Session overview
- The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics opened an investigation into the SNC-Lavalin affair after the justice committee's inquiry was shut down by Liberal members; chair Bob Zimmer confirmed the investigation is in order and invited witnesses.
- The CEO of SNC-Lavalin publicly stated that he never cited 9,000 jobs as a reason for deserving a deferred prosecution agreement, directly contradicting a central justification the Prime Minister had repeatedly used in the House.
- Prime Minister Trudeau repeatedly declined to commit personally to testifying at the ethics committee, offering instead that the committee is independent and that his government would 'always cooperate' with committee decisions.
- Budget 2019 measures dominated Liberal responses throughout Question Period, including the first-time home buyer incentive, the Allocation canadienne pour la formation, pharmacare foundations, and a Guaranteed Income Supplement enhancement for seniors.
- CPC and NDP members pressed the Prime Minister on feminist credentials following the departure of the former attorney general, the former president of the Treasury Board, and a third Liberal MP who left caucus; Trudeau counter-attacked by citing Conservative positions on abortion.
- Unanimous consent was granted to defer the recorded division on Bill C-369, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation).
Chair Bob Zimmer made a concrete, public commitment on the floor of the House that the ethics committee had received letters from three members requesting an investigation into the SNC-Lavalin matter, that the investigation is in order, and that members of the public may submit information without fear â a specific institutional commitment that advanced the public's understanding of next steps.
Cites section 139 of the Criminal Code by name, identifies a specific date (September 17) and specific content of a conversation between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general about shelving charges, and anchors the question in a named CEO statement from the same day directly contradicting the Prime Minister's stated justification.
When asked directly whether he would appear at the ethics committee to answer to his involvement in the SNC-Lavalin scandal â a question backed by five specific quoted statements from his own officials â Trudeau responded by reading third-party budget endorsements from ValĂ©rie Plante, Annie BĂ©rubĂ©, the FĂ©dĂ©ration des Canadiens noirs, and Perry Bellegarde, without addressing the question at all.
Outstanding questions
- Will the Prime Minister personally appear and testify before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics regarding the SNC-Lavalin affair? (asked repeatedly by Andrew Scheer, Alain Rayes, GĂ©rard Deltell, Pierre Paul-Hus, Mark Strahl, Leona Alleslev, and others)
- Why did the Prime Minister tell the former attorney general that SNC-Lavalin's headquarters would move to London if she did not shelve the charges, when the CEO says that claim is not true and the company is bound to Montreal under a $1.5-billion loan deal with the Quebec pension plan? (asked by Pierre Poilievre)
- Will the Prime Minister lift solicitor-client privilege for the former attorney general so that she can complete her testimony? (asked by Alain Rayes and Michelle Rempel)
- Will the Prime Minister guarantee that Katie Telford, Mathieu Bouchard, the Minister of Finance, and his chief of staff will be allowed to testify at the ethics committee? (asked by Andrew Scheer)
- Will the Prime Minister call an independent public inquiry into the SNC-Lavalin affair, given that the CEO confirmed the 9,000-jobs claim was never made and that the matter has drawn the attention of the anti-bribery unit of the OECD? (asked by Tracey Ramsey, Charlie Angus, and Jagmeet Singh)
Scheer asks the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics whether the committee's future agenda will include an investigation into the SNC-Lavalin matter.
Scheer cleverly directs the question to the ethics committee chair rather than the government, yielding a clear and procedurally specific ask about whether the committee will investigate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians were shocked and appalled when the Prime Minister shut down the justice committee's investigation into the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal. Serious questions remain unanswered and key players in this affair have yet to testify. My question therefore is for the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Could he inform the House if the future agenda of the committee will include an investigation of this matter?
Mr. Speaker, I have received letters from three members of the ethics committee requesting an investigation into this matter. I can confirm, as chair of the ethics committee, that this investigation is in order. As always, members are welcome to submit witnesses. Any members of the public who have information of wrongdoing that may help with an investigation can come forward and submit it to the ethics committee without fear.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just learned that the ethics committee has opened an investigation into his corruption scandal. Will he commit, right here and right now, to co-operate fully with this investigation and to appear and testify?
Zimmer confirms that the investigation is in order, that he has received letters from three committee members requesting it, and that witnesses may be submitted.
Zimmer directly confirms the investigation is in order, explains the basis (three letters from members), and invites witnesses â a substantive and direct answer to exactly what was asked.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, permettez-moi d'abord de souhaiter à tous mes collÚgues et à tous les Canadiens une bonne Journée internationale de la Francophonie. Dans ce gouvernement, nous comprenons à quel point le travail que font les comités est important. De ce cÎté-ci de la Chambre, nous respecterons toujours les comités, coopérerons toujours avec eux et laisserons toujours les comités faire leur travail indépendamment du gouvernement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to start by wishing all my colleagues and all Canadians a happy International Day of La Francophonie. This government understands how important the work done by committees is. We on this side of the House will always respect the committees, always co-operate with them, and always let them do their work independently of the government.
Scheer accuses the Prime Minister of using his majority to block the justice committee and asks him to confirm he will co-operate with and testify before the ethics committee.
Scheer sharpens his ask by citing the prior closure of the justice committee as evidence and explicitly demands a commitment to co-operate and testify before the ethics committee.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ça, c'est faux. Il a utilisĂ© sa majoritĂ© pour bloquer l'enquĂȘte du ComitĂ© permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne. Nous venons d'apprendre qu'il y aura une enquĂȘte du ComitĂ© permanent de l'accĂšs Ă l'information, de la protection des renseignements personnels et de l'Ă©thique sur le scandale de corruption. Alors, encore une fois, est-ce que le premier ministre peut confirmer devant cette Chambre qu'il va coopĂ©rer et accepter de tĂ©moigner devant le ComitĂ©?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is false. He used his majority to block the investigation by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We have just learned that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics will investigate the corruption scandal. Once again, will the Prime Minister confirm to this House that he will co-operate and agree to testify before the committee?
Trudeau says the government respects the independence of parliamentary committees and will always co-operate with them, without committing to appear personally.
Trudeau repeats that committees are independent and that the government will co-operate with their decisions, but does not commit to personally appearing or testifying as specifically asked.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on voit qu'une chose que les conservateurs n'ont pas apprise ou ont oubliĂ©e pendant 10 annĂ©es au pouvoir, c'est que les comitĂ©s et les membres des comitĂ©s parlementaires sont indĂ©pendants et prennent leurs propres dĂ©cisions. Ăvidemment, ce gouvernement, le Parti libĂ©ral, respectera toujours l'indĂ©pendance du travail en comitĂ©, et nous coopĂ©rerons toujours en fonction de la dĂ©cision de ces comitĂ©s.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, one thing that the Conservatives have not learned, or forgot while in power for 10 years, is that committees and members of parliamentary committees are independent and make their own decisions. Naturally, this government, the Liberal Party, will always respect the independence of committee work, and we will always abide by the decisions of these committees.
Scheer asks whether Katie Telford, Mathieu Bouchard, the Minister of Finance, and his chief of staff will be allowed to testify before the ethics committee.
Scheer names specific individuals â Katie Telford, Mathieu Bouchard, the Minister of Finance and his chief of staff â and cites the blocking of the former attorney general's testimony, making this a precise and accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, nobody is buying that. We all know that the Prime Minister sent in his members of that justice committee to shut it down. They allowed their preferred witnesses to speak more than once, but then when it came to listening to the former attorney general complete her testimony, they blocked the investigation. They have also refused to allow Katie Telford, the Prime Minister's chief of staff; Mathieu Bouchard, the PM's special Quebec adviser; and the Minister of Finance and his chief of staff to appear. Now that the ethics committee is launching an investigation, will those individuals be allowed to testify?
Trudeau says it is not up to the opposition leader or the Prime Minister to decide what committees do, and accuses Conservatives of having controlled committees under Harper.
Trudeau deflects by attacking the Conservative record under Harper on committee control and repeats that committees are independent, without addressing whether those named individuals will be allowed to testify.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce n'est pas au chef de l'opposition et ce n'est pas au premier ministre de décider ce que vont faire les comités. Les comités sont maßtres de leur propre programme et ils vont prendre les décisions en place. On a vu, pendant 10 ans, que les conservateurs, sous Harper, ont tout fait pour contrÎler les comités, mais nous, de ce cÎté-ci, nous respectons l'indépendance du travail des comités. On sait que les membres des comités prennent leurs propres décisions. C'est un principe de notre démocratie que nous respectons, mais dont, eux, ils font fi.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is not up to the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister to decide what the committees will do. Committees are masters of their own agenda and they will make their own decisions. For 10 years, we saw the Conservatives, under Harper, do all they could to control committees. However, on this side of the House we respect the independence of committees. We know that committee members make their own decisions. That is a principle of our democracy that we respect but that they disregard.
Citing the former attorney general's written statement that 'These matters are still unfolding, and further clarity and information is needed,' Scheer asks whether the Prime Minister will allow the ethics committee to conduct a full and public investigation.
Scheer quotes the former attorney general's written words â 'These matters are still unfolding, and further clarity and information is needed' â grounding the question in a specific document, though the ask repeats earlier exchanges.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, nobody is buying it. He can stop pretending. We all know that he sent his members in to block the investigation of the justice committee. He did so, knowing that there were more details to come out. The former attorney general wrote, âThese matters are still unfolding, and further clarity and information is needed.â For Canadians to hear the whole truth, they need to hear additional testimony and this investigation has to continue. Once again, will he allow the ethics committee to conduct a full and public investigation into his corruption scandal?
Trudeau repeats that the government respects committees, then pivots to attacking Conservatives for not wanting to discuss the economy and the budget tabled the previous day.
Trudeau pivots entirely to the budget and attacks Conservatives for not wanting to talk about the economy, completely abandoning the specific question about ethics committee co-operation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, nous respectons les comités. Les comités vont prendre leurs propres décisions quant à ce qu'ils veulent faire et nous allons coopérer avec eux. On voit à quel point les conservateurs ne veulent pas parler d'économie, ne veulent pas parler des préoccupations des Canadiens. En effet, hier, nous avons mis en avant un budget qui démontre qu'on a écouté les Canadiens, qu'on sait comment investir dans la classe moyenne et dans la communauté. Eux, ils n'ont aucun plan pour l'économie. C'est pour ça qu'ils essaient de distraire les Canadiens et de faire de la petite politique. Nous, nous allons rester concentrés sur les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, we respect the committees. They will make their own decisions about what they want to do, and we will co-operate with them. The Conservatives clearly do not want to talk about the economy or about the issues that matter to Canadians. Yesterday we presented a budget that shows we listened to Canadians. It shows that we know how to invest in the middle class and in the community. The Conservatives have no plan for the economy, which is why they are trying to distract Canadians and play politics. We will stay focused on Canadians.
Singh asks the Prime Minister to guarantee that Canadians will hear from everyone involved in the SNC-Lavalin matter before the next election.
Singh combines a substantive demand â a guarantee that all involved will testify before the next election â with rhetorical framing about powerful insiders and dodging, diluting the specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, instead of listening to Canadians and bringing down the cost of prescription drugs, the Liberal Prime Minister gives powerful insiders special access to get what they want. When Canadians start asking questions about just where his priorities actually lie, he dodges and dismisses. He refuses to come clean. Now the Liberals have shut down the justice committee investigation to get to the truth. Maybe we will have an ethics committee look at it. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that Canadians will hear from everyone involved before the next election?
