Session overview
- Multiple CPC and NDP members challenged the government over $1.1 million in relocation expenses paid to Liberal political staff, with no minister identifying which staffer received $126,000 or why the amounts were justified.
- The government confirmed it is in negotiations with China on an extradition treaty, drawing sharp criticism from both the CPC and NDP over human rights, the death penalty, cyber-attacks, and contradictions between the Prime Minister and the immigration minister.
- The government's planned military mission to sub-Saharan Africa under UN command was challenged on the grounds of soldier safety, lack of parliamentary vote, and accusations that a UN Security Council seat was the real motivation.
- Softwood lumber negotiations dominated several exchanges, with CPC and NDP members warning that Canadian forestry companies could face new U.S. tariffs within three weeks and accusing the government of failing to deliver a deal.
- The House paid tribute to the late Mauril Bélanger, MP for Ottawa—Vanier, who died August 16, 2016 after a battle with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; leaders from all parties honoured his work for Franco-Ontarian rights, co-operatives, and a gender-neutral national anthem.
- The NDP pressed the government on climate change targets, asserting that the Liberals had adopted Stephen Harper's targets, while the government defended its carbon pricing plan and work with provinces to ratify the Paris Agreement.
The Prime Minister made a specific, concrete commitment that Canada would not sign an extradition treaty with China in a situation where someone faces the death penalty, directly resolving the contradiction raised by the NDP between his position and the immigration minister's earlier statement.
The question specifies a distinct case (a foreign affairs minister employee, over $119,000), asks whether the minister personally authorized the expense, and asks whether he finds it appropriate — a clear, factually grounded, two-part accountability ask.
Chagger responded to a specific question about whether paying $1.1 million to Liberal political staff was the best use of taxpayers' money with a single sentence — 'it is the party opposite that put the rules into place, and the rules were followed' — offering no defence of the amounts, no justification of discretion exercised, and no engagement with the substance of the question.
Outstanding questions
- Blaine Calkins asked which specific individuals in the PMO received the $126,000 and $220,000 in relocation payments — no names or details were ever provided.
- Thomas Mulcair asked why Parliament has not been given a vote on military deployments such as the Latvian deployment or the planned African peacekeeping mission — the Prime Minister spoke of 'robust debate' but did not address whether a vote would be held.
- Rona Ambrose asked what specific benefit to Canada would be provided by an extradition treaty with China, given CSIS and RCMP reports of cyber-attacks and unauthorized foreign agents — the Prime Minister cited a 'high-level security dialogue' without identifying any concrete benefit.
- Rona Ambrose asked what the real motivation is for the sub-Saharan Africa mission and whether Canadian lives are worth risking for a UN Security Council seat — the Prime Minister gave no answer on motivation and made no commitment on force protection.
- Jacques Gourde asked specifically who received a $119,000 relocation payment from the Minister of Foreign Affairs's office and whether the minister personally authorized it — Bardish Chagger answered in place of the minister and confirmed only that rules were followed, without addressing authorization or identity.
Ambrose asks when the Prime Minister will recognize that his high-tax, high-spending plan — including a carbon tax and CPP tax hike — is failing Canadians, citing stalled growth and 110,000 energy-sector job losses.
Cites specific figures (110,000 energy workers) and names specific policies (carbon tax, CPP hike) but the ask is vague and compound, wrapped in partisan framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the Prime Minister back to this place called Parliament. I know the economy has not been necessarily his top priority lately, so let me update him. While he was away, our economy has completely stalled. Unemployment has gone up, and 110,000 energy workers have lost their jobs. What is the Prime Minister's solution? Raising existing taxes and bringing in new ones, like a new carbon tax and a whopping CPP tax hike. His high-tax, high-spending plan is not helping; it is hurting. When will the Prime Minister realize this plan is failing Canadians?
Trudeau defends raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% to lower them for the middle class and attacks Conservatives for voting against that measure.
Trudeau pivots entirely to the middle-class tax cut and attacks the Conservative record rather than addressing unemployment or the specific tax measures named.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the fact is, like all parliamentarians, we were busy all summer meeting with Canadians, talking about their concerns, and talking about the opportunities to grow the economy in meaningful ways. That is why I am so surprised to hear the hon. member criticize the fact that we raised taxes on the wealthiest 1%, so that we could lower them for the middle class. Not only are the Conservatives so disconnected from their constituents that they did not vote in favour of raising taxes on the wealthy, so that we could lower them for the middle class, but the member continues to suggest that maybe we should not be raising taxes on the wealthiest. That did not work for 10 years, and it will not work now for them.
Ambrose asks what changed between the immigration minister's statement that an extradition treaty with China was off the table and yesterday's confirmation of negotiations, given China's human rights record.
Cites allies that lack such treaties (Australia, U.S., New Zealand), references the immigration minister's prior public statement, and asks a specific accountability question about what changed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals confirmed that they are in negotiations on an extradition treaty with China, a country whose justice system has one of the worst human rights records in the world. Our allies, like Australia, the U.S., and New Zealand, do not have treaties of this type with China. Just last month, the immigration minister said that this was off the table. Has there been a change in China's human rights record? What exactly changed between now and then, and why is the Prime Minister not being straight-up with Canadians?
Trudeau says the change is that Canada now has a robust dialogue with China and asserts that Canada's high standards for extradition treaties will always be upheld.
Trudeau does not explain what changed since the immigration minister's statement nor address the human rights record; he pivots to criticizing the previous government's relationship with China.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the change is that after 10 years of a government that was hot and cold with the world's second-largest economy, we have created a dialogue that allows us to deal with difficult issues, and deliver on priorities for Canadians, whether they be consular cases or investment opportunities for Canadian businesses, and small and medium-sized businesses across the country accessing the Chinese consumer market. The fact is that Canada has extraordinarily high standards for extradition treaties, and those will always be upheld with anyone around the world.
Ambrose asks what possible benefit to Canada an extradition treaty with China would provide, citing CSIS and RCMP findings about Chinese cyber-attacks and unauthorized foreign agents in Canada.
References CSIS and RCMP findings on cyber-attacks and foreign agents to ground the question, with a clear ask about what benefit an extradition treaty with China would provide Canada.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is being shockingly naive about these issues. The Chinese government has orchestrated thousands of cyber-attacks against Canada, and according to CSIS and the RCMP has sent foreign agents into Canada without our permission. Canadians expect the Prime Minister to act in our national interest. What possible benefit to Canada would an extradition treaty with China provide?
Trudeau says the benefit is a high-level security dialogue that creates economic opportunities and advances human rights and consular files, which the previous government failed to achieve.
Trudeau offers a general rationale (high-level security dialogue, economic opportunities, human rights gains) but does not address the specific CSIS/RCMP concerns raised or give concrete benefits.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the benefit to Canada is having a high-level security dialogue where we can talk about issues that are important to us, and issues that are important to the Chinese government. We continue to be strong in our values and principles, and our expectations of anyone we engage with around the world. However, having a strong, robust relationship that allows us to create economic opportunities for Canadians, and make gains on human rights and consular files is what the previous government was unable to do, and it is what Canadians expect this government to get done for them.
Ambrose asks why the Prime Minister is willing to make so many compromises on human rights given that China's justice system systematically uses torture and routinely suppresses human rights.
Raises specific concerns about systematic torture and human rights suppression in China's justice system and asks a pointed question about why the PM is willing to compromise on human rights, though it largely restates Exchange 2–3.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous avons récemment appris que le premier ministre travaille avec la Chine à un traité d'extradition. Le système de justice chinois utilise systématiquement la torture, et la répression des droits de la personne y est pratique courante. Le premier ministre ne comprend-il pas que notre ouverture envers la Chine devrait mener cette dernière à être plus respectueuse des droits de la personne plutôt qu'à les brimer? Pourquoi est-il prêt à faire autant de compromis dans le dossier des droits de la personne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, recently, we learned that the Prime Minister is working with China on an extradition treaty. The Chinese justice system's use of torture is systematic and the repression of human rights is a regular occurrence. Does the Prime Minister not understand that our openness to China should be about encouraging the country to be more respectful of human rights, rather than violating them? Why is he prepared to make so many compromises when it comes to human rights?
Trudeau argues that a robust and stable relationship is necessary to raise difficult issues, express criticism, and achieve Canadian priorities, and that any extradition treaty must meet extremely high standards.
Trudeau repeats his defence of engagement with China and mentions high standards for extradition treaties but does not address the specific allegation of compromise on human rights.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, après 10 ans au cours desquels les conservateurs n'ont fait aucun progrès en ce qui concerne la relation entre le Canada et la Chine, l'économie, le développement des droits de la personne et la défense des Canadiens, ce parti continue de ne pas comprendre qu'il faut une relation robuste et stable au sein de laquelle on peut parler des vraies choses, exprimer ses critiques et réaliser les priorités des Canadiens. Notre gouvernement défendra toujours la loi canadienne et les Canadiens. Pour n'importe quel traité d'extradition, nous avons des attentes extrêmement élevées, et elles doivent être atteintes par tous ceux avec qui on travaille.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the Conservatives did nothing to improve Canada's relationship with China, the economy, the development of human rights, or the defence of Canadians. The Conservative Party still does not understand that we need a strong, stable relationship that enables us to talk about real issues, share our concerns, and meet the priorities of Canadians. Our government will always stand up for Canadian law and Canadians. We have extraordinarily high standards for extradition treaties, and those must be upheld by everyone we work with.
Ambrose asks the Prime Minister to reveal the real motivation behind a planned troop deployment to sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting it is linked to seeking a UN Security Council seat, and whether Canadians' lives are worth it.
Cites a specific timeline (26 days) and raises a pointed allegation that the mission is linked to a UN Security Council bid, but combines legitimate accountability concerns with rhetorical framing and an emotionally loaded ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it has been 26 days since the Liberals said they would send Canadian troops on a mission to sub-Saharan Africa, but we still cannot get any straight answers out of them on what exactly the plan is or how it serves our national interest. This mission will be dangerous and Canadian troops could die. It is clear that the Prime Minister wants a seat at the UN Security Council, and is using our troops as a pawn to achieve his goal. The Prime Minister owes Canadians the facts about this dangerous mission. What is his real motivation, and are Canadians' lives worth it?
Trudeau says Canadians want constructive re-engagement on the world stage for moral and security reasons and that the government will reflect carefully on how Canada can best engage.
Trudeau does not address the 26-day timeline, the sub-Saharan Africa mission specifics, or the UN Security Council allegation; he offers only vague language about Canada's role in the world.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians made it very clear that they wanted a government that re-engages constructively and positively on the world stage not just for a question of moral responsibility, because we are so incredibly lucky here in Canada, but because we can create peace and security that will have positive impacts in Canada and around the world. Canada has a role to play, and we take that very seriously. At the same time, we will reflect carefully on how Canada can best engage and welcome all voices to weigh in on how we are going to hold up Canadian high standards of success, and create the impact we have on the world.
Mulcair asks why the Prime Minister no longer believes Parliament should have a right to vote on military deployments such as the Latvian deployment and any future peacekeeping mission.
