Session overview
- The dominant theme of the session was the SNC-Lavalin affair, with Andrew Scheer (CPC), Guy Caron and Charlie Angus (NDP) pressing the Prime Minister repeatedly on whether he or his office interfered with the director of public prosecutions' September 4, 2018 decision not to grant SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement.
- The Prime Minister refused to answer yes-or-no questions about whether he ever expressed support for granting SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement, repeatedly invoking cabinet confidentiality, the independence of the judiciary, and job creation as deflections.
- Opposition parties demanded a public inquiry and called for solicitor-client privilege to be waived so the former attorney general could testify; the Prime Minister said he had asked the Attorney General for advice on waiving privilege, citing danger of unintended consequences on two ongoing court cases.
- The resignation of principal secretary Gerald Butts and the reported December 5 meeting between Butts and the former attorney general at the ChĂąteau Laurier were central points of questioning, with opposition members pressing for Butts to testify under oath at the justice committee.
- On natural resources, NDP members challenged the Prime Minister on broken promises regarding fossil fuel subsidies and a climate change review for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion; the Prime Minister defended the process as following court direction.
- Substantive announcements included budget 2019 to be tabled on March 19 (Minister of Finance), a $40-million investment in BlackBerry QNX for automotive innovation creating 800 jobs, 25 more beds at Camp Hill in Halifax for allied and modern-day veterans, and a commitment to respond on funding for the White Pine Healing lodge in Akwesasne.
The Prime Minister made a concrete and specific commitment â the first of the session â acknowledging the solicitor-client privilege issue directly and disclosing that he had asked the Attorney General for advice on how to proceed so that people could speak, while identifying the specific constraint of unintended consequences on two ongoing court cases.
Explicitly frames the question as a yes-or-no ask about a non-speculative, documented fact â whether the Prime Minister knew of the DPP decision at the time of the September 17 meeting â achieving maximum specificity.
When asked directly what Gerald Butts was 'moving forward' from if nothing improper happened, the Prime Minister responded with an entirely unrelated recitation of Canada child benefit, middle-class tax cuts, the upcoming budget, and criticism of Stephen Harper, without addressing the logical contradiction at the heart of the question.
Outstanding questions
- Who asked for the September 17, 2018 meeting between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general â asked by Andrew Scheer across Exchanges 1, 2, and 3, never answered.
- Was the Prime Minister aware of the director of public prosecutions' September 4 decision when he met with the former attorney general on September 17 â asked by Andrew Scheer in Exchanges 4 and 5, never answered.
- Who asked for the December 5 meeting between Gerald Butts and the former attorney general at a hotel in downtown Ottawa â asked by Andrew Scheer in Exchange 31, never answered.
- Did the Prime Minister ask Gerald Butts to resign â asked by Andrew Scheer in Exchange 32, not directly answered; the Prime Minister referred only to Butts' statement.
- Will the Prime Minister waive solicitor-client privilege to allow the former attorney general to give her version of events â asked by Ruth Ellen Brosseau in Exchange 16 and Murray Rankin in Exchange 17; the Prime Minister said only that advice had been sought from the Attorney General, without committing to waive privilege.
Scheer cites the DPP's September 4 ruling against a special deal for SNC-Lavalin and the Prime Minister's September 17 meeting with the former attorney general, asking who requested that meeting.
Cites the specific September 4 DPP ruling and September 17 meeting, and asks a single, direct, answerable question: who requested that meeting?
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on a appris ce matin dans la presse que la directrice des poursuites pĂ©nales a informĂ© SNC-Lavalin, le 4 septembre 2018, quâil nây aurait pas dâentente spĂ©ciale pour Ă©viter un procĂšs. Le premier ministre a niĂ© avoir rencontrĂ© lâancienne procureure gĂ©nĂ©rale le 17 septembre 2018, soit deux semaines plus tard, pour lui parler de ce dossier. Qui a demandĂ© cette rencontre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the media reported this morning that the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin on September 4, 2018, that the company would not be getting a special deal that would allow it to avoid prosecution. The Prime Minister has denied having met with the former attorney general two weeks later on September 17, 2018, to discuss this matter. Who asked for this meeting?
Trudeau pledges to stand up for jobs and respect judicial integrity, without addressing who requested the September 17 meeting.
Trudeau does not address who requested the meeting at all, offering only general boilerplate about jobs and judicial integrity.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je veux assurer aux Canadiens quâen tout temps, nous allons assumer la responsabilitĂ© que nous avons de dĂ©fendre les emplois au Canada, de crĂ©er de la croissance et de continuer de nous assurer que tous les Canadiens ont accĂšs aux meilleurs emplois possibles. Par contre, nous allons toujours faire cela en assurant lâintĂ©gritĂ© de notre systĂšme de justice et en suivant toutes les rĂšgles et toutes les normes en place. Nous savons trĂšs bien quâil faut ĂȘtre Ă la hauteur des attentes des Canadiens et quâil faut continuer Ă l'ĂȘtre tout en respectant nos institutions, et câest ce que nous avons toujours fait.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure Canadians that we are going to fulfill our responsibilities by standing up for jobs in Canada, creating growth, and continuing to make sure that all Canadians have access to the best possible jobs. We will do so, however, by always upholding the integrity of our justice system and complying with all the rules and standards in place. We know that we need to meet Canadians' expectations consistently while respecting our institutions, and that is what we have always done.
Scheer insists on knowing whether it was the Prime Minister or the former attorney general who requested the September 17 meeting, presenting it as a straightforward binary question.
Repeats the precise factual timeline (DPP ruling September 4, meeting September 17) and forces a binary choice â Prime Minister or former attorney general â making it maximally specific and answerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that was not the question. The question was who asked for the meeting between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general. We know that meeting took place on September 17. The director of public prosecutions ruled on September 4 that SNC-Lavalin would not be entitled to a special deal. Once again, who asked for the meeting? Was it the Prime Minister or the former attorney general?
Trudeau defers to the Ethics Commissioner and justice committee processes and contrasts himself with the Leader of the Opposition, without answering who requested the meeting.
Trudeau again ignores the binary question entirely, pivoting to praise for the Ethics Commissioner and justice committee and a contrast with the Leader of the Opposition.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we look forward to the work that both the Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee of parliamentarians will be doing on this matter, but I can assure all Canadians that unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we will always stand up for good jobs right across this country, every step of the way, while making sure we respect the independence of our judicial system.
Scheer again cites the two key dates and presses the binary question of who requested the September 17 meeting, adding that the Prime Minister is not acting like someone who is innocent of serious allegations.
Maintains sharp factual framing with the September 4 and September 17 dates and the binary choice, though the rhetorical jab about innocence slightly dilutes pure accountability focus.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is certainly not acting like someone who is innocent of these serious allegations. Once again, on September 17, he admitted that he had a meeting with the former attorney general. Canada's top prosecutor had already decided, with her independent analysis, that SNC-Lavalin was not entitled to a special deal. Once again, who asked for the meeting? There are only two options. It was either the Prime Minister or the former attorney general. Which was it?
Trudeau says meetings with cabinet ministers are covered by cabinet confidentiality and that the government stands up for Canadians and institutions, without answering who requested the meeting.
Trudeau invokes cabinet confidentiality as a partial rationale but still does not answer who requested the meeting, pivoting instead to standing up for jobs and institutions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will not be apologetic for standing up consistently for good Canadian jobs and for standing up for the independence of our judicial system and the important processes in place. Of course the meetings that I have with any member of cabinet are covered by cabinet confidentiality, but members can be sure that every step of the way we both stand up for Canadians and look to serve them and stand up for our institutions that keep us all safe in this country.
Scheer asks specifically whether the Prime Minister knew about the DPP's September 4 decision not to grant SNC-Lavalin a special deal when he met with the former attorney general on September 17.
Introduces a new, precise, answerable question â whether the Prime Minister was aware of the DPP's September 4 decision when he met with the former attorney general on September 17 â grounded in documented facts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I note that he cannot answer that simple question. The decision by the top prosecutor in Canada not to grant SNC-Lavalin a special deal was made on September 4. On September 17, the Prime Minister met with the former attorney general. Was the Prime Minister aware of the director of public prosecution's decision when he had that meeting?
