Session overview
- The Vice-Admiral Mark Norman case dominated Question Period, with CPC members pressing the government to apologize for alleged political interference in the prosecution, withheld documents, and the use of code words to evade access to information requests; government representatives repeatedly attributed all decisions to independent public servants, the RCMP, and the director of public prosecutions.
- The SNC-Lavalin affair resurfaced through NDP and CPC questions about the promotion of Ben Chin to the Prime Minister's Office, whom the former attorney general had identified as one of the most aggressive actors in pressuring her office; the government House leader deflected without addressing Ben Chin specifically.
- Climate change and the government's climate emergency motion were debated extensively, with the NDP criticizing the Liberals for exempting oil sands projects from environmental reviews and giving $12 million to Loblaws, while the CPC questioned whether Canada would meet its Paris Agreement targets; the minister did not confirm the targets would be met.
- The Phoenix pay system was raised by NDP members, who noted the IBM contract had ballooned from under $6 million to almost $400 million over eight years with 46 contract amendments; the minister cited a 40% reduction in the backlog but did not dispute the contract figures.
- An RCMP video from 2012 showing an officer questioning a young female indigenous sexual assault victim was raised by Andrew Scheer; Minister Goodale called the apparent attitudes and techniques "absolutely abhorrent" and "profoundly outdated, offensive and wrong," and affirmed no survivors should fear being revictimized.
- The government announced support for Senate amendments to Bill C-68 to ban the captivity of whales and dolphins and prohibit shark finning in Canada, and separately announced the first winners of the new frontiers in research fund; both were responses to friendly government backbench questions.
Minister Blair confirmed specific new measures introduced in budget 2019 to address money laundering, disclosed that he had spoken with the attorney general of British Columbia the previous day, and stated explicitly that the federal government would provide full co-operation and support to B.C.'s public inquiry â a concrete commitment on a specific intergovernmental action.
Scheer quotes the Prime Minister's own public claim, then directly contradicts it with a specific attributed quote from Mark Norman's lawyer about documents being withheld, and asks a pointed explanatory question about why documents were not handed over voluntarily.
Asked specifically why Ben Chin was promoted to the Prime Minister's Office after the former attorney general testified he directly threatened her staff in connection with the SNC-Lavalin prosecution, Chagger made no mention of Ben Chin whatsoever and instead cited the Canada child benefit, job creation numbers, and Conservative tax votes, making her response entirely non-responsive to the question.
Outstanding questions
- Andrew Scheer asked why the government refused to willingly hand over documents to Mark Norman's defence and to the RCMP â documents that required a court order to produce â and whether the Minister of Justice would conduct an inquiry into the interference and obstruction; no inquiry was committed to and the refusal to produce was not explained.
- Pierre Paul-Hus asked twice, and multiple CPC members repeated, why the Prime Minister refused to personally apologize to Vice-Admiral Norman and his family; the government never provided a reason for the Prime Minister's personal refusal to apologize.
- Ed Fast asked the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to admit that the government will not meet its Paris Agreement emissions targets, citing the government's own emissions report; the minister did not answer whether the targets would be met.
- Rosemarie Falk asked why the Prime Minister appointed Sarah Goodman, former vice-president of Tides Canada, as his director of policy given Tides Canada's stated objective of stopping pipeline construction in Canada; the minister's response addressed pipeline approvals but did not address the appointment.
- Brigitte Sansoucy asked why the government preferred powerful lobbies over youth health, noting the manufacturer of the drink consumed by Athéna Gervais had contacted the Liberals more than a hundred times during the study on new rules for sweetened alcoholic beverages; the parliamentary secretary denied industry influence but provided no information about the lobbying contacts.
Scheer cites a recently released APTN recording of an RCMP officer questioning a young female indigenous sexual assault victim and asks the Minister of Public Safety what reviews he is contemplating to prevent such conduct in the future.
Scheer references a specific recently released APTN recording of an RCMP officer questioning an indigenous sexual assault victim and asks a concrete question about what reviews the minister is contemplating, making it reasonably specific though the ask is somewhat open-ended.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I trust I can speak for all members of this House when I say that this morning I was shocked and horrified by a recently released recording, broadcast by APTN news, of an RCMP officer questioning a young female indigenous sexual assault victim. Obviously, this line of questioning was appalling and insensitive to the young woman who was coming forward with her story. I would like to ask the Minister of Public Safety if he could update the House as to what reviews he might be contemplating to ensure that this type of thing does not happen in the future.
Goodale condemns the attitudes and techniques displayed in the recording as abhorrent, profoundly outdated, offensive and wrong, and states that the RCMP and all police forces must continuously work to conduct themselves appropriately, but announces no specific reviews.
Goodale strongly condemns the conduct and affirms general principles but does not specify any reviews he is contemplating, leaving the concrete ask unanswered.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what was revealed in that video was absolutely abhorrent. The apparent attitudes and techniques that were on display in 2012 are profoundly outdated, offensive and wrong. The RCMP and all police forces must work continuously to conduct themselves appropriately. No survivors of sexual assault should ever fear that their cases will not be taken seriously or that they will be revictimized in the process.
Scheer contrasts the Prime Minister's claim that the government met all its obligations with a specific quote from Mark Norman's lawyer saying documents were never handed over willingly and had to be fought for day in and day out, asking why they were not provided as they should have been.
Scheer quotes the Prime Minister's own public claim, then directly contradicts it with a specific attributed quote from Mark Norman's lawyer about documents being withheld, and asks a pointed explanatory question about why documents were not handed over voluntarily.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that his government âmet all of its obligations with respect to the third party records applications.â What he fails to tell us is the fact that it had to receive a court order to do that. Mark Norman's lawyer said this about the documents: âNone of that came willingly. We have been...day in and day out...try[ing] to get that material. It should have been handed over. It should have been handed over to the RCMP. It should have been handed over to the prosecution. It was not.â Can the Prime Minister explain why not?
Blair asserts the government met all its obligations with respect to third party records applications, that all documents were provided to the court, and that all decisions were made by public servants and overseen by the court, not by the government.
Blair repeats the government's talking point that all obligations were met and that decisions were made by public servants overseen by the court, but does not address the specific allegation from Norman's lawyer that documents were not handed over willingly and required a court order.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear for the member opposite. The government has met all its obligations with respect to third party records applications. All documents for the priority individuals were identified by the defence in February and were, in fact, provided to the court. It is important to understand as well that all decisions with respect to that information are made by public servants and not by the government. In this case, all decisions were overseen by the court.
Scheer asserts that documents were blocked and required a court order to produce, that departmental officials used code words to circumvent access to information requests, and asks whether the government and the Minister of Justice will conduct an inquiry into interference and obstruction in the Norman case.
Scheer references specific conduct â the blocking of documents, a court order required for exonerating evidence, and the use of code words to circumvent access to information requests â and asks a concrete question about whether the Minister of Justice will conduct an inquiry into interference and obstruction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about all those decisions. Decisions were made to block documents. It took a court order for the evidence that finally exonerated Mark Norman to be produced. Departmental officials were using code words to get around access to information requests. Will the government and the Minister of Justice conduct an inquiry to determine why these steps were taken to interfere and obstruct in this case?
Blair states that document review was overseen by public servants and the court, that the Department of Justice processed 52 requests on behalf of seven departments, and that its only involvement was to provide government records responsive to the defence's requests.
Blair again asserts that document review was overseen by public servants and the court and describes the Department of Justice's processing of 52 requests across seven departments, but does not address the specific allegation about code words or commit to or reject an inquiry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, the review of these documents to ensure that they were truly responsive to the request of the defence was overseen by public servants and the court. The Department of Justice's only involvement in this matter was to provide government records to respond to the requests from the defence to help support the case. The Department of Justice processed the 52 requests on behalf of seven departments, and this process determined the documents that were relevant.
Paul-Hus contends the Prime Minister blocked full disclosure of documents, which required a court order, and that code words were used regarding Norman's identity to evade access to information requests, asking why the Prime Minister still refuses to apologize to Admiral Norman and his family.
Paul-Hus cites specific facts â the need for a court order to obtain documents, the use of code words to evade access to information requests â and asks a direct question about why the Prime Minister refuses to apologize to Admiral Norman and his family, though the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ministre peut bien dire que l'affaire est faite, mais les faits parlent dâeux-mĂȘmes. Le premier ministre a tout fait pour cacher la vĂ©ritĂ©. Il a empĂȘchĂ© que la dĂ©fense du vice-amiral Norman ait tous les documents pour le dĂ©fendre. Il a fallu lâordre dâun juge pour le faire. De plus, il savait fort bien que des mots de code concernant lâidentitĂ© de Norman Ă©taient utilisĂ©s pour Ă©viter les demandes dâaccĂšs Ă lâinformation. MalgrĂ© toutes ces Ă©vidences prĂ©sentĂ©es devant lui et Ă la population canadienne, le premier ministre refuse toujours de prĂ©senter des excuses Ă lâamiral Norman et Ă sa famille. Pourquoi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the minister may claim that the case is closed, but the facts speak for themselves. The Prime Minister has done everything he can to hide the truth. He withheld documents Norman's defence counsel needed to make its case. A court order had to be issued. He also knew full well that code words were being used to conceal Vice-Admiral Norman's identity and get around access to information requests. Despite the ample evidence provided to him and to Canadians, the Prime Minister is still refusing to apologize to Vice-Admiral Norman and his family. Why?
Blair says the government has acknowledged Vice-Admiral Norman's dedicated service and that the defence minister expressed regret, then pivots to the independence of the RCMP investigation and the director of public prosecutions' authority.
Blair acknowledges the defence minister expressed regret for Norman's experience but does not directly answer why there will be no apology from the Prime Minister, instead pivoting to the independence of the RCMP and the director of public prosecutions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government has been very willing to acknowledge and has acknowledged the dedicated service of Vice-Admiral Norman. In fact, it was the defence minister who first expressed regret for the experience of Vice-Admiral Norman. Let me be very clear. This was an investigation conducted entirely independently by the RCMP without any government involvement or interference. All decisions with respect to the prosecution were made by the director of public prosecutions, entirely independent of any government influence. In fact, in this case, the director of public prosecutions' authority came from the Ontario provincialâ
Paul-Hus asks why the Prime Minister will not demonstrate goodwill and apologize to Admiral Norman now, speculating that either the Prime Minister believes no apology is warranted or is disappointed his plan to destroy Norman did not succeed.
