Session overview
- Ethics and government spending dominated the session, with Conservative MPs pressing the Prime Minister on costs for the India trip (at least $1.5 million), and renovations at Harrington Lake including a $7,500 play structure, $5,000 golf cart, and $4,000 sauna wiring.
- NDP members repeatedly pressed the Prime Minister to suspend the safe third country agreement, citing the separation of migrant children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border, but the Prime Minister declined to do so.
- The Prime Minister confirmed the government is not considering removing Her Majesty from the oath of citizenship.
- Cannabis legalization was addressed, with the Prime Minister confirming the October 17, 2018 coming-into-force date, granted in response to requests from provinces including Quebec for more time to implement.
- The Prime Minister announced a federal investment of almost $250 million in the Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin outlet channels to manage flooding and protect communities.
- The government confirmed it would introduce historic accessibility legislation before the House rose for the summer, in fulfilment of longstanding calls related to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The Prime Minister gave a direct, unambiguous confirmation â 'we are not considering removing Her Majesty from the oath of citizenship' â providing Canadians with a concrete factual answer to a specific question about government intentions.
Barlow cites specific Parliamentary Budget Officer figures for carbon tax costs by province and commodity â Manitoba pork producer at $36,000, Alberta rancher at $13,000, Saskatchewan wheat grower at $12,000, PEI potato farmers at $20,000 â and asks whether the Prime Minister agrees with these numbers.
Rather than addressing Andrew Scheer's question about the $7,500 play structure or indicating consent to table a document, the Prime Minister pivoted to an unrelated list of issues â tariffs, detained children in the U.S., indigenous peoples, and marijuana legalization â and used the final sitting day to attack the Opposition's choice of questions rather than answer them.
Outstanding questions
- Lisa Raitt (Exchange 12) asked whether the Prime Minister personally signed off on the specific India trip expenses including $5,000 in wine, $5,000 in cellphone costs, and $60,000 for personal chauffeurs â no answer was given.
- Guy Caron and Jenny Kwan (Exchanges 6, 7, 8, 9) repeatedly asked whether the Prime Minister would declare the United States no longer a safe third country for asylum seekers given the separation of migrant children â the Prime Minister declined to answer directly.
- Pierre Paul-Hus (Exchanges 25, 26) asked directly whether the Prime Minister would respect Quebec's and Manitoba's decisions to prohibit home cannabis production or instead engage in a court battle with Quebec â no direct yes or no was given.
- Michelle Rempel (Exchange 28) asked why the feminist Prime Minister continually refuses to commit to refer Canadian ISIS terrorists to the International Criminal Court â the Prime Minister deferred entirely to security agencies without addressing the specific commitment.
- John Barlow and Luc Berthold (Exchanges 20, 21) asked the Prime Minister to confirm or deny the Parliamentary Budget Officer's figures on carbon tax costs for farmers â pork producers, ranchers, wheat growers, dairy farmers â and to release the government's own cost analysis; no figures were confirmed or released.
Scheer asks why the India trip cost at least $1.5 million, citing a deal that sends $750 million to India versus $250 million to Canada and the invitation of a terrorist.
Cites specific figures ($750M vs $250M, $1.5M cost) and references the India trip's diplomatic fallout, but bundles multiple accusations into one vague 'why' ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est une trĂšs bonne journĂ©e pour les Ă©lecteurs de ChicoutimiâLe Fjord. Notre nouveau collĂšgue, Richard Martel, arrive sur la Colline aujourd'hui. Cependant, malheureusement pour Richard, nous en avons appris plus aujourd'hui sur le voyage en Inde du premier ministre. C'est un voyage qui a causĂ© une crise diplomatique oĂč un terroriste Ă©tait invitĂ© et oĂč les talents de nĂ©gociateur du premier ministre ont abouti Ă l'entente qui verra l'Inde recevoir 750 millions de dollars, tandis que seulement 250 millions de dollars seront investis au Canada. Nous savons maintenant que le voyage a coĂ»tĂ© au moins 1,5 million de dollars, pourquoi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today is a terrific day for the voters of ChicoutimiâLe Fjord. Our new colleague, Richard Martel, is arriving on the Hill today. Unfortunately for Richard, more details emerged today about the Prime Minister's trip to India. This was a trip that sparked a diplomatic crisis after a terrorist got on the guest list. On top of that, the Prime Minister's negotiating skills led to a deal where India gets an investment of $750 million and Canada gets a measly $250 million. We now know that this trip cost at least $1.5 million. Why was this?
Trudeau congratulates Richard Martel on his by-election win and thanks pages and staff on the last sitting day, ignoring the question entirely.
The Prime Minister does not address the India trip cost or the question at all, instead congratulating a by-election winner and thanking pages and staff.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je veux aussi fĂ©liciter Richard Martel pour sa victoire Ă ChicoutimiâLe Fjord. Je veux remercier tous les candidats qui se sont prĂ©sentĂ©s et surtout tous les Ă©lecteurs qui ont participĂ© au processus Ă©lectoral. C'est super important d'avoir des gens impliquĂ©s, et nous sommes trĂšs fiers de cela. Puisque c'est la derniĂšre journĂ©e, je veux aussi profiter de cette occasion pour remercier les pages qui nous ont si bien servis Ă la Chambre des communes cette annĂ©e. I want to thank all the pages who have been here working hard for us. I thank them for everything they have done throughout this year. I thank all the staffers for seeing us through to the summer.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to congratulate Richard Martel on his win in ChicoutimiâLe Fjord. I want to thank all the candidates and especially all the voters who participated in the electoral process. It is enormously important for people to get involved, and we are very proud of this. Since today is our last day, I also want to take this opportunity to thank the House of Commons pages who served us so well this year. Je tiens Ă remercier tous les pages qui ont travaillĂ© fort pour nous appuyer dans nos fonctions ici. Je les remercie de tout ce qu'ils ont fait tout au long de l'annĂ©e. Je remercie tous les membres du personnel qui nous ont offert leur soutien jusqu'Ă la pĂ©riode estivale.
Scheer lists multiple spending itemsâ$8 million for a temporary skating rink, $215,000 for an illegal island vacation, $1.5 million for the India trip, and Harrington Lake renovationsâand asks why the Prime Minister keeps spending recklessly.
Lists several specific dollar figures ($8M patinoire, $215K vacation, $1.5M India trip, renovations) but the cumulative framing and vague 'why does he spend without counting' ask dilutes accountability value.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre est incapable de gérer l'argent des contribuables de façon responsable. Plus de 8 millions de dollars pour une patinoire temporaire, 215 000 $ pour des vacances illégales sur une ßle privée, et au moins 1,5 million de dollars pour un voyage désastreux en Inde et des dizaines de milliers de dollars pour des articles non essentiels pour rénover le chalet du premier ministre à Harrington Lake. Pourquoi le premier ministre dépense-t-il toujours sans compter en envoyant la facture à la prochaine génération?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is incapable of managing taxpayers' money responsibly. More than $8 million on a temporary skating rink, $215,000 for an illegal vacation on a private island, at least $1.5 million for a disastrous trip to India, and tens of thousands of dollars on non-essential items to renovate the Prime Minister's cottage in Harrington Lake. Why does the Prime Minister keep spending so recklessly and sending the bill to the next generation?
Trudeau touts the Canada child benefit, middle-class tax cuts, infrastructure investment, and G7-leading growth, without addressing any of the cited expenses.
Trudeau pivots entirely to Canada child benefit and middle-class tax cuts, making no reference to any of the specific expenditures cited.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous avons fait la promesse aux Canadiens d'investir auprÚs de la classe moyenne et de ceux qui travaillent fort pour en faire partie. C'est exactement ce que nous avons fait avec des investissements historiques en infrastructure et avec une Allocation canadienne pour enfants qui aide 9 familles sur 10 et qui va sortir 300 000 jeunes de la pauvreté. Nous avons réduit les impÎts de la classe moyenne, tout en les augmentant pour les mieux nantis. Non seulement nous sommes en train d'investir au profit des Canadiens qui en ont besoin, mais nous avons eu le plus fort taux de croissance du G7 l'année passée. Nous sommes en train de créer la croissance dont les Canadiens ont besoin.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we promised Canadians that we would invest in the middle class and those working hard to join it. That is exactly what we have done with historic investments in infrastructure and with the Canada child benefit, which is helping nine out of 10 families and will lift 300,000 children out of poverty. We lowered taxes for the middle class and increased them for the well-off. Not only are we investing for the benefit of Canadians, but we also secured the strongest growth in the G7 last year. We are creating the growth that Canadians need.
Scheer asks the Prime Minister to explain what comprises a $7,500 play structure at Harrington Lake, having also cited $8,500 for boat racks and $13,000 for a deck with sun umbrellas.
Cites specific amounts ($8,500 boat racks, $13,000 deck, $7,500 play structure) and poses a pointed, concrete question about what accounts for the cost of a $7,500 swing set.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he says he is investing in the middle class. Since when does the Prime Minister's family count as the middle class? Instead of planning for Canada's economy against the external threats that face us, where are his priorities? Where are his investments? Well, there is $8,500 for new boat racks, $13,000 for a new deck with sun umbrellas, and $7,500 for a new play structure. I have bought many swing sets and play structures for my kids. Can the Prime Minister tell me what exactly is part of a $7,500 swing set?
Trudeau reiterates that he lowered taxes on the middle class, raised them on the wealthiest 1%, and delivered the Canada child benefit, making no reference to Harrington Lake costs.