Trudeau says committees decide their own agendas and party leaders do not direct them, then mentions $500 million for families dealing with rare diseases.
Trudeau reminds Singh of the rules on committee independence and briefly mentions $500 million for rare disease drugs, partially engaging on pharmacare but not addressing the guarantee about testimony.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je veux d'abord souhaiter Ă nouveau une bonne JournĂ©e internationale de la Francophonie Ă mon honorable collĂšgue. Je veux aussi lui rappeler les rĂšgles de la Chambre, qui disent que c'est le comitĂ© lui-mĂȘme qui dĂ©cidera de son programme et de ce qu'il fera en tant que comitĂ©. Ce n'est pas aux chefs de partis de diriger ce que font les comitĂ©s. Nous, de ce cĂŽtĂ©-ci de la Chambre, nous respectons l'indĂ©pendance des comitĂ©s et nous allons toujours le faire. En ce qui concerne l'assurance-mĂ©dicaments, nous sommes trĂšs fiers des 500 millions de dollars que nous avons mis en avant pour aider les familles qui souffrent de maladies rares Ă acheter leurs mĂ©dicaments.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to wish my hon. colleague a happy International Day of La Francophonie. I also want to remind him that the rules of the House allow for committees to set their own agendas and to decide what they will do. It is not up to party leaders to tell committees what to do. On this side of the House, we respect the independence of our committees and we always will. As for pharmacare, we are very proud of the $500 million we have allocated to help families dealing with rare diseases pay for their medications.
Singh asks why the Prime Minister chose to benefit wealthy pharmaceutical companies rather than reduce the $1,300 average health care costs Canadians pay, instead of creating a universal public pharmacare program.
Singh cites a specific figure ($1,300 average health care costs for Canadians) and challenges the budget decision not to create a universal public pharmacare program, but frames it in partisan terms about pharmaceutical company profits.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cela dĂ©montre encore pourquoi on a besoin d'une enquĂȘte publique. Les Canadiens paient en moyenne 1 300 $ pour les soins de santĂ©. Hier, le premier ministre avait la chance de rĂ©duire la facture des Canadiens en crĂ©ant une assurance-mĂ©dicaments publique et universelle. Qu'a-t-il dĂ©cidĂ© de faire? Il a dĂ©cidĂ© de faire gagner du temps aux riches compagnies pharmaceutiques. Pourquoi le premier ministre a-t-il choisi d'accorder la prioritĂ© aux profits des riches compagnies plutĂŽt qu'au portefeuille des Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this proves once again why we need a public inquiry. Canadians pay, on average, $1,300 for health care. The Prime Minister had an opportunity yesterday to reduce costs for Canadians by creating a universal public pharmacare program. What did he do instead? He decided to buy some time for wealthy drug companies. Why did the Prime Minister decide to put rich corporations and their profits first, rather than Canadians and their pocketbooks?
Trudeau says the budget lays the groundwork for a national pharmacare program by creating the Canadian Drug Agency to negotiate drug prices with provinces and territories, saving up to $3 billion per year, and a $500 million national strategy for rare disease drugs.
Trudeau provides concrete budget measures â creating the Canadian Drug Agency, negotiating drug prices with provinces and territories for savings of up to $3 billion per year, and a $500 million national strategy for rare disease drugs â directly engaging the pharmacare question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce n'est pas du tout ce que nous avons fait. Nous savons qu'aucun Canadien ne devrait choisir entre les médicaments et la nourriture. Avec le budget que nous avons déposé hier, nous jetons les bases d'un régime national d'assurance-médicaments. Nous créons l'Agence canadienne des médicaments. Avec les provinces et les territoires, l'Agence négociera le prix des médicaments pour tous les Canadiens, et cela réduira les coûts d'un montant pouvant atteindre 3 milliards de dollars par année. De plus, nous mettons en place une stratégie nationale d'une valeur de 500 millions de dollars pour les médicaments onéreux destinés au traitement des maladies rares. Nous aidons les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is not at all what we did. We understand that no Canadian should be forced to decide between medicine and food. With the budget we tabled yesterday, we are laying the foundation for a national pharmacare program. We are creating the Canadian drug agency. With the provinces and territories, the agency will negotiate drug prices for all Canadians, and this will reduce costs by as much as $3 billon a year. We are also investing $500 million to create a national strategy for high-cost drugs used to treat rare diseases. We are helping Canadians.
Singh accuses the Prime Minister of working for rich friends rather than ordinary Canadians and asks why the Liberal budget does not reflect Canadians' needs on housing and pharmacare.
Singh's question is largely rhetorical, accusing the Prime Minister of helping rich friends rather than providing specific evidence or a precise ask on housing or pharmacare.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est normal que le budget libĂ©ral ne reflĂšte pas les besoins des Canadiens en matiĂšre de logement et d'assurance-mĂ©dicaments: pendant que les gens Ă©taient Ă la recherche d'aide, le premier ministre a passĂ© l'annĂ©e derniĂšre Ă aider ses amis riches et Ă dĂ©fendre ses propres intĂ©rĂȘts politiques. Pourquoi le premier ministre travaille-t-il juste pour ses amis plutĂŽt que pour apporter les vrais changements dont les gens ont besoin?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, of course the Liberal budget does not reflect Canadians' housing and pharmacare needs. While people were looking for help, the Prime Minister spent the past year helping his rich friends and defending his own political interests. Why is the Prime Minister working only for his friends rather than making the real changes people need?
Trudeau highlights the new First-Time Home Buyer Incentive to reduce monthly mortgage payments and increased funding for the Rental Construction Financing Initiative to build thousands of new homes.
Trudeau addresses the housing component by naming the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive and the Rental Construction Financing Initiative, providing substantive if brief detail.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis trÚs content de pouvoir parler de nos investissements historiques en matiÚre de logement. Nous faisons des investissements considérables pour aider les Canadiens à trouver des habitations abordables. Notre nouvel incitatif à l'achat d'une premiÚre propriété rendra l'achat de propriété plus abordable pour les acheteurs d'une premiÚre maison. Cela réduira le montant des paiements hypothécaires mensuels. Nous avons aussi augmenté le financement pour l'initiative Financement de la construction de logements locatifs. Cela aidera à construire des milliers de nouveaux logements. Nous savions que cela prenait du leadership du fédéral en matiÚre de logement au pays, et depuis trois ans, nous sommes à la hauteur.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have an opportunity to talk about our historic investments in housing. We are making major investments to help Canadians find affordable housing. Our new first-time home buyer incentive will make it more affordable for first-time home buyers to own their own home. It will lower their monthly mortgage payments. We also increased funding for the rental construction financing initiative, which will help to build thousands of new housing units. We knew that Canada required federal leadership on housing, and we have been living up to that challenge for the past three years.
Singh asks whether the Liberal government will build half a million new affordable homes now, citing decades-long wait-lists for co-op housing and hundreds of people lining up for new rentals.
Singh grounds his question in observable facts about decades-long co-op housing wait-lists and line-ups for new rentals, and poses a clear specific ask â will the government build half a million new affordable homes now.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this budget had the Liberals' powerful friends covered, but it was a missed opportunity to listen to Canadians who cannot afford a place to live. For people who are waiting, every delay hurts. Wait-lists for co-op housing are decades long. Hundreds of people are standing in line for new rentals when they become available. It is not too late for the government to do right by people. Will the Liberal government build half a million new affordable homes now?
Trudeau points to three years of investment through the $40 billion National Housing Strategy, construction in Indigenous communities and urban areas, and the new First-Time Home Buyer Incentive.
Trudeau references the $40 billion National Housing Strategy and mentions construction with Indigenous communities, urban housing, and affordable rentals, but does not address the specific ask of half a million new affordable homes.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cela fait trois ans que nous investissons dans le logement, notamment par l'entremise de notre plan de 40 milliards de dollars, la Stratégie nationale sur le logement. Nous sommes en train de bùtir des logements avec les communautés autochtones. Nous sommes en train de bùtir et de rénover des logements dans les milieux urbains. Nous sommes en train d'aider les gens en créant plus de logements locatifs abordables. Nous savons qu'il y a encore du travail à faire. C'est pourquoi nous avons proposé une mesure innovatrice pour aider les acheteurs d'une premiÚre propriété. Investir dans le logement, c'est exactement ce que nous faisons.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have been investing in housing for three years now, including through our $40-billion national housing strategy. We are building housing in co-operation with indigenous communities. We are building and renovating housing in urban areas. We are helping people by creating more affordable rental housing. We know that there is still work to be done. That is why we proposed an innovative measure to help first-time home buyers. Investing in housing is exactly what we are doing.
Bergen asks why the Prime Minister is silencing women of principle while covering up for the actions of his corrupt friends, framing it in terms of his record as a feminist.
Bergen's question is heavily rhetorical, using 'fake feminist' and 'good old boys' framing; while it alludes to the firing of the former attorney general, it lacks specificity and precision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what has become abundantly clear with this cover-up is that the Prime Minister is nothing but a fake feminist. This all started when the good old boys at SNC-Lavalin were caught bribing and spending money on prostitutes and then the Prime Minister and his good old boys said to them, âDon't worry, we'll take care of it.â However, then a woman, the former attorney general, said no to the good old boys and she was promptly fired and silenced. Why is the Prime Minister silencing women of principle while covering up for the actions of his corrupt friends?
Trudeau says the Liberals will not take lessons from Conservatives on defending women's rights, cites the gender-parity cabinet and the defence of reproductive rights, and accuses Conservatives of being against abortion.
Trudeau deflects entirely to the Conservative record on abortion rights and the government's gender-equity investments, without addressing the specific allegation of silencing the former attorney general.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous n'avons aucune leçon à recevoir des conservateurs sur la défense des droits des femmes dans ce pays. DÚs les premiers jours, nous avons investi dans l'égalité des femmes, qu'il s'agisse de notre budget paritaire ou de notre défense sans équivoque des droits reproductifs des femmes. Investir dans les femmes, l'égalité et l'équité salariale sera toujours une priorité pour nous. Les conservateurs, eux, sont toujours contre l'avortement. Nous, nous allons toujours défendre les droits des femmes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to learn from the Conservatives about standing up for women's rights in this country. We have been investing in women's equality from day one, with our gender-balanced budget and our unequivocal defence of women's reproductive rights. Investing in women, in equality and in pay equity will always be a priority for us. The Conservatives are still against abortion, whereas we will always defend women's rights.
Bergen references the Minister of Finance's reported remark that the former president of the Treasury Board resigned because she was good friends with the former attorney general and that is just what girls do, asking why the Prime Minister and his friends think it is easier to silence women.
Bergen quotes the Minister of Finance's characterization of the former president of the Treasury Board's resignation as something 'girls do,' giving the question some factual grounding, but the line of questioning is cut off and is largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is really good at yelling and screaming at women, as the member for Whitby knows. He is also a very good actor. However, he is a fake feminist. We know that after the principled resignation of the former president of the Treasury Board, another good old boy, the Minister of Finance, said she just quit because she was good friends with the former attorney general and that is just what girls do. Why is the Prime Minister and his friends thinking it is so much easier to silence women andâ
Oh, oh!
Trudeau says it is extremely rich for the Conservative Party to offer lessons on defending women's rights given their position on abortion, and says the government will always invest in the cause of women.
