Session overview
- Trans Mountain dominated Question Period, with Conservatives pressing the Prime Minister on the pipeline's halt, the $4.5 billion purchase, the court ruling's finding that Canada failed to meaningfully engage and dialogue, and the absence of a plan after 20 days of stoppage.
- Supply management and NAFTA drew repeated questions from the NDP and Bloc Québécois, with dairy farmers present on Parliament Hill; questioners demanded the Prime Minister say he would 'fully' protect supply management, a word he consistently avoided using.
- Irregular migration at Roxham Road generated sharp exchanges, with Conservatives citing RCMP data showing nearly 26,000 irregular crossings between June 2017 and June 2018, and calling for closure of the safe third country agreement loophole.
- The opioid crisis was raised by the NDP, with new data showing over 1,000 Canadians died from opioid overdoses in the first three months of 2018; the Prime Minister cited $231.4 million in investments and committed to treating the crisis as a health rather than criminal issue.
- Veterans' mental health and service dogs prompted NDP questions; the Prime Minister cited $10 billion in veterans investments and budget 2018 expansion of the medical expense tax credit for psychiatric service dogs, while acknowledging claims processing delays.
- National defence attracted criticism over the Royal Canadian Air Force pilot shortage of 275 and the interim purchase of used Australian F-18 fighter jets; Maxime Bernier sought unanimous consent for a motion to put complete abolition of supply management on the NAFTA negotiating table, which was denied.
The Prime Minister disclosed a specific figure â $231.4 million in investments to improve access to treatment, address stigma and gather data â and made a concrete commitment to treat the opioid crisis as a health issue rather than a criminal one, giving the public measurable information about the government's response.
Quotes the Prime Minister's own words about completing the deepest consultations ever on a major project and claims of social licence, holds him to that specific commitment in light of the court ruling, and asks a pointed accountability question after 20 days without a Trans Mountain plan.
Asked directly whether stalling Trans Mountain is part of a plan to phase out Canada's energy sector, the Prime Minister did not address the question at all and instead attacked the Conservatives' 2015 election result and cited G7 growth figures, offering no response to either the specific accusation or the fate of the pipeline.
Outstanding questions
- Andrew Scheer (Exchange 1) asked when thousands of Canadians who depended on construction jobs for the Trans Mountain pipeline will be able to return to work â no date, timeline, or specific plan was provided.
- Guy Caron and Mario Beaulieu (Exchanges 7 and 39) repeatedly asked the Prime Minister to say he will protect supply management 'fully' or 'intĂ©gralement' in NAFTA negotiations â the Prime Minister consistently refused to use that word.
- Alistair MacGregor (Exchange 9) asked the Prime Minister to promise that his government will make no concessions to Canada's dairy market, yes or no â the Prime Minister declined to answer, saying he would not negotiate in public.
- Michelle Rempel (Exchange 15) asked when the Prime Minister will close the loophole in the safe third country agreement â no commitment or timeline was given.
- Irene Mathyssen (Exchange 30) asked when the government will keep its promise to veterans and process a suicidal soldier's medical claim that has been waiting nearly a year at Veterans Affairs â no specific commitment on processing times was made.
Scheer asks when construction workers who depended on Trans Mountain pipeline jobs will be able to return to work, noting the PM spent $4.5 billion in taxpayer money and promised construction would begin this summer.
The question cites a specific dollar figure ($4,5 milliards), references the Prime Minister's own prior public commitment that construction would begin 'cet été', and asks a concrete question about when construction workers can return to work.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, quand le premier ministre a dĂ©pensĂ© 4,5 milliards de dollars des contribuables pour le pipeline Trans Mountain, il a dit que c'Ă©tait pour garantir que la construction commencerait cet Ă©tĂ©. Il a Ă©chouĂ©. Le projet est officiellement arrĂȘtĂ© depuis prĂšs de trois semaines, et les Canadiens n'ont aucune idĂ©e de ce que les libĂ©raux ont l'intention de faire. Le premier ministre peut-il dire aux milliers de Canadiens qui dĂ©pendaient des emplois de la construction de ce pipeline quand ils vont pouvoir retourner au travail?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister spent $4.5 billion in taxpayers' money on the Trans Mountain pipeline, he said that he did it in order to guarantee that construction would start this summer. He failed. The project has been officially on hold for nearly three weeks, and Canadians have no idea what the Liberals intend to do about it. Can the Prime Minister tell the thousands of Canadians who are depending on pipeline construction jobs when they will be able to return to work?
Trudeau said the environment and economy must go together and that his government works in partnership with indigenous peoples, accusing Conservatives of wanting to minimize environmental protections.
The Prime Minister did not address the timeline for pipeline construction or the workers at all, instead pivoting to a general statement about environment and economy going together and attacking Conservative positions.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis le début, je dis aux Canadiens que je comprends que l'environnement et l'économie doivent aller de pair. C'est pourquoi, quand nous avons formé le gouvernement, nous avons investi dans la protection de l'environnement. Nous avons travaillé en partenariat avec les peuples autochtones pour justement créer de la croissance économique de la bonne façon dans ce pays. C'est exactement ce que nous allons continuer de faire. Les conservateurs, eux, veulent que nous minimisions la protection de l'environnement et que nous mettions de cÎté les PremiÚres Nations. Ce n'est pas ce que nous allons faire. Nous allons fonctionner de la bonne façon.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, from the start, I have been telling Canadians that I believe that the environment and the economy must go hand in hand. That is why, when we took office, we invested in environmental protection. We worked in partnership with indigenous peoples to create economic growth in this country the right way. That is exactly what we will continue to do. The Conservatives want us to minimize environmental protection and ignore first nations. That is not what we are going to do. We are going to do things right.
Scheer cites the judge's finding that Canada failed in phase III to 'engage' and 'dialogue meaningfully' and asks how the Prime Minister could mismanage the Trans Mountain pipeline project so badly.
The question quotes a court ruling's specific finding that Canada failed in phase III to 'engage' and 'dialogue meaningfully', grounding the accountability question in a judicial finding, though the final ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, more and more Canadians are referring to this past summer as the Prime Minister's summer of failure, and the judge that ruled on the Trans Mountain case agrees. That judge said that Canada failed in phase III to âengageâ and âdialogue meaningfullyâ. How can the Prime Minister mismanage this pipeline project so terribly?
Trudeau said the Conservative government in 2012 had limited the NEB's scope for analyzing marine ecosystem impacts, and pointed to the oceans protection plan and the importance of protecting the southern resident killer whale pod.
Trudeau pivoted to blaming the 2012 Conservative government's limitation of the NEB scope rather than addressing how his government failed the consultation process identified by the court.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Conservative government limited the scope of the National Energy Board in terms of its analyzing the impacts on marine ecosystems. That is why we have moved forward in any case with the oceans protection plan, to look carefully at how we can protect the southern resident killer whale pod and how we can make sure that we are protecting our oceans from spills and accidents. That is something that is important to British Columbians and it is important to all Canadians. That is why we are moving forward in a responsible way that protects the environment and works with indigenous peoples as we look to get the right projects built for Canada.
Scheer claims the previous Conservative government got four major pipeline projects built including the Kinder Morgan Anchor Loop, and asks whether the Liberal failure on Trans Mountain is part of a plan to phase out Canada's energy sector.
Scheer references specific past pipeline projects including the Kinder Morgan Anchor Loop and makes a pointed accusation about planning to phase out Canada's energy sector, but the final question is mostly rhetorical and the factual claim is used more for partisan contrast than precise accountability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps saying things that he knows are not true. The previous Conservative government got four major pipeline projects built. We succeeded where he is failing. One of those, the Kinder Morgan Anchor Loop, opened up Asian markets by getting Canada's resources to tidewater. However, it was his execution of the process that failed. Again, is this just part of a plan to phase out Canada's energy sector?
Trudeau accused the Conservatives of failing to protect the environment and work with indigenous peoples, and cited Canada's highest G7 growth last year compared to their lowest growth rates since R. B. Bennett.
Trudeau did not address the specific pipeline projects cited nor the 'phase out' question, instead pivoting to the 2015 election result and G7 growth statistics unrelated to the Trans Mountain question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the Conservatives have not understood, even with the drubbing they got in the 2015 election, is that the only way to build a strong economy is to protect the environment at the same time and work with indigenous peoples in a respectful way. That is what they failed to do. That is why we are moving forward in the way that Canadians expect, doing stronger science, working in partnership with indigenous peoples and showing the highest growth in the G7 last year, after they had the lowest growth rates since R. B. Bennett.
Scheer accuses the Prime Minister of overpaying by almost $2 billion in the Trans Mountain purchase from Houston investors and asks how fast those Houston investors signed on to the deal.
Scheer cites the $4.5 billion purchase price and the claim of overpaying by almost $2 billion, and asks a specific pointed question about how fast Houston investors signed the deal, but the framing is heavily partisan and the question is largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the record on this is clear. The Conservative Party got the job done. We succeeded where he is failing. We, through a rigorous approvals process, got four major pipeline projects approved and completed. It was the Prime Minister whose tough negotiating skills sent $4.5 billion to Houston investors, overpaying by almost $2 billion. That is the kind of negotiating savvy that the Prime Minister has. Just how fast did those Houston investors sign on to that deal?
Trudeau said taking ownership of the pipeline expansion project prevented it from being dead in the water, and accused the Conservatives of failing to get Canadian resources to new markets beyond the United States.
Trudeau did not address the claim of overpayment or the speed at which Houston investors signed, instead asserting the purchase prevented the project from being 'dead in the water' and attacking the Conservative energy record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am simply understanding that at this point members of the Conservative Party of Canada do not want the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion because that is what they would get. The fact is when we took ownership of that pipeline expansion project, we prevented it from being dead in the water. We know that moving forward in the right way on projects like this is what Canadians expect. The Conservatives' failure to get our resources to new markets other than the United States is exactly why Canadians grew tired of that government, among many other things.
Scheer asks whether the Prime Minister will invite energy east back to the table, scrap the carbon tax, and scrap Bill C-69, which he calls the ban on pipelines bill, to get Canadians back to work.