Trudeau repeats the same talking points on middle-class tax cuts and the Canada child benefit, entirely ignoring the specific Harrington Lake expenditures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we got elected on a commitment to invest in the middle class and those working hard to join it, and that is exactly what we have done. The first thing we did was lower taxes for the middle class and raise them on the wealthiest 1%, which the Conservatives voted against. Then we delivered on a Canada child benefit, which helps nine out of 10 Canadian families by not sending child benefit cheques to millionaires. It is lifting hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty across the country, and the Conservatives voted against it. The Conservatives continue to look for boutique tax cuts for the wealthiest Canadians while we are supporting middle-class Canadians right across the country, and we will continue to do just that.
Scheer cites $28,000 for ski trail grooming, $5,000 for a golf cart, $4,000 for sauna wiring, and $7,500 for a swing set at Harrington Lake, and asks whether the Prime Minister will reimburse taxpayers for these expenses.
Cites a string of specific costs ($28,000 ski trail grooming, $5,000 golf cart, $4,000 sauna wiring, $7,500 swing set) and asks a direct yes/no: will the PM reimburse taxpayers?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is writing cheques from taxpayers' accounts to his own family to reimburse it for personal costs. It does not end there. He spent $28,000 to groom his cross-country ski trails, $5,000 for a new golf cart, and more than $4,000 to wire up his new sauna, but I have to come back to the swing sets. I have bought several for my family. I am trying to imagine what goes into a $7,500 swing set. Can the Prime Minister tell me, is there a chair lift for the slide, are the seats on the swing ergonomically designed, and will he finally reimburse taxpayers for that expense?
Trudeau states that the National Capital Commission is responsible for maintaining official residences, is conducting rehabilitation work at Harrington Lake to conserve a federally designated heritage building, and that the RCMP will conduct security work there.
Trudeau explains that the National Capital Commission is responsible for maintenance and rehabilitation of official residences including heritage conservation and RCMP security work, which is relevant context but does not answer whether he will reimburse taxpayers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the National Capital Commission is responsible for ensuring the appropriate and timely maintenance for all official residences, including Stornoway. The NCC is conducting much-needed rehabilitation work at Harrington Lake in order to conserve this federally designated heritage building. The RCMP will also be conducting work to enhance the security features at Harrington Lake. The NCC is working to address these issues in a timely fashion.
Scheer announces he will seek unanimous consent to table a document entitled 'Sportspower 8 station swing set' costing $198, implicitly challenging the $7,500 expenditure.
Scheer is asking for unanimous consent to table a document about a $198 swing set as a rhetorical stunt; it is a procedural gag rather than a substantive accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I just want to let the Prime Minister know that, if he will allow me, I will be seeking unanimous consent after question period to table a document entitled âSportspower 8 station swing setâ. It has a wonderful slide, seesaw, and several swings, and it only costs $198. Will he allow me to table this document after question period?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau lists the tariff conflict with the United States, children detained at the U.S. border, indigenous issues, and marijuana legalization as more important topics, criticizing the Opposition's priorities on the last sitting day.
Trudeau lists major policy issues (tariffs, detained children, indigenous peoples, marijuana legalization) to contrast with the Opposition's focus, but does not address the tabling request or the substance of any prior questions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are in a tariff conflict with the United States. We are seeing horrific images of children being detained across the United States. We are seeing indigenous peoples in this country challenged, needing better opportunities. We are seeing a broad range of issues that matter on this the last day of the spring sitting of the House of Commons. We are moving forward on the legalization of marijuana, which I know the Conservatives have issues with. However, this is what the Leader of the Opposition chooses to spend his last day in Parliament before the summerâ
Caron asks whether the Prime Minister still considers the United States a safe country for asylum seekers under the Safe Third Country Agreement, given Trudeau's own acknowledgment that separating migrant children is unacceptable.
Caron grounds his question in a specific prior statement by the PM and poses a clear, answerable question about Canada's position on the Safe Third Country Agreement.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, deux jours aprĂšs avoir accusĂ© le NPD de faire de la politique en dĂ©nonçant la sĂ©paration des enfants de leurs parents migrants Ă la frontiĂšre du Mexique et des Ătats-Unis, le premier ministre reconnaĂźt maintenant que la situation est inacceptable. Maintenant qu'il a dĂ©noncĂ© la situation, le premier ministre pourrait-il nous dire s'il considĂšre toujours que les Ătats-Unis reprĂ©sentent un pays sĂ»r pour les demandeurs d'asile?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, two days after accusing the NDP of playing politics because it condemned the separation of children from their migrant parents at the Mexico-U.S. border, the Prime Minister now recognizes that the situation is unacceptable. Now that he has condemned the situation, can the Prime Minister tell us whether he still believes that the United States is a safe country for asylum seekers?
Trudeau says the situation is inacceptable, notes the Safe Third Country Agreement is over 10 years old and is being modernized, and says Canada is in continuous conversation with the United States.
Trudeau acknowledges the situation is inacceptable and notes the agreement is over 10 years old and under ongoing modernization discussions, but does not directly answer whether the U.S. still qualifies as a safe country for asylum seekers.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les Canadiens de partout au pays sont prĂ©occupĂ©s par les images dont nous avons Ă©tĂ© tĂ©moins. Comme je l'ai dit, ce qui se passe est inacceptable. Je ne peux pas imaginer la douleur que vivent ces familles. Toutefois, l'Entente sur les tiers pays sĂ»rs date d'il y a plus de 10 ans et nous continuons de chercher des moyens de la moderniser. Nous sommes en conversation continuelle avec les Ătats-Unis. Nous continuons de surveiller de prĂšs les dĂ©veloppements aux Ătats-Unis.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country are troubled by the images that we have seen. As I said, what is happening is unacceptable. I cannot imagine the pain these families are experiencing. The safe third country agreement has been in place for more than 10 years and we continue to seek ways to modernize it. We are in ongoing talks with the United States. We will continue to closely monitor developments in the United States.
Caron repeats the direct question: given that the Prime Minister has condemned the treatment of migrants in the United States, can he now say the U.S. is no longer a safe third country for refugees?
Caron presses the specific, logical consequence of Trudeau's own condemnation and asks a clear yes/no policy question about revoking the Safe Third Country Agreement designation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre ne peut pas avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre. Un tiers pays sĂ»r veut dire que ce pays, avec lequel on a signĂ© un traitĂ©, reprĂ©sente une destination oĂč les demandeurs d'asile auront le droit Ă un traitement Ă©quitable, humain et dĂ©cent. Il a dĂ©noncĂ© une situation aux Ătats-Unis oĂč des enfants sont sĂ©parĂ©s de leurs parents migrants. Alors je rĂ©pĂšte la question: au-delĂ des lignes qu'il peut lire et des dĂ©clarations qu'il peut faire, s'il est prĂȘt Ă dĂ©noncer la situation qu'on voit aux Ătats-Unis, s'il est prĂȘt Ă dire que la situation est inacceptable, peut-il maintenant dire que le pays qui inflige ces traitements n'est plus un tiers pays sĂ»r pour les rĂ©fugiĂ©s?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot have his cake and eat it too. A safe third country means that the country with which we signed an agreement is a place where asylum seekers are treated fairly, humanely, and decently. He criticized a situation in the United States where children are being separated from their migrant parents. I will repeat the question. Beyond talking points, if he is prepared to condemn what is happening in the United States, if he is prepared to say that that situation is unacceptable, will he now say that the country that is treating people that way is no longer a safe third country for refugees?
Trudeau says the situation is inacceptable, that Canada will continue working with Americans on border protection and existing agreements while protecting Canadian values, but does not answer whether the U.S. remains a safe third country.
Trudeau again says the situation is inacceptable and reiterates that the agreement is being modernized, but explicitly refuses to say whether the U.S. no longer qualifies as a safe third country.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme je l'ai dit, cette situation est inacceptable. Nous suivons de prĂšs ce qui se passe aux Ătats-Unis par rapport Ă cela. Nous allons continuer de travailler avec les AmĂ©ricains concernant la protection de nos frontiĂšres et les ententes que nous avons avec eux, tout en protĂ©geant nos valeurs et la façon dont nous faisons les choses au Canada et en s'assurant d'exprimer tout cela haut et fort. Nous ne faisons pas les choses de la mĂȘme façon Ă©videmment.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I said, this situation is unacceptable. We are monitoring the situation in the United States very closely. We will continue to work with the Americans on border protection and the agreements we have with them, while protecting our values and the way we do things in Canada. We will be loud and clear about that. We obviously do not do things the same way.
Kwan cites the head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's statement that hundreds of separated children will never see their parents again, and asks whether the Prime Minister recognizes the U.S. will never be a safe country for asylum seekers as long as Trump is in power.
Kwan cites a specific claimâthat the head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement expects hundreds of separated children will never see their parents againâand asks a clear policy question about the Safe Third Country Agreement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that over 2,000 migrant children are already in baby jails. The parents do not know where they are or when they will see them again. The head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed parents' worst fears. He expects hundreds of separated children will never see their parents again. They will be lost in the system forever. Does the Prime Minister recognize that as long as Trump is in power, the U.S. will never be a safe country for asylum seekers?
Trudeau says what is happening is wrong, that Canadians have the well-being of children first and foremost in their minds, and that he will always stand up for Canadian values.
Trudeau says what is happening is wrong and that he will always stand up for values Canadians hold dear, but makes no reference to the Safe Third Country Agreement or the specific ICE statement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, what is happening is wrong. None of us can imagine what these families are going through and I know all Canadians have the well-being of children first and foremost in their minds. As I have said numerous times both at home and abroad, I will always stand up for the values that Canadians hold dear. This is something that I will continue to do.
Kwan asks the Prime Minister to show moral leadership by suspending the safe third country agreement, citing Trump's closure of doors to those fleeing gang and domestic violence and alleged violation of the UN convention for gender-related persecution.
