Session overview
- Ethics investigations dominated a significant portion of Question Period, with opposition members pressing the government on the Prime Minister being under multiple active Ethics Commissioner investigations â including one related to riding in a private helicopter â and the government repeatedly deflecting by saying the Prime Minister would answer any questions the commissioner may have.
- Canada-U.S. relations and NAFTA were recurring themes, with the opposition challenging the government to name one economic policy changed since the election of President Trump and pressing for clarity on what Canada put on the table during the Prime Minister's Washington visit, including concerns about softwood lumber, supply management, and dairy market access.
- Taxation and fiscal policy were challenged repeatedly, with opposition members accusing the government of raising taxes and user fees, running out-of-control deficits, and abandoning the 2019 balanced-budget commitment, while the finance minister consistently cited middle-class tax cuts, the Canada child benefit, and 277,300 new jobs since December 2015.
- The closure of the Vegreville immigration case processing centre drew sustained opposition criticism, with the Leader of the Opposition warning of crashing home values and an exodus of students and young people from the community; the minister responded that all full-time employees would have jobs available in Edmonton and that the new location would create more jobs for Alberta.
- National defence issues included calls to restore full danger pay for troops fighting ISIS under Operation Impact, a request to supply Ukraine with defensive weapons as Russian-backed forces escalated conflict in eastern Ukraine, and a controversy over the removal of an honorary colonel who had criticized the government's plan to purchase Super Hornets.
- Health care funding remained unresolved for five provinces including Quebec, the NDP raised the case of veteran Carl Jason Dunphy whose final Facebook post criticized Veterans Affairs before his death, and Elizabeth May pressed for an end to delays in implementing Lindsey's law creating a DNA-based missing persons and victims data bank.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs made specific, concrete commitments in response to the death of veteran Carl Jason Dunphy, citing over 4,000 registered mental health professionals, 11 operational stress injury clinics, 360 front-line staff hired to date, nine offices opened, and expanded health and support care for veterans and their families.
May cites a specific piece of legislation (Lindsey's law, named for Lindsey Nicholls), a concrete personal connection to those affected, a specific delay (an additional year beyond the already-delayed 2017 implementation), and asks a precise yes/no accountability question about whether the minister can stop that delay.
When asked a direct factual question â whether the Prime Minister was advised by the PMO or PCO that taking a private helicopter ride was against the law â Chagger gave no answer whatsoever to the question, repeating only that the Prime Minister would answer the commissioner's questions and that the government would work hard for middle-class Canadians.
Outstanding questions
- Candice Bergen (Exchanges 20 and 21) asked whether anyone in the Prime Minister's Office or the Privy Council Office advised the Prime Minister that riding in a private helicopter was against the law â this received no answer.
- Denis Lebel (Exchanges 10 and 11) asked specifically what Canada put on the table during NAFTA discussions, including whether softwood lumber and supply management were discussed, and received no direct answer about the substance of those negotiations.
- Rona Ambrose (Exchange 2) asked the Prime Minister to name one single economic policy changed since the election of President Trump to protect Canada's economy from Trump's low-tax agenda â no specific policy was named in response.
- Rachael Harder (Exchange 13) asked the finance minister to commit that the registered education savings plan would not be touched in budget 2017 â the minister did not address the registered education savings plan specifically and gave no commitment.
- Tracey Ramsey (Exchange 16) asked whether the minister agrees that investor-state rules should be removed from CETA given that EU member states have made clear they will not accept CETA with those rules â the parliamentary secretary did not address investor-state rules at all in the response.
Ambrose asks whether the Prime Minister will stop raising taxes on businesses so they can compete with Americans who are seeing tax cuts.
The question invokes a general comparison with U.S. tax policy but the ask is vague and compound, mixing spending critique with a broad call to stop raising business taxes without citing specific measures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada has a lot at stake with our relationship with the United States, and Canadians are worried. While the U.S. is lowering taxes, the Prime Minister is raising them in Canada. That is what happens when there is a spending problem. There is nothing left when an emergency happens. Will the Prime Minister stop raising taxes on our businesses so they can compete with the Americans?
Morneau says the government lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians, introduced the Canada child benefit, and notes that keeping a competitive business tax rate remains a continuing focus.
Morneau pivots to middle-class tax cuts and the Canada child benefit rather than addressing business competitiveness relative to the U.S., which was the specific thrust of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our record on taxes is quite clear. We have lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians. It was the very first thing we did. We know that helping middle-class Canadians is critically important to the future of this country. That is why we moved forward with that tax reduction. That is why we moved forward with the Canada child benefit, which helps nine out of 10 families. We also know that keeping a competitive tax rate for business is important, and that is the continuing focus of our government.
Ambrose asks the Prime Minister to name one single economic policy he has changed since the election of President Trump to protect Canada's economy from Trump's low-tax agenda.
The question is reasonably specific in asking for a single concrete economic policy change made in response to President Trump's election, which is a clear and answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is only one thing that is clear about taxes in our country, and that is that they are going up. We know the President says that he wants to tweak NAFTA. We do not know quite what that means yet, but we do know he has plans to lower taxes and cut regulations. My question is simple. Could the Prime Minister name one single economic policy that he has changed since the election of President Trump to protect our economy from Trump's low-tax agenda?
Morneau says that Monday's meeting was important for the Canada-U.S. economic relationship and that Canada expressed willingness to work together to improve trade and create well-paying jobs.
Morneau describes the Monday meeting with the Americans in general terms about trade relationships and jobs but does not name any specific economic policy change, which was precisely what was asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this past Monday was a very important day for Canada and for Canadians. We recognize the importance of our economic relationship with the United States, the importance for jobs, the importance for economic growth on both sides of the border. We expressed to the Americans our willingness to work together in terms of making sure our trade relationship improved over time, so we could help middle-class Canadians and middle-class Americans with good, well-paying jobs for tomorrow, which would be better for both of our economies.
Ambrose notes the Prime Minister promised to borrow only $10 billion a year and balance the budget by 2019, but is now on track not to balance for 30 years, and asks whether he understands that borrowing must be repaid by Canadians.
The question cites the Prime Minister's specific prior commitment of $10 billion annual borrowing and a 2019 balanced budget, contrasting it with the current trajectory, giving it reasonable factual grounding despite a rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is spending a lot more money than he said he would. He promised to borrow only $10 billion a year and to balance the budget by 2019. Now, at the rate he is spending, he will not balance the books for 30 years, and he is raising taxes on Canadians to pay for all of this. Does the Prime Minister understand that all this borrowing has to be paid back by hard-working Canadians?
Morneau says investments are creating jobs, citing 277,300 new jobs since December 2015 and a decline in the unemployment rate from 6.9% to 6.8% in January.
Morneau cites the 277,300 new jobs figure and the January unemployment rate decline as evidence that investments are working, but does not address the deficit trajectory or the broken balanced-budget promise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that in order to create good-paying jobs for middle-class Canadians, we have to have an economy that is working. We know that making investments in our economy is critically important. What we have seen over the last year, since December 2015, is 277,300 new jobs in our economy. In January, we saw our unemployment rate decline from 6.9% to 6.8%. We are making investments in our economy to help middle-class Canadians today and tomorrow.
Ambrose, citing the mayor of Vegreville's warning that the town will become "older, smaller, and poorer," asks why the Prime Minister is attacking rural Canada by closing the immigration centre.
The question grounds itself in the mayor of Vegreville's specific characterization of the closure's impact on the town, but the ask â "why is the Prime Minister attacking rural Canada?" â is rhetorically framed rather than precise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, âolder, smaller, and poorerâ are not my words. They are the words of the mayor of Vegreville about the fate that awaits the town if the Liberals close the immigration centre. He warns of a crash in home values and an exodus of students and young people. It will be a devastating blow to the people and the future of this small community. The mayor said, âThis is exactly the opposite of what the government promised to do for rural Canada in the last electionâ. Why is the Prime Minister attacking rural Canada?
Hussen says the government is working to minimize impacts on staff and their families, that all full-time employees will have their jobs available in Edmonton one hour away, and that the new location will expand immigration services and create more jobs for Alberta.
Hussen acknowledges the impact, notes that all full-time employees will have jobs available in Edmonton, and says the new location will expand immigration services and create more Alberta jobs, engaging the substance though not addressing the broader rural-Canada framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the case processing centre in Vegreville, we understand this change will have an impact on staff and their families, but we are working very hard to make sure we minimize those impacts. That is why all full-time employees in the current case processing centre will have their jobs available to them in Edmonton, which is one hour away. We continue to engage the community. In the new location, not only will we be able to expand our immigration services, we will be able to create more jobs for Alberta.
Ambrose invites the minister to visit Vegreville and face the mayor to explain why he is attacking rural Canadians by closing the centre.
The question largely repeats the previous exchange's substance and reduces to an invitation for the minister to visit Vegreville, making the ask more procedural than substantively new.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would invite the minister to come to Vegreville so he can get a sense of what we are talking about. This is not just an impact on these employees. This is an impact on the entire town of Vegreville. It will crash home values. There will be an exodus of students and young people. It will be a devastating blow to the people and the future of this small rural community. Will he come and visit, face the people of Vegreville, face the mayor, and explain to him why he is attacking rural Canadians?
Hussen states he met with the local union representative and a staff member two days ago, has spoken with the mayor, and reconfirms that all full-time employees will have jobs available in Edmonton and the new location will have more immigration processing and more jobs.
Hussen provides specific new information â that he met with the local union representative and a staff member two days ago and spoke with the mayor â and reiterates the job-availability commitment, directly addressing the call to engage with the community.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I met with the local union representative for Vegreville, as well as a staff member, two days ago. I have spoken with the mayor of Vegreville. I understand this change will have an impact on staff and their families. That is why we are committed to going ahead to make sure we help the community with those impacts, minimize those impacts. I can assure the hon. member that all full-time employees will have their jobs available to them one hour away in Edmonton and the new location will have more immigration processing and more jobs.
