Session overview
- Privacy dominated Question Period, with Conservative and NDP members pressing the government on the Liberal caucus research bureau's relationship with Christopher Wylie and Eunoia Technologies in the context of the Facebook data-mining scandal; Scott Brison repeatedly cited an LRB statement saying the pilot did not move forward and Eunoia Technologies never had access to LRB data.
- NDP members challenged the government on tax evasion, arguing that only $15 million of the promised $1 billion was invested in programs combatting tax evasion and abusive tax avoidance, and citing a British Columbia Court of Appeal ruling ordering the Canada Revenue Agency to pay $1.6 million in damages for abusive prosecution against small business owners.
- Conservatives questioned the government's deficit spending and infrastructure plan, with Pierre Poilievre citing the Parliamentary Budget Officer's finding that Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the government's $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan and that a new plan simply does not exist; this led to a point of order alleging potential contempt of Parliament.
- The Atwal affair and the India trip resurfaced, with Conservatives demanding that the national security adviser Daniel Jean be summoned to the public safety committee, while Minister Goodale repeated only that the invitation should never have been issued and was immediately rescinded.
- Service Canada's internal guidance on gendered salutations became a flashpoint, with Conservatives citing reports that employees were told to stop using 'monsieur' and 'madame' and to replace 'mother' and 'father' with 'parent number one' and 'parent number two'; Minister Duclos flatly stated that Service Canada will continue to use 'monsieur' and 'madame.'
- The Minister of Transport confirmed that Budget 2018 announced the replacement of VIA Rail passenger cars and locomotives in the Quebec CityâWindsor corridor, to take effect from 2022, and separately told the House he is monitoring grain movement by CN and CP on a daily basis with the Minister of Agriculture.
Scott Brison publicly disclosed for the first time the specific scope of work that Eunoia Technologies performed for the Liberal caucus research bureau â designing national samples of Canadians, exploring responses to government policy priorities, setting up LRB infrastructure, and researching the performance of Liberal members of Parliament in communications â providing concrete factual detail that had not previously been on the public record.
Cites a specific figure ($15 million of the $1 billion promised) from information received the previous day, asking a pointed and factually grounded question about where the remaining funds went.
When asked directly whether the $1 billion promised to fight tax evasion was being used instead to fund abusive prosecutions against small business owners â following a $1.6 million court award against the CRA â Lebouthillier did not address the court ruling or the funding discrepancy, instead deflecting to a characterization of CRA's client service philosophy and blaming the 2008 case on the previous Conservative government.
Outstanding questions
- Andrew Scheer (Exchanges 1 and 2) asked the Prime Minister to confirm whether he personally hired Christopher Wylie and whether the Liberal Party's relationship with Wylie was disclosed to the Privacy Commissioner â neither question received a direct answer.
- Mark Strahl (Exchange 15) asked whether the Prime Minister informed the Privacy Commissioner of the three separate occasions that Christopher Wylie worked for the Liberal Party of Canada, and what access Wylie had to Canadians' data â Brison confirmed only that he spoke with the Privacy Commissioner without addressing the three engagements or data access.
- Guy Caron (Exchanges 6 and 7) asked where the remaining funds from the promised $1 billion anti-tax-evasion investment are, given that only $15 million more reached the relevant programs â the minister did not account for the gap.
- Pierre Poilievre (Exchanges 27 and 42) asked the government to produce the plan underlying its $186.7 billion infrastructure spending commitment, after the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that the plan does not exist â no plan was produced or its existence substantiated.
- Todd Doherty (Exchanges 38, 41, and 43) asked the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to explain how a proponent that was not yet incorporated won the Arctic surf clam bid, and demanded that the RFP and selection criteria be tabled â the minister declined and the request for tabling was not agreed to.
Scheer asks whether the Prime Minister hired Christopher Wylie and what role he had in the Liberal government, noting Wylie's work for two Liberal leaders and the taxpayer-funded Liberal caucus research office.
Cites specific person (Christopher Wylie), specific institutional context (Liberal caucus research office), and asks a clear binary question about hiring and role, though framed with partisan language.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we now know that the person at the centre of the Facebook data leak scandal is a Liberal Party operative. Not only did Christopher Wylie work for two different Liberal Party leaders in opposition, but according to media reports this morning, he also worked on a project for this Prime Minister in the taxpayer-funded Liberal caucus research office. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he hired Christopher Wylie, and explain exactly what role he had in the Liberal government?
Brison says all parties engage in data-driven activities, points to a Conservative $100,000 contract with Agility PR Solutions, and begins to reference the LRB statement before being cut off.
Brison deflects to an all-parties data defence and a CPC contract with Agility PR Solutions, and is cut off before completing the LRB statement, never confirming or denying the hiring directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we all have a responsibility to protect the personal information of Canadians. The Liberal research bureau has actually already addressed this issue with a statement earlier today. All major political parties engage in data-driven activities. In fact, the Conservatives did when engaging in a $100,000 contract with Agility PR Solutions. I would draw members' attention to the statement issued earlier today that in fact preliminary work done by Eunoia Technologies was offered to the Liberal caucus research bureau butâ
Scheer asks whether the Prime Minister has disclosed to the Privacy Commissioner the Liberal Party's relationship with Christopher Wylie.
Asks a specific yes/no question about whether the Privacy Commissioner was informed, grounded in the established relationship with Wylie, though combined with rhetorical preamble.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the Prime Minister cannot answer these questions. Protecting the personal and privacy information of Canadians should be a top priority for government, yet the Prime Minister has failed to be honest with Canadians about the Liberal Party's relationship with an individual who has exploited the private information of millions of people around the world. We know that he has had a long history of working with the Liberal Party, and worked for this Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether or not he has disclosed this information to the Privacy Commissioner?
Brison repeats the LRB statement that Eunoia Technologies did preliminary work but the LRB decided not to move forward and that at no point did Eunoia Technologies have access to any LRB data.
Brison reads out the LRB statement's key finding â that Eunoia Technologies had no access to any data â which is relevant but does not answer whether the Privacy Commissioner was informed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, I would draw hon. members' attention to the statement issued by the LRB earlier today that said quite clearly that preliminary work was done by Eunoia Technologies, but after seeing what was offered, the Liberal caucus research bureau decided not to move forward. At no point did Eunoia Technologies have access to any data from the Liberal caucus research bureau.
Rayes asks whether the whistleblower was hired to work at the Liberal research bureau, noting that if so, taxpayers would have paid for it, and references a 2016 pilot project to collect private data for political purposes.
Asks a clear factual question about whether the person was hired for the Liberal research bureau and whether taxpayers paid, with specific contextual detail about a 2016 pilot project.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, â je m'excuse, car je n'avais pas le droit d'utiliser le mot « monsieur », alors je vais me reprendre. PrĂ©sident, le lanceur d'alerte en lien avec le scandale des donnĂ©es Facebook a travaillĂ© pour le Parti libĂ©ral et pour Donald Trump. En 2016, les libĂ©raux ont contactĂ© Ă nouveau leur ancien employĂ© pour un projet pilote qui devait servir Ă ramasser des donnĂ©es sur la vie privĂ©e des gens Ă des fins politiques. Ces rĂ©vĂ©lations sont troublantes. Le premier ministre peut-il confirmer si cette personne a Ă©tĂ© embauchĂ©e pour travailler au bureau de recherche libĂ©ral? Si c'Ă©tait le cas, ce sont les contribuables qui auraient payĂ© pour cela.
Hansard translation: Mr. SpeakerâI apologize, I should not have used the word âMr.â so I will start again. Speaker, the whistleblower in the Facebook data scandal worked for the Liberal Party and for Donald Trump. In 2016, the Liberals reached out to their former employee to work on a pilot project to collect private data for political purposes. These revelations are troubling. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether this individual was hired to work in the Liberal research office? If he was, taxpayers would have paid for it.
Brison says the LRB issued a statement describing the scope of work, confirms it was a pilot by Eunoia Technologies that the LRB decided not to continue, then asks the Conservatives to explain their $100,000 Agility PR Solutions contract.
Brison references the LRB statement and the pilot, but deflects to a question about the CPC's Agility PR Solutions contract rather than directly confirming or denying the hiring.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, for the hon. member, the Liberal research bureau has actually issued a statement in which they provide a statement of work for the company. Again, the preliminary work was done by Eunoia Technologies as a pilot, but the Liberal caucus research bureau decided not to move forward with it. Maybe the Conservatives would like to answer about the statement of work they had with Agility PR Solutions when they paid them $100,000, using public funds.
Rayes asks whether the Prime Minister has taken steps to send information to the Privacy Commissioner to examine the matter, given the Liberals' apparent awareness of the controversial data-collection practices.
Asks a specific and directly verifiable question about whether the Prime Minister took action to inform the Privacy Commissioner, grounded in an admission that the data practices were controversial.
Source text
PrĂ©sident, je vais considĂ©rer cette rĂ©ponse comme un « oui ». Si les libĂ©raux ont reconnu que ces mĂ©thodes de collecte de donnĂ©es Ă©taient trĂšs controversĂ©es, c'est donc dire que les libĂ©raux connaissaient cette pratique douteuse. MalgrĂ© tout, ils ont dĂ©cidĂ© quand mĂȘme de contacter Ă nouveau cet ancien employĂ© libĂ©ral qui a travaillĂ© pour la campagne de Donald Trump, soit dit en passant. Le premier ministre peut-il nous dire s'il a menĂ© des actions pour envoyer l'information au commissaire Ă la protection de la vie privĂ©e pour qu'il se penche sur la question?