Trudeau reiterates the government's commitment to jobs and judicial independence and cites two ongoing court cases as a reason not to comment further, without answering the question.
Trudeau does not address whether he was aware of the DPP decision, instead restating the dual mandate of jobs and judicial independence and citing ongoing court cases as a reason not to comment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way we take very seriously the responsibility of defending good jobs right across this country, while we stand up and protect the institutions that serve us all in this country. Those are the two things that are central tenets for this government and that we will always continue to do. Of course, there are right now two ongoing court cases on this matter and it would be inappropriate for us to comment too much on that.
Scheer demands a simple yes or no answer to whether the Prime Minister was aware of the DPP's decision when he met with the former attorney general, emphasizing it is not speculative.
Explicitly frames the question as a yes-or-no ask about a non-speculative, documented fact â whether the Prime Minister knew of the DPP decision at the time of the September 17 meeting â achieving maximum specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the best way to respect the independence of Canada's judicial system is to not interfere with it. This is a very simple yes or no question. This is not about speculation or about an ongoing investigation. This is a yes or no question. Was the Prime Minister aware of Canada's top prosecutor's decision when he had the meeting with the former attorney general, yes or no?
Trudeau speaks about protecting the 9,000 direct jobs linked to SNC-Lavalin and respecting judicial independence, without answering yes or no.
Trudeau pivots entirely to SNC-Lavalin's 9,000 direct jobs and the need to protect them, without providing a yes or no answer to the documented factual question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is a file that touches tens of thousands of Canadians right across the country, including 9,000 direct jobs, and communities right across the country. Of course we are going to be very careful about how we move forward in protecting those jobs, but we are also going to, at the same time, make sure that we are standing up for the independence of our judicial system and all the processes that keep our democratic institutions safe.
Caron cites the DPP's September 4 ruling, the September 17 PMâjustice minister meeting, and a subsequent lobbying blitz with four ministers and senior officials, asking why the meeting was necessary and how the Prime Minister explains the lobbying activity.
Cites three specific dates and facts â September 4 DPP ruling, September 17 PM meeting, and a subsequent lobbying blitz involving four ministers and senior officials â and asks two linked but identifiable questions about the rationale for the meeting and the lobbying pattern.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, voici ce que nous savons: la directrice des poursuites pénales avait formellement écarté un accord de réparation avec SNC-Lavalin, le 4 septembre. Or le premier ministre a rencontré l'ancienne ministre de la Justice deux semaines plus tard, soit le 17 septembre, justement pour discuter de ce dossier. Au lendemain de cette rencontre, les lobbyistes de SNC-Lavalin ont rencontré pas moins de quatre ministres et hauts fonctionnaires. C'est toute une coïncidence. Puisque l'accord de réparation avait été écarté, pourquoi cette rencontre entre le premier ministre et l'ex-ministre de la Justice était-elle nécessaire? Comment le premier ministre peut-il expliquer le blitz de lobbying qui s'en est suivi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, here is what we know. The director of public prosecutions formally rejected a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin on September 4. The Prime Minister met with the former justice minister two weeks later on September 17 to discuss the matter. The day after that meeting, SNC-Lavalin lobbyists met with no fewer than four ministers and senior officials. What a coincidence. With a remediation agreement ruled out, why was that meeting between the Prime Minister and the former justice minister necessary? Can the Prime Minister explain the lobbying blitz that followed?
Trudeau reaffirms the government's dual commitment to jobs and judicial independence and quotes the PPSC director's statement that prosecutors exercise their discretion independently and free from political considerations.
Trudeau does not address the rationale for the September 17 meeting or the lobbying blitz, instead quoting the PPSC director's statement on prosecutorial independence.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en tant que gouvernement, nous serons toujours lĂ pour dĂ©fendre les emplois et pour chercher Ă crĂ©er la croissance Ă©conomique en assurant de bons emplois aux Canadiens, tout en respectant l'indĂ©pendance de notre systĂšme judiciaire et l'Ătat de droit. Puisque le dĂ©putĂ© d'en face ne me croit pas sur parole, je lui ferai part de ce qu'a dit la directrice du Service des poursuites pĂ©nales du Canada. La semaine passĂ©e, elle a confirmĂ© que les procureurs, en toute circonstance, exercent leur pouvoir discrĂ©tionnaire de façon indĂ©pendante et exempte de toute considĂ©ration politique...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as a government, we will consistently stand up for good jobs and find ways to create economic growth and good jobs for Canadians while making sure we respect the independence of our judicial system and the rule of law. The member opposite seems unwilling to take my word for it, so I would like to share what the director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada said. Last week, she confirmed that prosecutors, in this and every other case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan considerationâ
Caron alleges the Prime Minister has given five different versions of events, that the former justice minister is bound by solicitor-client privilege the PM refuses to waive, and implicitly demands an independent inquiry.
Raises substantive concerns about five changing versions of events and the refusal to waive solicitor-client privilege, but the actual question is cut off and only implied â calling for an independent inquiry â making it partially rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce que nous cherchons justement Ă savoir, c'est s'il y a eu obstruction politique dans un dossier judiciaire. Nous avons plusieurs questions, mais, jusqu'Ă maintenant, nous avons peu de rĂ©ponses. Toutefois, ce que nous avons, c'est de nombreuses versions. Le premier ministre a donnĂ© cinq versions de ce qui s'est passĂ©. Pas une, pas deux, pas trois, mais bien cinq versions. L'ex-ministre de la Justice, elle, n'a pas eu l'occasion de donner sa propre version, parce qu'elle est liĂ©e par le secret professionnel, duquel le premier ministre refuse de la dĂ©livrer. Celui-ci a d'ailleurs provoquĂ© le fou rire de la Chambre hier en dĂ©clarant sans rire que le ComitĂ© permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne, dominĂ© par une majoritĂ© libĂ©rale, Ă©tait non partisan. Il est clair que seule une enquĂȘte indĂ©pendante pourra aller jusqu'au bout de cette histoire. Quand est-ce qu'ils...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to ascertain is whether there was political interference in a legal matter. We have many questions but have been given few answers to date. What we do have are many versions of what happened. The Prime Minister gave not one, two or three versions, but five versions. The former justice minister has not been able to give us her version because she is bound by client-solicitor privilege, which the Prime Minister refuses to waive. Members could not stop laughing yesterday when he stated with a straight face that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is dominated by a Liberal majority, is non-partisan. It is obvious that only an independent inquiry will get to the bottom of this matter. When will theyâ
Trudeau repeats the PPSC director's confirmation that prosecutors exercise their discretion independently and free from political considerations, without addressing the privilege waiver or the independent inquiry demand.
Trudeau again quotes the PPSC director on prosecutorial independence without addressing the allegation of five shifting versions, the solicitor-client privilege waiver, or the demand for an independent inquiry.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pour ce qui est des considérations politiques, je vais répéter ce qu'a dit la directrice du Service des poursuites pénales du Canada. La semaine passée, elle a confirmé que, en toute circonstance, les procureurs exercent leur pouvoir discrétionnaire de façon indépendante et exempte de toute considération politique ou partisane. Le Canada possÚde un systÚme de justice indépendant, et il suit son cours. Nous allons toujours défendre les emplois, mais nous allons aussi respecter l'indépendance judiciaire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with respect to political considerations, I will repeat what the director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada said last week. She confirmed that, in every case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Canada has an independent justice system and there will be due process. We will always defend jobs and always respect judicial independence.
Angus highlights the PM meeting with the justice minister after the DPP refused SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement and asks the Prime Minister to agree to an independent inquiry where his staff would be forced to testify.
Identifies the specific factual sequence (DPP ruling followed by PMâjustice minister meeting) and asks a concrete question about an independent inquiry with compelled testimony, but opens with significant rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what day is this? Oh, it is Wednesday. It is a new day, a new excuse, a new bombshell in the Gerry Butts-SNC scandal, and this one is a doozy. It turns out that the Prime Minister met with the justice minister after they found out that the independent public prosecution would not give the free get-out-of-jail card to SNC. I wonder what happened in that meeting, because it would represent a major interference in the independence of Canada's justice system. Therefore, will the Prime Minister give us a full airing, and agree to an independent inquiry where his staff will be forced to testify?
