Session overview
- The Emergencies Act dominated early exchanges, with the Leader of the Opposition arguing the RCMP and Ottawa police had not requested the act, while the Prime Minister cited OPP Chief Superintendent Carson Pardy's statement that the act gave police 'effective supplementary tools.'
- Bill C-5 generated heated exchanges across four language groups, with Conservative members arguing it would allow house arrest for armed robbery, weapons trafficking, drive-by shootings and other violent offences, while the Prime Minister insisted the bill addresses overrepresentation of Black Canadians and indigenous peoples without preventing police from charging or prosecutors from pursuing convictions.
- Airport delays, passport backlogs and outdated COVID restrictions were raised repeatedly, with the government citing 400 additional security screeners, 25 new CBSA kiosks at Pearson airport and 500 new passport employees as remedies.
- The Bloc Québécois questioned the cost of the royal visit by the Prince of Wales, raised the appointment of a Governor General and lieutenant-governor who do not speak French, and challenged the government over the modernization of the Official Languages Act and the non-application of the Charte de la langue française to federal undertakings.
- Gang violence in Montreal prompted BQ members to demand a registry of criminal organizations, while the government pointed to $358 million invested since 2017 in enforcement and the $250 million Fonds pour bùtir des communautés plus sécuritaires, without committing to the registry.
- The House unanimously adopted two commemorative motions: one recognizing the genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka and designating May 18 as Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day, and one recognizing the 1944 Soviet mass deportation of the Crimean Tatar people as genocide and designating May 18 as Crimean Tatar Deportation (Surgunlik) Memorial Day.
The Prime Minister made specific, verifiable commitments on passport delays: new centres to increase production capacity, 500 new employees hired, and a new online booking tool to direct applicants.
The question cites a specific page of the Liberal platform (page 75), specific dollar amounts ($250 million immediately and $625 million in the budget), and asks for an explanation of why those commitments were broken â a precise, document-grounded accountability ask.
Faced with a direct factual question about whether consultations for a tariff on urea had begun, the Prime Minister offered no information whatsoever, saying only that 'the appropriate minister' would follow up.
Outstanding questions
- John Barlow asked whether the government would exempt the 35% tariff on Russian fertilizer purchased before March 2 â the Prime Minister referenced support programs but did not answer whether an exemption would be granted.
- Mike Lake asked four times why the Liberals broke their election promise of a Canada mental health transfer, including the immediate $250 million and $625 million in the current budget â no explanation for the broken commitment was provided.
- RhĂ©al Fortin and Kristina Michaud asked for a clear yes or no on whether the federal government would create a registry of criminal organizations to combat gang violence in Montreal â the Prime Minister listed past investments but did not answer yes or no.
- Leslyn Lewis asked when a public inquiry into the government's COVID responses would be established before Canada signs amendments to the international health regulations at the World Health Assembly â the Prime Minister did not address the inquiry question.
- Yves-François Blanchet asked how much the royal visit by the Prince of Wales was costing Canadians â the Prime Minister pivoted to democratic stability and his afternoon meeting agenda without providing a figure.
Bergen asserts that neither the RCMP nor the Ottawa police asked the government to invoke the Emergencies Act, and asks whether the invocation was therefore an unjustified power grab.
Cites specific new facts (RCMP and Ottawa police did not request the act) but frames the ask as a rhetorical 'is that not the truth?' rather than a precise accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's argument for invoking the Emergencies Act on Canadians is very quickly falling apart. Last week, we learned the RCMP did not ask the government to invoke the act, and just yesterday we learned the Ottawa police did not either. The Liberals are simply not telling Canadians the truth. The Emergencies Act was an overreach by the Prime Minister and a government in trouble. Their power grab was just another example of classic Liberal cover-up, denial and blame. Is that not the truth?
Trudeau argues blockades threatened jobs and democracy, and quotes OPP Chief Superintendent Carson Pardy saying the Emergencies Act provided effective supplementary tools to restore peace.
Engages the Emergencies Act topic and quotes OPP Chief Superintendent Carson Pardy directly, but does not address the specific claim that neither the RCMP nor the Ottawa police requested the act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the illegal blockades in our cities and at our ports represented a threat to Canadian jobs, to trade and to our democracy. Police told us they needed additional tools to clear the blockades and, as OPP Chief Superintendent Carson Pardy said at yesterday's meeting: The Emergencies Act [gave police] effective supplementary tools needed to help protect critical infrastructure and ensure the continuous and safe delivery of essential goods and services, while at the same time maintainingâor in the case of Ottawa, restoringâpeace, order and public security.
Bergen accuses the Prime Minister of creating the protest through divisiveness and then invoking the Emergencies Act without valid reason, asking him to stop spreading disinformation and admit the truth.
Primarily rhetorical partisan framing accusing the Prime Minister of divisiveness, disinformation and cover-up, with only a vague ask to 'tell the truth.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's divisiveness is the reason the protest started and his failure to lead is the reason it got worse. The Prime Minister called people names: he wedged, he divided and then he spread misinformation. Then, to deal with the mess that he created, he invoked the Emergencies Act, stomping on freedoms and freezing bank accounts. Now he is covering up. The time has come for the Prime Minister to stop spreading disinformation and stop hiding the fact that he and his ministers had no valid reason to invoke the Emergencies Act. Will he do that? Will he tell the truth?
Trudeau says the government has announced the Public Order Emergency Commission as an independent public inquiry, and accuses Conservatives of not wanting light shed on events given their support of the blockades.
Mentions the Public Order Emergency Commission as a concrete response, which is somewhat relevant, but pivots to attacking Conservative support for the blockades rather than addressing the accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in February, when blockades and occupations disrupted our economy, hurt workers and endangered public safety, we invoked the Emergencies Act to help bring them to an end. We have now announced the Public Order Emergency Commission: an independent public inquiry to examine the circumstances that led to the declaration being issued and the measures taken in response, as required under the act. I know that the interim leader of the Conservative Party, as well as members of the Conservative Party, may not want light shed on these events, given their support of these blockades, but Canadians want to know the truth.
Bergen cites airport lineups, months-long passport delays, and out-of-date COVID restrictions, asking when Canada will return to pre-COVID normal.
Raises real issues of airport delays and passport backlogs but frames them in partisan rhetoric and poses a broad unanswerable question about when Canada will return to 'pre-COVID normal.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is more disinformation from the Prime Minister. He should be ashamed of what he just said. Airports across the country are at a breaking point, with massive lineups and delays. People are waiting for months and months for passports and basic government services, and it is all because of the Prime Minister's failure. While the world has moved on from COVID, Canada is stuck in out-of-date restrictions and rules because the Liberal Prime Minister is stubborn, out of touch and out of date. My question is simple. When will Canada get back to pre-COVID normal? When?