Mulcair asks why the Liberal government is turning a blind eye to discriminatory U.S. immigration policies, citing failure to oppose the Muslim ban, refusal to repeal the safe third country agreement, and refusal to raise cases of Canadians turned away at the border.
The question identifies three specific government inactions â not opposing the Muslim ban, not repealing the safe third country agreement, not raising border cases with American counterparts â giving it factual grounding, though the compound framing blunts its precision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the heels of the Prime Minister's visit with Donald Trump, the Liberal government is continuing to deny that American immigration policies have direct impacts on Canada. The Prime Minister refuses to stand up against Trump's Muslim ban. The immigration minister refuses to repeal the safe third country agreement, and the public safety minister refuses to raise cases of Canadians being turned away at the border with his American counterparts. Why is the Liberal government turning a blind eye to these obviously discriminatory and hateful U.S. immigration policies?
Goodale says the characterization is wrong and that he will collect data on Canadians mistreated at the American border and raise the issue with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Goodale denies the characterization and commits to raising cases of mistreatment with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, partially addressing the border-cases claim but ignoring the Muslim ban and safe third country agreement points entirely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is just plainly, flatly wrong. I have indicated over and over again that we will collect the data about Canadians who feel that in some way they have been mistreated at the American border. That issue will be raised with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Mulcair describes visiting Yassine Aber, who was turned away at the U.S. border not for any crime but because his parents are from Morocco, and asks why the Liberal government refuses to denounce this flagrant discrimination.
Mulcair presents a specific individual case â Yassine Aber, turned away at the U.S. border apparently because his parents are from Morocco â as concrete evidence of discriminatory treatment, grounding the question in a verifiable example.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, promises, promises. It is not what they say they will do, it is what they did not do on Monday. Lundi, j'ai rendu visite Ă Yassine Aber, qui a Ă©tĂ© refoulĂ© Ă la frontiĂšre des Ătats-Unis. C'est un jeune homme brillant et aussi un athlĂšte. Il n'a pas Ă©tĂ© refoulĂ© parce qu'il avait commis un crime ou parce qu'il avait fait quelque chose. Non, il a Ă©tĂ© refoulĂ© parce que ses parents sont originaires du Maroc. C'est une vraie honte d'avoir un gouvernement libĂ©ral qui refuse de dĂ©noncer cette discrimination flagrante. Pourquoi les libĂ©raux ne font rien pour contrer...
Hansard translation: Des promesses, monsieur le PrĂ©sident, toujours des promesses. La question n'est pas de savoir ce qu'ils disent vouloir faire, mais plutĂŽt de savoir ce qu'ils n'ont pas fait lundi dernier. On Monday, I visited Yassine Aber, who was turned back at the U.S. border. He is a brilliant young man and also an athlete. He was turned back, but not because he committed a crime or did anything wrong. No, he was turned back because his parents are from Morocco. It is a disgrace to have a Liberal government that refuses to condemn this blatant discrimination. Why are the Liberals doing nothing to addressâ
Goodale says repeating a falsehood does not make it true, notes that Canadians treated unfairly at border crossings have an appeal procedure available, and reaffirms he will raise such cases with the Department of Homeland Security.
Goodale again asserts a falsehood is being repeated, describes the available appeal procedure, and re-states his commitment to raise cases with the Department of Homeland Security, but does not engage with the specific case of Yassine Aber.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, simply repeating a falsehood does not make it any truer. When Canadians are treated unfairly, or feel they have been treated unfairly, at a border crossing, they have an appeal procedure that is available to them. In addition to that, those cases will be raised by me directly with the Department of Homeland Security. We are in the process of arranging a meeting for that purpose right now.
Mulcair states that a U.S. border services document said Aber lacked a valid Canadian passport but that he personally saw Aber's passport valid until 2026, then asks whether the Prime Minister will admit to breaking two different laws given the Ethics Commissioner has opened a second unprecedented investigation.
The question references a specific document from U.S. border services, Mulcair's personal viewing of Aber's valid passport, and the Ethics Commissioner's second investigation into the Prime Minister â grounding it in concrete facts â though it combines two distinct issues.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the document from the U.S. border services said that Yassine Aber did not have a valid Canadian passport. I saw that document. I also saw his passport that is valid until 2026. The Ethics Commissioner has opened another investigation into the Prime Minister's exclusive vacation. lt is the second time, and unprecedented that our Prime Minister is under investigation. Will he now admit to breaking two different laws, and will he finally take responsibility for his actions, or is he going to blame it all on some guy named Joe?
Chagger says the Prime Minister will respond to any questions the commissioner may have and that the government is focused on working for Canadians and delivering on commitments.
Chagger offers only boilerplate â the Prime Minister will answer the commissioner's questions and the government is focused on working for Canadians â with no substantive engagement with either the passport discrepancy or the ethics investigations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as has been said by the Prime Minister time and time again, the Prime Minister will respond to any questions that the commissioner may have. This government is focused on working for Canadians, and responding to the very real challenges that Canadians are facing. We will continue to work hard and deliver on our commitments.
Mulcair notes the Prime Minister is under two separate ethics investigations and asks, rhetorically, what the Liberals would have said if it were Stephen Harper who had broken the law twice.
The question is largely rhetorical, asking what Liberals would have said if Stephen Harper had broken the law twice rather than making a specific factual ask about the ethics investigations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the questions that Canadians are asking are about their Prime Minister who has broken the law again. Ce premier ministre a promis d'amener une nouvelle Ăšre de transparence et d'Ă©thique, or on ne se retrouve pas avec une, mais deux enquĂȘtes distinctes sur le premier ministre lui-mĂȘme. Pour aider les libĂ©raux Ă cesser d'Ăąnonner leurs lignes de presse, essayons autre chose. Qu'est-ce que les libĂ©raux auraient dit si c'Ă©tait Stephen Harper qui avait brisĂ© la loi deux fois plutĂŽt qu'une?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, les questions soulevées par les Canadiens concernent le premier ministre, qui a encore enfreint la loi. The Prime Minister promised to usher in a new era of transparency and ethics, but the Prime Minister himself is now under investigation for not one but two separate incidents. Let us try a different tack to see if we can get the Liberals to stop spouting their talking points. What would the Liberals have said if Stephen Harper had broken the law not once but twice?
Chagger says the Prime Minister will respond to the commissioner's questions and the government will continue to work hard for Canadians and respond to the real challenges they face.
Chagger repeats the same boilerplate in French â the Prime Minister will answer the commissioner's questions and the government works hard for Canadians â with no substantive engagement whatsoever.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme il a été mentionné plusieurs fois, le premier ministre répondra à toutes les questions que la commissaire lui posera. Notre gouvernement et notre premier ministre sont ici pour travailler trÚs fort pour les Canadiens et pour répondre aux vrais défis auxquels ils font face. Nous allons continuer à travailler pour les Canadiens et les Canadiennes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as it has been said many times, the Prime Minister will answer any questions that the commissioner has. Our government and our Prime Minister are here to work hard for Canadians and address the very real challenges that they are facing. We will continue to work for Canadians.
Lebel asks what Canada actually put on the table in negotiations, specifically whether the softwood lumber agreement and supply management were offered up, and what the concrete results of the Washington visit were.
Lebel raises specific negotiating questions â whether softwood lumber and supply management were put on the table â giving the question factual stakes, though it is embedded in considerable partisan rhetoric about the visit's results being "zero."
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous avons eu droit Ă une deuxiĂšme grande messe Ă Washington en moins d'un an. Quels sont les rĂ©sultats de ces beaux voyages? ZĂ©ro. Notre premier ministre avait dit qu'il Ă©tait prĂȘt Ă rouvrir l'ALENA avant qu'on le lui demande. Heureusement, le prĂ©sident Trump, lui, parle seulement d'ajustements. J'espĂšre que ce sera cela. Toutefois, qu'est-ce qu'on a mis sur la table? LĂ , on s'en va nĂ©gocier. J'espĂšre que ce ne seront pas des larmes qui feront en sorte qu'on pourra nĂ©gocier cette fois-ci. Qu'est-ce qu'on mis sur la table? Est-ce que l'accord sur le bois d'oeuvre a Ă©tĂ© mis la table? On entend parler de la gestion de l'offre. Quelle est la vĂ©ritĂ©? Qu'est-ce qu'on a mis sur la table pour nĂ©gocier?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what do we have to show for the second state visit to Washington in less than a year? Nothing. Our Prime Minister said that he was prepared to reopen NAFTA before he was even asked to do so. Fortunately, President Trump is talking in terms of mere tweaks. I hope that is how it will play out. What is actually on the table? The government is going to negotiate. I hope that tears will not play a role in negotiations this time. What did the government put on the table? Did it put the softwood lumber agreement on the table? There has been talk of supply management. What is the truth? What did it put on the table?
Leslie says the Monday meeting was productive, that President Trump assured Canada of an outstanding trade relationship, and that no NAFTA negotiation can formally begin until key U.S. officials are confirmed and the U.S. initiates the process.
Leslie describes the Monday meeting's positive atmosphere and notes that neither the commerce secretary nominee nor the U.S. trade representative has been confirmed and no formal NAFTA negotiation has been initiated, but does not address whether softwood lumber or supply management were put on the table.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government had a productive and important meeting with the President on Monday. Let me remind this House that the President assured Canada and the world that we have a very outstanding trade relationship. As for NAFTA, it is important for us all to take note of the fact that neither Wilbur Ross, the nominee for secretary of commerce, nor the U.S. trade representative have yet to be confirmed; nor has the U.S. formally initiated a NAFTA negotiation process. If and when that happens, Canada will be ready.
Lebel quotes House Speaker Paul Ryan stating that discussions included "improving dairy market access," and asks the parliamentary secretary to confirm what Canada put on the table if he cannot answer himself.
