Session overview
- The dominant theme of the session was the Vice-Admiral Mark Norman case, with Conservative members repeatedly pressing the Prime Minister to release cabinet documents essential to Norman's defence; Trudeau gave an identical sub judice refusal to every question.
- NDP members challenged the government over cannabis legalization, specifically demanding expungement rather than pardons for past simple possession convictions, citing racial and indigenous over-representation in criminal records.
- Trudeau confirmed the government would not support expungement for cannabis records, stating pardons are the appropriate remedy, while distinguishing the LGBT community's case as warranting expungement due to extreme government-inflicted discrimination.
- NDP and environment-focused members raised the IPCC report on climate change, seeking concrete commitments on greenhouse gas reductions, methane cuts, fossil fuel subsidies, and eco-energy retrofits; the Prime Minister reiterated the pan-Canadian framework and carbon pricing without new specifics.
- The NDP raised the death of Abraham Donkey, who died alone on a bus after Indigenous Services refused to provide him with an escort for a 900-kilometre post-surgery journey to Winnipeg, calling it an example of systemic racism and underfunding of indigenous health services.
- The NDP raised an Air Canada flight to San Francisco where the pilot had been on duty for 19 consecutive hours; the Prime Minister stated the government is working on pilot duty rules and would have more to say soon.
The Prime Minister gave a direct yes-or-no answer — 'Non' — confirming the government will not support expungement of cannabis records, and drew a specific policy distinction by explaining that expungement was reserved for the LGBT community because it had suffered extreme discrimination at the hands of the government, whereas pardons are the appropriate remedy for cannabis convictions.
Scheer explicitly pre-empts the 'ongoing court case' deflection by clarifying he is not asking the PM to comment on the case but to explain the specific executive decision to withhold documents, invoking what previous prime ministers have done as a benchmark.
Rather than addressing the specific question about why the Attorney General of Canada was not permitted to respond on a matter of her direct legal mandate, the Prime Minister pivoted entirely to listing unrelated government achievements and claiming the Conservatives were 'running out of things to ask about.'
Outstanding questions
- How did the Prime Minister know, months before the RCMP investigation was completed, that charges would be laid against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman? (asked by Candice Bergen and Pierre Paul-Hus)
- Why will the Prime Minister not release the cabinet documents that Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's legal team says are essential to his defence, given that previous prime ministers such as Paul Martin waived cabinet privilege in comparable circumstances? (asked by multiple CPC members throughout the session)
- Will the government commission an inquiry into the death of Abraham Donkey and will the minister meet with his family, given that Indigenous Services refused to provide him with an escort for post-surgery travel and he died alone on a bus? (asked by Niki Ashton)
- Will the government cap credit card merchant fees rather than relying on a voluntary .1% rate decrease, given that Canada already has some of the highest such fees in the world? (asked by Gord Johns)
- Is Canada prepared to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia pending a credible investigation into the disappearance of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, as U.S. Republican and Democratic representatives have proposed doing? (asked by Hélène Laverdière)
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to release documents relevant to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's fair trial, given that his office is before the court over this refusal?
The question is grounded in a specific ongoing court proceeding involving Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and the PMO's refusal to release documents, with a clear accountability ask, though it remains somewhat general about which documents.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le bureau du premier ministre se retrouve devant la cour parce qu'il refuse de publier des documents qui aideront à assurer un procès équitable au vice-amiral Mark Norman. Les accusations ont été portées et les procureurs auront un travail à faire, tout comme la défense. Alors, pourquoi le premier ministre cache-t-il des documents qui pourraient être pertinents? Pourquoi refuser à ce distingué officier le droit à une défense entière et équitable?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Office has wound up in court over its refusal to release documents that would give Vice-Admiral Mark Norman a fair trial. Charges have been laid, and both the prosecution and the defence have a job to do. Why is the Prime Minister concealing potentially relevant documents? Why is he denying this distinguished officer his right to a full and fair defence?
The Prime Minister said it would be inappropriate for him to comment on the matter as it is before the courts.
The Prime Minister deflects entirely with a sub judice claim without engaging the specific question about document release or his office's role before the court.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie le chef de l'opposition de sa question. Cependant, comme on le sait bien, il serait inapproprié pour moi de commenter cette affaire alors qu'elle est devant les tribunaux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition leader for his question. However, as everyone knows, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this affair because it is before the courts.
Given that the Prime Minister already commented publicly on the Norman case before charges were laid, why will he not explain his refusal to release documents needed for a fair trial?
The question sharpens accountability by citing the Prime Minister's own prior media comments predicting charges against Norman before the trial, directly contradicting the sub judice defence he now invokes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it was not inappropriate for the Prime Minister to comment to the media before the trial even began. He predicted that Vice-Admiral Norman would be charged and that this would be sorted out in court, so he had no problem commenting on this outside the House. All we are asking for is an explanation as to why he will not release documents that would give Vice-Admiral Mark Norman a fair trial. Why?
The Prime Minister again said it would be inappropriate to comment on the matter because it is before the courts.
The Prime Minister repeats an identical non-answer without acknowledging the contradiction raised about his prior public comments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member should well know, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this affair because it is before the courts.
Will the Prime Minister allow the release of documents that Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's legal team needs to prove or disprove his defence?
The question explicitly distinguishes commenting on the case from releasing documents, making a clear and answerable ask about whether the Prime Minister will allow document release for Norman's defence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are not asking the Prime Minister to comment on the case. We are asking him to release documents that would allow justice to be served. Vice-Admiral Mark Norman has a right to a fair trial. His legal team needs to have access to documents that could prove or disprove his defence. Will the Prime Minister allow those documents to be released?
The Prime Minister said it would be inappropriate for him to comment on an ongoing court case.
The Prime Minister ignores the distinction drawn between commenting on the case and releasing documents, repeating the same boilerplate sub judice answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite well knows, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on an ongoing court case.
Previous prime ministers released cabinet documents to judicial proceedings in similar situations; why is the Prime Minister departing from that practice?
The question raises a specific precedent — that previous prime ministers released similar documents to judicial proceedings — and asks why the current Prime Minister is departing from that practice, making it a pointed accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are not asking him to comment on the case. We are asking him to comment on his decision not to release these documents. Previous prime ministers have done exactly that, making these sorts of documents available to judicial proceedings. What is he trying to hide by not following the same practice as previous prime ministers when they were faced with the same type of situation?
The Prime Minister said it would be inappropriate for him to comment on this ongoing court case.
The Prime Minister does not acknowledge the precedent cited or address his decision-making, offering only the repeated sub judice boilerplate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite well knows, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this ongoing court case.
If the Prime Minister believes accused individuals have the right to a fair trial, will he release the documents Vice-Admiral Norman needs?
The question reiterates the distinction between commenting on the case and releasing documents, framed as a values question about whether accused individuals have the right to a fair trial, but becomes more rhetorical than earlier exchanges.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he can try to hide behind the same bogus answer. This is not about commenting on the case. This is about his decision not to release documents that Vice-Admiral Norman needs in order to have a fair trial. If he believes that accused individuals in this country have that right, will he release those documents?
The Prime Minister noted it was 'interesting' that the Leader of the Opposition chose this topic and repeated that it would be inappropriate to comment on the ongoing case.
The Prime Minister adds a dismissive remark about the Opposition's choice of topic and then repeats the same non-answer, making no connection to the document release question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat interesting that this is what the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to ask about today. As the member opposite well knows, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this ongoing case.
