Session overview
- The dominant theme was the conflict-of-interest controversy surrounding the Minister of Finance, with opposition members from both the CPC and NDP pressing the Prime Minister to disclose when he learned that the finance minister held over $40 million in Morneau Shepell shares through a numbered company in Alberta rather than a blind trust.
- The Prime Minister repeatedly refused to answer when he first learned of the finance minister's holdings, instead citing the finance minister's cooperation with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and pivoting to government economic achievements.
- Bill C-27, which would enable target benefit pension plans, was repeatedly cited by NDP members as directly benefiting Morneau Shepell, with questions raised about whether the finance minister recused himself from discussions on the bill.
- On supply management, the Prime Minister committed that the Liberal government would always defend supply management in NAFTA negotiations, but did not directly address whether the parliamentary secretary's televised comments signalled room to negotiate concessions.
- The Prime Minister confirmed that loan repayment and job guarantees for Canadian workers until 2041 are conditions Canada expects in approving the Bombardier-Airbus C Series deal.
- Concerns about the Sears Canada pension situation and Morneau Shepell's appointment to administer the Sears Canada pension plan were raised, with the Prime Minister noting that current Sears Canada pension fund assets are held in trust and must be used solely for the benefit of pensioners, and that approximately 80 Service Canada sessions have already been delivered.
The Prime Minister made a specific factual commitment, stating that current Sears Canada pension fund assets are held in trust and must be used solely for the benefit of pensioners, and confirmed that approximately 80 Service Canada sessions have already been delivered to help affected Sears employees and pensioners.
Asks a highly specific, yes-or-no accountability question: can the Prime Minister confirm the finance minister recused himself from all discussions on Bill C-27, after establishing the direct link between the minister's Morneau Shepell shares and that legislation on target benefit pensions.
Asked directly whether the finance minister recused himself from any and all discussions on Bill C-27, the Prime Minister answered with an unrelated summary of the 2015 election promise on Canadian-controlled private corporations and the small business tax rate, without addressing the question of recusal whatsoever.
Outstanding questions
- When exactly did the Prime Minister learn that the Minister of Finance held over $40 million in Morneau Shepell shares through a numbered company rather than a blind trust? (asked by Andrew Scheer, Guy Caron, Nathan Cullen, Pierre Poilievre, Lisa Raitt, and others â never answered)
- Did the Minister of Finance recuse himself from any and all discussions on Bill C-27, given that Morneau Shepell would directly profit from target benefit pension plan legislation? (asked by Andrew Scheer â never answered)
- Will the Prime Minister withdraw Bill C-27? (asked by Charlie Angus â never answered)
- Is it acceptable that the Minister of Finance did what he could not do directly â hold shares in a company he regulates â by placing them in a numbered company of which he is the sole shareholder, an arrangement the Ethics Commissioner called for abolishing in 2014? (asked by Guy Caron â never answered)
- Will the Prime Minister commit that his government will not challenge Bill 62 in the courts or fund potential legal challenges to it? (asked by Xavier Barsalou-Duval â not directly answered)
When did the Prime Minister learn that the finance minister continued to actively control all his personal assets, including shares in his family business worth billions of dollars?
Asks a specific, time-bounded accountability question â when did the Prime Minister learn â grounded in newly reported facts about the finance minister's active control over personal assets including shares in a multi-billion dollar family company.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, un autre jour, et il y a un autre scandale entourant le ministre des Finances. Nous avons appris hier soir que le ministre des Finances continuait d'exercer un contrÎle actif sur tous ses avoirs personnels, dont ses actions de son entreprise familiale qui vaut des milliards de dollars. Quand le premier ministre a-t-il appris que le ministre des Finances continuait de contrÎler l'investissement de dizaines de millions de dollars de sa richesse personnelle?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, another day, another scandal involving the Minister of Finance. Last night we learned that the Minister of Finance retained direct control over all of his personal holdings, including shares in his billion-dollar family business. When did the Prime Minister become aware that his finance minister was still controlling tens of millions of dollars' worth of investments from his personal fortune?
The Prime Minister said the finance minister consulted the Ethics Commissioner when first elected and followed all her advice, and has now written her a letter asking if he can do more.
The Prime Minister never answers when he learned anything, instead pivoting to the finance minister having consulted the Ethics Commissioner and writing her a letter, deflecting the specific timing question entirely.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, quand le ministre des Finances a Ă©tĂ© Ă©lu, il y a presque deux ans, il a consultĂ© la commissaire aux conflits d'intĂ©rĂȘts et Ă l'Ă©thique et a suivi tous ses conseils. C'est ce Ă quoi s'attendent les gens en cette enceinte et c'est ce Ă quoi les Canadiens s'attendent. De plus, le ministre des Finances vient d'Ă©crire une lettre Ă la commissaire aux conflits d'intĂ©rĂȘts et Ă l'Ă©thique pour savoir s'il y avait des choses qu'il pouvait faire pour aller au-delĂ de ses demandes initiales en vue de dĂ©montrer le plus haut niveau d'intĂ©gritĂ© auquel s'attendent les Canadiens et tous les dĂ©putĂ©s de la Chambre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance was first elected almost two years ago, he consulted the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and followed all of her advice. That is the kind of thing that the members of this House and all Canadians expect. Furthermore, the Minister of Finance just wrote a letter to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to ask if there is anything more he can do to go above and beyond what she initially advised, in order to demonstrate the highest level of integrity that Canadians and all members of this House expect.
When did the Prime Minister learn that the finance minister continued to manage his personal fortune, including Morneau Shepell shares that grew from roughly $30 million to $40 million?
Repeats the timing question with added factual specificity â citing the approximate current and past value of Morneau Shepell shares ($30 million two years ago, $40 million today) â making the conflict of interest concrete and the accountability ask clear.
Source text
Une lettre, dit-il, monsieur le PrĂ©sident. Quelle vĂ©ritable action! Le premier ministre ne peut pas dĂ©fendre ce conflit d'intĂ©rĂȘts. Le ministre des Finances Ă©labore des lois qui pourraient donner des avantages financiers considĂ©rables Ă tout investisseur, et il le fait alors qu'il gĂšre encore sa fortune personnelle. Ses actions de Morneau Shepell, qui valaient environ 30 millions de dollars il y a deux ans, valent aujourd'hui 40 millions. Quand le premier ministre a-t-il appris que son ministre des Finances continuait de contrĂŽler l'investissement de dizaines de millions de dollars de sa fortune personnelle?
Hansard translation: It seems he sent a letter, Mr. Speaker. That is real action right there. The Prime Minister cannot defend this conflict of interest. The finance minister is developing legislation that could give all investors significant financial benefits, and he is doing so while still managing his personal fortune. His shares in Morneau Shepell, which were worth $30 million two years ago, are now worth $40 million. When did the Prime Minister become aware that his finance minister was still controlling tens of millions of dollars' worth of investments from his personal fortune?
The Prime Minister said the finance minister worked with the Ethics Commissioner from the start and has asked her if there is more he can do.
The Prime Minister again does not answer when he learned anything, repeating only that the finance minister worked with the Ethics Commissioner from the beginning and remains open to doing more, with no engagement on the share values cited.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme je l'ai dit, le ministre des Finances a travaillĂ© avec la commissaire aux conflits d'intĂ©rĂȘts et Ă l'Ă©thique dĂšs le dĂ©but pour tout mettre Ă jour, pour travailler avec elle et pour suivre ses conseils afin d'ĂȘtre ministre des Finances en toute intĂ©gritĂ©. Il a suivi ses conseils et il est toujours ouvert Ă cela. Il a d'ailleurs demandĂ© Ă la commissaire aux conflits d'intĂ©rĂȘts et Ă l'Ă©thique s'il y avait autre chose qu'il pouvait faire pour aller au-delĂ des demandes initiales qui lui ont Ă©tĂ© faites.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Minister of Finance worked with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner from the start to make sure everything was up to date, to work with her, and to follow her advice in order to fulfill his ministerial mandate with integrity. He followed her advice and he remains open to doing so. He even asked the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner if there was anything else he could do to go above and beyond her initial requests.
Citing the Prime Minister's own mandate letter requiring conduct beyond just acting within the law, Scheer asks again when the Prime Minister became aware of the finance minister's conflict of interest.
Quotes the Prime Minister's own mandate letter language about obligations going beyond simply acting within the law, directly confronting the government's defence with its own words, and repeats the specific timing question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that was not the question. It was when did he know. Speaking about following the letter of the law, here is a quote from the Prime Minister. The finance minister must âuphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of [his] official duties and the arrangement of [his] private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.â Who said that? It was the Prime Minister, in his mandate letter to the finance minister. Once again, when did the Prime Minister become aware of the finance minister's conflict of interest?
The Prime Minister said the finance minister approached the Ethics Commissioner when first elected, followed all her advice, and has recently asked if he can go above and beyond.
The Prime Minister ignores the mandate letter quote entirely and gives the same non-answer about the finance minister approaching the Ethics Commissioner two years ago and asking if he can do more, never addressing when he himself learned of the situation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the finance minister first got elected two years ago, he approached the Ethics Commissioner, as many of us did, to talk about his situation and to ask her advice on how he could ensure that all the rules and all the principles were followed. He followed all of her advice, and indeed, has recently asked her if there is more he can do to go above and beyond what she originally asked of him. That is the kind of integrity Canadians expect from all members of this House.
After spending the summer calling small business owners tax cheats, when did the Prime Minister become aware that his finance minister was managing his own personal fortune in a way that avoided higher taxes?