Lebel directly quotes Paul Ryan stating that the meeting discussion included "strengthening NATO and improving dairy market access," using a named source to press the government on what was actually conceded, making the ask specific and grounded.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pourtant, les AmĂ©ricains, eux, ne se gĂȘnent pas pour dire ce qui a Ă©tĂ© discutĂ©. Voici ce que l'influent prĂ©sident de la Chambre des reprĂ©sentants, Paul Ryan, a dit Ă la suite de la rencontre avec la ministre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres: We had a productive conversation about how we can enhance these ties, including by strengthening NATO and improving dairy market access. Paul Ryan said that. If you are unable to answer, parliamentary secretary, Paul Ryan is doing it. What have you put on the table, please?
Leslie reiterates in French that the Monday meeting was important and productive, that the President confirmed an exceptional trade relationship, and that key U.S. officials remain unconfirmed and no formal NAFTA process has begun.
Leslie essentially repeats his previous answer in French â the meeting was productive, the relationship is exceptional, key U.S. officials are unconfirmed â without engaging with the Paul Ryan quote about dairy market access that was the specific basis of the question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme l'a indiquĂ© mon collĂšgue, c'est vrai que notre gouvernement a eu une rencontre trĂšs importante et productive avec le prĂ©sident le lundi. Je rappelle Ă la Chambre que le prĂ©sident a assurĂ© au Canada que nous entretenons des relations commerciales exceptionnelles. Concernant l'ALENA, il est important de noter que ni Wilbur Ross, sĂ©lectionnĂ© pour le secteur du Commerce, ni le reprĂ©sentant des affaires Ă©trangĂšres pour le commerce n'ont Ă©tĂ© confirmĂ©s. Les Ătats-Unis n'ont pas encore entamĂ© le processus de renĂ©gociation de l'ALENA non plus. Si et quand cela se produira...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague pointed out, it is true that our government had a very important and productive meeting with the President on Monday. Let me remind the House that the President assured Canada that we have a very outstanding trade relationship. As for NAFTA, it is important to note that neither Wilbur Ross, the nominee for secretary of commerce, nor the U.S. trade representative have yet been confirmed. The U.S. has not yet initiated a NAFTA renegotiation process either. If and when that happensâ
Albas asks the finance minister to stop wasting Canadians' money and stop raising taxes on those who can least afford it, characterizing Liberal spending as out of control.
The question is largely rhetorical partisan framing â "spending is out of control" â with a vague compound ask to stop wasting money and stop taxing those who can least afford it, lacking specific citations or a single clear question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' spending is out of control. The Liberals' plan will lead to only higher deficits and debt. To pay for all of this, the Liberals are planning to raise taxes and user fees for everyone. They keep claiming to want to help the middle-class. If this is their definition of help, they should stop. Canadians just cannot afford it. Will the finance minister stop wasting Canadians' money, and stop taxing those who can least afford it?
Morneau says the government lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians, that nine out of 10 families receive an average $2,300 more per year through the Canada child benefit, and that the government will continue these efforts.
Morneau cites the middle-class tax cut, the Canada child benefit average of $2,300 more per year for nine out of 10 families, and the monthly improvement in family situations, providing some concrete figures while staying on government talking points.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to fight for middle class families, to improve their lot in life today, to make investments that will help them tomorrow. To be clear, we lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians. To be clear, for the nine out of 10 families who are getting the Canada child benefit, they are getting an average $2,300 more per year. Every month, they are having a better situation for their families, and we are starting to see that across the country. We will continue with these efforts on behalf of Canadian families this year and in the years to come.
Harder asks the finance minister to commit that he will not touch the registered education savings plan in budget 2017, noting the Liberals have already imposed a carbon tax and raised payroll taxes.
Harder calls for a specific commitment â that the finance minister will not touch the registered education savings plan â after citing concrete tax increases (carbon tax, payroll taxes), making this a reasonably focused and answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have already raised taxes on Canadian families. They have imposed a carbon tax, and they have raised payroll taxes. The finance minister says that everything is on the table as they negotiate budget 2017. Today, we call upon the minister to at least commit that he will not attack a family's ability to save for their children's future, their education. Will the finance minister tell us that he will not touch the registered education savings plan?
Morneau says the government will continue to work to improve the situation of Canadians, that the middle-class tax cut gave people more money in their pockets, and that helping families will be the focus of the next budget and budgets to come â without mentioning the registered education savings plan.
Morneau gives a wholly non-responsive answer about helping families and improving their situation through the next budget, without ever addressing the registered education savings plan or making any commitment about it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what we can say to Canadians, and what we have said to Canadians, is that we are going to continue to work to improve their situation. When we reduced taxes on middle class Canadians, we did it knowing they would have more money in their pockets every month. When we gave them more money to raise their children, we knew that would help them with what they really need. That will be our continuing focus on how we can help families. That will be executed through our next budget, and the budgets to come.
Deltell asks whether the minister will finally reassure Canadian seniors that pension income splitting and the age tax credit will not be touched, noting the minister has been evasive on these specific questions for two and a half weeks.
Deltell identifies two specific tax benefits for seniors â pension income splitting and the age tax credit â and notes the minister has been evasive for at least two and a half weeks on these specific items, making the ask clear and grounded.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la meilleure façon de rassurer les Canadiens que le ministre des Finances pourrait trouver, ce serait de leur donner l'heure juste. Malheureusement, chaque fois que nous posons des questions précises sur les avantages fiscaux que les Canadiens ont, le ministre reste constamment évasif. Cela fait au moins deux semaines et demi que nous lui posons des questions sur les aßnés, notamment en ce qui concerne le fractionnement du revenu pour les pensions et les crédits d'impÎt en raison de l'ùge. Or jamais le ministre n'est capable de donner une réponse claire. Est-ce que cette fois-ci, le ministre va pouvoir enfin rassurer nos aßnés canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the best way for the Minister of Finance to reassure Canadians would be to come clean with Canadians. Unfortunately, every time we ask specific questions about tax benefits for Canadians, the minister is always evasive. We have been asking him questions about seniors for at least two and half weeks now, specifically on pension splitting and tax credits for the elderly, and yet the minister can never seem to give us a straight answer. Will the minister finally reassure Canadian seniors this time?
Duclos cites restoring OAS eligibility to age 65 to keep 100,000 seniors out of severe poverty, a roughly 10% increase to the Guaranteed Income Supplement lifting 13,000 seniors out of poverty, and a $200 million investment in seniors' housing.
Duclos responds with specific statistics on OAS eligibility restoration, the Guaranteed Income Supplement increase, and housing investment, but does not address pension income splitting or the age tax credit, the two specific items Deltell raised.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie mon collÚgue de s'intéresser au sort des aßnés. Il y a des statistiques trÚs précises que je suis trÚs heureux de lui fournir. En ramenant l'ùge d'admissibilité à la Sécurité de la vieillesse à 65 ans, nous évitons à 100 000 aßnés de se retrouver en situation de pauvreté sévÚre. En augmentant le Supplément de revenu garanti d'environ 10 %, nous sortons 13 000 aßnés de la pauvreté. En investissant 200 millions de dollars dans le logement pour les aßnés, nous améliorons les conditions de vie d'un grand nombre de familles d'aßnés ainsi que celles des communautés dans lesquelles ils habitent.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for caring about our seniors. I have some very clear statistics here that I am happy to share with him. By dropping the age of eligibility for old age security back to 65, we are keeping 100,000 seniors from living in extreme poverty. By increasing the guaranteed income supplement by about 10%, we are lifting 13,000 seniors out of poverty. By investing $200 million in housing for seniors, we are improving the living conditions of many seniors' families and of the communities in which they live.
Deltell, citing an internal Treasury Board document, asks the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board to commit that the government does not intend to raise taxes or impose new fees on Canadians.
Deltell references a specific internal Treasury Board document that reportedly signals plans to raise taxes, and asks the parliamentary secretary to commit to not raising taxes or imposing new fees â a pointed and reasonably specific ask, though delivered with rhetorical framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il oublie juste un élément: ce sont les petits-enfants de ces aßnés-là qui vont payer pour la mauvaise gestion de ce gouvernement. Lorsqu'on n'est pas capable de contrÎler les dépenses, comme c'est le cas du gouvernement actuel, il y a deux solutions pour régler la crise financiÚre: soit on ressaisit le contrÎle des dépenses publiques, soit, au contraire, on prend plus d'argent dans les poches des gens. Devinons ce que le gouvernement fait: il veut augmenter les taxes des Canadiens. C'est une note interne du Conseil du Trésor qui le dit. Est-ce que le secrétaire parlementaire du président du Conseil du Trésor pourrait se lever et dire qu'il n'a pas l'intention d'augmenter les taxes et les impÎts des Canadiens avec de nouveaux frais?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, he forgets one thing: it is the grandchildren of those seniors who will have to pay for this government's mismanagement. When spending is out of control, as it is under this government, there are two solutions for addressing the financial crisis: either we regain control of public spending, or, instead, we take more money out of people's pockets. Guess what this government is doing. It wants to raise taxes. An internal memo at the Treasury Board says so. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board rise and say that he has no intention of raising taxes for Canadians with new fees?
Morneau says the government reduced taxes on the middle class, will continue to make investments to grow the economy, and that more jobs are better for families and young Canadians â without addressing the Treasury Board document or making the requested commitment.
Morneau, rather than the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board who was specifically asked to respond, answers with a general restatement of middle-class tax cuts and investment for job creation, ignoring both the Treasury Board document and the specific commitment requested.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je l'ai dit, nous avons réduit l'impÎt de la classe moyenne au Canada. C'était trÚs important. Nous allons continuer à faire des investissements pour faire croßtre notre économie. C'est trÚs important pour les emplois, aujourd'hui et à l'avenir. Avec plus d'emplois, c'est mieux pour les familles, ainsi que pour les jeunes qui sont aujourd'hui à l'école et pour leur avenir au Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have lowered taxes for Canada's middle class. That was very important. We will continue to make investments to grow our economy. That is very important for jobs today and in the future. More jobs means a better future for families, for young people who are currently in school, and for Canada.
Does the minister agree that investor-state rules should be removed from CETA, given that EU member states have indicated they will not accept the agreement with those rules?
