Session overview
- The Trans Mountain expansion dominated Question Period, with Scheer pressing Trudeau on the broken promise that the pipeline would be completed and in operation in 2019, while Trudeau announced construction would begin "this summer" and defended the government's record on indigenous consultation and environmental protection.
- The NDP challenged the government's credibility on climate change, pointing out the contradiction between passing a climate emergency motion one day and approving the Trans Mountain pipeline the next, and arguing that no profits would be generated to fund a clean energy transition.
- Ethics and accountability questions from the CPC covered the Prime Minister's four findings of Conflict of Interest Act violations, the Aga Khan vacation, SNC-Lavalin, the India trip and Jaspal Atwal, and the treatment of Vice-Admiral Norman; Trudeau deflected all of them by citing job creation and poverty reduction numbers.
- Fiscal accountability was contested sharply, with CPC members citing the government's four consecutive deficits and the $20-billion gap from the promised balanced budget in 2019; Trudeau responded by attacking the Conservatives' record of eight consecutive deficits and the worst growth rate since R.B. Bennett.
- As the final sitting day of the 42nd Parliament's Question Period, Trudeau noted he had taken over 3,200 questions from 237 different MPs during the mandate, and the House unanimously adopted a motion on Sri Lanka calling for an international independent investigation into allegations of genocide against Tamils.
- Veterans affairs questions drew a specific government defence: Trudeau stated the government invested $10 billion in veterans over four years, reopened veterans offices, and argued the Khadr settlement was compelled by Charter of Rights and Freedoms obligations arising from rights violations by a previous government.
Trudeau acknowledged unfamiliarity with the specific OAS denial case raised by Rachel Blaney but made a concrete on-the-record commitment to follow up on the constituent's situation, representing a specific, verifiable promise rather than a partisan deflection.
Scheer cites a specific one-year-old promise, a concrete cost figure of $40 million per day, and asks a pointed question about why the Prime Minister misled Canadians, though the framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Asked specifically whether he would step in to address Canada Summer Jobs funding awarded to a group with alleged links to terrorism whose charitable status had already been suspended by the CRA, Trudeau did not mention the group, the funding, the review, or the CRA suspension at all, instead pivoting entirely to a defence of a woman's right to choose.
Outstanding questions
- Lisa Raitt asked whether the Prime Minister would stand and apologize to Admiral Mark Norman for what she described as a concerted effort by the government to put him on the spot over three years â Trudeau did not address Norman or apologize.
- Alain Rayes asked how many times the Prime Minister had met with the RCMP and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner â Trudeau did not answer and instead cited job creation figures.
- Peter Kent asked when the Prime Minister last spoke with Jaspal Atwal, given the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians report that the Prime Minister's Office placed a convicted terrorist on the guest list during the India trip â Trudeau did not answer.
- Georgina Jolibois asked the minister to meet face to face with the Denesuline, who were in Ottawa, to explain why she broke her promise on signing an agreement after 18 years of negotiating land, harvesting and resource rights â Trudeau's answer did not commit to any meeting.
- Andrew Scheer asked why the Trans Mountain approval announced the previous day came without a construction start date, given that the Prime Minister had committed to Trans Mountain being completed and in operation in 2019 â Trudeau announced construction would begin "this summer" but provided no specific date.
Scheer asks why the Prime Minister misled Canadians by promising Trans Mountain would be built and in operation in 2019 when not a single ounce of earth has been moved, costing Canadians $40 million per day.
Scheer cites a specific one-year-old promise, a concrete cost figure of $40 million per day, and asks a pointed question about why the Prime Minister misled Canadians, though the framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il y a un an, le premier ministre a promis que la construction de Trans Mountain commencerait. Aujourd'hui, pas une once de terre n'a été déplacée. L'économie de tout le pays en souffre. Chaque jour de retard coûte aux Canadiens 40 millions de dollars. Le premier ministre a promis que Trans Mountain serait construit et en fonction en 2019. Pourquoi a-t-il induit les Canadiens en erreur en faisant une promesse qu'il ne pouvait pas tenir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since the Prime Minister promised that construction on Trans Mountain would begin. Not one ounce of dirt has been moved so far. Canada's entire economy is suffering as a result. Every day of delay is costing Canadians $40 million. The Prime Minister promised that Trans Mountain would be built and operational in 2019. Why did he mislead Canadians by making a promise he could not keep?
Trudeau says Harper failed for 10 years to build pipelines to new markets because he didn't work with indigenous peoples or protect the environment, and announces construction on Trans Mountain will begin this summer.
Trudeau pivots to attacking Harper's pipeline record and only at the very end announces construction will begin this summer, partially addressing the timeline question without acknowledging the missed 2019 completion promise.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pendant 10 ans, Stephen Harper a essayé de construire des pipelines vers de nouveaux marchés et il a échoué. La raison pour laquelle il a échoué, c'est qu'il ne comprenait pas ce que les conservateurs ne comprennent toujours pas, c'est-à -dire que la seule façon de bùtir de grands projets comme celui-là est d'avoir la collaboration des peuples autochtones et de protéger l'environnement. C'est exactement ce que nous avons fait en faisant avancer le projet d'oléoduc Trans Mountain. Nous avons suivi les directions de la cour, et je suis heureux d'annoncer que la construction sera commencée cet été.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, Stephen Harper tried building pipelines to new markets and failed. He failed because he did not understand that major projects like this one can only move forward if we work with indigenous peoples and protect the environment. The Conservatives still do not grasp this. That is exactly how we chose to move forward with the Trans Mountain pipeline. We followed the court's directions, and I am pleased to announce that construction will begin this summer.
Scheer counters that the previous Conservative government built four major pipelines including one to tidewater, cites C.D. Howe Institute data that $100 billion in energy projects have been killed under the Liberals, and demands to know why there is still no start date for Trans Mountain.
Scheer provides a specific figure from the C.D. Howe Institute ($100 billion in killed energy projects), rebuts the Harper comparison with factual counter-claims, and presses for a start date, though the ask is slightly compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, he keeps saying things that are just not true. The previous Conservative government saw the private sector build four major pipelines, including one to tidewater, increasing our capacity to foreign markets. It is under the Liberal government that major pipeline proponents have pulled out of Canada. In fact, the C.D. Howe Institute estimates that 100 billion dollars' worth of energy projects have been killed by the government. The Prime Minister committed to Trans Mountain being completed and in operation this year, but it is over a year later, and there is still no start date. His failure is costing Canadians. Why did he not say so?
Trudeau insists Harper's Conservatives failed for 10 years to get a pipeline built to new markets, disputes that the Kinder Morgan Anchor Loop reaches a port, and repeats that working with indigenous peoples and protecting the environment is the only way forward.
Trudeau repeats the Harper pipeline failure talking point and disputes the Kinder Morgan Anchor Loop claim without providing a start date or addressing the $100 billion C.D. Howe estimate, largely deflecting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, Mr. Harper and his Conservatives failed to get one pipeline built to new markets. The Conservatives talk about the Kinder Morgan Anchor Loop, but that pipeline goes nowhere near a port. The reality is that the Conservatives did not understand, and still do not understand, that the only way to build energy projects today and into the future is to protect the environment at the same time and to work in partnership with indigenous peoples. That is exactly what we have done with the Trans Mountain pipeline, moved forward in the right way.
Scheer argues the Prime Minister has bought a pipeline with taxpayer money without a plan to build it, notes the government wants to phase out the energy sector, and references a senior minister's tweet about landlocking Alberta's energy, asking why the Prime Minister keeps hurting the energy sector.
Scheer makes a substantive point about nationalization of the pipeline and references a minister's tweet about landlocking Alberta's energy, but the question is broad and rhetorical in tone rather than focused on a single answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all the Prime Minister has done is buy a pipeline with taxpayers' money that he still does not have a plan to build. It is a terrible indictment of his record that in Canada, under his prime ministership, the government must nationalize a project to get it built. Under the Conservatives, the private sector did that. We should not be surprised. After all, this is the Prime Minister who wants to phase out the energy sector and who has a senior minister who tweeted that they want to landlock Alberta's energy. Why does the Prime Minister keep hurting our energy sector and the thousands of Canadians who work in it?
Trudeau says the Conservatives won't take yes for an answer, that the pipeline was approved and is succeeding in giving Alberta energy access to new markets, and that accessing new markets helps fund the transition to a cleaner economy.
Trudeau dismisses the question by saying Conservatives won't take yes for an answer and claims success in getting Alberta energy access to new markets, without addressing the nationalization critique or the minister's tweet.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives just will not take yes for an answer. The reality is that we approved this pipeline, and it seems to cause tremendous consternation on the side of the Conservatives that we are actually succeeding in doing what the Alberta energy sector has long been asking for, which is access to new markets other than the United States. We know that accessing new markets and having the money to pay for the transition to a cleaner, greener economy is important for building our future. They, quite frankly, do not know what to do or what to say, because they are wrong.
Scheer says Canadians did not want a photo op but a concrete start date for Trans Mountain, and asks why the Prime Minister failed to provide one after yesterday's approval.
Scheer lists specific policy prescriptions (scrapping the carbon tax, repealing Bill C-69) and zeroes in on the absence of a construction start date from yesterday's approval, but the framing is partly a political platform statement rather than a clean single question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know what to do to get these projects built, starting with replacing the Prime Minister, scrapping the carbon tax, repealing Bill C-69 and giving our investors certainty that when they meet those standards, they can actually get it built. The Prime Minister is great at saying yes. He just cannot get it done. Yesterday was another approval without a plan. Canadians did not want to see a photo op yesterday. They wanted a date on which this project would start. Why did he fail to do that?
Trudeau says it is clear the Conservatives still do not understand why they failed for 10 years and that moving forward requires a real plan for the environment and partnership with indigenous communities.
