Session overview
- Multiple CPC and NDP members pressed the government on the Prime Minister's vacation on 'billionaire island,' with new questions about whether the island is owned by the Aga Khan or by shell companies, and whether the Privy Council warned the Prime Minister in advance that the trip would violate ethics rules.
- Opposition members from the CPC and NDP challenged the government on partisan appointments, specifically the nomination of Madeleine Meilleur as Official Languages Commissioner and the role of the Liberal House leader in selecting the next Ethics Commissioner.
- The Liberal infrastructure bank was extensively debated, with CPC and NDP members questioning its independence, the risk to taxpayers through loan guarantees, the potential for tolls and user fees, and the government proceeding with appointments before Bill C-44 was passed.
- NDP members raised a five-year-old issue concerning a regulation subjecting transgender air passengers to questioning about their gender during screening, calling on the government to repeal what they described as a discriminatory regulation; the Minister of Transport said the matter was under review.
- CPC members called on the government to fund the Canadian autism partnership at a cost of $3.8 million per year, but the Minister of Health did not commit to doing so, citing existing research funding and upcoming accessibility legislation.
- The Minister of Natural Resources responded to CPC pressure on the National Energy Board expert panel report, Trans Mountain pipeline progress, and recommendations to relocate the NEB from Calgary to Ottawa, defending the government's regulatory reform process.
The Minister of Transport, Marc Garneau, made a concrete and specific commitment â that the government is actively examining the transgender air passenger screening regulation and will have more to say in due course â the only exchange where a minister moved beyond boilerplate to signal actual forthcoming action.
Highly specific: names the working group and alliance, cites the exact annual cost ($3.8 million per year, a dime per Canadian), and poses a single direct yes/no commitment question.
John Brassard asked specifically what secrets the Prime Minister was hiding from the Ethics Commissioner about his taxpayer-funded vacation and the shell companies owning the island, but Lebouthillier answered entirely about the government's anti-tax-evasion efforts and an independent advisory committee on tax rules, with no connection whatsoever to the question asked.
Outstanding questions
- Candice Bergen asked whether the Privy Council warned the Prime Minister in advance that his trip to billionaire island would violate the law â this received no answer.
- Chris Warkentin asked whether the Prime Minister knew all along that he was staying on an island owned by shell companies, given that reimbursements were made to Lexthree Ltd. â this received no answer.
- Thomas Mulcair asked how the revenue minister explains the conflict of interest created by appointing a KPMG executive as treasurer of the Liberal Party of Canada while the CRA allowed KPMG to avoid accountability for its tax avoidance scheme â this received no direct answer.
- Thomas Mulcair asked why the Prime Minister considers partisanship inappropriate in the Senate but entirely appropriate for the position of Official Languages Commissioner, given Madeleine Meilleur's own statement about wanting to serve as a senator â no direct answer was given.
- Mike Lake asked the Liberal government to commit specifically to funding the Canadian autism partnership at $3.8 million per year â the Minister of Health did not answer yes or no.
Bergen asked whether the Privy Council warned the Prime Minister in advance that his trip to billionaire island would violate the law, given that PCO must travel with him.
Raises a specific and answerable question about whether the Privy Council warned the Prime Minister in advance that the trip would violate the law, grounded in factual context about security and PCO travel requirements.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's story, when it comes to his stay on billionaire island, keeps changing. It now turns out that billionaire island is not even owned by the Aga Khan. The sad fact is that the Prime Minister would likely have known he was breaking the ethics rule before he went on the trip. With security arrangements and the fact that PCO has to travel with him everywhere he goes, trips like this do not just happen on the spur of the moment. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether or not the Privy Council warned him in advance that the trip would violate the law?
Chagger said the Prime Minister will answer any questions from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and that he travels with the resources he needs.
Deflects entirely by repeating that the Prime Minister will answer the Ethics Commissioner's questions and pivoting to a generic statement about travel resources, never addressing whether PCO warned him.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as has been said time and time again, the Prime Minister will answer any questions asked of him by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. As the member has stated so eloquently, it is important that the Prime Minister travels with the resources he needs, so that whether on personal or business travel, he is able to carry out his official duties. We will continue to do the good work we are here to do on behalf of Canadians.
Bergen asked whether the Prime Minister believes the Liberal House leader is the right person to choose the next ethics commissioner given her role defending the Prime Minister.
Asks a pointed question about whether the Prime Minister believes the Liberal House leader is the right person to choose the next ethics commissioner, but the framing is partly rhetorical and uses the prior exchange as a setup.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that answer is exactly the reason why the Prime Minister's decision to put the Liberal House leader in charge of choosing the next ethics commissioner, the person who is going to be responsible for investigating Liberal corruption, is such a bad idea. This is the same House leader who stands up day after day to defend the Prime Minister's lack of accountability, while he sits beside her. Does the Prime Minister actually believe the Liberal House leader is the right person to choose the next ethics commissioner?
Chagger described the government's open, transparent, merit-based appointment process and said all positions are available online for all Canadians to apply.
Chagger pivots to describing the open, transparent, merit-based appointment process without addressing whether she personally should recuse herself from choosing the ethics commissioner.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is this government that is putting forward an open, transparent, merit-based appointment process, which actually allows all Canadians to apply. I encourage them to apply, because all positions are available online. More importantly, we know that the work the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner does is important. We will always work with her, or whoever is in that post.
Bergen asked which Liberal â naming Anne McLennan, Dalton McGuinty, or Kathleen Wynne â is at the top of the list to be the next ethics commissioner.
Bergen names specific individuals (Anne McLennan, Dalton McGuinty, Kathleen Wynne) and makes a factual claim about how the Official Languages Commissioner was chosen, but the question is partly rhetorical and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know the fix is already in with regard to the appointment of the next ethics commissioner. The Liberals' so-called merit-based process is actually a process to determine the level of support for the Liberal Party. People who donate to the Liberal Party, or who are a former Liberal cabinet minister get to go to the top of the list for appointments. That is exactly how the Official Languages Commissioner was chosen. Which Liberal is at the top of the list to be the next ethics commissioner? Is it Anne McLennan, is it Dalton McGuinty, or maybe it is Kathleen Wynne?
Lebouthillier defended Mme Meilleur's qualifications as Official Languages Commissioner, citing her 30-year record defending French-language rights and the Montfort Hospital.
Lebouthillier does not address the named candidates or the allegation of partisan selection criteria, instead defending Mme Meilleur's qualifications for the Official Languages Commissioner role â a different position than the one asked about.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les Canadiens savent que la diversité est notre force. Nos deux langues officielles sont encore dans la lettre de mandat et elles sont au coeur de notre histoire et de ce que nous sommes. Elles sont une priorité pour nous. AprÚs un long processus ouvert et fondé sur le mérite, Mme Meilleur s'est clairement distinguée comme étant la candidate qualifiée à ce poste. Pendant plus de 30 ans, Mme Meilleur a lutté pour le droit des services des francophones. Elle a lutté pour la protection de l'HÎpital Montfort et pour garantir des soins de santé en français...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that diversity is our strength. The mandate letter is in both official languages, which are central to our history and to who we are. They are a priority for us. After a long, open, merit-based process, Ms. Meilleur stood out as the candidate best qualified for this position. For over 30 years, Ms. Meilleur fought for francophones' right to services. She fought to protect Montfort Hospital and to ensure French-language health care servicesâ
Deltell asked whether the Prime Minister is aware that proceeding with the selection of the infrastructure bank president before Bill C-44 is adopted flouts both his electoral promise and the authority of Parliament.
Deltell asks a specific and pointed question about whether the Prime Minister is aware he is flouting parliamentary authority by selecting a president for the infrastructure bank before Bill C-44 has been adopted.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, dans la francophonie, tout le monde reconnaßt que c'était la meilleure libérale disponible pour occuper cette fonction-là . Sur un tout autre sujet, on sait que le projet de loi C-44 est un projet de loi omnibus qui va à l'encontre de ce que les libéraux avaient promis durant la campagne électorale. Ce projet de loi comprend également la création de la Banque de l'infrastructure. Le projet de loi n'est toujours pas adopté et pourtant, le gouvernement procÚde actuellement à la sélection pour nommer le président de cette banque. Est-ce que le premier ministre est conscient que non seulement il bafoue sa promesse électorale, mais surtout qu'il bafoue l'autorité du Parlement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, everyone in the francophonie recognizes that she was the best Liberal available for the job. On another topic, we know that Bill C-44 is an omnibus bill that goes against the Liberals' campaign promises. This bill also provides for the creation of the infrastructure bank. The bill has not even been passed and the government is already in the process of appointing the chair of this bank. Does the Prime Minister realize that not only is he breaking his election promises, but, more importantly, that he is flouting Parliament's authority?
Sohi described the infrastructure bank as part of the government's $186 billion infrastructure plan and said appointments will be confirmed once the bank is established.