Trudeau says the government has stood up working groups, hired about 400 additional security screeners, added 25 kiosks at Pearson airport, and increased overtime for CBSA officers to reduce wait times.
Trudeau provides some specific measures (400 additional security screeners, 25 kiosks at Pearson) that partially address airport wait times but does not engage the passport backlog or give any timeline for easing restrictions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as much as the Conservatives would like to ignore it, COVID-19 is still with us, and will continue to be with us, and Canadians need to continue to follow the best science in order to keep people safe. With regard to airports, our government has already taken action to reduce wait times by standing up working groups with relevant agencies to identify and address bottlenecks and by hiring about 400 additional security screeners. The CBSA has also added 25 kiosks at Pearson airport to speed up processing time and increased overtime available to officers. Unfortunately for Conservatives, we will continue to follow the science and keep Canadians safe.
Bergen contrasts the Prime Minister's use of a government jet and mask-free travel abroad with Canadians suffering under out-of-date COVID rules, asking when they will get back to pre-COVID life.
Primarily rhetorical, using an anecdote about the Prime Minister's government jet and mask-free travel abroad to score partisan points, with only a vague ask about returning to pre-COVID life.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know the Prime Minister does not have to wait for hours in line at an airport. When he wants to go somewhere, he just hops on his government jet and flies wherever he likes. Once there, off goes his mask and he enjoys freedom in the countries he is visiting. I guess COVID is not in those particular countries. Meanwhile, back in Canada, Canadians are suffering under his out-of-date COVID rules. Canadians have done everything that they have been asked to do. They have done everything expected of them. When are they going to get back to the pre-COVID lives they need and they deserve?
Trudeau says all Canadians are sick and tired of COVID but wishing it away will not make it go away, and pivots to criticizing Conservatives for not being unequivocal on the need for vaccines and supporting anti-vaxxers.
Trudeau does not address the specific contrast raised about his own travel and pivots to attacking Conservative hesitancy on vaccines, providing no new information on restrictions or timelines.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are sick and tired of COVID. We all agree on that, but wishing it away or ignoring it will simply not make it go away. Over the past months, we have seen more deaths from COVID than at any time in the beginning of the pandemic. We will continue to do the work Canadians elected us to do just six months ago, and do everything necessary to keep Canadians safe. I know Conservatives have not been unequivocal on the need for vaccines. They have been hesitant and have been supporting anti-vaxxers. We will continue to stand on the side of keeping Canadians safe.
Bergen accuses the Prime Minister of being out of touch with young Canadians' struggles around gas, groceries and housing, asking why he is ignoring and disrespecting young Canadians.
Purely rhetorical framing about young Canadians' struggles with no specific data cited and no answerable ask beyond a general accusation that the Prime Minister is ignoring and disrespecting young Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there he goes again, spreading more disinformation. When he has no valid argument, it is disinformation on that side. Well, the Prime Minister does not have to wait in a line. He does not have to worry about filling up his tank, buying groceries or buying a home. Young people in this country are desperately worried about those things, and they know the Prime Minister either does not understand or just does not care. They see a Prime Minister who blames everyone else for the problems he has created. The fact is that millions of young Canadians are seeing the truth. They do not trust the Prime Minister and do not believe he understands their struggles. Why is he ignoring and disrespecting young Canadians?
Trudeau lists pandemic-era supports for young Canadians including small business investments, reduced student tuition, student loan support, and increased Canada summer jobs, claiming Conservatives criticized each of these measures.
Trudeau lists past supports (small business investments, student tuition reductions, student loan support, Canada summer jobs) without addressing any of the current cost-of-living concerns for young Canadians raised in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of the pandemic, we made a promise to Canadians that we would have their backs, and that especially included young Canadians. We invested in supports for the kinds of small businesses that keep young people employed, we reduced student tuition costs and provided support for student loans. We have continued to invest in increasing Canada summer jobs to make sure they got through the pandemic. We have consistently been there for young people, and every step of the way, the Conservatives criticized us for doing as much as we have to help young people. They have criticized us for supporting young people at all. We will continue to be there for all Canadians.
Blanchet links the Prince of Wales's visit to the Prime Minister's opposition to church-state separation and asks how much the visit is costing.
Blanchet links the royal visit to the church-state separation motion and poses a concrete cost question, but wraps it in rhetorical irony about prayer and the monarchy rather than citing specific figures.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme ils disent Ă la messe: et la lumiĂšre fut. Je comprends trĂšs bien maintenant pourquoi le premier ministre Ă©tait si hostile Ă notre motion sur la sĂ©paration entre l'Ăglise et l'Ătat, il avait de planifiĂ© une semaine avec l'hĂ©ritier de la Couronne britannique, qui, incidemment, est le futur chef religieux de l'Ăglise anglicane. On voit et on comprend ses prioritĂ©s. Maintenant qu'on sait qu'il faut prier pour la Couronne de la monarchie britannique et qu'ils sont accueillis ici, est-ce que le premier ministre peut nous dire combien cela coĂ»te?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as they say in mass, and then there was light. I truly understand why the Prime Minister was so hostile to our motion on the separation of church and state. He was planning to spend a week with the heir apparent to the British throne, who, incidentally, is the future head of the Church of England. We see and understand his priorities. Now that we know that we must pray for the royals of the British monarchy and that they are welcome here, can the Prime Minister tell us how much this costs?
Trudeau mocks the Bloc leader for complaining about the monarchy and prayer, then lists unrelated government priorities such as childcare spaces, small business investment, and immigration.
Trudeau does not address the cost of the royal visit at all, instead mocking the Bloc for focusing on the monarchy and listing unrelated government priorities.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, mon Dieu que le gouvernement libĂ©ral Ă Ottawa doit bien rĂ©pondre aux attentes des QuĂ©bĂ©cois si la seule chose dont le chef du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois arrive Ă se plaindre est encore la monarchie et la priĂšre Ă la Chambre des communes. Nous sommes en train de crĂ©er plus de places en garderie pour les familles quĂ©bĂ©coises. Nous sommes en train d'investir pour aider les petites entreprises. Nous sommes en train de travailler Ă accroĂźtre l'immigration pour contrer la pĂ©nurie de main-d'Ćuvre. Nous sommes lĂ pour rĂ©pondre aux attentes des QuĂ©bĂ©cois et de tous les Canadiens. Le chef du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois doit creuser profondĂ©ment pour chercher de la chicane.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my goodness, the Liberal government in Ottawa must be doing a great job meeting the expectations of Quebeckers, if the only thing the leader of the Bloc Québécois can complain about is still the monarchy and the prayer in the House of Commons. We are now creating more child care spaces for Quebec families. We are investing in help for small businesses. We are working on growing immigration to address the labour shortage. We are there to meet the expectations of Quebeckers and all Canadians. The leader of the Bloc Québécois has to dig deep to pick a fight.
