Session overview
- Conservatives pressed the Prime Minister repeatedly across nine exchanges to name a specific year for balancing the budget, citing the Liberal platform promise of a return to balance in 2019; the Prime Minister never provided a date.
- NDP members challenged the government over back-to-work legislation placed on notice against CUPW workers in the Canada Post dispute, questioning whether the Liberals were undermining collective bargaining.
- CPC and NDP members raised concerns about Statistics Canada's pilot project to collect personal banking data, with questions about whether the agency broke the law by failing to notify the minister and the public in advance.
- The Auditor General's findings on the fighter jet file and the CRA's inconsistent application of tax rules provided the basis for exchanges on national defence procurement and tax fairness respectively.
- The Prime Minister announced that the new $10 bill featuring Viola Desmond entered circulation that week, and made a public health advisory urging people in Ontario and Quebec to avoid eating romaine lettuce amid an E. coli outbreak.
- NDP members raised the UN Committee Against Torture's finding that the forced sterilization of indigenous women constituted torture, calling for immediate action and justice for affected women and families.
The Prime Minister issued a concrete, specific public health advisory â that people in Ontario and Quebec should avoid eating romaine lettuce and salad mixes containing romaine lettuce until the cause of contamination is known â constituting actionable information directly communicated to Canadians.
The question is highly specific, citing Germany's definitive halt to arms sales as a benchmark, referencing the Prime Minister's own one-month-old announcement about reviewing existing export permits, and asking for a status update and decision timeline.
When asked directly when the budget would return to balance, the Prime Minister responded exclusively with the number of children receiving the Allocation canadienne pour enfants in the questioner's riding, entirely ignoring the question about a fiscal timeline.
Outstanding questions
- In what specific year does the government plan to return the budget to balance? (asked repeatedly by Lisa Raitt, Alain Rayes, GĂ©rard Deltell, and Pierre Poilievre â never answered)
- Will the Prime Minister cancel the Statistics Canada pilot project to collect personal banking data and confirm whether the law requiring 30-day advance ministerial notification was violated? (asked by Joël Godin and Dan Albas)
- When will the government provide a decision on the review of existing arms export permits to Saudi Arabia? (asked by HĂ©lĂšne LaverdiĂšre)
- Will the Prime Minister commit to providing caregivers permanent resident status on arrival? (asked by Jenny Kwan)
- Did a current or former cabinet minister unlawfully release cabinet confidence information? (asked by Leona Alleslev)
Raitt asks the Prime Minister to give Canadians a date by which the budget will be balanced, referencing his prior commitment to do so by 2019.
The question references prior public commitments on a 2019 balanced budget but frames it broadly and repetitively without citing a specific document or number, weakening its specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am again rising in the House today to provide the Prime Minister the opportunity to give Canadians the date by which he will be balancing the budget. He made many commitments throughout the past number of years, indicating that he would return the budget to balance in 2019. Canadians relied upon that when casting their ballot, and it has been proven that they have been taken for granted. Will the Prime Minister take the chance now and indicate when the budget will be balanced?
Trudeau attacks the Conservative debt record under Stephen Harper and touts low unemployment and G7-leading growth, without addressing the question.
The Prime Minister does not address the question of when the budget will be balanced, instead pivoting entirely to the Conservative debt record under Stephen Harper.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, no government in Canadian history ever added more to our national debt than the Conservatives under Stephen Harper. That is a fact. After 10 years of Stephen Harper, Canadians made a different choice, a better choice, a choice for a government that was there to invest in them, invest in their communities, and grow the economy the way we have so that unemployment is at its lowest in 40 years and our growth was the strongest in the G7 last year. We are investing in Canadians and their future. The Conservatives do not have a plan.
Raitt quotes the Liberal platform stating the deficit will decline and Canada will return to a balanced budget in 2019, and asks again when the budget will be balanced.
Raitt directly quotes the Liberal platform (citing the page and content) and pins the Prime Minister to a specific commitment to return to a balanced budget in 2019, making the ask clear and document-grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government does not have a clue, quite frankly. The reality is that it is incredibly important to have a budget that is balanced in order to withstand any future issues. The Prime Minister recognized that this was a selling feature for Canadians. He, himself, said, in his own Liberal platform: After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline....will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019. I will give the Prime Minister another chance. Will he tell us when they will balance the budget?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau says Conservatives ran deficit after deficit and claims his government decreases the debt-to-GDP ratio while growing the economy, without giving a date for balance.
Trudeau does not address the quoted platform commitment or the question of when the budget will balance, instead repeating the attack on Conservative deficits and citing debt-to-GDP ratio as a deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years the Conservatives racked up deficit after deficit after deficit after deficit. We made a commitment to invest in Canadians, andâ
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives still, stubbornly, do not get it. Every year, we decrease the debt-to-GDP ratio, while at the same time grow the economy and create jobs for Canadians. We are living up to the commitments we made to Canadians. They are stuck in Stephen Harper's past.
Raitt quotes Trudeau's own debate statement to Mr. Mulcair committing to balance the budget in 2019, and asks when the budget will be balanced.
Raitt quotes the Prime Minister's own words from a debate with Mr. Mulcair committing to balance the budget in 2019, providing a direct citation to hold him accountable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is true, we are stuck on the fact that Canadians were told that the budget would be balanced in 2019, and we are here to ask questions of the government. If we are stubborn, then the arrogance being displayed by the Prime Minister with respect to breaking promises to Canadians is absolutely shameful. The reality is what he said several times, including to Mr. Mulcair in a debate, was that he was: ....looking straight at Canadians and being honest the way I always have. We said we are committed to balanced budgets, and we are. We will balance that budget in 2019.
Oh, oh!
Trudeau reframes the 2015 election as a choice between cuts and investment and cites 3% wage growth and 3% GDP growth under his government, without addressing the quoted commitment.
Trudeau does not address the direct quote or the question of a balance date, instead reframing the 2015 election as a choice between cuts and investment and citing wage and GDP growth statistics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to have an opportunity to remember the 2015 election campaign, where Canadians were given a clear choice of a government that was willing to cut, to balance the budget at all costs versus the Liberal Party that was willing to invest in Canadians, to grow the economy in ways that the Conservatives had not been able to over the longest time. Under Conservatives, wages were stagnant; under our government, wages are rising at a rate of 3%. Under Conservatives, GDP growth was 1%; under our government, GDP growth is 3%. We are delivering.
Rayes quotes page 12 of the Liberal electoral platform committing to return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019, notes that the cumulative deficit is now 80 billion dollars, and asks when they will return to budgetary balance.
Rayes cites a specific page of the Liberal electoral platform, quotes the commitment directly, and provides a concrete cumulative deficit figure of 80 billion dollars to ground the question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, voici la réalité. à la page 12 du programme électoral du Parti libéral, on pouvait lire la promesse électorale suivante: « [...] notre plan d'investissement permettra au Canada de revenir à l'équilibre budgétaire en 2019. » On est rendu le 21 novembre 2018 et, déjà , le déficit cumulé représente 80 milliards de dollars. Qui devra le payer? Ce sont nos enfants et nos petits-enfants. La question que je pose au premier ministre est simple. Est-il capable de se tenir debout et de simplement nous dire quand nous allons revenir à l'équilibre budgétaire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, page 12 of the Liberal Party's election platform states, â...our investment plan will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019.â Today is November 21, 2018, and they have so far racked up $80 billion in debt. Our children and grandchildren are the ones who will end up paying. I have a simple question for the Prime Minister. Can he rise and tell us when we will return to a balanced budget?
Trudeau responds by citing Canada child benefit payments to 20,490 children in RichmondâArthabaska totalling 6.5 million dollars per month, without addressing the deficit or the balance date.
Trudeau does not address the platform commitment or the deficit figure, instead pivoting to Canada child benefit statistics for RichmondâArthabaska, which is a complete deflection.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis content que le dĂ©putĂ© parle de nos enfants et de nos petits-enfants, parce que dans RichmondâArthabaska, sa circonscription, nous aidons 20 490 enfants avec l'Allocation canadienne pour enfants, pour un total de 6,5 millions de dollars par mois dans sa circonscription. Nous sommes en train d'investir dans nos familles partout au pays et d'assurer la croissance Ă©conomique que les conservateurs, eux, n'ont jamais pu assurer.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the member talk about our children and grandchildren, because in his riding of RichmondâArthabaska we are helping 20,490 children with the Canada child benefit, for a total of $6.5 million a month in his riding. We are investing in families across the country, and we are growing our economy, which the Conservatives never managed to do.
Rayes argues that the energy sector is weakening, foreign investment has dropped over 50%, the tax reform has hurt competitiveness, and 80% of Canadian families pay more tax now, then asks again when the budget will return to balance as promised in the platform.
Rayes combines several economic grievances (energy sector, foreign investment decline, tax reform, family tax burden) with the core question from the platform, making it somewhat compound but still grounded in the platform commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, voici la réalité. Pendant que ce gouvernement dépense l'argent que les Canadiens ont durement gagné, pendant que ce gouvernement répÚte la cassette, notre secteur énergétique s'essouffle, les décisions libérales font fuir les investisseurs étrangers, alors qu'on est rendu à une diminution de plus de 50 %, les entreprises sont moins compétitives à cause de la mauvaise réforme fiscale, et 80 % des familles canadiennes paient plus d'impÎt aujourd'hui qu'il y a trois ans, sous l'ancien gouvernement. La question que je veux poser au premier ministre est simple, et elle était dans sa plateforme électorale: quand allons-nous revenir à l'équilibre budgétaire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the reality is this. While this government spends Canadians' hard-earned money, while it plays the same old tune, our energy sector is stalling. Liberal decisions are driving away foreign investment, which has declined by 50% so far, businesses are less competitive because of bad tax reforms, and 80% of Canadian families are paying more taxes today than three years ago under the previous government. The question I want to ask the Prime Minister is simple and the answer was in his election platform: when will we return to a balanced budget?
Trudeau again cites 6.4 million dollars per month going to RichmondâArthabaska for over 20,000 children and claims his government delivers economic growth the Conservatives could not achieve.