Hansard translation: Speaker, I will take that as a âyesâ. Since the Liberals acknowledged that these data collection methods are highly controversial, then that means that they were aware of this questionable practice. In spite of it all, they decided to reach out to this former Liberal employee, who worked on Donald Trump's campaign by the way. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he took action to inform the Privacy Commissioner and have him look into the matter?
Brison states he spoke with the Privacy Commissioner that morning, expressed the government's support for his ongoing work including the investigation announced the previous day into the Facebook issue, and calls on all parliamentarians to support that work.
Brison directly states he spoke with the Privacy Commissioner that morning, expressed support for his work, and references the investigation announced the previous day into the Facebook issue, substantively addressing the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I actually spoke with the Privacy Commissioner this morning, and I expressed to him our support for the work that he does on an ongoing basis, including the investigation he announced yesterday into the Facebook issue. We will continue to support the good work done by the Privacy Commissioner. We would hope all parliamentarians would support that work. We should let the Privacy Commissioner do his work.
Scheer asks why the Prime Minister's 'bad joke' about 'peoplekind' has apparently become a government directive, citing reports that Service Canada will no longer use the terms 'monsieur' and 'madame' with clients.
Uses the 'peoplekind' incident as a rhetorical hook and asks about a specific reported directive at Service Canada, mixing genuine factual content with partisan framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, quand le premier ministre a interrompu une femme dans un town hall en lui disant d'utiliser « peoplekind » au lieu de mankind, il a prĂ©tendu que c'Ă©tait une mauvaise blague, mais la mauvaise blague ne s'arrĂȘte pas lĂ . On apprend que Service Canada n'utilisera plus les termes « monsieur » et « madame » pour s'adresser Ă ses clients. Alors, le premier ministre peut-il nous dire pourquoi cette mauvaise blague est devenue une directive de son gouvernement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister interrupted a woman during a town hall meeting and told her to use âpeoplekindâ instead of âmankindâ, he claimed that it was a bad joke, but the bad joke does not end there. We have learned that Service Canada will no longer refer to clients as âMr.â or âMrs.â in its communications. Can the Prime Minister tell us why this bad joke has become a government directive?
Duclos states clearly that Service Canada will continue to use the greetings 'monsieur' and 'madame' and will continue to treat Canadians respectfully regardless of their identity.
Duclos gives a direct, clear, factual answer: Service Canada will continue to use 'monsieur' and 'madame', fully addressing the specific concern raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, soyons clairs. Service Canada continuera Ă utiliser les salutations « monsieur » et « madame ». Service Canada continuera Ă Ă©changer avec les Canadiens et Ă les traiter respectueusement, peu importe leur identitĂ©, dans une perspective de diversitĂ© et d'inclusion. Service Canada va continuer Ă travailler trĂšs fort pour ĂȘtre Ă la hauteur des besoins, des conditions et des attentes de tous les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Service Canada will continue to use âMr.â and âMrs.â. Service Canada will continue to talk to Canadians and treat them respectfully, regardless of their identity, as part of its commitment to diversity and inclusion. Service Canada will continue to work hard to meet the needs, conditions, and expectations of all Canadians.
Caron asks where the remaining money went, citing reports that only $15 million more reached programs fighting tax evasion and abusive tax avoidance out of the $1 billion the Liberals claimed to have invested.
Cites a specific figure ($15 million of the $1 billion promised) from information received the previous day, asking a pointed and factually grounded question about where the remaining funds went.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis deux ans, les libĂ©raux se moquent des inquiĂ©tudes des Canadiens par rapport Ă l'Ă©vasion fiscale. Ils rĂ©pĂštent constamment qu'ils ont investi 1 milliard de dollars pour enrayer ce flĂ©au. Cependant, hier, on a reçu des informations selon lesquelles seulement 15 millions de dollars supplĂ©mentaires se sont retrouvĂ©s dans les programmes qui combattent l'Ă©vasion fiscale et l'Ă©vitement fiscal abusif. Ce n'est que 15 millions de dollars sur les 1 000 millions promis. OĂč est le reste de l'argent?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for the past two years, the Liberals have scoffed at Canadians' concerns about tax evasion. They keep saying that they have invested $1 billion to address this problem. However, yesterday, we learned that the programs to address tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance have received only an additional $15 million. That is only $15 million of the promised $1 billion. Where is the rest of the money?
Lebouthillier highlights nearly $200 million in new Budget 2018 investments and international automatic information exchange standards adopted with OECD partners, without addressing the $15 million discrepancy.
Lebouthillier cites new Budget 2018 investments of nearly $200 million and OECD information-sharing standards but does not address or explain the $15 million versus $1 billion discrepancy Caron raised.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, lutter contre l'évasion fiscale, en particulier à l'étranger, est une priorité pour notre gouvernement. Le budget de 2018 prévoit prÚs de 200 millions de dollars en nouveaux investissements pour nous permettre d'aller encore plus loin, notamment au moyen de changements législatifs qui ferment les échappatoires fiscales qui sont utilisées par les multinationales. J'aimerais aussi rappeler que nous avons adopté les normes internationales d'échange automatique de renseignements avec nos partenaires de l'OCDE. DÚs cette année, nous aurons accÚs à des millions de données en provenance d'autres administrations pour nous permettre de lutter contre l'évasion fiscale et l'évitement fiscal.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, fighting tax evasion, especially abroad, is a priority for our government. Budget 2018 provides for nearly $200 million in new investments to help us go even further, specifically by making legislative changes that will close the tax loopholes used by multinationals. I would also like to remind the House that we adhere to all provisions of the international standard for automatic exchange of information with OECD partners. Starting this year, we will have access to millions of records from other jurisdictions that will help us to combat tax evasion and tax avoidance.
Caron asks whether the $1 billion is being used to fund abusive prosecutions against small business owners, citing a BC Court of Appeal ruling ordering the CRA to pay $1.6 million in damages for abusive prosecution.
Cites a specific British Columbia Court of Appeal ruling ordering the Canada Revenue Agency to pay $1.6 million in damages for abusive prosecution against SME owners, directly linking it to the claimed $1 billion, making for a sharply grounded question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je ne comprends pas. Cet argent-là n'est pas investi dans la lutte contre l'évasion fiscale ni dans la lutte contre l'évitement fiscal abusif. Cela fait plus de deux ans qu'on dénonce le manque d'action des libéraux en matiÚre de lutte contre l'évasion fiscale et l'évitement fiscal abusif. Cela fait plus de deux ans qu'on leur demande pourquoi les contribuables ordinaires sont persécutés pendant qu'on laisse partir les gros poissons. Cela fait plus de deux ans qu'on se fait dire qu'on a investi 1 milliard de dollars dans la lutte contre l'évasion fiscale, alors que ce n'est pas vrai. La semaine derniÚre, la Cour d'appel de la Colombie-Britannique a condamné l'Agence du revenu du Canada à payer 1,6 million de dollars en dommages pour poursuite abusive contre des propriétaires de PME. Est-ce que c'est là que le milliard de dollars est investi? Sert-il à faire des poursuites abusives contre le petit monde?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand. This money is not going towards fighting tax evasion or aggressive tax avoidance. For over two years now, we have been denouncing the Liberals' inaction on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. For over two years now, we have been asking them to explain why they persecute ordinary taxpayers and let the big fish go. For over two years now, we have been listening to them falsely claim that they have invested $1 billion to fight tax evasion. Last week, the B.C. Court of Appeal ordered the Canada Revenue Agency to pay $1.6 million in damages for its malicious prosecution of small business owners. Is this where that $1 billion is going? To maliciously prosecute the little people?
Lebouthillier says the Agency is reviewing all court decisions to ensure programs meet the highest standards, notes the case dates from 2008 under the previous Conservative government, and says the criminal investigation program has since been transformed.
Lebouthillier says the Agency is reviewing court decisions and pivots to noting the case dates from 2008 under the previous Conservative government, avoiding any explanation of the $1 billion discrepancy or the $1.6 million damages ruling.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, notre gouvernement est dĂ©terminĂ© Ă faire en sorte que l'Agence traite les Canadiens et les Canadiennes comme des clients importants et non pas comme de simples contribuables. L'Agence entreprend un examen de toutes les dĂ©cisions des tribunaux afin de s'assurer que ses programmes et services sont conformes aux plus hautes normes. Je rappelle Ă mon collĂšgue que ce cas date de 2008, sous l'ancien gouvernement conservateur. Le programme d'enquĂȘte criminelle a depuis Ă©tĂ© transformĂ© pour cibler les cas les plus graves d'Ă©vasion fiscale.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that the CRA treats Canadians as important clients and not just as taxpayers. The CRA undertakes a review of all court decisions in order to ensure that its programs and services are held to the highest standard. I would like to remind my colleague that this case began in 2008, under the previous Conservative government. The criminal investigations program has since been transformed to focus on the most serious cases of tax evasion.
Julian asks when the Prime Minister will start taking tax evasion and tax fraud seriously, citing a $2 million reduction this year in spending on investigating tax evasion and tax fraud despite investigations into the Panama papers, Bermuda papers, and paradise papers.
References the Panama papers, Bermuda papers, and paradise papers and cites a specific figure ($2 million less spent this year on investigating tax evasion), giving it factual grounding, but the ask is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what pathetic answers. On tax evasion and abusive tax avoidance, we know the Liberal government is all smoke and mirrors. At a time when it is supposed to investigate the Panama papers, the Bermuda papers, and the paradise papers, incredibly, the government spent $2 million less this year to investigate tax evasion and tax fraud than last year. Liberals support a profoundly unfair tax system by doing virtually nothing. When will the Prime Minister start taking tax evasion and tax fraud seriously?
