Session overview
- Taxation dominated Question Period, with Conservative members repeatedly challenging the finance minister's proposed 73% tax on small business investment income, contrasting it with the exemption enjoyed by publicly traded companies such as Morneau Shepell.
- Minister of Finance Bill Morneau repeated virtually the same response in every exchange â that the government does not want a system that encourages the wealthy to incorporate to pay a lower tax rate than middle-class Canadians â without addressing the specific Morneau Shepell conflict-of-interest allegations.
- NDP members raised tax fairness from a different angle, calling on the government to extend the tax review to cover CEO stock options, tax havens, and Bay Street, arguing the Liberals were going after minnows while throwing back the whales.
- The provisional entry into force of CETA on September 21 was highlighted by the Minister of International Trade as opening a market of 510 million consumers, though dairy producers raised concerns that the Dairy Farm Investment Program was already half-exhausted with losses estimated at least three times the total fund.
- National defence and foreign affairs exchanges touched on ballistic missile defence and NORAD modernization, arms exports to Saudi Arabia, and the UN nuclear disarmament treaty, with the government providing partial answers and a confirmation that no new export permits for vehicles to Saudi Arabia had been issued.
- Public safety, immigration, indigenous housing, the environment, and health (World Alzheimer's Day) each received brief attention, with the Minister of Public Safety acknowledging design flaws in the no-fly list program and pointing to Bill C-59 as the beginning of legislative fixes.
Minister of Public Safety Ralph Goodale made a specific commitment â acknowledging the no-fly list was designed with a fundamental flaw requiring manual counter clearance and identifying Bill C-59 as the legislative vehicle to begin fixing it â giving the public a concrete policy admission and a named next step.
Poilievre cites a specific tax rate figure (73% for small businesses vs. 55% for public corporations), identifies a specific exemption for public corporations trading on the stock market, and names Morneau Shepell as a concrete example, making this a highly specific and accountable question.
Asked directly whether the Prime Minister would stop his campaign against local businesses and job creators, Jim Carr â the Minister of Natural Resources â ignored the question entirely and used his response to demand that Andrew Scheer denounce an unrelated comment made by a different Conservative member.
Outstanding questions
- Pierre Poilievre asked why the finance minister is applying a 73% tax rate to small business passive investment income while public corporations such as Morneau Shepell retain the lower 55% rate â the minister never explained or denied the specific differential (Exchanges 10, 11).
- HĂ©lĂšne LaverdiĂšre asked when the results of the Minister of Foreign Affairs' investigation into Canadian arms used against civilians in Saudi Arabia would be released and what action would follow â the parliamentary secretary confirmed the review was ongoing but gave no timeline or substantive next steps (Exchange 22).
- Alain Rayes asked whether the 35 business associations representing more than 1.2 million members were excluded from the tax reform consultations and whether they needed to pay $1,500 for a private cocktail with the Prime Minister to be heard â the Minister of Finance did not address the $1,500 cocktail allegation at all (Exchange 4).
- Ruth Ellen Brosseau asked whether the Minister of Agriculture would allocate more money to the Programme d'investissement pour fermes laitiĂšres given that 125 of 250 million dollars had been committed in under a week against estimated losses of at least 750 million dollars â the minister said 'other dollars are available' without specifying amounts or timelines (Exchange 17).
- Elizabeth May asked the Minister of Natural Resources to confirm that the National Energy Board would be removed from environmental assessments once and for all â the minister referenced ongoing modernization consultations but gave no commitment on removing the National Energy Board from environmental assessment (Exchange 39).
Scheer asks whether the Prime Minister will stop his 'campaign against local businesses' and cease attacking job creators with new taxes.
The question is largely rhetorical, framing tax proposals as a 'campaign against local businesses' without citing specific provisions or data, and the ask is vague.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, le premier ministre a continuĂ© sa campagne contre les petites entreprises. Nos entreprises locales ont besoin d'outils pour Ă©pargner quand cela va bien et pour traverser les pĂ©riodes difficiles, car elles veulent ĂȘtre capables de payer leurs employĂ©s quand cela va moins bien. Toutefois, en raison des nouveaux impĂŽts du premier ministre, il sera plus difficile d'y arriver. Le premier ministre va-t-il arrĂȘter sa campagne contre les entreprises locales et cesser d'attaquer nos crĂ©ateurs d'empois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister continued his campaign against small businesses. Our local businesses need tools for saving money when times are good, money for a rainy day, because they want to be able to pay their employees when times are tough. However, the Prime Minister's new taxes will make it harder for them to do that. Will the Prime Minister end his campaign against local businesses and stop attacking job creators?
Carr ignores the tax question entirely and instead calls on the Leader of the Opposition to denounce sexist comments made by a Conservative member about the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
The minister completely ignores the tax question and instead pivots to demanding the Leader of the Opposition denounce a colleague's sexist comments, making no connection to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all week the Conservatives pretended to stand up for business women. Members on this side were deeply disappointed by comments made by the Conservative member for BattlefordsâLloydminster about the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. We can all agree that sexist comments should not be part of the public debate or part of any conversation anywhere, period. Will the Leader of the Opposition stand here today, do the right thing, denounce his member's comments, and ask him to issue a full apology to the House?
Scheer argues the Prime Minister's tax hikes will mean fewer jobs, lower salaries, and less investment, and asks why the Prime Minister is putting up roadblocks to job creation.
The question makes a general economic argument about tax hikes reducing jobs and investment but offers no specific figures or cited evidence, and the ask remains rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, women entrepreneurs expect their government to stand with them, not attack them. The Prime Minister does not seem to understand that his tax hikes will mean fewer jobs, fewer working hours, and lower salaries and benefits for workers employed by small and local businesses. Here is a lesson for the Prime Minister. When he raises taxes on businesses, he makes it harder for them to grow and hire more workers. He makes it harder for them to invest in new, start-up businesses that would create even more jobs. Why is the Prime Minister putting up roadblocks to job creation?
Oh, oh!
Carr expresses disappointment that the Leader of the Opposition will not denounce his member's inappropriate comments and asks him to apologize to all Canadians.
Carr again refuses to address the tax question at all, repeating the demand that the Leader of the Opposition denounce his member's comments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, how disappointing.
Mr. Speaker, it is very disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition will not denounce these statements and not show that the leader of his entire caucus understands how inappropriate those comments were and ask the member to apologize to all members of the House and all Canadians, today.
Scheer points out that the Prime Minister publicly confirmed his family fortune is held in at least three numbered companies and that he would not be affected by his own tax changes, and asks how that is fair while targeting local plumbers, mechanics, and farmers.
The question is grounded in a specific, verifiable fact â the Prime Minister's own public acknowledgment that his family fortune is held in at least three numbered companies and that he would not be affected by his own tax changes â making it a pointed accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while answering media questions yesterday, the Prime Minister described his âfamily fortuneâ, which is held in at least three separate numbered companies. It must be nice. Shockingly, he confirmed that he would not be affected by the tax changes he has claimed are intended to make wealthy Canadians pay more. While the Prime Minister is going after local plumbers, mechanics, and farmers, he is bragging that he will not be affected. How is that fair?
Carr does not address the question about the Prime Minister's numbered companies and instead continues to call on the Leader of the Opposition to denounce his colleague's comments about women.
Carr again completely ignores the substance of the question about the Prime Minister's numbered companies and instead repeats the demand regarding denunciation of sexist comments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, not only do we on this side of the House defend the entrepreneurs and businesswomen, we also represent the integrity and respect women from coast to coast to coast. The Leader of the Opposition refuses to denounce the comments of his colleague in front of all members of the House and, indeed, in front of all Canadians.
Rayes states that 35 associations representing more than 1.2 million members were never consulted on the Liberal tax reform, and asks whether those people must pay $1,500 to attend a private cocktail event with the Prime Minister to be heard.
The question cites a specific and verifiable figure â 35 associations representing more than 1.2 million members that were never consulted â and asks a pointed question about access to the Prime Minister via $1,500 cocktail events.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, 35 associations d'entreprises, de PME, de professionnels, de travailleurs autonomes et d'agriculteurs, qui regroupent plus de 1,2 million de membres, n'ont jamais été consultées sur la réforme fiscale du gouvernement libéral. On ne parle pas ici de multimillionnaires, on parle de gens qui travaillent fort jour aprÚs jour pour créer des emplois partout au Canada. Ma question est simple: est-ce que ces personnes doivent payer 1 500 $ pour participer à un cocktail privé du premier ministre afin de se faire écouter?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, 35 organizations representing businesses, SMEs, professionals, self-employed workers, and farmers, with more than 1.2 million members between them, were never consulted about the Liberal government's tax reforms. These are not multi-millionaires we are talking about. These are people who work hard day after day to create jobs right across the country. My question is simple: is paying $1,500 to attend a private cocktail party with the Prime Minister the only way for these people to make themselves heard?
Morneau says the government does not want a system that encourages the wealthy to use private corporations to pay lower taxes than the middle class, and that they are consulting across the country including visits to chambers of commerce.