Trudeau repeats almost verbatim his Canada child benefit statistics for RichmondâArthabaska and general investment talking points, entirely ignoring the substantive claims about the energy sector and the question of budget balance.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, 6,4 millions de dollars sont envoyĂ©s dans sa circonscription, RichmondâArthabaska, chaque mois pour aider plus de 20 000 enfants. Nous sommes en train d'investir dans les Canadiens et dans leur avenir en investissant dans le transport collectif et dans l'aide aux entrepreneurs, aux familles et aux aĂźnĂ©s. Nous sommes en train d'assurer la croissance Ă©conomique que les conservateurs, eux, n'ont jamais pu assurer, parce que nous faisons des investissements et que nous faisons confiance aux Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, $6.4 million are sent to his riding, RichmondâArthabaska, every month to help more than 20,000 children. We are investing in Canadians and in their future by investing in public transit and support for businesses, families and seniors. We are contributing to economic growing, which the Conservatives were unable to do, by investing and putting our trust in Canadians.
Caron quotes Trudeau's 2015 campaign statement criticizing Harper for rolling back fundamental labour rights, and asks why Trudeau does not realize that his own actions in musing about back-to-work legislation are emboldening Canada Post executives not to bargain in good faith.
Caron quotes the Prime Minister's own 2015 campaign statement about the Harper government rolling back labour rights and uses it to hold him accountable for now musing about back-to-work legislation, providing a clear and pointed juxtaposition.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is a quote from 2015: âthe Harper Conservatives have rolled back many fundamental labour rights that affect workersâ ability to organize freely, bargain collectively in good faith, and work in a safe environment.â That was said by none other than the Prime Minister during the campaign back in 2015, the same Prime Minister whose government is now musing about legislating workers back to work. Why does he not realize that his actions are the ones that are emboldening Canada Post executives not to bargain in good faith?
Trudeau says he has faith in collective bargaining, outlines the steps taken including conciliation officers, mediators, and voluntary arbitration, and says the special mediator has been reappointed for two more days while the government is prepared to act if no progress is made.
Trudeau provides some relevant detail about conciliation officers, mediators, voluntary arbitration, and the reappointment of a special mediator, but does not address the specific charge that his actions embolden Canada Post executives not to bargain in good faith.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have faith in the collective bargaining process and believe that the best deals are reached at the table. For nearly a year, we have been supporting and encouraging both sides to reach a negotiated agreement. We have provided conciliation officers, appointed mediators, and offered voluntary arbitration. Legislation is not a step that we take lightly. We reappointed the special mediator to work with the parties over the next two days to reach an agreement. We encourage both sides to reach a deal, but we are prepared to act if there is no significant progress.
Caron challenges Liberal backbenchers to consider how they could support back-to-work legislation that removes workers' bargaining power, allows Canada Post not to negotiate in good faith, and serves Amazon and eBay, and asks where the Prime Minister's spine is when it comes to demanding good faith from Canada Post.
Caron's question is partly rhetorical and addressed to Liberal backbenchers, but raises the substantive accusation that back-to-work legislation removes workers' bargaining leverage and allows Canada Post not to negotiate in good faith, though the ask is compound and somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Tough words, Mr. Speaker, and he says them without laughing. Si j'Ă©tais un progressiste sur les banquettes libĂ©rales, je commencerais Ă me demander sĂ©rieusement comment je pourrais appuyer une loi spĂ©ciale qui enlĂšvera tout rapport de force pour les travailleurs et les travailleuses, qui permet actuellement Ă Postes Canada de ne pas nĂ©gocier de bonne foi, puisqu'elle sait trĂšs bien que le gouvernement va venir la sortir du pĂ©trin, et qui dĂ©montre qu'on est prĂȘt Ă tout faire pour faire plaisir aux gĂ©ants Amazon et eBay. Elles sont oĂč, les belles paroles du premier ministre, quand vient le temps de dĂ©fendre la libre nĂ©gociation? Elle est oĂč, la colonne vertĂ©brale du premier ministre, quand vient le temps d'exiger de Postes Canada qu'elle nĂ©gocie de bonne foi?
Hansard translation: Ce sont des mots durs, monsieur le Président, et il les prononce sans rire. If I were a progressive Liberal, I would seriously begin to wonder how I could support a special law that would take away any leverage workers have, that is currently allowing Canada Post to not negotiate in good faith because it knows full well that the government will come and help it out of this mess, and that shows that the government is prepared to do anything to please web giants such as Amazon and eBay. Where are the Prime Minister's fine words when the time comes to defend free collective bargaining? Where is the Prime Minister's backbone when it comes to compelling Canada Post to negotiate in good faith?
Trudeau says he is proud of his government's relationship with unions, reaffirms belief in collective bargaining, and repeats that the special mediator's mandate has been renewed while the government is prepared to act if needed.
Trudeau repeats almost verbatim his previous answer about believing in collective bargaining and the steps taken including the reappointed special mediator, providing some relevant context but still not addressing the specific charge about Canada Post's good faith.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis fier de l'amitiĂ© et des rapports que nous avons avec les syndicats dans ce pays. Nous croyons profondĂ©ment Ă la nĂ©gociation collective et nous sommes convaincus que les meilleures ententes se concluent Ă la table de nĂ©gociation. Pendant prĂšs d'un an, nous avons tout fait pour encourager les deux parties Ă nĂ©gocier une entente. Nous ne prenons pas le dĂ©pĂŽt d'un projet de loi Ă la lĂ©gĂšre. Nous avons reconduit le mandat du mĂ©diateur spĂ©cial pour qu'il travaille avec les parties pendant ces deux jours. Nous encourageons les deux parties Ă conclure une entente, mais nous sommes prĂȘts Ă agir en cas de besoin.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the friendship and relationship we have with organized labour across this country. We have faith in the collective bargaining process and believe that the best deals are reached at the table. For nearly a year, we have done everything in our power to encourage the two parties to negotiate an agreement. Legislation is not a step that we take lightly. We reappointed the special mediator to work with the parties over the next two days to reach an agreement. We encourage both sides to reach a deal, but we are prepared to act if need be.
Trudel provides specific mail accumulation figures at various locations to argue that Canada Post has invented a false crisis, and asks why the Minister of Labour has not protected workers' safety and has chosen the side of management over workers' rights.
Trudel provides specific trailer counts at specific locations (70 in Toronto, 1 in London, 6 in Hamilton, 2 in Halifax, 15 in Moncton) to challenge Canada Post's claims, making this a factually grounded question, though the ask about why the minister chose the side of management is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'accumulation de courrier dont parle Postes Canada est grandement exagĂ©rĂ©e. Ă Toronto, il y a 70 remorques de courrier accumulĂ©, pas des centaines comme le prĂ©tend Postes Canada prĂ©sentement dans les mĂ©dias. Il y a un camion Ă London, six remorques Ă Hamilton, deux Ă Halifax et 15 Ă Moncton. Tout ce courrier peut ĂȘtre livrĂ© en quelques jours seulement. Postes Canada a inventĂ© une fausse crise et le gouvernement mord Ă l'hameçon. Pourquoi la ministre du Travail ne protĂšge pas la sĂ©curitĂ© des employĂ©s? Pourquoi a-t-elle choisi le camp des patrons, au lieu de protĂ©ger les droits des travailleurs et des travailleuses des postes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has greatly exaggerated the amount of mail that has accumulated. In Toronto, there are 70 semi-trailers of mail, not hundreds as Canada Post is claiming in the media. There is one truck in London, six in Hamilton, two in Halifax, and 15 in Moncton. All this mail can be delivered in a matter of days. Canada Post fabricated a false crisis and the government took the bait. Why is the Minister of Labour not protecting workers' safety? Why did she side with management instead of protecting postal workers' rights?
Trudeau says his government has worked in partnership with unions for three years and continues to encourage both parties to reach an agreement at the bargaining table, but does not address the specific mail accumulation figures or the charge of a false crisis.
Trudeau does not address the specific trailer counts or the claim that Canada Post manufactured a false crisis, instead offering general statements about working in partnership with unions and repeating the preference for negotiated solutions.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis trois ans nous travaillons en partenariat avec les syndicats de tout le pays pour dĂ©montrer qu'un gouvernement peut les respecter et que nous considĂ©rons qu'ils sont essentiels pour la croissance de la classe moyenne et pour aider ceux qui veulent se joindre Ă la classe moyenne. Nous allons toujours respecter les syndicats, nous allons toujours travailler avec les syndicats. Nous savons que les meilleures façons de rĂ©gler les diffĂ©rends sont Ă la table des nĂ©gociations et nous continuons d'encourager les gens Ă arriver Ă une entente. Cependant, nous sommes prĂȘts Ă agir s'ils ne peuvent pas arriver Ă une entente.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have been working with organized labour across the country for three years now to show that a government can respect them. We believe that organized labour is essential for growing the middle class and helping those who want to join it. We will always respect unions. We will always work with unions. We know that the best solutions for resolving disputes are often found at the negotiating table and we will continue to encourage people to reach an agreement. However, we are prepared to take action if they cannot reach an agreement.
Mathyssen states that despite it being unconstitutional, the Liberals placed back-to-work legislation on notice yesterday, destroying Canada Post's incentive to negotiate seriously, and asks what message the Prime Minister is giving to CUPW workers whose health and families are compromised, and how he differs from Stephen Harper.
Mathyssen notes that back-to-work legislation was placed on notice yesterday and invokes its unconstitutionality and a specific rationale (Christmas shopping), and poses a pointed question about what message it sends to CUPW workers, though the comparison to Harper is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, despite its being unconstitutional, the Liberals placed back-to-work legislation on notice yesterday, thereby destroying any incentive for Canada Post to negotiate seriously. The Prime Minister rationalizes this by saying that Christmas and important shopping days are coming. What message is he giving to thousands of CUPW workers whose physical and mental health and families are compromised because Canada Post refuses to negotiate fairly? How is the Prime Minister any different from Stephen Harper?