Paul-Hus asks why the Prime Minister will not apologize to Admiral Norman, but the framing is largely rhetorical and speculative about the Prime Minister's motives, with no new factual grounding beyond the previous exchange.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, quand on lui a demandĂ© de prĂ©senter des excuses Ă lâamiral Norman, le premier ministre a refusĂ© de le faire. Câest possible quâil ne veuille pas lui prĂ©senter des excuses parce quâil croit ne pas devoir le faire, ou il est possible quâil soit déçu parce que son plan pour le dĂ©truire nâa pas fonctionnĂ©. Dâune maniĂšre ou dâune autre, le premier ministre devra rendre des comptes. Alors, pourquoi ne pas faire preuve de bonne volontĂ© et prĂ©senter des excuses Ă lâamiral Norman maintenant?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when we asked the Prime Minister to apologize to Vice-Admiral Norman, he refused to do so. It is possible that he does not want to apologize because he does not think he needs to, but it is also possible that he is disappointed because his plan to destroy Vice-Admiral Norman did not work out. One way or another, the Prime Minister will have to be accountable. Why not show goodwill and apologize to Vice-Admiral Norman immediately?
Blair states that the government's obligation is to support the independent work of the RCMP without interference, that the RCMP's investigations and the Public Prosecution Service's decisions were entirely independent of government, and that the integrity of the judicial process was maintained.
Blair does not address the question of an apology at all, instead delivering a generic statement about the government's obligation to support independent RCMP work and asserting that all processes were independent of government influence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the obligation of the government is to support the independent work of the RCMP and not to engage in any interference in its independent investigations. That took place in this case. The RCMP's investigations were entirely independent of government. The decisions of the Public Prosecution Service were equally independent of any influence of government. Our responsibility is to ensure that the integrity of the judicial process is maintained. In this case, it absolutely was.
Singh challenges the government on three specific actions â the $12 million grant to Loblaws, the exemption of new oil sands projects from environmental review, and a climate emergency motion with no measures â asking when the government will understand that words alone are insufficient to address the climate crisis.
Singh cites three specific government actions â the $12 million to Loblaws, the exemption of new oil sands projects from environmental review, and a climate emergency motion with no measures â but the final ask is vague and the framing combines substance with partisan rhetoric.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement libéral a donné 12 millions de dollars à Loblaws en disant que cela aiderait à lutter contre les changements climatiques. Ensuite, ils ont exempté les nouveaux projets d'exploitation des sables bitumineux de l'examen environnemental. Finalement, cette semaine, ils ont présenté une motion sur l'urgence climatique, mais elle ne comprend aucune mesure. Quand le gouvernement comprendra-t-il que les belles paroles ne suffissent pas pour s'attaquer à la plus grande crise à laquelle nous faisons face?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government gave Loblaws $12 million, claiming that the money would help combat climate change. The Liberals then exempted new oil sands development projects from the environmental assessment process. This week, they moved a motion on the climate emergency, but it does not contain any measures. When will the government understand that empty rhetoric is not enough to address the greatest crisis we have ever faced?
McKenna affirms that there is a climate emergency, references flooding in the national capital region, states the government has a plan for the economy and the environment, and attacks the NDP for flip-flopping on LNG Canada, without addressing any of the three specific actions Singh cited.
McKenna does not address any of the three specific actions cited and instead questions the NDP's plan, attacks their position on LNG Canada, and pivots to job creation numbers, offering no substantive response to the question asked.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est clair qu'il y a une urgence climatique. Nous le voyons partout au Canada. Dans la région de la capitale nationale, il y a des inondations qui affectent les gens, leur famille et leur maison. Nous avons un plan. J'aimerais demander au NPD quel est son plan, car ce n'est pas vraiment clair. Nous avons un plan pour l'économie et l'environnement. Le NPD a fait volte-face: il appuyait LNG Canada, mais il ne l'appuie plus. Il s'agit de 10 000 emplois qui sont en jeu. Nous avons un plan pour nous attaquer aux changements climatiques et créer des emplois. Nous avons créé un million d'emplois, et nous sommes trÚs fiers de...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there is a climate emergency, and it is evident across Canada. People, families and homes in the national capital region have been affected by floods. We have a plan. I would like to know what the NDP's plan is, since it is not very clear. We have a plan for the economy and the environment. The NDP is flip-flopping. It supported LNG Canada, but now it does not. There are 10,000 jobs on the line. We have a plan to combat climate change and create jobs. We have created one million jobs, and we are very proud ofâ
Singh asks why the Liberal government cannot understand that its approach â exemplified by the Loblaws fridges grant and the exemption of oil sands projects from environmental reviews â is failing young workers and communities, and why it will not join the New Democrats to fight climate change leaving no worker and no community behind.
Singh repeats the Loblaws and oil sands exemption points while adding the theme of precarious work for young workers, and asks why the government will not join the New Democrats in fighting climate change in a way that leaves no worker and no community behind, but the ask remains broad and partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Liberals gave $12 million to Loblaws for fridges and then gave their billionaire buddies a go to deny workers a living wage. Liberals talk about climate emergency but exempt oil sands projects from environmental reviews. Young workers face not only an increasingly perilous planet but also a future of increasingly precarious work. Why can the Liberal government not understand that its approach is failing? Why will Liberals not join the New Democrats and fight climate change in a way that leaves no worker and no community behind?
McKenna accuses Singh of planning to leave 10,000 workers behind by flip-flopping on a project approved by an NDP government in B.C., calls for collective support for the climate emergency motion, and asserts the government is creating good jobs and making life more affordable.
McKenna does not address the oil sands exemption, precarious work, or the "no worker left behind" ask, and instead accuses Singh of a plan to leave 10,000 workers behind by flip-flopping on LNG Canada and urges collective support for the climate emergency motion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the leader has a plan to leave 10,000 workers behind, because he has flip-flopped on a project that was approved by an NDP government in B.C. that is all in on climate change. We all need to come together on climate change. That is why we brought in a motion for a climate emergency. I certainly hope everyone in the House will support it and that they will support serious climate action, support creating good jobs and support making life more affordable, because that is exactly what we are doing.
Singh cites the Phoenix pay system contract with IBM that grew from just under $6 million to almost $400 million over eight years with 46 contract changes, and asks why the government does not use public workers under fair contracts instead of giving millions to private companies to fix the mess.
Singh cites specific data â a contract initially valued at just under $6 million that has ballooned to almost $400 million, changed 46 times over eight years â and asks a concrete question about using public workers under fair contracts instead of private companies to fix Phoenix.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a horrible response on YouTube. After Conservatives bought the Phoenix pay system from IBM, they signed a contract for help that was valued at just under $6 million. Eight years later, it has ballooned to almost $400 million. The contract has been changed 46 times. Only Liberals and Conservatives working together could mess it up so badly. This is great news for IBM, but bad news for taxpayers. Instead of giving millions to private companies, why not use public workers under fair contracts to finally fix this mess?
Qualtrough states the government is acting with laser focus on Phoenix, that IBM is a partner being held to account, that contractual amendments are part of any ongoing partnership, and that the queue has been reduced by almost 40% in one year, without addressing the proposal to use public workers.
Qualtrough acknowledges the problem, mentions that IBM is a partner being held to account, provides the specific claim of a nearly 40% reduction in the queue in one year, and notes that contractual amendments are part of ongoing partnerships, but does not directly address the proposal to use public workers instead.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we continue to act with laser focus on addressing the Phoenix pay system. We know how completely unacceptable it is that public servants still continue to not be paid. IBM is a partner in this, and we need IBM to continue along on this journey with us. We are holding IBM to account. In addition, contractual amendments are just part of any relationship with an ongoing partner. I can assure everyone that this problem is being fixed. We are moving on. We have reduced the queue by almost 40% in one year. We are delivering for Canadians.
Singh contrasts the $385 million paid to IBM for a system that does not work with the situation of government workers who are not being paid due to Phoenix, asking when Liberals will start prioritizing people over large corporations.
Singh repeats the $385 million figure for IBM and contrasts it with unpaid government workers, asking when Liberals will prioritize people over large corporations, but the ask is generic and largely a rhetorical restatement of the previous exchange.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les gens ont du mal à avoir accÚs aux services dont ils ont besoin, alors que les libéraux donnent la priorité aux riches compagnies. Entretemps, les gens qui travaillent pour le gouvernement ne sont pas payés à cause du systÚme de paie Phénix, mais les libéraux ont versé 385 millions de dollars de plus à IBM pour un programme qui ne fonctionne pas. Au lieu de donner la priorité aux grandes entreprises, quand les libéraux commenceront-ils à donner la priorité aux gens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, people are having trouble accessing the services they need, as the Liberals put rich companies first. Meanwhile, public servants are not being paid because of the Phoenix pay system, and the Liberals have handed over another $385 million to IBM for a program that does not work. Instead of putting big business first, when will the Liberals start making people a priority?
Qualtrough states the government is working hard to stabilize the Phoenix pay system, achieved a 40% reduction last year, is transitioning to a new system in collaboration with unions, and confirms that being paid is a government priority.
Qualtrough reaffirms the 40% queue reduction from the previous exchange, mentions the transition to a new system and work with unions, and asserts that being paid is a priority, providing some relevant context though not new specifics.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous travaillons trĂšs fort pour stabiliser le systĂšme de paie PhĂ©nix. Il y a eu une rĂ©duction de 40 % l'annĂ©e derniĂšre. Nous effectuons une transition vers notre nouveau systĂšme, et nous travaillons avec les syndicats afin de le livrer au secteur public. Nous pouvons assurer au dĂ©putĂ© que c'est une prioritĂ© de notre gouvernement. Les personnes mĂ©ritent d'ĂȘtre payĂ©es.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard to stabilize the Phoenix pay system. The backlog dropped by 40% last year. We are transitioning to our new system and working with the unions to implement it in the public sector. We assure the member that it is a priority for our government. People deserve to be paid.
Raitt notes that the House unanimously stood and apologized to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman the previous day, that media reported the Prime Minister was not present, and asks whether the Prime Minister would like to take the opportunity now to apologize himself for the treatment of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
Raitt references a specific House event â the unanimous standing apology to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman the previous day â reports that media indicated the Prime Minister was absent, and asks him directly to take the opportunity to apologize, making it a concrete and timely accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, this House of Commons agreed unanimously and stood and thanked Vice-Admiral Mark Norman for his years of service to this country, as well as apologized for his treatment over the past three and a half years. It was reported by some media this morning that unfortunately the Prime Minister was not present in the House for that apology, and I am wondering if he would like to take the opportunity now to apologize himself for the treatment of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
Virani argues that a unanimous consent motion endorsed by the House is endorsed by every member including the Prime Minister, and then emphasizes that charges were laid and withdrawn by the independent RCMP and the independent director of public prosecutions, not by the government.