Why do the Liberals not support expungement of criminal records for cannabis possession, given that a pardon still requires people to disclose a prior conviction unlike expungement?
The question uses a concrete scenario to illustrate the practical difference between a pardon and expungement for cannabis possession, making a clear ask about why the Liberals reject expungement, though it is partly illustrative rather than citing specific data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just imagine years ago someone who was convicted and given a criminal record for possessing a small amount of cannabis. Today, that person might have a family and wants to coach his or her kids' soccer team. If the school asks, “Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence", the individual is legally bound to answer, “Yes, with a pardon”. With an expungement, a person can honestly answer no because under the law that is deemed never to have happened. Parents should not have to sit on the sidelines for something that is now completely legal. Why do the Liberals not understand this?
The Prime Minister explained that marijuana is now legal because prohibition failed to protect kids and allowed criminals to profit, and that controlling and regulating production and sale will better protect communities.
The Prime Minister speaks only to the rationale for legalizing marijuana and does not address the distinction between pardon and expungement or explain why expungement was rejected.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, marijuana is now legal in Canada because the previous approach, prohibition, failed to adequately protect our kids and allowed criminals to make massive profits. By controlling and regulating the production and sale of marijuana, we will be able to better protect our communities, protect our kids and ensure that public safety and public health are properly protected by our country.
Given that data shows Black people are three to five times more likely and Indigenous people nine times more likely to have simple possession records, why will the Prime Minister not support the member for Victoria's bill for expungement?
The question cites specific statistics — three times more Black people in Toronto, five times more in Halifax, nine times more Indigenous people in Regina with simple possession records — to ground the systemic racism argument and asks why the Prime Minister does not support the member for Victoria's bill for expungement.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est une réponse qui n'a aucun rapport avec la question. Le ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile a exclu l'effacement des casiers judiciaires pour possession simple de marijuana. Il n'y a pas d'injustice historique selon lui. Regardons plutôt les chiffres: trois fois plus de personnes noires à Toronto et cinq fois plus de personnes noires à Halifax ont des dossiers criminels pour possession simple. À Regina, se sont neuf fois plus de personnes autochtones. Les personnes autochtones et racisées ont subi, historiquement, des injustices systémiques au Canada et se retrouvent aujourd'hui avec plus de casiers judiciaires pour une consommation similaire. Alors, pourquoi le premier ministre ne prend-il pas la solution du député de Victoria pour l'élimination des...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that answer has nothing to do with the question. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has dismissed the possibility of expunging criminal records for the simple possession of marijuana. He does not see the historic injustice. Let us look at the numbers: three times as many black people in Toronto and five times as many black people in Halifax have criminal records for simple possession. In Regina, nine times as many indigenous people have criminal records for the same thing. Indigenous and racialized individuals have historically suffered systemic injustices in Canada and have been saddled with more criminal records for similar consumption. Why, then, will the Prime Minister not adopt the solution proposed by the member for Victoria to eliminate—
The Prime Minister acknowledged the negative impact of prohibition on marginalized and visible minority communities and stated the government is moving forward with free and fast pardons so people can succeed in the labour market and community.
The Prime Minister acknowledges the disproportionate impact on marginalized and racialized communities and announces a free and fast pardon system, but does not address the specific expungement bill or explain why pardons are preferred over expungement.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous reconnaissons que l'ancien système de prohibition avait un impact négatif plus grand sur les communautés marginalisées et les communautés de minorités visibles. Nous savons que c'est important de leur offrir des pardons gratuits et rapides pour qu'ils aient toutes les possibilités de réussir sur le marché du travail et dans la communauté. C'est pour cela que nous amenons un système de pardon rapide et gratuit.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we recognize that the old prohibition approach had a greater negative impact on marginalized and racialized communities. We know that it is important to offer them free and fast pardons so they have every opportunity to succeed in the workforce and in the community. That is why we are moving forward on a pardon system that will be free and fast.
Given the practical differences between record suspensions and expungement for travel and visas, will the Liberals support the NDP bill on the Order Paper that would expunge records?
The question draws a precise legal distinction between record suspension and expungement regarding travel and visa access, notes that an NDP bill is already on the Order Paper, and asks a direct yes-or-no question about supporting it.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est intéressant parce que, si le premier ministre reconnaît réellement que l'ancien système ne fonctionnait pas, il doit aussi comprendre que suspendre les casiers judiciaires qui ont été créés sous ce système est très différent de les supprimer et de faire en sorte que les gens puissent voyager plus facilement, obtenir des visas, au lieu de vivre sous un système qui, dans plusieurs circonstances, pourrait facilement réactiver ces dossiers. Le député de Victoria et le NPD ont fait le travail pour eux. Il y a déjà un projet de loi au Feuilleton qui ferait exactement cela, supprimer les dossiers. Vont-ils nous appuyer, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is interesting, because if the Prime Minister truly recognizes that the old system was not working, he also needs to realize that suspending criminal records created under that system is very different from expunging them. Expungement would enable people to travel more easily and obtain visas, instead of living under a system where these records could easily be reactivated under certain circumstances. The member for Victoria and the NDP have done the work for the Liberals. There is already an expungement bill on the Order Paper. Will the Liberals support us, yes or no?
The Prime Minister said no, distinguishing cannabis pardons from LGBT expungement which involved extreme government discrimination, and argued that pardons are appropriate for cannabis possession records.
The Prime Minister gives a direct 'no' and explains the government's reasoning by distinguishing this situation from LGBT expungement, and reiterates the pardon rationale, though he does not engage with the travel/visa distinction raised.
Source text
Non, monsieur le Président. Nous avons voulu supprimer les dossiers criminels dans le cas de la communauté LGBT, qui avait subi des discriminations extrêmes de la part du gouvernement. Nous avons toujours reconnu et nous reconnaissons encore que c'est important de protéger les communautés et nos jeunes de la marijuana. C'est pour cela que nous continuons de contrôler et de réglementer la marijuana. Dans ce cas-ci des pardons sont appropriés pour aider tous ceux qui ont reçu des casiers judiciaires à ce niveau.
Hansard translation: No, Mr. Speaker. We were in favour of expungement for the LGBT community, which had suffered extraordinary discrimination on the part of the government. We have always recognized, and still recognize, that it is important to protect our communities and youth from marijuana. That is why we are still controlling and regulating marijuana. In this case, pardons are an appropriate way to help anyone who has a criminal record for this type of offence.
Knowing the difference between a record suspension and expungement, will the Liberals favour expungement over pardons to end discrimination against racialized and indigenous Canadians?
The question reiterates the expungement vs. pardon distinction and frames legalization as an implicit acknowledgement of historic injustice linked to systemic racism, repeating the yes-or-no ask, but adds little new factual content beyond earlier exchanges.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, by taking action to legalize, and by stating clearly that he believes that the war on drugs failed, he must recognize a historic injustice when it has been pointed out so clearly that the war on drugs is racist. The fact is that we see vulnerable Canadians, racialized Canadians, and indigenous people more disproportionately affected by this. I will ask the question again. Knowing full well that the Prime Minister knows the difference between a record suspension, which was once called a pardon, and expungement, will the Liberals, yes or no, favour expungement over pardons and finally really end this discrimination?
The Prime Minister acknowledged the unfair impact of prohibition on marginalized and racialized communities and said the government is moving forward with a free and fast pardon system to ensure the stigma of a criminal record does not follow these people.