Trudeau says his government has transformed the relationship with organized labour, attended many meetings with labour groups, and will continue to work with organized labour while remaining ready to act if necessary, without addressing constitutionality or the CUPW workers' specific situation.
Trudeau speaks only in generalities about transforming the relationship with organized labour and ensuring opportunities to solve challenges at the bargaining table, not addressing the specific constitutional concern, the message to CUPW workers, or the Harper comparison.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have transformed the relationship between the Government of Canada and organized labour across this country. We have engaged in a thoughtful, positive way. I have been proud to attend many, many meetings with a broad range of labour groups over the past years. We continue to build on this important partnership, important for us, important for labour, and important for Canadians as well. We will continue to respect and work with organized labour. We will continue to ensure there is every opportunity to solve these challenges at the bargaining table, which is the right place for them, but we are ready to act if necessary.
Deltell references Trudeau's pre-election statement that a budget balances itself, notes that no one in the world has adopted this theory, and asks when the government will return to budgetary balance.
Deltell references and directly quotes Trudeau's famous statement that budgets balance themselves, uses it to frame the question about when the budget will return to balance, though the framing is somewhat sarcastic and the ask itself is not newly specific.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il y a trois ans et demi, avant qu'il ne devienne premier ministre, le chef libĂ©ral avait Ă©mis une thĂ©orie Ă©conomique pour le moins inĂ©dite. Il a dit, et je cite: comme vous le savez, un budget ça s'Ă©quilibre par lui-mĂȘme. Eh bien, le moins qu'on puisse dire c'est qu'il n'y a personne au monde qui a repris cette politique thĂ©orique Ă©conomique du premier ministre, et pour cause. Non seulement il n'est pas un thĂ©oricien, mais il est un praticien. Pendant les trois derniĂšres annĂ©es, il a eu la chance de pratiquer cet Ă©quilibre budgĂ©taire auquel il rĂȘve. Toutefois, il y a la rĂ©alitĂ©: Ă quand le retour Ă l'Ă©quilibre budgĂ©taire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, three and a half years ago, before he became Prime Minister, the Liberal leader posited, shall we say, a novel economic theory. He said, as you know, the budget will balance itself. Of course, no one on earth bought into the Prime Minister's economic theory, and for good reason. He is not much of a theoretician, but for the past three years, he has been putting his theory into practice and seeing what his vision for balancing the budget amounted to. We still have to face reality though. When will the budget be balanced?
Trudeau says his government takes no economic lessons from the former Conservative government, attacks their deficit record and weak growth, and says his plan to invest in Canadians and communities is working.
Trudeau does not address the quote about budgets balancing themselves or the question of when the budget will balance, pivoting entirely to criticizing the Conservative government's debt and deficit record.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, on n'a aucune leçon économique à prendre de l'ancien gouvernement conservateur qui a ajouté plus de milliards de dollars à la dette nationale que n'importe quel autre gouvernement dans l'histoire du Canada; c'était déficits aprÚs déficits quand il gouvernait. Le pire, c'est qu'il y a eu trÚs peu de croissance économique ou de création d'emplois pour en valoir la peine. Nous avons investi dans les Canadiens et dans les communautés. Nous avons créé des emplois et la croissance économique. Notre plan pour aider la classe moyenne fonctionne.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, we will take no lessons from the former Conservative government, considering that it added more billions to the national debt than any other government in the history of this country. When that government was in power, it ran deficit after deficit. Not only that, but the Conservatives had precious little economic growth or job creation to show for it. We have invested in Canadians and communities. We have created jobs and economic growth. Our plan to help the middle class is working.
Deltell notes that when elected in 2015 Trudeau promised a small deficit of 10 billion for two years then 6 billion, that deficits were two to three times higher than promised, and that with approximately 40 days until 2019 he asks when the budget will return to balance.
Deltell specifies the promised deficit figures (10 billion for two years, then 6 billion), notes the actuals were two to three times higher, and emphasizes they are approximately 40 days from the 2019 balance commitment, making this a time-specific and numerically grounded question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, personne sur la planĂšte Terre n'a repris la thĂ©orie Ă©conomique du premier ministre qu'un budget s'Ă©quilibre par lui-mĂȘme. Pourquoi? C'est parce que ce n'est pas vrai. Quand il a Ă©tĂ© Ă©lu en 2015, il a parlĂ© d'un petit dĂ©ficit de 10 milliards de dollars pendant deux ans et aprĂšs de 6 milliards de dollars. Cela a Ă©tĂ© deux et trois fois plus que prĂ©vu. Par contre, il s'est engagĂ© aussi sur l'honneur que le retour Ă l'Ă©quilibre budgĂ©taire allait se faire en 2019. Nous sommes Ă peu prĂšs Ă 40 jours de cela. Est-ce que le premier ministre pourrait dire aux Canadiens quand aura lieu le retour Ă l'Ă©quilibre budgĂ©taire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, no one on Earth buys into the Prime Minister's theory that a budget balances itself. Why? Because it is not true. When he was elected in 2015, he talked about a small deficit of $10 billion for the first two years and then $6 billion after that. The deficit is two or three times that amount. He also committed to balancing the budget in 2019, which is only about 40 days away. Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians when the budget will be balanced?
Trudeau says his economic approach is the opposite of the Conservatives' because he invests in the middle class rather than giving advantages to the richest, and lists investments in families, seniors, and small businesses, without providing a date for budget balance.
Trudeau does not address the specific deficit figures cited or the 40-day timeline, instead contrasting his investment-in-the-middle-class approach with the Conservative approach of benefits to the richest, and listing areas of spending without giving a balance date.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est trÚs vrai que notre approche économique est complÚtement le contraire de celle des conservateurs. Eux, ils ont eu énormément de misÚre à créer de la croissance économique, pourquoi? C'est parce qu'eux, ils donnaient des avantages et des bénéfices aux plus riches et nous, nous investissons dans la classe moyenne. Nous avons aidé les enfants, nous avons aidé les familles, nous avons aidé nos aßnés, nous avons aidé nos entrepreneurs et nous avons baissé les impÎts pour les petites entreprises. Nos investissements dans la classe moyenne fonctionnent pour ce qui est de créer de la croissance économique. Eux, ils n'ont aucun plan pour créer de la croissance économique.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is very true that our economic approach is the complete opposite of that of the Conservatives. They had a hard time generating economic growth. Why? They were giving tax breaks and benefits to the wealthiest, whereas we are investing in the middle class. We have helped children, we have helped families, we have helped seniors, we have helped our entrepreneurs, and we have cut small business taxes. Our investments in the middle class are working and generating economic growth. The Conservatives do not have a plan for creating economic growth.
Poilievre accuses the Prime Minister of removing children's fitness tax credits, attacking farmers and small business owners while protecting his own trust fund and the finance minister's family business, notes the deficit is three times what was promised, and asks in what year the budget will be balanced.
Poilievre references the removal of children's fitness tax credits, the attack on farmers and small business owners, the protection of the Prime Minister's trust fund and the finance minister's family business, and notes the deficit is three times what was promised, but frames it heavily rhetorically before asking the balance date question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there he goes again insulting the people whose taxes he wants to raise. Of course, he said soccer moms and hockey dads were too rich and that is why he needed to take away their children's fitness tax credits. He said farmers and small business owners were rich tax cheats and that is why he needed to attack them, meanwhile protecting his own trust fund and the family business of the finance minister. Despite all of the revenue windfall from his higher taxes, the deficit is three times what he promised it would be this year. Will he tell us in what year the budget will be balanced?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau says his government sends 4 million dollars per month for over 17,000 kids in Carleton and cites record growth and record low unemployment, without answering when the budget will be balanced.
Trudeau cites 4 million dollars per month for over 17,000 kids in Carleton through the Canada child benefit and claims record growth and low unemployment, without addressing the deficit figure, the fitness tax credits, or the question of when the budget will balance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, $4 million a month. That is how much money this government is sending for the kids in the riding of Carleton, over 17,000 kids, who are receiving more money every year than under the Conservative government. Why did the member not invest in the families in his riding? We are seeing record levels of growth across this country. We are seeing record low levels of unemployment. We are investing in Canadians' future, and our plan is working. While they continue to try to pretend that deficits are something they have no experience withâ
Poilievre argues the previous Conservative government introduced and boosted child care benefits while maintaining a balanced budget and without raising taxes, whereas the current government has a deficit three times what was promised with no end in sight, and asks when the budget will balance itself.
Poilievre makes a specific counter-claim that the previous Conservative government introduced and boosted child care benefits while maintaining a balanced budget without raising taxes, and notes the current deficit is three times what was promised, giving factual context before asking when the budget will balance itself.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when we introduced the child care benefit we had a balanced budget, and when we boosted the child care benefit we had a balanced budget. Furthermore, we did so without raising anyone's taxes. The Prime Minister targeted middle-class families with higher taxes, generating more money for the government to spend. And he has spent. However, he has spent all of it, and now he is spending more. The deficit is three times what he promised it would be this year, and next year, when the budget was supposed to balance itself, we will still see no end in sight. Will he finally answer the question: when will the budget balance itself?
Trudeau argues that Conservative child benefit cheques went to millionaire families and were taxable, while the proactive, means-tested Canada child benefit lifts hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty, without addressing the deficit figures or providing a balance date.
Trudeau engages with the child benefit comparison by noting that Conservative benefits went to millionaire families and were taxable, and touts the means-tested Canada child benefit lifting hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty, which is tangentially relevant but does not address the deficit or the balance date.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite contrasts their approach to family benefits and the Canada child benefit. Well, let us look at that. The Conservatives' approach was to continue to send child benefit cheques to millionaire families. We stopped sending them to the wealthiest Canadians so that we could give more to the ones who actually needed this approach. The other thing is that they made their child benefits taxable, and so families would spend every month and then have to give back to the government at the end of the year. That made no sense. Our proactive, means-tested Canada child benefit is lifting hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty.
Poilievre accuses the Prime Minister of being the only millionaire receiving taxpayer-funded child care through free nanny services, argues he has never had to worry about money and therefore does not worry about Canadians' money, and asks when the budget will be balanced.