Sohi provides context about the infrastructure bank's purpose and a vague commitment that appointments will be confirmed after the bank is established, but does not directly address the parliamentary authority question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure bank is an important part of our ambitious plan to build and rebuild Canadian community infrastructure. We are investing more than $186 billion to support our municipal sector, our provincial and territorial sectors, and to build the infrastructure they need. As far as the appointments are concerned, we will make sure that once the bank is established, the appointments will be confirmed after that.
Deltell asked why the Prime Minister is again flouting the authority of Parliament by selecting a president for Invest in Canada before Bill C-4 has been adopted.
Deltell raises a specific parallel case â a minister's committee testimony about selecting a president for Invest in Canada before Bill C-4 is adopted â and asks why the government is again flouting parliamentary authority.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if you want to build something strong, you shall respect the authority of the House. C'est le problÚme de ce gouvernement. Il se pense autorisé à tout faire, non seulement pour ce qui est de la Banque de l'infrastructure, mais également pour ce qui est d'Investissement Canada. Voilà qu'hier, un ministre a dit en comité parlementaire qu'il procédait actuellement au choix du nouveau président pour cette autre création du gouvernement, qui n'est pas encore autorisée, car le projet de loi C-4 n'est pas encore adopté par ce Parlement. à nouveau, le premier ministre pourrait-il nous expliquer pourquoi il bafoue l'autorité du Parlement?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, si l'on veut bùtir quelque chose de solide, il faut respecter l'autorité de la Chambre. That is the problem with this government. It believes that it can do whatever it wants, not just with the infrastructure bank, but also with Investment Canada. Yesterday, a minister said in a parliamentary committee that the government was in the process of choosing a new president for this other government organization, which has not been approved yet because Bill C-4 has not yet been passed by this Parliament. Once again, can the Prime Minister explain why he is flouting Parliament's authority?
Champagne promoted the Invest in Canada agency as a way to attract investment and create jobs, without addressing the parliamentary authority concern.
Champagne does not address the question of parliamentary authority or the premature appointment process, instead promoting the merits of the Invest in Canada agency.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie mon honorable collĂšgue de Louis-Saint-Laurent qui me donne la chance de parler de l'agence Investir au Canada. C'est exactement ce dont nous avons besoin pour attirer des investissements ici au Canada. C'est l'agence qui servira de concierge et qui va attirer des investissements, qui se trouveront peut-ĂȘtre dans la circonscription de mon collĂšgue de Louis-Saint-Laurent. L'ensemble des municipalitĂ©s et des provinces au Canada saluent cette agence. Ce que nous voulons faire, en 2017, c'est attirer des investissements au Canada, parce que nous savons que la croissance Ă©conomique amĂšne de bons emplois pour les Canadiens et les Canadiennes partout au pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for giving me the opportunity to talk about the Invest in Canada agency. That is exactly what we need to attract investments here in Canada. This agency will provide concierge services and attract investments that may be made in the riding of my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent. All of Canada's municipalities and provinces applaud the creation of this agency. What we want to do in 2017 is to attract investments to Canada because we know that economic growth creates good jobs for Canadians across the country.
Mulcair asked how the revenue minister explains a panel member attending a KPMG-sponsored event and the appointment of a KPMG executive as Liberal Party treasurer, following the sweetheart deal between the Canada Revenue Agency and KPMG.
Mulcair identifies specific facts â a panel member attending a KPMG-sponsored event and KPMG's appointment as Liberal Party treasurer â and asks how the revenue minister explains this conflict, making it a reasonably grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, so much for Prime Minister's question period. The Liberals refused to allow a parliamentary investigation into the sweetheart deal between the Canada Revenue Agency and KPMG, but that was not the end of the sketchy story. A member of the Liberal-appointed panel looking into tax evasion attended an event sponsored by, guess who, KPMG. This was on top of appointing someone from KPMG as treasurer of the Liberal Party. How does the revenue minister explain this mess?
Lebouthillier cited the government's $444 million investment in fighting tax evasion, 100 new auditors, and $13 billion recovered including $1.3 billion through the Voluntary Disclosures Program.
Lebouthillier lists tax evasion enforcement statistics (444 million dollars, 100 auditors, 13 billion dollars recovered) but does not address the KPMG conflict of interest or panel member attendance at the KPMG event.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre gouvernement a fait une priorité de la lutte à l'évasion fiscale et à l'évitement fiscal abusif. Nous avons investi des budgets historiques de 444 millions de dollars, qui nous ont permis, au cours de la premiÚre année, d'effectuer plus de vérifications, d'embaucher 100 vérificateurs et de récupérer 13 milliards de dollars, dont 1,3 milliard de dollars grùce au Programme de divulgations volontaires. Ce n'est qu'un commencement et avec les montants supplémentaires du deuxiÚme budget, celui de cette année, nous allons aller chercher encore plus d'argent l'année prochaine pour les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, cracking down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance is a priority for our government. We invested a historic $444 million, which has allowed us, in the first year alone, to carry out more audits, hire an additional 100 auditors, and recover $13 billion, including $1.3 billion through the voluntary disclosures program. That is just the beginning. With the additional amounts allocated in this year's budget, our second budget, we will recover even more money for Canadians next year.
Mulcair asked what it will take for the Liberal government to admit it is in a flagrant conflict of interest, given that it appointed a KPMG executive as Liberal Party treasurer after blocking an investigation into KPMG.
Mulcair sharpens the conflict of interest allegation by citing KPMG's appointment as Liberal Party treasurer immediately after blocking an investigation, and explicitly requests a response about KPMG rather than other talking points.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, une autre membre de ce mĂȘme panel a accusĂ© sept ministres de ne rien comprendre aux principes de l'indĂ©pendance, et je crois bien qu'elle avait raison. Lorsque le ministĂšre du Revenu a laissĂ© KPMG s'en tirer indemne pour sa magouille d'Ă©vitement fiscal, qu'est-ce que les libĂ©raux ont fait? Ils ont nommĂ© un cadre de KPMG au poste de trĂ©sorier du Parti libĂ©ral du Canada. Qu'est-ce que ça va prendre pour que le gouvernement libĂ©ral admette qu'il est en situation flagrante de conflit d'intĂ©rĂȘts? Qu'on nous parle de KPMG cette fois-ci, pas de l'autre cassette.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, another member of that same panel accused seven ministers of not understanding the principles of independence at all, and I think she was right. When the Canada Revenue Agency let KPMG off the hook for its tax evasion scheme, what did the Liberals do? They appointed a director from KPMG to be the treasurer for the Liberal Party of Canada. What will it take for the Liberal government to admit that it is clearly in a conflict of interest? I want an answer that has to do with KPMG this time, not the talking points we keep hearing.
Lebouthillier reiterated the $13 billion recovered in tax enforcement and said the government will continue investing in services for Canadians.
Lebouthillier repeats the same tax enforcement statistics from the previous answer, explicitly ignoring Mulcair's request to address KPMG specifically.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je rĂ©itĂšre ce que je viens de dire, parce que mon collĂšgue d'en face ne comprend absolument rien. Notre gouvernement a fait une prioritĂ© de la lutte contre l'Ă©vasion fiscale et de l'Ă©vitement fiscal abusif. Je suis axĂ©e sur les rĂ©sultats. Les rĂ©sultats de ce que nous avons mis en place, avec les vĂ©rificateurs et l'augmentation de nos vĂ©rifications, c'est d'ĂȘtre allĂ©s chercher 13 milliards de dollars supplĂ©mentaires l'an dernier. Nous allons investir dans les services aux Canadiens. C'est ce que nous avons promis de faire et c'est exactement ce que nous faisons.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I just said because my colleague just does not get it. Cracking down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance is a priority for our government. My job is to produce results. With more auditors and more audits, we recovered an extra $13 billion last year. That is what I call results. We will invest in services for Canadians. That is what we promised, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Mulcair asked why the Prime Minister finds partisanship inappropriate in the Senate but finds it entirely appropriate for the position of commissioner, citing Mme Meilleur's own statement about the Prime Minister's preference.
Mulcair cites Mme Meilleur's own words about why she did not become a senator and uses them to pose a pointed, specific question about the Prime Minister's inconsistent standard regarding partisanship.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les libĂ©raux se fichent complĂštement de leurs conflits d'intĂ©rĂȘts. C'est ce qu'on appelle de l'arrogance. Le premier ministre vient de choisir une ministre libĂ©rale comme commissaire aux langues officielles. Mme Meilleur a dit: « Je pensais pouvoir y contribuer comme sĂ©natrice, mais le premier ministre a Ă©tĂ© clair quâil ne voulait pas de politiciens Ă la Chambre haute. » Pourquoi le premier ministre trouve-t-il inappropriĂ©e la partisanerie au SĂ©nat mais tout Ă fait appropriĂ©e la partisanerie au poste de commissaire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals could not care less about their conflicts of interest. That is what you call arrogance. The Prime Minister just appointed a Liberal minister to the position of Commissioner of Official Languages. Mrs. Meilleur said, âI thought I could contribute as a senator, but the Prime Minister made it clear that he did not want any politicians in the upper chamber.â Why does the Prime Minister think partisanship is inappropriate in the Senate but perfectly fine in the commissioner's office?