The Prime Minister again acknowledges the unfair impact of prohibition on marginalized and racialized communities and reiterates the free and fast pardon system, but does not address why expungement is rejected over pardons or the travel implications.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we recognize the unfair impact the prohibition had on marginalized and racialized communities across this country. That is one of the reasons why we are moving forward with a system that will control and regulate the sale of marijuana. That is also why we are moving forward on a pardon system that will be free and fast, in order to make sure that the stigma of a criminal record does not follow these disproportionately marginalized people for the rest of their lives.
How did the Prime Minister know, months before the RCMP investigation was completed, that charges would be laid against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman?
The question is sharply focused on a specific publicly documented claim — the Prime Minister predicted Norman would be charged before the investigation was complete — and asks how he knew, which is a precise and answerable accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, months before any charges were laid against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, the Prime Minister told the media that the case would end up in the courts. In fact, he said this a number of times prior to any charges being laid. How did the Prime Minister know, months before the investigation was completed, that charges would be laid against Mark Norman?
The Prime Minister said it would be inappropriate for him to comment on this ongoing court case.
The Prime Minister again deploys the identical sub judice non-answer without engaging the specific question about his foreknowledge of charges before the investigation concluded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite well knows, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this ongoing court case.
The Prime Minister commented on the Norman case before the investigation was even completed; how did he know it would go to court, and what is he hiding about his own behaviour?
The question distinguishes the Prime Minister's behaviour and prior comments from the substance of the case, making a specific and answerable ask about how he knew the case would go to court before the investigation was complete.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it sounds like that answer was prepared for the Prime Minister by a lawyer. Clearly, the Prime Minister had no problem commenting on this case prior to an investigation even being completed. Yesterday the government was answering some questions about this. We are asking the Prime Minister about his behaviour, not about the case. Again, how did the Prime Minister know, before the investigation was completed, that this case would go to court? What is he hiding?
The Prime Minister said the independence of the justice system matters deeply to his side of the House and that it would therefore be inappropriate to comment on this ongoing criminal case.
The Prime Minister adds a reference to judicial independence but still does not address the specific question about his own prior statements or foreknowledge, remaining a boilerplate deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we believe that the independence of the justice system matters deeply. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to comment now on this ongoing criminal case.
How did the Prime Minister know twice before charges were laid that the RCMP would charge Vice-Admiral Norman, and what is he hiding?
The question asks how the Prime Minister could have known the RCMP was laying charges before they were announced, grounded in his documented public statements made on two separate occasions, making it a specific accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre nous accuse souvent de jouer à des jeux politiques, mais là, c'est lui qui joue à un jeu politique, parce que tout Canadien a le droit d'avoir l'information relative à son procès. Encore une fois, le premier ministre a mentionné deux fois que le vice-amiral Norman subirait un procès, avant même que les accusations ne soient portées. Comment le premier ministre a-t-il pu savoir que la GRC portait des accusions contre le vice-amiral Norman? Que cache-t-il?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister often accuses us of playing politics, but he is the one playing now. Every Canadian has the right to access the information about his trial. Again, the Prime Minister twice said that Vice-Admiral Norman would end up in court before any charges were even laid. How did the Prime Minister know that the RCMP would press charges against Vice-Admiral Norman? What is he hiding?
The Prime Minister said he finds it interesting that the Conservatives chose to ask this today, and reiterated that it would be inappropriate to comment on a case that is before the courts.
The Prime Minister adds a dismissive note about the Conservatives' choice of question topic and repeats the judicial independence/sub judice boilerplate without addressing how he knew about the charges in advance.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, je trouve intéressant que les conservateurs choisissent de poser des questions sur cela aujourd'hui. Je répète que, de ce côté-ci de la Chambre, nous faisons toujours confiance à l'indépendance de notre système judiciaire. C'est pour cela, entre autres, que ce serait inapproprié que je commente ce cas, qui est en cour.
Hansard translation: As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that this is what the Conservatives have chosen to ask about today. Again, on this side of the House, we always have faith in the independence of our judicial system. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this case, which is before the courts.
Prime Minister Paul Martin lifted Cabinet confidentiality during the sponsorship scandal to provide documents to courts; the Prime Minister has the full authority to do the same for Norman, so why will he not?
The question cites the specific precedent of Prime Minister Paul Martin lifting Cabinet confidentiality during the sponsorship scandal to give documents to courts, and asserts the current Prime Minister has the full authority to do the same for Norman.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, justement, si nous voulons faire pleinement confiance à nos tribunaux, il faut leur donner les éléments pour qu'ils puissent faire leur travail. Le vice-amiral Norman a le droit d'avoir des documents. On se souvient qu'à l'époque du scandale des commandites, le premier ministre Paul Martin a levé la confidentialité du Cabinet pour donner l'information aux tribunaux aux fins d'enquête. Le premier ministre a le plein pouvoir là-dessus. S'il veut aider Norman, il peut le faire.
Hansard translation: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if we want to have absolute faith in our courts, they must have everything they need to do their work. Vice-Admiral Norman has the right to have the documents. Back in the day of the sponsorship scandal, prime minister Paul Martin suspended cabinet confidentiality and gave information to the courts to aid the investigation. The Prime Minister has the authority to do that. If he wants to help Norman, he can.
The Prime Minister said it would be inappropriate for him to comment on this matter as it is currently before the courts.
The Prime Minister ignores the specific precedent of Prime Minister Paul Martin lifting Cabinet confidentiality and repeats the same sub judice non-answer.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme le député le sait très bien, il serait inapproprié que je commente cette affaire alors qu'elle est actuellement devant les tribunaux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this matter while it is before the courts.
Mark Norman needs access to cabinet documents in the Prime Minister's possession to defend himself in court; why will the Prime Minister not release them today?
The question asserts the Prime Minister has the authority to release cabinet documents today and characterizes the withholding as concealing evidence, but the framing 'this reeks of a cover-up' tips it toward rhetorical territory reducing its accountability precision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, well, it did not stop the Prime Minister from commenting on this case months before charges were even brought or the investigation was even completed. In order to defend himself in court, Mark Norman needs access to the cabinet documents the Prime Minister has regarding this case. The Prime Minister has the authority to turn them over today, but instead, he is concealing this evidence in his office. This reeks of a cover-up. Why will he not do the right thing and release the documents today?
The Prime Minister accused Conservatives of playing politics and said the government will continue to respect the independence of the judiciary, making it inappropriate to comment on the ongoing court case.
The Prime Minister pivots to accusing Conservatives of playing politics and repeats the judicial independence/sub judice answer without engaging the document release question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, rather than playing politics, the way the Conservatives always do, we will continue to respect the independence of the judiciary and their ability to do their job, and because of that, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this ongoing court case.
The Prime Minister has the authority and ability to release the critical documents for Mark Norman's defence today; unless he has something to hide, why will he not do it?
The question reiterates the Prime Minister's authority and ability to release the documents and frames it as a fair trial rights issue, but by this fifth iteration from a second Conservative questioner it has become largely repetitive and more rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, demanding a fair trial is not playing politics; it is the right of every Canadian. The Prime Minister has the authority, he has the ability, to release these critical documents for Mark Norman's defence. He could do it today. He will not do it. He is concealing that evidence in his office. Unless he has something to hide, why will he not do the right thing and release the documents today?
The Prime Minister said the government deeply respects the independence of the court and that it would be inappropriate to comment on this ongoing court case.
The Prime Minister again invokes judicial independence and the need to keep the judiciary independent from political machinations, which does not address the document release question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we deeply respect the independence of the court and that it is necessary that the judiciary is independent from political machinations. That is why we feel it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this ongoing court case.