Kwan grounds the question in Trump's policy on gang and domestic violence claims and the UN convention on gender-related persecution, and asks a specific policy action: suspending the safe third country agreement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while Trump closed the doors to those fleeing gang violence and domestic violence, yet many fleeing from Central America cite gang violence as the main reason to seek asylum. Trump's policy is in violation of the UN convention for gender-related persecution. As long as Trump is in power, the U.S. will never be a safe country for asylum seekers. Will the Prime Minister show the moral leadership by suspending the safe third country agreement?
Trudeau says what is happening in the United States is wrong, reiterates that the safe third country agreement is over 10 years old and will be continually modernized, and says Canada will closely monitor developments.
Trudeau repeats the same boilerplateâwhat is happening is wrong, the agreement is over 10 years old and being modernizedâwithout addressing the suspension request or the UN convention reference.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country are very concerned with the stories and images that we have witnessed. As I have said, what is happening in the United States is wrong. I cannot imagine what these families are going through. As I have said many times, the safe third country agreement is over 10 years old. We will continually look for ways to modernize it and be in conversation with the Americans on this. We will continue as well to closely monitor developments in the United States.
Rayes cites $17,000 for a chef's travel, $60,000 for chauffeur rentals, and hundreds of thousands for a 77-member delegation including 21 MPs who had no working meetings, reaching $1.5 million, and asks how the Prime Minister can justify these expenses.
Rayes cites specific costs ($17,000 chef, $60,000 vehicle rentals) and the composition of the 77-person delegation including 21 MPs with no working meetings, and asks a direct justification question about $1.5 million in spending.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on commence à voir le coût des dépenses du voyage catastrophique du premier ministre en Inde: 17 000 $ pour le voyage d'un seul chef cuisinier canadien qui a préparé un seul repas; 60 000 $ pour la location de véhicules avec chauffeurs; et des centaines de milliers de dollars dépensés pour entretenir les 77 membres de la délégation, dont 21 députés, dont la majorité n'ont eu aucune rencontre de travail pendant le voyage. On est rendu à 1,5 million de dollars et on n'a pas fini le décompte. Comment le premier ministre peut-il justifier de telles dépenses à la population canadienne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, more information about the cost of the Prime Minister's disastrous trip to India is coming to light: $17,000 for one single Canadian chef who prepared one single meal; $60,000 to rent chauffeured vehicles; and hundreds of thousands of dollars to feed and house the 77-member delegation that included 21 MPs, most of whom did not attend any working meetings during the trip. The tab is now at $1.5 million and climbing. How can the Prime Minister justify that kind of spending to Canadians?
Trudeau cites over $1 billion in bilateral investment, 5,800 jobs, and $11.5 million for a women's empowerment initiative from the India trip, and argues the nine-day trip cost less than Harper's six-day trip to India.
Trudeau cites $1 billion in bilateral investment, 5,800 jobs, and $11.5 million for Initiative pour un bon départ, which is relevant context, but does not address the specific expenditure line items or the delegation composition and then pivots to a comparison with Harper's India trip.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous savons qu'il est important pour les Canadiens que nous soyons efficaces sur la scÚne mondiale. Pendant notre séjour en Inde, nous avons annoncé des investissements bilatéraux de plus de 1 milliard de dollars, ce qui contribuera à créer 5 800 emplois au Canada. Il y a aussi 11,5 millions de dollars pour l'Initiative pour un bon départ afin de favoriser l'autonomisation des femmes et des filles les plus pauvres du monde. Ces engagements appuieront la classe moyenne et ceux qui travaillent fort pour en faire partie. Je souligne que ce voyage de neuf jours a coûté beaucoup moins cher que le voyage de six jours de Stephen Harper en Inde il y a plusieurs années.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want us to be effective on the world stage. During our trip to India, we announced bilateral investments totalling over $1 billion that will help create 5,800 jobs in Canada. We also announced $11.5 million for the right start initiative to empower the world's poorest women and girls. These commitments will benefit the middle class and those working hard to join it. I would point out that this nine-day trip cost much less than Stephen Harper's six-day trip to India a few years ago.
Rayes cites $3,000 for parasols, $7,500 for a swing, $12,000 for a dock replacement, and $5,000 for a golf cart at the Prime Minister's summer residence, and asks how the PM can justify such spending when 80% of Canadians pay more taxes.
Rayes lists specific Harrington Lake costs ($3,000 parasols, $7,500 swing, $12,000 dock, $5,000 golf cart) and ties them to a claim that 80% of Canadians pay more taxes, but the combination and rhetorical framing weaken the accountability value.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le problĂšme avec les dĂ©penses irresponsables du premier ministre, c'est qu'elles sont faites avec l'argent des Canadiens et qu'elles sont rĂ©currentes. On vient d'avoir les donnĂ©es concernant les dĂ©penses liĂ©es Ă la maison d'Ă©tĂ© du premier ministre: 3 000 $ pour des parasols â je ne sais pas oĂč il les trouve â, 7 500 $ pour une balançoire, 12 000 $ pour remplacer un quai et 5 000 $ pour une voiturette de golf. Pendant ce temps-lĂ , 80 % des Canadiens et des familles canadiennes paient plus de taxes et d'impĂŽt sous ce gouvernement. Comment le premier ministre peut-il justifier de telles dĂ©penses pendant que les travailleurs acharnĂ©s gagnent leur argent durement...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Prime Minister's reckless spending is that he is doing it on the taxpayers' dime and with no end in sight. We have just learned how much the Prime Minister is spending on his summer home: $3,000 on sun umbrellasâI am not sure where he finds themâ; $7,500 on a swing set; $12,000 to replace a dock; and $5,000 on a golf cart. Meanwhile, 80% of Canadians and Canadian families are paying more taxes under this government. How can the Prime Minister justify that kind of spending while hard-working Canadians are just trying to make a livingâ
Trudeau attacks Conservative spending on Harper's limousines for the India trip, then briefly notes the NCC is responsible for maintaining official residences and conducting required heritage conservation work at Harrington Lake.
Trudeau briefly explains the NCC's role in maintaining official residences and the heritage designation of Harrington Lake, but spends most of the answer attacking the Conservative record on Harper's India limos rather than addressing the specific Harrington Lake items.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, peut-ĂȘtre que les conservateurs ne se rappellent pas pourquoi le voyage de Steven Harper en Inde a coĂ»tĂ© aussi cher aux contribuables. C'est parce que lui, il voulait apporter ses limousines avec lui, ce qui a coĂ»tĂ© 1,5 million de dollars. C'est cela, l'approche des conservateurs Ă cet Ă©gard. Par rapport au lac Mousseau, la Commission de la capitale nationale est en charge de l'entretien adĂ©quat et rĂ©gulier de toutes les rĂ©sidences officielles. La Commission de la capitale nationale effectue des travaux de rĂ©novation Ă la rĂ©sidence du lac Mousseau qui Ă©taient nĂ©cessaires pour prĂ©server cet Ă©difice dĂ©signĂ© comme faisant partie du patrimoine fĂ©dĂ©ral.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Conservatives have forgotten why Stephen Harper's trip to India was so expensive for taxpayers. It was because he wanted to bring his own limousines with him, at a cost of $1.5 million. That is the Conservative approach to such matters. With respect to Harrington Lake, the National Capital Commission is responsible for ensuring the appropriate and timely maintenance of all official residences. The National Capital Commission is conducting much-needed rehabilitation work at Harrington Lake in order to preserve this federally-designated heritage building.
Raitt asks whether the Prime Minister signed off on $5,000 worth of wine flown in, $5,000 in cellphone costs, and $60,000 for personal chauffeurs during the India trip.
Raitt cites specific costs from the India trip ($5,000 wine, $5,000 cellphone costs, $60,000 personal chauffeurs) and asks a direct yes/no question about whether the Prime Minister signed off on these expenses.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I find the indignation with which the Prime Minister emotes very troubling when it comes to his discussing his expenses on the India trip. Primarily the Prime Minister is not above scrutiny when it comes to expenses that he incurs, and in fact, he signs off on these. For the India trip alone, they flew in $5,000 worth of wine, charged $5,000 on cellphone costs, and $60,000 for personal chauffeurs. Did the Prime Minister sign off on all of these expenses?
Trudeau says the Conservative government spent over $1.5 million bringing Stephen Harper's limos to India and that the Liberal nine-day trip secured $1 billion in bilateral investment for less than Harper's six-day trip.
Trudeau pivots entirely to the cost of Harper's limos on the India trip and compares trip costs, completely ignoring the specific yes/no question about sign-off on the cited expenses.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government spent over $1.5 million bringing Stephen Harper's limos from Ottawa to India for his trip because he wanted to travel around in the style to which he was accustomed. That is completely irresponsible. We were proud that our trip to India, which covered nine days and secured one billion dollars' worth of bilateral investment, cost significantly less than his six-day trip.
Raitt asks why the Prime Minister thinks it is acceptable to spend $10,000 for a new patio, $12,000 for deck and dock upgrades, and $60,000 in total on Harrington Lake upgrades when Canadians are worried about paying for his carbon tax.
Bergen cites specific Harrington Lake costs ($10,000 patio, $12,000 deck and dock upgrades, $60,000 total) and frames them against the carbon tax, but the rhetorical preamble about 'tone at the top' dilutes the accountability.
Source text
Once again, Mr. Speaker, we are confronted with anger from the Prime Minister that we have the audacity to ask questions about his spending habits. In the private sector, they say that the tone is set at the top. The tone of the Liberal government is a culture of spending in excess. That is all this is. Maybe the Prime Minister can tell me why, at his personal retreat at Harrington Lake, he thinks it is okay to spend $10,000 for a new patio, $12,000 for deck and dock upgrades, and $60,000 in total on these upgrades when Canadians are worried about paying for his carbon tax.
