Session overview
- Taxation dominated Question Period, with multiple CPC members pressing the Prime Minister to abandon the escalator tax on beer, wine, and spirits after the Senate finance committee voted to repeal it; the Prime Minister deflected each time by citing the middle-class tax cut and the increase on the wealthiest 1%.
- National security legislation was challenged by Andrew Scheer, who cited former CSIS director Ward Elcock's warning that the bill would make it harder for the agency to analyze potential terrorism threats; the Prime Minister said he was open to amendments but gave no specifics.
- On National Indigenous Peoples Day, the Prime Minister announced that the Langevin Block name would be removed and that the former U.S. embassy would be converted to a space dedicated to and for first nations, Inuit, and MĂ©tis peoples, marking one of the session's few concrete policy announcements.
- The Norsat-Hytera Communications and Anbang Insurance foreign investment files drew repeated CPC questions about national security and seniors care; the Prime Minister maintained that national security agencies, including consultation with the United States, had assessed and cleared the Norsat deal.
- Multiple questioners â Andrew Scheer, Thomas Mulcair, and Elizabeth May â pressed the government on its rejection of the Canadian autism partnership; the Prime Minister cited $39 million invested in autism research over five years but made no commitment to the partnership itself.
- Three consecutive CPC members asked the Prime Minister to name the year he will balance the budget; he gave no year in any of the three responses, instead citing infrastructure investments, the Canada child benefit, and student loan relief.
The Prime Minister made two specific, concrete commitments: removing the Langevin name from the Langevin Block, and converting the former U.S. embassy into a space dedicated to and for first nations, Inuit, and MĂ©tis peoples.
Cites specific facts â two Privy Council employees providing 'comprehensive audio and visual technical support,' partisan by-election events in a named riding, and the Liberal Party's refusal to reimburse the full cost â and asks what government business was conducted.
Asked directly whether he would abandon the escalator tax on beer, wine, and spirits, the Prime Minister ignored the question entirely and instead used his response to pivot to the price on carbon and climate change, without addressing the escalator tax at all.
Outstanding questions
- In what specific year will the Prime Minister balance the budget? â asked by Mr. Ron Liepert, Mr. Jacques Gourde, Ms. Rachael Harder, and Ms. Marilyn Gladu; never answered.
- Will the Prime Minister specifically restore the proactive disruption authority for national security agencies in the national security legislation? â asked by Mr. Andrew Scheer; not answered.
- If Anbang Insurance dissolves, who will gain control of the B.C. seniors care facilities, and could seniors' landlord effectively become the People's Republic of China? â asked by Mr. Mark Strahl and Mrs. Cathy McLeod; not answered.
- Will the Prime Minister abandon the escalator tax on beer, wine, and spirits in light of the Senate finance committee's recommendation to repeal it? â asked repeatedly by Mr. Andrew Scheer, Mr. GĂ©rard Deltell, Mrs. Shannon Stubbs, and Mr. John Barlow; never directly answered.
- Will the Prime Minister support the Canadian autism partnership? â asked by Mr. Andrew Scheer, Thomas Mulcair, and Ms. Elizabeth May; no commitment made.
Will the Prime Minister listen to experts like former CSIS director Ward Elcock, who says the legislation will make it harder for the agency to analyze potential terrorism threats, and improve the bill?
Cites a named expert (Ward Elcock, former SCRS director) and a specific concern about the legislation, with a clear ask about whether the PM will listen to experts and improve the bill.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, des experts de la sĂ©curitĂ© nationale se disent prĂ©occupĂ©s par les efforts du premier ministre pour affaiblir nos lois sur la sĂ©curitĂ© nationale et crĂ©er plus d'obstacles pour nos organismes d'application de la loi. L'ancien directeur du Service canadien du renseignement de sĂ©curitĂ©, le SCRS, Ward Elcock, a dit qu'en raison de cette mesure lĂ©gislative il sera plus difficile pour l'agence d'analyser les menaces potentielles de terrorisme. Le premier ministre est-il prĂȘt Ă Ă©couter les conseils des experts et Ă amĂ©liorer son projet de loi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, national security experts are concerned about the Prime Minister's efforts to weaken our national security legislation and to put obstacles in the way of our law enforcement agencies. The former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, Ward Elcock, said that this legislation will make it more difficult for the agency to analyze potential threats of terrorism. Is the Prime Minister prepared to listen to expert advice and to improve his bill?
The PM says the government is open to suggestions and amendments, emphasizing the importance of balancing security with rights and freedoms, and invites opposition participation.
The PM expresses general openness to amendments and balance but does not address Ward Elcock's specific criticism or commit to any particular improvement.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous sommes trĂšs ouverts aux suggestions, aux amendements et aux amĂ©liorations liĂ©s Ă la sĂ©curitĂ© nationale. Nous comprenons Ă quel point l'Ă©quilibre est dĂ©licat et important, en plus d'ĂȘtre essentiel pour les Canadiens. Nous nous devons de protĂ©ger la sĂ©curitĂ© des individus, des communautĂ©s et des familles, tout en protĂ©geant les droits et libertĂ©s des Canadiens. C'est ce que nous veillerons toujours Ă faire. J'encourage les dĂ©putĂ©s d'en face Ă participer pleinement au processus d'Ă©valuation de ce projet de loi.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are very open to suggestions, amendments, and improvements to national security. We appreciate just how delicate and important it is to strike a balance, and how this balance is essential for Canadians. We have a duty to protect the security of individuals, communities, and families while also protecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians. This is what we will always be sure to do. I encourage the members opposite to participate fully in the process for reviewing this bill.
Will the Prime Minister specifically be open to restoring the proactive ability for national security agencies to disrupt terrorist threats, given that minutes matter?
Builds on the prior exchange with a specific ask about restoring proactive disruption capabilities for national security agencies, grounded in the context of weekly European terrorist attacks.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Prime Minister's indication that he is open to amendments. Many of the national security experts are raising the alarm over a specific attempt to water down some of these national security laws. Several of our European allies are now dealing with the threat of terrorism literally on a weekly basis. The fact is that Canada is not, and will not, be immune to this threat. Will the Prime Minister specifically be open to restoring the proactive ability for our national security agencies to disrupt terrorist threats, when mere minutes matter?
The PM speaks generally about keeping Canadians safe while respecting rights and freedoms, and looks forward to robust discussions with all parties, without addressing the specific disruption-capability ask.
The PM does not address the specific ask about restoring proactive disruption capabilities, instead offering general remarks about balancing safety and rights and promising future discussion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, no one in the House takes lightly the responsibility we all share, particularly on the government side, to keep Canadians safe in their homes, in their communities, and when they travel. We are very much focused on that, while at the same time understanding that Canadians expect and deserve to be reassured that their rights and freedoms will also be respected. Getting that balance right is extraordinarily important. I look forward to robust discussions with all parties in the House, all members in the House, hearing from experts, as we move forward on getting that balance right, which is keeping Canadians safe and protecting their rights.
Will the Prime Minister listen to his own Liberal-majority Senate and cancel the escalator tax on beer and wine, which will increase every year indefinitely?
References yesterday's Senate vote and identifies a specific tax (the escalator tax on beer and wine) with the concrete ask of whether the PM will cancel it, though framing is partly partisan.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, tout le monde demande au premier ministre d'arrĂȘter d'augmenter les taxes et les impĂŽts des Canadiens. Hier, c'Ă©tait le SĂ©nat, Ă majoritĂ© libĂ©rale, qui lui a fait comprendre qu'il n'appuie pas sa nouvelle taxe escalier sur la biĂšre et le vin, avec raison. La taxe va augmenter chaque annĂ©e, indĂ©finiment. Le premier ministre va-t-il Ă©couter ses sĂ©nateurs libĂ©raux et annuler les hausses fiscales qui nuisent aux gens qu'il prĂ©tend aider?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, everyone is asking the Prime Minister to stop raising Canadians' taxes. Yesterday, the Senate, which has a Liberal majority, made it clear that it does not support the government's new escalator tax on beer and wine, and rightly so. The tax will continue to increase every year for an indefinite period. Will the Prime Minister listen to his Liberal senators and cancel the tax hikes that are hurting the people he claims to be helping?
The PM touts the middle-class tax cut and the increase on the wealthiest 1%, criticizing the opposition for voting against it, without mentioning the escalator tax or the Senate vote.