Draws a pointed contrast between the government's summer tax fairness rhetoric and the finance minister's own financial arrangements, reinforcing the accountability ask with a political framing that somewhat dilutes the specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all summer long, the Prime Minister and the finance minister travelled across the country calling pizza shop owners and mechanics and farmers tax cheats who are trying to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. All the while, if the Prime Minister truly wanted to find a wealthy Canadian who was using the system to avoid paying higher taxes, all he had to do was turn slightly to the right, where he would find the finance minister, who is doing exactly that. So when did the Prime Minister become aware that the finance minister continued to control his personal fortune?
Oh, oh!
The Prime Minister spoke about hearing from Canadians over the summer and about lowering small business taxes to 9%, with no reference to the finance minister's personal financial arrangements.
The Prime Minister completely ignores the question about when he learned of the finance minister's arrangements, pivoting instead to small business tax cuts and general middle-class support commitments, with no connection to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the course of the summer, we heard from Canadians, small businesses, and middle-class Canadians who are looking forward to making sure that the system is fair. That is exactly whatâ
Mr. Speaker, in the election campaign, we committed to supporting the middle class and those working hard to join it and to lower small business taxes to 9%. That is exactly what we have done. We know that hard-working small business owners deserve all the support they can get, because they create jobs, they create economic growth. We are proud of the work that the finance minister and this government have done to support small businesses right across this country.
Given the finance minister still owns $40 million in Morneau Shepell shares and that company will directly profit from Bill C-27, can the Prime Minister confirm the minister recused himself from all discussions on that bill?
Asks a highly specific, yes-or-no accountability question: can the Prime Minister confirm the finance minister recused himself from all discussions on Bill C-27, after establishing the direct link between the minister's Morneau Shepell shares and that legislation on target benefit pensions.
Source text
That is what they would like us to believe, Mr. Speaker, but what the Liberals were actually doing this whole time was protecting wealthy millionaires and those trying to hide it. We know that the finance minister still owns $40 million in shares in his family business, Morneau Shepell, a business that the minister is responsible for regulating. That business will directly profit off target benefit pensions, which the Liberals are introducing in Bill C-27. Therefore, can the Prime Minister confirm that his finance minister recused himself from any and all discussions on that bill?
The Prime Minister spoke only about the 2015 election promise to lower the small business tax rate while preventing tax avoidance through Canadian-controlled private corporations, making no reference to Bill C-27 or recusal.
The Prime Minister does not mention Bill C-27, recusal, or the conflict of interest allegation at all, instead repeating campaign promises about small business tax rates â a complete non-answer to the specific question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the 2015 election campaign, we promised that as we reduce the small business tax rate to 9% from 11%, we will ensure that Canadian-controlled private corporations are not used to reduce personal income tax obligations for high-income earners rather than supporting small businesses. That is a promise we made in that election campaign. That is what we are doing.
Does the Prime Minister find it acceptable that the finance minister is doing indirectly â through a numbered company of which he is the sole shareholder â what he cannot do directly, using a loophole the Ethics Commissioner recommended abolishing in 2014?
Identifies a specific structural loophole â holding shares through a numbered company of which the minister is the sole shareholder â and references the Ethics Commissioner's 2014 recommendation to abolish that very loophole, asking whether the Prime Minister finds this acceptable.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les rĂ©ponses du premier ministre n'ont aucun sens. Le ministre des Finances tente de justifier sa position injustifiable Ă l'aide d'une Ă©chappatoire dont la commissaire aux conflits d'intĂ©rĂȘts et Ă l'Ă©thique a demandĂ© l'abolition dĂšs 2014. De quelle Ă©chappatoire parle-t-on? Au lieu de dĂ©tenir personnellement ses actions, il les a placĂ©es dans une compagnie dont il est l'unique actionnaire. Est-ce que le premier ministre trouve qu'il est acceptable que le ministre des Finances fasse indirectement ce qu'il ne peut pas faire directement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answers do not make any sense. The finance minister is trying to justify his unjustifiable position by using a loophole that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner requested be closed back in 2014. Which loophole is this? The one where, instead of owning shares in his own name, he can have them held by a company of which he is the sole shareholder. Does the Prime Minister think it acceptable for the finance minister to be doing indirectly what he cannot do directly?
The Prime Minister said that regardless of what the Ethics Commissioner said in 2014, the finance minister consulted her in 2015 and followed her recommendations, and remains open to doing more if she recommends it.
The Prime Minister acknowledges what the Ethics Commissioner may have said in 2014 but dismisses it by noting the minister consulted her in 2015 and followed her advice, without addressing whether using the loophole she previously recommended abolishing is acceptable.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, malgrĂ© ce que la commissaire aux conflits d'intĂ©rĂȘts et Ă l'Ă©thique a peut-ĂȘtre dit en 2014, le ministre des Finances l'a consultĂ©e en 2015 pour avoir son avis sur comment il devait fonctionner pour suivre toutes les rĂšgles en place qui nous gouvernent tous. Il a suivi les recommandations qu'elle a faites et, comme il l'a dit, il est toujours ouvert Ă en faire plus, si elle recommande qu'il en fasse plus, pour aller au-delĂ de ses demandes initiales.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, despite what the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner might have said in 2014, the finance minister consulted with her in 2015 to ask her advice on what he should do to ensure he follows all the rules in place that govern us all. He followed her recommendations, and, as he said, he is always open to doing more, if she advises him to do more, to go above and beyond what she initially asked of him.
Given that the finance minister called for legislation enabling Target Benefit Plans in a 2013 speech while at Morneau Shepell, then introduced Bill C-27 doing exactly that in 2016, can the Prime Minister offer his definition of a conflict of interest?
Cites a specific 2013 speech in which the minister called for legislation enabling Target Benefit Plans, then links it directly to Bill C-27 introduced in 2016, asking the Prime Minister to define conflict of interest given this documented sequence.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les responsabilitĂ©s d'un ministre des Finances peuvent entrer en conflit avec une compagnie dont il a le contrĂŽle. Par exemple, dans un discours prononcĂ© en 2013, alors qu'il Ă©tait Ă Morneau Shepell, le ministre a dit, et je cite: âWe need legislation enabling Target Benefit Plans and Shared Risk Plans in all Canadian jurisdictions.â En 2016, il a dĂ©posĂ© le projet de loi C-27 qui fait exactement cela et qui va bĂ©nĂ©ficier Ă sa compagnie. J'ai ma dĂ©finition d'un conflit d'intĂ©rĂȘts. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut me faire part de la sienne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a finance minister's responsibilities may be in conflict with a company he controls. For example, in a 2013 speech given by the minister, then a principal at Morneau Shepell, he said: « Nous avons besoin d'une mesure lĂ©gislative qui autorise les rĂ©gimes Ă prestations cibles et les rĂ©gimes de pension Ă risque partagĂ© partout au Canada. » In 2016, he introduced Bill C-27, which does exactly that and will benefit his company. I know my definition of âconflict of interestâ. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to share his?
The Prime Minister said Parliament has an Ethics Commissioner to ensure compliance with ethics and conflict of interest rules, and that the finance minister has worked with her since 2015 and continues to ask if there is more he can do.
The Prime Minister makes no reference to the 2013 speech, Bill C-27, or any definition of conflict of interest, simply repeating that the finance minister worked with the Ethics Commissioner since 2015 and continues to do so.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ici au Parlement, nous avons une commissaire aux conflits d'intĂ©rĂȘts et Ă l'Ă©thique qui nous aide Ă nous assurer que nous nous conformons aux rĂšgles d'Ă©thique et de conflits d'intĂ©rĂȘts. Le ministre des Finances a travaillĂ© avec la commissaire pour justement s'assurer, dĂšs 2015, qu'il s'y conformait tout Ă fait et il continue de travailler avec elle. Il lui demande mĂȘme s'il y a d'autres choses qu'elle pourrait recommander, pour aller au delĂ de ce qu'elle lui a demandĂ© de faire en 2015.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, here in Parliament, we have a Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner who helps us make sure we are in compliance with conflict of interest and ethics rules. The Minister of Finance began working with the commissioner in 2015 to ensure he was fully compliant, and he is still working with her. He has even asked her if she has any other recommendations above and beyond what she asked him to do in 2015.
Why did the finance minister choose to place his Morneau Shepell shares in a numbered company structure â personally owning one-third directly and the other two-thirds through a second company he also owns â rather than selling or placing them in a blind trust?
Explains the numbered company ownership structure in concrete terms (one-third plus two-thirds through a second company both owned by the minister) but frames it as a rhetorical flourish rather than a single clean accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wonder when this Prime Minister will finally take a bit of responsibility for this rather than trying to throw the Ethics Commissioner under the bus. Instead of selling millions in Morneau Shepell shares or even putting them in a blind trust, the finance minister chose to stuff them into a numbered company. He personally owns one-third of this company while the other two-thirds are owned by a second company. Who owns that second company? The finance minister does. What happens when you add one-third and two-thirds, other than a finance minister in a whole mess of trouble?
Oh, oh!
The Prime Minister said the finance minister worked with the Ethics Commissioner, followed her recommendations, and that Canadians can have confidence in the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and her advice.
The Prime Minister deflects the structural ownership question by defending the Ethics Commissioner and stating the finance minister followed her recommendations, without engaging with the specific ownership structure described.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite needs to take a sharp look at who he is throwing under the bus. The finance minister worked with the conflict of ethics commissioner, followed her recommendations and advice, and has continued to. The fact is that by following the rules and by following her recommendationsâ
Mr. Speaker, in this place, we have a conflict of ethics and interest commissioner, in whom we have confidence. We expect that when she gives advice to do something or behave in a certain way, we follow that. That is why we continue to have confidence in the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the advice she gives to us all.