Trudeau corrects his earlier claim, saying the armoured limos only cost $1 million to bring to India, then pivots to middle-class tax cuts and the Canada child benefit without addressing Harrington Lake.
Trudeau corrects his earlier limo cost figure to $1 million, then reverts to talking points about middle-class tax cuts and the Canada child benefit, not addressing the Harrington Lake expenditures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to make an error in the House of Commons. I need to point out that the armoured limos only cost $1 million to bring to India. I am sorry; I got the number wrong, previously. We remain focused on investing and growing the economy and supporting Canadians. That is why we lowered taxes on the middle class and raised them on the wealthiest 1%. The Conservatives voted against that. That is why we are delivering a Canada child benefit that delivers more money to nine out of 10 Canadian families and is lifting hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty. Again, the Conservatives votedâ
Bergen accuses the Prime Minister of using his position to fund a celebrity lifestyle and spending $1.5 million for six days in India, asking when he will stop using taxpayer dollars as his own personal bank account.
Bergen's question is largely rhetorical and personal ('celebrity lifestyle,' 'entitled to his entitlements,' 'dance around India') with no specific figures cited and a vague 'when will he stop' ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Prime Minister is out of touch with the struggles of everyday Canadians. He is using his job to pay for his celebrity lifestyle. The Prime Minister thinks he is entitled to his entitlements. He spares no expense when he wants to be pampered and showered with luxury. Who would have guessed that he could use $1.5 million for six days to dance around India? It is unbelievable. When will he stop using taxpayer dollars as his own personal bank account? It is not.
Trudeau cites over $1 billion in two-way investment between India and Canada, at least 5,800 new jobs, and the fact that the nine-day trip cost less than Harper's six-day trip.
Trudeau cites over $1 billion in two-way investment, at least 5,800 new jobs, compares the nine-day trip cost favorably to Harper's six-day trip, and mentions economic performance, partially engaging with the India trip criticism.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we were pleased to secure over $1 billion in two-way investment between India and Canada. We were pleased to secure at least 5,800 new jobs in investment in Canada from that trip. We were pleased to do a lot of good work on that nine-day trip, for less than it cost Stephen Harper and the Conservatives to do a six-day trip just a few years before. We stay focused on the things that matter to Canadians: on growing the economy in ways that are far greater than the Conservatives were able to do for 10 years.
Bergen contrasts Harper's India trip with Trudeau'sâciting the personal chef at $17,000 and the invitation of a terroristâand asks the Prime Minister to show humility by apologizing for abusing taxpayer dollars and promising not to do so again.
Bergen's question is almost entirely rhetoricalâcomparing Harper's trip to Trudeau's including a 'terrorist' and a personal chefâand asks the Prime Minister to apologize and promise not to abuse tax dollars again, which is an unanswerable political ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the India trip, I do not recall Prime Minister Harper bringing along on the trip his own personal chefâwhat was that: $17,000âand, may I add, a terrorist. Maybe the Prime Minister needs to park the arrogance and swagger for just a split second. We know summer is around the corner. We know what that means. The Prime Minister is going to be taking quite a bit of time off, so perhaps he could at this moment have a bit of humility and tell Canadians he is sorry for abusing their tax dollars and he will not do it again.
Trudeau says members will spend summer engaging with Canadians and hopefully with their families, and criticizes the Conservatives for making personal attacks and playing petty politics on the last day of the spring sitting.
Trudeau speaks only about summer plans and remaining focused on responsibilities for Canadians, briefly noting that the Conservatives are playing petty politics on the last sitting day, without addressing any specific allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite highlighted that, indeed, summer is around the corner. We will be spending it across the country engaging with Canadians, as will every member of this House. Hopefully, there will be a little time for families for many of us as well, but we know all of us in this House will continue to stay focused on our responsibilities for Canadians. It is interesting that on this last day in the House, when plenty of big things are happening around the world, the Conservatives are making the choice to play petty politics and make personal attacks. There are so many big issues we can and should be talking about. I encourage themâ
Boulerice asked whether the Prime Minister would commit to not using infiltration, intimidation, or excessive force against citizens protesting the Kinder Morgan pipeline decision.
The question references David Dodge's comments and upcoming pipeline protests to ground a specific ask about whether the Prime Minister will commit against infiltration, intimidation, or excessive force, but the framing is rhetorical and compound.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, est-ce qu'on trouve cela normal que des gens se fassent tuer parce qu'ils manifestent? Quand les gens expriment leur droit de protester pacifiquement, est-ce que cela peut juste arriver qu'ils se fassent tirer dessus? C'est troublant, mais c'est l'opinion de l'ancien directeur de la Banque du Canada M. David Dodge. Des manifestations s'en viennent au pays. Des milliers de personnes sont furieuses contre la décision du gouvernement libéral d'imposer le pipeline de Kinder Morgan. Ils vont s'exprimer. Ils ont le droit. Le premier ministre peut-il assurer à la Chambre qu'il ne va pas utiliser des tactiques d'infiltration, d'intimidation ou d'usage excessif de la force contre nos propres concitoyens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, does anyone think it is normal for people to get killed for demonstrating? Is it true that people expressing their right to peaceful protest run the risk of being shot at? Though upsetting, that is the opinion of the former Governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge. Demonstrations are on the horizon. Thousands of people are furious at the Liberal government's decision on the Kinder Morgan pipeline. They will speak out and they have the right to do so. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that he will not use infiltration and intimidation tactics or excessive force against our fellow citizens?
Trudeau said Canadians have the right to free expression and disagreement with the government, but that protests must conform to the law and not endanger other citizens.
Trudeau affirms freedom of expression and the rule of law but does not address the specific ask about infiltration or intimidation tactics, offering only general principles.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est extrĂȘmement important pour nous que les Canadiens aient la libertĂ© d'expression et le droit d'ĂȘtre en dĂ©saccord avec le gouvernement sur les dĂ©cisions prises au Canada. C'est un droit trĂšs important que nous encourageons. Toutefois, Ă©videmment, on s'attend tous Ă ce que ces manifestations, ces expressions, soient conformes Ă la loi et Ă ce qu'elles ne mettent pas en danger d'autres citoyens. On est dans un Ătat de droit et on s'attend Ă ce que les lois soient suivies.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important to us that Canadians have freedom of expression and the right to disagree with the government on decisions made in Canada. It is a very important right that we encourage. However, obviously, we all expect these demonstrations, these expressions, to be carried out in accordance with the law and to not endanger others. We live under the rule of law and we expect those laws to be obeyed.
Cullen quoted the Prime Minister's past statements on Indigenous relationships, community permission, and clean economies to challenge the purchase of a $4.5-billion, 65-year-old leaky pipeline.
Cullen uses direct quotes attributed to the Prime Minister to frame his challenge but the ask â 'whatever happened to that guy?' â is rhetorical and unanswerable in a specific policy sense.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are asking themselves what happened to that shiny, progressive, climate-fighting Prime Minister. He was the guy who once said, âNo relationship is more important to me...than the [relationship] with Indigenous Peoplesâ, âgovernments grant permits...[but] only communities grant permissionâ, and this classic, âWe have a chance to build...economies that are clean,...growing,...and forward-looking.â Then he bought a $4.5-billion, 65-year-old leaky pipeline. For all those people who thought he was progressive, thought he believed in the new economy, and thought he was going to fight climate change, whatever happened to that guy?
Trudeau cited $8 billion in clean technology investment and a pan-Canadian approach to climate change, and accused the NDP of thinking there is a choice between the environment and the economy.
Trudeau cites an $8 billion investment in clean technology and pivots to attacking the NDP's record, but does not engage with the quoted commitments or explain the tension they represent.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is investing $8 billion in clean technology and renewable energy. That is where we are focused on moving forward. We are also moving forward with the pan-Canadian approach to fight climate change, one that understands that growing the economy and protecting the environment need to go together. Unfortunately, the NDP does not get that and still thinks there is a choice to be made between the environment and the economy. When it comes to indigenous peoples, it only listens to those who agree with it, and have nothing to say about the indigenous communities that support energy projects.
Carrie asked the Prime Minister what the specific plan is to protect auto manufacturing jobs in Canada, citing TD Bank's warning that 160,000 jobs are at risk.
Carrie cites a TD Bank figure of 160,000 jobs at risk and references a prior non-answer to ask a clear, specific question about the government's plan to protect auto manufacturing jobs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice dismissed the concerns of Canadian auto workers, saying everything was just fine. It is not fine when TD Bank says 160,000 jobs are at risk. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is unable to provide details on her plan to protect the jobs of workers in the auto industry. I am going to ask again a simple question to the Prime Minister. What is the plan to protect auto manufacturing jobs in Canada?
Trudeau said the government is standing up against unfair steel and aluminum tariffs and that auto tariffs would be absolutely unacceptable, while committing to continue working with industry in Canada and the United States.
Trudeau speaks generally about standing up for Canadians and opposing steel and aluminum tariffs and says auto tariffs would be unacceptable, but provides no concrete plan or details for the auto sector specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have consistently stood up for Canadian interests and Canadian jobs, and we will continue to. We are standing up strongly against these unfair steel and aluminum tariffs that are challenging for our industry and our workers. I have said to workers directly, right across the country, that we will be there for them. The threat of tariffs that could be imposed on autos would be absolutely unacceptable. We continue to work with the industry in Canada and in the United States to ensure that never happens. We know we need to continue to stand up for Canadians, and we will do just that.
Jeneroux asked how the Prime Minister justifies picking winners and losers in the $950 million superclusters program, noting that agrifood, oil and gas, infrastructure, mobility systems, and mining applications were shut out.