Trudeau dismisses the Conservative critique as rich coming from a party that doesn't defend abortion rights, without addressing the specific quote attributed to the Minister of Finance or the allegation of silencing women.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, que le Parti conservateur nous offre des leçons sur la dĂ©fense des droits des femmes, je trouve cela extrĂȘmement « riche ». Ce parti ne dĂ©fend toujours pas le droit des femmes Ă l'avortement, si elles font ce choix. C'est encore une question arriĂ©rĂ©e Ă laquelle ils vont devoir repenser. Nous allons toujours dĂ©fendre les droits des femmes. Nous allons toujours investir dans la cause des femmes, non seulement parce que c'est la bonne chose Ă faire, mais aussi parce que c'est la chose intelligente Ă faire sur le plan Ă©conomique. Nous allons bĂątir une Ă©conomie plus forte avec les femmes plutĂŽt qu'en les mettant dans un coin.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty rich for the Conservative Party to be lecturing us about standing up for women's rights. That party still refuses to defend a woman's right to choose. That is yet another outdated position they will have to reconsider. We will always stand up for women's rights. We will always invest in the advancement of women, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is smart economics. We are going to build a stronger economy with women, instead of putting them in a corner.
Bergen asks why the Prime Minister cannot see that when he silences women, yells at them, and dismisses their experiences as different perspectives, he is demeaning all women, citing the Liberal member for Whitby's account of being screamed at by the Prime Minister.
Bergen cites the specific incident of the Liberal member for Whitby alleging the Prime Minister phoned her and screamed at her so loudly her husband could hear it through the phone, giving the question some factual grounding, though the overall framing remains rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister likes to just say that women have experienced interactions with him differently. Boy, where have we heard that one before? However, we know what the Liberal member for Whitby said. She had an experience where the Prime Minister phoned her and screamed at her so loudly her husband could hear it through the phone. Why is it that the Prime Minister cannot see that when he silences women, yells and screams at them and says that their experiences are just different perspectives, he is demeaning all women and showing what a fake feminist he is?
Trudeau challenges the opposition leader to prove he is a better feminist and to stop voting against budgets that help women and against investments in organizations that assist women in need.
Trudeau redirects to the opposition leader, challenging him to prove he is a better feminist and to stop voting against budgets that help women, entirely ignoring the specific allegation about the member for Whitby.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je serais ravi que le chef de lâopposition essaie de prouver qu'il est un meilleur fĂ©ministe que moi. Ce serait une trĂšs bonne chose pour notre dĂ©mocratie que le chef de l'opposition dĂ©cide de dĂ©fendre la cause des femmes et d'arrĂȘter de voter contre des budgets qui aident les femmes et contre des investissements dans des organismes qui viennent en aide aux femmes dĂ©munies. Si le chef de lâopposition veut dĂ©montrer qu'il est un meilleur fĂ©ministe que moi, je lui souhaite bonne chance. Ce serait une trĂšs bonne chose pour notre politique.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would love to see the Leader of the Opposition try to prove he is a better feminist than I am. It would be great for our democracy if the Leader of the Opposition decided to stand up for women and stop voting against budgets that help women and against investments in organizations that support women in need. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to prove that he is a better feminist than I am, I say go ahead. It would be great for our political system.
Rempel asks why the Prime Minister is muzzling the former attorney general if he is such a feminist, framing it as a contradiction between his words about wanting strong women and his actions.
Rempel's question has a clear and direct ask â why is he muzzling the former attorney general â and frames it in terms of the Prime Minister's own words about wanting strong women, giving it some internal accountability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is the problem for the Prime Minister. He asked for strong women and this is what they look like: women who will not sacrifice their principles to cover up his corruption scandal, women who stand up every day and refuse to back down against his abuse of our judiciary and parliamentary committees. More importantly, his use of the term âfeministâ is fake. I will ask one more time. If the Prime Minister is such a feminist, why is he muzzling the former attorney general?
Trudeau says he is happy to have strong and extraordinary women in his gender-parity cabinet and caucus, and mentions lifting 825,000 people out of poverty through investments in the middle class.
Trudeau praises the strong women in his gender-parity cabinet and caucus and mentions lifting 825,000 people out of poverty, without addressing the specific question of why the former attorney general is muzzled.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis trĂšs content d'avoir Ă mes cĂŽtĂ©s des femmes fortes et extraordinaires, pas seulement dans mon conseil des ministres paritaire, mais aussi Ă l'intĂ©rieur de notre caucus. Ce sont des femmes extraordinaires, qui continuent de contribuer Ă©normĂ©ment, tous les jours, Ă bĂątir un Canada plus fort, oĂč il y a une Ă©galitĂ© entre les sexes, oĂč il y a des occasions pour les peuples autochtones en tant que partenaires dans tout ce qu'on fait, et oĂč on sort 825 000 personnes de la pauvretĂ© depuis deux ans, parce qu'on est en train d'investir dans la classe moyenne et dans ceux qui travaillent fort pour s'y joindre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to serve alongside strong, extraordinary women, not only in my gender-balanced cabinet but also within our caucus. These are extraordinary women who work hard every day and are helping to build a stronger Canada, a country where gender equality prevails and where indigenous peoples are given opportunities as partners in everything we do, a country where we have lifted 825,000 people out of poverty in the past two years, because we are investing in the middle class and those working hard to join it.
Rempel asks why the Prime Minister is only letting his good old boys do all the talking, citing his use of 'they experienced things differently' in both the Creston groping scandal and the SNC-Lavalin matter.
Rempel links the use of 'they experienced things differently' in both the Creston groping scandal and the SNC-Lavalin matter, providing a specific factual parallel, but the overall framing is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it seems the only women that the Prime Minister is proud of are those who use their reputations to do his dirty work. That is wrong. That is not a feminist. There is a reason why he used âthey experienced things differentlyâ both in the Creston groping scandal and in Lav scam. It is because he wants women to think and take the message that if they accuse him, a powerful man, of wrongdoing, then they are to blame. That is wrong. Why is the Prime Minister only letting his good old boys do all the talking?
Trudeau lists government actions for women including support for Rohingya families, the ambassador for Women, Peace and Security position, the Elsie Initiative, and collaboration with G7 partners on girls' education.
Trudeau lists international feminist actions â support for Rohingya families, the ambassador for Women, Peace and Security, the Elsie Initiative, and education for women in developing countries â without addressing the specific allegation of muzzling the former attorney general.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis trÚs content de parler de toutes les choses que ce gouvernement est en train de faire pour protéger et promouvoir les droits des femmes. On est en train de fournir des services de santé sexuelle et reproductive aux familles et aux filles rohingyas qui ont fui le Myanmar. On a créé le poste d'ambassadeur pour les femmes, la paix et la sécurité. On soutient les femmes par le biais de l'Initiative Elsie, pour les femmes dans les opérations de paix. Nous défendons les femmes en défendant les droits des femmes en Arabie Saoudite, ce que les conservateurs sont trop lùches pour faire. On a collaboré avec les partenaires du G7 pour l'éducation des femmes et des filles dans les pays en développement...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to talk about everything this government is doing to protect and promote women's rights. We are currently providing sexual and reproductive health services to Rohingya families and girls who have fled Myanmar. We created the position of ambassador for women, peace and security. We are supporting women through the Elsie Initiative, for women in peace operations. We are standing up for women by defending the rights of women in Saudi Arabia, something the Conservatives are too gutless to do. We are working closely with our G7 partners on education for women and girls in developing countriesâ
Rempel asks why the former attorney general is muzzled, noting the Prime Minister has been working to protect a company accused of bribing Moammar Gadhafi's sons with prostitutes.
Rempel specifically invokes the allegation that SNC-Lavalin stands accused of bribing Moammar Gadhafi's sons with prostitutes, and poses a clear if repeated ask about why the former attorney general is muzzled.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the only thing the Prime Minister has been doing is moving hell and high water to protect a company that stands accused of bribing Moammar Gadhafi's sons with prostitutes and he has been doing that while muzzling strong, principled women. That is not what a feminist looks like. That is not walking the talk. Every day that he refuses to allow the former attorney general to testify and tell her story is another day he is a fake feminist. Why does he have her muzzled?
Trudeau says the government has invested millions for women across the country and around the world, and accuses Conservatives of voting against gender-equality measures and opportunities for women entrepreneurs.
Trudeau says he is glad to talk about women's rights and that the government has invested millions for women across the country, while attacking Conservatives for voting against gender-equality measures, without addressing the muzzling question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je peux dire à quel point je suis content de parler des droits des femmes, en ce moment. En effet, ce gouvernement a investi des millions, et des millions de dollars pour aider les femmes partout au pays. Nous allons continuer de le faire. Ce sont les conservateurs qui continuent de voter contre nos mesures pour l'égalité des sexes, qui votent contre nos mesures pour donner plus de possibilités aux femmes entrepreneures. Nous allons continuer de reconnaßtre à quel point le fait d'investir dans les femmes partout au pays et dans le monde est une priorité pour bùtir un monde meilleur pour nous tous.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to have this opportunity to talk about women's rights. Our government has invested millions and millions of dollars to help women across the country, and we will continue to do so. The Conservatives keep voting against our measures to promote gender equality and create more opportunities for female entrepreneurs. We will continue our work because we know that investing in women in Canada and around the world is key to building a better world for everyone.
Ramsey cites the CEO of SNC-Lavalin's statement that he never told the Prime Minister jobs in Canada were in danger, notes that Liberals shut down committee debate and misled Canadians, and asks yes or no whether the Prime Minister will launch an independent public inquiry.
Ramsey grounds her question in a specific new factual claim â the CEO of SNC-Lavalin said he never told the Prime Minister that jobs in Canada were in danger â and poses a direct yes-or-no ask about launching an independent public inquiry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, not only do Liberals not want the truth to come out at the justice committee, we now know they were bending the truth about jobs being in danger. The CEO of SNC-Lavalin just said he never told the Prime Minister that jobs in Canada were in danger. The Liberals shut down debate at committee. They misled Canadians. Two cabinet ministers and two senior officials have lost their jobs. Remember that the Liberals in 2015 promised transparency and accountability. What happened to them? Canadians are tired of being misled and now know they cannot trust the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and launch an independent public inquiry, yes or no?
Trudeau says what was promised in 2015 was to invest in the middle class and create economic growth, and lists budget investments in housing, high-speed connectivity, and pharmacare.
Trudeau does not address the CEO's statement about jobs, the independent public inquiry request, or any aspect of the SNC-Lavalin matter, instead pivoting entirely to budget measures on housing, connectivity, and pharmacare.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce qu'on a promis, en 2015, c'est d'investir dans la classe moyenne et de créer de la croissance économique; c'est exactement ce que nous avons fait, et c'est ce que nous continuons de faire. Dans le budget qu'on a présenté hier, on montre qu'on est en train d'investir pour assurer plus d'accÚs à de nouveaux logements pour de jeunes familles. On est en train d'investir dans la connectivité à haute vitesse partout au pays. On est en train d'investir dans l'assurance-médicaments pour permettre aux gens de mieux accéder aux médicaments. On peut le faire, parce que notre plan fonctionne. Depuis trois ans, on a vu une croissance économique qui nous permet de continuer d'investir.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in 2015, we promised to invest in the middle class and create economic growth. That is exactly what we have done and will continue to do. As shown in yesterday's budget, we are investing in improving access to new housing for young families. We are investing in high-speed connectivity across the country. We are investing in pharmacare to help improve access to prescription drugs. We can do all this because our plan is working. We can keep investing thanks to the economic growth of the past three years.