Given the Prime Minister called blind trusts the 'gold standard' and everyone believed the finance minister had used one, did the Prime Minister know he had not, and if so what did he do about it?
Cites the Prime Minister's own characterization of blind trusts as the 'gold standard' and the widespread public belief â including by the company itself â that a blind trust existed, then asks a clear binary: did the Prime Minister know and what did he do?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, âconflict of ethicsâ: I think that is what they call guilty in a court of law. Only Liberals could find virtue in coming clean after they get caught. The Prime Minister says that putting their holdings in a blind trust is, in his words, the âgold standardâ. The opposition, media, Canadians, even Liberals and the company Morneau Shepell, all believed that the finance minister had placed his wealth in a blind trust. He never once corrected the record. This is a clear question to the Prime Minister. Did he know, and if he did know, what did he do about it, or does he even care?
The Prime Minister said he expects all members of the House to work with the Ethics Commissioner and follow her advice, framing compliance with her guidance as a way to rise above partisan politics.
The Prime Minister does not answer whether he knew or what he did, instead offering a generic statement about expecting all members to work with the Ethics Commissioner and follow her advice.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I and everyone in this House, expect all members of this House to work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to follow the advice that she gives. That is what we do in this House, and that is one of the ways we go above the partisan politics and personal attacks to have confidence in the work that each and every one of us does in this House.
When did the Prime Minister learn that his finance minister held assets through a company under the full control of the Ministry of Finance, given parallels to the Prime Minister's own ethics issues regarding hidden vacation arrangements?
Links the finance minister's alleged concealment of French villa assets and share holdings in his company to the Prime Minister's own Aga Khan island controversy, asking when the Prime Minister learned his minister held assets in a company under full ministerial control â a specific timing question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, voici un constat: le premier ministre a cachĂ© ses vacances sur une Ăźle privĂ©e Ă la commissaire aux conflits d'intĂ©rĂȘts et Ă l'Ă©thique, et maintenant on peut voir que le ministre des Finances a fait la mĂȘme chose pendant deux ans en dissimulant l'existence de sa villa en France et en refusant de mettre ses actifs dans une fiducie sans droit de regard. Quand le premier ministre a-t-il appris que son ministre des Finances dĂ©tenait des actifs dans sa compagnie, une compagnie qui est gĂ©rĂ©e par son ministĂšre des Finances dont il a le plein contrĂŽle?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, here are the facts: the Prime Minister hid the details of his vacation on a private island from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and now we see that the Minister of Finance did the same thing for two years by concealing the existence of his villa in France and refusing to place his assets in a blind trust. When did the Prime Minister learn that his finance minister holds assets in his company, which is managed by the Department of Finance and which still he fully controls?
The Prime Minister said he had already answered the question, claimed the finance minister worked with the Ethics Commissioner, then shifted to tax reductions for the middle class and small businesses.
The Prime Minister says he has already answered the question and immediately pivots to small business tax cuts and middle-class tax relief, providing no information relevant to when he learned of the minister's asset arrangements.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai dĂ©jĂ rĂ©pondu Ă cette question. On sait trĂšs bien que le ministre des Finances a travaillĂ© avec la commissaire aux conflits d'intĂ©rĂȘts et Ă l'Ă©thique pour assurer que tout Ă©tait conforme par rapport Ă ses actifs personnels. Encore une fois, nous sommes en train de travailler trĂšs fort pour tenir nos promesses envers la classe moyenne et les petites entreprises. Nous avons baissĂ© les impĂŽts des petites entreprises, et nous allons les baisser jusqu'Ă 9 %. Nous avons baissĂ© les impĂŽts pour la classe moyenne et nous les avons augmentĂ©s pour les mieux nantis. Nous allons continuer de faire exactement cela.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question. As everyone knows, the Minister of Finance worked with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to ensure full compliance on everything having to do with his personal assets. Once again, we are working very hard to keep the promises we made to the middle class and small businesses. We cut the small business tax rate, which will drop to 9%. We cut taxes for the middle class and raised taxes for the wealthy. We will continue to do just that.
Is it too much to ask that the Prime Minister require his finance minister to disclose all of his assets to the Canadian public?
Asks whether the Prime Minister will require the finance minister to disclose all his assets to Canadians â a straightforward yes-or-no accountability ask â though it is embedded in rhetorical framing about fairness and the targeting of small businesses.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est incroyable. Le ministre des Finances dit ĂȘtre supposĂ©ment guidĂ© par une volontĂ© d'Ă©quitĂ© dans sa rĂ©forme fiscale, et le premier ministre essaie de nous dire cela. Est-il Ă©quitable de proposer une rĂ©forme qui profitera Ă ses propres intĂ©rĂȘts personnels en s'attaquant aux PME, Ă nos travailleurs, aux fermiers, aux garagistes, aux restaurateurs et Ă la classe moyenne? J'ai une question simple pour le premier ministre: est-ce trop demander qu'il exige de son ministre des Finances de divulguer tous les actifs qu'il dĂ©tient Ă l'ensemble de la population canadienne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible. The Minister of Finance is supposedly driven by a sense of fairness in his tax reform, or so the Prime Minister would have us believe. Is it fair to propose a reform that will benefit his own personal interests by attacking SMEs, our workers, farmers, mechanics, restaurant owners, and the middle class? I have a simple question for the Prime Minister. Is it too much to ask for him to get his Minister of Finance to disclose all his assets to the Canadian public?
The Prime Minister said mechanics, small businesses, farmers, and fishers will all receive a tax cut because of this government's actions, and reiterated the commitment to lower the small business tax rate to 9%.
The Prime Minister makes no reference to full disclosure of the finance minister's assets, instead listing supposed benefits to small businesses and farmers from the government's tax measures, a complete pivot from the question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au contraire. Ces garagistes, ces petites entreprises, ces fermiers, ces pĂȘcheurs vont tous avoir une baisse d'impĂŽt Ă cause des actions de ce gouvernement. Nous nous sommes engagĂ©s Ă baisser le taux d'imposition pour les petites entreprises jusqu'Ă 9 %, et c'est exactement ce que nous sommes en train de faire, tout en nous assurant que les mieux nantis ne pourront pas utiliser ces mĂ©canismes pour Ă©viter de payer le mĂȘme pourcentage d'impĂŽt que la classe moyenne. Nous allons toujours dĂ©fendre les petites entreprises. Nous allons toujours dĂ©fendre la classe moyenne. Je suis trĂšs fier du travail que ce gouvernement et le ministre des Finances sont en train de faire Ă ce sujet.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. Those mechanics, small business owners, farmers, and fishers will all benefit from a tax cut thanks to the actions of this government. We promised to lower the small business tax rate to 9%, and that is exactly what we are doing while ensuring that the wealthy cannot use these mechanisms to avoid paying the same tax rate as the middle class. We will continue to stand up for small businesses. We will continue to stand up for the middle class. I am very proud of the work that this government and the Minister of Finance are doing.
When did the Prime Minister learn that the Minister of Finance did not dispose of his shares in accordance with the Ethics Commissioner, given that the minister had publicly said he would put his fortune in a blind trust?
Presents a specific factual claim â the finance minister publicly stated he would put his fortune in a blind trust but in 2015 chose to neither sell the shares nor put them in a blind trust â and asks the single precise question of when the Prime Minister learned of this.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the Prime Minister to focus clearly on what the question is, because we are not getting the answer. When the finance minister was first elected, he clearly said that he was going to put his vast fortune into a blind trust. We learned two years later that in 2015 he had a choice between selling the shares and putting them in a blind trust and, lo and behold, he did neither. I want to know one specific thing. When did the Prime Minister learn that the Minister of Finance did not dispose of his shares in accordance with the Ethics Commissioner?
The Prime Minister said he knew all his ministers had worked with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure her advice was followed, then listed middle-class tax cuts, the Canada child benefit, and small business tax reductions as the government's real focus.
The Prime Minister does not say when he learned anything, instead offering only the general assurance that all ministers worked with the Ethics Commissioner â never addressing the specific claim about the blind trust commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as is the case for all our ministers, I knew that our ministers, each and every one of them, have worked with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to ensure that her advice is followed in their personal affairs. This is something that matters to all parliamentarians. It allows us to focus on the things that really matter to Canadians, like lowering taxes for small businesses, like lowering taxes for the middle class and raising them on the wealthiest 1%, like delivering the Canada child benefit to give more money to nine out of 10 Canadian families. That is what this government is focused on, not the petty politics that the members opposite are focused on.
Raitt rebukes the Prime Minister for appearing to shrug off responsibility for ensuring the finance minister is following the law.
This is primarily a rhetorical rebuke of the Prime Minister for shrugging off responsibility rather than a clearly structured question, with no specific factual ask â it functions more as a speech than an accountability query.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Prime Minister one thing. Where I come from in Milton, Ontario, it is not petty to want to make sure that our Minister of Finance is absolutelyâ
Oh, oh!
The Prime Minister, in the House, is now shrugging off responsibility. It is a personal matter; it is not his to look after. It absolutely is, and shame on the Prime Minister for not having the decency of ensuring that his finance minister is following the law.
The Prime Minister said his responsibility is to ensure the government follows all rules, that the Ethics Commissioner gave the finance minister clear advice which he followed, and reiterated tax and social benefit commitments.