The PM pivots entirely to the middle-class tax cut and the wealthiest 1% narrative, never addressing the escalator tax on beer and wine or the Senate's position.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la premiÚre chose que nous avons faite lorsque nous avons été élus a été de baisser les impÎts de la classe moyenne et de les augmenter pour le 1 % le mieux nanti. C'est un engagement que nous avions pris lors de la campagne électorale, et c'est une des premiÚres mesures que nous avons adoptées. Malheureusement, les députés d'en face ont voté contre la hausse des taxes pour le 1 % le mieux nanti et contre la baisse des taxes de la classe moyenne. Nous chercherons toujours à abaisser les taxes de la classe moyenne, parce que c'est ainsi que nous créerons un pays fort.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the first thing that we did when we were elected was to lower taxes for the middle class and increase them for the wealthiest 1%. We promised to do that during the election campaign, and it was one of the first measures that we implemented. Unfortunately, the members opposite voted against the tax hike for the wealthiest 1% and against lowering taxes for the middle class. We are always trying to lower taxes for the middle class because that is how we will build a strong country.
Given taxes on beer and wine, bus passes and carpooling, new user fees, and a carbon tax outlined in the government's own budget, when will the Prime Minister stop attacking the middle-class families he claims to be helping?
Lists specific taxes from the government's own budget (beer and wine, bus passes and carpooling, user fees, carbon tax) and challenges the PM to stop attacking the middle class, though the final ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if he is looking for ways to cut taxes for the middle class, he could abandon his new tax hikes. He keeps saying things that are not true. He should read his own budget: taxes on beer and wine, taxes on bus passes and carpooling, new user fees for essential government services, a carbon tax. These are not taxes on the 1%; these are taxes on hard-working middle-class families. When will the Prime Minister stop attacking the very people he claims to be helping?
The PM repeats that he lowered taxes on the middle class and raised them on the wealthiest 1% in the first week of Parliament, and accuses Conservatives of giving boutique tax cuts to the wealthy for 10 years.
The PM repeats the middle-class tax cut and wealthiest 1% talking points and attacks the Conservative record, completely ignoring the specific taxes enumerated in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in our very first week in this Parliament, we lowered taxes for the middle class and raised them on the wealthiest 1%. It was a campaign commitment. It was something we promised to do, and we delivered in our first week. Unfortunately, the party opposite chose to vote against lowering taxes on the middle class and raising them on the wealthiest 1%. For 10 years, the Conservatives gave boutique tax cuts and advantages to the wealthiest alone. We are focused on lowering taxes for the middle class, and we will stay focused on that.
The opposition leader sarcastically asks on what page of the Liberal platform one can find references to ethics investigations, selling assets to Communist China, dangerous criminals going free, out-of-control spending, new tax hikes, lavish vacations, and partisan appointments.
Lists a broad litany of grievances with no single answerable question, asking sarcastically on what page of the platform these issues appearâessentially a rhetorical speech.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there have been unprecedented multiple investigations into his unethical behaviour, selling off of strategic Canadian assets to Communist China, dangerous criminals going free because of judicial delays, out-of-control spending, new tax hikes on the middle class, lavish vacations, moving expenses paid for by the taxpayer, and a litany of partisan appointments to non-partisan, independent offices. The Liberals campaigned on a lot of things, but could the Prime Minister tell me on what page of his platform I can find a list of all the things I just mentioned?
The PM says the government delivered on its platform of growth for the middle class, citing the middle-class tax cut, the Canada child benefit, infrastructure investments, social housing, child care, and seniors.
The PM recites platform achievements (middle-class tax cut, Canada child benefit, infrastructure) without engaging with any of the specific allegations raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we campaigned on a platform of growth for the middle class and support for those working hard to join it. On that, as the member will see as he looks through those pages, we delivered. We lowered taxes on the middle class and raised them on the wealthiest 1%. We delivered a Canada child benefit that gives more money to nine out 10 Canadian families and will lift hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty. We have made massive investments in infrastructure so Canadians can get to and from work on time, investments in social housing, investments in child care, and investments in our seniors. That is what weâ
How can the Prime Minister be proud of fighting first nations kids in court, failing to end boil water advisories, and betraying his commitment to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?
Cites three specific broken commitmentsâfighting first nations kids in court, boil water advisories, and implementing UNDRIPâwith a clear accountability question about pride in that record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister used to attack Stephen Harper for taking indigenous people to court, but he is contemptuously picking up exactly where Harper left off, fighting first nations kids in court. The Prime Minister used to say that with a Liberal government, boil water advisories would be a thing of the past, but that has not happened either. He once said that we must implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into law, but then he betrayed that commitment as well. How can he be proud of that record?
The PM marks National Indigenous Peoples Day, says 20 long-term boil water advisories have been ended with a commitment to end all by 2021, and mentions new and refurbished schools, acknowledging more remains to be done.
The PM acknowledges boil water advisories and cites 20 ended and a 2021 commitment, and mentions schools, but does not address the court fights against first nations kids or the UNDRIP betrayal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this occasion to wish everyone in this House a happy National Indigenous Peoples Day, the day we celebrate today. We recognize that the partnership with indigenous peoples, the spirit of true reconciliation, and the hard work we have to do together continues. We have ended 20 long-term boil water advisories, but we know full well there is much more to do. We are committed to ending all boil water advisories by 2021. We are opening new schools and refurbishing older schools so that first nation communities' children can get a good education. However, there is much more to do. We recognize there is moreâ
Given broken promises on democratic reform and access to information, how can Canadians believe the Prime Minister when he speaks of principles and values?
Raises democratic reform and access to information as broken commitments with a clear trust-based question, but the ask ('how can we believe you') is more rhetorical than specific.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, durant la campagne Ă©lectorale, le premier ministre prĂ©tendait qu'il Ă©tait un champion de la rĂ©forme dĂ©mocratique, mais cela, c'Ă©tait avant qu'il forme un gouvernement majoritaire avec seulement 39 % des voix. Le premier ministre prĂ©tendait aussi qu'il Ă©tait un dĂ©fenseur de l'accĂšs Ă l'information â j'y ai cru moi-mĂȘme â, mais cela c'Ă©tait avant que son gouvernement trouve tous les avantages Ă cacher de l'information au public et aux journalistes. Comment peut-on croire ce premier ministre lorsqu'il parle de principes et de valeurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister claimed to be a champion of democratic reform, but that was before he won a majority government with only 39% of the votes. The Prime Minister also claimed to be an access-to-information advocateâeven I believed himâbut that was before his government discovered all the benefits of hiding information from the public and the media. How can we believe this Prime Minister when he talks about principles and values?
The PM cites the Liberal Party's 2013 proactive disclosure of parliamentarians' expenses as evidence of leadership on openness and transparency, and criticizes the NDP for not following suit.
The PM pivots to proactive disclosure of parliamentary expenses in 2013 and attacks the NDP's transparency record, not addressing broken promises on democratic reform or access to information.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en tant que gouvernement, mais aussi en tant que parti politique, nous avons pris les devants en ouverture et en transparence. Nous avons amené la divulgation proactive des dépenses des parlementaires en 2013, quand nous étions un tiers parti. Je dois reconnaßtre que les conservateurs ont suivi rapidement. Le NPD n'a jamais été intéressé par cela. Il n'a pas voulu démontrer le leadership et l'ouverture que les Canadiens attendent de tous ces partis. Nous continuons de démontrer l'ouverture, la transparence et la responsabilité que les Canadiens attendent de notre gouvernement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as a government and as a political party, we have played a leadership role in openness and transparency. We introduced the proactive disclosure of parliamentarians' expenses in 2013 when we were a third party. I must admit that the Conservatives quickly followed suit. The NDP was never interested in proactive disclosure. It did not want to demonstrate the leadership and openness that Canadians expect from all parties. We continue to demonstrate the openness, transparency, and accountability that Canadians expect from our government.
Where did the Prime Minister find the mandate to impose tolls and fees on the middle class through the Infrastructure Bank, to generate profits for wealthy private investors, when this was hidden during the election campaign?
Identifies a specific policy concernâthe Infrastructure Bank imposing tolls and fees to generate private profitsâand asks where the mandate for these costs to the middle class was found in the election campaign.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre rĂ©pĂšte sans cesse qu'il aide la classe moyenne, mais sa Banque de l'infrastructure imposera des pĂ©ages et des frais Ă la classe moyenne. Pourquoi? Ce sera pour que des entreprises privĂ©es puissent faire des profits avec de l'infrastructure publique. La prioritĂ© du gouvernement devrait ĂȘtre l'ajout de ponts et de routes et non pas l'ajout de profits pour les riches investisseurs. Alors oĂč le premier ministre est-il allĂ© chercher le mandat pour imposer ces coĂ»ts Ă la classe moyenne aprĂšs avoir cachĂ© tout cela pendant la campagne Ă©lectorale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says over and over again that he is helping the middle class, but his infrastructure bank will impose tolls and fees on the middle class. Why? This will be so private companies can make money from public infrastructure. The governmentâs priority should be to add bridges and roads, not add profits for wealthy investors. Where did the Prime Minister get the mandate to pass these costs on to the middle class, after hiding it all during the election campaign?