Scheer lists three specific policy asks â inviting energy east back, scrapping the carbon tax, and scrapping Bill C-69 â which gives the question concrete accountability value, though it is bundled into a multi-part question with rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals bought it without building it. We will build it without having to buy it. That is the difference between us. If the Liberals really wanted to develop Canada's energy sector and get our resources to market, they would invite energy east back to the table. They would scrap the carbon tax. They would scrap their plans for Bill C-69, the ban on pipelines bill. Will the Prime Minister do any of those things to get our men and women in the country back to work?
Trudeau accused the Conservatives of having no plans, criticized the idea of requiring legislation to get pipelines built as unpredictable for investors, and said his government would get clarity to build things responsibly.
Trudeau did not address any of the three specific policy asks â energy east, the carbon tax, or Bill C-69 â instead accusing Conservatives of having no plans and criticizing a hypothetical suggestion about legislation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives seem full of vim and vigour in what they want to talk about, but they do not actually have any plans. The closest we have seen is, âWell, you should bring in legislation to get that pipeline builtâ. The fact that we would expect the private sector and investors to move forward on projects in Canada, knowing that any time they want to get something built we have to put legislation on it through the House of Commons is not the kind of predictable, clear path that our investors around the world or in Canada want. We are going to get clarity to be able to build things responsibly.
Caron asks the Prime Minister to commit to fully protecting supply management, citing dairy farmers like David and his brother in Manitoba who face cumulative concessions with each trade deal.
Caron grounds the question in a specific farmer's situation and invokes the phrase 'death by 1,000 cuts' to describe cumulative concessions, and asks the Prime Minister to commit to 'fully protect' supply management, though 'fully' is the operative word he wants the PM to say.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, dairy farmers are worried. In Manitoba, David and his brother are third generation dairy farmers who are committed to providing the highest quality milk for Canadians. However, with each trade deal, Canadian dairy farmers like them are asked by Liberal and Conservative governments to give away a little bit, and a little bit more. Basically, they are being asked to accept death by 1,000 cuts. Enough is enough. When will the Prime Minister do as he promised and commit to fully protect supply management?
Trudeau said the government has been and is committed to protecting supply management, noting it was a Liberal government that brought it in 40 years ago and that they continue to sign trade deals while protecting the supply-managed industry.
Trudeau affirmed commitment to protecting supply management and noted it was a Liberal government that brought it in 40 years ago, but did not use the word 'fully' that was the precise ask and gave no specific details about what protections would be maintained.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have and are committed to protecting supply management. Supply management is a system that works for our farmers and for consumers. It was a Liberal government that brought it in 40 years ago. We understand how important it is to continue to protect our agricultural industry and our dairy producers. We continue to sign important trade deals around the world and ensure that we protect our supply-managed industry and, indeed, our family dairy farmers. That is what Canadians expect.
Caron, noting dairy farmers are present on the Hill today and referencing multiple past breaches in the supply management system, asks the Prime Minister to rise and say he will protect supply management 'intégralement'.
Caron explicitly asks the PM to rise and say he will protect supply management 'intégralement', noting dairy farmers are present on the Hill and referencing three prior breaches in the system, but the question is a repetition of the previous exchange with added rhetorical weight.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the key word is âfullyâ, and he still refuses to say it. Plusieurs producteurs laitiers du Canada sont sur la Colline aujourd'hui. Ils sont inquiets que le gouvernement les utilise encore comme monnaie d'Ă©change dans la nĂ©gociation de l'ALENA. Quand je rencontre des producteurs laitiers de ma circonscription, ils me disent que c'est parce que le systĂšme de gestion de l'offre leur permet de stabiliser leurs coĂ»ts de production que leur ferme peut encore subsister. Cependant, le gouvernement les sacrifie chaque fois qu'il en a la chance. Une brĂšche, deux brĂšches, trois brĂšches et le systĂšme s'affaiblit. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut se lever maintenant et dire aux producteurs laitiers du Canada qu'il va protĂ©ger intĂ©gralement la gestion de l'offre?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, le mot clé ici est « intégralement », mais le premier ministre refuse de l'utiliser. Canadian dairy farmers are here on the Hill today. They are worried that the government is still using them as a bargaining chip in the NAFTA negotiations. When I meet with dairy farmers in my riding, they tell me that the supply management system allows them to stabilize production costs on their farms. However, the government sacrifices our farmers at every turn. One concession, two concessions, three concessions and the system starts to fall apart. Can the Prime Minister stand up right now and tell Canada's dairy farmers that he will protect supply management in its entirety?
Trudeau attacked the NDP for being unable to support international trade agreements, welcomed the dairy farmers present in Ottawa, and said the government will continue to protect supply management.
Trudeau again declined to use the word 'intégralement', instead attacked the NDP for being unable to support international trade agreements, and offered only general reassurance to the dairy farmers present.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce que les gens voient trÚs bien, c'est que le NPD est incapable de soutenir des accords de commerce internationaux. Ils ne savent pas que c'est bon pour l'économie et que c'est bon pour les travailleurs. Je veux, encore une fois, souligner notre appui aux producteurs laitiers et notre appui à la gestion de l'offre. Je salue, d'ailleurs, ces producteurs laitiers qui sont venus à Ottawa, aujourd'hui, pour faire entendre leurs préoccupations. Nous les entendons. Nous allons continuer de protéger la gestion de l'offre. Je les remercie pour leur travail et pour leur présence, ici, à Ottawa.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it has become quite clear to everyone that the New Democrats simply will not support international trade agreements. They do not grasp that this is good for the economy and good for workers. I want to reiterate our support for dairy farmers and for supply management. I commend the dairy farmers who came to Ottawa today to voice their concerns. We hear them. We will continue to protect supply management. I thank them for their work and for being here in Ottawa.
Brosseau asks how Mme Chevalier, a farmer from Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola, can still trust the Liberal government to protect supply management after concessions were made in the Canada-Europe accord and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Brosseau grounds the question in a named constituent â Mme Chevalier, agricultrice de Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola â and references specific prior agreements (accord Canada-Europe and Partenariat transpacifique) where concessions were made, giving it reasonable specificity, though the ask is again about trust rather than a precise commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nos producteurs laitiers ont Ă©tĂ© vivement attaquĂ©s par Trump. Ici, les libĂ©raux nous laissent comprendre qu'ils Ă©taient plutĂŽt flexibles. Cela ne rassure pas du tout Mme Chevalier, agricultrice de Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola, qui craint une nouvelle brĂšche dans notre systĂšme de l'offre. Elle se demande maintenant si sa ferme va ĂȘtre encore viable, alors que les libĂ©raux cĂšdent encore une part de marchĂ© de notre systĂšme de gestion de l'offre. AprĂšs avoir laissĂ© tomber les producteurs dans l'accord Canada-Europe et dans le Partenariat transpacifique, comment Mme Chevalier peut-elle encore faire confiance au gouvernement libĂ©ral pour protĂ©ger notre systĂšme de gestion de l'offre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Trump unleashed a vigorous attack on our dairy producers. The Liberals are suggesting that they were flexible, which is no comfort to Ms. Chevalier, a farmer from Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola, who fears that our supply management system is again being undermined. She is not sure whether her farm will remain viable as the Liberals cede yet another part of our supply-managed market. After the government let down producers with the Canada-Europe agreement and the TPP, how is Ms. Chevalier supposed to have faith that the Liberal government will protect our supply management system?
Trudeau acknowledged that the American administration has targeted Canada's supply management system but said he has repeatedly stated the government will protect supply management because it helps farmers, dairy producers, and consumers.
Trudeau acknowledged that the American administration has targeted Canada's supply management system and reaffirmed commitment to protecting it, though he did not address the specific prior concessions in CETA or CPTPP raised in the question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les Canadiens savent trĂšs bien que l'administration amĂ©ricaine a ciblĂ© notre systĂšme de gestion de l'offre, mais les Canadiens savent aussi que j'ai dit Ă maintes reprises que nous allons protĂ©ger la gestion de l'offre parce que cela aide nos fermiers, cela aide nos producteurs laitiers et cela aide les consommateurs Ă ĂȘtre sĂ»rs de ce qu'ils achĂštent par rapport Ă nos produits laitiers. Nous allons continuer de dĂ©fendre non seulement notre systĂšme de gestion de l'offre, mais aussi l'excellent travail que font nos producteurs laitiers partout au pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the American administration has targeted our supply management system, but Canadians also know that I have repeatedly said that we will protect supply management because this system helps our farmers, helps our dairy producers, and helps consumers be confident in the dairy products they are buying. We will continue to stand up for not only our supply management system, but also the excellent work our dairy producers are doing across the country.
MacGregor, citing two sources with direct knowledge of NAFTA negotiations who say Canada is ready to make concessions in the dairy market, asks the Prime Minister to promise here and now that his government will make no concessions to the dairy market, yes or no.
MacGregor cites two specific sources with direct knowledge of NAFTA negotiations saying Canada is ready to make concessions in the dairy market, references the Dairy Farmers of Canada representing nearly 12,000 family farms, and asks a direct yes-or-no question about whether the PM will promise no concessions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I heard from Dave Taylor from Vancouver Island, who knows how important supply management is for his family farm and locally produced high quality dairy products. The Liberals claim to agree with Dave, but two sources with direct knowledge of NAFTA negotiations have said that Canada is ready to make concessions in our dairy market. The Dairy Farmers of Canada, representing nearly 12,000 family farms, is watching the government. Will the Prime Minister promise here and now that his government will make no concessions to our dairy market, yes or no?
Trudeau refused to negotiate in public but reassured Canadians that he will not sign a bad deal for Canada, and said if there is not a good deal on the table he will not sign.
Trudeau said he will not negotiate in public and that he will not sign a bad deal for Canada, which is a partial but evasive answer to the specific yes-or-no question, and does not address the reported readiness to make dairy concessions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I will not be negotiating in public. However, I will reassure Canadians, as I have throughout the summer and throughout this past year, we will not sign a bad deal for Canada or for Canadians. I know the Conservatives are worried that we need to sign a deal, even if it is a bad deal. We will not be doing that. We will be ensuring that whatever deal we move forward with is the right one for Canadians. If there is not a good deal on the table, we will not sign.