The question raises specific concerns about investor-state rules and prescription drug costs in CETA and asks a clear yes/no policy question, but mixes in rhetorical framing about EU member states rejecting CETA.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for months, we have been raising questions about provisions in CETA that would harm Canadians, with no reassurances from this minister. The current government has refused to address the increased cost of prescription drugs for Canadians, and ignored calls for the removal of investor-state rules. These controversial rules give foreign companies privileged access to sue our governments in exclusive courts. Trade with Europe is too important to get wrong, and EU member states have made it clear they will not accept CETA with investor-state rules. Does the minister agree that they should be removed?
The Parliamentary Secretary expressed pleasure at the European Parliament vote and the House vote on CETA, and listed general benefits such as job creation and middle-class prosperity, without addressing investor-state rules.
The Parliamentary Secretary celebrates the European Parliament vote and touts CETA's general benefits without addressing the specific question about whether investor-state rules should be removed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased with the vote in the European parliament today, and very pleased with the vote on CETA in this House yesterday. The minister is in Strasbourg meeting with our European counterparts. The Prime Minister will be there tomorrow to deliver an address on the importance of the CanadaâEU relationship. CETA is the most progressive trade agreement ever signed by Canada and the EU. It will create tens of thousands of jobs. It will create greater prosperity for Canadians. It will help grow the middle class. Today is a very good day.
Given the entry of 17,700 tonnes of fine cheeses under CETA and completely insufficient compensation, will the Liberal government sacrifice the supply management system, yes or no?
The question identifies a specific concern â 17,700 tonnes of fine cheeses entering Canada and insufficient compensation â and asks a direct yes/no question about whether the government would sacrifice supply management.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pour ce qui est de la protection de notre systÚme de gestion de l'offre, nous n'avons eu aucun message clair et rassurant de la part du premier ministre, lors de son voyage à Washington et de son départ vers l'Europe. Pire encore, plusieurs signes nous laissent croire qu'il y aura des brÚches supplémentaires dans notre systÚme de gestion de l'offre. Avec l'entrée de 17 700 tonnes de fromages fins au Canada et des compensations complÚtement insuffisantes, est-ce que nous devons comprendre que le gouvernement libéral sacrifierait notre systÚme de gestion de l'offre, oui ou non ?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to protecting supply management, there was no clear and reassuring message from the Prime Minister on his trip to Washington or when he left for Europe. What is worse, there are several indications that there will be more hits to our supply management system. With 17,700 tonnes of fine cheeses entering Canada and ridiculously inadequate compensation, are we to understand that the Liberal government will be sacrificing our supply management system, yes or no?
The Parliamentary Secretary cited a $350 million investment to help dairy producers and cheese makers modernize and improve competitiveness in response to increased cheese imports from the EU under the agreement.
The Parliamentary Secretary references the $350 million investment for dairy producers and processors to adapt to CETA cheese imports, which is partially relevant, but does not directly answer whether supply management would be sacrificed.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous sommes fiers d'avoir investi 350 millions de dollars pour aider les producteurs laitiers et nos artisans fromagers à se moderniser et à améliorer leur compétitivité à long terme. Ces programmes aideront les producteurs et les transformateurs laitiers à s'adapter à l'augmentation des importations de fromage en provenance de l'Union européenne, dans le cadre de l'accord. Des programmes ont été développés à la suite des commentaires entendus pendant les consultations auprÚs du secteur laitier. Ils visent à investir stratégiquement dans l'industrie laitiÚre et à rendre plus efficace la productivité concurrentielle dans le cadre du systÚme de gestion de l'offre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are proud to invest $350 million in assistance for dairy producers and artisanal cheese makers to modernize and improve their long-term competitiveness. These programs will help dairy producers and processors adapt to the increase in cheese imports from the European Union under the agreement. As a result of comments made during consultations of the dairy sector, programs were developed to make strategic investments in the dairy industry and increase the efficiency of our competitive productivity under the supply management system.
When will the Prime Minister admit that he broke the law and answer Canadians' questions about his unethical behaviour, given that he is under multiple active ethics investigations?
The question is predominantly rhetorical, asserting the Prime Minister is above the law and has zero respect for ethics, with no specific facts or documents cited and a vague compound ask about admitting to breaking the law.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in the history of our country a sitting prime minister is under multiple active ethics investigations. This Prime Minister has zero respect for ethics and ethical standards. This Prime Minister believes he is above regular, everyday, law-abiding Canadians, and that the rules simply do not apply to him. When will the Prime Minister admit that he broke the law, and finally answer Canadians' questions about his unethical behaviour?
The Leader of the Government stated that the Prime Minister will answer any questions the commissioner may have, then pivoted to middle-class tax cuts and the Canada child benefit.
The answer deflects to middle-class tax cuts and the Canada child benefit without addressing the ethics investigations or the specific ask about the Prime Minister admitting wrongdoing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as has been said time and time again, the Prime Minister will answer any questions that the commissioner may have. What has also been stated many times, and what we will continue to do is work hard for middle-class Canadians to respond to the very real challenges that they are facing. We will continue on the plan and the mandate Canadians have given us. That is why we lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians. That is why we introduced the Canada child benefit to help families with children who need it the most. We will continue to invest in Canadians and Canadian communities to help grow the economy.
Can the Prime Minister stop hiding behind talking points and explain to Canadians, here in the House, why he believes he is above the law?
The question is largely rhetorical, characterizing the Prime Minister as believing he is above the law and holding two discourses, with no specific facts cited and an implicit rather than precisely formulated ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, un premier ministre intÚgre et transparent fait ce qu'il dit et dit ce qu'il fait. Or nous avons la démonstration d'un premier ministre qui se croit au-dessus des lois, qui agit sans penser et qui tient deux discours lorsque vient le temps de justifier sa conduite auprÚs des Canadiens. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut cesser de se cacher derriÚre ses points de discussion, cesser de prétendre qu'il répond à toutes les questions de la commissaire à l'éthique et finalement expliquer aux Canadiens, ici à la Chambre, pourquoi il se croit au-dessus des lois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, an honest and transparent Prime Minister does what he says and says what he does. However, we have proof that this Prime Minister thinks he is above the law, acts without thinking, and speaks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes time to justify his behaviour to Canadians. Will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind his talking points, stop pretending that he will answer all of the Ethics Commissioner's questions, and finally explain to Canadians here in the House why he thinks he is above the law?
The Leader of the Government repeated that the government is working hard for the middle class and has reduced taxes, without engaging with the ethics question.
The answer is boilerplate, reiterating work for the middle class and tax cuts without any connection to the ethics question or the Prime Minister explaining his conduct to Canadians in the House.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre a dit que nous allions travailler trÚs fort pour la classe moyenne et les Canadiens, et c'est ce que nous faisons. C'est pourquoi nous avons réduit les impÎts pour la classe moyenne. C'est pourquoi nous travaillons avec les Canadiens, dont les familles avec enfants qui sont le plus dans le besoin, et nous allons continuer à travailler trÚs fort pour les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that we are going to work hard for the middle class and Canadians, and that is what we are doing. That is why we lowered taxes for the middle class and that is why we are working with Canadians, including the families with children who are most in need. We are going to continue working hard for Canadians.
Did anyone in the Prime Minister's Office ever advise the Prime Minister that riding in a private helicopter was against the law?
The question is specific, citing the Prime Minister's own platform commitment to direct accountability, and asks a single, clear, factual yes/no question about whether anyone in the Prime Minister's Office advised him that riding in a private helicopter was against the law.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know the Prime Minister will be forced to answer the Ethics Commissioner's questions, because that is what happens when one is under investigation by the Ethics Commissioner. However, the Prime Minister needs to answer Canadians. His own platform said, âAs the head of of government, the Prime Minister represents all Canadians and should be directly accountable to all Canadians.â I am going to give him a chance to answer a simple question. Did anyone in the Prime Minister's Office ever advise him that it was against the law to get in that helicopter, and that riding in a private helicopter was against the law?
The Leader of the Government said the government is responding to the real challenges Canadians are facing and will work closely with provinces, territories, and municipalities, without addressing the question about PMO advice.
The answer completely ignores the specific yes/no question about PMO advice on the helicopter and offers only generic boilerplate about working for Canadians and investing in communities.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and this government are responding to the very real challenges that Canadians are facing. That is why our government is working hard for all Canadians. We will continue to work closely with provinces, territories, and municipalities so we can help make investments and create the growth Canadians need. We will continue to do the good work they expect us to do.
Did anyone in the PMO or PCO advise the Prime Minister that taking a ride in the private helicopter was against the law?
The question is pointed and specific, asking whether anyone in the PMO or PCO advised the Prime Minister that taking a ride in the private helicopter was against the law, framed around a clear accountability distinction between ignorance and deliberate disregard.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians need to know if their Prime Minister did not know the law or if he knew the law and chose to ignore it. Again, I ask the Prime Minister, did anyone in his office, the PMO or PCO, advise the Prime Minister that taking a ride in this helicopter, a private helicopter, was against the law? Was he advised that it was wrong?
The Leader of the Government stated the Prime Minister will answer any questions the commissioner has and pivoted to working hard for middle-class Canadians, without addressing the PMO or PCO advice question.
The answer again deflects entirely to the Prime Minister answering the commissioner's questions and generic middle-class work, with no engagement whatsoever with the specific question about PMO or PCO advice.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as has been said time and time again, the Prime Minister will answer any questions the commissioner has. What the Prime Minister and this government will also continue to do is to work hard for Canadians, work hard for middle-class Canadians to respond to the very real challenges they are facing. We will continue to work closely and better with the provinces, territories, and municipalities. We will continue to make the investments to work harder for all Canadians so that we can strengthen our country and do the good work they need us to do.
When will the government negotiate a new national health accord for all Canadians, given that 90% of Canadians remain without one and the Prime Minister's Office has expressed a high tolerance for failure on a pan-Canadian agreement?