The PM says the Infrastructure Bank was clearly in the Liberal platform, lists middle-class infrastructure needs, and cites $180 billion in infrastructure over 10 years, contrasting it with the Conservatives' need to balance the budget.
The PM asserts the Infrastructure Bank was clearly in the platform and lists infrastructure needs of the middle class and the $180 billion figure, but does not address the specific allegation about tolls, fees, and private profit.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au contraire, il était écrit trÚs clairement dans notre plateforme électorale que nous allions créer une banque de l'infrastructure qui constitue justement un ajout et une innovation dans notre désir de livrer les infrastructures nécessaires pour la classe moyenne. La classe moyenne a besoin de transports collectifs fiables. La classe moyenne a besoin de logements abordables. La classe moyenne a besoin de l'aide et des investissements dans les routes et les ponts historiques que nous sommes en train de réaliser, qui représente 180 milliards de dollars en infrastructures sur 10 ans, ce que l'autre parti ne pouvait pas offrir parce qu'il devait équilibrer le budget.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, quite the opposite, it was very clearly written in our election platform that we were going to create an infrastructure bank that is indeed adding value and innovation to our efforts to deliver the necessary infrastructure for the middle class. The middle class needs reliable public transit. The middle class needs affordable housing. The middle class needs help and investment in roads and historic bridges, which we are currently working on, representing $180 billion in infrastructure over 10 years, something the other party could not offer because they had to balance the budget.
Does the Prime Minister understand the problem with exchanging access to government for payments to his political party, given that he has been illegally lobbied during cash-for-access events?
Raises the specific issue of illegal lobbying during cash-for-access events and asks a pointed question about whether the PM understands the problem with exchanging government access for political party payments, explicitly asking to skip the talking points.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to believe that because the Liberals got 40% of the vote, it is okay if they only keep 40% of their promises. It is not okay. The Prime Minister has been illegally lobbied during his cash-for-access events, and instead of ending this scheme, he tries to attack the opposition. My question for the Prime Minister is, does he understand the problem with exchanging access to governmentâthat is right, governmentâwith payments to the government's political party? Please spare us the strongest-laws-in-Canada talking point for once.
The PM says the government follows strong rules, has opened fundraisers to public places and media, and challenges the opposition to be equally transparent about their donors and fundraising events.
The PM invokes Canada's strong rules, touts opening fundraisers to the public and media, and challenges the opposition on transparency, but does not engage with the specific illegal lobbying allegation or demonstrate understanding of the conflict-of-interest concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect any government and any political party to follow the strong rules we have in place, and that is exactly what we are doing. More than that, we decided, as we often do on this side of the House, to raise the bar on transparency and openness, which is why we are opening up our fundraisers, making sure that they happen in public places and that the media get to come and see what we are doing. The fact is we encourage and exhort the members opposite to have the same level of transparency with Canadians in regard to their donors and their fundraising events as we have.
Given the Senate finance committee vote, will the Prime Minister do what must be done and refuse the escalator tax on alcohol, which rises automatically year after year without any parliamentary vote?
References yesterday's Senate vote and identifies the escalator tax on alcohol with the specific concern that it rises automatically without any vote, with a clear ask to refuse the tax.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, avec le vote qui a lieu hier soir au SĂ©nat, le premier ministre a une chance en or de mettre de cĂŽtĂ© une de ses nombreuses mauvaises dĂ©cisions. On sait que ce gouvernement est un spĂ©cialiste des taxes et des nouvelles taxes, mais le premier ministre a quand mĂȘme innovĂ© en crĂ©ant la taxe ascenseur sur l'alcool. C'est une mauvaise idĂ©e, parce que la taxe va augmenter automatiquement annĂ©e aprĂšs annĂ©e, sans quelque vote que ce soit. Le premier ministre va-t-il faire ce qui doit ĂȘtre fait et refuser cette taxe-lĂ ?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a vote in the Senate last night gave the Prime Minister a golden opportunity to sideline one of his many bad decisions. We know that this government's specialty is taxes and more taxes, but the Prime Minister got really creative with this one: an escalator tax on alcohol. This is a bad idea because the tax will go up automatically every year without a vote. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and axe this tax?
The PM thanks the member for acknowledging Liberal tax expertise and recites the middle-class tax cut and increase on the wealthiest 1%, criticizing the opposition for voting against it.
The PM makes a joke about the member acknowledging Liberal tax expertise and pivots entirely to the middle-class tax cut and wealthiest 1% narrative, ignoring the escalator tax and Senate vote entirely.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie le député de Louis-Saint-Laurent d'avoir reconnu notre expertise en matiÚre de taxes, parce que nous avons baissé les impÎts pour la classe moyenne et nous les avons augmentés pour le 1 % le mieux nanti. Nous croyons profondément qu'il faut d'aider les Canadiens de la classe moyenne en mettant un peu plus d'argent dans leurs poches. C'est bien pour l'économie en général. C'est seulement dommage que ce député et son parti aient voté contre la baisse des taxes pour la classe moyenne et l'augmentation des taxes pour le 1 % le mieux nanti.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for acknowledging our expertise when it comes to taxes. We lowered taxes on the middle class and raised them on the wealthiest 1%. We strongly believe that it is important to help middle-class Canadians by putting a little more money back in their pockets. It is good for the whole economy. It is just a shame that the member and his party voted against lowering taxes on the middle class and raising them on the wealthiest 1%.
Why does the government maintain the escalator tax on alcohol that will rise year after year without Parliament having any say, given the other tax hikes and elimination of tax credits?
Lists specific tax measures (alcohol, tobacco, new taxes, abolition of transit tax credit) and asks why the government maintains the escalator tax that rises without Parliament having any say.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, augmenter la taxe sur l'alcool, augmenter la taxe sur le tabac, créer de nouveaux impÎts pour les citoyens, mettre de cÎté les crédits d'impÎt que notre gouvernement avait faits et abolir le crédit d'impÎt concernant le transport en commun; voilà l'héritage du gouvernement libéral. Alors, oui, nous sommes du cÎté de la classe moyenne et des travailleurs. Pourquoi le gouvernement maintient-il cette taxe ascenseur, qui va augmenter année aprÚs année sans que le Parlement n'ait quoi que ce soit à dire? Le premier ministre va-t-il faire ce qu'il doit faire, c'est-à -dire mettre de cÎté la taxe ascenseur? Les Canadiens le réclament.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, raising taxes on alcohol, raising taxes on tobacco, creating new taxes for Canadians, eliminating tax credits that our government had created, and cancelling the public transit tax credit, that is the legacy of this Liberal government, so yes, we are standing up for the middle class and workers. Why is the government maintaining this escalator tax, which will increase year over year, with Parliament having absolutely no say in the matter? Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and forget about the escalator tax? That is what Canadians want.
The PM says the Conservatives failed to help the middle class during their 10 years in power and instead gave advantages to the wealthy, so the Liberal government invested in the middle class and infrastructure.
The PM attacks the Conservative record over 10 years and speaks of investing in the middle class and infrastructure, with zero engagement on the escalator tax or the parliamentary oversight concern.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pendant les 10 ans oĂč les dĂ©putĂ©s d'en face Ă©taient au gouvernement, ils avaient la chance de dĂ©montrer qu'ils Ă©taient du cĂŽtĂ© de la classe moyenne et des travailleurs, mais ils ne l'ont pas fait. Ă la place, ils ont donnĂ© des possibilitĂ©s et des rĂ©ductions d'impĂŽt aux mieux nantis, plutĂŽt que d'investir dans la classe moyenne et ceux qui travaillent fort pour en faire partie. AprĂšs ces 10 ans de piĂštre performance en matiĂšre de croissance Ă©conomique, nous savions que nous devions investir dans la classe moyenne et dans les infrastructures dont les gens ont besoin. C'est exactement ce que nous avons fait et c'est ce que nous allons continuer de faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, during the 10 years that the members opposite were in government, they had every opportunity to demonstrate that they were standing up for the middle class and workers, but they did not do so. Instead, they gave plenty of opportunities and tax cuts to the wealthy, rather than invest in the middle class and those working hard to join it. After 10 years of such an abysmal performance in terms of economic growth, we know that we need to invest in the middle class and in the infrastructure that Canadians need. That is exactly what we have done and what we will continue to do.
Will the Prime Minister agree that raising taxes on middle-class Canadians is the wrong thing to do and cork the escalator tax on beer, wine, and spirits, as the Senate finance committee said yesterday is a bad idea?