Blanchet cites costs of over $2 million for the royal visit this week and over $65 million per year for the monarchy, noting most Quebecers and a majority of Canadians are opposed to the British monarchy, and asks who pays the bill.
Blanchet cites a specific cost figure of $2.2 million for the visit and $65 million per year for the monarchy, and asks directly who pays the bill, making this a reasonably specific and grounded question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pour le premier ministre, des vacances de 2,2 millions de dollars, c'est bien peu de chose. Il y a des ßles qui l'accueillent. Or, dans la vraie vie, la grande majorité des Québécois et une majorité de Canadiens sont réfractaires à la monarchie britannique. Cela représente plus de 2 millions de dollars cette semaine et plus de 65 millions de dollars par année. D'habitude, du tourisme, cela fait des revenus, pas des dépenses. Qui paie le bill?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister, $2.2âmillion vacations are hardly extraordinary. There are islands that welcome him. In real life, the vast majority of Quebeckers and a majority of Canadians do not support the British monarchy. It is costing us more than $2 million this week and more than $65 million a year. Tourism usually generates revenues, not expenses. Who is footing the bill?
Trudeau defends Canada's strong and stable democracy, drawing a contrast with the attack on democracy in Ukraine, without addressing the royal visit costs.
Trudeau does not mention the cost figures at all and instead delivers a generic defence of Canadian democracy and democratic stability, with no connection to the question asked.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pour ĂȘtre sĂ©rieux un peu, je suis content de dire que, au Canada, nous avons une des dĂ©mocraties les plus fortes, les plus stables au monde. Nous voyons Ă quel point la dĂ©mocratie est littĂ©ralement attaquĂ©e en Ukraine et ailleurs dans le monde par la polarisation, la toxicitĂ© et un recul des valeurs et des principes dĂ©mocratiques dans bien des coins de notre planĂšte. Le Canada peut ĂȘtre fier, car nous avons un systĂšme qui dure depuis trĂšs longtemps. Nous pouvons nous concentrer sur les grands enjeux qui prĂ©occupent les Canadiens et non sur notre propre stabilitĂ©. Je pense que c'est une bonne chose.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on a serious note, I am pleased to say that Canada has one of the strongest and most stable democracies in the world. We see the extent to which democracy is literally being attacked in Ukraine and elsewhere in the world by polarization, toxicity, and the deterioration of democratic principles and values in many parts of the world. Canada can be proud because we have a system that has been in place a very long time. We can focus on the major issues of concern to Canadians and not on our own stability. I believe that is a good thing.
Singh cites April inflation at 6.7%, food costs up 9.8% and salaries up only 3.3%, and asks the Prime Minister to cancel fossil fuel subsidies and reinvest the savings by sending up to $1,000 directly to those who need it most.
Singh cites specific April inflation figures (6.7%), food cost increases (9.8%), and salary growth (3.3%), and asks a clear policy question about cancelling fossil fuel subsidies and sending up to $1,000 to those in need.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is the situation in Canada: In April, inflation hit 6.7%, which is the highest it has been since 1991. The cost of food has gone up by 9.8%, and salaries have only gone up by 3.3%. All of this is to say workers are experiencing a massive pay cut. All the while, oil and gas companies are enjoying massive profits. The Prime Minister can do something instead of just standing by. Will the Prime Minister follow our plan, cancel the fossil fuel subsidies and reinvest that into people by sending up to $1,000 directly to those who need it the most?
Trudeau says the government is committed to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies in the next two years, has already phased out eight tax breaks for the sector, and has committed over $100 billion to climate action, but does not address the $1,000 direct payment proposal.
Trudeau mentions phasing out fossil fuel subsidies in two years and phasing out eight tax breaks, but does not address the specific proposal to redirect those savings as direct payments of up to $1,000 to people who need it most.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are committed to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies in the next two years, and have already phased out eight tax breaks for the sector. We recently presented the emissions reductions plan that goes line by line to cut emissions and will inform our approach to cap and cut emissions from oil and gas. We are taking real action to fight climate change by committing over $100 billion to climate action and by making sure that polluting is no longer free anywhere in the country. We are going to keep pushing forward, and I am looking forward to the support of the leader of the NDP in doing just that.
Singh restates that food costs are up 9.8% while salaries rose only 3.3%, representing a major pay cut for workers, and asks whether the government will follow the NDP plan to cancel fossil fuel subsidies and redirect that money as payments of up to $1,000 to people.
Repeats the same specific food cost and salary figures in French and poses the same clear policy ask about following the NDP plan, making it a substantive and grounded question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, voici la situation au pays. Le coût de la nourriture a augmenté de 9,8 %, mais le salaire a seulement augmenté de 3,3 %. Pour les travailleurs, cela veut dire une grande réduction de leur paie. Le gouvernement libéral a donc une occasion d'agir: il peut suivre notre plan, éliminer les subventions pétroliÚres et réinvestir cet argent pour aider les gens en leur donnant directement jusqu'à 1 000 $. Est-ce que le gouvernement va suivre notre plan?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, here is the situation across the country. The cost of food has increased 9.8%, but wages have only increased 3.3%. For workers, that represents a big pay cut. The Liberal government has an opportunity to take action. It can follow our plan, eliminate oil subsidies and reinvest that money in helping people by directly giving them up to $1,000. Will the government follow our plan?
Trudeau says fossil fuel subsidies are being phased out, that EDC is ceasing loans to the fossil fuel sector to become Canada's largest clean technology financier, and that Canada has announced its intention to end all new direct public support to the international unabated fossil fuel sector.
