Session overview
- National Defence dominated Question Period, with CPC members repeatedly demanding the resignation or dismissal of Minister Harjit Sajjan over his handling of sexual misconduct allegations in the Canadian Armed Forces, including the golfing incident involving General Vance and the vice chief of defence staff's resignation.
- The economy and inflation were a second major theme, with CPC members citing inflation at 3.6%, a 10-year high, and rising housing costs, while Deputy Prime Minister Freeland repeatedly deflected by blaming 'Conservative partisan games' for blocking the budget and extensions of the wage subsidy, rent subsidy, and Canada Recovery Benefit.
- The Bloc Québécois challenged the government over Bill C-32 and official languages jurisdiction, arguing that the new federal bill conflicts with Quebec's Charte de la langue française and prevents Quebec from applying la loi 101 to federally regulated businesses; Minister Joly defended Bill C-32 as a historic step and asked the Bloc whether it would support the bill.
- NDP members pressed the government on two indigenous-rights fronts: Charlie Angus challenged the Prime Minister's decision to return to court to quash the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling on indigenous child welfare, and Gord Johns demanded the government not appeal the court ruling reaffirming Nuu-chah-nulth fishing rights.
- CPC members pursued the government over the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, questioning who approved Chinese People's Liberation Army scientist Feihu Yan to work at the level-4 facility, and whether there is any ongoing collaboration between the Winnipeg lab and China; Minister Hajdu repeatedly referred members to fully unredacted documents provided to NSICOP without answering the specific questions.
- Niki Ashton raised the discovery of 215 children buried at the former Kamloops residential school, criticizing the government for sending a form letter to the Pimicikamak Cree Nation, recycling a 2019 funding announcement, and failing to support an independent commission or international experts; Minister Bennett pointed to $27 million in urgent funding.
Minister Schulte provided a concrete list of specific measures already taken for low-income seniors, including a 10% GIS increase for singles, an enhanced GIS earnings exemption, restoration of OAS and GIS eligibility age to 65, and a nearly 50% CPP enhancement, giving Canadians verifiable commitments rather than partisan deflection.
Highly specific question citing public documents and peer-reviewed academic papers naming a specific individual, Feihu Yan, identified as a Chinese military scientist of the People's Liberation Army, working at a level 4 facility, with a single clear answerable ask about who approved this.
Asked directly whether the government could guarantee housing prices would stabilize and start going down by the end of summer, Freeland did not address housing at all and instead repeated that 'Conservative partisan games' were the single greatest threat to Canada's economic recovery.
Outstanding questions
- Michael Chong asked who specifically approved People's Liberation Army scientist Feihu Yan to work at the Winnipeg level-4 National Microbiology Laboratory â Minister Hajdu never named the approving authority (Exchange 32).
- Pierre Paul-Hus asked the Prime Minister to confirm there is no longer any collaboration between the Winnipeg lab and Communist China â no confirmation or denial was provided (Exchange 37).
- Candice Bergen asked whether the Prime Minister ever voiced concerns to the defence minister about how he handled sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces â Minister Sajjan did not answer this question (Exchange 10).
- Erin O'Toole asked whether the government can guarantee that housing prices will stabilize and start going down by the end of this summer â Deputy Prime Minister Freeland provided no response on housing whatsoever (Exchange 2).
- Gord Johns asked the justice minister to confirm the government would not appeal the court ruling reaffirming Nuu-chah-nulth fishing rights before the Friday deadline â Minister Jordan gave no commitment on the appeal (Exchange 23).
O'Toole cites a 10-year inflation high caused by uncontrolled Liberal spending and asks when the Liberals will stop their limitless spending.
Cites a 10-year inflation high but frames the ask as a vague compound challenge to stop spending rather than a single answerable question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le gouvernement libĂ©ral a confirmĂ© que l'inflation a atteint un sommet depuis 10 ans au Canada, Ă cause des dĂ©penses sans contrĂŽle de ce gouvernement. Tout le coĂ»t de la vie augmente: logement, Ă©ducation, transports et Ă©picerie. Les Canadiens ne peuvent plus accepter les dĂ©penses sans limites de ce gouvernement. Quand les libĂ©raux vontâils arrĂȘter de dĂ©penser sans aucun contrĂŽle?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has confirmed that inflation is at a 10âyear high in Canada because this government's spending is out of control. The cost of everything is on the rise: housing, education, transportation and groceries. Canadians can no longer accept this government's limitless spending. When will the Liberals rein in their spending?
Freeland deflects entirely, claiming the single greatest threat to Canada's economic recovery is Conservative partisan games blocking the budget.
Completely ignores inflation and spending and instead attacks Conservative partisan games blocking the budget, with no connection to the question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je vais dire ce qui est la plus grande menace pour la reprise Ă©conomique du Canada aujourd'hui: les jeux partisans des conservateurs. Les tactiques des conservateurs nous empĂȘchent d'adopter le budget. Ce comportement irresponsable menace le bienâĂȘtre de chaque Canadien et de chaque Canadienne.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I will say that the Conservatives' partisan games are the biggest threat to Canada's recovery right now. Conservative tactics are preventing us from passing the budget. This irresponsible behaviour threatens the well-being of every Canadian.
O'Toole cites inflation at a 10-year high and housing costs up nearly 40%, asking if the government can guarantee housing prices will stabilize and go down by end of summer.
Cites specific data points (10-year inflation high, housing up nearly 40%) and poses a single clear, answerable question about housing price stabilization by end of summer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, inflation is at a 10-year high. The cost of housing is up nearly 40%. This is quickly turning into an economic crisis for Canada's working poor and families trying to buy their first homes. The working poor and first-time homebuyers cannot afford more of the same economic incompetence. Can the government guarantee that housing prices will stabilize and start going down by the end of this summer?
Freeland repeats that Conservative partisan delaying tactics are blocking passage of the budget and extensions of the wage subsidy, rent subsidy and income support.
Does not address the housing price question at all, pivoting entirely to blaming Conservative partisan games for blocking budget measures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what poses the single greatest threat to Canada's economic recovery today: Conservative partisan games. Canadians need the wage subsidy, the rent subsidy and income support to be extended until the end of September. Our government wants to do that, but the Conservatives' partisan delaying tactics are stopping us from passing the budget and that irresponsible behaviour threatens the well-being of every single Canadian.
O'Toole attacks the Liberal government for telling Canadians not to buy homes and promotes the Conservative five-point plan to help first-time homebuyers, without posing a direct question.
Largely rhetorical attack on the failed Liberal approach with reference to a five-point plan, containing no direct question and no specific data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is irresponsible is that Canada is the only country in the world that had no budget for two years. When it comes to the housing crisis, the government is telling Canadians not to buy a house: They should just rent. That minister and an out-of-touch, ideological Liberal government are telling Canadians to give up on the dream of home ownership. Instead of the failed Liberal approach, Canada's Conservatives have a five-point plan to secure our future, including help for first-time homebuyers. First-time homebuyers know they are going to get help only when the Liberal government gets out of the way and the Conservatives come to get the job done.
Freeland calls the Conservatives utterly hypocritical and repeats that their partisanship is blocking the budget and extensions of the wage subsidy, rent subsidy and income supports.
Freeland again deflects entirely to Conservative partisanship blocking the budget, not engaging with any of the housing or policy substance raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is utterly hypocritical for the Conservatives to even pretend to be concerned about Canadians and the Canadian economy. The single biggest threat the Canadian economy faces today is Conservative partisanship, which is blocking our budget. Conservatives are blocking the extension of the wage subsidy, rent subsidy and income supports. Canada is ready to come roaring back. We just need Conservatives to get out of the way.
O'Toole lists specific allegations against the defence minister including falsifying his service record, cutting troop benefits and health care, eliminating peacekeeping, and covering up sexual misconduct allegations, asking when the PM will fire him.
Lists multiple specific allegations against the minister (falsified service record, Admiral Mark Norman, benefit cuts, used fighter jets, peacekeeping elimination, sexual misconduct cover-up) but the compound litany weakens the single ask of firing the minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he falsified his service record, threw Admiral Mark Norman under the bus and misled Canadians. Do we want to hear more? The Liberal caucus seems to forget he bought used fighter jets. He cut benefits to our troops fighting ISIS. He cut health care for military members. He cut defence spending. He all but eliminated Canadian peacekeeping and, of course, for three years he covered up sexual misconduct allegations in the Canadian Armed Forces. The Canadian Armed Forces need leadership. When will the Prime Minister fire his defence minister?
Sajjan accuses the Conservatives of cutting defence with their strategic review and defence reduction action plan, and claims the government has increased the defence budget by over 70%.
Sajjan deflects by citing the Conservative strategic review and defence reduction action plan cuts and claims a 70% defence budget increase, without addressing any of the specific allegations listed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we will take no lessons from the Conservatives when it comes to looking after our women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces. We know that we have a lot more work to do, and we will get it done. It was the Conservative government that cut from defence with the strategic review and the defence reduction action plan they had. We, as a party, have increased the defence budget by over 70%, and we have outlined it for 20 years. We know that we have a lot more work to do to look after our Canadian Armed Forces members, and we will get it done.
O'Toole addresses Vancouver South voters directly, urging them to replace what he calls the most corrupt and incompetent defence minister in Canada's history, with no direct question posed to the minister.
This is essentially a campaign speech directed at Vancouver South voters rather than a question, with no real ask directed at the minister that he could substantively answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister will not do the honourable thing and resign after having failed women in the Canadian Armed Forces. The Prime Minister will not fire him. The Liberals are never accountable. Therefore, I want to speak directly to the voters in Vancouver South. If they want to end cover-ups on sexual misconduct in our military, and if they want to secure accountability in Ottawa, it is going to be up to them to support the Conservatives in the next election, demand better and replace the most corrupt and incompetent defence minister in Canada's history. It is up to them.