The Prime Minister asserts his responsibility is to ensure the government follows all rules and stays focused on Canadians, then pivots to tax cuts and the Canada child benefit, providing no substantive engagement with the accusation of shrugging off responsibility.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my responsibility is to ensure that this government stays focused on the things that matter and that we follow all the rules. That is why the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner gave clear advice to the Minister of Finance, which he followed and which he will continue to follow. If she wants to make any more recommendations, he will be happy to go above and beyond. We remain focused on the folks in Milton, the folks in 337 other ridings across this country, as we lower taxes for the middle class, as we raise them on the wealthiest 1%, as we lower taxes for all small businesses.
Does the Prime Minister stand by the finance minister using loopholes to place roughly $40 million in Morneau Shepell shares in a numbered company in Alberta?
Asks whether the Prime Minister stands by the finance minister's use of loopholes to protect his assets â a direct accountability question â but the framing is heavily partisan and the specific ask is somewhat buried in rhetorical characterization.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after months of calling hard-working Canadians tax cheats, we now know that the Minister of Finance found a loophole and has all of his Morneau Shepell sharesâby the way, about $40 million worth of themâtucked away for a rainy day in a numbered company in Alberta. The hypocrisy of this is mind-boggling, but what is beyond mind-boggling is the Prime Minister defending this, saying he knew about it all along and he is perfectly okay with it. Is that where the Prime Minister stands today on his finance minister using loopholes to cover up and protect his assets? Is that what we are hearing?
The Prime Minister said he has confidence in the Ethics Commissioner, that the finance minister followed her advice, and that the Commissioner exists to protect members on both sides of the House from wild accusations.
The Prime Minister defends the Ethics Commissioner and accuses the opposition of gutter politics, but does not directly answer whether he endorses the finance minister's use of the numbered company structure or loopholes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, apparently unlike the members opposite, I still have confidence in the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. She gave clear advice to the Minister of Finance. He followed that advice. One of the reasons we have a Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is to avoid the gutter politics that the members opposite are involved in right now, making wild accusations when the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is there to protect members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House. We have a system in which Canadians can be proud. We will continue to defend that system.
Does the Prime Minister defend the behaviour of the finance minister making money off assets he owns in Morneau Shepell while simultaneously enacting legislation as Minister of Finance?
Asks a direct binary question â does the Prime Minister defend the finance minister making money off assets he owns while enacting legislation as finance minister â grounded in the concurrent facts of rising share values and legislative activity over two years.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the fig leaf that the Prime Minister is trying to hide behind is getting smaller and smaller by the moment. We have a Minister of Finance who has for the past two years owned tens of millions of dollars' worth of shares in Morneau Shepell. All along he has been doing two things: first of all, making a whole lot more money in the last two years; second of all, enacting legislation that benefits that company. We are going to give the Prime Minister another chance. Does he defend the behaviour of the Minister of Finance making money off of assets that he owns while enacting legislation as Minister of Finance?
Oh, oh!
The Prime Minister listed the finance minister's accomplishments including middle-class tax cuts, hundreds of thousands of jobs, fastest-growing G7 economy, CPP strengthening, and the Canada child benefit, with no reference to the conflict of interest allegation.
The Prime Minister pivots entirely to listing the finance minister's policy achievements â middle-class tax cuts, job creation, G7 growth, CPP strengthening, and the Canada child benefit â without addressing the conflict of interest question at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we can talk about the behaviour of the finance minister. The finance minister lowered taxes for the middle class and raised them on the wealthiest 1%. He has contributed to the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs across this country, record numbers over the past 10 years. We now have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. The finance minister put forward a strengthening of the Canada pension plan that will secure retirement for generations to come, and continues to look at ways to help Canadians like, for example, delivering the Canada child benefit which helps nine out of 10â
Brosseau alleges that the finance minister wrote Bill C-27 which would enrich Morneau Shepell and thus himself, and asks the Prime Minister to admit his finance minister has betrayed Canadians' trust.
The question identifies Bill C-27 and Morneau Shepell by name and makes a specific conflict-of-interest allegation, but ends in a broad rhetorical ask about betraying Canadians' trust rather than a precise answerable question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ministre des Finances pourra rĂ©aliser des millions de dollars de profits en raison d'un projet de loi dĂ©posĂ© Ă la Chambre et qu'il a lui-mĂȘme Ă©crit. C'est peut-ĂȘtre le cas le plus flagrant de conflit d'intĂ©rĂȘts jamais vu. Si le projet de loi C-27 devenait loi, Morneau Shepell ferait, bien sĂ»r, plus d'argent et le ministre des Finances serait en train de se remplir les poches. C'est complĂštement inacceptable. Est-ce que le premier ministre va admettre que son ministre des Finances a complĂštement trahi la confiance des Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance stands to make millions in profit from a bill before Parliament that he himself wrote. This may be the most blatant conflict of interest in history. It is undeniable that, if Bill C-27 were to become law, Morneau Shepell would reap greater profits, which would pour into the finance minister's pocket. That is totally unacceptable. Will the Prime Minister admit that his Minister of Finance has utterly betrayed Canadians' trust?
Trudeau lists government accomplishments including middle-class tax cuts, the Canada child benefit, and infrastructure investment without addressing the conflict-of-interest allegation.
The Prime Minister lists general government achievements on taxes and child benefits without addressing the conflict-of-interest allegation or Bill C-27 in any way.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les Canadiens ont placé leur confiance dans ce gouvernement et dans ce ministre des Finances, parce que nous avons fait la promesse d'investir dans la classe moyenne, de favoriser la croissance économique et d'aider les familles qui en avaient besoin. C'est exactement ce que nous sommes en train de faire. Nous avons baissé les impÎts pour la classe moyenne et nous les avons augmentés pour les mieux nantis. Nous avons accordé une Allocation canadienne pour enfants qui donne plus d'argent à 9 familles sur 10 et nous avons bonifié le Supplément de revenu garanti pour les aßnés les plus vulnérables. Nous continuons d'investir dans des infrastructures partout au pays, qui vont aider nos collectivités et nos individus. Nous allons continuer de créer la croissance économique pour tous les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians placed their trust in this government and this Minister of Finance because we promised to invest in the middle class, promote economic growth, and help families in need. That is exactly what we are doing. We lowered taxes for the middle class and raised them for the wealthiest Canadians. We introduced the Canada child benefit, which gives more money to nine out of ten families, and we improved the guaranteed income supplement for our most vulnerable seniors. We continue to invest in infrastructure across Canada to help our communities and Canadians. We are going to continue creating economic growth for all Canadians.
Angus states the boss at Morneau Shepell told investors in 2013 that legislation was required to go after defined pension benefits, that Morneau Shepell called Bill C-27 a game-changer, and asks the Prime Minister to withdraw Bill C-27.
Angus cites a specific 2013 investor statement from the boss at Morneau Shepell, references Bill C-27 by name, and states a specific figure of $150,000 a month, making a concrete and identifiable ask to withdraw the bill.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the boss at Morneau Shepell told investors in 2013 that legislation was required to go after defined pension benefits and, voila, he introduced Bill C-27. Morneau Shepell told investors this legislation would be a game-changer. The Prime Minister is talking about a gold standard of ethics. Gold for whom, for the finance minister, who is now making $150,000 a month? A blind trust will not cut it. Will the Prime Minister withdraw Bill C-27, and his finance minister's blatant attack on the pension benefits of Canadian workers?
Trudeau expresses pride in the government's support for organized labour and commits to putting money in the pockets of the middle class, without addressing the investor statement or the withdrawal of Bill C-27.
The Prime Minister pivots to general praise of the government's support for organized labour and middle-class growth without addressing the investor statement, the $150,000 figure, or the request to withdraw Bill C-27.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the work that the finance minister and indeed this government has done to support organized labour, to support workers across this country. We are going to continue to put money in the pockets of the middle class and those working hard to join it, because we know that is the best way to grow the economy. When we invest in the middle class, when we support the middle class, whether it is small businesses, single moms, or hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast, we know that the entire economy benefits. We are going to stay focused on the promise we made to Canadians to grow the economy in a way that works for everyone. That is exactly what we are doing.
Poilievre alleges the finance minister used a numbered company in Alberta to circumvent the ban on ministers owning stocks, earned $13 million from a company he regulates, and asks when the Prime Minister learned about the over $40 million in shares.
Poilievre identifies the specific mechanism (numbered company in Alberta) used to hold stocks, cites a specific figure of $13 million in gains and $40 million in total holdings, and asks the Prime Minister a precise and answerable timeline question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, ministers are banned from owning stocks. To get around that, the finance minister stuffed his stocks in a numbered company in Alberta. The finance minister earned $13 million in gains from a financial company that he regulates. When did the Prime Minister learn that his finance minister had over $40 million in stocks in a company that he regulates?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau says he has confidence in the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who was fully updated on all personal situations and worked with each minister to ensure conformity with the rules, but does not answer when he learned about the holdings.
Trudeau defers entirely to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and expresses confidence in her without addressing the timeline question of when he personally learned about the holdings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, apparently, unlike the members opposite, I have confidence in our Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who was fully updated on all the personal situations of every member of our government, and who worked with each one of them, including the Minister of Finance, to ensure that everything they did conformed to the rules and the principles that govern this place. We will continue to be fully confident in the capacity of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to do her job, and I really would recommend that the members opposite do as well.
Poilievre alleges the finance minister used a loophole to stay invested in a company he regulates, earned $13 million through that loophole, and asks when the Prime Minister knew his finance minister had shares in Morneau Shepell.