Trudeau says fossil fuel subsidies are being phased out and mentions EDC stopping loans to the fossil fuel sector and Canada ending new public direct support to the international unabated fossil fuel sector, but does not address the $1,000 direct payment plan.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je sais que les Canadiens d'un bout Ă l'autre du pays font face Ă des difficultĂ©s Ă cause de la hausse du coĂ»t de la vie. Nous allons continuer d'ĂȘtre lĂ pour eux pour les soutenir. Au sujet du financement public du secteur des combustibles fossiles, nous sommes en train d'Ă©liminer progressivement ces subventions. Rien ne va nous dĂ©tourner de notre but d'offrir aux Canadiens de l'air pur et une Ă©conomie solide. Exportation et dĂ©veloppement Canada partage cet objectif et cesse d'octroyer des prĂȘts au secteur des combustibles fossiles pour devenir le plus grand financier des technologies propres au Canada. En fait, le Canada a annoncĂ© son intention de cesser toute nouvelle aide publique directe au secteur international des combustibles fossiles non exploitĂ©s.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I know that Canadians across the country are struggling because of the increased cost of living. We will continue to be there to support them. With regard to the public financing of the fossil fuel sector, we are gradually eliminating those subsidies. Nothing will distract us from our goal of giving Canadians clean air and a strong economy. Export Development Canada shares this goal. It no longer provides loans to the fossil fuel sector, but instead it has become the largest financier of Canada's clean technology sector. In fact, Canada announced its intention to end new direct public support for the international unabated fossil fuel sector.
Stubbs cites an 83% increase in gun crime since the Liberals took office and lists specific offences in Bill C-5 that would allow criminals to receive house arrest instead of jail, asking the government to scrap Bill C-5.
Cites a specific statistic (gun crime up 83% since the Liberals took office) and names concrete offences in Bill C-5 that would be eligible for house arrest, making a reasonably specific accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, violent crime is increasing under the Prime Minister. Gun crime is up 83% since the Liberals took office. At the same time, they are going to make it allowable for criminals to get house arrest instead of going to jail for armed robbery, weapons trafficking, drug trafficking, breaking and entering, possession of illegal firearms and drive-by shootings. He is going after law-abiding Canadians, but going soft on gangsters who do not care about his rules and paperwork. Will he scrap Bill C-5?
Trudeau says the criminal justice reform legislation turns the page on failed Conservative policies that were tough on Black Canadians and indigenous people, and argues the bill creates a system that is fair and effective and does not target people because of systemic discrimination or addiction.
Trudeau does not address the 83% figure or the specific offences listed, instead characterizing the question as disinformation and pivoting to a racial equity argument about the bill.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our criminal justice reform legislation turns the page on failed Conservative Party policies. The Conservatives claim to be tough on crime, but are really just tough on Black Canadians and indigenous people. What our communities need is a justice system that punishes criminals. What we do not need is a system that targetsâ
Mr. Speaker, our criminal justice reform legislation turns the page on failed Conservative Party policies, in which the Conservatives claimed to be tough on crime, but were really just tough on Black Canadians and on indigenous Canadians. What we need is a system that does not target people because of systemic discrimination or send people to prison because they struggle with addiction. This bill is another step forward to create a system that is fair and effective and that keeps Canadians safe.
Stubbs cites record highs in Toronto for shootings, murders and injuries and says many offenders are repeat offenders, listing specific crimes in Bill C-5 such as sexual and physical assault, human trafficking, kidnapping and arson that would allow house arrest, asking when the government will crack down on criminals.
Cites record highs in Toronto for shootings, murders and injuries in 2018 or 2019 and lists specific offences covered by Bill C-5, making it more substantive than pure rhetoric, though the ask remains broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is shameful. Instead of vile insults, let us actually talk about reality. There are record highs in Toronto alone for most shootings, most murders and most people injured in 2018 or 2019. Many who harm innocent Canadians are multiple repeat offenders, but the Prime Minister wants to make it easier for them to stay home among their victims for crimes like sexual and physical assault, human trafficking, kidnapping, criminal harassment, failure to give the necessities of life and arson. These are major crimes that cause lifelong trauma and loss. When will he stop punishing law-abiding Canadians and actually crack down on criminals?
Trudeau says the legislation does not stop police from charging people with gun offences or prosecutors from pursuing convictions, and that it makes sure criminals face serious penalties while addressing the overrepresentation of Black Canadians and indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system.
Trudeau says the legislation does not stop police from charging people or prosecutors from pursuing convictions, which partially addresses a mischaracterization, but does not engage the specific crimes or the repeat-offender concern raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us be absolutely clear and avoid any disinformation from the Conservatives. This legislation does not stop police from charging people with gun offences or prosecutors from pursuing convictions. What it does is make sure that criminals face serious penalties while addressing the overrepresentation of Black Canadians and indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system. This is a responsible approach to keeping communities safe.
Paul-Hus cites the fatal shooting of Thomas, 16, in a Montreal alley and a 17-year-old shot multiple times in LaurierâSainte-Marie, and asks why the NDP-Liberal coalition supported by the Bloc wants to fast-track Bill C-5, which he says will help street gangs continue their shootings.
Paul-Hus cites two specific recent shootings in named ridings and links them concretely to the anticipated acceleration of Bill C-5, grounding the question in real events, though the ask remains a broad 'why?'
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Thomas, 16 ans, a Ă©tĂ© tuĂ© par balle aprĂšs avoir Ă©tĂ© interpellĂ© par un individu dans une ruelle du Nord de MontrĂ©al. Thomas Ă©tait rĂ©sidant de la circonscription du dĂ©putĂ© de Bourassa. Un adolescent de 17 ans, atteint de plusieurs balles Ă l'abdomen, dans LaurierâSainteâMarie, a succombĂ© Ă ses blessures. Maintenant, la coalition NPD-libĂ©rale, soutenue par le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, veut accĂ©lĂ©rer lâadoption du projet de loi Câ5, qui ne fera quâaider les gangs de rue Ă continuer leurs fusillades. Pourquoi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, 16-year-old Thomas was shot and killed in northern Montreal after an individual called out to him from an alleyway. Thomas lived in the riding of the member for Bourassa. A 17-year-old teen was shot several times in his upper body in LaurierâSainteâMarie and later succumbed to his injuries. Now the NDP-Liberal coalition, supported by the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois, wants to expedite the passage of Bill C-5, which will only serve to help street gangs carry out more shootings. Why?
Trudeau says the legislation does not prevent police from laying charges or prosecutors from seeking convictions, and that it ensures criminals are punished severely while reducing the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous Canadians in the criminal justice system.
Trudeau repeats the same boilerplate about the legislation not stopping police or prosecutors and addressing overrepresentation, without engaging the specific shooting incidents or the role of street gangs mentioned.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il faudrait que les conservateurs en finissent avec la dĂ©sinformation. Cette mesure lĂ©gislative n'empĂȘche pas les policiers de porter des accusations ni les procureurs de chercher Ă obtenir des condamnations. Ce qu'elle fait, c'est de veiller Ă ce que les criminels soient punis sĂ©vĂšrement, tout en diminuant la surreprĂ©sentation des Canadiens noirs et autochtones dans le systĂšme de justice pĂ©nale. C'est l'approche responsable pour assurer la sĂ©curitĂ© des communautĂ©s, contrairement Ă l'approche des conservateurs qui a Ă©chouĂ© dans les annĂ©es passĂ©es.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives need to stop spreading disinformation. This legislation does not stop police from charging people or prosecutors from pursuing convictions. What it does is make sure that criminals face serious penalties while addressing the overrepresentation of Black Canadians and indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system. This is a responsible approach to keeping communities safe, in contrast to the Conservatives' approach, which failed in the past.