Angus cites the CEO of SNC-Lavalin saying 9,000 jobs were never at risk, contradicting the Prime Minister's repeated claims, and asks why the Prime Minister is afraid of an investigation into his interference and the made-up facts around SNC lobbying.
Cites a specific statement by the CEO of SNC-Lavalin contradicting the Prime Minister's jobs claim, and asks a clear accountability question about the interference investigation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have now learned from the CEO of SNC-Lavalin that 9,000 jobs were never at risk. To say that they are going to be unemployed is not true, he said, yet the Prime Minister has misled his caucus, the House and Canadians day after day, because it was never about jobs. It was about helping his wealthy friends and about shutting down the justice committee. He has tried to cover up his interference in an independent public prosecution. He has broken faith with the Canadian people. Why is he so afraid of an investigation into his actions and making up the facts around the SNC lobbying?
The Prime Minister says the government always works to protect jobs and support workers, and pivots to the new budget's training investments including the Canadian Training Benefit.
The Prime Minister pivots entirely to training investments and the budget, making no contact with the specific CEO quote or the question about covering up interference.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce à quoi les Canadiens s'attendent, c'est à ce que nous travaillions à protéger les emplois et à appuyer les travailleurs, tout en respectant nos institutions. C'est exactement ce que nous sommes en train de faire. Nous allons continuer à investir dans les travailleurs et à aider les Canadiens, grùce aux investissements en formation que nous sommes en train de faire, par exemple. Nous avons présenté notre budget hier. Les Canadiens auront accÚs à la formation, afin de mieux se préparer à occuper les emplois de l'avenir, les occasions de l'avenir. C'est cela, préparer l'avenir des travailleurs et des Canadiens, et c'est ce que nous faisons.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect us to protect jobs and support workers while respecting our institutions. That is exactly what we are doing. Investing in training is one way we will continue to invest in workers and help Canadians. We tabled our budget yesterday. Canadians will have access to training so they can be better prepared for the jobs and opportunities of the future. That is what it means to help workers and Canadians take control of their futures, and that is what we are doing.
Rayes lists the Prime Minister's refusals â public inquiry, justice committee appearance, staff testimony, waiving the former attorney general's privilege â and asks whether he will agree to testify before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
Enumerates a specific list of refusals by the Prime Minister â public inquiry, justice committee testimony, staff testimony, solicitor-client privilege â and asks a direct yes/no question about testifying at the ethics committee.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce que les Canadiens veulent savoir, c'est la vĂ©ritĂ©. Pourtant, le premier ministre a refusĂ© l'enquĂȘte publique. Il a refusĂ© de tĂ©moigner devant le ComitĂ© permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne. Il a refusĂ© que nous entendions ses proches collaborateurs qui travaillent Ă son bureau. Il refuse de lever le secret professionnel de l'ancienne procureure gĂ©nĂ©rale. AprĂšs avoir mis fin aux travaux du ComitĂ© permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne, oĂč on aurait peut-ĂȘtre pu en savoir un peu plus, est-ce que le premier ministre va accepter d'aller tĂ©moigner devant le ComitĂ© permanent de l'accĂšs Ă l'information, de la protection des renseignements personnels et de l'Ă©thique?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want the truth. However, the Prime Minister refused to call a public inquiry. He refused to testify before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He refused to let us hear from his senior staff who work in his office. He is refusing to waive solicitor-client privilege for the former attorney general. Since he shut down the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where we could perhaps have learned a little more, will the Prime Minister agree to testify before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics?
The Prime Minister says parliamentary committees choose their own witnesses and he will always respect their decisions, then pivots to infrastructure, affordable housing, connectivity, and dairy farmers.
The Prime Minister offers a procedural platitude that committees choose their own witnesses and then pivots to infrastructure, affordable housing, and dairy farmers, never addressing the direct yes/no question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, de ce cĂŽtĂ©-ci de la Chambre, nous comprenons que les comitĂ©s parlementaires choisissent eux-mĂȘmes les tĂ©moins qu'ils vont inviter et les Ă©tudes qu'ils vont faire. Je vais toujours respecter les dĂ©cisions prises par les comitĂ©s. De ce cĂŽtĂ© de la Chambre, nous respectons nos institutions. C'est pour cela que nous sommes en train d'investir dans nos institutions et d'investir dans les Canadiens. Nous investissons en infrastructure partout au pays, nous investissons dans le logement abordable, nous investissons dans la connectivitĂ© et nous offrons de l'aide aux fermiers laitiers. Nous continuerons Ă travailler pour les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we understand that parliamentary committees decide which witnesses they will invite and what they will study. I will always respect committee decisions. On this side of the House, we respect our institutions. That is why we are investing in our institutions and in Canadians. We are investing in infrastructure across the country, we are investing in affordable housing, we are investing in connectivity, and we are providing funding to dairy farmers.
Rayes names four resignations (Justice minister, Treasury Board president, Clerk of the Privy Council, principal adviser), notes a new Liberal MP departure and the Prime Minister's use of public money for private lawyers despite claiming innocence, and asks yes or no whether the Prime Minister will testify at the ethics committee.
Cites four specific resignations plus a new Liberal MP departure and the Prime Minister's use of public funds for private lawyers, and repeats the direct yes/no question about the ethics committee.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il y a eu la démission de la ministre de la Justice, la démission de la présidente du Conseil du Trésor, la démission du greffier du Conseil privé et la démission du conseiller principal du premier ministre, qui, drÎlement, est son ami et qui n'avait supposément rien à se reprocher. On apprend aujourd'hui qu'une autre députée libérale vient de quitter le bateau libéral parce qu'elle était insatisfaite du travail. En plus, le premier ministre engage des avocats privés pour le défendre, avec l'argent des Canadiens. Pourtant, il n'a rien à se reprocher. La question est simple: est-ce que le premier ministre va accepter d'aller témoigner au Comité permanent de l'accÚs à l'information, de la protection des renseignements personnels et de l'éthique?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the justice minister resigned, the Treasury Board president resigned, the Clerk of the Privy Council resigned, and the Prime Minister's principal secretary resigned, which is interesting because he is the Prime Minister's friend and supposedly did nothing wrong. Today we learn that another Liberal MP has abandoned the Liberal ship because she was unhappy with the job. The Prime Minister is hiring private lawyers to defend himself with Canadians' money, but he did nothing wrong. My question is simple. Will the Prime Minister agree to testify at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics?
The Prime Minister repeats that committees decide their own witnesses, accuses the Conservatives of playing political games, and pivots to 900,000 jobs created and the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years.
The Prime Minister again deflects with the procedural committees-choose-their-witnesses line and pivots to 900,000 jobs and the budget, completely ignoring the specific facts cited and the yes/no question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme les conservateurs devraient le savoir, ce sont les comitĂ©s eux-mĂȘmes qui dĂ©cident des tĂ©moins qu'ils vont entendre. Nous allons toujours participer Ă leurs Ă©tudes. Je tiens Ă souligner que, hier, notre budget a dĂ©montrĂ© que nous sommes encore en train de nous concentrer uniquement sur les Canadiens. Nous laissons les conservateurs faire des jeux politiques. Nous avons un plan pour l'Ă©conomie, et il a permis de crĂ©er 900 000 nouveaux emplois depuis trois ans. Cela a donnĂ© le taux de chĂŽmage le plus bas depuis 40 ans. Les conservateurs n'ont aucun plan pour l'Ă©conomie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as the Conservatives should know, it is up to the committees to decide which witnesses they want to hear from. We will always participate in their studies. I want to note that yesterday, our budget showed that Canadians continue to be our primary focus. The Conservatives can keep playing political games if they want to, but we have a plan for the economy that helped create 900,000 new jobs in three years, resulting in the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years. The Conservatives have no plan for the economy.
Deltell cites a La Presse Canadienne report in which the president of SNC-Lavalin said he never cited the protection of 9,000 jobs, directly contradicting what the Prime Minister has been saying for a month and a half, and asks whether the Prime Minister will testify at the ethics committee.
Cites a specific La Presse Canadienne report attributing a direct statement by the president of SNC-Lavalin contradicting the Prime Minister's claim about 9,000 jobs over a month and a half, and asks a direct question about testifying at the ethics committee.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis un an et demi, les libĂ©raux et le premier ministre, presque la larme Ă l'Ćil, disent qu'ils sont lĂ pour protĂ©ger les 9 000 emplois de SNC-Lavalin. VoilĂ que le chat sort du sac, puisque le prĂ©sident de SNC-Lavalin a affirmĂ© Ă La Presse Canadienne qu'il n'a jamais citĂ© la protection des 9 000 emplois. C'est exactement le contraire de ce que le premier ministre dit depuis un mois et demi. Maintenant que l'on sait que le ComitĂ© permanent de l'accĂšs Ă l'information, de la protection des renseignements personnels et de l'Ă©thique va enquĂȘter sur le scandale libĂ©ral SNC-Lavalin, est-ce que le premier ministre va accepter de tĂ©moigner et de donner sa version des faits?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for a year and a half now, the Liberals and the Prime Minister have being going on, practically with tears in their eyes, about how they are protecting the 9,000 SNC-Lavalin jobs. The cat is now out of the bag, after the president and CEO of SNC-Lavalin told the Canadian Press that he never mentioned protecting the 9,000 jobs. This is the complete opposite of what the Prime Minister has been saying for the past month and a half. Now that we know that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics will investigate the Liberal SNC-Lavalin scandal, will the Prime Minister agree to testify and tell his version of the story?
The Prime Minister says the government has always worked to protect workers and jobs since 2015, and highlights the new Allocation canadienne pour la formation from Budget 2019 to help workers upgrade their skills.
The Prime Minister makes no reference to the La Presse Canadienne report or the SNC-Lavalin president's statement, instead pivoting to job creation numbers and the new Allocation canadienne pour la formation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis 2015, nous avons toujours tout fait pour protéger les travailleurs et les emplois. Nous allons continuer de le faire, surtout puisque, depuis 2015, les Canadiens ont créé plus de 900 000 emplois au pays. Toutefois, nous avons reconnu que ce ne sont pas tous les Canadiens qui ont accÚs à la formation nécessaire pour accéder à de nouveaux emplois. Dans notre budget, que nous avons présenté hier, nous avons créé l'Allocation canadienne pour la formation, qui aidera les travailleurs à trouver le temps et l'argent pour améliorer leurs compétences. C'est une mesure qui va aider énormément les travailleurs et les entreprises.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have been making every effort to protect workers and jobs since 2015. We will continue to do so, especially since Canadians have created more than 900,000 jobs in this country since 2015. However, we recognized that not all Canadians have access to the training they need to get new jobs. In the budget we presented yesterday, we created the Canada training benefit, which will help workers find the time and money to upgrade their skills. This measure will be a huge help to workers and businesses.
Deltell notes that the Prime Minister initially called the Globe and Mail story false, then catalogues the departure of three women â the former attorney general, the former president of the Treasury Board, and a Liberal MP â and asks yes or no whether the Prime Minister will give his version of the facts at the ethics committee.