Trudeau pledges to stand up for jobs and judicial independence, and quotes the PPSC director's statement on independent prosecutorial discretion, without addressing the call for an independent inquiry.
Trudeau quotes the PPSC director on prosecutorial independence and contrasts his record on jobs with the member opposite, without addressing the call for an independent inquiry or compelled testimony.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike the member opposite, we will always stand up for jobs, always stand up for the Canadian economy, but we will do that in ways that respect judicial independence and the rule of law. If the member does not choose to take my word for it, let him to take it directly from the director of the Public Prosecution Service, who confirmed just last week that, in every case, prosecutors âexercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.â
Angus asks whether the Prime Minister will allow Gerry Butts and his staff to testify under oath at committee, and whether the Prime Minister himself is willing to testify.
Asks whether Gerry Butts and PM's staff will testify under oath and whether the PM himself will testify, but the question is buried in heavy rhetorical attacks and colourful language that reduce its accountability value.
Source text
Fair enough; they do stand up for jobs, Mr. Speaker, the jobs of lobbyists. He is led around by the nose by lobbyists. The question is if he is willing to obstruct justice to help his lobbyist friends. Oh, to live in the tawdry but very elite world of Gerry Butts and the Prime Minister. Was it Gerry's idea to strong-arm the justice department to help their insider friends? No wonder he does not want Gerry Butts testifying at committee. Will the Prime Minister agree to allow Gerry Butts and his staff to testify under oath, so we can get to the bottom? By the way, is he willing to testify?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau expresses confidence in the justice committee and the Ethics Commissioner, and thanks Gerry Butts for his service, without committing to testimony under oath by staff or himself.
Trudeau expresses confidence in the justice committee and Ethics Commissioner, and thanks Gerry Butts for his contributions, without committing to compelling testimony or answering whether staff would testify under oath.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, I have tremendous confidence in the members of the justice committee, who will be moving forward on the investigation of all sides; and indeed in the Ethics Commissioner, who has taken this matter under investigation. At the same time, I want to, once again, thank Gerry Butts for his contributions to Canada. His letter of resignation speaks for itself. He continues to believe deeply in what this government, and this country, is doing to help everyone.
Scheer states that Gerald Butts and the former attorney general met at the ChĂąteau Laurier on December 5, 2018, to discuss SNC-Lavalin, and asks when the Prime Minister was informed of that meeting.
Cites a specific meeting at the ChĂąteau Laurier on December 5, 2018, between Gerald Butts and the former attorney general, and asks a single precise and answerable question about when the Prime Minister was informed of that meeting.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous savons que l'ex-procureure générale et Gerald Butts se sont rencontrés au Chùteau Laurier, le 5 décembre 2018, pour discuter de l'affaire SNC-Lavalin. Quand le premier ministre a-t-il été informé de cette rencontre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we know that the former attorney general and Gerald Butts met at the Chateau Laurier on December 5, 2018, to discuss the SNC-Lavalin case. When was the Prime Minister informed of that meeting?
Trudeau says the government takes its responsibilities seriously and that ministers and the PMO have many meetings on important issues, without specifying when he learned of the December 5 meeting.
Trudeau provides no information about when he learned of the December 5 ChĂąteau Laurier meeting, instead restating general talking points about jobs, growth, and meeting with cabinet members on important issues.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous prenons trÚs au sérieux les responsabilités que nous avons de défendre des emplois, de créer de la croissance économique et de respecter l'indépendance de notre systÚme judiciaire. C'est pourquoi je peux trÚs facilement dire que, oui, nous avons eu bien des rencontres avec tous les membres du Cabinet sur bien des enjeux importants pour les Canadiens. Le travail que nous devons faire ensemble, c'est de bien gérer et de livrer de façon tangible la marchandise pour les Canadiens d'un bout à l'autre du pays. C'est ce que nous ferons toujours, tout en respectant nos institutions.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we take very seriously the responsibility of defending jobs, growing the economy and respecting the independence of our justice system. That is why I can very easily say that, yes, we have had many meetings with all cabinet members on many issues that are important to Canadians. The work we need to do together is to manage things properly and deliver tangibly for Canadians across the country. That is what we will always do, while also respecting our institutions.
Scheer cites the reported instruction that communications from Butts were to be treated as coming from the Prime Minister, then again asks when the Prime Minister became aware of the December 5 meeting between Butts and the former attorney general.
Grounds the question in a specific reported fact â that Butts's communications were treated as coming from the Prime Minister himself â and asks a precise, answerable question about when the PM learned of the December 5 meeting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister told his caucus that any communication coming from Mr. Butts should be considered as coming from the Prime Minister himself. Once again, when did the Prime Minister become aware of the December 5 meeting between Gerald Butts and the former attorney general?
Trudeau jokes about the Harper years and says his team has many meetings on things that matter, without answering when he learned of the December 5 meeting.
Trudeau dismisses the question with a Harper-era jibe and a general statement about teamwork and meetings, without stating when he learned of the December 5 ChĂąteau Laurier meeting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I recognize perhaps that it is a legacy of the Harper years. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that a team that works together actually has lots of people having meetings about things that matter all the time. We continue to engage in a broad way that both protects and upholds jobs in this country and respects the independence of our system and its judiciary. That is something we expect from all members of cabinet and all my staff, and we work together to serve Canadians, day in and day out.
Scheer asks the Prime Minister to confirm, yes or no, whether he ever expressed support for a special deal for SNC-Lavalin to the former attorney general.
Introduces a new specific yes-or-no question â whether the Prime Minister ever expressed support for a special deal for SNC-Lavalin to the former attorney general â which is direct and answerable, though opened with a rhetorical catalogue of blame-shifting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there we are. First it was the former attorney general's fault, then it was the director of public prosecutions' fault, then it was The Globe and Mail's fault and then it was Scott Brison's fault. Now we know it was Stephen Harper's fault. That is why he did what he did in this scandal. Nobody is buying what he is trying to sell. Now, can the Prime Minister tell this House if at any point in time he ever expressed his support for a special deal for SNC-Lavalin to the former attorney general, yes or no?
Trudeau accuses the Conservatives of playing political games and reiterates the government's commitment to jobs and judicial independence, without giving a yes-or-no answer.
Trudeau accuses the Conservatives of playing political games and reiterates the dual jobs-and-judiciary mandate, without answering yes or no as to whether he expressed support for a special deal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again we see the Conservatives choosing to play political games with issues of deep importance. We remain focused, yes, on standing up for jobs and standing up for the independence of our judiciary in this country. This is something we are going to consistently do, and we will make no apologies for standing strong in our principles to both protect and promote jobs in this country and uphold the rule of law and the independence of our judicial system.
Scheer explains that the deferred prosecution agreement option was created by the government via an omnibus bill and the DPP independently ruled SNC-Lavalin did not qualify, and asks yes or no whether the Prime Minister ever expressed support for such a deal.
Provides legal and procedural context â that the DPP option was created through an omnibus bill and the DPP independently ruled SNC-Lavalin did not qualify â and asks a clean yes-or-no question about the PM's expressed support for the deal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, that was not the question. This is key to this entire affair of allegations of interference in a criminal proceeding. The Prime Minister, through an omnibus bill, gave the top prosecutor the option of using a deferred prosecution agreement, and she ruled, in her independent manner, that SNC-Lavalin did not qualify. At any point in time since that decision, has the Prime Minister expressed his support for this kind of deal for SNC-Lavalin, yes or no?
Trudeau quotes the PPSC director confirming that prosecutors exercise their discretion independently and free from political or partisan considerations, without providing a yes-or-no answer.
Trudeau quotes the PPSC director's statement about independent prosecutorial discretion rather than answering yes or no about whether he expressed support for a deferred prosecution agreement for SNC-Lavalin.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite seems to be concerned about the independence of the director of the Public Prosecution Service. Let me speak directly to that by quoting her, who just last week confirmed that in every case prosecutors âexercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.â Canadians can know that, in this country, we continue to abide by the rule of law.
Scheer clarifies that the question is not about the DPP's independence but about whether the Prime Minister expressed support for SNC-Lavalin getting a deferred prosecution agreement after the September 4 decision, and demands a yes or no.
