Session overview
- The dominant issue was the rail blockades, occupying the majority of Question Period, with opposition parties pressing the Prime Minister to name a specific date for removal of blockades and criticizing two weeks of inaction; Trudeau repeatedly committed to a peaceful resolution without providing a timeline or concrete plan.
- CN Rail and VIA Rail announced layoffs totalling nearly 1,500 workers as a direct result of the blockades, and shortages of propane, home heating oil, de-icing fluid, and water treatment chemicals were cited as growing public-safety threats in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.
- The Bloc Québécois raised the specific proposal of replacing the RCMP on Wet'suwet'en territory with an indigenous police force of the Wet'suwet'en's own choosing; the Prime Minister called this a good question and confirmed it was under active discussion with British Columbia.
- The NDP put forward three concrete de-escalation proposals â the Prime Minister meeting with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs, appointing a special mediator, and directing the RCMP to stand down â and questioned the nearly $4.5-billion cost of the Trans Mountain pipeline purchase and the escalating expansion costs.
- The government confirmed that the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations was ready to meet with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary leadership at any moment, but the Wet'suwet'en leadership was not yet available for that meeting, and no personal meeting between the Prime Minister and the hereditary chiefs was committed to.
- Two government-friendly exchanges covered the veteran and family well-being fund â including $400,000 to Operation Entrepreneur and $400,000 to Good Shepherd Ministries â and a bilateral investment promotion and protection agreement under negotiation with Ethiopia.
The Prime Minister confirmed for the first time publicly that replacing the RCMP with an indigenous police force of the Wet'suwet'en's choosing was one of the options actively being discussed with British Columbia.
Blanchet proposes a specific and concrete alternative â replacing the RCMP with an Indigenous police force chosen by the Wet'suwet'en â and asks whether the government has considered this hypothesis, making it a specific and answerable question.
Asked the specific factual question of whether he knew the daily economic cost of the illegal blockades to the Canadian economy â after the finance minister had already admitted he did not know â Trudeau gave no figure and pivoted entirely to the need for a peaceful resolution, leaving the direct question completely unanswered.
Outstanding questions
- Andrew Scheer (multiple exchanges) asked on what specific day the blockades would come down and when laid-off workers could return to work; no date or timeline was ever provided.
- Pierre Poilievre (Exchange 20) asked whether the Prime Minister knew the daily dollar cost of the illegal blockades to the Canadian economy; no figure was provided.
- Jagmeet Singh (Exchange 8) asked whether the Prime Minister would personally meet with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs and appoint a special mediator; neither commitment was made.
- Kristina Michaud (Exchange 16) asked whether the Prime Minister would request the withdrawal of the RCMP from Wet'suwet'en territory and apologize for the RCMP's conduct, including the use of snipers; neither question was answered.
- GĂ©rard Deltell (Exchange 28) asked the Prime Minister to state plainly when he would direct his Minister of Public Safety to enforce the law and end the blockades; no instruction to the minister and no timeline were announced.
Scheer quotes Premier Legault calling for police coordination within days and asks whether those comments disqualify Legault from participating in future federal-provincial meetings.
The question is clever and specific, citing a direct quote from Premier Legault with a pointed yes/no ask about whether his comments disqualify him from federal-provincial meetings, but it is framed primarily to embarrass the Prime Minister rather than seek policy information.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, « il faut se coordonner si on est pour faire intervenir des policiers. Il faut une coordination dans toutes les provinces. Il faut fixer un Ă©chĂ©ancier. LĂ , je ne parle pas de semaines, je parle de jours. [...] il est temps quâon aboutisse. Ăa fait deux semaines. » Qui a dit cela? Câest le premier ministre du QuĂ©bec, François Legault. Est-ce que M. Legault, en raison de ses commentaires, sâest disqualifiĂ© pour ce qui est de participer Ă de futures rencontres fĂ©dĂ©rales-provinciales?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, âwe must have coordinated action if we are going to call in police. There must be coordination with every province. A deadline must be set. I am not talking about weeks, but days...it is time for this to end. It has been two weeks.â Who said that? Quebec's premier, François Legault. Did Mr. Legault disqualify himself with these comments from participating in future federal-provincial meetings?
Trudeau says the government takes the crisis seriously and that it is unacceptable that Canadians face shortages and layoffs, pledging to resolve the issue peacefully.
The Prime Minister does not address the question about Premier Legault or the disqualification premise at all, instead offering generic statements about resolving the crisis peacefully.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous prenons cette crise trĂšs au sĂ©rieux. Câest inacceptable que tant de Canadiens fassent face Ă des pĂ©nuries ou Ă des mises Ă pied, comme on lâa vu aujourdâhui. Nous savons que nous devons exercer tous les efforts nĂ©cessaires pour rĂ©soudre de façon paisible cet enjeu prĂ©occupant. Câest exactement ce que nous allons continuer de faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we take this crisis very seriously. It is unacceptable that so many Canadians are facing shortages or layoffs, as we have seen today. We know that we must do absolutely everything we can to resolve this worrisome issue peacefully. That is exactly what we will continue to do.
Scheer cites CN Rail and VIA Rail laying off nearly 1,500 workers and asks on what specific day the blockades will come down.
The question cites a concrete fact â nearly 1,500 layoffs at CN Rail and VIA Rail â and asks for a specific date when the blockades will come down, giving it reasonable grounding, though the rhetorical framing about "inaction and weakness" dilutes the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if it is an unacceptable situation, he should do something about it. After two weeks of the Prime Minister's inaction and weakness, CN Rail and VIA Rail have announced that they are laying off nearly 1,500 workers because of these non-stop blockades across Canada. There are 1,500 men and women who have to look their families in the eye and tell them that they were laid off. They still have bills to pay. Can the Prime Minister tell them on what day the blockades will come down?
Trudeau says the government is doing everything it can to resolve the situation peacefully and that an overly aggressive approach would only lead to more challenges.
Trudeau does not provide a date or any concrete plan, instead repeating the commitment to a peaceful resolution and criticizing the Leader of the Opposition's approach.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are working extremely hard, doing absolutely everything we can to resolve these situations peacefully. We know that an overly aggressive approach, like the one proposed by the leader of the official opposition, will only lead to more challenges down the road. However, I do agree with the Leader of the Opposition on one thing. This situation is unacceptable in the fact that it is hitting Canadians so hard, facing layoffs and shortages. That is why we are doing everything we can to resolve this peacefully. We will exhaust every effort to resolve this peacefully.
Scheer argues the blockades are driven by radical activists opposed to projects supported by the Wet'suwet'en elected council and the BC NDP government, and again asks on what day laid-off workers can return to work.
The question combines factual references to the Wet'suwet'en elected council and the BC NDP government's support for the project with heavily rhetorical characterizations of protesters, and repeats the same unanswered ask about a specific return-to-work date.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister still refuses to take any kind of action. These radical activists have erected these blockades because they want to shut down our resource centre. Protesters 4,000 kilometres away want to cancel billions of dollars' worth of resource projects, ones supported by the elected council of the Wet'suwet'en and even the British Columbia NDP government. This is not a way to grow the economy. The Prime Minister is showing incredible weakness in refusing to do anything about this. Once again, can he tell people who were just laid off on what day they can get back to work?
Trudeau says the government is continuing to do everything it can to resolve the situation peacefully in a way that will not create more problems months from now.
Trudeau again offers no date or concrete plan, repeating that the government is working to resolve the situation constructively, peacefully, and rapidly without any specifics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to do everything we can to resolve this situation peacefully. That is what Canadians expect of their government. We understand how difficult this is for so many people who are facing shortages and layoffs right now, but we know we need to resolve this in a way that will not create more problems months from now and over the coming years. That is why we are taking every step necessary to resolve this constructively, peacefully and rapidly.
Scheer accuses the Prime Minister of linking reconciliation to radical protesters whose goal is to shut down the energy sector, and asks again when out-of-work Canadians can return to work.
The question is largely rhetorical, characterizing protesters as anti-free market and ignoring science without substantiating those claims, while repeating the same vague ask about a return-to-work date for the third time.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, they are not doing everything. They could actually be moving to take these blockades down. The reality is that the Prime Minister is trying to make a link between reconciliation and a group of radical protesters who have nothing to do with the first nations affected by this decision. These are groups whose self-professed goals are to shut down all development in our energy sector. They are anti-free market and they are ignoring the science of these approvals. Once again, will the Prime Minister take action and tell these out-of-work Canadians on what day they can return to work?
Trudeau acknowledges the situation is unacceptable and says the Conservative approach would not ensure jobs and stability, reiterating the focus on a peaceful resolution.
Trudeau again provides no date or specific action plan, pivoting to criticism of the Conservative approach and repeating the commitment to a peaceful resolution.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we understand this is an unacceptable situation. Canadians are hurting. Canadians are facing layoffs. This is something we need to resolve, and we need to resolve it not just for today and tomorrow, but for the weeks and months to come. Unfortunately, the approach that the Leader of the Opposition is proposing would not ensure jobs and stability for Canadians in the future. That is why we, on this side of the aisle, are focused on resolving it peacefully. That is what we will do.
Scheer asks why the government is considering directing the RCMP not to uphold the law by withdrawing from sites, while ruling out asking them to enforce injunctions against the blockades.