Ties the Prime Minister's initial denial of the Globe and Mail story to the subsequent sequence of events including three women losing their positions and frames a direct yes/no question about testifying at the ethics committee.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, quand le Globe and Mail a publié l'histoire concernant le scandale libéral SNC-Lavalin, le premier ministre avait dit que c'était tout faux. Depuis ce temps-là , qu'est-ce qui s'est passé? L'ex-procureure générale a perdu son emploi. L'ex-présidente du Conseil du Trésor a perdu son emploi, et voilà qu'une députée libérale quitte le caucus libéral. Une femme, deux femmes, trois femmes: c'est le bilan d'un premier ministre qui se dit féministe. Puisque le Comité permanent de l'accÚs à l'information, de la protection des renseignements personnels et de l'éthique va se réunir pour étudier le scandale SNC-Lavalin, est-ce que le premier ministre va accepter de donner sa version des faits, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when The Globe and Mail broke the story on the Liberal SNC-Lavalin scandal, the Prime Minister said it was false. What has happened since then? The former attorney general lost her job. The former president of the Treasury Board lost her job, and now a Liberal MP has left the Liberal caucus. One woman, two women, three women have left. That is the record of a Prime Minister who claims to be a feminist. Since the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics will be meeting to examine the SNC-Lavalin scandal, will the Prime Minister agree to give his side of the story?
The Prime Minister says the government will always collaborate with committees that choose their own work, then contrasts his economic record including job creation and growth with the Conservative approach under Stephen Harper.
The Prime Minister says the government will always collaborate with committees, then pivots to economic growth, job creation, and contrasting his record with Stephen Harper's, ignoring the yes/no question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous collaborerons toujours avec les comitĂ©s, qui vont choisir eux-mĂȘmes les Ă©tudes qu'ils vont faire. En mĂȘme temps, nous savons qu'investir dans les Canadiens et dans l'Ă©conomie canadienne, comme on a promis de le faire depuis 2015, cela a fonctionnĂ©. On voit une croissance Ă©conomique qu'on n'avait pas vue dans les annĂ©es de Stephen Harper. On voit une crĂ©ation d'emplois qu'on n'avait pas vue dans les annĂ©es de Stephen Harper. Malheureusement, les conservateurs sont encore pris avec la mĂȘme approche, celle de Stephen Harper, et c'est pour cela qu'ils ne veulent pas parler d'Ă©conomie. Ils ne veulent pas parler du budget. Ils ne veulent faire que de la politique. Nous, nous allons rester concentrĂ©s sur les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we will always work with the committees that determine what studies they will undertake. In the meantime, we know that investing in Canadians and the Canadian economy, as we promised to do in 2015, is working. We are seeing economic growth that was never seen during the Harper years. We are seeing job creation that was never seen in the Harper years. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are still stuck on the same old Stephen Harper approach, and that is why they do not want to talk about the economy. They do not want to talk about the budget. They only want to play politics. We will stay focused on Canadians.
Kwan references the global climate strike by 1.5 million students, states there are 12 years to avert climate disaster, claims Budget 2019 continues to subsidize big oil, and asks whether the Prime Minister will admit that Harper's emissions targets will not cut it and that buying a 65-year-old pipeline is not climate action.
References the global climate strike of 1.5 million students and makes two specific claims â that Harper's emissions targets remain in place and that Budget 2019 continues to subsidize big oil â but the question is compound and partially rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 1.5 million students around the world took to the streets in a climate strike last Friday. Students from Canada, from coast to coast to coast, flooded the streets with a clear message: There is no planet B. We have 12 years to avert climate disaster, and climate leaders do not buy pipelines. Our children are demanding real action and an end to empty promises. Budget 2019 continues to subsidize big oil. Will the Prime Minister admit that Harper's emissions targets will not cut it, and that buying a 65-year-old pipeline is not climate action?
The Prime Minister welcomes students' concern for the planet and lists government climate measures including putting a price on pollution, a historic plan to protect oceans, and investments in green energy and new technologies.
The Prime Minister acknowledges the student climate strike and lists some climate measures â carbon pricing, ocean protection plan, green energy investments â but does not address whether Harper's emissions targets remain in force or whether big oil subsidies continue.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis trÚs content de voir les étudiants et les jeunes se préoccuper de l'avenir de notre planÚte parce que c'est une préoccupation que nous partageons, de cÎté-ci de la Chambre. C'est pour cela que nous avançons en mettant un prix sur la pollution. Nous avançons avec un plan historique pour protéger nos océans. Nous avançons avec des investissements dans les énergies vertes, dans les technologies nouvelles pour améliorer le fonctionnement de notre économie. Nous lutterons toujours pour contrer les changements climatiques. C'est une priorité de ce gouvernement, comme c'est une priorité des jeunes de partout au pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that students and young people are concerned about the future of our planet, because we on this side of the House share that concern. That is why we are moving forward with putting a price on pollution. We are moving forward with an historic plan to protect our oceans. We are moving forward with investments in green energies and in new technologies to improve how our economy works. We will continue to fight climate change. It is a priority for our government, just as it is a priority for young people across the country.
Boulerice describes attending the Montreal climate march of 100,000 people, claims Budget 2019 continues the same old policies including subsidies to oil companies and the pipeline purchase, and asks why the Liberals refuse to listen to youth who understand the urgency of the situation.
References the climate strike and a 100,000-person Montreal demonstration and makes a general allegation about Budget 2019 continuing subsidies to oil companies and pipeline purchase, but the ask is vague and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, vendredi dernier, 1,5 million d'Ă©tudiants ont fait la grĂšve pour l'avenir de la planĂšte, donc leur propre avenir. J'Ă©tais Ă la manifestation, Ă MontrĂ©al, dans une mer humaine de 100 000 personnes. C'Ă©tait beau et touchant de voir tous ces jeunes se lever et nous demander d'agir. « Faites quelque chose mes tab[...] », disait mĂȘme un slogan. Dans le budget d'hier, les libĂ©raux les ont laissĂ©s tomber. Le gouvernement continue les mĂȘmes vieilles politiques, les mĂȘmes subventions aux compagnies pĂ©troliĂšres et l'achat d'un vieux pipeline. Pourquoi les libĂ©raux refusent-ils d'Ă©couter la jeunesse qui, elle, a compris l'urgence de la situation?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, 1.5 million students went on strike for the future of the planet and their own future. I attended the protest in Montreal, amid a sea of 100,000 other people. It was beautiful and moving to see all these young people standing up to demand action. There was even a slogan that went, âDo something, for eff's sakeâ. The Liberals let them down with yesterday's budget. The government is still plodding along with the same old policies, the same old subsidies for oil companies and the purchase of an old pipeline. Our young people realize that the situation is urgent. Why do the Liberals refuse to listen to them?
The Prime Minister says the government will always listen to youth, cites a new home renovation program from Budget 2019, zero-emission vehicle affordability measures, and supporting infrastructure, and accuses the NDP of pitting the environment against the economy.
The Prime Minister references specific Budget 2019 climate measures â home renovation program, zero-emission vehicle incentives and infrastructure â but does not address the specific claim about continuing oil subsidies or meaningfully engage with the accusation of failing the youth.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous écouterons toujours les jeunes et travaillerons toujours avec eux pour protéger l'environnement et bùtir un monde meilleur. Nous agissons de façon concrÚte, dans le budget de 2019. Nous avons annoncé un nouveau programme de rénovation domiciliaire qui aidera les Canadiens à réduire leurs factures d'énergie. Nous rendons les véhicules à émission nulle moins chers pour les Canadiens de partout au pays. Nous construisons aussi l'infrastructure pour les soutenir. Le NPD continue de mettre l'environnement en opposition avec l'économie. Nous faisons croßtre l'économie tout en protégeant l'environnement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we will always listen to young people, and we will always work with them to protect the environment and build a better world. We are taking concrete action with budget 2019. We announced a new home renovation program that will help Canadians lower their energy bills. We are making zero-emission vehicles more affordable for Canadians across the country. We are also building the infrastructure to support them. The NDP keeps pitting the environment against the economy. We are growing the economy while protecting the environment.
Dhaliwal asks the Prime Minister to update the House on what the government is doing to help Canadians find an affordable place to call home, referencing Budget 2019.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the Prime Minister to update the House on housing affordability measures from Budget 2019, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday our government laid out the next steps in our plan to invest in families and to support the middle class and those working hard to join it. A key part of the budget is new measures to make housing more affordable. Could the Prime Minister update the House on what we are doing to help Canadians find an affordable place to call home?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie le dĂ©putĂ© de SurreyâNewton de son travail acharnĂ©. Les Canadiens nous ont dit que trop de jeunes familles Ă©taient exclues du marchĂ© de l'habitation. Dans le budget de 2019, on s'attaque donc Ă cet enjeu. Pour ce qui est de l'incitatif Ă l'achat d'une premiĂšre propriĂ©tĂ©, les Canadiens Ă©conomiseront des centaines de dollars chaque mois sur les paiements hypothĂ©caires. L'augmentation du financement destinĂ© Ă l'initiative de financement de la construction de logements locatifs va aider Ă accĂ©der aux logements dĂšs le dĂ©but, et nous allons continuer de le faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for SurreyâNewton for his hard work. Canadians told us that too many young families are being shut out of the housing market. Budget 2019 tackles that issue. With the first-time home buyer incentive, Canadians will save hundreds of dollars a month on their mortgage payments. Boosting funding for the rental construction financing initiative will help Canadians find housing from the start, and we are going to continue with our approach.
The Prime Minister highlights the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive saving Canadians hundreds of dollars monthly on mortgage payments, and increased funding for the Rental Construction Financing initiative to help access housing from the start.
The Prime Minister provides specific Budget 2019 housing measures including the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive with hundreds of dollars in monthly mortgage savings and increased funding for the Rental Construction Financing initiative.
Paul-Hus quotes the former attorney general saying questions remain unanswered and the former president of the Treasury Board saying she lost confidence in how the government handled the matter, and asks whether the Prime Minister will stop hiding the truth and agree to have himself and his collaborators appear before the ethics committee.
Cites direct quotes from the former attorney general and former president of the Treasury Board by name, and asks a specific yes/no question about the Prime Minister and his collaborators appearing before the ethics committee.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, qui a dit que des questions restent sans rĂ©ponse? C'est l'ancienne procureure gĂ©nĂ©rale. Qui a dit avoir perdu confiance dans la façon dont le gouvernement a traitĂ© cette affaire? C'est l'ancienne prĂ©sidente du Conseil du TrĂ©sor. Le premier ministre se moque de l'intelligence des Canadiens en refusant de faire la lumiĂšre sur cette affaire. Le premier ministre va-t-il arrĂȘter de cacher la vĂ©ritĂ© et accepter que ses collaborateurs et lui-mĂȘme comparaissent au ComitĂ© permanent de l'accĂšs Ă l'information, de la protection des renseignements personnels et de l'Ă©thique pour faire la lumiĂšre sur cette ingĂ©rence politique?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, who said that questions remain unanswered? It was the former attorney general. Who said that she had lost confidence in how the government dealt with this matter? It was the former president of the Treasury Board. The Prime Minister is insulting Canadians' intelligence by refusing to shed light on this affair. Will the Prime Minister stop covering up the truth and agree to appear, and let his officials appear, before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics so that we can get to the bottom of this political interference?
The Prime Minister says the government will always participate in committee requests and that committees decide their own work, then pivots to the Conservatives' lack of an economic plan versus his government's 900,000 jobs created and 800,000 people lifted out of poverty.