Asks a specific and clear accountability question about whether Parliament will have a right to vote on military deployments, grounding it in both the Latvian deployment and the peacekeeping mission.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians also thought they were electing a government that was going to respect Parliament. They wanted that change. Whether it is the Latvian deployment or any future peacekeeping mission, Parliament should be consulted and there must be a vote. Could the Prime Minister simply explain why he no longer believes that Parliament should have a right to vote on these important issues?
Trudeau says he has deep respect for every parliamentarian and looks forward to robust debate on many issues, without committing to a vote.
Trudeau does not answer whether there will be a parliamentary vote; he deflects with vague assurances about respecting parliamentarians and robust debate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said many times throughout the election campaign and have said since, I have a deep respect for every parliamentarian and their capacity to represent the views of their constituents on a broad range of issues. I look forward to robust debate on many different issues over the coming months and years as we look at the best way to serve Canadians. That is what Canadians expect, and that is what we are going to deliver.
Mulcair asks who Canadians should believe — the Prime Minister or his immigration minister — given that the minister promised no extradition treaty with China as long as it applies the death penalty, while the PM is now meeting with China's premier to discuss exactly that.
Directly cites a specific prior commitment by the immigration minister (no extradition treaty while China applies the death penalty) and contrasts it with the Prime Minister's current actions, creating a clear contradiction to resolve.
Source text
How about a vote, Mr. Speaker? Le ministre de l'Immigration a promis que le Canada ne signerait jamais de traité d'extradition avec la Chine tant et aussi longtemps que la peine de mort continuerait d'y être appliquée. Par ailleurs, le premier ministre rencontre, ce soir, le premier ministre chinois pour parler d'un traité d'extradition. Il vient de le confirmer. Il dit qu'il ne faut pas souffler le chaud et le froid. Qui les Canadiens doivent-ils croire, le premier ministre ou son ministre de l'Immigration? Les deux disent des choses diamétralement opposées.
Hansard translation: Que diriez-vous d'un vote, monsieur le Président? The Minister of Immigration promised that Canada would never sign an extradition treaty with China so long as China still had the death penalty. However, the Prime Minister is meeting with the Chinese Premier this evening to talk about an extradition treaty. He just confirmed that. He said the government should not blow hot and cold. Who should Canadians believe, the Prime Minister or his Minister of Immigration? They are both saying exactly the opposite of one another.
Trudeau says Canada will not sign an extradition treaty in a situation where someone faces the death penalty, distinguishing this from countries that practice the death penalty, and says the government has always been clear on this.
Trudeau addresses the death penalty condition and says Canada will not sign a treaty where someone faces the death penalty, which partially resolves the contradiction, but does not explain the immigration minister's earlier statement or who Canadians should believe.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au contraire, nous avons toujours été très clairs. Nous nous devons de nous entretenir avec le gouvernement chinois sur bien des enjeux préoccupants pour les Canadiens. Nous écoutons aussi le gouvernement chinois au sujet de ses préoccupations. Nous avons des attentes très élevées quant au comportement d'un pays avec lequel nous signons un traité d'extradition. Nous ne signons pas de traité d'extradition dans une situation où quelqu'un fait face à la peine de mort. D'ailleurs, c'est une chose que nous avons changée depuis le départ de l'ancien gouvernement, parce que nous savons que le Canada se doit toujours de défendre les gens qui sont en situation de peine de mort.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have always been very clear. We need to have a dialogue with the Chinese government on many issues that are of concern to Canadians. We are also listening to the concerns of the Chinese government. We have very high standards regarding the behaviour of any country with which we sign an extradition treaty. We will not sign an extradition treaty in situations where people are facing the death penalty. This is a change that we made after the previous government left office, because we know that Canada must always defend anyone who is facing the death penalty.
Mulcair asks how the government can explain adopting Stephen Harper's climate change targets given that the Liberal platform itself called those targets catastrophic.
Cites the Liberal platform's own language calling Harper's targets 'catastrophic' and directly asks how the government explains adopting those same targets, making a substantive contradiction the focus.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, est-ce « en situation de peine de mort » ou « dans des pays qui pratiquent la peine de mort »? Il y a une nuance de langage sur laquelle le premier ministre tente de jouer. Par ailleurs, le Canada porte le bonnet d'âne en ce qui concerne les changements climatiques. Les Canadiens ont eu à porter le fardeau de l'échec des gouvernements libéraux et conservateurs successifs par rapport à cette menace réelle mondiale. Maintenant, après avoir donné une lueur d'espoir que les choses changeraient enfin, voilà que le gouvernement libéral actuel choisit d'adopter les cibles de Stephen Harper. Comment le gouvernement peut-il expliquer cette trahison aux générations futures? Je le répète, les libéraux ont adopté les cibles des conservateurs. Comment expliquer cette trahison?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, are we talking about people “facing the death penalty” or people “in countries that use the death penalty”? The Prime Minister is trying to fudge the language. On climate change, Canada has been left wearing the dunce cap. Canadians have had to bear the burden of both the Conservative and the Liberal governments' failure to address this very real global threat. There was a glimmer of hope that things would finally change, but this government got on board with Stephen Harper's targets. Can the government explain why it is betraying future generations like this? I repeat: the Liberals are on board with the Conservatives' targets. What is behind this betrayal?
Trudeau says the previous government had no concrete plan on climate change, while his government is implementing carbon pricing with unanimous provincial agreement to meet the Paris targets.
Trudeau argues the previous government had no concrete plan and that his government is implementing carbon pricing agreed to by the provinces, but does not directly address whether his targets differ from Harper's or explain the platform language.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis longtemps, différents gouvernements, y compris le nôtre, parlent de cibles, mais personne n'a mis en place un plan concret comprenant la tarification du carbone. C'est exactement ce que nous allons faire. D'ailleurs, toutes les provinces se sont mises d'accord pour dire que nous avons besoin d'atteindre ces cibles et de respecter le traité de Paris, et que la tarification du carbone fait partie de la solution. Cela a fait l'unanimité des provinces. Nous allons de l'avant, parce que les Canadiens s'attendent à ce que nous réduisions les émissions de gaz à effet de serre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for many years now, various governments, including ours, have talked about targets, but nobody has introduced a concrete carbon pricing plan. That is exactly what we are going to do. All the provinces agree that we need to reach these targets and comply with the Paris agreement. They agree that carbon pricing is part of the solution. The provinces are unanimous on that. We are moving forward because Canadians expect us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Mulcair asks whether the environment minister got it wrong or whether the government is offering no climate change targets other than those of Stephen Harper, referencing Canada's Paris commitment and the Liberal platform calling Harper's targets catastrophic.
Cites the Liberal platform's own characterization of Harper's targets as 'catastrophic,' asks a pointed binary question about whether the environment minister erred or whether the government has no new targets beyond Harper's.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister committed in Paris to restoring Canada's credibility on climate change. He cannot download that. He cannot subcontract it to the provinces. Canada signed. His platform says that Stephen Harper's targets are catastrophic. Hmm, no applause. Now, suddenly, Canadians are expected to look the other way while he hits copy-paste on the Conservative climate plan. Could the Prime Minister please explain whether his environment minister just got it wrong, or is he offering no other climate change targets than those of Stephen Harper?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau asserts the Conservative government had no plan on climate change and says his government is working with provinces on a concrete and realistic plan including carbon pricing.
Trudeau denies the Conservative government had any plan but does not answer whether his targets are the same as Harper's or address the environment minister's statement; the specific binary question is ignored.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Outremont makes a grave mistake when he talks about the Conservative government's plan. It had no plan on climate change. It had no plan on reducing emissions, and that is why we have put in place a concrete and realistic plan to reduce emissions.
Mr. Speaker, we are committed to working with the provinces because we know the only way to reduce emissions is to get everyone to agree, just like the provinces agreed that we have to ratify Paris, just like the provinces agreed that we need to price carbon pollution. There is unanimity on that, and that is what we are moving forward on.
Lebel asks the Prime Minister to commit today to reaching a softwood lumber agreement satisfying Canadian forestry workers, noting that 100 days of promised deliberations have passed with nothing resolved.
Cites a specific prior commitment (100 days of deliberations) that has not been fulfilled and asks the PM to commit to an agreement satisfying Canadian forestry workers, making it a reasonable accountability question.
Source text
Yes, the climate will balance itself, Mr. Speaker. Partout au pays, ce dont les gens nous parlent, c'est l'emploi, les jobs et le salaire nécessaire pour faire vivre nos familles. Il y a des sujets qui sont prêts à travailler. On va prendre le sujet du bois d'oeuvre. On avait promis 100 jours de délibérations et de discussions. Il n'y a toujours rien de réglé. M. le premier ministre peut-il s'engager aujourd'hui à dire à toutes les familles qui vivent de l'industrie forestière qu'il y aura une entente qui va satisfaire les travailleurs canadiens, s'il vous plaît?
Hansard translation: Oui, le climat va s'équilibrer tout seul, monsieur le Président. The issues that people across the country talk to us about are jobs and having enough money to support their families. There are issues that can be dealt with now. Take, for example, the softwood lumber issue. The government promised a solution after 100 days of deliberations and discussions, but nothing has been resolved yet. Will the Prime Minister please commit today to telling all families who depend on the forestry industry that there will be an agreement that will satisfy Canadian workers?
Lametti says the previous government did nothing to begin negotiations while the current government engaged intensively from the start, citing a Conseil du patronat du Québec compliment for Minister Freeland.
Lametti deflects entirely to blaming the previous government and cites a Conseil du patronat du Québec endorsement rather than addressing the 100-day timeline or committing to an agreement.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est ironique d'entendre le député de Lac-Saint-Jean dire cela, parce que c'est son gouvernement qui n'a rien fait pour entamer les négociations. Par contre, notre gouvernement s'est engagé intensivement dans les négociations avec les Américains dès le début. Le Conseil du patronat du Québec a d'ailleurs souligné « l'attention portée par la ministre du Commerce international, l’honorable Chrystia Freeland, à la défense de l’industrie forestière québécoise. »
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to hear the member for Lac-Saint-Jean saying that because his government did nothing to get the negotiations started. Our government, on the other hand, has been actively negotiating with the Americans from the outset. The Conseil du patronat du Québec even indicated that it “commended the Minister of International Trade, the hon. Chrystia Freeland, for all that she has done in defence of the Quebec forestry industry.”
Lebel insists the previous government had begun softwood lumber discussions with American partners, and urges the current government to stop deflecting and sign an agreement in the best interest of Canadians and Quebecers.
Pushes back on the government's deflection by noting that the previous minister had begun negotiations, and implicitly demands a decision, but the ask remains vague without a specific timeline or deliverable.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'ancien ministre du Commerce international avait commencé les discussions. Les négociations étaient en voie de se réaliser. Il avait commencé les discussions avec nos partenaires américains. Il restait encore, à ce moment-là, un an à cette entente. L'année est passée pendant qu'on tergiversait. On peut bien mettre tout sur le dos de l'ancien gouvernement. Ils sont au pouvoir, ils voulaient être au pouvoir, qu'ils prennent des décisions. Qu'ils en prennent une dans ce cas et qu'ils signent l'entente dans le meilleur intérêt des Canadiens et des Québécois.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the former minister of international trade began the discussions. The negotiations were under way. He began the discussions with our American partners. At that time, the agreement was still valid for another year. That year went by while the current government dragged its feet. It is easy to put all the blame on the former government, but the Liberals are in power. They wanted to be in power. Now, they must make decisions. They need to make a decision on this issue and sign the agreement in the best interest of Quebeckers and Canadians.