Clarifies precisely what is and is not being questioned (the PM's conduct, not the DPP's independence), anchors the question to the September 4 ruling date, and demands a yes-or-no answer about expressed support for SNC-Lavalin getting a deal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, nobody is questioning the director of public prosecutions exercising her authority. What we are questioning is whether the Prime Minister attempted to interfere in an ongoing criminal investigation. However, that was not the question. The question was very simple. The top prosecutor of Canada ruled on September 4 that SNC-Lavalin did not qualify for this new kind of deal. At any point in time since that decision was made, has the Prime Minister expressed his support for SNC-Lavalin getting a deal, yes or no?
Trudeau says he has been unequivocal about supporting Canadian jobs and the economy and that the government always respects judicial independence, without giving a yes-or-no answer on expressed support for SNC-Lavalin.
Trudeau says he has been unequivocal about supporting Canadian jobs and the economy, which is a non-answer to the yes-or-no question about whether he expressed support for SNC-Lavalin specifically getting a deal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have been unequivocal over the fall, and I am unequivocal now, that we will always support Canadian jobs and the growth of our economy. We will always stand up to protect workers right across the country. We will always do that in ways that respect the independence of our judiciary, the rule of law and the institutions that keep Canada one of the greatest democracies in the world.
Scheer argues the Prime Minister cannot uphold the DPP's independence while also seeking to reverse her decision, and asks why there would be so many meetings with the former attorney general after the September 4 ruling if not to try to reverse it.
Presents a logical argument grounded in three documented meetings â DPP ruling September 4, PMâAG meeting September 17, ButtsâAG meeting December 5 â and asks a pointed question about the purpose of those meetings given the ruling had already been made.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot hold up the independence of the office of the director of public prosecutions and, at the same time, interfere and attempt to get a reversal of a decision. The decision on SNC-Lavalin was made on September 4. The Prime Minister had a meeting with the former attorney general on September 17. Gerald Butts had a meeting with the former attorney general on December 5. Why would the Prime Minister have so many meetings with the former attorney general if it were not to try to reverse a decision that had already been made?
Trudeau confirms that cabinet ministers and the PMO have many meetings on a broad range of important issues, and that the government's work is to serve Canadians, protect jobs, and uphold judicial independence, without addressing why the specific meetings with the former attorney general occurred after the DPP ruling.
Trudeau confirms that he had many meetings with cabinet ministers on a broad range of issues but does not address why multiple meetings with the former attorney general would be necessary after the DPP decision, making this a partial deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can confirm right here in this House that we had many meetings between cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office on a broad range of important issues that matter to Canadians. It is the work of this government to serve Canadians, to protect jobs and to protect our institutions and the independence of our judiciary at the same time. This is exactly what we do and what we will continue to do, and we will make no apologies to the snide accusations made by the members opposite.
Brosseau asks the Prime Minister to confirm he will waive solicitor-client privilege so the former minister of justice can tell her version of events, and challenges him on blocking PMO witnesses from the justice committee.
The question identifies two specific accountability gaps â PMO witnesses blocked from the justice committee and solicitor-client privilege preventing the former minister from speaking â and asks the Prime Minister to confirm he will let her speak.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, le premier ministre a admis que le commissaire aux conflits dâintĂ©rĂȘts et Ă lâĂ©thique et le comitĂ© de la justice devaient faire leur travail dans le dossier de lâingĂ©rence de son bureau dans le dossier de SNC-Lavalin. Or comment compte-t-il rĂ©vĂ©ler la vĂ©ritĂ© sâil ne permet Ă aucune personne de son bureau de venir devant le comitĂ© de la justice? De plus, il refuse de renoncer au secret professionnel qui empĂȘche lâancienne ministre de la Justice de donner sa version des faits. Si le premier ministre tient vraiment Ă avoir la vĂ©ritĂ©, il doit la laisser parler. Le premier ministre peut-il nous confirmer quâil va laisser lâancienne ministre de la Justice...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister admitted yesterday that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee must get on with their work in the matter of interference by his office in the SNC-Lavalin case. How does he think they can get to the truth if he will not allow anyone from his office to appear before the justice committee? On top of that, he refuses to waive the solicitor-client privilege that is keeping the former justice minister from giving her side of the story. If the Prime Minister really wants the truth to come out, then he needs to let her speak. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he will allow the former justice ministerâ
Trudeau says his government respects the judicial system, acknowledges the privilege question is complex, and says he has asked the Attorney General for advice, citing concern over unintended consequences on two court cases.
Trudeau acknowledges the privilege issue and says he has asked the Attorney General for advice, but does not confirm whether the former minister will be allowed to speak, leaving the direct ask unanswered.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le respect que nous avons pour notre systĂšme judiciaire est extrĂȘmement important. Câest pour cela que nous considĂ©rons attentivement lâenjeu du secret professionnel. Câest pour cela que jâai demandĂ© Ă notre procureur gĂ©nĂ©ral de me donner des avis sur la façon dont on peut procĂ©der dans ce dossier-lĂ pour permettre aux gens de parler, parce que câest important que les Canadiens entendent la vĂ©ritĂ©. Cela dit, nous devons comprendre quâil y a un danger rĂ©el de consĂ©quences nĂ©fastes inattendues sur les deux enjeux prĂ©sentement devant la cour.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the respect we have for our justice system is extremely important. That is why we are carefully considering the issue of solicitor-client privilege. That is why I asked our Attorney General for advice on how to proceed in this matter so that we can give people the opportunity to speak. It is important that Canadians hear the truth. That being said, it is important to understand that there is a real danger of unintended negative consequences on the two cases currently before the courts.
Rankin asks why Liberals on the justice committee refused to invite PMO figures including Gerry Butts, and why the Prime Minister will not waive privilege to let the former attorney general testify.
Rankin names specific individuals (Gerry Butts, the former attorney general) and refers to dozens of meetings with SNC-Lavalin, making the accountability ask fairly concrete, though the question is compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberals on the justice committee refused to ensure that people from the Prime Minister's Office would testify; not Gerry Butts and not the other officials who held dozens of meetings with SNC-Lavalin to discuss criminal charges. How will Canadians get to the truth, if the Liberals refuse to invite people at the centre of this mess, and if the Prime Minister refuses to waive privilege to let the former attorney general tell her story? He kept saying sunshine is the best disinfectant, so why is he content keeping Canadians in the dark?
Trudeau says he looks forward to the work of the justice committee and Ethics Commissioner, restates support for good jobs and judicial independence, and says waiving privilege is not simple given two ongoing court cases.
Trudeau repeats the same answer about the justice committee, the Ethics Commissioner, and the Attorney General's advice on privilege, but does not address why specific individuals were not invited to testify.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we look forward to the work that will be done by the justice committee and, indeed, by the Ethics Commissioner on this matter. It is extremely important that Canadians get to hear all the facts. We will continue to make sure we are standing up for good jobs right across the country and upholding the independence of our judicial system. That is something that Canadians expect; that is something that we expect. In terms of waiving privilege, that is not a simple matter, and that is why we have asked the Attorney General for advice on this, because we know there is a danger of unintended consequences on the two court cases currently going through on this matter.
Scheer asks whether, between the director of public prosecutions' decision and the cabinet shuffle, the Prime Minister expressed support for granting SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement â yes or no.
Scheer asks a precise, closed yes-or-no question tied to a specific time period â from the director of public prosecutions' decision to the cabinet shuffle â asking whether the Prime Minister expressed support for a deferred prosecution agreement for SNC-Lavalin.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to give the Prime Minister another opportunity to answer a very simple question. He brags about having many meetings and robust discussions. In any of those meetings, from the date that the director of public prosecutions made her decision to the day that he removed the former attorney general from her post, did the Prime Minister at any time express his support for granting SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement, yes or no?
Trudeau says his government stands up for good jobs and economic growth while defending the independence of the rule of law and the judiciary, without answering the yes-or-no question.