Morneau addresses the general goal of the tax reform and mentions ongoing consultations including visits to chambers of commerce, but does not address the specific allegation that 35 associations representing 1.2 million members were excluded from consultation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous ne voulons pas d'un systĂšme qui encourage les plus riches Ă avoir une sociĂ©tĂ© privĂ©e pour bĂ©nĂ©ficier d'un niveau d'imposition plus bas que la classe moyenne. Cela est notre but. Nous sommes Ă l'Ă©coute. Maintenant, nous sommes en pĂ©riode de consultation. Nous Ă©coutons les gens Ă travers notre pays. Je vais dans les chambres de commerce partout au pays pour Ă©couter, et ça, c'est trĂšs important. Nous allons continuer d'Ă©couter pour ĂȘtre certains que nos mesures ont le but nĂ©cessaire afin d'avoir un systĂšme qui est juste.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we want to get rid of a system that encourages the wealthiest Canadians to incorporate so they can get a lower rate of tax than middle-class Canadians. That is what we are trying to do. We are listening. We are in the middle of consultations right now. We are listening to people across the country. I am visiting chambers of commerce all across Canada to hear what they have to say, and that is very important. We are going to continue to listen so that we can make sure our measures are the right ones to help us come up with a system that is fair.
Rayes cites the case of Joseph, a small business owner who wrote that the tax reform forces him to liquidate equipment and close, and asks whether the minister will back down from his unfair and improvised tax reform.
The question uses a real constituent anecdote (Joseph) to illustrate a concrete harm â being forced to liquidate equipment and close â giving it some factual grounding, but the ask ('will the minister back down') is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, voici un cas réel. Un entrepreneur, Joseph, propriétaire d'une petite entreprise m'a écrit hier sur Facebook: « J'ai tenu mon entreprise à bout de bras depuis longtemps et la réforme fiscale me force à liquider l'équipement et fermer. La vision libérale est une façon d'aider les gros et de tuer les petits. » C'est la vérité. Ce n'est pas en taxant plus les PME que le gouvernement va aider Joseph et les familles partout au Canada. Est-ce que le ministre va reculer dans son injuste réforme fiscale improvisée?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, here is a real life example. Joseph, an entrepreneur and small business owner, wrote me a message yesterday on Facebook. He said, âI have struggled to stay in business for a long time, but this tax reform is forcing me to liquidate my equipment and shut down. The Liberals' vision involves helping the wealthy at the little guy's expense.â That is the truth. The government is not going to help Joseph and families across Canada by raising taxes for SMEs. Will the minister rethink his unfair, ad hoc tax reform?
Morneau says the current system encourages the wealthy to use private corporations to pay lower taxes than the middle class, and that they are listening to small businesses to ensure the system works for them while allowing active investment.
Morneau repeats the government's general rationale about tax fairness and says they are listening to small businesses, but does not address the specific concern raised about Joseph or the claim that the reform forces small business closures.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la vĂ©ritĂ© est que nous avons maintenant un systĂšme qui encourage les plus riches Ă avoir une sociĂ©tĂ© privĂ©e pour avoir un niveau d'imposition plus bas que la classe moyenne. C'est cela la vĂ©ritĂ©. C'est notre situation. Donc, nous voulons ĂȘtre certains que notre systĂšme est juste. Nous avons Ă©coutĂ© les PME pour ĂȘtre certains que le systĂšme marche pour eux en mĂȘme temps qu'ils puissent continuer de faire des investissements actifs dans leurs entreprises. Cela est trĂšs important. Nous sommes Ă l'Ă©coute.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that we currently have a tax system that encourages the wealthy to incorporate so they have a lower tax rate than the middle class. That is the truth. That is our situation. That is why we want to be sure that our system is fair. We listened to SMEs to make sure that the system works for them so that they can continue to make active investments in their businesses. That is very important. We are listening.
Mulcair notes the Prime Minister left the door open to joining American ballistic missile defence one month after saying the Liberals would not change their position, cites the Canadian deputy commander of NORAD's warning that U.S. policy is not to defend Canada, and asks how Trump convinced the Liberal government to keep this on the table.
Mulcair cites a specific recent statement by the Prime Minister, references a warning from the Canadian deputy commander of NORAD about U.S. policy not defending Canada, and asks a pointed question about what has changed the government's position on ballistic missile defence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister left the door open to joining American ballistic missile defence, just one month after saying the Liberals would not change their position against such a system. The system is dangerously unreliable, exorbitantly expensive, and it may well just spur a nuclear arms race. Just last week the Canadian deputy commander of NORAD warned clearly, âThe extant U.S. policy is not to defend Canada.â How has Trump convinced the Liberal government to keep this one on the table nonetheless?
Sajjan says the security of Canadians and defence of North America are paramount, that the new defence policy recognizes growing ballistic missile threats and commits to working with the United States on NORAD modernization, and that 'the policy has not changed yet.'
Sajjan acknowledges the growing threat of ballistic missiles, references the new defence policy and NORAD modernization, and explicitly states 'the policy has not changed yet,' which partially addresses the question but does not explain what Trump said or did to keep the option on the table.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the security of Canadians and the defence of North America are of the utmost importance to the Canadian Armed Forces and to our government. Our new defence policy recognizes the growing threats of ballistic missiles and commits to continuing to work actively with the United States and looking broadly at all threats to North America, as we look at NORAD modernization. However, the policy has not changed yet.
Mulcair challenges the logic of Liberals opposing the UN nuclear disarmament treaty while keeping open the option of joining a ballistic missile defence system he describes as ineffective and dangerous, and asks whether the government is accepting Trump's bellicose policy instead of joining 120-plus countries in diplomatic disarmament efforts.
Mulcair raises a genuine tension between opposing the UN nuclear disarmament treaty and keeping ballistic missile defence on the table, but the question is broadly rhetorical and ends with 'Dans quelle sorte de monde souhaitent-t-ils vivre?' rather than a specific answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, quelle est la logique du gouvernement? Les libéraux s'opposent au traité de l'ONU pour le désarmement nucléaire, mais laissent la porte ouverte à la participation à un systÚme qui est inefficace, dangereux et qui va précipiter une course aux armements. C'est cela la politique étrangÚre des libéraux? Est-ce d'accepter la politique belliqueuse de Donald Trump qui a promis le feu et la colÚre au lieu de participer aux efforts diplomatiques de plus de 120 pays pour le désarmement? Dans quelle sorte de monde souhaitent-t-ils vivre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what is the government's logic? The Liberals are opposed to the UN treaty for nuclear disarmament, but they are leaving the door open to participating in an ineffective, dangerous system that will precipitate an arms race. Is that the Liberals' foreign policy? Is it accepting Donald Trump's belligerent fire and fury policy rather than participating in the diplomatic efforts that more than 120 countries are making towards disarmament? What kind of world do they want to live in?
Garneau says nuclear disarmament is the government's goal and cites Canada's 2016 effort rallying 159 countries to sign a treaty on the dissolution of fissile materials as a tangible measure.
Garneau asserts that nuclear disarmament is the government's goal and cites Canada rallying 159 countries in 2016 to sign a treaty on the dissolution of fissile materials, which is somewhat relevant but does not address the logical contradiction Mulcair raised about ballistic missile defence.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, vous pouvez ĂȘtre sĂ»r que notre but c'est le dĂ©sarmement nuclĂ©aire; nous travaillons fort pour le faire avec des mesures tangibles. Pour la premiĂšre fois en 2016 le Canada a ralliĂ© 159 pays afin de signer le traitĂ© sur la dissolution des matiĂšres fissiles, et des pays dotĂ©s ou non de l'arme nuclĂ©aire l'ont signĂ©. C'est quelque chose de tangible. Nous travaillons vers le dĂ©sarmement nuclĂ©aire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, you can be sure that our goal is nuclear disarmament. We are working hard to take real action toward that goal. For the first time in 2016, Canada rallied 159 countries to sign the fissile material cut-off treaty, and countries signed that treaty, whether they had nuclear weapons or not. That is real action. We are working toward nuclear disarmament.
Cullen calls on the government to extend and expand the tax review beyond small business to address billions in tax havens and hundreds of millions in CEO stock options, asking whether the Liberals will get serious about going after tax cheats even if it might hurt wealthy and well-connected friends.
Cullen references billions in tax havens and hundreds of millions in CEO stock options as specific issues being ignored, and makes a pointed ask about extending the review, though the framing mixes substantive concerns with rhetorical flourish about 'wealthy and well-connected friends.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats have fought for tax fairness for generations, so we welcome the Liberals to the conversation with open arms, yet in typical Liberal fashion, they have somehow managed to screw up the consultation and decided to focus only on small business. The New Democrats are calling on the government to extend and expand this review to get it right. Billions in tax havens, hundreds of millions of dollars in CEO stock options, no wonder small businesses do not trust the Liberals when it comes to their affairs. The Minister of Finance is going after all the minnows but he keeps throwing back the whales. Will the Liberals get serious about going after tax cheats even if it might hurt some of their wealthy and well-connected friends?
Lebouthillier says the government committed to tackling tax evasion during the last election campaign and that investments of more than $1 billion over the last two budgets have allowed them to recover $13 billion.