Lebouthillier defended Mme Meilleur's 30-year record defending the French language and said she clearly distinguished herself through a long, open, transparent, merit-based process.
Lebouthillier defends Mme Meilleur's qualifications and the merit-based process but does not address the contradiction Mulcair identified about partisanship in the Senate versus in the commissioner role.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nos deux langues officielles sont au coeur de notre histoire et de ce que nous sommes. Elles sont une priorité pour nous. Nous avons eu un long processus, ouvert et transparent et fondé sur le mérite. Mme Meilleur s'est clairement distinguée pour occuper ces fonctions. Pendant plus de 30 ans, Mme Meilleur a défendu la langue française. Elle s'est battue pour l'HÎpital Montfort et pour que les franco-ontariens reçoivent des services en français dans leur province. C'est la meilleure candidate pour ce poste.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our two official languages are at the heart of our history and of who we are. They are a priority for us. We went through a long, open, transparent, merit-based process. Mrs. Meilleur was clearly the best candidate for the position. She defended the French language for over 30 years. She fought for the Montfort Hospital. She fought to ensure that Franco-Ontarians can get service in French in their province. She is the best person for the job.
Mulcair asked whether the Liberal government House leader will recuse herself from choosing the next ethics commissioner given her daily role defending the Prime Minister's ethical scandals.
Mulcair lists several specific ethical issues and asks a pointed question about whether the Liberal House leader will recuse herself from choosing the next ethics commissioner, though the list is partly rhetorical setup.
Source text
Cash for access, accepting private gifts, using private aircraft, co-writing legislation with corporations, appointing a member of a firm immediately after blocking an investigation into that firmâthe list goes on, Mr. Speaker. With all these conflicts of interest, it is more important than ever that we have an independent ethics commissioner. The Liberal government House leader stands every day to defend her boss's ethical scandals. How can she have any credibility to choose the next person to investigate her boss? Will she recuse herself?
Chagger described the open, transparent, and merit-based appointments process and said she has full confidence that the Canadian chosen will take the responsibility very seriously.
Chagger repeats her description of the open, transparent, merit-based appointments process without addressing whether she will recuse herself.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am guessing that the member has not heard my previous answers, so I will remind him that just as we committed to Canadians, we have introduced a new, open, transparent, and merit-based appointments process to ensure that the diversity of our country is reflected, to ensure that the two languages of our country are considered, and to ensure that we are making better decisions when it comes to gender parity. The member knows that we have opened this process to have all positions available online. All Canadians can apply. I have full confidence that the Canadian who is chosen to fill the post will take the responsibility very seriously.
Warkentin asked who owns the island the Prime Minister used taxpayer dollars to vacation on.
Warkentin asks who owns the island the Prime Minister vacationed on using tax dollars â a simple, direct, answerable factual question â though the framing is embedded in rhetorical partisan language.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when he is not designing government programs to help his billionaire friends, he is vacationing and spending taxpayer dollars like he is a billionaire himself. We all know that his taxpayer-funded billionaire-island vacation has landed him in hot water with the Ethics Commissioner, but what we have learned is that he has been misleading Canadians about who owns that very island, so here is a simple question for the Prime Minister. Who owns the island he used tax dollars to vacation on?
Oh, oh!
Chagger said the government was elected to represent middle-class Canadians, lowered taxes on the middle class, and contrasted the government's approach with the previous government's patronage appointments.
Chagger does not address who owns the island at all, instead pivoting to the government's mandate to serve middle-class Canadians and criticizing the previous government's patronage appointments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the purpose and intentions of the opposition are very different from the purpose and intentions of this government. This government was elected by Canadians. This government wasâ
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government was elected to represent middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join the middle class. That is why we lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians by raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. That is why we are giving more money to families with children that need it the most. Our approach is to respond to the very real challenges Canadians are facing. The approach of the previous government was really to make patronage appointments, which we will not do. That is why we have an open and transparentâ
Warkentin asked whether the Prime Minister knew all along that he was staying on an island owned by shell companies, citing taxpayer reimbursement of expenses to Lexthree Ltd. as evidence.
Warkentin cites a specific piece of new evidence â taxpayer reimbursement of hospitality expenses to Lexthree Ltd. â and asks a pointed factual question about whether the Prime Minister knew the island was owned by shell companies.
Source text
Speaking of the 1%, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's spokesperson now claims that he had no idea that his friend did not own this billionaire island, but now there is new evidence surfacing that seems to make his claim implausible. We now know that the Prime Minister's officials used taxpayer dollars to reimburse hospitality expenses for one staff, who was staying on the island with the Prime Minister, to Lexthree Ltd. Did the Prime Minister believe that his friend had changed his name to Lexthree Ltd., or did he know all along that he was staying on an island that was owned by a bunch of shell companies?
Oh, oh!
Chagger said the government asked the Clerk of the Privy Council to develop guidelines surrounding reimbursement for travel by sitting Prime Ministers, their families, and guests, noting no such guidelines existed before.
Chagger does not address Lexthree Ltd. or the shell company question, instead noting that the Clerk of the Privy Council was asked to develop guidelines for travel reimbursement, which is tangential to the specific question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government was elected to represent the very real challenges Canadians are facing. Those are the very people we will continue working hard for. One of the first things we did after taking office was to ask the Clerk of the Privy Council toâ
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that members are in this place wanting to do important work but do not want to listen to the answer. That is why the tone of this place, the conversation we have, actually matters. One of the first things we did when taking office was to ask the Clerk of the Privy Council to develop guidelines surrounding reimbursement for travel by sitting Prime Ministers, their families, and guests. Prior to our taking office, no such guidelines existed.
Généreux asked whether the Prime Minister is still satisfied with his decision to vacation on an island now found to belong to four companies linked to tax evasion rather than the Aga Khan.
Généreux identifies that the island belongs to four companies linked to tax evasion rather than the Aga Khan, and asks if the Prime Minister is still satisfied with his choice, but the question is somewhat vague and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, d'abord, le premier ministre accepte une invitation de l'Aga Khan Ă venir sur son Ăźle privĂ©e. Depuis, nous apprenons que l'Ăźle en question n'appartient pas Ă l'Aga Khan, mais plutĂŽt Ă quatre compagnies liĂ©es au monde de l'Ă©vasion fiscale. Ă la suite de ce conflit d'intĂ©rĂȘts tellement Ă©vident et de toutes les questions soulevĂ©es depuis plusieurs mois concernant cette question, le premier ministre est-il toujours content de son choix?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, first, the Prime Minister accepted an invitation from the Aga Khan to visit his private island. Then, we learned that the island in question does not in fact belong to the Aga Khan but to four companies that have been linked to tax evasion. Given this blatant conflict of interest and all of the questions that have been raised about this over the past few months, is the Prime Minister still happy about his choice?
Chagger said the Prime Minister will answer any questions the commissioner asks and that the government is focused on responding to real challenges Canadians face.
Chagger repeats that the Prime Minister will answer the commissioner's questions and says the government is focused on real challenges Canadians face, with no connection to the specific question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme l'a dit le premier ministre à maintes reprises, il répondra avec plaisir aux questions que la commissaire lui posera. Nous sommes ici pour répondre aux vrais défis auxquels les Canadiens font face. Nous continuerons à travailler pour tous les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said many times, he is happy to answer any questions the Ethics Commissioner may have for him. We are here to address the real challenges facing Canadians. We will continue to work for all Canadians.
Gladu asked whether the Ethics Commissioner asked the Prime Minister who owned billionaire island, and if so, what story did he give her, given that the island is held by a corporate entity with murky ownership.
Gladu asks a specific and answerable question about what the Prime Minister told the Ethics Commissioner about who owned the island, grounded in the new information about murky corporate ownership.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it gets harder to believe the Prime Minister's story about his trip to billionaire island every day. We now know billionaire island is held by a corporate entity with a murky ownership scheme. Not only is the island not owned by his long-time family friend, but the private helicopter was not either. Did the Ethics Commissioner ask the Prime Minister who owned the island? If she did, what story did he give her?
Chagger said the Prime Minister will answer any and all questions the commissioner of ethics has and that the government is committed to responding to the real challenges Canadians face.
Chagger repeats that the Prime Minister will answer any and all questions the commissioner has and pivots entirely to generic government accomplishments, never addressing what story the Prime Minister gave the commissioner.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as has been said time and time again, the Prime Minister will answer any and all questions the commissioner of ethics has. What is important to know is that our government is committed to responding to the very real challenges Canadians are facing. That is why we have lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians. That is why we are giving more money to families with children that need it the most. That is why we are making strategic investments in infrastructure, working better with provinces, territories, and municipalities. We know we can do better, and we will continue to improve the conditions and create the conditions for growth for Canadians and our economy to benefit.
Brassard asked what other secrets the Prime Minister is hiding about his $200,000 taxpayer-funded vacation, referencing the murky ownership of billionaire island and the private helicopter.