Jeneroux cites the $950 million superclusters program, notes nine were shortlisted and five selected, and identifies excluded sectors by name, making a specific accountability ask about picking winners and losers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government's superclusters program is said to hand over $950 million of Canadian taxpayer money to for-profit companies. Of the many applications received, nine were shortlisted, and then five were selected to receive the funds, shutting out agrifood, oil and gas, infrastructure, mobility systems, and mining applications. How does the Prime Minister justify picking winners and losers, leaving Canadian taxpayers on the hook for his corporate welfare scheme?
Trudeau announced the protein supercluster investment as benefiting prairie communities and accused the Conservatives of never actually creating growth for farmers.
Trudeau announces the protein supercluster as benefiting prairie communities but does not address the exclusion of agrifood, oil and gas, infrastructure, mobility systems, and mining applications or the 'winners and losers' challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to repeat the announcement that within our supercluster strategy, we are moving forward with the protein supercluster, which benefits prairie communities right across the Prairies. They will definitely benefit from the kinds of investments, the kinds of innovation, and the kinds of leadership that investment in agriculture needs to happen. We are proud to be supporting our farmers and our agrifood businesses. The Conservatives talk a good game, but were never there for them when it came to actually creating growth.
Barlow cited Parliamentary Budget Officer numbers on the carbon tax cost to farmers â including $36,000 for a Manitoba pork producer and $12,000 for a Saskatchewan wheat grower â and asked the Prime Minister whether he agrees with these numbers.
Barlow cites specific Parliamentary Budget Officer figures for carbon tax costs by province and commodity â Manitoba pork producer at $36,000, Alberta rancher at $13,000, Saskatchewan wheat grower at $12,000, PEI potato farmers at $20,000 â and asks whether the Prime Minister agrees with these numbers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will tell members about the Liberal support for agriculture. According to the numbers from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Liberals' carbon tax will devastate Canadian agriculture. At $50 a tonne, the Liberal carbon tax will cost a Manitoba pork producer more than $36,000 a year; a rancher in Alberta, $13,000; and a wheat grower in Saskatchewan, $12,000. As for potato farmers in P.E.I, the agriculture minister thinks they should be paying $20,000 a year in carbon tax. Does the Prime Minister agree with these numbers? If not, will he end the cover-up and release the cost of the Liberals' farm-killing carbon tax?
Trudeau accused the Conservatives of twisting in the wind because they have no climate plan, without addressing any of the cited figures.
Trudeau does not address any of the cited PBO figures, does not confirm or deny them, and pivots entirely to attacking the Conservatives for lacking a climate plan, which is a non-answer to the specific question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives spend all of their time trying to twist in the wind because they do not admit that climate change is a problem, do not have a plan to fight climate change, and therefore cannot reveal the details of their plan. We have been transparent in the election campaign and ever since, and in the budget. We have demonstrated that we are moving forward on growing our economy and protecting the environment, at the same time as moving forward on a concrete plan with all provinces to fight climate change. That is what we are doing. The Conservatives cannot say what they are doing because they do not know what they are doing, because they do not have a plan.
Berthold cited specific carbon tax costs for an average dairy farm in multiple provinces and asked why the Prime Minister remains silent in the face of threats to family farms.
Berthold cites specific carbon tax cost figures by province for dairy farms â $17,000 in Quebec, $28,000 in British Columbia, $21,000 in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, $18,000 in PEI, $39,000 in Newfoundland-and-Labrador â and asks a clear accountability question about why the Prime Minister remains silent.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on voit que le secret continue. Les attaques contre les producteurs laitiers ne viennent pas toutes des Ătats-Unis. C'est le Parti libĂ©ral qui va forcer les producteurs laitiers Ă payer la taxe sur le carbone. Cela reprĂ©sente 17 000 $ pour une ferme laitiĂšre moyenne au QuĂ©bec. En Colombie-Britannique, cela reprĂ©sente 28 000 $. Malheureusement pour les producteurs laitiers des Maritimes, le premier ministre ne les a pas oubliĂ©s. La facture sera de 21 000 $ au Nouveau-Brunswick et en Nouvelle-Ăcosse, de 18 000 $ Ă l'Ăle-du-Prince-Ădouard et, que chacun s'attache Ă sa chaise, de 39 000 $ Ă Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador. Pourquoi le premier ministre reste-t-il muet devant ces attaques qui mettent en pĂ©ril les fermes familiales au Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the cover-up continues. The United States is not the only one attacking our dairy farmers. The Liberal Party is going to force dairy farmers to pay a carbon tax. For an average dairy farm, the price tag will be $17,000 in Quebec and $28,000 in British Columbia. Unfortunately for dairy farmers in the Maritimes, the Prime Minister did not forget about them. The bill will be $21,000 in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, $18,000 in Prince Edward Island, andâI hope everyone is sitting downâa whopping $39,000 in Newfoundland and Labrador. Why is the Prime Minister condoning these attacks, which are threatening Canada's family farms?
Trudeau said the Conservatives are inventing numbers to distract from their lack of a climate plan, without addressing any of the cited figures.
Trudeau dismisses the figures as invented numbers and redirects entirely to attacking the Conservatives' lack of a climate plan, with no engagement whatsoever with the cited provincial figures.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les conservateurs inventent des chiffres pour nous distraire du fait qu'ils n'ont aucunement l'intention de s'attaquer aux changements climatiques. Ils ne peuvent pas dire quel est leur plan pour s'attaquer aux changements climatiques, parce qu'ils n'ont pas de plan pour s'attaquer aux changements climatiques. Toutes leurs attaques sont dans l'espoir que personne ne remarque qu'ils n'ont aucun plan, et mĂȘme qu'ils s'intĂ©ressent plus ou moins Ă la lutte contre les changements climatiques. C'est cela les conservateurs, qui n'ont pas changĂ© depuis 10 ans d'inaction.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are making up numbers to distract us from the fact that they have absolutely no intention of fighting climate change. They cannot tell us what their plan for fighting climate change is, because they have no plan for fighting climate change. All their attacks are designed to keep everyone from realizing that they have no plan and are not even interested in fighting climate change. The Conservatives have not changed a bit since their 10 years of inaction.
Jolibois asked directly whether the Liberals will support her private member's bill to make National Indigenous Peoples Day a statutory holiday.
Jolibois references a prior non-answer from the day before, identifies the specific private member's bill, and asks a binary yes-or-no question about whether the Liberals will support making National Indigenous Peoples Day a statutory holiday.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I asked the Liberals if they would support my private member's bill to make National Indigenous Peoples Day a statutory holiday. Instead of saying whether they would support it, the minister spoke about the government's celebrations taking place. People already know about the celebrations. What they want is for the Liberals to actually recognize the importance of providing people with a time and opportunity to celebrate. Therefore, I am asking again: Will the Liberals support my bill and make National Indigenous Peoples Day a statutory holiday?
Trudeau said decisions should be made in consultation and partnership with indigenous people rather than by folks in Ottawa, and promised more to say soon on commemorating reconciliation.
Trudeau does not say yes or no to supporting the bill, instead pivoting to general principles about consultation and partnership with indigenous peoples and vaguely promising 'more to say soon.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, no relationship is more important to us than the relationship with indigenous peoples, and that is why, when we talk about moving forward on issues on this, we need to make sure that it is not folks in Ottawa deciding what is going to happen. It needs to be in consultation and in partnership with indigenous people. That is why we are looking very closely at the calls to action, and looking very closely at relationships with indigenous communities to figure out the best way to move forward on commemorating reconciliation. We look forward to having more to say soon on this issue.
Ashton asked whether the Prime Minister will support her colleague's bill to make National Indigenous Peoples Day a statutory holiday, referencing the United Nations declaration adopted by the government and poor pipeline consultations as evidence of disrespect.
Ashton references the United Nations Declaration adopted by the government and botched pipeline consultations to ground a repeat ask about supporting the bill, but the question is partly rhetorical and somewhat compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, so many indigenous people are asking for this day to be a statutory holiday, and the Prime Minister is clearly not listening. Le gouvernement continue de prouver qu'il ne respecte pas réellement les peuples des PremiÚres Nations et la Déclaration des Nations unies qu'il a adoptée. Il n'écoute pas les communautés autochtones, comme le démontrent les consultations bùclées sur les projets d'oléoducs. Va-t-il au moins appuyer le projet de loi de ma collÚgue afin que tous les Canadiens et les Canadiennes puissent célébrer avec les peuples autochtones et reconnaßtre leurs droits?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, nombre d'Autochtones réclament que l'on désigne cette journée comme jour férié, et il est évident que le premier ministre ne les écoute pas. The government continues to show that it does not really respect first nations and the UN declaration that it adopted. It is not listening to indigenous communities, as illustrated by the botched consultation on pipeline projects. Will it at least support my colleague's bill so that all Canadians can celebrate with indigenous peoples and recognize their rights?
Trudeau spoke of working with indigenous peoples on a nation-to-nation relationship and continuing to work with partners on common priorities including the celebration, without committing to the bill.
Trudeau speaks of nation-to-nation relationships and annual recognition of indigenous contributions but does not say whether the government will support the specific bill, avoiding the direct question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis trÚs fier que, déjà , chaque année, nous nous unissions pour reconnaßtre les contributions fondamentales que les PremiÚres Nations, les Inuits et les Métis ont apportées à l'identité et à la culture de tous les Canadiens. Nous travaillons avec les peuples autochtones pour établir une relation de nation à nation entre les Inuits et la Couronne et de gouvernement à gouvernement, fondée sur le respect, le partenariat et la reconnaissance des droits. Nous continuerons de travailler avec nos partenaires sur les priorités communes, y compris cette célébration.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that every year we come together to acknowledge the fundamental contributions that first nations, Inuit, and MĂ©tis people have made to the identity and culture of all Canadians. We are working with indigenous peoples to establish a nation-to-nation relationship between the Inuit and the crown and a government-to-government relationship based on respect, partnership, and recognition of rights. We will continue to work with our partners on shared priorities, including this celebration
Nault asked the Prime Minister to explain how enhanced background checks in the firearms bill make Canadians safer.