The Prime Minister repeats the committees-choose-their-witnesses procedural line and then pivots to attacking Conservative economic policy and job creation numbers, never addressing the direct question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme je lâai dit, nous allons toujours participer aux demandes des comitĂ©s. Câest aux comitĂ©s de dĂ©terminer quels travaux ils veulent faire et quels tĂ©moins ils veulent convoquer, et nous allons toujours les respecter. Ă ce sujet, câest intĂ©ressant que les conservateurs, qui ont toujours voulu parler de lâĂ©conomie, refusent de parler de lâĂ©conomie canadienne aujourdâhui. Ils refusent de parler du budget historique que nous venons de dĂ©poser. Pourquoi? C'est parce quâils nâont aucun plan pour lâĂ©conomie. Ils nâont quâune vieille approche qui nâa pas fonctionnĂ© sous Stephen Harper, tandis que nous avons pu crĂ©er 900 000 emplois au pays, nous avons rĂ©duit le taux de chĂŽmage, nous avons sorti plus de 800 000 personnes...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will always respond to committees' requests. It is up to our committees to determine what work they want to do and what witnesses they want to call, and we will always respect that. On that note, it is interesting that the Conservatives, who usually want to talk about Canada's economy, are refusing to talk about it today. They are refusing to talk about the historic budget that we just tabled. Why? It is because they have no plan for the economy. All they have is an old approach that did not work under Stephen Harper, whereas we created 900,000 jobs across Canada, we lowered the unemployment rate, we lifted over 800,000 peopleâ
Paul-Hus challenges the Prime Minister on what he is afraid of given that four people have resigned, and asks yes or no whether the Prime Minister will appear before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
Asks a sharp yes/no question about the ethics committee appearance while citing four resignations as evidence of severity, though the question has been asked repeatedly in the same QP.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si quelqu'un a peur de quelque chose, c'est le premier ministre lui-mĂȘme. Il a peur de parler de l'histoire d'ingĂ©rence politique dans notre systĂšme de justice. Il a peur de laisser tĂ©moigner l'ancienne procureure gĂ©nĂ©rale. De quoi a-t-il si peur? Il y a quatre personnes qui ont dĂ©missionnĂ© depuis ce temps-lĂ . Ăa doit ĂȘtre trĂšs grave. Est-ce que le premier ministre va venir comparaĂźtre au ComitĂ© permanent de l'accĂšs Ă l'information, de la protection des renseignements personnels et de l'Ă©thique, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if anyone here is afraid of something, it is the Prime Minister himself. He is afraid to talk about political interference in our justice system. He is afraid to let the former attorney general speak. What is he so afraid of? Four people have resigned so far. Things must be pretty bad. Will the Prime Minister appear before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, yes or no?
The Prime Minister says he already answered the question and pivots to attacking the Conservative decade of giving advantages to the wealthiest and cutting programs, contrasting it with three years of investing in the middle class.
The Prime Minister says he already answered the question and then pivots entirely to attacking the Conservative economic record under Harper, making no contact with the ethics committee question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai déjà répondu à cette question. La réalité, c'est que ces conservateurs qui, à l'époque, étaient plus préoccupés par les Canadiens et par l'économie, sont complÚtement perdus maintenant. Pendant 10 ans, leur approche visant à donner des avantages aux plus riches et à couper dans les programmes n'a pas fonctionné, ni pour équilibrer le budget ni pour créer la croissance économique nécessaire pour les Canadiens. Depuis trois ans, nous investissons dans la classe moyenne et dans les communautés. Cela produit des résultats positifs non seulement pour l'économie canadienne, mais aussi pour les familles canadiennes. Nous allons continuer de le faire. Les conservateurs n'ont rien à dire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question. The fact is that the Conservatives, who used to be more interested in Canadians and the economy, are now completely lost. They spent 10 years helping the rich and cutting programs, but that approach did not work. They did not balance the budget or drive the economic growth Canadians need. Over the past three years, we have invested in the middle class and communities. We have delivered positive results for Canada's economy and Canadian families. That is what we will continue to do. The Conservatives have nothing to say.
Strahl quotes Gerald Butts, Michael Wernick, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, the former attorney general, and the former president of the Treasury Board with verbatim statements all pointing to interference in the SNC-Lavalin prosecution, and asks whether the Prime Minister will have the guts to show up at the ethics committee to answer for his involvement.
Cites five named individuals with verbatim quotes directly relevant to the SNC-Lavalin interference allegation and asks a specific direct question about appearing at the ethics committee, grounding the ask in a clear public record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here are some quotes on the Liberal SNC-Lavalin scandal. Gerald Butts stated, âThere is no solution here that does not involve some interference.â Michael Wernick stated, âI think he is going to find a way to get it done, one way or another.â The Prime Minister's chief of staff stated, âWe don't want to debate legalities anymore.â The former attorney general stated, âQuestions remain unanswered.â The former president of the Treasury Board said, âI have lost confidence in how the government has dealt with this matterâ. The Prime Minister did not have the courage to appear at the justice committee before he stood behind the human shield of his Liberal members, who shut it down. Will he have the guts to show up at the ethics committee to answer to his involvement in this scandal?
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
The Prime Minister says he is happy to offer quotes from the past two days about the budget, then reads positive reactions from ValĂ©rie Plante, Annie BĂ©rubĂ© of Ăquiterre, the FĂ©dĂ©ration des Canadiens noirs, and begins a Perry Bellegarde quote before being cut off.
The Prime Minister does not address any of the five quoted individuals, the quotes themselves, or the ethics committee question, instead reading out positive budget quotes from Valérie Plante, Annie Bérubé, the Fédération des Canadiens noirs, and beginning a Perry Bellegarde quote before being interrupted.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je serai content de donner quelques citations des deux derniers jours sur notre budget. ValĂ©rie Plante, mairesse de MontrĂ©al, a dit: « Ce que nous dĂ©montre ce budget, c'est qu'Ottawa veut aider les municipalitĂ©s Ă dĂ©velopper des projets structurants dignes du XXIe siĂšcle. » Annie BĂ©rubĂ©, d'Ăquiterre, a dit: « Excellente annonce dans le budget 2019 pour rendre les vĂ©hicules Ă©lectriques plus abordables [...] » La FĂ©dĂ©ration des Canadiens noirs a dit: « Il reflĂšte les demandes de communautĂ©s noires Ă lâĂ©chelle du pays voulant un appui de taille pour la mise en Ćuvre de la DĂ©cennie internationale. » De plus, Perry Bellegarde a des choses...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to share what some people have said about our budget these past two days. Montreal Mayor ValĂ©rie Plante said that this budget shows that Ottawa wants to help municipalities move ahead with 21st-century projects that will have a significant impact. In a tweet, Annie BĂ©rubĂ© of Ăquiterre applauded the 2019 budget measure to make electric cars more affordable. The Federation of Black Canadians said, âIt reflects the words of hundreds of Black community leaders we have met demanding action on the International Decadeâ. Perry Bellegarde also had thingsâ
Strahl names the former attorney general, former president of the Treasury Board, former top adviser to the Prime Minister, and former clerk of the Privy Council as having all quit because of the scandal from the top of government, and asks whether the Prime Minister and his officials will finally have the decency to show up at the ethics committee.
Succinctly names four specific individuals who resigned and attributes each departure to the scandal emanating from the top of government, and asks a direct question about the Prime Minister and officials appearing at the ethics committee.
Source text
Here are some quotes, Mr. Speaker. The former attorney general said, âI quit.â The former president of the Treasury Board said, âI quit.â The former top adviser to the Prime Minister said, âI'm gone.â The former clerk of the Privy Council said, âI quit.â These people have all quit because of the scandal that emanated from the very top of the government. The Liberals have tried to shut this down time and time again. Will the Prime Minister and his officials finally have the decency to show up at the ethics committee, do their job and explain to Canadians what they are so afraid of when it comes to the SNC-Lavalin scandal?
The Prime Minister says the government will always cooperate with parliamentary committees that independently decide their own studies, then reads a Perry Bellegarde quote about First Nations priorities and pivots to budget investments in the middle class, affordable housing, infrastructure, and high-speed Internet.
The Prime Minister gives a brief procedural line about cooperating with committees and then pivots to reading a Perry Bellegarde quote about the budget and listing budget investments in the middle class, making no contact with the resignations or the ethics committee question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous allons toujours coopérer avec les comités parlementaires, qui décident de façon indépendante quelles études ils veulent faire. Cela dit, j'aimerais donner une autre citation. Perry Bellegarde, le grand chef de l'Assemblée des PremiÚres Nations, a dit: « Ce budget fédéral affiche des investissements importants et soutenus pour faire progresser les priorités des PremiÚres Nations. » Partout au pays, des Canadiens nous remercient pour les investissements dans la classe moyenne, pour l'accÚs à des logements abordables et pour les investissements en infrastructure et dans Internet haute vitesse. Ils nous disent que cela va les aider.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we will always co-operate with parliamentary committees, which make independent decisions about what they want to study. That said, I would like to share another quote. Perry Bellegarde, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations said, âThis federal budget shows important and sustained investments to advance First Nations priorities.â Canadians across the country are thanking us for investing in the middle class, providing access to affordable housing, and investing in infrastructure and high-speed Internet. They are telling us that this will help them.
Stetski references his letter to the Minister of Finance about student debt, cites British Columbia's NDP government stopping interest on student loans last month as a model, characterizes the Liberal budget's interest rate reduction as a half measure, and asks why the Liberals are choosing to hurt young Canadians.
References a specific letter to the Minister of Finance, cites the BC NDP government's decision to stop charging interest on student loans as a comparator, and identifies Budget 2019's interest rate reduction as a half measure, though the framing is partially rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, I wrote to the Minister of Finance about the struggles young Canadians are facing because of student debt, like putting off starting a family or buying a home. I encouraged the minister to follow the lead of British Columbia's NDP government, which stopped charging interest on student loans last month. Instead, the Liberal budget proposes a half measure of simply reducing interest rates. Post-secondary education should not be a debt sentence. Why are the Liberals choosing to hurt young Canadians and their chance to build a better future?
The Prime Minister cites specific Budget 2019 measures including no repayment of student loans until earning $25,000 per year, a reduced interest rate, elimination of interest for the first six months of repayment, and savings of $2,000 per student.
The Prime Minister cites specific Budget 2019 measures â repayment threshold of $25,000 annual income, reduced interest rate, elimination of interest for the first six months, and $2,000 in savings per student â which partially addresses the substance but does not explain why BC's full interest elimination was not adopted.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis trĂšs fier des investissements que nous avons faits dans les jeunes Canadiens depuis trois ans, ce que nous continuons de faire dans ce budget. Les jeunes Canadiens reprĂ©sentent la gĂ©nĂ©ration la plus Ă©duquĂ©e, connectĂ©e et diversifiĂ©e du Canada. Depuis 2015, nous avons mis en place des mesures pour rendre les Ă©tudes postsecondaires plus abordables. Cela inclut des mesures pour que les Ă©tudiants n'aient pas Ă rembourser leurs prĂȘts d'Ă©tudes canadiens jusqu'Ă ce qu'ils gagnent 25 000 $ par annĂ©e. Le budget de 2019 rĂ©duit le taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt des prĂȘts d'Ă©tudes et Ă©limine l'intĂ©rĂȘt pour les six premiers mois. Cela permettra Ă chaque Ă©tudiant d'Ă©conomiser 2 000 $. Nous savons qu'investir dans les jeunes Canadiens, c'est investir dans...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the investments we have made in young Canadians over the past three years, and this budget continues in that direction. Young Canadians are Canada's most educated, connected and diverse generation. Since 2015 we have been implementing measures to make post-secondary education more affordable. This includes allowing students to delay repaying their Canada student loans until they are earning $25,000 a year. Budget 2019 lowers the interest rate for student loans and eliminates interest for the first six months. This will save every student $2,000. We know that investing in young Canadians is investing inâ
Sansoucy cites a 2016 promise by the Prime Minister and his Minister of Social Development to enhance EI sickness benefits within the year, notes that budgets 2017, 2018, and 2019 all contained nothing on this, and asks why the Prime Minister betrayed hundreds of thousands of sick people who need more than 15 weeks to recover.
