Session overview
- Ethics dominated Question Period, with multiple exchanges over a $1,500-per-person Liberal fundraiser in Halifax attended by wealthy developers, bankers, and mining executives seeking access to the Minister of Finance ahead of the next budget.
- Health care funding reached an impasse, with provinces and federal ministers at odds over conditions attached to federal health transfers, following a meeting of health ministers the previous day.
- Electoral reform generated sharp exchanges, with opposition members pressing the Prime Minister for a yes-or-no commitment to end first past the post before 2019, and for a national referendum before any changes are made.
- Indigenous affairs drew criticism from the NDP, who alleged the government was fighting First Nations children in court over child welfare, defying two human rights tribunal orders, and shortchanging students by $800 million.
- Mortgage rule changes sparked debate, with opposition members arguing the new rules would prevent first-time home buyers from qualifying for the same mortgages, while the Minister of Finance defended the measures as ensuring long-term stability of the housing market.
- The battle for Mosul prompted questions about transparency regarding the role of nearly 200 Canadian troops on the front lines, with the Minister of National Defence citing operational security as the reason for limited public disclosure.
Minister of Health Jane Philpott made a specific commitment to work with the Minister of Public Safety to address illicit fentanyl, confirmed that steps had already been taken to list precursors to fentanyl to prevent their importation, and confirmed the opioid crisis was on the agenda at the previous day's meeting of health ministers.
The question is pointed and specific: it challenges the minister to name which provinces were managing health transfer money poorly, directly holding her to a claim reportedly made by the government.
Rather than addressing the specific allegation that Jim Spatz hosted a fundraiser for the Minister of Finance at his business partner's home and what was discussed between them, the Minister of Transport responded exclusively with biographical praise for Mr. Spatz, leaving the core conflict-of-interest question entirely unanswered.
Outstanding questions
- Candice Bergen (Exchange 18) asked the Minister of Finance to state exactly what topics were discussed at the $1,500-per-person Halifax fundraiser â the minister confirmed the event and cited compliance with applicable rules but never disclosed the content of discussions.
- Thomas Mulcair (Exchange 8 and 9) asked the Prime Minister for a direct yes-or-no commitment that the 2015 election would be the last conducted under first past the post â the Prime Minister referenced the special committee's work without providing a direct answer.
- Mr. James Bezan (Exchange 27) asked the Minister of National Defence what Canadian troops are specifically doing in Mosul during the current offensive â the minister cited operational security and did not disclose any details about the Canadian role.
- Elizabeth May (Exchange 39) asked whether the Prime Minister would investigate whether permits for the Petronas project were obtained by fraud through suppression of science about the threat to Flora Bank and Lelu Island â the minister defended the rigour of the environmental assessment without addressing the specific allegation of collusion or fraud.
- Charlie Angus (Exchange 17) alleged the government was defying two human rights tribunal orders on First Nations child welfare and shortchanging students by $800 million â the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs listed government initiatives without directly responding to the allegation of defying tribunal orders.
Will the Prime Minister bring back tax credits for music lessons and sports for kids, which he eliminated?
The question names a specific policy (elimination of tax credits for music lessons and sports) and makes a clear ask to reinstate them, but is wrapped in considerable partisan rhetoric about Davos and billionaires.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the last year, the Prime Minister has been getting advice everywhere, from a secretive summit in Davos to a so-called summer camp for billionaires in Sun Valley. Even this week he was rubbing shoulders with Chinese billionaires. But along the way, he forgot to check in with ordinary working Canadians. He betrayed them by raising taxes on something as basic as piano lessons for their kids. Now I know billionaires do not need tax credits, but middle-class families use them. Will the Prime Minister bring back tax credits for music lessons and sports for kids?
The Prime Minister defended lowering taxes on the middle class and raising them on the wealthiest 1%, saying Conservatives voted against it, without addressing the specific credits.
The Prime Minister entirely ignores the specific ask about restoring children's activity tax credits and instead pivots to the middle-class tax cut and the Conservatives' vote against it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a year ago, Canadians decided they had had enough of an approach that gave tax breaks and benefits to the wealthiest Canadians while ignoring the plight of middle-class Canadians. They voted for real change and when we put forward our very first proposal to lower taxes on the middle class and raise them on the wealthiest 1%, the Conservatives showed that they continue to be out of touch because they voted against raising taxes on the wealthiest and lowering them for the middle class.
Given expert warnings that mortgage rule changes could drop home prices 5â10%, how can middle-class families trust the Prime Minister with their mortgage and homes?
The question cites expert warnings of a 5â10% home price drop from mortgage rule changes and raises a real policy concern, but ends with a broad rhetorical question about trust rather than a specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, middle-class families dream of owning a home, and for many others it is their biggest investment. So it is concerning to learn that the Prime Minister is making changes to Canada's mortgage rules that will make it harder for first-time homebuyers. Experts warn that his changes could drop home prices by 5% to 10%. Now this is the same Prime Minister who blew through his promise on spending and is not creating any jobs. After he has failed Canadians on the economy, how can middle-class families trust him with their mortgage and their homes?
The Prime Minister cited investments in infrastructure, housing, and business announcements such as GE, GM, and Thomson Reuters, without addressing the mortgage rule changes.
The Prime Minister does not address the mortgage rule changes or the cited expert warnings at all, instead listing unrelated business investment announcements.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, to the contrary, we are focused on making investments in our communities, in infrastructure, in housing, and in bringing great new jobs to Canada like the ones we were able to announce when GE invested in Canada, when GM opened up a new research centre in Markham, when Thomson Reuters decided to move its entire head office here. Those are results that happened because we drew them in and made a case for investing in Canada and showed that we were willing to invest in the middle class, and create confidence among consumers and optimism for the future.
Given the Bank of Canada's lowered economic outlook and the Finance Minister hosting a fundraiser at a luxurious mansion in Halifax in apparent breach of the Prime Minister's own ethics rules, will the Prime Minister sanction his minister and tell him to focus on job creation?
The question cites a specific event (Bank of Canada lowering economic outlook that morning) and a specific ethics allegation (Minister of Finance hosting a fundraiser at a luxurious mansion in Halifax in violation of the Prime Minister's own ethics rules), with a clear ask to sanction the minister.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce matin, la Banque du Canada a abaissé encore une fois ses perspectives économiques. Pendant ce temps, le premier ministre, qui est complÚtement déconnecté, a demandé à son ministre des Finances d'organiser une collecte de fonds dans un luxueux manoir à Halifax. Le ministre des Finances a clairement contrevenu aux rÚgles d'éthique mises en place par son premier ministre. Le premier ministre va-t-il sanctionner son ministre et lui dire enfin de se concentrer sur la création d'emplois pour la classe moyenne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Bank of Canada once again reduced its growth outlook for the economy. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister, who is completely out of touch, asked his Minister of Finance to organize a fundraiser at a lavish mansion in Halifax. The finance minister clearly violated the Prime Minister's ethics rules. Will the Prime Minister discipline his minister and finally tell him to focus on creating jobs for the middle class?
The Prime Minister cited slow growth under the previous government and the Canada child benefit giving more tax-free money to nine in ten families and lifting 300,000 young children out of poverty.
The Prime Minister ignores both the Bank of Canada downgrade and the ethics allegation entirely, pivoting to the Canada child benefit and economic record talking points.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pendant 10 ans, les Canadiens ont vu un taux de croissance économique comparable à celui qu'on a vu à l'époque de R.B. Bennett et de la Grande Dépression. C'est pourquoi les Canadiens voulaient des investissements dans leurs communautés et de l'aide pour la classe moyenne. C'est exactement ce que nous avons fait. Nous avons mis en place une allocation canadienne pour les familles, qui, chaque mois, donne plus d'argent non imposable à neuf familles sur dix partout au pays. Elle va également permettre de sortir 300 000 jeunes enfants de la pauvreté. C'est cela, le vrai changement pour lequel les Canadiens ont voté.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, Canadians have been living with a rate of economic growth comparable to that last seen in the era of R. B. Bennett and the Great Depression. That is why Canadians wanted investments in their communities and help for the middle class. That is exactly what we have done. We implemented the Canada child benefit, which gives more tax-free money to nine out of ten families across the country every month. It will also help lift 300,000 children out of poverty. That is the real change that Canadians voted for.
Why is the Prime Minister not keeping his promise to increase health care funding and co-operate with provinces on a new accord, while Canadians wait on wait lists?