Duncan asks whether the government will take deeper action on climate change, including deeper greenhouse gas reduction targets, deeper cuts to methane, worker transition funds, an end to perverse fossil fuel subsidies, and restoration of eco-energy retrofits.
Lists multiple specific policy asks (methane cuts, worker transition funds, fossil fuel subsidies, eco-energy retrofits) but the compound nature and rhetorical framing dilute accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, based on the feedback members are receiving on the emergency debate on the IPCC report, it is clear that strong support exists for deeper action by the government. Canadians are calling for concrete action to address climate change, including deeper greenhouse gas reduction targets to match our Paris commitments. Canadians want deeper cuts to methane, support for worker transition funds, an end to perverse fossil fuel subsidies and restoration of eco-energy retrofits. Is the government going to act?
Trudeau says yes, the government is acting by putting a price on pollution and advancing a pan-Canadian framework to reach Paris targets, and frames the issue as protecting the environment while growing the economy.
Trudeau references putting a price on pollution and the pan-Canadian framework but does not address any of the specific asks (methane, transition funds, subsidies, eco-energy retrofits) and pivots to attacking Conservatives and NDP.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yes, we are going to act, and we are acting. We are moving forward with putting a price on pollution. We are moving forward with a pan-Canadian framework that will reach our Paris targets, and we continue to understand that protecting the environment and growing the economy must go hand in hand in the 21st century. The Conservatives have no plan. The NDP is continuing to pit the economy against the environment. We know that the only way to build a better future for our kids is to both protect the environment and grow the economy responsibly at the same time.
Boulerice asks whether the Prime Minister will act on climate change or continue to lecture 6,000 scientists more qualified than him, framing the choice as between a green economy and a polluting economy.
Boulerice references the IPCC report and frames a question about government action, but the exchange is heavily rhetorical and preemptively mocks the expected answer, reducing its accountability value.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le dernier rapport du Groupe d'experts intergouvernemental sur l'évolution du climat, ou GIEC, est catastrophique. Si on ne fait pas quelque chose maintenant contre les changements climatiques, on est cuits, littéralement cuits. Attendons! Le premier ministre va nous débiter les mêmes âneries que d'habitude: il n'y a pas de choix à faire entre l'économie et l'environnement, et bla-bla-bla. Ce n'est pas vrai. Il y a un choix à faire entre l'économie verte et l'économie polluante, et on sait quel est le choix des libéraux. Est-ce le premier ministre va agir ou est-ce qu'il va continuer à donner la leçon à 6 000 scientifiques qui sont plus qualifiés que lui? L'arrogance, c'est le courage des faibles.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, is devastating. If we do not do something right now to tackle climate change, we are literally done for. Just wait. The Prime Minister is going to spout the same nonsense as usual: we do not have to choose between the economy and the environment, and so on and so forth. That is not true. We must choose between a green economy and a dirty economy, and we know what the Liberals have chosen. Will the Prime Minister do something or will he continue to lecture 6,000 scientists who have better credentials than he does? Arrogance is weakness disguised as strength.
Trudeau says the government understands the importance of protecting the environment and reaching Paris targets while building a cleaner and more prosperous economy, and accuses the NDP and Conservatives of pretending there is a choice between the economy and the environment.
Trudeau restates the same economy-and-environment framing Boulerice predicted, does not address any specific action, and attacks Conservatives and NDP, making this largely a non-answer.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, de ce côté-ci de la Chambre, nous comprenons à quel point c'est important de protéger l'environnement, d'atteindre nos cibles de Paris et de le faire de façon à pouvoir créer une économie plus propre et plus prospère pour demain. C'est ce à quoi les Canadiens s'attendent. Ils savent que nos adversaires conservateurs et néo-démocrates sont encore en train de faire semblant qu'il y a un choix à faire entre l'économie et l'environnement. Nous savons que nous devons agir de façon à ce que l'économie et l'environnement aillent de pair et c'est exactement ce que nous faisons.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we understand how important it is to protect the environment and to reach our Paris targets in a way that creates a cleaner and more prosperous economy for tomorrow. That is what Canadians expect. They know that our Conservative and NDP opponents are still claiming that we need to choose between the economy and the environment. We know that we must ensure that the economy and the environment go hand in hand, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Martel asks whether the Prime Minister will offer Vice-Admiral Mark Norman a fair and equitable trial, noting Norman's decorated military service record.
The question frames Vice-Admiral Norman's background sympathetically but the ask — will the Prime Minister offer him a fair and equitable trial — is vague and does not cite specific documents or prior commitments.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le vice-amiral Mark Norman est un homme d'honneur. Valeureux officier de la marine, il a reçu la décoration du Commandeur de l'Ordre du mérite militaire, remis pour des services méritoires exceptionnels rendus dans l'exercice de fonctions comportant des responsabilités élevées. Toute la lumière doit être faite sur cette histoire afin de lui permettre de se défendre. Est-ce que le premier ministre va lui offrir un procès juste et équitable?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman is a man of honour. He is a brave naval officer who was appointed Commander of the Order of Military Merit for outstanding meritorious service in duties of great responsibility. All of the information must be made available so that he can defend himself. Will the Prime Minister help to ensure that he has a fair trial?
Trudeau says he cannot comment on a case before the courts and states he will give the same answer to all questions on this matter during Question Period.
Trudeau gives a procedurally coherent reason for not commenting (ongoing court case) and explicitly states he will give the same answer to all such questions, which is a clear if non-substantive response.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme on le sait très bien, je ne peux pas commenter ce cas qui est devant la cour. Cependant, il est évident que les conservateurs veulent continuer à poser cette question-là, et je vais continuer de donner la même réponse, c'est-à-dire que je ne peux pas commenter cela. Alors, je leur offre le choix de poser des questions sur d'autres choses qui pourraient être en train de préoccuper les Canadiens. Ma réponse va être la même pour toute cette période des questions, s'ils veulent le savoir.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as members well know, I cannot comment on this matter while it is before the courts. It is clear, however, that the Conservatives intend to continue asking that question. I will continue to give the same answer and that is that I cannot comment on the matter. I will give them the option of asking questions about other things that may be of concern to Canadians. Otherwise, they should know that I will be repeating the same answer throughout question period today.
Martel asks what the Prime Minister is hiding and why he will not publish today the documents that are essential to Vice-Admiral Norman's defence.
Martel makes a specific claim that the Prime Minister is withholding documents essential to Vice-Admiral Norman's defence and asks why they are not released today, which is a more targeted ask than the previous exchange.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous ne voulons pas de détails, nous voulons des documents. Le premier ministre cache des documents qui sont essentiels à la défense du vice-amiral Norman. Tout le monde sait que rien n'est plus fondamental pour une démocratie que la vérité. Qu'est-ce que le premier ministre cache? Pourquoi ne publie-t-il pas les documents aujourd'hui?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we do not want details. We want documents. The Prime Minister is hiding documents that are essential to Vice-Admiral Norman's defence. Everyone knows that nothing is more essential to a democracy than the truth. What is the Prime Minister hiding? Why will he not immediately release the documents in question?
Trudeau says the government will continue to respect the independence of the judicial system and will not comment on a matter currently before the courts.