Lametti says the previous government did nothing in this file, while his government conducted consultations and achieved unprecedented cooperation among producers, workers, provinces, and territories in pursuit of a good deal.
Lametti again deflects to blaming the previous government and offers only vague assurances about consultations and seeking a good deal, without addressing any specifics.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'ancien gouvernement n'a rien entamé dans ce dossier. Nous avons pris le dossier dès le début et nous nous y sommes engagés. Nous avons mené des consultations. Il y a une coopération sans précédent entre les producteurs et les travailleurs de l'industrie, ainsi que les provinces et les territoires. Nous cherchons un bon accord pour le Canada, mais pas n'importe lequel.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the former government did not start the process. We took on this issue from the outset and we committed to resolving it. We held consultations. There is unprecedented co-operation with producers, industry workers, and the provinces and territories. We do not want to reach just any old deal. We want a good deal for Canada.
Calkins asks the Prime Minister to name which of his friends received the $220,000 in moving expenses that he personally signed off on.
Cites a specific figure ($220,000 in moving expenses) and the fact that the Prime Minister personally signed off, with a clear ask to name the recipients, giving it strong specificity and accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister personally signed off on $220,000 in moving expenses for his own political staff. The chief responsibility of the Prime Minister is to be honest and forthright with Canadians in the House. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about these expenses. They are wrong. Will the Prime Minister be honest with Canadians and rise today, and tell us which of his friends received these outrageous payouts?
Chagger says the government built a diverse and qualified team that relocated to Ottawa, that some employees received relocation help, and that relocation rules have been in place since the 1970s with current rules dating to 2008.
Chagger does not name any recipients or address the $220,000 figure; she pivots to praising the government's diverse team and notes that relocation rules have existed since the 1970s and the current rules since 2008.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in the House to share with Canadians that we have built a diverse team of passionate, hard-working, extremely qualified Canadians to deliver the change people voted for. Many people moved across this country with their families and children to serve in Ottawa. As part of this process, some employees received help in relocating. There have been rules in place on relocation of public servants and political staff since the 1970s. In fact, the current rules for relocation have been in place since 2008, and have applied to every minister's office since.
Calkins asks how the Prime Minister can justify $126,000 in moving expenses for a single senior PMO aide to struggling Albertans who are losing their homes and livelihoods.
Specifies $126,000 for a single senior PMO aide and grounds the question in a human contrast with struggling Albertans, with a clear ask to justify the expenditure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister personally approved over $126,000 in moving expenses for one senior aide in the PMO. I am not sure what one can move for $126,000, but I imagine that it is very fragile. People in Alberta are struggling and losing their homes, savings, and livelihoods, but the Prime Minister is more concerned with making sure that his friends are compensated. How can the Prime Minister justify to struggling Albertans this absolutely ridiculous waste of money?
Chagger says the party opposite should know the relocation guidelines since it wrote them, and praises the government's diverse and hard-working team hired to deliver change.
Chagger does not address the $126,000 figure or justify it; she deflects entirely by noting the Conservatives wrote the rules and praising the government's team.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, thank you for providing me the opportunity to share with Canadians that the party opposite should know what the current guidelines for relocation are, given that it wrote them. Tens of thousands of Canadians applied to be part of the team for the mandate this government is going to advance. We are proud of the diverse team of passionate, hard-working, extremely qualified Canadians we hired to deliver the change people voted for. Canadians expect public resources to be used responsibly and economically, and we are committed to living up to these expectations.
Vecchio asks the Liberal House leader whether handing out $1.1 million in moving expenses to Liberal political staffers — including over $70,000 to one staffer from the House leader herself — is the best use of Canadian taxpayers' money.
Cites specific aggregate ($1.1 million to Liberal staffers), a specific individual payment ($70,000 from the Liberal House leader to one staffer), and asks whether the minister considers this the best use of taxpayer money.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, $1.1 million was handed to Liberal staffers moving to Ottawa for six-figure jobs. The Liberal House leader herself provided over $70,000 to just one staffer. The rules say that it is at the minister's discretion. Does the minister think that forking out a million dollars to Liberal political staff is the best use of Canadian taxpayers' money?
Chagger says only that the party opposite put the rules in place and the rules were followed.
Chagger provides a nine-word non-answer, saying only that the party opposite put the rules in place and they were followed, without addressing the dollar amounts or the value-for-money question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is the party opposite that put the rules into place, and the rules were followed.
Vecchio asks the Liberal House leader to name exactly who received the $70,000 in moving expenses from her office and what the money was supposedly for.
Asks a specific and direct accountability question — who received the $70,000 and what was it for — which is a disclosure question with a factual, answerable response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing Liberals use the words “open” and “transparent” in the responses to the million dollar move, which is ironic, given the lack of details provided to Canadians. If the Liberal House leader is so transparent, can she tell us exactly who she gave this $70,000 to and what the money was supposedly for?
Chagger repeats that relocation rules have been in place since the 1970s and the current rules since 2008, then pivots to the government's middle-class growth agenda.
Chagger does not name the staffer, does not specify what the money was for, and pivots entirely to defending the rules and listing the government's agenda priorities.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there have been rules in place on the relocation of public servants and political staff since the 1970s. The current rules we are following were put in place in 2008, and every minister's office has followed those rules since. I am taking this opportunity to also share with Canadians that they voted for growth of the middle class, a stronger economy, and a government that works for Canadians. That is the work we are doing, and that is the work we will continue to do.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that his justice minister has a federal duty to consult, given promises on UNDRIP adoption and implementation and the constitutional duty to consult and accommodate?
The question cites specific promises (UNDRIP, nation-to-nation, duty to consult) and asks a pointed yes/no question about whether the justice minister has a federal duty to consult, but the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government was elected with a promise that it would respect indigenous rights and titles. It promised a new nation-to-nation relationship, including the adoption and implementation of UNDRIP. It promised that it would meet its constitutional duty to consult and accommodate. The justice minister is responsible for ensuring that all of these duties are met, but we have seen these promises being broken and the government once again passing the buck on the duty to consult. Can the Prime Minister confirm that his justice minister has a federal duty to consult?
Bennett expressed pride in the government's commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and free, prior, and informed consent, saying the government is working across departments to honour that commitment.
Bennett affirms commitment to UNDRIP and free, prior, and informed consent but does not directly answer whether the justice minister has a federal duty to consult.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of our commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and everything that means with respect to free, prior, and informed consent. We are doing everything we can, across all government departments and all jurisdictions, to honour the implementation of that commitment, and we will get it done.
Has the justice minister done the due diligence to determine whether the Site C dam runs roughshod over aboriginal rights and the duty to consult, and will she stand in the House to say so?
The question is pointed and specific, asking whether the justice minister has done due diligence to determine if the Site C dam runs roughshod over aboriginal rights and the duty to consult, referencing her silence as evidence of a concrete accountability gap.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned that the justice minister is going to ground on her obligation on the duty to consult and whether or not she believes the government is running roughshod over aboriginal rights with Site C. Her silence suggests that either she, as the justice minister of Canada, like the Liberal member for Winnipeg Centre, does not agree with her own government or she has changed her mind. Either way, it is her duty, as justice minister, to stand in this House and tell us, if she has done the due diligence, whether or not that Site C dam runs roughshod over aboriginal rights and the duty to consult. It is a simple question.
Wilkinson stated that Site C is overseen at the federal level by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, that the former government approved it in fall 2014 subject to legally binding conditions, and that project reviews continue within the current legislative framework including treaty provisions.
Wilkinson provides relevant context about the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency oversight, the 2014 approval, and interim principles, but does not address the specific question about whether Site C runs roughshod over aboriginal rights or the justice minister's due diligence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would note for the hon. member that at the federal level, the processes related to Site C are overseen by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. In the fall of 2014, the former government approved this project, subject to a number of legally binding conditions. The project is now in the construction phase. As was outlined in the interim principles we introduced earlier this year, project reviews are continuing within the current legislative framework and in accordance with treaty provisions. This includes not revisiting projects that have been reviewed and approved and that the proponent, going forward, will need to apply all applicable conditions.
Who was reimbursed $126,000 to come work for the Prime Minister?
The question cites specific figures ($200,000 total, $125,000 and $126,000 for individual moves) and asks a direct, single-answer question about who received the $126,000 relocation reimbursement.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'absence de réponse de la part de la leader du gouvernement à la Chambre des communes hier et aujourd'hui démontre que les libéraux sont incapables de défendre l'indéfendable. Plus de 200 000 $ pour deux déménagements, dont un au coût de 125 000 $, c'est une véritable insulte pour tous les contribuables canadiens. Nous allons poser la question à nouveau, car ils ont le devoir de répondre. Qui s'est fait rembourser 126 000 piastres pour venir travailler pour le premier ministre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the lack of response from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons yesterday and today shows that Liberals are unable to defend the indefensible. Spending more than $200,000 for two moves, including one that cost $125,000, is a real insult to all Canadian taxpayers. We will ask the question again because they have a duty to answer. Who was reimbursed 126,000 bucks to come work for the Prime Minister?
Chagger said the government brought passionate and skilled Canadians from across the country who needed to relocate to Ottawa, and that some employees received réintégration assistance under rules in place since the 1990s.
Chagger explains that staff moved to Ottawa and received réintégration assistance under rules dating to the 1990s but does not name who received the $126,000 reimbursement, and her answer is cut off.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous avons formé une équipe de Canadiens de divers horizons passionnés, travaillants et très compétents pour offrir à la population le changement pour lequel elle a voté. Plusieurs ont donc dû traverser le pays avec leur famille et leurs enfants pour venir s'installer à Ottawa. Dans le cadre de ce processus, certains employés ont reçu une aide à la réintégration. Il y a des règles en place reliées à la réintégration de fonctionnaires et employés politiques depuis les années 1990. Toutes les règles présentement en place ont été...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have formed a team made up of a diverse group of passionate, hard-working, and very competent Canadians to give the public the change that they voted for. Many of them had to cross the country with their family and their children to come live in Ottawa. As part of this process, some employees received relocation assistance. Rules for relocating officials and political employees have been in place since the 1990s. All the rules currently in place have been—
Did the foreign affairs minister personally authorize the $119,000 relocation expense for one of his employees, and does he believe it is appropriate?
The question specifies a distinct case (a foreign affairs minister employee, over $119,000), asks whether the minister personally authorized the expense, and asks whether he finds it appropriate — a clear, factually grounded, two-part accountability ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le bureau du premier ministre n'est pas le seul à dépenser une fortune en frais de déménagement. Un des employés du ministre des Affaires étrangères a dépensé plus de 119 000 $ pour s'établir à Ottawa. C'est un peu moins que l'ami du premier ministre. Je doute toutefois que les familles canadiennes trouvent cela plus acceptable. Le ministre peut-il nous dire s'il a lui-même autorisé cette dépense abusive et s'il croit qu'un déménagement à 119 000 piastres est approprié?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is not just the Prime Minister's Office that had exorbitant moving expenses. One of the Minister of Foreign Affairs' staffers spent more than $119,000 to move to Ottawa. That is a little less than what the Prime Minister's friend spent. However, I doubt that this is more acceptable to Canadian families. Can the minister tell us whether he authorized this exorbitant expense and whether he thinks $119,000 in moving expenses is acceptable?