Sajjan says he will let his actions be judged by Vancouver South and attacks the Conservatives for failing to protect a woman's right to choose and amplifying Islamophobic rhetoric.
Sajjan pivots to attacking the Conservative record on a woman's right to choose and Islamophobic rhetoric rather than addressing any accountability concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will let my actions be judged by the members of Vancouver South. I am proud of my service. Let us talk about the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition. He leads a party that fails to protect a woman's right to choose, that amplified Islamophobic rhetoric when it was in government and that voted against a motion to condemn Islamophobia. Let us talk about a record, and we will let the constituents of Vancouver South choose, and all Canadians choose, to see the Conservatives' hypocrisy.
Blanchet asks, given Quebec's imminent modification of the Charte de la langue française and the competing federal official languages bill, which takes precedence in promoting and protecting French: the federal law or the Quebec National Assembly.
Blanchet poses a clear constitutional question grounded in the specific context of Quebec's pending modifications to the Charte de la langue française and the competing federal bill, asking directly which law takes precedence.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec s'apprĂȘte Ă modifier la Charte de la langue française avec, Ă©videmment, l'intervention de l'AssemblĂ©e nationale du QuĂ©bec. Pendant ce temps, le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral dĂ©pose un autre Ă©noncĂ© d'intention sur la Loi sur les langues officielles qui, bien sĂ»r, ne sera jamais adoptĂ©. Le projet de loi fĂ©dĂ©ral se place en concurrence et crĂ©e des diffĂ©rences entre la volontĂ© fĂ©dĂ©rale et la volontĂ© du QuĂ©bec. Lorsqu'on le lui mentionne, la ministre des Langues officielles rĂ©pond qu'elle ne veut tout simplement pas en parler et ne veut que des collaborations. Cependant, elle devra en parler. La question est simple: qui a prĂ©sĂ©ance en matiĂšre de promotion et de protection du français: est-ce la loi fĂ©dĂ©rale ou l'AssemblĂ©e nationale du QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government is preparing to amend the Charter of the French Language, in tandem with the Quebec National Assembly, obviously. Meanwhile, the federal government is tabling another statement of intent on the Official Languages Act that will never pass, of course. The federal bill competes and creates a divide between what Canada wants and what Quebec wants. When this is pointed out to the Minister of Official Languages, she says that she simply does not want to talk about it and wants only to work together. However, she is going to have to talk about it. The question is simple: What takes precedence in promoting and protecting French? The federal legislation or the Quebec National Assembly?
Joly insists the government has tabled a real projet de loi, not just a statement of intent, and asks whether the Bloc wants to protect French or continue its indépendantiste rhetoric.
Joly does not address the constitutional precedence question, instead defending the bill as a real projet de loi and attacking Bloc indépendantiste rhetoric.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je tiens à rassurer mon collÚgue que ce n'est pas simplement un énoncé d'intention que le gouvernement a déposé, mais un projet de loi. C'est un projet de loi que nous allons vouloir adopter, et pour lequel nous demandons à tous les partis d'opposition, incluant le Bloc québécois, s'ils veulent l'appuyer ou non. Veulent-ils protéger davantage le français au Québec et partout au pays? Veulent-ils que les francophones aient accÚs à une sécurité linguistique qui va pérenniser le fait français au Québec et dans l'avenir aussi au pays? Au contraire, ils veulent continuer leur rhétorique indépendantiste, et faire que le Québec devienne un pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that the government did not merely issue a statement of intent; it introduced a bill. We want to pass this bill, and we are asking all opposition parties, including the Bloc Québécois, if they intend to support it or not. Do they want better protection for French in Quebec and across the country? Do they want francophones to have access to linguistic security that will ensure the longevity of the French fact in Quebec as well as in Canada going forward? No, they want to keep talking separatism and make Quebec a country.
Blanchet asks whether the minister truly claims that her bill â which he characterizes as never going to pass and therefore merely a statement of intent â protects French better than Quebecers do themselves with the Charte de la langue française.
Blanchet asks a pointed comparative question â whether the minister truly believes her bill protects French better than Quebecers themselves do through the Charte de la langue française â with a clear yes/no structure.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, elle a bien compris un certain nombre de choses. Le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois veut mieux protĂ©ger le français au QuĂ©bec de façon lĂ©gitime. Cela passe par l'AssemblĂ©e nationale du QuĂ©bec. La ministre ne doit pas compter trĂšs fort sur notre appui pour sa loi qui officialise le bilinguisme encore plus. Ma question sera la suivante: prĂ©tend-elle vraiment que son projet de loi â jamais adoptĂ©, c'est donc un Ă©noncĂ© d'intention â protĂšge mieux le français que les QuĂ©bĂ©cois le font eux-mĂȘmes avec la Charte de la langue française?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, she certainly understood some things. The Bloc Québécois wants a legitimate approach to ensuring better protection for French in Quebec. That means putting Quebec's National Assembly in charge. The minister had better not count on our support for her bill to further entrench official bilingualism. Here is my question. Does she really think that her bill, which has not been passed and therefore remains a statement of intent, will do a better job of protecting French than Quebeckers themselves are doing with the Charter of the French Language?
Joly accuses the Bloc of seeking quarrels rather than protecting French and reiterates the government's objective of reinforcing the Loi sur les langues officielles and bringing it into the 21st century.
Joly does not compare the two instruments or answer which protects French better, instead accusing the Bloc of seeking quarrels and restating the government's commitment to strengthening the Loi sur les langues officielles.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est cela, le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, qui cherche des chicanes alors que notre objectif Ă nous est encore et toujours de protĂ©ger le français et de nous assurer justement de protĂ©ger les minoritĂ©s linguistiques partout au pays. Nous, nous avons un discours « partout au pays ». Pourquoi? C'est parce que c'est important. C'est comme cela que nous renforçons notre fĂ©dĂ©ralisme et que nous sommes capables d'assurer des circonstances opportunes d'un bout Ă l'autre du pays, incluant au QuĂ©bec et incluant les francophones. Dans les circonstances, notre objectif va ĂȘtre, bien encore et toujours, de dĂ©fendre la Loi sur les langues officielles, de la renforcer et de l'amener au XXIe siĂšcle.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is what the Bloc Québécois is all about, looking for a fight when our goal is still and always to protect French and to ensure that linguistic minorities across the country are protected. Indeed, our remarks involve the entire country. Why? Because that is important. That is how we strengthen our federalism and how we are able to ensure that it makes sense across the country, including in Quebec and including francophones. Under the circumstances, our goal will still be to defend the Official Languages Act, to strengthen it and to bring it into the 21st century.
Singh contrasts billions in bank profits supported by the government with the government's decision to cut the Prestation canadienne de la relance Ă©conomique by $800 a month for nearly 2 million Canadians, asking the PM to reverse that decision.
Singh cites nearly 2 million people relying on the Prestation canadienne de la relance Ă©conomique and a specific $800/month cut, posing a direct ask to reverse the decision, though the bank profits framing dilutes focus.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les grandes banques ont reçu des milliards de dollars d'appui de ce gouvernement. Elles ont fait des profits énormes, mais augmentent leurs frais bancaires. Cependant, ce gouvernement ne fait rien et les laisse faire. Pour les presque 2 millions de personnes qui ont besoin de leur Prestation canadienne de la relance économique pour payer leur loyer, le premier ministre va couper l'aide à ces familles de 800 $ par mois. C'est une mauvaise décision. Le premier ministre va-t-il revenir sur sa décision de couper l'aide aux familles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the big banks have received billions of dollars in support from this government. They have made huge profits, but are increasing their banking fees. However, this government is doing nothing and giving them free rein. For the nearly two million people who need their Canada recovery benefit to pay the rent, the Prime Minister is going to cut support to these families by $800 a month. This is a bad decision. Will the Prime Minister reverse his decision to cut support to families?
Freeland questions why the NDP is stopping the government from extending the CRB and implies that if the NDP thinks Canadians no longer need support it should say so openly.
Freeland ignores the specific $800 cut question and instead blames the NDP for blocking the budget that would extend the very supports Singh is asking about, without addressing the reduction in benefit levels.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si l'opposition refuse d'adopter le projet de loi sur le budget, les principales mesures de soutien de la COVIDâ19 prendront fin. La subvention salariale, la subvention pour le loyer et la prestation de rĂ©tablissement du Canada ne seront plus offertes. Si le NPD pense que les Canadiens n'ont plus besoin de ces soutiens, qu'il soit honnĂȘte et qu'il le leur dise.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the opposition refuses to pass the budget bill, key COVIDâ19 measures will end. The wage subsidy, the rent subsidy and the Canada recovery benefit will no longer be available. If the NDP thinks that Canadians no longer need these supports then it should be honest and just say so.
Singh cites at least 68 large corporations receiving billions in support while paying out billions to shareholders, contrasting this with the government cutting the CRB by $800 a month for nearly two million Canadians who cannot return to work, asking the PM to reverse that decision.
Singh cites at least 68 large corporations receiving billions and then paying billions to shareholders, and specifically asks why the government is cutting CRB by $800 a month for nearly two million Canadians who cannot go back to work.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to put forward a contrast for members. At least 68 companies, large corporations in Canada, received billions of dollars in support from the Liberal government. They then turned around and paid out billions of dollars to their shareholders. The government is doing nothing about that. It is not going after them at all. However, for the nearly two million Canadians who cannot go back to work and need to rely on the CRB to pay their rent, the government is going to cut their help by $800 a month. That is my question. Why is the government doing that? Will the Prime Minister reverse his decision to cut help to families in the middle of this pandemic?
Freeland questions why the NDP leader is blocking extension of the CRB through the budget and asks the New Democrats to help pass the budget to extend supports to September 25.