The question cites a specific quote attributed to the Prime Minister's Office about a "high tolerance for failure," notes that 90% of Canadians remain without a national health accord 18 months after the election, and asks a clear policy question, though the ask is broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after the last election there was hope that we would see a renewed collaborative approach to health care funding, but 18 months later, all we have seen is a divide and conquer tactic from the Liberal government, and 90% of Canadians remain with no national health accord. Shockingly, the Prime Minister's Office says it is okay with this and that it has a âhigh tolerance for failureâ for a pan-Canadian agreement. When it comes to health care, Canadians do not have a high degree of tolerance for failure. When will we see a new national health accord for all Canadians?
The Minister of Health cited a collaborative relationship with other health ministers, shared priorities identified through consultation, and an offer to invest $11.5 billion including $5 billion for mental health care, along with annual increases to the Canada health transfer.
The Minister references the $11.5 billion offer including $5 billion for mental health care and annual increases to the Canada health transfer, which is substantively relevant, but does not directly address the national health accord or the "high tolerance for failure" quote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House and talk about the collaborative relationship that I have had with the other health ministers. We agreed a year ago on what the priorities should be and how they would like to see money invested. On that basis, we were able to go to them and say we will increase the Canada health transfer every single year. In addition to that, we will act on those shared priorities that the other health ministers identified. We were able to go to them with an offer to invest $11.5 billion, including an unprecedented investment of $5 billion for mental health care to expand access to mentalâ
Will the government finally listen to the provinces and conclude a long-term health agreement that allows them to provide citizens with the services they need, given that five provinces including Quebec still have no agreement?
The question identifies that five provinces including Quebec have no agreement, characterizes the government's offer as inadequate, and asks whether the government will conclude a long-term agreement, but relies partly on rhetorical framing about broken promises and a divide-and-conquer tactic.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce gouvernement brise encore une promesse, soit celle de nĂ©gocier avec les provinces une entente Ă long terme en matiĂšre de santĂ©. Cinq provinces, dont le QuĂ©bec, n'ont toujours pas d'entente. Le gouvernement avait promis d'ĂȘtre un partenaire des provinces, mais nous constatons qu'il prĂ©fĂšre une tactique de division. L'offre sur la table est inadĂ©quate et ne permettra pas aux provinces de maintenir les services actuels. Le gouvernement peut-il enfin entendre les provinces et conclure une entente Ă long terme leur permettant de fournir aux citoyens les services dont ils ont besoin?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government is breaking yet another promise. It promised to negotiate a long-term health care agreement with the provinces. Five provinces, including Quebec, are still without an agreement. The government promised to treat the provinces as partners, but apparently it would rather divide and conquer. The offer on the table is not good enough; it will not enable the provinces to maintain current service levels. Will the government finally listen to the provinces and negotiate a long-term agreement that will enable them to provide people with the services they need?
The Minister of Health cited an unprecedented $11 billion investment for home care and mental health, along with annual increases to health transfers, as evidence of a collaborative approach responding to Canadians' needs.
The Minister of Health cites the $11 billion investment for home care and mental health and annual health transfer increases, which are relevant, but does not address the specific concern about five provinces lacking an agreement or the adequacy of the offer.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je peux dire que j'ai eu de trÚs bonnes discussions avec mes homologues partout au pays. Nous avons discuté des priorités des Canadiens et des besoins des Canadiens en matiÚre d'accÚs aux soins en santé mentale et aux soins à domicile. C'est pourquoi nous avons offert un investissement jamais vu au pays, soit 11 milliards de dollars pour les soins à domicile et la santé mentale; en plus, nous allons augmenter les transferts en matiÚre de santé chaque année, et cela est bon pour les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have had very good discussions with my counterparts across the country. We talked about Canadians' priorities and their needs in terms of access to mental health care and home care. That is why we put forward an unprecedented investment: $11 billion for home care and mental health. We will also increase health transfers every year, and that is good for Canadians.
What is the government doing to support youth in agriculture across Canada?
This is a government-backbench softball question that uses Canada's Agriculture Day as a pretext to invite the Parliamentary Secretary to tout government programs for youth in agriculture, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Canada's Agriculture Day this week, there is no better time to reflect on the importance of youth in agriculture. Whether it is helping youth obtain the skills, support, and education they need for a bright future in agriculture, or obtaining the ideas for the future of our family farms and rural communities, our government understands just how important their voice is. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food please inform the House on what he is doing to support youth in agriculture across this country?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en tant que pĂšre d'un jeune producteur, j'assure Ă mes collĂšgues que nous savons que l'avenir de l'agriculture canadienne passe par notre relĂšve agricole. Le ministre a rencontrĂ© des jeunes passionnĂ©s d'agriculture de partout au pays dans le cadre de tables rondes et d'Ă©vĂ©nements Facebook Live. Nous sommes impatients de continuer Ă les Ă©couter au sujet de notre prochain cadre stratĂ©gique agricole. RĂ©cemment, nous avons investi 780 000 $ dans les 4-H du Canada et nous avons doublĂ© la limite de prĂȘts aux jeunes agriculteurs. Nous allons continuer d'aider nos jeunes Ă acquĂ©rir les compĂ©tences et Ă obtenir les appuis dont ils ont besoin pour faire progresser l'agriculture canadienne...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as the father of a young farmer, I can assure my colleagues that we realize that the future of Canadian agriculture depends on the next generation of farmers. The minister met with passionate young farmers from across the country through round table discussions and Facebook live events. We will eagerly continue to listen to them as we develop our new agricultural policy framework. We recently invested $780,000 in 4-H Canada, and we doubled the limits for loans available to young farmers. We will continue to help our young people get the skills and support they need to move Canadian agriculture forwardâ
The Parliamentary Secretary cited a $780,000 investment in 4-H Canada, doubled loan limits for young farmers, ministerial roundtables with young people, and Facebook Live events as part of consultations for the next agricultural policy framework.
The Parliamentary Secretary provides concrete details including a $780,000 investment in 4-H Canada, doubling the loan limit for young farmers, and minister roundtables with young farmers, offering genuine program information.
Why are the Liberals sitting on their hands as the Russian-backed war in eastern Ukraine intensifies, with 170 vehicles with munitions and 60 with fuel reportedly crossing from Russia, while Ukraine requests extension of Operation Unifier and supply of anti-tank and other defensive weapons?
The question cites specific recent intelligence figures â 170 vehicles with munitions and 60 with fuel crossing from Russia â and asks a pointed question about extending Operation Unifier and supplying defensive weapons, though "sitting on their hands" is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the deadly surge in the Russian-backed war in eastern Ukraine continues and shows signs of intensifying. Officials in Kiev say that in recent days, at least 170 vehicles with munitions and 60 more with fuel crossed from Russia. As the Government of Ukraine waits anxiously for the Liberals to extend Operation Unifier, senior ministers are now asking that Canada supply anti-tank and other defensive weapons to counter the Russian-sponsored offensive. Why are the Liberals sitting on their hands?
The Parliamentary Secretary said the government strongly condemns the Russian-backed separatist forces, that the minister has spoken with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin and Secretary of State Tillerson, and that both defence and foreign ministers are evaluating how best to help Ukraine including through Operation Unifier.
The Parliamentary Secretary confirms recent ministerial contacts including with Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin and Secretary of State Tillerson, and notes that the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Foreign Affairs are evaluating options including through Operation Unifier, but does not address the specific request for defensive weapons.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is aware of the situation. It is very concerning to us, and certainly we strongly condemn the actions of the Russian-backed separatist forces in Ukraine. The minister is in close contact with the ambassador in Kiev and recently spoke with the Ukrainian foreign minister, Pavlo Klimkin. The minister also discussed the situation in Ukraine with Secretary of State Tillerson and Senator John McCain in Washington. Both the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are currently evaluating how best to help our friend and ally, Ukraine, including through Operation Unifier.
Why are the Liberals ignoring Ukraine's request for defensive weapons systems similar to those being supplied to Kurdish forces in Iraq â including long-range sniper rifles, mortar, anti-tank weapons, and night vision devices â as Russia escalates the conflict?
The question is specific and factually grounded, citing Canada's decision to supply Kurdish forces in Iraq with long-range sniper rifles, mortar, anti-tank weapons, and night vision devices, and asks why similar defensive weapons are not being provided to Ukraine.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week we learned that Canada will be supplying Kurdish forces in Iraq with long-range sniper rifles, with mortar, with anti-tank weapons, with night vision devices, along with non-lethal aid. Why are the Liberals ignoring Ukraine's request for similar defensive weapons systems and expanded training as Russia escalates the conflict?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence described equipment being provided to Iraqi security forces, including light arms, personal protective equipment, and optical equipment, with delivery dates to be determined with the Iraqi government, without addressing Ukraine at all.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence answers about equipment being provided to Iraqi security forces under the Iraq strategy, entirely failing to address the contrast with Ukraine or the question of why Ukraine is not receiving similar defensive weapons.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous demeurons en étroite collaboration avec les autorités irakiennes pour la mise en oeuvre de notre stratégie, réalisée avec le consentement du gouvernement irakien, et en consultation avec nos partenaires de la coalition. Le Canada fournira de l'équipement tel que des armes légÚres, de l'équipement de protection personnelle ainsi que de l'équipement optique pour venir en aide aux Forces de sécurité irakiennes. Ce travail est présentement en cours de réalisation. Les dates exactes de livraison seront déterminées conjointement avec le gouvernement irakien et dépendront de la disponibilité de l'équipement sélectionné.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we continue to work in close co-operation with Iraqi authorities to implement our strategy, which was developed with the Iraqi government's consent and in consultation with our coalition partners. Canada will supply equipment such as small arms, personal protective equipment, and optical equipment to assist Iraqi security forces. This work is currently under way. The exact delivery dates will be determined in conjunction with the Iraqi government and will depend on the availability of the equipment selected.
Will the Liberals restore full danger pay to troops and their families deployed against ISIS, given that they admitted the mission is more dangerous after pulling the CF-18s, and given that the previous government maintained full benefits for troops in Afghanistan?