Chagger said the government followed all rules related to réintégration as established by the previous government in 2008 and will continue to follow that policy for now.
Chagger confirms the government followed rules set by the previous government in 2008 for relocation expenses but does not confirm whether the foreign affairs minister authorized the specific expenditure or whether it is appropriate.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous avons suivi toutes les règles reliées à la réintégration telles qu'elles ont été mises en place par le gouvernement précédent en 2008. Cette politique est en place depuis de nombreuses années et, pour le moment, nous allons continuer à la suivre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we acted in accordance with all the rules for relocation expenses that were put in place by the previous government in 2008. This is a long-standing policy and we will continue to follow it for now.
Will the minister admit that the $150,000 payment to Liberal staffers to move to Ottawa is wrong, yes or no?
The question references 39,000 self-employed people who went out of business last month and asks a yes/no question about whether the payment is wrong, but conflates two separate issues (relocation spending and self-employment statistics) and addresses the wrong minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's silence speaks volumes. Over $150,000 for Liberal staffers to move to Ottawa and take plush jobs is just not fair. I would like the Minister of Innovation to think about the 39,000 self-employed people who went out of business, last month alone, when he answers this question. Will the minister admit that this payment is wrong, yes or no?
Chagger said Canadians voted for middle-class growth and a government that works for them, and expressed pride in the government's work.
Chagger's answer is pure boilerplate about middle-class growth and Canadians voting for change, with no connection to the relocation payment or the self-employment figures cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians voted for the growth of the middle class. Canadians voted for a stronger economy. Canadians voted for a government that works for them, a government that they have not seen in over a decade. Our government is committed to working for middle-class Canadians. Our government is committed to growing the economy. We are proud of the work our government is doing, and we will continue to deliver on our promises.
If the minister will not admit that spending $113,000 in tax dollars to move a single staff member to Ottawa is wrong, will he at least tell us who got the money?
The question anchors the issue in a concrete local context ($40,000 average salary vs. $113,000 relocation cost) and asks a specific follow-up: if not admitting wrongdoing, will the minister at least name who received the money.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the people of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte voted for transparency. In my riding, the average salary is $40,000. These are people who actually pay taxes, so when the Minister of Innovation spends 113,000 tax dollars to move a single member of staff to Ottawa, I am speechless. If the minister cannot admit that this is wrong, will he at least tell us who got the money?
Chagger said the government acted in accordance with the rules for relocation expenses set up in 2008 by a previous government and will continue to follow that long-standing policy, then pivoted to budget 2016 investments.
Chagger acknowledges the 2008 relocation rules and long-standing policy but does not name who received the money, pivoting instead to budget 2016 and middle-class talking points.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that when we came into office, we acted in accordance with the rules set up by a previous government, in 2008, for relocation expenses. This has been a long-standing policy, and we will continue to follow it for now. Canadians voted for a stronger middle class. Canadians voted for a government that works for them. Canadians voted for and support the investments we have made in budget 2016. These are investments that will create a stronger economy and support the kind of growth his constituents need.
Will the Prime Minister change Canada's position and vote in favour of nuclear disarmament at the upcoming UN vote?
The question identifies a specific upcoming UN vote on nuclear disarmament negotiations, notes Canada's recent vote against the plan, and asks a direct yes/no policy question about whether the Prime Minister will change Canada's position.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous sommes à un moment décisif pour le désarmement nucléaire. Le secrétaire général des Nations unies et plusieurs pays souhaitent entamer des négociations pour interdire les armes nucléaires. Or le Canada, honteusement, a voté contre ce plan. Au cours des prochaines semaines, le gouvernement aura encore la chance de revenir sur sa décision. Ma question est simple: le premier ministre va-t-il changer sa position et voter en faveur du désarmement nucléaire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have reached a watershed moment for nuclear disarmament. The Secretary General of the United Nations and several countries want to initiate negotiations to prohibit nuclear arms. Canada shamefully voted against this plan. The government can still change its mind in the next few weeks. My question is simple: will the Prime Minister change his position and vote for nuclear disarmament?
Goldsmith-Jones said the process failed to bring nuclear-armed states to the table and was therefore ineffective, and affirmed Canada's long-standing support for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and working toward a world free of nuclear weapons.
Goldsmith-Jones explains why Canada opposed the process (it failed to bring nuclear-armed states to the table) and affirms support for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, engaging the topic but not directly committing to or ruling out a position change.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is a deliberate oversimplification. This process failed to bring the states possessing nuclear weapons to the table. As such, it was ineffective. Canada is a long-standing supporter of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Of course, we will continue to work together towards a world free of nuclear weapons in the most effective manner possible.
Will the minister accept the recommendations in the Veterans Ombudsman and Canadian Forces Ombudsman reports and implement them immediately without dragging veterans into court?
The question cites two specific reports released that week (Veterans Ombudsman and Canadian Forces Ombudsman) and asks whether the minister will accept their recommendations and implement them without dragging veterans into court.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, two reports this week, one from the Veterans Ombudsman and the other from the Canadian Forces Ombudsman, call on the government to make compensation fair for wounded veterans and to fix the system. Wounded veterans deserve respect. It is a travesty that the government refuses to take concrete action. Will the minister accept the recommendations in these reports? Will his government work to immediately implement them without dragging veterans into court?
Hehr said he values the ombudsman's feedback, that budget 2016 already acted on prior recommendations to increase the disability award, expand access to the permanent impairment allowance, and increase the earnings loss benefit, and that the government will continue working through the recommendations.
Hehr thanks the ombudsman, identifies three key recommendations tied to his mandate, and lists three specific budget 2016 measures already taken in response to prior ombudsman feedback, though he does not directly commit to implementing the new recommendations or address the court comment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ombudsman and his staff for their dedicated service and their very good report. I always value his feedback. The report makes three key recommendations on items in my mandate. In budget 2016, we acted upon recommendations from this ombudsman to increase the disability award, expand access to the permanent impairment allowance, and increase the earnings loss benefit, all measures that the ombudsman was very supportive of. We will continue to work through the recommendations and make things better for veterans and their families in this country.
Can the minister update the House on infrastructure investments being made in communities like Brampton?
This is a government-backbench softball setup referencing an announcement already made in Brampton South and inviting the minister to list infrastructure investments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, earlier this month I had a chance to announce new water and waste water funding in Brampton South through the clean water and wastewater fund. The minister has been advocating strongly for these kinds of changes that Canadians can see making a real difference, day to day, for families. Families in my riding appreciate better flood water control, particularly. Can the minister update the House on what kind of things he has been doing to invest in communities like Brampton?
Sohi announced over $5 million towards water and wastewater projects in Brampton for clean and safe drinking water and healthy rivers and lakes, and noted upcoming public transit investments to reduce commute times and improve air quality.
Sohi provides specific figures ($5 million for water and wastewater projects in Brampton) and mentions public transit investment, offering concrete, relevant information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Brampton South, as well as other members from that community, for hosting me there last week. We announced over $5 million towards water and waste water projects in Brampton, ensuring access to clean and safe drinking water and healthy rivers and lakes. We will also be investing in public transit in Brampton to reduce the commute time for Brampton families as well as to improve air quality and strengthen our communities.
When will the government stand up for energy workers, Canadian jobs, and the Canadian economy, given its failure on Keystone XL, northern gateway, Trans Mountain, and energy east?
The question lists several specific pipeline decisions (Keystone XL, northern gateway, Trans Mountain, energy east) and references tens of thousands of job losses, but the ask — 'when will the government stand up for energy workers' — is broad and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of Canadian energy workers have lost their jobs. Our economy is losing billions of dollars in wealth, because we cannot get our oil to markets. The Liberals have responded by rolling over on Keystone XL's veto, shutting down the northern gateway pipeline with their tanker ban, adding a politicized delay to the Trans Mountain approved pipeline, and letting Liberals, like Denis Coderre, attack energy east without a response. Enough is enough. When will the government stand up for energy workers, for Canadian jobs, and for the Canadian economy?
Carr said 10 years of failed policies under the Conservatives produced no pipeline to tidewater, cited the Federal Court of Appeal ruling that northern gateway failed because the previous government did not consult, and argued the current approach of consulting Canadians will lead to better decisions.
Carr invokes the Federal Court of Appeal ruling that northern gateway was in trouble because the previous government did not consult, and argues the current approach of cross-country consultation will yield better decisions, but does not address the specific pipeline decisions mentioned or offer a timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough of 10 years of failed policies that did not have one kilometre of pipeline taken to tidewater. The Federal Court of Appeal just told us within the last several weeks that northern gateway was going to be in trouble not because the proponent did not consult, not because the regulator did not consult, but because that member's government did not consult. We can do a better job. A better job is to travel across the country to talk to Canadians, to have an open mind that will lead, through a better process, to a better decision, a decision that that government could not make.
How can the government take northern gateway seriously when it has already shut it down with its prejudicial tanker ban, even as hundreds of tankers traverse that route from Alaska and arrive on the east coast from foreign countries?
Kenney cites specific approvals (Alberta Clipper, Keystone, Anchor Loop, Line 9 reversal adding 1.25 million barrels of capacity) and asks a pointed question about how the government can take northern gateway seriously when it has already shut it down with its prejudicial tanker ban.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, under the Conservative government, the Alberta Clipper, the Keystone, and the Anchor Loop were all approved and built. Line 9 was reversed, adding $1.25 billion—
Oh, oh!
It added 1.25 million barrels of capacity a day, Mr. Speaker. He talks about northern gateway. The government killed it on day one by announcing, through fiat, its northern tanker traffic ban, even though hundreds of tankers come down that route from Alaska, hundreds come into our east coast from foreign countries. How is the government going to take seriously northern gateway, when it has already shut it down with its prejudicial tanker ban?
Carr said that on January 27 he and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change announced interim principles governing projects under review, to be followed by a modernization of the National Energy Board, because that agency did not carry the confidence of Canadians under the previous government.
Carr references the January 27 announcement of interim principles and a planned modernization of the National Energy Board, engaging the process argument, but does not address the specific contradiction about the tanker ban pre-determining northern gateway's fate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on January 27 the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and I announced a set of interim principles that would govern those projects that are currently under review. That will be followed by an entire modernization of the National Energy Board and other federal agencies, because those agencies under that government did not carry the confidence of Canadians. If we do not carry the confidence of Canadians, nothing will be built.
When will the federal Liberals stop trying to copy failed provincial energy schemes like Ontario's carbon scheme, which caused CF Industries to cancel a $105-million expansion and 500 construction jobs in Sarnia—Lambton?