Lebouthillier says the government is committed to fighting tax evasion, notes her recent visit to the OECD, and announces Canada will host an international meeting of large business and international sector tax specialists in the fall.
Lebouthillier speaks about international collaboration, an OECD visit, and a planned information-sharing meeting in Canada, without addressing the specific claim of $2 million less being spent on investigating tax evasion.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre gouvernement s'est engagé à lutter fermement contre l'évasion fiscale. Nous collaborons d'ailleurs avec nos partenaires internationaux pour lutter contre l'évasion fiscale à l'étranger en améliorant l'échange de renseignements et en améliorant nos pratiques. Dans le cadre de cette collaboration, j'étais à l'OCDE, il y a trois semaines. J'ai annoncé que le Canada serait l'hÎte, cet automne, d'une réunion du Programme des grandes entreprises et du secteur international à laquelle seront conviés des fiscalistes du monde entier. L'échange d'informations est primordial pour le succÚs de la lutte contre l'évasion fiscale.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our government promised to crack down on tax evasion. We are working with our international partners to fight tax evasion abroad by improving the exchange of information and improving our practices. That collaboration is why I was at the OECD three weeks ago. I announced that Canada will host a Large Business and International Programme meeting of tax experts from around the world this fall. Information exchange is crucial to successfully fighting tax evasion.
Julian asks when the government will crack down on massive tax evasion costing Canadians billions, contrasting the $15 million spent with the $1 billion promised, and alleging the government unfairly targets small business owners and disability tax credit claimants.
Repeats the $15 million figure and contrasts it with the $1 billion claim, and adds specific reference to small business owners and disability tax credit claimants, but the question is largely rhetorical and reiterates the previous exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, â$1 billionâ, the Prime Minister said. âWe will fight tax evasionâ, he said. What did he do? He spent a tiny, pathetic $15 million more to fight massive tax evasion that cost Canadians billions of dollars. To fight massive tax evasion and tax fraud, one cannot just pretend to do it. Liberals pretend by unfairly going after people like small business owners and people with disabilities who request their tax credit, but they leave the massive tax evaders untouched. When will the government crack down on massive tax evasion that costs Canadians billions of dollars?
Lebouthillier says the OECD has recognized Canada's leadership in using data to assess multinational risk, and that Canada uses country-by-country declarations and annually evaluates risk from all large corporation tax returns.
Lebouthillier cites OECD recognition of Canadian leadership, country-by-country reporting, and annual risk assessment of large corporations, without addressing the $15 million versus $1 billion discrepancy or the treatment of small business owners.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, soyons clairs. L'OCDE a reconnu le leadership du Canada dans l'utilisation des données pour évaluer le risque des multinationales. Le Canada s'assure que les multinationales paient leur juste part d'impÎt, notamment grùce au leadership que nous exerçons au sein du Programme des grandes entreprises et du secteur international. Grùce à la déclaration pays par pays, nous avons également un accÚs plus facile à certains renseignements sur des multinationales. Nous évaluons chaque année le risque lié à toutes les déclarations de revenu des grandes entreprises.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that the OECD has recognized Canada's leadership in using data to assess the risk of multinational corporations. Canada is making sure that multinationals pay their fair share of taxes. One of the ways we are doing that is by playing a leadership role with the Large Business and International Programme. Country-by-country reporting also gives us easier access to some kinds of information about multinationals. Every year, we assess the risk associated with all large corporations' tax returns.
Gourde asks whether the Prime Minister can confirm that the individual was hired to work at the Liberal Party research bureau, which is funded by taxpayer dollars, and suggests the Liberal Party may have had psychological profiles of Canadians since 2009.
Asks a specific factual question about whether the person was hired at the Liberal caucus research bureau funded by taxpayers, and references a 2009 connection, though framed with partisan language about 'another memorable moment in the liberal scandals.'
Source text
Monsieur le Président, un autre moment mémorable dans le registre des scandales libéraux vient aujourd'hui éveiller des soupçons. Voilà qu'on apprend qu'un autre employé ayant travaillé avec le chef du Parti libéral en 2009 fait les manchettes, nous portant à croire que le Parti libéral pourrait avoir un profil psychologique des Canadiens, et ce, depuis 2009. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut nous confirmer que cette personne a été embauchée pour travailler au bureau de recherche du Parti libéral, un bureau financé avec l'argent des contribuables?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, another memorable moment in the annals of Liberal scandals is setting off alarm bells today. We have learned that another individual who worked with the leader of the Liberal Party in 2009 is making headlines, leading us to believe that the Liberal Party could have psychological profiles on Canadians going back as far as 2009. Can the Prime Minister confirm that that individual was hired to work at the Liberal caucus research bureau, a taxpayer-funded bureau?
Brison states the LRB issued a statement confirming Eunoia Technologies did preliminary work but the LRB decided not to move forward and that at no point did Eunoia Technologies have access to any LRB data.
Brison directly reads out the LRB statement's key finding that Eunoia Technologies ran a pilot but the LRB decided not to move forward and that at no point did Eunoia Technologies have access to any data, which is a substantive if incomplete answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal caucus research bureau earlier today issued a statement which clearly stated that preliminary work was done by Eunoia Technologies, but after seeing what was offered, the Liberal caucus research bureau decided not to move forward and that at no point did Eunoia Technologies have access to any data from the Liberal caucus research bureau.
Kent asks the Prime Minister's Office and the minister to explain what the Liberal caucus research bureau was planning with Mr. Wylie in 2016, noting the Privacy Commissioner's investigation and the ethics committee's move toward examining the Facebook scandal.
Specifically references the Privacy Commissioner's investigation and the ethics committee, and asks a focused question about what the Liberal caucus research bureau was planning with Mr. Wylie in 2016, grounded in specific context.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is hardly reassuring given that the Liberals have now twice toyed with data mining to tilt the democratic process. We are reassured the Privacy Commissioner has launched an investigation into the possible violation of Canadians' privacy through manipulation of their social media behaviour. As well, the ethics committee is moving toward an investigation of the developing Facebook scandal. However, will the Prime Minister's Office and the minister explain to Canadians what the Liberal caucus research bureau was planning with Mr. Wylie in 2016?
Brison says the LRB made the statement of work public, describes it as a pilot project the company provided to the LRB which the LRB did not move forward on, before being cut off while beginning to reference the Conservative Agility PR Solutions contract.
Brison says the LRB made the statement of work public and describes it as a pilot project the LRB did not continue beyond, which is partially responsive, but is cut off before completing his answer and does not explain what was being planned.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in fact the LRB has made the statement of work public. It issued a statement, and I would draw the hon. member's attention to that statement, wherein the whole statement of work for the project is provided. Again, it was a pilot project that the company provided to the LRB and the LRB did not move forward on that beyond that specific pilot. The Conservatives actually engaged in data research with a $100,000â
Bergen asks the Prime Minister to state how much taxpayer money was paid to Christopher Wylie and what he was paid $100,000 to do, asserting that the Liberal research office hired him to provide advice and new data-mining techniques.
Asks a specific question about how much taxpayer money was paid to Christopher Wylie and what he did for it, though framing includes an unsubstantiated assertion about what Wylie was hired to do.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: the Liberal research office works hand in glove and is paid by the Prime Minister's Office. It is the Prime Minister's research office that hired Christopher Wylie, who is very well known in Liberal circles, to provide advice, new techniques for mining data, we do not know. Would the Prime Minister tell us what he paid, using taxpayer dollars, Mr. Christopher Wylie $100,000 to do?
Brison itemizes the activities of the Eunoia Technologies pilot from the LRB statement, including designing national samples of Canadians, exploring responses to government policy priorities, assisting with LRB infrastructure, and researching Liberal MPs' communications performance, before again citing the CPC Agility PR Solutions contract.
Brison itemizes the specific activities that Eunoia Technologies undertook in the pilot, drawn from the LRB statement, which is substantive information, though he again deflects at the end to the CPC Agility PR Solutions contract.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in fact, the company, Eunoia Technologies, ran a pilot for the Liberal caucus research bureau among other things to design and organize several national samples of Canadians, to explore responses to government policy priorities and other issues of national importance, to assist the LRB in setting up infrastructure, to research the performance of Liberal members of Parliament in communications. This is all in the statement from the LRB, but the Conservatives actually did engage in a contract with Agility PR Solutions and paid it $100,000.
Bergen asks what the Liberals let Christopher Wylie have access to and what they have done or are doing with the techniques he provided, characterizing his role as advising on how to get information from Canadians for partisan Liberal purposes.
More rhetorical than previous exchanges, characterizing Brison's previous answer as a confirmation and asking two vague compound questions about what data Wylie had access to and what techniques are being used, without citing new specific facts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister has confirmed that Christopher Wylie, who is the individual who is in the middle of this international Facebook scandal and is also very clearly and very widely known to the Liberal Party, provided advice to the government on how to get information from Canadians regarding government policy, and then used that personal information for the Liberals' own partisan Liberal purposes. This is shameful. We have to know what the Liberals let this individual have access to. More important, what have they done and what are they doing with these techniques of Christopher Wylie?
Brison repeats the LRB statement that Eunoia Technologies did preliminary work but the LRB decided not to move forward and that at no point did Eunoia Technologies have access to any data from the Liberal caucus research bureau.
Brison repeats the same LRB statement about the pilot and no data access, which directly addresses the data access question but not the question about ongoing use of Wylie's techniques.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, in the statement issued by the Liberal research bureau today, preliminary work was done by Eunoia Technologies, but after seeing what was offered, the Liberal caucus research bureau decided not to move forward. At no point did Eunoia Technologies have access to any data from the Liberal caucus research bureau.