Freeland again deflects by questioning why the NDP is blocking the budget extension rather than addressing the substance of the $800 reduction or the corporate shareholder payouts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I question why the leader of the NDP is stopping our government from extending the CRB. We agreed that Canadian workers need additional support over the summer as the Canadian economy comes roaring back. That is why our budget would extend support to September 25. If the New Democrats think that support is no longer necessary, they should be open and say that to Canadians. Otherwise, they should help us pass the budget and extend these necessary supports.
Bergen asks whether the Prime Minister ever voiced concerns to the defence minister about how he handled sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Bergen asks a specific, answerable question â whether the PM ever voiced concerns to the defence minister about how he handled sexual misconduct â but wraps it in rhetorical framing about chaos and jokes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our Canadian Armed Forces are in chaos. The unravelling of the top brass and the repeat cycle of resignations are beyond disturbing. Who is actually in charge? It is clear the defence minister has lost all respect. He and the Prime Minister are considered a joke because of their terrible leadership. The men and women in our military cannot afford any more of this. Can the minister tell us if the Prime Minister ever voiced concerns to him about how he handled sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces?
Sajjan affirms commitment to an inclusive environment for the Canadian Armed Forces and points to $236 million in budget 2021 for eliminating sexual misconduct, without addressing whether the PM voiced concerns.
Sajjan does not answer whether the PM voiced any concerns, instead reaffirming commitment to an inclusive environment and citing $236 million in budget 2021 for eliminating sexual misconduct.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government and I are absolutely committed to making sure we create an inclusive environment for the Canadian Armed Forces. Our resolve was just the same when we came in to form the government in 2015 as it is now, and I hope that the member opposite will support budget 2021, in which we are adding $236 million for eliminating sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Bergen argues the minister has irreparably lost the respect and trust of the military and asks if he will do the right thing and resign.
Bergen asks only whether the minister will resign, framed as a speech about trust and a fake feminist government rather than a substantive accountability question grounded in new facts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will take that as a no, which means our military can just expect more of the same from this fake feminist government. Our military deserves a minister and a Prime Minister who do not just say the right words, but actually do the right thing. The respect and trust for the minister is gone. The damage to him is beyond repair, and when our military does not respect its top commander, we are in a very precarious place. Our armed forces in our country cannot afford this to continue. Will the minister do the right thing and finally resign?
Sajjan says he will let his actions be judged by Vancouver South and pivots to attacking Conservative hypocrisy on a woman's right to choose and Islamophobic rhetoric.
Sajjan does not address the resignation ask and instead attacks the Conservatives for their record on a woman's right to choose and Islamophobic rhetoric, with no connection to military sexual misconduct.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives continue with the political cheap shots, we will stay focused on the Canadian Armed Forces. When they were in government, they cut from the Canadian Armed Forces' budget. We have added to it, and we are increasing the defence budget by 70%. We put people first. Chapter number one of our defence policy is about our people and is focused on our people, but we know we have a lot more work to do to eliminate any type of misconduct from the Canadian Armed Forces, and we will double down and get it done.
Bergen argues the minister's continuation in role is damaging the military and, citing a Conservative five-point plan for accountability, asks him again to step aside for the sake of the country and the men and women in uniform.
Bergen again asks only if the minister will step aside, without adding new facts beyond the reiterated claim about troops not respecting the minister and a reference to a five-point plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he is doubling down on defending himself and his horrible, failed record. The men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces do not respect the minister, and his continuing in this role is damaging our military. The minister has failed the people who defend us. Our troops have sacrificed so much, and it is time the minister did the right thing for these men and women. Conservatives have a five-point plan to secure Canada's future, and that includes bringing accountability, honour and respect back to our military. Again, I ask this minister if he will do the right thing. Will he step aside for the sake of our country and for our men and women in uniform?
Sajjan cites the government's defence budget increase of over 70% within 10 years guaranteed for 20 years, re-equipping of all services, and contrasts this with the previous government's defence cuts.
Sajjan again does not address the resignation ask but does cite specific actions including the 70% budget increase over 10 years guaranteed for 20 years and re-equipping all services, which is at least marginally substantive.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we know that we have a lot more work to do. We need to get the work done, and we will, but when it comes to honouring the sacrifice of our Canadian Armed Forces members, it is about supporting them and giving them the proper resources for them to do their work. That is what our government has done. In our defence policy, we have increased the budget by over 70% within 10 years and guaranteed it for 20 years. We re-equipped all our services and did not cut from the defence budget, as the previous government did so it could balance its budget.
Martel cites the Prime Minister's own statement that sexual misconduct in the military has not been addressed for too long and asks why the PM persists in keeping his defence minister in post.
Martel cites the PM's own public statement that sexual misconduct in the military has not been addressed for too long, giving the question marginal factual grounding, but the ask â fire the minister or he resigns â is the same repeated call.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est assez. Il est temps d'envoyer un message. Le ministre de la DĂ©fense a complĂštement laissĂ© tomber les Forces armĂ©es pendant des annĂ©es d'incompĂ©tence. Le premier ministre lui-mĂȘme a dĂ©clarĂ© que le problĂšme de l'inconduite sexuelle dans l'armĂ©e n'a pas Ă©tĂ© abordĂ© depuis trop longtemps, mais il agit comme si ce n'Ă©tait pas le cas. S'il veut vraiment commencer Ă changer les choses, le premier ministre doit congĂ©dier son ministre de la DĂ©fense. Pourquoi le premier ministre s'entĂȘte-t-il Ă le garder en poste?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. It is time to send a message. The Minister of National Defence completely abandoned the Canadian Forces during years of incompetence. The Prime Minister himself said that the problem of sexual misconduct in the military had been ignored for far too long, but he acts like that is not the case. If he really wants to start changing things, the Prime Minister needs to fire his Minister of National Defence. Why is the Prime Minister insisting on keeping the minister in place?
Sajjan reaffirms work is ongoing and asks the member to support budget 2021 which includes $236 million for eliminating sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Sajjan does not address the PM's quoted statement or the firing question, but does cite the $236 million in budget 2021 for eliminating sexual misconduct, a tangible if incomplete response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I stated, we know that we have a lot more work to do when it comes to eradicating all forms of misconduct. We started that on day one when we formed government. We know that we have a lot more work to do, and I hope that the member opposite will support budget 2021 because it includes $236 million for eliminating sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Martel argues every day the defence minister remains in post is disrespectful to the Armed Forces and asks when the minister will understand he must resign.
Martel makes a rhetorical case that every day the minister remains is disrespectful and asks when the minister will understand he must resign, with no new facts.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le Canada est un pays d'honneur. Nos braves hommes et femmes qui servent dans nos forces armĂ©es mĂ©ritent tout le soutien que nous pouvons leur accorder. Chaque jour oĂč le ministre de la DĂ©fense reste en poste constitue un manque de respect pour le service de nos forces armĂ©es. Le ministre de la DĂ©fense doit arrĂȘter d'essayer d'arranger des choses. Il est trop tard. Il doit dĂ©missionner. Quand est-ce que le ministre va comprendre cela?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country with honour. The brave men and women who serve in our armed forces deserve all the support we can give them. Every day that the Minister of National Defence stays in office is a show of disrespect for the service of our armed forces. The Minister of National Defence has to stop trying to fix things. It is too late. He needs to step down. When will the minister realize that?
Sajjan reaffirms commitment to supporting the Canadian Armed Forces, acknowledges more work is needed given recent allegations, and announces the appointment of Justice Louise Arbour to recommend how to eliminate all forms of sexual misconduct.
Sajjan provides a somewhat more substantive answer by announcing the appointment of Justice Louise Arbour to make recommendations on eliminating all forms of sexual misconduct, which is a concrete action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what our government understands is making sure to support our women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces. We need to resource them properly, and we need to put proper policies in place. As I stated before, we know we have a lot more work to do given the recent allegations we have seen, and we will get it done. We have appointed Justice Louise Arbour to make sure that we get the right recommendations on how to make sure that we eliminate all forms of sexual misconduct. We will get this done.
Martel describes a Liberal pattern of scandals followed by empty apologies and false promises, cites the toxic state of the Armed Forces as a perfect example, and asks who will take the honourable decision â the minister by resigning or the PM by firing him.
Martel frames the question as who â the minister or the PM â will make the honourable decision to remove the minister, with some context about a cycle of scandals and empty apologies, but adds no new facts.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la situation au sein du gouvernement libéral s'est transformée en un cycle de scandales suivis d'excuses vides de la part du gouvernement et d'une fausse promesse de faire mieux. Il n'y a jamais de reddition de comptes. La situation dans les Forces armées en est un parfait exemple. Elle est devenue toxique et s'effondre sous nos yeux. Le ministre de la Défense doit démissionner ou le premier ministre doit le mettre dehors. Qui des deux prendra la décision honorable?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's situation has morphed into a cycle of scandals followed by its empty excuses and a false promise to do better. There is never any accountability. The situation in the armed forces is a perfect example. It has become toxic and is falling apart before our eyes. The Minister of Defence must resign or the Prime Minister must boot him out. Which one of them will do the honourable thing?
Sajjan contrasts the government's defence budget increases with the previous government's cuts and states that Chapter 1 of the defence policy focuses on people, while acknowledging more work is needed to eliminate sexual misconduct.
Sajjan again deflects to the previous government's defence cuts, cites a 17% budget increase and Chapter 1 of the defence policy on people, without addressing the resignation question or the cycle-of-scandals framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to support the Canadian Armed Forces with what it needs, not like the previous government, which cut from the defence budget just so it could try to balance its budget. We have increased the budget by 17%, but most importantly, we put an emphasis on supporting our people. Chapter 1 of the defence policy, if the member read it, focuses on our people. We know that we have a lot more work to do when it comes to eliminating sexual misconduct or any form of misconduct from the Canadian Armed Forces, and we are going to get it done.