Raitt quotes a May 3, 2010 statement made by the current Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs in opposition, arguing that giving preferential treatment based on personal connections is illegal, and asks the Prime Minister whether the minister should now be sanctioned for such conduct.
Raitt quotes a specific 2010 statement from the current Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs against himself â citing the date, context, and substance â and asks the PM whether he agrees that the current member for Beausejour should be sanctioned, making it a well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on May 3, 2010, the following was said in the House: ...providing opportunities for buddies to further their private interests and giving preferential treatment to people based on the buddies who represent them, is illegal regardless of whether or not money changed hands. The member demanded to know what the consequences were for this activity. I wonder who said that. Ironically, the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade said that. I would like to know this from the Prime Minister. Does he agree with the 2010 opposition member for Beausejour that the current member for Beausejour should be sanctioned.
Trudeau said Canada has a strong system with a commissioner who oversees ethics and conflict of interest, that the government works with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and thanked the commissioner for his hard work.
Trudeau did not address whether the minister should be sanctioned or engage with the 2010 quote at all, instead giving boilerplate praise for the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and saying the government follows the rules.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that we have a strong system and a commissioner who oversees on ethics and conflict of interest to ensure that all Canadians can have confidence in public office-holders and indeed every member of Parliament. We ensure that we work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, that we follow the rules and that we make amends whenever the commissioner brings forward concerns. That is what we will continue to do. We thank the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for his hard work.
Raitt quotes the Ethics Commissioner's recent statement calling for the power to recommend sanctions when contraventions occur, and asks the Prime Minister to act on that clear recommendation by determining sanctions against the minister.
Raitt quotes the Ethics Commissioner's own recent statement calling for power to express a point of view on the gravity of contraventions and consequences, and directly asks the Prime Minister to act on this clear recommendation by determining sanctions against the minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the Prime Minister mentioned the Ethics Commissioner, because he said this last week: I would really like to have the power to express a point of view as [to] the gravity of the contravention when we find a contravention, [and] what kind of sanctions should be taken. Itâs important to know that there will be consequences if you donât respect something. The Prime Minister has said that the Liberals will move forward in the ways the Ethics Commissioner recommends. I see what the Ethics Commissioner is recommending. Will the Prime Minister take the Ethics Commissioner's clear recommendation and determine sanctions against the minister?
Trudeau said Canada has among the strongest ethics rules in the world and that the government is always willing to do more, and expressed willingness to work with all parties to bolster Canadians' confidence in these institutions.
Trudeau did not address the specific recommendation from the Ethics Commissioner about sanctions or the specific minister, instead speaking generally about Canada having strong ethics rules and willingness to work with all parties.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada has among the strongest ethics rules in the world as it applies to members of Parliament, and we are always looking forward to doing more. We know that the trust people have in our institutions and government is the foundation of democracy, one that is shaky in some places in the world, not one that is shaky in Canada. However, we are always willing to do more. We look forward to working with all parties in the House to look at how we can continue to bolster the confidence of Canadians in the excellence of these institutions we serve.
Paul-Hus cites statistics showing nearly 26,000 illegal migrants intercepted between June 2017 and June 2018 â with 56% holding American non-immigrant visas, 65% with legal US status, and nearly 2,000 being Americans â and asks what the Prime Minister is waiting for to resolve the situation.
Paul-Hus cites specific statistics â near 26,000 irregular migrants intercepted between June 2017 and June 2018, 56% with American non-immigrant visas, 65% with legal status in the US, and nearly 2,000 Americans among them â giving the question solid factual grounding, though the ask is vague ('rĂ©gler la situation').
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'Ă©tĂ© de l'Ă©chec libĂ©ral continue. Entre les mois de juin 2017 et de juin 2018, la GRC a interceptĂ© prĂšs de 26 000 migrants illĂ©gaux. De ce nombre, 56 % avaient un visa amĂ©ricain de non-immigrant et 65 % avaient un statut lĂ©gal aux Ătats-Unis. De plus, prĂšs de 2 000 personnes parmi ces migrants illĂ©gaux sont des AmĂ©ricains. Le premier ministre et son Ă©quipe ne rĂ©alisent pas que, sous leur gouvernance, on se moque carrĂ©ment de nos lois. Nous avons un plan; ils n'en ont pas. Qu'est-ce que le premier ministre attend pour rĂ©gler la situation?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the summer of Liberal failure continues. Between June 2017 and June 2018, the RCMP intercepted about 26,000 illegal migrants. Of these, 56% had a U.S. nonimmigrant visa and 65% had legal status in the United States. Almost 2,000 of these illegal migrants are Americans. The Prime Minister and his team do not realize that under their governance our laws are being ignored outright. We have a plan; they have no plan. What is the Prime Minister waiting for to resolve this situation?
Trudeau acknowledged the challenge of irregular border crossings over the past year and a half and assured Canadians that all security checks and immigration and refugee status processes are being fully applied to all arrivals.
Trudeau acknowledged the challenge of irregular crossings over the past year and a half and assured Canadians that security checks and immigration/refugee processes are being applied fully, but did not offer any specific plan or timeline to address the situation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous reconnaissons le dĂ©fi que pose le fait que, depuis un an et demi en particulier, beaucoup de gens traversent de façon irrĂ©guliĂšre nos frontiĂšres. Je peux assurer aux Canadiens que les vĂ©rifications de sĂ©curitĂ© sont toutes en train d'ĂȘtre faites et que les processus d'immigration et de statut des rĂ©fugiĂ©s sont appliquĂ©s intĂ©gralement Ă tous les arrivants, qu'ils soient irrĂ©guliers ou non. Nous savons que nous sommes chanceux de vivre au Canada, un pays largement ouvert et positif relativement Ă l'immigration. Nous allons continuer de dĂ©fendre cette ouverture en assurant aux Canadiens un systĂšme qui fonctionne.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we recognize the challenge posed by the many irregular migrants that are crossing our border, especially over the past year and a half. I can assure Canadians that all security checks are being done, and that the immigration and refugee process is being applied in full to all newcomers, whether they are irregular migrants or not. We know that we are fortunate to live in Canada, a country that is generally open to and positive about immigration. We will continue to defend this openness by ensuring that Canadians have a system that works.
Paul-Hus references a sign at Roxham Road declaring illegal border crossing unlawful, cites 2,000 American citizens among illegal crossers and 16,000 with legal US status, and asks what the PM is waiting for to resolve this situation that has persisted since his famous tweet a year and a half ago.
Paul-Hus adds specific data points â 2,000 American citizens crossing illegally, 16,000 illegal immigrants with legal US status, and migrants flying to Roxham Road â and links the problem to the PM's 'famous tweet' a year and a half ago, though the ask remains the same vague 'rĂ©gler cette situation'.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'invite le premier ministre Ă se rendre au chemin Roxham du cĂŽtĂ© amĂ©ricain et Ă revenir au Canada. Il y a un panneau sur lequel il est clairement Ă©crit qu'il est illĂ©gal de franchir notre frontiĂšre de cette façon. J'aimerais rappeler au premier ministre que 2 000 personnes ont traversĂ© illĂ©galement notre frontiĂšre alors qu'elles ont dĂ©jĂ la citoyennetĂ© amĂ©ricaine. On sait Ă©galement que 16 000 immigrants illĂ©gaux ont un statut lĂ©gal aux Ătats-Unis. On sait aussi qu'il y a des immigrants illĂ©gaux qui prennent un avion pour se rendre au chemin Roxham. Qu'est-ce que le premier ministre attend pour rĂ©gler cette situation, qui perdure au QuĂ©bec depuis son fameux tweet, il y a un an et demi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the Prime Minister head over to the U.S. side of Roxham Road and then re-enter Canada from there? He will see a sign that clearly states it is illegal to cross the border there. I would like to remind the Prime Minister that 2,000 people have crossed our border illegally even though they have U.S. citizenship. We also know that 16,000 illegal immigrants have legal status in the United States. We also know that some illegal immigrants get to Roxham Road by plane. When will the Prime Minister realize he needs to do something about this situation, which has been a problem for Quebec ever since his infamous tweet of a year and a half ago?
Trudeau said the government is working with the American administration on important files including border security, and noted Canada's international obligations to analyze asylum claims from anyone who arrives on Canadian territory.
Trudeau said the government is working with the American administration on border security and referenced international obligations to process asylum claims, but offered no specific plan or response to the specific data points raised.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous travaillons avec l'administration américaine pour faire avancer les dossiers importants pour les Canadiens, y compris celui de la sécurité de nos frontiÚres. Cependant, il faut comprendre que nous avons des obligations à l'international, notamment celle d'analyser le dossier de quiconque vient faire une demande d'asile sur notre territoire. C'est une responsabilité que nous avons et c'est quelque chose qui, au fil des générations, a ajouté énormément de richesse au Canada sur les plans économique, communautaire et culturel. Nous en sommes fiers. Nous allons continuer d'investir dans la protection de notre systÚme d'immigration.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are working with the U.S. government to move forward on issues that matter to Canadians, and that includes border security. It is important to understand, however, that our international obligations require us to review the claims of everyone seeking asylum in Canada. That is our responsibility. Over the generations, immigration has enriched Canada economically and culturally and helped build stronger communities. We are proud of our immigration system and will continue to invest in protecting it.
Rempel notes that 65% of people who illegally crossed into Canada already had legal status in the United States, asks how the Prime Minister can think it is fair to prioritize them over people languishing in UNHCR camps or genocide survivors being reunited with families.
Rempel cites the specific statistic that 65% of irregular border crossers already had legal status in the United States and makes a pointed fairness argument about prioritization over UNHCR camp refugees and genocide survivors, but the question is more rhetorical than a specific policy ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 65% of the people who have illegally crossed the border into Canada and claimed asylum already had legal status in the United States, one of the safest democratic places in the world. Let us think about that for a second. Instead of prioritizing people who are languishing in UNHCR camps, instead of prioritizing genocide survivors being reunited with their families, the Prime Minister is doing this. How can he possibly think this is fair?
Trudeau said the government is responding in an appropriate and measured way with extra investments, accused Conservatives of creating fear without having plans, and said the immigration system is being applied in a responsible and fair way.