Poilievre makes a personal attack about the Prime Minister receiving free nanny services and argues he never had to worry about money, making the question largely rhetorical and personal, though it ends with the recurring question about when the budget will be balanced.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the only millionaire who is getting taxpayer-funded child care benefits is the Prime Minister who is sitting right in front of us. He gives himself tens of thousands of dollars a year in free nanny services that every other Canadian has to pay for out of their own pocket. Those families understand, because they know how to balance their family budgets and know that budgets do not balance themselves. The Prime Minister has never had to worry about money and so he does not worry about Canadians' money. Well, Canadians are worried. Tell them when the budget will be balanced.
Trudeau says the question comes from a member of a Conservative government that added more billions to the national debt than any other, had the worst growth record since R.B. Bennett, while his government invested in Canadians, infrastructure, and families delivering real growth in wages and jobs.
Trudeau responds by attacking the Conservative debt record and R.B. Bennett comparison without addressing the personal claims or providing any date for when the budget will be balanced.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is from a member of a Conservative government that added more billions of dollars to the national debt than any other government in Canadian history. What do they have to show for it? The worst record on growth since R.B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression. What have we done? We have invested in Canadians, the way we promised to in the last election. We have invested in infrastructure, we have given more money to families who need it, and it has delivered real growth for the Canadian economy, growth in wages and growth in jobs. We are delivering on what we committed to do for Canadians.
Poilievre argues the previous Conservative government paid off over 30 billion dollars of debt before the global recession drove all G7 countries into deficit, balanced the budget, and led the G7 in growth and job creation, and asks again when the budget will be balanced.
Poilievre makes a specific counter-claim that the previous Conservative government paid off over 30 billion dollars of debt before the global recession drove all G7 countries into deficit, and notes they balanced the budget and led the G7 in growth and job creation, providing factual context before repeating the question, though it is still the same recurring ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, actually, the previous Conservative government paid off over $30 billion of debt before the great global recession drove all G7 countries into deficit, and throughout the Liberals said that we should spend more, spend faster, that we could never spend enough. We ignored them, and as a result we balanced the budget, led the G7 in growth and in job creation and had the best economic performance of all of our peers. Back to the question. When will the budget be balanced, Mr. Prime Minister?
Trudeau accuses the Conservatives of manufacturing a phony balance just in time for the election by cutting veterans' services and ramming through Phoenix pay system changes, saying they do not know how to manage a budget.
Trudeau counters that Conservatives created a phony balance just before the election by cutting veterans' services and booking Phoenix pay system changes in advance, without addressing the 30 billion debt paydown claim or answering when the budget will be balanced.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after adding record amounts to the national debt, after running deficit after deficit, the Conservatives finally created a phony balance just in time for the election. How did they do it? They did it on the backs of our veterans, nickel and diming them and shutting down veterans' service offices. They did it by ramming through changes to the Phoenix pay system and booking those changes in advance. They phonied up a budget so they could try to run on it. They do not know how to manage a budget, and their record is proof of that.
Will the Liberals pay their fair share of funding for the francophone university in Toronto and call Doug Ford to convince him to reverse the cuts?
The question is reasonably specific, citing two concrete policy decisions by Doug Ford and making two clear asks: federal co-funding of the francophone university and a direct call to Ford.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la dĂ©cision de Doug Ford d'Ă©liminer le Commissariat aux services en français et d'abandonner le projet d'une universitĂ© francophone en Ontario a crĂ©Ă© une onde de choc partout au pays. Le premier ministre s'est dit déçu et prĂ©occupĂ©, mais il devrait agir au lieu de rester dans son coin. Les libĂ©raux n'arrĂȘtent pas de dire qu'ils sont lĂ pour les Franco-Ontariens. Alors, est-ce qu'ils vont le prouver en payant leur juste part du financement de l'universitĂ© francophone Ă Toronto et en appelant Doug Ford pour le convaincre de reculer, comme le demande le NPD?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Doug Ford's decision to abolish the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner and cancel the project to build a French-language university in Ontario has sent shockwaves through the country. The Prime Minister said he was disappointed and concerned, but he should be doing something about this instead of staying in his corner. The Liberals keep saying that they are there for Franco-Ontarians. Will they prove it by contributing their fair share of the funding for the French-language university in Toronto and by calling Doug Ford to convince him to change his mind, as the NDP has been asking for?
The minister of official languages will have a conversation with the Ontario minister to encourage reversal of the cuts, and all MPs are urged to pressure the Ford government.
Trudeau confirms a ministerial conversation will take place but does not address the specific ask of federal funding for the Toronto francophone university, and the call is to a minister rather than Ford directly.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis content d'informer la Chambre que notre ministre des Langues officielles aura une conversation avec la ministre ontarienne pour l'encourager Ă renverser ces coupes irresponsables. La protection des minoritĂ©s de langue officielle au pays est au coeur de notre parti et de notre raison d'ĂȘtre en tant que gouvernement. Nous allons toujours appuyer et dĂ©fendre les communautĂ©s minoritaires. Nous sommes trĂšs déçus de ce choix, et nous encourageons tous les dĂ©putĂ©s de la Chambre Ă faire pression sur le gouvernement Ford pour qu'il change de cap.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that our Minister of Official Languages will be having a conversation with the Ontario minister to encourage her to reverse these irresponsible cuts. Protecting official language minorities in Canada is what we, as a party and as a government, are all about. We will always support and defend minority communities. We are very disappointed with this decision, and we encourage all members of the House to put pressure on the Ford government to change course.
Will the Prime Minister call Doug Ford directly to defend the Université de l'Ontario français and guarantee federal funding for it?
The question makes two concrete asks â a direct phone call from the Prime Minister to Doug Ford and a guarantee of federal funding â grounded in a specific policy context.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, Doug Ford et le Parti conservateur ont démontré leur ignorance concernant l'historique de résistance et de lutte pour les droits de la communauté franco-ontarienne. Leur attaque contre l'université francophone à Toronto est une attaque contre les droits des francophones partout au Canada. Est-ce que le premier ministre va téléphoner à Doug Ford directement pour défendre cette institution et garantir le financement fédéral pour développer l'Université de l'Ontario français?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Doug Ford and the Conservative Party have shown their ignorance of the Franco-Ontarian community's history of resistance and its struggle for rights. Their attack on the French-language university in Toronto is an attack on francophone rights across Canada. Will the Prime Minister call Doug Ford personally to stand up for this institution and guarantee federal funding to build a French-language university in Ontario?
Trudeau pays tribute to Mauril BĂ©langer and pledges to protect and defend francophone minorities against Conservative cuts, without addressing the specific asks.
Trudeau does not address either specific ask, instead invoking the memory of Mauril BĂ©langer and offering general statements about defending francophone minorities.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je ne peux penser à la défense des Franco-Ontariens et des autres minorités francophones au pays sans penser à notre trÚs cher ami Mauril Bélanger. Toute sa vie, il a été un ardent défenseur des communautés minoritaires de langue française. S'il était encore avec nous aujourd'hui, il serait un des premiers à gueuler pour défendre les droits des francophones. Nous gardons sa mémoire dans notre coeur lorsque nous luttons chaque jour pour protéger et défendre les minorités francophones contre les coupes des conservateurs.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of advocating for Franco-Ontarians and other francophone minorities in Canada without thinking about our dear friend Mauril BĂ©langer. He was a lifelong champion of French-language minority communities. If he were still with us today, he would be one of the first to speak up for francophone rights. He lives on in our hearts as we fight each day to protect and advocate for francophone minorities in response to the Conservatives' cuts.
Given that the law requires the chief statistician to inform the minister of new programs and the minister reportedly learned of this through media, will the government commit to stopping the collection of Canadians' personal banking data?
The question cites a specific legal requirement for the chief statistician to inform the minister, invokes that the minister claims to have learned via media, and makes a clear ask to stop the data collection.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans un autre dossier, la loi est claire: le statisticien en chef de Statistique Canada se doit d'informer le ministre de tout nouveau programme mis en place. Cependant, le ministre de l'Innovation dit avoir appris par les mĂ©dias l'existence de cette intrusion dans les comptes de banque des Canadiens. Le premier ministre doit agir et donner des instructions Ă son ministre pour qu'il fasse respecter la loi chez Statistique Canada. Est-ce que son gouvernement s'engage Ă arrĂȘter cette cueillette de donnĂ©es personnelles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on another issue, the law is clear. The chief statistician at Statistics Canada must inform the minister of any new program that is implemented. However, the Minister of Innovation says that he learned about this intrusion into Canadians' bank accounts via the media. The Prime Minister must act and instruct his minister on what to do to ensure that Statistics Canada obeys the law. Will his government commit to stopping this collection of personal information?
Statistics Canada has been engaged with the Privacy Commissioner regarding the pilot project, which has not yet been launched, and the government will protect privacy and promote evidence-based policy.
Trudeau notes Statistics Canada engaged the Privacy Commissioner and that the pilot has not launched, which is partially responsive, but deflects with a Conservative ideology attack and does not directly commit to stopping the program.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous prenons la vie privée des Canadiens au sérieux, tout comme Statistique Canada. En effet, Statistique Canada a communiqué avec le commissaire à la protection de la vie privée concernant ce projet pilote, qui n'a pas encore été lancé. Nous comprenons également l'importance de données fiables pour les Canadiens. Pendant 10 ans, les conservateurs ont gouverné le pays uniquement en fonction de leur idéologie. Nous en avons constaté les conséquences, notamment un taux de croissance historiquement bas. Nous continuerons de protéger la vie privée des Canadiens et de favoriser des politiques fondées sur des données probantes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we take Canadians' privacy very seriously, as does Statistics Canada. In fact, Statistics Canada has been in contact with the Privacy Commissioner about this pilot project, which has not yet been launched. We also understand the importance of reliable data for Canadians. For 10 years, the Conservatives governed only through ideology, and we witnessed the consequences of that, namely historically low economic growth. We will continue to protect the privacy of Canadians and promote evidence-based policy.