The question raises a specific allegation that the Liberals cut danger pay for troops fighting ISIS and draws a direct contrast with the previous government's practice of maintaining full benefits during Afghanistan, making a clear accountability ask to restore full danger pay.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Ukraine needs actual weapons, not platitudes. The Liberals are doubling down and cutting danger pay for our troops who are in the fight against ISIS, which is causing additional stress to their families at home. This is the same government which admitted that the mission was getting more dangerous after it pulled our CF-18s from the fight. When our party was in government, we instructed the military to continue to provide full benefits to our troops who were in Afghanistan. Will the Liberals finally do the right thing and restore full danger pay to our troops and their families?
The Parliamentary Secretary stated that all Canadian Armed Forces members deployed abroad are entitled to a risk allowance reflecting conditions and risks in their specific location, and that risk levels including for Operation Impact are constantly reviewed to ensure appropriate compensation.
The Parliamentary Secretary acknowledges that risk allowances reflect conditions and risks in specific mission locations and are constantly reviewed, which partially engages the question, but does not confirm or deny whether danger pay was reduced or commit to restoring it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are going to ensure our men and women in uniform are compensated for the outstanding work they do in operations. All Canadian Armed Forces members deployed abroad are entitled to a risk allowance that reflects the conditions and risks that they are exposed to in the specific location of their mission. The risk levels of our operations, including Operation Impact, are constantly reviewed to ensure members of the Canadian Armed Forces are appropriately compensated.
Was a veteran of more than 30 years stripped of his honorary colonel function for criticizing the Liberal government's decision to buy the Super Hornets, and what treatment can critics of the government expect?
After a procedural interruption and restart, the question raises a specific allegation that a veteran of more than 30 years was stripped of his honorary colonel function for criticizing the government's decision to buy the Super Hornets, and asks what treatment critics can expect, but the question was cut off before completion.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les libéraux sont les gens les plus jaunes et les plus crasses qu'on trouve dans ce bas monde. Ils sont tellement courageux qu'ils bùillonnent à vie ceux qui sont contre leurs magouilles. Ils retirent la fonction de colonel honoraire à quelqu'un qui est vétéran depuis plus de 30 ans, car il critiquait une décision stupide...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are the most cowardly and crass people there are in this world. They are so fearless that they put lifetime gag orders on those who oppose their schemes. They are stripping a veteran of more than 30 years of his title of honorary colonel for criticizing a stupid decisionâ
Monsieur le Président, je vais essayer de faire cela de façon plus polie. Les libéraux ne sont pas trÚs gentils. Est-ce que c'est poli? Ils sont tellement courageux qu'ils bùillonnent à vie ceux qui sont au courant de leurs magouilles; ils retirent sa fonction de colonel honoraire à quelqu'un qui est vétéran depuis plus de 30 ans, car il critiquait la décision stupide des libéraux d'acheter les Super Hornet désuets. Considérant tout cela, quel sera le traitement accordé à ceux qui font...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be more polite. The Liberals are not very nice. Is that more polite? They are so fearless that they put lifetime gag orders on those who oppose their schemes. They are stripping a veteran of more than 30 years of his title of honorary colonel for criticizing the Liberals' stupid decision to buy the outdated Super Hornets. In light of all that, how are they going to treat those whoâ
The Parliamentary Secretary described the important role of honorary colonels in providing leadership, mentorship, and esprit de corps, and noted that as representatives of the Department of National Defence they must refrain from advocating political interests like any other member of the military.
The Parliamentary Secretary explains the role of honorary colonels and states they must refrain from advocating political interests as representatives of the Department of National Defence, which is partially relevant but does not address whether the specific individual was punished for legitimate criticism.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les colonels honoraires font partie intĂ©grante de la famille des Forces armĂ©es canadiennes. Leur rĂŽle est essentiel, car ils fournissent un leadership, et du mentorat, et ils favorisent l'esprit de corps dans les unitĂ©s partout au pays. Au sein de la collectivitĂ© locale, ils mettent Ă profit leur expĂ©rience et leur expertise pour promouvoir et appuyer l'unitĂ©, ses militaires et leur famille. Ă titre de reprĂ©sentants du ministĂšre de la DĂ©fense nationale, comme tout autre militaire, les colonels honoraires doivent s'abstenir de dĂ©fendre des intĂ©rĂȘts politiques.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, honorary colonels are an integral part of the Canadian Armed Forces family. Their role is essential, as they provide leadership, mentoring, and promote esprit de corps in units across the country. Within the local community, they use their experience and expertise to promote and support the unit, its soldiers, and their families. As representatives of the Department of National Defence, like any other soldier, honorary colonels must refrain from defending political interests.
Can the minister stop making hollow declarations and take concrete steps to accelerate the implementation of the Lac-MĂ©gantic bypass, given that more than three years after the tragedy two out of three citizens show post-traumatic stress symptoms?
The question references the federal government's promise to accelerate the Lac-MĂ©gantic bypass, notes that more than three years have passed since the tragedy, and cites a specific statistic that two out of three citizens show signs of post-traumatic stress, making a clear ask for concrete action.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement fédéral a promis d'accélérer la mise en place de la voie de contournement à Lac-Mégantic. Malheureusement, on ne sait plus vraiment ce que veut dire une promesse libérale. Pendant ce temps, plus de trois ans aprÚs le drame, deux citoyens sur trois présentent des manifestations liées à un choc post-traumatique. Il est donc grandement temps que le gouvernement passe de la parole aux actes. Ma question est fort simple. Le ministre peut-il cesser ses déclarations creuses et poser des gestes concrets pour accélérer la mise en place de la voie de contournement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the federal government promised to expedite the construction of a rail bypass in Lac-MĂ©gantic. Unfortunately, we no longer know whether a Liberal promise means anything. Meanwhile, over three years after the tragedy, two out of three residents still show signs of post-traumatic stress. It is high time that the government put words into action. My question is very simple. Will the minister stop with the empty rhetoric and take real steps to expedite the construction of a rail bypass?
The Minister of Transport stated he has been tasked with accelerating the process and is conducting discussions with the province of Quebec, the mayor of Lac-MĂ©gantic, and AECOM, the company responsible for the bypass study, to determine how to accelerate the study.
The Minister of Transport specifies that he has been tasked with accelerating the process and is conducting discussions with the province of Quebec, the mayor of Lac-MĂ©gantic, and the company AECOM responsible for the bypass study, which is substantively responsive though without specific timelines.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on m'a confié la tùche d'accélérer le processus. C'est pourquoi nous entamons des discussions avec la province de Québec, qui est certainement impliquée dans cette discussion, ainsi qu'avec le maire de Lac-Mégantic et la compagnie AECOM, responsable de l'étude sur la voie de contournement. On réalise qu'il est important d'accélérer l'étude et nous travaillons en équipe pour déterminer comment nous allons le faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have been tasked with expediting the process. That is why we are holding discussions with the Province of Quebec, which of course is involved, the mayor of Lac-MĂ©gantic, and AECOM, the company commissioned to do the rail bypass study. We know it is important to expedite the process, and we are working as a team to figure out how to do that.
What will the minister do to prevent similar tragedies, and will there be an internal follow-up within Veterans Affairs, following the death of Carl Jason Dunphy, a veteran who served three missions in Afghanistan and left a Facebook message criticizing the department?
The question cites a specific Facebook message left by a deceased veteran named Carl Jason Dunphy, a former artilleryman who served three missions in Afghanistan, criticizing Veterans Affairs, and asks what the minister will do to prevent such situations and whether there will be an internal follow-up within the department.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les communautĂ©s du Madawaska et du TĂ©miscouata sont sous le choc du dĂ©cĂšs tragique de Carl Jason Dunphy. Cet ancien artilleur dans les Forces canadiennes a vaillamment servi son pays lors de trois missions en Afghanistan. Je tiens Ă prĂ©senter mes sincĂšres condolĂ©ances Ă sa famille et Ă ses proches. Quelques heures avant son dĂ©cĂšs, il a laissĂ© le message suivant sur sa page Facebook au sujet du ministĂšre des Anciens Combattants: « Ăa gruge continuellement mes ressources et mes forces. Ce nâest pas aux amis ni aux conjointes dâĂ©coper parce quâun organisme nâagit pas ». Que fera le ministre pour Ă©viter qu'une telle situation se reproduise? Un suivi sera-t-il fait Ă l'interne au sein du ministĂšre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the communities of Madawaska and TĂ©miscouata are reeling from the tragic death of Carl Jason Dunphy. This former Canadian Armed Forces artilleryman valiantly served his country during three tours in Afghanistan. I want to offer my sincere condolences to his family and friends. Just a few hours before he died, he posted the following message about Veterans Affairs Canada on his Facebook page: âItâs eating away at my resources and my strength. Itâs not up to friends and spouses to deal with this because a government organization doesnât actâ. What will the minister do to prevent this kind of thing from happening again? Will the department follow up internally?
The Minister of Veterans Affairs expressed condolences, said suicide prevention always requires doing better, and cited over 4,000 registered mental health professionals, 11 operational stress injury clinics, 360 front-line staff hired to date, nine new offices opened, and expanded health and support care as government commitments.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs expresses condolences and provides specific details â over 4,000 registered mental health professionals, 11 operational stress injury clinics, 360 front-line staff hired, and nine new offices opened â that partially address the question, but does not commit to an internal review of the specific case or a systemic follow-up as asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our thoughts are with the family and friends and those impacted by this tragedy. It is deeply saddening to hear of anyone taking his or her own life. When it comes to suicide prevention, we always need to do better. Our government is committed to expanding access to support for veterans, RCMP, and their families. That is why we are working with over 4,000 registered mental health professionals, operating 11 operational stress injury clinics, and have been hiring front-line staff, 360 to date, to work with individuals. We have also opened nine offices and are expanding health and support care.
Clement cites nearly 100 illegal border crossings including 40 in Quebec that weekend, notes Emerson, Manitoba is requesting more RCMP resources, and asks when the community can expect help to enforce the law.