Why does the minister refuse to let Quebec apply Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses, instead of extending the Official Languages Act and creating a jurisdictional conflict?
The question is specific about Bill C-32's provisions, identifies a concrete policy preference (letting the Charte de la langue française apply to federally regulated businesses), and poses a clear ask, though it blends some rhetorical framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le QuĂ©bec veut protĂ©ger le français. Tout ce qu'Ottawa pouvait faire dans ses champs de compĂ©tence pour protĂ©ger le français au QuĂ©bec, c'Ă©tait de laisser la Charte de la langue française du QuĂ©bec s'appliquer aux entreprises de compĂ©tence fĂ©dĂ©rale. Pourtant, la ministre fait le contraire dans le projet de loi Câ32. Elle met la table pour davantage de bilinguisme en Ă©tendant l'influence de la Loi sur les langues officielles du Canada. Elle crĂ©e une chicane de champs de compĂ©tence, au lieu de participer Ă enrayer le dĂ©clin du français. Pourquoi la ministre refuse-t-elle de faire Ćuvre utile en laissant QuĂ©bec appliquer la loi 101?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Quebec wants to protect the French language. All that Ottawa could do in its jurisdictions to protect French in Quebec was to let Quebec's Charter of the French Language apply to federally regulated businesses. However, the minister is doing the opposite with Bill Câ32. She is setting the stage for increased bilingualism by extending the scope of Canada's Official Languages Act. She is creating a jurisdictional squabble instead of helping stop the decline of French. Why is the minister refusing to do something useful by letting Quebec apply Bill 101?
The minister says she spoke with Quebec counterparts that same morning, notes that 55% of companies already voluntarily comply with Bill 101, and explains that Bill C-32 fills a legal void by giving companies the choice to continue under Bill 101 or comply with the Official Languages Act.
The minister engages the topic and offers the 55% voluntary compliance figure and the dual-choice framework, but does not directly address why federal jurisdiction must override loi 101 rather than simply deferring to it.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ma collĂšgue fait rĂ©fĂ©rence Ă une chicane avec QuĂ©bec. Je pense que c'est peut-ĂȘtre un vĆu pieux de sa part, mais ce n'est certainement pas le cas. La rĂ©alitĂ©, c'est que, encore ce matin, j'ai eu une conversation avec mon collĂšgue Simon JolinâBarrette et, hier, avec Sonia LeBel, et nous allons certainement nous entendre. Pourquoi? C'est parce que 55 % des entreprises au QuĂ©bec se sont dĂ©jĂ volontairement soumises Ă la loi 101. Nous allons leur donner, bien entendu, le choix de continuer avec cette approche ou bien de se soumettre Ă la Loi sur les langues officielles. Nous comblons donc le vide juridique. Nous voulons que les gens puissent avoir accĂšs Ă des services en français dans les entreprises de compĂ©tence fĂ©dĂ©rale, ainsi que le droit de travailler en français dans ces mĂȘmes entreprises.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my colleague made reference to a squabble with Quebec. That may be some wishful thinking on her part, but it is certainly not the case. The reality is that, once again this morning, I had a conversation with my colleague, Simon Jolin-Barrette, and yesterday with Sonia LeBel, and we will certainly come to an agreement. Why is that? It is because 55% of businesses in Quebec have already chosen to be subject to Bill 101. We will, of course, let them choose whether to continue as is or to be subject to the Official Languages Act. We are filling a legal void. We want people to have access to services in French in federally regulated businesses and we want people to have the right to work in French at those same businesses.
Given that Quebec's minister for the French language has stated that Quebec's own legislation will govern its territory, and given the minister's own quoted words seeking a confrontation over jurisdiction, why will the minister not simply let Quebec protect French through Bill 101?
The question directly quotes the Quebec minister responsible for the French language and the federal minister's own public words to demonstrate a contradiction, making it well-grounded and specific in its ask of why the minister does not simply defer to loi 101.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il n'y a pas de vide juridique, et QuĂ©bec n'a pas l'intention de se fier au projet de loi Câ32. Voici ce que le ministre responsable de la Langue française au QuĂ©bec a dit: « Il y a une chose qui est sĂ»re, c'est que les modalitĂ©s associĂ©es au projet de loi quĂ©bĂ©cois seront celles qui vont s'appliquer sur le territoire quĂ©bĂ©cois [...] » La ministre fĂ©dĂ©rale a rĂ©pondu ce qui suit en cherchant, elle, le conflit: « On a juridiction en matiĂšre d'entreprise fĂ©dĂ©rale [...] Donc, qu'est-ce qu'on veut faire? Est-ce qu'on veut protĂ©ger le français ou on veut s'obstiner? » Visiblement, la ministre a choisi de s'obstiner, parce que son projet de loi ne protĂšge pas le français. Il protĂšge le bilinguisme. Pourquoi est-ce que la ministre ne laisse pas tout simplement QuĂ©bec protĂ©ger le français avec la loi 101?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there is no legal void and Quebec has no plan to rely on Bill Câ32. Quebec's minister responsible for the French language said, âOne thing is for sure: The terms and conditions of Quebec's bill will be the ones that apply in Quebecâ. The federal minister, looking for a fight, responded, âWe have jurisdiction over federally regulated businesses.... What do they want to do? Do they want to protect French or do they want to keep arguing?â The minister clearly chose to keep arguing, because her bill does not protect the French language. It protects bilingualism. Why does the minister not simply let Quebec protect the French language with Bill 101?
The minister questions whether her colleague has read Bill C-32, lists the rights it recognizes (right to work in French, to be served in French, not to be discriminated against), calls it a historic step, and asks whether the Bloc will support it.
The minister lists rights recognized in Bill C-32 and calls it a historic moment, but does not address the quoted statements or the core charge that the bill protects bilingualism rather than French, then deflects by asking whether the Bloc will support the bill.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai beaucoup de respect pour ma collĂšgue, mais je me demande si elle a vraiment lu le projet de loi. Le projet de loi est clair: on y reconnaĂźt le droit de travailler en français, le droit d'ĂȘtre servi en français et, bien entendu, le droit de ne pas ĂȘtre discriminĂ© parce qu'on est un francophone qui travaille dans une entreprise de compĂ©tence fĂ©dĂ©rale au QuĂ©bec ou dans une rĂ©gion Ă forte prĂ©sence francophone. C'est la premiĂšre fois que le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral fait ce pas dans la bonne direction; il Ă©tait temps. C'est pourquoi, en tant que gouvernement, nous sommes fiers du dĂ©pĂŽt du projet de loi sur les langues officielles, un moment historique qui a eu lieu hier. Est-ce que le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois va l'appuyer ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, but I wonder if she actually read the bill. The bill is clear: It covers the right to work in French, the right to be served in French and, of course, the right not to be discriminated against for being francophone in federally regulated businesses in Quebec and regions with a strong francophone presence. This is the first time the federal government has taken this step in the right direction. It was time. That is why, as a government, we are proud to have introduced the official languages bill yesterday. It was a historic event. Will the Bloc Québécois be supporting it, yes or no?
Given the minister's alleged record of misleading Canadians on CF-18s, his service record, and the Vance allegations cover-up, when will the Prime Minister fire him?
The question lists prior alleged misrepresentations by the minister but is largely a rhetorical catalogue culminating in a call for the Prime Minister to fire the minister, which is not a substantively answerable policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has always had a casual relationship with the truth. He misled Canadians about the protests of Iraqi officials for pulling our CF-18s out of the fight against ISIS. He embellished his service record, saying he was the architect of Operation Medusa. He originally denied he knew about the General Vance allegations in 2018, but was complicit in the cover-up for three years. Canadians do not trust the Minister of National Defence. Members of the military do not trust him. When will the Prime Minister fire him?
The minister says he will take no lessons from the member, citing Conservative defence budget cuts and failure to address misconduct when they were in government, and states the current government put people first.
The minister does not address any of the specific allegations cited and instead pivots entirely to the Conservative record on defence spending and misconduct, constituting a near-complete deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will take no lessons from the member opposite, who was the parliamentary secretary of national defence when the Conservatives were in government, when they slashed the budget of defence at that time. They did not put the troops first. They did not deal with the misconduct. When we formed the government, we made it very clear that we wanted to put our people first and eliminate sexual misconduct or any form of misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. We know from the recent allegations that we have a lot more work to do. We are willing to get it done.
With two chiefs of defence staff under investigation and the seventh vice chief since 2015 having just resigned, creating a national security crisis, will the Prime Minister fire the defence minister?
The question cites a concrete pattern â two chiefs of defence staff under investigation and the seventh vice chief since 2015 resigning â but ultimately culminates in a rhetorical demand to fire the minister rather than a specific policy ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister has not learned anything from his own mistakes, so he should actually follow our example. The Canadian Armed Forces is losing senior officers at an alarming rate. Two chiefs of defence staff are under investigation, and the seventh vice chief of defence staff since 2015 just resigned. All of this is happening under the failed leadership of the defence minister and is creating a national security crisis for our nation. The Minister of National Defence must be held to account, and no one trusts him to rebuild our armed forces. Will the Prime Minister fire his inept defence minister today?
The minister says the government invested in the Canadian Armed Forces, increased the budget by 20%, is re-equipping all services, and is committed to dealing with misconduct, contrasting this with the previous government's record.
The minister references a 20% budget increase and re-equipping of services, providing some factual content, but does not address the senior officer departures or explain how the government is managing the resulting national security concerns.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to supporting our Canadian Armed Forces, we need to put our money where our mouth is, and that is exactly what our government did, not like the previous government, especially when the member was the parliamentary secretary to national defence. We have invested in the Canadian Armed Forces. All our services will be re-equipped when it comes to that, because we have increased the budget by 20%. We have put an emphasis on dealing with the misconduct, something we wish we could have done immediately, and we wish we could have it done overnight. We know we have a lot more work to do, and we are willing to get it done.