Paul-Hus states that a criminal is a criminal regardless of race, cites that 90% of victims in 2021 came from the communities of the criminals who acted, and asks why the government will not stop Bill C-5 and why it is removing minimum sentences for crimes with firearms.
Paul-Hus cites a specific statistic that 90% of victims in 2021 came from the communities of the criminals who acted, and poses a direct policy question about why minimum sentences for crimes with firearms are being removed.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, un criminel est un criminel, peu importe la race. Estâce que le premier ministre sait que 90 % des victimes, en 2021, proviennent des communautĂ©s des criminels qui ont agi? Qu'on soit Blanc, Noir ou Autochtone, cela ne change rien. L'utilisation d'une arme Ă feu de façon illĂ©gale mĂ©rite une peine. Pourquoi ne pas arrĂȘter le projet de loi Câ5 et pourquoi enlever les peines minimales pour crimes avec arme?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a criminal is a criminal, no matter their race. Does the Prime Minister know that 90% of victims in 2021 belonged to the same communities as the perpetrators? Black, white or indigenous, it does not matter. The unlawful use of a firearm must be punished. Why not stop Bill Câ5? Why eliminate minimum sentences for gun crimes?
Trudeau says the criminal justice reform legislation turns the page on failed Conservative policies that targeted Black Canadians and indigenous peoples under the guise of being tough on crime, and argues the bill creates a just and effective system.
Trudeau repeats the same talking points about failed Conservative policies targeting Black Canadians and indigenous peoples without addressing the 90% victim statistic or the specific question about removing minimum sentences for firearm crimes.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre projet de loi pour réformer la justice pénale met fin aux politiques ratées du Parti conservateur, qui prétendait lutter durement contre la criminalité, mais qui ne faisait au fond que cibler les Canadiens noirs et les peuples autochtones. Ce dont nos communautés ont besoin, c'est d'un systÚme de justice qui punit les criminels. Ce dont nous n'avons pas besoin, c'est d'un systÚme qui vise les personnes racisées en raison d'une discrimination systémique. Cette loi est un autre pas vers la création d'un systÚme juste et efficace qui assurera la sécurité de tous les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our criminal justice reform bill eliminates the failed policies of the Conservative Party, which claimed to be tough on crime but was ultimately just going after Black Canadians and indigenous peoples. What our communities need is a criminal justice system that punishes criminals. What we do not need is a system that targets racialized people through systemic discrimination. This legislation is another step towards a fair and effective system that will keep all Canadians safe.
Moore cites a news headline from the previous day about a Montreal man charged with firearm offences after drive-by shootings and asks why the Prime Minister is putting his own neighbours' lives at risk with the soft-on-crime Bill C-5 that lets drive-by shooters off easy.
Moore cites a specific yesterday news headline about a Montreal man charged with firearm offences after drive-by shootings and connects it to a provision in Bill C-5, but frames the ask rhetorically about the Prime Minister putting his neighbours' lives at risk.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' Bill C-5 goes soft on violent crimes that are ripped right from the headlines. Just yesterday, a news headline read, âMontreal man charged with firearm offences after investigation into drive-by shootingsâ. This was right in the Prime Minister's own neighbourhood, yet Bill C-5 lets drive-by shooters off easy. Why is he putting his own neighbours' lives at risk with the soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-5?
Trudeau says the government is investing $250 million directly in communities to stop violence, banning military-style assault weapons, and establishing a task force with the U.S. to end smuggling, and commits to doing even more on gun control.
Trudeau cites a $250 million investment in communities, the ban on military-style assault weapons, and a task force with the U.S. to end smuggling, but does not address drive-by shooting provisions in Bill C-5 or the specific headline cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, targeting the supply of guns and the root causes of violence is essential to ending gun and gang violence, so we are taking action by investing $250 million directly in communities to stop violence before it starts. We are banning military-style assault weapons, and we are establishing a task force with the U.S. to end smuggling. We know there is more to do because every life lost to gun violence is one too many. I stand with communities, experts and advocates to say, âDo not worry, Conservatives. We are committed to doing even more on gun control.â
Moore cites a poll published that week finding most Canadians feel gun violence is getting worse in their communities, and asks the Prime Minister to reverse course and abandon the soft-on-crime Bill C-5.
Moore cites a poll published that week showing most Canadians feel gun violence is getting worse, and frames a reasonably clear ask to reverse course on Bill C-5, but leads with a partisan framing about governing by opinion polls.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not standing with victims. Victims have spoken loud and clear. As a matter of fact, a poll published this week found that most Canadians feel that gun violence is getting worse in their communities. Rather than stopping illegal firearms from coming across the border, the Liberals' Bill C-5 will help repeat offenders charged with multiple violent gun crimes escape accountability. We know the Prime Minister likes to govern by opinion polls, so will he finally do the right thing, reverse course and abandon the soft-on-crime Bill C-5?
Trudeau says the legislation does not stop police from charging people with gun offences or prosecutors from pursuing convictions, and that the government is moving forward on stronger gun controls by interdicting the flow of illegal guns across the border and continuing to step up on more gun control.
Trudeau repeats the same boilerplate about the legislation not stopping police or prosecutors, mentions interdicting illegal guns and stronger gun controls, but does not engage the poll cited or the repeat-offender concern raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, allow us to be very clear in the face of misinformation and disinformation from the Conservatives. This legislation does not stop police from charging people with gun offences or prosecutors from pursuing convictions. We are moving forward on stronger gun controls, both by interdicting the flow of illegal guns across the border and continuing to step up on more gun control. All Canadians are united in wanting to see less gun crime and less gun violence, and that is exactly what we are delivering, contrary to the Conservatives, who want less gun control.
Will the Prime Minister explain to the Prince of Wales that the Dominion of Canada is bilingual, given that he has appointed a Governor General and a lieutenant-governor who speak no French?