Poilievre sharpens the question by citing the $13 million figure earned through the loophole while the finance minister called farmers and plumbers tax cheats, and asks a specific timeline question about when the Prime Minister knew about the shares.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister used a loophole to keep himself invested in a financial company that he regulates. He earned $13 million, while finance minister, through the use of that loophole, all the while going across the country calling honest plumbers and farmers tax cheats. When did the Prime Minister know that his finance minister had shares in Morneau Shepell?
Trudeau credits the finance minister with the fastest-growing economy in the G7, middle-class tax cuts, guaranteed income supplement increases, Canada pension plan strengthening, and infrastructure investments, without answering the timeline question.
Trudeau lists economic achievements attributed to the finance minister including G7 growth, pension plan strengthening, and infrastructure investment without addressing when he learned about the shares in Morneau Shepell.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has helped us in a time when we have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. He has lowered taxes on the middle class and raised them on the wealthiest 1%. He increased the guaranteed income supplement for our most vulnerable seniors. He strengthened the Canada pension plan for future generations. He has been the finance minister through investments in infrastructure across this country that are going to create millions of good jobs and secure communities and their futures for many years to come. These are the kinds of things that Canadians expect from this government. These are the things that we are staying focused on.
Poilievre alleges the finance minister used a loophole to circumvent the ban on ministers owning stocks and kept secret over $40 million of investments in a company he regulated, and asks when the Prime Minister learned about this.
Poilievre again cites the $40 million figure, identifies the loophole mechanism, and frames the question around the finance minister as the country's most powerful financial decision-maker keeping the holdings secret, asking a specific timeline question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is actually staying focused on something else and that is growing his family fortune. He used a loophole in order to get around the ban on ministers owning stocks. This is the finance minister, the country's most powerful financial decision-maker, and he kept secret from the Canadian people over $40 million of investments that he had in a company that he regulated. When did the Prime Minister learn that?
Trudeau lists economic results including over 400,000 new jobs, an unemployment rate drop from 7.1% to 6.2%, middle-class tax cuts, and a 40% cut in child poverty, without answering the timeline question.
Trudeau cites over 400,000 new jobs, the unemployment rate dropping from 7.1% to 6.2%, middle-class tax cuts, and a 40% cut in child poverty without addressing when he learned about the $40 million in stocks.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has contributed to the creation of over 400,000 new jobs across this country, most of them full time. Since December 2015, the unemployment rate has dropped from 7.1% to 6.2%, the lowest point in nearly nine years. We have cut taxes for the middle class by raising them on the wealthiest 1%. We have ended the sending of Conservative child benefit cheques to millionaire families so we could give more money to nine out of 10 Canadian families, and cut child poverty by 40%. These are the things the finance minister has been focused on. These are the things Canadians elected this government to deliver.
Poilievre states that based on public filings, Morneau Shepell sent million-dollar cheques to the finance minister, who maintained a $40-million secret stake in a company he regulates, and asks when the Prime Minister learned these facts.
Poilievre cites public filings as evidence, identifies the $40-million stake and the regulatory relationship, and repeats the specific answerable timeline question about when the Prime Minister learned these facts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, based on public filings, Morneau Shepell has been sending million-dollar cheques to the millionaire finance minister. He has continued to own shares in a publicly traded company that he regulates. This is the finance minister, the man who is supposed to regulate our financial markets, and yet he has a $40-million secret stake in one of the most powerful companies in the country. When did the Prime Minister learn these facts?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau accuses the opposition of personal attacks and pivots to defending proposals to lower the small business tax to 9% while ensuring the wealthiest Canadians do not benefit from tax advantages unavailable to middle-class Canadians.
Trudeau accuses the opposition of making personal attacks and pivots entirely to defending small business tax proposals, never addressing the timeline question or the conflict-of-interest allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can understand why members opposite just want to make personal attacks and sully the good name of members across this way. It is because they have nothing to say on the substance of what we are doing. For months, we have heard them shriekingâ
For months, Mr. Speaker, members opposite went on and on about how we were attacking small businesses, even though we were doing no such thing. We have demonstrated that we are moving forward on keeping our electoral commitments to lower the small business tax to 9%, while at the same time ensuring that the wealthiest Canadians do not benefit from tax advantages that middle-class Canadians do not. This is our focus. It is no wonder that they have nothing to do but sling mud.
Quach asks whether the Prime Minister has forgotten his promise to change inadequate bankruptcy laws to stop pension theft, given the Sears workers' situation and the appointment of Morneau Shepell to administer the Sears Canada liquidation plan.
Quach references a specific Liberal election promise to change inadequate bankruptcy laws to protect pensions and the concrete case of Sears workers, and raises the appointment of Morneau Shepell to administer the Sears Canada liquidation plan, though the question is cut off before completion.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les libĂ©raux font tellement pitiĂ©. Pendant la campagne Ă©lectorale, les libĂ©raux avaient promis de changer nos lois inadĂ©quates en matiĂšre de faillite pour mettre fin au vol des pensions, mais, deux ans plus tard, toujours rien. S'ils avaient agi plus rapidement, ils auraient pu protĂ©ger les travailleurs et les retraitĂ©s de Sears. En fait, c'est comme si leur promesse n'existait plus. C'est le silence radio. Bizarrement, aujourd'hui, on apprend que c'est Morneau Shepell qui sera en charge du plan de liquidation de Sears Canada. C'est aussi pire que le scandale des commandites. Le premier ministre a-t-il oubliĂ© sa promesse parce que le statu quo va profiter aux intĂ©rĂȘts financiers de...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are truly pitiful. During the election campaign, the Liberals promised to amend our inadequate bankruptcy laws to put an end to pension theft. Two years later, they have yet to do anything. If they had acted more quickly, they could have protected Sears workers and pensioners. Now it is radio silence, and it is as though they never even made that promise. Oddly enough, today, we learned that Morneau Shepell will be in charge of the Sears Canada liquidation. This is just as bad as the sponsorship scandal. Did the Prime Minister forget his promise because the status quo will benefit the financial interests ofâ
Trudeau says he expects cynicism from Conservatives but finds it disappointing from the NDP, and pledges to continue supporting workers, families, and seniors so they can have confidence in their future.
Trudeau expresses general commitment to supporting workers and families without addressing the unfulfilled bankruptcy law promise or the Morneau Shepell appointment to the Sears Canada liquidation plan.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je m'attends à ce genre de cynisme de la part des conservateurs mais c'est vraiment décevant de l'entendre du NPD. Nous allons continuer de travailler avec les Canadiens, avec les travailleurs qui vivent des moments difficiles, surtout dans le secteur du détail, et nous allons continuer d'appuyer les familles, les travailleurs et nos aßnés pour nous assurer qu'ils ont confiance en leur avenir. C'est ce que notre gouvernement fait à tous les jours et c'est ce que nous allons continuer de faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I expect this kind of cynicism from the Conservatives, but it is very disappointing to hear it coming from the NDP. We will continue to work with Canadians, with workers who are going through tough times, especially those in the retail sector, and we will continue to support families, workers, and seniors to ensure that they are confident about their futures. That is what this government does every day, and that is what we will continue to do.
Duvall notes that Morneau Shepell has been appointed to administer the Sears Canada pension plan, that the government has not fixed bankruptcy laws as promised, and that Bill C-27 would allow the finance minister to profit off workers getting weak pensions, asking if this is the real change promised.
Duvall identifies Morneau Shepell's appointment to administer the Sears Canada pension plan, connects it to Bill C-27 and the finance minister's potential profit, and references the unfulfilled bankruptcy law promise, though the final ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Certainly not supporting the middle class that is for sure, Mr. Speaker. Workers at Sears Canada are very worried about whether their pensions will be protected, but guess who has been appointed to administer the Sears Canada pension plan? Morneau Shepell. This is a company that advocates transferring more risks from employer to employee. The government promised it would fix our bankruptcy laws but it has done nothing. Furthermore, if Bill C-27 becomes law, the finance minister will profit off workers getting stuck with weak pensions. I have a simple question for the Prime Minister. Is this the real change he promised working Canadians?
Trudeau expresses sympathy for Sears workers, states that current Sears Canada pension fund assets are held in trust and must be used solely for the benefit of pensioners, and notes that approximately 80 Service Canada sessions have already been delivered across the country.
Trudeau expresses sympathy for Sears workers, states that pension fund assets are held in trust for pensioners, and notes that Service Canada has delivered approximately 80 sessions nationally, providing some relevant information but not addressing the conflict-of-interest concern or the bankruptcy law promise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out to the workers who were affected by the decisions taken by Sears. We are making every effort to connect Sears employees and pensioners with programs and services that will help them get through this tough time. I understand current Sears Canada pension fund assets are held in trust, and must be used solely for the benefit of pensioners. Service Canada has been meeting with representatives of Sears Canada to ensure a rapid national and coordinated response to meet the needs of the impacted employees. Approximately 80 sessions have already been delivered across this country.
Sahota asks the Prime Minister how the government is helping small businesses in Canada during Small Business Week.
This is a government-backbench softball setup framed around Small Business Week, with no accountability dimension and a predictable open invitation for the Prime Minister to tout government policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this year is the 38th Small Business Week, which celebrates Canada's entrepreneurs and small businesses. From mom-and-pop shops in Brampton, like T By Daniel to innovative giants, small businesses truly are the backbone of the Canadian economy. This week, over 208 events being held from coast to coast to coast give entrepreneurs the opportunity to network, and access business advice and solutions. Could the Prime Minister tell us how our government is helping small businesses in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, our government always has supported and always will support hard-working Canadian entrepreneurs and small business owners. This week we announced that we are delivering on our commitment to reduce the small business tax rate to 9%, and that small businesses would have to have, at 5% returns, over $1 million sitting in their account to be impacted by our proposals. We all benefit when Canadian businesses are strong and creating good, middle-class jobs for Canadians and those working hard to join the middle class.