Lebouthillier cites a $1 billion investment and $13 billion recovered in addressing tax evasion, which is factually relevant to the question about going after tax cheats, but does not address the specific ask to extend the review to cover tax havens and CEO stock options.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, lors de la derniÚre campagne électorale, notre gouvernement avait décidé de s'attaquer à l'évasion fiscale. Dans le cadre des deux derniers budgets, nous avons investi plus de 1 milliard de dollars qui nous ont permis d'aller récupérer 13 milliards de dollars. Le travail est commencé et nous allons le continuer.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, our government chose to tackle tax evasion. In our last two budgets, we invested over $1 billion, which enabled us to recover $13 billion. Now that we have started, we will not stop.
Boulerice accuses the Liberals of targeting only small businesses while doing nothing about the CEO stock option loophole, tax havens, and billionaires on Bay Street, and asks why they are keeping only the small fish while throwing back the big ones.
Boulerice makes the substantive point about the CEO stock option loophole being unaddressed, but the question is largely built around a fishing metaphor and the ask is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si les libĂ©raux Ă©taient sĂ©rieux Ă propos de l'Ă©quitĂ© fiscale, ils auraient respectĂ© leur promesse de mettre fin Ă l'Ă©chappatoire que seuls les PDG utilisent dans notre sociĂ©tĂ©. On a tous dĂ©jĂ entendu des histoires de pĂȘche. J'en ai une pas pire: normalement, dans une chaloupe, on jette les petits poissons dans l'eau et on garde les gros. Assez bizarrement, le ministre des Finances fait l'inverse: il rejette les gros poissons dans le lac et garde juste les petits. Pourquoi les libĂ©raux ciblent-ils juste les petites entreprises, alors qu'ils ne font rien en ce qui concerne leurs amis de Bay Street, les PDG, les milliardaires et les paradis fiscaux?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals were really serious about tax fairness, they would have kept their promise to eliminate the loophole available exclusively to CEOs. We have all heard fishing stories. Here is a good one. Usually fishers throw back the little fish and keep the big ones. Strangely enough, the Minister of Finance is doing the opposite: he is throwing the big ones back into the lake and keeping the little ones. Why are the Liberals attacking small businesses and doing nothing that might affect their Bay Street buddies, CEOs, billionaires, and tax havens?
Morneau repeats the government's goal of not having a system that encourages the wealthy to use private corporations to pay lower taxes than the middle class, and lists measures including cutting middle-class taxes, raising taxes on the top 1%, the Canada child benefit, and $1 billion added to the CRA.
Morneau lists several past measures â cutting taxes for the middle class, raising taxes on the top 1%, the Canada child benefit, and $1 billion added to the CRA â but does not address the specific question about the CEO stock option loophole or Bay Street friends.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je l'ai dit, nous ne voulons pas avoir un systÚme qui encourage les plus riches à avoir une société privée et à bénéficier d'un taux d'imposition plus bas que celui de la classe moyenne. Au cours des deux derniÚres années, nous avons réduit les impÎts de la classe moyenne, augmenté les impÎts du 1 % le mieux nanti, introduit l'Allocation canadienne pour enfants, et ajouté 1 milliard de dollars au budget de l'Agence du revenu du Canada. Le NPD n'a été d'accord avec aucune de nos mesures. Nous voulons continuer à appliquer un systÚme qui est juste.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we do not want a system that enables the rich to set up private companies so they can enjoy lower tax rates than the middle class. Over the past two years, we have cut taxes for the middle class, raised taxes on the wealthiest 1%, introduced the Canada child benefit, and given the Canada Revenue Agency an extra $1 billion to work with. The NDP supported none of those measures. We intend to stay on track with a system that is fair.
Poilievre states the Finance Minister wants to impose a 73% double tax on investment income of small businesses while public corporations remain exempt and pay only the current 55%, and asks how it is fair for a pizza shop owner to pay a higher tax rate than millionaire owners of public companies like Morneau Shepell.
Poilievre cites a specific tax rate figure (73% for small businesses vs. 55% for public corporations), identifies a specific exemption for public corporations trading on the stock market, and names Morneau Shepell as a concrete example, making this a highly specific and accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister wants to double tax the investment income of small businesses for a total of 73%, but public corporations, those trading on the stock market, are exempt from this new double tax, so they will keep paying the current lower 55% on their passive investment income. How is it fair for the pizza shop owner to pay a higher tax rate than the millionaire owners of public companies, like, say, Morneau Shepell?
Morneau repeats that the goal is to avoid a system that encourages wealthy individuals to incorporate for a lower tax rate than middle-class Canadians, and says they are listening to Canadians to make sure they get it right.
Morneau does not address the specific 73% vs. 55% rate disparity or the public corporation exemption, and instead repeats the general goal of not encouraging wealthy individuals to incorporate for lower tax rates.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, what we are talking about here is a system that encourages wealthy individuals to arrange their taxes in an incorporated way so they can get a lower rate of tax than middle-class Canadians. This is what we are trying to get after here. We are working hard to make sure we listen to Canadians, to understand the concerns of those people who are looking at this measure and how it might affect them. However, we want to be absolutely clear. Our goal is to have a system that is fair, one that makes sure we do not encourage the wealthy to have a lower tax rate than the middle class.
Poilievre argues the Liberals are creating the exact inequity they claim to oppose by imposing a 73% tax on small business owners on Main Street while owners of much bigger companies on Bay Street are exempt, and asks why the minister is only applying this rate to the little guys.
Poilievre directly challenges the minister's own stated logic by arguing the Liberals are creating the very inequity they claim to oppose â imposing a 73% rate on Main Street small businesses while Bay Street owners are exempt â which is a pointed accountability follow-up, though it repeats the same ground as Exchange 10.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, actually, that is precisely the system the Liberals are now creating. In fact, while the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister have gone around accusing our mechanics, farmers, and pizza shop owners of playing games to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, in fact, they are imposing a much higher tax rate on those small business owners than is paid by the owners of much bigger companies on Bay Street. If a 73% tax rate is so fair, then why is he only applying it to the little guys on Main Street and none of his big friends on Bay Street?
Morneau repeats the goal of not having a system that encourages the wealthy to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class, mentions combating misinformation, and says they will listen to Canadians.
Morneau does not address the specific allegation that the policy imposes higher rates on small businesses than on Bay Street, and instead repeats boilerplate about not wanting the wealthy to pay lower rates than the middle class and combating misinformation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that we do not have a system that encourages the wealthy to take up an approach that is going to make sure they have a lower tax rate than the middle class. We are going to stay on top of this. We are making sure that misinformation and inaccurate facts are dealt with. We are going to listen to Canadians and clarify what we are trying to achieve to make sure that everyone knows we are going to end up with a tax system that is more fair. That is our goal, and we are going to stick with that.
Deltell asks whether the minister considers it fair that Diane, a woman who owns a garage in Louis-Saint-Laurent, will pay 73% in tax under the Finance Minister's proposal while large financiers with big companies like Morneau Shepell will not.
Deltell names a specific constituent (Diane, a garage owner in Louis-Saint-Laurent), cites the 73% tax rate, and directly contrasts it with large financial firms including Morneau Shepell, making this a pointed and specific question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about fairness. La proposition du ministre des Finances vise Ă taxer 73 % des revenus de placement des petites entreprises. Le rĂ©sultat est que dans ma circonscription, il y a une femme d'affaires, Diane, propriĂ©taire d'un garage dans Louis-Saint-Laurent, qui va payer 73 % d'impĂŽt, alors que pour les grands financiers, ceux qui ont de grandes entreprises, comme par exemple Morneau Shepell, ce n'est pas du tout la mĂȘme chose. Est-ce que le ministre peut dire que c'est Ă©quitable que le petit entrepreneur et que la femme petite entrepreneure paient 73 % d'impĂŽt, alors que ce n'est pas le cas pour les grands milliardaires?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, parlons d'équité. The Minister of Finance's proposal is to tax small business investment income at 73%. This means that a businesswoman in my riding, Diane, who owns a garage in Louis-Saint-Laurent, will have to pay a 73% tax, while big financial corporations, such as Morneau Shepell, for example, will not have to pay the same rate at all. Is the minister really saying it is fair for small business owners, for the businesswoman in my riding, to pay 73%, when even billionaires do not have to pay that much?
Morneau says the government wants a fair system that does not allow wealthy Canadians to choose a lower tax rate than other Canadians, and that it wants small business owners to be able to invest actively in their businesses.
Morneau restates the general goal of tax fairness and mentions wanting small business owners to be able to invest actively, but does not address the specific disparity between Diane's 73% rate and the lower rate for owners of large companies like Morneau Shepell.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure we have a system that is fair. We want to make sure that wealthy Canadians cannot choose the approach that is going to allow them to have a lower tax rate than other Canadians. We also want to make sure that small business owners have the ability to invest actively in their businesses, because we are seeking to ensure that our economy can continue to grow. We are going to listen to people to make sure we get this right, but again, we are going to follow through with measures that will ensure that all Canadians can see that our system works for our country.
Deltell asks whether the Finance Minister finds it fair that Manon, a restaurant owner in Loretteville, will pay 73% in tax while billionaires on Bay Street like Morneau Shepell will not pay 73%.