Trudeau did not address the prioritization question regarding UNHCR camps or genocide survivors at all, instead defending the government's measured response and accusing Conservatives of drumming up fear and wanting to militarize the border.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are responding in an appropriate and measured way, with extra investments, to ensure we continue to apply in its integrity our immigration and refugee system. The Conservatives' enjoy criticizing and drumming up fear and anxiety, but they have no plans other than perhaps to militarize our entire border. These will not work. We are applying our immigration system in a responsible way. We are ensuring that it remains fair. We are ensuring that Canadians remain confident in the strength of our immigration system, because they can and should be.
Rempel asks when the Prime Minister will close the loophole in the safe third country agreement, arguing that the current system is not fair to those prioritized over UNHCR camp refugees and genocide survivor family reunions.
Rempel asks a specific policy question â when will the Prime Minister close the loophole in the safe third country agreement â which is a concrete, answerable ask grounded in an identified legal mechanism, though it is framed with additional rhetorical statements.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is not fair to prioritize people who have legal status in upstate New York over the reunion of a family member of a genocide survivor. That is not fair. It is not fair to calm the fears of Canadians that our immigration system is no longer sustainable. That is not fair and that lays in the hands of the Prime Minister. When will he close the loophole in the safe third country agreement?
Trudeau said the Conservatives have no idea how to fix the problem, that his government is working with stakeholders in the United States and around the world, and that crossing irregularly does not speed up permanent status.
Trudeau did not address the safe third country agreement loophole at all, instead accusing Conservatives of having no solutions, describing work with stakeholders in the United States, and again accusing Conservatives of trying to create division and fear.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again the Conservatives are putting forward criticisms without having any idea how they would actually fix this problem. We know how to fix this problem. We are working with stakeholders in the United States and around the world to remind them that there are no shortcuts to becoming a Canadian, that crossing irregularly or illegally does not get anyone into permanent status any quicker than any other way. This is something that is important to emphasize. The Conservatives are striking out, trying to create division and fear, but they have no plan to handle things differently.
The MP cited a letter in which the Office national de l'Ă©nergie ended follow-up with the MRC regarding pipeline 9B d'Enbridge, and asked whether the Prime Minister finds it acceptable that the ONE favours oil companies over citizens.
Cites a specific letter from the Office national de l'Ă©nergie cutting off dialogue with the MRC de Vaudreuil-Soulanges regarding pipeline 9B d'Enbridge, with a clear accountability ask, though framed rhetorically at the end.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, la rĂ©ponse du ministre des Finances Ă mon collĂšgue de RosemontâLa Petite-Patrie Ă©tait complĂštement Ă cĂŽtĂ© de la plaque. Les Ă©lus de Vaudreuil-Soulanges rĂ©clament depuis deux ans des rĂ©ponses de l'Office national de l'Ă©nergie par rapport au pipeline 9B d'Enbridge. Voici un extrait de la lettre qu'ils ont reçue: l'Office national de l'Ă©nergie est dans l'obligation de mettre un terme Ă la possibilitĂ© d'un suivi avec la MRC. Autrement dit, on n'aime pas leurs questions et on ne leur rĂ©pondra plus. Les gens ont le droit d'avoir des rĂ©ponses. Est-ce que le premier ministre trouve cela normal que l'ONE favorise des pĂ©troliĂšres au lieu des citoyens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's reply yesterday to my colleague from RosemontâLa Petite-Patrie completely missed the mark. The people of Vaudreuil-Soulanges have been demanding answers from the National Energy Board for two years now regarding Enbridge's line 9B. Here is an excerpt from the letter they received: âThe National Energy Board has a duty to put an end to the possibility of follow-up with the RCM". In other words, the board does not like their questions and will stop answering them. These people are entitled to answers. Does the Prime Minister think it is okay for the NEB to put big oil ahead of people?
Trudeau responded that his government rejects the false choice between jobs and the environment, and works with indigenous peoples and invests in environmental science.
Trudeau ignores the specific allegation about the Office national de l'Ă©nergie terminating correspondence with the MRC and pivots to a generic jobs-versus-environment talking point.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il y a des gens au Canada, y compris au sein du Nouveau Parti dĂ©mocratique, qui croient encore qu'il y a un choix Ă faire entre les emplois et la protection de l'environnement. Nous savons que la seule façon de bĂątir un pays fort au cours des annĂ©es Ă venir est de protĂ©ger l'environnement tout en crĂ©ant de la croissance Ă©conomique. C'est pourquoi nous menons des consultations et nous travaillons avec les peuples autochtones et les communautĂ©s. Nous investissons dans la science environnementale pour nous assurer que les dĂ©cisions que nous prenons par rapport au dĂ©veloppement de notre Ă©conomie protĂšgent l'environnement en mĂȘme temps. C'est quelque chose que nous prenons au sĂ©rieux et que nous allons toujours prendre au sĂ©rieux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there are still people in Canada, including in the NDP, who believe that we have to choose between job creation and environmental protection. We know that the only way to build a strong country for years to come is to protect the environment while also creating economic growth. That is why we are holding consultations and working with indigenous peoples and communities. We are investing in environmental science to ensure that the decisions we make to develop our economy protect the environment at the same time. This is something we take very seriously and always will.
The MP cited David Suzuki's accusation of Liberal duplicity and his suggestion the Environment Minister should resign, then asked whether the Prime Minister believes buying a pipeline for $4.5 billion constitutes fighting climate change.
Invokes David Suzuki's criticism and his call for the Minister of the Environment to resign, and poses a specific question about the $4.5-billion pipeline purchase, but the exchange is largely rhetorical framing around 'duplicité libérale'.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, quelqu'un a dit qu'au QuĂ©bec l'environnement Ă©tait une prioritĂ© pour les gens et qu'il y avait un rĂ©el sentiment d'urgence, mais qu'ici, les libĂ©raux parlaient « des deux cĂŽtĂ©s de la bouche ». Qui a dit cela? C'est David Suzuki. Des citoyens ordinaires jusqu'aux scientifiques, tout le monde constate la duplicitĂ© libĂ©rale. Suzuki va mĂȘme plus loin. Il dit que si la ministre de l'Environnement Ă©tait honnĂȘte envers elle-mĂȘme, elle devrait dĂ©missionner plutĂŽt que de dĂ©fendre le gouvernement libĂ©ral. Le premier ministre croit-il que c'est en achetant un pipeline avec 4,5 milliards de dollars de notre argent qu'on lutte contre le rĂ©chauffement climatique? Est-ce cela qu'il croit?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, someone said that the environment is a priority to Quebeckers and there is a real sense of urgency in Quebec, but that here in Ottawa, the Liberals are talking out of both sides of their mouths. That someone is David Suzuki. Everyone from ordinary citizens to scientists can see how disingenuous the Liberals are being. Suzuki goes even further. He says that if the Minister of the Environment were being honest with herself, she would step down rather than defend the Liberal government. Does the Prime Minister believe that using our money to buy a pipeline for $4.5 billion is any way to fight climate change? Is that what he thinks?
Trudeau accused the NDP of perpetuating a false choice between the environment and the economy, and said his government would continue to act reasonably and respectfully.
Trudeau does not address David Suzuki's comments, the minister's position, or the $4.5-billion purchase, instead repeating the same jobs-and-environment boilerplate from the previous exchange.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, on voit que le NPD est encore en train de prétendre qu'il y a un choix à faire entre ce qui est bon pour l'environnement et ce qui est bon pour l'économie. Nous savons, et les Canadiens savent trÚs bien, que la seule façon de bùtir un avenir sûr pour nos enfants, c'est de protéger l'environnement, de lutter contre les changements climatiques et d'investir dans de bons emplois et dans un avenir plus fort pour nos jeunes et pour nos communautés. Le NPD ne comprend pas comment faire ces deux choses ensemble. C'est pourquoi nous allons continuer de le faire de façon raisonnable et respectueuse.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, again, we see that the NDP is still trying to claim that there is a choice to make between what is good for the environment and what is good for the economy. We know, and Canadians know very well, that the only way to build a future for our children is to protect the environment, fight climate change, and invest in good jobs and in a stronger future for our young people and our communities. The NDP does not understand how to do these two things at the same time. That is why we will continue to do so in a reasonable and respectful manner.
The MP cited a Conference Board of Canada study concluding that 635,000 Canadian jobs and $85 billion of the economy are at risk due to the government's inaction following U.S. tax cuts, and asked whether the government will act on president John Manley's recommendation for a competitiveness plan.
Cites a specific Conference Board of Canada study, quantifies the risk at 635,000 jobs and $85 billion, names its president John Manley, and asks for a concrete government response to the competitiveness recommendation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il y a un an, l'administration américaine a baissé radicalement les taxes et les impÎts des entreprises, ce qui mettait à risque nos entreprises par rapport à la compétitivité. Malheureusement, le gouvernement n'a rien fait. Le résultat, c'est que le Conference Board du Canada a publié une étude qui conclut que, puisque le gouvernement n'a rien fait, 635 000 emplois canadiens sont en jeu, soit 85 milliards de dollars de l'économie canadienne. Cela a fait dire au président du Conference Board, John Manley, qu'il faut absolument que le gouvernement ait un plan pour renforcer la compétitivité. Le gouvernement va-t-il agir et suivre la recommandation de John Manley, qui, soit dit en passant, est un ancien vice-premier ministre libéral?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a year ago, the American administration radically lowered corporate taxes, which made our businesses less competitive. Unfortunately, the government did nothing. The Conference Board of Canada published a study, which concluded that 635,000 Canadian jobs, or $85 billion of Canada's economic activity, are at risk as a result of the government's inaction. This led the Conference Board's president, John Manley, to state that the government absolutely needs to have a plan to strengthen Canada's competitiveness. When will the government do something and take John Manley's recommendation, who, by the way, is a former Liberal prime minister?
Trudeau pointed to small-business tax cuts already in effect and another coming on January 1, and said the government is studying ways to remain competitive with the United States through competitiveness investments.