The question is pointed and specific, citing a minister's statement that the government was considering directing the RCMP to withdraw from certain sites and asking why the government would consider non-enforcement while ruling out enforcement â a genuine accountability contrast.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, only to the Prime Minister is standing up for the rule of law somehow aggressive behaviour from a government. It is the bare minimum that Canadians expect from their elected officials. Yesterday there were suggestions that some of the blockades might come down if the RCMP withdrew from certain sites. When asked about this, the minister said that they were considering that. Why is the government considering directing the RCMP not to uphold the law, but ruling out asking them to enforce the rule of law?
Trudeau says the government is focused on real solutions rather than rhetorical games, acknowledging the disruption to Canadians but not addressing the specific question about RCMP withdrawal.
Trudeau does not address the specific contradiction about RCMP withdrawal versus enforcement, instead pivoting to talking about reconciliation and accusing the opposition of playing short-term politics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand that this is a very serious situation, one that holds the path of reconciliation, of partnerships on one hand and the other sideâ
Mr. Speaker, of course this is the situation facing many Canadians who are dealing with shortages or dealing with challenges to their own disrupted lives, but also possible layoffs. That is why we are focused on real issues that will matter to Canadians, a real solution forward, not rhetorical games or playing short-term politics, as the members of the opposition continue to do.
Blanchet references job losses and supply shortages in his constituency and asks what is the nature of the forum of discussion the Prime Minister says he has opened.
Blanchet grounds the question in his own constituency's economic concerns and asks a specific structural question â what is the nature of the forum of discussion the Prime Minister has opened â giving it identifiable factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la cascade des pertes d'emplois est commencĂ©e. Dans ma circonscription, BeloeilâChambly, les entreprises prennent contact et disent que cela devient grave et qu'il y a un danger de rupture de stock. J'invite ceux qui veulent connaĂźtre les consĂ©quences Ă©conomiques Ă parler au premier ministre du QuĂ©bec. Le premier ministre sait mieux quiconque que les mots creux ne changent rien. C'est une expertise maison. Les PremiĂšres Nations ont chacune un leader. La question qu'elles se posent, c'est: le Canada en a-t-il un? Si le premier ministre dit avoir ouvert une conversation, je veux savoir quelle est la nature du forum de discussion ouvert.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the number of job losses is starting to snowball. In my riding, BeloeilâChambly, business owners are contacting me to say that this is getting serious and we are heading for shortages. I invite those who want to understand the economic consequences to talk to the Premier of Quebec. The premier knows better than anyone that empty words do not change anything. He has expertise in the matter. Each first nation has a leader. They want to know if Canada has one. If the Prime Minister says he has opened a dialogue, then what is the nature of the open discussion forum?
Trudeau says the government is engaged in direct discussions with leaders of various Indigenous groups and is working to resolve the situation quickly and peacefully.
Trudeau says the government is discussing directly with leaders of various Indigenous groups and acknowledges the complexity, but does not describe the specific nature or structure of any forum, only partially engaging the question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous continuons de discuter directement avec les différents leaders des différents groupes autochtones. Nous reconnaissons qu'il y a plusieurs groupes à l'intérieur des différents groupes autochtones et nous sommes en train de discuter le plus que nous pouvons. Nous reconnaissons à quel point la situation est complexe. C'est une situation trÚs difficile pour les entrepreneurs, pour les Canadiens, pour les gens qui font face à des mises à pied. Nous allons continuer de travailler pour résoudre cette situation de façon paisible rapidement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we continue to have direct discussions with the different leaders of the different indigenous groups. We acknowledge that there are several groups within the different indigenous groups and we are having as much discussion as possible. We recognize the complexity of the situation. It is a very difficult situation for business owners, for Canadians, for people who are dealing with layoffs. We will continue to work on resolving this situation as peacefully as possible.
Blanchet asks whether the government has considered inviting the Wet'suwet'en to replace the RCMP â which is seen as an aggression â with an Indigenous police force of their own choosing.
Blanchet proposes a specific and concrete alternative â replacing the RCMP with an Indigenous police force chosen by the Wet'suwet'en â and asks whether the government has considered this hypothesis, making it a specific and answerable question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je crains qu'on n'ait pas fait beaucoup de gains sur le plan de la clarté. Si le gouvernement mettait en place une solution, ce serait la premiÚre hypothÚse envisagée. On a eu une discussion sur la pertinence de retirer la GRC du territoire des Wet'suwet'en, mais évidemment on pourrait dire qu'il ne peut pas y avoir une absence complÚte de corps policiers. Est-ce que le gouvernement a considéré l'hypothÚse d'inviter les Wet'suwet'en à remplacer la GRC qui est vue comme une agression pour de trÚs évidentes raisons par un corps policier autochtone de leur choix?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that clarified anything. If the government were to implement a solution, that is the first possibility that should be considered. We talked about the merits of having the RCMP withdraw from Wet'suwet'en territory, but obviously we cannot have a complete lack of police presence. Has the government considered the possibility of asking the Wet'suwet'en to replace the RCMP, whose presence is seen as an act of aggression for obvious reasons, with an indigenous police force of their choice?
Trudeau confirms this is indeed one of the things being discussed with British Columbia, noting the decision belongs to police bodies and the province where the RCMP operates as a provincial police force.
Trudeau directly acknowledges it is a good question and confirms this is among the things being discussed with British Columbia, though he notes the decision rests with police bodies and the province, providing a substantive if partial engagement.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est une trĂšs bonne question. C'est effectivement une chose parmi tant d'autres dont nous discutons actuellement et auxquelles nous rĂ©flĂ©chissons avec la Colombie-Britannique. C'est un enjeu qui relĂšve Ă©videmment de la dĂ©cision des corps policiers et de la province oĂč la GRC travaille comme police provinciale. C'est exactement le genre de discussion et de rĂ©flexion que nous avons pour rĂ©soudre de façon paisible cette situation.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. That is one of the many options that we are currently thinking about and discussing with British Columbia. Obviously, that will be up to the police and the province, where the RCMP works as a provincial police force. That is exactly the type of thinking and discussion we are engaging in to peacefully resolve this situation.
Singh proposes three de-escalation measures and asks whether the Prime Minister will meet with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs and appoint a special mediator.
Singh lists three concrete proposals and asks two specific yes/no questions â will the Prime Minister meet with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs and appoint a special mediator â giving it reasonable specificity despite the rhetorical preamble.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous avons une crise nationale et le premier ministre montre un manque de leadership. Instead of photo ops, people need concrete proposals to solve and de-escalate the situation. We have three proposals to help de-escalate the situation. First, the Prime Minister must meet with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs. Second, the Prime Minister should appoint a special mediator to facilitate the conversation. Third, the RCMP needs to stand down to allow these conversations and dialogues to happen. Will the Prime Minister meet with the hereditary chiefs and appoint a special mediator?
Trudeau says the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations has indicated willingness to meet with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary leadership at any moment and that the Wet'suwet'en are continuing to reflect on this, without addressing the special mediator proposal.
Trudeau addresses the meeting question by noting the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations has indicated willingness to meet at any moment and that the Wet'suwet'en are reflecting on this, but does not address the special mediator proposal at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations has been engaged closely with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary leadership and has indicated many times that she would be willing to meet with them at any given moment. The Wet'suwet'en are continuing to reflect on this, but we are impressing upon them the urgency with which they really need to engage in finding a path forward for the benefit of Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous, who are being sorely affected by the shortages, the disruptions and indeed the layoffs.
Singh cites the $4.5-billion pipeline purchase and potential $13-billion expansion cost alongside a recent poll showing declining support, and asks whether the Prime Minister agrees there are better ways to invest those public funds to create quality jobs and reduce emissions.
Singh cites the $4.5-billion purchase price and a potential $13-billion expansion cost and references a recent poll on declining public support, then asks a specific yes/no question about whether there are better ways to invest those public funds.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement libéral a déjà dépensé 4,5 milliards de dollars pour acheter un pipeline et, pour l'agrandir, cela pourrait coûter plus de 13 milliards de dollars. Un sondage récent montre que, quand les coûts augmentent, l'appui descend. C'est parce que les gens comprennent qu'il y a de meilleures façons de dépenser ces fonds publics. Est-ce que le premier ministre accepte qu'il y ait de meilleures façons d'investir ces fonds publics pour créer des emplois de qualité et réduire les émissions?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has already spent $4.5 billion to buy a pipeline, and expanding it could cost over $13 billion. A recent poll found that as costs rise, support plummets. That is because Canadians understand there are better ways to spend this public money. Does the Prime Minister agree that there are better ways to invest this public money to create high-quality jobs and lower emissions?
Trudeau defends the Trans Mountain expansion as in the public interest and says applying the pipeline's profits to a green energy transition is a positive way to continue fighting climate change.