Deltell again names a specific constituent (Manon, a restaurant owner in Loretteville) and repeats the specific 73% vs. Morneau Shepell contrast, which is pointed, though it largely repeats Exchange 12 without adding new factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la meilleure façon pour que cela fonctionne et que ce soit Ă©quitable, c'est que les propriĂ©taires de petites entreprises ne soient pas trop pĂ©nalisĂ©s par ce gouvernement qui est gourmand par rapport aux impĂŽts des petits entrepreneurs. La rĂ©alitĂ©, encore une fois dans ma circonscription, c'est qu'une femme d'affaires, Manon, propriĂ©taire d'un restaurant Ă Loretteville, pas tellement loin d'oĂč j'habite, va devoir payer 73 % d'impĂŽt, alors que les milliardaires de Bay Street, comme Morneau Shepell, ne payeront pas 73 % d'impĂŽt. Le ministre des Finances trouve-t-il cela Ă©quitable?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the best way for that to happen and for the system to be fair is if small business owners were not penalized by this greedy government that just wants more taxes from small businesses. Once again, the reality in my riding is that a businesswoman, Manon, who owns a restaurant in Loretteville, not too far from where I live, is going to have to pay a 73% tax, while Bay Street billionaires like Morneau Shepell will not pay 73%. Does the Minister of Finance think that is fair?
Morneau acknowledges that wealthy Canadians find ways to incorporate to pay lower tax rates than the middle class, says he will hold a tele-town hall the following week to hear Canadians' concerns, and reiterates the government will move forward to make the system fair for small businesses and all Canadians.
Morneau does not address the 73% disparity and instead mentions an upcoming tele-town hall as evidence of listening, which is marginally more concrete than previous answers but still does not engage the specific question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as we know, there are situations in our country where wealthy Canadians find a way to incorporate so they pay a lower rate of tax than middle-class Canadians. We know that this is not appropriate. I am happy to continue to talk with Canadians and listen to them. Over the course of the next week, I will be having a tele-town hall with Canadians so they can talk to me and give me a sense of their concerns and their issues. People will have questions. We are looking forward to listening, but we will move forward to make sure the system is fair and that it works for small businesses and for all Canadians.
Raitt describes meeting Andrew, an apple farmer in New Brunswick, who says the tax changes will force him to choose between his employees and his family, and begins to ask why the finance minister is forcing Andrew to pay a 73% tax that not even millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell face.
Raitt references personal consultations across four Atlantic provinces, names a specific constituent (Andrew, an apple farmer in New Brunswick) who faces choosing between employees and family, and connects this to the 73% tax vs. Morneau Shepell contrast, giving it some factual grounding, though the question is cut off before completion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for the last two weeks I have spoken with Canadians in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island. They have shared with me the stories of how they are going to be impacted by these tax changes. I met Andrew, who is an apple farmer in New Brunswick. He explained to me that his problem is this. He will, at some point in time, because of this impact, choose between his employees and his family. I do not think, under the minister's plan, Andrew being in a case where he has to think about one or the other is very fair. I want to know why the finance minister is forcing Andrew to pay a 73% tax that not even millionaire owners of Morneau Shepellâ
Morneau says the government is working toward a system that does not encourage wealthy Canadians to incorporate for a lower tax rate, that it is listening across the country to ensure continued business investment and job creation, and that the next generation deserves a fair tax system.
Morneau repeats the standard framing about not encouraging wealthy Canadians to incorporate for lower tax rates and mentions long-term investment in businesses, but does not address Andrew's specific situation or the incomplete question about Morneau Shepell.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we are looking toward a system that does not encourage wealthy Canadians to incorporate so they have a lower tax rate than middle-class Canadians. We are trying to make sure that people can invest in their businesses over the long term. That is our goal. We are certainly listening to people across the country to make sure that they will continue to invest in business and to create jobs, to ensure that we have a healthy economy for this generation and the next. The next generation, like this generation, deserves a fair tax system.
Raitt cites CFIB figures showing two-thirds of small and local businesses make less than $73,000 a year, notes that Morneau Shepell declared a cash dividend to shareholders the previous day, and asks why the finance minister is forcing small businesses to pay a 73% tax when even the millionaire owners and shareholders of Morneau Shepell will not have that on their dividends.
Raitt cites a specific CFIB figure (two-thirds of small and local businesses make less than $73,000 a year), references a same-day Morneau Shepell cash dividend declaration to shareholders as a concrete and timely fact, and asks a directly pointed question about the disparity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in one ear and out the other; that is the kind of listening they are having. CFIB released figures showing that two-thirds of Canadians, small and local businesses, make less than $73,000 a year. This just in: interestingly enough, yesterday, Morneau Shepell declared a cash dividend to shareholders. Why is the finance minister forcing small businesses to pay a 73% tax, when even the millionaire owners and shareholders of Morneau Shepell will not have that on their dividends?
Oh, oh!
Morneau repeats that the government wants a fair system that does not encourage wealthy Canadians to incorporate for a lower tax rate than the middle class, and says the members opposite were comfortable with the old system the previous government left in place.
Morneau repeats the standard framing about not wanting wealthy Canadians to incorporate for lower tax rates without addressing the CFIB figure, the Morneau Shepell dividend declaration, or the specific disparity between small business tax rates and dividends paid to Morneau Shepell shareholders.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, what we believe is important--
Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that our system is fair. We want to make sure that it does not encourage wealthy Canadians to incorporate so they have a lower tax rate than middle-class Canadians. We also want to make sure that we do not have a situation where some people that are, frankly, very well compensated, pay a lower tax rate than others. The members opposite may be comfortable with that, because that is the system they were in before our government came into power, but we know that a fair system requires all Canadians to find themselves in a situation where they can actually have opportunities that should be available to all Canadians.
Will the minister eliminate chapter 11 investor state dispute settlement provisions from NAFTA, given that Canada is the most sued country under those provisions and 63% of Canadians support removal?
Cites a specific Ekos poll (63%), names chapter 11 and investor state dispute settlement, and asks a clear yes/no question about elimination, though framed with some rhetorical charge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada is the most sued country in the world under investor state dispute settlement provisions in NAFTA's chapter 11, allowing companies to sue governments over anything they believe has reduced their profits. The threat of chapter 11 challenges has had a chilling effect on government action and has eroded our democracy. Numerous stakeholders insist that chapter 11 should be removed, and today, an Ekos poll reported that 63% of Canadians agree. Our trade deals cannot put profits before people. Will the minister finally listen to Canadians and eliminate chapter 11?
Oh, oh!
The parliamentary secretary said reforming investor state dispute settlements is part of Canada's NAFTA modernization objectives and that the government wants to preserve the unassailable right to regulate in the public interest.
Acknowledges chapter 11 reform as an objective and asserts the right to regulate in the public interest, but does not address elimination specifically and deflects with general NAFTA modernization framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada welcomes the modernization of NAFTA in support of our middle class and those working hard to join it. Our objectives for a modernized NAFTA include reforming the investor stateâ
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our objectives for a modernized NAFTA include reforming the investor state dispute settlements, chapter 11, and we want to make sure that the government has the unassailable right to regulate in the public interest. We will always stand up for our national economic interests and for Canadian values. Chapter 11 is very much under discussion.
Will the Minister of Agriculture allocate additional funds to the Programme d'investissement pour fermes laitiĂšres, given that $125 million of the $250 million program was already allocated in under a week while losses are estimated at $750 million?
Cites specific figures â $125 million of $250 million allocated in under a week, losses estimated at $750 million â and asks a direct yes/no question about additional funding for the Programme d'investissement pour fermes laitiĂšres.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, sans surprise, le Programme d'investissement pour fermes laitiÚres est un échec lamentable. Faute de fonds, plusieurs producteurs laitiers ont frappé un mur et n'auront pas accÚs à la compensation qui leur est due. C'est ridicule. En moins d'une semaine, le programme a déjà alloué 125 millions de dollars sur 250 millions de dollars, alors que les pertes sont estimées à au moins 750 millions de dollars. L'AECG entre en vigueur demain et les producteurs laitiers doivent et veulent investir maintenant. Le ministre de l'Agriculture va-t-il allouer plus de sommes au Programme d'investissement pour fermes laitiÚres, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the dairy farm investment program is a total failure. No surprises there. Many dairy farmers have hit a wall and will not be able to get the compensation they are owed because the program is underfunded. It is ridiculous. In less than a week, the program already handed out $125 million of the $250 million, while the losses are estimated to be at least $750 million. CETA comes into effect tomorrow and dairy farmers must and want to invest right now. Will the Minister of Agriculture allocate more money to the dairy farm investment program or not?
The minister affirmed government support for supply management and cited $350 million in investments ($250 million to farms, $100 million to processing) but only vaguely indicated 'other dollars are available' without committing to additional program funding.
The minister defends the government's supply management support and mentions $350 million in investments but does not directly answer whether more funds will be allocated to the Programme d'investissement pour fermes laitiĂšres, saying only vaguely that 'other dollars are available.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that this government has supported, and will continue to support, the supply management system. It was quite clear when we invested $350 million in the dairy side of the supply management sector, making sure that $250 million went to innovation on the farms themselves and $100 million went to the processing sector. We have continued and will continue, and other dollars are available. The supply management system is safe and well in this country.
Why is the finance minister imposing a 73% tax on small business owners like Ryan of Wildwood Transport when millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell do not have to pay it?