How can the minister justify that the person overseeing the sexual misconduct investigation went golfing with General Vance, the accused, demonstrating that senior military leaders were not treating this matter seriously after six years of Liberal government?
The question raises a specific incident â a person with control over a sexual misconduct investigation golfing with the accused, General Vance â but the closing rhetorical questions ('How can the minister take these questions with a straight face? Has he no honour?') reduce its accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians were shocked to learn that the man with control over the sexual misconduct investigation went golfing with the man accused of the sexual misconduct, General Vance. Clearly these men at the top of the Canadian military were not informed of the seriousness of this investigation and were not informed of the need for a culture change in our military. The Liberal government and the defence minister have had six years to fix this, yet they resoundingly failed or this golfing scandal would have never happened. How can the minister take these questions with a straight face? Has he no honour?
The minister states the acting chief of the defence staff is reviewing the matter closely, has already announced that the vice chief of the defence staff is no longer in his role, and acknowledges the government has more work to do on misconduct.
The minister states that the acting chief of the defence staff is reviewing the matter, provides the specific outcome that the vice chief of the defence staff is no longer in his role, and acknowledges more work is needed â a partial but substantive response to the specific incident.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as stated before, the acting chief of the defence staff is reviewing this matter very closely as it falls within his responsibility within the chain of command, and the acting chief of the defence staff has stated already that the vice chief of the defence staff is currently no longer in his role. Our government has a lot more work to do when it comes to dealing with misconduct, and we will get it done.
Given that the Prime Minister built his image on feminism yet allowed a toxic culture to continue in the military for six years under his defence minister, will he finally fire the minister?
The question is primarily rhetorical, contrasting the Prime Minister's feminist image with the military culture under his watch, and the ask â 'Will the Prime Minister be a leader for once and fire his defence minister?' â is a political demand rather than a specific policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has built his entire image on being a feminist, yet, after six years, he has allowed this toxic culture to continue under the watch of his defence minister, who sat idly by and allowed the most powerful military men in our country to continue to demean and disrespect our women in uniform. What message does this send to women and to men in our country, to aspiring women leaders in our military, that the Prime Minister thinks this is acceptable behaviour? Canadians are watching. Will the Prime Minister be a leader for once and fire his defence minister?
The minister acknowledges more work is needed on misconduct and points to $236 million outlined in budget 2021 to eliminate sexual misconduct from the Canadian Armed Forces.
The minister does not address the feminist framing or the call to fire him, but offers a specific figure â $236 million from budget 2021 to eliminate sexual misconduct â which is a concrete, relevant data point even if it sidesteps the core accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to dealing with misconduct, we know we have a lot more work to do. I hope the member opposite will support budget 2021, in which we have outlined $236 million to eliminate sexual misconduct from the Canadian Armed Forces.
Given that the government defied Parliament and returned to court to quash the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling despite 'wilful and reckless' discrimination findings, and that an indigenous child is lost every three days, when will the Prime Minister stop his legal war against first nations children?
The question cites the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling, characterizes the government's legal position with the tribunal's own language of 'wilful and reckless' discrimination, notes the ongoing loss of an indigenous child every three days, and poses a clear ask about ending the legal challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister defied Parliament and went back to court this week to try to quash the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling. His argument is that his government is the party that was wronged, not the thousands of indigenous children whose lives were destroyed in that system from âwilful and recklessâ discrimination. It is also false to claim that these are historic wrongs. This is happening today. We are losing an indigenous child every three days, yet the Prime Minister would rather fight children in court. When he is going to stop his toxic legal war against first nations children?
The minister states no indigenous child has been asked to testify and it is the government's aim to keep it so, and commits to fair, just and equitable compensation for any first nations child discriminated against by the child welfare system, as well as systemic transformation.
The minister asserts no indigenous child will be asked to testify and commits to fair compensation and systemic transformation, but does not address the specific question about why the government returned to court to challenge the tribunal ruling or when it will stop.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is important for all Canadians and, indeed, this entire House to know that there is not a single indigenous child who has been asked to testify as part of this process and as part of the class actions, and it is our aim to keep it so. Any first nations child who has been discriminated by the broken child welfare system will get fair, just and equitable compensation. We will move forward on that as precipitously as possible as well as effect systemic transformation so this does not occur again.
Given that the government has spent over $20 million fighting the Nuu-chah-nulth in court and courts have reaffirmed their fishing rights three times, will the justice minister confirm the government will not appeal the ruling before Friday's deadline?
The question cites a specific dollar figure spent fighting the Nuu-chah-nulth in court ($20 million), notes the court has reaffirmed their rights three times, identifies a concrete Friday deadline for appeal, and poses a clear yes-or-no ask to the justice minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have spent over $20 million fighting the Nuu-chah-nulth people in court, denying their fishing rights. Last month, the courts reaffirmed the rights of these nations for the third time. The government has until Friday to appeal the court's decision. The last time I asked if the government would respect indigenous fishers' rights and let them get back on the water to support their families, the fisheries minister said that they were working with the Nuu-chah-nulth. Let me be clear that taking them to court is not the same as working with them. Will the justice minister respect indigenous rights, call off the government lawyers and confirm that he will not appeal this ruling?
The minister states the government has worked hard to ensure first nations can exercise their right to fish and sell fish, and will continue to work with the Nuu-chah-nulth to ensure these rights are upheld, without addressing the appeal deadline.
The minister says the government has worked hard on first nations fishing rights and will continue to work with the Nuu-chah-nulth, but does not address the $20 million figure, the three court rulings, or the specific Friday appeal deadline â the core of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have worked very hard to ensure that first nations are able to exercise their right to fish as well as sell fish. We are going to continue to work with the Nuu-chah-nulth first nation to ensure these rights are upheld.
What is the government doing to support the most vulnerable low-income seniors coast to coast?
This is a government-backbench softball setup, praising the government's OAS commitment and asking a broad question about what is being done for low-income seniors.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to strengthening seniors' financial security, improving their quality of life. I was happy to see our government fulfill its promise to increase the OAS benefit for Canadians later in life in budget 2021, but we know seniors have other needs. Could the minister tell the House and Canadians what we are doing to support some of the most vulnerable low-income seniors from coast to coast to coast?
The minister lists increases to the GIS by 10% for singles, an enhanced GIS earnings exemption, lowering OAS and GIS eligibility to age 65, a nearly 50% CPP enhancement, and an increase to the basic personal amount saving individuals close to $300 per year.
The minister provides several specific measures â 10% GIS increase for singles, enhanced GIS earnings exemption, lowering OAS/GIS eligibility to 65, nearly 50% CPP enhancement, and nearly $300 annual savings from the basic personal amount increase â making it a substantive response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his advocacy for seniors. While no solution can meet everyone's needs, step by step we are making progress. For low-income seniors we increased the GIS by 10% for singles and increased and enhanced the GIS earnings exemption. We lowered the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS to 65 from 67, and for future retirees we enhanced the CPP by almost 50%. For everyone we are increasing the basic personal amount, saving individuals close to $300 every year. Our government's work is making a real difference in the lives of seniors.
With inflation at 3.6%, the highest in over 10 years, and prices for gasoline, food, and furniture rising, when will the Prime Minister focus on making life more affordable for Canadians?
The question cites a specific inflation figure (3.6%, highest in over 10 years) and lists concrete price pressures, but the closing jab about the Prime Minister 'preening for the cameras at the G7' introduces partisan rhetoric that dilutes the factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the cost of living is up, way up. Inflation is now at 3.6%, the highest it has been in over 10 years. Prices for everything, gasoline, food, furniture, are up, while millions of Canadians see their dream of home ownership disappear. Canadians need a leader who is focused on governing, not on preening for the cameras at the G7. When will the Prime Minister finally take his job seriously and make life more affordable for the people he is supposed to be serving?
The minister calls Conservative concern for ordinary Canadians hypocritical, says the single biggest threat to the economy is Conservative partisanship blocking the budget, and lists the wage subsidy, rent subsidy, and income supports being blocked.
The minister does not address the 3.6% inflation figure or any of the specific cost-of-living concerns raised, instead pivoting entirely to accusing Conservatives of blocking the budget and threatening the wage subsidy and rent subsidy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is utterly hypocritical for the Conservatives to even pretend to be concerned about ordinary Canadians. The single biggest threat the Canadian economy faces today is Conservative partisanship, which is blocking our budget. The Conservatives are blocking the extension of the wage subsidy, the extension of the rent subsidy and the extension of income supports. Canada is ready to come roaring back. We just need the Conservatives to get out of the way.
With inflation at a decade high, proving that the finance minister's trillion-dollar debt and endless deficits are damaging the country and making housing unaffordable for millions, how much worse does life have to get before the government admits it has failed Canadians?
The question connects a specific data point (inflation at its highest in a decade) to a policy argument about trillion-dollar debt driving damage, and asks a pointed question about when the minister will recognize the failure, though the framing remains partially rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, even the finance minister does not get it. Inflation is way up. It is at its highest point in a decade, proving that the finance minister's trillion-dollar debt and endless deficits are inflicting more and more damage on our country. Meanwhile, the cost of everything is going up, and housing has become unaffordable for millions of families. How much more expensive does life have to get before the minister and her Liberal government realize how badly they have failed exhausted Canadians?
The minister lists $5 billion for provincial and territorial health systems, $4 billion directly to health care, and $1 billion for the vaccination campaign that she says Conservatives are blocking by not passing the budget.