Brassard frames a vague and rhetorical question about what other secrets the Prime Minister is hiding, with colourful pirate metaphors, and no specific or answerable ask despite mentioning shell companies and the helicopter.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the warm Caribbean waters, pirates used to throw their secrets overboard, believing they would sink to the bottom of the sea, never to be found again. Some secrets are now bubbling to the surface. Billionaire island is not owned by the Prime Minister's long-time friend but rather by a labyrinth of shell companies that try to hide assets or avoid taxes. Even the ownership of the private helicopter in question appears to be murky. Since it is Wednesday, I would like to ask the Prime Minister: What other secrets has the Prime Minister thrown overboard about his $200,000 taxpayer-funded vacation?
Lebouthillier described the government's independent committee of respected professionals who volunteered to improve the tax system and submitted a report to strengthen tax rules.
Lebouthillier's answer about the independent advisory committee on tax reform has essentially no connection to the question about the Prime Minister's vacation or alleged secrets.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, notre gouvernement travaille trĂšs fort pour sĂ©vir contre l'Ă©vasion fiscale et l'Ă©vitement fiscal abusif, afin de s'assurer que le systĂšme fiscal est juste et Ă©quitable pour l'ensemble des Canadiens. Nous avons mis en place l'an dernier un comitĂ© indĂ©pendant composĂ© de professionnels trĂšs respectĂ©s qui se sont portĂ©s volontaires pour amĂ©liorer le rĂ©gime fiscal. Ce comitĂ© de bĂ©nĂ©voles, des experts honnĂȘtes et intĂšgres, a remis un rapport qui nous permettra de travailler Ă resserrer nos rĂšgles fiscales.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our government is working extremely hard to crack down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance in order to ensure that the tax system is fair and equitable for all Canadians. Last year, we created an independent panel made up of highly respected professionals who volunteered to help improve the tax system. This panel of volunteers, honest people of integrity, submitted a report that will help us to strengthen our tax rules.
Brassard asked what other buried secrets the Prime Minister is hiding from the Ethics Commissioner, framed largely in rhetorical and theatrical language.
Brassard's question is almost entirely rhetorical, using Milli Vanilli references and buried treasure metaphors, with no specific factual grounding and a vague ask about buried secrets.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a great answer. Meanwhile, questions keep going unanswered, while Canadians grow tired of the scripted talking points parroted by the Liberals. They may think their performance is like finding a hidden treasure, but no one is buying what they are saying, and the lip-synching act is giving the Liberals as much credibility as Milli Vanilli. It being Wednesday, I am glad to have the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister: What other buried secrets is the Prime Minister hiding from the Ethics Commissioner?
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
Lebouthillier cited $13 billion recovered in tax enforcement and $1.3 billion from the Programme des divulgations volontaires, and said the government outperformed the previous government.
Lebouthillier again cites the $13 billion recovered and the Voluntary Disclosures Program, which has no connection to the question about the Prime Minister hiding secrets from the Ethics Commissioner.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis trÚs fiÚre de notre gouvernement qui a fait une priorité de l'évitement fiscal et de l'évasion fiscale. Si mon collÚgue d'en face a besoin de résultats concrets, il n'a qu'à penser aux 13 milliards de dollars que nous sommes allés chercher l'an passé, dont 1,3 milliard de dollars dans le cadre du Programme des divulgations volontaires. Pour moi, ça, c'est du concret. Nous avons beaucoup mieux réussi que l'ancien gouvernement qui n'a jamais été capable de faire ce que nous avons fait.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of our government, which has made cracking down on tax evasion and tax avoidance a priority. If my colleague opposite needs tangible results, he need look no further than the $13 billion that we recovered last year, including $1.3 billion through the voluntary disclosures program. That, for me, is a tangible result. We have done a lot better than the previous government, which was never able to accomplish what we have.
Why did Liberal committee members shut down an NDP motion to invite large investors â who helped develop the infrastructure bank and stand to profit from it â to testify?
The question references a specific committee motion the NDP moved yesterday but frames the ask rhetorically ('why are the Liberals so scared') and is cut off before completion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, respect is shown through real answers. As with most banks, the goal of the Liberal infrastructure bank is not about helping hard-working Canadians but about increasing profits for wealthy investors. Yesterday the NDP moved a motion to invite some of those large investors to committee because they helped develop the scheme and they stand to profit millions from it. Guess what happened? The Liberals on the committee shut it down, so we are never going to hear from them. My question is simple. Why are the Liberals so scared of hearing how their bank will help theirâ
The minister defended the infrastructure bank by listing stakeholder consultations, including municipalities, provinces, labour unions, and pension funds, and argued there is nothing wrong with attracting private investors.
The minister lists stakeholder consultation broadly but does not address the committee motion or why government members voted it down.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for the entire last year, we engaged with a wide range of stakeholders, municipalities, provinces, territories, labour unions, trade councils, the IMF, the World Bank, private investors, and our own pension funds, which invest in other countries. We want to make sure they invest here, in our own country, to create jobs here for the middle class, to create prosperity here in Canada, to make sure that we build infrastructure our communities need. What is wrong with that? The NDP might have an issue with that. We do not.
How will private investors generate profits from the infrastructure bank without imposing tolls and user fees, and will the bank fund projects based on profitability rather than public need?
The question raises a logical concern about how private investors will generate profits without user fees and tolls, which is a substantive policy point, but is wrapped in partisan framing and lacks citation of specific evidence.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on sait tous qu'avec la nouvelle banque de privatisation des infrastructures des libĂ©raux, les gens vont se ramasser Ă payer des frais pour utiliser des ponts ou des routes, par exemple. C'est sĂ»r, cela ne pourra pas ĂȘtre autrement. Comment les investisseurs privĂ©s seront-ils capables de dĂ©gager des profits Ă moins d'imposer partout des pĂ©ages et des frais d'utilisateur? Comme c'est le privĂ© qui va dĂ©cider quels projets iront de l'avant, il choisira les projets qui sont payants, pas les projets qui rĂ©pondent aux besoins des gens. Les libĂ©raux n'ont-ils pas honte d'imposer des frais et un fardeau financier sur le dos des familles qui en arrachent dĂ©jĂ ?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we all know that with the Liberals' new infrastructure privatization bank, Canadians will be the ones who end up paying for bridges and roads through user fees. That much is certain, there is no other option. How are the private investors supposed to make a profit unless tolls and user fees are levied all over the place? Since the private sector will decide which projects are selected, of course it will choose the ones that are most profitable, not the ones that meet the needs of Canadians. Are the Liberals not ashamed of imposing new fees and an additional financial burden on families that are already struggling?
The minister named specific Canadian pension funds â CPPIB, OMERS, Caisse de dĂ©pĂŽt, IMCO â and argued the goal is to redirect their overseas investments toward Canadian infrastructure and job creation.
The minister lists specific pension funds by name but does not address the question of user fees, tolls, or how private investors will generate returns without imposing charges on users.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadian pension funds like the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board, the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Fund, the Caisse de dĂ©pĂŽt, the Alberta Investment Management Corporation are credible organizations that invest in places like Latin America and Australia. We want to make sure that they invest in our own country to create jobs here in our own country so that the middle class can grow and those people working hard to be part of the middle class have the opportunity for employment, communities that need infrastructure have the infrastructure to reduce traffic gridlock, andâ
Given that the legislation gives the Minister of Finance approval over loan guarantees and Liberal cabinet final say over the board, chairperson, and CEO, will the infrastructure bank truly be independent or is it an arm of the PMO and cabinet?
The question cites specific provisions of the legislation â minister approval of loan guarantees, cabinet appointment of the board and chairperson, cabinet approval of the CEO â and poses a clear either/or accountability question about contradicting claims of independence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is Wednesday, so can the Prime Minister please clear this up? The finance minister claims that the Liberals' so-called infrastructure bank will be independent, but if the minister read his own legislation, he would see clearly that it is exactly the opposite. The Minister of Finance will approve loan guarantees. The Liberal cabinet will appoint boards of directors and the chairperson. The Liberal cabinet will have the final approval over the CEO. Which is it? Is the bank going to be independent, or will the bank continue to be just an arm of the PMO, cabinet, and the finance minister to reward their Liberal friends?
The minister said the bank will be an independent arm's-length crown corporation accountable to Parliament, and that the government will protect the public interest in how deals are structured.
The minister asserts a balance between independence and accountability but does not address the specific legislative provisions cited, nor resolve the contradiction between 'independent arm's-length' and cabinet control over appointments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Canadians from wide experience and backgrounds, we have been able to create the right balance. We will make sure that the bank is an independent arm's-length crown corporation that is able to make decisions on its own but at the same time will be accountable to this House, to the people's House, to Parliament. As well, we will make sure that we are there to protect the public interest, that we are there to ensure that private bank funds are in the public interest and are needed to meet the needs of Canadian communities. That is our goal. That is exactly what we are doing.
When will the infrastructure bank stop taking money from middle-class Canadians to redistribute to wealthy Liberal friends?
