles politiques libĂ©rales selon lesquelles le dossier est prioritaire pendant les Ă©lections, mais que, une fois qu'ils sont Ă©lus, celui-ci retombe au bas de la liste des prioritĂ©s. Les gouvernements se succĂšdent, et Sherbrooke est toujours dans l'attente de voir aboutir ce dossier d'obtention du contrĂŽle de la sĂ©curitĂ© dans son aĂ©roport. Plus d'un an aprĂšs son Ă©lection, est-ce que la ministre va dĂ©fendre en prioritĂ© le projet de l'aĂ©roport Ă la table des ministres et enfin le rĂ©gler une fois pour toutes, et ce, dans les plus brefs dĂ©lais?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I was appalled by what the minister and member for ComptonâStanstead said about the Sherbrooke airport project, which has once again been delayed. I hope this is not yet another example of old Liberal policies, where this file is a priority during the election campaign but as soon as they are elected, it falls to the bottom of the priority list. Successive governments have come and gone, and Sherbrooke is still waiting for this issue to be resolved so it can have the security screening services its airport needs. More than a year following her election, will the minister make it a priority to stand up for this airport project at the cabinet table and finally resolve this issue once and for all, and as quickly as possible?
The minister stated that airports without screening systems, including Sherbrooke, can obtain one but must pay for it themselves, and that this has been the government's long-standing position.
The minister gives a clear policy positionâSherbrooke airport can have a screening system but must pay for it itself, and this applies to all airportsâwhich directly addresses why the project has not been funded, though without acknowledging the delay complaint.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, bien sûr, beaucoup d'aéroports au Canada n'ont pas un systÚme de contrÎle et de sécurité. L'aéroport de Sherbrooke en est un exemple. Nous avons dit clairement que l'aéroport de Sherbrooke pouvait s'équiper d'un tel systÚme, mais que ce serait à ses frais. Cela est disponible pour tous les aéroports qui veulent s'en munir. C'est notre position depuis trÚs longtemps.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, of course many airports in Canada do not have security screening services. The Sherbrooke airport is one example. As we have said very clearly, the Sherbrooke airport can equip itself with such a system, but it must do so at its own expense. This is available to all airports that wish to have such a system. That has been our position for a very long time.
Can the minister update the House on what she is doing to promote and advance mental health services in Canada?
A government-backbench softball asking the minister to update the House on mental health services, with no accountability dimension and a vague open-ended ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during my conversations with Richmond Hill constituents, mental health repeatedly emerges as a pressing issue that our government must tackle. Many of the challenges mentioned included long wait times for appointments and the absence of local community-based services. Can the minister update the House on what she is doing to promote and advance mental health services in Canada?
The minister said she met with provincial and territorial counterparts last month and is working on lasting transformation of mental health services as part of discussions on the new health accord.
The minister provides some relevant contextâshe met with provincial counterparts last month and is working on mental health as part of the new health accordâbut without specific numbers, timelines, or concrete commitments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no Canadian who does not have a friend or family member affected by mental illness. Tous les députés de la Chambre connaissent quelqu'un qui est affecté par des problÚmes de santé mentale. Nous savons tous que nous devons en faire davantage pour rendre plus accessibles les services de santé mentale. J'ai rencontré mes homologues, le mois dernier. As part of our discussions on the new health accord, I am working with the provinces and territories to make lasting transformation so that we can better serve the mental health needs of Canadians.
Can the minister confirm that China is the main source of illegal fentanyl entering Canada, and what has she done to stop it?
References specific committee testimony from the RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency, identifies a specific source country claim, and asks two clear questions: confirmation of China as the main source and what has been done to stop it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are dying every day from illicit fentanyl. We assume that the minister followed health committee testimony ahead of the opioid study that is later this week. We were told by the RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency that almost all of the illicit fentanyl on Canadian streets is coming from one single country. Unless we turn off that tap, these deadly drugs will continue to pour onto our streets and kill Canadians. Can the minister confirm that China is the main source of illegal fentanyl; and what has she done to stop it?
The minister said he, the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Justice have consulted with provincial counterpartsâparticularly Alberta and British Columbiaâand are working on a strategy to address all aspects of the fentanyl problem.
The minister acknowledges fentanyl as a serious problem spanning health, criminal justice, and import dimensions, and mentions consultations with Alberta and British Columbia, but neither confirms nor denies China as the source and provides no specific actions taken.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice, and I have had a series of consultations with our provincial counterparts. The provinces of Alberta and British Columbia are particularly concerned about this issue. It is a health issue. It is also very much a criminal justice issue and an import issue. We are working on a strategy at the moment to address all aspects of this very serious problem. Fentanyl is a scourge upon this country, and we all must work together to make sure we deal with it effectively.
Will the minister immediately end DND shipments of contaminated soil from CFB Esquimalt to the Shawnigan Lake quarry, given downstream carcinogens including toluene, chromium, and aluminum affecting 12,000 residents?
Cites specific contaminants (toluene, chromium, and aluminum), names a specific site (Shawnigan Lake quarry), identifies a specific federal actor (DND using the facility for contaminated soil from CFB Esquimalt), and makes a single clear ask to end shipments immediately.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am following up on a question asked yesterday of the Minister of National Defence by my colleague from CowichanâMalahatâLangford. It is about the Shawnigan Lake quarry, which has been shown to violate its permits. It was approved for contaminated-soil disposal, but downstream, where 12,000 residents of Vancouver Island depend on it for drinking water, there are carcinogens: toluene, chromium, and aluminum. The source, unfortunately, is that DND is using this facility for the disposal of contaminated soil from CFB Esquimalt. Will the minister immediately end shipments of contaminated soil to this quarry?
The parliamentary secretary said Environment and Climate Change Canada has reviewed the situation and found no Fisheries Act violations, and directed pollution concerns to the environmental protection branch of B.C.'s Ministry of Environment, noting provincial responsibility for approving and monitoring waste-management operations.
The parliamentary secretary notes that Environment and Climate Change Canada has conducted a review and is monitoring the situation, and that no Fisheries Act violations have been identified, but deflects primary responsibility to the Province of British Columbia without addressing the DND shipments specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, provincial and territorial governments are responsible for approval, licensing, and monitoring of waste-management operations in this country. The Province of British Columbia issued a permit relating to the establishment of a soil remediation facility in Shawnigan Lake. Environment and Climate Change Canada officials have conducted a review and are monitoring the situation. However, at this time, no potential Fisheries Act violations have been identified. Potential pollution issues and prevention issues related to the issuance of the permit should be directed to the environmental protection branch of B.C.'s Ministry of Environment.