The minister does not address the inflation figure or the debt argument, instead listing dollar amounts for provincial health systems ($5 billion), direct health care ($4 billion), and vaccination ($1 billion) being blocked, which is a pivot away from the inflation question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me tell the House what else Canadians, who indeed are exhausted and who indeed do need support, are being deprived of because of the immature partisan games of the Conservatives: $5 billion to support provincial and territorial health systems, $4 billion directly to the health care system and $1 billion for the essential vaccination campaign. That is what Canadians need right now and it is what Conservatives are blocking.
Given that the government's trillion-dollar debt is creating inflationary pressure and eroding Canadians' paycheques, will the government reverse its inflationary policy, stop spending what it does not have, and restore fiscal responsibility?
The question makes a substantive economic argument linking a trillion-dollar debt to inflationary pressure (too many dollars chasing too few goods) and asks a clear policy question about reversing spending and restoring fiscal responsibility, though the framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today it is clear that we have an inflationary bubble. The government is just trying to pump even more hot air into that bubble. It has created a trillion-dollar debt, which means too many dollars chasing too few goods and services. Now, in addition to not having paycheques, Canadians who do work are seeing their paycheques nibbled up by this growing level of inflation. Will the government reverse its inflationary policy, stop spending what it does not have, restore fiscal responsibility and allow Canadians to afford their cost of living?
The minister says it is irresponsible for Conservatives to play partisan games just as Canada is poised to finish the fight against COVID, and calls on them to stop blocking the extension of the wage subsidy, rent subsidy, and income support to the end of September.
The minister does not engage with the inflationary spending argument at all, instead repeating the same message about Conservative partisan games blocking the wage subsidy, rent subsidy, and income supports â a complete pivot from the fiscal policy question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me tell the House what is truly irresponsible today just as we are poised to finish the fight against COVID. What is irresponsible are Conservative partisan games. Canadians need the wage subsidy, they need the rent subsidy and they need income support to be extended to the end of September, but the Conservatives are stopping us from passing our budget. It is that irresponsible behaviour that threatens the well-being of every single Canadian.
With Canada having the second-highest unemployment in the G7, higher than the OECD, U.K., U.S., Japan, and Germany, and with unemployed Canadians facing higher prices for shelter, fuel, and food, why will the minister not reverse the inflationary budget and protect the value of Canadians' earnings?
The question cites Canada's unemployment ranking (second-highest in the G7, higher than the OECD, the U.K., the U.S., Japan, and Germany) and links high unemployment to rising prices for shelter, fuel, and food, making a specific, factually grounded ask about reversing the inflationary budget.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, so she just wants us to help her give more and more inflationary spending into the economy, driving up the cost of living, particularly on the working poor, and devaluing the wages of the Canadian people. We have the second-highest unemployment in the G7, higher than the OECD, higher than the U.K., the U.S., Japan and Germany. Now those same unemployed Canadians are facing higher prices for shelter, fuel and food. Instead of ramming through another inflationary budget that drives up the cost of living, why will she not actually reverse course and protect the value of the dollars Canadians earn?
The minister states that Canada's labour force participation rate in April was higher than those of the U.S., U.K., France, and Italy, then calls on all members to support extending business and income supports and increasing support for seniors and youth.
The minister directly contests the unemployment numbers by citing Canada's labour force participation rate in April as higher than the U.S., U.K., France and Italy, which partially engages the factual premise, but does not address the inflationary spending argument or the ask to reverse course.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first, the member opposite needs to get his numbers right. Canada's labour force participation rate in April was in fact higher than the labour force participation rates in the U.S., the U.K., France and Italy. I do want all members of the House to help me and to help our government support Canadians. I want them to help me extend the business and income supports. I want them to help me give more support to our seniors and to our youth.
Given that Bill C-32 invalidates Quebec's loi 96, does not require francisation of businesses, does not recognize French as the sole official language of Quebec, and prevents Quebec from being maĂźtre d'Ćuvre of its language policy, why would Quebec vote for it rather than its own loi 101?
The question lists four specific substantive criticisms of Bill C-32 (invalidates loi 96, does not require francisation, does not recognize French as the sole official language of Quebec, prevents Quebec from being maĂźtre d'Ćuvre of its language policy) and asks a clear rhetorical but pointed question about why Quebec would vote for it over loi 101.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le projet de loi Câ32 invalide la loi 96 du QuĂ©bec et sa volontĂ© d'appliquer la loi 101 aux entreprises de compĂ©tence fĂ©dĂ©rale. Le projet de loi Câ32 n'oblige pas la francisation des entreprises, il ne fait que tolĂ©rer que les travailleurs parlent français. Le projet de loi Câ32 ne reconnaĂźt pas le français comme seule langue officielle du QuĂ©bec, et il n'agit pas pour compenser son statut minoritaire et menacĂ©. Le projet de loi Câ32 empĂȘche donc QuĂ©bec d'ĂȘtre maĂźtre d'Ćuvre de sa politique linguistique. Pourquoi le QuĂ©bec voteraitâil pour cela plutĂŽt que pour sa propre loi 101?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Bill Câ32 invalidates Quebecâs Bill 96 and its intent to apply Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. Bill C-32 does not force the francization of businesses; it simply tolerates that workers speak in French. Bill C-32 does not recognize French as Quebecâs only official language, nor does it do anything to make up for its threatened minority status. Bill C-32 therefore prevents Quebec from taking charge of its language policy. Why would Quebec vote for this instead of its own Bill 101?
The minister says the bill imposes on federal businesses an obligation to recognize the right to work in French, the right to be served in French, and non-discrimination against francophones, applying essentially the same provisions as loi 101, adapted to a national regime, with a planned agreement with Quebec for companies already complying with loi 101.
The minister summarizes the obligations in Bill C-32 (right to work in French, right to be served in French, non-discrimination) and explains the framework for companies already complying with loi 101, but does not address the specific criticisms raised â particularly that the bill does not require francisation or recognize French as the sole official language of Quebec.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, lĂ , on va arrĂȘter de faire peur au monde, comme mon collĂšgue essaie de le faire prĂ©sentement. Ce n'est pas compliquĂ©, le projet de loi Câ32, loi modifiant la Loi sur les langues officielles, que nous avons dĂ©posĂ© hier, fait en sorte que les entreprises fĂ©dĂ©rales ont l'obligation de reconnaĂźtre le droit de travailler en français, le droit d'ĂȘtre servi en français, le fait de ne pas ĂȘtre discriminĂ© parce qu'on est francophone. Essentiellement, ce sont les mĂȘmes dispositions que l'on voit dans la loi 101 qui, justement, sont adaptĂ©es Ă un rĂ©gime national qui s'applique au QuĂ©bec, et aussi dans des rĂ©gions Ă forte prĂ©sence francophone. Pour les entreprises qui se conforment dĂ©jĂ Ă la loi 101, on va faire une entente avec le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec. Pour celles qui ne se conforment pas Ă la loi 101, ce n'est pas compliquĂ©, il n'y a plus de vide juridique et il va falloir qu'elles respectent...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let us stop trying to scare people, as my colleague is doing. It is not complicated. Bill C-32, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, which we introduced yesterday, requires federally regulated businesses to recognize the right to work in French, the right to be served in French, and the right of francophones not be discriminated against. Basically, these are the same provisions that are in Bill 101 and that have been adapted to a national system that applies to Quebec, as well as to regions with a strong francophone presence. For businesses that are already compliant with Bill 101, an agreement will be made with the Government of Quebec. For those that are not compliant with Bill 101, it is not complicated; there is no longer a legal void and they will have to complyâ
Since Quebec wants loi 101 applied to federally regulated businesses and the Bloc's bill does exactly that and will be voted on in half an hour, will the minister vote with them rather than tabling a federal bill with no time for debate?
The question is specific in noting a concrete timeline (a vote in half an hour on the Bloc's own bill), contrasting it with a federal bill tabled six days before the end of session that will not be debated or voted on, and asks a direct yes-or-no question of the minister.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le QuĂ©bec veut que la loi 101 s'applique aux entreprises de compĂ©tence fĂ©dĂ©rale. C'est simple, il s'agit d'appliquer la loi dĂ©jĂ existante. Cela adonne bien, car le projet de loi du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois fait justement cela. Il n'y a pas besoin d'un projet de loi fĂ©dĂ©ral garrochĂ© Ă six jours de la fin de session qui ne va ĂȘtre ni dĂ©battu ni votĂ©. Notre projet de loi va ĂȘtre votĂ© dans une demieâheure, c'est aussi simple que cela. La ministre des Langues officielles vaâtâelle voter avec nous pour appliquer la loi 101 au QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Quebec wants Bill 101 to apply to federally regulated businesses. Quite simply, this means applying the existing legislation. As a matter of fact, the Bloc Québécois bill does just that. There is no need for a federal bill dumped on us six days before the end of the session that will not be debated or voted on. Our bill will be voted on in half an hour; it is as simple as that. Will the Minister of Official Languages vote with us to apply Bill 101 in Quebec?
The minister recalls past debates in which her colleague urged her to strengthen the Official Languages Act and recognize the specificity of French in Quebec, says the bill now fulfills those requests, and asks whether the Bloc will support the new Official Languages Act.
The minister does not answer whether she will vote for the Bloc's bill, instead listing what Bill C-32 accomplishes and turning the question back on the Bloc by asking whether they will support the new Official Languages Act â a deflection.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je me souviens des dĂ©bats que j'ai eus avec mon collĂšge oĂč il me demandait sans cesse de renforcer la Loi sur les langues officielles, de reconnaĂźtre la spĂ©cificitĂ© du français au QuĂ©bec, de faire en sorte qu'on reconnaisse que les entreprises fĂ©dĂ©rales ont l'obligation de travailler en français et d'offrir justement des droits, et aussi de servir les consommateurs en français. Il devrait ĂȘtre heureux, parce que cela est fait. On a dĂ©posĂ© le projet de loi. Maintenant, la question est donc: vaâtâil le soutenir? Le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois vaâtâil soutenir la nouvelle mouture de la Loi sur les langues officielles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I remember the debates I had with my colleague, where he kept asking me to strengthen the Official Languages Act, to recognize the specificity of French in Quebec, to recognize that federally regulated businesses have an obligation to work in French and to provide rights, as well as to serve consumers in French. He should be happy, because this has now been done. The bill has been introduced. Now the question is whether he will support it. Will the Bloc Québécois support the new version of the Official Languages Act?