Nault is a government backbencher asking a softball setup question that asserts the bill will not recreate a federal long-gun registry before inviting the Prime Minister to explain the merits of enhanced background checks.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is proposing measures that represent a reasonable and common-sense approach to firearm policy to make Canadians less vulnerable to gun violence. First, I want to be clear that this bill would not recreate a federal long-gun registry. As parliamentarians, I strongly believe that we have no greater responsibility than keeping Canadians safe. Can the Prime Minister explain how enhanced background checks makes society, gun owners, and Canadians safer and more secure?
Mr. Speaker, we are strengthening Canada's firearm laws in a common-sense, focused, and effective way. We are enhancing background checks, which the committee had further strengthened, so that people with a history of criminality or mental illness associated with violence cannot access firearms. We are formalizing best practices among retailers so that they make sure buyers have a valid licence. We are also investing unprecedented funding of $327 million to tackle gun-related violence and gang activities in Canada. We are prioritizing community safety while respecting responsible firearm ownership.
Trudeau cited enhanced background checks preventing people with a history of criminality or mental illness associated with violence from accessing firearms, formalizing retailer best practices, and an unprecedented $327 million investment to tackle gun-related violence and gang activities.
Trudeau lists specific measures â enhanced background checks, formalizing retailer best practices, and $327 million in funding to tackle gun-related violence and gang activities â directly addressing the question asked.
Paul-Hus asked whether the Prime Minister will respect Quebec's and Manitoba's decisions to ban home cannabis cultivation, yes or no.
Paul-Hus identifies a specific yes-or-no ask â whether the Prime Minister will respect Quebec's and Manitoba's decisions to ban home cannabis cultivation â and references the 2015 federal election promise of partnership with provinces.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre n'a aucun respect pour les provinces. Son gouvernement a introduit un projet de loi pour légaliser la marijuana et ordonne aux provinces de l'administrer. Quand les provinces acceptent le défi et cherchent à mettre en place un plan pour les citoyens, le premier ministre s'obstine et impose ses conditions. Durant la campage fédérale de 2015, les libéraux avaient promis un partenariat avec les provinces. Alors, voici une chance en or pour le premier ministre: est-ce qu'il respectera les décisions du Québec et du Manitoba d'interdire la production de cannabis à domicile, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has no respect for the provinces. His government introduced a bill to legalize marijuana and is ordering the provinces to administer it. The provinces accepted the challenge and sought to implement a plan for their residents, but the Prime Minister dug in his heels and imposed conditions. During the 2015 federal election campaign, the Liberals promised to work in partnership with the provinces. Here is the perfect opportunity for the Prime Minister to do so. Will he respect the decisions of Quebec and Manitoba to prohibit home cannabis production, yes or no?
Trudeau said the government worked in partnership with provinces and announced October 17, 2018 as the legalization date, granted after provinces including Quebec asked for more time, without addressing the home-cultivation ban question directly.
Trudeau speaks of working in partnership with provinces and announces October 17, 2018 as the legalization date in response to provincial requests for more time, but does not directly answer whether the federal government will respect the home-cultivation bans specifically.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous nous sommes engagĂ©s Ă amĂ©liorer notre systĂšme pour mieux protĂ©ger nos jeunes et pour enlever l'argent et les profits des mains du crime organisĂ©. C'est exactement ce que nous avons fait, et nous l'avons fait en partenariat avec les provinces. Nous travaillons toujours en partenariat avec les provinces. D'ailleurs, puisque nous avons adoptĂ© ces mesures au Parlement et que nous nous apprĂȘtons Ă aller de l'avant, nous avons Ă©coutĂ© les provinces qui nous demandent plus de temps pour les implanter. C'est pourquoi nous acceptons les demandes des provinces. La lĂ©galisation entrera en vigueur Ă partir du 17 octobre 2018.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we promised to improve our system to better protect our young people and take money and profits out of the hands of organized crime. That is exactly what we did, and we did it in partnership with the provinces. We always work in partnership with the provinces. These measures have been passed in Parliament and we are now preparing to move forward with them, but the province are asking for more time. We listened to them and agreed to their requests. The legalization of marijuana will take effect on October 17, 2018.
Paul-Hus asked whether the Prime Minister will respect Quebec's law prohibiting home cannabis cultivation or instead engage in a court battle with Quebec.
Paul-Hus sharpens the prior question by noting Quebec has already enacted its law prohibiting home cultivation and asks a concrete binary: will the Prime Minister listen to Quebec or engage in a court battle?
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre fait toujours des beaux discours et des belles promesses, mais dans la vie, il y a des choses concrĂštes. Le QuĂ©bec a dĂ©jĂ fait sa loi et a dĂ©jĂ dit qu'il n'y aurait pas de culture dans les rĂ©sidences, dans les condos et dans les maisons. Est-ce que le premier ministre va Ă©couter le QuĂ©bec, ou est-il prĂȘt Ă s'engager dans une guerre en cour avec le QuĂ©bec? Est-ce qu'il va Ă©couter le QuĂ©bec, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says all kinds of nice things and makes all kinds of nice promises, but life is not about what gets said; it is about what gets done. Quebec already has its legislation. It has already said it will not allow cultivation in apartments, condos, or homes. Will the Prime Minister listen to Quebec, or is he gearing up for a court battle with Quebec? Will he listen to Quebec or not?
Trudeau said the government is proud to have legalized marijuana and announced October 17, 2018 as the entry-into-force date granted at the request of three large provinces including Quebec, without addressing the home-cultivation prohibition.
Trudeau repeats the October 17 legalization date and frames it as a response to Quebec's request for more time, but does not address the specific question about whether the federal government will respect Quebec's home-cultivation prohibition or fight it in court.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous sommes fiers d'avoir adopté notre projet de loi afin de légaliser la marijuana, de la réglementer strictement et d'en restreindre l'accÚs. Cette mesure aidera à garder la marijuana hors de la portée des jeunes et à priver les criminels des profits qui en découlent. Je viens juste de donner une réponse trÚs précise au député d'en face. Je vais la répéter pour qu'il comprenne: le 17 octobre marquera l'entrée en vigueur. Nous avons pris cette décision parce que trois de nos grandes provinces, y compris le Québec, nous ont demandé un peu plus de temps. Je sais que c'est important de le faire comme il faut, alors nous donnons au Québec plus de temps pour le faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are proud to have passed our bill to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to marijuana. This measure will keep marijuana out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands of criminals. I just gave the member opposite a very precise answer. I will repeat it to be sure he understands. This legislation will come into force on October 17. We made that decision because three of our largest provinces, including Quebec, asked for a little more time. I know how important it is to do this properly, and that is why we are giving Quebec more time.
Bezan cited the testimony of a Yazidi woman named Nada who identified her alleged captor Abu Tawfiq as a free man in London, Ontario, and asked whether the Prime Minister will take responsibility and send these war criminals to The Hague.
Bezan grounds the question in a named victim's testimony â Nada, a Yazidi mother who came face to face with Abu Tawfiq, the man she says sold her, now living in London, Ontario â and asks a specific accountability question about whether the Prime Minister will take responsibility and send these war criminals to The Hague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Nada is a young Yazidi mother from Iraq. When ISIS invaded her community, she was sold as a sex slave. She recently recounted coming face to face with Abu Tawfiq, the man she says sold her and bought her. He was not in jail. He was not in Iraq. He is a free man in London, Ontario. We need to believe victims, and the Liberals let this guy into our country. Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for allowing ISIS terrorists to walk our streets freely and finally send these war criminals to The Hague?
Trudeau said the government has welcomed more than 1,300 women and their families who endured the brutality of Daesh, 85% of whom are Yazidi, and announced $20 million to expand the refugee program targeting women and girls.
Trudeau speaks of welcoming more than 1,300 women and their families including 85% Yazidi refugees and $20 million to expand the refugee program, but does not address the specific case of Abu Tawfiq or the question of referring ISIS terrorists to The Hague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in regards to the Yazidis, our government has proven to be a global leader in welcoming refugees and we have more than doubled Canada's refugee numbers. We have provided a new home to more than 1,300 women and their families who endured the brutality of Daesh, 85% of whom are Yazidi. Our government's commitment to supporting vulnerable women and girls is unwavering. We announced $20 million to expand our refugee program, specifically targeting women and girls. We will continue to expedite applications so that their family members who escaped Daesh can join their relatives in Canada.
Rempel asked why the feminist Prime Minister continually refuses to commit to referring Canadian ISIS terrorists to the International Criminal Court.
Rempel invokes the #MeToo context and the use of women's bodies as tools of war to ask a pointed but somewhat rhetorical question about referring Canadian ISIS terrorists to the International Criminal Court specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after sitting with a Yazidi woman who survived sexual slavery, one leaves awed by her strength, concerned for her welfare, and left with a deep, white-hot desire to bring her justice. When we wax eloquent about #MeToo, we cannot forget our obligation to bring justice to women who have had their bodies used as tools of war. Why does the feminist Prime Minister continually refuse to commit to refer Canadian ISIS terrorists to the International Criminal Court?
Trudeau said security agencies use the full tool kit including surveillance, the no-fly list, revoking passports, and laying criminal charges, and accused the Conservatives of wanting elected officials to directly intervene with police officers.