Cites a specific promise made in 2016 by the Prime Minister and Minister of Social Development to enhance EI sickness benefits within the year, documents three consecutive budget failures to deliver (2017, 2018, 2019), and frames a direct accountability question about hundreds of thousands of sick people who need more than 15 weeks.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre et son ministre du Développement social disaient, le ton plein de compassion, qu'ils allaient bonifier les prestations de maladie de l'assurance-emploi dans l'année. C'était en 2016. Dans le budget de 2017, il n'y avait rien. Dans le budget de 2018, il n'y avait rien. Dans le budget de 2019, il n'y a encore rien. C'était la derniÚre chance des libéraux de tenir cette promesse, mais ils ont décidé de laisser tomber des centaines de milliers de malades qui ont besoin de plus que 15 semaines pour guérir. Pourquoi le premier ministre les a-t-il trahis?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with voices full of compassion, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Social Development indicated that they were going to enhance EI sickness benefits by the end of the year. That was in 2016. There was nothing in the 2017 budget, nothing in the 2018 budget and still nothing in the 2019 budget. This was the Liberals' last chance to keep their promise, but they decided to turn their backs on hundreds of thousands of sick people who need more than 15 weeks to recover. Why did the Prime Minister betray them?
The Prime Minister mentions investments for caregivers, a $500 million investment to reduce the cost of expensive medications for those with rare diseases, and the new Allocation canadienne pour la formation providing four weeks of training every four years and up to $1,000 in income support.
The Prime Minister mentions investments for caregivers and a $500 million investment for rare diseases, and pivots to the Allocation canadienne pour la formation, making no reference to the 2016 promise about EI sickness benefits or the specific 15-week limit.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous avons fait des investissements pour aider les aidants naturels. Nous avons fait des investissements qui aident les familles dont un membre souffre d'une maladie rare, dont un investissement de 500 millions de dollars pour rĂ©duire le coĂ»t des mĂ©dicaments trĂšs dispendieux. Nous investirons toujours pour aider les travailleurs. Dans le budget, nous avons justement annoncĂ© l'Allocation canadienne pour la formation, qui aidera les travailleurs Ă trouver le temps et l'argent pour amĂ©liorer leurs compĂ©tences. Cette allocation inclut quatre semaines de formation tous les quatre ans, et jusqu'Ă 1 000 $ pour soutenir les revenus. Le marchĂ© du travail Ă©volue et nous nous assurons que les Canadiens seront prĂȘts Ă y accĂ©der.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we made investments to help caregivers. We made investments to help families who have a loved one with a rare disease, including $500 million to reduce the cost of very expensive drugs. We will always make investments that help workers. In fact, in the budget, we announced the Canada training benefit, which will help workers find the time and money to improve their skills. This benefit includes four weeks of training every four years and up to $1,000 in income support. The labour market is changing, and we are making sure that Canadians are ready for it.
Poilievre cites section 139 of the Criminal Code on obstructing justice, states that on September 17 the Prime Minister told the former attorney general that if she did not immediately shelve the SNC-Lavalin charges the company's headquarters would move to London, notes the CEO indicated that day he never said that and it is not true, and asks why the Prime Minister stated a blatant falsehood to get charges dropped.
Cites section 139 of the Criminal Code by name, identifies a specific date (September 17) and specific content of a conversation between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general about shelving charges, and anchors the question in a named CEO statement from the same day directly contradicting the Prime Minister's stated justification.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, lying to a law officer is an offence under section 139 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits obstructing, perverting or defeating the course of justice. The Prime Minister told the former attorney general on September 17 that if she did not immediately shelve the charges into SNC-Lavalin, the company's headquarters would jet to London. Today, the CEO of the company indicated that he never said that and that it is not true. Why did the Prime Minister state a blatant falsehood to get charges dropped against SNC-Lavalin?
The Prime Minister states in a single sentence that what the member opposite just said is entirely false, with no further elaboration.
The Prime Minister's entire response is a single sentence denying the premise as entirely false, which technically connects to the question but provides no facts, explanation, or substantive rebuttal.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce que le député d'en face vient de dire est entiÚrement faux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite said is absolutely false.
Poilievre asks why the Prime Minister told the former attorney general that SNC-Lavalin's headquarters would leave Montreal if charges were not shelved, characterising it as a blatant falsehood contradicted by the company's $1.5-billion loan deal and lease.
Poilievre cites specific testimony, a public press conference record, and a concrete factual claim about the company's lease and pension-fund loan to ground his question, with a clear single ask: why did the Prime Minister state a falsehood to get charges dropped?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, actually, it is entirely true, and I can prove it. Not only did the former attorney general testify that he said the company would leave Montreal without a deferred prosecution agreement, but he made the mistake of repeating the same falsehood in public at his press conference and it is on the record, so he can now deny what he said in front of 35 million Canadians or he can finally stand on his feet and begin telling the truth. He said to the former attorney general that the headquarters would be gone if she did not immediately shelve the charges. We now know that was a blatant falsehood. Why did he state a falsehood to get charges dropped against a company?
Trudeau says the government has acted to protect workers across the country and references the budget, without addressing the claim about a falsehood.
Trudeau does not address the accusation of stating a falsehood; he pivots entirely to protecting workers and the budget, never engaging the specific claim about headquarters.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis le début de cette affaire, nous agissons pour protéger les travailleurs de partout au pays. Que ce soit à Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador, à Regina, à Port Elgin, en Ontario, au Québec ou à Grande Prairie, en Alberta, nous défendrons toujours les emplois, tout en respectant les institutions. Il s'agit d'une situation pour laquelle il a fallu réfléchir à une façon de protéger les emplois canadiens. C'est toujours ce que nous ferons, y compris dans le budget historique que nous avons présenté hier, dont les conservateurs ne veulent parler à aucun prix.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this affair, we have been acting to protect workers all across the country. Whether in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Regina, in Port Elgin, Ontario, in Quebec or in Grand Prairie, Alberta, we will always stand up for jobs while respecting our institutions. This situation required careful reflection on how to protect Canadian jobs. That is what we will always do, including in the historic budget we presented yesterday, which the Conservatives absolutely refuse to talk about.
Poilievre argues the claim that SNC-Lavalin would leave Montreal was false because the company is bound by a $1.5-billion loan deal with the Quebec pension plan, has a signed 20-year lease, and employs 2,000 people at its renovated headquarters, and asks why the Prime Minister used this falsehood to try to get corruption charges dropped.
Poilievre cites three specific, verifiable facts â the $1.5-billion Quebec pension plan loan deal, a signed 20-year lease, and 2,000 employees at the renovated headquarters â to demonstrate the falsehood and poses a single direct accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, well, he is not denying he said it now that he just realized that he accidentally blurted it out at a press conference. He told the former attorney general that the headquarters would be gone if she did not immediately shelve the charges against that company. It was a falsehood. It is impossible. The company is bound to stay in Montreal under a $1.5-billion loan deal with the Quebec pension plan. It just signed a 20-year lease and renovated its headquarters for its 2,000 employees there. It was completely false, yet he said it to try to get corruption charges dropped. Why?
Trudeau accuses Poilievre of caring about executives and rich people rather than workers, and contrasts Liberal investment in the middle class with Conservative policies, without addressing the specific claims.
Trudeau does not engage any of the cited facts; he attacks Poilievre's alleged concern for 'hauts cadres et gens riches' and pivots to middle-class investment talking points, which is a pure deflection.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le parti pris du député d'en face vient juste de le trahir: il est préoccupé par les hauts cadres et les gens riches qui travaillent pour les compagnies. Nous, les libéraux, sommes préoccupés par les travailleurs de ces compagnies. Nous sommes préoccupés par les gens de partout au pays qui travaillent fort afin de soutenir leur famille et leur communauté. C'est toujours ce que nous faisons. Alors que les conservateurs ont toujours cherché à donner des avantages et des bénéfices aux plus riches, nous investissons dans la classe moyenne et ceux qui travaillent fort pour y accéder. Nous obtenons des résultats pour les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just betrayed his partisan motivations. He is worried about the senior executives and wealthy individuals working for these companies. We in the Liberal Party are concerned about the workers in these companies. We are concerned about people across the country who work hard to support their families and their communities. That is what we always do. While the Conservatives have always sought to give benefits and bonuses to the rich, we are investing in the middle class and those working hard to join it. We are delivering for Canadians.
Fisher asks the Prime Minister to explain how budget 2019 will help seniors, noting Nova Scotia has the highest number of seniors per capita in Canada.
This is a government-backbench softball inviting the Prime Minister to highlight budget measures for seniors, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia has the highest number of seniors per capita in all of Canada. Yesterday's budget included new measures to better support seniors and make their lives more affordable. Could the Prime Minister please update the House on how budget 2019 will help seniors across the country, especially those in my riding of DartmouthâCole Harbour?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie le dĂ©putĂ© de DartmouthâCole Harbour de son soutien envers les aĂźnĂ©s. Le budget de 2019 inclut la bonification de l'exemption du SupplĂ©ment de revenu garanti. Ainsi, plus de 300 000 aĂźnĂ©s de partout au pays garderont plus de leur argent durement gagnĂ©. Nous augmentons le financement de projets locaux destinĂ©s aux aĂźnĂ©s et nous allons continuer d'assurer une bonne qualitĂ© de vie Ă tous les aĂźnĂ©s du pays. Les conservateurs ont augmentĂ© l'Ăąge de la retraite jusqu'Ă 67 ans. Nous nous occupons de nos aĂźnĂ©s en l'abaissant Ă 65 ans et en investissant directement dans nos aĂźnĂ©s.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for DartmouthâCole Harbour for his support for seniors. Budget 2019 enhances the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption, which will help over 300,000 seniors across the country keep more of their hard-earned money. We are increasing funding for local projects for seniors, and we will continue to ensure a good quality of life for all seniors across the country. The Conservatives increased the age of retirement to 67. We are taking care of our seniors by lowering it to 65 and investing in them directly.
Trudeau says budget 2019 enhances the Guaranteed Income Supplement exemption so more than 300,000 seniors will keep more of their money, and increases funding for local seniors' projects.
Trudeau provides a concrete measure â the enhanced Guaranteed Income Supplement exemption benefiting more than 300,000 seniors â along with increased local project funding, giving real budgetary information.
McLeod challenges the Prime Minister on breaking promises of transparency, respect for committees, a balanced budget, and his claim of needing to protect 9,000 jobs, asking when he will account for these failures.
McLeod lists several broken promises (transparency, committees, balanced budget, the 9,000 jobs claim) but the question is compound, each element is only briefly asserted, and she does not complete her question before being cut off.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the last three days the Prime Minister has broken so many of his election promises. He promised transparency and yet shut down the only public investigation into this scandal. He promised to respect committees. After what happened at the justice committee, we know that is not happening. He promised a balanced budget; that is certainly not going to happen under his watch. Today we learned that he misled Canadians across this country when he said the government needed to protect 9,000 jobs. It was clearly, according to the CEO, false. Liberals themselves are telling me how disappointed they are. When is he going toâ
Trudeau uses the mention of 'budget' to pivot to job-creation numbers (900,000 jobs, lowest unemployment in 40 years, 800,000 lifted out of poverty) and contrasts Liberal investment with Conservative cuts.