Trudeau completely ignores the specific ask about a construction start date and instead repeats the Harper failure narrative and the importance of environment and indigenous partnerships, providing no new information.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is very clear to everyone in this House, and indeed to all Canadians, is that the Conservatives still do not understand why they failed for 10 years to give the support to the Canadian economy that was needed. In the 21st century, the only way to move forward on big projects is to have a real plan for the environment and to bring in and work with indigenous communities. They refused to do that for 10 years, and they still do not see that the way to move forward is in partnership.
Scheer asks why well-connected Liberals and the wealthy always get a better deal under the Prime Minister, citing $12 million to Loblaws, interference in the SNC criminal case, and protection of his family fortune while targeting small business owners.
Scheer raises several specific grievances â $12 million to Loblaws, SNC interference, and protection of his family fortune â but bundles them into a sweeping rhetorical question about Liberal favouritism rather than pressing a single answerable point.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can take great comfort in knowing that a real plan for the environment is coming at five o'clock. What it will not include is special deals for Liberal insiders. Under the Prime Minister, well-connected friends of the Prime Minister have done very well. He rewards his well-connected billionaire friends with taxpayer handouts, like $12 million to Loblaws. He interfered in a criminal court case to help his corporate friends at SNC. He targeted entrepreneurs and small business owners while protecting his vast family fortune. Why do the well-connected Liberals and the wealthy always get a better deal under Liberals?
Trudeau says he is pleased the Leader of the Opposition mentioned his climate plan, questions its credibility given that Scheer thinks pollution should be free and plastic pollution is not a problem, and accuses him of not understanding environmental protection.
Trudeau does not address any of the specific allegations (Loblaws, SNC, family fortune) and instead pivots entirely to mocking the opposition's climate plan and listing climate-related talking points, a near-complete non-answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned his climate plan. We have been waiting 416 days to see this climate plan, but members will forgive Canadians for being a little skeptical about what is going to be in that climate plan, because the Leader of the Opposition thinks that pollution should be free. He thinks that plastic pollution is not a problem. He will not admit that climate change contributes to extreme weather events, and he continues to not understand that the only way to move forward on creating better energy projects is by protecting the environment at the same time.
Singh asks why the Liberals are spending more than $10 billion on the Trans Mountain expansion instead of investing that money in green projects to build a safe future for coming generations.
Singh provides context about rising temperatures, floods and wildfires and poses a clear question about why the Liberals are spending over $10 billion on Trans Mountain instead of green projects, though it is broadly framed and somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aprĂšs une annĂ©e marquĂ©e par la hausse des tempĂ©ratures, l'augmentation des inondations et les feux de forĂȘt, les gens d'un ocĂ©an Ă l'autre ressentent les effets des changements climatiques. La dĂ©cision d'approuver l'expansion du pipeline Trans Mountain n'aidera pas les gens Ă faire face aux changements climatiques. Les libĂ©raux dĂ©pensent plus de 10 milliards de dollars pour l'agrandissement d'un olĂ©oduc. Pourquoi les libĂ©raux n'investissent-ils pas plutĂŽt cet argent dans des projets Ă©cologiques afin de bĂątir un avenir sĂ»r pour les gĂ©nĂ©rations Ă venir?
Hansard translation: After a year of higher temperatures and more floods and forest fires, people across the country are feeling the effects of climate change. The decision to approve the Trans Mountain expansion is not going to help people deal with climate change. The Liberals are spending more than $10 billion to expand a pipeline. Why are the Liberals not investing this money in green initiatives to build a secure future for generations to come?
Trudeau says the government has done more for the environment than any other government in Canadian history, lists specific measures, and states that every dollar created by the project will be reinvested in Canada's clean energy transition.
Trudeau lists environmental accomplishments (price on pollution, ocean protection, transit, plastic pollution) and makes the claim that every dollar from the project will be reinvested in the clean energy transition, partially engaging the question but not addressing the specific $10 billion investment trade-off.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est exactement ce que nous allons faire. Au cours des quatre derniÚres années, nous en avons fait plus pour l'environnement que tout autre gouvernement dans l'histoire du Canada. Nous avons mis un prix sur la pollution. Nous avons protégé nos océans. Nous sommes en train d'investir dans les transports en commun. Nous réduisons la pollution par le plastique. Nous avons aussi écouté les Canadiens qui désirent avoir un avenir plus propre, donc, chaque dollar créé par ce projet sera réinvesti dans la transition écologique du Canada. Avec ce projet, nous créons des emplois, nous ouvrons de nouveaux marchés, nous accélérons la transition écologique et nous favorisons...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are going to do. Over the past four years, we have done more for the environment than any other government in Canada's history. We have put a price on pollution. We are safeguarding our oceans. We are investing in public transit. We are reducing plastic pollution. We have also listened to Canadians about their desire for a cleaner future. Therefore, every dollar from this project will be invested in Canada's clean energy transition. With this project, we are creating jobs, opening new markets, accelerating the clean energy transition and generatingâ
Singh asks why the Prime Minister is refusing to protect coastal communities, indigenous communities and the environment, noting the government is buying pipelines instead of ending fossil fuel subsidies, keeping Harper's emissions targets and relying on grand symbolism with indigenous peoples.
Singh raises specific contrasts (fossil fuel subsidies vs. buying pipelines, Harper's emissions targets still in place, symbolism over real indigenous relationships) and asks why the Prime Minister is refusing to protect coastal and indigenous communities, but the question is multi-part and rhetorical in structure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is a ludicrous proposition, given that no profits are going to be made in this project. The race to the bottom with this pipeline, between the Liberals and Conservatives, is taking us in the wrong direction. Instead of ending fossil fuel subsidies, the Prime Minister is buying pipelines. Instead of legally binding emissions targets, the Prime Minister is continuing with Stephen Harper's targets. Instead of building a new relationship with indigenous communities, the Prime Minister has stuck with grand symbolism. New Democrats are proposing a better way. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to protect coastal communities, indigenous communities and our environment?
Trudeau repeats that the government has done more for the environment than any other in Canadian history, lists the same measures as before, and reiterates that every dollar from the project will be invested in Canada's clean energy transition.
Trudeau repeats nearly identical environmental accomplishments from his previous answer and reiterates the every-dollar-reinvested claim without addressing Singh's specific points about fossil fuel subsidies, emissions targets, or the meaningful consultation critique.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during the last four years, we have done more for the environment than any other government in Canada's history. We have put a price on pollution, we are safeguarding our oceans, we are investing in public transit and we are reducing plastic pollution. We have also listened very carefully to Canadians about their desire for a cleaner future. Every dollar from this project will be invested in Canada's clean energy transition. We are creating jobs, opening new markets, accelerating our clean energy transition and generating new avenues for indigenous economic prosperity.
Singh asks why the Prime Minister is refusing to back up symbolic gestures with concrete actions, pointing out that the government passed a climate emergency motion one day and approved a pipeline the next, and that the new hearings failed to examine the climate impact or meaningfully consult indigenous communities.
Singh makes a sharp and specific observation about passing a climate emergency motion one day and approving a pipeline the next, and raises the specific procedural failure that the new hearings did not examine climate impact, giving the question concrete grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can summarize the Liberals' position on the environment. On one day, they pass a motion recognizing a climate emergency, and then on the very next day, they approve a pipeline. That is the government's track record. The Liberals will dramatically increase our emissions, threaten coastlines and disrespect coastal and indigenous communities. The new hearings failed to look at the impact of climate, and they failed to meaningfully consult. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to back up symbolic gestures with concrete actions to defend our environment?
Trudeau says the government has taken more concrete actions to protect the environment than any government in Canadian history, that it has consulted extensively with indigenous communities, and challenges Singh to acknowledge that some indigenous communities actually support the pipeline expansion.
Trudeau acknowledges that not all indigenous communities support the pipeline and pivots to asking the NDP leader why he won't recognize indigenous communities that support it, partially engaging but not addressing the climate hearing failure or the contradiction Singh raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the past four years, we have taken more concrete actions to protect our environment than any government in Canada's history. We are going to continue to move forward on that in partnership with indigenous communities and in respect of environmental concerns. We on this side of the House recognize that not all indigenous communities support the way we are moving forward, even though we have consulted with them extensively. My question for the leader of the NDP is, why will he not recognize that there are indigenous communities that actually support this pipeline expansion?
Singh asks how the Prime Minister can explain to people that approving this pipeline will protect the environment when tanker traffic will be nearly seven times higher and spill risk will increase considerably for those living on coastlines.
Singh cites a specific and striking statistic â tanker traffic will be nearly seven times higher â and raises the specific environmental risk to coastal communities, making the ask reasonably concrete, though still broadly framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty low bar to set when we have the Harper Conservatives to compare with. Les communautés autochtones et cÎtiÚres sont manifestement opposées à ce projet. Le trafic des pétroliers sera presque sept fois plus élevé. Le risque de fuites augmentera considérablement pour ceux qui vivent sur nos cÎtes. Le premier ministre ignore ces préoccupations trÚs valides. Nous devons prendre des mesures décisives pour protéger notre environnement. Comment le premier ministre peut-il expliquer aux gens que l'approbation de ce pipeline va protéger notre environnement alors que ce n'est pas le cas?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, c'est trÚs peu dire quand le point de comparaison est le gouvernement conservateur de Harper. Indigenous and coastal communities vehemently oppose this project. Tanker traffic will increase nearly sevenfold. The risk of spills will increase considerably for those living on our coasts. The Prime Minister is ignoring those very valid concerns. We need to take decisive action to protect our environment. How can the Prime Minister tell people that approving this pipeline will protect our environment, when that is not the case?
Trudeau says oil transport by rail has surged in recent years and is more polluting and more dangerous, that oil will still be needed for many years, and that building a pipeline responsibly with indigenous partnership and committing all tax revenues to the green energy transition is the better approach.