Trudeau defends the Trans Mountain expansion as in the public interest and references applying pipeline profits to a green energy transition, engaging the topic but not directly answering whether he agrees there are better ways to invest the funds.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous avons approuvĂ© l'expansion du projet Trans Mountain parce que c'est dans l'intĂ©rĂȘt public. Nous reconnaissons que notre sociĂ©tĂ© et notre monde dĂ©pendent des produits pĂ©troliers. C'est pourquoi il faut exploiter ces produits de façon responsable et les faire voyager de façon sĂ©curitaire et durable. Nous savons aussi que le fait d'appliquer tous les profits de cet olĂ©oduc extrĂȘmement profitable Ă une transition Ă©nergĂ©tique verte est une façon positive de continuer Ă lutter contre les changements climatiques.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we approved the Trans Mountain expansion project because it is in the public interest. We recognize that our society and our world depend on petroleum products. That is why we need to develop these resources responsibly and transport them in a safe and sustainable way. We also know that taking the profits from this extremely profitable pipeline and pouring them into the clean-energy transition is a positive way to keep fighting climate change.
Alleslev asks why the Prime Minister is abdicating his job to the premiers, citing the two-week blockades, commuters unable to get to work, and Premier Moe convening a special meeting of provincial premiers.
The question cites concrete facts â over two weeks of blockades, ships waiting at ports, a premiers' special meeting convened by Premier Moe â but frames the ask as a rhetorical accusation of abdicating responsibility rather than a specific policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the illegal blockades have been in place for over two weeks. This is a national crisis. Commuters cannot get to work, producers cannot get their goods to market and people are losing their jobs. The Prime Minister's weak leadership has forced Premier Moe to convene a special meeting of all the provincial premiers to discuss a way forward. Why is the Prime Minister abdicating his job to the premiers?
Trudeau says he spoke with Premier Moe just minutes ago to discuss the concerted federal and provincial approach, and that all premiers are united in the need to resolve this quickly and peacefully.
Trudeau provides the specific detail that he spoke with Premier Moe minutes before and describes a collaborative federal-provincial approach, partially addressing the abdication charge but not explaining the substantive plan.
Source text
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. I was pleased to speak with Premier Moe just minutes ago to talk about the work that we are doing all together at the federal and provincial levels to engage with a solution, to recognize that this is a challenge that has its origins in B.C. but has issues and repercussions right across the country upon which we must work together. Every premier understands the need to resolve this quickly but peacefully, and that is what we are working on together.
Bergen criticizes the Prime Minister's response as weak and pathetic, notes that Premier Moe has initiated an emergency call with other premiers, and asks when the Prime Minister will put an end to the illegal barricades.
The question is primarily rhetorical, using charged language like "pathetic response" and "embolden the mob," with the ask essentially repeating prior questions about when the Prime Minister will enforce injunctions, offering little new factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians were hoping the Prime Minister would present a plan yesterday to bring down the illegal blockades that are costing jobs, causing Canadians real hardship and also making a mockery of our laws. Instead they received weak and ineffective words. Even the premiers are unimpressed with the Prime Minister's pathetic response. In fact, Premier Scott Moe has initiated an emergency call with other premiers to address the crisis. When will the Prime Minister step up, do his job and put an end to these dangerous and illegal barricades?
Trudeau says he just spoke with Premier Moe about the concerted federal-provincial approach and that premiers and the Prime Minister are united in the need to resolve the situation quickly and peacefully.
Trudeau again references speaking with Premier Moe moments ago and describes concerted federal-provincial efforts, providing a marginally concrete detail but still not addressing the specific ask about enforcement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I just said, I was pleased to speak just minutes ago with Premier Moe to discuss the concerted approach by the federal and provincial governments to ensure that this national challenge is responded to both at regional levels and at the federal level. We will continue to work to resolve this situation, which is extremely difficult for Canadians right across the country. We are all, premiers and Prime Minister, united in the fact that we need to resolve this quickly and peacefully.
Rayes cites Premier Legault's statement that the federal Liberal government is losing control and asks when the Prime Minister will table a plan with a timeline.
The question cites a direct quote from Premier Legault â that the federal Liberal government is "en train de perdre le contrĂŽle" â and asks specifically when the Prime Minister will table a plan with a timeline, giving it some factual grounding despite the rhetorical framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis le début de la crise des blocus ferroviaires, le premier ministre fédéral fait preuve d'un faible leadership, ce qui exaspÚre la population et le premier ministre du Québec, François Legault. Ce dernier a dit que le gouvernement libéral fédéral est en train de perdre le contrÎle et que nous sommes sur le point d'avoir de sérieux problÚmes. Le premier ministre fédéral ne semble pas comprendre l'urgence d'agir. Peut-il prendre ses responsabilités, faire preuve d'un minimum de leadership et nous dire quand il déposera son plan avec un échéancier?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the rail blockade crisis, the Prime Minister has demonstrated a lack of leadership that is frustrating Canadians and Quebec Premier François Legault. Mr. Legault said that the federal Liberal government is losing control and that we are on the verge of having serious problems. The Prime Minister does not seem to understand the urgent need to act. Will he do his job, show a little leadership and tell us when he will table his plan with a time frame?
Trudeau says Canadians expect a durable solution and that the Conservative approach would only raise the temperature and jeopardize the economy for months to come.
Trudeau does not provide a plan or timeline, instead asserting that the Conservative approach would raise the temperature and put the economy at risk, a deflection away from the specific ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les Canadiens s'attendent à ce que nous résolvions cette situation de façon durable, et pas seulement à court terme. C'est pourquoi nous travaillons avec acharnement pour régler cette situation paisiblement. Les solutions préconisées par les conservateurs ne feraient qu'augmenter la température et mettre en péril notre économie pour les mois à venir. Nous savons que la façon de soutenir les Canadiens qui sont inquiets pour leur emploi et leur vie quotidienne est de tout faire pour essayer de résoudre cette situation paisiblement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect us to find a lasting solution to this situation, not just a short-term one. That is why we are working hard to resolve this situation peacefully. The solutions proposed by the Conservatives will only cause tensions to rise and jeopardize our economy in the coming months. We know that the way to support Canadians who are concerned about their jobs and their daily lives is to do everything in our power to try to resolve this situation peacefully.
Berthold cites 1,000 VIA Rail workers, 450 CN workers, 325 Lac-MĂ©gantic workers, and farmers and restaurateurs facing propane rationing, quotes Legault setting a deadline for action, and asks when the Prime Minister will recognize his lack of leadership is leading to thousands of job losses.
Berthold names specific affected groups â 1,000 VIA Rail workers, 450 CN workers, 325 Lac-MĂ©gantic workers, farmers and restaurateurs facing propane rationing â and cites a Legault quote with a deadline ultimatum, giving the question concrete factual grounding despite rhetorical framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si on manque de propane en plein hiver, il va y en avoir, des problÚmes au Canada. Le gouvernement ne fait rien pour rassurer les 1 000 travailleurs de VIA Rail, les 450 travailleurs de CN et les 325 travailleurs de Lac-Mégantic. Il ne fait rien pour les agriculteurs et les restaurateurs qui subissent un rationnement de propane. Au lieu d'ignorer les conséquences désastreuses des blocus comme le fait le premier ministre libéral fédéral, le premier ministre du Québec a réagi et déclaré: « Qu'on dise aux manifestants que, si ce n'est pas défait à tel moment, bien, il va falloir agir et on va agir dans toutes les provinces. » AprÚs avoir été si faible hier, quand le premier ministre fédéral va-t-il reconnaßtre que son manque de leadership peut mener à des milliers de pertes d'emploi au Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if we have a propane shortage in the middle of winter, Canada will have some serious problems. The government is doing nothing to reassure the 1,000 VIA Rail workers, the 450 CN workers and the 325 workers in Lac-MĂ©gantic. It is doing nothing for the farmers and restaurant owners who are facing propane rationing. Unlike the Liberal Prime Minister, who is choosing to ignore the disastrous impact of the blockades, the Quebec premier has responded, saying that an ultimatum is needed. He says we need to take action, and it must be in coordination with every province at the same time. After such weak leadership yesterday, when will the Prime Minister acknowledge that his lack of leadership could cause thousands of job losses in Canada?
Trudeau says the government wants to resolve the situation peacefully to prevent instability lasting months and years, criticizing the Conservative approach of using force.
Trudeau does not acknowledge the specific affected groups or propane shortages, instead repeating the criticism of the Conservative approach and the commitment to a peaceful resolution, without engaging any of the specifics.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, câest pour empĂȘcher une instabilitĂ© qui va durer pendant des mois et mĂȘme des annĂ©es que nous voulons rĂ©soudre cette situation de façon paisible. Lâapproche que prĂ©conisent les conservateurs est dâaugmenter la tempĂ©rature et dây aller avec la force. Ce nâest pas une solution du tout. Nous allons travailler avec les premiers ministres, dont le premier ministre Legault, pour rĂ©soudre cette situation de façon paisible. Câest ce Ă quoi les Canadiens sâattendent.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely to avoid future instability, which could last months or even years, that we want to resolve this situation peacefully. The Conservatives want to elevate the temperature and go in forcefully. That is not a solution. We will work with the premiers, including Premier Legault, to resolve this situation peacefully. That is what Canadians expect.
Barlow cites 19 ships off Prince Rupert, 50 ships off Vancouver, $50 million per week in losses to Canadian grain farmers, and more than four weeks of illegal blockades, asking when the Prime Minister will safely remove the blockades and get commodities moving.