Trudeau references small-business tax cuts on January 1 past and upcoming, and mentions studying further competitiveness investments, which partially engages the question, but does not address the 635,000 jobs figure or the Conference Board's specific recommendations.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous sommes trĂšs conscients du fait qu'il faut avoir de la compĂ©titivitĂ© dans nos entreprises. C'est pour cela que nous sommes fiers de baisser les impĂŽts pour les petites entreprises partout au pays. Nous les avons baissĂ©s le 1er janvier passĂ©. Nous allons encore les baisser le 1er janvier qui s'en vient. En plus de cela, nous Ă©tudions les façons de rester compĂ©titifs avec les Ătats-Unis en regardant des investissements pour la compĂ©titivitĂ© de nos entreprises. Cela dit, nous savons que ce n'est pas en baissant les impĂŽts des plus riches que nous allons crĂ©er de la croissance Ă©conomique. C'est ce que les conservateurs ne comprennent pas.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we realize that our businesses need to remain competitive. This is why we are proud to have lowered taxes on small businesses across the country. We lowered these taxes on January 1, and we will lower them again this coming January 1. We are also looking at investments to keep our businesses competitive with the United States. That said, we know that cutting taxes for the rich is not the way to create economic growth. This is what the Conservatives do not understand.
Poilievre accused the Prime Minister of using NAFTA as an election prop and argued that Liberal tax increases and regulation have driven Canadian investment into the U.S. up two-thirds while U.S. investment in Canada fell by half, asking the PM to stop the drama and stop sending money and jobs south.
Makes factual claims about Canadian investment in the U.S. rising two-thirds and U.S. investment in Canada falling by half, but the question is buried in partisan framing about drama and election strategy, making the ask vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's unprovoked and inaccurate partisan attack against Conservatives on NAFTA today confirms again that his election strategy is to strut around pretending to stand up to Donald Trump. It is ironic, though, because his increases in taxes and his heavy regulation have led Canadian dollars to head right down south to Donald Trump's America, where Canadian investment is up two-thirds while U.S. investment in Canada is down by half. Will the Prime Minister stop all the drama on NAFTA and stop sending our money and jobs south of the border?
Trudeau challenged Poilievre to say he disagrees with Stephen Harper's stated position that it would be better to sign a bad deal than to have no deal on NAFTA.
Trudeau completely ignores the investment figures cited and instead challenges the member to disavow Stephen Harper's position on NAFTA, making it a non-answer to what was asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants to clarify things, he can immediately say that he disagrees with Stephen Harper's analysis that it would be better to sign a bad deal than to have no deal, because that is what Stephen Harper is on record as having recommended to Canadian parliamentarians and to Canadian negotiators. If he disagrees with Stephen Harper on that position or on any other position, please let him say so and set the record straight.
Poilievre argued the Prime Minister blocked pipelines to the Atlantic and Pacific, forcing discounted oil into the U.S., raised business taxes driving Canadian investment southward, and gave $4 billion to a Texas oil company, asking him to stop sending jobs, oil and money south.
Builds on prior exchange with specific claims about pipeline vetoes, cheap oil discounts to the U.S., and the $4-billion payment to a Texas oil company, but the overall ask remains the same vague 'stop the drama' formulation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what I disagree with is the Prime Minister's agenda, which is sending money, business and cheap oil into the arms of Donald Trump. His higher taxes have sent money south. He blocked a pipeline to the Atlantic and another to the Pacific, which means we have to pump cheap oil into the United States, and he gave $4 billion to a Texas oil company that is building pipelines with Canadian tax dollars in Donald Trump's America. Again, will the Prime Minister stop the drama and stop sending our jobs, oil and money down south?
Trudeau said Poilievre implicitly agrees with Stephen Harper on NAFTA and blamed Conservative failure over 10 years for not getting pipelines built, saying his government works with indigenous peoples and protects the environment.
Trudeau again deflects to Stephen Harper's NAFTA position without addressing pipeline vetoes or the investment figures, then pivots to blaming Conservative failures on pipelines over 10 years.
Source text
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite agrees with Stephen Harper that it is better to sign a bad deal than to have no deal. Well, we disagree and Canadians disagree. On the issue of getting our resources to new markets, we understand how important it is, and their failure for 10 years to get a pipeline built that will get our resources in a significant way to new markets is on them. We know that the way to get these things built properly is to work with indigenous peoples and to make sure we are protecting the environment. That is what Canadians asked us to do and that is what we will be doing.
Poilievre argued the Prime Minister vetoed a Pacific pipeline, regulated an Atlantic pipeline to death, raised business taxes driving investment south, gave $4 billion to a Texas oil company, and concluded that with enemies like that Donald Trump does not need friends.
Repeats investment figures and pipeline accusations but ends as a declarative statement rather than a question, reducing its accountability value to largely rhetorical territory.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister personally intervened to veto a pipeline to the Pacific. Then he regulated to death another pipeline to the Atlantic. That means we have to send billions of dollars in discounted oil to Donald Trump's America. He then raised taxes on businesses, which has led to Canadian investment in the U.S. going up by two-thirds while American investment in Canada is down by half. He then gave $4 billion to a Texas oil company to build pipelines down south. With enemies like that, Donald Trump does not need friends.
Trudeau addressed Energy East specifically, saying a private company withdrew the project when oil prices fell to half their initial level and because they had trouble filling capacity on another southbound pipeline, calling it a market decision.
Trudeau actually addresses the Energy East pipeline specifically, explaining it was a private-company market decision due to falling oil prices and a competing southern pipeline, which is a partial substantive response, though he does not address the investment figures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is just too much wrong with the previous member's statement to go through it, but I will address the question of energy east. A private company made a determination that they no longer wanted to move forward with a project when oil had fallen to half the price it had been when they initially proposed the project. It actually never reached a point where we could have weighed in on it one way or another, because they withdrew the project because they also had another pipeline going south that they had trouble filling the space on. This was a market decision by a private company, but the member opposite does not really know anything about that, does he?
The MP cited data showing over 1,000 Canadians died from opioid overdoses in the first three months of 2018, a 5% increase over 2017 and a 44% jump over 2016, and asked the Prime Minister to admit his approach is failing and explain what he will do to reverse the epidemic.
Cites specific dataâover 1,000 opioid deaths in Q1 2018, a 5% increase over 2017 and a 44% jump over 2016âand grounds it in a named constituent's story, with a direct ask about whether the approach is failing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this summer I met Petra Shulz, an Edmonton mother who lost her son to an opioid overdose. She described the devastating impact this tragedy had on her family, and many like hers. Today, we learned that over 1,000 Canadians lost their lives to opioid overdoses in the first three months of 2018, a 5% increase over 2017 and a 44% jump over 2016. Opioid deaths have increased every single year of the government's mandate. Will the Prime Minister admit that his approach is failing and tell the House what he will do to reverse this deadly epidemic?
Trudeau acknowledged approximately 8,000 Canadians died from apparent opioid-related overdoses between January 2016 and March 2018, cited $231.4 million in investments for treatment and stigma reduction, and said the government will not treat the crisis as a criminal issue.
Trudeau cites the aggregate figure of approximately 8,000 opioid deaths from January 2016 to March 2018 and the specific investment of $231.4 million, which is responsive, but does not directly answer whether the approach is failing or commit to new measures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned about the opioid crisis in Canada. Between January 2016 and March 2018, approximately 8,000 Canadians tragically lost their lives to apparent opioid-related overdoses. We have responded with new federal investments, new legislation and regulatory action, such as $231.4 million of investments to improve access to treatment, to address stigma and to gather more data to help address the opioid crisis. We know there is much more work to do but we will not treat this is as a criminal issue. We will work with the partners to increase access to treatmentâ
The MP described Johanne, a constituent who had to return to work sick after breast cancer because the 15 weeks of assurance-emploi sickness benefits were insufficient, and asked when the government will act for the hundreds of thousands who need more than 15 weeks to recover.
Uses a named constituent's cancer story to illustrate the inadequacy of 15-week sickness benefits under assurance-emploi, but the askâ'when will this government finally act'âis vague and compound.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les 15 semaines de prestations de maladie de l'assurance-emploi sont injustes. Johanne, une de nos concitoyennes, a dû retourner travailler malade seulement trois mois aprÚs un grave cancer du sein. Qu'est-ce qui peut arriver quand on retourne travailler malade? Il peut y avoir une récidive. Johanne et sa famille ont tout perdu: leur maison, les économies de toute une vie, tout. Que font les libéraux? Rien. Des centaines de milliers de personnes ont besoin de plus que 15 semaines pour guérir. Alors, quand ce gouvernement va-t-il enfin agir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is unfair that employment insurance provides only 15 weeks of sickness benefits. Johanne, one of our constituents, had to go back to work while still in poor health, just three months after a tough battle with breast cancer. What can happen when someone is forced to go back to work before they are fully recovered? They can suffer a relapse. Johanne and her family have lost everything: their house, their life savings, everything. What are the Liberals doing about it? Nothing. For hundreds of thousands of people, 15 weeks is not enough time to recover. When is this government finally going to take action?
Trudeau cited the nouvelle prestation pour proches aidants, improved flexibility in assurance-maladie rules, and a simplified application process as concrete improvements to assurance-emploi, without addressing the 15-week cap.
Trudeau lists improvements to assurance-emploi including the nouvelle prestation pour proches aidants and simplified application processes, but does not address extending the 15-week sickness benefit cap, which was the specific concern raised.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est toujours difficile d'entendre les histoires de Canadiens qui souffrent, et nous faisons tout ce que nous pouvons pour les aider. Nous avons pris des engagements concrets en vue d'améliorer le régime d'assurance-emploi afin qu'il réponde mieux aux besoins des familles canadiennes. Nous avons instauré la nouvelle prestation pour proches aidants, nous avons amélioré la souplesse des rÚgles de l'assurance-maladie et nous avons simplifié le processus de demande pour que les Canadiens puissent recevoir leurs prestations facilement. Bien sûr, il y en a toujours plus à faire et nous sommes en train de travailler avec les familles canadiennes pour les aider encore plus.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is always hard to hear stories about Canadians suffering, and we are doing everything in our power to help them. We have made firm commitments to enhance the employment insurance program to better meet the needs of Canadian families. We have created a new family caregiver benefit. We have relaxed the rules for sickness benefits. We have improved the application process to make it easier for Canadians to access their benefits. Naturally, there is still a lot more to be done, and we are working together with Canadian families to help them even more.