Trudeau does not answer yes or no, instead pivoting entirely to boilerplate about standing up for good jobs and defending institutions, with no engagement with the specific factual ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as Canadians well know of this government, we will always stand up for good jobs. We will always stand up for economic growth. We will always make sure we are supporting Canadians right across the country. However, we will also make sure we are doing it in ways that support and defend our institutions, that support and defend the independence of the rule of law, the independence of our judiciary. These are things that matter to Canadians. We are a government that has been delivering tangibly for them while at the same time defending our democracy and our institutions.
Scheer asks, yes or no, whether the Prime Minister ever told the former attorney general that he favoured giving SNC-Lavalin a special deal.
The question is again a direct closed yes-or-no ask on a single, clearly framed factual matter about whether the Prime Minister told the former attorney general he favoured a special deal for SNC-Lavalin.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if he did nothing wrong, he should be able to answer yes or no. Did he at any time tell the former attorney general that he favoured giving SNC-Lavalin a special deal, yes or no?
Trudeau says cabinet discussions are covered by cabinet confidentiality and reiterates the government's commitment to good jobs, economic growth, and upholding judicial independence.
Trudeau invokes cabinet confidentiality rather than answering yes or no, and returns to talking points about good jobs and judicial independence, which is a deflection rather than an answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have been talking an awful lot about solicitor-client privilege. It is also important to understand that discussions among the federal cabinet are covered by cabinet confidentiality as well. This is the work that we are doing to make sure we are delivering for Canadians in terms of good jobs, in terms of economic growth, in terms of opportunities for all, while at the same time upholding the independence of our judiciary, the integrity of our democratic institutions, and we will always do that.
Scheer argues the Chateau Laurier meeting between Gerald Butts and the former attorney general is not covered by cabinet confidentiality and asks again, yes or no, whether the Prime Minister ever told her he favoured a special deal for SNC-Lavalin.
Scheer explicitly pre-empts the cabinet confidentiality defence by specifying that the Gerald Buttsâformer attorney general meeting at the Chateau Laurier is not covered by it, then repeats the precise yes-or-no question.
Source text
Again, Mr. Speaker, if he has done nothing wrong, he should be able to answer. Meetings at the Chateau Laurier between Gerald Butts and the former attorney general are not covered by cabinet confidentiality. He should be able to tell Canadians, if he has done nothing wrong, if he has not interfered in an ongoing criminal prosecution case. Has he ever told the former attorney general that he favoured a special deal for SNC-Lavalin, yes or no?
Trudeau does not address the question, instead listing government achievements including the Canada child benefit, tax cuts for the middle class, and support for good jobs.
Trudeau abandons the topic entirely, pivoting to the Canada child benefit and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1%, which has no connection to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians can look at this government's record and know that step-by-step we have always stood up for them. We put more money in the pockets of the middle class by raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% and lowering them for the middle class. We delivered the Canada child benefit, which has made a huge difference in people's lives. We have also made sure that every step of the way we have stood up for good jobs across this country, and we will continue to. We will do so, however, always by respecting the independence of our judiciary and the institutions that protect us all in our democracy.
Scheer asks whether, following the independent director of public prosecutions' September 4 decision, the Prime Minister at any point in subsequent meetings expressed support for SNC-Lavalin getting a special deal â yes or no.
Scheer anchors the question to a specific date (September 4), the director of public prosecutions' decision, and subsequent meetings, asking once more for a yes-or-no answer on the Prime Minister's position on a deferred prosecution agreement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is so telling that the Prime Minister cannot even answer this kind of simple question. These are not the actions and this is not the behaviour of someone who is innocent of what he is being accused of. On September 4, the independent director of public prosecutions made a decision. The Prime Minister and his team then went to work and had several meetings with the former attorney general. In any of those meetings, did he ever and will he today indicate whether or not he supports SNC-Lavalin getting a special deal, yes or no?
Trudeau quotes the director of public prosecutions confirming that prosecutors exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.
Trudeau deflects the direct question by quoting the director of public prosecutions on prosecutorial independence, which is tangentially relevant but does not address whether he personally expressed support for SNC-Lavalin receiving a special deal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, to hear the member opposite, Canadians might be worried about the independence of our judicial system. Allow me to reassure them not only with my words, but by a direct quote from the director of public prosecutions herself, who just last week confirmed for Canadians that in every case prosecutors âexercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.â
Boulerice challenges the government on two broken promises â ending fossil fuel subsidies and requiring climate impact assessments for energy projects â and asks whether the Liberals recognize they are failing on climate change.
Boulerice raises two specific broken promises â ending fossil fuel subsidies and climate impact assessments for energy projects â and cites a $4.5 billion pipeline purchase, though the closing Pinocchio metaphor dilutes the accountability value.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les libĂ©raux avaient promis de mettre fin aux subventions aux Ă©nergies fossiles, mais Ă©videmment, ils continuent. Pire encore, ils prennent mĂȘme 4,5 milliards de dollars pour acheter un vieux pipeline. Les libĂ©raux avaient promis Ă©galement que, pour tout projet Ă©nergĂ©tique, il allait y avoir une Ă©valuation sur l'impact climatique. LĂ , on apprend que l'expansion du pipeline Trans Mountain n'aura pas cette Ă©valuation. J'ai un petit truc pour les Ă©lecteurs. Chaque fois que le premier ministre dit quelque chose, ils peuvent s'attendre Ă ce qu'il fasse l'inverse. Est-ce que les libĂ©raux se rendent compte que, dans la lutte contre le rĂ©chauffement climatique, ils ressemblent de plus en plus Ă des Pinocchio?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to put an end to fossil fuel subsidies, but they obviously have not. To make matters worse, they spent $4.5 billion on an old pipeline. The Liberals also promised that a climate impact assessment would be conducted for all energy projects. Now, we have learned that no such assessment will be carried out for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. I have a little tip for voters. Any time the Prime Minister promises to do something, they should expect him to do the opposite. Do the Liberals realize that they are beginning to look more and more like Pinocchio when it comes to the fight against climate change?
Trudeau says the government is following the court-required process for Trans Mountain, including consultation with indigenous peoples and evaluation of marine shipping impacts, and rejects the NDP's framing of a choice between economy and environment.
Trudeau says Trans Mountain is following the court-mandated process on indigenous consultation and marine shipping impact, partially engaging the climate assessment point, but does not address the fossil fuel subsidy promise or the $4.5 billion purchase.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, le NPD insiste pour dire qu'il y a un choix à faire entre ce qui est bon pour l'environnement et ce qui est bon pour l'économie. Nous savons que la seule façon de créer une prospérité économique et de protéger l'environnement pour les années à venir, c'est de le faire ensemble. C'est pour cela que, dans le dossier de Trans Mountain, on est en train de suivre toutes les étapes des tribunaux de la bonne façon. Les tribunaux ont dit qu'il fallait consulter les peuples autochtones et qu'il fallait évaluer l'impact du transport maritime. C'est exactement ce que nous allons faire pour démontrer qu'on peut développer l'économie de la bonne façon.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, the NDP insists that we have to choose between what is right for the environment and what is right for the economy. We know that the only way to create economic prosperity and protect the environment for years to come is to choose what is right for both. That is why on the Trans Mountain file we are following the path provided for by the courts in the right way. The courts said we needed to consult indigenous peoples and evaluate the impact on marine shipping, and that is exactly what we are doing to prove that we can develop the economy in the right way.
Cullen accuses the government of breaking two promises â ending fossil fuel subsidies and requiring climate reviews for pipelines â and asks when the Prime Minister will stop subsidizing Trans Mountain and start fighting climate change.
Cullen cites specific figures ($4.5 billion and a further $2 billion subsidy) and names two broken promises, but the question drifts into partisan framing about helping friends, reducing its accountability precision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to breaking promises to Canadians, we have to hand it to the Prime Minister. Right now on the Trans Mountain pipeline fiasco he is doing a two-for-one deal. First, he promised to end all fossil fuel subsidies, but dumping $4.5 billion of our money on a 65-year old pipeline was not enough. Now the pipeline-owning Prime Minister wants a further $2 billion subsidy from Canadians. Then the Liberals promised that all pipelines would receive a climate change review as part of their approval. However, here is a new guide for Canadians when listening to the Prime Minister. Listen closely and know that the truth is the opposite. When is he going to stop helping out his friends and start working to fight climate change?