Trudeau does not address the seven-times tanker traffic figure or the coastal spill risk, but makes a substantive argument that rail transport is more polluting and dangerous and that responsible pipeline construction with indigenous partnership and reinvestment in green energy is the better path.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les Canadiens sont troublés de voir, au cours des derniÚres années, une augmentation fulgurante du transport du pétrole par rail. Nous savons que le transport du pétrole par rail est plus polluant et plus dangereux. Nous aurons encore besoin d'utiliser le pétrole pendant plusieurs années. En créant un oléoduc de façon responsable, en partenariat avec les peuples autochtones, et en nous engageant à investir toutes les recettes tirées de l'impÎt de ce pipeline dans la transition vers de l'énergie verte, nous savons que nous sommes en train de bùtir un avenir meilleur et plus prospÚre pour les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are disturbed by the dramatic increase in the transportation of oil by rail over the last few years. We know that transporting oil by rail is more polluting and more dangerous. We will still need to use oil for several years. By building a pipeline in a responsible manner, in partnership with indigenous peoples, and by committing to invest all tax revenues from the pipeline in the clean energy transition, we know that we are building a better and more prosperous future for Canadians.
Bergen asks the Prime Minister how many times he has been interviewed by the Ethics Commissioner, noting he has been found guilty of breaking four laws with his illegal vacation and that there have been so many ethics investigations of the Prime Minister and his caucus.
Bergen references the Prime Minister's finding of guilt under the Conflict of Interest Act and asks how many times he has been interviewed by the Ethics Commissioner, but the question is buried in rhetorical framing and a multi-part compound structure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, breaking ethics rules is par for the course for the Liberals. There have been so many ethics investigations of the Prime Minister and his caucus that there is probably a speed dial from the commissioner's office to the Prime Minister's. The Prime Minister himself has been found guilty of breaking four laws with his illegal vacation. Could the Prime Minister tell us, with all of these scandals, exactly how many times he has been interviewed by the Ethics Commissioner. Is he proud of his legacy of scandal, corruption and entitlement?
Trudeau says the Conservatives are unable to challenge the government on the economy, environment and indigenous peoples so they resort to slinging mud, and lists economic accomplishments including one million new jobs and 825,000 Canadians lifted out of poverty.
Trudeau does not answer how many times he has been interviewed by the Ethics Commissioner and instead pivots entirely to economic record (one million jobs, 825,000 Canadians lifted out of poverty), a near-complete deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, we see the Conservatives unable to actually challenge us on the economy, on the environment and on indigenous peoples, so they choose to sling mud. We are confident that Canadians will look at how we listened to them, how we worked for them and how we saw the creation of a million jobs, the lowest unemployment in 40 years and the lifting of 825,000 Canadians out of poverty, including 300,000 kids. Canadians know that this government is on the right track for growing the middle class and helping people working hard to join it.
Bergen asks the Prime Minister to admit that he inappropriately pressured the former attorney general to help his buddies at SNC-Lavalin, noting that SNC-Lavalin gave over $100,000 in illegal donations to the Liberals and got unprecedented access to the Prime Minister and his office.
Bergen cites a specific figure ($100,000 in illegal donations by SNC-Lavalin to the Liberals) and makes a direct ask about whether the Prime Minister inappropriately pressured the former attorney general, but the setup is rhetorical and the framing is broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister believes that there is one set of rules for him and his friends and one set for everyone else in this country. For example, there are his well-connected friends at SNC-Lavalin. They have given over $100,000 in illegal donations to the Liberals, and they got unprecedented access to the Prime Minister and his office. Will the Prime Minister admit that he inappropriately pressured the former attorney general just to help his buddies at SNC-Lavalin?
Trudeau says the Conservatives are struggling for questions and returning to an approach that did not work before, and pivots to the government's record of creating over one million jobs, lifting hundreds of thousands out of poverty, and leadership on the environment and reconciliation.
Trudeau does not address the specific allegation about pressuring the former attorney general or the illegal donations figure, instead accusing the Conservatives of desperation and pivoting to economic record, a near-complete non-answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Conservatives are struggling for questions to ask, because they keep returning to this approach. It did not work for them before. It is really a sign of desperation as we head to meet with Canadians and talk about our plan for the next four years. We have worked to create over a million new jobs in this country. We have delivered in lifting hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of poverty. We are continuing to demonstrate what leadership on the environment, leadership on the international file and reconciliation with indigenous peoples look like. That is something the Conservatives have a lot of difficulty with.
Rayes asks how many times the Prime Minister has met with the RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner, noting he is the only PM in Canadian history found guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act four times and that his illegal vacation cost taxpayers $215,000.
Rayes identifies the Prime Minister as the only PM in history found guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act four times, specifies $215,000 in taxpayer funds spent on the illegal Aga Khan vacation, and asks a concrete question about how many times the Prime Minister has met with the RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous avons devant nous le seul premier ministre de lâhistoire du Canada Ă avoir Ă©tĂ© reconnu coupable dâavoir enfreint la Loi sur les conflits dâintĂ©rĂȘts, non pas une seule fois, mais bien quatre fois. Il a pris 215 000 $ des contribuables pour voyager illĂ©galement avec sa famille et ses amis sur lâĂźle privĂ©e de lâAga Khan. Ces infractions pourraient constituer une violation de lâarticle 121(1) du Code criminel. Je demande au premier ministre de tout simplement rĂ©pondre Ă la question suivante. Combien de fois a-t-il rencontrĂ© la GRC et la commissaire aux conflits dâintĂ©rĂȘts et Ă lâĂ©thique?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister is the first in Canadian history to be found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act not once, but four times. He took $215,000 of taxpayer money to travel illegally with his family and friends to the Aga Khan's private island. These offences could constitute a violation of subsection 121(1) of the Criminal Code. I have one simple question for the Prime Minister. How many times did he meet with the RCMP and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner?
Trudeau accuses the Conservatives of resorting to personal attacks while his government stays focused on Canadians, and cites one million new jobs, the lowest unemployment in 40 years, and 825,000 Canadians including 300,000 children lifted out of poverty.
Trudeau does not answer how many times he has met with the RCMP or the Ethics Commissioner, dismisses the question as personal attacks, and pivots entirely to economic record talking points, providing no responsive information.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme on peut le voir, les conservateurs ont recours aux attaques personnelles. Les conservateurs se concentrent sur nous, alors que nous restons concentrés sur les Canadiens. Nous avons créé un million de nouveaux emplois au cours des quatre derniÚres années. Le taux de chÎmage au Canada est à son plus bas niveau depuis 40 ans. Nous avons fait en sorte de sortir 825 000 Canadiens et 300 000 enfants de la pauvreté . La réalité, c'est que notre plan visant à investir dans les Canadiens, à créer de la croissance pour tout le monde, y compris pour la classe moyenne, fonctionne.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as everyone can see, the Conservatives are resorting to personal attacks. The Conservatives are focusing their attention on us, while we remain focused on Canadians. We have created one million new jobs over the past four years. Canada's unemployment rate is at a 40-year low. We have lifted 825,000 Canadians and 300,000 children out of poverty. The reality is that our plan to invest in Canadians and to create growth for everyone, including the middle class, is working.
Rayes asks why the Prime Minister tried to ruin the careers of honest people including Vice-Admiral Norman, the former attorney general and the former president of the Treasury Board, who were simply defending the interests of Canadians, and notes the attempt to cancel the Davie contract to favour Liberal Party friends.
Rayes links the Davie contract, Vice-Admiral Norman, the former attorney general and the former president of the Treasury Board into a question about why the Prime Minister tried to ruin the careers of honest people defending Canadians' interests, providing concrete specifics though the question is compound.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, parlons de lâaffaire SNC-Lavalin et du vice-amiral Norman. Le premier ministre a tentĂ© dâannuler le contrat de la Davie pour favoriser ses amis du Parti libĂ©ral. Le premier ministre a tout fait pour dĂ©truire la rĂ©putation du vice-amiral Norman, un homme honnĂȘte, rigoureux et intĂšgre, comme il lâa fait avec lâex-ministre de la Justice et lâex-prĂ©sidente du Conseil du TrĂ©sor. Pourquoi le premier ministre a-t-il tentĂ© de ruiner la carriĂšre de ces honnĂȘtes personnes qui voulaient simplement dĂ©fendre les intĂ©rĂȘts des Canadiens et des Canadiennes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the SNC-Lavalin affair and Vice-Admiral Norman. The Prime Minister tried to cancel Davie's contract to help his Liberal Party friends. The Prime Minister did everything in his power to destroy the reputation of Vice-Admiral Norman, an honest and conscientious man of integrity, just as he did to the former justice minister and the former president of the Treasury Board. Why did the Prime Minister try to ruin the careers of these honest people who simply wanted to stand up for the interests of Canadians?
Trudeau frames the next election as a clear choice between a party that protects the environment, creates economic growth and supports reconciliation, versus Conservatives who have learned nothing from the Harper years and continue making divisive personal attacks.
Trudeau does not address the Vice-Admiral Norman case, the Davie contract, or any of the specific allegations, instead framing the next election as a choice between his record and Conservative failure, a complete deflection.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cet automne, les Canadiens vont avoir un choix clair: ils pourront voter pour un parti qui protĂšge lâenvironnement, crĂ©e de la croissance Ă©conomique, respecte les Canadiens en sortant de centaines de milliers de personnes de la pauvretĂ© et remet le Canada sur la scĂšne internationale de façon positive, ou ils pourront voter pour le Parti conservateur, qui nâa tirĂ© aucune leçon des Ă©checs des annĂ©es Harper, qui continue Ă faire des attaques personnelles, des attaques qui entraĂźnent la division, et qui continue Ă se concentrer sur moi pendant que nous nous concentrons sur les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this fall, Canadians will have a clear choice to make. They can vote for a party that protects the environment, creates economic growth and shows respect for Canadians by lifting hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty and putting Canada back on the international stage, or they can vote for the Conservative Party, which learned nothing from the Harper government's failures, continues to make divisive personal attacks, and continues to focus on me while we are focusing on Canadians.