Virani argues that a unanimous consent motion represents every member of the House and therefore the Prime Minister as well, and then pivots to the independence of the RCMP and the director of public prosecutions, partially engaging the premise but not actually addressing whether the Prime Minister will offer a personal apology.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I respect the member opposite for that question and also for raising that unanimous consent motion in this House. When it is endorsed by this House, it is endorsed by every member of this House. That is the first point. The second point, and it needs to be restated, is that there are three important factors here. The people who decide to lay charges are the independent RCMP officers, whom we respect and I hope all members respect. The second point is that the people who decide to lay charges are the independent director of public prosecutions, and the people who decide to withdraw charges are also the independent DPP.
Raitt asserts that the government withheld documents from Vice-Admiral Norman's defence, that it took an abuse of process motion and six months of court fighting to obtain them, and that the court had to order their release because the government refused, and asks whether the government will apologize to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
Raitt makes a specific factual assertion â that the government withheld documents, that only an abuse of process motion initiated disclosure, that it took six months of court fighting, and that the court ordered their release â and asks for a government apology, making this a pointed accountability question grounded in specific procedural facts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the people who decided to withhold the documents from the defence of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman were this government, plain and simple. It was only because of an abuse of process motion brought forward by the Vice-Admiral that we started to get a look at the documents that clearly showed that there was political interference in this matter, but we only got to see it after six months of fighting in court. Yes, the court had to order the release of these documents because the government said that it would not release them. Will the government apologize to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman?
Virani explains the process by which third party records are handled under an O'Connor application, where claims of privilege go to the court for verification, and asserts that this is how one respects the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, which is exactly what the government did in this case.
Virani explains the O'Connor application process for third party records and asserts that the government respected the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, but does not address the specific claim that documents were withheld for six months or respond to the apology demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak to everyone in this House, but especially to that lawyer opposite, who shares some of the same background as I do as Fox scholars in Britain, and what we learned when we were learning and training in Britain is to respect court processes. The way it works on an O'Connor application for third party records is that the documents are identified, and then if there are claims of privilege, the issue goes to the court. Then the court goes into the claims of privilege, ascertains whether they are valid or not, and makes a decision. That is how one respects the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. That is exactly what we did in this case and what we do in every case.
Deltell cites the Prime Minister's two public statements predicting Norman would face trial before charges were laid, and the PMO withholding information from the defence until a court order, calling these political interventions, and asks whether the Liberal government and Prime Minister will offer a frank and formal apology to Vice-Admiral Norman.
Deltell cites two specific acts attributed to the Prime Minister â pre-charge public statements that Norman would face trial and the PMO retaining information until a court order â and asks for a formal apology, grounding the question in identifiable events though with some rhetorical framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, justement, parlons-en du respect du processus judiciaire dans cette affaire. Ă deux reprises, le premier ministre a dit que le vice-amiral Norman allait se retrouver devant les tribunaux, avant mĂȘme que les accusations soient portĂ©es. C'est la premiĂšre erreur. L'autre erreur, c'est que le Cabinet du premier ministre a retenu toute l'information possible pour une dĂ©fense pleine et entiĂšre, jusqu'Ă ce que la cour lui ordonne de la rendre publique. Ăa, c'est une intervention politique. Est-ce que le gouvernement libĂ©ral et son premier ministre pourraient faire la chose que tous les Canadiens rĂ©clament, c'est-Ă -dire prĂ©senter des excuses franches et formelles au vice-amiral Norman?
Hansard translation: Yes, Mr. Speaker, let us talk about respect for the judicial process in this case. Twice the Prime Minister said that Vice-Admiral Norman would end up in court, even before charges were brought. That was the first mistake. The second was that the Prime Minister's Office withheld as much information as possible until a court ordered it to disclose this information, which was needed for the accused to make full answer and defence. That is political interference. Will the Liberal government and its Prime Minister do what all Canadians want and issue a genuine, formal apology to Vice-Admiral Norman?
Virani reiterates the three points about the independence of the RCMP, the director of public prosecutions' decisions to prosecute and to withdraw charges, and quotes the director's own words that no other factors were considered and there was no contact or political influence in either decision.
Virani reiterates the independence of the RCMP, the director of public prosecutions, and quotes the DPP's own words that no outside factors or political influence were involved, but does not address the specific pre-charge statements by the Prime Minister or the document retention allegation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je veux souligner trois choses. PremiĂšrement, la dĂ©cision de faire une enquĂȘte est prise par la GRC, qui est indĂ©pendante. DeuxiĂšmement, la dĂ©cision de condamner quelqu'un et de l'amener devant la cour est prise par le directeur des poursuites pĂ©nales, qui est indĂ©pendant. TroisiĂšmement, la dĂ©cision de retirer une accusation est prise par le directeur des poursuites pĂ©nales, qui est indĂ©pendant. Les dĂ©putĂ©s peuvent se rassurer avec les mots du directeur: No other factors were considered in this decision, nor was there any contact or influence from outside the PPSC, including political influence in either the initial decision to prosecute or the decision to stay the charge today.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there are three things I want to say. First, the decision to conduct an investigation is made by the RCMP, which is independent. Second, the decision to lay charges and take someone to court is made by the director of public prosecutions, who is independent. Third, the decision to withdraw a charge is made by the the director of public prosecutions, who is independent. Perhaps these words from the director will reassure members. She said, and I quote: Aucun autre facteur n'a été pris en compte dans cette décision, pas plus qu'il n'y a eu de contact ou d'influence extérieure au Service des poursuites pénales du Canada, y compris une influence politique, que ce soit dans la décision initiale d'intenter des poursuites ou, maintenant, dans la décision de suspendre l'accusation.
Deltell contrasts the Prime Minister's past boast about not needing a political lieutenant because he was a general with the honour of Vice-Admiral Norman, asking why the Prime Minister will not act as a head of state and apologize to Norman rather than behave like an operetta general.
Deltell's question is largely rhetorical, built around a colourful jab at the Prime Minister's past quote about being a general, with only a vague call for the Prime Minister to act as a head of state and apologize, offering little new factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, parmi les dĂ©clarations loufoques du premier ministre, on se souviendra de celle-ci. Il avait dit qu'il n'avait pas besoin de lieutenant politique, parce que, lui, il Ă©tait un gĂ©nĂ©ral. Tout un gĂ©nĂ©ral, n'est-ce pas? Parlons plutĂŽt d'un vrai militaire, d'un militaire honorable: le vice-amiral Norman. Lui, c'est un homme de carriĂšre. Lui, c'est un homme qui commande le respect. Est-ce que le premier ministre pourrait agir en chef d'Ătat et prĂ©senter ses excuses? Pourrait-il agir pour rassembler tous les Canadiens plutĂŽt que d'agir comme un gĂ©nĂ©ral d'opĂ©rette?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, one of the most comical things the Prime Minister ever said was that he did not need a political lieutenant because he is a general. What a general, indeed. Let us talk about a real soldier, an honourable soldier: Vice-Admiral Norman. Unlike some, he is devoted to his career. Unlike some, this is a man who commands respect. Could the Prime Minister act like a statesman and apologize? Could he try bringing Canadians together instead of playing general?
Virani asserts respect for Norman and all who serve Canada, states there was no political interference, and adds the specific point that the DPP in this case was acting on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, meaning any direct political involvement would have come from that office rather than the federal government.
Virani states there was no political interference and adds a new specific detail â that the DPP was acting on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, meaning any direct political involvement would have come from Caroline Mulroney rather than the federal Attorney General â which is a substantive if deflective point.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous avons beaucoup de respect pour M. Norman, mais aussi pour n'importe quelle personne, homme ou femme, qui travaille pour le Canada, soit les policiers, soit les membres de la GRC. Par ailleurs, il n'y a pas eu d'ingĂ©rence politique dans ce dossier. C'Ă©tait mĂȘme impossible, parce que le DPP, dans ce contexte, a travaillĂ© au nom du procureur gĂ©nĂ©ral de l'Ontario. S'ils ont des questions, qu'ils les posent Ă Mme Mulroney.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of respect for Mr. Norman and for any man or woman who works for Canada, such as police officers or members of the RCMP. There was no political interference in this file. That would be impossible because, in this instance, the DPP was working on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario. If hon. members have any questions they can ask Ms. Mulroney.
Alleslev alleges the Prime Minister alerted the RCMP to investigate Norman, refused to provide documents, tampered with witnesses, and had his lawyers ask the public prosecutor to engineer the issues at stake in his favour, asking when the Prime Minister will admit what he did was wrong and apologize to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
Alleslev makes specific allegations â that the Prime Minister alerted the RCMP to investigate, refused to provide documents, tampered with witnesses, and had his lawyers ask the public prosecutor to engineer the issues at stake in his favour â but these are largely asserted without citation and the framing is highly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just because one did not get away with the money does not mean that one is not guilty of trying to rob the bank. The Prime Minister refuses to apologize for the disgraceful way Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and his family have been treated. We know the Prime Minister alerted the RCMP to investigate, refused to provide documents and tampered with witnesses. He even had his lawyers ask the public prosecutor to engineer the issues at stake in his favour. When will the Prime Minister admit that what he did was wrong and apologize to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman?
Virani walks through the third party records process â 144,000 documents identified, 8,000 deemed responsive, cabinet confidence claims made by civil servants and reviewed by the court â and asserts that no political person ever made a decision to interfere in this or any other matter.
Virani provides a sequential breakdown of the third party records process â 144,000 documents identified, culled to 8,000 responsive ones, cabinet confidence claims made by civil servants, then reviewed by the court â and asserts no political person decided to interfere, substantively engaging the document process but not the witness tampering or prosecutorial engineering allegations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, allow me to walk the member opposite through this process. A demand is made for third party records; 144,000 are identified. Then we cull that group to see which ones are responsive; 8,000 are then deemed responsive. Then claims of cabinet confidence are made, not by members of the political staff but by civil servants in this country, and when those claims of privilege are made, the court then verifies if they are valid or invalid. This happens every day in litigation around this country. There is nothing different in this case from any other. However, the most important thing that did not happen is that there was never a decision by a political person to interfere in this matter or any other matter.
Alleslev argues that frustrating the process is still political interference, that it tarnished Admiral Norman's reputation, that the House collectively recognized Norman had been wronged and apologized, but that the Prime Minister's absence meant it was sorry, not sorry, and asks when the Prime Minister will apologize to Mark Norman.