The question alleges broken promises on health care funding and co-operation with provinces, but the ask is vague ('keeping his word') without citing specific funding figures or commitment dates.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, families across the country are counting on our health care system, but they are betrayed by a Prime Minister who promised to increase health care funding and has now broken his word. Betrayed by a Prime Minister who promised to co-operate with the provinces on a new accord, but has instead hurled insults that have stalled a new deal. Meanwhile, everyday Canadians are being forgotten on wait lists. Why is the Prime Minister not keeping his word to patients and families across this country who rely on our health care system every single day?
The Prime Minister said the key difference from the previous government is that his government expects federal dollars invested in health care to actually be spent on health care for Canadians.
The Prime Minister offers a partial substantive point â that federal dollars must be spent on health care â which is relevant to the dispute but does not address the specific promise on increased funding or the allegation of hurling insults at provinces.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the main difference between the approach the previous government had on health care and ours is that we expect that any federal dollars invested in health care actually be spent on health care for Canadians. That is what Canadians expect and if the members opposite disagree with that condition, I think they need to explain that to Canadians.
When will the Prime Minister admit that imposing a carbon fuel tax on Albertans, who are already struggling â including thousands unemployed in communities like Medicine Hat â is an anchor rather than a lifeline?
The question grounds the concern in a specific community (Medicine Hat) and identifies a specific policy (carbon fuel tax) hitting Alberta at a bad time, but the closing rhetorical flourish ('lifeline' vs 'anchor') undermines the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Albertans continue to struggle under the weight of a bad Liberal economy. In communities like Medicine Hat, thousands of people are looking for work and families are deeply worried about paying their bills and staying in their homes. The Prime Minister's response is to impose a carbon fuel tax, which will hit our province the hardest. Albertans justifiably feel abandoned by the Prime Minister. He is hitting Albertans with a fuel carbon tax at the worst possible time. When will the Prime Minister admit that it is not a lifeline he is throwing Albertans, but an anchor?
The Prime Minister said the Conservatives failed to get resources to market for Alberta for 10 years and argued that environmental leadership opens new markets for resources and puts money in the pockets of middle-class families.
The Prime Minister does not address the carbon fuel tax impact on Alberta or the situation in Medicine Hat, instead attacking the previous government's resource-market record and making general promises about environmental leadership.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years the members opposite pretended to be the defenders of Alberta, but they were not able to get our resources to market. They were not able to deliver the growth and the opportunities Albertans need. That is why Albertans voted for a change at the provincial level, and that is why they are looking to a federal government that is going to actually be able to demonstrate that leadership on the environment actually leads to opening up new markets for our resources, that putting more money in the pockets of middle-class families right across the country, including in Alberta, is exactly what communities need, and that bringing in investments and jobs for ordinary Canadians matters.
Why does the Prime Minister continue to allow cash-for-access fundraising where wealthy developers, bankers, and mining executives paid the $1,500 maximum to privately access the finance minister, and will they repay the money?
The question is specific: it names the finance minister, the Halifax fundraiser, the attendees (wealthy developers, bankers, and mining executives), the admission price ($1,500 maximum), labels it cash-for-access, and makes two concrete asks â why is it allowed and will they repay the money.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week the finance minister took a break from drafting the next budget to host a private fundraiser in Halifax with wealthy developers, bankers, and mining executives. Each paid $1,500, the maximum allowed, for the privilege of access to the minister. When it comes to getting the ear of the person overseeing billions of dollars in public spending, that is quite a bargain. The Prime Minister knows that this sort of cash-for-access fundraising is wrong, so the question is: Why does the Prime Minister continue to allow it, and when will they repay the money?
The Prime Minister said the federal level has the most stringent election financing rules among provinces and jurisdictions in Canada and that his government has followed all those rules.
The Prime Minister does not address the specific Halifax fundraiser, the cash-for-access allegation, or the demand to repay, offering only a generic claim that federal election financing rules are the most stringent in Canada.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the federal level has the most stringent election financing rules among provinces and jurisdictions in Canada. Canadians expect us to follow all those rules, and that is exactly what we have done.
Following the impasse at the health ministers' meeting, will the Prime Minister meet with provincial premiers to hold good-faith discussions on health funding â yes or no?
The question cites a clear impasse following the health ministers' meeting the previous day and asks a binary yes/no question about whether the Prime Minister will meet with provincial premiers to hold good-faith discussions on health funding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, #realchange. Les provinces croyaient trouver un nouveau partenaire qui est à leur écoute dans les dossiers comme la santé et l'environnement. Au lieu de cela, ils reçoivent des ultimatums et des menaces. à la suite de la rencontre des ministres de la Santé hier, il est clair qu'il y a une impasse en ce qui concerne le financement en santé. Le premier ministre va-t-il rencontrer les premiers ministres des provinces pour tenir des discussions de bonne foi en matiÚre de santé, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: #changerensemble, monsieur le Président. The provinces believed they had a new partner who was ready to listen to them on issues such as health and the environment. Instead, they are on the receiving end of threats and ultimatums. After health ministers met yesterday, it was clear that the parties have reached an impasse on health care funding. Will the Prime Minister meet with the premiers for good-faith discussions about health care, yes or no?
The Prime Minister said he looks forward to meeting provincial premiers on many issues in the coming weeks and months, and reiterated that federal dollars invested in health care must be spent on health care systems.
The Prime Minister says he looks forward to meeting premiers on many issues in the coming weeks and months, which partially addresses the yes/no ask, but does not commit specifically to health discussions or timelines, and restates the federal spending condition.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai bien hùte de rencontrer les premiers ministres des provinces sur bien des enjeux dans les semaines et les mois à venir. Nous allons parler de choses qui préoccupent les Canadiens. En matiÚre de santé, les Canadiens sont préoccupés par le fait que les dollars investis en santé par le gouvernement fédéral ne vont pas toujours dans notre systÚme de santé. Nous nous attendons à ce que l'argent investi en santé soit dépensé dans nos systÚmes de santé. C'est une condition tout à fait raisonnable, et si le membre n'est pas d'accord avec cela, qu'il le dise.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am very much looking forward to meeting with the premiers to discuss a number of issues in the weeks and months to come. We will talk about the things that matter to Canadians. In terms of health care, Canadians are concerned about the fact that federal health care dollars do not always flow to our health care system. We expect money invested in health care to be spent in our health care systems. That is a perfectly reasonable condition, and if the deputy does not agree with me, he should say so.
Does the Prime Minister maintain his promise that the 2015 election would be the last held under the old unfair voting system â yes or no?
The question cites a specific formal commitment made a year ago to end the current voting system so that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post, and asks a direct yes/no whether the Prime Minister maintains that promise.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, a-t-il dit le « membre »? On commence à voir la source du problÚme. Il y a un an, ce premier ministre s'était engagé formellement à mettre fin au mode de scrutin actuel qui crée de fausses majorités. Ma question est simple. Le premier ministre maintient-il sa promesse voulant que l'élection de 2015 soit la derniÚre avec notre vieux mode de scrutin injuste, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, did he just say âdeputyâ instead of âmemberâ? We are starting to see the root of the problem. A year ago, the Prime Minister made a formal commitment to put an end to the current voting system, which creates false majorities. My question is simple. Will the Prime Minister keep his promise to make the 2015 election the last election under our old, unfair voting system, yes or no?
The Prime Minister said the government set up a committee to make thoughtful and responsible recommendations on the voting system and that it would listen carefully to the committee's results, as the member had wanted.
The Prime Minister does not answer yes or no, instead defending the committee process as a response to the NDP's earlier concerns about using a majority to ram through changes, without affirming or denying the original commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au printemps, le dĂ©putĂ© Ă©tait trĂšs inquiet que nous ne respections pas les opinions et les perspectives de tous les dĂ©putĂ©s Ă la Chambre et de tous les Canadiens par rapport au changement de notre mode de scrutin. Ce que nous avons fait, c'est que nous avons mis sur pied un comitĂ© qui va faire des recommandations rĂ©flĂ©chies et responsables, et nous allons Ă©couter les rĂ©sultats du travail de ce comitĂ© et y ĂȘtre trĂšs attentifs, comme il l'aurait voulu.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in the spring the member was very worried that we were not respecting the opinions and perspectives of all members of the House and all Canadians when it comes to changing our voting system. What we did was form a committee that is going to make thoughtful, responsible recommendations, and we are going to pay very close attention to what comes out of the work done by that committee, which is what he wanted.
Given the Prime Minister's own statement yesterday suggesting first past the post might not be so bad now that he has been elected using it, will he work in good faith to deliver the fair proportional electoral system voters deserve for 2019?
The question quotes the Prime Minister's own words from the previous day â that now that he has been elected using first past the post it might not be so bad â and asks him to work in good faith to deliver a fair proportional electoral system, citing the 2019 commitment specifically.