Raitt asks the Prime Minister whether the reason that female cabinet ministers who spoke truth to power were shoved out of caucus while male ministers who broke conflict of interest laws were forgiven is simply because "it's 2019."
Raitt makes a substantive contrast between female cabinet ministers pushed out of caucus for speaking truth and male ministers forgiven for breaking conflict of interest laws, but the ask ("Well, it's 2019") is oblique and sarcastic rather than a precise question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the work of the opposition on this side is to simply hold the Prime Minister to account for his own actions. He broke the Conflict of Interest Act, so did a number of his cabinet ministers. When two female cabinet ministers spoke truth to power, they were shoved out of caucus. When the Minister of Finance, the former minister of fisheries and the Prime Minister himself broke conflict of interest laws, with a little wink and a nod, they were forgiven. I am wondering if the Prime Minister can tell us if the reason for this is simply, âWell, it's 2019â.
Trudeau says while the Conservatives remain focused on the government, the government stays focused on Canadians and their record of creating over one million jobs, lifting 825,000 Canadians out of poverty, and the lowest unemployment in 40 years.
Trudeau does not address the gendered double standard Raitt raises, the female cabinet ministers, or any specific conflict of interest finding, and instead pivots to the economic record and accuses Conservatives of personal attacks.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives remain focused on us, we will stay focused on Canadians. That is how we delivered creating over one million new jobs, lifting 825,000 Canadians out of poverty, the lowest unemployment in 40 years, 300,000 kids lifted out of poverty, with measures that the members opposite voted against. We have a plan to continue to grow our economy in responsible ways, while Conservatives resort to personal attacks and petty issues.
Raitt asks the Prime Minister to stand in his place on his last day and apologize to Admiral Mark Norman, who was put through hell for the last three years because of the concerted efforts of the government.
Raitt makes a specific and focused ask â will the Prime Minister apologize to Admiral Mark Norman â grounds it in the concrete claim of a concerted government effort to put him on the spot over three years, and notes the House already apologized, giving the question clear accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, sadly, the Prime Minister seems to want to run on the notion that the means, no matter how bad they are, justify the ends and I would caution that is an inappropriate way to continue with the Canadian public. However, I am going to give him one chance to do something really appropriate on his last day today. Admiral Mark Norman was put through hell for the last three years because of the concerted efforts of the government to ensure that he was put on the spot. We apologized to the House. Will the Prime Minister stand in his place today and apologizeâ
Oh, oh!
Oh, oh!
Trudeau says the Conservatives are making personal attacks on the last day rather than discussing what matters to Canadians, and touts his own accountability by noting he has taken over 3,200 questions from 237 different MPs compared to Harper's 1,400 from about 34 MPs.
Trudeau does not apologize to Admiral Mark Norman, does not address the specific allegation of a concerted government effort against him, and instead pivots to praising his own accountability record by citing statistics about questions taken during Prime Minister's Question Period compared to Harper.
Source text
Once again, Mr. Speaker, on this last day of Prime Minister's question period, the members opposite are choosing to make personal attacks and not talk about the things that actually deeply matter to Canadians. I will highlight that during these Prime Minister question periods, I have taken over 3,200 questions from the members opposite, including 237 different MPs. Mr. Harper, during his last term as prime minister, took only 1,400 from about 34 MPs. We know that greater accountability, greater opportunity to participate in debateâ
Why is the government spending $15 billion on Trans Mountain expansion â which Boulerice equates to the pollution of three million cars â instead of investing that money in renewable energy and good jobs of the future as the NDP proposes?
The question cites a specific dollar figure ($15 milliards) and makes a pointed comparison but frames the ask rhetorically and broadly rather than demanding a specific accountable response.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, coup de théùtre, les libéraux se rendent compte que de donner le feu vert à l'expansion de Trans Mountain ne passe pas, surtout aprÚs avoir déclaré l'urgence climatique la veille. Ils essaient donc de faire diversion en disant qu'ils vont créer un fonds vert avec les éventuels profits du pipeline. Ils dépensent 15 milliards de dollars pour faire plus de pollution. C'est ce qu'on appelle échanger quatre trente sous pour une piasse, surtout quand cette piasse est l'équivalent de la pollution de trois millions de voitures. Pourquoi n'investissent-ils pas aujourd'hui ces 15 milliards de dollars dans les énergies renouvelables et les bons emplois de demain, comme le NPD le propose?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have suddenly realized that green-lighting the expansion of Trans Mountain will not wash, especially after declaring a climate emergency the day before. Now they are trying to create a diversion by saying that any profits from the pipeline will go into a green fund. They are spending $15 billion to create more pollution. That is what I would call trading four quarters for a dollar, especially when that dollar is the equivalent of three million cars' worth of pollution. Why not immediately invest that $15 billion in renewable energy and the good jobs of tomorrow, as the NDP is proposing?
The Prime Minister claims his government has done more for the environment than any previous government and states that every dollar generated by the project will be invested in Canada's clean energy transition.
The Prime Minister recites a list of environmental achievements without addressing the specific claim that $15 billion would fund pollution rather than renewables, nor does he explain the economics of the proposed green fund.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au cours des quatre derniÚres années, nous en avons fait plus pour l'environnement que tout autre gouvernement dans l'histoire du Canada. Nous avons mis un prix sur la pollution. Nous protégeons nos océans. Nous investissons dans le transport en commun. Nous réduisons la pollution par le plastique. Nous avons aussi écouté les Canadiens qui désirent avoir un avenir plus propre. Chaque dollar créé par ce projet sera investi dans la transition écologique du Canada. Nous créons des emplois et nous ouvrons de nouveaux marchés. Nous accélérons la transition écologique et nous favorisons la prospérité économique des communautés autochtones.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, during the last four years, we have done more for the environment than any other government in Canada's history. We have put a price on pollution. We are safeguarding our oceans. We are investing in public transit. We are reducing plastic pollution. We have also listened to Canadians about their desire for a cleaner future. Every dollar from this project will be invested in Canada's clean energy transition. We are creating jobs and opening new markets. We are accelerating our clean energy transition and generating new avenues for indigenous economic prosperity.
Given that Trans Mountain is losing $150 million a year, why did the Prime Minister choose oil lobbyists over future generations, contradicting his own climate emergency declaration and commitments to indigenous rights?
Julian raises a specific factual claim (losing $150 million a year) and lists concrete contradictions (reconciliation vs. indigenous rights, climate emergency vs. Trans Mountain) but the closing ask is broadly rhetorical ("oil lobbyists over a future generation").
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are no profits. It is losing $150 million a year. What an empty gesture. That is just our point. The Prime Minister asks Canadians to wait for pharmacare, affordable housing and so much else and then he splurges $15 billion on Trans Mountain. He says he respects reconciliation and then runs roughshod over indigenous rights. He pushes a climate emergency motion and then, within hours, is trying to ram through a raw bitumen pipeline that trashes the Paris Agreement. Why did the Prime Minister choose oil lobbyists over a future generation?
The Prime Minister says there is a strong economic case for new market access and the clean energy transition, and dismisses the NDP for believing there is a choice between protecting the environment and growing the economy.
The Prime Minister does not engage with the $150 million loss figure or any of the specific contradictions raised, instead dismissing NDP economic credibility and repeating a generic environment-economy compatibility message.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there was plenty wrong with the statements made by the member opposite, but I will focus on one. There is a strong economic case for getting access to new markets and for investing in the clean energy transition, but we will all understand that New Democrats have always had challenges with economic plans and approaches. They think there is a choice to be made between protecting the environment and growing the economy. They do not understand that the only way to build a stronger future for all Canadians is to do them both together.
Given that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians report revealed it was the Prime Minister's Office that put convicted terrorist Jaspal Atwal on the guest list during the India trip, when did the Prime Minister last speak with Jaspal Atwal?
Kent grounds the question in a specific documented source (National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians report) and asks a precise, answerable question about when the Prime Minister last spoke with Jaspal Atwal.
Source text
The memory lane hits keep coming, Mr. Speaker. Who can forget the Prime Minister's disastrous India trip, the many days of answers from the PM, the public safety minister and others blaming the Liberal member for Surrey Centre for inviting a convicted terrorist on that bhangra-dancing, diplomatic train wreck. In the end, we will recall the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians report revealed it was the Prime Minister's Office that put the convicted terrorist on the guest list. Can the Prime Minister tell us when he last spoke with Jaspal Atwal?
Oh, oh!
The Prime Minister does not mention Jaspal Atwal and instead states that his government will stay focused on growing the economy, protecting the environment, reconciling with indigenous peoples, and creating opportunities for the middle class.
The Prime Minister completely ignores the specific question about Jaspal Atwal and delivers a boilerplate closing-of-mandate talking-points statement with no connection to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, we see on this final day of the mandate, our final last days of this mandate, that the Conservatives continue to not understand what Canadiansâ
Mr. Speaker, on these last days of this mandate, I will say the same thing that I will say in the first days of our next mandate. We are going to stay focused on Canadians, growing the economy, protecting the environment, reconciling with indigenous peoples, and creating opportunities for the middle class and people who are working hard to join it.
Why is the Prime Minister rolling out the red carpet for terrorists who fought against Canadian values and soldiers, given reports that Liberals want to bring back 30 Islamic State fighters and offer them poetry and podcasts instead of prison?