The question cites specific numbers (nearly 100 asylum seekers, 40 in Quebec that weekend), names a specific community (Emerson, Manitoba), and asks a concrete, answerable question about when additional RCMP resources will arrive.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, nearly 100 asylum seekers have illegally crossed the U.S. border into Canada, including 40 in Quebec this past weekend alone. While the government is in idle, border towns like Emerson, Manitoba, plead for government assistance as their resources are taxed by the influx and people keep pouring in. Communities like Emerson are requesting more RCMP resources right now. When can the community expect help to enforce the law and maintain security?
Goodale says the RCMP and CBSA are professional and well trained, are making internal resource allocation decisions, and will let the government know if they need more support.
The minister speaks generally about RCMP and CBSA professionalism and internal resource allocation but does not address the timeline or specific request from Emerson, and the closing conditional ("if they require additional support... I am sure they will let us know") avoids any commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. gentleman knows, the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency are very professional and proficient at what they do. They have been working very hard to deal with this situation right from the very beginning. They are well trained. They are making internal decisions with respect to the allocation of resources to make sure that they have the right people in the right places to do the job to protect Canadians and to make sure of the health and safety of those who are travelling. If they require additional support or resources, I am sure they will let us know.
Nicholson states there are judicial vacancies across the country and over 800 criminal cases including murder and manslaughter cases are in jeopardy, and asks what it will take to make judicial appointments a priority.
The question cites a concrete consequence (over 800 criminal cases in jeopardy, including attempted murder and murder cases) and asks a specific accountability question about judicial appointments being made a priority, though it lacks a precise vacancy number or document citation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, under our Conservative government, we always made judicial appointments a priority. The Liberals have been in office for over a year, and there are now judicial vacancies everywhere in this country. As a result, there are more than 800 criminal cases that are in jeopardy. These are cases that include attempted murder, manslaughter, and murder. This is exactly the kind of thing that destroys people's confidence in the criminal justice system. What will it take to get the government to make judicial appointments a priority?
Wilson-Raybould says she is pleased to have introduced a reconstituted judicial appointments process and reconstituted judicial advisory committees to ensure diversity, and looks forward to making appointments across the country.
Wilson-Raybould discusses the reconstituted judicial appointments process and committees but does not address the 800 cases in jeopardy or give any timeline or numbers for upcoming appointments, deflecting toward process rather than the specific accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to talk about the judicial appointments we have made and to further emphasize and look forward to the judicial appointments we will continue to make. I am pleased to have introduced a reconstituted judicial appointments process and reconstituted judicial advisory committees to ensure that there is a diversity of individuals on those committees and that the appointments of judges will reflect the diversity and face of our country. I look forward to making judicial appointments right across the country in our superior courts.
Boucher states the minister committed last fall to filling 60 vacant judgeships to reduce court delays, only 24 have been filled, and serious trials including homicides and sexual assaults are being aborted; she asks when the minister will honour her promise.
Boucher holds the minister to a specific prior public commitment (to fill 60 vacant judicial positions), cites a specific number of appointments actually made (24), and names serious case types (homicides, viols) being lost as a result.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la ministre de la Justice s'était engagée l'automne dernier à pourvoir les 60 postes de juge vacants au pays, afin de faire réduire les délais dans les cours devenus totalement démesurés. Depuis, seulement 24 postes ont été pourvus, ce qui est nettement insuffisant et qui fait en sorte que plusieurs procÚs avortent, dont des cas aussi graves que des homicides ou des viols. Quand la ministre de la Justice va-t-elle enfin honorer sa promesse et tenir compte des victimes et de leurs familles et les respecter?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, last fall the Minister of Justice pledged to fill 60 judicial vacancies in Canada in order to address the issue of inordinate court delays. Since then, only 24 positions have been filled, which is clearly not enough and has led to trials being dropped, including trials involving such serious offences as murder and rape. When will the Minister of Justice finally keep her promise and show consideration and respect for the victims and their families?
Wilson-Raybould speaks about a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system, the reconstituted appointments process, and notes that delays are partly a provincial and territorial responsibility, without addressing the specific 60-position commitment.
Wilson-Raybould speaks about a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system and the reconstituted appointments process without addressing the specific commitment to fill 60 positions, the 24 appointments made, or the ongoing case losses, and her answer was cut off before completion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I again rise to speak about the comprehensive review of the criminal justice system that we are undertaking. I am very proud of the judicial appointments I have made, and will continue to make, under a reconstituted judicial appointments process to ensure that we appoint the highest quality of jurists who reflect the diversity of the country. This will, in turn, assist with delays in our courts, but I will point out that it is not simply judges who lead to delays. The administration of justice is a provincial and territorial responsibility, and I am committed to continuing to work in concert with my colleagues to address delays in theâ
Fergus references a visit to the University of Ottawa and asks the Minister of Science to inform the House about strategic investments the government is making to support scientists and encourage innovation.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to inform the House about strategic investments, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to supporting science and funding partnerships that lead to discoveries and the products of tomorrow. Today I was at my alma mater, the University of Ottawa, looking at research that, once achieved, will change the lives of Canadians by allowing everyday objects to become smart. La ministre des Sciences peut-elle informer la Chambre des investissements stratégiques que fait notre gouvernement pour s'assurer que nous appuyons les scientifiques et que nous encourageons l'innovation et une classe moyenne forte?
Duncan announces over $50 million for projects in NSERC's strategic partnerships, cross-connecting companies with scientists advancing research in areas where Canada is a world leader.
Duncan provides a concrete figure (over $50 million for NSERC's strategic partnerships) and describes the purpose of the funding, giving real informational content in response to the setup question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre gouvernement s'est engagé à appuyer les sciences, de la recherche fondamentale à la recherche appliquée. Today I announced over $50 million for projects in NSERC's strategic partnerships, which cross-connect companies with scientists who are advancing research in areas where Canada is a world leader. From the water we drink, to the air we breathe, to new technologies, support for science will help build a better future for Canadians.
Clarke says 200 federal public servants in his riding working at the Canada Revenue Agency are still suffering from the Phoenix pay system fiasco a year later, and asks when the minister will admit she made an error in February 2016 by approving the system against the advice of various reports.
Clarke names a specific constituency impact (200 public servants at the Canada Revenue Agency), invokes a specific decision point (February 2016 approval), references adverse reports, and asks a pointed accountability question about ministerial error.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans ma circonscription, il y a 200 fonctionnaires qui travaillent Ă l'Agence du revenu du Canada. Ce sont des fonctionnaires qui travaillent trĂšs fort pour les Canadiens, pour leurs familles et, comme on peut l'imaginer, Ils ont des factures Ă payer. Par contre, depuis un an, le fiasco du systĂšme de paie PhĂ©nix s'abat fĂ©rocement sur eux. Ils n'arrivent mĂȘme pas Ă obtenir ne serait-ce qu'une simple mise Ă jour de leur dossier de paie. Que font-ils maintenant? Ils viennent dans mon bureau de circonscription pour avoir l'aide que ce gouvernement devrait leur donner, mais qu'il ne leur donne pas. Quand la ministre va-t-elle au moins avouer qu'elle a fait une erreur, en fĂ©vrier 2016, en approuvant le systĂšme contre l'avis de diffĂ©rents rapports?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my riding is home to 200 public servants who work for the Canada Revenue Agency. These public servants work very hard for Canadians and their families, and, as one can well imagine, they have bills to pay. For the past year, the Phoenix fiasco has been hitting them hard. They cannot even get basic updates about their cases. What are they doing now? They are coming to my riding office to get help that the government should be giving them but is not. When will the minister at the very least admit that she made a mistake in February 2016 when she gave the system the green light despite advice to the contrary?
Foote acknowledges that some public service employees are experiencing pay difficulties and says additional measures including satellite pay offices have been put in place, most recently in Kingston, but does not address the 2016 decision or the adverse reports.
Foote acknowledges pay difficulties exist and mentions satellite pay offices including one in Kingston, but does not address the specific question about the February 2016 decision, the adverse reports, or admit any error.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while the government's payroll system ensures that 300,000 employees get paid every two weeks, there are public service employees who are experiencing pay difficulties in some categories, and that is totally unacceptable. That is why we have taken additional measures by putting in satellite pay offices to help those employees. We encourage them to reach out to us. In fact, the most recent office we put in was in Kingston. We are working really hard on behalf of our employees.
Stetski says the government is considering giving away the last grasslands in southwestern Saskatchewan, which are unique ecological heritage sites, carbon sinks, and home to rare and threatened species, and asks the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to commit to creating a new national wildlife area to preserve them.
Stetski identifies a specific ecological issue (Saskatchewan's grasslands as carbon sinks and habitat for rare and threatened species), notes a concrete threat (considering giving away the last grasslands in southwestern Saskatchewan), and asks for a specific commitment to create a new national wildlife area.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, both Conservative and Liberal governments have downloaded responsibility for Saskatchewan's environmentally critical grasslands without any concern for their future. These grasslands are unique ecological heritage sites. They act as important carbon sinks and are home to rare and threatened species. Now the government is considering giving away the last of these grasslands in southwestern Saskatchewan and ending the environmental protection they receive. Will the Minister of Environment and Climate Change commit today to create a new national wildlife area to preserve these ecosystems for future generations?
McKenna says she takes seriously the obligation to protect the natural environment and commits to working with the member to find a resolution, without making any specific commitment regarding a national wildlife area.
McKenna says only that she takes seriously the obligation to protect the natural environment and commits to working with the member to find a resolution, with no specific commitment to a national wildlife area or any factual engagement with the grasslands issue.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I take very seriously the obligation to protect our natural environment. I am committed to working with the member on this issue to find a resolution.
Boissonnault explains Jordan's Principle and its background and asks the Minister of Health to inform the House of the measures she is taking to ensure full implementation of Jordan's Principle.