Source text
Here is the problem, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that while he liked the idea of getting rid of our unfair first past the post system, now that he has been able to get elected using that very system, it might not be so bad after all. Canadians have been clear that in 2019, every vote should count. A year ago, the Prime Minister said he agreed with them. Instead of inventing excuses and backing away from his solemn promise to Canadians, will he work with us in good faith to deliver the fair proportional electoral system voters deserve?
The Prime Minister accused the NDP of first demanding that the government not use its majority to ram through electoral change and now demanding exactly that, calling this contradiction the reason the member sits in opposition.
The Prime Minister attacks the NDP's alleged inconsistency on using a majority to impose change rather than addressing the quoted statement or committing to or against a proportional system for 2019.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the spring, the member opposite was tremendously worried that we would use our majority to ram through changes to Canada's electoral system, and we worked with them to demonstrate the hard work a committee could do, hearing all perspectives and giving a report on our electoral system. Now he has changed his mind, and he wants us to use our majority to ram through electoral change. Saying one thing and then its opposite was exactly what landed that member in that seat in this House.
Why did the Minister of Health have to apologize, and on what subject, after making comments about the provinces' management of health transfers?
The question is specific: it asks why the Minister of Health had to apologize and on what subject, referencing the Prime Minister's accusation that provinces misused health transfer money and a subsequent ministerial comment about provincial management.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les relations entre ce gouvernement et les ministres de la Santé des provinces continuent à se détériorer. AprÚs que le premier ministre ait dit que les provinces utilisaient mal cet argent, la ministre en a rajouté en commentant la gestion de ces transferts par les provinces. Maintenant, elle dit qu'elle fait partie des mal cités. Pourquoi la ministre a-t-elle dû s'excuser? Sur quelle sujet a-t-elle dû s'excuser? J'aimerais l'entendre là -dessus.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the relationship between this government and the provincial health ministers continues to deteriorate. After the Prime Minister said that the provinces were misusing their money, the minister added insult to injury by commenting on how the provinces manage the transfers. Now she is saying that she was misquoted. Why did the minister have to apologize? What did she have to apologize for? I would like to hear what she has to say about that.
The Minister of Health said she met with her counterparts and reiterated that federal health investments must go to health care, without addressing the apology.
The Minister of Health does not address why she apologized or on what subject, instead restating the general position that federal health investments must go to health care.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les Canadiens sont fiers de leur systÚme de soins de santé public, mais nous savons que celui-ci a besoin d'améliorations. Hier, j'avais une rencontre avec mes homologues et j'ai dit que nous allions investir en santé. Toutefois, il faut que les investissements en santé aillent en santé. C'est ce à quoi les Canadiens s'attendent.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are proud of their public health care system, but we know there is room for improvement. Yesterday, I had a meeting with my counterparts and I said that we would invest in health. However, health investments need to go toward health care. That is what Canadians expect.
Which specific provinces are managing health transfer money poorly, as the government has alleged?
The question is pointed and specific: it challenges the minister to name which provinces were managing health transfer money poorly, directly holding her to a claim reportedly made by the government.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'entends ces réponses, mais je vais parler de ce qu'ils font aujourd'hui. Si cette ministre voulait demeurer médecin et donner des soins de santé, elle aurait dû le faire. Aujourd'hui, elle veut gérer les soins de santé à la place des provinces qui, elles, ont cette responsabilité. On a dit que les provinces géraient mal l'argent qui leur était transféré. Quelles provinces gÚrent mal l'argent, madame? Nommez les provinces qui gÚrent mal l'argent, s'il vous plaßt.
Hansard translation: That may very well be, Mr. Speaker, but I would still like to talk about they are doing today. If the minister wanted to keep practising medicine, then that is what she should have done. Today, she is trying to tell the provinces how to manage health care, but that is their responsibility. The provinces were told that they were mismanaging the money that is transferred to them. Which provinces are mismanaging the money, Madam Minister? Please name the provinces that are mismanaging the money.
The Minister of Health noted her 30-year medical career, acknowledged the health system needs improvement, and said she is working with her counterparts to invest in health care, without naming any provinces.
The Minister of Health completely avoids naming any provinces, instead speaking to her medical background and general commitment to health system improvements.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est vrai, je suis mĂ©decin. J'ai travaillĂ© pendant plus de 30 ans comme mĂ©decin au Canada. MĂȘme si les Canadiens sont fiers de leur systĂšme de santĂ©, je sais que celui-ci a besoin d'amĂ©liorations et pourrait mieux servir les Canadiens. C'est la raison pour laquelle je travaille avec mes homologues. Nous allons faire des investissements en santĂ© et nous voulons que cet argent soit vraiment investi en santĂ©.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I am a doctor. I worked as a doctor in Canada for more than 30 years. Even though Canadians are proud of their health care system, I know that it is in need of improvement and could serve Canadians better. That is why I am working with my counterparts. We are going to make investments in health and we want that money to truly be invested in health.
Given the Prime Minister's apparent openness to deficits even higher than promised, how does the government justify borrowing on the backs of our children and grandchildren with no repayment plan?
The question cites a specific morning news item â the Prime Minister not ruling out even higher deficits despite promising a small deficit â and begins a concrete ask about the debt burden on future generations, but the question is cut off before being completed.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la derniÚre chose dont on a besoin, c'est que le fédéral s'immisce dans les compétences provinciales, à voir la façon dont il gÚre ses propres finances publiques. Lorsque j'ai appris, ce matin, en lisant ma revue de presse, que le premier ministre n'écartait pas des déficits encore plus élevés, alors qu'il avait fait la promesse électorale d'un petit déficit, je me suis posé de sérieuses questions. On parle maintenant d'un déficit incontrÎlable. Les déficits ne sont que des sommes d'argent empruntées sur le dos de nos enfants et nos petits-enfants, d'autant plus lorsqu'il n'y a pas de plan de remboursement. Comment le premier ministre...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the last thing we need is for the federal government to interfere in provincial jurisdictions given how it manages its own finances. When I read in this morning's paper that the Prime Minister was not ruling out higher deficits, even though he promised a small deficit during the election, I had some serious concerns. The deficit is now out of control. Deficits are amounts of money borrowed at the expense of our children and grandchildren, especially when there is no repayment plan. How can the Prime Ministerâ
The Minister of Finance said a decade of insufficient growth justified infrastructure investments to raise the growth rate for children and grandchildren in the future.
The Minister of Finance does not address the deficit promise broken or the prospect of higher deficits, instead giving a general justification for infrastructure investment to raise growth.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au cours de la derniÚre décennie, nous avons eu un niveau de croissance trop bas dans notre pays. C'est pourquoi nous avons décidé de faire des investissements en infrastructure et des investissements qui vont augmenter notre taux de croissance dans l'avenir pour nos enfants et nos petits-enfants. C'est la façon d'améliorer notre économie maintenant et dans l'avenir.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada's economic growth in the past decade has been too low. That is why we decided to invest in infrastructure and to make investments that will increase our growth rate in the future for our children and grandchildren. That is how we can grow our economy at this juncture and in the future.
With the Bank of Canada lowering growth forecasts and thousands of jobs lost, what new tax will the Finance Minister create to cover the future deficit?
The question references the Bank of Canada's growth forecast downgrade released that morning and notes job losses over the past year, then asks a specific question: what new tax will the Finance Minister create to cover the future deficit.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre et le ministre des Finances n'arrĂȘtent pas de nous dire qu'ils dĂ©pensent pour faire tourner l'Ă©conomie afin de justifier cet Ă©norme dĂ©ficit. En plus des milliers d'emplois qui ont Ă©tĂ© perdus au cours de la derniĂšre annĂ©e, ce matin mĂȘme, un autre rapport de la Banque du Canada annonçait des prĂ©visions de croissance Ă la baisse. OĂč est le plan Ă©conomique des libĂ©raux? Il n'existe pas; il est avec toutes les dizaines de consultations qui ont Ă©tĂ© enclenchĂ©es depuis le dĂ©but de l'annĂ©e par ce gouvernement. Est-ce que le ministre des Finances peut nous dire quelle nouvelle taxe il va crĂ©er pour Ă©ponger ce futur dĂ©ficit?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to justify this huge deficit, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance keep telling us that they are spending money to drive the economy. In addition to the thousands of jobs that have been lost over the past year, just this morning, the Bank of Canada released another report downgrading the country's growth outlook. Where is the Liberal's economic plan? They do not have one. It is with the dozens of consultations that this government has undertaken since the beginning of the year. Can the Minister of Finance tell us what new tax he is going to create to eliminate this future deficit?