Blaney cites specific examples (Corporal Nathan Cirillo, Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent) and a specific news source (Global News) about 30 ISIS fighters, but the characterization of "poetry and podcasts" and the framing are heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le caporal Nathan Cirillo et l'adjudant Patrice Vincent sont tombĂ©s sous des attaques terroristes inspirĂ©es par l'islamisme radical ici au pays. Global News nous a appris que les libĂ©raux veulent ramener 30 terroristes du groupe armĂ© Ătat islamique au pays et leur offrir de la poĂ©sie et des podcasts au lieu de les garder en prison. Pourquoi le premier ministre dĂ©roule-t-il le tapis rouge pour des terroristes qui se sont battus contre nos valeurs et contre nos soldats et contre les valeurs canadiennes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent were killed in terrorist attacks inspired by radical Islamism here in Canada. Global News reported that the Liberals want to bring 30 ISIS terrorists to Canada and give them poetry and podcasts instead of throwing them in prison. Why is the Prime Minister rolling out the red carpet for terrorists who fought against our values, our soldiers and Canadian values?
The Prime Minister says the Conservatives are playing dangerous games with truth and public opinion, and asserts that keeping Canadians safe is a core government responsibility carried out through border services and police.
The Prime Minister accuses the Conservatives of playing dangerous games with public opinion and says public safety is a deep responsibility, but does not address the specific claim about returning ISIS fighters or the reported reintegration program.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, encore une fois, on voit les conservateurs jouer Ă des jeux extrĂȘmement dangereux avec les opinions des Canadiens, avec la vĂ©ritĂ©, en rĂ©alitĂ©. Nous savons qu'une des responsabilitĂ©s profondes de tout gouvernement, c'est de garder les Canadiens en sĂ©curitĂ© et c'est exactement ce que nous faisons. La sĂ©curitĂ© des Canadiens et les choix et les gestes de nos services frontaliers et de nos services de policiers sont essentiels dans le travail que nous faisons. Nous n'allons pas faire de la petite politique et faire peur aux gens Ă cause de cela.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are once again playing extremely dangerous games with public opinion and with the truth itself. We know that one of the fundamental responsibilities of any government is to keep Canadians safe. That is exactly what we are doing. The safety of Canadians and the choices and actions of our border and police services are essential to the work we are doing. We will not engage in petty politics and fearmongering because of that.
Why did the Prime Minister spend over $40 million fighting Canadian veterans in court while paying $10.5 million to convicted terrorist Omar Khadr without a fight, when no monetary compensation was ordered by the Supreme Court?
Strahl cites specific figures ($10.5 million to Omar Khadr, over $40 million fighting veterans in court) and frames a direct comparative accountability question, though the framing is partisan and the "without putting up a fight" characterization is contested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a convicted terrorist a multi-millionaire when he paid the murderer of U.S. army medic Christopher Speer ten and a half million dollars. The Supreme Court did not order any monetary compensation for Omar Khadr, but the Prime Minister said that because of the actions of the previous Martin Liberal government, he just had to write the cheque. Why has the Prime Minister spent over $40 million to fight Canadian veterans in court, but decided to pay 10 and a half million dollars to a convicted terrorist without putting up a fight?
The Prime Minister argues that when the rights of anyone in Canada are violated, everyone pays, and that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to everyone, including Omar Khadr, while expressing his own anger at the payment.
The Prime Minister addresses the Charter rights rationale for the Khadr settlement but does not address the $40 million spent fighting veterans in court or explain the distinction in his government's approach to the two cases.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is something the Conservative politicians just do not understand. When we violate the rights of anyone in Canada, all of us end up having to pay. The Conservatives refuse to recognize that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to everyone. Quite frankly, I am glad that Canadians are angry about that payment to Omar Khadr because I am too. No government should ever have violated any Canadian's fundamental rights.
When did the Prime Minister decide that veterans were asking for too much, given that he paid $10 million to Omar Khadr without a fight, spent over $40 million fighting veterans in court, and refused to revoke benefits for convicted cop murderer Christopher Garnier?
McColeman makes a pointed three-part comparison (Khadr payment, $40 million fighting veterans, Christopher Garnier benefits) with an identifiable question, though it recycles material from Exchange 20.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister gave $10 million to Omar Khadr because he did not want to fight him in court. However, he spent over $40 million fighting our veterans in court. He refused to revoke the veterans benefits going to convicted cop murderer, Christopher Garnier. When did the Prime Minister decide that veterans were asking for too much?
The Prime Minister says the Conservatives nickel-and-dimed veterans and used them for photo ops while shutting down their offices, and claims his government invested $10 billion in veterans over four years and reopened veterans offices.
The Prime Minister pivots entirely to the Conservative record of nickel-and-diming veterans and shutting offices, then claims $10 billion invested in veterans over four years, without addressing the specific Christopher Garnier allegation or the fighting-veterans-in-court claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite well knows that he was part of a Conservative Party that nickel-and-dimed veterans and used them for photo ops, while shutting down their offices to balance the budget at all costs. The reality is we invested $10 billion in our veterans over the past four years to give them more support, more help for them and for their families, and to reopen the veterans offices. We have done more to support those men and women who have served our country so valiantly than the Conservatives ever had done when they were in government.
Given that the dairy and cheese industries are losing $450 million per year and that a 2014 unanimous motion called for compensation related to CETA, when will the government announce a compensation plan for farmers?
Brosseau cites a specific dollar figure ($450 million annually in losses), a specific motion adopted unanimously in 2014 referencing CETA, and the five-year absence of a compensation program, making a clear and factually grounded ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les industries laitiÚre et fromagÚre perdent 450 millions de dollars par année. En 2014, ma motion pour indemniser les producteurs à la suite de l'Accord économique et commercial global a été adoptée à l'unanimité par la Chambre des communes. Cinq ans plus tard, il n'y a rien. Il n'y a toujours pas d'argent prévu dans le budget, et on attend toujours des résultats et un programme pour soutenir nos agriculteurs. Tour à tour, les conservateurs et les libéraux ont laissé tomber nos producteurs agricoles du Québec. Quand est-ce que le gouvernement va annoncer un plan de compensation pour intervenir et aider nos producteurs agricoles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the dairy and cheese industries are losing $450 million a year. In 2014, my motion to compensate producers following the signing of the Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement was adopted unanimously by the House of Commons. Five years later nothing has been done. There is still no money in the budget for the compensation, and we are still waiting for measures and a program to support our farmers. Successive Conservative and Liberal governments have failed our Quebec farmers. When will the government take action and announce a compensation plan for our farmers?
The Prime Minister says his government is working with farmers and dairy producers to ensure the right level of compensation relative to trade agreements, while generating growth and wealth for all Canadians.
The Prime Minister does not address the missing compensation program, the $450 million in annual losses, or the five-year delay since the unanimous motion, instead pivoting to a general defense of free trade and an attack on the NDP's opposition to trade agreements.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, contrairement au NPD, qui continue de s'opposer à tout accord de libre-échange qui est bon pour les Canadiens, pour nos travailleurs et pour nos agriculteurs, nous savons qu'augmenter les échanges commerciaux et appuyer nos agriculteurs est la bonne façon de créer de la prospérité pour tous les Canadiens. C'est pourquoi nous travaillons avec les agriculteurs et les producteurs laitiers pour nous assurer qu'ils ont le bon niveau de compensation par rapport à nos accords commerciaux, pendant qu'on crée de la croissance et de la richesse pour tous les Canadiens. C'est une chose que, malheureusement, le NPD ne comprend pas.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, unlike the NDP, which continues to oppose every free trade agreement that is good for Canadians, our workers and our farmers, we know that increasing trade and supporting our farmers is the right way to create prosperity for all Canadians. That is why we are working with farmers and dairy producers to ensure that they receive proper compensation for losses incurred under trade agreements while we create growth and wealth for all Canadians. Unfortunately, the NDP does not understand that.
Will the Liberal MP for Ottawa Centre stand up for her constituent who has been denied OAS due to a rare form of dementia and is owed $18,000, or will the Liberals continue abandoning Canadians in need of dementia care?
Blaney raises a specific constituent case (Ottawa Centre resident denied OAS, $18,000 owed) and asks a pointed question about the Liberal MP's response, though it also includes a broader rhetorical challenge about "empty gestures."
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a man living in Ottawa Centre has been denied OAS because of his rare form of dementia. The family is now owed $18,000, and the Liberal government is refusing it because he does not meet their criteria. A one-size-fits-all approach to dementia patients is completely inappropriate. Will the Liberal MP for Ottawa Centre stand up for her constituent or will the Liberals continue to make empty gestures, while abandoning Canadians in need of dementia care?
The Prime Minister cites the national dementia strategy including caregiver support and research, admits unfamiliarity with the specific case, and commits to following up to ensure the person receives the support they need.
The Prime Minister acknowledges the national dementia strategy and caregiver support, honestly admits unfamiliarity with the specific case, and commits to follow up â a partial but relatively candid engagement with the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government has moved forward with a national strategy on dementia that includes support for caregivers and more research into prevention. We recognize that there is always more to do. I am not familiar with the case that the member opposite brings up, but I will ensure that we follow up on that one. We need to ensure that everyone is getting the support he or she needs. That is a commitment made by this government.
Could the Prime Minister update the House on the government's decision on the Trans Mountain expansion project?
This is a government-backbench softball question inviting the Prime Minister to update the House on the Trans Mountain expansion decision, with partisan framing against the Conservatives included as setup.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's energy sector is a key driver of our economy and an important source of good, middle-class jobs in my community. Edmontonians and all Albertans want to see good projects move forward in the right way. They know first-hand what happens when they do not. For 10 years, the Conservatives cut corners and failed to get a single inch of new pipeline built to non-U.S. markets. We were elected on a plan to do things differently, and we have delivered. Could the Prime Minister please update the House on our government's decision on the Trans Mountain expansion project?
Mr. Speaker, this project will create thousands of good, middle-class jobs, and includes economic opportunities for indigenous peoples. We have a plan to fight climate change and protect our oceans and respond to the concerns we heard in consultation. Every dollar earned through this project will be invested in clean energy. We were elected to deliver real change. That is exactly what we are doing by moving forward on this project in the right way.
The Prime Minister says the Trans Mountain expansion will create thousands of good middle-class jobs and indigenous economic opportunities, and that every dollar earned will be invested in clean energy while the government protects oceans and responds to consultation concerns.