Barlow cites specific figures â 19 ships off Prince Rupert, 50 ships off Vancouver, $50 million per week in farmer losses, and more than four weeks of blockades â grounding the question in concrete economic data with a specific ask about removing the blockades.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the illegal rail blockades are yet another blockade and another barrier for Canadian grain farmers, and the situation is a crisis. There are 19 ships off Prince Rupert and another 50 ships off the port of Vancouver, many of them waiting to be loaded with grain. Every week that the rails are blockaded with illegal blockades costs Canadian farmers $50 million. We are more than four weeks in, and Canadian farmers already hit with the Liberal carbon tax are seeing their bills mounting. When will the Prime Minister safely remove these illegal blockades and get our commodities moving again?
Trudeau says the priority is resolving the situation peacefully as the long-term solution and that concrete actions are being taken, criticizing the opposition for raising rhetoric and temperature.
Trudeau does not address any of the cited figures or provide a plan for removing the blockades, instead repeating the commitment to a peaceful resolution and accusing the official opposition of raising rhetoric and temperature.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our priority is resolving this situation peacefully, because we know that is the long-term solution that is needed for this country. It is essential that we work together across provinces to bring down the temperature and to bring down these barricades, but to do it in a way that is peaceful. That means concrete actions that are going to resolve this situation. That is what we are doing. The raising of the rhetoric and temperature by the members of the official opposition is not serving to help any of the Canadians who are facing layoffs or disruptions in their daily lives.
Strahl cites 1,500 layoffs, critically low reserves of home heating oil, propane, and chlorine for water treatment, and asks whether the Prime Minister will demand that court injunctions against the illegal blockades be enforced.
Strahl cites specific consequences â 1,500 layoffs, critically low reserves of home heating oil, propane, and chlorine for water treatment â and asks a specific yes/no question about whether the Prime Minister will demand that court injunctions be enforced.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, protesters continue to shut down our railways, blockade our ports and target our border crossings. There have already been 1,500 workers laid off, and thousands more are at risk of losing their jobs. Reserve supplies of home heating oil, propane and chlorine for water treatment are running critically low, putting the health and safety of Canadians at risk. Will the Prime Minister finally show some leadership and demand that the court injunctions against these illegal blockades be enforced, or will he continue to embolden the mob that is giving the courts the Trudeau salute?
Trudeau says the government is focused on helping tens of thousands of Canadians whose lives have been disrupted and will continue to exhaust every option to resolve the situation peacefully.
Trudeau does not address the court injunctions or the specific health and safety consequences cited, repeating the commitment to helping Canadians by resolving the situation peacefully.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are focused on helping the tens of thousands of Canadians who have had their lives disrupted, who are facing shortages and are facing layoffs. We will continue to work to help them both in the short term and in the long term by resolving this situation peacefully. We will continue to work to exhaust every option to resolve it peacefully, because we know this is a situation deeply concerning to Canadians right across the country.
The member alleges the RCMP ordered agents to use maximum force including snipers against peaceful Wet'suwet'en protesters and asks whether the Prime Minister will demand the RCMP's withdrawal from Wet'suwet'en territory and apologize for the RCMP's conduct.
The question cites specific RCMP conduct (use of snipers, orders to use maximum force) and makes a concrete dual ask â withdrawal of the RCMP and an apology â though the framing is heavily partisan.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la crise des blocus ferroviaires a Ă©tĂ© provoquĂ©e par la GRC. Câest la GRC qui a mis le feu aux poudres en ordonnant Ă ses agents dâarrĂȘter des manifestants wet'suwet'en pacifiques. Câest la GRC qui a ordonnĂ© Ă ses agents dâutiliser autant de force que possible, y compris des tireurs dâĂ©lite, pour casser les manifestants. Des tireurs dâĂ©lite, cela ne sâinvente pas. Pour apaiser la crise, est-ce que le premier ministre va...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the rail blockade was caused by the RCMP. It was the RCMP that sparked the conflict by ordering its officers to arrest peaceful Wet'suwet'en protesters. It was the RCMP that ordered its officers to use as much force as possible, including snipers, to break up the protests. Using snipers: I could not make this stuff up. To resolve the crisis, will the Prime Ministerâ
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pour apaiser la crise, est-ce que le premier ministre va demander le retrait de la GRC des territoires wet'suwet'en et sâexcuser pour les dĂ©rapages de la GRC?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, to resolve the crisis, will the Prime Minister ask for the withdrawal of the RCMP from Wet'suwet'en territory and apologize for the RCMP's mistakes?
The Prime Minister notes that the RCMP serves as the provincial police force in British Columbia, equivalent to the OPP in Ontario or the Sûreté du Québec, and that provincial conduct oversight is a provincial responsibility.
The Prime Minister explains the RCMP's role as a provincial police force in British Columbia, which is contextually relevant but does not address the specific asks of withdrawal or an apology.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, jâapprĂ©cie lâoccasion que la dĂ©putĂ©e me donne de rappeler aux gens quâen Colombie-Britannique il nây a pas de police provinciale. Câest la GRC qui sert de police provinciale. Donc, en Colombie-Britannique, câest lâĂ©quivalent de la Police provinciale de lâOntario ou de la SĂ»retĂ© du QuĂ©bec. Câest la responsabilitĂ© de la province de veiller aux comportements. Ăvidemment, il y a un Ă©lĂ©ment fĂ©dĂ©ral, mais câest une chose quâil faut souligner. La GRC agissait en tant que corps policier provincial dans ce cas.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity that the member is giving me to remind people that there is no provincial police force in British Columbia. The RCMP serves as the provincial police, and in B.C. it is the equivalent of the Ontario Provincial Police or the Sûreté du Québec. It is the province's responsibility to monitor the RCMP's conduct. The RCMP was acting in the capacity of a provincial police force in this case.
The member challenges the minister's statement from the previous day that she expected to meet with Wet'suwet'en protesters by the end of the month, arguing the crisis requires action within hours, and asks whether the Prime Minister will call an immediate meeting.
The question cites a specific minister's statement from the previous day about a meeting timeline and presses for an immediate convening of a meeting, making a clear and time-sensitive ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la crise des blocus ferroviaires empire Ă chaque instant qui passe. J'ai Ă©tĂ© stupĂ©faite hier d'entendre la ministre dire qu'elle pensait rencontrer les manifestants wet'suwet'en d'ici la fin du mois. Ce n'est pas une question de semaines. Ce n'est mĂȘme pas une question de jours. C'est une question d'heures. On a besoin d'actions maintenant. Est-ce que le premier ministre va lui demander de convoquer immĂ©diatement une rencontre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the rail blockade crisis is getting worse by the second. I was stunned to hear the minister say yesterday that she planned to meet with the Wet'suwet'en protesters by the end of the month. We do not have weeks, or even days, to spare. We have hours. We need action now. Will the Prime Minister ask her to call a meeting immediately?
The Prime Minister states that the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations is ready to meet with the Wet'suwet'en leaders at any time, but that it is the Wet'suwet'en leaders who are not yet ready to meet, and that the government will continue working to arrange the meeting.
The Prime Minister provides a substantive and specific answer â that the minister is ready to meet at any time but the Wet'suwet'en leaders are not yet ready â which directly addresses the question, though it raises further questions.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la ministre des Relations Couronne-Autochtones est prĂȘte Ă rencontrer Ă tout moment les leaders des Wet'suwet'en. Le dĂ©fi, c'est que les leaders des Wet'suwet'en ne sont pas prĂȘts Ă nous rencontrer. Nous allons continuer de travailler pour organiser cette rencontre. Nous avons tout fait pour essayer de rĂ©soudre cette situation de façon paisible, et nous allons continuer de chercher diffĂ©rentes façons. La volontĂ© est lĂ , de notre cĂŽtĂ©, pour rĂ©soudre de façon paisible et rapide cette situation.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations is ready to meet with the Wet'suwet'en leaders any time. The challenge is that the Wet'suwet'en leaders are not ready to meet with us. We will keep working to arrange that meeting. We are doing everything we can to resolve this situation peacefully, and we are going to keep exploring different approaches. On our side, there is a willingness to resolve this peacefully and rapidly.
The member notes that the Minister of Public Safety and of Emergency Preparedness admitted in the House the previous day that the government has authority to give instructions to the RCMP, and asks when the Prime Minister will tell his minister to direct the RCMP to end the illegal blockades.
The question references a specific concession made by the Minister of Public Safety and of Emergency Preparedness in the House the previous day regarding the government's authority under the RCMP Act, but the ask dissolves into a broad leadership criticism rather than a sharp follow-up.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pour la gouverne du premier ministre et de tous les députés à la Chambre, le gouvernement a le pouvoir de donner des instructions à la GRC. AprÚs l'avoir nié, le ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile l'a finalement admis, à la Chambre, hier. Les blocus illégaux doivent cesser. Or pour cela, il faut du leadership, ce qui manque cruellement au premier ministre. Qu'attend-il pour dire à son ministre de la Sécurité publique de mettre fin à cette crise nationale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the Prime Minister and all members of the House, the government has the power to give instructions to the RCMP. After initially denying it, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness finally admitted it in the House yesterday. The illegal blockades must end, but that will take leadership, a quality that the Prime Minister is sorely lacking. When will he tell his public safety minister to put an end to this national crisis?
The Prime Minister states that the Belleville blockade is under OPP responsibility and that in a democracy, a government does not have the right to order police to take specific operational action.