Given the legal requirement to notify citizens when their personal data is collected, when will the Prime Minister stop the project to collect Canadians' personal banking data?
The question references a specific legal obligation to notify citizens when personal data is collected and demands a clear commitment to stop the program, though it largely reiterates the previous exchange.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est grave: le gouvernement fouille dans les comptes de banque de milliers de Canadiens et de Canadiennes honnĂȘtes, et le premier ministre n'agit pas. J'aimerais lui rappeler qu'une institution fĂ©dĂ©rale est tenue d'informer le citoyen lorsqu'elle recueille de ses donnĂ©es personnelles. Le premier ministre doit faire tout en son pouvoir pour protĂ©ger la vie privĂ©e des citoyens. Quand le premier ministre arrĂȘtera-t-il son projet visant Ă recueillir les donnĂ©es personnelles des Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is serious. The government is snooping around in the bank accounts of thousands of honest Canadians, and the Prime Minister is doing nothing about it. I would remind him that federal institutions are required to notify citizens any time they collect personal information. The Prime Minister must do everything he can to protect the privacy of Canadians. When will the Prime Minister shut down his project to collect the personal data of Canadians?
The government will always protect Canadians' privacy and is working with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure data is collected properly before the pilot is implemented.
Trudeau reaffirms working with the Privacy Commissioner and that data must be fully protected before the pilot launches, but does not commit to cancelling the program and pivots to attacking Conservative opposition to the long-form census.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous allons toujours protĂ©ger la vie privĂ©e des Canadiens, c'est une prioritĂ© pour nous. C'est pourquoi nous travaillons avec le commissaire Ă la protection de la vie privĂ©e pour nous assurer que toutes les donnĂ©es sont recueillies de la bonne façon. Avant de mettre en oeuvre ce projet pilote, nous devons nous assurer que les donnĂ©es privĂ©es seront complĂštement protĂ©gĂ©es. Les conservateurs prĂ©tendent se soucier de la protection de la vie privĂ©e, mais les Canadiens voient clair dans leur jeu. Les conservateurs s'opposent encore au travail de Statistique Canada. RĂ©cemment, la leader Ă la Chambre de l'opposition officielle a mĂȘme indiquĂ© que les conservateurs s'opposaient toujours Ă la version longue du formulaire de recensement. Nous allons faire...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we will always protect the privacy of Canadians, as this is a priority for our government. That is why we are working with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that all data are collected appropriately. Before we launch this pilot project, we need to ensure that all personal data are fully protected. The Conservatives claim they care about privacy, but Canadians see right through them. The Conservatives continue to oppose the work done by Statistics Canada. The opposition House leader even indicated recently that the Conservatives still oppose the long-form census. We willâ
Statistics Canada sent a letter to banks ordering personal financial information before any public notification or plans were made public, apparently breaking the law â will the Prime Minister cancel this program?
The question cites a specific letter sent to banks ordering financial data before any public notification, characterizes it as apparent law-breaking, and makes a single clear ask to cancel the program.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us recap. A letter was sent from Statistics Canada to the banks, ordering them to provide the personal financial information of Canadians. This letter went out before any notification was made or any plans were made public. Statistics Canada appears to have broken the law, and the Prime Minister needs to step in and fix it. Will the Prime Minister fix this mess and cancel this program?
Statistics Canada has engaged with the Privacy Commissioner on the pilot project, which has not yet launched, and the government will protect privacy and promote evidence-based policy.
Trudeau repeats near-verbatim the same response about the Privacy Commissioner and the unlaunched pilot, then deflects to Conservative ideology and low growth, without addressing the letter or the legal allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we take the privacy of Canadians very seriously, and we expect Statistics Canada to do so as well. In fact, Statistics Canada has been engaged with the Privacy Commissioner in regard to this pilot project, which has not yet been launched. We also understand the importance of quality and reliable data to Canadians. During 10 years, the Conservatives ignored data and governed only through ideology. We witnessed the consequences: historically low economic growth while they were in power. We will continue to protect the privacy of Canadians and promote evidence-based policy.
The law requires 30-day advance notice to the minister and public disclosure of any mandatory Statistics Canada data request; given the minister admits he learned of this from media, will the Prime Minister cancel this unauthorized scheme?
The question cites two specific statutory requirements â 30-day advance ministerial notification and public disclosure of new data requests â and holds the government to the minister's own admission of learning from media reports.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he says that we are ignoring the data, but the fact is he is ignoring the question. The law says that the minister must be told of any mandatory request for data by Statistics Canada 30 days before it is made. It also says that any new request must be made public. According to the minister, he found out about this scheme to surveil Canadians from media reports. It looks as if Statistics Canada violated the law. Will the Prime Minister finally listen to the concerns of Canadians and cancel this unauthorized scheme?
Trudeau accuses the Conservatives of fearmongering similar to their justification for cancelling the long-form census and asserts the government works with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure Statistics Canada protects privacy.
Trudeau does not engage with either specific statutory provision or the minister's admission, instead accusing the Conservatives of fearmongering as with the long-form census and attacking their war on data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have heard this approach before from the Conservatives. It is the same kind of fearmongering and politicization they used in order to justify their cancellation of the long-form census. We understand how important it is to protect Canadians' privacy. We work with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that Statistics Canada always complies and protects Canadians' privacy. However, this war on data and on facts that continues to come from the Conservatives was rejected in 2015, and I know Canadians are going to reject it again.
The UN committee against torture found that forced sterilization of indigenous women constitutes torture and demanded an explanation for lack of reparations â will the Prime Minister take immediate action, stop this practice, and bring justice to the women affected?
The question references a specific UN committee against torture finding and its demand for reparations, frames the issue with urgency, and makes a concrete three-part ask regarding immediate action, stopping the practice, and justice.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today, the international community criticized Canada for human rights violations. The UN committee against torture made it clear that the forced sterilization of indigenous women constituted torture. The committee also demanded an explanation for the lack of reparations and sanctions. Let us be clear. This is what genocide looks like. How could Canada let this happen on our watch? Will the Prime Minister take immediate action, put a stop to this horrific act, and bring justice to the indigenous women and their families that were violated?
Trudeau acknowledges coerced sterilization as a serious human rights violation, cites systemic barriers facing indigenous patients, and references the TRC calls to action on cultural competency training for health workers.
Trudeau acknowledges coerced sterilization as a serious human rights violation and references the TRC calls to action on cultural competency training, but does not address reparations, sanctions, or commit to any immediate specific action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the coerced sterilization of some indigenous women is a serious violation of human rights. We know that indigenous patients can face systemic barriers in accessing services, including discrimination and racism. We all have a role to play to ensure that indigenous patients receive quality health care free of prejudice, including ensuring health workers receive cultural competency training as laid out in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. We will continue working with partners to ensure all indigenous peoples have access to culturally safe health services, no matter where they live in Canada.
Nearly a month after the Prime Minister announced a review of existing arms export permits to Saudi Arabia, what is the status of that review and when can a decision be expected?
The question is highly specific, citing Germany's definitive halt to arms sales as a benchmark, referencing the Prime Minister's own one-month-old announcement about reviewing existing export permits, and asking for a status update and decision timeline.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'Allemagne a définitivement cessé de vendre des armes à l'Arabie saoudite. C'est ce qu'on appelle du leadership. Ici, il y a prÚs d'un mois, le premier ministre a annoncé que le gouvernement était en train de revoir les permis d'exportation existants; non pas les futurs permis, mais les permis actuels. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut informer la Chambre du statut de la revue des permis actuels d'exportation d'armes vers l'Arabie saoudite et nous dire quand on peut s'attendre à une décision?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Germany has permanently stopped selling arms to Saudi Arabia. That is what leadership looks like. Nearly a month ago, our Prime Minister announced that the government was reviewing existing export permitsânot future permits, but existing permits. Can the Prime Minister update the House on the status of the review of existing permits to export arms to Saudi Arabia and tell us when we can expect a decision?
Canada expects exported goods to be used in accordance with human rights, is committed to a rigorous arms export system and the Arms Trade Treaty, and is studying existing export permits to Saudi Arabia.
Trudeau only restates that existing export permits to Saudi Arabia are under review, without providing any status update, timeline, or substantive new information beyond what was already publicly known.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous nous attendons à ce que les marchandises exportées par le Canada soient utilisées conformément aux droits de la personne, et nous l'exigeons. C'est pourquoi nous nous sommes engagés à respecter un systÚme d'exportation d'armes plus rigoureux et le Traité sur le commerce des armes. Comme je l'ai déjà dit, nous étudions les permis d'exportation existants vers l'Arabie saoudite.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we strongly demand and expect all Canadian exports to be used in a way that fully respects human rights. That is why we are committed to a more rigorous arms export system and to the Arms Trade Treaty. As I have already said, we are reviewing existing export permits to Saudi Arabia.
When can Canadians expect to see the new $10 bill featuring Viola Desmond in circulation?
This is a government-backbench softball asking only when the new $10 bill featuring Viola Desmond will be in circulation, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, de nombreuses femmes canadiennes incroyables ont contribuĂ© Ă façonner l'histoire du Canada. C'est donc une excellente nouvelle que nous reconnaissons les contributions de Viola Desmond en la mettant sur le nouveau billet de 10 $. Personnellement, j'Ă©tais trĂšs heureux de voir les enfants de l'Association de la communautĂ© noire de l'Ouest de l'Ăle monter une piĂšce de thĂ©Ăątre qui cĂ©lĂ©brait l'histoire de Viola Desmond. Le premier ministre peut-il informer la Chambre de la date Ă laquelle les Canadiens peuvent s'attendre Ă voir ces nouveaux billets en circulation?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, many amazing Canadian women have helped shape this country's history. It is great that we are recognizing Viola Desmond's contributions by putting her on the new $10 bill. Personally, I was delighted to see the children of the West Island Black Community Association put on a play that celebrated Viola Desmond's story. Would the Prime Minister tell the House when Canadians can expect to see these new bills in circulation?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie le dĂ©putĂ© de PierrefondsâDollard de sa question et de son travail acharnĂ©. Il y a deux ans, nous avons annoncĂ© qu'une femme canadienne figurerait sur un billet de banque en circulation rĂ©guliĂšre. AprĂšs un grand nombre de consultations partout au pays, nous Ă©tions fiers d'annoncer que la brave Viola Desmond figurera sur le nouveau billet de 10 dollars. Depuis cette semaine, ce nouveau billet est en circulation. Tous les Canadiens pourront trouver Viola dans leur portefeuille, et nous pouvons tous en ĂȘtre fiers.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for PierrefondsâDollard for his question and for his hard work. Two years ago, we announced that a Canadian woman would be featured on a regularly circulating bank note. Following extensive consultations across the country, we proudly announced that the brave Viola Desmond would be featured on the new $10 bill. The new bill went into circulation this week. All Canadians will be able to find Viola in their wallets, and we can all be proud of that.