The Prime Minister provides substantive talking points about job creation, indigenous economic opportunities, ocean protection commitments, and the plan to invest pipeline profits in clean energy â real information, even if promotional in tone.
Given the Prime Minister promised a balanced budget by 2019 but has delivered four consecutive deficits in four budgets, will he look Canadians in the eye and admit he was wrong?
Deltell cites a specific prior promise (balanced budget by 2019) and specific outcome (four consecutive deficits in four budgets) but the ask â demanding the PM say "je me suis trompĂ©" â is theatrical rather than policy-focused.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai malheureusement une trĂšs mauvaise nouvelle pour notre ami le premier ministre du Canada. On se souviendra, de triste mĂ©moire, qu'il avait Ă©mis l'hypothĂšse qu'un budget, ça s'Ă©quilibre tout seul. J'ai une mauvaise nouvelle pour lui, mais surtout pour les Canadiens: en quatre ans, depuis qu'il est premier ministre, cela a Ă©tĂ© quatre budgets, quatre dĂ©ficits consĂ©cutifs. C'est ça, la signature du premier ministre. Comme il avait promis exactement le contraire il y a quatre ans, est-ce qu'il pourrait se lever de son siĂšge, en cette derniĂšre journĂ©e oĂč on peut lui poser des questions, et dire aux Canadiens, en les regardant droit dans les yeux, « je me suis trompĂ© »?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have some very bad news for our friend the Prime Minister of Canada. Sadly, we all remember when he suggested that budgets balance themselves. I have bad news for him, but especially for Canadians: in the four years he has been Prime Minister, there have been four budgets and four consecutive deficits. That is the hallmark of this Prime Minister. Since he promised exactly the opposite four years ago, could he stand in his place, on this last day when we can ask him questions, look Canadians in the eye and tell them, âI was wrongâ?
The Prime Minister says he has nothing to learn from Conservatives who ran eight consecutive deficits and generated no growth, and argues his investments in the middle class created one million jobs and reduced poverty and unemployment.
The Prime Minister pivots to Conservative fiscal history (eight consecutive deficits) and general investment-in-middle-class messaging, without acknowledging the broken balanced-budget promise or engaging with the specific question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je n'ai rien à apprendre des conservateurs, qui ont soumis huit déficits consécutifs. La réalité, c'est que les investissements qu'ils avaient faits n'avaient créé aucune croissance, parce qu'ils faisaient les mauvais investissements. Les conservateurs continuent de croire que la meilleure façon de créer de la croissance économique, c'est de donner des avantages et des bénéfices aux mieux nantis. C'est en investissant dans la classe moyenne qu'on a créé un million d'emplois, qu'on réduit le taux de pauvreté, qu'on réduit le taux de chÎmage et qu'on aide les Canadiens de la classe moyenne.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I will take no lessons from the Conservatives, who ran eight consecutive deficits. The reality is that the investments the Conservatives made did not create any growth because they made bad investments. The Conservatives still believe that the best way to create economic growth is to give advantages and benefits to the wealthy. It is by investing in the middle class that we created one million jobs, reduced poverty, lowered the unemployment rate and helped middle-class Canadians.
Given that the Prime Minister promised three small deficits and a balanced budget in 2019 but instead delivered three large deficits and a $20 billion deficit in the supposed balanced-budget year, will he admit to Canadians that he lied?
Deltell cites a specific prior commitment (three small deficits, balanced budget in 2019) and the specific outcome ($20 billion deficit in 2019), making a factually grounded accountability ask, though the demand to say "je vous ai menti" is theatrical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'aimerais rafraĂźchir la mĂ©moire au premier ministre et Ă tous ses sbires libĂ©raux autour de lui. Il y a quatre ans, il avait dit, la main sur le cĆur, qu'ils allaient faire trois petits dĂ©ficits et que le dĂ©ficit zĂ©ro serait atteint en 2019. La rĂ©alitĂ© des faits, quatre ans plus tard, ce sont trois gros dĂ©ficits et, en cette annĂ©e du dĂ©ficit zĂ©ro, un dĂ©ficit de 20 milliards de dollars. Encore une fois, je tends la main Ă notre premier ministre: est-ce qu'il pourrait se lever de son siĂšge et dire aux Canadiens, en les regardant droit dans les yeux, « je vous ai menti », puisque c'est ça qu'il a fait?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refresh the memories of the Prime Minister and all his Liberal henchmen. Four years ago, he promised that they would run three small deficits and then balance the budget in 2019. Four years later, we know what really happened: They ran three big deficits and then a $20-billion deficit in their so-called zero-deficit year. Again, I ask the Prime Minister: Will he stand in his place, look Canadians in the eye and tell them, âI lied to youâ, since that is what he did?
Monsieur le Président, je le regrette.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry.
The Prime Minister says the Conservatives added $150 billion to the national debt while posting the worst economic growth record of any prime minister since R.B. Bennett during the Great Depression, and claims his investments produced record poverty reduction.
The Prime Minister does not acknowledge the broken promise, instead citing the Conservative record of adding $150 billion to the national debt and Stephen Harper's worst growth record since R.B. Bennett, without engaging the specific 2019 deficit figure.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les conservateurs ont ajouté 150 milliards de dollars à notre dette nationale tout en affichant le pire bilan de croissance économique de tout premier ministre depuis R. B. Bennett lors de la Grande Dépression. La réalité, c'est que notre choix d'investir dans la classe moyenne, de sortir les enfants de la pauvreté, d'investir dans nos communautés et dans nos infrastructures a non seulement favorisé une bonne croissance économique, mais a aussi établi un record en ce qui a trait à la réduction de la pauvreté et un bilan positif pour les Canadiens. C'est du jamais vu dans le monde...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives added $150 billion to our national debt, all while posting the worst economic growth under any prime minister since R.B. Bennett during the Great Depression. The reality is that not only did our decision to invest in the middle class, lift children out of poverty and invest in our communities and infrastructure create good economic growth, but it also set a record in terms of reducing poverty and making life better for Canadians. This is unheard of in the worldâ
Given that the Prime Minister promised to balance the budget by 2019 and missed by $20 billion, why should Canadians believe his promise not to raise their taxes again in the next election?
Poilievre quotes the Prime Minister's own words verbatim about balanced budgets and a 2019 target, cites the $20 billion miss, and asks a pointed forward-looking question about credibility on tax promises.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, remember this great hit: âI'm looking Canadians straight in the eye and being honest, the way I always have. We are committed to balanced budgets, and we are. We will balance that budget in 2019.â The Prime Minister only missed that promise by $20 billion. When he looks Canadians in the eye in the next election and promises not to raise their taxes again, why should anyone believe what he says?
The Prime Minister says his promise was to invest in Canadians and create growth that Stephen Harper could not achieve, and accuses the Conservatives of adding $150 billion to the debt with nothing to show for it due to their focus on advantages for the wealthiest.
The Prime Minister does not address the broken balanced-budget promise or explain why future tax promises should be believed, instead pivoting to the Conservative record under Stephen Harper and repeating the middle-class investment narrative.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the promise we made in the last election was to invest in Canadians and create growth that for 10 years, Stephen Harper was unable to build. That member opposite was part of a government that added $150 billion to Canada's national debt with nothing to show for it, the worst growth rate since the Great Depression. Why? Because the Conservatives insisted, and continue to insist, that the way to create growth was to give advantages to the wealthiest. We know that does not work. That is why we invest in the middle class.
Given that the Prime Minister broke his promise of a self-balancing budget by $20 billion and raised taxes on the middle class, which other promises will he break if re-elected?
Poilievre makes a specific factual rebuttal to the PM's answer in Exchange 27 (the NDP-era call to spend more during the recession) and repeats the $20 billion broken promise, but the closing ask ("which other promises will he break") is compound and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the previous Conservative government was fighting the great global recession, that member said that we should spend more, spend now, spend faster. His only complaint was that the deficits were not big enough. We left him with a balanced budget. He promised that in 2019 the budget would balance itself. He is off by just $20 billion, on top of the taxes he raised on the middle class. The Prime Minister broke that promise. Which other promises will he break if he is re-elected?
The Prime Minister says Canadians wanted the Conservatives to invest in things that would create growth but instead they invested in signs, door-knobs and gazebos, while his government created a million new jobs and achieved the lowest unemployment in 40 years.
The Prime Minister does not address the specific charge about Poilievre's past calls to spend more or any specific broken promise, instead pivoting to Conservative spending on signs, door-knobs and gazebos and repeating the one million jobs and lowest unemployment in 40 years figures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians wanted from that Conservative government was for it to invest in the kinds of things that would create growth. Instead, the Conservatives invested in signs, door-knobs and gazebos. We instead chose to invest in the middle class, in lifting kids out of poverty, in ensuring everyone had a real and fair chance to succeed. It is working. A million new jobs have been created over the past four years. We have the lowest unemployment in 40 years, because we are investing in Canadians.
Will the minister meet with the Denesuline while they are in Ottawa and explain face to face why she backed away from a land, harvesting and resource rights agreement after 18 years of negotiation?
Jolibois cites 18 years of negotiation, a specific community (Denesuline of northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba), a specific recent event (minister backing away a week ago), and asks a precise and actionable question about whether the minister will meet with the Dene.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Denesuline of northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba were supposed to sign an agreement with the government after 18 years of negotiating for their land, harvesting and resource rights. A week ago, the minister backed away and now refuses to meet with them. She broke her promise and betrayed the Dene. Meaningful reconciliation is about working with indigenous people and meeting in good faith. Will the minister meet with the Dene while they are in Ottawa and explain why she broke her promise, face to face?
The Prime Minister says no relationship is more important than with indigenous people, acknowledges concerns raised by indigenous groups in the Northwest Territories about the terms of the agreement, and states the government has a responsibility to meaningful consultations to work through those issues.