The question cites a specific event (CF Industries cancelling a $105-million expansion, 500 construction jobs lost) in a specific riding and links it directly to Ontario's carbon scheme, asking when the federal Liberals will stop copying failed provincial energy schemes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, late last week, CF Industries cancelled a $105-million expansion project planned for my riding: 500 construction jobs are now gone, due to the carbon scheme the Ontario Liberals brought in. That expansion and all those well-paying jobs will be going to Donaldson, Louisiana, where they do not have job-killing carbon taxes. When will the federal Liberals stop trying to copy failed provincial energy schemes and start keeping jobs on Canadian soil?
Wilkinson defended a price on carbon as essential to reducing emissions, fostering innovation, and giving business stability, noting 80% of Canadians already live under carbon pricing and the government is extending it across the country.
Wilkinson defends a price on carbon in general terms, citing the 80% of Canadians already living under carbon pricing and provincial cooperation, but does not address CF Industries, the cancelled expansion, the 500 jobs, or the specific concern about jobs leaving to Louisiana.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know that in order to build a strong economy, we have to be serious about protecting the environment, something that the previous government did not understand, and a price on carbon is an essential part of that. It will help us to reduce our emissions, foster innovation, and give business the stability they need to invest, grow, and plan. Eighty per cent of Canadian already live in jurisdictions with a price on carbon. We spent the last six months working with provinces and territories to extend that throughout the country. Our immediate focus will remain on taking concrete action to reduce emissions and to improve the economy.
What is the government's plan to create jobs for all Canadians, given a spiralling deficit and extravagant spending?
The question bundles multiple grievances (déficit, limousine rental, $126,000 relocation) into a broad rhetorical attack before asking a general question about the government's job-creation plan, making the ask diffuse.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, plus que jamais, les Canadiens se rendent compte que ce gouvernement a complètement perdu le contrôle des dépenses publiques. On voit un déficit astronomique, une ministre qui loue des limousines à son chum libéral mais qui arrête tout cela quand elle se fait prendre la main dans le sac, ou encore un ami du premier ministre qui demande un remboursement de 126 000 $ pour son déménagement. Les Canadiens en ont assez. Les Canadiens constatent de plus en plus que ces gens sont des champions quand vient le temps de dépenser la richesse et des gros zéros quand vient le temps de créer la richesse. Quel est le plan de ce gouvernement pour créer des emplois pour tous les Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are becoming acutely aware that this government has completely lost control of public spending. A massive deficit, a minister who rents limos from her Liberal pal but slams on the brakes as soon as she is caught with her hand in the cookie jar, and a friend of the Prime Minister's who claims $126,000 in moving expenses. Canadians are fed up. It has become increasingly obvious that these people are superheroes when it comes to spending money but abject failures at creating wealth. How does this government plan to create jobs for Canadians?
Morneau cited the réduction des impôts pour la classe moyenne voted on the previous day, the Allocation canadienne aux enfants helping 9 families out of 10, and infrastructure investments to improve growth across the country.
Morneau specifically mentions the réduction des impôts pour la classe moyenne voted on the previous day, the Allocation canadienne aux enfants benefiting 9 families in 10, and infrastructure investments for growth — concrete, if brief, responses to the job-creation question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis très heureux de parler de notre plan pour améliorer notre économie. Nous avons commencé par des choses pour la classe moyenne. Nous avons commencé hier par une réduction des impôts pour la classe moyenne. Nous avons voté pour ce plan. En plus, nous avons introduit notre Allocation canadienne aux enfants qui va aider 9 familles sur 10, en laissant plus d'argent dans leurs poches. Dans l'avenir, nos investissements en infrastructures vont améliorer notre niveau de croissance partout au pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to talk about our plan for improving our economy. We started with things for the middle class. We started yesterday by cutting middle-class taxes. We voted for that plan. We also introduced our Canada child benefit, which will help nine out of ten families keep more money in their pockets. Over time, our infrastructure investments will boost growth right across the country.
Is the government prepared to help forestry companies pay new tariffs that could hit in three weeks, and what is it doing to protect jobs and support the forestry industry?
The question gives a concrete deadline (three weeks to potential tariffs), identifies specific regional impact (Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean), and asks two specific questions: whether the government will help companies pay new droits and what it is doing to protect emplois forestiers.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous commençons à craindre sérieusement que le gouvernement ne réussisse pas à conclure un nouvel accord sur le bois d'oeuvre. Les travailleurs de l'industrie commencent vraiment à se préparer au pire. Dans trois semaines, les sociétés forestières canadiennes pourraient faire face à d'importants tarifs sur les exportations de produits de bois d'oeuvre. Ces tarifs mettront en péril les emplois forestiers au Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean et partout au Canada. Le gouvernement est-il prêt à aider les sociétés à payer ces nouveaux droits? Que fait le gouvernement pour protéger nos emplois et soutenir notre industrie forestière?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are really starting to worry that the government will not be able to reach a new softwood lumber agreement. Workers in the industry are really starting to prepare for the worst. In three weeks' time, Canadian forest companies could face huge tariffs on softwood lumber exports. Those tariffs will jeopardize forestry jobs in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and across Canada. Is the government prepared to help companies pay those new fees? What is the government doing to protect our jobs and support our forestry industry?
Lametti said softwood lumber is a priority, negotiations are ongoing with intensive effort toward a solution, and there is unprecedented cooperation with industry and workers, including a visit to the Saguenay in the summer.
Lametti affirms it is a priority, mentions unprecedented cooperation with industry and workers, and notes a visit to the Saguenay, but does not address whether the government will help companies pay new tariffs or provide any concrete measures to protect forestry jobs.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, c'est un dossier prioritaire pour nous, et l'opposition le sait. Nous sommes engagés dans les négociations. Nous recherchons intensivement une solution. Nous avons une coopération sans précédent avec l'industrie et les travailleurs. Nous sommes même allés au Saguenay cet été pour entendre les travailleurs et l'industrie, et ils reconnaissent nos efforts. Nous allons continuer jusqu'au bout pour chercher le meilleur accord possible.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, this issue is a top priority for us, as the opposition is well aware. We are currently in negotiations and working hard on a solution. We have unprecedented co-operation with the industry and with workers. We even went to Saguenay this summer to hear directly from workers and industry representatives, and they appreciate our efforts. We will continue to work hard to reach the best deal possible.
Has the minister thrown in the towel on a softwood lumber deal, and what is her plan to protect tens of thousands of Canadian forestry jobs before new tariffs hit in less than a month?
The question cites a specific timeline (nearly 200 days, less than a month to tariffs), mentions tens of thousands of jobs, and asks pointed questions about whether the minister has thrown in the towel and what her plan is to protect forestry jobs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a priority? The government has had nearly 200 days to come up with a deal on softwood, and it is breaking its promise. In less than a month, Canadian forestry companies will be hit with new tariffs and unfair trade measures by the United States. There are tens of thousands of Canadian jobs on the line. Has the minister thrown in the towel? Has she given up on these workers? What is her plan to protect forestry jobs across Canada?
Lametti said the Conservatives failed to initiate any negotiations or reach any agreements, and that the current government has been working hard to gain the confidence of the industry and understand the nuances of the Canadian industry, hoping for the best negotiated settlement possible.
Lametti deflects entirely to the Conservative record of failing to initiate negotiations, says the government has been working hard and hopes to reach the best negotiated settlement possible, but provides no plan, no timeline, and no response to whether the minister has given up.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question as well as her work on the trade committee. Let me remind her and the House that the Conservatives failed to initiate any negotiations or to reach any new agreements. On the contrary, we have been working hard from the outset to gain the confidence of the industry, to understand the nuances of the Canadian industry from coast to coast to coast. We are working hard at our negotiations and we hope to reach the best negotiated settlement possible.
Bezan asks how many Canadian lives the Prime Minister is willing to risk for a UN Security Council seat by deploying troops to dangerous African missions.
The question is heavily rhetorical and partisan, framing peacekeeping as driven by 'political desire' and 'personal aspirations,' with an unanswerable ask ('how many lives') designed to score points rather than elicit information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at the UN, the Prime Minister made it clear that he is willing to put Canadians in harm's way to achieve his political desire for a temporary seat on the UN Security Council. Missions in Africa are dangerous by their very nature. Jihadists in the region have declared that killing UN peacekeepers is their highest priority. How many Canadian lives is the Prime Minister willing to risk for his own personal aspirations and political gain?
Sajjan accuses the previous government of ignoring atrocities and disease in Africa, and says Canada will take a whole-of-government approach to peace operations.
The minister deflects entirely to the previous government's record on Africa and disease rather than addressing any specifics about risk assessment or mission planning.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the previous government closed its eyes to the atrocities in Africa. It closed its eyes to the fight against disease, basically the root cause that causes the young folks to be radicalized and join those groups. We need to do our part. We will have a whole-of-government approach to peace operations. The Canadian Armed Forces will do their part. They have been proud of their work from previous missions all the way back to Cyprus and the Sinai, and they will be proud of the work they will continue to do in Africa as well.
Bezan asks why the defence minister is not listening to generals MacKenzie, Dallaire, and Hillier, who warned against deploying Canadian troops under UN command.
The question cites specific named individuals — Lewis MacKenzie, Roméo Dallaire, and Rick Hillier — and their stated positions, giving it factual grounding, though the framing remains partisan and the ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the consensus is clear. Distinguished general Lewis MacKenzie acknowledged that there is no peace to keep in Africa. Retired general Roméo Dallaire told the Senate that Canadian troops do not like to work for the UN. The former chief of the defence staff, Rick Hillier, said it was almost criminal to put Canadian troops under UN command. As a decorated veteran, why is the defence minister not listening to these generals and standing up for our troops?
Sajjan says he honours the previous generals but takes advice from Chief of the Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance, and expresses confidence that troops will do wonderful work in Africa.
Sajjan acknowledges the named generals but simply defers to General Jonathan Vance rather than engaging with the substantive concerns the generals raised about UN command structures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I actually applaud and honour the great work that the previous generals have done, but I take advice from my Chief of the Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance, who has exceptional operational experience. I can assure the member that our troops are very proud of their work and will do wonderful work in Africa and make a massive contribution like they have always done in every mission that we have sent them on.
Paul-Hus asks whether the Prime Minister will admit that deploying 600 soldiers under UN command in Africa is simply a bargaining chip for a Security Council seat.
The question references Dallaire's stated concern about UN command and the specific deployment of 600 soldiers, giving it some factual grounding, but the ask — whether troops are merely a bargaining chip — is rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les soldats n'aiment pas travailler pour l'ONU. Ce n'est pas moi qui le dis, c'est l'ancien général Roméo Dallaire. Il n'y a pas de commandement intégré, et quand ça tourne mal lorsqu'ils sont en première ligne, ils ne peuvent rien faire. Pourtant, le gouvernement va déployer 600 soldats en Afrique, sous le commandement de l'ONU. Le premier ministre peut-il admettre que les Forces canadiennes ne sont qu'une monnaie d'échange pour avoir un siège au Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, soldiers do not like working for the UN. Those are not my words; retired general Roméo Dallaire said so. There is no integrated command structure, and when things get ugly on the front lines, there is nothing they can do. Still, the government plans to deploy 600 soldiers to Africa, under UN command. Will the Prime Minister admit that, to him, the Canadian Forces are merely a bargaining chip to help win a seat on the UN Security Council?