The Prime Minister engages the topic by noting the Belleville blockade falls under OPP jurisdiction and invokes the principle of police independence, which is partially responsive but does not directly address the minister's admission about authority under the RCMP Act.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, encore une fois, il serait peut-ĂȘtre bon de rappeler les faits. Le blocage Ă Belleville est sous la responsabilitĂ© de la Police provinciale de l'Ontario. Ăvidemment, nous coordonnons, entre la police fĂ©dĂ©rale et la police provinciale, le travail qu'ils vont faire. Cependant, un gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral, ou tout autre gouvernement, n'a pas le droit d'ordonner Ă la police de prendre une mesure ou une autre, dans une dĂ©mocratie comme la nĂŽtre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, again, it might be a good idea to get the facts straight. The blockade near Belleville is the responsibility of the Ontario Provincial Police. Naturally, we are coordinating between the federal police and the provincial police on the work they will do. However, neither the federal government nor any other government has the right to order the police around in a democracy like ours.
The member asks whether the Prime Minister will instruct his public safety minister to direct the RCMP to enforce the law and safely end the illegal blockades, citing the minister's concession the previous day that he has authority to provide direction to the RCMP under the RCMP Act.
The question references the minister's specific concession the previous day about authority under the RCMP Act and makes a clear ask, though it is largely a repeat of Exchange 18 and carries partisan framing about leadership.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Public Safety conceded that under the RCMP Act, he does in fact have the authority to provide direction to the RCMP. Will the Prime Minister finally show some real leadership and instruct his public safety minister to direct the RCMP to enforce the law and safely end these illegal blockades?
The Prime Minister states that politicians do not order the police around in operational matters as a well-established democratic principle, and that the government is working with all partners to resolve the situation peacefully and rapidly.
The Prime Minister invokes the principle that politicians do not order police in operational matters, which is relevant but does not reconcile with the minister's admitted authority under the RCMP Act, leaving the core tension unaddressed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, politicians do not order the police around in operational matters. That is a well-established principle in our democracy. We are working with all partners across the country to resolve this situation peacefully and rapidly. That is what Canadians expect, because Canadians are hurting. From disruptions to shortages to layoffs, this situation is unacceptable, and that is why we are doing everything we can to resolve it as quickly as possible.
The member notes that the finance minister at the finance committee that day could not say how much the illegal blockades are costing the Canadian economy every day, and asks whether the Prime Minister knows the figure.
The question cites a specific exchange at the finance committee that same day where the finance minister could not answer the cost question, and asks a single concrete factual question â the daily economic cost of the illegal blockades â making it highly accountable and specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, ironically, now says that he does not order police officers around. That will be news to Mark Norman. Today at the finance committee, I asked the finance minister, who is supposed to be in charge of the money, how much these illegal blockades are costing the Canadian economy every day. He did not know. Does the Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister acknowledges that the situation is causing hardship through shortages, commuter disruptions, and layoffs, and says the approach is to resolve the situation peacefully, without providing any cost figure.
The Prime Minister does not provide any figure or acknowledge ignorance of the cost, instead pivoting to general acknowledgement of hardship and the need for a peaceful resolution, entirely avoiding the specific economic question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that this is a time of hardship for Canadians with shortages, with disruptions in their daily lives as commuters and with layoffs as well. This is a situation that needs to end. It needs to end peacefully, but it needs to end quickly, and the approach that we are taking is to look to resolve this situation in a peaceful manner so that we do not continue to see disruptions like this in the coming months and years.
The member notes that 1,500 rail workers have lost their jobs and asks how many Canadians in total have lost their jobs so far as a result of the illegal blockages.
The member cites the specific figure of 1,500 rail workers who lost their jobs and asks a single concrete question â the total number of Canadians who have lost their jobs as a result of the illegal blockages â making the accountability ask clear and factual.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, then the Prime Minister, like his finance minister, does not know how much this illegal blockade is costing our Canadian economy in terms of dollars. We know today that 1,500 rail workers have lost their jobs. They went home and looked their families in the eye and said, âI lost my job.â Can the Prime Minister tell us how many Canadians across the country in total have lost their jobs so far as a result of these illegal blockages?
Oh, oh!
The Prime Minister says far too many Canadians are facing disruptions, shortages, and layoffs, and reiterates the government's resolve to solve the situation peacefully and quickly, without providing any specific number.
The Prime Minister does not provide any job-loss figure, instead expressing sympathy for Canadians facing disruptions and reiterating the commitment to a peaceful and quick resolution, which is a non-answer to the specific numerical question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, far too many Canadians are facing disruptions, facing shortages, and yes, facing layoffs as well. This is theâ
Mr. Speaker, the very real challenges and suffering faced by Canadians in this situation are why we are so resolved to solve this situation peacefully and quickly. This is something that we need to resolve for stability and the opportunities for Canadians across this country. That is what we will absolutely do.
The member asks whether the Prime Minister will travel to Wet'suwet'en territory and personally sit down with the hereditary chiefs, noting that the Wet'suwet'en people have waited decades for the federal government to meet with them in good faith on title and rights.
The question references the Prime Minister's own stated commitment on the importance of the relationship with indigenous peoples and makes a specific personal ask â that the Prime Minister travel to Wet'suwet'en territory and personally sit down with the hereditary chiefs â though it is wrapped in some rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our country and the government are facing a crisis. The Prime Minister tells us that no relationship is more important to him than that with indigenous peoples, but the protests we are seeing tell us that indigenous people have had enough of the government's empty promises. The Wet'suwet'en people have been patient. They waited decades for the federal government to meet with them in good faith on the question of their title and rights. Will the Prime Minister travel to Wet'suwet'en territory and personally sit down with the hereditary chiefs?
The Prime Minister says the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs have been engaged closely with the province on title and rights and with the federal government on child and family services, and commits to continuing engagement with all indigenous leaders on the path to reconciliation.
The Prime Minister describes existing engagement processes on title and rights and child and family services but does not answer the specific ask of whether he will personally travel to Wet'suwet'en territory to meet with the hereditary chiefs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs have been engaged closely with the province on issues of title and rights. That table is proceeding in a very positive way. They have also engaged directly with the federal government on issues of child and family services in very fruitful discussions over the past few years. We will continue to engage with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs, and indeed with all indigenous leaders across this country on the path to reconciliation, but also to look to resolve this current difficult situation for Canadians.
The member asks when the Liberals will disclose the full cost of the Trans Mountain expansion and admit they were wrong to buy it, noting that the finance minister refused to say how much is too much as costs skyrocket.
The question references the finance minister's refusal to set a cost ceiling and the rising costs of Trans Mountain expansion, and makes two asks â disclosure of the full cost and an admission that purchasing the pipeline was wrong â but combines substance with rhetorical characterizations like "pipe dream" and "nightmare."
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's pipe dream is a nightmare for both the environment and the economy. With the Trans Mountain expansion, the Liberals gave the largest gift to an oil company in Canadian history, and the costs just keep going up. Now the finance minister will not even say how much is too much. We know that as the costs for TMX skyrocket, opposition to it grows too, so when will the Liberals come clean about the full cost of this pipeline and when will they admit that they were wrong to buy it in the first place?
The Prime Minister defends the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion as being in the national interest, beneficial for getting resources to markets other than the United States, and says profits will be invested in the clean-energy transition.
The Prime Minister defends the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion as being in the national interest and beneficial to the clean-energy transition but does not provide any cost figures or address the question of whether it was wrong to purchase the pipeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is in the national interest. Getting our resources to markets other than the United States is a positive thing for our economy, a positive thing for workers across the country and indeed a positive thing for consumers and taxpayers across the country as well. It is also going to be helpful in our transition and in our fight against climate change, as all the profits from the extremely profitable pipeline that will be built will be poured into the clean-energy transition and invested in green solutions. That is how to manage the path forward responsibly for Canadians.
The Liberal member for Charlottetown asks the Prime Minister to describe recent projects funded through the veteran and family well-being fund.
This is a government-backbench softball question asking the Prime Minister to describe recent projects funded through the veteran and family well-being fund, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the veteran and family well-being fund is a crucial tool that our government has introduced that helps veterans, their families and veteran organizations across Canada. This program provides grants and contributions to organizations to conduct research and implement projects that support the well-being of veterans and their families, and it will have a lasting impact on the veteran community. Can the Prime Minister tell us about recent projects our government has funded through this important program?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Charlottetown for his question and for his hard work on behalf of Canadian veterans. We announced the investment of $400,000 for Operation Entrepreneur, which will help veterans get the skills and supports they need to get started in business as they transition to civilian life. We have also announced an investment of $400,000 to Good Shepherd Ministries to support homeless veterans and those at risk of becoming homeless. We are working to ensure that Canadian veterans and their families are receiving the skills and support they so deeply need and deserve.
The Prime Minister announces investments of $400,000 for Operation Entrepreneur to help veterans transition to civilian business life and $400,000 to Good Shepherd Ministries to support homeless veterans and those at risk of homelessness.
The Prime Minister provides specific dollar amounts and named recipients â $400,000 for Operation Entrepreneur and $400,000 for Good Shepherd Ministries â which constitutes genuinely informative content.
The member notes that Wet'suwet'en elected chief and councillors support Coastal GasLink and asks how allowing activists to block the independent decision-making power of indigenous Canadians supports reconciliation.