Trudeau invokes respect for the independence of the judicial system and declines to comment on the matter before the courts, which is a consistent procedural deflection without engaging the document-withholding allegation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme le député le sait très bien, nous allons continuer de respecter l'indépendance de notre système judiciaire. Je ne vais pas commenter cette affaire qui est devant la cour présentement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, we will continue to respect the independence of our justice system. I cannot comment on this matter while it is before the courts.
Bezan asks whether the Prime Minister will hand over the documents Mark Norman needs to have a fair trial, alleging the Prime Minister tainted the case twice by publicly predicting it would end up in court before charges were laid.
Bezan cites a specific allegation — that the Prime Minister twice prejudiced the case by publicly stating it would end up before the courts before charges were laid — and asks specifically that documents be handed over, though the ask remains general.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Vice-Admiral Norman served this country with dignity and honour. He is a respected leader in the Canadian Armed Forces, and he has the right to a fair trial. He deserves a fair trial, but that does not matter to the Prime Minister. He has tainted the admiral's case twice by saying that this case would end up before the courts, even before the charges were laid. This is despite the fact that two other individuals have been linked to these documents and have never, ever been charged. Will the Prime Minister hand over the documents Mark Norman needs to have a fair trial so that he can properly defend himself?
Trudeau says it would be inappropriate to comment on an ongoing court case and that he will continue to give the same answer, suggesting the opposition ask about other topics like climate change or the economy.
Trudeau repeats the same refusal to comment on an ongoing court case, does not address the specific allegation of prejudicing the case, and pivots to suggesting the opposition ask about other topics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this ongoing court case, and that is the answer I am going to give on every single question members ask on this case, because we believe in the independence of the judiciary. I offered them an opportunity. They can ask questions of the Prime Minister on anything they like. They know what my answer is going to be on that particular question, and I am happy to continue to give it, but Canadians might wonder why they do not want to talk about anything else, like climate change, like growing the economy, like dealing with the kinds of issues that matter to Canadians and future generations.
Bezan invokes the precedent of Paul Martin waiving cabinet privilege to turn over documents, and asks the Prime Minister to release the documents needed by Mark Norman and to stop obstructing justice.
Bezan references the precedent of Paul Martin waiving cabinet privilege and turning over documents, and specifically asks the Prime Minister to release documents and stop obstructing justice, which gives it some factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are demanding a fair trial, but the Prime Minister is sitting here playing politics instead. If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why is he running scared? Paul Martin waived cabinet privilege and turned over documents to the courts in the past. The current Prime Minister first interfered by musing publicly, about Vice-Admiral Norman, that his trial would end up in court, even before he was charged. Now the Prime Minister is sitting on the very evidence Mark Norman needs to defend himself. Will the Prime Minister finally release these documents and quit obstructing justice?
Trudeau says confidence in the judicial system means trusting it to do its job without political support from the opposition, and reiterates he will not comment on this ongoing court case.
Trudeau says confidence in the judicial system means it can do its job without political support and repeats his refusal to comment, completely ignoring the Paul Martin precedent and the obstruction allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, having confidence in our judicial system means having confidence that it is able to do its job without needing political support from the members of the opposition. As I have said a number of times, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this ongoing court case.
Ashton asks whether the minister will meet with the family of Abraham Donkey, who died alone on a bus after Indigenous Services refused to provide him with an escort for post-surgery travel, and whether the government will commission an inquiry into the tragedy.
Ashton names a specific individual (Abraham Donkey), cites specific circumstances (10 days post heart surgery, 900 kilometres to Winnipeg, refusal of escort by Indigenous Services), and asks two clear, actionable questions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Abraham Donkey was 58 years old. Ten days after getting heart surgery, he needed to travel 900 kilometres to Winnipeg for follow-up. Indigenous Services refused to provide him with an escort and to put him on the plane. That night, Abraham died, alone, on the bus. Other passengers heard him take his last breath. Systemic racism kills. Systemic underfunding kills. Abraham's family is seeking justice and to ensure that this never happens again. Will the minister meet with Abraham's family, and will the government commission an inquiry into this inexcusable tragedy?
Trudeau expresses sincere condolences to the family and community, says Indigenous Services is looking into the matter, and affirms the need for improved health services designed, managed and delivered by and for indigenous communities.
Trudeau offers condolences and says Indigenous Services is looking into the matter, and references the need for indigenous-led health transformation, but does not commit to meeting with the family or commissioning an inquiry as specifically asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can assure everyone that we express our sincere condolences to the family of Abraham Donkey and his community. I can assure all members that the Department of Indigenous Services is looking into the details of this matter. This affirms the need for improved health services designed, managed and delivered by and for indigenous communities. We will continue to work with partners to support indigenous-led health transformation and improved health outcomes for indigenous communities.
Kwan asks whether the Prime Minister will apologize to indigenous peoples, on behalf of his minister, for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism's statement that systemic racism does not exist in Canada.
Kwan references a specific ministerial statement about systemic racism and asks for an apology on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, but the framing is largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples in this country have suffered and continue to suffer from racial discrimination. In fact, this systemic form of discrimination is the oldest form of racism in this country, yet the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism stated that systemic racism somehow does not even exist in Canada. Oh yes, that is what Harper used to say. Will the Prime Minister apologize to indigenous peoples, on behalf of his minister, for this ignorant statement?
Trudeau says no relationship is more important than that with indigenous peoples and highlights historic investments and changes to the rights framework, without addressing the specific ministerial statement or offering an apology.
Trudeau does not address the specific statement by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, does not apologize, and instead gives a general statement about the government's relationship with indigenous peoples.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes that no relationship is more important than that with indigenous peoples, and that is why we have made historic efforts to invest and partner with indigenous peoples across this country in terms of creating solutions and also changing the rights framework that oversees the relationship between the Government of Canada and indigenous peoples. We know we have much more work to do, but we will continue to focus on bringing indigenous peoples into a position of empowerment and full partnership with all Canadians on the future we are building together.
Fuhr asks the Prime Minister to explain more about what the government is doing to fight homelessness, noting the first-ever poverty reduction strategy, the first-ever national housing strategy, and reaching home.
This is a government-backbench softball that lists the government's own programs and simply asks the Prime Minister to explain more about what the government is doing to fight homelessness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country and across Canada, homelessness presents a real and constant challenge. Our government has made fighting poverty and homelessness a priority, as we have seen in the first-ever poverty reduction strategy, the first-ever national housing strategy and reaching home, the redesigned homelessness partnering strategy. Could the Prime Minister please tell this House more about what the government is doing to help fight homelessness in this country?
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Kelowna—Lake Country for his work in fighting homelessness. I know that his City of Kelowna recently released its strategy for fighting homelessness, and I want to thank both the member and Kelowna mayor, Colin Basran, for working to combat a problem that affects every community. Thanks to both our homelessness strategy, reaching home, and our national housing strategy, we are improving the lives of Canadians and building communities that benefit everyone.
Trudeau thanks the member for his work, notes Kelowna's local homelessness strategy and thanks mayor Colin Basran, and says reaching home and the national housing strategy are improving lives and building communities.
Trudeau references the reaching home homelessness strategy and the national housing strategy, and specifically mentions Kelowna's municipal strategy and mayor Colin Basran, providing some genuine informational content.
O'Toole asks the Attorney General of Canada, citing her mandate letter's language about never taking legal positions inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to commit to releasing all documents needed by Mark Norman for his defence.