Alleslev invokes democratic principles around innocence until proven guilty and a fair defence, notes that the House came together to apologize but the Prime Minister's absence amounted to "sorry, not sorry," and asks when the Prime Minister will apologize to Mark Norman, combining some substance with rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, no matter how one tries to explain it, frustrating the process is still political interference, and it has tarnished the admiral's reputation. The fabric of our democracy relies on all citizens being innocent until proven guilty, being given a fair chance to defend themselves and being equal before the law, but that is not what happened to Admiral Norman, so the House came together to recognize that Admiral Norman had been wronged and offered him an apology, but it was not unanimous: for the Prime Minister, it was sorry, not sorry. When will the Prime Minister apologize to Mark Norman?
Virani challenges the characterization of the unanimous consent motion as not covering the Prime Minister, repeats that Conservatives continue to assert political interference when it did not occur, and reiterates that the director of public prosecutions was acting on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, so any direct political involvement would have come from the provincial attorney general.
Virani pushes back on the characterization of the unanimous consent motion, again repeats the Ontario DPP point from the previous exchange, and asserts there was no political interference, but does not address the specific claim that frustrating the process constitutes political interference or respond to the apology demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I take great issue with actually challenging a unanimous consent motion that was delivered on behalf of this Parliament through you, Mr. Speaker, and which represents every member of this Parliament. However, the most important thing is that the Conservatives continue to assert political interference when that was not the case. Second, as I explained in French and will explain again to the member in English so that she can fully understand it, is that in this case, the director of public prosecutions was acting in the name of the Attorney General of Ontario, and in that event, if there could have been any direct political involvement, it would have been done by the attorney general of the province and not by the Attorney General of Canada.
Angus asks why the Prime Minister is exempting tar sands projects from environmental review while giving $12 million to Loblaws, framing it as a betrayal of young people on climate.
Angus links the Loblaws $12 million grant to tar sands exemptions from environmental review, providing two concrete factual pegs, but the ask collapses into rhetorical class-warfare framing and a vague unanswerable question about "the billionaire class."
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us follow the money. The Prime Minister gets lobbied by Loblaws and gives $12 million to Galen Weston, but says it is about saving the planet. Then Galen's company votes to deny its workers a living wage. While the Liberals are hosting photo ops at Loblaws, the Prime Minister is exempting the tar sands projects from environmental review. What is with that? He is carrying on the same sellout of young people and the planet that have joined the Liberals and the Conservatives at the hip for decades. When is he going to admit that the billionaire class is not the solution, but the problem?
McKenna says the government is building better rules for major project approvals, that no one gets a pass, and that it is tackling the climate change crisis by phasing out coal and ensuring a just transition.
McKenna addresses the environmental review point directly by asserting no projects get a pass under the new rules, but does not engage the Loblaws grant or the specific claim about tar sands exemptions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is something that has to be corrected here, because it is a real problem. We are actually building better rules for approval of major projects. No one gets a pass. The whole point is making sure that we have rules that rebuild the trust of the public in how we review projects, that we work with indigenous peoples and that we make sure good projects go ahead in a timely way, with clear rules. That is what we are doing. We are also tackling the climate change crisis. We are phasing out coal. We are ensuring a just transition. We are not flip-flopping on projects that are supported by the NDP government in B.C. and are creating good jobs.
Angus asks why the Prime Minister is promoting Ben Chin, whom he describes as having fingerprints all over the SNC-Lavalin scandal, while the two women who stood up for the rule of law were removed.
Angus names Ben Chin specifically and ties his promotion to testimony from the SNC-Lavalin affair, providing an identifiable factual anchor, but the question is wrapped in colourful rhetoric and is compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, they do not just have a climate crisis; they have a credibility crisis. Let me go on talking about their friends in the billionaire class and the lessons the Prime Minister learned from the SNC debacle. It cost him his attorney general, the President of the Treasury Board, his right-hand man and the head of the Privy Council. Then to fix it, who is he bringing in? Oops, I have to be careful when I say the name: Ben Chin, the guy whose fingerprints are all over this scandal like a bad enforcer. Why is he promoting the backroom boys involved in the scandal when he kicked out the two women who stood up for the rule of law and stood up to the Prime Minister?
Chagger accuses the NDP of following Conservative politics, cites the Canada child benefit lifting 300,000 children out of poverty, and claims the government is focused on Canadians and job creation.
Chagger does not address Ben Chin, his promotion, or the SNC-Lavalin affair at all, pivoting entirely to the Canada child benefit, job creation numbers, and attacking the NDP.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the NDP have been holding hands with the Conservatives so much that they are following the same politics that they do. There was a time that the NDP would actually be concerned about jobs, about Canadians. However, that is exactly what we are going to do, which is remain focused on Canadians. The Conservatives have done whatever they can to try to discredit the work of this government. They oppose it at every occasion, and now that seems to be the NDP's approach as well. The NDP should be proud to know that through the tax-free Canada child benefit, over 300,000 children have been lifted out of poverty. Canadians have created over one million jobs, and we are talking about good jobs. The economy is stronger today thanâ
Rayes asks why the Liberal government refuses to work in partnership with provinces, citing conflicts over illegal border entry, the carbon tax, marijuana legalization, Trans Mountain, and improvised federal infrastructure announcements made without Quebec.
Rayes lists several specific conflict areas (illegal border crossings, carbon tax, marijuana legalization, Trans Mountain, infrastructure announcements) and asks why the government refuses to work in partnership with provinces, giving the question some factual grounding but the ask is broad.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce gouvernement libéral centralisateur et paternaliste refuse d'inclure les provinces dans ses décisions. Depuis 2015, il est en conflit avec elles sur de nombreux sujets: l'entrée illégale à la frontiÚre, la taxe sur le carbone, la légalisation de la marijuana et le dossier du pipeline Trans Mountain. De plus, cette semaine, les annonces d'infrastructures fédérales-provinciales au Québec se sont faites de façon improvisée et sans le Québec. Pourquoi ce gouvernement refuse-t-il de travailler en partenariat avec nos partenaires principaux, les provinces?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this centralist, paternalistic Liberal government refuses to include the provinces in its decisions. Since 2015, it has clashed with the provinces on many different issues, including illegal border crossings, the carbon tax, marijuana legalization and the Trans Mountain pipeline. Furthermore, this week's federal-provincial infrastructure announcements in Quebec were slapdash and failed to include Quebec. Why does this government refuse to work in partnership with our main partners, the provinces?
Champagne says only a Conservative could oppose investment to relieve congestion on Montreal's North Shore, lists specific projects, and announces $345 million invested in Montreal mobility.
Champagne pivots entirely to defending the North Shore Montreal infrastructure investment, listing specific projects and dollar amounts, but never addresses the broader accusation of refusing to partner with provinces.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cela prend seulement un conservateur pour ĂȘtre contre une annonce sur le dĂ©sengorgement de la couronne Nord de MontrĂ©al. Les citoyens de la couronne Nord de MontrĂ©al attendent ce projet depuis 1970. Nous sommes fiers d'avoir investi...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, only a Conservative could object to an announcement about reducing congestion in the suburbs north of Montreal. Local residents have been waiting for this project since 1970. We are proud to have investedâ
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cela va me faire plaisir de rĂ©pĂ©ter que cela prend seulement un conservateur pour ĂȘtre contre un investissement visant Ă dĂ©sengorger la couronne Nord de MontrĂ©al. Les citoyens attendent ce projet depuis des dĂ©cennies. Nous sommes fiers d'investir 345 millions de dollars pour la mobilitĂ© Ă MontrĂ©al. Nous sommes fiers d'avoir investi dans le prolongement de l'autoroute 19 entre l'autoroute 440 et l'autoroute 640. Nous sommes fiers d'avoir investi dans la rĂ©fection du pont Pie-IX. Nous sommes fiers d'avoir ajoutĂ© une ligne pour le bus...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to repeat that only a Conservative could object to an investment aimed at reducing congestion in the suburbs north of Montreal. Montrealers have been waiting for this project for decades. We are proud to be investing $345 million to improve road travel in Montreal. We are proud to have invested in the extension of Highway 19 between Highway 440 and Highway 640. We are proud to have invested in the rehabilitation of the Pie-IX Bridge. We are proud to have added a lane for busâ
Rayes asks why the government refuses to work in partnership with Quebec and all provinces, citing the Quebec premier's morning confirmation that he submitted several projects without receiving collaboration from the Liberal government.
Rayes sharpens the previous question by citing Quebec Premier Legault's morning statement that he had submitted projects without receiving collaboration, naming multiple provinces in conflict with the federal government, giving it stronger factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce gouvernement a réussi à se mettre à dos l'Ontario, l'Alberta, la Saskatchewan, le Manitoba, le Nouveau-Brunswick, la Colombie-Britannique et, depuis hier particuliÚrement, le Québec. Ce matin, le premier ministre du Québec a confirmé qu'il a bel et bien déposé et transmis au gouvernement en place plusieurs projets et qu'il n'a pas eu la collaboration de ce gouvernement libéral. Pourquoi ce gouvernement refuse-t-il de travailler en partenariat avec le Québec et toutes les provinces du Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government has managed to alienate Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, British Columbia and, as of yesterday, Quebec. This morning the Premier of Quebec confirmed that, although he did deliver a number of proposals to the government, the Liberal government has not been inclined to collaborate. Why is the government refusing to partner with Quebec and all the other Canadian provinces?
Champagne says respecting Quebec means approving its projects in time for construction season, and pledges to continue working with Quebec and all provinces to put construction workers to work this summer.
Champagne says demonstrating respect for Quebec means approving projects submitted in time for construction season, mentions working with all provinces, but does not address the Premier's specific allegation of non-collaboration.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, démontrer du respect envers le Québec, c'est travailler pour le Québec. C'est plus que poser des questions à la Chambre, c'est approuver des projets que le Québec a soumis à temps pour la saison de la construction. C'est ce à quoi les syndicats et les travailleurs s'attendent. Nous allons continuer de faire des investissements pour améliorer la qualité de vie des citoyens partout au pays. Nous allons continuer de travailler avec le Québec. Nous allons continuer de travailler avec toutes les provinces pour faire travailler les travailleurs de la construction cet été.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, respecting Quebec means working for Quebec. Asking questions in the House is one thing, but in the end, what matters is approving Quebec's proposed projects in time for the construction season. That is what unions and workers expect. We will keep investing to make life better for people across the country. We will keep working with Quebec. We will keep working with all the provinces to make sure our construction workers are on the job this summer.
Poilievre asks why the Prime Minister will not give taxpayers a break on fuel prices, citing a Toyota Canada poll showing half of British Columbians find prices too high at a record $1.80 a litre and a quote from the Prime Minister saying the high prices are "exactly what we want."