References the Senate finance committee's statement from yesterday and identifies the escalator tax as setting a scary precedent that rises every year forever, with a clear ask, though framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he will just say anything. The Liberals keep slapping more tax on hard-working Canadians. That is the fact. Their recent escalator tax on beer, wine, and spirits is setting a scary precedent. It means this specific tax would continue to rise every year forever. The Senate finance committee said yesterday that this type of tax hike is a bad idea. Will the Prime Minister finally agree that raising taxes on middle-class Canadians is the wrong thing to do, and cork this tax?
The PM says the opposition had an opportunity to vote for lowering middle-class taxes and raising them on the wealthiest 1% and chose not to, and reaffirms focus on lowering taxes for the middle class.
The PM recites the middle-class tax cut and wealthiest 1% narrative and criticizes the opposition for voting against it, without addressing the escalator tax or the Senate finance committee finding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is disappointing is that the members opposite had an opportunity to vote in favour of lowering taxes on the middle class and raising them on the wealthiest one per cent, and they chose not to. They voted against our plan to put more money in the pockets of nine million Canadians by asking the wealthiest one per cent to pay a bit more. They skipped that opportunity, but we campaigned on it, we have delivered on it, and we are going to stay focused on lowering taxes for the middle class.
Given a carbon tax, payroll tax, planned Internet tax, and now a never-ending escalator tax on beer, wine, and spirits, will the Prime Minister agree that raising taxes on middle-class Canadians is wrong and cork this tax?
Lists multiple tax hikes (carbon tax, payroll tax, Internet tax, escalator tax) since 2015 and asks whether the PM will agree raising taxes on middle-class Canadians is wrong and cork this tax, but the list makes the ask somewhat diffuse.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are hiking taxes on everything. Since 2015, they have added a carbon tax, which will make everything more expensive for everyone; they have added a payroll tax, harming small businesses; and they are even planning to tax the Internet. Now they want to add a never-ending tax on beer, wine, and spirits. What is next? Will the Prime Minister finally agree that raising taxes on middle-class Canadians is the wrong thing to do, and cork this tax?
The PM defends the price on carbon as essential for a strong economy and protected environment, welcomes Conservative acceptance that climate change is real, and questions how they propose to reach Paris targets.
The PM focuses entirely on the price on carbon and climate change, defending it and welcoming Conservative acceptance of climate science, without addressing the escalator tax or other taxes enumerated.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned the price on carbon, and that is an extremely important part of our vision for how to strengthen the future in meaningful ways. Canadians know that we have to have a strong economy and a protected environment at the same time, while creating the kinds of jobs and innovation that Canadians need right across the country. I respect the members opposite for having finally accepted that climate change is real and that we need to reach our Paris targets. I just look forward to seeing how they propose to do that, because 10 years of complete inaction on the environment needed to be turnedâ
Who pays for the carbon tax, and will the Prime Minister agree that raising taxes on middle-class Canadians is a bad idea and cork the escalator tax on beer, wine, and spirits, as the Senate finance committee decided yesterday?
Opens with a rhetorical question about who pays for the carbon tax, then references yesterday's Senate finance committee decision to repeal the escalator tax and asks the PM to cork it, making two asks at once.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when we put in a carbon tax, who pays for that carbon tax? Yesterday I was pleased to see the Senate finance committee agree to repeal the Liberals' dangerous, unfair, and never-ending tax hike on beer, wine, and spirits. Unlike the Prime Minister, who refuses to listen to Canadians or learn from the mistakes of his father, the Senate committee made the right decision for Canada. Will the Prime Minister agree that raising taxes on middle-class Canadians is a bad idea? Will he cork this tax?
The PM answers the carbon price question by saying those who continue to pollute pay more, and that carbon revenue stays in the jurisdiction where it is collected, without addressing the escalator tax.
The PM addresses the first question about who pays the carbon price with some specifics about polluters and revenue remaining in the jurisdiction, but entirely ignores the escalator tax and Senate committee decision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer the first question from the hon. member, which was about who pays for the carbon price. The fact is that people who continue to pollute, who do not realize that being more efficient is better for our economy, will end up paying a little bit more, and we will be able to encourage positive behaviours and reduction. However, I can reassure the member opposite, and indeed all Canadians, that any revenue that comes in from pricing on carbon will remain in the jurisdiction in which it is collected, because that means it is there for everyone right across the country. That is the kind of leadership on the environment and the economy that Canadians expect after 10 years of inaction by the other guys.
Will the Prime Minister agree that Canadians already pay their fair share, that raising taxes on middle-class Canadians is a bad idea, and cork the never-ending escalator tax on beer, wine, and spirits ahead of Canada Day?
Uses the Canada Day framing as rhetorical setup but does ask whether the PM will agree Canadians already pay their fair share and cork the escalator tax, making it largely a repetition of prior questions with thin new substance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada Day is just around the corner, and many middle-class Canadians will be celebrating with a great craft beer or a nice glass of wine. However, the Liberal plan is to crash Canada's party with a never-ending, always-escalating tax increase on beer, wine, and spirits. What it comes down to is middle-class Canadians cannot afford another Liberal tax hike. Will the Prime Minister agree that Canadians already pay their fair share and that increasing taxes on middle-class Canadians is a bad idea? Will he cork this tax?
The PM highlights free national parks during Canada's 150th birthday and touts the middle-class tax cut, the Canada child benefit, and stopping child benefit cheques to millionaires, without addressing the escalator tax.
The PM pivots to free national parks for Canada's 150th, the middle-class tax cut, and the Canada child benefit, with no engagement on the escalator tax on beer, wine, and spirits.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the highlighting of Canada Day coming up. I know that I and my family, like many Canadians, will spend much of the summer visiting our national parks, which are completely free for everyone during Canada's 150th birthday. Furthermore, families will be able to do that with a little more money in their pockets, because we have lowered taxes on the middle class, raised them on the wealthiest one per cent, and delivered a Canada child benefit that puts more money, tax free, every month in the pockets of middle-class Canadians by stopping funding for the previous government's child benefit cheques to millionaires.
No question text is recorded; the exchange appears to be a National Indigenous Peoples Day tribute from a government backbencher.
This is a government-backbench exchange with no discernible question recorded in the source text â only the Prime Minister's response is captured, suggesting a soft Indigenous Peoples Day tribute.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his words and wish I had the capacity to understand the strong culture and language that he shared with us today. This National Indigenous Peoples Day is a day to reflect on reconciliation, on the work we have begun, and on the amount of work that remains to be done on the path forward, which we need to recognize and build on. I thank the member for his question and look forward to working with him on the path to true reconciliation.
The Prime Minister thanks the member, reflects on reconciliation, and commits to working on the path to true reconciliation without specifics.
The Prime Minister offers only general reflections on reconciliation with no facts, numbers, or commitments, making it essentially a ceremonial non-answer.
Malcolmson asks when the Prime Minister will put real money into ending violence against indigenous women, citing the inadequacy of only five new on-reserve violence shelters in five years.
The question cites a specific figure (five new on-reserve violence shelters in five years), references the national inquiry, and raises a concrete policy gap, though the ask ('real money') is somewhat vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wish this House could translate Canada's original languages. As this government blocks removing gender discrimination from Canada's Indian Act, we see examples of violence against women everywhere. Despite a national inquiry into the tragedy of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, the reality on the ground for women has not changed. The government will build just five new on-reserve violence shelters in five years. That is deeply inadequate. When will the Prime Minister put real money into his most important relationship and end violence against indigenous women?
Trudeau cites $8.4 billion invested in indigenous peoples in budget 2016, mentions budget 2017, and references the national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, without addressing shelter numbers.
The Prime Minister cites the $8.4 billion from budget 2016 and mentions the national inquiry, but does not address the specific shelter funding figure or commit to increasing it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we invested in our very first budget $8.4 billion toward indigenous peoples, but we know there is much more to do, which we followed up with in budget 2017. In terms of violence against indigenous women, we launched a national public inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, which continues its work. We always look at better ways to respect and protect women, particularly indigenous women, from the violence they unfortunately continue to face all too often. We will work together in partnership, in respect, with indigenous people.
Liepert asks when the Prime Minister will balance the budget, citing broken promises on electoral reform, a revenue neutral middle-class tax cut, and small $10-billion deficits.
The question lists three broken promises with some factual framing but the ask â when will the budget balance â is a recurring rhetorical device rather than a sharply grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the 2015 election campaign, the Prime Minister made a number of promises just so he could get elected. He promised electoral reform. That promise has been broken. He promised a revenue neutral middle-class tax cut, and we all know what happened. That promise has been broken. He promised small $10-billion deficits. That promise has been broken. I have a simple question for the Prime Minister. When is he going to balance the budget?