The new $10 bill featuring Viola Desmond has been in circulation since that week.
Trudeau directly and completely answers the question, confirming the new bill has been in circulation since that week and providing relevant background on the consultation process.
Given that the Auditor General found the plan to buy used Australian F-18s would have minimal effect on fighter force operations, when will the Prime Minister eliminate this purchase?
The question cites the Auditor General's report specifically, characterizes the capability gap as a Liberal invention, and makes a direct ask to eliminate the Australian F-18 purchase.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les avions de chasse F-18 australiens seront un fardeau pour l'Aviation royale canadienne et pour tous les contribuables. Les libéraux ont inventé l'écart de capacité. Cela n'a jamais existé. Selon le vérificateur général, le plan libéral d'acheter les F-18 australiens usagés aura un effet minime sur les opérations de la force de chasse. Le premier ministre doit éliminer cet achat totalement inutile. Quand le fera-t-il?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Australian F-18 fighter jets will be a burden on the Royal Canadian Air Force and on all taxpayers. The Liberals invented this capability gap. It never existed. According to the Auditor General, the Liberals' plan to buy the used Australian jets will have a small effect on fighter force operations. The Prime Minister must cancel this completely useless purchase. When will he do so?
Trudeau claims the Auditor General's report confirms the capability gap was created under the Conservatives and that the government launched an open and transparent competition to replace the aging CF-18s.
Trudeau thanks the Auditor General but contradicts the question's characterization by claiming the report confirms a capability gap under the Conservatives, pivots to the open competition, and does not address the specific ask to cancel the Australian purchase.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je tiens d'abord à remercier le vérificateur général de ses recommandations. Le rapport confirme ce que nous avons toujours su, soit que les conservateurs ont mal géré le dossier et qu'ils ont induit les Canadiens en erreur. Le rapport confirme l'existence d'une lacune de capacité créée sous les conservateurs. Nous ne mettrons pas en péril notre capacité à respecter nos engagements envers l'OTAN et le NORAD. C'est pourquoi nous avons lancé un concours ouvert et transparent en vue de remplacer la flotte vieillissante de CF-18, ce que les conservateurs n'ont pas réussi à faire en une décennie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Auditor General for his recommendations. The report confirmed what we have known all along, that the Conservatives mismanaged this file and misled Canadians. The report confirmed that a capability gap exists, having started under the Conservatives. We will not compromise our ability to meet our NATO and NORAD commitments. This is why we launched an open and transparent competition to replace our aging CF-18 fleet, which the Conservatives did not manage to do in the decade they were in power.
Given the Auditor General trashed the Prime Minister's fighter jet plan, will the Prime Minister cancel the Australian jet deal and stop spending billions to keep the aging fighter fleet on life support?
The question references the Auditor General trashing the fighter jet plan but is laden with partisan rhetoric â references to ISIS withdrawal, Cuban missile crisis, and the word 'asinine' â diluting its accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, no one believes the Prime Minister for a second. That is a guy who pulled our CF-18s out of the fight against ISIS. Now he wants them to fly around like we are dealing with the Cuban missile crisis. The Auditor General trashed the Prime Minister's fighter jet plan. Instead of following the Auditor General's recommendations and scrapping his outrageous plan to buy old, obsolete Aussie jets, the Prime Minister betrayed our air force by rushing out to finalize the deal. Will the Prime Minister stop spending billions to keep our aging fight fleet on life support, cancel this asinine Australian dealâ
The Auditor General's report confirms the Conservatives mismanaged the jets file and that a capability gap exists, and the government launched an open and transparent competition to replace the aging CF-18s.
Trudeau repeats nearly the identical response from Exchange 25, claiming the Auditor General confirmed the capability gap under Harper and touting the open competition, without addressing the specific ask to cancel the Australian deal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Auditor General for his important recommendations, which actually confirm what we have always known: The Conservatives mismanaged the jets file and misled Canadians for more than a decade. The report confirms the existence of a capability gap, which started under the Harper Conservatives. Unlike the Conservatives, we will not compromise our ability to meet our NATO and NORAD commitments. That is why we launched an open and transparent competition to replace the aging CF-18s, something the Conservatives could not get done in a decade.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that no current or former cabinet ministers have unlawfully released cabinet confidence information?
The question asks a single clear yes/no question about whether any cabinet minister has unlawfully released cabinet confidence information, grounded in the principle of ministerial accountability for classified information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians must have confidence in the security of the nation. To earn that confidence, the government must reassure Canadians that the highest authorities in the country, ministers of cabinet, protect the information with which they are entrusted, and Canadians need to know when that trust has been breached. Will the Prime Minister confirm that no members of the current or previous cabinet have unlawfully released cabinet confidence information?
The Prime Minister says it would be inappropriate to comment because this is an issue at the centre of a current ongoing court case.
Trudeau declines to answer citing an ongoing court case, which is a legally defensible reason but does not substantively address the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, because this is an issue of a current ongoing court case, it would be inappropriate for me to comment.
Did a current or former cabinet minister unlawfully release cabinet confidence information, and will the Prime Minister confirm that Canada's national secrets are protected at the highest levels?
The follow-up clarifies that it is not about the ongoing case but about a broader assurance that Canada's secrets are protected at the highest levels, making a direct and specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was not commenting on an ongoing case. I was asking a very important question of the Prime Minister. Canadians need to know that the secrets of the nation are protected at the highest levels and that the Prime Minister will react swiftly and appropriately when Canada's security has been compromised. Did a current or former cabinet minister unlawfully release cabinet confidence information?
Trudeau again says these questions are at the centre of an ongoing court case and that the government respects the independence of the judiciary by not commenting.
Trudeau again invokes the ongoing court case as justification for non-answer, without acknowledging the member's clarification that she was asking a broader question, and cites respect for judicial independence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite well knows, these exact questions are at the centre of an ongoing court case. We respect the independence of the judiciary on this side of the House. We will ensure that we continue to respect that by not commenting on this ongoing court case.
Given the Auditor General's report shows the CRA is more lenient toward wealthy multinationals with suspicious foreign transactions than ordinary citizens, will the Prime Minister acknowledge he has not kept his promise on tax fairness?
The question cites the Auditor General's report finding that the CRA is more lenient toward wealthy multinationals and foreign transactions than ordinary citizens, and asks the Prime Minister to acknowledge this as a broken promise on tax fairness.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cela fait maintenant trois ans que le premier ministre nous répÚte, la main sur le coeur, qu'il travaille à instaurer un systÚme fiscal plus juste et équitable. Pourtant, le rapport du vérificateur général nous apprend que l'Agence du revenu du Canada est plus clémente envers les riches multinationales et envers ceux qui font des transactions douteuses à l'étranger qu'envers les citoyens ordinaires. Surprise! Les libéraux continuent d'entretenir un régime fiscal à deux vitesses: une vitesse pour les riches amis des libéraux et une vitesse pour tous les autres. Le premier ministre va-t-il enfin reconnaßtre qu'il n'a pas tenu sa promesse et que le rapport du vérificateur général est un constat d'échec sur toute la ligne en matiÚre de justice fiscale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for three years now, the Prime Minister has been telling us, with his hand on his heart, that he is working on implementing a fairer and more equitable tax system. However, according to the Auditor General's report, the Canada Revenue Agency is more lenient with wealthy multinational corporations and those who conduct suspicious transactions abroad than it is with ordinary citizens. Surprise, surprise. The Liberals are maintaining a two-tiered tax system, one for the Liberals' wealthy friends and another for everyone else. Will the Prime Minister finally recognize that he did not keep his promise and that the Auditor General's report shows that his government's attempts to achieve tax fairness have been a complete failure?
The CRA will review its internal processes to ensure consistency, and since taking power the Agency has completed more than double the foreign audits done under the previous Conservative government.
Trudeau thanks the Auditor General, states the CRA will review internal processes for consistency, and cites a doubling of foreign audits since taking office, which partially engages the substance but does not address whether the promise was broken.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous remercions le vérificateur général de son rapport. Nous demeurons résolus à faire en sorte que tous les Canadiens soient traités justement et que tous paient leur juste part. L'Agence du revenu du Canada examinera ses processus internes pour assurer l'uniformité du travail lié à l'observation fiscale. Depuis notre arrivée au pouvoir, l'Agence a complété au-dessus du double des vérifications à l'étranger que cela n'a été fait sous l'ancien gouvernement conservateur. Grùce à nos investissements, l'Agence peut maintenant déceler ceux qui s'adonnent à l'évasion fiscale et à l'évitement fiscal agressif et faire en sorte qu'ils en subissent les conséquences.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we thank the Auditor General for his report. We are committed to ensuring that all Canadians are treated fairly and that they all pay their fair share. The CRA will review internal processes to ensure that compliance work is consistent. Since we took office, the CRA has completed twice as many offshore compliance audits than it did under the previous Conservative government. Thanks to our investments, the CRA can now identify those involved in tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance and ensure they face the consequences of their actions.
Will the Prime Minister commit to providing caregivers permanent resident status on arrival, as called for by experts and caregiver advocates, rather than continuing delays?