Trudeau says Trans Mountain is following the court-required path, criticizes the Conservative record on getting exports to new markets, outlines the oceans protection plan, and references a plan to put a price on pollution.
Trudeau addresses the Trans Mountain court process and the oceans protection plan with some specifics (faster spill response, more towing capacity, plan to protect marine mammals) but does not address the subsidy figures or the climate review promise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, we are following the path provided for by the courts in the right way. The courts said we needed to do better on consulting indigenous peoples and on evaluating the impact on marine shipping. That is exactly what we are doing. The Conservative approach for 10 years failed to get our exports to new markets. That is why we knew we needed to do it in the right way, which includes an oceans protection plan that means a faster spill response, more towing capacity and a plan to protect marine mammals. We are continuing to fight climate change with a plan to put a price on pollution. That is what is this government is doing.
Samson asks the Prime Minister to describe the steps the government has taken at Camp Hill Veterans Memorial Building in Halifax to respond to the growing needs of veterans.
This is a government-backbench softball that opens with an attack on the Harper government and asks the Prime Minister to describe steps taken at Camp Hill â a clear setup for a favourable announcement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for more than a decade, the Harper government cut front-line staff, closed offices and balanced the budget on the backs of veterans. In 2015, it even closed an entire floor at the Camp Hill Veterans Memorial Building in Halifax. Could the right hon. Prime Minister please describe the steps our government has taken at Camp Hill to respond to the growing needs of veterans of the more recent conflicts and of those who served with our allies?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for SackvilleâPrestonâChezzetcook for his tireless advocacy, his hard work and the ferocity with which he defends our veterans. We all want the best for veterans and their families. That is why we invested $10 billion into new benefits and services for them, including reopening the nine offices shuttered by the Conservatives, hiring more than 630 new front-line staff, delivering on our promise to reinstate that pension for life. Last fall, we made 25 more beds available at Camp Hill in Halifax for allied and modern-day veterans. The Conservatives paid lip service. We delivered.
Trudeau cites $10 billion in new benefits and services, reopening nine offices, hiring more than 630 new front-line staff, reinstating the pension for life, and making 25 more beds available at Camp Hill for allied and modern-day veterans.
Trudeau provides specific figures â $10 billion in new benefits and services, nine offices reopened, more than 630 new front-line staff, and 25 more beds at Camp Hill â making the answer substantively informative.
Scheer asks, yes or no, whether between September 4, 2018 and the January 14, 2019 cabinet shuffle the Prime Minister expressed his support for a special deal for SNC-Lavalin.
Scheer frames the question with precise dates (September 4, 2018 to January 14, 2019) and asks an unambiguous binary yes-or-no question about whether the Prime Minister expressed support for a special deal for SNC-Lavalin.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, entre le 4 septembre 2018 et le remaniement ministériel, le 14 janvier 2019, est-ce que le premier ministre a exprimé son appui concernant une entente spéciale pour SNC-Lavalin? Il y a seulement deux options: oui ou non.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, between September 4, 2018 and the cabinet shuffle on January 14, 2019, did the Prime Minister express his support for a special agreement for SNC-Lavalin? There are only two answers: yes or no.
Trudeau says his government will always defend good jobs, including the 9,000 jobs directly linked to SNC-Lavalin, while always respecting the independence of the judicial system and the rule of law.
Trudeau ignores the yes-or-no framing and the specific dates entirely, returning to boilerplate about defending jobs and respecting judicial independence, with no engagement with the factual ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, malgré les actions et les paroles des conservateurs, nous allons toujours défendre les emplois. Nous allons toujours reconnaßtre de bons emplois au pays et chercher à les maintenir, y compris les 9 000 emplois directement affectés au sein de la compagnie SNC-Lavalin. Cependant, nous allons toujours le faire en respectant l'indépendance de notre systÚme judiciaire et la rÚgle de droit. Ce sont des responsabilités que nous prenons trÚs au sérieux, et nous allons toujours chercher à défendre de bons emplois partout au Canada de la bonne façon.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, despite what the Conservatives say and do, we will always stand up for jobs. We will always stand up for good jobs wherever they are in Canada, including the 9,000 jobs directly affected within SNC-Lavalin. However, we will always do so in a way that respects the independence of our judicial system and the rule of law. Those are the responsibilities that we take very seriously, and we will always try to stand up for good jobs across Canada in the right way.
Scheer asks why Gerald Butts told the former attorney general to visit Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick during a December 5 meeting, given that the independent prosecutor's decision had already been made on September 4.
Scheer references a specific meeting (December 5, between Gerald Butts and the former attorney general), a specific instruction (go see the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick), and asks a pointed logical question about why this was necessary if the decision was already made.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during the December 5 meeting between Gerald Butts and the former attorney general, it is reported that Mr. Butts told her to go and see the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick. Now, if the decision had already been made by the independent top prosecutor in Canada on September 4 and if the Prime Minister had already indicated that it was the attorney general's decision to be made, why would she have to go and visit the Clerk of the Privy Council?
Trudeau says the government always stands up for good jobs in a manner respecting judicial independence and the rule of law, then accuses the Conservatives of not standing up for good jobs.
Trudeau does not address the December 5 meeting, Gerald Butts, the Clerk of the Privy Council, or the logic of the question, instead repeating talking points about good jobs and judicial independence and pivoting to attacking the Conservatives.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government works in an ongoing fashion to make sure that we are standing up for good jobs right across the country and doing it in respect of the independence of our judicial system and the robustness of the rule of law. That is something all Canadians expect of us, that we fight for their jobs right across the country. We will always do that. It is telling right now that we see the Conservatives saying that they will not. They do not stand up for good jobs across this country. They do not stand up for good jobs wherever they are. We will continue to do so and we will do so in a way that respects the rule of law, that respects the independence of our judiciary.
Scheer uses the Prime Minister's own statement that the former attorney general asked him if he was directing her â and he said no â to ask why she would have needed to ask that question if no pressure had been applied.
Scheer quotes the Prime Minister's own words directly â that the former attorney general asked him if he was directing her and he said no â and uses that quote to pose a pointed logical question about why the ask was necessary if no pressure existed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can try to hide behind talking points and other members of his Liberal team, but this is about the independence of our judicial system. This is about the rule of law. The Prime Minister has stated that there were many discussions going on, which was why the former attorney general âasked me if I was directing her, or going to direct her, to take a particular decision and I, of course, said no.â Therefore, the simple question is this. If a decision had already been made on September 4, why would she have to ask him if he was directing her?
Trudeau quotes the director of public prosecutions confirming that prosecutors exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration, without addressing the logic of his own quoted words.
Trudeau does not engage with his own quoted words or the logical inference drawn from them, instead again quoting the director of public prosecutions on prosecutorial independence as a deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives are calling into question the independence of our judicial system and the rule of law in this country. Allow me to reassure all Canadians watching by quoting directly from the director of the public prosecution service of Canada, who confirmed last week that in every case prosecutors âexercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.â
Scheer asks why the former attorney general felt she needed to ask whether the Prime Minister was directing her, arguing this implies he had left the impression that something improper was occurring.
Scheer continues to press the specific logical inference from the Prime Minister's own quoted words, asking why the former attorney general needed to seek clarification if there was no interference, which is a substantively grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, why did the Prime Minister leave the impression with the attorney general that there was something going on? He said that the former attorney general âasked me if I was directing her, or going to direct her, to take a particular decision and I, of course, said no.â Therefore, the question remains this. Why did the former attorney general think that she needed to ask that? If the decision was already made, why would she have to go and get clarification if he was not in fact attempting to interfere?
Trudeau says his government will always stand up for good jobs and Canadians while respecting the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law, citing these as the principles that led Canadians to elect the Liberals in 2015.
Trudeau does not address the former attorney general's need for clarification or the Prime Minister's own quoted words, returning entirely to boilerplate about standing up for Canadians and defending institutions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all Canadians who have been watching our government over the past three and a half years know full well that we will always stand up for good jobs. We will always stand up for Canadians, and we will always do so in a way that respects and upholds our institutions, including the independence of our judiciary and the rule of law. These are principles that are at the core of what this government does. They were principles at the core of why Canadians elected us in 2015. We have stayed true to those principles of both serving Canadians and defending the independence of our institutions.