Sajjan says Canada has learned from past mistakes, that he brought Dallaire and Louise Arbour to Africa to inform his assessment, and that any mission will have a robust UN mandate with rules of engagement protecting civilians and properly trained and equipped troops.
Sajjan provides partial substance by naming Roméo Dallaire and Louise Arbour as advisors he personally consulted and specifying requirements for a robust UN mandate with rules of engagement and civilian protection, though he does not directly answer whether troops are a bargaining chip.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have learned from the mistakes of the past. We need to make sure that we have a robust mandate. That is one of the reasons I took retired General Roméo Dallaire with me to Africa, and Madame Louise Arbour as well, to make sure that I have the right perspective on this; to make sure that when we look at a mission we will have the appropriate United Nations mandate with robust rules of engagement, that has the protection of civilians; to make sure that our troops are properly trained and properly equipped so they can actually make the contribution that we send them there for.
Samson asks the Minister of Canadian Heritage for an update on the progress of the official languages action plan following summer consultations.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to update the House on the official languages action plan, with no accountability challenge.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la force et la vitalité de nos langues officielles sont une priorité pour les Canadiens et pour notre gouvernement. Au cours de l'été, la ministre du Patrimoine canadien et son secrétaire parlementaire ont parcouru le pays afin d'échanger avec les citoyens et les citoyennes en prévision de la création d'un plan d'action pour les langues officielles. La ministre peut-elle nous informer de l'avancement de ce dossier si important pour nos communautés?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the strength and vitality of our official languages are a priority for Canadians and our government. Over the summer, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and her parliamentary secretary travelled across the country to talk to people in preparation for creating an action plan on official languages. Can the minister provide us with an update on this file that is so very important for our communities?
Joly reports that she and her parliamentary secretary visited more than 20 communities and that over 3,000 people participated in online consultations, describing the process as the most open and transparent in history.
The minister provides concrete figures — more than 20 communities visited and over 3,000 people participating in online consultations — and characterizes the process as the most open and transparent in history, giving the answer real informational content.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais remercier mon collègue le député de Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook de sa question. Nos deux langues officielles sont une priorité, et je suis très fière de faire partie d'un gouvernement qui a à coeur ce dossier. Mon secrétaire parlementaire, le député d'Edmonton-Centre, et moi-même avons procédé à des consultations pendant tout l'été. Nous avons visité plus de 20 communautés, et plus de 3 000 personnes ont participé aux consultations en ligne. Il s'agit de consultations qui ne sont pas à huis clos, contrairement à ce qui a été fait par le passé. Elles sont les plus ouvertes et les plus transparentes de notre histoire. Nous sommes très contents du processus, et nous espérons que tous les parlementaires y participeront.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for his question. Our two official languages are a priority, and I am very proud to be part of a government that truly understands that. My parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, and I held consultations all summer. We visited more than 20 communities, and more than 3,000 people participated in the online consultations. Unlike consultations held in the past, these ones are not held in camera. They are the most open and transparent consultations in our history. We are very proud of the process and we hope that all parliamentarians will participate in it.
Nicholson invokes the 140-year constitutional convention of Atlantic Canadian Supreme Court representation and asks the Minister of Fisheries whether he will stand up for New Brunswick and Atlantic Canada.
The question grounds itself in a specific constitutional convention and 140 years of precedent, and identifies a specific minister by role — though the rhetorical framing and the sideways address to the Fisheries Minister rather than the responsible minister reduce its sharpness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for over 140 years, Atlantic Canada has been represented on the Supreme Court. It is a constitutional convention, but it is the appropriate and right thing to do and every prime minister since Confederation has supported it, with the exception of the current Prime Minister. However, my question is not for him. It is for the Minister of Fisheries who has been in the House for 16 years representing New Brunswick. Is he prepared to stand up and do the right thing for New Brunswick and Atlantic Canada? I would like to know.
Wilson-Raybould describes the new open and accountable Supreme Court appointment process and its goals of regional representation, functional bilingualism, and diversity, without addressing Atlantic Canadian representation specifically or the Fisheries Minister's stance.
The Minister of Justice responds with general praise for the new appointment process rather than addressing the specific question about Atlantic Canadian representation or the Fisheries Minister's position, and does not answer who was actually asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the question and I certainly recognize the importance that appointing the next Supreme Court justice places upon the Prime Minister. That is why I was very proud when the Prime Minister introduced a new process to make it more open, more accountable, to ensure that we recognize and uphold the highest-quality jurists, recognize the importance of regional representation and functional bilingualism, and look to ensure that we do as much as we can to improve the diversity on the highest court. I look forward to working with the panel to put forward recommendations.
Nantel asks why the CRTC Broadcasting vice-president position has been vacant for 15 months and a CBC/Radio-Canada board seat for nearly a year, and whether the minister considers these important vacancies at her consultations table.
Nantel cites two specific vacancies — the CRTC Broadcasting vice-president position vacant for 15 months and a CBC/Radio-Canada board seat vacant for nearly a year — and asks why they remain unfilled, giving the question solid factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis presque un an que les libéraux sont au pouvoir, le processus de nomination indépendante annoncé en grande pompe par leur gouvernement est toujours dans les limbes libérales des égoportraits, d'une « constructite » chronique et des dépenses souvent inappropriées. Sans blague, cela fait 15 mois que le poste de vice-président de la Radiodiffusion est vacant au CRTC, tout comme un poste au conseil d'administration de Radio-Canada qui, lui, est vacant depuis presque un an. Ce ne serait quand même pas un luxe de nommer quelqu'un qui a notre diffuseur à coeur à ce conseil d'administration. Alors, pour ses consultations, la ministre n'arrête pas de dire que tout est sur la table. Ne trouve-t-elle pas que ce sont des invités importants qui manquent autour de cette table?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been in power for almost one year and the independent nomination process announced with great pomp by their government is still very much in limbo as the Liberals indulge in selfies, a chronic “construction syndrome”, and spending that is often inappropriate. Seriously, the position of vice-chairperson of broadcasting at the CRTC has been vacant for 15 months and a seat on the CBC's board of directors has been vacant for almost a year. It is important they appoint someone to the board of directors who will look out for our broadcaster. With respect to her consultation, the minister continues to repeat that everything is on the table. Does she not think that some important players are missing at this table?
Joly notes the CRTC commissioner position was posted that summer and says a new open and transparent consultation process for CBC/Radio-Canada board nominations will be presented in coming weeks.
Joly addresses the CRTC commissioner posting by noting it was advertised that summer and promises to present a new consultation process for CBC/Radio-Canada board appointments in coming weeks, partially engaging the specifics but not explaining the 15-month delay.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais remercier mon collègue de sa question, mais j'aimerais aussi lui rappeler le fait que le poste du commissaire au CRTC a été affiché cet été. Je l'invite donc à consulter le site Internet. Je tiens également à lui dire qu'au cours des prochaines semaines, nous aurons l'occasion de présenter le nouveau processus de consultations en lien avec les nominations au conseil d'administration de Radio-Canada/CBC. Celui-ci se veut ouvert, transparent afin, bien entendu, de respecter l'indépendance des administrateurs de la corporation.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, but I would also like to remind him that the position of CRTC commissioner was posted this summer. Therefore, I invite him to consult the website. I would also like to say that in the next few weeks, we will be introducing the new consultation process for appointments to the board of directors of CBC/Radio-Canada. This process is open and transparent in order to maintain the independence of the corporation's board members.
Saini asks the Minister of Health what the government is doing to address antimicrobial resistance at the UN meeting on the subject.
This is a government-backbench softball with no accountability dimension, simply asking the minister to report on government action at a UN meeting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, antimicrobial resistance has become one of the biggest threats to global health. All around the world, including here in Canada, many common infections are becoming resistant to the antimicrobial medicines that treat them. Global leaders are meeting today at the United Nations to discuss this threat to human health. Will the Minister of Health inform the House what our government is doing to address this very serious threat?
Philpott describes a one-health approach involving strengthened surveillance, laboratory capacity, new treatments and diagnostics, and coordination with provinces, territories, and the agrifood sector.
Philpott provides substantive policy content — a one-health approach, strengthening surveillance, building laboratory capacity, developing new treatments, and coordinating with provinces and territories across human, animal, and agrifood sectors — though without specific numbers or commitments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kitchener Centre for this very important question. Antimicrobial resistance is a serious global public health threat, and Canada is taking action. We are taking a one-health approach to strengthen surveillance, to build laboratory capacity, and to support the development of new treatments, diagnostics, and preventative measures and systems. We are working closely with the provinces and territories and are coordinating efforts across human and animal health and the agrifood sectors to prevent and control antimicrobial resistance.
Kent asks why the minister's tweet about his meeting with Iran's foreign minister mentioned consular cases only as an afterthought with no specific mention of Professor Hoodfar's illegal detention and abuse in Tehran's Evin prison.
Kent cites a specific tweet from the minister's own UN meeting with Iran's foreign minister, notes the mention of consular cases as an afterthought, and asks specifically why there was no public mention of Professor Hoodfar's illegal detention in Evin prison.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians learned yesterday that the Liberals' ill-advised quest to normalize relations with Iran has notched up now to the ministerial level. The minister tweeted that in his first meeting with the regime's foreign minister at the UN, bilateral issues were discussed in the context of the Middle East. As an afterthought, the tweet said they “Discussed consular cases”. There was not a word about Canada's concern over the illegal detention, isolation, and abuse of Canadian Professor Hoodfar in Tehran's Evin prison. Why not?
Goldsmith-Jones defends the strategy of cautious engagement over isolationism, and states that the meeting touched on pressing regional issues and consular cases, without mentioning Professor Hoodfar.
Goldsmith-Jones defends the strategy of cautious engagement and says the meeting did touch on consular cases, but does not address why Professor Hoodfar was not specifically mentioned or what was said about her case.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's severing of ties with Iran had no positive consequences for anyone—not Canadians, not Iranians, and not our allies, such as Israel. The first meeting the hon. member referred to between the foreign ministers touched on pressing regional issues and consular cases, further emphasizing the value and the need for engagement. Diplomatic solutions for humanitarian and security challenges depend on our regional dialogues and on open conversation with one another. Our strategy of cautious engagement is a tough path. It is much more difficult than a policy of retreat and isolationism.
Tootoo asks the Minister of Infrastructure what his plans are for infrastructure funding in Nunavut, specifically about the status of funding for the Grays Bay road and port project.
Tootoo grounds his question in the joint Arctic leadership statement by the Prime Minister and President Obama, references Nunavut's infrastructure deficit, and asks specifically about the status of funding for the Grays Bay road and port project.
Source text
[Member spoke in Inuktitut] Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities. The minister is aware that Nunavut has very limited base infrastructure and a huge infrastructure deficit. The government committed to improving the way of life in the north and strengthening our northern communities in a joint statement on Arctic leadership by the Prime Minister and President Obama. I would like to ask the minister what his plans are for infrastructure funding in Nunavut on projects like the Manitoba–Kivalliq road. Specifically, what is the status of funding for the Grays Bay road and port project?
Sohi reports that bilateral infrastructure agreements were concluded with all territories including Nunavut and that more than $92 million in federal funding has been announced for Nunavut, while stating the Grays Bay project is not yet at a stage where it can move forward.