The Minister of Finance said the government has improved the situation for nine in ten families with children, delivered middle-class tax cuts, improved the Canada Pension Plan, and is investing for higher growth.
The Minister of Finance does not address the Bank of Canada downgrade, the job losses, or name any tax measures to address deficits, instead repeating middle-class tax cut and Canada Pension Plan talking points.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je l'ai dit, la croissance est vraiment importante pour notre économie. AprÚs un an, ce que nous pouvons dire, c'est que nous avons fait beaucoup de choses pour les gens de la classe moyenne au Canada. Nous avons vraiment changé leur avenir grùce à une réduction d'impÎt pour leurs familles. Neuf millions de Canadiens et neuf familles sur dix avec enfants sont maintenant dans une meilleure situation. De plus, les Canadiens bénéficieront d'une amélioration du Régime de pensions du Canada et d'un taux de croissance plus élevé.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I said, growth is very important to our economy. After a year, we can say that we have done many things to help Canada's middle class. The tax relief we provided to middle-class families has really changed the course of their lives. Nine million Canadians and nine out of ten families with children are now better off. What is more, Canadians will benefit from improvements to the Canada pension plan and a higher growth rate.
How can average Canadians believe that the Prime Minister and Finance Minister, who have inherited millions, understand the challenges young Canadians face when buying their first home, given the new mortgage rules?
The question is largely rhetorical and personal â questioning whether the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who have inherited millions, can understand young Canadians â with no specific policy ask beyond a broad grievance about mortgage rules.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, speaking of their children, the Liberals have done nothing but hurt hard-working Canadians since taking office. Their spending is out of control, they have raised taxes on everything, and they have made it harder for Canadians to save. Now they are changing the mortgage rules, which will make it harder for first-time home buyers to get their first home. How can average Canadians believe that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, who have inherited millions, understand the challenges young Canadians face when buying their first home?
The Minister of Finance said the mortgage rule changes were taken to ensure the housing market remains stable over the long term, protecting Canadians' most significant investment.
The Minister of Finance offers a general rationale for the mortgage rule changes (ensuring long-term market stability) which is relevant to the topic, but does not engage with specifics of how first-time buyers are affected.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we take our responsibilities to Canadians and Canadian families very seriously. We know that the housing market is something Canadians have a rightful interest in. We know that the investment in housing is, in most cases, the most significant investment for a Canadian family. That is why we want to ensure that the market is stable over the long term. The measures we have taken will ensure that Canadians, now and in the future, can be assured that their investment is safe and secure, because we have taken the responsible action to help the market be secure for the long term.
How can young Canadians like Tony and Noel, who saved for six years but now no longer qualify for the same mortgage amount due to the Finance Minister's rule changes, trust the Prime Minister when 1.4 million Canadians are without jobs and it is now harder to buy a first home?
The question uses a concrete personal example (constituents Tony and Noel saving for six years who now no longer qualify for the same mortgage amount) to illustrate the real impact of the finance minister's mortgage rule changes, and cites 1.4 million Canadians without jobs, giving it reasonable factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my friends Tony and Noel, from my riding, have saved for six years for their dream of owning their very first home. The finance minister just recently released changes with regard to mortgage rules, and now these same friends no longer qualify for the same amount they once did. The Prime Minister claimed that he would help the middle class out, but instead, over the last year, 1.4 million Canadians are without jobs, small businesses are struggling and failing, and now young Canadians have to wait even longer to be able to buy their first home. How can young Canadians trust the Prime Minister, when his policies make it even more difficult for them to succeed?
Oh, oh!
The Minister of Finance said Canadians made the right decision a year ago in choosing a government that would invest for future growth and take responsible decisions around housing, leaving middle-class Canadians with more money and more secure housing.
The Minister of Finance does not address Tony and Noel's situation, the mortgage qualification impact, or the 1.4 million jobs figure, instead pivoting to the previous government's record and general claims that middle-class Canadians have more money and more housing security.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take us back to a year ago, when the party opposite was saying that it would balance the budget--
Mr. Speaker, Canadians, a year ago, made a decision about their future, and they made the right decision. They made a decision to have a government that would make investments to ensure that their economy could grow in the future. They made a decision to get a government in place that would take the responsible decisions around their most important investment: their house. Now where we are, a year later, is that middle-class Canadians have more money in their pockets. Middle-class Canadians can know that their housing is more secure for the long term. We are investing in the future, doing the right things for Canadians.
Saganash asks why the government continues to fight First Nations children in court and cannot find the $130 million immediately needed to help the most vulnerable children, despite a $30 billion deficit.
Cites the $130 million figure and references tribunal orders, but the ask is rhetorical ('is this really what the most important relationship looks like?') rather than a single answerable question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre disait qu'il n'y avait aucune relation plus importante que celle avec les PremiÚres Nations, alors je peux confirmer aujourd'hui la vive déception de celles-ci. Par exemple, au lieu d'éliminer la discrimination raciale envers les enfants des PremiÚres Nations, il continue de se battre contre eux devant les tribunaux. Malgré un déficit plus de 30 milliards de dollars, il n'a pu trouver les 130 millions de dollars nécessaires immédiatement pour aider les enfants les plus vulnérables du pays. C'est incroyable. Est-ce vraiment ce à quoi ressemble la relation la plus importante pour le premier ministre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that no relationship was more important than the relationship with first nations, but I am here today to say how deeply disappointed they are. For one thing, instead of eliminating racial discrimination against first nations children, he is still fighting them in court. Even with a $30-billion deficit, he could not come up with the $130 million needed right now to help the most vulnerable children in Canada. It is unbelievable. Is that really what the Prime Minister's most important relationship looks like?
Bennett says Canada is committed to reviewing and reforming child and family services on reserves in partnership with First Nations, and acknowledges the system is failing.
The minister acknowledges the system is failing and references a B.C. youth representative's report, but does not address the $130 million figure or the court battles mentioned in the question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Canada est résolu à examiner les services à l'enfance et à la famille offerts dans les réserves et à les réformer en partenariat avec les PremiÚres Nations. Nous savons que le systÚme est défaillant, tel que l'illustre le rapport déplorable de la représentante pour la jeunesse de la Colombie-Britannique. Nous devons également transformer le systÚme en tirant parti des commentaires recueillis directement auprÚs des jeunes et en intégrant des expériences vécues dans toute nouvelle approche.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada is committed to reviewing child and family services on reserves and partnering with first nations to reform those services. We know the system is broken, as illustrated by the British Columbia Representative for Children and Youth's damning report. Feedback from young people must guide our work to transform the system, and we must ensure that any new approach is informed by their experiences.
Angus asks whether the Prime Minister realizes that breaking promises to First Nations children â citing the justice minister, health minister, tribunal orders defied, and an $800 million student shortfall â is the oldest con in Confederation.
Angus lists several specific grievances (Site C, residential school survivors, medical treatments, two tribunal orders, $800 million student shortfall) but wraps them in heavy rhetorical framing with no single clear answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the first promises the Prime Minister made were to indigenous Canadians, and those were the first promises he broke, with the justice minister supporting the Site C dam and then using lawyers to fight residential school survivors in court; the health minister denying medical treatments to first nation children and using lawyers to fight their families; and the Prime Minister defying two human rights tribunal orders, trying to pretend that Stephen Harper's child welfare plan was his own, and then shortchanging students by $800 million. Does the Prime Minister not realize that breaking promises to first nation children is the oldest con in Confederation? Happy anniversary.
Bennett lists government actions including launching a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous people, an $8.4 billion investment, and support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Bennett recites a list of government achievements (TRC calls to action, national inquiry, $8.4 billion investment, UN Declaration support) without addressing any of the specific broken promises cited in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is deeply committed to renewing the relationship with indigenous people, and we are delivering on our promises to implement the TRC's calls to action. We have launched a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous people. We have launched a total overhaul of the child welfare system, made a historic $8.4 billion investment in first nations education and infrastructure, and announced our unqualified support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is just a beginning. We are committed to making meaningful progress on reconciliationâ
Bergen asks the Minister of Finance to tell the House exactly what topics were discussed at the $1,500 per person Liberal fundraiser in Halifax.
Bergen identifies a specific event (October fundraiser in Halifax at $1,500 per person) and asks a clear, narrow question about what topics were discussed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, who you know in the PMO is alive and well in the Liberal government. We learned today that Liberal insiders sold tickets at $1,500 per person for access to the Minister of Finance when he was in Halifax. Can the Minister of Finance tell this House exactly what topics were discussed at this $1,500 per person Liberal fundraiser?
Morneau confirms the October 13 event was organized by the Liberal Party of Canada, says all applicable rules were followed, and notes those rules were put in place by the preceding party.