Duncan cites a new report on the government's failure to consult indigenous peoples on recovery strategies for threatened species, references Chief Byron Louis's statement and the Mikisew Cree's UNESCO intervention and court challenge, and asks when the Prime Minister will deliver on his legal responsibilities to first nations.
Duncan references a specific new report, quotes Chief Byron Louis on the link between species extinction and indigenous rights, and names two specific nations (Mikisew Cree and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation) taking action, though the final ask is somewhat broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, speaking of the rule of law, a new report reveals the government has abjectly failed to consult indigenous peoples on recovery strategies for threatened species. Chief Byron Louis has shared, âThe extinction of a species actually has the potentialâ to extinguish indigenous rights. Frustrated with government inaction, the Mikisew Cree sought intervention by UNESCO, and has joined the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation court challenge to have their rights upheld. When will the Prime Minister stop with the platitudes and actually deliver on his legal responsibilities to first nations?
Trudeau says the government always works to protect and recover species at risk using science-based strategies developed in consultation and partnership with indigenous groups and all stakeholders.
Trudeau gives only a generic response about science-based recovery strategies and consultation with indigenous groups, without addressing the specific report, the UNESCO intervention, or the court challenge named in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as a government, we are always ensuring that we protect and recover our species that are at risk. Robust recovery strategies and action plans are there to grow and sustain populations. The work that we do is always based on science and this work is always done in consultation and partnership with indigenous groups as well as all stakeholders. This is something that if we are going to do, we need to do it together. That is part of reconciliation.
Quach asks whether the government will fund the White Pine Healing lodge in Akwesasne, established to address an emergency rate of suicide and substance abuse, before it is forced to close in the coming weeks.
Quach identifies a specific person (Mr. Nelson White), a specific project (White Pine Healing lodge), a specific community (Akwesasne), and a specific deadline (coming weeks), making this a fairly concrete and answerable accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Nelson White from Akwesasne First Nation has invested a lot of his own money to fund the White Pine Healing lodge to support those in his community who suffer from addiction. The project was created as a response to the state of emergency due to the alarming rate of suicide and substance abuse. He has the support of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne. The government keeps saying that it is a good project, but without funding in the coming weeks, there will be no healing lodge. Will the government deliver the money or will it let down the people of Akwesasne?
Trudeau congratulates the Akwesasne community, confirms the minister is fully aware of the request and understands its importance, and says the government will have more to say in the coming weeks.
Trudeau acknowledges the specific project and community, confirms the minister is fully aware and understands its importance, and promises more to say in the coming weeks â a partial commitment without detail.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the work done on this important issue by the community of Akwesasne, and recognize that the minister is fully aware of this request, understands how important it is and we will have more to say in the coming weeks.
Scheer asked who requested the December 5 meeting between Gerald Butts and the attorney general at a hotel in downtown Ottawa.
Cites a specific date, a specific person (Gerald Butts), a specific location (hotel in downtown Ottawa), and asks a single yes/no answerable question about who requested the meeting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, On December 5, when Gerald Butts met with the attorney general at a hotel in downtown Ottawa, it is clear that the SNC-Lavalin case was discussed. Who asked for that meeting?
Trudeau said the government stands up for good jobs, the rule of law, and expressed confidence in the justice committee and Ethics Commissioner processes.
The Prime Minister did not address who asked for the meeting, instead pivoting to boilerplate about jobs, rule of law, and confidence in ongoing processes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way, we will stand up for good jobs for Canadians. We will stand up for the independence of our judiciary and the rule of law. The trust Canadians have in their institutions is extremely important to us. That is why we look forward to the processes under way, both at the justice committee and indeed at the Ethics Commissioner investigation, so Canadians can continue to have full confidence in our democracy and the institutions that serve them.
Scheer asked whether the Prime Minister asked Mr. Butts to resign, requesting a yes or no answer.
Asks a direct yes/no question about whether the Prime Minister asked Butts to resign, grounded in the factual observation of Butts' resignation, though framed with rhetorical preamble.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, people who are innocent usually do not have trouble answering simple questions, especially when they are yes or no answers. Gerald Butts claims to be innocent, but innocent people do not tend to resign from their jobs. Did the Prime Minister ask Mr. Butts to resign, yes or no?
Trudeau said Gerald Butts' statement speaks for itself and that Butts made his decision so the government could move forward, thanking him for his service.
Trudeau referenced Butts' statement and praised his service but did not answer yes or no whether he asked Butts to resign.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Gerald Butts' statement speaks for itself. He made this decision because he felt it was important for the government to move forward. His dedication to this country, to this government, and to the work we are doing to give a real and fair chance to everyone to succeed continues. I thank him deeply for his service to Canada.
Scheer challenged the Prime Minister to explain what Butts was moving on from if nothing improper had occurred, given the removal of the former attorney general and subsequent resignations.
Raises a pointed logical contradiction â the PM claims nothing improper happened yet the former attorney general was removed and Butts resigned â and asks what Butts was moving on from, though the framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, to move forward from what? The Prime Minister is saying nothing happened. All along he has been saying nothing improper was done. All along he has been saying he did not do anything wrong and people in his office did not do anything wrong, yet we have the facts that the former attorney general was removed from her post and then resigned from cabinet, and the principal secretary has now resigned. What exactly was Mr. Butts moving on from if nothing improper happened?
Trudeau spoke about the Canada child benefit, middle-class tax cuts, the upcoming budget, and criticized Stephen Harper's record, without addressing the question.
Trudeau completely ignored the logical contradiction posed and pivoted to unrelated talking points about the Canada child benefit, middle-class tax cuts, and criticism of Stephen Harper.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government continues to focus on the things that matter to Canadians, like delivering a Canada child benefit that helps nine out of 10 Canadian families, and moving forward by lowering taxes on the middle class and raising them on the wealthiest 1%. We continue to focus on the upcoming budget, which is going to continue to deliver for Canadians in real ways as we grow the economy in ways that work for the middle class. Unfortunately, under 10 years of Stephen Harper, the benefits to the wealthiest and the well connected did not grow the economy. That is why we have focused on the middle class and will continue to focus on delivering tangibly for Canadians.
Scarpaleggia asked the Prime Minister to inform the House of the government's efforts to make Canada the country where the cars of the future will be built.
A government-backbench softball setup asking the Prime Minister to highlight efforts to make Canada a leader in building the cars of the future.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'innovation apportĂ©e dans le secteur de l'automobile est en train de transformer cette industrie qui est l'une de nos plus importantes sources d'exportations. Qu'il s'agisse de stationnement autonome, de freinage automatique ou de technologie sans conducteur, les voitures de demain seront non seulement autonomes, mais connectĂ©es les unes aux autres. Le premier ministre pourrait-il informer la Chambre des efforts dĂ©ployĂ©s par le gouvernement pour faire du Canada le pays oĂč les voitures de l'avenir seront construites?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, innovation is transforming the automotive industry, which is one of our largest sources of exports. With technologies like automatic parking, automatic braking and self-driving abilities, the cars of tomorrow will be not only autonomous, but also connected with one another. Could the Prime Minister tell the House what the government is doing to make sure that the cars of the future will be built here in Canada?
Monsieur le Président, je remercie le député de Lac-Saint-Louis de son travail acharné, de son leadership au sein du caucus et de sa question. Nous devons soutenir les travailleurs canadiens pour que le Canada soit un leader mondial dans la nouvelle économie. Nous avons annoncé un investissement de 40 millions de dollars pour aider BlackBerry QNX à concevoir et à établir une nouvelle plateforme pour les voitures d'aujourd'hui et de demain. Cet investissement créera 800 emplois pour la classe moyenne, rendra nos voitures plus sûres et sécuritaires et aidera le Canada à demeurer une plaque tournante mondiale de l'innovation.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his hard work, for his leadership in the caucus and for his question. If we want Canada to be a world leader in the new economy, we must support Canadian workers. We announced a $40-million investment to help BlackBerry QNX design and build a new platform for the cars of today and tomorrow. This investment will create 800 jobs for the middle class, will make our cars safer and will help Canada remain an international hub for innovation.