Will the government scientists at the Canadian lab in Winnipeg who worked closely with the Wuhan lab, along with their documents including lab notes, be made available to U.S. investigators?
Highly specific question citing President Biden's intelligence directive, G7 pledge, and the documented connection between Canadian Winnipeg lab scientists and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, with a clear and answerable ask about document and scientist availability to U.S. investigators.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no reason the government cannot answer the following question. President Biden directed U.S. intelligence to determine whether the pandemic originated from human contact with an animal or from a lab accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Last weekend, the G7 discussed this issue, and the government pledged co-operation. Given that government scientists at the Canadian lab in Winnipeg worked closely with the Wuhan lab, will these scientists and their documents, including lab notes, be made available to U.S. investigators?
The minister expressed support for President Biden's call to determine the pandemic's origins and said Canada should use the best available science to figure out where it all started, without addressing the specific ask.
The minister expresses general support for getting to the bottom of the pandemic's origins but does not address the specific question of whether Winnipeg lab scientists and their documents will be made available to U.S. investigators.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we support the call by President Biden to get to the bottom of this issue. It is so important, after the world has been turned upside down by the COVID pandemic and over three million people have died, that we try our very best to understand what caused this pandemic. For that reason, using the best available science, we should do exactly that, try to figure out where this all started.
Who approved Chinese military scientist Feihu Yan of the People's Liberation Army to work at the government's lab in Winnipeg, a level 4 facility?
Highly specific question citing public documents and peer-reviewed academic papers naming a specific individual, Feihu Yan, identified as a Chinese military scientist of the People's Liberation Army, working at a level 4 facility, with a single clear answerable ask about who approved this.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know from public documents and peer-reviewed academic papers that a Chinese military scientist, Feihu Yan, of the People's Liberation Army worked at the Winnipeg lab, a level 4 facility where the world's most dangerous viruses and pathogens are handled. Who approved this individual to work at the government's lab in Winnipeg?
The minister stated that the National Microbiology Laboratory is a secure facility where everyone must undergo security screening and adhere to strict protocols, but did not say who approved Feihu Yan.
The minister describes the National Microbiology Laboratory's security screening and protocols in general terms but does not answer who approved Feihu Yan to work at the Winnipeg lab.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the National Microbiology Laboratory is a secure facility, and everyone working at it or visiting the lab must undergo security screening and adhere to the strictest protocols, procedures and policies. This is very important, not only to the lab but to Canada and Canadians. I want to thank the lab during Public Service Week for its incredible work in helping Canadians through COVID-19.
Does the health minister not see how corrosive it is to the rule of law to tell Canadians to comply with public health orders while she herself defies an order of this House to hand over documents about the Winnipeg lab?
The question draws a pointed contrast between the health minister telling Canadians to follow public health orders while defying a House order to hand over Winnipeg lab documents, with a clear accountability ask, though it is partly rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my question. I will try another. During this pandemic, the health minister has been telling Canadians to follow public health orders, yet the health minister continues to defy a House order to hand over documents about the Winnipeg lab. Does the minister not see how corrosive this is to the rule of law, when she tells Canadians to comply with public health orders while at the same time defying an order of this House?
The minister said the characterization is conflation and that fully unredacted documents have been shared through the Public Health Agency of Canada and its president Iain Stewart to a committee of parliamentarians for review.
The minister contests the characterization and states that fully unredacted documents were provided to a committee of parliamentarians through the Public Health Agency of Canada and its president Iain Stewart, engaging the topic but not directly addressing the rule of law tension raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is quite a piece of conflation. What I will say is that I have fully shared, through the Public Health Agency of Canada and through its president, Iain Stewart, fully unredacted documents to a committee of parliamentarians for their review. Therefore, in fact, those documents are available for review in a way that does not compromise privacy or national security issues.
Can the minister speak to the other measures in budget 2021 to support women entrepreneurs beyond the childcare investment?
A government-backbench softball question inviting the minister to describe budget 2021 measures supporting women entrepreneurs, with no accountability element.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les entrepreneures de partout au Canada ont Ă©tĂ© touchĂ©es de façon disproportionnĂ©e par la COVIDâ19. Des femmes ont Ă©tĂ© obligĂ©es de quitter la population active pour s'occuper de leurs enfants, Ă cause de la pandĂ©mie. Elles ont pris plus de temps Ă rĂ©intĂ©grer le marchĂ© du travail. Le budget de 2021 prĂ©voit un investissement gĂ©nĂ©rationnel dans le systĂšme d'apprentissage et de garde des jeunes enfants qui rendra possible le retour des femmes au travail. Est-ce que la ministre peut nous parler des autres mesures que le budget de 2021 propose pour appuyer les femmes en entrepreneuriat?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, women entrepreneurs across Canada have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Women have had to leave the workforce in order to care for their children because of the pandemic. It has taken them longer to re-enter the workforce. Budget 2021 makes a generational investment in the early learning and child care system so that women can return to work. Can the minister tell us about other measures in budget 2021 to support women entrepreneurship?
The minister highlighted the childcare investment and the proposed reinforcement of the Stratégie pour les femmes en entrepreneuriat offering better access to financing, mentoring and training for women entrepreneurs.
The minister references specific budget 2021 measures including investment in apprentissage et garde d'enfants and reinforcing the Stratégie pour les femmes en entrepreneuriat with improved access to financing, mentoring and training, providing some real informational content.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais remercier mon honorable collÚgue de sa question trÚs importante. Nous savons que la pandémie a mis en évidence des lacunes importantes de notre filet de sécurité sociale, notamment les défis que doivent relever les femmes entrepreneures. C'est pour cette raison que notre gouvernement a mis en avant une mesure transformatrice d'investissement dans l'apprentissage et la garde d'enfants. Non seulement cela aidera ces femmes entrepreneures à retourner au travail, mais cela nous aidera aussi à bùtir une économie plus forte et résiliente. Il faut également souligner l'investissement proposé pour renforcer la Stratégie pour les femmes en entrepreneuriat qui offrira aux femmes entrepreneures un meilleur accÚs au financement, au mentorat et à la formation. En tant que femme ayant eu une petite entreprise...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her very important question. We know that the pandemic has exposed serious flaws in our social safety net, including the challenges faced by women entrepreneurs. That is why our government has proposed a transformational investment in early learning and child care. Not only will this help these women entrepreneurs get back to work, but it will also help build a stronger, more resilient economy. It is also important to mention the proposed investment to strengthen the womenâs entrepreneurship strategy, which will provide women entrepreneurs with greater access to financing, mentoring and training. As a woman who has owned a small businessâ
Can the Prime Minister confirm that the health minister had not received a briefing about the faille au laboratoire de Winnipeg, as she claimed at committee?
The question references the minister's committee appearance and her alleged claim to have not received a briefing on the faille au laboratoire de Winnipeg, and asks the Prime Minister to confirm whether that is true, giving it some factual grounding despite partisan framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cette semaine, la ministre de la SantĂ© nous a honorĂ©s de sa prĂ©sence au comitĂ© Canada-Chine, pour rĂ©pondre Ă nos questions. Par contre, elle nous a fait perdre notre temps pendant trois heures. Elle a fait la mĂȘme chose que ce qu'elle fait pendant la pĂ©riode des questions orales, c'est-Ă -dire qu'elle a rĂ©pĂ©tĂ© des platitudes. La ministre a mĂȘme essayĂ© de nous faire croire qu'elle n'avait pas reçu de breffage concernant la faille au laboratoire de Winnipeg. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut nous confirmer que la ministre de la SantĂ© n'avait pas reçu de breffage Ă ce sujet?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this week, the Minister of Health honoured us with her presence before the Canada-China committee to answer our questions. However, she wasted our time for three hours. She did the same thing she does during question period, which is repeat platitudes. The minister even tried to make us believe that she had not received a briefing about the breach at the Winnipeg lab. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Minister of Health had not been briefed on the matter?
The minister said the member is putting words in her mouth, noted approximately 26 committee appearances this season, and said she was fully transparent and that fully unredacted documents are with NSICOP.
The minister disputes the characterization, notes her approximately 26th committee appearance this season, and repeats that fully unredacted documents are with NSICOP, a committee of parliamentarians, without confirming or denying whether she received a briefing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again I see the member opposite is putting words in my mouth. In fact, I spent three hours at committee; it was approximately my 26th appearance in front of the House committees this season. I will say that I was fully transparent with the committee, and I reminded the committee that the fully unredacted documents are with NSICOP, a committee of parliamentarians that has the appropriate clearance to review those documents.
Why does the Prime Minister accuse critics of being racists over the brÚche de sécurité au Laboratoire national de microbiologie de Winnipeg domestically while endorsing at the G7 a motion calling China a threat to public security?