O'Toole references the Attorney General's mandate letter and its specific language about not taking legal positions inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and asks the Attorney General specifically to commit to releasing all documents, giving it some factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister is making a mockery of the Prime Minister's questions, I do not want him to respond to this next one. My question is for the Attorney General of Canada. In her mandate letter, the Prime Minister said that she should never take legal positions inconsistent with the government's commitments, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or Canadian values. How does denying Mark Norman the right to defend himself against scurrilous charges line up with the charter? How does bringing legal charges to cover up Liberal insider deals align with the Canadian charter? Would the Attorney General of Canada, as our top justice official, stand in this House and commit to releasing all documents?
Trudeau says as Prime Minister he will always respect the independence of the judicial system and therefore will not comment on this ongoing court case.
Trudeau responds instead of the Attorney General as specifically requested, repeats only that he respects the independence of the judicial system, and does not engage with the mandate letter language or the charter argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as Prime Minister, I am happy to stand in this House and continue to say how we will always respect the independence of our judicial system. Because of that, we will not comment on this ongoing court case.
O'Toole asks the Attorney General directly, through the Speaker, whether the rights of Mark Norman will be respected, objecting to the Prime Minister answering on her behalf.
O'Toole raises the specific procedural grievance that the Prime Minister is preventing the Attorney General from answering and invokes due process rights for Mark Norman, but the question is mostly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is shameful. We saw the Prime Minister before, not allow the finance minister to respond to a question. Now, we are seeing him not allow Canada's top legal official to respond. All we are asking for is for the due process rights of a Canadian to be respected, and he cannot commit to that in this House. Therefore, please, Prime Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, stay down; I want to hear from our Attorney General. Will the rights of Mark Norman be respected?
Trudeau says the Conservative Party is running out of things to ask about, lists government achievements on the economy, poverty, jobs, and climate change, and reiterates he will not comment on the ongoing court case.
Trudeau completely ignores the specific question about Mark Norman's rights, pivots entirely to listing government accomplishments on the economy, poverty, jobs, and climate, making this a non-answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the situation we are in right now is that the Conservative Party is running out of things to ask this government about. We are succeeding in growing the economy. We are succeeding in lifting Canadians out of poverty. We are succeeding in creating jobs right across the country. We have a plan to fight climate change. We are moving forward on helping our seniors, helping youth, and helping Canadians and the middle class and those working hard to join it succeed. The Conservatives are running out of things to ask about. We will not comment on this ongoing court case, but we are happy to talk about everything else we are doing.
Alleslev asks when the Prime Minister will give Mark Norman a fair trial and release the documents, accusing the government of using political games to hide the truth.
Alleslev frames the question with personal military service credentials and asks specifically when the Prime Minister will release documents critical to Mark Norman's defence, but the ask lacks specificity about which documents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as an air force officer, I served this country confident in the belief that my government would honour the rule of law. Canadians were promised a transparent, accountable and open government but the government has betrayed me and all those who serve. The Liberals are using political games to hide the truth. Mark Norman is an honourable officer and is entitled to a fair trial. However, the Prime Minister is refusing to release critical documents central to his defence. When will the Prime Minister give this man a fair trial and release these documents?
Trudeau says the government believes in the independence of the judicial system and the right to a fair trial, and therefore will not comment on this ongoing court case.
Trudeau states the government believes in the independence of the judicial system and the right to a fair trial, which is at least thematically connected to the question, but does not address the document release request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we, of course, believe in the independence of the judicial system. We believe in the right to a fair trial and that is why as Prime Minister I will not comment on this ongoing court case.
Alleslev asks why the Prime Minister will not release the documents if he has nothing to hide, alleging that from the start the prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was politically motivated and that the Prime Minister tried and convicted him before charges were even laid.
Alleslev makes the specific allegation that the Prime Minister tried and convicted Vice-Admiral Norman before charges were laid and asks why documents are being withheld if there is nothing to hide, but the framing remains largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not believe in the independence of the justice system when he tried and convicted Vice-Admiral Norman before he was even charged. It is clear that from the start of this case that the prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was politically motivated. The Prime Minister is hiding documents and refuses to release them for Vice-Admiral Norman's defence, jeopardizing his right to a fair trial, documents that will reveal the truth. If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why will he not release these documents?
Trudeau states only that he will not be commenting on this ongoing court case.
Trudeau gives only a one-sentence refusal to comment on the ongoing court case, which is at least procedurally consistent but does not engage with the specific allegation about pre-charge statements.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will not be commenting on this ongoing court case.
Aubin asks whether the Prime Minister will act on air safety, citing a near-disaster on an Air Canada flight to San Francisco where the pilot had been at the controls for 19 hours straight, and referencing an NDP-initiated study and NTSB report calling on Transport Canada to review its rules.
Aubin cites the specific near-disaster involving an Air Canada flight to San Francisco, references the American transportation safety bureau's finding that the pilot had been at the controls for 19 hours straight, and notes a specific NDP-initiated air safety study and NTSB report calling on Transport Canada to review its rules.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, un vol d'Air Canada à destination de San Francisco a évité de justesse ce qui aurait pu être la pire catastrophe de l'histoire de l'aviation. Selon le bureau américain de la sécurité des transports, le pilote était aux commandes depuis 19 heures d'affilée, une situation impensable ailleurs qu'au Canada. Une étude sur la sécurité aérienne lancée par le NPD et le rapport du NTSB demandent à Transport Canada de revoir ses règles. Le premier ministre va-t-il passer à l'action ou encore chanter avec le ministre des Transports que la sécurité est leur première priorité?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, an Air Canada flight en route to San Francisco narrowly avoided what could have been the worst disaster in aviation history. According to the United States National Transportation Safety Board, the pilot had been at the controls for 19 hours straight, something that is unthinkable anywhere other than Canada. A study on air safety launched by the NDP and the NTSB report are calling on Transport Canada to review its rules. Will the Prime Minister do something about this or will he continue to sing the same old song with the Minister of Transport that safety is their top priority?
Trudeau says the government is working on rules that apply to pilots to ensure better safety for all travellers and that there will be more to say soon.
Trudeau says the government is working on rules that apply to pilots to ensure better safety for all travellers and that there will be more to say soon, which is vague but at least acknowledges the specific issue raised.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement est en train de travailler sur les règles qui s'appliquent aux pilotes afin d'assurer une meilleure sécurité pour tous les voyageurs. C'est exactement ce que nous allons faire. Nous en aurons plus à dire bientôt.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government is working on the rules that apply to pilots in order to ensure better safety for all travellers. That is exactly what we are going to do. We will have more to say on that shortly.
Johns asks whether the Prime Minister will stop siding with Visa and Mastercard and cap merchant fees once and for all, calling the government's announced voluntary .1% rate decrease insufficient relief for small businesses.
Johns identifies that Canada has some of the highest credit card merchant fees in the world, notes the government's announced voluntary .1% rate decrease, and asks specifically that the government cap merchant fees once and for all rather than siding with Visa and Mastercard.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this Small Business Week, the Liberals continue to betray small business owners by siding with credit card companies in a dispute over merchant fees. Canada already has some of the highest credit card merchant fees in the world, costing consumers and merchants billions of dollars a year. Now, instead of actually reducing these fees, the Liberals announced a voluntary .1 % rate decrease, offering no relief and no certainty for small businesses. Will the Prime Minister stop siding with Visa and Mastercard and cap merchant fees once and for all?
Trudeau says the government is lowering small business taxes to 9% as of January 1 and is moving forward with lowering interchange fees for small businesses as of 2020.