Strahl asks how many tax dollars were paid to Christopher Wylie and what he did for the money, noting his work for Michael Ignatieff, Stéphane Dion, and the current government, as well as his claimed role in developing data-mining techniques used by Donald Trump.
Asks a specific factual question about the dollar amount paid to Christopher Wylie and what he did for the money, grounded in naming three specific prior Liberal connections (Ignatieff, Dion, and the current government) and citing his claimed role in Trump's victory.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, media around the world have recklessly reported on the connection between Christopher Wylie and Donald Trump because Christopher Wylie claimed that he played a pivotal role in developing the data-mining techniques that helped carry Donald Trump to victory. However, he has not just worked for Donald Trump. He worked for former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, worked for former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, and the government hired him just two years ago. Will the Prime Minister finally answer how many tax dollars he paid Christopher Wylie, and what did Mr. Wylie do for the money?
Brison states the contract for the pilot with Eunoia Technologies was issued in January 2016 after the 2015 election, and that after Mr. Wylie made a proposal at the pilot's completion, the LRB decided not to move forward beyond that specific pilot.
Brison provides a new specific detail â the contract was issued in January 2016 after the 2015 election â and confirms the LRB did not move forward after the pilot, but does not state the dollar amount paid.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, the contract for the pilot with Eunoia Technologies was actually issued after the 2015 election, in January 2016. At the completion of that pilot when Mr. Wylie made a proposal to the LRB, it was decided not to move forward at that time. The LRB did not move forward beyond that very specific pilot.
Strahl asks whether the Prime Minister has informed the Privacy Commissioner of the three separate times Christopher Wylie worked for the Liberal Party of Canada, and whether Wylie had access to Canadians' data and what he was doing for the money.
Asks a specific factual question about whether the Privacy Commissioner was informed of all three instances of Wylie working for the Liberal Party of Canada, grounded in the Commissioner's announced Facebook investigation, though some framing is partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's privacy watchdog has launched an investigation into Facebook regarding the shocking allegations of this data leak. The Liberals have feigned outrage that such a data breach could have occurred and condemned Donald Trump for using such techniques, but of course, they have hired the guy now three separate times in the Liberal Party. Has the Prime Minister informed the Privacy Commissioner of the three times that Christopher Wylie worked for the Liberal Party of Canada? Will the Liberals finally come clean? Did he have access to Canadians' data and what was he doing for the money?
Brison says he spoke with the Privacy Commissioner that morning and made clear the government will do everything it can to protect Canadians' personal data and the integrity of the electoral system, and repeats that Eunoia Technologies never had access to any LRB data.
Brison states he spoke with the Privacy Commissioner that morning and reiterates the government's commitment to protecting personal data, partially addressing the question, but does not specifically confirm whether the Commissioner was told about the three instances of Wylie working for the Liberal Party.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I spoke with the Privacy Commissioner earlier this morning and made it very clear that we will do everything we can as a government to protect the security of personal data of Canadians and the integrity of our electoral system. Again, the LRB issued a statement this morning and made it very clear that at no point did Eunoia Technologies have access to any data from the Liberal caucus research bureau.
When will the government introduce concrete measures to hire women in infrastructure projects, fund pay equity legislation implementation, create a universal affordable child care system, and fund campus rape prevention policies?
Asks four distinct concrete policy questions about infrastructure hiring, pay equity implementation funding, universal child care, and campus rape prevention, but the compound structure dilutes accountability and the ask is diffuse.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le dernier budget est rempli de belles paroles et d'occasions manquées. Le gouvernement a beau s'autoproclamer féministe, le fait est que le budget manque de mesures concrÚtes pour aider les femmes. à quand des mesures concrÚtes pour inciter l'embauche de femmes dans des projets d'infrastructure? à quand l'investissement de fonds pour la mise en oeuvre de la loi sur l'équité salariale? à quand un systÚme de garderies abordables universel? à quand de l'argent du fédéral pour mettre en oeuvre des politiques de prévention du viol sur les campus? Combien de temps encore les femmes devront-elles attendre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the recent budget is full of lofty rhetoric and missed opportunities. The government may claim to be feminist, but the fact is, the budget lacks substantive action to help women. When will we see meaningful action to encourage the hiring of women for infrastructure projects? When will we see investments to implement the pay equity legislation? When will we see a universal, affordable child care program? When will we see federal funding to implement rape prevention policies on our campuses? How much longer do women have to wait?
The minister cited $7.5 billion for child care and early learning, $40 billion in affordable housing, grants for women entering trades, and $1.65 billion in an entrepreneurship strategy as evidence of concrete investment.
Cites specific figures ($7.5 billion for child care and early learning, $40 billion in affordable housing, $1.65 billion in an entrepreneurship strategy) but does not address pay equity implementation funding or campus rape prevention, and cuts off mid-sentence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the budget clearly invests and builds on previous investments to improve lives for women and communities across the country, with $7.5 billion for child care and early learning and $40 billion in affordable housing, 25% of which will support women and their families. Who will be building this infrastructure? We are providing grants and opportunities for women to enter the trades. We are also investing $1.65 billion in an entrepreneurship strategy. When we invest in womenâ
Why is there no money to put pay equity in place, no EI reforms so women can access parental leave, and no funding for universal affordable child care?
Raises three specific policy gaps â pay equity funding, EI reforms for parental leave access, and universal affordable child care â but frames them rhetorically and does not cite specific data or documents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, none of this is for the women who really need it now. The budget mentions women hundreds of times, but fails to deliver for them. The so-called feminist government's budget has little concrete help for women on the ground right now. Why is there no money to put pay equity in place? Why are there no EI reforms so that women can actually access parental leave? How can the Liberals think they are for women's equality when they still have not funded universal, affordable child care?
The minister quoted YWCA Canada CEO Maya Roy praising the budget's intersectional gender lens, noted pay equity is mentioned in the budget, and cited over $3 million to address pay transparency.
Leads with a third-party quote from Maya Roy of YWCA Canada, mentions pay equity and over $3 million for pay transparency, but does not address EI reforms or universal child care, and does not explain when or how pay equity will be implemented.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, âGender equality is good for Canada. Itâs good for the economy, itâs good for families and itâs good for women and girls. After years of slipping in global rankings, this is the change of direction we need.â That was said by Maya Roy, the CEO of YWCA Canada, in response to the first federal budget in the history of this country to have an intersectional gender lens applied. Pay equity is mentioned in this budget, along with over $3 million to address pay transparency. When we invest in women, we grow the economy for everyone.
Given the contradiction between the Prime Minister's claim of an Indian government conspiracy and the foreign affairs minister's description of 'an honest mistake,' will the Prime Minister invite the national security adviser to the public safety committee?
Grounds the question in specific dated statements â the Prime Minister's February 27 statement about an Indian government conspiracy and the foreign affairs minister's later characterization as 'an honest mistake' â and makes a specific ask to invite the national security adviser to the public safety committee.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on February 27, the Prime Minister told this House that the Atwal invitation was part of an Indian government conspiracy to undermine his trip. The same day, a Liberal MP publicly apologized for the Atwal invite. Weeks later, the foreign affairs minister called the invite âan honest mistakeâ, directly contradicting the Prime Minister. That is a lot of invitations to Mr. Atwal. The opposition members have one invite they would like the Prime Minister to make: invite the national security adviser to the public safety committee so we can get answers.
The minister stated only that the invitation should never have been issued and was immediately rescinded when discovered, expressing confidence in security and diplomatic advisers.
The minister addresses only that the invitation should not have been issued and was immediately rescinded, ignoring the specific contradictions between the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister and not addressing the request to invite the national security adviser to committee.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the answer with respect to the invitation is already very clear. The invitation should never have been issued, and when that invitation was discovered, it was immediately rescinded. Another point that needs to be noted is that the government has great confidence in the security and diplomatic advisers to the government, who always act in an impartial fashion and always in the best interests of Canadians.
Can the Prime Minister allow elected officials to receive the same briefing given to the media and permit Daniel Jean to be summoned to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, given the contradictions about the Atwal invitation?
Specifically identifies that a senior official and the Prime Minister confirmed the Atwal invitation was staged by the Indian government while the Indian government, Atwal, the foreign affairs minister, and the Surrey Centre Liberal MP deny this, and makes a clear procedural ask for a briefing for elected members and Daniel Jean's appearance at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, avec tout le respect que j'ai pour le ministre, j'aimerais rappeler qu'un haut fonctionnaire et le premier ministre lui-mĂȘme ont confirmĂ© que l'invitation Ă Jaspal Atwal Ă l'Ă©vĂ©nement en Inde Ă©tait un coup montĂ© du gouvernement indien, mais le gouvernement indien, M. Atwal, la ministre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres et le dĂ©putĂ© de libĂ©ral de Surrey-Centre nient ces affirmations. Est-ce que le premier ministre transparent pourrait permettre un debriefing pour les Ă©lus, le mĂȘme qui a Ă©tĂ© accordĂ© aux mĂ©dias, et nous permettre de convoquer Daniel Jean au ComitĂ© permanent de la sĂ©curitĂ© publique et nationale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the minister, I would like to remind the House that a senior bureaucrat and the Prime Minister himself both confirmed that Jaspal Atwal's invitation to the event in India was a set-up initiated by the Indian government. However, the Indian government, Mr. Atwal, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Liberal member for Surrey Centre all deny those claims. Will our transparent Prime Minister provide elected officials with the same debriefing that was given to the media, and allow us to call Daniel Jean to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety?