The question references the support of Wet'suwet'en elected chief and councillors for Coastal GasLink and frames a question about reconciliation, but the ask â how allowing activists to block indigenous decision-making supports reconciliation â is more rhetorical than answerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives stand with the Wet'suwet'en people. When it comes to Coastal GasLink, the Wet'suwet'en elected chief and councillors support this project. We recognize that self-determination and economic independence are important stepsâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that self-determination and economic independence are important steps on the path to reconciliation. Can the Prime Minister explain how allowing activists to block the independent decision-making power of indigenous Canadians supports reconciliation?
The Prime Minister says reconciliation means respecting indigenous communities' own leadership and their internal disagreements, and accuses the opposition of wanting to pick and choose who speaks for indigenous communities.
The Prime Minister responds with a principled statement about not choosing who speaks for indigenous communities, which is relevant to the framing but does not address the specific tension raised about the elected chiefs' support for the project.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, reconciliation does not mean deciding who speaks for indigenous communities. It is respecting their own leadership and respecting their disagreements within their communities as we work with them constructively. The members opposite want to pick and choose who speaks for indigenous communities. That is the broken way of governments past. We need to start from a place of respect and self-government, and that is what, on this side of the House, we understand. Unfortunately, it is the last thing that the people on the other side of the aisle understand.
The member asks when the Prime Minister will support true reconciliation and allow indigenous Canadians to prosper by participating in the LNG project, noting that Coastal GasLink will create hundreds of jobs and inject millions in investment into local economies.
The question references economic benefits of Coastal GasLink â jobs and investment â but the asks are vague and compound, including when the Prime Minister will "support true reconciliation" and allow indigenous Canadians to "prosper" by participating in the LNG project, making it more rhetorical than specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister think he actually knows more about what is best for indigenous Canadians than they do themselves? The Coastal GasLink project will create hundreds of jobs, inject millions of investment into the local economy and provide a path to prosperity for the communities affected. We are talking about providing the hope of a better future. Instead of platitudes and empty promises, when will the Prime Minister support true reconciliation and allow indigenous Canadians to prosper by participating in the LNG project?
The Prime Minister references announcing the LNG Canada investment alongside Premier Horgan as the largest private sector investment in Canadian history and says the government understands the benefits to indigenous communities, while criticizing the Conservatives for trying to pick who speaks for indigenous Canadians.
The Prime Minister references standing beside Premier Horgan to announce the LNG Canada investment as the largest private sector investment in Canadian history, which is partially responsive, but largely pivots to accusing Conservatives of trying to pick indigenous spokespeople.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to be able to stand beside Premier Horgan a number of years ago and announce the largest private sector investment in Canada's history for LNG Canada. We understand the benefits that go to indigenous communities, and that is why we continue to move forward on that path. At the same time, it would be a grave error for the Conservatives to continue to think that they can pick and choose who speaks for indigenous Canadians. We will continue to engage with a broad range of indigenous leadership and respect their choice in terms of leadership.
The member cites constituent Jean-François Bergeron of Capital Propane, who reported conditions worse than November with service cut to 60% of clients and 30 new propane buses parked, and asks the Prime Minister to tell Mr. Bergeron when the barricades will be lifted.
The member cites a specific constituent â Jean-François Bergeron, general manager of Capital Propane â with concrete details (service cut to 60% of clients, 30 new propane buses parked) and frames a direct question about when the barricades will be lifted, grounding the question in real-world impact.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, quel humour de voir le premier ministre parler de leadership parce qu'il a tout fait sauf faire preuve de leadership depuis deux semaines. Partout au Canada, des Canadiens souffrent et des entrepreneurs sont dans le trouble. On a communiquĂ© ce matin avec Jean-François Bergeron, un citoyen de ma circonscription. Il est le directeur gĂ©nĂ©ral de Capital Propane. La situation est pire qu'en novembre. Il a dĂ» couper son service Ă 60 % de sa clientĂšle. Trente nouveaux autobus au propane sont stationnĂ©s. Si le premier ministre refuse de rĂ©pondre Ă l'opposition officielle, est-ce qu'il pourrait dire Ă M. Bergeron quand les barricades vont ĂȘtre levĂ©es?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is funny to hear the Prime Minister talking about leadership because he has done everything but show leadership over the past two weeks. All across the country, Canadians are suffering and business owners are in trouble. We spoke this morning with one of my constituents, Jean-François Bergeron, who is the CEO of Capital Propane. The situation is worse than in November. He had to cut services to his clients by 60%. Thirty new propane buses are sitting idle. If the Prime Minister refuses to answer the official opposition, can he tell Mr. Bergeron when the blockades will come down?
The Prime Minister expresses understanding of concerns about shortages and layoffs, says going in by force as proposed by the opposition is not a solution, and reiterates that the government will work peacefully and quickly to resolve the situation.
The Prime Minister expresses understanding of concerns about shortages and layoffs and says going in by force is not a solution, but does not provide any answer about when the barricades will be lifted, which is what was specifically asked.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je comprends tout à fait les préoccupations qu'ont bien des Canadiens en ce qui concerne les pénuries et les mises à pied. Nous savons que c'est une situation qui doit se terminer, mais nous devons résoudre cette situation de façon pacifique. D'y aller de force comme le propose l'opposition n'est pas une solution pour résoudre les défis auxquels font face M. Bergeron ou d'autres. Nous allons toujours travailler de façon paisible pour résoudre autant que possible cette situation et rapidement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I completely understand the concerns many Canadians have about shortages and layoffs. We know that we need to put an end to this situation, but we need to resolve it peacefully. The overly aggressive approach the opposition is proposing will not resolve the challenges being faced by Mr. Bergeron and others. We will always work peacefully to resolve this situation as best we can and as quickly as possible.
The member asks the Prime Minister to simply state that the barricades are an illegal act.
The question strips away rhetoric and makes a single simple ask â whether the Prime Minister will state that the barricades are illegal â which is a clear and answerable yes/no accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre dit: « paisible et rapidement ». Cela fait deux semaines qu'il ne se passe strictement rien et le premier ministre a le culot de parler de « rapidement ». Malheureusement, je vais dire Ă M. Bergeron qu'on n'a pas eu de rĂ©ponse Ă sa question. Par contre, je vais poser une question toute simple au premier ministre. Puisqu'il est quand mĂȘme le chef du gouvernement d'un Ătat de droit, peut-il dire une chose toute simple, c'est-Ă -dire que les barricades sont un geste illĂ©gal?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says âpeacefully and rapidlyâ. The Prime Minister has done absolutely nothing about this for two weeks, yet he has the nerve to use the word ârapidlyâ. Unfortunately, I will have to tell Mr. Bergeron that we have not received an answer to his question. I do have another very simple question for the Prime Minister though. As the leader of the government of a nation governed by the rule of law, can he tell me one simple thing: Are the blockades illegal?
The Prime Minister states clearly that blocking rail lines is illegal ("C'est illégal de barrer des chemins de fer") but says the solution is not as simple as going in by force, and that the situation must be resolved peacefully for lasting effect.
The Prime Minister directly and clearly states that it is illegal to block rail lines ("C'est illégal de barrer des chemins de fer"), which is a direct and complete answer to the specific question asked.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il est Ă©vident que la situation Ă laquelle nous faisons face est inacceptable. C'est illĂ©gal de barrer des chemins de fer, mais la façon de rĂ©soudre cette situation n'est pas aussi simple que le voudrait l'opposition. On ne peut pas simplement y aller de force pour Ă©liminer cette situation. Nous nous devons de rĂ©soudre cette situation de façon paisible pour que ce soit quelque chose qui soit rĂ©solu pour les mois et mĂȘme les annĂ©es Ă venir. C'est lĂ -dessus que nous mettons l'accent. C'est ce que nous choisissons de faire et ce sont les mesures que nous prenons tous les jours.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, clearly the situation before us is unacceptable. It is illegal to block rail lines, but resolving this situation is not as simple as the opposition would have it. We cannot use force to make the situation go away. We have to resolve this situation peacefully so that it does not resurface in the months and years to come. That is our focus. That is what we are choosing to do, and those are the measures we are taking every day.
The member asks whether the Prime Minister actually said that the Wet'suwet'en refused to meet with him personally, and if not, when the meeting will happen.
The member presses the Prime Minister on a specific and verifiable factual claim â whether the Wet'suwet'en leaders actually refused a meeting with the Prime Minister â and asks for a meeting date if not, making it a sharp and accountable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis perplexe. JâespĂšre que le premier ministre pourra mâaider. Si jâai bien compris sa rĂ©ponse Ă ma collĂšgue un peu plus tĂŽt, le premier ministre du Canada, qui fait le tour du monde pour un siĂšge au Conseil de sĂ©curitĂ© de lâONU, qui est lâami entre tous des Autochtones, aurait appelĂ© les leaders wet'suwet'en qui lui auraient dit qu'ils ne voulaient pas le voir. Je ne peux pas croire cela. Est-ce que le premier ministre a bel et bien dit que les Wet'suwet'en avaient refusĂ© dâavoir une rencontre avec lui, le premier ministre du Canada? Si ce nâest pas le cas, la rencontre, câest quand?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am confused. I hope the Prime Minister can help me. If I understood his response to my colleague correctly just now, the Prime Minister of Canada, who travels the world to get a seat on the UN Security Council, who is the indigenous peoples' best friend ever, apparently called the Wet'suwet'en leaders, and they told him they did not want to see him. I find that unbelievable. Did the Prime Minister really say that the Wet'suwet'en refused to have a meeting with him, the Prime Minister of Canada? If not, when is the meeting?