The question raises a specific accountability point about appointing unilingual anglophone vice-regal representatives in a bilingual country, but frames it with rhetorical flourish about paying for a royal vacation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre a rĂ©ussi Ă vanter la dĂ©mocratie et la monarchie dans la mĂȘme phrase, il faut le faire. Cette mĂȘme monarchie Ă qui je suis en train de payer un petit bout d'une semaine de vacances, c'est la mĂȘme monarchie qu'il perpĂ©tue en nommant une gouverneure gĂ©nĂ©rale et une lieutenante-gouverneure qui ne disent pas un mot de français. Le premier ministre va-t-il essayer d'expliquer au prince de Galles que le Dominion of Canada est bilingue?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister managed to praise democracy and the monarchy in the same sentence. Unbelievable. This is the same monarchy whose quick little vacation I am paying for, and the same monarchy that he is maintaining by appointing a Governor General and a Lieutenant Governor who do not speak a word of French. Will the Prime Minister try to explain to the Prince of Wales that the Dominion of Canada is bilingual?
Trudeau says he will meet with the Prince along with business and Indigenous leaders to discuss climate change and strong democratic institutions.
Trudeau completely ignores the question about unilingual vice-regal appointments and pivots entirely to his afternoon meeting agenda on climate change.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cet aprÚs-midi, je vais effectivement m'asseoir avec le prince, mais aussi avec des leaders du secteur des affaires et des leaders autochtones pour parler de l'importance de lutter contre les changements climatiques. Nous savons à quel point c'est une préoccupation mondiale. Nous sommes en train de faire du vrai travail de leadership dans le monde pour assurer une transition plus durable et plus d'investissements dans l'avenir écoénergétique. Nous allons continuer de travailler dans le cadre de notre systÚme d'institutions fortes et démocratiques. C'est cela qui va donner des résultats aux Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in fact, I will be sitting down with the prince this afternoon, along with business and indigenous leaders, to talk about the importance of fighting climate change. We know this is a global concern. We are taking action as global leaders to ensure a more sustainable transition and increased investments in a clean energy future. We will continue to work within our system of strong, democratic institutions. That is what will deliver results for Canadians.
Given unilingual vice-regal appointments, Liberal MPs contesting loi 101, and refusal to apply the Charte de la langue française to federal enterprises, is the Prime Minister building a systematic case against the French language?
Blanchet lists three specific grievances â unilingual vice-regal appointments, Liberal MPs contesting loi 101, and refusal to apply the Charte de la langue française to federal enterprises â and asks a pointed if rhetorical concluding question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il a besoin du prince de Galles pour rencontrer des gens d'affaires et des autochtones, soit. Pendant ce temps, il nomme des reprĂ©sentants de la monarchie qui ne parlent pas français, il cautionne la contestation par ses dĂ©putĂ©s de la loi 101 de Camille Laurin et de RenĂ© LĂ©vesque, et il refuse que la Charte de la langue française s'applique Ă des entreprises fĂ©dĂ©rales. Ătant donnĂ© tout cela, est-ce que le premier ministre est en train de se tricoter une charge en rĂšgle contre le français?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, he needs the Prince of Wales around in order to meet with business people and indigenous people? Okay then. Meanwhile, he appoints people to represent the monarchy who do not speak French. He supports the Liberal MPs who are challenging Camille Laurin's and René Lévesque's Bill 101. He refuses to allow the Charter of the French Language to apply to federally regulated businesses. In light of all that, is the Prime Minister preparing to launch a full-scale attack on the French language?
Trudeau claims the modernisation de la Loi sur les langues officielles increases protection for French including inside Quebec, and that only the Liberal government â not the Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois â can protect French across the country.
Trudeau references the modernisation de la Loi sur les langues officielles as a counterargument but does not address any of the three specific charges, instead attacking the Bloc's capacity to protect French outside Quebec.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, avec notre modernisation de la Loi sur les langues officielles, nous sommes en train non seulement d'accroitre la protection de la langue française, y compris Ă l'intĂ©rieur du QuĂ©bec, mais nous sommes aussi en train de faire ce que le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois ne peut pas faire, c'est-Ă -dire protĂ©ger le fait français dans tout le pays. Nous allons continuer d'ĂȘtre lĂ pour les minoritĂ©s francophones qui font face Ă d'Ă©normes dĂ©fis. C'est ce gouvernement libĂ©ral et le Parti libĂ©ral du Canada, pas le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, qui vont toujours ĂȘtre lĂ pour les appuyer et les dĂ©fendre et pour investir dans l'avenir du français au Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with our bill to modernize the Official Languages Act, we are not only strengthening protections for the French language, including within Quebec, but we are also doing something the Bloc Québécois could never do, and that is protecting the French fact all across the country. We will continue to be there for francophone minorities who are facing enormous challenges. It is this Liberal government and the Liberal Party of Canada, not the Bloc Québécois, that will always be there to support and defend them and to invest in the future of French in Canada.
Is the Prime Minister beginning consultations for a tariff on urea?
A single, clear, closed yes-or-no question asking whether consultations on a tariff on urea have begun â highly specific and answerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister tell me if he is beginning consultations for a tariff on urea?
Trudeau says he will ensure the appropriate minister follows up with the member.
Trudeau does not answer the question at all, simply promising to have the appropriate minister follow up.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will ensure that the appropriate minister follows up with the member.
Will the Prime Minister exempt the 35% tariff on Russian fertilizer purchased before March 2, given that Canada is reportedly the only country in the world with such a tariff and producers are paying the price?
Barlow cites Canada being the only country in the world with a tariff on fertilizer and references stakeholder meetings where ministers were unaware farmers purchased fertilizer from Russia, then asks a specific policy question about exempting the 35% tariff on Russian fertilizer purchased before March 2.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I guess we now understand why the Liberals are refusing to answer questions on a fertilizer tariff. It is because they have no idea what we are talking about. In fact, stakeholders in meetings with ministers have been told that the Liberals had no idea that Canadian farmers actually purchased fertilizer from Russia. Now we are the only country in the world that has a tariff on fertilizer, and our producers are the ones who are paying the price. It is typical of the Liberals to impose a punishing policy first and then ignore the devastating results from the fallout. Will the Prime Minister exempt the 35% tariff on Russian fertilizer purchased before March 2?
Trudeau frames the tariff as part of sanctions against Putin's illegal invasion and says the government has committed to supporting Canadians facing difficulties, mentioning Evraz employees and east coast farmers, but gives no commitment on a pre-March 2 exemption.
Trudeau acknowledges hardships from limits on Russian exports and cites specific cases (Evraz employees, east coast farmers) but does not answer whether the 35% tariff on Russian fertilizer purchased before March 2 will be exempted.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine has required us to step up on sanctions to punish Vladimir Putin and those who have supported and enabled his war. We know that countries around the world are facing hardships because of limits on Russian exports, and we have committed to being there to support Canadians who are facing these difficulties. Whether it is the Evraz employees or farmers on the east coast, who depend more on Russian fertilizer than those on the west coast, we are going to be there to continue to support Canadian farmers through this difficult time.