The question references a specific report released that week by migrant workers' rights groups, notes months of delay, and makes a concrete ask for permanent resident status on arrival for caregivers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration has left families and caregivers in the dark for months on what will replace the current caregiver program. This week, migrant workers' rights groups released a report calling on the minister to ensure caregivers would finally be given the respect and security they deserve. Experts and caregivers have been clear for decades. If they are good enough to work here, they are good enough to stay. There should be no more delay tactics. Will the Prime Minister do what is right and commit to providing caregivers permanent resident status on arrival?
The government is proud of improvements to the immigration system and the immigration minister is working with immigration and advocacy groups to respond to their concerns.
Trudeau offers only vague praise of immigration system reforms and defers to the immigration minister working with advocacy groups, without addressing the specific request for permanent resident status on arrival.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the improvements and reforms we have made to the immigration system to make it fairer, to make it better and to respect the rights and protect the rights of anyone coming to Canada. We recognize there is more work to do, but we also need to make sure we are maintaining the confidence that Canadians have in our immigration system. That is why our immigration minister is working so hard with a broad range of immigration and advocacy groups to respond to their concerns to make Canada's immigration system continue to be the example to the world that it is.
The member asks whether the Prime Minister will close the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement and withdraw from the UN global compact on migration, citing roughly 38,000 irregular crossings from the United States.
Cites a specific figure (38 000 personnes) and makes two distinct asks â closing the loophole in the safe third country agreement and withdrawing from the UN compact â but the compound ask and partisan framing reduce sharpness.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les frontiĂšres existent pour une raison. Elles assurent la sĂ©curitĂ© des Canadiens et requiĂšrent une immigration planifiĂ©e et ordonnĂ©e. Le Parti conservateur n'accepte pas que le Canada signe le Pacte mondial pour les migrations de l'ONU Ă©tant donnĂ© que le premier ministre permet Ă prĂšs de 38 000 personnes d'entrer illĂ©galement au Canada en provenance des Ătats-Unis, dĂ©gradant nos frontiĂšres et notre systĂšme d'octroi d'asile. Le premier ministre va-t-il s'engager Ă combler la lacune dans l'Entente sur les tiers pays sĂ»rs et Ă se retirer du Pacte mondial pour les migrations de l'ONU?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, borders exist for a reason. They keep Canadians safe and require planned, orderly immigration. The Conservative Party does not support Canada signing the UN's global compact for migration since the Prime Minister is allowing nearly 38,000 people to enter Canada illegally from the United States, thereby undermining the integrity of our borders and our asylum system. Will the Prime Minister commit to fixing the problem with the safe third country agreement and withdraw from the UN's global compact for migration?
The Prime Minister refuses to withdraw from the UN global compact, arguing Canada has a robust immigration system and applies all laws to irregular arrivals, but does not address the safe third country loophole.
The Prime Minister directly addresses the compact withdrawal question with a clear refusal, but ignores the specific ask about the Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs loophole entirely.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous n'allons pas nous retirer du pacte mondial sur la protection des immigrants de l'ONU. C'est essentiel de continuer Ă dĂ©montrer notre respect envers les systĂšmes d'immigration et Ă dĂ©montrer que nous comprenons qu'il faut accroĂźtre l'immigration et accepter davantage de rĂ©fugiĂ©s de partout au monde. Notre pays a Ă©tĂ© bĂąti grĂące Ă l'acceptation de ceux qui venaient ici pour bĂątir une meilleure vie. La population est positivement encline Ă l'immigration, parce qu'elle sait que nous avons un systĂšme robuste et sĂ»r. MĂȘme dans le cas des arrivants irrĂ©guliers, nous continuons Ă appliquer Ă la lettre toutes les lois et nos principes en immigration.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to withdraw from the UN's global compact on migration. It is essential that we continue to show our respect for immigration systems and show that we understand the need to increase immigration and take in even more refugees from around the world. We built our country by accepting those who came here seeking to build a better life. Canadians are positively inclined toward immigration because they know we have a robust and secure system. Even in the case of irregular arrivals, we continue to enforce every law to the letter and apply our immigration principles.
The member cites a specific directive in the UN global compact to 'sensitize the media' on migration, argues the Prime Minister bullies critics, and asks whether Canada will withdraw from the agreement and close the safe third country loophole.
Raises a specific provision of the UN global compact (directing countries to 'sensitize the media') and repeats the two-part ask, but the framing is heavily rhetorical and the media-sensitization point is asserted without a document citation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, people who have reached the safety of upstate New York are not the world's most vulnerable people. The UN global compact on migration directs the countries to âsensitize the mediaâ on what to say with regard to immigration. Given that the Prime Minister disparages, name calls, bullies anyone who dares to question his severe inability to manage Canada's borders or manage the integrity of our asylum system, the Conservatives oppose the signing of this agreement. Will the Prime Minister withdraw Canada from this agreement and close the loophole in the safe third country agreement?
The Prime Minister describes unprecedented global displacement, touts Canada's leadership on the global compact, and accuses the Conservatives of spreading Rebel Media conspiracy theories, without addressing the media-sensitization clause or the withdrawal question.
The Prime Minister does not address the media-sensitization provision, does not answer the withdrawal question, and instead attacks the Conservatives for 'peddling Rebel Media conspiracy theories,' which is deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the world is seeing unprecedented levels of men, women and children displaced by war and by persecution. Our government is proud to have taken a leadership role on the global compact. This is the first time the international community has worked together to develop a comprehensive set of principles to better manage this phenomenon. It is disappointing to see the Conservatives engage in peddling Rebel Media conspiracy theories, while we work with the international community to protect our robust immigration system.
The member quotes the Auditor General's finding that CRA did not consistently apply tax rules and gave special breaks on offshore transactions to some, and asks why there is one set of rules for regular Canadians and another for the Prime Minister's wealthy Liberal friends.
Quotes directly from the Auditor General's report, references the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and identifies the specific finding about offshore transactions receiving special breaks, though the closing question broadens into partisan rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General confirmed what Canadians have known for years, that tax rules are not applied fairly. He said: ....the Canada Revenue Agency did not consistently apply tax rules....even though the Taxpayer Bill of Rights includes the right to have the law applied consistently. The report also said that those with offshore transactions were given special breaks that were denied to ordinary Canadians. Why is there one set of rules for regular Canadians and another set of rules for people like the Prime Minister's rich Liberal friends?
The Prime Minister thanks the Auditor General, commits to CRA reviewing internal processes for consistency, notes the report covered Conservative years in office, and claims twice as many offshore compliance audits since 2015.
The Prime Minister acknowledges the Auditor General's report and commits to CRA process reviews, and cites twice as many offshore compliance audits since taking office, but does not address the specific finding about inconsistent application of tax rules for offshore transactions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we thank the Auditor General for this report. We are committed to ensuring that all Canadians are treated fairly and that they all pay their fair share. The CRA will review internal processes, definitions and procedures to ensure that compliance work is consistent. It is interesting to note that the Auditor General's report also covered the last years of the Conservative Party in office. That is why, since we took office, the CRA has completed twice as many offshore compliance audits than under the Conservatives. Thanks to our unprecedented investments, the CRA can now identify those involved in tax evasion and aggressive avoidance and ensure they face consequences better than they did under the Conservative government.
The member asks the Prime Minister to inform the House of the government's investment in the future of space technologies, citing the sector's $2.3 billion contribution to the economy and roughly 10,000 jobs.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the Prime Minister to 'inform the Chambre' of a space technology investment, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre secteur spatial offre des emplois de qualité à la classe moyenne et des innovations qui améliorent la vie quotidienne des Canadiens. Plus de 100 entreprises et organisations spatiales contribuent pour 2,3 milliards de dollars à l'économie et emploient prÚs de 10 000 Canadiens. Un environnement propre et une économie forte vont de pair. Les images satellite sont un élément de la lutte du Canada contre les changements climatiques. Le premier ministre peut-il informer la Chambre de l'investissement du gouvernement dans l'avenir des technologies spatiales?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our space sector gives us good middle-class jobs and innovations that improve Canadians' day-to-day lives. Over 100 space-related businesses and organizations contribute $2.3 billion to the economy and employ nearly 10,000 Canadians. A clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. Satellite images are important to Canada's fight against climate change. Would the Prime Minister tell the House how the government is investing in the future of space technology?
Monsieur le Président, je remercie le député d'Alfred-Pellan de son travail et de son soutien aux industries de sa région. Nous sommes fiers d'avoir annoncé un investissement de 13 millions de dollars dans NorthStar Earth and Space. Ces fonds aideront NorthStar à révolutionner notre façon de voir le monde. Les meilleures images satellite permettront d'améliorer les prévisions météorologiques et la surveillance en cas de catastrophe industrielle ou écologique. NorthStar est un exemple stimulant d'une compagnie canadienne innovante. Notre investissement continuera à maintenir la place du Québec à l'avant-garde des technologies de l'information de pointe.
Hansard translation: I thank the member for Alfred-Pellan for his work and for supporting industries in his region. We are proud to have announced a $13-million investment in NorthStar Earth and Space. The funding will help NorthStar revolutionize the way we see the world. Better satellite images will improve weather forecasting and tracking of events on Earth such as industrial and ecological disasters. NorthStar is an exciting example of an innovative Canadian company. Our investment will ensure that Quebec remains at the forefront of advanced information technology.
The Prime Minister announces a $13 million investment in NorthStar Earth and Space, explaining it will improve weather forecasting and industrial and ecological disaster surveillance, and highlights Quebec's role in advanced information technologies.
The Prime Minister provides a specific investment figure ($13 million in NorthStar Earth and Space), names the recipient company, and describes concrete expected outcomes including improved weather forecasting and disaster surveillance.
The member notes E. coli cases from romaine lettuce have been occurring for over a month, that the CDC ordered U.S. grocery stores to pull the product, and asks why the Liberals have not issued a recall to protect Canadians.