The question is almost entirely rhetorical partisan framing ('Robinbanque') with no specific facts cited and no clear answerable ask beyond a broad attack on the bank.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, voici la version libĂ©rale de Robin des Bois. C'est l'histoire du ministre des Finances qui invite ses riches amis milliardaires Ă se servir Ă mĂȘme les poches des pauvres contribuables canadiens. Voici la recette: on emprunte des milliards de dollars, payĂ©s par les prochaines gĂ©nĂ©rations de jeunes Canadiens. On prend ces milliards de dollars et on les distribue aux riches amis libĂ©raux en leur promettant des profits sans risque. On l'appelle le « Robinbanque » des infrastructures. Quand « Robinbanque » va-t-il cesser de prendre l'argent des Canadiens de la classe moyenne pour le redistribuer aux riches libĂ©raux?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, here is the Liberal version of Robin Hood. This is the story of the Minister of Finance who invites his rich billionaire friends to pick the pockets of poor Canadian taxpayers. Here is the recipe: borrow billions of dollars, to be paid for by future generations of young Canadians; take those billions of dollars and give them all to your rich Liberal friends, while promising them risk-free returns; call it the âRobinbankâ of infrastructure. When will the âRobinbankâ stop taking money from middle-class Canadians and giving it away to rich Liberals?
The minister defended pension funds such as Caisse de dépÎt and CPPIB as credible organizations investing on behalf of Canadians and questioned why the opposition opposes private investment.
The minister identifies specific pension funds and argues they invest on behalf of Canadians, which is marginally relevant, but does not address any specific concern raised by the member.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the pension funds that I talked about are where Canadians are investing for their retirement. That is the money we want to use to build the infrastructure that our Canadian communities need. I really do not understand why the member of the opposition is so much against organizations like Caisse de dĂ©pĂŽt, which a very credible organization, or CPPIB, the teachers fund, or IMCO. These are credible organizations that invest on behalf on Canadians, creating jobs in our own country to help us grow our own economy. What is wrong with that? They may have issues with private investors investing. We do not, because we knowâ
Lobbyist and former Liberal cabinet minister Sergio Marchi told the transport committee yesterday that the infrastructure bank will de-risk his clients' electricity investments through taxpayer-backed loan guarantees â will taxpayers' money disappear along with the risk?
The question cites specific testimony from Sergio Marchi at the transport committee the previous day, names him as an electricity company lobbyist and former Liberal cabinet minister, and raises a concrete accountability concern about taxpayers bearing risk through loan guarantees.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, businesses accept that risk goes with making a profit. Risk is a real thing, but not for electricity company lobbyist and former Liberal cabinet minister Sergio Marchi, though, who told the transport committee yesterday that the infrastructure bank will de-risk his clients' electricity investments through loan guarantees from taxpayers. Imagine: the risk disappears. Will taxpayers' money disappear along with it?
The minister said the member is absolutely wrong and that the bank will shift risk to the private sector appropriately, and that every deal will be structured in the public interest.
The minister flatly contradicts the premise by asserting risk will shift to the private sector, but does not address Marchi's specific testimony about de-risking electricity investments through loan guarantees.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that he is absolutely wrong. The bank will shift the risk to the private sector appropriate to the investment that it makes. Every deal will be structured in the public interest. We want to make sure the public interest is protected. That is why we want to attract the right people for the CEO, the board members, and the board chair. We encourage everyone to apply so that we can have the right expertise to make sure that we structure our deals in such a way that they are in the public interest, that we build more infrastructure that our communities needâ
Given that J.P. Morgan shows these companies expect 20% rates of return and Liberal lobbyist Sergio Marchi has lobbied the government 40 times on infrastructure, why is the government forcing taxpayers to backstop the profits of Liberal wealthy elites?
The question cites a specific J.P. Morgan figure of 20% average rates of return, notes that Sergio Marchi lobbied the government 40 times on infrastructure, and draws a specific parallel to Kathleen Wynne's electricity policy, making it factually grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, these companies already invest billions of dollars in electricity infrastructure. According to J.P. Morgan, they expect, on average, 20% rates of return. Now they want taxpayers to take any losses. The Liberals' paid lobbyist, Sergio Marchi, has lobbied the government 40 times on infrastructure. He represents the same crony capitalists that Kathleen Wynne has enriched by forcing Ontarians to pay through the nose for electricity. Why is the Liberal government forcing taxpayers to backstop the profits of Liberal wealthy elites?
The minister said the Conservative government underfunded infrastructure for a decade, that the government is making historic investments of $186 billion over the next decade, and that the goal is to mobilize private capital to address the remaining infrastructure deficit.
The minister does not address J.P. Morgan's figures, Marchi's lobbying, rates of return, or the risk-backstopping question, instead pivoting to Conservative infrastructure underfunding and the $186 billion investment figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are engaging through our partners. One thing we have learned is that for the last decade the Conservative government underfunded infrastructure. We have a huge infrastructure deficit in our Canadian communities. We are making historic investments of $186 billion over the next decade. Despite that, there still remains or will remain an infrastructure deficit. Our goal is to mobilize private capital to build the necessary infrastructure, to grow our economy, create jobs, and support our municipalities in helpingâ
If the Prime Minister himself, as member for Papineau, supported removing the transphobic air passenger screening regulation in 2012, why has he taken absolutely no action on it as Prime Minister?
The question is well-grounded: it identifies the specific transphobic regulation governing air passenger screening, notes five years of NDP advocacy, cites the Liberals' own 2012 support for repeal, and holds the Prime Minister to his own prior commitment as member for Papineau.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for over five years, New Democrats have been urging the federal government to remove the transphobic regulation governing air passenger screening. This regulation has nothing to do with safety. Rather, it subjects transgender Canadians to public humiliation in facing questions about their gender and obstructs their right to travel. In 2012 the Liberals supported the NDP motion to repeal this regulation. In question period, the member for Papineau himself asked the Conservative government of the day to ditch the regulation. If he supported removing this discriminatory regulation then, why as Prime Minister has he taken absolutely no action?
The Minister of Transport said the government is looking at this issue at this very moment and will have more to say in due course.
The minister acknowledges the issue is under active review but provides no timeline, no commitment, and no substantive detail beyond 'we will have more to say in due course.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell my colleague that we are looking at this issue at this very moment and we will have more to say in due course.
After a year and a half in power during which the Prime Minister said repeal was urgent, will he commit today to repealing the discriminatory regulation on transgender air passengers â especially since no legislation is even required?
The question specifies one and a half years in government, notes the Prime Minister's prior personal statement calling repeal urgent, identifies that legislative action is unnecessary, and asks for a specific commitment to repeal the discriminatory rule.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on est un an et demi plus tard. Alors qu'il Ă©tait simple dĂ©putĂ©, le premier ministre a dit qu'il Ă©tait urgent d'abroger le rĂšglement des conservateurs qui interdit aux transporteurs aĂ©riens de laisser embarquer un passager qui ne semble pas ĂȘtre du genre indiquĂ© sur ses papiers d'identitĂ©. AprĂšs un an et demi au pouvoir, le premier ministre n'a toujours rien fait lĂ -dessus. Pourtant, c'est simple, et il n'a mĂȘme pas besoin de lĂ©gifĂ©rer. Est-ce que le premier ministre s'engage aujourd'hui Ă abroger cette rĂšgle discriminatoire, un affront direct Ă la communautĂ© trans?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that was a year and a half ago. When he was an ordinary member, the Prime Minister said urgent action was needed to repeal the Conservative regulation that prohibits airlines from allowing a person to board a plane if their appearance does not match the gender on their identification. After a year and a half in power, the Prime Minister has done nothing on this. The solution is simple; he does not even need to pass legislation. Will the Prime Minister commit today to repealing this discriminatory regulation, a direct affront to the trans community?
The minister repeated that the government is examining the situation at this moment, offering no further detail or commitment.
The minister repeats only that the situation is being examined, providing no commitment, no timeline, and no additional information compared to the previous answer.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je viens de l'indiquer, nous sommes à examiner cette situation en ce moment.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated, we are looking into this situation at this very moment.
How is the Canadian government supporting Canada 150 initiatives in partnership with Montreal's 375th anniversary celebrations?
This is a government-backbench softball question asking the minister to highlight federal support for Canada 150 and Montreal's 375th anniversary celebrations.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en tant que fier Canadien et fier Montréalais, je trouve cette année particuliÚrement importante. Pendant que nous célébrons le 150e anniversaire du Canada, nous célébrons aussi aujourd'hui le 375e anniversaire de Montréal. Des visiteurs du Canada et du monde entier vont venir ici, chez nous, pour célébrer notre culture et nos artistes. Le ministre des Transports peut-il nous dire comment le gouvernement canadien appuie ces initiatives en partenariat avec Canada 150?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as a proud Canadian and proud Montrealer, this year is especially important to me. While we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Canada, today we are also celebrating the 375th anniversary of Montreal. Visitors from Canada and around the world will be coming here to celebrate our culture and our artists. Can the Minister of Transport tell us how the Canadian government is supporting these initiatives in partnership with Canada 150?