Morneau confirms the event occurred and says all applicable rules were followed, but explicitly does not answer what was discussed, and deflects by blaming the previous government for the rules.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, like all members in this House, I am engaged in fundraising activities in support of my party. The October 13 event in question was organized by the Liberal Party of Canada and we followed all of the applicable rules. I will remind the House that those rules were put in place by the party that preceded us.
Bergen asks when the Liberals will stop abusing the public trust and provide the ethical standard they promised, citing the justice minister and finance minister fundraisers as examples of selling special access.
Bergen broadens to a general 'when will Liberals stop abusing the public trust' ask, making it compound and rhetorical rather than focused on the specific unanswered question about what was discussed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer on what was discussed. We are still going to look for that answer. What we do notice is that these Liberals look a lot like the old Liberals, and Canadians are tired of that. Whether it is the justice minister selling special access to Bay Street lawyers or the millionaire finance minister selling access in Halifax, it is just plain wrong. When will the Liberals stop abusing the public trust and provide the ethical standard that they promised?
Chagger says fundraising events are part of every party's work and that the Liberal Party always complies with the Elections Act.
Chagger does not address the pay-to-play allegation or what was discussed, instead restating that fundraising is normal and the party complies with the Elections Act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that events like these are part of every party's fundraising and engagement work. Federal politics is subject to some of the strictest political financing legislation and regulations in the country, and our party always complies with the Elections Act in all cases.
Calkins asks when the millionaire finance minister will repay money from a $1,500-per-person fundraiser that he says violates the Prime Minister's own ethics rules on preferential access.
Calkins names a specific individual (Fred George), a specific amount ($1,500 per person), references the Prime Minister's own ethics rules, and asks a pointed yes/no-style question about repaying the money.
Source text
Well, Mr. Speaker, here we go again. First it was the justice minister, and now it is the finance minister caught in a pay to play fundraiser last week. The finance minister was charging $1,500 a person for millionaires and Liberal insiders to lobby him prior to his next big-spending budget. The Prime Minister has demanded that his ministers not give preferential access to those who made financial contributions to the Liberal Party. However, the finance minister has clearly violated the Prime Minister's own ethics rules. When will the millionaire finance minister stand up and do the right thing and repay the money?
Oh, oh!
Morneau describes the government's extensive budget consultation process, citing 250,000 Canadians consulted last year and 5,200 submissions, and 140,000 Canadians touched this year.
Morneau entirely ignores the pay-to-play allegation and the ethics rules violation, instead describing the government's budget consultation process and citing statistics (250,000 Canadians, 5,200 submissions, 140,000 Canadians).
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that we have taken on a consultation process for our budget that allows us to listen to all Canadians. Last year, we heardâ
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we have been embarking on the most extensive consultation processes around the budget that have ever been done. Last year, we spoke to 250,000 Canadians and received 5,200 submissions. This year, we have already touched 140,000 Canadians. We have the most open process ever put in place, and we will continue to listen to Canadians as we craft the next budget on their behalf.
Calkins asks how the finance minister can claim it is ethical that the event was hosted at the mansion of Fred George, a land developer who received a federal appointment to the Halifax Port Authority, creating a quagmire of conflicts of interest.
Calkins names specific individuals (Fred George, President of the Treasury Board), a specific appointment (Halifax Port Authority), and constructs a detailed conflict-of-interest chain, asking whether the finance minister considers this ethical or acceptable.
Source text
Well, it gets worse, Mr. Speaker. The event was hosted at the waterfront mansion of Mr. Fred George, a land developer who just received a federal appointment to the Halifax Port Authority from his friend, the President of the Treasury Board. There could not be a bigger quagmire of conflicts of interest. The Liberals appoint a land developer who is conveniently a bagman for their party who oversees the port's development. This bagman then hosts a fundraiser for the finance minister, who controls the purse strings and possible investments of this same port. In what universe would the finance minister ever claim that this was either ethical or acceptable?
Oh, oh!
Garneau states he is responsible for appointing Jim Spatz to the Halifax Port Authority and quotes the board chair David Henderson's positive assessment of Spatz.
Garneau corrects the record by naming the actual appointee (Jim Spatz rather than Fred George) and quotes the Halifax Port Authority chair's endorsement, but does not address the broader conflict-of-interest allegation involving the fundraiser host.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am the person responsible for appointing Mr. Jim Spatz to the Halifax Port Authority, and let me tell the House what David Henderson, chair of the Halifax Port Authority board of directors said about him. He said: Jim Spatz is a tremendous addition to the HPA board of directors. He is a community leader with experience in business, arts, culture, education, and charitable causes. The maritime community and the larger business community are fortunate to have such an individual taking on this role.
Trudel asks where the promised fair and balanced approach to workers is, given the Liberals opposed a $15 minimum wage and rejected the NDP's anti-scab bill, which she says denied workers' collective bargaining rights.
Trudel cites the $15 minimum wage and the NDP anti-scab bill and asks about the promised fair and balanced approach to workers, but the ask is broad rather than a single pinpoint question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre et le Parti libĂ©ral s'Ă©taient prĂ©sentĂ©s comme des alliĂ©s des travailleurs, mais au cours de la premiĂšre annĂ©e de leur mandat, ils se sont opposĂ©s Ă la hausse du salaire minimum Ă 15 $ et ont rejetĂ© le projet de loi anti-scab du NPD. En s'opposant Ă mon projet de loi, le premier ministre a refusĂ© de garantir et de respecter le droit Ă la nĂ©gociation collective des travailleurs. Pourtant, c'Ă©tait une modification simple au Code canadien du travail qui comptait beaucoup pour les travailleurs. OĂč est l'approche Ă©quitable et Ă©quilibrĂ©e par rapport aux travailleurs qu'on nous a promise?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party presented themselves as strong supporters of our workers, but in the first year of their term of office, they voted against increasing the minimum wage to $15 and rejected the NDP's anti-scab bill. By voting against my bill, the Prime Minister refused to guarantee and respect workers' right to collective bargaining. This simple amendment to the Canada Labour Code would have made a big difference for workers. What happened to the fair and balanced approach promised to Canadian workers?
Mihychuk says Bill C-4, which reinstates fairness and balance for labour across the country, is expected to pass in the House that day on the one-year anniversary of the government.
Mihychuk references Bill C-4 as reinstating fairness and balance for labour and notes it is expected to pass that day, but does not address the minimum wage or anti-scab legislation specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to point out that we expect that Bill C-4, which reinstates fairness and balance for labour across the country, will be passed in this House today on the one-year anniversary of a progressive new government for Canada.
Benson asks when the government will deliver on its promises to workers, citing the vote against anti-scab legislation and pay equity being shelved until 2018, and quoting PSAC's criticism.
Benson cites the anti-scab vote, the shelved pay equity until 2018, and quotes PSAC directly, but the final ask ('when will the government deliver on the change it promised?') is broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Liberals promised to be on the side of Canadian workers, yet in their first year, not only have the Liberals voted against the anti-scab legislation denying workers' rights to collective bargaining, they have also shelved pay equity until 2018. To quote PSAC, âYou said you'd be differentâ. However, PSAC is not the only one unimpressed with the government's record. It has been a year, as we know, since the election. The time for action is now. When will the government deliver on the change it promised Canadian workers?
Hajdu says the government is proud to bring forward pay equity after a decade of inaction and will implement proactive pay equity in the federal jurisdiction, covering 874,000 employees and 10,800 employers.
Hajdu addresses the pay equity element specifically, citing 874,000 employees and 10,800 employers in federal jurisdiction, but does not address the anti-scab legislation or the 2018 timeline for pay equity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question. Equal pay for work of equal value is a human right, and we are so proud to bring forward pay equity after a decade of inaction. Pay equity between men and women and fair treatment of all workers in the workplace regardless of gender are critical for creating growth and a thriving middle class. We are going to make substantive reform and implement proactive pay equity in the federal jurisdiction, which includes 874,000 employees and 10,800 employers.
Longfield asks the Minister of Agriculture for an update on Canada's next agricultural policy framework and how it will help farmers.
This is a government-backbench softball asking for an update on the agricultural policy framework, with no accountability dimension and a flattering framing of farmers as 'original small business owners.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's agricultural policy framework affects our farmers, ranchers, and growers across my province of Ontario and indeed right across the country. This framework provides the programs that help our farmers manage risks and provides the tools they need to become more innovative, competitive, and sustainable. Could the Minister of Agriculture give the House an update on where our government is in terms of developing Canada's next agricultural policy framework and how this framework will help some of our original small business owners, Canada's farmers?