The minister reiterated only that the invitation should not have been extended and was immediately rescinded, calling that the complete and full answer.
The minister repeats only that the invitation should not have been extended and was immediately rescinded, entirely ignoring the contradictions among officials and the specific request to convene Daniel Jean at committee.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the invitation, which is obviously the core element in the question that has just been asked, the answer is abundantly clear. The invitation should not have been extended. When it was discovered, it was immediately rescinded, because it should not have been issued in the first place. That is the complete and full answer.
Can the Prime Minister confirm whether it is true that Service Canada employees have been instructed to no longer use 'monsieur' and 'madame'?
References a specific reported practice â Service Canada employees no longer using 'monsieur' and 'madame' â and asks for confirmation, but wraps it in partisan framing around the 'peoplekind' incident.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en février dernier, le premier ministre a repris une dame qui a utilisé le terme « mankind » en disant qu'il préfÚre le terme « peoplekind », parce que c'est plus inclusif. Il avait dû se justifier d'avoir fait une blague stupide, une autre. Aujourd'hui, les employés de Service Canada qui s'adressent au public ne peuvent plus utiliser les mots « monsieur » et « madame » et doivent maintenant utiliser un langage neutre en ce qui a trait au genre. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut nous confirmer si cette nouvelle pratique imposée est vraie, parce que...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in February, the Prime Minister called out a woman for using the term âmankindâ and said that he preferred the term âpeoplekindâ because it is more inclusive. He later conceded that the remark was a dumb joke, yet another one. Today, Service Canada employees who interact with the public are no longer allowed to use terms like âMr.â and âMrs.â and now have to use gender-neutral language. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether this new practice has truly been imposed becauseâ
The minister confirmed that Service Canada will continue to use 'monsieur' and 'madame' as salutations and will continue to respect the diversity of family circumstances in Canada.
The minister directly confirms that Service Canada will continue using 'monsieur' and 'madame' as salutations, which is a clear and specific answer to the core factual question asked, though he references a prior answer rather than fully elaborating.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie ma collÚgue de sa question et je l'invite à écouter attentivement la réponse que j'ai donnée tout à l'heure lorsque j'ai dit que nous étions trÚs clairs sur le fait que Service Canada allait continuer à utiliser comme salutations « monsieur » et « madame » et que Service Canada allait continuer à faire son travail de respect envers la diversité des circonstances dans lesquelles nos familles se retrouvent présentement au Canada en 2018.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and I invite her to listen carefully to the answer I gave earlier, when I said that we were very clear on the fact that Service Canada would continue to use âMr.â and âMrs.â as salutations and that Service Canada would continue to do its work and respect the diversity of Canada's families and the reality of their circumstances in 2018.
Can the minister confirm whether Service Canada employees have been instructed to no longer refer to people as 'mother' or 'father,' replacing those terms with 'parent number one' or 'parent number two'?
Cites a specific reported instruction that Service Canada employees no longer refer to people as 'mother' or 'father' but instead 'parent number one' or 'parent number two,' and asks for confirmation, but is closely related to the prior exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister said that his âpeoplekindâ comment was a dumb joke, apparently he was just kidding. According to a report, Service Canada employees have been instructed to no longer refer to people as âmotherâ or âfatherâ. It is now âparent number oneâ or âparent number twoâ. What is next? Can the minister confirm if this instruction is indeed true?
The minister did not confirm or deny the specific instruction, instead speaking generally about diversity of families including grandparents, recomposed families, and same-gender parents deserving equal respect and support.
The minister does not confirm or deny the specific instruction about 'mother,' 'father,' 'parent number one,' or 'parent number two,' instead pivoting to a general statement about diversity of families in Canada and the government's support for it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am glad and grateful to be able to answer this question. I am also glad and grateful to say that in Canada in 2018, we have a diversity of families. We have grandfathers or recomposed families looking after children. We have parents of the same gender. These parents deserve the same respect and the same support as other parents in Canada. I am glad that we have a government that supports this view, and we will continue to work hard for that.
Could the Prime Minister explain why the Liberals would consider helping design and engineer a system that abuses democracy, given Christopher Wylie's work with former Liberal leaders and the current Prime Minister?
References Christopher Wylie's work with former Liberal leaders Dion and Ignatieff and the current Prime Minister and notes European and U.S. investigations into Canadian content, but the question is compound and cuts off before being completed, reducing its accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today the President of the Treasury Board has been referring to the Liberal research bureau as if it is a credible source. Having known the member for 16 years in the chamber, I would ask him to please stop. It is simply not factual, and it is not believable. The reality is that former Liberal employee Christopher Wylie is part of this scandal, working with former Liberal leaders Dion and Ignatieff, and the current Prime Minister. The fact that Europe and the U.S. are investigating the Canadian content in this manipulation is embarrassing to all of us. Could the Prime Minister explain why the Liberals would even consider helping design and engineer a system that abuses democracyâ
The President of the Treasury Board stated that in 2016, Christopher Wylie completed a brief pilot for the Liberal research bureau and that the Liberal research bureau did not move forward beyond that pilot.
The President of the Treasury Board directly addresses Wylie's connection to the Liberal Party, acknowledging he completed a brief pilot for the Liberal research bureau in 2016 and that the Liberal research bureau did not move forward beyond that pilot, which is a substantive factual response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not think we would want to credit that individual with the electoral successes of the Liberal Party of Canada in 2008 or 2011. He may not want to be associated with that. The fact is that, in 2016, he completed a brief pilot for the Liberal research bureau, and the Liberal research bureau did not move forward beyond that pilot.
When will the government introduce laws to legally and financially punish companies that misuse Canadians' personal data, such as in the Cambridge AnalyticaâFacebook scandal?
Raises a timely and specific concern about Cambridge Analytica's use of Facebook data harming Canadians and democracy, and asks when laws will legally and financially punish offending companies, but also mixes in a separate tax point.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that not only does the government not care that Facebook does not pay its fair share of taxes, but it does not seem to care if Facebook is stealing Canadians' personal information either. There is no accountability. L'utilisation des données personnelles provenant de millions d'utilisateurs de Facebook par Cambridge Analytica inquiÚte profondément des citoyens partout dans le monde et des Canadiens. Ils ont peur que leurs informations personnelles servent au détriment de notre démocratie. Toutefois, ce ne sont pas juste les élections qui sont visées par cela. Plusieurs aspects de nos vies sont malmenés par les brÚches à la vie privée. à quand des lois pour punir légalement et financiÚrement les entreprises délinquantes?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le problĂšme, c'est que non seulement le gouvernement se moque que Facebook ne paie pas sa juste part dâimpĂŽt, mais aussi qu'il reste indiffĂ©rent au fait que cette compagnie vole les donnĂ©es personnelles des Canadiens. Il n'y a aucune reddition de comptes. People all around the world and in Canada are deeply concerned about Cambridge Analytica's use of personal data from millions of Facebook users. They fear that their personal information is being used to undermine our democracy. However, it is not just elections that are being targeted. Privacy breaches adversely affect many aspects of our lives. When will we have legislation to legally and financially punish the offending companies?
The President of the Treasury Board said the government is gathering facts, has spoken with the Privacy Commissioner to support his investigation, engaged Canada's top security officials, and spoken directly with Facebook demanding answers about whether Canadian personal information was compromised.
The minister describes concrete steps taken â speaking with the Privacy Commissioner, engaging Canada's top security officials, and speaking directly with Facebook â and frames a clear commitment to protecting personal information of Canadians, though does not address the specific question about new legislation or timelines.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are currently gathering facts, as are other governments, on the Facebook issue. We have a responsibility to protect the personal information of Canadians and the integrity of Canada's electoral system. I have spoken with the Privacy Commissioner to support his investigation. We have reached out and are engaged with Canada's top security officials. I have also spoken with Facebook. I have told them that we need answers and we need to know that the personal information of Canadians was not compromised.
Could the Minister of Public Safety explain what the government is doing to make communities safer, given the loophole created by the Conservatives and the current Conservative leader's position on magazine capacity?
A government backbench question that sets up the minister by criticizing Harper government changes and the current Conservative leader's position on magazine capacity, with no genuine accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I know that the safety of Canadians is of utmost importance to the government. Unfortunately, the Harper government's changes to the law meant that someone selling a firearm did not have to make sure the buyer was actually permitted to own one. Thankfully, most businesses still check, but the loophole created by the Conservatives can allow firearms to fall into the wrong hands.
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, now the current Conservative leader wants to further undermine public safety by increasing the number of bullets that magazines can hold. Could the Minister of Public Safety please tell the House what the government is doing to make our communities safer?
The minister stated that legislation introduced the previous day includes more extensive background checks, already applauded by all parties, and cited the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police as encouraged by the positive direction toward sensible firearm legislation.
The minister provides specific information, referencing legislation introduced the previous day with practical measures including more extensive background checks, citing applause from all parties and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police's positive response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we introduced common-sense legislation that prioritizes public safety and effective police work, while respecting law-abiding firearms owners. That legislation includes practical measures, such as making background checks more extensive, which I note has already been applauded by all parties represented in the House. I also note that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police says that it is âencouraged by the positive direction taken by [the government] towards sensible firearm legislation enhancing the tools availableâ to police to ensure publicâ
Given that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's recent report found the budget accounts for only $22 billion of $91 billion in infrastructure spending, where have these billions of dollars gone?