Sohi provides a concrete figure of over $92 million in federal funding announced for Nunavut and directly states the Grays Bay project is not at a stage where it can move forward, partially answering the specific ask though without elaboration on why or what next steps are.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that over the summer months we concluded our bilateral agreements for infrastructure investments with all provinces and territories, including Nunavut. We have announced more than $92 million in federal funding for projects in Nunavut in the last few months. As far as the Grays Bay project is concerned, it is not at a stage where it can move forward. I will continue to work with the Territory of Nunavut to make sure that—
Prime Minister Trudeau delivered a bilingual tribute to Mauril Bélanger, the MP for Ottawa—Vanier who passed away on August 16, 2016 after a courageous battle against amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, honouring him as a defender of his community, a champion of equality, a proud Franco-Ontarien, a passionate parliamentarian, and a devoted family man who fought for causes including francophone rights, Canada's co-operatives, and a gender-neutral national anthem until the very end of his parliamentary career.
- Lib Right Hon. Justin Trudeau
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je prends la parole aujourd'hui pour rendre hommage à Mauril Bélanger, un collègue et surtout un ami qui nous a quittés trop tôt. Le 16 août 2016 a été une triste journée pour notre famille parlementaire. Ce jour-là, nous avons perdu l'un des nôtres, après son combat courageux contre la sclérose latérale amyotrophique. Il n'est pas facile de résumer l'énorme contribution que Mauril Bélanger a faite à la société pendant les nombreuses années où il a siégé à la Chambre, mais lorsque je pense à Mauril et à ce qu'il était, mes souvenirs me ramènent toujours à ceci. Mauril était un défenseur de sa communauté, un champion de l'égalité, un fier Franco-Ontarien, un parlementaire passionné, un membre admiré du parti et, surtout, un homme dévoué à sa famille. Aujourd'hui, j'aimerais prendre quelques moments pour parler de la manière dont Mauril incarnait ces qualités, jour après jour, non seulement par ses gestes, mais aussi par sa façon d'être. As the MP for Ottawa—Vanier since 1995, Mauril was an ardent defender of his community for decades. A staple at local events and much beloved by all who knew him, Mauril understood the importance of connecting with people on a really personal level, and he always made sure that their voices were heard. It is for these reasons that he was elected for the seventh consecutive time this past October. Over 36,000 of his neighbours cast their votes for him. Make no mistake: it is not a testament to the party he represented; it is a testament to the man himself. A pillar of the Ottawa—Vanier community, Mauril was a tireless advocate for the people he represented. I know he will be sorely missed by all of them. No one in the House can deny that Mauril was frequently the voice for the underdog. He believed in fairness and justice for all, and championed inclusion and equality at every turn. Whether pushing for francophone rights, advocating for Canada's co-operatives, or fighting time and time again for a gender-neutral national anthem, Mauril Bélanger was often the first to jump in and point out that we could do better. L'été dernier, l'Hôpital Montfort a décerné à Mauril la Médaille du 22 mars, symbole de détermination, de ténacité et de fierté. Cette médaille rend hommage à la façon dont Mauril a longtemps défendu les intérêts des francophones dans tout le pays. Fier Franco-Ontarien, il ne manquait jamais une occasion de me rappeler que, malgré ma fierté d'être Montréalais et Québécois, j'étais né à Ottawa, et que donc, techniquement, j'étais un Franco-Ontarien. Le plus important pour Mauril, c'était par-dessus tout le devoir de servir. Tout au long de sa carrière, il a su porter cette responsabilité avec fierté et détermination. Que ce soit en tant que membre du gouvernement sous le leadership du premier ministre Paul Martin, ou en tant que leader adjoint de la Chambre, Mauril était à l'écoute des Canadiens et toujours prêt à les servir. He never let his parliamentary responsibilities cloud his commitment to his constituents. He made it to the barbecues, the town halls, and the community events with a tireless enthusiasm, an enthusiasm that would never fade with time. Mauril was also an important fixture within the Liberal Party of Canada. He always challenged us to do better and to be better. When I was just starting out as an MP, he was a close ally, teacher, stern warner of things to come, and, ultimately, an extremely close friend. In March, Mauril took the Speaker's chair for an emotional and moving round of question period. While it is easy to get caught up in the rough and tumble, adversarial nature of politics, on that day our parliamentary colleagues rallied together to honour a great man. La dernière fois que Mauril était ici avec nous, à la Chambre, c'était pour voter à la dernière étape de son projet de loi parlementaire pour rendre notre hymne national davantage inclusif, un projet de loi qu'il avait déposé et redéposé plusieurs fois pendant sa carrière. Je pense que, pour lui, c'était la meilleure façon de conclure sa vie de parlementaire en se battant pour ses convictions, et en faisant preuve de courage et de force jusqu'à la fin. À sa chère épouse, Catherine, et à sa famille: nous sommes avec vous pendant cette période particulièrement difficile, et nous espérons que vous trouverez un réconfort dans la marque indélébile que Mauril laisse derrière lui à la Chambre. À notre cher Mauril: ton humour, ton courage et ta compassion me manquent déjà énormément. Je n'oublierai jamais notre amitié et les moments que nous avons eu la chance de partager. Repose en paix, mon ami.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mauril Bélanger, a colleague and friend who was taken from us too soon. August 16, 2016, was a sad day for our parliamentary family. That day, we lost one of our own, following his courageous battle with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. It is not easy to summarize the tremendous contribution that Mauril Bélanger made to society over the many years that he sat in the House of Commons, but when I think about Mauril and who he was, these are some of the things that always come to mind: he was a fervent advocate for his community, a champion of equality, a proud Franco-Ontarian, a passionate parliamentarian, a respected member of the party, and, above all, a man who was devoted to his family. Today, I would like to take a few moments to talk about how Mauril exemplified these qualities every day through his actions and his way of approaching life. En qualité de député d'Ottawa—Vanier depuis 1995, Mauril Bélanger a ardemment défendu sa collectivité pendant des décennies. Toujours présent lors des événements locaux et fort apprécié de tous ceux qui le connaissaient, Mauril comprenait l'importance d'établir des contacts vraiment personnels avec les gens et il veillait toujours à ce que leur voix soit entendue. Voilà pourquoi il a été réélu pour la septième fois consécutive en octobre dernier. Plus de 36 000 personnes de son voisinage ont voté pour lui. Il ne faut pas s'y méprendre, cette popularité ne témoigne pas d'un attachement au parti auquel il appartenait, mais bien de l'attachement à l'homme qu'il était. Véritable pilier de la communauté d'Ottawa—Vanier, Mauril a plaidé sans relâche la cause des gens qu'il représentait. Il ne fait aucun doute qu'il manquera énormément à tous ces gens. Personne à la Chambre ne peut nier que Mauril se faisait fréquemment la voix des moins favorisés. Il croyait à l'équité et à la justice pour tous et il a fait figure de chef de file dans la lutte pour l'inclusion et l'égalité sur tous les plans. Toujours prêt à épouser une noble cause, qu'il s'agisse des droits des francophones, de la défense des coopératives canadiennes ou d'un hymne national exempt de discrimination sexiste, Mauril Bélanger était souvent le premier à monter aux barricades pour signaler les éléments à améliorer. Last summer, the Montfort Hospital awarded Mauril the Médaille du 22 mars, a symbol of determination, tenacity, and pride. This medal recognizes his efforts as a tireless defender of the rights of francophones across the country. A proud Franco-Ontarian, Mauril never missed an opportunity to remind me that, no matter how proud I am to be a Montrealer and Quebecker, I was born in Ottawa and I am technically a Franco-Ontarian. One of Mauril's top priorities was the duty to serve. Throughout his career, he carried out that responsibility with pride and determination. Whether it was as a member of the government under Prime Minister Paul Martin or as the deputy House leader, Mauril listened to Canadians and was always ready to serve them. Il n'a jamais laissé ses responsabilités parlementaires affaiblir son engagement envers les gens de sa circonscription. Aux barbecues, aux assemblées publiques et aux événements communautaires auxquels il se faisait un devoir d'assister, il affichait toujours le même enthousiasme qui n'a jamais faibli au fil des ans. Mauril était également un élément important au sein du Parti libéral du Canada. Il nous a toujours mis au défi de faire mieux et d'être meilleurs. Lorsque j'ai débuté ma carrière de parlementaire, il a été pour moi un précieux allié, un mentor et un visionnaire averti de l'avenir et, enfin, un ami très proche. En mars, Mauril s'est assis dans le fauteuil du Président pour une séance de questions où l'émotion était palpable. Il est facile de se laisser happer par le caractère dur, tumultueux et antagoniste de la politique mais, ce jour-là, les parlementaires se sont tous ralliés pour honorer un grand homme. The last time that Mauril was here with us in the House was to vote on the final stage of his private member's bill to make our national anthem more inclusive, a bill that he had introduced and reintroduced a number of times during his career. I think that, for him, that was the best way to end his parliamentary career: by fighting for his convictions and demonstrating strength and courage up until the very end. To his dear wife Catherine and his family, we are with you during this difficult time and we hope that you will take comfort in the indelible mark that Mauril made in the House. To our dear Mauril: I already miss your sense of humour, your courage, and your compassion. I will never forget our friendship and the moments that we shared. Rest in peace, my friend.
Leaders Rona Ambrose (CPC), Thomas Mulcair (NDP), and Mr. Fortin (Bloc Québécois) each delivered bilingual tributes to Mauril Bélanger, honouring his two decades of distinguished parliamentary service, his championing of Franco-Ontarian rights, his role in saving Hôpital Montfort, his co-founding of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association, his fight for a gender-neutral national anthem, and his profound dignity and courage in his public battle against ALS, with Ms. Ambrose also calling on Canadians to continue the fight against ALS.