Names a specific constituent and company (Ryan, Wildwood Transport, 55 employees), cites the 73% tax rate, and draws a specific contrast with Morneau Shepell, but the fairness framing adds rhetorical weight that dilutes the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Wildwood Transport is a trucking company in my riding that employs 55 Manitobans. Ryan, who is the owner of Wildwood Transport, has told me that the finance minister's tax increases are going to have a drastic effect on him and his employees. What Ryan does not understand is this: why is the finance minister forcing him to pay a 73% tax that not even the millionaire owners of the minister's own family-owned company, Morneau Shepell, have to pay?
The minister said the government wants a fair tax system that does not encourage wealthy Canadians to incorporate to pay a lower rate than middle-class Canadians, and wants to assure entrepreneurs like Ryan they can continue to invest.
The minister speaks generally about tax fairness and encouraging entrepreneurs to invest but does not address the 73% rate cited, the Morneau Shepell comparison, or Ryan's specific concerns.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are working toward ensuring that our tax system is fair. We want to make sure that there is not an encouragement for wealthy Canadians to incorporate so they pay a lower rate of tax than middle-class Canadians. We know that Canadians see that as fair. We are going to work toward ensuring, as well, that entrepreneurs like Ryan are assured that they can continue to actively invest in their businesses to create jobs and to help keep our economy, which is growing very well, healthy over the long term. They need a fairer tax system, and they need encouragement to invest. That is what we are working on achieving.
How is it fair that small business owners like Ryan pay a 73% tax while millionaire owners of companies like Morneau Shepell do not?
Repeats the 73% rate and Morneau Shepell contrast but is largely a restatement of the prior question with added rhetorical urgency and no new factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has his head in the sand, because jobs that are created by Ryan and this company are going to be driven into the ground under the tax increases by this minister. We ask again, how is it fair that someone like Ryan and a company like this are going to have to pay 73%, when millionaire owners of companies like Morneau Shepell will not have to? How is that fair?
The minister said the government wants a fair system that does not favour the wealthy over the middle class and criticized the opposition for having supported such a system, without addressing the specific rate or the Morneau Shepell comparison.
The minister repeats general tax fairness talking points, blames the opposition for preferring a system favouring the wealthy, and does not engage the 73% figure or the Morneau Shepell comparison.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know that having a system that is fair is critically important. We know that a system that favours the wealthy over the middle class just does not work. We know that members opposite were happy to have a system where the wealthiest might have had a lower tax rate than the middle class. We are not comfortable with that. We want to move forward with measures that will encourage investment but make sure that our tax system is fair. We want to ensure that wealthy Canadians do not have an encouragement to have a lower tax rate than the middle class, and we will follow through with that goal.
Why is the finance minister forcing Boyd Yamamoto of Sardis Health Foods to pay a 73% tax on investment income that not even the millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell have to pay?
Names a specific constituent (Boyd Yamamoto, Sardis Health Foods) and cites the 73% investment income tax rate, but the question is structurally identical to prior exchanges and the fairness framing is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is proposing to tax the investment income of small business owners at a rate of 73%. That means that Boyd Yamamoto, the owner of Sardis Health Foods, in Chilliwack, will now be punished after years of hard work for setting aside money for his retirement. Why is the finance minister forcing Boyd to pay a 73% tax that not even the millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell will have to pay? How is that fair?
Oh, oh!
Seventy-three per cent fair.
The minister repeated that the government wants a fair tax system discouraging the wealthiest from incorporating to pay lower rates than the middle class, and that it wants to encourage active business investment.
The minister pivots entirely to general fairness talking points and the goal of discouraging incorporation for tax advantage, without addressing the 73% rate, Boyd Yamamoto, or the Morneau Shepell comparison.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, having a system that encourages the wealthiest among us to incorporateâ
Mr. Speaker, we know Canadians expect us to put in place a system that is fair. We know they have seen a system that, over the years, has encouraged the wealthiest to incorporate and get a lower tax rate than the middle class. That is not something we want to have as a continuing situation in our tax system.
We know we have to have two objectives met. We want to have a system that encourages people to invest in their active businesses. We also want to have a system that is fair for this generation and future generations. That is what we are working toward.
Why is the Minister of Finance forcing Kelly Langille, a heating and air conditioning business owner, to pay a 73% tax that millionaire owners of companies like Morneau Shepell do not have to pay?
Names a specific constituent (Kelly Langille, heating and air conditioning business) and quotes him directly about retirement and business viability, but the question is structurally identical to prior exchanges in this series.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Kelly Langille owns a heating and air conditioning business in Chilliwack. He works hard, creates good jobs within my community, and hopes to share his success with his children and save for his own retirement. The Minister of Finance's tax changes will harm his business and his family. Kelly says, âI will now have to re-evaluate my ability to save not only for my retirement, but to keep my business running.â Why is the Minister of Finance forcing Kelly to pay a 73% tax that not even millionaire owners of companies like Morneau Shepell have to pay, and how is that fair?
The minister said the government is listening to Canadians to ensure measures do not disincentivize business investment while pursuing a fair tax system that does not advantage wealthy incorporators over the middle class.
The minister acknowledges the need to listen to Canadians and mentions the goal of incentivizing business investment, but does not address the 73% rate, the Morneau Shepell comparison, or Kelly Langille's specific concerns.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what we know with our current system is that it does encourage wealthy Canadians to incorporate so they can have a lower tax rate than middle-class Canadians. What we also know is it is important to continue to listen to Canadians to make sure that as we put these measures in place, they will continue to be incentivized to make investments in their businesses. We want to achieve that at the same time as making sure our system is fair. We know those two goals can both be achieved, and that is why we are out listening to Canadians, to make sure we actually achieve them.
When will the results of the Minister of Foreign Affairs' investigation into Canadian arms used against Saudi civilians be released, and what actions will she take now that the Saudi ambassador himself has confirmed the allegations?
References a specific ministerial promise of an investigation and action, and notes that the Saudi ambassador himself confirmed the allegations, making it a pointed accountability question with a clear timeline ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on a entendu des allégations sérieuses selon lesquelles les armes utilisées par l'Arabie saoudite contre des civils sont des armes canadiennes. The Minister of Foreign Affairs launched an investigation and promised that she would take action if it was confirmed. However, later, the Saudi ambassador to Canada himself confirmed the allegations. When can we expect the results from the minister's investigation, and what actions will she take now that the allegations have been confirmed by the Saudis themselves?
The parliamentary secretary confirmed that no new export permits have been issued for vehicles to Saudi Arabia, that officials are seeking further information, and that Canada has expressed concern to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia about respecting international human rights law.
The parliamentary secretary confirms no new export permits have been issued for vehicles to Saudi Arabia and that a review is ongoing, but does not provide a timeline for results or specify what actions will be taken, partially addressing the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member should know that we are absolutely committed to the defence of human rights at home and abroad. We deplore human rights abuses everywhere around the world. Canada expects the end-user of any and all exports to abide by the end-use terms in issued export permits. The minister has asked for a review of the situation and officials have been actively seeking further information on the allegations. I can confirm that no new export permits have been issued for vehicles to Saudi Arabia. We have expressed our concern to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its security operations that they respect international human rights law.
Will the government keep its promise and fully fund a proper redress system for the no-fly list, given that no money was allocated in the budget and approximately fifty Liberal MPs wrote to the finance minister about the issue?
Cites a specific prior government promise, notes no budget funding was allocated, references approximately fifty Liberal MPs who wrote to the finance minister, and gives concrete examples of harm (families cancelling trips, business delays), making for a reasonably grounded accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en parlant de belles paroles et de peu de gestes, parlons du ministre des Finances, qui n'a pas mis un sou dans le budget pour corriger les erreurs d'identité sur la liste d'interdiction de vol. Une cinquantaine de députés libéraux, incluant des ministres, ont écrit au ministre des Finances pour lui demander de corriger la situation. Des familles doivent annuler des voyages en raison de la présence de leurs enfants sur la liste et des gens d'affaires subissent des retards pendant leur voyage d'affaires. Will the government finally keep its promise and implement and fully fund a proper redress system for the no-fly list and, once and for all, end this victimization of children and business people?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, speaking of all talk and no action, the Minister of Finance did not include a single penny in his budget for correcting the mistakes on the no-fly list. Fifty or so Liberal MPs, including ministers, wrote to the Minister of Finance to ask him to correct the situation. Families have to cancel trips because their children's names are on the list and business people are facing delays on their business trips. Le gouvernement tiendra-t-il enfin sa promesse de mettre en oeuvre et de financer entiÚrement un systÚme de recours approprié pour les personnes qui se retrouvent par inadvertance sur la liste d'interdiction de vol afin de mettre un terme, une fois pour toutes, à cette victimisation des enfants et des gens d'affaires?
The minister acknowledged the design flaws in the no-fly program inherited from previous years and pointed to Bill C-59 as containing the beginning of the legislative changes necessary to fix the system.
The minister acknowledges the design flaws and points to Bill C-59 as the beginning of legislative fixes, which is relevant and specific, but does not address the funding gap or provide a timeline for full implementation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the design flaws in the no-fly program stretch back many years. It was designed in a way which required people who were inadvertently red-flagged to present themselves at the counter to be cleared manually. That is a very bad system. We are determined to fix it. I would point out for the hon. gentleman that in Bill C-59 he will find the beginning of the legislative changes that are necessary to fix it.