Poilievre cites a Toyota Canada poll, a specific price of $1.80 a litre described as a North American record, and a direct quote attributed to the Prime Minister, but combines these with personal attacks on the Prime Minister's travel habits.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Toyota Canada released a poll today showing that half of British Columbians believe that fuel prices are too high and they will have to change their summer vacation plans. Prices have reached $1.80 a litre, a record for North America, and when the Prime Minister was asked about it, he said this is âexactly what we wantâ. However, it is not what he wants. He is jetting around at taxpayers' expense, burning fossil fuels to vacation in Florida and Tofino. Why will the Prime Minister not give taxpayers a break instead of engaging in high-carbon hypocrisy?
McKenna says the price on pollution added only 1Âą to the price of gas, accuses the Conservatives of spreading misinformation about the climate action incentive, and says 80% of families will be better off.
McKenna addresses the carbon price contribution to gas prices (1Âą) which is relevant, but does not address the $1.80 price, the poll, or the Prime Minister's travel, and pivots to attacking the Conservatives for spreading misinformation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the price of gas has gone up 1Âą because of the price on pollution, but in the party opposite, all they do is spread misinformation, whether it is Doug Ford or Jason Kenney or the party opposite, who refuse to actually tell their constituents in their flyers that the biggest incentive that they can get through the tax system is a climate action incentive. All Canadians, those in Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, are entitled to more money back. Eighty per cent of families will be better off. It is no longer free to pollute. We are taking action on climate changeâ
Poilievre asks why the Prime Minister will not end the hypocrisy and give consumers a break, citing a Financial Post report that the carbon tax will cost a family $600 for a trip from Toronto to Vancouver while the Prime Minister takes trips to Tofino and Florida on the public dime.
Poilievre cites a Financial Post figure of $600 cost per family for a Toronto-Vancouver trip and repeats the Prime Minister's travel examples, but the question is heavily rhetorical and focused on personal attacks rather than a specific policy ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what they are giving is a small cheque before the election and a massive bill after it. It is the carbon tax trick. The reality is, accordingly to the Financial Post, the carbon tax will cost a family $600 just for a trip from Toronto to Vancouver. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister takes trips to Tofino on the public dime. He goes to Florida and then back, then to Florida and back again so that he can sneak in an extra Twitter photo op. Why will he not end the hypocrisy and give consumers a break?
McKenna says the real concern should be the cost of climate change, which has risen from $400 million to over $2 billion a year, and challenges the opposition to step up for climate action and the economy of the future.
McKenna pivots to the cost of climate change ($400 million to over $2 billion per year), does not address the Financial Post figure, the family travel cost, or the Prime Minister's personal travel, and ends by challenging the opposition.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I feel like the party opposite is worried about debt and worried about costs, but it should be worried about the costs that we are passing on to our kids, the cost of climate change. We have an emergency here, and the party opposite is not telling the truth to Canadians. We are paying. We have gone from $400 million a year to over $2 billion because of the cost of climate change. Why does the opposition not step up? Why does the opposition not step up for climate action? Why does it not step up for the economy of the future and stop misleading Canadians?
Johns asks when the Liberals will get serious and bring in urgent action to address the climate emergency, citing the worst flooding, forest fires, wind storm, snowstorm, and drought in B.C. history over the past three years.
Johns lists a series of extreme weather events in B.C. with some temporal specificity (January wind storm, February snowstorm, March drought) to establish urgency, but the ask for "urgent action" is vague and not tied to a specific policy proposal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we do have an emergency. Over the last three years, we have seen the worst flooding and forest fires in B.C. history. On Vancouver Island, in January, we had the worst wind storm in recorded history, the biggest snowstorm in February, the worst drought in March, and the forest fire season has already started. Climate change is affecting our forests, our oceans, our ecosystems, and things are escalating. Instead of introducing urgent action, the Liberals are offering more platitudes. When will the Liberals get serious and bring in urgent action to attack the climate emergency we are faced with right now?
McKenna says Liberals are taking serious climate action including phasing out coal, ensuring a just transition for workers, investing in energy-efficient solutions, and pricing pollution, and asks all parties to join them.
McKenna lists several existing government climate measures (phasing out coal, just transition, carbon pricing) but does not address the specific B.C. weather events cited or explain what urgent action beyond current policy is being taken.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is like whiplash here in the House of Commons. On the one side we have the Conservatives, who do not want to take climate action and do not seem to understand the economic opportunity, and on the other side we have a party that is attacking us. Liberals are taking serious climate action. We are phasing out coal. We are ensuring a just transition for workers. We are making investments in energy-efficient and clean solutions. We are making it no longer free to pollute. We are taking all the action we need to. I would ask all parties in the House, why not join us? Why not be serious on climate change? Why not think about the future that we want for our kids and the good economicâ
Brosseau asks whether the Prime Minister will commit to having Liberal MPs support the NDP motion declaring a climate emergency, which calls for cancelling Trans Mountain expansion, rejecting Energy East, eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, and increasing GHG reduction targets.
Brosseau lists four specific NDP demands (no Trans Mountain expansion, no Energy East, immediate elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, increased GHG reduction targets) and asks whether the Prime Minister will support the NDP motion, making this a concrete and answerable yes/no question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et les QuĂ©bĂ©coises souhaitent un gouvernement qui a une rĂ©elle stratĂ©gie pour s'attaquer aux changements climatiques. En demandant qu'on dĂ©crĂšte un Ă©tat d'urgence relativement aux changements climatiques, le NPD demande des mesures au gouvernement libĂ©ral: qu'il ne donne pas suite au projet d'expansion de l'olĂ©oduc Trans Mountain; qu'il dise non au projet Ănergie Est; qu'il Ă©limine immĂ©diatement toute subvention aux Ă©nergies fossiles; et qu'il augmente les visĂ©es et la portĂ©e de l'objectif gouvernemental de rĂ©duction de GES. Devant l'urgence climatique, le premier ministre s'engage-t-il Ă donner le feu vert pour faire en sorte que les dĂ©putĂ©s libĂ©raux appuient notre motion?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers want to have a government with a real strategy to tackle climate change. By asking the government to declare a climate emergency, the NDP is calling on the Liberal government to not proceed with the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project, to say no to the energy east project, to immediately eliminate all federal fossil fuel subsidies and to increase the scope of the government's greenhouse gas reduction targets. In view of the climate emergency, will the Prime Minister commit to giving the green light to ensure that Liberal members support our motion?
O'Regan says eliminating the subsidy the NDP proposes would leave at least 24 First Nations in Ontario without electricity, as they rely on the federal electricity subsidy program for critical infrastructure serving some 16,000 people.
O'Regan does not answer the question about supporting the NDP motion or any of its four specific demands, instead attacking one element (fossil fuel subsidy elimination) by arguing it would cut power to 24 First Nations communities in Ontario.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, climate change is real, and we know that first nations are disproportionately impacted, but the subsidy that the NDP wants to eliminate would leave at least 24 first nations in Ontario alone in the dark, literally. These are communities that rely on the federal electricity subsidy program to maintain critical infrastructure, like water facilities and schools. The NDP quite literally wants to turn off the lights, heat and power to the communities' schools and water facilities, leaving some 16,000 people in the dark. While the NDP continues to put forward these policies, we will ensure thoughtful and effective climate change policies.
Samson asks the minister to explain what steps the government will take to address the shortage of French teachers in Canada, following an announcement at Simon Fraser University.
This is a government-backbench softball question inviting the minister to explain steps being taken on the French teacher shortage, providing no accountability pressure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as we see Conservatives across the country cutting access to French education, our government strongly believes that all Canadians should have access to an education in the official language of their choice. Lundi dernier, j'Ă©tais extrĂȘmement content de voir la ministre faire une importante annonce Ă l'UniversitĂ© Simon Fraser. Je demanderais Ă la ministre d'expliquer Ă la Chambre les Ă©tapes que notre gouvernement va suivre pour s'assurer qu'on rĂšgle le problĂšme du manque d'enseignants français au Canada.
Hansard translation: Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au moment oĂč, partout au pays, les conservateurs rĂ©duisent l'accĂšs Ă l'enseignement en français, le gouvernement croit fermement que tous les Canadiens devraient pouvoir Ă©tudier dans la langue officielle de leur choix. Last Monday, I was extremely pleased to see the minister make an important announcement at Simon Fraser University. I would ask the minister to explain to the House the steps our government is taking to ensure that we address the shortage of the French teachers in Canada.
Joly says the government has reinvested $62 million to ensure kids have the chance to become bilingual, while contrasting this with Conservative cuts to French immersion services.
Joly provides a concrete figure ($62 million reinvested to address the French teacher shortage) and connects it to the bilingualism objective, though she also pivots to attacking Conservative cuts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, being a bilingual country is who we are and what we believe in. The reality is that while the Conservatives are cutting services to French immersion and also francophones, we are investing. There is a French teacher shortage in this country. We just reinvested $62 million to make sure that our kids have the capacity and the chance to become bilingual. Will the Leader of the Opposition stop taking his orders from Doug Ford and denounce these cuts the provincial Conservative government is making in Ontario?
Falk asks why the Prime Minister chose Sarah Goodman, former vice-president of Tides Canada, whose primary objective was to stop pipeline construction, to serve as his director of policy.
Falk names Sarah Goodman specifically, identifies her former role as vice-president of Tides Canada and her new role as the Prime Minister's director of policy, and asks a clear specific question about why someone who worked to stop pipelines was appointed to the PMO.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Tides Canada has made it its primary objective to stop the construction of any pipelines in Canada, especially those that would get Canadian energy to new markets. Sarah Goodman served as the vice-president of Tides Canada, and the Prime Minister has just appointed her to be his director of policy. Our energy sector has taken hit after hit from the current Liberal government and this is another slap in the face to Canadian energy workers. Why did the Prime Minister choose someone who has actively worked to destroy our energy sector to be his director of policy?
Sohi says the government is building pipelines, citing Enbridge Line 3 as nearly complete, advocacy for Keystone XL, and progress on Trans Mountain, while accusing Conservatives of voting to kill the Trans Mountain review process.
Sohi does not address Sarah Goodman or her appointment at all, instead listing pipeline approvals and advocacy (Enbridge Line 3, Keystone XL, Trans Mountain) and attacking the Conservatives for voting against the review process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are building pipelines. Enbridge Line 3, which we gave approval to, is almost complete on the Canadian side. We are advocating for the Keystone XL pipeline with the United States. We are moving forward on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in the right way. If the members of the Conservative Party were really serious about that process, they would not have voted it down to kill and shut down the process that would allow us to reach a decision on that project by June 18.
Gourde asks why, under the Liberal government, one can earn a promotion by obstructing justice, pointing to a ministerial chief of staff who intervened in the SNC-Lavalin trial and threatened the former attorney general's staff being promoted.