Quotes directly from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's recent report, citing the specific figure that the budget accounts for only $22 billion of a total $91 billion, and contrasts it with the Liberals' election promise of small deficits for infrastructure.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il y a deux ans et demi, les libĂ©raux se sont fait Ă©lire en disant ceci aux Canadiens: nous allons faire des petits dĂ©ficits pour avoir beaucoup d'infrastructures. Deux ans et demi plus tard, voici la rĂ©alitĂ©: des gros dĂ©ficits et pas beaucoup d'infrastructures. Ce n'est pas nous qui le disons, c'est le directeur parlementaire du budget qui, dans le rapport cinglant de la semaine derniĂšre, a dit, et je cite: le budget ne fait Ă©tat que d'un montant de 22 milliards sur un montant total de 91 milliards de dollars. Puisque c'est mercredi, est-ce que le premier ministre pourrait nous expliquer oĂč sont rendus ces milliards de dollars envolĂ©s?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, two and a half years ago, the Liberals came to power by telling Canadians that they would run small deficits and build a lot of infrastructure. Two and a half years later, the reality is that we have a large deficit and not all that much infrastructure. We are not the ones saying this. The parliamentary budget officer, in last week's scathing report, said that the budget accounts for only $22 billion of the $91 billion overall. Given that it is Wednesday, could the Prime Minister explain where all these billions of dollars have gone?
The minister stated the government is making historic investments of $180 billion in long-term, sustainable, and predictable infrastructure funding for communities, something the Harper government denied them for a decade.
The minister does not engage with the Parliamentary Budget Officer's finding or the discrepancy between $22 billion and $91 billion, instead making general statements about historic investments and citing $180 billion in long-term funding without addressing where the unaccounted billions went.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government understands that infrastructure is the foundation of building a strong economy, creating jobs for the middle class, and providing opportunities for those Canadians who work hard every day to be part of the middle class. That is why we are making historic investments in infrastructure to support communities. We are putting forward $180-billion long-term, sustainable, and predictable funding for our communities, something communities have been asking for, and something that, for a decade, the Harper government denied them.
Given that the Prime Minister failed on his $10 billion deficit promise, his infrastructure spending promise, his three-year elimination timeline, and now projects 25 more years of deficits adding half a trillion dollars in debt, how can Canadians trust anything he says about their money?
Cites specific broken commitments â $10 billion deficit promise versus reality more than double, three-year timeline, and now 25 years with half a trillion added to debt â and asks a direct accountability question about trust.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised a deficit of just $10 billion, and failed. It was more than double that. He said the money would go to infrastructure. He failed there too. We do not know where it has gone. He said the deficit would be gone in three years. He has failed on that. Now he says it will be another 25 years, during which half a trillion dollars will be added to the debt. Given all these failures, how can we trust anything the Prime Minister says about Canadians' money?
The minister listed infrastructure investment components including $33 billion for public transit, green infrastructure investments, cultural and recreational infrastructure, and $2.4 billion for rural and northern communities.
The minister pivots entirely to listing infrastructure investment components without addressing the deficit promises, the timeline, or the question of trust, constituting a clear deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me talk about one of the components of our historic infrastructure investments. We are investing $33 billion to improve public transit systems in our communities to reduce pollution. We are investing in green infrastructure to make our communities more resilient to the impacts of climate change. We are investing in cultural and recreational community infrastructure to build healthier and inclusive communities. I am also proud that, for the first time, we are investing $2.4 billion in rural and northern communities to support them in a way they have never been supportedâ
Given that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report states Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan and that the new plan does not exist, how is it possible to spend $180 billion with no plan?
Quotes directly and precisely from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report â 'Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the changes to the Government's $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan' and that the PBO requested the new plan but it does not exist â making a pointed and specific accountability challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, well, that is not what the Parliamentary Budget Officer says. In fact, I will quote from his report: Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the changes to the Governmentâs $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan. PBO requested the new plan but it does not exist. I ask again, how is it even possible to spend $180 billion with no plan?
The minister asserted the government has a plan to invest in communities, unlocking $40 billion in affordable housing and supporting women fleeing domestic violence, without addressing the PBO's finding.
The minister asserts 'we do have a plan' but provides no specifics to counter the PBO's finding that the plan does not exist, instead pivoting to affordable housing and domestic violence shelters, which is a near-complete deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we do have a plan, and that plan is to invest in communities to build the infrastructure they need, to help grow our economy, and to create jobs. We are unlocking $40 billion of investment into affordable housing, something about which the Harper government cared less or not at all. This is the investment we are making so people have an affordable place to live, and women fleeing domestic violence have a decent place to go to seek protection. Those are the investments we are making to build healthier communities.
When will the budget be balanced, given that the deficit has been more than double the promised $10 billion, and this year's deficit is three times what was promised?
Cites specific figures â original $10 billion deficit promise, more than double the reality, current year deficit three times what was promised â and asks a direct, answerable question: when will the budget be balanced?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming more and more clear to Canadians that the government has no control over its spending, and it cannot even tell us where its spending is going. First of all, it said the deficit would be $10 billion. It has been more than double that. This year, the deficit will be three times what the Liberals promised. If the Prime Minister had been telling the truth in the last election, the budget would be balanced next year. We now know that this will not happen. When will the budget be balanced?
The Parliamentary Secretary cited economic conditions inherited from a decade of Conservative management, saying Canadians chose to invest when interest rates were low, resulting in 600,000 jobs created and the strongest growth among G7 countries.
The Parliamentary Secretary does not answer when the budget will be balanced, instead pivoting to economic conditions at the time of election and citing 600,000 jobs created and strongest G7 growth as justification for the approach.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il est important de se rappeler qu'il y a deux ans, pendant la campagne Ă©lectorale et aprĂšs une dĂ©cennie de gestion conservatrice, les Canadiens se posaient la question suivante: est-ce que le Canada est en rĂ©cession ou en voie d'ĂȘtre en rĂ©cession? C'Ă©tait comprĂ©hensible aprĂšs les 10 annĂ©es oĂč on a vu la pire croissance des emplois et la pire croissance des exportations. Les Canadiens ont fait le choix recommandĂ© par des Ă©conomistes de partout au monde: celui, quand les taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt sont bas et que l'Ă©conomie est au ralenti, d'investir dans nos communautĂ©s, d'investir dans les infrastructures et d'investir dans les sciences comme nous le faisons pour faire croĂźtre l'Ă©conomie. C'est ce que nous avons fait et les rĂ©sultats parlent d'eux-mĂȘmes: 600 000 emplois ont Ă©tĂ© crĂ©Ă©s et nous avons la plus forte croissance des pays membres du G7. Ils devraient prendre des notes sur notre approche.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that two years ago, during the election campaign and after ten years of Conservative management, Canadians asked themselves the following question: is Canada in a recession or headed for a recession? That was understandable after 10 years of the worst growth in jobs and exports. Canadians decided to do what economists around the world had suggested. When interest rates are low and the economy is slowing, the right choice is to invest in our communities, invest in infrastructure, and invest in science, as we are doing in order to grow the economy. That is what we did and the results speak for themselves: 600,000 jobs have been created, and we have the strongest growth in the G7. They should take notes on our approach.
When will the Liberals get Canada Post to pay its $29,000 in outstanding rent â $210 a month unpaid for 53 months â to a small general store in North IslandâPowell River?
Cites highly specific facts â $29,000 owed by Canada Post to a small Vancouver Island general store, $210 per month rent unpaid for 53 months â and asks a clear, single, answerable question about when the crown corporation will pay its bill.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing worse than not getting paid what one is owed. Actually, wait: There is nothing worse than being a small business that is not getting paid $29,000 by a crown corporation. That is right. Canada Post currently owes $29,000 in rent to a small Vancouver Island general store in my riding because it has not paid rent in 53 months. How much is that rent? It is $210 a month, and now it will not even negotiate with the owner. When will the Liberals start standing up for small businesses and get this crown corporation to pay its bill?
The minister confirmed she is looking into the matter and has asked Canada Post to look into the file, promising to report back once she has an appropriate answer.
The minister acknowledges the issue, confirms she has asked Canada Post to look into the file, and commits to reporting back, which is a partial but honest engagement with the specific ask rather than a deflection, though it provides no timeline or resolution.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member and all members of the House that we are looking into this. I have asked Canada Post to look into this file. I will get back to them as soon as I get an appropriate answer.
Will the government immediately issue an emergency order under the Species at Risk Act to protect the 76 remaining southern resident killer whales from threats including Kinder Morgan tanker traffic, ocean pollution, and low chinook numbers?
Cites a specific population figure of 76 southern resident killer whales remaining, identifies specific threats including increased tanker traffic from Kinder Morgan, ocean pollution, and low chinook numbers, and makes a specific ask for an emergency order under the Species at Risk Act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with just 76 southern resident killer whales remaining, people are worried they will be extinct unless the government takes immediate action. Increased tanker traffic from Kinder Morgan, ocean pollution, and drastically low chinook numbers pose serious threats to this iconic species and its recovery. Canadians are demanding that the ministers of environment and fisheries issue an emergency order under the Species at Risk Act to protect southern resident killer whales. Will the government do the right thing and immediately issue an emergency order to keep these whales from being wiped from the face of this planet?
The minister cited the $1.5 billion oceans protection plan with investments in science and indigenous partnerships, and said he would be making management decisions around chinook salmon as part of a solution to ensure the recovery of southern resident killer whales.
The minister cites the $1.5 billion oceans protection plan and mentions science investments and indigenous partnerships, and commits to making management decisions around chinook salmon as part of a solution, but does not address the specific request for an emergency order under the Species at Risk Act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we share our colleague's concern about the importance of protecting the southern resident killer whale population in British Columbia. This is an iconic species for all Canadians. That is why our government announced an ambitious $1.5 billion oceans protection plan, with significant investments in science, in partnerships with indigenous communities up and down the coast, to do what is necessary to ensure that these iconic mammals are in fact protected and the species recovers. I am going to be making management decisions around chinook salmon, for example, that will be part of a solution to ensure the recovery of these whales.