Could the Minister of International Trade update the House on what CETA will mean for businesses and the implementation process?
A government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to update the House on CETA, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my riding of New Brunswick Southwest is home to some of the largest exporters of seafood in Canada, including lobster, scallops, salmon, herring, sardines, and so much more. I know so many of the businesses are excited about the opportunities with CETA. Could the Minister of International Trade please update the House on what CETA will mean for the businesses and the implementation process?
The minister confirmed that CETA comes into force the following day, opening a market of 510 million consumers for Canadian businesses including farmers, fishermen, and small businesses.
The minister provides concrete information â CETA comes into force the next day, opening a market of 510 million consumers â which is factually specific even if celebratory in tone.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is the question all Canadians have been waiting for. Tomorrow the free trade agreement between Canada and Europe will come into force. It will open a market of 510 million consumers for businesses across Canada. I invite all members of this House to make a difference in the lives of farmers, fishermen, businesses, and small businesses, and use the agreement. This is a great day for Canada. I invite all members to join in that.
Why is the Minister of Finance forcing Terry, an independent grain farmer from Nipawin, Saskatchewan, to pay a 73% tax that not even millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell have to pay?
Names a specific constituent (Terry, grain farmer from Nipawin, Saskatchewan) and references a direct conversation with the minister, but the question is structurally identical to prior exchanges and dominated by the repeated 73%/Morneau Shepell framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had an opportunity to chat with Terry, a grain farmer from my riding after his conversation with the Minister of Finance about Liberal tax changes. The minister said nothing to alleviate Terry's concerns for his livelihood. These changes mean that Terry's retirement is in jeopardy. Why is the Minister of Finance forcing Terry, an independent grain farmer from Nipawin, Saskatchewan to pay a 73% tax that not even millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell will have to pay? How is that fair?
The minister said he was pleased to have spoken with Terry and noted an upcoming teleconference with Canadians, reiterating the goal of tax fairness and enabling continued investment, without addressing the 73% rate or Morneau Shepell.
The minister mentions having spoken with Terry and notes an upcoming teleconference to hear from Canadians, which slightly engages the personal element, but still deflects the core question with general tax fairness talking points.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, across the country, we want to make sure that our tax system is fair. We know that they do not want a system that encourages just the wealthiest to incorporate, to have a private company so that they can actually pay a lower rate of tax than middle-class Canadians. I was pleased to speak to Terry, as I will be pleased to speak to Canadians who will come on our teleconference later this week, in order to hear their questions and ensure that we are listening to what these changes will mean for them. Our goal, again, is tax fairness. We want to make sure that people like Terry and others can continue to invest. Those two goals, we believe, can be met together.
Why is the Minister of Finance forcing Darrel and Kathy, whose rainy-day fund saved them when their combine broke during harvest, to pay a 73% tax that not even the millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell have to pay?
Names specific constituents (Darrel, Kathy, and Jackson), gives a concrete example of how a rainy-day fund helped during harvest, and raises the stock market exemption as a contrast, but the question is structurally identical to the series and heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Darrel and Kathy hope to have their son Jackson take over the family farm some day. They told me how their rainy day fund saved them when their combine broke in the middle of harvest. The Minister of Finance's tax grab would have made that impossible. Meanwhile, multi-million-dollar companies traded on the stock market are exempt. Why is the Minister of Finance forcing Darrel and Kathy to pay a 73% tax that not even the millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell have to pay? How is that fair?
The minister said a tax system favouring the wealthy over the middle class is not fair, that the government is listening to farmers and others for unintended consequences, and that the goal is to prevent the wealthiest from having a lower tax rate than the middle class.
The minister repeats general fairness talking points and mentions listening to farmers, but does not address the rainy-day fund example, the stock market exemption contrast, or the 73% rate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a tax system that favours the wealthy over the middle class is not one that we see as fair. We want to make sure, as we move forward to have a fairer tax system, that it really does continue to enable farm families, fishers, and people across the country to be successful. We are listening to people across the country to make sure that there are not unintended consequences. Clearly, what we are after is making sure that the wealthiest Canadians do not have an advantage to have a lower tax rate than middle-class Canadians. We will continue with those goals while we listen to farmers and people across the country about theirâ
Why is the Minister of Finance forcing Allison, a small business owner who overcame significant personal hardship, to pay a 73% tax that not even millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell have to pay?
Names a specific constituent (Allison) with a detailed personal backstory (spouse lost job, stay-at-home mom, stroke, small business), but the question is structurally identical to the series and the framing is predominantly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal tax changes will affect hard-working Canadians like Allison and her husband, who, despite the downturn in Alberta, have gotten up, dusted themselves off, and started again. Allison's husband lost his job, and she was a stay-at-home mom of four kids, who substitute taught, but then she suffered a stroke and could not work. Despite all of this, they carried on and started a small business. These new Liberal tax changes will devastate that dream. Why is the Minister of Finance forcing Allison to pay a 73% tax that not even millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell will have to pay? Maybe he could try answering now. How is that fair?
The minister repeated tax fairness talking points, suggested the government wants to correct 'misinformation' about the changes, and referenced positive economic growth without addressing Allison's situation or the 73% rate.
The minister repeats the same tax fairness talking points and adds a claim about correcting 'misinformation,' which implicitly dismisses Allison's concerns rather than engaging them.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity again to say that what we want is a tax system that is fair. We want a tax system that does not encourage the wealthiest to incorporate so they can have a lower tax rate than middle-class Canadians. That is what we are working towards. We are going to listen to small business owners, to people across the country, because we want to correct the misinformation that is out there, suggesting that they will be in a worse-off situation. We want to make sure that wealthy Canadians do not have advantages not available to the middle class, while encouraging people to continue to invest in our economy, an investment that is going well as we can see with the growth in our economy right now.
Why does the Minister of Finance want Impression Stratégique, a small business in Beauport, to pay a 73% tax when millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell do not have to?
Names a specific local business (Ăric Boisvert, Impression StratĂ©gique, Beauport), cites the 73% rate, and raises potential salary cuts and job losses, but is structurally identical to the series with the same rhetorical Morneau Shepell contrast.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ministre des Finances veut imposer les revenus de placement des propriĂ©taires de petites entreprises locales Ă un taux de 73 %. Cela veut dire que la PME florissante d'Ăric Boisvert, Impression StratĂ©gique, situĂ©e Ă Beauport, verra son avenir assombri, comme bien d'autres, puisque ces hausses fiscales libĂ©rales pourront entraĂźner des baisses salariales, voire des pertes d'emplois. Pourquoi le ministre des Finances souhaite-t-il qu'Impression StratĂ©gique paie un impĂŽt de 73 %, alors que les propriĂ©taires millionnaires de Morneau Shepell, eux, n'ont pas Ă payer? En français, comment cela est-il Ă©quitable?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance wants to tax the investment income of local small business owners at a rate of 73%. These Liberal tax increases will take a toll on Ăric Boisvert's thriving SME, Impression StratĂ©gique, located in Beauport. This company and many others like it could be forced to cut salaries or even lay off some employees. Why does the Minister of Finance want Impression StratĂ©gique to pay a 73% tax when the millionaires who own Morneau Shepell do not have to pay a cent? How is that fair?
The minister repeated that the government does not want a system encouraging the wealthiest to incorporate for a lower tax rate than the middle class, and criticized the opposition for believing such a system is fair.
The minister repeats the same fairness talking points verbatim and attacks the opposition for allegedly favouring the wealthy, without addressing the 73% rate, Impression Stratégique, or the salary/job loss concerns.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have a notion of what is fair. We do not want a system that encourages the wealthiest to incorporate so they can get a lower tax rate than the middle class. That is not fair. The fact that members opposite believe that it is fair for the wealthiest to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class is something we do not understand. We are going to move forward with a system that encourages people to invest in business, but a system that allows all Canadians to have opportunities with a fair tax system.
Will the government agree to work with all sides of the House to develop a comprehensive and humanitarian approach to the surge in asylum seekers, given that over 5,000 crossed into Quebec in August alone and Liberal MPs have shut down committee debate on the issue four times?
Cites a specific figure (over 5,000 asylum seekers in August in Quebec alone, doubled in B.C.), notes Liberal MPs shut down committee debate four times, and asks for a specific comprehensive humanitarian approach, making it a reasonably grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians knew that Trump's anti-immigrant policies would create a climate of fear in the U.S. In August alone, over 5,000 asylum seekers crossed into Quebec and it doubled in B.C. NGOs are left grappling with this without any additional resources. At committee, Liberal MPs have shut down debate on this issue not once, not twice, but four times. Will the government finally agree to work with all sides of the House to develop a comprehensive and humanitarian approach to this critical situation?
The minister outlined government actions including mobilizing the government operations centre, a federal task force with Quebec and Ontario, increased IRCC Montreal capacity to process claims from months to days, and fast-tracked work permits.