The minister confirmed federal support of $18 million for Montreal's 375th anniversary celebrations and highlighted the role of Montreal's artists and creators in showcasing their talents across Canada and internationally.
The minister provides a concrete figure â $18 million in federal support â and connects it to the celebration of Montreal's artists and creators, giving real informational content.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'aimerais tout d'abord remercier l'honorable dĂ©putĂ© de Bourassa de cette question et de tout le beau travail qu'il fait pour faire la promotion des arts et de la culture montrĂ©alaise. Oui, cette annĂ©e est une annĂ©e de cĂ©lĂ©brations, non seulement pour le Canada, mais aussi pour MontrĂ©al, qui fĂȘte son 375e anniversaire. Nous sommes lĂ pour elle. Nous l'appuyons au moyen d'un montant de 18 millions de dollars. Nous sommes lĂ pour cĂ©lĂ©brer nos artistes et nos crĂ©ateurs montrĂ©alais, qui vont faire rayonner leurs talents partout au Canada et dans d'autres pays. Bonne fĂȘte, MontrĂ©al.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Bourassa for this question and for all the fine work he does to promote Montreal's arts and culture. Indeed, this is a year of celebrations not just for Canada, but also for Montreal, which is celebrating its 375th anniversary. We are here for Montreal. We are supporting Montreal with an $18-million envelope. We are here to celebrate Montreal's artists and creators, who share their talents across Canada and other countries. Happy anniversary, Montreal.
Will the Prime Minister ignore the NEB modernization panel recommendations and champion Canada's energy sector, or will he continue what the member calls an attack on Alberta's economy?
The question references recommendations received the previous day to modernize the National Energy Board but mischaracterizes them without citation and frames the ask in hyperbolic partisan terms ('cannot be trusted to drive Canada's economic engine').
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources received a list of recommendations to modernize the National Energy Board. It is no surprise that those recommendations are another hit on Alberta. We know the Liberals want to phase out Alberta's oil sands and we know they want to abandon our energy sector. That ideology was clear in these recommendations that stated Albertans cannot be trusted to drive Canada's economic engine. On Wednesday, will the Prime Minister ignore these recommendations and finally be a champion for Canada's energy sector, or will he continue the attack on Alberta by dismantling our economy?
The minister expressed pride in Alberta's contribution to the Canadian economy, referenced a recent visit to Alberta to announce investments to lower the carbon footprint in the oil sands, and affirmed Alberta is an essential driver of the Canadian economy.
The minister expresses pride in Alberta's energy sector contribution and mentions a recent Alberta visit to announce investments to lower the carbon footprint in the oil sands, but does not address the NEB recommendations or the specific question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House continue to be proud of and impressed with the contribution of Alberta to the Canadian economy, principally in the energy sector. I was very happy to be in Alberta last week and, along with the provincial government and the private sector, to announce significant investments that will lower the carbon footprint within the oil sands. We know that Alberta has been an essential driver of the Canadian economy and will continue to be.
Does the Prime Minister believe career politicians in Ottawa can make better evidence-based decisions than the industry experts, engineers, environmental scientists, and technicians based in Calgary, given the panel's recommendation to move the NEB there?
The question references a specific panel recommendation to move the NEB from Calgary to Ottawa and poses a clear contrast between on-site industry experts and Ottawa politicians, making it reasonably specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the latest attack in the Liberals' war against Alberta came from the Prime Minister. His panel recommended that the National Energy Board be moved from Calgary to Ottawa. This would move the NEB away from industry experts, engineers, environmental scientists, and technicians and toward lobbyists and politicians. Does the Prime Minister really believe that career politicians in Ottawa can make better evidence-based decisions than experts who live on site in Calgary?
The minister welcomed the new member, affirmed awareness of Alberta's and Calgary's contributions as engines of growth in the energy sector, but did not address the NEB relocation recommendation.
The minister welcomes the new member and praises Alberta and Calgary's contributions but does not address the specific recommendation to relocate the NEB or engage with the substance of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the hon. member to the House. I know that she will do a terrific job for her constituents, as she has started to do already today. I want to assure her that the government is well aware of the contributions of Alberta and of Calgary as engines of growth within the energy sector. We know that this is not only a reflection on their past accomplishments, but utter confidence in what they will do in the future, not on behalf of Alberta alone butâ
Are the Liberals intentionally making it harder to get job-creating energy projects built by doubling review timelines and adding new layers of red tape through the NEB and Canadian Environmental Review panels, or is it gross incompetence?
The question makes a factual claim that not a single kilometre of new pipeline has been built and references the NEB review panel's recommendations to double review timelines and add red tape, though without citing a specific document.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for unemployed energy workers, Liberal talk on approving pipelines is cheap. Not a single shovel has hit the ground to get a single kilometre of new pipeline built under the current government. Now the Liberal-appointed NEB review panel wants to make it even harder to get projects built by doubling review timelines and adding new layers of red tape. When we add the recommendations of the Canadian Environmental Review Panel, it will be next to impossible to get another major project built in this country ever again. Are the Liberals making it harder to get job-creating energy projects built on purpose, or is it just a result of their gross incompetence?
The minister said the regulatory environment inherited from the Conservatives yielded no pipeline to tidewater, and committed to consulting Canadians coast to coast to coast before improving the regulatory system.
The minister counters by noting the previous regulatory environment also yielded no pipeline to tidewater, commits to coast-to-coast consultation, and expresses confidence the system will improve, but does not address the specific recommendation on doubled timelines.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that the regulatory environment that he recommended and we inherited did not yield any pipeline construction to tidewater, not a single kilometre. We think that we can do better and that the regulatory system in Canada can be improved. We have asked review panels to consult with Canadians. We will now go out and talk to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and when we return some months from now, I am confident that the regulatory system will be much better than the one we inherited.
If the Prime Minister is truly committed to getting energy projects built, will he have the courage to go to Burnaby and Vancouver to sell pipeline projects as he has done in Calgary and Houston?
The question makes a pointed and specific ask â will the Prime Minister go to Burnaby and Vancouver to sell pipeline projects as he has gone to Calgary and Houston â grounding the accountability challenge in a concrete action the government has not taken.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been doing a victory lap for months, trumpeting their pipeline approvals as though press releases issued in Ottawa will actually get projects built, but talk is cheap, and unemployed energy workers want to see shovels in the ground. For a government so intent on chasing the fantasy of social licence, the Liberals have done precious little to cultivate it. The Prime Minister has gone to oil towns like Calgary and Houston to sell the merits of pipeline projects, but if he is truly committed to getting these energy projects built, will he finally have the courage to do the same in Burnaby and Vancouver?
Where's the one you rejected? Tell me about that.
Where's the pipeline?
The minister said the government approved the Trans Mountain expansion to diversify markets for Canadian oil and gas, and that it will create 15,000 jobs mostly for Albertans and British Columbians, while respecting the environment.
The minister confirms approval of the Trans Mountain expansion and cites 15,000 jobs created mostly for Albertans and British Columbians, which is partially relevant, but does not address the specific ask about the Prime Minister speaking in Burnaby and Vancouver.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we approved the Trans Mountain expansion because we understand that the diversification of markets for Canadian oil and gas is vital for the future of the Alberta energy economy, and I am sure that all members on the other side of the House would agree with that. We approvedâ
âthe pipeline expansion, and that will create 15,000 jobs, mostly for Albertans but also for British Columbians. We believe it is part of the important strategy of creating jobs while respecting the environmentâ
âat the same time.
Given that the Auditor General's report released yesterday identified the government's failure to manage the Temporary Foreign Workers Program and demonstrated ongoing misuse and abuse, when will the government correct the program's deep and persistent problems?
The question references the Auditor General's report released the previous day, which identified government failure in managing the Temporary Foreign Workers Program, and asks when the government will correct the deep and persistent problems it identified.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les libéraux ont fait de grandes promesses en disant qu'ils allaient corriger les lacunes du Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires. Malheureusement, le rapport du vérificateur général, rendu public hier, pointe l'échec du gouvernement quant à la gestion du programme et démontre clairement qu'il a permis la poursuite des mauvais usages et des abus. Encore une promesse rompue! Quand le gouvernement va-t-il respecter sa promesse et corriger les problÚmes profonds et persistants du Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals made big promises about how they were going to fix the problems with the temporary foreign worker program. Unfortunately, the Auditor General's report, which was released yesterday, indicates that the government has failed to properly manage the program. It also clearly shows that the government has allowed the improper use and abuse of the program to continue. That is another broken promise. When will the government keep its promise and fix the serious, ongoing problems with the temporary foreign worker program?
The parliamentary secretary thanked the Auditor General, noted Liberals and NDP had pushed Conservatives to review the program four times, credited John McCallum for commissioning the study, and said the government has been moving on recommendations and will continue working with industry, labour, and employers.