Trudeau announces lowering interchange fees for small businesses as of 2020, which is a direct and specific response to the merchant fees question, though he does not address the capping ask or the adequacy of the reduction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to stand up to talk about the great work we are doing for small businesses. We are lowering small business taxes as of January 1 to 9% because we know that small businesses are at the heart of this country's success. On top of that, regarding interchange fees for credit cards, we are pleased to announce that we are moving forward with lowering interchange fees for small businesses as of 2020. This is a real tangible element of progress for small businesses that this government will always support.
Kent asks why the Prime Minister will not release documents essential to Rear Admiral Norman's legal defence, citing Paul Martin's 2004 precedent of releasing cabinet committee records.
Cites a specific historical precedent (Paul Martin releasing cabinet committee records in 2004) and poses a clear yes/no accountability question about releasing documents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 2004, former prime minister Paul Martin responded to a Conservative request and released hundreds of pages of cabinet committee records related to the advertising scandal. The documents requested today are clearly essential to the legal defence of Rear Admiral Norman in a case that reeks of political interference. If the Liberals have nothing to hide, why will the Prime Minister not simply release the documents?
Trudeau says it would be inappropriate to comment on this ongoing court case.
The Prime Minister offers a single boilerplate sentence declining to comment on an ongoing court case, entirely ignoring the historical precedent cited and the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this ongoing court case.
Raitt argues that when cabinet exercises its power to withhold documents from the court, only Parliament can hold the Prime Minister accountable, and asks why documents are being withheld and why Mark Norman is being denied a fair trial.
Raitt makes a substantive constitutional argument — that cabinet's power to withhold documents removes judicial power, making Parliament the only accountability venue — and asks a direct two-part question about withholding documents and a fair trial.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister asked most recently why the Conservative Party is continuing to ask these questions as it is not the right place for it. I want to let him know exactly why it is. When a cabinet exercises its power to withhold documents from the court, the court has no power. The only place left to hold a Prime Minister accountable is in this place. Therefore, we are going to keep asking the questions. I will start right now. Why is the Prime Minister withholding the documents and why will he not allow Mark Norman to have a fair trial?
Trudeau cites respect for the independence of the judiciary as his reason for not commenting on the ongoing court case.
Trudeau invokes judicial independence as justification for silence but does not engage with Raitt's specific argument that cabinet privilege, not the court, is the obstacle.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for this House. Indeed, that is why we moved forward with the Prime Minister's question period every Wednesday, so that we can answer questions from members that they may have about what the government is doing. However, as everyone in this House knows, we respect the independence of the judiciary. Therefore, I will not comment on this ongoing court case.
Raitt argues that true respect for judicial independence means letting courts decide on document admissibility rather than using cabinet privilege to block evidence, and asks why the government will not release the documents given Norman faces five years in jail.
Raitt makes a pointed legal distinction — that judicial independence means courts, not cabinet, should rule on admissibility of evidence — and highlights the concrete consequence that Norman could face five years in jail without access to these documents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister truly respected the independence of the judiciary, he would respect the fact that they should make the call through evidence rules as to what is inadmissible instead of putting cabinet decision-making on top of it, preventing the court from calling these documents into evidence. Mark Norman needs to put forward a defence that is going to help them prove that these allegations are incorrect. If he cannot, he could go to jail for five years. Why are we not having the government release these documents?
Trudeau says it would be inappropriate for him to comment on this ongoing court case.
Trudeau repeats the identical one-sentence boilerplate about not commenting on an ongoing court case without engaging any element of Raitt's legal argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this ongoing court case.
Lambropoulos asks the Prime Minister to explain how the government supports women's groups so they can continue their work and sustain the women's movement.
A government-backbench softball asking the Prime Minister to explain how the government supports women's groups — no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les groupes de femmes d'un bout à l'autre du pays ne font pas que revendiquer l'égalité des sexes. Ces groupes offrent aussi des services essentiels et contribuent à changer les choses pour les femmes dans leurs communautés tous les jours. Ces organismes ont cependant besoin de ressources pour continuer leur travail crucial. Le premier ministre peut-il expliquer à la Chambre comment le gouvernement appuie les groupes de femmes afin qu'elles puissent poursuivre leurs activités et ainsi soutenir la viabilité du mouvement des femmes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, groups of women across the country are not just calling for gender equality. They are also providing essential services and working to make changes for women in their communities every day. However, these organizations need resources to continue their essential work. Can the Prime Minister explain to the House how the government is supporting women's groups so they can continue their work and help sustain the women's movement?
Monsieur le Président, je remercie la députée de Saint-Laurent de sa question et de son travail infatigable pour l'égalité des sexes. Nous savons que les progrès accomplis dans la promotion de l'égalité des sexes ne seraient pas possibles sans le travail des groupes de femmes et des organismes autochtones. Le Fonds de renforcement des capacités offre jusqu'à 100 millions de dollars pour les groupes de femmes et les organismes autochtones ayant pour objectif de faire avancer l'égalité entre les sexes. Nous savons que l'égalité entre les sexes stimule la croissance économique du Canada et crée des collectivités plus sûres pour tous les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saint-Laurent for her question and for her tireless commitment to gender equality. The progress we have made toward gender equality would not have been possible without the work of women's groups and indigenous organizations. The capacity-building fund provides up to $100 million for women's groups and indigenous organizations whose objective is to advance gender equality. We realize that gender equality helps drive Canada's economic growth and creates safer communities for all Canadians.
Trudeau announces the Fonds de renforcement des capacités offering up to $100 million for women's groups and Indigenous organizations working to advance gender equality.
Trudeau provides a specific program name (Fonds de renforcement des capacités), a concrete dollar figure (jusqu'à 100 millions de dollars), and a stated policy rationale, making it a substantive if brief answer.
Blaney argues the Prime Minister is obstructing justice by withholding information that Vice-Admiral Norman needs for his defence, and demands that the government release the documents rather than merely declining to comment.
Blaney distinguishes between asking for a comment and asking for the release of information, which is a meaningful legal point, but the question is heavily loaded with partisan accusations about protecting 'petits amis libéraux,' diluting its specificity.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les Canadiens ont des raisons d'être déçus, aujourd'hui, parce que le premier ministre fait entrave à la justice en ce qui concerne la défense d'un homme qui était prêt à risquer sa vie pour son pays et qui fait face à des accusations graves. Celui-ci a besoin d'avoir accès à de l'information et il y a une seule personne qui peut dévoiler ces informations. On ne demande pas de commentaires au premier ministre, on lui demande des informations. S'il refuse, on va penser qu'il veut protéger ses petits amis libéraux, qu'il fait des magouilles et qu'il fait passer ses intérêts et les intérêts de ses amis avant la justice. Que le premier ministre agisse pour le vice-amiral Norman!
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have reason to be disappointed today because the Prime Minister is obstructing justice in the case of a man who was prepared to risk his life for his country and is facing serious charges. He needs access to information for his defence, and there is only one person who can release that information. We are not asking the Prime Minister for comments; we are asking him for information. If he refuses, we will be justified in thinking that he wants to protect his Liberal cronies, that he is scheming, and that he is putting his friends' interests and his own ahead of justice. The Prime Minister should be helping Vice-Admiral Norman.
Trudeau says it would be inappropriate for him to comment on this matter while it is before the courts.
Trudeau again offers only a single boilerplate sentence about not commenting on the ongoing court case, ignoring Blaney's distinction between commentary and document release.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il serait inapproprié pour moi de commenter cette affaire alors qu'elle est devant les tribunaux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this matter while it is before the courts.