The question draws a pointed contrast between the Prime Minister accusing critics of racism over the brÚche de sécurité au Laboratoire national de microbiologie de Winnipeg and his G7 endorsement of a motion calling China a public security threat, with an implicit accountability ask, though it is heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'invite la ministre Ă retourner voir les bleus du ComitĂ©. C'Ă©tait clair, elle disait qu'elle ne savait rien, elle ne savait jamais rien. L'autre problĂšme que nous avons, c'est que, quand nous parlons de la brĂšche de sĂ©curitĂ© au Laboratoire national de microbiologie de Winnipeg, le premier ministre nous accuse toujours d'ĂȘtre racistes et de vouloir semer la peur. Pourtant, la semaine derniĂšre, aux rĂ©unions du G7, ce mĂȘme premier ministre a appuyĂ© une motion qui qualifiait la Chine d'ĂȘtre une menace Ă la sĂ©curitĂ© publique et un gouvernement qui cherche Ă saper le systĂšme mondial. Le premier ministre essaie de faire son brave sur la scĂšne internationale. Pourquoi, au Canada, n'est-il pas capable de nous dire la vĂ©ritĂ© et nous donner l'information?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister to go back and look at the committee blues. She clearly said that she did not know anything; she never knew anything. The other issue we have is that when we talk about the security breach at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, the Prime Minister always accuses us of being racist and fearmongering. However, last week at the G7 meetings, the same Prime Minister supported a motion calling China a threat to public safety with a government seeking to undermine the global system. The Prime Minister is trying to act tough on the international stage. Why is he unable to tell us the truth and give us the information in Canada?
The minister repeated that she spent three hours at committee and that all documents have been released in a fully unredacted fashion to a committee of parliamentarians with the appropriate clearance.
The minister only repeats that she spent three hours at committee and that unredacted documents were released to a committee of parliamentarians, without engaging the G7 contrast or the accusation of racism framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I spent three hours at the committee answering questions from parliamentarians and repeatedly referring the parliamentarians to the statement of the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, who has submitted all the documents, unredacted, to the appropriate committee of parliamentarians that can review those documents.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that there is no longer any collaboration between the laboratoire de Winnipeg and communist China?
The question asks specifically whether the Prime Minister can confirm there is no longer any collaboration between the laboratoire de Winnipeg and communist China, grounded in the CanSino analogy, but is embedded in substantial partisan rhetoric and conspiracy framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, voici la vĂ©ritĂ© Ă ce sujet. Quand le premier ministre dit que c'est la protection de la sĂ©curitĂ© publique qui est en cause et la raison pour laquelle il cache la vĂ©ritĂ© au Canada, c'est parce que le vrai problĂšme est que si on savait ce qui s'est passĂ©, cela le mettrait en conflit avec la Chine. Le premier ministre a toujours des problĂšmes avec la Chine. On l'a vu avec le dĂ©veloppement du vaccin avec CanSino, oĂč on s'est fait avoir. Dans ce qui s'est passĂ© au laboratoire de Winnipeg, il est clair qu'il y a eu un problĂšme, pas pour la Chine, mais pour le Canada. C'est pour cela que le premier ministre ne veut pas qu'on le sache. Est-ce qu'il pourrait au moins nous confirmer qu'il n'y a plus aucune coopĂ©ration avec la Chine?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, here is the truth of the matter. When the Prime Minister says that the protection of public safety is at stake and that that is why he is hiding the truth from Canada, it is because the real problem is that if people knew what went on, it would put him in conflict with China. The Prime Minister is still having problems with China. We saw that with the development of the vaccine with CanSino, where we were fooled. As for what happened at the lab in Winnipeg, it is clear that there was a problem, not for China, but for Canada. That is why the Prime Minister does not want us to know. Could he at least confirm that there is no longer any coâoperation with China?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre dit toujours que la sĂ©curitĂ© publique est la raison pour laquelle il cache la vĂ©ritĂ© aux Canadiens concernant la faille de sĂ©curitĂ© au laboratoire de Winnipeg. La vĂ©ritĂ© est que, si cette information Ă©tait rendue publique, cela dĂ©montrerait Ă quel point il a Ă©tĂ© dĂ©jouĂ© par le rĂ©gime communiste chinois, de la mĂȘme façon qu'il s'est fait avoir par la compagnie CanSino, dĂ©tenue par le rĂ©gime communiste chinois. Peut-il au moins nous confirmer qu'il n'y a plus aucune collaboration actuellement entre le laboratoire de Winnipeg et la Chine communiste?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps saying that public safety is the reason he is hiding the truth about the security breach at the Winnipeg lab from Canadians. The truth is that, if that information were made public, it would show how badly he was fooled by the Chinese Communist regime, just as he was fooled by the CanSino company, which is owned by the Chinese Communist regime. Can he at least confirm that there is no longer any coâoperation going on between the Winnipeg lab and Communist China?
The minister accused the Conservative Party of playing dangerous games with national security and repeated that documents were released fully unredacted to a committee of parliamentarians with appropriate clearance, not addressing the collaboration question.
The minister accuses the Conservative Party of playing dangerous games with national security and repeats the claim about documents being released to a committee of parliamentarians with appropriate clearance, without addressing the specific question about current collaboration.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yet again we see the Conservative Party playing really dangerous games with national security. We will never do that on this side of the House. We understand that there is an appropriate way to release documents in a way that protects their privacy and their national security aspects, and those documents have been released in a fully unredacted fashion to a committee of parliamentarians who have the appropriate clearance to do those reviews.
Can the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance update the House on investments being made to grow the economy and protect the environment?
A government-backbench softball question asking the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance to update the House on investments to grow the economy and protect the environment, with no accountability element.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, climate change is the existential issue of our time, and Canadians across this country want to see their governments take action to address it. More than ever, the environment and the economy have to go hand in hand to offer our children and grandchildren a healthy environment and one in which they can thrive. Could the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance please update this House on the investments we are making to grow the economy and protect the environment?
The minister cited $7.6 billion in budget 2021, building on $50 billion from the strengthened climate plan and $15 billion in public transit, including wetlands restoration and interest-free loans of up to $40,000 for home retrofits.
The minister provides specific figures from budget 2021 including $7.6 billion for a cleaner future, $50 billion from the strengthened climate plan, $15 billion in public transit investment, and mentions wetlands restoration, stormwater systems, and interest-free loans of up to $40,000 for home retrofits.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are taking action to fight climate change and grow our economy. Our investments in budget 2021 are a critical step forward because, on this side of the House, we know that climate change is real. Budget 2021 represents $7.6 billion that would help build a cleaner and more sustainable future, which builds on $50 billion from our strengthened climate plan and also another $15-billion investment in public transit. This includes help to restore wetlands and rehabilitate stormwater systems, and also interest-free loans of up to $40,000 for home retrofits. We areâ
When will the Prime Minister listen to first nations and experts calling for an independent commission and international experts to act on mass graves, given that the government sent a form letter to the Pimicikamak Cree Nation and recycled a 2019 funding announcement?
The question references the 215 children found buried in Kamloops, the Pimicikamak Cree Nation's call for the International Commission on Missing Persons, a 2019 funding announcement being recycled, and SNC-Lavalin filling in, with a clear ask for an independent commission and international experts, though partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, following the 215 children found buried in Kamloops, first nations are calling for action, but the government is MIA. When the Pimicikamak Cree Nation calls for the International Commission on Missing Persons to come in, the government sends them a form letter. When first nations ask for help to search for mass graves, the government recycles an insulting 2019 funding announcement. Now we have news that SNC-Lavalin is filling in while the government neglects its responsibilities. This is genocide. First nations and experts are calling for an independent commission, international experts and concrete action. When will the Prime Minister listen and act?
The minister said the government is working with the community and partners such as the B.C. First Nations Health Authority to provide resources and supports, and that $27 million of funding is being made available on an urgent basis.
The minister mentions working with the community and the B.C. First Nations Health Authority and references $27 million of funding being made available on an urgent basis, but does not address the specific calls for the International Commission on Missing Persons, an independent commission, or the SNC-Lavalin concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all Canadians were heartbroken when we learned of the remains of children at the former Kamloops residential school. We are working with the community and our partners, such as the B.C. First Nations Health Authority, to provide all the resources and supports needed as determined by the community and all communities. We are also reaching out to indigenous communities across Canada on how best to support them in finding their lost children and healing, including how they can access the $27 million of funding being made available right now on an urgent basis.
The member sought unanimous consent to adopt a motion supporting the Assemblée nationale du Québec's June 9, 2021 resolution recognizing the rights of First Nations and Inuit to maintain their languages and calling on the federal government to deploy more resources to protect and promote indigenous languages in Quebec and Canada.
This is a procedural request for unanimous consent to adopt a motion recognizing indigenous language rights in Quebec and Canada rather than a question to a minister, making it unsuitable as an accountability exchange.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je pense que si vous le demandez, vous obtiendrez le consentement unanime de la Chambre pour l'adoption de la motion suivante: Que la Chambre: a) appuie la motion de consentement unanime adoptée à l'Assemblée nationale du Québec le 9 juin 2021 reconnaissant principalement que (i) la Charte de la langue française reconnaßt explicitement le droit des PremiÚres Nations et des Inuits de maintenir et de développer leurs langues et leurs cultures; (ii) plusieurs langues autochtones sont menacées de disparition; (iii) les 11 nations autochtones au Québec ont, tout comme la nation québécoise, le droit de vivre dans leurs langues, de les promouvoir et de les protéger; (iv) le gouvernement du Québec a une part de responsabilité à assumer à cet égard; b) demande au gouvernement fédéral de reconnaßtre ses responsabilités et de déployer davantage de ressources pour protéger et promouvoir les langues autochtones au Québec et au Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That the House: (a) support the unanimous consent motion adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec on June 9, 2021, recognizing primarily that, (i) the Charter of the French Language explicitly recognizes the right of First Nations and Inuit to maintain and develop their languages and cultures, (ii) several Indigenous languages are threatened with extinction, (iii) the 11 Indigenous nations in Quebec have, like the Quebec nation, the right to live in their languages and to promote and protect them, (iv) the Government of Quebec has a responsibility to assume in this regard; and (b) call on the federal government to recognize its responsibilities and to deploy more resources to protect and promote Indigenous languages in Quebec and in Canada.
No ministerial answer was provided.
No ministerial answer was recorded for this exchange.