The parliamentary secretary thanks the Auditor General, blames Conservatives for the botched program, and says the government has been moving on recommendations, but provides no specific actions taken or timelines.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government wants to thank the Auditor General for his study. Certainly, as the member said, for the entirety of the last Parliament, both the Liberals and the NDP pushed the Conservatives to review this program on four different occasions. I commend John McCallum for calling the Auditor General to put together this study. It identifies that a botched program under the Conservatives has been provided with some recommendations. We have been moving on these recommendations and will continue to work with industry, with labour, and with employers to make sure that Canadians are first on the job, last offâ
Is the Liberal platform commitment to deliver a safe, secure, and humane refugee system a real promise, given that massive backlogs, unfair treatment, and lack of resources are threatening the integrity of Canada's refugee system?
The question references the platform commitment to 'deliver a safe, secure, and humane refugee system' and cites massive backlogs, unfair treatment, and lack of resources, but combines this with a rhetorical setup about Liberal promises and lacks specific data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister promised to fix the temporary foreign workers program, I guess that was a Liberal promise and not a real one. What about the platform commitment to overhaul Canada's broken refugee system? Massive backlogs, unfair treatment, and lack of resources are threatening the integrity of our system. Was the promise to âdeliver a safe, secure, and humane refugee systemâ a real promise or just another Liberal promise?
The parliamentary secretary said the government is committed to a solid, fair, and compassionate asylum system, that the commission introduced shorter and simpler hearings, and that a working group has been established to tackle inventories and eliminate backlogs inherited from the previous government.
The parliamentary secretary mentions specific measures such as shorter and simpler hearings introduced by the commission and a working group to tackle inventories and eliminate inherited backlogs, engaging partially with the substance though not addressing the specific platform commitment or resourcing concerns.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis fier de l'engagement de notre gouvernement à accueillir ceux qui fuient la guerre, la terreur et la persécution. La question de la députée comporte plusieurs volets. Notre gouvernement s'est engagé à mettre en place un systÚme d'asile solide, juste et basé sur la compassion. La commission a récemment introduit de nouvelles mesures, telles que les audiences plus courtes et plus simples, ce qui rendra ces processus plus efficaces et conduira à une plus grande productivité et à une plus grande équité, ce qui a été mis en oeuvre sans compromettre l'intégrité du programme. La commission a également mis en place un groupe de travail pour s'attaquer aux inventaires, ce qui permettra l'élimination des arriérés de demandes d'asile hérités du précédent gouvernement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am proud of our government's commitment to welcoming those fleeing war, terror, and persecution. There were several parts to the member's question. Our government committed to establishing a sound, fair, and compassionate asylum system. The board recently introduced new measures, including shorter, simpler hearings in order to make the process more efficient, productive, and fair. These measures do not compromise the program's integrity. The board also set up a working group to deal with the existing caseload, which will help eliminate the backlog of refugee claims inherited from the previous government.
Will the Liberals reverse their decision and fund the Canadian autism partnership, which proposed a modest budget of $19 million over five years?
Cites specific organizations, a specific budget figure ($19 million over five years), and asks a single clear yes/no accountability question directed at the Prime Minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government funded a working group to establish a Canadian autism partnership. After two years of work, the Liberals rejected the request of the working group, the self-advocates advisory group, and the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorders Alliance, which proposed a modest budget of $19 million over five years. My question is simple, and since it is Wednesday, I wonder if the right hon. Prime Minister might like to answer. Will the Liberals reverse their decision and fund the Canadian autism partnership?
The minister cited $40 million in federal research funding for autism spectrum disorder over five years and noted ongoing work with provinces and territories, but did not address the partnership funding request.
The minister acknowledges autism spectrum disorder and cites $40 million in research funding but never addresses the specific Canadian autism partnership request or answers whether the decision will be reversed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by acknowledging, along with all members in the House, that autism spectrum disorder is a cause of lifelong concerns for people who are affected by it, including their families. We are all recognizing the need to advance further opportunities for recognizing these disorders and providing treatment. That is why we have put significant resources behind research. In fact, we have funded research in the order of $40 million over the last five years for autism spectrum disorder. We are continuing to work on surveillance. We are continuing to work with provinces and territories to provide the resources they need.
Will the Liberal government commit today to funding the Canadian autism partnership, which is requesting $3.8 million per year?
Highly specific: names the working group and alliance, cites the exact annual cost ($3.8 million per year, a dime per Canadian), and poses a single direct yes/no commitment question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that sounds like a no to me, so I will try this again. The Canadian Autism Partnership Working Group, along with a team of amazing self-advocates and the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorders Alliance, worked for almost two years on this. They are requesting $3.8 million per year, a dime per Canadian, a dime, to fund a partnership that will meaningfully improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Will the Liberal government commit today to funding the Canadian autism partnership?
The minister cited federal research support and provincial responsibility for treatment delivery, and referenced upcoming accessibility legislation, without committing to fund the partnership.
The minister praises the member, pivots to research funding and provincial responsibilities, and mentions upcoming accessibility legislation, but never commits to or declines funding the Canadian autism partnership.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as we speak about the matter of autism spectrum disorder, I want to acknowledge the tremendous work of the member. He is one of many stakeholders across this country who work very hard. One of the best ways that the federal government can support advancements in autism spectrum disorder is to support research, and we have done so in a significant way. We have also supported the provinces and territories which bear the responsibility for the delivery of treatment services. I am also working alongside the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities. She is about to develop accessibility legislation that will have a real impact on people who experience autism spectrum disorder. We will work with all partners to supportâ
Given the Native Women's Association of Canada's failing grade and boycott recommendation for the missing and murdered inquiry's intake process, what will the Prime Minister do to fix the mess?
Cites a specific Globe and Mail headline, the Native Women's Association of Canada's failing grade, and a boycott recommendation, but the ask â 'what will he do to fix the mess' â is somewhat vague and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a headline in today's Globe and Mail reads, âBungled start to missing, murdered inquiry is insulting to Indigenous peopleâ. Just yesterday, the Native Women's Association of Canada gave it a failing grade, and said that the intake process is cruel and unusual. The association has gone so far as to recommend that it be boycotted until the intake process is fixed. The Prime Minister has said there is no relationship more important to him. This inquiry was a cornerstone of his campaign pledge. It is Wednesday, will he stand up and tell us what he is going to do to fix the mess?
The minister reaffirmed commitment to the inquiry, noted she read the families' letter and awaited the commission's response, and cited government investments in women's shelters, housing, education, and child welfare reform.
The minister acknowledges family concerns and cites Waneek Horn-Miller's response and government investments in root causes, but does not specify concrete steps to fix the intake process identified as the problem.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ending the ongoing national tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. The terms of reference of the inquiry make clear that the families should and must be at the centre. I have read the letter from the families. They are making heartfelt suggestions and asking important questions. I am looking forward to hearing the commission's response. I was pleased to see last evening when Waneek Horn-Miller responded to say that the commission can do better. Our government has also taken immediate action on the root causes, with investments in women's shelters, housing, education, and reforms to the child welfare system.
Can the minister give the House an update on the steps she is taking to lower prescription drug prices in Canada?
This is a government-backbench softball setup that references prior government action and invites the minister to update the House, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are paying too much for prescription drugs. We have the second-highest per capita spending for pharmaceuticals in the OECD. The government took quick action last year by joining the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance to leverage better prices with the collective buying power of the provinces and territories. It is saving taxpayers $700 million per year, but it is not enough. Can the minister give the House an update on the steps she is taking to lower prescription drug prices in Canada?
The minister announced consultations and a proposed suite of regulations for the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, describing them as the most significant suite of regulatory changes for the board in more than 20 years.
The minister provides a substantive and specific answer, announcing consultations and proposed regulations for the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board described as the most significant suite of regulatory changes in more than 20 years.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the Prime Minister asked me to work to make sure that prescription medications are accessible, affordable, and appropriately prescribed. To that end, I was very pleased yesterday to announce consultations and a proposed suite of regulations for the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. This is the most significant suite of regulatory changes for this board in more than 20 years. It will have a real impact on the cost of prescription medications in this country. All Canadians will save money. I encourage people to participate in this discussion.
Will the Liberals stop blaming others and take responsibility for launching Phoenix while dismissing 250 compensation experts between February and April 2016?
Cites specific facts â 250 compensation experts dismissed between February and April 2016 and the Phoenix launch date of February 24, 2016 â and asks a pointed accountability question about ministerial responsibility.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis un an, le premier ministre refuse d'admettre sa responsabilitĂ© dans le fiasco de PhĂ©nix. Le premier ministre a mis Ă la porte 250 experts en rĂ©munĂ©ration entre fĂ©vrier et avril 2016 alors mĂȘme qu'il lançait le systĂšme de paie PhĂ©nix. Cela veut dire que les libĂ©raux sont responsables non seulement d'avoir lancĂ© le systĂšme le 24 fĂ©vrier 2016, mais qu'ils sont aussi responsables d'avoir rĂ©duit le nombre d'experts, ce qui cause des dĂ©lais et des erreurs en matiĂšre de paie. Les libĂ©raux vont-ils cesser de blĂąmer les autres et enfin prendre leurs responsabilitĂ©s?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for the past year, the Prime Minister has refused to acknowledge his responsibility in the Phoenix fiasco. The Prime Minister laid off 250 compensation experts between February and April 2016 as he was launching the Phoenix pay system. This means that the Liberals are responsible not only for launching the system on February 24, 2016, but also for cutting the number of experts, which has caused delays and compensation errors. Will the Liberals stop deflecting blame and finally take responsibility?