Trudeau announces the government is delivering on its commitment to reduce the small business tax rate to 9% and specifies that small businesses would have to have, at 5% returns, over $1 million sitting in their account to be impacted by the proposals.
Trudeau announces the commitment to reduce the small business tax rate to 9% and specifies that small businesses would need over $1 million in their account at 5% returns to be impacted by the proposals, providing some concrete policy information.
Gourde alleges the finance minister secretly held shares in a financial services company he oversees, earning $13 million over two years through a numbered company in Alberta to circumvent ethics rules and pay less tax, and asks when the Prime Minister learned about this loophole use.
Gourde cites a specific $13 million figure in passive income and capital gains over two years, identifies the numbered company in Alberta as the mechanism, and asks a precise and answerable timeline question about when the Prime Minister learned about the loophole use.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en gardant secrÚtement ses actions de la société de services financiers qu'il dirige, le ministre des Finances a pu gagner 13 millions de dollars en revenu passif et en gains en capital au cours des deux derniÚres années, depuis qu'il est ministre des Finances. Les ministres n'ont pas le droit de détenir des actions. Pour contourner cette rÚgle, le ministre des Finances a mis ses actions dans sa compagnie à numéro en Alberta, se soustrayant aux rÚgles d'éthique et payant moins d'impÎt. Quand le premier ministre a-t-il appris que son ministre des Finances utilisait une échappatoire pour détenir des actions d'une entreprise qu'il dirige?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, by secretly keeping his shares in the financial services firm he runs, the Minister of Finance was able to earn $13 million in passive income and capital gains since becoming finance minister two years ago. Ministers are not allowed to own shares. To get around that, the finance minister put his shares in his numbered company in Alberta, thereby circumventing ethics rules and paying less tax. When did the Prime Minister find out that his finance minister was using a loophole to hold on to shares in a company he runs?
Trudeau says the personal attacks on the finance minister are disturbing, as are attacks on the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and states the finance minister worked with her to ensure everything conformed to the rules and is open to further recommendations.
Trudeau defends the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and states the finance minister worked with her to ensure conformity with the rules, without addressing the timeline question or acknowledging when he personally learned about the holdings.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce ne sont pas juste ces attaques personnelles contre le ministre des Finances qui sont dĂ©rangeantes, ce sont aussi les attaques contre la commissaire aux conflits d'intĂ©rĂȘts et Ă l'Ă©thique. Le ministre des Finances a travaillĂ© avec elle pour s'assurer que tout Ă©tait conforme aux rĂšgles et aux principes en place. De plus, il est toujours ouvert Ă continuer de travailler avec elle, si elle a d'autres recommandations, pour aller au-delĂ de ses recommandations initiales.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is very disturbing that personal attacks are being made not only against the finance minister but also against the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The Minister of Finance worked with the commissioner to ensure that he was following all the rules and principles. What is more, he remains open to continuing to work with her if she has any further requests that go above and beyond her initial recommendations.
Kent asks when the Prime Minister learned that the Minister of Finance, as Canada's chief financial officer, so deliberately offended the spirit of the ethics law.
Kent frames a direct question to the Minister of Finance about when the Prime Minister learned that the finance minister deliberately offended the spirit of the ethics law, though the framing is somewhat rhetorical and the question is similar to previous exchanges.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a question through you to the Minister of Finance, though we know the Prime Minister is speaking for the Minister of Finance again today. It is a simple question, which I hope the Minister of Finance will make himself available to the House to answer, sooner than later. When did the Minister of Finance advise the Prime Ministerâwhen did the Prime Minister learn that Canada's chief financial officer so deliberately offended the spirit of the ethics law?
Trudeau notes that he takes all questions on Wednesdays during Prime Minister's question period and states that the finance minister has worked with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to ensure his personal holdings conform with the rules, principles, and laws.
Trudeau notes that he answers questions during Prime Minister's question period on Wednesdays and states the finance minister worked with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to conform with the rules, without answering the timeline question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to once again highlight that during Prime Minister's question period on Wednesdays, I am happy to take all questions from all members opposite. Furthermore, in the time since the Minister of Finance was elected, he has worked with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to ensure that his personal holdings conform with the rules, principles, and laws that regulate us all in this place, and will continue to do exactly that.
Strahl alleges that the finance minister regulates pensions while his company administers pensions, introduced Bill C-27 to promote target benefit pension plans while his company administers those plans, and that his tax proposal coerces small businesses to open individual pension plans while his company sells those plans, asking when the Prime Minister learned about the $40 million in shares.
Strahl systematically lists three specific regulatory overlaps between the finance minister's portfolio and Morneau Shepell's business interests (pensions, target benefit pension plans, and individual pension plans), cites the $40 million figure, and asks a specific timeline question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has been secretly holding $40 million of shares in a financial services company. The minister regulates pensions; his company administers pensions. He introduced a bill to promote target benefit pension plans; his company administers those plans. His tax proposal coerces small businesses to open individual pension plans; his company sells those plans. When did the Prime Minister learn that his Minister of Finance still owns $40 million of shares in a financial services company he regulates as minister?
Trudeau says it is interesting that Conservatives have fallen back on personal attacks and throwing mud after having nothing to say about the government's small business tax proposals, and accuses them of calling into question the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner herself.
Trudeau accuses the Conservatives of falling back on personal attacks and slinging mud after having nothing to say about the small business tax proposals, without addressing the three regulatory overlaps or the timeline question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is actually fairly interesting. For months we heard nothing from the Conservatives except concern about our proposals to make the tax system fairer. Now that we have laid out what we are doing, and were always intending on doing, they have nothing to say about that. The Conservatives have fallen back on personal attacks, on throwing mud, on calling into question not just the Minister of Finance's ethics, but the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner herself. That is really where the members opposite have ended up. They know that the proposals we put forward for small businesses and Canadians are the right ones.
Strahl alleges the finance minister used an ethics loophole to stash stocks in a numbered company in Alberta, earning $13 million while being Minister of Finance, while simultaneously calling farmers and plumbers tax cheats for using loopholes, and asks when the Prime Minister learned about this.
Strahl effectively juxtaposes the finance minister's public characterization of farmers and plumbers as tax cheats for using loopholes with his own use of an ethics loophole, cites the $13 million figure, and repeats the specific timeline question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is forbidden from owning stocks in finance companies, but he used an ethics loophole to stash the stocks in a numbered company in Alberta. The same finance minister who has called farmers and plumbers tax cheats for using what he calls âloopholesâ used an ethics loophole to keep his stocks, which have made him $13 million while he has been the Minister of Finance. When did the Prime Minister learn that his finance minister used ethics loopholes to pocket $13 million by owning stocks in a company he regulates as the Minister of Finance?
Trudeau argues that the opposition's supposed concern for plumbers, farmers, electricians, and small business owners was insincere, as they abandoned those arguments once the government put forward proposals supporting small businesses while ensuring the wealthiest pay their fair share.
Trudeau accuses the opposition of abandoning their supposed concern for plumbers, farmers, and small business owners and engages in counter-rhetoric about mudslinging, without addressing the timeline question or the loophole allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, now we see clearly that the supposed concern of the members opposite for plumbers, farmers, electricians, and small business owners was nothing, because as soon as we put forward the proposals to demonstrate that we would be supporting small businesses while making sure that the wealthiest Canadians pay their fair share of taxes, they had nothing to say about it. They have completely forgotten all the arguments they have made over the past months and do nothing but engage in personal attacks and slinging mud, both at the finance minister and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Shame on them.
Kwan cites the Conflict of Interest Act's prohibition on a minister exercising an official power to further his or her private interests, applies it to Bill C-27 and the finance minister's financial interests, and asks the Prime Minister to admit the Minister of Finance has violated the Conflict of Interest Act.
Kwan cites the specific language of the Conflict of Interest Act regarding exercising an official power to further private interests and applies it directly to Bill C-27 and the finance minister, though the question ends with a rhetorical jab about the French villa.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that Bill C-27 furthers the private interests of the finance minister. The Conflict of Interest Act states that a minister is in a conflict âwhen he or she exercises an official power...to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relativesâ. Will the Prime Minister just admit that his Minister of Finance has violated the Conflict of Interest Act, or is he just too busy working hard for the French villa owners, or those who are working hard to become French villaâ
Trudeau says the government's focus remains on supporting the middle class through tax cuts, the Canada child benefit, the guaranteed income supplement, and student grants, and expresses trust in the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
Trudeau lists middle-class policy achievements and expresses trust in the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner without addressing whether Bill C-27 constitutes a violation of the Conflict of Interest Act as defined by the specific provision Kwan cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our focus remains on supporting the middle class and those working hard to join it. That is exactly what we have been doing, lowering taxes on the middle class, raising them on the wealthiest 1%, delivering a Canada child benefit that helps nine out of 10 Canadian families, staying focused on strengthening the guaranteed income supplement for our vulnerable elderly seniors, and helping students get back to school with upfront grants and more money. These are the types of things we are focused on. All the while, we trust in the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the recommendations she makes to each and every one of us in the House.
Cullen references the Prime Minister's own use of the phrase 'conflict of ethics' and 'petty politics', argues that the finance minister setting up a numbered company to exploit an ethics loophole and the protection of Canadian pensions are important matters, and asks when the Prime Minister will apologize for his dismissive remarks and take action on the blatant abuse of public office.