Gourde identifies a specific individual (a minister's chief of staff) who intervened in the SNC-Lavalin case and threatened the former attorney general's staff, and was subsequently promoted, posing a pointed accountability question about promotion criteria.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous avons vu le sort rĂ©servĂ© Ă deux anciennes ministres libĂ©rales dans le scandale de corruption de SNC-Lavalin, lorsque celles-ci ont voulu faire respecter le principe de primautĂ© du droit. Le chef de cabinet dâun ministre libĂ©ral a fait de son mieux pour intervenir dans le procĂšs. Il a Ă©tĂ© promu alors que, lui aussi, il a tentĂ© de diriger lâancienne procureure gĂ©nĂ©rale dans le dossier SNC-Lavalin et quâil a mĂȘme menacĂ© son personnel. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut nous expliquer pourquoi tout ce qu'on a Ă faire pour obtenir une promotion au sein du gouvernement libĂ©ral est de faire entrave Ă la justice?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal, we saw how two former Liberal ministers were treated when they tried to ensure respect for the rule of law. A Liberal minister's chief of staff did his best to intervene in the process. He was promoted even though he, too, tried to direct the former attorney general in the SNC-Lavalin case and even threatened his staff. Can the Prime Minister explain why all someone has to do to get a promotion in the Liberal government is to obstruct justice?
Chagger says the government respects institutions and their independence, accuses the Conservatives of undermining those institutions, and claims the government has improved the economic situation for Canadians compared to ten years of Stephen Harper.
Chagger does not address the individual, the promotion, the SNC-Lavalin affair, or the rule of law allegations, instead pivoting entirely to attacking the Conservatives' economic record under Stephen Harper.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, de ce cĂŽtĂ©-ci de la Chambre, nous avons toujours respectĂ© nos institutions. Nous savons que nos institutions sont indĂ©pendantes du gouvernement. Nous allons continuer Ă travailler pour les Canadiens. Nous savons que les conservateurs ont continuĂ© Ă dĂ©battre des politiques et des programmes qui font avancer les Canadiens et qui font que nous avons une situation Ă©conomique plus abordable pour les Canadiens aujourdâhui. Ce nâĂ©tait pas le cas sous les conservateurs, pendant les 10 annĂ©es de Stephen Harper. Câest exactement pourquoi ils nâont pas de plan, ni pour lâĂ©conomie ni pour lâenvironnement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we have always respected our institutions. We know that our institutions are independent of the government. We will continue to work on behalf of Canadians. We know that the Conservatives continued to debate policies and programs that make life better for Canadians and that have put us in an economic position that is more affordable for Canadians today. That was not the case when the Conservatives were in power for 10 years under Stephen Harper. That is exactly why they do not have a plan for the economy or for the environment.
Brassard asks how much of a bonus Ben Chin receives for doing the Prime Minister's dirty work, given that the former attorney general named him as one of the most aggressive actors in the SNC-Lavalin interference and testified that he directly threatened her staff.
Brassard names Ben Chin directly, references the former attorney general's testimony that he directly threatened her staff, notes the contrast between her dismissal and his promotion to the PMO, and asks a pointed specific question about the bonus.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general named Ben Chin as one of the most aggressive actors in the Prime Minister's attempt to interfere in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. She testified that he directly threatened her staff. Let us think about this. The Prime Minister fired the attorney general and kicked her out of caucus for defending our rule of law, but he has promoted Ben Chin to the Prime Minister's Office after he worked to undermine our rule of law. Can the Prime Minister tell us how much of a bonus Ben Chin gets for doing the Prime Minister's dirty work?
Chagger says the government was elected to deliver for Canadians, citing over one million jobs created, the Canada child benefit lifting almost 300,000 children out of poverty, and accusing Conservatives of voting against these measures.
Chagger does not address Ben Chin, his promotion, the bonus, or the SNC-Lavalin affair, instead listing child benefit statistics, job creation figures, and attacking the Conservatives.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been clear that we were elected on a platform that committed to delivering for Canadians. That is exactly why today we have an economy that is working for Canadians, and that is exactly why we have invested in Canadians and skills development and Canadians have created over a million jobs. Canadians should be proud of the work we are doing, but we know there is a lot more work to do. The tax-free Canada child benefit that we introduced three years ago, today has seen almost 300,000 children lifted out of poverty. Over 800,000 Canadians are benefiting. The Conservatives continue to vote against these measures, and they continue to mislead Canadians because they have no plan of their own.
Brassard asks how it can be right to reward Ben Chin, who attempted to interfere in the SNC-Lavalin prosecution, while the member for Vancouver Granville and the member for MarkhamâStouffville were punished for standing up for the rule of law.
Brassard names the member for Vancouver Granville and the member for MarkhamâStouffville and Ben Chin specifically, and asks a pointed rhetorical question about rewarding those who undermine the rule of law while punishing those who defend it, but the ask is framed as an unanswerable normative question rather than a specific demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the Liberal plan, the careers and reputations of two accomplished and competent ministers were profoundly maligned by the Prime Minister. Both the member for Vancouver Granville and the member for MarkhamâStouffville were punished for standing up for our rule of law and against the actions of the Prime Minister and his operatives. We found out today that one of those operatives, Ben Chin, who attempted to interfere in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, has been rewarded. In what world is it right to reward those who attempt to undermine our rule of law and punish those who stand up for it?
Chagger says the rule of law is intact and respected in Canada, accuses the Conservatives of undermining institutions under their new leader and under Stephen Harper, and cites middle-class tax cuts and the Canada child benefit.
Chagger asserts the rule of law is intact in Canada, accuses the Conservatives of undermining institutions under Stephen Harper and their new leader, and lists middle-class tax cuts and the Canada child benefit without addressing Ben Chin or the two former ministers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the world that I live in, we actually respect our rule of law and we know that it is intact in Canada. We respect the independence of our officers of Parliament as well as our court system, something that the Conservatives have continued to undermine under their new leader, and something that they did under 10 years of Stephen Harper. All we know is that they have a new leader, but nothing has changed; they remain the party of Stephen Harper. We on this side will continue to focus on Canadians. That is exactly why we lowered taxes for middle-class Canadians by increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1%. Conservatives voted against it. We brought in the tax-free Canada child benefit, which is lifting 300,000 children out of poverty. What did the Conservatives do? They votedâ
Trudel asks why the Liberals are giving more money to a large company, citing $137 million wasted since January and IBM employees being called in to stabilize Phoenix, rather than helping affected workers directly.
Trudel cites a specific dollar figure ($137 million wasted since January) and the involvement of IBM employees in Phoenix stabilization, and asks a specific question about why money is going to a large company rather than directly to workers.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pendant que des milliers de travailleurs et de travailleuses de la fonction publique attendent d'ĂȘtre payĂ©s, les libĂ©raux pitchent de l'argent par les fenĂȘtres. Ils gaspillent encore plus d'argent dans un systĂšme qui ne fonctionne pas, soit 137 millions de dollars depuis janvier. De plus, ce sont des employĂ©s d'IBM qui vont ĂȘtre appelĂ©s pour assurer la stabilisation de PhĂ©nix. IBM ramasse l'argent et les travailleurs et les travailleuses restent pris avec les problĂšmes. Le scandale a assez durĂ©, il faut rĂ©gler le cas de PhĂ©nix. Pourquoi les libĂ©raux donnent-ils encore de l'argent Ă une grosse compagnie, plutĂŽt que d'aider les travailleurs et les travailleuses directement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, while thousands of public service workers are waiting to get paid, the Liberals are tossing money out the window. They are wasting even more money on a system that is not working, specifically $137 million since January. On top of that, IBM employees are being called on to stabilize Phoenix. While IBM gets paid, our workers continue to have problems. This scandal has gone on long enough. Phoenix must be fixed. Why do the Liberals keep giving money to a big corporation rather than helping the workers directly?
Qualtrough acknowledges Phoenix problems are unacceptable, says the backlog has been reduced by about 40% over the past year, and states the government is working with unions and the President of the Treasury Board on a new system to replace Phoenix.
Qualtrough acknowledges Phoenix problems, states the backlog has been reduced by about 40% over the past year, and mentions work on a new system with unions and the President of the Treasury Board, but does not address the $137 million figure or the IBM contract specifically.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous comprenons qu'il est inacceptable qu'il y ait encore des problÚmes concernant le systÚme de paie Phénix. Nous travaillons chaque jour pour régler les problÚmes de ce systÚme. Nous avons réduit l'arriéré d'environ 40 % il y a un an. Nous travaillons avec les syndicats et la présidente du Conseil du Trésor à la mise sur pied d'un nouveau systÚme pour remplacer Phénix. Le message aux travailleurs et aux travailleuses des services publics est clair: nous sommes derriÚre eux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we understand that the persistent problems with the Phoenix pay system are unacceptable. We are working every single day to fix the problems with this system. We reduced the backlog by about 40% a year ago. We are working with the unions and the President of the Treasury Board to bring in a new system to replace Phoenix. Our message to public service workers is clear: we stand behind them.
Sansoucy asks why the Liberals again preferred powerful lobbies over helping youth, noting that the manufacturer of the sweetened alcoholic drink consumed by Athéna Gervais conducted over one hundred lobbying contacts with the Liberals during the study of new rules to govern such drinks.
Sansoucy names Athéna Gervais and the specific product that caused her death, cites over one hundred lobbying contacts by the manufacturer during the regulatory study, and asks why the government chose powerful lobbies over helping youth, making it a reasonably grounded accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la mort d'Athéna Gervais, causée par la boisson sucrée alcoolisée FCKD UP, aurait dû sonner l'alarme...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, AthĂ©na Gervais's death, caused by FCKD UP, a sweetened alcoholic beverage, should have raised a red flagâ
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la mort d'AthĂ©na Gervais, causĂ©e par une boisson sucrĂ©e alcoolisĂ©e, aurait dĂ» sonner l'alarme. Des experts et Ăduc'alcool demandent de rendre ces produits moins attrayants pour les jeunes, mais le gouvernement refuse de les rencontrer. Pendant l'Ă©tude sur les nouvelles rĂšgles pour encadrer ces boissons, le groupe qui fabrique la boisson bue par AthĂ©na menait une campagne de lobbying active auprĂšs des libĂ©raux. Il a communiquĂ© avec eux plus d'une centaine de fois. Pourquoi les libĂ©raux ont-ils encore prĂ©fĂ©rĂ© les puissants lobbys au lieu d'aider nos jeunes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, AthĂ©na Gervais's death, caused by a sweetened alcoholic beverage, should have raised a red flag. Experts and Ăduc'alcool are calling on the government to make these products less attractive to young people, but the government is refusing to meet with them. While new regulations around these beverages were being studied, the company that produces the beverage consumed by AthĂ©na actively lobbied the Liberals, contacting them over 100 times. Why have the Liberals yet again sided with powerful lobbies instead of helping our young people?