- CPC Rona Ambrose
- NDP Thomas Mulcair
- BQ Mr. Rhéal Fortin
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais me joindre au premier ministre et à tous les députés de la Chambre pour rendre hommage à notre collègue et ami Mauril Bélanger. Pendant sa distinguée carrière parlementaire de deux décennies, Mauril a touché et inspiré de nombreuses personnes par son humilité, sa détermination et son dévouement à servir ses concitoyens qui l'ont récompensé par huit victoires électorales consécutives. He worked quietly, often behind the scenes and across party lines, on behalf of his many cherished causes, among them the rights of Franco-Ontarians and Canada's relationship with Africa. Mauril in fact was seated across from me in the last Parliament, and though exchanges across the floor here can be heated, I always appreciated his deep and abiding respect for this institution. Nous nous souvenons aussi aujourd'hui de l'immense courage de Mauril dans sa lutte contre la SLA, cette dernière année. Il s'est battu contre cette terrible maladie ouvertement et avec dignité, déterminé à continuer à travailler au nom des gens qui l'avaient élu. Son courage a été un exemple pour tous les députés de la Chambre. C'est en signe de l'estime que nous avions tous pour lui que la Chambre habituellement divisée s'est réunie en mars dernier pour lui faire l'honneur sans précédent de nous présider pendant une après-midi dans le fauteuil du Président. As a dedicated parliamentarian with a great love for our democratic institution, the speakership was a long-held aspiration tragically taken from him by ALS. That is why all of us in our party were proud to provide support for his day in the chair. On this day, I ask the Prime Minister to join me in calling on Canadians to once again join the fight against ALS. It is a terrible disease that first took Mauril's voice, then his tremendous energy, and finally his life. In 2014, many of us participated in the Ice Bucket Challenge, an experience we will all remember. Although that campaign did raise $20 million for research and $6 million for support programs, we must continue to do more to find a cure. We have seen how this disease can take people in the prime of their life and career, how it can take a colleague and a friend who was so close to reaching a long-held dream. Très peu de Canadiens ont eu l'honneur de siéger comme député ici, à la Chambre des communes, sans parler de recevoir cet honneur à huit reprises comme l'a fait Mauril. Je pense que pour ceux d'entre nous qui avons l'honneur de siéger ici, la carrière distinguée de Mauril et son immense courage nous montrent combien nous devons chérir cette grande institution démocratique canadienne dont nous faisons tous partie. Au nom de notre caucus, j'aimerais exprimer nos condoléances à la conjointe de Mauril, Catherine, à son fils et à ses petits-enfants, et à ses collègues et amis à la Chambre. We will all miss him.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the Prime Minister and all members of the House in paying tribute to our colleague and friend, Mauril Bélanger. During his two-decade long, distinguished career as a parliamentarian, Mauril touched and inspired many people with his humility, his determination, and his dedication to serving his constituents, who returned the favour by re-electing him eight consecutive times. Il s'employait discrètement, souvent dans les coulisses et au-delà des allégeances politiques, à défendre les nombreuses causes qui lui tenaient à coeur, notamment les droits des Franco-Ontariens et les relations entre le Canada et les pays d'Afrique. En fait, lors de la dernière législature, Mauril était assis juste en face de moi. Bien que les échanges de part et d'autre de la Chambre soient parfois animés, j'ai toujours aimé son profond respect pour notre institution. Today we also remember the immense courage shown by Mauril this past year in his fight against ALS. He battled this terrible disease openly and with dignity, determined to continue working on behalf of his constituents. His courage set an example for all members of the House. To show our esteem for our beloved colleague, the House managed to come together last March, despite our usual divisions, to give him the unprecedented honour of presiding over us for an afternoon in the Speaker's chair. Il était un parlementaire dévoué, qui aimait profondément notre institution démocratique. Il aspirait depuis longtemps à la présidence, mais la SLA l'a tragiquement empêché d'y accéder. C'est pourquoi tout le monde dans notre parti était fier de soutenir son accession à la présidence pour une journée. Aujourd'hui, c'est l'occasion pour moi de demander au premier ministre de se joindre à moi pour inviter les Canadiens à participer encore et toujours à la lutte contre la SLA. Cette terrible maladie a d'abord privé Mauril de sa voix, puis de son énergie débordante, et elle lui a finalement enlevé la vie. En 2014, nous avons été nombreux à participer au défi du seau d'eau glacée, une expérience inoubliable pour nous tous. Cette campagne a permis d'amasser 20 millions de dollars pour la recherche et 6 millions de dollars pour divers programmes de soutien, mais nous devons poursuivre nos efforts afin de vaincre cette maladie. Comme nous l'avons constaté, cette maladie peut emporter des gens dans la force de l'âge, au beau milieu de leur carrière. Elle a terrassé l'un de nos collègues alors qu'il était sur le point de réaliser un rêve qu'il caressait depuis longtemps. Very few Canadians have had the honour of serving as a member of the House of Commons, let alone eight times, as Mauril did. For those of us who have had the honour of serving here, Mauril's distinguished career and immense courage have taught us to cherish this great Canadian democratic institution that we are all part of. On behalf of our caucus, I would like to express our sincere condolences to Mauril's wife, Catherine, his son and grandchildren, and all his colleagues and friends in the House. Il nous manquera beaucoup.
Monsieur le Président, c'est un honneur pour moi de me lever aujourd'hui pour rendre hommage à un grand parlementaire au nom de tous les députés du Nouveau Parti démocratique. Tout d'abord, j'aimerais exprimer nos plus sincères condoléances à sa femme, Catherine, et à tous les membres de leur famille. Tout le monde ici connaît les sacrifices qu'il faut faire lorsqu'on est en politique et c'est toujours important de les remercier d'avoir toujours été là pour Mauril. Cela a été mentionné à plusieurs reprises, mais tout le monde reconnaît que Mauril était un grand champion des droits des Franco-Ontariens. Même si c'était un effort collectif et communautaire, on peut dire que Mauril Bélanger a sauvé l'Hôpital Montfort, et c'est tout à son honneur. C'était le seul hôpital francophone ici, dans l'Est de l'Ontario. Il était aussi un ardent défenseur des coopératives. Pour son travail, il a reçu des récompenses et des louanges de partout dans le monde. On voit dans ces deux exemples, sauver un hôpital pour sa communauté franco-ontarienne et travailler pour les coopératives, l'essence même d'un homme qui adorait aider les gens, d'abord et avant tout. D'ailleurs, un de mes collègues qui était dans la cohorte de 2011 nous a expliqué tout à l'heure que c'est Mauril qui était chargé un peu de préparer l'arrivée de ce très grand nombre de nouveaux députés. Il leur a dit une chose, c'est qu'ils ne verraient jamais le fond de leur bureau — qu'ils n'essaient même pas — et qu'il fallait toujours se soucier, d'abord et avant tout, de sa santé. Il savait de quoi il parlait. Il était aussi présent sur la scène internationale et il a été l'un des cofondateurs de l'Association parlementaire Canada-Afrique, où il a su tisser des liens solides. Il a milité passionnément pour la bonne gouvernance, la démocratie et la primauté du droit. Enfin, il croyait à l'équité et à l'inclusion. La version anglaise de notre hymne national en témoignera pour toujours. Mauril was a fighter, an idealist, and even when he knew that his time here was limited, he graced us with it, bringing us together as Speaker in a historic moment that allowed us all to rise above the fray. He united the House and Canadians in respect for his profound dignity and commitment to public service. En tant que Président, Mauril a su tous nous rapprocher. Ce fut un moment historique pour la Chambre et nous nous en souviendrons toujours. Un jour, Mauril a écrit que nous devrions être des partenaires, et non des ennemis, collectivement engagés à ce que le Parlement soit au service de tous les Canadiens. Cela reflétait les valeurs profondes d'un homme d'une très grande dignité. He will be remembered as a great parliamentarian and a great Canadian. He was a loving husband, father, and grandfather. He was a great friend to many of us in the House. While it is a small consolation in the face of such a tragedy, his legacy will live on as an example to us all. O Canada! Our home and native land! True patriot love in all of us command. Repose en paix, Mauril. Tu nous manques terriblement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to pay tribute to a great parliamentarian on behalf of all members of the New Democratic Party. I want to begin by expressing our most sincere condolences to his wife, Catherine, and all the members of their family. Everyone here knows the sacrifices that are made when one has a life in politics. It is always important to thank those who were always there for Mauril. It has been mentioned many times, but everyone acknowledges that Mauril was a great champion of Franco-Ontarian rights. Even though it was a collective and community effort, we can say that Mauril Bélanger saved the Montfort Hospital, and that is to his great credit. The Montfort was the only francophone hospital here in Eastern Ontario. He was also an ardent defender of co-operatives. He won awards and earned praise for his work around the world. In these two examples, saving a hospital for his Franco-Ontarian community and working for co-operatives, we see the very essence of a man who loved helping people more than anything else. One of my colleagues who was part of the 2011 cohort explained earlier that it was Mauril who was in some way in charge of preparing for the arrival of this very large number of new members. He told them that they would never get through all the work on their desks and to not even try. He told them to take care of their health above everything else. He knew what he was talking about. He also made his mark on the international stage. He was one of the co-founders of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association, where he built strong relationships. He advocated passionately for good governance, democracy, and the rule of law. He believed in equality and inclusion. The English version of our national anthem will be a testament to that forevermore. Mauril était un battant et un idéaliste, et même lorsqu'il savait que ses jours étaient comptés, il en a consacré un à venir présider les travaux de la Chambre, dans un moment historique qui nous a tous permis de nous élever au-dessus de la mêlée. Il a uni la Chambre et les Canadiens dans leur respect pour sa grande dignité et son empressement à servir ses concitoyens. Mauril brought all of us together as Speaker in a historic moment in this House that none of us will ever forget. Mauril once wrote: “We should be partners, not enemies, collectively invested in making Parliament work for the benefit of Canadians.” This epitomizes the core values of a man of profound dignity. On se souviendra de lui comme d'un grand parlementaire et d'un grand Canadien. C'était un mari, un père et un grand-père aimant. Nous étions nombreux, dans cette enceinte, à le considérer comme un grand ami. Bien que ce ne soit qu'une mince consolation après la tragédie que fut son départ, nous savons que son legs vivra et que sa version anglaise non sexiste de l'hymne national reste un exemple pour nous tous. Ô Canada! Terre de nos aïeux, Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux! Rest in peace, Mauril. We miss you terribly.
Monsieur le Président, au nom du Bloc québécois et de mes collègues du caucus du Bloc québécois, j'offre également mes sincères condoléances à la famille et aux amis de notre collègue Mauril Bélanger. Nous avons tous été affligés par le décès de Mauril Bélanger, qui nous a quittés bien trop tôt au cours de l'été. Son départ laisse un grand vide, tant à la Chambre qu'au côté de ses concitoyennes et concitoyens d'Ottawa—Vanier. On ne soulignera jamais assez son implication dans les grandes luttes franco-ontariennes et franco-canadiennes, au cours de 20 ans de service public. Il a débuté sa carrière en grand en se portant à la défense de l'Hôpital Montfort, le seul hôpital offrant services et formation en français à plus d'un demi-million de Franco-Ontariens. Il a terminé cette carrière à la tête du mouvement pour qu'Ottawa devienne bilingue. À l'image de ses concitoyens, Mauril Bélanger était aussi proche de son monde qu'il en était fier. Il était aussi fier de sa culture qu'il était revendicateur en son nom. Bref, c'était un Franco-Ontarien, un vrai de vrai. Au nom du Bloc québécois, à nouveau, je tiens à offrir mes condoléances à sa famille, à ses proches, à ses collègues du Parti libéral ainsi qu'à toute sa communauté.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois and my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I would also like to offer my sincere condolences to the family and friends of our colleague, Mauril Bélanger. We were all devastated by the death of Mauril Bélanger, who left us far too soon this summer. His passing leaves a great emptiness both here in the House and in his Ottawa—Vanier community. It is impossible to overstate his involvement in the great Franco-Ontarian and French Canadian struggles of his 20 years of public service. His career started with a bang as he fought for the Montfort Hospital, the only hospital that provided services and training in French to more than half a million Franco-Ontarians. At the end of his career, he was leading the movement to make Ottawa bilingual. A man of his people, Mauril Bélanger was as connected to them as he was proud of them. He was also proud of his culture and a tireless advocate for it. In short, he was a Franco-Ontarian through and through. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would once again like to extend my condolences to his family, his loved ones, his Liberal Party colleagues, and his entire community.