This is a government-backbench question that explains Jordan's Principle but asks only broadly how the minister is ensuring full implementation, functioning as a softball setup with some contextual framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le principe de Jordan a Ă©tĂ© Ă©tabli en rĂ©ponse Ă la mort de Jordan River Anderson, un enfant de 5 ans de la PremiĂšre Nation de Norway House au Manitoba. Ce principe vise Ă rĂ©soudre des disputes de compĂ©tences pour que les enfants des PremiĂšres Nations aient les soins dont ils ont besoin, au moment oĂč ils en ont besoin. Pour une relation de nation Ă nation renouvelĂ©e, il faut assurer, dans ma province, l'Alberta, et partout au Canada, un accĂšs Ă des soins en temps opportun. La ministre de la SantĂ© peut-elle informer la Chambre des mesures qu'elle prend pour s'assurer que notre gouvernement met entiĂšrement en oeuvre le principe de Jordan?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Jordan's principle was established in response to the death of Jordan River Anderson, a five-year-old member of Norway House First Nation in Manitoba. This principle seeks to resolve jurisdictional disputes so that first nations children can receive the care they need, when the need it. For a renewed nation-to-nation relationship, we must ensure that there is timely access to care in my province of Alberta and across Canada. Can the Minister of Health inform this chamber on the measures she is taking to ensure that our government fully implements Jordan's principle?
Philpott announces $5 million to the new First Nations Health Consortium of Alberta for improved coordination services for First Nations children in that province, quoting consortium president Tyler White, and says this demonstrates full implementation of Jordan's Principle.
Philpott announces a specific, concrete measure announced the previous day â $5 million to the new First Nations Health Consortium of Alberta â and quotes the consortium's president by name, providing real informational content.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie le député d'Edmonton-Centre de cette question. Hier, notre gouvernement a annoncé qu'il fournissait 5 millions de dollars au nouveau Consortium de santé des PremiÚres Nations de l'Alberta pour des services de coordination améliorés pour les enfants des PremiÚres Nations dans cette province. Comme son président, Tyler White, l'a dit, le consortium va faire disparaßtre plusieurs des barriÚres auxquelles les populations des PremiÚres Nations font face chaque jour. Cette initiative et d'autres démontrent que notre gouvernement met entiÚrement en oeuvre le principe de Jordan.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton Centre for this question. Yesterday, our government announced that it is giving $5 million to Alberta's new First Nations Health Consortium for enhanced service coordination for first nations children in that province. According to its president, Tyler White, the consortium will eliminate many of the barriers faced every day by first nations peoples. This initiative together with others shows that our government is fully implementing Jordan's principle.
Reid argues that on January 31 the minister was telling stakeholders the government was still open to changes to the electoral system while the decision to abandon that commitment was already known to her, and asks specifically when she received her mandate letter.
Reid asks a precise, factual, single-question ask â the specific date on which the minister received her mandate letter â grounded in a detailed timeline argument about what she told stakeholders on January 31 versus what she knew about the electoral reform decision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Democratic Institutions' mandate letter was made public on February 1, so it is curious that the minister continues to be evasive about answering apparently innocuous questions about the date on which she received the mandate letter. One possible explanation might be that she does not want to admit that on January 31, she was telling stakeholders that the government was still open to changes to the electoral system, when in fact, the decision to betray this promise was already known to her. After all, a week before her mandate letter was made public, she was in cabinet arguing passionately, we are told, thanks to the Prime Minister's leak on this subject, against a referendum on electoral reform. When did she get that mandate letter?
Gould says the mandate letter was made public on February 1 and that she reached out to stakeholders the day before because she believes it is important to engage with Canadians on all sides, but does not state when she personally received the letter.
Gould says the mandate letter was made public on February 1 and that she reached out to stakeholders the day before, but never states the date she personally received the mandate letter, which was the specific question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as my mandate letter was made public on February 1, as it was to all Canadians that day, I was pleased to give a press conference on it at that time. I reached out to stakeholders the day before, because as Minister of Democratic Institutions, I believe it is important to engage with Canadians on all sides of the political spectrum. I continue to do that, and I will continue to do that moving forward. I look forward to implementing this mandate and to working with everyone in the House.
May notes that Lindsey's law to create a DNA database for missing persons was passed and was supposed to come into effect in 2017, but Judy Peterson has been told there is an additional year's delay, and asks the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness if he can stop that delay and bring it into force.
May cites a specific piece of legislation (Lindsey's law, named for Lindsey Nicholls), a concrete personal connection to those affected, a specific delay (an additional year beyond the already-delayed 2017 implementation), and asks a precise yes/no accountability question about whether the minister can stop that delay.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, three years ago in this place, we passed something called Lindsey's law, an act to create a DNA database for missing persons. It is named Lindsey's law out of respect for a missing person. Her name is Lindsey Nicholls. Her mom is a friend of mine. She is a constituent. Judy Peterson fought like a tiger to get something that would allow law enforcement to compare the DNA at crime scenes with missing persons. That bill was passed, but it was delayed and would not come into effect until 2017. Now Judy Peterson has been told that there is an additional year's delay. Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness tell us if he can stop there being a delay and bring it into force?
Goodale says the government is in the final stages of due diligence on cost sharing and privacy protection for the DNA-based missing persons and victims data bank, and commits to having the system up and running before the end of the year.
Goodale confirms he is aware of the DNA-based missing persons and victims data bank, acknowledges the due diligence work on cost sharing and privacy protection underway, and commits to having the system up and running before the end of the year, which substantively addresses the question though without explaining the specific additional year's delay.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we all share the pain of those whose loved ones have gone missing, and we strongly support efforts to help law enforcement with missing persons investigations. This includes the creation of the DNA-based missing persons and victims data bank. We are in the final stages now of doing the necessary due diligence, both with respect to cost sharing and privacy protection. My goal is to have this system up and running before the end of this year.
This exchange records the presence of guests in the gallery and contains no substantive question or answer.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Adam Vaughan (Lib) raised a point of order regarding laughter by opposition members when the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities mentioned he was a former bus driver, arguing this was offensive under Standing Order 18 and asked that the laughter be withdrawn and the record corrected.
- Lib Mr. Adam Vaughan
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as members know, Standing Order 18 protects all members of this House from offensive words spoken by any other member of this House. Words and actions carry weight. I would like to bring attention to events which took place yesterday during question period. When the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities stated that he was a former bus driver, members of the opposition began to laugh. I think I speak for many members of this House when I say that laughing at the previous employment status of a member of this House is offensive, especially when that service was a public service to the people of this country. Every member of this House deserves to represent their constituents. Every member's diversity of employment adds to the richness of this House. I would ask that the laughter be withdrawn and the record be corrected. This is offensive to the values of this House, to the values of Canadians, and to the diversity of all of us.
Candice Bergen (CPC) agreed that all employment backgrounds deserve respect in the House of Commons. In the same exchange, JoĂ«l Lightbound (Lib) raised a separate point of order claiming that the member for CharlesbourgâHaute-Saint-Charles had called Liberals the most crass beings, and asked him to reflect, apologize, and withdraw his remarks.
- CPC Candice Bergen
- Lib Mr. Joël Lightbound
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would agree. We all come from various backgrounds, and that is why we are called the House of Commons. We represent the people: farmers, bus drivers, receptionists. We represent everybody. There are all kinds of laughter that occur here. We absolutely respect and honour all of the jobs that we have done, and the experience that we bring to this House.
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai entendu le dĂ©putĂ© de CharlesbourgâHaute-Saint-Charles traiter les libĂ©raux d'ĂȘtres les plus crasses. Il me semble que ce sont des propos non parlementaires. Je l'invite donc Ă prendre le temps de rĂ©flĂ©chir, de s'excuser et de retirer ses propos.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I heard the member for CharlesbourgâHaute-Saint-Charles say that the Liberals are the most crass people. I believe that is unparliamentary language. Therefore, I invite him to pause and reflect, apologize, and withdraw his remarks.
Matthew Dubé (NDP) raised a point of order arguing that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness had indirectly called a member a liar by saying that repeating a falsehood does not make it true, which he said does indirectly what cannot be done directly. Ralph Goodale agreed to withdraw the comment in the interest of maintaining good order in the House. Separately, MarilÚne Gill sought unanimous consent for a moment of silence in memory of the patriots of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, which was not granted.
- NDP Mr. Matthew Dubé
- Lib Ralph Goodale
- Mrs. MarilĂšne Gill
- Some hon. members
Source text
Monsieur le Président, tout récemment, vous avez souligné l'importance de ne pas remettre en question la véracité des propos d'un député de la Chambre et de ne pas traiter un député de menteur. Surtout, vous nous avez dit de ne pas faire indirectement ce que nous ne pouvons pas faire directement. It is for this reason that I think it is inappropriate for the Minister of Public Safety to say that repeating a falsehood does not make it true. It is pretty obvious that his statement was doing something indirectly that we cannot do directly. C'est particuliÚrement aberrant lorsqu'on considÚre que le député d'Outremont, le chef du NPD, était tout à fait en droit de commenter le silence du gouvernement lundi. Je n'entrerai pas dans le débat, mais je demande au ministre de retirer ses propos.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, recently you underscored the importance of not questioning the veracity of another member's comments and of not calling them a liar. In particular, you told us not to do indirectly what we cannot do directly. C'est pour cette raison qu'il me semble inapproprié de la part du ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile d'affirmer que ce n'est pas parce qu'on répÚte une fausseté qu'elle devient une vérité. Il est plutÎt évident que cette affirmation revient à faire indirectement ce que nous ne pouvons pas faire directement. It is especially odd considering that the hon. member for Outremont, the leader of the NDP, had every right to comment on the government's silence on Monday. I will not get into a debate here, but I would ask the minister to withdraw his comments.
Mr. Speaker, in the interest of maintaining good order in the House, if that comment was close to the line, I am happy to withdraw it. I simply want to assure Canadians that the issue under debate was indeed being taken seriously.
Monsieur le Président, puisque nous sommes aujourd'hui le 15 février, j'aimerais obtenir le consentement unanime de la Chambre afin d'observer une minute de silence à la mémoire des patriotes du Haut-Canada et du Bas-Canada, notamment ceux qui ont été exécutés ou exilés.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today being February 15, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to observe a minute of silence in memory of the Patriots of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, especially those who were executed or exiled.
D'accord. Non.
Hansard translation: Agreed. No.