The Prime Minister acknowledges concerns raised by indigenous groups in the Northwest Territories and the responsibility for meaningful consultation, offering partial relevant context, but does not commit to the specific ministerial meeting requested nor explain why the promise was broken.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, no relationship is more important to Canada than the one with indigenous people. Working to renew relationships on the basis of affirmation and implementation of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership is central to everything we do. Concerns have been raised by indigenous groups in the Northwest Territories about the terms of the agreement and the impact on their communities and their rights. We have a responsibility to meaningful consultations with communities in order to understand and work through the issues that they have brought forward.
Given that Canada has lost over half of its grassland bird populations in 40 years and the Liberals have only reached 11% of their promised 17% wildlands protection target by 2020, why are the Liberals making empty gestures and breaking their promise to protect wildlife?
Cannings references a specific upcoming report on the state of Canada's birds, cites specific data (over half of grassland bird populations lost in 40 years, specific species), and the Liberals' specific 17% protection target versus 11% achieved, though the closing ask is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today a report on the state of Canada's birds is expected, with findings of dramatic declines in many species, most of this resulting from habitat loss. For instance, over the last 40 years, we have lost over half of our grassland bird populations, birds like meadowlarks and burrowing owls. The Liberals promised to protect 17% of Canada's wildlands and water by 2020, but have only hit 11%. An NDP government would protect 30% by 2030. Why are the Liberals making nothing but empty gestures and breaking their promise to protect our wildlife?
The Prime Minister says the NDP put forward targets with no plan to reach them, claims the government will reach its marine and terrestrial protection targets, and highlights the role of wetlands and ecosystems in fighting climate change.
The Prime Minister dismisses NDP targets as lacking a plan, claims the government is on track to reach marine and terrestrial protection targets, and addresses wetlands and ecosystems generally, but does not address the specific 11% versus 17% shortfall or the bird population decline data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, speaking of empty gestures, the NDP have put forward targets with no plan to reach them. On the contrary, we are going to be reaching our targets to protect marine and terrestrial areas. We have worked very hard on that. We recognize that protecting our environment is not just about growing the economy; it is also about fighting climate change. We recognize the importance of wetlands and a broad range of environmental ecosystems, which have a significant role to play in fighting climate change as well. This is why we are continuing to move forward with a real plan to protect our environment and fight climate change.
Why is the Prime Minister imposing a carbon tax on necessities that hurts Canadians near insolvency while giving $12 million to his billionaire friends at Loblaws for fridges?
The question cites specific polling figures on insolvency and the $12 million Loblaws payment, combining factual grounding with rhetorical framing and a compound ask about carbon tax fairness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here are some sobering numbers: 48% of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency and 24% cannot meet their monthly obligations. To make life harder, the Prime Minister has stepped on the throats of Canadians by imposing a carbon tax on the necessities of life in Canada. The carbon tax is not an environmental plan; it is a tax plan. How could he raise taxes on those who can least afford it, like seniors, but give advantages to the wealthiest by giving $12 million to his billionaire friends at Loblaws for fridges?
Trudeau argues the climate action incentive and price on pollution actually leaves middle-class Canadians better off, calling it an environmental tax break for middle-class families.
Trudeau asserts the climate action incentive puts more money in pockets of middle-class Canadians but provides no figures, and does not address the $12 million Loblaws payment raised in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite continue to mislead Canadians. The reality is that the climate action incentive and our plan to put a price on pollution actually get more money in the pockets of middle-class Canadians than without a price on pollution. This is in fact an environmental tax break for middle-class families. That is what we are moving forward with, a way to both protect the environment, fight climate change and make it affordable for Canadians. The plan that the Leader of the Opposition is planning on putting forward tonight surely will not do that.
Is the Prime Minister ready to admit he committed a monumental error with his January 2017 tweet welcoming everyone, given that more than 45,000 people from New York have since crossed at chemin Roxham?
The question anchors the accountability ask to a specific tweet from January 2017 and cites 45,000 irregular crossings at chemin Roxham, making it reasonably specific, though the final ask is primarily political.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, voici un autre grand succĂšs du premier ministre. On se rappelle son fameux gazouillis de janvier 2017 qui dit: « Ă ceux qui fuient la persĂ©cution, la terreur et la guerre, sachez que le Canada vous accueillera... #BienvenueAuCanada ». Depuis ce jour, plus de 45 000 personnes en provenance de New York ont demandĂ© l'asile au chemin Roxham. Pendant ce temps, les vrais rĂ©fugiĂ©s continuent Ă souffrir dans les cales de l'ONU. Le premier ministre est-il prĂȘt Ă admettre qu'il a commis une erreur monumentale, en janvier 2017?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, here is another one of the Prime Minister's shining moments. Many will recall his infamous January 2017 tweet, which said âTo those fleeing persecution, terror and war, Canadians will welcome you.... #WelcomeToCanadaâ. Since that day, more than 45,000 people have come from New York, seeking asylum at Roxham Road. Meanwhile, genuine refugees continue to suffer in UN camps. Will the Prime Minister admit that he made a huge mistake in January 2017?
Trudeau notes the UN reported 70 million displaced people globally and argues Canada has a rigorous system to handle both regular and irregular arrivals properly.
Trudeau responds with global displacement statistics and a general defence of Canada's immigration system but does not address whether the January 2017 tweet was a mistake as directly asked.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cette semaine, l'ONU a rapporté que 70 millions de personnes dans le monde sont en situation de déplacement. Je suis certain que le député ne pense pas que c'est à cause d'un gazouillis que j'ai fait il y a quelques années. La réalité, c'est que de plus en plus de gens sont en train d'immigrer partout dans le monde. Nous avons un systÚme rigoureux, au Canada, pour nous assurer que tout le monde qui arrive dans ce pays de façon réguliÚre ou irréguliÚre sont traités de la bonne façon. Notre systÚme s'applique dans son intégrité.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the UN reported this week that 70 million people are currently displaced around the world. I am sure the hon. member does not think this is because of something I tweeted a few years ago. The reality is that more and more people are immigrating all over the world. Canada has a robust system to ensure that everyone who arrives in this country, through regular or irregular migration, is processed properly. All of our system's rules are carefully followed.
Why is the Prime Minister keeping at his right hand a member whose law firm was implicated in alleged money laundering for a foreign drug lord, while expelling another MP simply for standing up to him?
The question references a specific allegation involving a law firm and a foreign drug lord and contrasts the treatment of two Vancouver-area MPs, but the core ask about a feminist double standard is rhetorical and vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a law firm that the member for StevestonâRichmond East owns had been implicated in a scheme that allegedly laundered money in the Vancouver area for a foreign drug lord. Today, the member is at the Prime Minister's right hand. He is front and centre. Compare that to another Vancouver area MP who got kicked out of his caucus simply for standing up to him and doing what was right. This begs the question, if he is such a feminist, why the obvious, on display, double standard?
Trudeau outlines government measures against money laundering including the action, coordination and enforcement team, the money laundering centre of expertise, and over $160 million for the RCMP, FINTRAC and CRA.
Trudeau's answer is entirely about money laundering policy measures and Conservative cuts to the RCMP budget, completely ignoring the double-standard question about the member for StevestonâRichmond East.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are committed to a robust regime to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. With budget 2019, we created the action, coordination and enforcement team and the money laundering centre of expertise. These will help better identify and meet evolving threats. We have provided over $160 million to the RCMP, FINTRAC and CRA. We support policing and real estate audit teams. The Conservatives actually cut over $500 million from the RCMP's budget, while we will ensure that law enforcement teams have the resources and tools they need.
Could the Prime Minister explain how the first-time homebuyer incentive will help middle-class families in Nepean and across Canada buy their first home?
This is a government-backbench softball that essentially asks the Prime Minister to advertise the first-time homebuyer incentive with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government has made unprecedented investments in giving more Canadians a place to call home. This week, we unveiled details about the new first-time homebuyer incentive, which will help middle-class families by making their mortgage payments more affordable. Could the Prime Minister tell the House how the first-time homebuyer incentive will help middle-class families in my riding of Nepean and across Canada achieve the dream of buying their first home?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nepean for his question and his hard work. With the first-time homebuyer incentive, we are helping middle-class families achieve the dream of home ownership by increasing the RRSP withdrawal limit and reducing their monthly mortgage payments without increasing the amount they need to save for a down payment. We are putting home ownership within reach for more middle-class families. We are building on our historic commitments to giving more Canadians a safe and affordable place to call home.
Trudeau says the incentive increases the RRSP withdrawal limit and reduces monthly mortgage payments without increasing the required down payment, making home ownership more accessible for middle-class families.
Trudeau provides reasonably specific details about the first-time homebuyer incentive, including the RRSP withdrawal limit increase and reduced monthly mortgage payments without a larger down payment.
Will the Prime Minister stop the $18 million in taxpayer funding for a private airport at the elite Cabot Links golf resort that is decimating the Allan J. MacEachen Port Hawkesbury Airport and small businesses like Celtic Air Services?
The question cites a specific dollar amount ($18 million), names the Allan J. MacEachen Port Hawkesbury Airport and Celtic Air Services, and asks a clear yes/no about stopping funding for the private airport at Cabot Links.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, right now in Cape Breton we are seeing a story as old as time. The Liberals are taking $18 million from taxpayers to fund a private airport at the elite Cabot Links golf resort for their millionaire friends to park their private jets. This Liberal decision is decimating the Allan J. MacEachen Port Hawkesbury Airport and small businesses like Celtic Air Services. Will the Prime Minister put small businesses ahead of his millionaire Liberal golf buddies and stop any funding for a competing private airport in Inverness?
Trudeau ignores the airport question and instead contrasts the government's record of lowering taxes for the middle class and raising them on the wealthiest 1% with what he characterises as the Conservative trickle-down approach.