Trudeau defends the middle-class tax cut funded by raising taxes on the wealthiest one per cent and highlights job creation and infrastructure investments, giving no date for balancing the budget.
Trudeau pivots to defending the middle-class tax cut and attacking the opposition's voting record, never addressing the specific question of when the budget will balance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in our election campaign, we campaigned on real change and growth for the middle class, and that is exactly what we are delivering. We actually delivered that middle-class tax cut by raising taxes on the wealthiest one per cent. Unfortunately, that member and his entire party voted against it. We continue to understand that what Canadians need is growth and investment in our future. We are beginning to see the real results of our investments in the record number of jobs being created, in opportunities for young people, and in infrastructure projects that are historic in their scope and nature. This isâ
Gourde asks in what year Canada will return to a balanced budget, citing a media interview in which the Prime Minister admitted he had no idea when the astronomical deficit would be resolved.
Gourde references a media interview in which the Prime Minister admitted he had no idea when the deficit would be resolved, grounding the question in a specific admission, though the ask remains the same recurring budget-balance question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans une entrevue mĂ©diatique, le premier ministre a avouĂ© qu'il n'avait aucune idĂ©e du moment oĂč le dĂ©ficit astronomique du Canada allait se rĂ©sorber. C'est tout Ă fait inacceptable pour nous tous et pour les gĂ©nĂ©rations futures. Force est de constater ce qui suit: tel pĂšre, tel fils. Nous sommes en droit de savoir en quelle annĂ©e le Canada sera de retour Ă l'Ă©quilibre budgĂ©taire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in a media interview, the Prime Minister admitted that he had no idea when Canadaâs astronomical deficit would be eliminated. This is completely unacceptable to all of us and to future generations. It is very clear: like father, like son. We are entitled to know in which year Canada will return to a balanced budget.
Trudeau outlines a responsible approach centred on economic growth, infrastructure, social housing, tax reductions, and the Allocation canadienne pour enfants, without providing a year for balancing the budget.
Trudeau lists infrastructure, social housing, the Allocation canadienne pour enfants, and tax cuts without engaging the specific interview admission or providing any timeline for balancing the budget.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous utilisons une approche responsable, ancrée dans la connaissance qu'il faut créer la croissance économique pour la classe moyenne, ce que le parti d'en face n'a pas pu faire pendant 10 ans. Nos investissements en infrastructure aideront les familles à se rendre au travail et à retourner à la maison de façon efficace. Nous avons fait des investissements dans les logements sociaux. Il y aura plus d'argent dans les poches de la classe moyenne. Nous avons réduit les impÎt et nous avons mis sur pied l'Allocation canadienne pour enfants qui aide 9 familles sur 10 et qui a permis de sortir des centaines de milliers de jeunes du pays de la pauvreté. Nous sommes en train d'appliquer ce plan ambitieux pour aider la classe moyenne et ceux qui travaillent fort pour s'y joindre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are taking a reasonable approach, rooted in the knowledge that we need to create economic growth for the middle class, something the party opposite was unable to do for 10 years. Our infrastructure investments will help families get to work and come home more efficiently. We have made investments in social housing. There will be more money in the pockets of the middle class. We have cut taxes and have implemented the Canada child benefit, which helps nine out of 10 families and lifts hundreds of thousands of young people out of poverty. We are implementing this ambitious plan to help the middle class and those working hard to join it.
Harder asks, for the third time, in what year the Prime Minister will balance the budget, arguing the government is racking up debt with no plan and is about to set a record as the most expensive government in history outside of a war or recession.
Harder repeats the same budget-balance question with added framing about record government spending, but adds no new documentary or data evidence to sharpen the ask.
Source text
Well, Mr. Speaker, that was another non-answer. I am extremely worried for Canada's young people. The Liberals should be focused on creating an environment of economic prosperity and making sure the next generation is set up for success. However, instead, the government is racking up debt with no plan whatsoever to balance the budget. In fact, the Liberals are about to set a record as the most expensive government in history outside of a war or recession. This is a huge bill being piled up for the next generation to pay off. My question is simple, and they say that the third time is the charm. In what year will the Prime Minister balance the budget?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau lists investments for young people including student loan repayment relief until $25,000 in income, up-front grants, and innovation spending, without answering when the budget will balance.
Trudeau pivots entirely to youth-focused spending measures â student loan repayment thresholds, up-front grants, innovation investments â without providing any timeline for balancing the budget.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the belated focus that the members opposite finally have on Canadian young people. The fact is, we know that what young people want in this country are investments in our future that both build the economy and protect us from climate change, investments in innovation that are going to create good jobs for the next generation, help for young people to not have to pay back their student loans until they are making $25,000 in income, and more help in up-front grants for our students. These are the kinds of things we are doing for young people, which will build on a strong future for us allâ
Gladu asks in what year the Prime Minister will balance the budget, contrasting billions for Chinese investors and Liberal friends with only $20 million a year to reduce violence against women and not even $4 million a year for the Canadian Autism Partnership.
Gladu introduces concrete spending contrasts (billions for Chinese investors and Liberal friends versus $20 million a year for violence against women and not even $4 million a year for the Canadian Autism Partnership) before repeating the budget-balance question, adding some factual specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder the Liberal government is having such a difficult time in getting its budget bill passed. Everyone can see the Liberals' wasteful spending, their sneaky tax increases on those in the middle class and those too poor to join them, and their out-of-touch priorities. The Liberals spend billions for Chinese investors and Liberal friends, but only $20 million a year to reduce violence against women in Canada, and not even $4 million a year for the Canadian Autism Partnership. With all of this out-of-control spending, in what year will the Prime Minister balance the budget?
Trudeau restates that taxes were lowered on the middle class and raised on the wealthiest one per cent, and criticizes the opposition for voting against this measure, without addressing the specific figures cited or the budget-balance question.
Trudeau reiterates the middle-class tax cut and raises the wealthiest one per cent narrative, attacking the opposition's voting record rather than addressing the specific spending comparisons or the budget-balance question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am kind of disappointed that the member opposite thinks our approach on taxes is secret, so I will repeat it. We lowered taxes on the middle class and raised them on the wealthiest one per cent. Has she not heard? Unfortunately, the members opposite voted against our proposal that lowers taxes on the middle class, because for 10 years they focused on giving tax breaks and advantages to the wealthiest Canadians. That is not what Canadians want. That is not what Canadians voted for. This is why we are moving forward in the ways that Canadians expect us to.
Blaney asks why the Liberals chose to leave the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages in a legally functus state â unable to sign papers, deliver reports, or begin investigations â rather than extending the interim commissioner's term.
Blaney identifies a specific legal consequence (the office falling into a state known as 'functus'), names specific operational failures (cannot sign papers, deliver reports, or begin investigations), and asks why the Liberals chose not to extend the interim commissioner's term.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have so mismanaged the process of selecting a new Commissioner of Official Languages that the office currently lacks the ability to do anything. Without a commissioner, the office falls into a legal state known as âfunctusâ, which sounds appropriate. The office cannot sign papers, deliver reports, or begin investigations. When they could have easily extended the interim commissioner's term, why have the Liberals chosen to leave the office completely functus?
Trudeau cites the government's commitment to a rigorous, open, transparent, merit-based process for public appointments and states that work at the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages is ongoing and an announcement will be made shortly.
Trudeau acknowledges work at the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages is ongoing and promises an announcement shortly, but does not explain why the interim commissioner's term was not extended or address the 'functus' legal state.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our two official languages are at the heart of this party's identity and of the identity of Canadians. Our government promised Canadians a rigorous, open, transparent, merit-based process for public appointments. This will result in the recommendations of high-quality candidates, while also achieving gender parity and truly reflecting Canada's diversity. We remain committed to finding the best candidate for the official languages position. Work at the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages is ongoing. An announcement will be made shortly.
Choquette asks how the Liberals will make amends for their blunders, citing former commissioner Graham Fraser's description of the appointment process as 'a bungled appointment process' reflecting 'a lack of attention, lack of concern for the issue' of official languages.
Choquette cites a direct quote from former commissioner Graham Fraser calling it 'a bungled appointment process' reflecting 'a lack of attention, lack of concern for the issue,' grounding the question in a named authority's criticism, though the ask ('comment vont-ils se faire pardonner') is more rhetorical than specific.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on pensait que le fiasco de la nomination de Mme Meilleur avait servi de leçon Ă la ministre du Patrimoine mais non, elle continue de se surpasser. Cela fait quatre jours aujourd'hui que nous sommes sans commissaire. MĂȘme l'ancien commissaire Graham Fraser est fĂąchĂ© noir. Voici ce qu'il dit: I think that this is an example of a bungled appointment process. I can only think that it reflects a lack of attention, lack of concern for the issue...for the question of official languages. Comment les libĂ©raux vont-ils faire pour se faire pardonner toutes leurs gaffes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we thought that the debacle with Ms. Meilleurâs appointment had been a lesson to the minister of heritage, but no, she continues to outdo herself. Today makes four days without a commissioner. Even former commissioner Graham Fraser is furious. This is what he said: VoilĂ , Ă mon avis, un exemple de nomination qui a mal tournĂ©. Je ne peux mâempĂȘcher de penser que cela tĂ©moigne dâun manque dâattention et dâune certaine insouciance [...] Ă lâĂ©gard de lâenjeu que reprĂ©sentent les langues officielles. What are the Liberals going to do to apologize for this whole mess?