When will the Prime Minister defend farmers, given that the 35% tariff penalizes Canadian farm families rather than Russia, while fuel and fertilizer costs have more than doubled and inflation sits at 6.8%?
Lehoux cites fuel and fertilizer costs more than doubling and a 6.8% inflation rate, and makes a specific argument that the 35% tariff does not penalize Russia but handicaps farm families, though the concluding ask is a broad 'when will you defend our farmers.'
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la saison des semences est arrivĂ©e et nos agriculteurs sont trĂšs inquiets. Depuis l'automne dernier, le prix des carburants et des fertilisants a plus que doublĂ© et il continue d'augmenter sous le gouvernement nĂ©o-libĂ©ral, avec un taux d'inflation de 6,8 %. Ce gouvernement ne se rend-il pas compte que le tarif de 35 % qu'il impose Ă nos agriculteurs ne pĂ©nalise mĂȘme pas la Russie? Il ne sert qu'Ă handicaper nos familles agricoles et Ă doubler le coĂ»t de production de nos aliments canadiens. Quand le premier ministre dĂ©fendra-t-il enfin nos agriculteurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, spring seeding is upon us and our farmers are very worried. The price of fuel and fertilizer has more than doubled since last fall, and it continues to increase under the NDP-Liberal government, with an inflation rate of 6.8%. Does this government not realize that the 35% tariff it is imposing on our farmers is not even penalizing Russia? It is only handicapping our family farms and doubling the cost of producing Canadian food. When will the Prime Minister finally stand up for our farmers?
Trudeau condemns Putin's war, announces that the advance payments program now allows access to 1 million dollars with the first 100,000 dollars interest-free, and points to enterprise risk management programs for producers.
Trudeau references a specific program â raising the advance payments program limit to 1 million dollars with the first $100,000 interest-free â and mentions enterprise risk management programs, which is relevant support but does not address the specific tariff question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous condamnons fermement la guerre injuste et illĂ©gale menĂ©e par Vladimir Poutine en Ukraine. Nous savons que les engrais sont essentiels Ă l'agriculture canadienne et nous continuons de travailler avec l'industrie. Notre gouvernement permet maintenant aux producteurs d'avoir accĂšs Ă 1 million de dollars dans le cadre du programme de paiements anticipĂ©s, dont la premiĂšre tranche de 100 000 $ est sans intĂ©rĂȘt. Notre gouvernement continue de soutenir les producteurs canadiens en leur donnant accĂšs Ă des programmes de gestion de risque de l'entreprise qui sont conçus pour aider Ă gĂ©rer les pertes de revenus, y compris sur les augmentations des dĂ©penses.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we strongly condemn the unfair and illegal war that Vladimir Putin is waging in Ukraine. We know that fertilizer is essential to Canadian agriculture, and we continue to work with the industry. Our government is now giving farmers access to $1 million through the advance payments program, with the first $100,000 being interest free. Our government continues to support Canadian farmers by giving them access to business risk management programs that are designed to help them manage revenue losses, including those caused by increased expenses.
With inflation at a record 6.8%, groceries up 10%, gas over $2.30 a litre, and housing prices doubled, will the Prime Minister show humility and stop the out-of-control spending that is making Canadians poorer?
Thomas cites 6.8% inflation, groceries up 10%, gas over $2.30 a litre, and doubled housing prices, but the ask â to show humility and stop out-of-control spending â is rhetorical and not a specific answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, because of the governmentâs reckless debt spending, Canadians are becoming poorer by the day. That is because inflation has now reached a record of 6.8%. Groceries are up by 10%. Gas is over $2.30 a litre in parts of western Canada, and housing prices have doubled. Sadly, these realities do not seem to register with the Prime Minister because someone else foots his bill. Would the Prime Minister please demonstrate just a little bit humility today and try to put himself in the shoes of working-class Canadians and stop the out-of-control spending that is condemning the Canadian people to a life of poverty?
Trudeau says the government's early learning and child care program will save average families about $5,000 this year and attacks Conservatives for voting against family support measures.
Trudeau pivots to the early learning and child care program saving average families about $5,000 and attacks Conservative voting record, rather than addressing the spending and inflation concerns raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know families across this country and Canadians are facing increased prices at the pumps and at the grocery stores. That is why we have continued to move forward in ways that have their backs. Unlike the Conservatives, who voted against our measures on supporting families, we moved forward with an early learning and child care program that, as I announced in Newfoundland and Labrador yesterday, will save average families about $5,000 in their bills this year. These are investments that will support families right across the country now that every single province and territory, including the Conservative ones, have signed on to our early learning and child care framework. Families are going to save thousands of dollars this year across the country.
Why did the Prime Minister not hire enough staff so that Canadians would not face massive delays for passports and other federal services when travel restrictions eased?
Singh asks a clear accountability question â why did the government not hire enough staff before reopening travel â with specific observable problems (hours-long waits at airports and for passports) as grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, people are waiting for hours and hours at the airports. People are having extremely long waits just to get their passports. None of this is a surprise. As soon as travel restrictions eased, people were going to travel. Why did the Prime Minister not hire enough staff and have enough human resources so that Canadians would not have to wait through these massive delays to receive their passports and other services federally, and be able to go and visit their families?
Trudeau says new centres were created to increase production capacity, 500 new employees were hired, and a new online booking tool was set up to direct applicants to the best passport submission option.
Trudeau provides specific measures taken: new centres to increase production capacity, 500 new employees hired, and a new online booking tool, which directly addresses the staffing and capacity question, though does not explain the planning failure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is very good news that Canadians are starting to travel again. This is something that is exciting for everyone, but we understand that the slowdowns for passports are difficult and stressful. Canadians are giving a significant increase in demand for passports, so we created new centres to increase production capacity, hired 500 new employees and set up a new online booking tool to direct applicants to the best option for submitting their passport applications. We will continue exploring all options to improve the current situation.
When will the Prime Minister say no to the Rogers-Shaw merger and the potential Quebecor purchase of Freedom Mobile, which he characterizes as good for billionaires but bad for workers and cellular affordability?
Singh frames the Rogers-Shaw merger and potential Quebecor purchase of Freedom Mobile in partisan terms about billionaires versus Canadians; the ask is vague ('say no to billionaires') rather than a specific policy question about the merger review process.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Rogers takeover of Shaw will mean massive layoffs of workers. It is going to be bad for Canadians because of rising costs. It will certainly be good for billionaires, though, and the billionaire families involved. Now, there is a risk of another billionaire company, Quebecor, buying Freedom Mobile. This is also going to be bad for workers with layoffs and bad for Canadians with the rising costs of cellular services, but again, it will be good for billionaires. When will the Prime Minister say no to billionaires, no to this merger and yes to Canadians, who deserve affordable cellular and Internet services?