MacAulay says the government is working with provinces and territories, agreed on a joint statement for the future of agriculture in July, and will continue sector consultations to develop a framework for a more prosperous Canadian agriculture.
MacAulay provides a substantive update: a July joint statement with provinces and territories was agreed upon, and ongoing consultations are underway to develop the next framework.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is working with the provinces and territories on developing the next agricultural policy framework. In July, my counterparts and I agreed on a joint statement for the future of agriculture in Canada. I will continue to consult the sector in every part of the country, and together we will develop a framework that will create a more prosperous Canadian agriculture, and certainly help the middle class.
Barlow asks the Liberals to commit to a national referendum on electoral reform, citing that more than 94% of constituents in his riding who responded want one.
Barlow cites a specific constituency poll result (94% wanting a referendum) and poses a clear yes/no question about whether the Liberals will commit to a national referendum on electoral reform.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is astonishing that the Liberals would consider changing a fundamental piece of our democracy without a referendum. It is crystal clear that Canadians want a say before Liberals impose any changes to the voting process. I have heard from literally thousands of constituents in my riding, and more than 94% of them want a referendum. The clearest, most inclusive form of consultation is a national referendum. Will the Liberals listen to hard-working Canadians in my riding and Canadians across the country and give them the referendum that they want, yes or no?
Monsef describes the all-party committee's work travelling the country and says she looks forward to the committee's report on December 1 before making a thoughtful decision.
Monsef does not answer yes or no on a referendum, instead describing the all-party committee process and indicating she looks forward to the December 1 report, which is a deferral rather than an answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise in this House representing the people of PeterboroughâKawartha as the Minister of Democratic Institutions. Happy one year anniversary to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all of my colleagues in this place. To address the member's question, we have a committee that has been working hard travelling the country to hear a diverse range of perspectives. Many thanks to all of the MPs who have gone out of their way to host town halls so that their constituents' perspectives could be included in the conversation. My parliamentary secretary and I have been hearing from Canadians as well. I look forward to the committee's report on December 1, and making a thoughtful decision then.
Berthold cites his constituency survey showing 85% of 700 respondents demanding a referendum, quotes a constituent calling it undemocratic to change the electoral system without one, and asks what the minister says to that citizen.
Berthold cites a specific local survey (700 respondents, 85% demanding a referendum) and quotes a constituent directly, making it a concrete ask about why that constituent will not be consulted by referendum.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans ma circonscription, on a fait une consultation et plus de 700 personnes ont rĂ©pondu Ă notre sondage. Quatre-vingt-cinq pour cent des gens qui ont rĂ©pondu exigent la tenue d'un rĂ©fĂ©rendum. Un des rĂ©pondants Ă notre sondage a Ă©crit: « Il est ridicule de croire qu'effectuer un changement dans l'Ă©lection de nos dĂ©putĂ©s sans rĂ©fĂ©rendum est dĂ©mocratique ». Cela vaut la peine de l'Ă©couter. Que rĂ©pond la ministre Ă ce citoyen qui demande Ă ĂȘtre consultĂ© par rĂ©fĂ©rendum sur la maniĂšre dont il choisit son reprĂ©sentant ici, au Parlement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, consultations were held in my riding and over 700 people responded to our survey. Some 85% of respondents want a referendum. One of the respondents to our survey wrote that âit is ridiculous to believe that changing how MPs are elected without a referendum is democraticâ. This is worth listening to. What is the minister's response to this individual who wants to be consulted by referendum on how he chooses his representative here in Parliament?
Monsef thanks the member for allowing constituents to participate in a survey and describes the all-party committee's mandate to study electoral reform and make recommendations, including on how to determine broad support for reforms.
Monsef thanks the member for the survey but pivots entirely to describing the all-party committee's mandate and process, not answering whether a referendum will be held or why the constituent's demand will or will not be met.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for allowing his constituents to be part of a survey. More important, I thank the majority of members in this House who brought their constituents together to hear from one another the diverse range of perspectives that are required to make a thoughtful decision about electoral reform. We have empowered a special all-party committee to study the subject, to hear from Canadians, and to come back to us on recommendations for alternates to first past the post, as well as a decision on how we determine whether or not reforms have the broad support of Canadians. I look forward to reviewing that report.
Bezan asks whether the defence minister finds it hypocritical that Liberals once demanded transparency on the fight against ISIS but are now hiding behind a curtain of secrecy during the battle for Mosul.
Bezan cites military commanders confirming increased danger and quotes a specific past statement by the Minister of Transport demanding transparency, creating a concrete hypocrisy challenge, but the ask ('does the defence minister find it hypocritical?') is more rhetorical than substantive.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the battle for Mosul is under way, but we have no idea what our Canadian troops are doing. Military commanders have confirmed that the mission has become much more dangerous, but they were muzzled from saying anything because of the Liberals' cone of silence. The Minister of Transport once stated, âIt is important for us to get as much information...on what possibly can happen and how this mission can evolveâ in Iraq. Does the defence minister find it hypocritical that the Liberals used to demand transparency on the fight against ISIS, but now are hiding behind a curtain of secrecy?
Sajjan confirms Canadian participation in planning for the Mosul operation and says operational security for troops, coalition partners, and civilians is foremost, and that information will be shared at the appropriate time.
Sajjan confirms Canadian involvement in planning and cites operational security as the reason for information restrictions, which partially addresses the transparency question, but does not engage with the cited past Liberal statement on transparency.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I agree there is a very important operation under way for the final defeat of ISIL in Mosul. We have been part of the planning. We have been part of the work for this. Now, when an operation is going on, I can say with absolute certainty that operational security for the force, and the protection of not only our troops but our coalition partners and the people who we are trying to assist, is foremost. When it is the appropriate time, we will be able to share that information. I have provided updates to the member opposite in my office as well.
Paul-Hus asks when the government will stop hiding the truth from Canadians and inform them about the work being done by the nearly 200 Canadian soldiers on the front line during the Mosul offensive.
Paul-Hus references nearly 200 Canadian soldiers on the front line and contrasts Canadian secrecy with U.S. transparency, making a pointed ask about when the government will stop hiding the truth, though the ask remains somewhat broad.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cette semaine, l'offensive pour la reprise de Mossoul aux mains du groupe Ătat islamique a dĂ©butĂ©. Nous aurions aimĂ© voir nos CF-18 soutenir l'assaut des peshmergas, fers de lance de cette offensive. PrĂšs de 200 soldats canadiens sont sur la ligne de front. Pour savoir ce qu'ils ont fait dans cette opĂ©ration, il faudra s'informer aux Ătats-Unis ou ailleurs oĂč le gouvernement est plus transparent. Quand le gouvernement va-t-il arrĂȘter de cacher la vĂ©ritĂ© aux Canadiens et les informer sur le travail fait par nos soldats?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the offensive to retake Mosul from ISIS began this week. We would have liked to see our CF-18s support the assault by the peshmerga, who are leading this offensive. Almost 200 Canadian soldiers are on the front lines. We will have to find out from the United States, which has a more transparent government, what their role was. When will the government stop hiding the truth from Canadians and inform them about the work our soldiers are doing?
Sajjan explains that the Canadian plan, developed with coalition partners, focused on training the right number of Iraqi security forces, and says the support, planning, and intelligence provided by Canadian troops is having a substantial impact.
Sajjan explains the rationale for the chosen approach (training Iraqi security forces rather than direct combat air support) and asserts substantial coalition impact, but does not directly address why Canadians cannot be informed of what soldiers are doing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what I can say is something that is also known in Mosul. There is a civilian population there. The plan that we took, in consultation with our coalition partners, was to look into training the right number of Iraqi security forces. That is exactly what we have done, and that is exactly what is needed right now. The support that our troops are providing, the plan that we have in place, the intelligence that we have provided is having a substantial impact for the coalition for the final defeat of ISIL. I am very proud of the work that our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces are doing in Iraq.
Duncan asks how many more projects will be approved before Canadians are given a voice on projects that impact them, citing the Liberals' embrace of what she calls Stephen Harper's woefully inadequate reduction targets and a broken promise on environmental assessment.
Duncan cites the adoption of what she calls Stephen Harper's woefully inadequate reduction targets and a broken promise on environmental assessment, and asks how many more projects will be approved before Canadians get a voice, but the ask is somewhat open-ended.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it has been a full year since Canadians voted out the Conservative government, which was a laggard on action on climate change. Canadians had high hopes for a new government, yet the Liberals are embracing what they once called Stephen Harper's woefully inadequate reduction targets. Canadians are just as troubled that the Liberal government has broken its promise for a new, fair environmental assessment process. How many more projects are going to be approved before Canadians are finally given a voice on the projects that impact them?