The parliamentary secretary blamed the previous Conservative government for dismissing 700 compensation advisors and for accounting savings that were not there, framing Phoenix as an inherited problem.
The parliamentary secretary deflects entirely to the previous Conservative government's dismissal of 700 compensation advisors and the alleged fake budget surplus, never addressing the specific claim about the 250 experts dismissed in 2016.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il n'y a vraiment pas de gĂȘne. Le parti de l'autre cĂŽtĂ© a congĂ©diĂ© 700 conseillers en rĂ©munĂ©ration, a comptabilisĂ©, pour son faux surplus budgĂ©taire, 70 millions de dollars en Ă©pargne et en Ă©conomies qui n'Ă©taient pas lĂ . Ils nous ont lĂ©guĂ© un systĂšme qui nous fait honte et qui fait en sorte que nous devons dĂ©ployer de grands moyens afin d'y remĂ©dier et de nous donner un systĂšme de paie Ă la hauteur de nos attentes. C'est ce que nous allons faire. Il n'y a pas de gĂȘne de l'autre cĂŽtĂ© de la Chambre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, they really have no shame. The party opposite laid off 700 compensation advisers and, in order to post a false surplus, recorded $70 million in non-existent savings. They left us with a system that is a disgrace and that we have to spend a lot of money to fix so that it meets our expectations. That is what we are going to do. The other side of the House has no shame.
Will the Prime Minister follow through on his own stated commitment and support mandatory GMO labelling by voting for the member's bill tonight?
Quotes the Prime Minister directly from a Radio-Canada interview, cites the 80% public support figure and the Liberal Party's own 2016 Quebec wing resolution, and asks a single clear yes/no question tied to a same-day vote.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je vais citer le premier ministre: « J'entends trÚs clairement les consommateurs qui veulent en savoir plus sur ce qu'ils mettent dans leur corps. [...] On est en train de travailler avec eux. » C'est précisément ce qu'il a dit quand on lui a demandé, sur les ondes de Radio-Canada, ce qu'il pensait du fait que 80 % des gens sont favorables à l'étiquetage obligatoire des OGM. C'est sans compter une résolution parrainée par l'aile québécoise du Parti libéral lors de son dernier congrÚs de 2016. Ce soir, nous devrons voter pour savoir si, oui ou non, nous allons respecter cette volonté de transparence exprimée à maintes reprises par le premier ministre, son parti et une majorité de Canadiens. Le premier ministre va-t-il passer de la parole aux actes et appuyer mon projet de loi ce soir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the Prime Minister, who said, âI am hearing consumers say loud and clear that they want to know more about what they are putting in their bodies.... We are working with them.â That is exactly what he said on Radio-Canada when he was asked what he thought of the fact that 80% of the population supports mandatory GMO labelling, not to mention that the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party put forward a resolution about this during its 2016 convention. This evening, we will be voting on whether to honour the desire for transparency expressed repeatedly by the Prime Minister, his party, and the majority of Canadians. Will the Prime Minister walk the talk and support my bill this evening?
The minister stated that Canada has one of the safest food systems in the world, that the government believes in science, and that GMO products are safe and tested, without addressing the bill or the Prime Minister's quoted commitment.
The minister pivots to Canada's food safety record and the science-based approach to labelling, and asserts GMO products are safe, without addressing the Prime Minister's quoted commitment or the member's private member's bill vote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that Canada has one of the safest food systems in the world. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and I work along with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to ensure that. We are a government that believes in science. If there is any need to indicate on the basis of an analysis of any particular food that there is a reason to put a label on it, we make sure that happens. We know that GMO products are safe. They are all tested in this country. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and I are pleased to continue to make sure that is the case.
Could the Minister of Environment and Climate Change give the House an update on the steps the government is taking to complete the Rouge national urban park?
A government-backbench softball that simply asks the minister for an update on a government initiative with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Rouge national urban park is central to my riding, and with the passage of Bill C-18, the House of Commons is closer than ever to seeing it fully realized. Could the Minister of Environment and Climate Change please give the House an update on the steps our government is taking to complete the Rouge national urban park?
The minister announced the transfer of Transport Canada lands to Parks Canada, noting that Parks Canada now owns and manages more than half of the lands identified for the land assembly, and linked completion to passage of Bill C-18 in the Senate.
The minister provides a substantive update, citing the transfer of Transport Canada lands to Parks Canada and noting that Parks Canada now owns and manages more than half of the lands identified for the land assembly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for ScarboroughâRouge Park for his tireless advocacy on behalf of the Rouge national urban park. The Minister of Transport and I have announced a significant step toward the completion of Rouge national urban park with the transfer of Transport Canada lands to Parks Canada. With this transfer, Parks Canada now owns and manages more than half of the lands identified for the land assembly as Canada's first national urban park nears completion. Should Bill C-18 pass the Senate, ensuring the same protection for Rouge as there is for every other national park in Canada, I am confident we will be able to complete the park as we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Canadaâ
Will the Prime Minister ask the minister to reverse the decision to close the Vegreville case processing centre and keep these rural jobs in Vegreville?
References specific facts about employees receiving options and performance exceeding departmental targets, but the ask â to reverse the closure â is framed rhetorically and directed at the Prime Minister rather than the responsible minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last month employees at the Vegreville case processing centre were given their options for when the Liberals close the office. The minister and other Liberal MPs claim that the closure is to save money, but the employees in Vegreville consistently exceed departmental targets and outperform other offices. They unquestionably provide good value for taxpayers. Since it is Wednesday, will the Prime Minister ask the minister to reverse his predecessor's mistake and keep these rural jobs in Vegreville?
The parliamentary secretary acknowledged the impact on employees and families, noted that current employees would be able to keep their jobs at a new office located about 100 kilometres away, and committed to keeping communication channels open.
The parliamentary secretary acknowledges the impact on employees and families and notes the new office will be about 100 kilometres away, but does not address the performance argument or the request to reverse the closure.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous sommes trĂšs conscients que ce dĂ©mĂ©nagement aura des rĂ©percussions sur les employĂ©s et leurs familles. Nous allons continuer de tout mettre en oeuvre pour rĂ©duire au minimum ces rĂ©percussions. Les employĂ©s actuels du Centre seront en mesure de garder leur emploi au nouveau bureau, qui sera situĂ© Ă environ 100 kilomĂštres. J'ai moi-mĂȘme rencontrĂ© diffĂ©rents membres de la communautĂ© de cette rĂ©gion pour discuter de ce sujet. Je comprends que les prĂ©occupations de la collectivitĂ© sont rĂ©elles. Nous continuerons Ă garder les voies de communication ouvertes afin de continuer Ă discuter avec eux de l'enjeu qu'est le centre de Vegreville.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that this move will have an impact on employees and their families. We will continue to do everything we can to minimize that impact. People currently working at the centre will be able to keep their jobs at the new office, which will be about 100 kilometres away. I myself have met with members of the community to discuss this matter. I understand that their concerns are real. We will keep the lines of communication open so that we can continue to discuss the Vegreville centre with them.
Given the National Energy Board expert panel's damning report on the agency's lack of credibility, will the government reconsider approving Kinder Morgan, a pipeline that should never have been approved?
Names specific panel members including Brenda Kenny of the Canadian Pipeline Association and HĂ©lĂšne Lauzon, cites the expert panel's damning findings, but the ask is broad and the framing is heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board expert panel that reported this week included prominent industry people, such as Brenda Kenny of the Canadian Pipeline Association and HĂ©lĂšne Lauzon of the Quebec Business Council on the Environment. The report was damning. This is an agency that has no credibility whatsoever, and needs to be massively overhauled. Coupled with the expert panel on environmental assessment, it is clear that the bogus process upon which Kinder Morgan was subjected to a sham of a review does not have any credibility. Will the government reconsider approving a pipeline that should never have been approved?
The minister stated that no proponent would be asked to go back to square one under the principles established when the government took office, and noted that a longer-term reform of environmental assessment in Canada is now well under way.
The minister references the principles established upon taking office and acknowledges the review as an interim step toward longer-term environmental assessment reform, but does not directly address reconsidering the Kinder Morgan approval.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member knows that when we took office, there were a number of major infrastructure projects under review. We established a set of principles that would govern how they would be reviewed, and one of the important ones was that no proponent would be asked to go back to square one, which I am sure members of the House would agree is fair. We knew and announced at the time that this would be an interim step leading to a longer term reform of environmental assessment in Canada, a reform and a process that is now well under way.