Trudeau ignores all the specific broken-promise allegations and pivots entirely to 900,000 jobs created and the budget, with no engagement on transparency, committees, or the false jobs claim.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je ne peux pas vous dire à quel point je suis ravi d'entendre la députée mentionner le mot « budget » dans sa question. Cela me permet de souligner le fait que, contrairement à celle des conservateurs, notre approche permet d'investir dans les Canadiens et dans la classe moyenne. Cela a fonctionné. Les Canadiens ont créé plus de 900 000 emplois au cours des trois derniÚres années. Le Canada a le plus bas taux de chÎmage depuis 40 ans. De plus, 800 000 personnes sont sorties de la pauvreté. Tout cela parce que notre plan investit dans les Canadiens, contrairement aux conservateurs qui veulent couper...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how thrilled I am to hear the member mention the word âbudgetâ in her question. It gives me an opportunity to point out that, unlike the Conservatives' approach, ours invests in Canadians and the middle class. That approach is working. Canadians created over 900,000 jobs over the past three years. Canada's unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in 40 years. What is more, 800,000 people have been lifted out of poverty. All that because our plan invests in Canadians, unlike the Conservatives' plan, which seeks to cutâ
Singh notes the scandal has drawn the attention of the OECD's anti-bribery unit, says the Prime Minister's repeated jobs justification is untrue, and asks him to call an independent public inquiry so Canadians can learn the truth.
Singh references the OECD anti-bribery unit's attention to the scandal and the specific false jobs claim, grounding the question in external scrutiny, and poses a clear single ask for an independent public inquiry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when challenged about the scandal of political interference, a scandal that has even drawn the attention of the anti-bribery unit of the OECD, the Prime Minister has repeatedly cited jobs as the reason. He stood in the House and said it again today. It turns out that claim is not true. He has broken faith with Canadians. Will the Prime Minister finally do what is right and call an independent public inquiry so Canadians can learn the truth?
Trudeau says the government respects the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which heard many witnesses over five weeks, and supports the work of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
Trudeau references the justice committee's five weeks of hearings and the work of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner but does not address Singh's call for an independent public inquiry or the falsehood allegation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, de ce cĂŽtĂ©-ci de la Chambre, nous respectons le travail fait par les comitĂ©s. Le ComitĂ© permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne a passĂ© cinq semaines Ă entendre bien des tĂ©moins qui ont parlĂ© de l'enjeu Ă l'Ă©tude. Nous soutenons aussi le travail du commissaire aux conflits d'intĂ©rĂȘts et Ă l'Ă©thique, un officier du Parlement qui est lĂ pour Ă©clairer les Canadiens quant Ă ce qui se passe au-delĂ de la politique, ici, Ă la Chambre. Nous savons que les Canadiens peuvent avoir confiance en leurs institutions. Nous allons continuer de nous prĂ©occuper de ce qui les prĂ©occupe, comme nous l'avons fait dans...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the House, respect the work that committees do. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights spent five weeks hearing from many witnesses on the matter. We also support the work of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, an officer of Parliament who is there to enlighten Canadians about what is happening here in the House, beyond politics. We know that Canadians can have confidence in their institutions. We will continue to focus on their concerns, as we have done inâ
Fergus asks the Prime Minister to explain how budget 2019 will help Canadian workers gain the skills and training they need to find and keep quality, well-paying jobs.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the Prime Minister to explain how budget 2019 helps Canadian workers, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le budget présenté par notre gouvernement annonce un soutien concret pour que les Canadiens aient les compétences et la formation dont ils ont besoin pour réussir, de sorte qu'ils puissent trouver et conserver des emplois de qualité bien rémunérés. Le premier ministre peut-il expliquer à la Chambre comment le budget de 2019 aidera les travailleurs canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the budget presented by our government announces concrete support to ensure that Canadians have the skills and training they need to succeed, so that they can find and keep good, well-paying jobs. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how budget 2019 will help Canadian workers?
Je remercie le dĂ©putĂ© de HullâAylmer de son travail. Depuis 2015, notre plan fonctionne. Les Canadiens ont crĂ©Ă© plus de 900 000 nouveaux emplois d'un bout Ă l'autre du pays. Toutefois, ce n'est pas tout le monde qui a accĂšs aux occasions dont ils ont besoin. Le budget de 2019 introduit la nouvelle Allocation canadienne pour la formation. Cela signifie qu'un travailleur canadien aura droit Ă quatre semaines de formation tous les quatre ans, soit jusqu'Ă 1 000 $ en soutien du revenu. Le marchĂ© du travail Ă©volue, et nous allons aider les Canadiens de tout Ăąge Ă rester prĂȘts Ă suivre son Ă©volution. Nous savons que cela est nĂ©cessaire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hull-Aylmer for the work he does. Since 2015, our plan has been working. Canadians have created more than 900,000 new jobs across the country. However, not everyone has access to the opportunities they need. Budget 2019 introduces the new Canada training benefit. This means that working Canadians will get four weeks for training every four years with up to $1,000 in income support. Our job market is changing, and we are going to help Canadians of all ages keep up with those changes. We know this is crucial.
Trudeau announces the nouvelle Allocation canadienne pour la formation, giving workers four weeks of training every four years and up to $1,000 in income support, in addition to citing 900,000 jobs created since 2015.
Trudeau provides a specific, named new measure â the nouvelle Allocation canadienne pour la formation â with concrete details: four weeks of training every four years and up to $1,000 in income support.
Alleslev cites the CEO of SNC-Lavalin saying the firm never cited 9,000 jobs as a reason for deserving a DPA to challenge the Prime Minister's justification for pressure on the former attorney general, and asks him to commit to testifying and telling the truth at committee.
Alleslev cites the CEO of SNC-Lavalin's statement that the firm never cited 9,000 jobs as a reason for deserving a DPA, which is a specific, attributable factual claim, and asks a dual but related question: will the Prime Minister tell the truth and commit to testifying at committee.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that the unrelenting pressure on the former attorney general to grant SNC-Lavalin a DPA was all about jobs, and yet today we know that is not true, as the CEO of SNC-Lavalin says the firm never cited 9,000 jobs as a reason for deserving the DPA. Will the Prime Minister tell the truth? Will he, instead of continuing to mislead Canadians, commit to the House to testify and tell the truth at committee?
Trudeau claims pride in 900,000 jobs created by Canadians over three years and contrasts the Liberal approach with what he describes as the Conservative practice of giving advantages to the richest.
Trudeau does not address the CEO's statement, the 9,000 jobs claim, or the request to testify at committee; he pivots entirely to general job-creation statistics and a critique of Conservative policy.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la députée d'en face parle d'emploi, mais nous sommes trÚs fiers que les Canadiens aient créé 900 000 bons emplois partout au pays au cours des trois derniÚres années. C'est quelque chose que les conservateurs n'ont pas pu faire pendant leurs 10 années au pouvoir, parce qu'ils n'ont pas compris. Les conservateurs pensent encore que de donner des avantages et des bénéfices aux plus riches et de couper dans les programmes pour les autres est une façon d'équilibrer le budget et de créer de la croissance économique. Cela a échoué pendant 10 ans. C'est pourquoi notre budget d'hier et notre approche sont toujours...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned jobs, and we are very proud that Canadians have created 900,000 good jobs across the country over the past three years. That is something the Conservatives were unable to achieve in their 10 years in power, because they just do not get it. The Conservatives still believe that giving benefits and bonuses to the rich and cutting programs for everyone else is how to balance the budget and grow the economy. Their plan failed for 10 years. That is why the budget we presented yesterday and our approach are alwaysâ
Barsalou-Duval asks how the government can run a $20 billion deficit while refusing Quebec's demands for $300 million in migrant reception reimbursement, funding for the ligne bleue, and increased health transfers.
Barsalou-Duval identifies three specific Quebec demands absent from the budget â reimbursement of $300 million for migrant reception, funding for the ligne bleue, and increased health transfers â and asks how the government can run a $20 billion deficit while refusing all Quebec requests.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous envoyons 50 % de nos impĂŽts Ă Ottawa, mais le gouvernement trouve le moyen d'ignorer 100 % des demandes du QuĂ©bec dans son budget. Il n'y a pas un sou pour rembourser les 300 millions de dollars que cela nous a coĂ»tĂ© pour l'accueil des migrants. Il n'y a pas un sou pour la ligne bleue ni un sou de plus pour les transferts en santĂ©, comme si on pouvait se permettre de nĂ©gliger les patients quĂ©bĂ©cois. Les libĂ©raux peuvent-ils nous expliquer comment c'est possible d'ĂȘtre dans le trou de 20 milliards de dollars en disant non Ă toutes les demandes du QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we send 50% of our taxes to Ottawa, but the government found a way to ignore 100% of Quebec's demands in the federal budget. There is not one cent to pay back the $300 million it cost us to take in migrants. There is nothing for the blue line and nothing for health transfers, as though we could afford to neglect patients in Quebec. Can the Liberals explain how it is possible to be $20 billion in the red after saying no to every one of Quebec's requests?
Trudeau says a ligne bleue announcement was made last year and money is already being invested, and describes budget 2019 measures for dairy farmers including support for supply management, food policy, regulatory relief, and rural broadband.
Trudeau addresses the ligne bleue by noting a prior announcement and ongoing investment, and responds on dairy farmers with specific budget measures, but does not address the $300 million migrant reimbursement claim or health transfers, leaving two of the three specific asks unanswered.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, puisque la ligne bleue passe dans ma circonscription, je suis content de dire au dĂ©putĂ© que nous avons fait une annonce l'annĂ©e passĂ©e, effectivement, et que l'argent est dĂ©jĂ en train d'ĂȘtre investi. En ce qui concerne les demandes du QuĂ©bec, on sait que les producteurs laitiers ont Ă©tĂ© prĂ©occupĂ©s par les nouveaux accords commerciaux que nous avons faits. Le budget de 2019 offre des solutions concrĂštes aux problĂšmes auxquels les familles d'agriculteurs font face. Nous agissons et nous investissons dans le soutien de la gestion de l'offre, dans la politique alimentaire, dans l'allĂ©gement du fardeau administratif et rĂ©glementaire et dans les services Ă large bande en zone rurale. Nous allons continuer d'investir dans nos agriculteurs au QuĂ©bec et partout au pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, since the blue line goes through my riding, I am pleased to inform the hon. member that we made an announcement last year and that the money is already being invested. As far as Quebec's requests are concerned, we know that dairy producers were concerned about the new trade agreements we negotiated. Budget 2019 offers concrete solutions to the problems that farming families are facing. We are taking action and investing in supporting supply management, in food policy, in cutting red tape and in rural broadband services. We will continue to invest in our farmers in Quebec and across the country.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau (NDP) sought unanimous consent to defer the recorded division on the motion for third reading of Bill C-369, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation), until after the opposition motion was disposed of. The House granted unanimous consent.
- NDP Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau
- Some hon. members
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the deferred recorded division on the motion for third reading of Bill C-369, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation), standing in the name of the Member for DesnethĂ©âMissinippiâChurchill River, currently scheduled today, immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business, be deferred anew until immediately after the opposition motion is disposed of.
D'accord.
Hansard translation: Agreed.
D'accord.
Hansard translation: Agreed.