The government MP asked the Prime Minister to confirm that significant measures to protect the North Atlantic right whale have balanced protection of the iconic species with support for Atlantic Canada's fisheries.
A government-backbench softball that references Robert Chafe's play Between Breaths and asks the Prime Minister to confirm that measures protecting the North Atlantic right whale have balanced species protection with Atlantic fisheriesâa setup for a positive answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, the economic, cultural and ecological importance of our oceans to Atlantic Canadians cannot be overstated. As depicted in Robert Chafe's play Between Breaths, the goals of working the sea and protecting our country's endangered whales are both vitally important to us. Can the Prime Minister confirm that our government's significant measures to protect the North Atlantic right whale have balanced the protection of this iconic species with the help of Atlantic Canada's fisheries?
Mr. Speaker, we have put in place the necessary measures to protect this iconic species and to ensure continued access to our fisheries. Since taking clear and coordinated action, I am happy to report that thus far we have not had a single reported death of a North Atlantic right whale in Canadian waters. I also want to thank industry leaders who cooperated with our measures. However, I am glad that our snow crab and lobster fishers have also enjoyed good fishing seasons.
Trudeau confirmed that since taking clear and coordinated action, there has not been a single reported death of a North Atlantic right whale in Canadian waters, and that snow crab and lobster fishers have enjoyed good fishing seasons.
Trudeau provides a concrete outcomeâno single reported death of a North Atlantic right whale in Canadian waters since action was takenâand thanks industry leaders while noting good snow crab and lobster fishing seasons, offering real information.
The MP listed constituent frustrations about the Prime Minister's failure to build a pipeline, support Canadian oil, keep jobs in Canada, and support small businesses, asking whether the Prime Minister understands his failures are costing Canadians their livelihoods and whether he cares.
Lists a series of failures on pipelines, Saudi oil imports, jobs and small businesses heard during door-knocking, but the askâ'does he even care'âis essentially rhetorical with no specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when knocking on doors in my riding this summer, I kept hearing frustration at the Prime Minister's continual failures: his failure to build a pipeline; his failure to support Canadian oil, and instead importing it from countries like Saudi Arabia; his failure to keep jobs in Canada; his failure to support small businesses and instead over-regulating and over-taxing them, putting some of them right out of business. Does the Prime Minister understand that his failures are costing Canadians their livelihoods, and does he even care?
Trudeau cited half a million new full-time jobs since taking office, the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years, and the highest growth rate in the G7 last year as evidence of delivering for the middle class.
Trudeau counters with macroeconomic figuresâhalf a million new full-time jobs, lowest unemployment in 40 years, highest G7 growth rate last yearâthat are relevant to the economy but do not address pipelines, Saudi oil imports, or small-business over-regulation specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, not only do we care about Canadians, but we have invested concretely in making their lives better. I am talking about half a million new full-time jobs since we took office. We are talking about the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years. We are talking about investments that have lifted hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty. We have lowered taxes for small businesses. We are drawing in global investment. We are delivering with the highest growth rate in the G7 last year. This is what Canadians expected. This is what we are delivering for the middle class and those working hard to join it.
The MP argued that Conservatives approved pipelines carrying 1.2 million barrels per day rising to 2 million with Keystone XL without tax dollars, while Liberals added zero in three years and spent $4.5 billion in tax dollars, asking when the government will pull Bill C-69 and give a plan for Trans Mountain.
Cites specific figuresâ1.2 million barrels per day through Conservative-approved pipelines, rising to 2 million with Keystone XL, zero added by Liberals in three years, $4.5 billion in tax dollarsâand asks the government to pull Bill C-69 and provide a plan for Trans Mountain.
Source text
But not for middle-class oil and gas workers, Mr. Speaker. Some 1.2 million barrels a day are flowing through new pipelines approved and built under Conservatives, which will rise to 2 million when Keystone XL is done, with no tax dollars needed. As of today, the Liberals have added zero after three years in government, and they blew $4.5 billion in tax dollars that will go into the U.S. Every time the Prime Minister points to the past and blames others, he admits that he failed, and the Liberals still have no plan for the future. Their summer of failure is becoming their legacy of failure and it is hurting the whole country. When will he pull his ban-on-pipelines Bill C-69 and give a plan for Trans Mountain?
Trudeau listed six approved projectsâAlberta Clipper, Nova Gas, Line 3 replacement, Arnaud apatite mine, Woodfibre LNG and Ridley Island propane terminalâand said the government is moving forward by respecting indigenous peoples and environmental science.
Trudeau lists six specific projectsâAlberta Clipper, Nova Gas, Line 3, Arnaud apatite mine, Woodfibre LNG, Ridley Island propane terminalâwhich partially responds to the 'zero pipelines' claim, but does not address Trans Mountain or Bill C-69.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record a bit, as a government we have expanded export capacity for the Alberta Clipper project, we approved the Nova Gas pipeline, the Line 3 replacement project, the Arnaud apatite mine, Woodfibre LNG and the Ridley Island propane terminal. We are moving forward on getting projects done and getting them done the right way, which both respects indigenous peoples and works in partnership with them. We are working to make sure that the environmental science and the protection of our ecosystem is front of mind. We know from 10 years of failure by the Conservatives, because of their narrowing of the scope of projects, that we need to restore the confidence of Canadians.
The MP quoted the Prime Minister's own words claiming the deepest consultations ever and social licence for Trans Mountain, noted the court ruled he failed on consultation, indigenous rights and environment, and asked why Canadians should believe anything he says after 20 days with no plan.
Quotes the Prime Minister's own words about completing the deepest consultations ever on a major project and claims of social licence, holds him to that specific commitment in light of the court ruling, and asks a pointed accountability question after 20 days without a Trans Mountain plan.
Source text
What about Trans Mountain, Mr. Speaker? For the last two years, they said over and over again that their plan would have shovels in the ground by now. The Prime Minister himself said, âCanada has completed the deepest consultations with rights holders ever on a major project in this countryâ. He claimed that the process brought in âindigenous communities...respects science...[and] gets the social licenceâ. Well, the court clearly ruled: He failed, failed, failed and failed. Today, there is no Trans Mountain expansion and it has been 20 days without a plan. Why should Canadians believe any word he ever says?
Trudeau argued that Conservatives urged the government not to bother with consultations or indigenous engagement, and characterized the court ruling as validating the government's approach while asking for a little more consultation.
Trudeau does not address the 20-day absence of a plan or his quoted commitment, instead arguing Conservatives told the government to skip consultations and that the court actually validated the consultation approach while asking for a little more, which is largely deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is the difficulty for Conservatives. They have actually spent the past three years telling us that we should not be doing so much on the environment, we should not be fretting about consultation with indigenous peoples, but that we should just plow ahead like Stephen Harper did. He did not succeed in 10 years of trying to plow ahead. What we have heard from the court recently was that it was good that we were doing consultations and working with indigenous people and that it was good we were taking seriously the science, but we need to do a little more. That leaves the Conservatives on the wrong side of history, and we are going to do things the right way.
The MP cited 8,000 Canadians newly unemployed due to Liberal pipeline failures and asked what the Prime Minister's plan is to get experienced professionals such as welders, pipe fitters and engineers back to work in the energy sector.
References a specific figure of 8,000 Canadians unemployed and asks about the government's plan for highly skilled professionals such as welders, pipe fitters and engineers in the energy sector, though the Amazon reference is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when asked about the job losses in the energy sector, a direct result of Liberal failures on pipelines like Trans Mountain, the Liberals' response is to take credit for jobs at Amazon. Are they trying to say that the thousands of highly skilled professionals, such as welders, pipe fitters and engineers, who have lost jobs across Canada should find work at an Amazon warehouse? Another 8,000 Canadians are unemployed because of the Prime Minister's summer of failure. What is the Prime Minister's plan to get these experienced professionals back to work in the energy sector?
Trudeau said there is no path forward for the energy sector without protecting the environment and building partnerships with indigenous peoples, and accused Conservatives of failing over 10 years by doing things the old way.
Trudeau does not address the 8,000 job losses, the skilled tradespeople mentioned, or offer any concrete plan for the energy sector, pivoting instead to environmental protection and indigenous partnerships as prerequisites for sector growth.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what folks in the energy sector understand very clearly is that there is no path forward for our energy sector unless we also protect the environment and unless we build partnerships with indigenous peoples. The old ways of doing things failed for 10 years under the Conservatives. We now know that being respectful and thoughtful about how we move forward is what Canadians expect. That is exactly what we are going to do. While they are still worried about suddenly putting a price on pollution, we know that moving forward responsibly is the only way to get things done in this country.
The MP described veteran Stephane's recovery through his service dog Sarge, cited the Université Laval study confirming service dogs save veterans' lives, and asked why the government is stalling on providing funding required for life-saving service dogs for veterans.
Names a specific veteran, Stephane, cites the long-awaited Université Laval study on service dogs, and asks why the government is stalling on funding for life-saving service dogs, grounding the question in both personal testimony and research.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, recently I heard from Stephane, a veteran from my riding diagnosed with PTSD while serving in the Canadian navy for 28 years. Counselling, medication and therapy were not working for him. It was not until he got his service dog, Sarge, that he could finally get out of the house, go for a walk and talk to people. Sarge saved his life. The long-awaited Université Laval study states that service dogs, like Sarge, save veterans' lives. However, the Liberals continue to deny veterans and their families the funding they need. Why is the government stalling on providing the funding required for life-saving service dogs for veterans?
Trudeau cited close to $10 billion in veterans investments over three years, the expanded medical expense tax credit for psychiatric service dogs introduced in budget 2018, and three current government-funded research initiatives related to service animals.
Trudeau cites close to $10 billion in veterans investments, the expanded medical expense tax credit for psychiatric service dogs in budget 2018, and three current research initiatives related to service animals, which directly engages the specific issue raised though stops short of committing to full program funding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as we will see from investments of close to $10 billion in our veterans over the past three years, the mental health and well-being of veterans and families is a priority for this government. We have heard from the veterans community that this is an important issue to them, so in budget 2018, we expanded the medical expense tax credit for recognizing costs for psychiatric service dogs for 2018 and future years. Being based in evidence is important to us, so we are currently funding three research initiatives related to service animals. We continue to monitor the research to ensure that we are making the best decisions to support our veterans.