Trudeau affirms the government takes defending the two official languages very seriously, will continue seeking the best candidates for the commissioner position, and states that work continues at the Commissariat and an announcement is coming soon.
Trudeau reasserts the government's commitment to bilingualism and the search for the best candidates, repeating that work continues and an announcement is coming, without addressing Fraser's specific criticism or the appointment failure.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous prenons trÚs au sérieux la responsabilité de défendre nos deux langues officielles dans ce pays, nous sommes le parti du bilinguisme officiel et nous allons continuer de chercher les meilleurs candidats possibles pour tous nos postes en nomination, et particuliÚrement pour le poste de commissaire aux langues officielles. Je peux rassurer le député en face, le travail continue comme il se doit au Commissariat aux langues officielles et nous aurons une annonce à faire bientÎt.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we take very seriously our responsibility to defend our two official languages in this country, we are the party of official bilingualism, and we will continue to look for the best possible candidates for all our appointed positions, particularly the Commissioner of Official Languages. I can assure the member across the way that work is proceeding as it should at the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and that we will be making an announcement shortly.
Vandal asks the Prime Minister for an update on the government's plan for the former U.S. embassy across from Parliament Hill and Langevin Block on National Indigenous Peoples Day.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the Prime Minister for an update on plans for the former U.S. embassy and Langevin Block on National Indigenous Peoples Day.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear that no relationship is more important to him and to this government than the relationship with first nations, with the MĂ©tis Nation, and with the Inuit people. Today, on what will now be known as National Indigenous Peoples Day, could the Prime Minister give the House an update on the government's plan for the former U.S. embassy across from Parliament Hill, as well as Langevin Block?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saint BonifaceâSaint Vital for his strong advocacy on this issue. The residential school era is a dark chapter in our history. The association between Langevin and the Prime Minister's office is inconsistent with a strong partnership with indigenous peoples. Therefore, we will be removing that name. Moreover, the former U.S. embassy will be converted to a space dedicated to and for first nations, Inuit, and MĂ©tis peoples for them to decide how best to use it. This is a powerful symbol of reconciliation right here on the Hill, where we all pass by it every single day.
Trudeau announces that the Langevin name will be removed from the Prime Minister's office building and that the former U.S. embassy will be converted to a space dedicated to and for first nations, Inuit, and MĂ©tis peoples for them to decide how best to use it.
Trudeau provides two specific concrete announcements: the removal of the Langevin name from the Prime Minister's office building, and the conversion of the former U.S. embassy into a space dedicated to first nations, Inuit, and MĂ©tis peoples.
Finley asks when the Prime Minister will cancel the deal allowing Hytera Communications, a Chinese company with a bad track record, to buy Norsat, which creates advanced technology used by the Canadian military.
Finley names Norsat and Hytera Communications specifically, characterizes Hytera's track record as bad, and frames the security risk concretely, though the ask to 'cancel this deal' is more of a demand than a specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the number one job of a government is to protect the safety and security of the people. Let us look at the facts. Norsat creates advanced technology that is used by our military to protect the security of Canadians, while Hytera Communications is a Chinese company with a bad track record. To buy Norsat is a risky decision. This deal, by definition, is a security risk. When will the Prime Minister wake up, smell the coffee, and cancel this deal?
Trudeau states that every transaction under the Investment Canada Act is carefully assessed by all national security agencies, that key allies including the United States were consulted in this case, and that experts concluded there were no national security concerns.
Trudeau states that all national security agencies carefully assessed the deal, that key allies including the United States were consulted, and that experts concluded there were no national security concerns â directly addressing the security concern raised, though without detailed evidence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly, every single transaction that falls under the Investment Canada Act is carefully assessed by all national security agencies. In this particular case, our agencies also consulted with key allies, including the United States. Our national security experts assessed the deal and the technology, and concluded there were no national security concerns. I can reassure all members in the House and all Canadians that we take defending our national security extremely seriously.
Berthold asks when the Prime Minister will cancel the Norsat transaction and order a complete security review, arguing that the Chinese government is now buying high-technology companies like Norsat rather than copying them, gaining access to source codes.
Berthold raises the concern about Chinese government intellectual property practices and specifically asks for cancellation of the Norsat transaction and a full security review, but the framing is partly rhetorical ('au diable les secrets').
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la plus grande peur des entreprises innovantes dans nos rĂ©gions est de voir leur produit ĂȘtre copiĂ© et reproduit sans leur consentement. Nous savons tous que le gouvernement chinois encourage cette pratique depuis des dĂ©cennies. Cela a coĂ»tĂ© trĂšs cher Ă nos entreprises. Avec le gouvernement libĂ©ral, on n'a plus besoin de se cacher: le gouvernement chinois ne copie plus, il achĂšte des entreprises de haute technologie comme Norsat. Au diable les secrets, on leur donne l'accĂšs aux codes source. Quand le premier ministre va-t-il annuler cette transaction et ordonner une revue de sĂ©curitĂ© complĂšte?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the thing that innovative companies in our regions fear the most is having their product copied and reproduced without their consent. We all know that the Chinese government has been condoning this practice for decades. This practice is quite costly to our businesses. Under this Liberal government, there is no longer any reason to hide. The Chinese government no longer copies, it buys high-tech companies like Norsat. To heck with secrets. They are being given access to source code. When will the Prime Minister cancel this transaction and order a full security review?
Trudeau says his government takes national security seriously and, unlike the previous government, published the number of national security reviews and guidelines for national security reviews under the act to demonstrate the rigour of the process.
Trudeau defends the government's commitment to openness and transparency by citing the publication of the number of national security reviews and guidelines, but does not address the intellectual property concern or commit to a full security review.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je l'ai dit, nous prenons trÚs au sérieux notre sécurité nationale et les recommandations de nos agences par rapport à cela. Or contrairement au gouvernement précédent, nous sommes fermement résolus à favoriser l'ouverture et la transparence. C'est pourquoi, pour la premiÚre fois, notre gouvernement a publié le nombre d'examens portant sur la sécurité nationale que le Cabinet a analysés en vertu de la loi. Nous avons également publié les lignes directrices sur les examens portant sur la sécurité nationale pour que les Canadiens puissent constater à quel point le processus d'examen de ces transactions est rigoureux. Nous n'avons aucune leçon à recevoir...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we take our national security and our agencies' recommendations quite seriously. Unlike the previous government, we are deeply committed to promoting openness and transparency. That is why, for the first time, our government has published the number of national security reviews that cabinet has considered under the law. We have also published the national security review guidelines so that Canadians can see how robust the review process is for these transactions. We will take no lessons fromâ
Strahl asks who will gain control of B.C. seniors care facilities if Anbang Insurance collapses, given that its chairman Mr. Wu has disappeared and the company is under criminal investigation, and whether seniors will find their landlord is actually the People's Republic of China.
Strahl names Anbang Insurance, its chairman Mr. Wu, and the criminal investigation, raising a specific and timely scenario (what happens when the company collapses) with a concrete question about who will control the seniors care facilities.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was only too happy to rubber-stamp the sell-off of B.C.'s largest chain of retirement homes to Anbang Insurance to appease his friends in Beijing. With Anbang now under criminal investigation and its politically well-connected chairman Mr. Wu having disappeared, the Prime Minister continues to endorse this Chinese takeover. I ask the Prime Minister, when the Anbang house of cards finally collapses, who will gain control of these seniors care facilities in B.C.? Are seniors about to find out that their landlord is actually the People's Republic of China?
Trudeau states that Cedar Tree has confirmed its strong commitment to quality of operations and health care workers, that the facilities remain subject to provincial oversight, and that the current number of full-time and part-time jobs will be kept.
Trudeau responds about Cedar Tree's commitments, provincial oversight, and job retention but does not address the specific scenario of Anbang collapsing or who would gain control of the facilities if that occurred.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is open to investment that offers middle-class jobs and opportunities for Canadians. Cedar Tree has confirmed its strong commitment to the ongoing quality of operations in Canada and to its health care workers. It will remain subject to provincial oversight on seniors care facilities, ensuring the rules for the care of seniors continue to be followed, and will keep the current number of full-time and part-time jobs. B.C.'s regulatory regime is robust and imposes rigorous standards of care on operators of residential care and assisted living facilities. We will continue to stand up for Canada's seniors.