Laverdière notes that bipartisan U.S. legislators have introduced a bill to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia pending clarification on Jamal Khashoggi's death, and asks whether the Prime Minister is prepared to do the same.
Laverdière cites a specific, concurrent legislative development — bipartisan U.S. congressional bill to suspend arms sales pending clarification on Khashoggi's death — and poses a direct yes/no question about whether Canada will do the same.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cela fait longtemps que nous, au NPD, et les Canadiens demandons qu'on arrête la vente d'armes à l'Arabie saoudite. Aujourd'hui, des représentants républicains et démocrates au Congrès américain viennent de déposer un projet de loi pour que les États-Unis suspendent leur vente d'armes à l'Arabie saoudite tant que la lumière n'aura pas été faite sur la mort du journaliste Jamal Khashoggi. Est-ce que le premier ministre est prêt à faire la même chose?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the NDP and Canadians have long been calling on the government to stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia. Today, Republicans and Democrats introduced a bill in the U.S. Congress to have the United States suspend their arms sales to Saudi Arabia until more information comes to light about the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Is the Prime Minister prepared to do the same?
Trudeau says Canada remains very concerned about Khashoggi's disappearance, that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken with her Saudi counterpart, and that Canada fully supports the joint France-UK-Germany statement calling for a credible, transparent investigation, but does not address arms sales.
Trudeau describes diplomatic contacts and Canada's endorsement of a joint France-UK-Germany statement calling for a credible investigation, but does not directly answer whether Canada will suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous demeurons très préoccupés par la disparition de M. Khashoggi et par les rapports faisant état de l'implication de l'Arabie saoudite. La ministre des Affaires étrangères a discuté avec son homologue saoudien afin d'exprimer nos inquiétudes et de plaider pour la tenue d'une enquête approfondie, crédible et transparente. Nous appuyons pleinement la déclaration commune à ce sujet faite par la France, le Royaume-Uni et l'Allemagne demandant une enquête crédible. Tous ceux impliqués dans la disparition de M. Khashoggi doivent être tenus responsables de leurs actes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we remain very concerned about the disappearance of Mr. Khashoggi and about reports implicating Saudi Arabia. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken with her Saudi counterpart to express our concerns and to call for a thorough, credible, and transparent investigation. We fully support the joint statement issued by France, the United Kingdom, and Germany calling for a credible investigation. All those involved in the disappearance of Mr. Khashoggi need to be held responsible for their actions.
Sangha asks the Prime Minister to outline the steps the government has taken to grow small and medium-sized businesses in the tourism sector.
A government-backbench softball during Small Business Week asking what steps the government has taken to grow small and medium-sized businesses in tourism — no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as part of Small Business Week, it is important to note that 99% of tourism are small and medium-sized businesses. They are a real economic driver for Canada and certainly in my riding of Brampton Centre. The income of thousands of middle-class families depends on the growth and success of these SMEs, which make our communities strong. Could the Prime Minister inform the chamber of the steps our government has taken to grow these businesses?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brampton Centre for all the work he does in supporting small businesses in his riding. Permit me to wish a good Small Business Week to entrepreneurs across the country. In the tourism sector, small businesses already provide 1.8 million good jobs for middle-class Canadians, but we want to grow that number. That is why I have asked the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie to develop a national tourism strategy and to create even more opportunities and jobs for the middle class. Also, we are indeed lowering small business taxes to 9%, as of January 1, right across the country.
Trudeau states tourism small businesses already provide 1.8 million jobs, that he has asked the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie to develop a national tourism strategy, and that the small business tax rate will be lowered to 9% as of January 1.
Trudeau provides a specific employment figure (1.8 million jobs), announces a concrete policy task (developing a national tourism strategy assigned to the Minister of Tourism), and states a specific tax rate reduction (to 9% as of January 1).
Scheer clarifies he is not asking Trudeau to comment on the case itself, but to explain why he has chosen not to release documents to the court, pointing to the precedent set by previous prime ministers.
Scheer explicitly pre-empts the 'ongoing court case' deflection by clarifying he is not asking the PM to comment on the case but to explain the specific executive decision to withhold documents, invoking what previous prime ministers have done as a benchmark.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to put the Prime Minister's mind at ease. I am not asking him to comment on the case. I am asking him to explain why he has chosen not to release documents to the court. If he truly believes in an independent judiciary, if he truly believes in the right of a Canadian admiral to a just defence, then he will do what previous prime ministers have done and make these documents available. If he does not, then what on earth is he trying to hide?
Trudeau says he will always uphold the independence of the judicial system and that is why he will not comment on this ongoing court case.
Trudeau ignores Scheer's explicit framing distinction and repeats the identical 'will not comment on this ongoing court case' boilerplate, failing to engage the actual question about the executive document-withholding decision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will always uphold the independence of our judicial system and that is why I will not comment on this ongoing court case.
Beaulieu argues that cannabis legalization was implemented poorly, with Quebec's new government having had no time to pass its own law, unresolved questions about plant limits, and asks what the point was of legalizing cannabis on October 17 when clearly nobody was ready.
Beaulieu raises legitimate inter-governmental timing concerns about Quebec's readiness, the unresolved question of household plant limits, and constitutional jurisdiction, but the rhetorical framing ('c'était quoi le trip') and compound nature weaken its specificity.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la légalisation du cannabis, c'est fait tout croche. Le gouvernement du Québec n'a pas eu le temps d'être élu et de déposer sa propre loi que le pot est légal. Cela fait qu'aujourd'hui, à 18 ans, on peut en acheter, mais tout indique qu'on ne le pourra plus dans trois mois. Est-ce un plant, deux plants ou quatre plants? On ne sait pas. Est-ce que cela va être contesté? On ne sait pas. C'est ce qui arrive quand on n'est pas maître chez soi. C'était quoi le trip de légaliser le pot le 17 octobre alors que, clairement, personne n'était prêt?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the legalization of cannabis was botched. The Government of Quebec had just been elected and barely had the time to introduce its own legislation when pot became legal. The result is that an 18-year-old can buy it today, but by all indications will no longer be able to do so in three months. Is it one, two or four plants? We do not know. Will there be a legal challenge? We do not know. That is what happens when we do not have sovereignty. What was the point of legalizing pot on October 17 when, clearly, no one was ready?
Trudeau says the government worked with experts, provinces, and municipalities for three years, that provinces including Quebec requested 8 to 12 weeks after the bill came into force and were given 17 weeks, and that protecting youth and removing profits from organized crime was the priority.
Trudeau directly addresses the timeline question by citing that provinces requested 8–12 weeks and were given 17 weeks, and restates the policy rationale, but does not address the unresolved plant-number inconsistency between Quebec and federal law.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cela fois trois ans que nous travaillons avec des experts d'un bout à l'autre du pays, avec les provinces et avec les municipalités en vue d'arriver à cette journée-ci. Les provinces, y compris le Québec, ont demandé entre huit et douze semaines pour légaliser le cannabis après l'entrée en vigueur de ce projet de loi, et nous leur avons donné 17 semaines. Nous continuons de travailler avec elles sur ce processus, mais nous savons que de protéger nos jeunes et d'enlever les profits au crime organisé est notre priorité à tous.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have been working with experts across the country, the provinces and municipalities for three years in anticipation of this day. The provinces, including Quebec, asked for eight to 12 weeks to legalize cannabis after the entry into force of the bill, and we gave them 17 weeks. We continue to work with them on this process, but we know that protecting our youth and preventing organized crime from profiting is everyone's priority.