The MP described a constituent's son with PTSD who is suicidal and has been waiting almost a year for his Veterans Affairs medical claim to be processed, with seven others in his unit facing the same situation, and asked when the government will keep its promise to get veterans the help they need.
Describes a named constituent's son with PTSD who is suicidal and has waited almost a year for a medical claim at Veterans Affairs, with seven others in his unit in the same situation, asking when the government will keep its promise to veterans.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for over a year, my office has been helping a mother whose son is in the military. Her son has PTSD and, tragically, is also suicidal. Despite his serious injury and critical situation, he has been forced to wait for almost a year for his medical claim to be processed by Veterans Affairs. He feels his government has abandoned him, and there are seven others in his unit who feel the same. When will the government keep its promise to our veterans and get them the help that they so desperately need?
Trudeau cited approximately $10 billion in veterans investments over three years, the reopening of shuttered Veterans Affairs offices, and a commitment to veterans' mental health benefits, without addressing claim processing delays or the specific case raised.
Trudeau gives only the general $10-billion investment figure and mentions reopening shuttered Veterans Affairs offices, but does not address the almost-year-long claim processing delay, the suicidal veteran's specific situation, or what will be done to speed up medical claim processing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes that we have a sacred obligation to support our veterans and their families, and that includes investments in mental health. We have invested, over the past three years, about $10 billion in helping our veterans, in supporting their families, in moving forward on veterans' mental health benefits and supports, in reopening shuttered Veterans Affairs offices. We recognize that there is still more to do. We are working hard to meet the expectations and the needs of the veterans who have served this country so excellently for so many years. We will continue to be there for them.
Given a reported shortage of 275 Air Force pilots and the age of the used Australian F-18s, will the Prime Minister cancel the interim fighter jet purchase and support recruitment and retention of pilots?
Cites a specific reported shortage of 275 pilots and a concrete policy ask (cancel the interim purchase of used Australian F-18s), grounded in the member's own military experience, though the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government's policies have once again failed our military. Canada needs effective equipment and highly trained personnel to maintain our defence obligations, but reports say that our military has a shortage of 275 pilots. As a former Air Force officer, I know that pilots do not want to fly 40-year-old used Australian F-18 fighter jets. Those planes are older than our current ones. Will the Prime Minister start supporting our military to attract and retain the pilots we need, and finally cancel the interim purchase of these used fighter jets?
The Prime Minister cited landmark investments in the Canadian Armed Forces, tax breaks, over $6 million a year for military families, and initiatives to speed up recruitment and training for the Royal Canadian Air Force.
The Prime Minister pivots to Conservative cuts and lists general retention initiatives without addressing the pilot shortage figure or the specific question about cancelling the interim fighter jet purchase.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, after a decade of Conservative cuts, we are proud that our government is making landmark investments in the Canadian Armed Forces. There has never been a better time for Canadians to join Canada's defence team. We are taking action to boost retention of our women and men in uniform, including with tax breaks, and with more than $6 million a year for support and services for military families. We have introduced initiatives to speed up recruitment and training to ensure our Royal Canadian Air Force has all it needs to accomplish its mission.
Will the Prime Minister cancel the interim policy of buying used jets from Australia, recruit and train new pilots, and stop failing the troops, given that the pilot shortage report confirms 275 pilots are missing?
References the same 275-pilot shortage report and the half-billion-dollar cost of the Australian jets, but the rhetoric dominates ('asinine interim policy,' 'rusted-out fighter jets') and the ask is compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has had three years, and his only solution is to spend half a billion dollars on a pile of scrap metal from Australia. The Prime Minister just does not understand the consequences of his failures. This report confirms that the Royal Canadian Air Force is short 275 pilots. Why are they leaving? It is because nobody wants to fly a bunch of old, rusted-out fighter jets from Australia. When will the Prime Minister cancel this asinine interim policy of buying used jets, recruit and train new pilots, and finally stop failing our troops?
The Prime Minister accused the Conservatives of botching the fighter jet procurement process, creating the capability gap, and using military members for photo ops, while claiming the government is fixing the situation.
The Prime Minister deflects entirely to the Conservative record on procurement and the capability gap without addressing the pilot shortage, the cost figure, or the cancellation request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I know I am not the only one in this House who finds it a little bit rich that the Conservatives are complaining about procurement processes, when they completely botched our fighter jet procurement process from the beginning. The Conservatives completely failed to get the equipment needed to our armed forces. They created the capability gap. We are fixing that. We are ensuring that the men and women in uniform who serve this country are given the equipment they need, and are not just used for photo ops, like the Conservatives did every damn time.
Will the Prime Minister intervene to stop veterans' benefits from being paid to a man convicted of murdering a police officer, given the Prime Minister's prior statement that veterans are asking for too much?
Raises a specific and newsworthy case of veterans' benefits allegedly being paid to a convicted murderer, but frames it with graphic emotional detail that shifts it toward rhetoric rather than a precise policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has failed to give injured veterans the support they have earned. Remember the Prime Minister told veterans that they are asking for too much, yet these Liberals are giving a man convicted of murdering a police officer, a man who is not a veteran himself, money meant for veterans. He killed her, put her body in a compost bin and dumped her under a bridge. When will the Prime Minister step in and stop this outrageous abuse of veterans' benefits?
Oh, oh!
The Prime Minister cited $10 billion in investments since 2016 for veteran programs and services and the hiring of over 470 staff, then began to address the specific case by citing privacy and confidentiality laws before being interrupted.
The Prime Minister provided investment figures ($10 billion, 470 staff) for veterans programs and acknowledged the specific case before being cut off, offering partial but incomplete engagement with the core question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is something we saw for 10 years that the Conservative government did not acknowledge. When a man or woman serves in Canada's Armed Forces or in the RCMP, their whole family serves with them. We have made it a priority to not only improve benefits and services for our nation's veterans but for their families as well. Since 2016, investments have totalled $10 billion for veteran programs and services, including the hiring of over 470 staff to increase delivery capacity. In regard to the tragic and terrible case the member opposite mentioned, due to laws around privacy and confidentialityâ
Can the Prime Minister explain the benefits of getting youth interested in science, on the occasion of the Prime Minister's science fair?
A government-backbench softball setup framed around the Prime Minister's science fair, with no accountability ask and an open-ended invitation for the Prime Minister to speak favourably about science.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government understands the importance of fostering a culture of curiosity among our kids and youth. Today is the Prime Minister's science fair, which highlights both our outstanding students and science centres across Canada. I am extremely excited to see all of the amazing projects that the students have brought for us today. Can the Prime Minister please explain to this House the benefits of getting our youth interested in science?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for ScarboroughâAgincourt for her work on her file. We are delivering on our promise to restore science to its rightful place in Canada. We are strengthening Canada's labs and classrooms with the largest investment in fundamental research in Canada's history. I am looking forward to seeing the amazing work of our youngest researchers and scientists later today and invite everyone to come and join. Unlike the Harper Conservatives, we celebrate, promote and believe in science-based decision-making.
The Prime Minister cited the largest investment in fundamental research in Canada's history, strengthening labs and classrooms, and contrasted the government's science-based decision-making with the Harper Conservatives.
The Prime Minister referenced the largest investment in fundamental research in Canada's history and promotion of science-based decision-making, providing some substantive content alongside partisan contrast with Harper Conservatives.
Will the Prime Minister finally tell the truth about his true intentions regarding supply management, given that young agricultural successors no longer believe him after a summer of failures?
References dairy farmers on the Hill and youth agricultural succession protesters, but the question is vague â asking whether the Prime Minister will 'tell the truth' about supply management without specifying what commitment is at issue.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre ne semble pas comprendre pourquoi les producteurs de lait de tout le Canada sont sur la Colline aujourd'hui. Je me demande s'il sait seulement pourquoi les jeunes de la relÚve agricole ont manifesté devant son bureau cet été. Je vais lui donner la réponse: les jeunes de la relÚve ne croient plus le premier ministre puisqu'il joue avec les mots. Il a échoué à leur dire ses véritables intentions quant à la gestion de l'offre. Va-t-il enfin dire la vérité ou va-t-il encore une fois ajouter un autre échec à sa liste d'échecs de cet été?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not seem to understand why dairy farmers from across Canada are on the Hill today, and I am wondering whether he knows why young farmers were protesting in front of his office this summer. I will tell him. Young farmers no longer believe the Prime Minister because he plays with words. He did not tell them his real intentions regarding supply management. Will the Prime Minister finally tell the truth or will he have yet another item to add to the long list of failures he racked up over the summer?
The Prime Minister stated that protecting supply management is a priority for the government and for Canadians, and committed to continuing to support dairy producers.
The Prime Minister commits to protecting supply management and supporting dairy producers but does not address the allegation of playing with words or specify what his 'true intentions' are regarding supply management.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais d'abord remercier le député conservateur de défendre la gestion de l'offre. Je sais que la position n'est pas unanime de l'autre cÎté de la Chambre. Nous sommes tous d'accord pour dire que protéger la gestion de l'offre est une priorité pour notre gouvernement et pour les Canadiens. Nous allons continuer de protéger la gestion de l'offre et d'appuyer nos producteurs agricoles, et plus particuliÚrement les producteurs laitiers qui font un excellent travail tous les jours pour offrir un produit propre et sain aux Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the Conservative member for standing up for supply management. I know that not everyone on the other side of the House supports it. We all agree that protecting supply management is a priority for our government and Canadians. We will continue to protect supply management and support our farmers, particularly our dairy farmers who work hard every day to provide Canadians with a clean and healthy product.
Will the Prime Minister stop interfering and let the new Minister of Canadian Heritage fulfill his duty to intervene now regarding Netflix and YouTube's impact on Quebec language and culture, before the next election?