The Prime Minister says the government is working to arrange meetings between the Wet'suwet'en and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, and that unfortunately the Wet'suwet'en are not currently available for that meeting.
The Prime Minister clarifies that work is ongoing to arrange meetings with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations rather than directly with the Prime Minister himself, and says the Wet'suwet'en are not currently available, which partially addresses the question but leaves the specific claim of a direct refusal unresolved.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous avons travaillĂ© pour quâil y ait des rencontres entre les Wet'suwet'en et la ministre des Relations Couronne-Autochtones. Malheureusement, ils ne sont pas disponibles pour cette rencontre Ă lâinstant. Câest pour cela que nous travaillons pour avoir cette rencontre. Nous allons continuer de travailler pour rĂ©soudre cette situation de façon paisible rapidement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have worked to arrange meetings between the Wet'suwet'en and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Unfortunately, they are not available for a meeting at this time. That is why we are working on arranging this meeting. We will continue to work to resolve this situation peacefully and rapidly.
The member challenges the Prime Minister's leadership by noting that he denounces the economic problems and admits the blockades are illegal yet says the Wet'suwet'en do not want to meet with him, and asks whether there is a leadership problem.
The question is primarily a rhetorical challenge about leadership, pointing out the contradiction in the Prime Minister's position, with the only identifiable ask being whether there is a leadership problem â which is not truly answerable in factual terms.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis presque sans mot, mais on nâen est pas lĂ . Le premier ministre rĂ©pond aux questions comme sâil Ă©tait dans lâopposition. Il dĂ©nonce les problĂšmes Ă©conomiques, il dĂ©nonce les coupes, il dĂ©nonce les pertes dâapprovisionnement. Il admet que câest illĂ©gal. AprĂšs cela, on lui dit quâil est premier ministre et que nous ne le sommes pas. On lui demande de leur parler et il rĂ©pond que cela ne leur tente pas de lui parler. A-t-on un problĂšme de leadership?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am almost speechless, but not quite. The Prime Minister answers questions as if he were still in opposition. He criticizes economic problems, cuts and supply shortages. He admits this is illegal. We respond by telling him that he is the Prime Minister, not us. We ask him to talk to them, but he says they are not interested. Is there a leadership problem?
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
The Prime Minister says the government is taking concrete steps to resolve the situation including meetings between ministers and Wet'suwet'en representatives, acknowledges it is going too slowly for many Canadians, and reiterates the commitment to a peaceful resolution.
The Prime Minister says the government is taking concrete steps to resolve the situation including meetings between ministers and Wet'suwet'en representatives, but does not address the leadership contradiction raised and provides no new specific information.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous allons résoudre cette situation de façon raisonnable, mais...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are going to resolve this situation in a reasonable way, butâ
Monsieur le Président, nous sommes en train de faire des gestes concrets pour résoudre cette situation et cela inclut des rencontres entre les ministres et les représentants des Wet'suwet'en. Nous reconnaissons à quel point cela va trop lentement pour bien des Canadiens qui font face à des pénuries et à des mises à pied. Nous allons continuer de tout faire pour résoudre cette situation de façon paisible.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are taking concrete steps to resolve this situation, and that includes meetings between the ministers and the representatives of the Wet'suwet'en. We know that the process is moving too slowly for many Canadians who are facing shortages and layoffs. We are going to keep doing everything we can to resolve this peacefully.
How many more Canadian jobs must be lost â citing 500 CN Rail and 1,000 VIA Rail layoffs â before the Prime Minister takes firm action on the illegal blockades?
Cites specific figures (500 CN Rail layoffs, 1,000 VIA Rail layoffs) and a direct CEO quote, but the ask â "takes firm action" â is vague and rhetorical rather than specifying what action is demanded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, because of the illegal blockades, CN Rail has had to lay off 500 workers. VIA has just announced 1,000 layoffs. In making that announcement, the VIA Rail CEO said, âIn 42 years of existence, it is the first time that VIA...has to interrupt most of its servicesâ. It is all because of the Prime Minister's lack of action and weak leadership. How many more Canadian jobs have to be lost before he does his job and actually takes firm action?
The Prime Minister argues that forceful solutions proposed by the opposition would not improve economic stability and that the only path forward is to exhaust every peaceful possibility.
The Prime Minister does not address the job-loss figures cited or specify any concrete steps taken; he deflects with a general argument against "forceful solutions" without engaging the question's substance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the forceful solutions proposed by the members opposite will not result in better economic stability or better opportunities for Canadians. We know that the only path forward is to exhaust every possibility to resolve this situation peacefully, and that is exactly what we will stay focused on doing. Elevating the temperature and going in forcefully is not going to solve this before we have resolved every step peacefully first.
Given layoffs at CN Rail and VIA Rail and the risk of Atlantic Canada running out of propane, de-icing fluids, and water-treatment chemicals, when will the government finally stand up for Atlantic Canada?
Cites specific layoff figures (450 CN Rail, 1,000 VIA Rail), names concrete supply-chain risks (propane, de-icing fluids, water-treatment chemicals) affecting Atlantic Canada, and asks a clear regional accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, job losses from these illegal blockades are growing by the hour. Last night, CN Rail announced 450 workers will be laid off. Today, VIA Rail announced another 1,000. When Canadian workers and families have their livelihoods and safety put at risk, the Prime Minister offers nothing but platitudes. If these illegal rail blockades continue, Atlantic Canada will run out of propane, airports will run out of the de-icing fluids that keep us moving in the winter and water treatment facilities will soon lack chemical supplies that keep our drinking water safe. When will the government finally stand up for Atlantic Canada?
The Prime Minister warns that not exhausting peaceful options could cause massive, months-long economic disruption and says the government is engaging directly with different indigenous leaders.
The Prime Minister does not address any of the specific supply-chain risks named (propane, de-icing fluids, water treatment chemicals) and offers only a general commitment to peaceful resolution, with no substantive engagement with the question's substance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if we do not exhaust every possibility of resolving this situation peacefully, the disruptions to the Canadian economy and to hard-working Canadians and their jobs from coast to coast to coast could be massive and could last over the coming months. That is why we are focused on resolving this situation peacefully and rapidly. We will continue to do everything we can to do that, including engaging directly with different indigenous leaders.
With Acadian Seaplants (400+ employees), Autoport, and Royal Propane all issuing layoffs or running out of propane in Nova Scotia, how many more jobs must be lost before the Prime Minister acts?
Names three specific businesses (Acadian Seaplants, Autoport, Royal Propane) with approximate employment figures and a concrete cause (running out of propane), grounding the question in local facts, though the ask remains the same vague "when will the PM act."
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's weak leadership is hurting Nova Scotia. Acadian Seaplants, which employs over 400 people in my riding, has run out of propane and cannot ship its products to market. Autoport in Eastern Passage, which handles thousands of cars for the North American market and employs dozens of people, issued layoff notices. Even Royal Propane in Digby, a small business in West Nova that employs about 40 people supplying products, had to issue layoffs. How many more jobs must be lost before the Prime Minister acts?
The Prime Minister repeats that peaceful resolution is the required focus and that the opposition's forceful responses would make things worse for workers and the region.
The Prime Minister does not mention any of the three named businesses or the propane shortage and simply repeats the need for peaceful resolution, making no connection to the specific cases raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, resolving this situation peacefully is the way we need to stay focused to get through this situation. The forceful responses that the opposition is proposing would not make things better for those workers or for their region. It would make things worse for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That is why we are exhausting every possibility to resolve this peacefully.
Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the measures taken by the government to increase trade between Ethiopia and Canada?
A government-backbench softball asking the Prime Minister to report on measures taken to increase Canada-Ethiopia trade, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le Canada est un endroit de choix pour des pays africains qui sont attirĂ©s par son bilinguisme, ses possibilitĂ©s Ă©conomiques et ses nombreux lieux d'enseignement supĂ©rieur de haute qualitĂ©. La semaine derniĂšre, le premier ministre et plusieurs de ses ministres Ă©taient en Afrique afin de dĂ©velopper de nouvelles possibilitĂ©s commerciales. Le premier ministre peut-il informer la Chambre des mesures prises par le gouvernement pour accroĂźtre les Ă©changes commerciaux entre l'Ăthiopie et le Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada is an attractive place for African countries that are drawn by its bilingualism, its economic opportunities and its many top-notch institutions of higher learning. Last week the Prime Minister and many of his ministers were in Africa to develop new business opportunities. Could the Prime Minister please update the House on the actions our government is taking to expand trade between Ethiopia and Canada?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie la dĂ©putĂ©e de LongueuilâCharles-LeMoyne de sa question et de son travail acharnĂ©. L'expansion et la diversification du commerce entre le Canada et les Ă©conomies africaines Ă croissance rapide sont une prioritĂ© pour notre gouvernement. Les Ă©changes commerciaux entre l'Ăthiopie et le Canada ont totalisĂ© 170 millions de dollars en 2018. Nous avons annoncĂ© que nous entamerons des nĂ©gociations pour un accord sur la promotion et la protection des investissements Ă©trangers avec l'Ăthiopie, ce qui aidera Ă accroĂźtre davantage le commerce et les investissements pour les entreprises de nos deux pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for LongueuilâCharles-LeMoyne for her question and her hard work. Expanding and diversifying trade between Canada and fast-growing African economies is a priority for our government. Trade between Canada and Ethiopia totalled $170 million in 2018. We announced that we will be entering into negotiations towards a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with Ethiopia, which will help further increase trade and investments for businesses in both countries.