Trudeau lists general security tools â surveillance, the no-fly list, revoking passports, and laying criminal charges â and deflects by accusing the Conservatives of wanting elected officials to intervene with police, without addressing referral to the International Criminal Court.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our security agencies take all potential threats very seriously and use the full tool kit of measures, including surveillance, the no-fly list, revoking passports, and laying criminal charges when sufficient evidence exists. We trust our police forces and intelligence services to do their work and to do it well. I find it troubling that the Conservatives seem to want elected officials to directly intervene with police officers and tell them who should be arrested and when they should be arrested. We will continue to trust those responsible for the safety of Canadians to do their jobs.
Hardcastle asked whether the accessibility legislation being tabled that afternoon will fulfill Canada's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified eight years earlier.
Hardcastle grounds the question in Canada's ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities eight years prior and asks specifically whether today's legislation will fulfill Canada's obligations under that convention.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities eight long years ago but to this day we have failed to implement it. That is why Canadians are watching as the minister tables the government's long-awaited accessibility act this afternoon. People living with disabilities need more than a vague promise for a barrier-free Canada. Could the Prime Minister tell us if today's legislation will fulfill Canada's obligations to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?
Trudeau confirmed the historic accessibility legislation would be introduced before the House rises for the summer, and noted the Harper Conservatives had promised but never delivered such legislation for 10 years.
Trudeau confirms the historic accessibility legislation will be introduced before the House rises for the summer but does not address whether it fulfills Canada's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring the full participation of people with disabilities in society, and we have taken steps to do so. We support a variety of programs and services to assist those with disabilities to gain employment, to develop skills, and to gain experience. For 10 long years, the Harper Conservatives promised to deliver legislation for persons with disabilities but did nothing. I am not going to break with parliamentary privilege, but I will confirm that we will be introducing this historic accessibility legislation before the House rises for the summer.
Quach noted Lyme disease cases doubled in Quebec in 2017, that the federal framework guidelines remain unimplemented one year after creation, and asked when Lyme disease victims will have access to better diagnostic tests and treatments for chronic cases.
Quach cites that Lyme disease cases doubled in Quebec in 2017, notes that a federal framework was established one year ago with guidelines still not implemented, and asks a specific question about when patients will have access to better diagnostic tests and treatments for chronic cases.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le nombre de victimes de la maladie de Lyme a doublé au Québec en 2017 et continue de progresser chaque année en raison des changements climatiques. Le gouvernement a mis sur pied un cadre fédéral sur la maladie de Lyme il y a un an. Pourtant ,les lignes directrices n'ont toujours pas été mises en application. Si la maladie n'est pas traitée, elle peut entraßner des problÚmes cardiaques et neurologiques. On sait que les faux résultats négatifs sont trÚs communs. Quand est-ce que les victimes de la maladie de Lyme auront accÚs à de meilleurs tests diagnostiques et à des traitements pour des cas chroniques au Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the number of victims of Lyme disease doubled in Quebec in 2017, and this number continues to grow every year as a result of climate change. The government created the federal framework on Lyme disease one year ago, but the guidelines are still not being applied. If this disease is not treated, it can cause cardiac and neurological problems. False negatives are quite common. When will victims of Lyme disease have access to better diagnostic testing and treatments for chronic cases in Canada?
Trudeau acknowledged Lyme disease affects too many Canadians and committed to working with those who suffer and with researchers for a better approach to protect all Canadians, without providing a timeline or specifics.
Trudeau acknowledges the issue affects too many Canadians and commits to working with those who suffer and researchers for a better approach, but provides no timeline, no specifics on diagnostic tests, and no answer on chronic case treatments.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie l'honorable dĂ©putĂ©e de sa question. C'est un enjeu qui touche beaucoup trop de Canadiens. Je sais que c'est extrĂȘmement difficile de vivre avec la maladie de Lyme. Nous reconnaissons qu'il y a encore Ă©normĂ©ment de recherche Ă faire lĂ -dessus. Nous nous sommes engagĂ©s Ă travailler avec ceux qui souffrent de la maladie de Lyme et les chercheurs afin d'avoir une meilleure approche pour protĂ©ger tous les Canadiens. C'est un enjeu qui est trĂšs important, et je remercie la dĂ©putĂ©e de l'avoir soulevĂ© ici, Ă la Chambre des communes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. This is an issue that affects far too many Canadians. I know that it is very difficult to live with Lyme disease. We realize that a lot of research is needed on this disease. We are committed to working with those suffering from Lyme disease and with researchers to find the best approach to protect all Canadians. This is a very important issue, and I thank the member for raising it in the House of Commons.
Anderson cites the arrest, torture, televised confession, execution, and post-mortem denial of access to the body of Mohammad Salas, and asks when the Liberal government will support the Iranian people and stop seeking to normalize relations with Iran.
The question cites a specific named case (Mohammad Salas), describes documented abuses, and asks a clear accountability question about government policy toward Iran, though the final ask is rhetorically framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Iranian regime continues to brutalize its own citizens. Mohammad Salas, a bus driver and member of a religious minority, was arrested. He was then tortured. His phoney confession was then broadcast on state television. It was used as the only evidence in his trial. On Monday, at dawn, he was executed. Then the regime refused to allow his family to even see the body. When will the Liberal government start to support the Iranian people and stop fantasizing about normalizing relations with this vicious, murderous, terrorist regime?
Trudeau lists Canadian opposition to Iran's support for terrorist organizations, threats toward Israel, ballistic missile program, and support for the Assad regime, and cites a UN resolution and ongoing sanctions.
The Prime Minister lists concrete actions (UN resolution, sanctions, asset freezes) but does not address the specific case of Mohammad Salas or the question of 'normalizing relations.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we deeply oppose Iran's support for terrorist organizations, its threats toward Israel, its ballistic missile program, and its support for the murderous Assad regime. We will always defend human rights and hold Iran to account for its actions. We led a resolution at the United Nations in November, calling on Iran to comply with its international human rights obligations. We will continue to maintain sanctions on Iran, which include restrictions on sensitive goods and a list of individuals and entities subject to asset freezes, with whom all transactions involving property are prohibited.
Genuis notes the foreign affairs minister's acknowledgment of Yazidi genocide and asks whether the Prime Minister will also acknowledge genocide against Assyrian, Chaldean and other Christian communities in Syria and Iraq.
Genuis references a specific prior government action (the foreign affairs minister's acknowledgment of Yazidi genocide) and asks a precise follow-up question about whether the same recognition will be extended to Assyrian, Chaldean and other Christians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the foreign affairs minister finally acknowledged genocide of Yazidis at the hands of Daesh in Syria and Iraq. However, the government has yet to acknowledge genocide against Christian communities in the same areas, Assyrian, Chaldean and other Christians who live in communities alongside Yazidis and have often been treated in exactly the same way. Will the Prime Minister today also acknowledge the Christian victims of this genocide?
Trudeau states the government stands against Daesh and supports victims of all cultures and religions, and mentions resettling minority refugees, but does not address the specific genocide recognition requested.
Trudeau gives a generic statement about fighting Daesh and supporting minorities but does not address the specific question of acknowledging genocide against Christian communities.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government stands strong in the fight against Daesh and will continue to be part of the coalition, as we defend minorities of all types from the murderous terrorist organization of Daesh and the like. We continue to support victims of Daesh from all different cultures and religions. We have looked at resettling numerous minority refugees who are victims of Daesh. We will continue to hold our place in the world in defending victims and minorities against the murderous actions of Daesh.
O'Toole asks whether the Prime Minister approves of the MP for Richmond Hill organizing a parliamentary meeting for a regime-friendly Iranian lobbying group that publicly criticized the House of Commons for condemning Iran.
O'Toole identifies a specific named MP, a specific named event, and a specific named lobbying group, and asks a direct yes/no accountability question about the Prime Minister's approval, though the framing is partly partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just mentioned holding Iran to account. Last night the MP for Richmond Hill organized an event on the Hill for a regime-friendly Iranian lobbying group. Last week this same group publicly criticized the House of Commons for passing a motion condemning Iran. The Iranian regime is an oppressive abuser of human rights. Does the Prime Minister approve of the actions of the MP for Richmond Hill, organizing parliamentary meetings for a group that supports the Iranian regime?
Trudeau states that politicians engage with a broad range of people and reiterates Canada's opposition to Iran's support for terrorist organizations, threats toward Israel, its ballistic missile program, and the Assad regime.
Trudeau does not address the specific question about the MP for Richmond Hill or the event, and instead restates the same anti-Iran policy positions given in Exchange 31.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as politicians, we engage with a broad range of people, but we have been unequivocal. We deeply oppose Iran's support for terrorist organizations, for its threats toward Israel, its ballistic missile program, and its support for the murderous Assad regime. We will always defend human rights and hold Iran to account for its actions. We continue to maintain sanctions on Iran, which include restrictions on sensitive goods, and a list of individuals and entities subject to asset freezes. We will always remain firm in our defence of human rights and are standing against state sponsors of terrorism around the world.
Saini asks the Prime Minister to update the House on progress made on the advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare announced in budget 2018.
This is a government-backbench softball setup referencing budget 2018's advisory council announcement and asking for a progress update with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous avons tous vu les statistiques troublantes. En 2016, plus d'un million de Canadiens ont dû choisir entre nourrir leur famille, chauffer leur maison et remplir leurs ordonnances médicales nécessaires. J'ai entendu des plaintes similaires à ce sujet dans ma circonscription, Kitchener-Centre. In budget 2018, we proudly announced the creation of an advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare. Could the Prime Minister please update the House on the progress that our government has made in this area?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je fĂ©licite le dĂ©putĂ© de Kitchener-Centre pour son travail sur ce dossier et pour son excellent français. Les Canadiens peuvent ĂȘtre fiers de notre systĂšme de soins de santĂ© public et universel. Toutefois, il y a toujours place Ă l'amĂ©lioration. C'est pourquoi nous avons crĂ©Ă© un Conseil consultatif sur la mise en oeuvre du rĂ©gime d'assurance-mĂ©dicaments national qui Ă©tudiera, Ă©valuera et recommandera des options en matiĂšre d'assurance-mĂ©dicaments. Nous avons Ă©galement annoncĂ© le nom des membres accomplis qui siĂ©geront Ă ce conseil. Nous attendons avec impatience leur rapport, afin d'offrir un meilleur systĂšme aux Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Kitchener Centre for his work on this file and for his excellent French. Canadians can be proud of our publicly funded, universal health care system. However, there is always room for improvement. That is why we created the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare, which will study, evaluate, and recommend pharmacare options. We also announced the names of the accomplished members of the council. We look forward to their report, so that we can give Canadians a better system.