Cullen holds the Prime Minister to his own specific language of 'conflict of ethics' and 'petty politics', and asks for an apology for dismissive remarks and action on the ethics abuse, but the question is more rhetorical than precisely targeted.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister kept calling this a âconflict of ethicsâ, so I wonder how many sets of ethics the Liberals actually have for them to have a conflict between one set and another. He said he is focused on what he thinks is important. Well, a finance minister setting up a numbered company to exploit an ethics loophole is important to Canadians. He says this finance minister's breaking of his own ethics code is âpetty politicsâ. We think protecting Canadian pensions is important and do not think a conflict of ethics is petty politics. When is he going to apologize for his dismissive remarks and finally take some action about this blatant abuse of public office?
Trudeau says that when the opposition resorts to mudslinging and personal attacks it shows the government must be doing something right, and lists middle-class tax cuts, small business tax reductions, and economic growth as the government's focus.
Trudeau says that when the opposition resorts to mudslinging and personal attacks it shows the government must be doing something right, and pivots to small business tax cuts and middle-class investment without addressing the request for an apology or action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the opposition has to resort to nothing more than mudslinging and personal attacks, we can see that the government must be doing something right. We are, because we are investing and are lowering taxes for the middle class and raising them on the wealthiest 1%. We are lowering small business taxes for Canadians right across the country. We know that small businesses are at the heart of the economy. They are the employers, the local community hubs that make such a difference in our towns and cities right across the country. We are going to continue to stand up for small business owners and grow the economy in ways the previous government never could.
Berthold asks the PM to confirm whether the parliamentary secretary's statement that there is room to negotiate on supply management reveals the government's true position.
Cites a specific statement by the parliamentary secretary and asks the PM to confirm whether it reveals the government's true position on supply management, but the framing is heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on se rend compte avec les rĂ©ponses d'aujourd'hui que le gouvernement libĂ©ral a un grave problĂšme de crĂ©dibilitĂ© parce qu'il vit dans un monde auquel la classe moyenne n'a pas accĂšs. La parole de ce gouvernement ne dure pas plus longtemps qu'un clip mĂ©dia. Plus les libĂ©raux rĂ©pĂštent quelque chose, plus les gens devraient ĂȘtre inquiets. L'attaque contre les agriculteurs avec la rĂ©forme fiscale nous le dĂ©montre. Le secrĂ©taire parlementaire pour les relations canado-amĂ©ricaines a Ă©tĂ© clair. Le gouvernement a de la place pour nĂ©gocier la gestion de l'offre avec les AmĂ©ricains. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut le confirmer? Le secrĂ©taire parlementaire a dĂ©voilĂ©, dans le fond, la vraie position de son gouvernement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today's answers clearly show that the Liberal government has a serious credibility problem because they live in a world that is out of reach for the middle class. The government keeps its word only as long as the cameras are rolling. The more the Liberals repeat something, the more people should be worried. Their tax reform that attacks farmers proves it. The parliamentary secretary for Canada-U.S. relations was clear. The government has room to negotiate with the Americans on supply management. Can the Prime Minister confirm this? The parliamentary secretary basically revealed the government's true position.
Trudeau states that all Liberal MPs will always defend supply management, which was put in place by a previous Liberal government.
Trudeau asserts the government will always defend supply management but does not address the parliamentary secretary's specific statement or whether it reflects government policy.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je peux parler pour tous les dĂ©putĂ©s de ce cĂŽtĂ©-ci de la Chambre et dire que nous allons toujours dĂ©fendre la gestion de l'offre. C'est un gouvernement libĂ©ral antĂ©rieur qui l'a mise en place. Le Parti libĂ©ral et tous les dĂ©putĂ©s du gouvernement libĂ©ral vont toujours dĂ©fendre la gestion de l'offre. Malheureusement, les dĂ©putĂ©s d'en face ne peuvent pas dire la mĂȘme chose.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of all the members on this side of the House when I say that we will always stand up for supply management. It was a previous Liberal government that implemented it. The Liberal Party and all its members will always stand up for supply management. Unfortunately, the members opposite cannot say the same.
Berthold cites the parliamentary secretary's October 11 televised statement and asks whether the PM will rebuke him for opening the door to concessions, and whether the PM commits to fully protecting supply management.
Cites a specific dated televised debate and direct quote ('Is there room to discuss and negotiate? Of course.') and asks two concrete questions: will the PM rebuke the parliamentary secretary, and will he commit to fully protecting supply management?
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le 11 octobre, dans un dĂ©bat tĂ©lĂ©visĂ©, enregistrĂ© et diffusĂ© aux Ătats-Unis, le secrĂ©taire parlementaire a dit: âIs there room to discuss and negotiate? Of course.â La vĂ©ritĂ©, c'est que les libĂ©raux sont prĂȘts Ă faire des concessions dans notre systĂšme de gestion de l'offre, contrairement Ă ce que disent le premier ministre et les ministres. Le premier ministre va-t-il rabrouer le secrĂ©taire parlementaire pour avoir ouvert cette porte aux AmĂ©ricains? Toute concession aura des consĂ©quences dĂ©sastreuses pour les producteurs de lait, d'oeufs et de volaille. Le premier ministre s'engage-t-il Ă protĂ©ger intĂ©gralement le systĂšme de gestion de l'offre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on October 11, in a debate that was televised, recorded, and broadcast in the United States, the parliamentary secretary said this: « Y a-t-il place à la discussion et à la négociation? Bien sûr. » Contrary to what the Prime Minister and the ministers are saying, the truth is that the Liberals are ready to make concessions with respect to our supply management system. Will the Prime Minister chastise the parliamentary secretary for giving the Americans that opening? Any concession will have disastrous consequences for dairy, egg, and poultry producers. Will the Prime Minister promise to protect the integrity of the supply management system?
Trudeau says the Liberals will always defend supply management, which works for farmers and consumers, and notes international agreements have been negotiated without infringing on it.
Trudeau repeats that the Liberals will always defend supply management but does not address whether the parliamentary secretary will be rebuked or explain the specific quoted statement.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il faut que je dise que je suis trÚs encouragé de voir l'enthousiasme du député d'en face pour la gestion de l'offre et j'espÚre qu'il en parle les mercredis matin. Je peux assurer que nous, ici au Parti libéral, allons toujours défendre la gestion de l'offre. C'est un systÚme qui fonctionne pour nos agriculteurs et pour nos consommateurs. Nous avons pu négocier bien des accords à l'international sans enfreindre la gestion de l'offre. Nous allons toujours continuer de défendre la gestion de l'offre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say how pleased I am to see how enthusiastic the member opposite is about supply management, and I hope he will talk about it on Wednesday mornings. I can assure everyone that the Liberal Party will always defend supply management. The system works for our producers and our consumers. We have managed to negotiate plenty of international agreements without infringing on supply management. We will always defend supply management.
McLeod asks the PM how he can justify the inquiry telling Jennifer Catcheway's parents they could have only a couple of minutes to tell their story.
Names a specific victim (Jennifer Catcheway) and a specific grievance (families told they could have only a couple of minutes at the inquiry), grounding the accountability question in a concrete case.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Jennifer Catcheway's parents have every reason to feel betrayed. They lost their beautiful daughter, an 18-year-old, on her birthday. They have spent years waiting to tell their story, and at the murdered and missing inquiry they were told they could have a couple of minutes, that was it. The Prime Minister is responsible for this process. How can he justify such an insult to the victims of murdered and missing indigenous women?
Trudeau acknowledges the national tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and says the government is working hard to ensure everyone is heard, blaming Conservative inaction over ten years.
Trudeau speaks generally about the national tragedy and the government's commitment to the inquiry but does not address the specific complaint that families like the Catcheways were limited to a couple of minutes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls across this country have been a national tragedy for decades now. We know we need to bring healing for the families, justice for the victims, and to put an end to this national tragedy once and for all. That is why, despite 10 years of the Conservative Party saying no and refusing to act on this, this government has moved forward on the difficult process of a national inquiry into the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, and we are working hard with this inquiry to ensure that everyone is heard.
Sgro asks the PM how Canada can honour the legacy of the Famous Five on Persons Day.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the PM to explain how to honour the Famous Five on Persons Day, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, October 18 is Persons Day, a day that marks a pivotal moment in Canadian history when, in 1929, women were legally recognized as persons under our Constitution. Can the Prime Minister please tell the House how we can honour the legacy of the Famous Five who stood up for women's rights and advanced gender equality in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Humber RiverâBlack Creek for her long-time advocacy on behalf of women's rights in the House. Famous Five member Nellie McClung once said, âYesterday's successes will not do for today! Women must claim the place they have won.â Although 80 years later women and girls are claiming their place, there remains much more to do for gender equality to become a reality. On Persons Day this year, let us renew our commitment to make a difference in the lives of women and girls and ensure that everyone's voice is heard regardless of their gender identity.
Trudeau quotes Nellie McClung and calls for renewing commitment to gender equality and ensuring everyone's voice is heard regardless of their gender identity.
Trudeau quotes Nellie McClung directly and articulates a commitment to renewing gender equality efforts, providing substantive thematic content appropriate to the occasion.
Bernier asks whether the approval conditions for the Bombardier-Airbus deal will include a specific condition for repayment of public funds to Canadian taxpayers.
Bernier asks a precise, single-question ask: will the approval conditions for the Bombardier-Airbus deal include a specific condition for repayment of public funds?