Damoff mourns the death of the young person, denies government influence by industry, and cites the Canada food guide as an example of evidence-based policy that prioritizes Canadian health and safety.
Damoff mourns the death, denies industry influence by pointing to the Canada food guide as evidence of evidence-based policy, but does not address the hundred-plus lobbying contacts cited, the outcome of the regulatory study, or the specific request to meet with experts and Ăduc'alcool.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we of course mourn the death of any young person who came in contact with the drinks. I do take exception, though, to the hon. member saying that we are somehow influenced by the industry, because we are not. The Canada food guide is a very good example of where we looked at the best evidence and came up with a policy, came up with a food guide that would make Canadians the healthiest in the world. We take the health and safety of Canadians very seriously.
Will the Liberals admit to Canadians that they will not succeed in meeting the Paris Agreement targets?
The question poses a clear and direct ask â will the Liberals admit they will not meet Paris targets â but frames it with partisan commentary about opportunisme Ă©lectoral, reducing its specificity.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la valse des libéraux et du NPD à la suite du gain du Parti vert lors d'une élection partielle justifie leur volte-face. C'est de l'opportunisme électoral. Les libéraux se réveillent aprÚs trois ans et demi en matiÚre d'environnement. Voici une question trÚs simple: est-ce que les cibles de l'Accord de Paris seront atteintes? Les libéraux peuvent-ils, pour une fois, dire la vérité aux Canadiens, c'est-à -dire qu'ils ne réussiront pas à atteindre les cibles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we can see why the Liberals and the NDP are flip-flopping in response to the Green Party's gains in the byelection. They are electioneering. The Liberals are getting a wake-up call on the environment after three and a half years. My question is very simple. Will the Paris Agreement targets be met? Can the Liberals tell Canadians the truth for once and admit that they will not meet these targets?
McKenna asserted that the government has a plan to tackle climate change while growing the economy, and invited the opposition to join them, without addressing the Paris targets question.
McKenna deflects entirely, expressing pleasure at the question and inviting the opposition to join the government's plan, without addressing whether Paris targets will be met.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis tellement heureuse d'entendre le dĂ©putĂ© d'en face parler de l'environnement. Je pensais qu'il n'avait pas entendu le mot. C'est sĂ»r qu'on doit s'attaquer aux changements climatiques. Nous avons un plan. Les dĂ©putĂ©s de l'opposition veulent-ils se joindre Ă nous pour s'attaquer aux changements climatiques et faire croĂźtre notre Ă©conomie? Nous avons crĂ©Ă© un million d'emplois et nous avons un plan pour les changements climatiques. On peut faire les deux en mĂȘme temps. J'invite l'opposition Ă se joindre Ă nous.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to hear the member opposite talk about the environment. I did not think he had ever heard the word. Climate action is indeed necessary. We have a plan. Do the opposition members want to join us in combatting climate change and growing our economy? We have created 1 million jobs and we have a climate plan. We can do both at the same time. I invite the opposition to join us.
Given that the Liberals' own emissions report shows Canada has fallen behind on its Paris targets, when will the minister admit her government will not meet its emission targets?
Fast grounds the question in the Liberals' own emissions report showing Canada has fallen behind on Paris targets, and asks a clear question about admitting failure, though framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, after taking a beating from the Greens in last week's by-election in B.C., the NDP and the Liberals are now desperately trying to one-up each other on climate change; more fearmongering by the NDP, more empty rhetoric and false information from the Liberals who are desperately trying to distract from their own climate failures. The reality is that Canada has fallen way behind in meeting its Paris targets. The Liberals' own emissions report actually shows that. When will the minister finally admit that her government will not meet its emission targets?
McKenna recalled bringing all parties to COP21 and accused Conservatives of continuing to deny that climate change is a serious problem requiring action.
McKenna recounts the history of COP21 and accuses Conservatives of denying climate change, rather than addressing whether emission targets will be met.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, three and a half years ago, I was with the member opposite. We brought members of all parties to COP21, including the member opposite. We stood with the world to negotiate an ambitious Paris agreement. I was extremely proud that we had members of all parties there. Then what did we do? We came home and did the hard work. For one year, we negotiated with provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, with all Canadians to develop a climate plan. However, in the face of that, the Conservatives continue to deny that climate change is a serious problem, that we are in a climate emergency, that we need to take action.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer found it costs $175 million a year to operate the carbon tax scheme; will the minister admit her climate plan is not as advertised?
Fast cites a specific Parliamentary Budget Officer finding that it costs $175 million a year to operate the carbon tax scheme, and asks a pointed question about whether the climate plan is as advertised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister is in denial. She knows very well that her government has fallen way behind in meeting its Paris targets. Today we have learned from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that it is costing the Liberals $175 million a year to operate their carbon tax scheme. That is $175 million to administer this cash grab. The reality is that the Liberals do not have a climate plan; they have a tax plan. When will the minister admit that her climate plan is not as advertised?
McKenna invoked Brian Mulroney's approach to acid rain â showing leadership, listening to scientists, working with business, and putting a price on pollution â as a model for tackling climate change.
McKenna pivots to Brian Mulroney's acid rain policy and a general argument about pricing pollution, never addressing the PBO's $175 million figure or the charge that the plan is not as advertised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in this day and age, Conservative politicians do not understand that the environment and the economy go together. There was a time when Brian Mulroney took serious action on environmental challenges. What did he do? He tackled the biggest challenge I remember when growing up, which was acid rain. How did he do it? He showed leadership, he listened to scientists and he worked with business. What did he do? He put a price on pollution. Canadian companies innovated and we tackled that problem. We can tackle climate change, but the only way we will do it is by coming together as a country.
Could the Minister of Science and Sport tell the House about the new frontiers in research fund and how it supports young researchers undertaking high-risk, high-reward research?
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to promote the new frontiers in research fund with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, supporting young academics who are pursuing world-class, interdisciplinary research is an investment that our government recognizes as important. Science and research are vital to ensuring Canada's continued innovative progress. Could the Minister of Science and Sport please tell the House about the new frontiers in research fund, which will help support young researchers undertake high-risk, high-reward research?
Duncan announced the first winners of the new frontiers in research fund, describing it as funding international, interdisciplinary, fast-paced, high-reward research and calling it the largest pool of funds for researchers in Canadian history.
Duncan provides some real information, announcing the first winners of the new frontiers in research fund and describing it as the largest pool of funds for researchers in Canadian history.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after a decade of neglect by the Harper Conservatives, we knew we had to invest in and modernize Canada's research system. That is why this week I announced the first winners of the new frontiers in research fund. This fund will invest in international, interdisciplinary, fast-paced, high-reward research. It will be the largest pool of funds for researchers in Canadian history. Unlike the previous government, we are taking action and investing in our researchers and students.
Will the Liberals promise not to give Tori's killer Terri-Lynne McClintic any taxpayer money as compensation after she was returned to jail?
Vecchio grounds the question in a specific named case (Terri-Lynne McClintic, Tori), cites the compensation claim, and asks a concrete commitment about taxpayer money, though the ask is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when Terri-Lynne McClintic was moved to a healing lodge last year, it took the Liberals months to do the right thing and put her back behind bars. Now she is seeking compensation after being back in jail for murdering eight-year-old Tori. She called the decision âunreasonableâ. Tori's father has pointed that what is really unfair is the continued injustices of the correctional system. He is right. Will the Liberals finally stand up for Canadian families and promise to not give Tori's killer a dime of taxpayer money?
Goodale said Correctional Service Canada reviewed and improved its transfer policies in this case, and that the Government of Canada will very strongly defend its position.
Goodale expresses sympathy for victims, notes that Correctional Service Canada reviewed and improved transfer policies, and says the government will strongly defend its position, partially addressing the compensation question without making a firm commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out to all the victims of crime for the loss they have endured. Correctional Service Canada reviewed its transfer policies in this case. After careful consideration, some of those policies were improved. Members can be assured that the Government of Canada will very strongly defend its position.
With $5 billion funnelled through B.C.'s housing market and $47 billion laundered across Canada, and British Columbia now launching a full public inquiry, will the Prime Minister agree to launch a joint public inquiry and fully co-operate with the Province of British Columbia?
Julian cites specific figures ($5 billion funnelled through B.C.'s housing market, $47 billion laundered across Canada), references British Columbia's public inquiry, and asks a clear question about launching a joint public inquiry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just last year, $5 billion was funnelled through B.C.'s housing market and $47 billion was the amount laundered across Canada. As a result, homes are less affordable for people. Today, British Columbia launched a full public inquiry. However, while the B.C. government takes action and shows leadership, the federal Liberals have been on the sidelines. Will the Prime Minister finally show some leadership, agree to launch a joint public inquiry and fully co-operate with the Province of British Columbia?
Blair cited budget 2019 investments for the RCMP, CBSA and FINTRAC, new offences and regulatory authorities, and confirmed he spoke to the attorney general of British Columbia the previous day and assured him of full co-operation and support in B.C.'s inquiry.
Blair cites budget 2019 measures, new investments for RCMP, CBSA and FINTRAC, new offences and regulatory authorities, and confirms he spoke to the attorney general of British Columbia the previous day to offer full co-operation, engaging substantively though not committing to a joint inquiry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government takes the threat posed by money laundering very seriously. That is precisely why we introduced, in budget 2019, significant new measures and significant new investments to increase the RCMP, CBSA and FINTRAC's ability to deal with this issue. We have also been working very closely with the attorney general of British Columbia. I spoke to him just yesterday. I have assured him of our full co-operation and support in B.C.'s inquiry. We are not standing idly by. We brought forward new measures. We have created new offences and new regulatory authorities, with new resources, to deal effectively with this issue.
Could the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard update the House on what the government has done to ban captivity of whales and dolphins and to end shark finning in Canada?
This is a government-backbench softball asking the minister to update the House on actions taken to ban captivity of whales and dolphins and end shark finning, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, mes concitoyens de Pontiac comprennent l'importance de protéger la faune, la biodiversité et nos espÚces marines. Canadians from coast to coast to coast think that putting whales and dolphins in captivity should be banned and that shark finning is a practice that should be ended in Canada. I agree. Could the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard update the House and all Canadians on what our government has done to ensure these inhumane practices have no place in Canadian society?
Wilkinson announced the government is supporting Senate amendments to Bill C-68 to include provisions banning the captivity of whales and dolphins and prohibiting shark finning in Canada.