Raitt cited 2017 data showing the immigration review board issued 25 security deportation orders but CBSA removed only four people, and asked what the minister plans to do about this failure.
Cites specific 2017 figures â 25 deportation orders issued versus only 4 removals carried out â framing a clear accountability ask directed at the minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Public Safety and it has to do with the removal of dangerous individuals under security deportation orders. My question is very clear. In 2017, the immigration review board issued 25 deportation orders for security, the highest in the last five years. In 2017, the Canada Border Services Agency said that it removed only four people, the lowest in five years. My question is simple. This is a clear case of government failure. What is the minister going to do?
Goodale said CBSA prioritizes security cases, can detain individuals who pose a risk, and is working with domestic and international partners including the Five Eyes to secure travel documents from uncooperative countries of origin.
Goodale provides relevant context about travel documents and Five Eyes cooperation but does not address what concrete steps or timeline he will pursue to close the gap between orders issued and removals carried out.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, CBSA enforces removal orders as soon as that is physically possible and prioritizes, of course, the cases that involve security issues. An individual subject to a deportation order who poses a risk to the public can, in fact, be detained if that is necessary. The issues generally involve the country of origin being unwilling to provide travel documents. CBSA is working with domestic and international partners, including the Five Eyes countries, to develop the best practices to secure those documents so that the removals can happen.
Raitt cited cumulative figures since 2015 â 70 security deportation orders versus 14 removals â and asked the minister what he plans to do about the government's increasing ineffectiveness on security deportations.
Expands the data to a five-year window â 70 security deportation orders since 2015 versus only 14 removals â and repeats the direct accountability ask, maintaining factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since 2015, the immigration review board has issued 70 deportation orders for security, and the CBSA has conducted only 14 removals. What has been said is that the federal government has become increasingly ineffective in carrying out deportations on security grounds. The federal policy is very clear. Security-ordered deportation is the prime focus of the government, and it is failing on this. Will the minister tell us what he plans to do?
Goodale reiterated that the obstacle is obtaining travel documents from other countries and said the government is using every conceivable leverage domestically and consulting Five Eyes partners internationally.
Goodale again focuses on the travel-document obstacle and international consultations but offers no new specific plans, timelines, or metrics, and the answer is cut off before completion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the issue is obviously one of being able to physically carry out the removal order. That means getting travel documents from other countries to facilitate the removal of the individual from Canada to that other country. We are using every conceivable leverage, among federal government departments, to obtain those documents. We are also consulting with international partners, including countries in the Five Eyes alliance, to make sure that we are using every tool domestically and internationally to get the travel documents, to get themâ
Raitt rhetorically dismissed the travel-document explanation as 'paperwork,' referenced 2013 legislation her government introduced, and criticized the minister for ignoring the problem the previous day.
Raitt's third exchange is largely rhetorical â dismissing the minister's travel-document explanation and offering a partisan comment about him 'getting off his high horse' â without posing a new answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that we cannot do the job because of paperwork? That makes absolutely no sense. Our government, in 2013, recognized the problem, and we brought in legislation to ensure that we could actually get people out of the country when they threatened the security of Canadians. This is absolutely unacceptable, but I am very glad to see that the minister got off his high horse today and is actually answering the questions instead of ignoring the problem, like he did yesterday.
Goodale insisted that obtaining travel documents is a necessary and non-skippable step, and stated the backlog peaked under the previous government while his government works to reduce it.
Goodale defends the travel-document explanation and attributes the backlog's peak to the previous government, engaging the topic but deflecting rather than offering a substantive plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the point is that the travel documents have to be obtained. The hon. member cannot sort of skip over that step and pretend that it does not exist. We are working very diligently to get the travel documents and to work down the backlog. It is true, as I said yesterday, that this backlog peaked under the previous government, and we are working very hard to catch up.
Iacono asked the Minister of Transport to update Canadians on actions taken to improve passenger rail service in the Quebec CityâWindsor corridor.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the minister to update Canadians on actions taken to improve passenger rail in the Quebec CityâWindsor corridor, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre réseau de transport ferroviaire pour passagers est une partie importante de notre systÚme de transport national. Le train est non seulement un moyen de transport idéal pour profiter des paysages majestueux de notre pays, mais il relie aussi les Canadiens de partout au pays entre eux, depuis des décennies. Le ministre des Transports pourrait-il mettre au courant les Canadiens et cette Chambre des actions qu'il a entreprises afin d'améliorer cet important service de transport dans l'axe Québec-Windsor?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our passenger rail system is an important part of our national transportation system. The train is not only an ideal form of transportation for enjoying our country's beautiful landscapes, but it has also been connecting Canadians across the country for decades. Could the Minister of Transport update Canadians and this House on what he has done to improve this important transportation service in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor?
Garneau announced that budget 2018 includes funding to replace VIA Rail passenger cars and locomotives in the Quebec CityâWindsor corridor, with more comfortable, safe, eco-friendly, and accessible trains expected from 2022.
Garneau provides a concrete answer, citing the budget 2018 announcement of replacing VIA Rail passenger cars and locomotives in the Quebec CityâWindsor corridor with improved trains beginning in 2022.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie mon collÚgue d'Alfred-Pellan de sa question et de son travail acharné au Comité permanent des transports, de l'infrastructure et des collectivités. Notre gouvernement reconnaßt l'importance du systÚme de transport ferroviaire pour passagers ici au Canada. C'est pour cela que, dans le budget de 2018, nous avons annoncé le remplacement des wagons passagers et des locomotives de VIA Rail dans le corridor entre Québec et Windsor. Cela nous permettra, à partir de 2022, d'avoir des trains plus confortables, plus sécuritaires, plus écologiques et plus accessibles pour les passagers.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for his question and for his hard work on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Our government recognizes how important the passenger rail system is here in Canada. This is why, in budget 2018, we announced that VIA Rail passenger cars and locomotives in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor would be replaced. This means that by 2022, passengers will have access to more comfortable, safer, greener, and more accessible trains.
Stubbs cited the B.C. Supreme Court ruling against obstruction of the Trans Mountain expansion and described injuries to three RCMP officers by illegal protestors on Monday, asking the Prime Minister to condemn the violence and support the rule of law.
Stubbs cites the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling and describes specific injuries to three RCMP officers during Monday's illegal protests near Trans Mountain, then poses two clear asks â condemnation of protestor violence and unequivocal support for the rule of law â though the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is still failing on the Trans Mountain expansion, risking thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in revenue and investment, and Canada's global reputation. Canadians have the right to peaceful assembly, but the B.C. Supreme Court said that protestors must not obstruct the expansion. On Monday, illegal protestors harmed three RCMP officers, kicking one and causing a head injury. The other two suffered hand and knee injuries. The Prime Minister's job is not just costumes, selfies, and ceremony. He must lead. Will he clearly condemn violence by illegal protestors? Will he unequivocally support the rule of law?
Goodale gave a general statement that public safety officers, especially police, deserve unequivocal support and admiration, and that all members support the RCMP, without specifically condemning the protestors' violence.
Goodale offers only a general statement of support for police officers without condemning the specific acts of violence described or addressing the rule-of-law question about the Trans Mountain expansion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, public safety officers of all kinds, including particularly police officers, defend Canadians on the front lines in communities from coast to coast to coast. They deserve our unequivocal support and admiration for the work they do to keep Canadians safe. Of course, all members of this House support the RCMP in the important work they do for public safety.
LaverdiĂšre cited a petition signed by thousands of citizens calling for rail crossings separating LaurierâSainte-Marie and RosemontâLa Petite-Patrie, and asked whether the minister will finally put citizens' interests ahead of railway companies.
LaverdiĂšre references a petition signed by thousands of citizens and identifies a specific need for rail crossings separating LaurierâSainte-Marie and RosemontâLa Petite-Patrie, asking whether the minister will prioritize citizens' interests over railway companies.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier j'ai dĂ©posĂ© une pĂ©tition signĂ©e par plusieurs milliers de citoyens qui demandent au ministre des Transports de les Ă©couter enfin et de se doter des pouvoirs nĂ©cessaires pour mettre en place des passages Ă niveau sur les chemins de fer, notamment ceux sĂ©parant LaurierâSainte-Marie et RosemontâLa Petite-Patrie. C'est une nĂ©cessitĂ© pour faciliter la mobilitĂ© citoyenne et garantir la sĂ©curitĂ© des gens. Le ministre des Transports va-t-il enfin faire passer l'intĂ©rĂȘt des citoyens avant celui des compagnies ferroviaires?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I presented a petition signed by several thousand people calling on the Minister of Transport to finally listen to them and to obtain the necessary powers to build railroad crossings, in particular for the railway tracks separating LaurierâSainte-Marie and RosemontâLa Petite-Patrie. These crossings are needed to keep the public safe and to give them more mobility. Will the Minister of Transport put the interests of the public ahead of the interests of rail companies?
Garneau noted that there is a mechanism to apply to the Office des transports du Canada to request rail crossings and offered to provide his colleague with information on that process.
Garneau points to an existing mechanism through the Office des transports du Canada for requesting rail crossings and offers to provide information, but does not address whether he will act on the petition or take a position on the citizens-versus-railway-companies framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie ma collÚgue de sa question. Je lui rappelle qu'il existe un mécanisme qui permet de faire appel à l'Office des transports du Canada pour demander la création de passages à niveau. Si ma collÚgue a besoin d'information sur ce processus, cela me fera plaisir de lui donner cette information.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I remind her that there is a mechanism for people to request that the Canadian Transportation Agency create railroad crossings. If my colleague needs information on this process, I would be happy to provide it.