McLeod asks who will gain control of B.C. care homes if Anbang dissolves â specifically whether seniors in her riding will find their landlord is the People's Republic of China â noting the company chairperson is in prison under investigation for corruption and economic crimes.
McLeod specifically references the Prime Minister's prior assurances of due diligence, names the chairperson's imprisonment and allegations of corruption and economic crimes, and asks the same concrete question about control of the facilities if the company dissolves.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister assured the House that his government had done its due diligence regarding the billion-dollar takeover of B.C. care homes by murky Chinese ownership. Now the company chairperson is in prison and investigators are looking into allegations of corruption and economic crimes. If the company dissolves, who will gain control of our seniors care facilities? Are seniors in my riding going to find out that their landlord is the People's Republic of China?
Trudeau speaks generally about openness to global investment, the strong provincial regulatory regime overseeing seniors care facilities, and the government's commitment to working with British Columbia to ensure quality care for Canadian seniors.
Trudeau speaks in general terms about openness to global investment, provincial regulatory oversight of seniors care, and working with British Columbia, but does not address the specific scenario of the company dissolving or who would gain control.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we continue to be open to investments from around the world because we know that creating good middle-class jobs and creating services and opportunities to protect Canadians is extremely important. We recognize that B.C. and all provinces have a strong regulatory regime that oversees and ensures that the care our seniors receive is of top quality. That is why we continue to work with British Columbia and with all of our partners to make sure that Canadian seniors do receive the quality care and support they need across this country.
Rankin asks the Prime Minister to thank every Canadian who has served on a jury and to commit to working with provinces to better support Canadians who have suffered mental health challenges from jury duty, referencing a dozen letters received this week and Mark Farrant's advocacy.
Rankin references a dozen letters from jurors received this week and names Mark Farrant's advocacy, then asks two distinct questions â a ceremonial thanks and a substantive commitment â diluting the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this week, the Prime Minister received a dozen letters from jurors across Canada suffering mental health challenges after experiencing trauma from graphic evidence and disturbing trials. Members of all parties have supported Mark Farrant's tireless advocacy on behalf of Canadian jurors. First, will the Prime Minister stand now and thank every Canadian who has served on a jury? Second, will the Prime Minister do everything in his power to work with the provinces to better support Canadians who have suffered from doing their jury duty?
Trudeau thanks all Canadians who have served on juries, draws parallels to first responders and military personnel, and cites $5 billion in mental health care for provinces from the most recent budget as the government's response.
Trudeau thanks Canadians who have served on juries, references first responders and military personnel, and cites the $5 billion in mental health care for provinces from the most recent budget, partially addressing the mental health support question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be able to stand and thank all Canadians who have served on juries, all Canadians who have served their country in so many different ways. As we have seen in the cases of first responders, military personnel and their families, and jurors, sometimes the effects of the work they do on behalf of Canadians can have lasting consequences. That is why in our most recent budget we invested $5 billion in mental health care for the provinces to be able to support Canadians who are struggling with mental health issues. This is a matter of extreme importance to us and to all Canadians.
Ramsey asks whether the Liberals will implement the NDP's trade committee recommendations â encouraging use of Canadian steel in infrastructure and government contracts, and defending the ability to promote Canadian steel in NAFTA negotiations â before NAFTA is renegotiated.
Ramsey references the trade committee report, identifies specific NDP recommendations (encouraging use of Canadian steel in infrastructure and government contracts, and defending the ability to promote Canadian steel in NAFTA negotiations), and asks a clear yes-or-no accountability question with a deadline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week, the trade committee submitted a report on the Canadian steel industry and next week the all-party steel caucus will meet officials in Washington. In the report the NDP recommends that the Liberals implement measures to encourage the use of Canadian steel in infrastructure projects and government contracts. We also recommend that the government defend our ability to promote the use of Canadian steel when negotiating trade agreements like NAFTA. I have a simple question. Will the Liberals implement our recommendations to protect our Canadian steel industry before they renegotiate NAFTA?
Trudeau states that the government takes standing up for Canada's interests seriously, references his conversation with President Trump, and argues that Initiative 232 national security investigations should exclude Canada given the integrated North American steel market.
Trudeau addresses the Section 232 national security investigation and Canada's position that it should exclude Canada, and references conversations with President Trump, but does not respond to the specific committee recommendations on domestic procurement or NAFTA negotiating positions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we take very seriously the responsibility of standing up and defending Canada's interests. We repeatedly do so every time we engage with the American administration, including in my recent conversation with President Trump. We need to ensure that Initiative 232 excludes Canada. National security investigations have no business looking at Canadian steel when we know the North American steel market is specialized, integrated, and extremely well-functioning. We will continue to stand with our American partners against illegal practices from around the world, while at the same time defending Canadian steelworkers and their industry.
Will the Prime Minister fire Dwight Duncan, who admitted to intentionally ignoring the Prime Minister's own guidelines on partisan activities for appointees, yes or no?
Cites Dwight Duncan's own admission of violating guidelines, names the specific appointment, and poses a clear yes/no accountability question, though the 'partisan political hack' rhetoric undercuts precision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Dwight Duncan has now admitted to intentionally ignoring the Prime Minister's own guidelines concerning partisan activities for his appointees. Once again, the rules do not apply if one is a Liberal donor. This is no surprise, as he takes his ethical cues from the Prime Minister himself. The Gordie Howe bridge is too important to Canada to be left in the hands of someone who has damaged his credibility beyond repair on both sides of the border. Will the Prime Minister fire that partisan political hack, yes or no?
The Prime Minister reiterated support for the Gordie Howe international bridge, noted that 30% of surface trade between Canada and the U.S. goes through Windsor, and said Duncan has apologized and the apology was accepted.
Defends the Gordie Howe bridge project with a relevant statistic and acknowledges the apology, but does not address whether Duncan should be fired or why the violation of the Prime Minister's own guidelines is acceptable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is firmly committed to the Gordie Howe international bridge. The President and I have both reiterated our strong support for the construction of this project. The new bridge is vital to accommodate a future traffic route, because nearly 30% of surface trade between Canada and the U.S. goes through Windsor. Mr. Duncan has apologized. We have accepted his apology. We are working to build this important bridge for Canada and America.
Given that Duncan himself admitted his postings 'clearly violated the letter and spirit of Parliament's direction,' will the Prime Minister fire him, yes or no?
Quotes Duncan's own words directly â 'A number of my postings clearly violated the letter and spirit of Parliament's direction' â and asks a clear yes/no question, but is substantially identical to Exchange 31 and includes partisan framing about Ontario's finances.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, is it any surprise that the Prime Minister would endorse that type of behaviour? It is bad enough that Dwight Duncan effectively bankrupted Ontario while he was the finance minister of the province. However, as a non-partisan appointee of the Prime Minister, he has been engaged in reckless behaviour on social media, gushing over his Liberal pals, attacking anyone who is not, and disparaging U.S. officials. Yesterday Duncan said, âA number of my postings clearly violated the letter and spirit of Parliamentâs direction.... â Will the Prime Minister fire that partisan political hack, yes or no?
The Prime Minister restated the importance of the Gordie Howe international bridge, repeated the 30% trade statistic, and said the government looks forward to watching Duncan's strong leadership as the project moves toward completion.
Repeats the same bridge statistics and acceptance-of-apology line from Exchange 31 without engaging the specific quoted admission by Duncan or the yes/no question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we understand how important the Gordie Howe international bridge is to the Windsor area and indeed to all of Canada. Of the surface trade between Canada and the Unites States, 30% goes through Windsor. We continue to be committed. We were pleased to ensure that both the President and I reiterate our support for this project. With respect to Mr. Duncan, he has apologized. We look forward to continuing to watch his strong leadership as we move this project toward completion.
What specific government business did the Prime Minister conduct on his campaign stops in Carlton TrailâEagle Creek, given that two Privy Council employees provided 'comprehensive audio and visual technical support' and the Liberal Party refuses to reimburse the full cost?
Cites specific facts â two Privy Council employees providing 'comprehensive audio and visual technical support,' partisan by-election events in a named riding, and the Liberal Party's refusal to reimburse the full cost â and asks what government business was conducted.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know the Prime Minister visited my riding to star in two partisan pep rallies with his Liberal candidates in the days leading up to the October by-election. We have since learned that two employees of the Privy Council travelled with the Prime Minister and provided âcomprehensive audio and visual technical supportâ. We also know the Liberal Party refuses to reimburse the full cost of this trip. Could the Prime Minister explain to taxpayers exactly what government business he conducted on these campaign stops?