Cites a specific timeline (over a month), references CDC action in the United States as a comparator, and asks a clear accountability question about why a recall has not been issued for romaine lettuce contaminated with E. coli.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the safety of the food that Canadians eat should be a top priority for any government. Cases of E. coli have been occurring for over a month in Canada by people who consume romaine lettuce. Just now, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States has ordered grocery stores to pull this contaminated product. It took over a month for the Liberals just to inform Canadians that the lettuce they were eating might not be safe. Why have the Liberals not issued a recall to protect Canadians?
The Prime Minister states the government is collaborating with provincial health authorities and U.S. CDC and FDA, advises people in Ontario and Quebec to avoid romaine lettuce, and promises to keep Canadians informed, but does not explain the delay or address the recall question.
The Prime Minister confirms collaboration with provincial and U.S. authorities and issues a public health advisory for Ontario and Quebec residents, but does not explain the timeline delay or address why Canada has not issued a recall as the United States did.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, protecting the health and safety of Canadians is our government's top priority. We are collaborating with provincial health authorities, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FDA in the United States, to investigate the outbreak of E. coli infections linked to romaine lettuce in Ontario and Quebec. People in Ontario and Quebec should avoid eating romaine lettuce and salad mixes containing romaine lettuce until the cause of contamination is known. We will continue to keep Canadians informed as new information becomes available.
The member asks whether the Prime Minister will side with safety and the community and maintain the night service at the Rouyn airport's flight information station, noting that NAV CANADA has already recommended its closure and is only holding additional consultations despite the minister claiming a new study was requested.
Identifies a specific airport (Rouyn), a specific service (service de nuit de la station d'information de vol), a named organization (NAV CANADA), and a factual tension between the minister's claimed study and NAV CANADA's stated position, making this a reasonably grounded accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, quand le premier ministre est venu dans ma circonscription, plusieurs intervenants lui ont dit directement Ă quel point le maintien du service de nuit de la station d'information de vol Ă l'aĂ©roport de Rouyn Ă©tait crucial, mĂȘme si NAV CANADA a dĂ©jĂ recommandĂ© sa fermeture. Le ministre des Transports dit avoir demandĂ© une nouvelle Ă©tude auprĂšs de NAV CANADA, mais de son cĂŽtĂ©, NAV CANADA a dĂ©jĂ pris sa dĂ©cision et affirme seulement tenir des consultations additionnelles. Le premier ministre va-t-il se ranger du cĂŽtĂ© de la sĂ©curitĂ© et de la population et maintenir le service de nuit Ă l'aĂ©roport?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister visited my riding, several stakeholders explained to him how crucial it is that overnight services be maintained at the Rouyn-Noranda flight service station, even though Nav Canada has already recommended shutting down those services. The Minister of Transport said he has asked Nav Canada to do another study, but it seems that Nav Canada has already made up its mind and will confirm only that it is doing additional consultations. Will the Prime Minister stand in favour of safety and side with local residents and maintain the airport's overnight services?
The Prime Minister says he was pleased to visit Rouyn-Noranda, that safety is a priority, that the minister is working with NAV CANADA, and that no decision has been taken and cancelling night flights is not under consideration.
The Prime Minister affirms that no decision has been taken and that cancelling night flights is not under consideration, which partially addresses the ask, but does not explain what specific steps are being taken or resolve the contradiction between the minister's position and NAV CANADA's.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'étais trÚs content de visiter Rouyn-Noranda et d'écouter directement les préoccupations des citoyens. La sécurité et la sûreté du réseau de transport sont une priorité pour notre gouvernement. Le ministre et son ministÚre travaillent avec NAV CANADA sur ce dossier, afin de veiller à ce que les opérations à cet aéroport soient sécuritaires. Aucune décision n'a été prise, mais il n'est nullement question d'annuler les vols de nuit.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to visit Rouyn-Noranda and hear directly from citizens about their concerns. The safety and security of the transportation network remains a priority for our government. The minister and his department are working with Nav Canada on this file to ensure the safety of operations at that airport. No decisions have been made, but no one is talking about cancelling night flights.
The member asks the Prime Minister to explain how the government's poverty reduction strategy will help families in her riding who are working hard to join the middle class.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the Prime Minister to explain the poverty reduction strategy, with no accountability dimension and no specific challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding where many constituents are working hard to join the middle class, but are finding it difficult. The cost of everything from food to rent continues to rise, and wages do not always keep pace. They need to make difficult choices every day. They work hard, but find it challenging to get ahead. Could the Prime Minister please explain how the government's poverty reduction strategy will help families like those in Scarborough Centre?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Scarborough Centre for her hard work and for speaking up on behalf of Canadians working hard to join the middle class. We have invested $22 billion in the fight against poverty. Programs like the Canada child benefit and more generous benefits for seniors have helped lift 650,000 Canadians out of poverty. We know there is still more to do. We indexed the CCB. We are introducing the Canada workers benefit and the Canada housing benefit. We have a plan for achieving the lowest level of poverty in Canada's history.
The Prime Minister states the government has invested $22 billion to fight poverty, that the Canada child benefit and senior benefits have lifted 650,000 Canadians out of poverty, and that the Canada workers benefit and Canada housing benefit are being introduced to achieve the lowest level of poverty in Canada's history.
The Prime Minister cites a specific investment figure ($22 billion), a specific outcome (650,000 Canadians lifted out of poverty), and names specific programs (Canada child benefit, Canada workers benefit, Canada housing benefit), providing substantive information.
The member notes this is the third time in under a year the Public Health Agency of Canada has warned about romaine lettuce, that 18 E. coli cases were confirmed in Canada since mid-October with a one-month delay before a government alert, and asks why Canada has not issued a recall as the United States has done.
Cites this being the third occurrence in under a year, specifies 18 confirmed E. coli cases since mid-October, identifies a one-month delay before a government alert, and points to U.S. recall action as a concrete comparator, making this a well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on joue avec la santĂ© des Canadiens en ce moment. C'est la troisiĂšme fois en moins d'un an que l'Agence de santĂ© publique du Canada demande aux Canadiens d'Ă©viter la laitue romaine. AprĂšs deux fois dans la mĂȘme annĂ©e, il me semble qu'on devrait suivre la situation de plus prĂšs. Or voilĂ qu'on apprend que, depuis la mi-octobre, 18 cas d'infection Ă E. coli ont Ă©tĂ© confirmĂ©s au Canada. Cela a pris un mois avant que le gouvernement libĂ©ral dĂ©cide d'Ă©mettre une nouvelle alerte. Les Ătats-Unis ont dĂ©cidĂ© de procĂ©der Ă un rappel de la laitue romaine contaminĂ©e pour protĂ©ger leurs citoyens. Pourquoi le Canada ne le fait-il pas? Pourquoi le premier ministre joue-t-il avec la santĂ© des Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government is playing fast and loose with Canadians' health. For the third time in under a year, the Canadian Public Health Agency is telling Canadians to avoid romaine lettuce. After the second time in one year, the government should have been monitoring the situation more closely. Now we have learned that there have been 18 confirmed cases of E. coli in Canada since mid-October. It took one month for the Liberal government to issue a new alert. The United States decided to recall the contaminated romaine lettuce to protect Americans. Why is Canada not recalling the lettuce? Why is the Prime Minister playing fast and loose with Canadians' health?
The Prime Minister reaffirms collaboration with provincial health authorities and U.S. counterparts, repeats the advisory for people in Ontario and Quebec to avoid romaine lettuce, and says Canadians will be kept informed.
The Prime Minister restates collaboration with provincial and U.S. authorities and repeats the advisory for Ontario and Quebec, but does not address the one-month delay, the absence of a recall, or why Canada has not followed the U.S. approach â essentially repeating the previous answer.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous allons toujours protĂ©ger la santĂ© et la sĂ©curitĂ© des Canadiens. Nous collaborons avec les autoritĂ©s sanitaires provinciales ainsi qu'avec les autoritĂ©s aux Ătats-Unis pour faire enquĂȘte sur une Ă©closion d'infection Ă E. coli liĂ©e Ă la laitue romaine. Les gens de l'Ontario et du QuĂ©bec devraient Ă©viter de consommer de la laitue romaine et les mĂ©langes de laitues qui en contiennent, jusqu'Ă ce qu'on connaisse la cause de cette contamination. Nous continuerons de tenir les Canadiens au courant de la situation.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we will always protect Canadians' health and safety. We are working with provincial health officials and with American authorities to investigate an E. coli outbreak connected to romaine lettuce. Ontarians and Quebeckers should avoid consuming romaine lettuce and lettuce mixes containing romaine until we know the cause of this contamination. We will continue to keep Canadians informed about the situation.
The member asks whether the Prime Minister still believes Canada is a sovereign country that must protect its borders and identity, citing the government's planned 40% increase in immigration levels and its intention to sign the UN global compact on regular migration.
Mentions a specific planned increase (40% in immigration numbers) and references the UN compact, but the closing yes/no question about whether Canada is a sovereign country is unanswerable by design and shifts the exchange into pure rhetorical territory.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has been unable to solve the illegal migrants crisis. It plans to increase, by 40%, the number of immigrants we accept, and it is about to sign the global compact on regular migration, a United Nations plan to make mass migration normal and easier. Will the Prime Minister tell us if he still believes that Canada is a sovereign country that must protect its borders and its identity, yes or no?
The Prime Minister argues that Canadians are largely positive toward immigration, that immigration has built the country and drives economic growth, and that all immigration rules apply and are enforced for both regular and irregular arrivals.
The Prime Minister speaks to Canada's positive attitude toward immigration and the importance of enforcing immigration rules for regular and irregular arrivals, but does not address the 40% increase claim, the global compact specifically, or the sovereignty question posed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada is extraordinarily fortunate to be one of the few places in the world these days whose citizens are, for the most part, positive toward immigration. We know that immigration is a source of strength and resilience and has indeed created this country and its economic growth over the past decades. We know that continuing to defend a strong immigration system that follows the rules, that imposes our rules and our expectations, is important to Canadians. That is what we are doing. Whether people arrive regularly or irregularly, all the rules around our immigration system apply and are enforced.