McKenna lists government environmental achievements including the Paris agreement, the clean tech climate change agreement with Mexico and the United States, ratification of the Paris agreement, a price on pollution, and says the environmental assessment process is being reformed.
McKenna lists a series of government environmental actions (Paris agreement, clean tech agreement with Mexico and the United States, price on pollution) but does not address the specific question about how many more projects will be approved or the environmental assessment reform timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to be standing here today representing the residents of Ottawa Centre a year after I was elected. We understand that the environment and the economy go together. We have worked extraordinarily hard this year to deliver on that promise. We have helped to negotiate an ambitious Paris agreement. We brought in the biggest budget in Canada's history. We are reforming our environmental assessment process. We entered into the historic clean tech climate change agreement with Mexico and the United States. We have ratified the Paris agreement. We put a price on pollution. We will keep on doing this because #realchange.
Cullen asks when the Prime Minister will bring the promised permanent oil tanker ban to reality, citing a spill of more than 200,000 litres of toxic diesel off B.C.'s central coast and First Nations leaders' criticism that the response has been too slow and too little.
Cullen cites a specific spill event (more than 200,000 litres of toxic diesel off B.C.'s central coast last Thursday), names specific impacted locations (Haida Gwaii, English Bay, Bella Bella), and quotes First Nations leaders' criticism, asking specifically when the promised permanent oil tanker ban will be brought to reality.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if only a hashtag did the trick. Last Thursday, a tanker barge spilled more than 200,000 litres of toxic diesel into the critical fishing areas off B.C.'s central coast. First nations leaders told me that the government's response has taken far too long, and done far too little to stop the devastation. In just one year, we have seen Haida Gwaii, English Bay, and now Bella Bella. Crossing our fingers and praying does not protect our environment. The Prime Minister promised to protect our beautiful B.C. coast with a permanent oil tanker ban. When is he actually going to finally bring that promise to reality?
Garneau says the government is committed to improving marine protection and will shortly bring forward a coastal strategy to improve marine safety, and says the government is responding to the incident as quickly as possible.
Garneau says the government is committed to a coastal strategy coming 'shortly' and acknowledges concern about the incident, but provides no timeline for the permanent oil tanker ban, no details on the current spill response, and no engagement with the First Nations leaders' criticism.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to improving marine protection, and taking measures with respect to marine safety. We have been very clear on the fact that we are coming forward, shortly, with a coastal strategy that will improve marine safety off our coasts. We are very concerned, obviously, about the incident. We are responding as quickly as possible. That is a good indication of why we need to improve marine safety. That is what we are going to do. Stay tuned.
Kent asks the foreign affairs minister to publicly declare how Canada will vote on Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba for UN Human Rights Council membership.
Names specific countries (Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba) and asks a clear, answerable question about how Canada will vote, though the framing mixes accountability with partisan inference about Security Council favour-trading.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Human Rights Council has been an embarrassment to democratic members of the world body for years. Again this year, a number of notorious human rights abusers, seeking membership, are asking for Canada's secret vote. It is clear the Liberals are working to curry favour for eventual Security Council votes Is it not time for the foreign affairs minister to stand and to declare publicly how Canada will vote on Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba?
Dion denies that Canada is seeking favours and describes general goals for the Security Council seat without addressing the voting question.
Dion denies the premise and pivots to general Security Council aspirations without addressing how Canada will vote on any of the named countries.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again that the premise of the question is wrong. We are not asking for favours for any vote. Never. That is not the way we work. The seat at the Security Council will be a tool for the goals we have for the world, for a world that will be more secure, more just, a world where we will have pacifism, and a world where we will have more equality between men and women. This is the world which we are working on, and the Security Council seat is a tool for that.
Kmiec asks why the Minister of Foreign Affairs is not helping Canadian citizen Davud Hanci, imprisoned in Turkey for three months without legal counsel.
Names a specific Canadian citizen (Davud Hanci), cites three months of detention without legal counsel, and asks for an explanation of consular action, though the question is weakened by an appended partisan attack.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Davud Hanci has been imprisoned in Turkey for three months now, without any access to legal counsel, and denied virtually any opportunity to communicate with his wife and children. As a Canadian citizen, he deserves the support and assistance of the Canadian government, especially with numerous reports of human rights abuses occurring in Turkish prisons. Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain why he is focused on cozying up to dictators in China, Russia, and Iran, instead of helping Canadians like Davud Hanci?
Alghabra states the government has contacted the Turkish government at the highest levels, met with the Turkish parliamentary delegation, and met with Hanci's wife last week to assure her of the government's commitment.
Alghabra directly addresses Hanci's case, confirms contact at the highest levels with Turkey, a meeting with the Turkish parliamentary delegation, and a personal meeting with Hanci's wife last week.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government has been in contact with the Turkish government at the highest levels, advocating for two citizens who are detained in Turkey. I met this past summer with the parliamentary Turkish delegation. I met with Mr. Hanci's wife just last week to assure her that our government is highly committed to the well-being of her husband and all citizens abroad.
Kent asks whether the minister is aware of Turkish government officials and agents in Canada intimidating the GĂŒlen community, and what is being done about it.
Raises a specific and serious allegation â Turkish government agents operating in Canadian mosques and commercial establishments to characterize GĂŒlenists as enemies and intimidate the community â and asks whether the minister is aware and what he is doing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable behaviour by a fellow NATO ally. At the same time, Canadians of Turkish origin are reporting unacceptable diplomatic behaviour by officials and agents of the Turkish government in Canada. In Canadian mosques and commercial establishments, we are told adherents of the GĂŒlen philosophical movement are being characterized as enemies of Turkey, and members of the broader community in Canada intimidated into avoiding, isolating, and informing on GĂŒlenists. Is the minister aware of such unacceptable diplomatic behaviour, and what is he doing about it?
Dion says Canada strongly protects the rights of all Canadians and that Canada has told Turkey it has no evidence and should not create problems for these people.
Dion affirms Canada protects all Canadians' rights and says Canada told Turkey it has no evidence and should not create problems for these people, but does not describe concrete actions taken against the diplomatic behaviour in Canada.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government strongly protects the rights of all Canadians in Canada. Any government that tries to infringe on these rights would be wrong to do it, and we would tell that to any government. On this specific case, we have told the government of Turkey that it has no evidence, and it should not create any problems for these people.
Zahid asks the Minister of Small Business and Tourism how the government is helping small and medium-sized businesses during Small Business Week.
A government-backbench softball setup marking the 37th anniversary of Small Business Week with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 37th anniversary of Small Business Week to recognize the hard work, talent, ambition, and determination of Canada's small business owners and entrepreneurs. Small Business Week is also an opportunity for small business owners and entrepreneurs to participate in events across the country to learn, network, and share ideas about making their businesses as innovative, export-ready, and successful as possible. Could the Minister of Small Business and Tourism tell us how our government is helping small and medium-sized businesses in Canada?
Chagger highlights investments in CanExport and the industrial research assistance program to support innovation and skills development, including for young, indigenous, and women entrepreneurs.
Chagger names specific programs â CanExport and the industrial research assistance program â and identifies targeted groups including young, indigenous, and women entrepreneurs, providing some real informational content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, small businesses should be celebrated every day. They create jobs. They support local communities. They are the supply chain of larger companies in Canada and around the globe. Our government recognizes the importance of small businesses. That is why we are making investments in programs like CanExport, and the industrial research assistance program to support innovation and skills development of all businesses, including young entrepreneurs, indigenous entrepreneurs, and women entrepreneurs.
Warkentin asks what the Minister of Finance discussed with Jim Spatz â specifically whether Halifax developments or the port were discussed â at the meeting for which Spatz paid $1,500.
Cites a specific financial transaction ($1,500), a named individual (Jim Spatz), a specific appointment (Halifax Port Authority), and asks a pointed question about what was discussed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just minutes ago the transport minister admitted that he did appoint Jim Spatz to the Halifax Port Authority. It was Mr. Spatz from whom the Minister of Finance took $1,500 to meet at Mr. Spatz's business partner's home. We want to know what exactly the Minister of Finance said to Mr. Spatz. Was anything discussed in relationship to developments in Halifax or at the port?
Garneau lists Spatz's credentials as Atlantic Canada's top CEO of 2015 and former chair of Dalhousie University's board, and describes the port's 260 acres of land without addressing what was discussed.