Trudeau confirms the creation of the advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare, the announcement of its accomplished members, and states the government awaits their report.
Trudeau confirms the creation of the advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare, mentions the announcement of its members, and notes the government awaits their report, providing some real informational content.
Stubbs asks the Prime Minister to stop the closure of the Vegreville immigration office, citing the loss of 288 jobs, $47 million in additional costs for only 32 extra jobs in Edmonton, and the disproportionate impact on women and disabled workers.
Stubbs cites specific figures (288 jobs, $47 million more in costs, 32 extra jobs, 74% women workers), a specific timeline, and a specific location, making this a highly factually grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in two months the Prime Minister will close the high-performing Vegreville immigration office, killing 288 jobs, dozens more in town, and millions in local revenue. It will not even save tax dollars. It will cost nearly $47 million more for renos and leasing for only 32 extra jobs in Edmonton. The Prime Minister ignores the pleas of workers, the union, the town, and Alberta representatives of all parties at all levels. He is hurting the 74% of women supporting their families and disabled workers with long-term placements in the office. Will the Prime Minister please stop this unfounded, cold-hearted closure?
Trudeau states the government is reinvesting in immigration services and processing times after 10 years of Conservative cuts, and says it is ensuring capacity to treat files rapidly and efficiently, without addressing Vegreville specifically.
Trudeau does not address any of the specific figures cited, the Vegreville office closure, or the cost analysis, instead pivoting to a general critique of the Conservative record on immigration processing times.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the past two years, Canadians across the country have been thanking us for reinvesting in immigration services and processing times, after 10 years of Conservatives shutting down, creating backlogs, starving our immigration systems from being able to actually process the backlogs and giving them the resources they needed. We know we need to do better on processing times. We need to invest in our immigration system. That is exactly why we are ensuring we have the capacity in our system to treat the files that Canadians and new Canadians expect us to treat rapidly and efficiently.
Donnelly cites a Liberal MP's call for transition to closed containment salmon aquaculture and a Florida 90,000-tonne land-based facility, and asks whether the Prime Minister will commit to transitioning salmon farms to land.
Donnelly references a specific Liberal MP's statement and a specific international example (Florida's 90,000-tonne facility), but the ask â committing to transition farms to land â is broad and the framing mixes advocacy with the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, recently a Liberal MP said, âThe time has come to transition to closed containment salmon aquaculture in British Columbia.â I could not agree more. Canada is well-positioned to become a world leader in closed containment, but we need action now. Globally, money is being invested in land-based salmon farming. Florida, for instance, is building a 90,000-tonne facility. It is time for Canada to invest in a safe, sustainable industry that protects wild salmon and employment, and develops new technologies, jobs, and export opportunities. Will the Prime Minister commit today to transition these farms to land?
Trudeau says the federal science adviser has been tasked to look into aquaculture for evidence-based policy, and notes that the province just approved continued tenure for aquaculture farms.
Trudeau references tasking the federal science adviser on aquaculture policy and pivots to criticizing the NDP's relationship with provincial counterparts, mentioning the province's approval of continued tenure for aquaculture farms, which is partially relevant but does not address the commitment requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have tasked the federal science adviser to actually look into the question of aquaculture so we can make evidence-based policy moves going forward. However, I would highlight for my colleague from the NDP that he should have a conversation with his provincial counterparts, if he is not fighting with them as they are with their provincial counterparts in Alberta. They just approved continued tenure for aquaculture farms. That is the decision on the provincial side and we know there are significant concerns that we are moving forwardâ
Mihychuk asks the Prime Minister to update the House on steps the government is taking to improve the resiliency of Canadian communities, especially in Manitoba, in response to severe weather events and flooding.
This is a government-backbench softball asking for an update on flooding resilience measures in Manitoba, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, severe weather events are a significant and growing problem across Canada. My province of Manitoba has seen first-hand the devastating effects flooding can have on our communities. These floods have forced residents from homes, businesses to relocate or close, and caused residents to worry annually what the year's flood season may bring. Could the Prime Minister please update the House on the steps that our government is taking to improve the resiliency of Canadian communities, especially those in Manitoba?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for KildonanâSt. Paul for her hard work in her community. Our government knows that climate change is real and that the frequency of severe weather events like flooding is increasing. That is why this week we were proud to announce a federal investment of almost $250 million in the Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin outlet channels. Alongside the province, our investment will allow for the management of the flows of these watersheds and protect the communities of the region for years to come.
Trudeau announces a federal investment of almost $250 million in the Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin outlet channels to manage watershed flows and protect communities in the region.
Trudeau provides a specific dollar figure ($250 million) for a specific project (Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin outlet channels) announced that week, offering real informational content.
Sweet asks the Prime Minister to confirm whether the government is discussing removing Her Majesty from the oath of citizenship.
Sweet asks a specific yes/no factual question about whether the government is discussing removing Her Majesty from the oath of citizenship, citing troubling reports, which makes it a clear and answerable accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, troubling reports are surfacing that the Minister of Immigration is planning on removing Her Majesty from the oath of citizenship. Could the Prime Minister confirm if his government is discussing removing Her Majesty from the oath of citizenship?
Trudeau confirms that the government is not considering removing Her Majesty from the oath of citizenship.
Trudeau gives a direct, unequivocal one-sentence answer that fully addresses the specific question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we are not considering removing Her Majesty from the oath of citizenship.
Weir asks whether the government will include carbon pricing in the equalization formula renewal and, if so, how it will ensure provinces actually keep their carbon pricing revenues rather than having them clawed back.
Weir identifies a specific policy tension between carbon pricing revenue retention commitments and the equalization formula renewal, and asks a precise technical policy question about whether carbon pricing will be included in equalization and how revenue retention will be ensured.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has repeatedly stated that provinces will keep their revenues from carbon pricing. However, next year is a renewal of equalization. If carbon revenues are added to the formula, then each province's carbon tax base would count against its equalization entitlement, effectively clawing back the money. Will the government include carbon pricing in equalization and, if so, how will it ensure that provinces actually keep the revenue?
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In a moment I will be asking for unanimous consent to present a motion. Last night, the Senate passed Bill C-45, important legislation that will positively change 100 years of legal, social, and economic attitudes towards cannabis. It will legalize an activity that the vast majority of Canadians regard as acceptable. That is why, Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, in the opinion of the House, given the passage of Bill C-45 and the imminent legalization of cannabis for personal recreational use, and recognizing that many Canadians are facing criminal charges, experiencing criminal sanctions, or bearing criminal records for cannabis offences that are soon to be legal, the government should take all necessary steps to immediately provide pardons for those burdened by criminal records for cannabis offences that will soon be legal.
Agreed. No.
Trudeau accuses the Conservatives and NDP of presenting a false choice between the environment and economy, says Canada is moving forward on its national framework on fighting climate change, and makes a quip about the CCF, without addressing the equalization question.
Trudeau does not address the equalization formula question at all, instead attacking the Conservatives and NDP for presenting a false choice between the environment and economy, and making a quip about the CCF, providing no connection to the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know that both the Conservatives and the NDP think there is a false choice between either the environment or the economy. Apparently, the CCF does as well. We know that the only way to move forward is to invest in protecting our environment while growing our economy. That is exactly what we are doing with our national framework on fighting climate change. We are proud that we have been transparent about the way we are moving forward on that. We have been clear with Canadians that this is a priority for us. The Conservatives do not even have a plan. The NDP want to present a false choice. We are just glad to see the CCF back in the House.
Berthold seeks unanimous consent to have Bill C-79, implementing the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, deemed read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read a third time, and passed.
Berthold presents a unanimous consent motion for fast-tracking Bill C-79 (CPTPP implementation) rather than a substantive question, though it identifies a specific legislative action with a stated rationale about the summer adjournment deadline.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est la derniÚre occasion pour la Chambre d'adopter le projet de loi C-79 avant d'ajourner pour l'été. Des discussions ont eu lieu, et pour peu que vous le demandiez, vous verrez, j'espÚre, qu'il y a consentement unanime pour la motion suivante: que, nonobstant tout article du RÚglement ou usage habituel de la Chambre, le projet de loi C-79, Loi portant mise en oeuvre de l'Accord de partenariat transpacifique global et progressiste entre le Canada, l'Australie, le Brunéi, le Chili, le Japon, la Malaisie, le Mexique, la Nouvelle-Zélande, le Pérou, Singapour et le Vietnam, soit réputé avoir été lu pour la deuxiÚme fois, renvoyé à un comité plénier, avoir fait l'objet d'un rapport à la Chambre sans proposition d'amendement, avoir été agréé à l'étape du rapport, lu pour la troisiÚme fois et adopté.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is the last opportunity for the House to adopt Bill C-79 before adjourning for the summer. Discussions have taken place, and if you seek it, you will find, I hope, unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-79, An Act to implement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendments, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed.
D'accord. Non.
Hansard translation: Agreed. No.
The House was divided, with some members agreeing and others objecting, and unanimous consent was not granted.
The exchange results in a divided response (D'accord/Non) with no ministerial answer, so no substantive content is provided.