Identifies a concrete concern about Netflix and YouTube avoiding Canadian cultural obligations and references the previous Heritage minister's inaction over three years, but the ask â will the PM let the new minister act now â is broad.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la derniÚre cérémonie des Gémeaux a rappelé le travail de plusieurs générations de Québécoises et de Québécois pour mettre notre culture sur nos écrans. Le problÚme, c'est que ce travail-là est en péril. Nos plus jeunes grandissent avec Netflix et YouTube, des multinationales qui, évidemment, n'ont rien à cirer de l'avenir de notre langue ou de notre culture. L'ex-ministre du Patrimoine canadien a passé trois ans à dire qu'il y avait urgence d'agir pour finalement ne rien faire du tout. Est-ce que le premier ministre va cesser de s'ingérer et laisser son nouveau ministre du Patrimoine canadien faire son devoir, c'est-à -dire intervenir maintenant, avant les prochaines élections?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the recent GĂ©meaux awards reminded us of the work of several generations of Quebeckers to capture our culture on film. The problem is that this work is in jeopardy. Our youth are growing up with Netflix and YouTube, multinationals that obviously do not care about the future of our language or our culture. The former minister of Canadian Heritage spent three years figuring out that urgent action is needed and then did nothing in the end. Will the Prime Minister stop interfering and let his new Minister of Canadian Heritage do his job and take action right now and before the next election?
The Prime Minister cited historic investments restoring funding to Radio-Canada and doubling funding to the Canada Council for the Arts, and expressed confidence in the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism to continue the work.
The Prime Minister cites historic investments in Radio-Canada and doubling of Canada Council funding but does not address the specific urgency regarding Netflix and YouTube or the new minister's mandate to act before the next election.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous savons à quel point il est important de protéger la culture, au Québec et aux quatre coins du Canada. C'est pourquoi nous avons investi des montants historiques pour restaurer le financement accordé à Radio-Canada et nous avons doublé le financement accordé au Conseil des arts du Canada. Nous allons continuer d'investir et de défendre nos industries culturelles parce que nous savons que c'est bon pour le sentiment d'appartenance, les emplois et l'économie. J'ai énormément confiance en notre ministre du Patrimoine canadien et du Multiculturalisme, qui continuera cet excellent travail.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we know how important it is to protect culture in Quebec and throughout Canada. That is why we have invested historic amounts to restore funding for Radio-Canada/CBC and we have doubled funding for the Canada Council for the Arts. We will continue to invest and defend our cultural industries because we know that it enhances people's feeling of belonging and is good for jobs and the economy. I have a great deal of confidence in our Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, who will continue this excellent work.
Can the Prime Minister provide an update on the peacekeeping operation in Mali, announced in March as a one-year air task force deployment?
A government-backbench question that sets up a status update on the Mali peacekeeping operation with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pour assurer la sĂ©curitĂ© des Canadiens, nous devons faire face Ă l'instabilitĂ© aux quatre coins du monde. En novembre dernier, nous avons annoncĂ© une sĂ©rie d'engagements en vue d'optimiser l'impact du Canada pour lui permettre d'ĂȘtre le plus utile possible dans le cadre des efforts de l'ONU. En mars, nous avons annoncĂ© que nous comptions dĂ©ployer une force opĂ©rationnelle aĂ©rienne au Mali pour une pĂ©riode d'un an. Le premier ministre peut-il prĂ©senter une mise Ă jour sur l'opĂ©ration de soutien au maintien de la paix au Mali?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, keeping Canadians safe means confronting instability around the world. In November, we announced a series of commitments to optimize Canada's impact and its contribution to UN missions. In March, we announced plans to deploy an air task force to Mali for a one-year period. Would the Prime Minister please update the House on the peace support operation in Mali?
Monsieur le Président, je remercie le député de Saint-Jean de sa question et de son travail. AprÚs un retrait d'une décennie sous les conservateurs, nous nous réengageons dans les opérations de maintien de la paix des Nations unies. En août, nous avons atteint la pleine capacité opérationnelle au Mali. Nos forces armées travaillent en étroite collaboration avec les forces de l'ONU et fournissent un service d'évacuation médicale 24 heures sur 24, sept jours sur sept, ce qui sauve des vies. Je remercie nos braves femmes et nos hommes de l'incroyable travail qu'ils accomplissent.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saint-Jean for his question and the work he does. After a decade of Conservative cuts, we are re-engaging in UN peacekeeping operations. In August, we reached full operational capacity in Mali. Our armed forces are working closely with UN troops to provide medical evacuations 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They are saving lives. I thank our brave women and men for the incredible work they are doing.
The Prime Minister stated that full operational capability was reached in Mali in August, with Canadian Armed Forces working closely with UN forces and providing 24/7 medical evacuation services.
The Prime Minister provided a concrete operational update, stating that full operational capability was reached in Mali in August and that Canadian forces provide 24/7 medical evacuation services saving lives.
Will the Prime Minister act on two expert reports confirming that non-compliant American stone of very poor quality is being used in the restoration of the Citadelle de Québec, threatening its UNESCO integrity?
References two expert reports confirming non-compliant, American stone being used at the Citadelle de Québec and contrasts it with the Conservative restoration of the Voltigeurs drill hall, making a reasonably specific accountability ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, aprÚs le terrible incendie du ManÚge militaire Voltigeurs de Québec, nous, les conservateurs, n'avons rien négligé pour restaurer ce joyau québécois. Or, aprÚs leur été lamentable d'échecs, deux rapports d'experts confirment aujourd'hui que les libéraux s'attaquent à l'intégrité de la Citadelle de Québec avec une pierre non conforme, américaine et de trÚs mauvaise qualité. Il est encore temps de faire marche arriÚre pour restaurer l'intégrité de la Citadelle. Qu'attend le premier ministre pour agir et prendre au sérieux notre patrimoine national?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, after the terrible fire at the Quebec City armoury, home of the Voltigeurs, we, the Conservatives, did everything in our power to restore this precious piece of Quebec history. Today, two expert reports confirmed that, following their summer of failure, the Liberals are now undermining the integrity of the Quebec City citadel by using a poor-quality American stone that does not meet government standards. There is still time to reverse this decision in order to restore the integrity of the citadel. What is the Prime Minister waiting for? When will he take action and take our national heritage seriously?
The Prime Minister stated that the bidder is required to respect guidelines to guarantee UNESCO status is respected and maintained, and that the department is doing rigorous follow-up.
The Prime Minister states the bidder must meet guidelines to maintain UNESCO status and that the department is doing rigorous follow-up, but does not address the specific allegation about non-compliant American stone confirmed by expert reports.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous avons à coeur l'important patrimoine historique de la ville de Québec, tout spécialement celui du Vieux-Québec et de son statut reconnu par l'UNESCO, et nous le protégeons. Le soumissionnaire est tenu de respecter les lignes directrices afin de garantir que le statut de l'UNESCO sera respecté et maintenu. Le ministÚre s'assure de faire un suivi rigoureux, car nous comprenons à quel point c'est important pour la ville.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we care about Quebec City's significant historical heritage, and particularly that of Old Quebec, which is a UNESCO world heritage site, and we are protecting it. The contractor is required to follow the guidelines in order to ensure that the UNESCO designation is respected and upheld. The department is monitoring the situation very closely because we understand how important this is to the city.
Will the government side with the Quebec consensus of all four party leaders and protect supply management intégralement, and why does the Prime Minister always avoid saying the word 'intégralement'?
Cites a specific cross-party consensus from Quebec's four party leaders demanding integral protection of supply management and pointedly asks why the Prime Minister avoids using the word 'intégralement,' making a precise and answerable challenge.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au Québec, en pleine campagne électorale, les quatre chefs de parti ont fait front commun concernant la gestion de l'offre. C'est une priorité nationale. Les quatre chefs demandent au gouvernement canadien de protéger intégralement la gestion de l'offre. Est-ce que le gouvernement canadien va se ranger du cÎté du consensus québécois et protéger intégralement la gestion de l'offre ou est-ce qu'il va décider d'écouter son principal conseiller, le conservateur Brian Mulroney, qui veut ouvrir une nouvelle brÚche? Pourquoi est-ce qu'il évite toujours de dire le mot « intégralement »?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, during the Quebec election campaign, the four party leaders stood together in support of supply management. It is a priority for the Quebec nation. The four leaders are calling on the Government of Canada to fully protect supply management. Will the Canadian government side with Quebec and fully protect supply management, or will it decide to listen to its top adviser, Conservative Brian Mulroney, who wants to create another breach in the system? Why does the government always avoid using the word âfullyâ?
The Prime Minister repeated that the government will protect supply management, noting that Americans want to eliminate the system, and committed to continuing to defend it â without using the word 'intĂ©gralement.'
The Prime Minister repeats the commitment to protect supply management but deliberately avoids using the word 'intégralement' and does not address the Brian Mulroney adviser allegation or explain the omission of that specific word.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je l'ai dit plusieurs fois à la Chambre et comme je l'ai dit directement aux producteurs agricoles, y compris aux producteurs laitiers du pays, nous allons protéger la gestion de l'offre. On sait que les Américains veulent qu'on élimine ce systÚme, qui fonctionne pour les Canadiens et pour nos producteurs. Nous allons continuer de défendre ce systÚme qui fonctionne.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in the House and as I have told Canadian farmers, including dairy farmers, directly, we will protect supply management. We know that the Americans want us to eliminate this system, which works for Canadians and our farmers. We will continue to defend supply management because it works.
The Prime Minister rose on a point of order to withdraw an unparliamentary word he had used and apologize; separately, Maxime Bernier sought unanimous consent for a motion urging the government to put the complete abolition of supply management on the NAFTA negotiating table, which the House refused.
- Lib Right Hon. Justin Trudeau
- Maxime Bernier
- Some hon. members
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it was brought to my attention that in an outburst of enthusiasm, I may have used a word that was unparliamentary. I withdraw that word and apologize to anyone who was offended.
Monsieur le Président, j'invoque le RÚglement. Je demande le consentement unanime de la Chambre pour la motion suivante. That this House urges the government to put the complete abolition of the system of supply management on the negotiating table in order to facilitate a new NAFTA agreement with our American partners and bring down the prices of milk, poultry and eggs for Canadian consumers.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion. Que la Chambre exhorte le gouvernement à proposer l'abolition pure et simple du systÚme de gestion de l'offre, afin de faciliter la renégociation de l'ALENA avec nos partenaires américains et de faire baisser le prix du lait, de la volaille et des oeufs pour les consommateurs canadiens.
No.