Canada-Ethiopia trade totalled $170 million in 2018, and the government has announced it will begin negotiations for a Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with Ethiopia.
The Prime Minister provides a specific trade figure ($170 million in 2018) and announces the launch of negotiations for a Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with Ethiopia, giving concrete and relevant information.
With B.C.'s forestry industry already in crisis (two dozen mill closures, 10,000 workers impacted) and 50% of product moving by rail, when will the Prime Minister end the blockades?
Cites specific regional context (two dozen B.C. mill closures, 10,000 impacted workers, 50% of product shipped by rail) and links the blockades to an existing forestry crisis, though the final ask is the recurring vague "end the blockades."
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just said he was going to resolve this in the coming months. The forestry industry in B.C. is in crisis. Two dozen mills have closed down and 10,000 workers' jobs have been impacted. Now we have blockades. Fifty per cent of the product goes to mills by rail. The Prime Minister's weak leadership is going to lead to more layoffs and more hardship in my communities. When will the Prime Minister end the blockades?
The Prime Minister says the government is working every day to resolve the situation peacefully and rapidly, warning that Conservative forceful proposals would extend economic challenges by many months or years.
The Prime Minister does not engage with the B.C. forestry crisis or the rail-dependency statistic and pivots to a general warning about Conservative proposals extending economic challenges, without addressing the specific situation raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are working every day to resolve this situation peacefully and rapidly. The concern is, if we were to take the forceful proposals by the Conservatives, we would actually extend the challenges faced by the Canadian economy by many months and possibly years. We need to exhaust every effort to resolve this peacefully. That is the best way to support workers across this country, businesses and indeed Canadians who are worried about those layoffs.
Since the Prime Minister just said it is illegal to block railway lines, when will he ask his minister to enforce the law?
Pointedly references the Prime Minister's own admission moments earlier that blocking rail lines is illegal and asks a sharp, single question about when he will ask his minister to enforce the law, though it lacks documentary citation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il y a quelques minutes, le premier ministre a répondu à mon collÚgue qu'il était illégal de bloquer des voies ferrées. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut nous dire quand il demandera à son ministre de faire appliquer la loi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, the Prime Minister told my colleague that it is illegal to block railways. Can the Prime Minister tell us when he will direct his minister to enforce the law?
The Prime Minister says the government is doing everything to resolve the situation peacefully and recognizes it is extremely difficult for many Canadians who risk being laid off.
The Prime Minister does not answer when he will ask his minister to enforce the law and instead repeats the commitment to peaceful resolution without engaging the contradiction the questioner identified.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous sommes en train de tout faire pour rĂ©soudre cette situation de façon paisible. Nous reconnaissons qu'il s'agit d'une situation extrĂȘmement difficile pour plusieurs Canadiens au pays qui risquent d'ĂȘtre mis Ă pied. Nous allons tout faire pour rĂ©soudre rapidement cette situation inacceptable.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are doing everything we can to resolve this situation peacefully. We recognize that this is an extremely difficult situation for many Canadians facing layoffs. We will do everything we can to resolve this unacceptable situation rapidly.
How long will the Prime Minister let the crisis continue â a week, a month, a year, forever â given that enforcing the rule of law is his duty and an inherent act of peace?
Primarily rhetorical and partisan in framing ("weak embarrassment"), though it poses a direct time-frame question (a week, a month, a year, forever?) about how long the crisis will continue, which has some accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister talked about force, but the force that is required today is a strength of conviction from him to be a leader and put an end to this crisis, not the weak embarrassment that we have seen on display for the last two weeks. He must understand that enforcing the rule of law is his duty and that it is an inherent act of peace. How long is he going to let this continue for? A week? A month? A year? Forever?
Oh, oh!
The Prime Minister states that the job of a prime minister is to stand up for Canadians today, tomorrow, next month, and next year, and that searching for a peaceful resolution is the right path forward.
The Prime Minister does not address any of the time-frame options posed and delivers a generic statement about the PM's duty to stand up for Canadians, repeatedly interrupted, without engaging the substance of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the job of the prime minister is to stand up for Canadians and protect them and their livelihoods today and well into the future. It is that that drives this governmentâ
Mr. Speaker, the job of a prime minister is to stand up for Canadians today, tomorrow, next month and next year. That is what we are focused on, and that is why searching for a peaceful resolution to this situation is the right path forward.
Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the measures taken by the government to ensure continued international action in support of the Venezuelan people and interim president Juan Guaido?
A government-backbench softball asking the Prime Minister to report on measures taken regarding Venezuela and interim president Juan Guaido, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Canada est profondément préoccupé par les souffrances du peuple vénézuélien et reste fermement engagé dans la promotion et la protection de la démocratie et des droits de la personne. En réponse aux attaques du régime de Nicolas Maduro contre les droits des Vénézuéliens, le Canada a imposé plusieurs séries de sanctions ciblées. Nous avons condamné les violations systématiques des droits de la personne commises par le régime illégitime de Nicolas Maduro. Le premier ministre peut-il informer la Chambre des mesures prises par le gouvernement pour garantir la poursuite de l'action internationale en faveur du peuple vénézuélien et du président par intérim Juan Guaido?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada is deeply concerned about the suffering of the Venezuelan people and remains firmly committed to promoting and protecting democracy and human rights. In response to the attacks by the NicolĂĄs Maduro regime against the rights of Venezuelans, Canada imposed several series of targeted sanctions. We have condemned the systematic violations of human rights committed by the illegitimate Maduro regime. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the measures the government has taken to ensure international action in favour of the Venezuelan people and interim President Juan GuaidĂł?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie la dĂ©putĂ©e de ChateauguayâLacolle de sa question et de son travail acharnĂ©. Le mois dernier, j'ai rencontrĂ© le prĂ©sident par intĂ©rim Juan Guaido, ici, Ă Ottawa. Nous avons fĂ©licitĂ© le peuple vĂ©nĂ©zuĂ©lien pour la tĂ©nacitĂ© dont il a fait preuve en continuant Ă promouvoir la dĂ©mocratie et les droits de la personne. Nous sommes fiers d'accueillir, demain, la rĂ©union des ministres des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres du Groupe de Lima. Nous allons continuer Ă faire pression pour la tenue d'Ă©lections Ă©quitables au Venezuela. Nous encourageons la communautĂ© internationale Ă travailler ensemble pour surmonter la crise humanitaire et dĂ©mocratique infligĂ©e par le prĂ©sident illĂ©gitime Nicolas Maduro.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for ChateauguayâLacolle for her question and her hard work. Last month, I met with interim President Juan GuaidĂł here in Ottawa. We congratulated the Venezuelan people for their continued tenacity in promoting democracy and human rights. Tomorrow, we are proud to host the meeting of ministers of foreign affairs of the Lima Group. We will continue to push for fair elections in Venezuela. We encourage the international community to work together to address the humanitarian and democratic crisis inflicted by the illegitimate president, NicolĂĄs Maduro.
The Prime Minister met with interim president Juan Guaido in Ottawa last month, and Canada will host the Lima Group foreign ministers meeting the next day, continuing to press for fair elections in Venezuela.
The Prime Minister provides specific recent actions: a meeting with interim president Juan Guaido in Ottawa last month, and the hosting of a Lima Group foreign ministers meeting the next day, plus a commitment to pressing for fair elections.
With 19,000 Albertans losing jobs in the last month, when will the government deliver on its promises on reconciliation, the environment, and economic diversification for Alberta workers?
Cites a specific Alberta job-loss figure (19,000 in the last month) and identifies failures on reconciliation, environment, and economic diversification, but the question is diffuse, blaming both Kenney and the federal government without a single clear ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals are failing to de-escalate the growing crisis across this country, they are creating another one for working people in my province. In Alberta alone, 19,000 people have lost their jobs in the last month. Jason Kenney's policies and cuts are hurting Albertans, but so is the current government in its refusal to deliver on its promises.
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, Jason Kenney's policies and cuts are hurting Albertans, but so is the government's refusal to deliver on its promises. The Liberals are failing on reconciliation. They are failing on the environment. They are failing on diversifying the economy and supporting Alberta workers.
The Prime Minister points to building the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion to provide access to new markets and greater infrastructure investment over the past five years compared to the previous Conservative government.
The Prime Minister addresses Alberta workers and cites Trans Mountain and infrastructure investment as responses, but does not engage the 19,000 job-loss figure or the specific failures on reconciliation, environment, and diversification named in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, workers in Alberta have faced a very difficult few years. We are conscious of that. That is why we have worked to build the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which will allow access to new markets, something that Alberta has long asked for but was unable to be delivered by the previous government. On top of that, we have invested in significantly more infrastructure projects over the past five years than the Conservatives did over 10 years. We will continue to invest in ways that benefit Alberta and indeed the entire country because when one part of the country is facing difficulties, Canadians stand with it. That is what we are doing with Alberta.