Trudeau does not address the Cabot Links airport funding at all, instead pivoting to a general contrast between Liberal and Conservative tax policies and the Canada child benefit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the Conservatives pretend they stand up for the middle class. We know their approach has always been to give advantages and benefits to the wealthiest in the hope that it will trickle down to growth for everyone else. The first thing we did as a government was lower taxes for the middle class and raise them on the wealthiest 1%, and the Conservatives voted against it. Then we brought in a Canada child benefit that gives more help to nine families out of 10 by stopping the cheques being sent to the millionaire families the Conservatives kept helping.
Why do the Liberals keep trying to convince Canadians they have to settle for less, given that medicine is still unaffordable, corporations still avoid billions in taxes, cellphone bills remain sky-high, housing is unaffordable, and the government is using Stephen Harper's climate targets?
The question lists several broad policy failures â unaffordable medicine, tax avoidance, cellphone bills, housing, pipeline purchase, and Harper climate targets â but lacks specific facts or a single answerable ask, making it largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's symbolic gestures do not match up with his actions. He promised change, but four years later medicine is still unaffordable, corporations are still avoiding billions in taxes, Canadians are still paying sky-high cellphone bills, and people still cannot afford to find a place to live. The Liberals are buying pipelines and still using Stephen Harper's climate targets. I believe better is possible. Why do the Liberals keep trying to convince Canadians that they have to settle for less?
Trudeau cites collaboration with provinces toward pharmacare, a $40-billion national housing strategy, investments in training and jobs, and lifting people out of poverty as evidence of real action.
Trudeau touches on pharmacare collaboration, a $40-billion national housing strategy, and poverty reduction but provides no specific metrics or timelines, offering only a partial and general rebuttal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while the NDP works hard to come up with catchy slogans, we actually moved forward on delivering for Canadians. We have lowered the prices of drugs by taking an approach that includes creating collaboration with provinces as we move forward toward pharmacare. We are also moving forward on a $40-billion national housing strategy, because we know that Canadians need to have affordable homes and the security that comes with it. We have also been investing in new training, jobs and opportunities for Canadians, while lifting people out of poverty. While the NDP has been working on slogans, we have been acting.
Can the Prime Minister inform the House about the government's work to support rural communities in Canada?
This is a government-backbench setup question asking the Prime Minister to tout rural community investments, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'impact Ă©conomique national de la communautĂ© rurale est indĂ©niable et significatif. D'ailleurs, on lui reconnaĂźt l'emploi de plus de quatre millions de Canadiens, une contribution de prĂšs de 30 % du PIB, ce qui est considĂ©rable. It is important for our government to have a âmade in ruralâ plan to address the unique infrastructure needs and economic opportunities facing rural communities. Le premier ministre peut-il nous informer du travail de notre gouvernement Ă l'Ă©gard de l'appui offert aux communautĂ©s rurales du Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there is no denying that rural communities have a significant impact on the national economy. They provide jobs to over four million Canadians and contribute nearly 30% of the GDP, which is considerable. Il est important que le gouvernement ait un plan conçu par les gens des régions rurales pour répondre à leurs besoins particuliers en infrastructures et pour stimuler l'économie rurale. Can the Prime Minister tell us about our government's efforts to support Canada's rural communities?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie le dĂ©putĂ© de Montarville de son travail acharnĂ©. Nous avons toujours Ă©tĂ© un partenaire des rĂ©gions rurales. Nous avons crĂ©Ă© un fonds d'infrastructure consacrĂ© exclusivement aux communautĂ©s rurales. Nous Ă©laborons actuellement une stratĂ©gie pour le Canada rural basĂ©e sur les idĂ©es des habitants en rĂ©gion. Nous avons branchĂ© 380 000 foyers Ă Internet haute vitesse et nos investissements permettront la connexion de chaque foyer canadien. Notre bilan est la preuve que nous tenons toujours les Canadiens en rĂ©gion rurale Ă cĆur.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Montarville for his tireless work. We have always been partners with rural regions. We created an infrastructure fund especially for rural communities. We are currently crafting a strategy for rural Canada based on the ideas of the very people who live there. We have connected 380,000 households to high-speed Internet, and our investments will make it possible for every Canadian household to connect. Our record is proof that rural Canadians are always a priority for us.
Trudeau says the government created a dedicated rural infrastructure fund, is developing a rural strategy based on residents' ideas, has connected 380,000 homes to high-speed Internet, and plans to connect every Canadian home.
Trudeau provides some specific content â a dedicated rural infrastructure fund, a rural strategy under development, and 380,000 homes connected to high-speed Internet â giving real if modest detail.
Since the minister has failed to act after more than a week, will the Prime Minister step in and pull Canada summer jobs funding from a group with links to terrorism whose charitable status has already been suspended by the CRA?
The question cites a specific case â Canada summer jobs funding awarded by the member for MississaugaâLakeshore to a group with alleged terrorism links whose charitable status the CRA has already suspended â with a clear ask directed at the Prime Minister after more than a week of inaction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister put a values test on the Canada summer jobs grants, targeting groups that do not agree with him. More than a week ago, it was brought to the attention of the Liberals that the member for MississaugaâLakeshore awarded funding to a group with links to terrorism. It has been more than a week since the minister said that she would do a so-called review of this matter. The CRA has already suspended this group's charitable status, and the government is well aware of its current links to terrorism. My question is this. Since the minister cannot seem to get the job done, will the Prime Minister step in and do the job?
Trudeau declares his government's unequivocal support for a woman's right to choose and accuses Conservatives of eroding women's rights around the world, without addressing the specific funding question.
Trudeau's answer does not mention the member for MississaugaâLakeshore, the Canada summer jobs grant, the CRA suspension, or the terrorism-linked group, instead pivoting entirely to a defence of abortion rights.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we are unequivocal. We will always stand up for a woman's right to choose. The fact of the matter is that we have seen around the world women's rights eroded by conservative governments, by conservative leaders, by conservative politicians. The reality is that Canadians deserve to hear political parties and leaders stand up unequivocally to say that we will defend women's rights. We will defend women's rights to choose. Why can the Conservatives not just say that?
How will the Prime Minister fight climate change when, only 24 hours after recognizing a climate emergency, he approved Trans Mountain, which will emit more greenhouse gases than all of Quebec's industries combined, while investing 500 million dollars in green energy but 14 billion dollars in pollution?
The question cites specific figures â Trans Mountain approved 24 hours after recognizing a climate emergency, 500 million dollars for green energy versus 14 billion dollars in the pipeline â creating a sharp, factually grounded contrast with a clear accountability ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre nâa aucune crĂ©dibilitĂ© en environnement: 24 heures seulement aprĂšs avoir reconnu lâurgence climatique, il donne le feu vert Ă Trans Mountain, un pipeline qui va Ă©mettre plus de gaz Ă effet de serre que toutes les industries du QuĂ©bec mises ensemble. Il sâexcuse en disant quâil va investir 500 millions de dollars dans des Ă©nergies vertes, mais il met 14 milliards de dollars dans la pollution. Comment le premier ministre va-t-il lutter contre les changements climatiques en mettant notre argent dans un projet qui pollue plus que le QuĂ©bec au grand complet?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has no credibility when it comes to the environment. Just 24 hours after declaring a climate emergency, he gave the green light to the Trans Mountain pipeline, which will produce more greenhouse gas emissions than all of Quebec's industries combined. He is apologizing by saying that he is going to invest $500 million in green energy, but he is investing $14 billion in pollution. How is the Prime Minister going to fight climate change by investing our money in a project that creates more pollution than all of Quebec?
Trudeau says there is no choice to make between the environment and the economy, that safely accessing new markets for resources and investing in the green energy transition are compatible, and that all profits from the pipeline will go toward the green energy transition.
Trudeau argues the environment and economy are not in conflict and says all pipeline profits will go toward the green energy transition, but does not address the specific figures cited or explain how approving Trans Mountain is consistent with recognizing a climate emergency.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, malheureusement, il y a encore des politiciens qui croient quâil y a un choix Ă faire entre lâenvironnement et lâĂ©conomie. La rĂ©alitĂ©, câest que la seule façon dâavancer en tant que sociĂ©tĂ©, câest de protĂ©ger les emplois et lâenvironnement en mĂȘme temps. Câest exactement ce que nous faisons en accĂ©dant de façon sĂ©curitaire Ă de nouveaux marchĂ©s pour nos ressources, tout en investissant des sommes historiques dans la transition vers lâĂ©nergie verte. Tous les profits venant de cet olĂ©oduc iront dans la transition vers lâĂ©nergie verte, parce que les Canadiens savent quâon doit faire preuve de leadership Ă cet Ă©gard.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there are still politicians who believe that we have to choose between the environment and the economy. The reality is that the only way to move forward as a society is to protect jobs and the environment at the same time. That is exactly what we are doing by safely accessing new markets for our resources while investing historic amounts in the transition to green energy. All the profits from this pipeline will be put toward the transition to green energy because Canadians know that we need to show leadership in that regard.
Ms. Hardcastle (NDP) moved a motion calling on the House to extend condolences to victims of violence and war in Sri Lanka, urge the Government of Sri Lanka to promote justice and protect religious minorities, reaffirm Canada's call for implementation of UN Human Rights Council resolutions 30/1 and 40/1, and call on the United Nations to establish an international independent investigation into allegations of genocide against Tamils. The House agreed unanimously.
- NDP Ms. Cheryl Hardcastle
- Some hon. members
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I am hopeful that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That the House, (a) extend its condolences to all the victims of violence and war in Sri Lanka; (b) 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; (c) reaffirm Canada's call for Sri Lanka to implement its obligations within a clearly specified time frame, as mandated under the UN Human Rights Council resolutions 30/1 and 40/1 as well as Canada's support in advancing accountability, peace and reconciliation among all people on the island; and (d) call upon the United Nations to establish an international independent investigation into allegations of genocide against Tamils committed in Sri Lanka, including during the last phase of the armed conflict in 2009.
Agreed.
Agreed.