The Prime Minister said that whenever he travels, he must be connected to government work and accessible to respond to challenges, and that being Prime Minister is a responsibility he accepts every single minute of the day.
Offers only a general principle that the Prime Minister must always be connected to government work and accessible, without identifying any specific government business conducted on the campaign stops in question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as has always been the practice, whenever the Prime Minister travels anywhere, he needs to be connected to the work the government is doing and be accessible to respond to different challenges. That has always been the case and will continue to be the case. Being a prime minister is not a part-time job or even a nine-to-five job; it is a responsibility, which I will accept, with great honour, every single minute of the day. We always need to have the tools in order to serve Canadians. That is exactly what has always been done.
Could the Prime Minister update the House on the work the government is doing to build stronger communities in Newfoundland and Labrador?
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the Prime Minister to 'update the House' on infrastructure spending in Newfoundland and Labrador, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know how important reliable infrastructure is to ensuring a high quality of life. In my riding, cities and towns also know they have a federal partner working alongside them to deliver better infrastructure for their residents. Could the Prime Minister update the House on the work the government is doing to build stronger communities in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Mr. Speaker, allow me first to thank the hon. member for St. John's SouthâMount Pearl for his hard work. While I am at it, let me thank all citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador for the incredibly warm welcome they give me every time I have the good fortune of visiting. Our government has now approved 213 projects, with a combined investment of more than $665 million, across Newfoundland and Labrador. This means good middle-class jobs for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, safer jobs, and cleaner drinking water. Our government is proud to deliver results for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
The government has approved 213 projects with a combined investment of more than $665 million across Newfoundland and Labrador, delivering middle-class jobs and cleaner drinking water.
Provides concrete figures â 213 approved projects and a combined investment of more than $665 million â directly responsive to the update requested.
When will the Prime Minister reverse his decision to reject the Canadian autism partnership, given that many families mortgage their homes for early intervention and more than 80% of adults with autism struggle to find meaningful work?
References the Canadian autism partnership by name, cites that more than 80% of adults with autism struggle to find meaningful work, and asks for a reversal of a specific government decision, though framed with considerable rhetorical charge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, more and more Canadians are realizing that the Prime Minister's decisions hurt the very people who he claims to help. Nothing underscores this more than his rejection of the Canadian autism partnership. Many Canadian families are forced to mortgage their homes to pay for early intervention programs and more than 80% of adults with autism struggle to find meaningful work. They are just looking for a little compassion from the Liberal government. When will the Prime Minister finally listen to these Canadians and reverse his cold-hearted decision to reject the Canadian autism partnership?
Oh, oh!
The Prime Minister cited over $39 million invested in autism research over five years through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and described a network of stakeholders supporting families, but did not address the rejection of the Canadian autism partnership.
Mentions $39 million invested in autism research over five years through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which is relevant context, but does not address the specific rejection of the Canadian autism partnership or indicate any intent to reverse that decision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that autism spectrum disorder has a significant lifelong impact on individuals and families. Federal investments in researchâ
Mr. Speaker, federal investments in research, data improvement, surveillance, and training skills are supporting those with autism and their families. There is an extraordinary network of stakeholders across the country, raising awareness and providing services to families. Our government will continue to support those efforts through our programs. We have indeed invested over $39 million in autism research over the past five years to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Why did the Prime Minister vote against a non-partisan initiative to create a Canadian autism partnership, given his promise to work with all parties to get good things done?
Identifies a specific non-partisan initiative, notes the government voted against it, and invokes the Prime Minister's own promise to work with all parties, making a reasonably grounded accountability ask, though somewhat rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised that, unlike Stephen Harper, he would work with all parties to get good things done. However, when a member of this place moved a non-partisan initiative to create a Canadian autism partnership, the Prime Minister and his party voted against it. This is about removing the challenges facing individuals with autism and facing their families. It is about unlocking the tremendous potential of these Canadians. Why can the Prime Minister not move beyond partisan politics and support this important autism initiative?
The Prime Minister repeated the $39 million autism research investment figure, referenced the network of stakeholders, and cited the Canada child benefit and child disability benefit as additional supports for families, without addressing the government's vote against the partnership.
Repeats the same $39 million figure and stakeholder network language from Exchange 35, pivots to the Canada child benefit and child disability benefit, but does not explain why the government voted against the Canadian autism partnership initiative.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that autism spectrum disorder has a significant and lifelong impact on individuals and families. There is an extraordinary network of stakeholders across the country, raising awareness and providing services to families. Our government will continue to support their efforts through our programs. We have invested more than $39 million in autism research over the past five years. In addition, we have made many initiatives that help families, whether it is the Canada child benefit, which is increasing support for nine out of 10 Canadian families, including strengthening the child disability benefit alongsideâ
Could the Prime Minister update the House on Canada's contribution to helping the most vulnerable affected by the humanitarian crisis in South Sudan?
This is a government-backbench setup asking the Prime Minister to inform the House of Canada's contribution to addressing the crisis in South Sudan, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Soudan du Sud est aux prises avec une grave crise alimentaire qui touche prÚs de la moitié de sa population. Au cours des derniers jours, la ministre du Développement international et de la Francophonie s'y est déplacée, notamment pour constater les efforts de nos partenaires sur le terrain et pour discuter des moyens déployés afin d'aider les personnes qui en ont le plus besoin. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut mettre la Chambre au courant de la contribution du Canada visant à aider les personnes les plus vulnérables affectées par cette terrible crise?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there is a serious food crisis in South Sudan that is affecting nearly half of its population. The Minister of International Development and La Francophonie was there for a first-hand look at what our partners on the ground are doing and to talk about how to help those who need it most. Can the Prime Minister update the House on what Canada is doing to help the most vulnerable of those affected by this terrible crisis?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie la dĂ©putĂ© de RiviĂšre-des-Mille-Ăles de sa question. Notre gouvernement est vivement prĂ©occupĂ© par la situation humanitaire catastrophique au Soudan du Sud. C'est pourquoi nous avons rĂ©cemment annoncĂ© 86 millions de dollars pour des projets de dĂ©veloppement qui rĂ©pondront aux besoins fondamentaux des plus vulnĂ©rables dans le pays. De plus, nous avons crĂ©Ă© le Fonds de secours contre la famine. D'ici au 30 juin 2017, nous verserons une somme Ă©quivalente Ă chacun des dons admissibles faits aux organismes canadiens qui amassent des fonds pour lutter contre la famine dans les pays affectĂ©s.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for RiviĂšre-des-Mille-Ăles for her question. Our government is extremely concerned about the dire humanitarian situation in South Sudan. That is why we recently announced $86 million for development projects that will meet the basic needs of the most vulnerable people in that country. We also created the famine relief fund. From now until June 30, 2017, we will match every eligible donation made to Canadian charities that are raising money to bring crucial relief to famine-stricken countries.
Canada announced $86 million for development projects in South Sudan and created a Famine Relief Fund that will match eligible donations to Canadian organizations raising funds to fight famine in affected countries by June 30, 2017.
Directly provides the specific figure of $86 million for development projects in South Sudan and describes the Famine Relief Fund matching arrangement with a clear deadline of June 30, 2017, fully responsive to the question asked.
Can the Prime Minister offer some hope that help is on the way and that the Canadian autism partnership will find support from the current government?
Asks whether the Canadian autism partnership will find support from the current government, noting broad cross-party consensus, but the ask is gentle and implicit rather than a hard accountability question, and contains no new facts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the whole House can see from the questions from the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the New Democrats, and now from me that there is an extraordinary broad consensus on this side of the House that Canadian families and individuals living with autism really do need more than what they have so far. I would ask the Prime Minister if his next answer could contain some hope for those families that help is on the way and that the Canadian autism partnership will find support from the current government.
The Prime Minister acknowledged Canadians' desire to do more to fight the impact of autism spectrum disorder and said his staff has met repeatedly with the member for EdmontonâWetaskiwin to discuss how to move forward in concrete ways, without committing to the Canadian autism partnership.
Acknowledges the compassion shown by Canadians and notes that staff has met repeatedly with the member for EdmontonâWetaskiwin to discuss moving forward in concrete ways, which is marginally more responsive than prior answers but still offers no commitment on the Canadian autism partnership itself.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we recognize the extraordinary work that Canadians across the country do to support their loved ones, particularly those living with autism spectrum disorder. We recognize the stories and compassion that have been shown by people as they share their desire to do more to fight the impact autism has on people who live with it. My staff has also met repeatedly with the member for EdmontonâWetaskiwin to talk about how we can move forward in concrete ways that will make a difference in the lives of so many Canadians.