Wilkinson provides specific legislative information, confirming the government is supporting Senate amendments to Bill C-68 to include provisions banning the captivity of whales and dolphins and prohibiting shark finning in Canada.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie mon collĂšgue de Pontiac de son engagement Ă l'Ă©gard de ces questions importantes. I want to start by thanking my colleagues from SaanichâGulf Islands and Port MoodyâCoquitlam for their hard work on these files. Because these issues are so important, our government is taking leadership by supporting Senate amendments to Bill C-68 to include provisions to ban the captivity of whales and dolphins and prohibit shark finning in Canada. Our government is firmly committed to the protection of biodiversity and the humane treatment of marine mammals and sharks.
Will the chair of the national defence committee do the right thing and have the Thursday emergency meeting on Vice-Admiral Norman televised live by the House of Commons?
Bezan poses a specific and answerable question to the chair of the national defence committee about televising Thursday's emergency meeting on Vice-Admiral Norman, grounded in a concrete transparency concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are refusing to allow Thursday's emergency meeting on Vice-Admiral Norman to be televised. Canadians deserve transparency, but the Liberals would rather hide in the dark. Vice-Admiral Norman has said he has a story to tell that Canadians want to hear. Canadians need to be assured that the Prime Minister is not orchestrating another cover-up. My question is for the chair of the national defence committee. Will he do the right thing and have our committee meeting televised live by the House of Commons?
Chagger noted that committees are independent of the House, that Liberal committee members make their own choices, and encouraged Conservatives to stop undermining the work of committees.
Chagger deflects by noting committees are independent and accusing Conservatives of undermining committee work, without addressing whether the meeting on Vice-Admiral Norman will be televised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as part of my responsibilities as the government House leader, if nobody else rises to answer a question, I have the privilege and opportunity to do so. I now have the privilege and opportunity of reminding the member of the Conservatives that when it comes to the work committees do, they are independent of this place. I know the Conservatives cannot fathom that the Liberal members on the committee make their own choices but they do. We have seen this on numerous occasions where committees are able to do the important work they do. That is why they are part of the process. I would encourage the Conservatives to stop undermining the work of committees. Canadians have not forgotten the playbook they put out.
Given that Quebec is missing $200 million from the public transit fund because ridership on networks in the periphery of Montreal was not taken into account, will the Minister of Infrastructure pay the missing $200 million to Quebec?
Plamondon cites a specific agreement between Canada and Quebec on infrastructure, identifies a $200 million shortfall in the public transit fund due to ridership not being counted in Montreal's peripheral networks, and asks a concrete funding question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'entente signée entre le Canada et le Québec sur les infrastructures est trÚs claire: le rÎle du Canada dans les projets d'infrastructure est de contribuer financiÚrement, c'est tout. Il manque 200 millions de dollars pour le Québec dans le fonds pour le transport en commun, car on n'a pas tenu compte de l'achalandage dans les réseaux en périphérie de Montréal. PlutÎt que de faire des annonces d'autoroutes dont il ne construira pas un centimÚtre au Québec, est-ce que le ministre de l'Infrastructure va jouer son rÎle et verser les 200 millions de dollars manquants au Québec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Quebec infrastructure agreement is very clear. Canada's role in infrastructure is to provide funding, and that's it. Quebec's public transit fund is short $200 million because increased ridership from the outskirts of Montreal was not taken into account. Rather than making announcements about Quebec highways, which do not fall under the federal government's jurisdiction, will the Minister of Infrastructure instead do his part and give Quebec the $200 million it needs?
Champagne outlined the approval timeline for autoroute 19 â from the Quebec government's request in September 2018 through to the announcement on May 13 â as an example of working in partnership with Quebec, without addressing the $200 million transit shortfall.
Champagne responds by detailing the approval timeline for autoroute 19 rather than addressing the $200 million shortfall in the public transit fund that was specifically asked about, making the answer largely tangential.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il y a différentes façons de travailler pour le Québec. Une façon de le faire est de poser des questions à la Chambre. Une autre est d'approuver des projets de façon trÚs concrÚte pour la saison de la construction. Pour ce qui est de l'autoroute 19, nous avions reçu la demande du gouvernement du Québec en septembre 2018. Le 5 octobre 2018, le gouvernement de M. Legault en a fait une priorité. Le 26 mars 2019, mon ministÚre l'a approuvée. Le 13 mai, j'en ai fait l'annonce aux Québécois et aux Québécoises. Nous travaillons en partenariat avec le gouvernement du Québec et nous allons continuer de le faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there are different ways of working for Quebec. One way is to ask questions in the House. Another is to actually approve projects for the construction season. We received a request from the Quebec government regarding Highway 19 in September 2018. On October 5, 2018, the Legault government made that project a priority. On March 26, 2019, my department approved it. On May 13, I announced the project to Quebeckers. We are working in partnership with the Government of Quebec and will continue to do so.
The Speaker recognized guests present in the gallery and members responded with approval.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Four members sought unanimous consent for motions: Mr. Jagmeet Singh (NDP) on bringing into force the remaining provisions of Bill S-3 to remedy sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act registration provisions no later than June 21, 2019; Mr. Shaun Chen (Lib) on extending condolences to victims of violence in Sri Lanka, condemning terrorism and anti-Muslim violence, and calling upon the United Nations to establish an international, independent investigation into allegations of genocide against Tamils in 2009; Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (BQ) on requiring the government to respect the Canada-Quebec infrastructure agreement and refrain from holding unilateral press conferences on Quebec infrastructure projects; and Mr. Garnett Genuis (CPC) on a broader motion regarding Sri Lanka that also called on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to conduct hearings into allegations of genocide against Tamils. All four motions were denied unanimous consent.
- NDP Mr. Jagmeet Singh
- Some hon. members
- Lib Mr. Shaun Chen
- Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval
- Mr. Garnett Genuis
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been talks among the parties, and I am very hopeful that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That in light of the decision made by the United Nations Human Rights Committee on January 11, 2019, which ruled that the ongoing sex-based hierarchies in the registration provisions of the Indian Act violate Canada's international human rights obligations, this House calls upon the federal government to bring into force the remaining provisions of Bill S-3, an act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux v. Canada, which would remedy the discrimination no later than June 21, 2019.
Agreed. No.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have had discussions among the parties, and I believe if you seek it, you will receive unanimous consent for the following motion: Whereas Canada and Sri Lanka share deep people-to-people ties; whereas in recent times countless lives have been lost to senseless violence, natural disasters and war in Sri Lanka; whereas Canada condemns the recent terrorist acts targeting Christians' prayer on Easter Sunday and civilians at hotels in Colombo; whereas Canada condemns the recent anti-Muslim violence in Sri Lanka; whereas Canada stands together with its allies and partners around the world in condemning all acts of terrorism, violent extremism and hatred; whereas this month marks the 10th anniversary of the end of the 26-year armed conflict in Sri Lanka, yet peace and reconciliation have not been achieved; whereas the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights investigation on Sri Lanka in 2015 established that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed during the end of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka; whereas truth-seeking and accountability measures are critical for realizing justice for the victims, ending impunity and ensuring lasting peace and reconciliation; therefore, this House, one, extends its condolences to all the victims of violence, terrorism and war in Sri Lanka; two, supports the Government of Sri Lanka in its efforts to pursue justice for those affected by the Easter Sunday attacks, protect the rights of religious minorities and defend all places of worship; three, reaffirms Canada's call for Sri Lanka to implement its obligations under UN Human Rights Council resolutions 30/1 and 40/1 and reaffirms Canada's support in advancing accountability, peace and reconciliation among all peoples on the island; and four, calls upon the United Nations to establish an international, independent investigation into allegations of genocide against Tamils committed during the last phase of the war in Sri Lanka in 2009.
Agreed. No.
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je crois que vous obtiendrez le consentement unanime de la Chambre au sujet de la motion suivante: Que, de l'avis de cette Chambre, le gouvernement devrait a) respecter l'entente Canada-QuĂ©bec sur les infrastructures, qui spĂ©cifie que le rĂŽle du Canada dans tout projet se limite Ă sa contribution financiĂšre et qu'il ne participera pas aux Ă©tapes de mise en Ćuvre et de rĂ©alisation b) devrait s'abstenir de convoquer unilatĂ©ralement des confĂ©rences de presse sur des projets d'infrastructure au QuĂ©bec sans avoir d'annonce Ă faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should (a) respect the Canada-Quebec infrastructure agreement, which states that Canada's role in any project is limited to making a financial contribution, and that it will have no involvement in the implementation or operation; (b) refrain from unilaterally calling press conferences on infrastructure projects in Quebec without having any announcements to make.
D'accord. Non.
Hansard translation: Agreed. No.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am hopeful that you will find the support of the House for this stronger unanimous consent motion: That this House extend its condolences to all the victims of violence, terrorism and war in Sri Lanka; call on the Government of Sri Lanka to promote justice for those affected by the Easter Sunday attacks, protect the rights of religious minorities and defend all places of worship; reaffirm Canada's call for Sri Lanka to implement its obligation under UN Human Rights Council resolutions 30/1 and 40/1; reaffirm Canada's support in advancing accountability, peace and reconciliation among all peoples on the island; call upon the United Nations to establish an international, independent investigation into allegations of genocide against Tamils committed during the last phase of the war in Sri Lanka in 2009; instruct the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to conduct hearings into allegations of genocide against Tamils committed during the last phase of the war in Sri Lanka in 2009 and report its findings to the House by January 19; and invite the Minister of International Development to table a report in the House at her earliest convenience, explaining development projects funded in Sri Lanka and their impact on the implementation of resolution 30/1 and on peace and reconciliation in general.
Agreed. No.
Ms. Leona Alleslev (CPC) clarified that her disagreement with the Parliamentary Secretary's earlier answer was not due to a failure to understand it, noting that she understands both French and English. Parliamentary Secretary Arif Virani apologized to Ms. Alleslev, stating his intention was never to question her ability to understand the French language.
- CPC Ms. Leona Alleslev
- Lib Mr. Arif Virani
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais apporter une clarification pour le secrétaire parlementaire du ministre de la Justice et procureur général du Canada. Si je ne suis pas d'accord sur son explication et sur sa réponse à ma question, ce n'est pas parce que je ne les ai pas comprises. Je comprends le français et l'anglais.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify something for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. I disagree with his explanation and response to my question but not because I failed to understand him. I understand both French and English.
Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to the member for AuroraâOak RidgesâRichmond Hill. My intention was never to question anyone's ability, let alone her ability, to understand the French language. I was simply trying to repeat an answer that I had already given.