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement doit approuver dans quelques semaines la vente de la C Series de Bombardier à Airbus. Nous savons que le gouvernement a octroyé des millions de dollars à Bombardier pour développer la C Series. Maintenant, il est temps que les contribuables canadiens soient remboursés. Ma question est simple. Dans les conditions d'approbation de l'entente Bombardier-Airbus, y aura-t-il une condition spécifique pour que les contribuables canadiens soient remboursés?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government must approve the sale of the Bombardier C Series aircraft to Airbus in a few weeks' time. We know that the government has given Bombardier millions of dollars to develop the C Series. Now it is time for Canadian taxpayers to be reimbursed. My question is simple. Will the conditions for approval for the Bombardier-Airbus agreement include a specific condition that Canadian taxpayers get their money back?
Trudeau confirms the government expects to be repaid for loans to Bombardier and also expects jobs for Canadian workers until 2041 or beyond.
Trudeau confirms repayment is expected and adds that job guarantees until 2041 are also expected, directly addressing the substance of the question, though without specifying the exact approval conditions.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je peux aller encore plus loin: non seulement nous nous attendons Ă ĂȘtre remboursĂ©s pour les prĂȘts que nous avons faits Ă Bombardier, nous nous attendons aussi Ă ce qu'il y ait des emplois pour les travailleurs canadiens jusqu'en 2041, sinon au-delĂ de cela. Ce sont des bons emplois pour la classe moyenne dans l'industrie aĂ©ronautique, et, comme je l'ai toujours dit Ă la Chambre, nous allons toujours dĂ©fendre les intĂ©rĂȘts de l'industrie aĂ©ronautique au Canada et des travailleurs qui y sont associĂ©s.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I will go even one step further. Not only do we expect to be paid back for our loans to Bombardier, we also expect the company to create jobs for Canadian workers until 2041, if not beyond. These are good jobs for the middle class in the aerospace industry, and as I have always said in this House, we will always stand up for the Canadian aerospace industry and its workers.
Hardcastle, citing Citizens for Public Justice data showing the median income of people with disabilities is almost half that of those without, asks whether the upcoming accessibility legislation will address poverty or whether the government will offer income support through other means.
Hardcastle cites Citizens for Public Justice data on median income disparity and asks a clear two-part question about whether accessibility legislation will address poverty or whether income support will be offered, though it is somewhat compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Citizens for Public Justice reports that people living with disabilities are highly vulnerable to poverty, particularly those facing multiple discriminations. Their median income is almost half the median income of those without disabilities. While we appreciate the government's upcoming legislation on accessibility, we know that people living with disabilities face many more issues. I ask the Prime Minister, will the Liberal accessibility legislation address this poverty crisis or will the government at least offer income support through other means?
Trudeau says the accessibility legislation will aim to ensure full opportunities for Canadians with disabilities to achieve their potential, but does not address income support or the poverty gap specifically.
Trudeau acknowledges the economic challenges but only vaguely says addressing barriers will be part of the accessibility legislation, without answering the income support alternative or providing specifics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her for deep concern for this issue and one that we share. We know that too many Canadians living with disabilities face economic challenges that other Canadians do not have to face. This is going to part of our accessibility legislation to ensure that Canada offers full opportunities for each and every one of us to achieve our potential, regardless of the barriers we may face.
Lemieux asks the PM for an update on the Brancher pour innover program and its efforts to address rural broadband connectivity.
This is a government-backbench question that praises the Brancher pour innover program and asks for an update, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'accĂšs Ă un service Internet fiable et Ă large bande est trĂšs important pour l'Ă©conomie d'aujourd'hui. Il est important pour tous les aspects de la vie quotidienne. Toutefois, de nombreuses rĂ©gions de notre pays souffrent encore d'un manque de bonnes connexions, en particulier dans nos communautĂ©s rurales et Ă©loignĂ©es. MĂȘme dans ma circonscription, ChicoutimiâLe Fjord, il n'y a pas les infrastructures nĂ©cessaires pour soutenir un service Internet Ă large bande. C'est pourquoi j'Ă©tais heureux de l'annonce de notre gouvernement concernant le programme Brancher pour innover, qui va permettre de rĂ©soudre ce problĂšme. Notre premier ministre peut-il fournir Ă la Chambre une mise Ă jour sur cette question importante pour les Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, access to reliable, broadband Internet service is very important in today's economy. It is important for every aspect of daily life. However, many regions in our country, especially our rural and remote regions, are still lacking good Internet connections. Even my riding, ChicoutimiâLe Fjord, does not have the necessary infrastructure to support broadband Internet service. That is why I was pleased with our government's announcement regarding the connect to innovate program, which will help resolve this problem. Can our Prime Minister provide the House with an update on this important matter for Canadians?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie le dĂ©putĂ© de ChicoutimiâLe Fjord de sa question et pour sa passion concernant sa belle rĂ©gion. L'accĂšs Ă Internet est un aspect essentiel de la vie de tous les jours. Avec Brancher pour innover, nous investissons jusqu'Ă 500 millions de dollars pour donner l'accĂšs Ă Internet Ă 300 communautĂ©s rurales. J'Ă©tais Ă Roberval pour annoncer une somme de 13 millions de dollars destinĂ©e au service Internet haute vitesse pour l'ensemble des rĂ©gions du SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean et de la Mauricie. Ce sont des investissements nĂ©cessaires que nous facilitons pour amĂ©liorer la vie des Canadiens et leur offrir davantage de possibilitĂ©s.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for ChicoutimiâLe Fjord for his question and his passion for his beautiful region. Internet access is an essential part of daily life. With connect to innovate, we are investing up to $500 million to bring Internet access to 300 rural communities. I was in Roberval to announce $13 million for high-speed Internet for every region in SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean and the Mauricie. These are necessary investments for improving the lives of Canadians and giving them more opportunities.
Trudeau states the government is investing up to 500 million dollars through Brancher pour innover to connect 300 rural communities, including 13 million dollars announced at Roberval for SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean and Mauricie.
Trudeau provides specific figures â up to 500 million dollars, 300 rural communities, and 13 million dollars announced at Roberval for SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean and Mauricie â giving concrete information.
Poilievre asks the PM when he knew his Minister of Finance held $40 million in Morneau Shepell, noting the obvious potential conflict of interest given the minister regulates pensions.
Poilievre asks a specific, pointed question â when did the PM know his Minister of Finance held $40 million in Morneau Shepell â and explicitly notes the conflict-of-interest dimension involving pension regulation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been asked a clear question: When did he know that his Minister of Finance held $40 million in Morneau Shepell? He totally dismissed that as a petty question, because the pensions of Canadians apparently are petty to the Prime Minister. The minister regulates pensions and his company profits from pensions, which is an obvious potential conflict of interest. Therefore, once again, when did the Prime Minister know that his Minister of Finance had $40 million invested in Morneau Shepell?
Trudeau says the Finance Minister took the advice of the Ethics Commissioner and offered to do more if needed, then pivots to the government's record on lowering taxes for the middle class and small businesses.
Trudeau does not answer when he knew, instead deflecting to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner process and pivoting to middle-class tax cuts and economic growth.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I expect all parliamentarians on both sides of the aisle to work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to ensure that all the rules are followed. In the case of the Finance Minister, he took the advice of the Ethics Commissioner, and even offered to do more if she feels he needs to do more. The fact is, we will stay focused on what matters to Canadians, and what matters to Canadians is not personal attacks, but our delivering on lowering taxes for the middle class, on lowering taxes for small businesses, and on growing the economy in a way that helps everyone in this country.
Barsalou-Duval asks the PM to commit to not contesting loi 62 in court and not funding any legal challenges, as was done with loi 99.
Barsalou-Duval cites the day's adoption of a specific law (loi 62) and references a prior federal action (contestation of loi 99) to ask a concrete commitment from the PM on non-intervention.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, aujourd'hui, l'Assemblée nationale a adopté le projet de loi sur la neutralité religieuse. Qu'on soit d'accord ou non, c'est son droit le plus strict. Le premier ministre peut-il s'engager à ne pas faire ce qui a été fait dans le cas de loi 99? Le premier ministre s'engage-t-il à ne pas contester la loi 62 devant les tribunaux et à ne pas financer d'éventuelles contestations de cette loi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today, the National Assembly passed a bill on religious neutrality. Whether the federal government agrees or not, that is the National Assembly's absolute right. Will the Prime Minister commit to not doing what was done with Bill 99? Will the Prime Minister commit to not challenge Bill 62 in court and to not to fund potential challenges of this bill?
Trudeau says the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to all Canadians and that it is his responsibility to ensure it is respected, without committing to non-intervention on loi 62.
Trudeau does not commit to not challenging loi 62, instead stating his responsibility to uphold the Canadian Charter applies to all Canadians, which implicitly leaves open the possibility of intervention.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés s'applique à tous les Canadiens. Une des responsabilité du premier ministre consiste à assurer le respect de la Charte, et je vais continuer de travailler pour m'assurer que tous les Canadiens sont protégés par la Charte, tout en respectant les choix que peuvent faire différents parlementaires à différents niveaux. Toutefois, ici, au fédéral, nous défendons les droits de tous les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to all Canadians. One of my responsibilities as Prime Minister is to uphold the charter. I will continue to ensure that all Canadians are protected by the charter, all while respecting the choices made by lawmakers at all levels. Nevertheless, the federal government will defend the rights of all Canadians.
This exchange recorded the presence of guests in the gallery and the House's acknowledgment with 'Hear, hear.' No question was asked and no substantive response was given.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Hear, hear!