The minister lists several specific government actions â government operations centre mobilization, federal task force, increased IRCC Montreal capacity reducing processing from months to days, fast-tracked work permits â which substantively engages the question, though does not address the committee shutdowns or the ask for a cross-party approach.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the member opposite has asked me that question because it gives me a chance to highlight some of the actions we have taken to deal with this unusual situation. We have mobilized the government operations centre to mobilize and coordinate actions across government. We have been able to work seamlessly with the provinces of Quebec and Ontario under the federal task force. We have processed and increased the capacity of the IRCC office in Montreal, in order to be able to improve the process of asylum seekers and their claims from months to days. We have fast-tracked the processing of work permits in order to minimize their reliance on social assistance and provincial social programs. Throughout this process it is evident that we have planning. It shows early mobilization and seamlessâ
Will the minister work in partnership with Indigenous peoples to put in place a targeted strategy and immediate funding to address the growing Indigenous housing crisis?
Opens with a vivid specific example (14 people in a two-bedroom home with black mould) and asks a clear question about a targeted strategy and immediate funding in partnership with Indigenous peoples, though lacks specific program or budget citations.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, vivre à 14 dans un logement de deux chambres à coucher avec des murs noirs de moisissure, c'est la réalité de trop de ménages autochtones dans les réserves. Pour ce qui est de ceux qui décident de partir, ils sont beaucoup plus exposés à l'exclusion, à la discrimination et à l'itinérance. Cela fait deux ans que le premier ministre parle. Il est temps d'agir. Le ministre va-t-il travailler en partenariat avec les Autochtones pour mettre en place une stratégie ciblée et un financement immédiat pour s'attaquer à la crise grandissante du logement autochtone?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, having14 people squeeze into a two-bedroom home with walls that are black with mould is the reality faced by too many indigenous Canadians living on reserves. If they choose to leave, they end up much more vulnerable to marginalization, discrimination, and homelessness. We have had two years of talk from the Prime Minister. Now it is time for action. Will the minister work in partnership with indigenous peoples to implement a focused strategy that comes with immediate funding to tackle the growing indigenous housing crisis?
The minister said the government has made significant investments resulting in 6,500 homes built or under construction and committed to continuing to work with First Nations, Inuit, and MĂ©tis partners.
The minister cites 6,500 homes built or under construction and affirms commitment to working with First Nations, Inuit, and MĂ©tis partners, but does not address whether a targeted strategy or immediate funding will be developed as asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House as Canada's very first Minister of Indigenous Services. I heartily agree with the member opposite that for too long indigenous peoples in this country have lived in substandard conditions. That is why our government has made such significant investments and already 6,500 homes have been built or are under construction. We will continue to work with our partners in first nations, Inuit, and MĂ©tis people of this country to make sure all people have a good quality of life.
Why is the finance minister forcing farmer Ăric in Sainte-Christine to pay a 73% tax on investment income that even millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell do not have to pay, and how is that fair?
Cites a specific 73% rate and names a real constituent farmer (Ăric) in Sainte-Christine, with a concrete ask about fairness vis-Ă -vis Morneau Shepell owners, though the rhetorical framing weakens precision.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en pleine pĂ©riode des rĂ©coltes, le ministre des Finances propose d'imposer les revenus de placement des propriĂ©taires de petites entreprises, comme les fermes familiales, au taux de 73 %. Ăric et ses deux associĂ©s familiaux, des agriculteurs de Sainte-Christine, dans la circonscription de Shefford, perdront toute chance de cĂ©der leur ferme Ă leurs six enfants, et le ministre met en pĂ©ril leur retraite. Pourquoi le ministre des Finances force-t-il Ăric Ă payer un impĂŽt de 73 % que mĂȘme les propriĂ©taires millionnaires de Morneau Shepell n'ont pas Ă payer? Comment peut-il dire que c'est Ă©quitable?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, farmers are right in the middle of the harvest, and the Minister of Finance wants to tax the investment income of small businesses, such as family farms, at 73%. Ăric and his two family partners, farmers from Sainte-Christine, in the riding of Shefford, will not be able to leave their farm to their six children, and the minister is putting their retirement in jeopardy. Why is the Minister of Finance forcing Ăric to pay a 73% tax rate, but will not make the millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell pay? How can he claim that is fair?
The minister said the government wants a fair system that does not encourage the wealthy to use private corporations to pay lower taxes than the middle class, and that it is listening to farmers.
The minister restates the government's general fairness goal and claims to be listening to farmers but does not address the 73% rate, the Morneau Shepell comparison, or the specific impact on farm succession.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce que tous les Canadiens et nous voulons, c'est un systÚme juste qui n'encourage pas les plus riches à avoir une société privée afin de bénéficier d'un taux d'imposition plus bas que celui de la classe moyenne. Voilà notre but. Nous sommes à l'écoute des fermiers de partout au pays afin de nous assurer que nos mesures ne changent pas leur situation. Cela est trÚs important. Notre but est clair. Il s'agit d'avoir un systÚme juste.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what we want and what all Canadians want is a system that is fair. We do not want our society to privilege the wealthy and encourage them to have a lower tax rate than the middle class. This is our goal. We are listening to farmers across the country to make sure that there are no unintended consequences for them. That is very important. Our goal is clear. We want a fair system.
Why is the finance minister forcing John, owner of Johnny Finger Cats Welding in Foothills, to pay a 73% tax hike when millionaire owners of companies like Morneau Shepell do not have to pay it?
Names a specific constituent (John, Johnny Finger Cats Welding) and raises the 73% figure with a concrete ask about fairness for rural Canadians versus Morneau Shepell owners, but largely mirrors a template repeated across exchanges.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, John owns Johnny Finger Cats Welding in my riding. He is an employer in a small rural community who has fought hard to keep his business afloat despite the energy downturn. Now the Minister of Finance wants to take more money out of his pocket with these punitive tax changes. This is going to force him to lay off staff and certainly inhibit the ability for him to grow his business. Why is the finance minister forcing John to pay a 73% tax hike when millionaire owners of companies like Morneau Shepell do not have to pay it? I would like him to tell rural Canadians how that is fair.
Shell owners on Bay Street.
The minister said the government does not want to encourage the richest to incorporate to pay lower tax rates than middle-class Canadians, while still supporting investment in small business, and promised to listen to get it right.
The minister engages the general principle of fairness and mentions encouraging business investment, but does not address the 73% figure, the specific business cited, or the Morneau Shepell comparison directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I know that rural Canadians and all Canadians want to have a system where we do not encourage the richest to incorporate so they pay a lower tax rate than middle-class Canadians. That is really important. For business owners, for people across the country who are trying to invest in their business, we encourage that activity. At the same time, we want to make sure that we are not encouraging others to incorporate just for lower tax rates than those business owners or middle-class Canadians. That is what we are working toward. We will listen to make sure we get it right.
Why is the finance minister forcing Kirby Baumung, owner of Lyons Transmission Centre employing seven people in Brandon, Manitoba, to pay massive tax increases that even millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell do not have to pay?
Names a specific constituent (Kirby Baumung, Lyons Transmission Centre) with seven employees in Brandon, Manitoba, and cites the Morneau Shepell comparison, but the question is formulaic and repeats the same template without sharper factual specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Kirby Baumung, who owns Lyons Transmission Centre, employs seven people in Brandon, Manitoba and is being forced to pay a massive tax increase because of the finance minister's punitive tax increase package. Why is the finance minister forcing Kirby to have to pay these huge, massive taxes that not even his millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell have to pay? How is this fair?
The minister said a tax system encouraging the wealthy to incorporate to pay lower rates than the middle class is not fair, and that the government plans to keep small business tax rates the lowest in the G7 while preventing wealthy people from having a lower rate than the middle class.
The minister restates the fairness rationale and mentions keeping small business tax rates the lowest in the G7 but does not address the specific business, the tax increase amount, or the Morneau Shepell comparison.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a tax system that encourages the wealthy to incorporate to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class is not a tax system that is fair. We want to be clear that we want to encourage investment in small business, and that is why we plan on keeping small business tax rates low, the lowest in the G7 countries. That is our goal. We are going to make sure the system does not encourage wealthy people to have a lower tax rate than the middle class and at the same time, encourage small businesses to invest in their business so that we can grow our economy.
Can the Minister of International Trade explain how the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union could benefit businesses and start-ups in Saint-Laurent and the rest of Canada?
A government-backbench softball asking the Minister of International Trade to explain how CETA could benefit businesses in Saint-Laurent and across Canada, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le plus grand parc industriel et scientifique du Québec se trouve dans ma circonscription, Saint-Laurent. Il regroupe prÚs de 4 500 places d'affaires, dont 100 pour des entreprises technologiques innovantes dans le Campus Saint-Laurent du Technoparc Montréal, et emploie plus de 105 000 personnes. Le ministre du Commerce international peut-il informer la Chambre sur comment l'Accord économique commercial global entre le Canada et l'Union européenne pourrait bénéficier aux entreprises et aux start-up dans ma circonscription et dans le reste du Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Quebec's largest industrial and research park is in my riding, Saint-Laurent. It is home to nearly 4,500 businesses, including 100 technology and innovation businesses in Technoparc Montréal's Campus Saint-Laurent, and employs over 105,000 people. Can the Minister of International Trade tell the House how the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union will benefit businesses and start-ups in my riding and the rest of Canada?
The minister announced that CETA enters into force the following day, opening a market of more than 510 million consumers for Canadian businesses, and invited all MPs to use the agreement to benefit small businesses, families, workers, farmers, and fishers.