Garneau lists Spatz's credentials and the port's land holdings without addressing whether anything related to Halifax developments or the port was discussed at the meeting financed by the $1,500 payment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me say a few other things about Mr. Jim Spatz. Jim Spatz is the 2015 recipient of Atlantic Canada's top CEO of the year, and he recently concluded a five-year term as chair of the board of governors at Dalhousie University. As one of the region's leading real estate developers, Mr. Spatz brings a depth of experience and judgment to a board that manages 260 acres of land in the Halifax region. Achieving the highest and best use of port assets is crucial to maximizing the value ofâ
Boulerice asks where Liberal Quebec MPs are when it comes to defending Quebec's interests on forestry, dairy, Bombardier, Aveos, and health cuts.
Boulerice combines a broad list of grievances (forestry, dairy, Bombardier, Aveos, health cuts) into a rhetorical demand for where Liberal Quebec MPs are, with no single answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aprĂšs un an, les dĂ©putĂ©s libĂ©raux sont bien silencieux en ce qui concerne la dĂ©fense des intĂ©rĂȘts du QuĂ©bec. Pas un mot pour les emplois de l'industrie forestiĂšre, qui est au bord d'une guerre commerciale; rien pour les producteurs laitiers. Ils n'ont pas levĂ© le petit doigt pour les jobs de Bombardier, et ils ont trahi les employĂ©s d'Aveos. De plus, c'est silence radio sur les coupes en santĂ©. Or le QuĂ©bec mĂ©rite des dĂ©putĂ©s qui se font entendre, et non une gang qui dort au gaz. Qu'on lance une enquĂȘte! On a perdu les dĂ©putĂ©s libĂ©raux du QuĂ©bec...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it has been one year, and Liberal MPs have kept very quiet when it comes to defending Quebec's interests. They have not said one word about jobs in the forestry industry, which is headed for a trade war, and nothing on behalf of dairy producers. They did not lift a finger for Bombardier jobs, and they betrayed Aveos employees. What is more, they are saying absolutely nothing about the health cuts. Quebec deserves MPs who make themselves heard, not a bunch of members who are asleep at the switch. There should be an inquiry. Quebec's Liberal MPs have gone missingâ
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il est clair qu'aprĂšs un an de gouvernement libĂ©ral, les promesses sont brisĂ©es, encore une fois. On a le mĂȘme programme que le Parti conservateur, on a le mĂȘme programme que le gouvernement prĂ©cĂ©dent. OĂč sont les dĂ©putĂ©s quĂ©bĂ©cois libĂ©raux pour dĂ©fendre nos concitoyens, nos jobs, nos rĂ©gions et l'Ă©conomie? OĂč se cachent les dĂ©putĂ©s libĂ©raux du QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, after a year under a Liberal government, promises are once again being broken. The Liberals have the same agenda as the Conservative Party, the same agenda as the previous government. Where are the Liberal members from Quebec? Why are they not standing up for our citizens, our jobs, our regions, and the economy? Where are the Liberal members from Quebec hiding?
Garneau says 40 Liberal MPs from Quebec, including the Prime Minister and six ministers, are present to look after Quebec's interests.
Garneau responds by citing the number of Quebec Liberal MPs (40, including the Prime Minister and six ministers) but does not address any of the specific policy grievances raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, mon collĂšgue est certainement passionnĂ©, mais je suis moi aussi trĂšs passionnĂ©. Nous sommes fiers du fait que 40 dĂ©putĂ©s Ă la Chambre, dont le premier ministre, six ministres du gouvernement et 33 dĂ©putĂ©s qui reprĂ©sentent avec fiertĂ© leur circonscription, sont ici pour s'occuper des intĂ©rĂȘts du QuĂ©bec. Nous en sommes trĂšs fiers.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is certainly very passionate, but so am I. We are proud of the fact that 40 members of the House, including the Prime Minister, six government ministers, and 33 MPs who proudly represent their ridings, are here to defend Quebec's interests. We are very proud of that.
Arseneault asks the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking on the potential collision risks between drones and aircraft near airports.
A government-backbench setup referencing drones and airport safety in the member's own riding with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, from the marketplace to Canadian homes, drones are becoming more important and prevalent. Cela peut causer des risques Ă la sĂ©curitĂ© qui doivent ĂȘtre considĂ©rĂ©s. Ma circonscription, MadawaskaâRestigouche, compte dĂ©jĂ plusieurs aĂ©roports. Au cours des derniers mois, le ministre des Transports a sensibilisĂ© la population aux risques potentiels de collision entre les drones et les aĂ©ronefs, notamment Ă proximitĂ© des aĂ©roports. Could the Minister of Transport please inform the House the steps he is taking on this matter?
Garneau says the government is showing leadership on drone regulation, classification, marking, and registration, with announcements to come in the months ahead.
Garneau mentions leadership on regulation, classification, marking, and registration of drones but promises only that there will be announcements in the months to come, providing limited concrete information.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie mon collĂšgue de MadawaskaâRestigouche de cette trĂšs bonne question. This government is committed to the safe and secure operation of this new technology as more and more drones are taking to the skies. Nous nous impliquons entiĂšrement et faisons preuve du leadership nĂ©cessaire en ce qui a trait Ă la rĂ©glementation et aux diffĂ©rentes classifications des drones, ainsi qu'au systĂšme de marquage et au processus d'enregistrement de ces drones. Nous aurons des choses Ă dire dans les mois Ă venir.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from MadawaskaâRestigouche for that excellent question. Le gouvernement est dĂ©terminĂ© Ă assurer l'utilisation sĂ»re et sĂ©curitaire de cette nouvelle technologie, Ă©tant donnĂ© que de plus en plus de drones sont envoyĂ©s dans les airs. We are staying on top of this issue and providing the necessary leadership with regard to the regulation, classification, marking, and registration of drones. We will have more to say about this in the coming months.
Sorenson asks whether the Liberals will take further measures to restrict illicit access to fentanyl and increase punishments for trafficking offences involving street drugs laced with deadly drugs like fentanyl.
References the fentanyl conference in Alberta and a public health crisis with some factual grounding, but the ask is compound â both making it harder for dealers to access fentanyl and increasing trafficking punishments â and leans partly on rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at the fentanyl conference in Alberta, authorities confirmed that they are not even close when it comes to confronting deadly fentanyl abuse. While opioid addiction is not new, street drugs laced with fentanyl have led to a public health crisis. Even though the government took some measures this summer, it is not enough, not even close. Will the Liberals take further measures to make it more difficult for illicit drug dealers to get their hands on fentanyl, and increase the punishment for trafficking offences involving street drugs laced with deadly drugs like fentanyl?
Philpott cites a federal action plan, discussions with provincial health ministers, and steps already taken to list precursors to fentanyl to prevent importation, committing to take all necessary steps.
Philpott references a federal action plan, mentions discussions with provincial ministers of health, and cites the specific step of listing precursors to fentanyl to stop importation, but does not address the ask about increased trafficking punishments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for bringing up this very important topic. This was actually something I discussed yesterday with my colleagues, the other ministers of health. The opioid crisis is very serious. It requires a comprehensive response, and in fact, we have already begun with a federal action plan. A number of provinces have taken great leadership roles in addressing this. I will be working along with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, to address the very matter of illicit fentanyl. We have already taken steps to list some of the precursors to fentanyl to not allow them to continue to be imported into the country. We will take all necessary steps to address the crisis.
May asks the Prime Minister to investigate whether three federal departments colluded with Petronas to suppress science and mislead ministers about the threat to Flora Bank and Lelu Island, and whether permits were obtained by fraud.
May makes a specific and serious allegation â that three federal departments colluded with Petronas to suppress science and mislead ministers regarding Flora Bank and Lelu Island â and asks for an investigation into whether permits were obtained by fraud.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am aware what I am alleging is indeed shocking, but it appears that three federal government departments colluded with Petronas, the proponent, in order to suppress science and mislead ministers. The threat to the Skeena salmon is real, but the ministers were given a report that cooked the books. Will the Prime Minister investigate the integrity of the advice given about the threat to Flora Bank and Lelu Island? Were these permits obtained by fraud?
McKenna defends the project's rigorous environmental assessment, cites 190 conditions and a first-ever environmental monitoring committee including indigenous peoples, but does not address the allegation of collusion or fraud.
McKenna defends the environmental assessment process, cites 190 conditions and an indigenous-inclusive monitoring committee, but does not address the specific allegation of collusion, suppression of science, or the question of whether permits were obtained by fraud.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has emphasized, the only way to get resources to market is to do it in a sustainable and responsible way. The project that the member opposite is discussing was subject to rigorous environmental assessment over a number of years. We delayed decision on the project to obtain more information from the proponent. The project is subject to 190 conditions. We have the first ever environmental monitoring committee that includes indigenous people as well as the provincial and federal governments. I am very proud that we made this decision. This is a very significant decision, and it shows that we understand that the environment and economy go together.