Anandasangaree noted International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and budget 2018 investments in anti-racism initiatives, and asked the minister to update on those initiatives for a more inclusive future.
This is a government-backbench exchange timed to the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, asking the minister to update on anti-racism initiatives in budget 2018, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Recently the Prime Minister officially recognized the International Decade for People of African Descent and reiterated that we have much work to do. I am pleased to see that budget 2018 is making investments in anti-racism initiatives. La ministre pourrait-elle faire le point sur ces initiatives visant Ă offrir un avenir plus inclusif Ă tous les Canadiens?
Joly announced a $23 million investment in multiculturalism programs and $19 million in concrete measures to address issues facing Black Canadians, reaffirming the government's commitment to fighting racism.
Joly provides specific figures â $23 million for multiculturalism programs and $19 million for measures addressing issues facing Black Canadians â giving the answer real informational content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for ScarboroughâRouge Park, for his important question and his hard work. Today our government reaffirmed its commitment to the fight against racism. Through budget 2018, we are investing $23 million, which will include support for multiculturalism programs. Nous investissons Ă©galement 19 millions de dollars afin de poser des gestes concrets pour contrer les problĂšmes auxquels font face nos collĂšgues canadiens noirs. Nous avons fait beaucoup de progrĂšs, mais bien entendu, il y a encore beaucoup de travail Ă faire.
Doherty cited DFO website criteria for the Arctic surf clam bid â vessel description, ownership profile with multiple First Nation partners, and incorporation â and asked how the winning applicant qualified when it had no vessel, no partners, and was not even incorporated until a week after the announcement.
Doherty cites specific DFO criteria from the website â vessel description, ownership profile including all partners, and incorporation status â and presents concrete facts showing the winning Arctic surf clam applicant did not meet those criteria at the time of the announcement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, how the minister chose his colleague's brother to award the Arctic surf clam bid to is beyond me. According to the DFO website, Arctic surf clam applicants had to meet certain criteria. They had to describe the vessel used, except they did not have one, and they still do not. They had to provide an ownership profile, including all the partners, except there were none. They were not even incorporated until a week after the announcement was made. If they did not have a boat and did not have multiple first nation partners, how did they win the bid?
Oh, oh!
LeBlanc said Doherty had not read the actual bid and was relying on inaccurate media reports, and defended the process as transparent and inclusive, designed to add indigenous partners to an important offshore fishery.
LeBlanc dismisses the question by saying Doherty has not seen the actual bid and calls media reports inaccurate, but does not address any of the specific criteria failures cited or explain how the proponent met the eligibility requirements.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am interested to hear my colleague's observations with respect to a specific bid. The only challenge is that he has not actually seen the bid he is commenting on. He is taking a series of media reports, which were inaccurate, and asking a question about a bid he has not read. Our process was transparent. It was inclusive. Our process was designed to add indigenous partners to an important offshore fishery. We chose the proposal that offered the best economic benefits to indigenous people, and we are proud of that decision.
May described millions of tons of grain stranded between prairie farms and waiting ships in the Salish Sea, with CN Rail having empty railcars but having laid off 1,000 workers, and asked whether the Minister of Transport can get CN to deliver the grain.
May paints a vivid picture of the grain backlog â ships waiting in the Salish Sea, CN Rail with empty railcars after laying off 1,000 workers â and poses a direct question about whether the minister can get CN to deliver the grain, though the ask is somewhat rhetorical in tone.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as millions of tons of grain sit on prairie farms and in grain elevators, on our coast of British Columbia, we have freighters and container ships waiting to pick up that grain at the Port of Vancouver backed up and using the waters of the Salish Sea as a free parking lot. In between, we have CN Rail, which has empty railcars but laid off 1,000 workers last year, as if it is a surprise to it, again, that we have grain to be shipped. Can the hon. Minister of Transport assure us that he can get CN to do the job and deliver the grain?
Garneau said he and the Minister of Agriculture wrote to CN and CP expressing dissatisfaction, received plans involving more crews, equipment, and prioritization of grain movement, and that he is monitoring the situation daily with the Minister of Agriculture.
Garneau provides substantive detail: he and the Minister of Agriculture wrote jointly to CN and CP, received plans involving more crews, equipment, and prioritization of grain movement, and says he is monitoring the situation daily, though he stops short of guaranteeing a resolution.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after the Minister of Agriculture and I wrote to CN and CP and told them that we were not satisfied with the movement of grain, they came back to us with plans that involve considerably more resources in terms of crews, in terms of equipment, and in terms of prioritization for the movement of grain. We want to get our farmers' grain out to the west coast. I am monitoring this on a daily basis with the Minister of Agriculture, and we will continue to insist on this accelerated pace of movement of Canadian western farmers' grain to market.
MarilĂšne Gill sought unanimous consent for a motion calling on the government to award Davie shipyard the contract for four icebreakers by March 31, 2018, noting that the Prime Minister had promised negotiations would begin on January 19 but no contract had been announced and hundreds of jobs at Davie and its suppliers were at risk. Unanimous consent was not granted.
- Some hon. members
- Mrs. MarilĂšne Gill
Source text
Hear, hear!
Monsieur le Président, je crois que vous constaterez qu'il y a consentement unanime à l'égard de la motion suivante: Que la Chambre prenne acte que le 18 janvier dernier, le premier ministre, alors en visite à Québec, a affirmé que des négociations seraient entreprises dÚs le 19 janvier pour le contrat des quatre brise-glaces au chantier maritime Davie; qu'elle note que le 12 mars 2018, l'Association des fournisseurs du chantier Davie demandait au premier ministre qu'il s'engage à conclure enfin le contrat de quatre brise-glaces; qu'elle constate qu'à ce jour, aucune annonce en ce sens n'a été faite et que des centaines d'emplois au chantier Davie et chez ses fournisseurs sont en péril; que cette Chambre demande au gouvernement du Canada qu'il octroie à la Davie le contrat des quatre brise-glaces, et ce, au plus tard le 31 mars 2018.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That this House recognize that when the Prime Minister was in Quebec City on January 18, 2018, he stated that negotiations with the Davie shipyard would begin on January 19 for the contract for four icebreakers; that this House recognize that on March 12, 2018, the Association des fournisseurs du chantier Davie asked the Prime Minister to commit to finally reaching a deal for the four icebreakers; that this House recognize that no announcements have been made to this effect to date and that hundreds of jobs at the shipyard and with its suppliers are at risk; that this House call on the Government of Canada to grant the Davie shipyard the contract for four icebreakers no later than March 31, 2018.
D'accord. Non.
Hansard translation: Agreed. No.
Todd Doherty (CPC) rose on a point of order seeking permission to table a certificate of incorporation showing that the company awarded the Arctic surf clam contract was incorporated one week after the minister's announcement, in response to the Minister of Fisheries claiming Doherty had not seen the contract. Unanimous consent to table the document was not granted.
- CPC Mr. Todd Doherty
- Some hon. members
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I and hon. colleagues have stood in the House a number of times on the fisheries file and have asked the Minister of Fisheries to explain how a proponent that is not a business has received a sizeable contract. The minister has said it is a company. I ask permission to table the certificate of incorporation, which shows the company that received this sizeable contract from the government was incorporated one week after the announcement was made by the minister.
Agreed. No.
Pierre Poilievre (CPC) rose on a point of order arguing that the Minister of Infrastructure had contradicted the Parliamentary Budget Officer by claiming a plan exists for $186.7 billion in infrastructure spending when the PBO's report â a document of the House â states that he asked for that plan and 'it does not exist.' Poilievre asked the Speaker to investigate, saying either the government is in contempt of Parliament through the PBO or the minister provided false information to the House.
- CPC Pierre Poilievre
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with respect to conflicting statements by a member of the government versus a servant of the House. Earlier today, I pointed to a quote by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which indicated that there was no plan for the government's expenditure of $186.7 billion on infrastructure. The minister responsible for that very portfolio then rose and claimed there was such a plan. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed in his report, which is a document now of the House, that he asked for that plan and âit does not existâ. Herein lies the problem. If such a plan does exist and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been denied it, then the Liberal government could well be in contempt of Parliament through the PBO, which is a creation of Parliament. On the other hand, if the plan does not exist but the minister says it does, then the minister will have been providing false information to the House. Either circumstance is very serious. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to put your investigative powers and skills to work to resolve this conflict and ascertain which of those two unacceptable circumstances arose today in the House of Commons.
Todd Doherty (CPC) rose on a question of privilege arguing that the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard was impeding his work as shadow minister and that of other opposition members by refusing to table the RFP and the criteria used to award the Arctic surf clam contract, which Doherty alleged went to a colleague of the minister's brother.
- CPC Mr. Todd Doherty
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise this time on a question of privilege. Canadians right across our country have some questions regarding the Arctic surf clam bid. The opposition, in its job to hold the government accountable, has questioned the minister in his awarding another Liberal member's brother this contract. Time and again, the minister has been dismissive. Today, in question period, he even said that the member had not seen the contract, or the RFP. Therefore, he is impeding my job as the shadow minister for Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, another member of Parliament, and he is also impeding the other members of the opposition in representing constituents from across Canada who have concerns regarding this RFP. This question of privilege is with respect to the hon. colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. By not tabling the RFP that has been asked for in recent days and the criteria used in awarding one of his colleague's brothers this lucrative contract, he is impeding our job as members of Parliament.