The minister provides a concrete, timely piece of information â CETA enters into force the next day and opens a market of more than 510 million consumers â which is substantively responsive to the setup question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'aimerais remercier la dĂ©putĂ©e de Saint-Laurent de sa question. C'est la question que les Canadiens et les Canadiennes attendaient. Demain, l'accord de libre Ă©change entre le Canada et l'Europe entrera en vigueur et ouvrira un marchĂ© de plus de 510 millions de consommateurs pour les entreprises partout au pays. J'invite tous les dĂ©putĂ©s de la Chambre Ă utiliser l'accord de libre-Ă©change pour faire une diffĂ©rence dans la vie des petites entreprises, des familles, des travailleurs, des fermiers et des pĂȘcheurs. C'est un grand jour pour le Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saint-Laurent for her question. That question is on the minds of all Canadians. The Canada-Europe free trade agreement will take effect tomorrow, giving businesses across Canada access to a market of over 510 million consumers. I encourage all MPs to use the free trade agreement to make a difference in the lives of small businesses, families, workers, farmers, and fishers. It will be a great day for Canada.
Why is the finance minister forcing Mario, a pork producer in LĂ©visâLotbiniĂšre, to pay a 73% tax on investment income that millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell do not have to pay, and how is that equitable?
Names a specific constituent (Mario, a pork producer in LĂ©visâLotbiniĂšre) and cites the 73% rate with a fairness ask referencing Morneau Shepell owners, but is heavily rhetorical and follows the same template as prior exchanges.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, quelle honte et quelle injustice! Le ministre des Finances propose d'imposer les revenus de placement des propriĂ©taires de petites entreprises au taux de 73 %. Cela veut dire que les projets de retraite d'un producteur de porc de ma circonscription, Mario, seront sĂ©rieusement remis en question. Pourquoi le ministre des Finances force-t-il Mario Ă payer un impĂŽt de 73 % que mĂȘme les propriĂ©taires millionnaires de Morneau Shepell n'ont pas Ă payer? Comment cela est-il Ă©quitable? C'est honteux!
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, how disgraceful and unfair. The Minister of Finance wants to tax small business investment income at a rate of 73%. As a result, the retirement plans of a pork producer in my riding, Mario, will be seriously jeopardized. Why is the Minister of Finance forcing Mario to pay a tax rate of 73% that the millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell do not have to pay? How is that fair? What a disgrace.
The minister said the government does not want a system where the wealthy can use a private corporation to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class, and aims to let small and medium businesses invest at the lowest G7 tax rate while maintaining fairness.
The minister repeats the general fairness argument and mentions G7-low small business tax rates but does not address Mario's specific situation, the 73% figure, or the Morneau Shepell comparison.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous ne voulons avoir un systĂšme oĂč les plus riches peuvent changer leur situation grĂące Ă une sociĂ©tĂ© privĂ©e afin d'avoir un taux d'imposition plus bas que celui de la classe moyenne. Ce n'est pas un systĂšme qui est juste. Ce que nous voulons, c'est un systĂšme oĂč les petites et moyennes entreprises peuvent faire des investissements avec un taux d'imposition le plus bas du G7, mais qui, en mĂȘme temps, est juste. C'est notre but et nous sommes certains que c'est possible d'avoir une bonne Ă©conomie pour tous les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we do not want to have a situation where the wealthy can simply change their situation by incorporating so they have a lower tax rate than the middle class. That is not a fair system. We want a system where small and medium-sized businesses have the opportunity to make investments with one of the lowest tax rates in the G7, but at the same time, one that is fair. That is our goal, and we are confident that we can create an economy that works for all Canadians.
Will the Liberals stand up for Lake Winnipeg by referring the two North Dakota water diversion projects to the International Joint Commission for independent review and Canadian oversight, as their platform committed?
Identifies two specific North Dakota water diversion projects, cites a U.S. court decision, links to a platform commitment, and makes a single clear ask: will the government refer these projects to the International Joint Commission?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the say-so of a U.S. court, North Dakota is pushing ahead with two water diversion projects that could have terrible consequences for Lake Winnipeg. Foreign organisms could be transferred between independent watersheds and increased nutrient loads could mean further problems with toxic algae. It was a platform commitment of the Liberals to protect Lake Winnipeg. The way to do that is to refer these projects to the International Joint Commission for independent review and Canadian oversight. Now that the time for talk is over, will the Liberals stand up for Lake Winnipeg and make that referral?
The parliamentary secretary said the health of Lake Winnipeg is a government priority reflected in a $27.5 million budget allocation, and that the government is working with relevant provinces and U.S. states to protect and enhance the ecological status of the lake.
The parliamentary secretary notes the $27.5 million budget allocation for Lake Winnipeg and mentions working with relevant provinces and states, but does not address the specific ask of a referral to the International Joint Commission.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the health of Lake Winnipeg is a priority for the government, and it was reflected in the budget. There was $27.5 million allocated in the budget to protect Lake Winnipeg and its basin. In that regard, we are working with the relevant provinces in the basin and the relevant states in the United States to ensure that we are protecting and enhancing the ecological status of the lake.
Can the new Minister of Health update the House on her department's work on Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, on World Alzheimer's Day?
A government-backbench question timed to World Alzheimer's Day that asks the new Minister of Health to update the House on dementia work, with no accountability dimension and no specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is World Alzheimer's Day. Almost every member of this chamber has been touched by Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia in some way or another, and so have most Canadians. We all know that more needs to be done to help those struggling with dementia and those caring for them, as well as in research to understand and treat these diseases. As I congratulate the new Minister of Health on her appointment, can she update us on her department's work on this important issue?
The minister said the government is contributing $42 million to Baycrest Health Sciences to support research and development for brain health and aging, and noted that last year Canada launched its largest-ever study in dementia.
The minister provides specific figures â $42 million to Baycrest Health Sciences â mentions the largest-ever dementia study in Canada launched last year, and references Bill C-233, offering substantive information beyond pure talking points.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Don Valley West for his question and his work, along with the member for Niagara Falls, on Bill C-233. This is a priority for our government and a priority of mine personally, as my mother lives with Lewy body dementia. This is why we are continuing to contribute $42 million to Baycrest Health Sciences to support new research and development, testing, and scale-up of products and services for brain health and aging. Last year we launched the largest-ever study in dementia in Canada. We will continue to work to improve the lives of those with Alzheimer's and their families.
Did the Minister of Indigenous Services recuse herself from any discussions involving tax changes between November 4, 2015, and August 3, 2016, during which her compliance agreement permitted her to continue as president, treasurer, secretary, and director of her professional corporation?
Cites a specific document (the minister's public declaration of assets filed February 26, 2016), specific dates (November 4, 2015 to August 3, 2016), and her specific roles (president, treasurer, secretary, and director of her professional corporation), asking a single clear yes/no accountability question about recusal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indigenous Services filed her public declaration of assets with the Ethics Commissioner on February 26, 2016. In that disclosure, the minister said there was a compliance agreement permitting her to continue as president, treasurer, secretary, and director of her professional corporation until August 3, 2016. Did the minister recuse herself from any discussions involving tax changes between November 4, 2015, and August 3, 2016?
The minister said she was not involved in discussions related to the tax changes and that she had decided to close her medical professional corporation on the day she was elected, knowing she would not be practising for some time.
The minister states she was not involved in discussions related to the tax changes and that her medical professional corporation was closed down, which partially addresses the substance, but she admits not hearing all details and does not directly confirm or deny recusal during the specific compliance agreement period.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I did not hear all the details of the question, but I would be happy to speak to the member afterwards. I was not involved in the discussions related to the tax changes. I did have a medical professional corporation, and it was closed down. I made that decision on the day I was elected when I knew that I would not be practising for some time to come.
Can the Minister of Natural Resources confirm that upcoming legislation will remove the National Energy Board from environmental assessments once and for all, given two expert panel recommendations and the recent Spectra natural gas pipeline approval against Environment Canada's advice on endangered species?
References two specific expert panel recommendations, cites Bill C-38 of 2012, identifies a specific Spectra natural gas pipeline approval contrary to Environment Canada's advice on endangered species, and asks a clear confirmatory question about removing the National Energy Board from environmental assessments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. We know that since Bill C-38 in 2012, the National Energy Board, with no competence or experience in environmental assessment, is making a hash of the projects that it reviews. Two expert panels have now recommended taking the National Energy Board out of environmental assessment. I think the National Energy Board may be nailing the nails in its own coffin with the recent approval of a Spectra natural gas pipeline against the advice of Environment Canada's concern for endangered species. A similar mining project in the same region is getting different treatment through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Can the minister confirm that we will get the National Energy Board out of environmental assessments once and for all?
The minister said the government has spent months on modernization and reform of the National Energy Board through coast-to-coast consultations, and assured the member that future legislation will embody indigenous consultation, environmental stewardship, and responsible economic growth.
The minister acknowledges the modernization process and promises future legislation embodying indigenous consultation, environmental stewardship, and responsible economic growth, but does not confirm the specific ask of removing the National Energy Board from environmental assessments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the government has spent the last number of months looking at modernization and reform of the National Energy Board. It is part of a coast to coast to coast set of conversations with Canadians. I can assure the member that when we come to the House later with legislation, it will embody those very principles that matter to her: indigenous consultation, environmental stewardship, and responsible economic growth for Canada.