Trudeau announced a $40 million investment to help BlackBerry QNX design and establish a new platform for today's and tomorrow's cars, expected to create 800 middle-class jobs.
Trudeau provided a specific announcement â a $40 million investment to help BlackBerry QNX develop a new platform â with a concrete jobs figure of 800 jobs, making it a substantively informative answer.
Scheer asked whether the Prime Minister will agree to hold a public inquiry so Canadians can get answers to the serious allegations of interference in an independent prosecution.
Makes a clear ask for a public inquiry and grounds it in the nature of the allegations and the insufficiency of current processes, but is framed with significant rhetorical buildup and a compound framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to provide some transparency in this very serious scandal. These are major allegations of interference in an independent prosecution. Outside of an investigation by the RCMP, the only way for the Prime Minister to clear the air is by having a public inquiry. Canadians are tired of taking his word for his version of events. They are tired of Liberals getting together with other Liberals to come up with a storyline they will then try to hide behind. Yes or no, will the Prime Minister agree to holding a public inquiry so Canadians can get answers to these questions rightâ
Trudeau expressed confidence in the justice committee and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner investigation as the appropriate processes to move forward on this issue.
Trudeau did not answer yes or no on a public inquiry, instead restating confidence in the justice committee and the Ethics Commissioner without engaging the specific inadequacy argument Scheer raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have tremendous confidence in the processes that are in place to move forward, including an investigation by the justice committee in which committee members are independent in their decisions on how to proceed. We also have tremendous confidence in the officers of Parliament, in this case the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who will be pursuing an investigation on this matter. These are things we take seriously. Canadians need to know there are processes in place to move forward on this issue.
Aubin asked whether the Prime Minister will require his Minister of Transport to take concrete action on rail safety to protect citizens, citing a recent derailment in Manitoba involving flammable materials.
References a specific recent derailment in Manitoba involving flammable materials and invokes Lac-MĂ©gantic, asking for concrete action on rail safety, though the ask is somewhat vague.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, câest au tour du Manitoba de connaĂźtre un important dĂ©raillement de train impliquant des matiĂšres inflammables. Avec le passage de trains de plus en plus longs et de plus en plus nombreux et un environnement de plus en plus dĂ©rĂ©glementĂ©, lâĂ©ventualitĂ© dâun drame comme celui de Lac-MĂ©gantic est toujours possible. Câest clair. Les citoyens sâinquiĂštent et ne souhaitent pas vivre une telle tragĂ©die. Le ministre des Transports parle beaucoup, mais agit peu. Le premier ministre peut-il exiger de son ministre quâil sâactive en matiĂšre de sĂ©curitĂ© ferroviaire pour protĂ©ger nos concitoyens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it was Manitoba's turn to suffer a massive derailment involving flammable substances. With trains getting longer and running more frequently, and with deregulation on the rise, another tragedy like that of Lac-MĂ©gantic could still happen. That much is clear. Residents are worried. They do not want to experience another tragedy like that. The Minister of Transport is all talk and no action. Could the Prime Minister direct his minister to get to work on rail safety in order to protect Canadians?
Trudeau praised his Minister of Transport's work on rail safety and then pivoted to the Trans Mountain pipeline project as a safer way to transport oil resources.
Trudeau praised his Minister of Transport generically and then pivoted to oil pipelines and the Trans Mountain project, which is largely unrelated to the rail safety question asked.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je profite de ce moment pour souligner encore une fois lâexcellent travail de notre ministre des Transports, qui prend extrĂȘmement au sĂ©rieux la protection de nos voies ferroviaires et la sĂ©curitĂ© des Canadiens. Il en fait une prioritĂ©. Je peux souligner que nous reconnaissons quâune des maniĂšres les plus sĂ©curitaires de transporter nos ressources pĂ©troliĂšres, câest par les olĂ©oducs. Câest pourquoi nous allons de lâavant de la bonne façon, comme la cour lâa demandĂ©, en ce qui concerne le projet Trans Mountain. Câest un bon projet et il faut s'assurer qu'il sera fait de la bonne façon pour garder les gens en sĂ©curitĂ© et exporter nos ressources.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to commend our Minister of Transport once again for doing such a great job. He takes the protection of our rail lines and the safety of Canadians very seriously. That is his priority. I can assure my colleague that we know pipelines are one of the safest ways to transport our oil resources. That is why we are moving forward with Trans Mountain in the right way, as the court requested. This is a good project, and we need to make sure it is done right so that we can keep Canadians safe and export our resources.
McLeod asked the Minister of Finance to update the House on the next steps in the government's proven plan to strengthen and grow the middle class.
A government-backbench softball asking the Minister of Finance to update the House on the next steps in the government's plan to strengthen and grow the middle class.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the hard work of Canadians, Canada's economy is strong and growing, creating well-paying jobs for the middle class and people working hard to join it. Plus de Canadiens travaillent et les familles ont plus dâargent Ă dĂ©penser pour ce qui compte pour elles. Could the Minister of Finance please update the House on the next steps in our proven plan to strengthen and grow the middle class?
Morneau said a typical middle-class family is $2,000 better off this year than in 2015 and announced that budget 2019 will be introduced on March 19.
Morneau provided a specific data point ($2,000 better off for a typical middle-class family) and announced a concrete date of March 19 for budget 2019, making the answer substantively informative.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre gouvernement a fait des investissements intelligents et responsables dans la classe moyenne et les Canadiens en voient les résultats concrets. It has had a significant impact. A typical middle-class family is $2,000 better off this year than in 2015. However, we know there is more to do. That is why I am so pleased to announce that on March 19, we will be introducing budget 2019, the next steps in our plan to ensure middle-class optimism and an economy that works for all Canadians.
Scheer asked whether the Prime Minister, given his stated confidence in the justice committee, will allow Gerald Butts to testify under oath at that committee.
Cites a specific prior action â government instructing Liberal committee members to block Conservative and NDP attempts to get a full witness list â and asks a direct yes/no question about allowing Gerald Butts to testify under oath.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just expressed his confidence in the justice committee's work to get to the bottom of this very serious scandal. Last week the government instructed Liberal members of that committee to block Conservative and NDP attempts to get a full witness list in front of the committee. The members of the committee admitted that they received that list from government offices. Therefore, if the Prime Minister has so much confidence in the justice committee's work, will he allow Gerald Butts to testify under oath at that very committee?
Trudeau said his government respects the independence of parliamentary committees and that parliamentarians on those committees make their own determinations on how to proceed.
Trudeau did not answer whether Butts would testify under oath, instead claiming respect for committee independence while ignoring the specific allegation of government direction to committee members.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike what we saw under 10 years of Stephen Harper's government, we respect the independence of parliamentary committees. Parliamentarians on those committees get to make determinations on how they choose to move forward in their own way. On this side of the House, we will always respect the independence of committees.
Bernier cited SNC-Lavalin's lobbying, Criminal Code changes, dismissed corruption cases, and $2 billion in government aid, asking the Prime Minister to recognize that crony capitalism must be eradicated.
Cites specific facts â SNC-Lavalin lobbying, Criminal Code changes, two corruption cases thrown out, and $2 billion in government aid since 2002 â but the concluding ask about eradicating crony capitalism is broad and philosophical rather than specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after being lobbied by SNC-Lavalin, the government changed the Criminal Code and tried to cut a deal to avoid a trial. Two former SNC-Lavalin executives just had their corruption cases thrown out of court because of unrealistic delays, and we learned that SNC has received more than $2 billion in government aid since 2002. Will the Prime Minister recognize that crony capitalism is an unjust system that must be eradicated?
Trudeau said the government will always stand up for good jobs across the country, including in companies like SNC-Lavalin, and will continue to create conditions for success while respecting institutions and the rule of law.
Trudeau did not engage with any of the cited facts or the concept of crony capitalism, instead offering boilerplate about standing up for good jobs and the role of government.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we will always stand up for good jobs right across the country, including in companies like SNC-Lavalin. This is something Canadians expect of us and something we will continue to do. We will continue to recognize that government has an important role to play in making sure Canadians can find good jobs right across the country and in creating the conditions for success. We will continue to do that in a way that respects both our institutions and the rule of law.