Trudeau says the transaction has been independently reviewed by the Competition Bureau of Canada and the CRTC, and that the government will ensure consumers are protected and the broader public interest is served.
Trudeau references the Competition Bureau of Canada and the CRTC as independent reviewers and states the government's goals of affordability, competition and innovation, engaging the topic but without specifics on the merger's status or the Freedom Mobile sale.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our priority has always been greater affordability, competition and innovation in the Canadian telecom sector. These goals are front and centre as we analyze the implications of this proposed deal. This transaction has been independently reviewed by the Competition Bureau of Canada and the CRTC. Our government will ensure that consumers are protected and that the broader public interest is served, as this proposed merger is evaluated.
Can the Prime Minister update the House on the support Canada is providing so Ukrainians can better defend their homeland against Putin's illegal war?
A government backbench MP asks a setup question inviting the Prime Minister to tout Canada's Ukraine aid, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Ukrainian people have exhibited strength beyond measure, yet unfortunately, next week will mark three months since the start of Putin's illegal war on Ukraine. Ukraine's President Zelenskyy has repeatedly thanked Canada for the aid and support to help his people defend itself against the Russian invaders, yet there still is no end in sight in this senseless war, and Ukraineâs forces need for lethal and non-lethal equipment is not winding down anytime soon. Can the Prime Minister update the House on the support Canada is providing so Ukrainians can better defend their homeland?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Whitby for his hard work. Millions of dollars' worth of our aid has arrived in the Ukraine and is making a critical difference on the ground. To support our European allies, the Royal Canadian Air Force's C-130s have now moved two million pounds of military and humanitarian aid destined for Ukraine across the European continent, and this work continues every single day. As Ukrainian heroes fight back against Putin, we will continue to help them win this war. Slava Ukraini.
Trudeau says millions of dollars' worth of aid has arrived in Ukraine and the Royal Canadian Air Force's C-130s have moved two million pounds of military and humanitarian aid across the European continent.
Trudeau provides specific detail: millions of dollars' worth of aid has arrived in Ukraine, and the Royal Canadian Air Force's C-130s have moved two million pounds of military and humanitarian aid across the European continent.
Framing ongoing federal vaccine mandates as political vindictiveness against 15% of the population, Ellis asks which rights the Prime Minister will trample on next for those who will not conform.
Ellis leads with a procedural complaint about being called racist, then asks a very vague question ('which rights will the Prime Minister trample on next') that is unanswerable by design and driven by partisan framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear, this Prime Minister has called everyone on this side of the House, just now, a racist. This is shameful. It is not a thing that should happen in this House. It is shameful. It is no surprise that many Canadians continue to reject his federal mandates. We know this is a cabinet decision. We know that makes it this Prime Minister's personal decision to punish his political opponents. Not allowing families to reunite is deeply hurtful and is tantamount to ostracism and political vindictiveness. What is next to go for those who will not conform, those he has described as taking up space? Which rights will the Prime Minister trample on next?
Trudeau says the government has always followed the science to keep Canadians safe and attacks the Conservative Party for being inconsistent on vaccines.
Trudeau ignores the specific question entirely and attacks the Conservative Party's inconsistency on vaccines, without addressing any specific right or mandate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this pandemic, we made a very straightforward promise to Canadians that we would have their backs and that we would follow the science to keep them safe. That is exactly what we have done. The Conservative Party has been all over the place, shouting that we needed to deliver vaccines faster and then ignoring the need for vaccines once they arrived. They continue to want to wish this pandemic away. However, magical thinking does not save lives in Canada. It does not restore small businesses. It does not grow our economy and get people back to work. That is why we continue to follow the science. We continue to keep Canadians safe.
On which day will Canada return to normal, given that freedom of movement has been taken away from those who made a personal health decision not to be vaccinated?
Ellis frames restrictions rhetorically as singling out 15% of Canadians and labelling them, with the only concrete ask being 'on which day will Canada return to normal' â vague but slightly more specific than the previous exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks about science. Let us talk about what the truth is. Let us imagine that we are living in a country that singles out 15% of its population for special treatment. That means mocking their personal decisions, calling them names and telling them they are taking up space. Let us further imagine that their freedom to move around this very large country is also taken away. Why are they being singled out? It is because they made a personal health decision. Should other world leaders call out the Prime Minister for this vindictive behaviour? They certainly should. This behaviour is petty and petulant, and it must stop. On which day will Canada return to normal?
Trudeau quotes Ellis's own recent House statement that vaccine mandates had the important purpose of keeping Canadians safe, and says the pandemic has not ended with Canadians still dying.
Trudeau provides a pointed and specific counter by citing Ellis's own recent statement in the House that vaccine mandates had the important purpose of keeping Canadians safe, and notes the pandemic has not ended, which is a substantive if deflecting response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the question from the hon. member might be a little more convincing if the member for CumberlandâColchester had not just said, a few weeks ago, in this House, that the vaccine mandates had the important purpose of keeping Canadians safe. He agreed that we had to have them in place while the pandemic was going on. As all Canadians know, this pandemic has not yet ended. Canadians are still dying in larger numbers than they did previously during the pandemic. We need to continue to do what is necessary to keep them safe. That is exactly what this government will continue to do.
With the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Airports Council and health experts calling for an end to outdated COVID restrictions that are backing up international arrivals, who is actually telling the government to keep those restrictions?
Lantsman cites specific stakeholders â the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Airports Council, and health experts â calling for an end to COVID restrictions, and asks a clear and specific question about who is actually advising the government to keep them.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, international arrivals at Canadian airports are so backed up that people are being kept on planes for hours after they land because there is not enough space for the long lineups. The Prime Minister's minister blames travellers, and the world has embraced restriction-free travel. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Airports Council and now health experts are telling the government that its outdated COVID restrictions have to go. Who is actually telling the government to keep those restrictions?
Trudeau says the pandemic continues at a higher death rate than the first two years and cites specific airport measures: hiring about 400 additional security screeners, adding 25 kiosks at Pearson airport, and increasing overtime for officers.
Trudeau does not name who is advising retention of restrictions, but provides specific measures on airport delays (400 additional security screeners, 25 kiosks at Pearson airport, increased overtime) and invokes the science rationale, partially engaging the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the past months, Canadians continue to die at a higher rate than during the first two years of COVID-19. The pandemic is still with us. We need to continue to do what is necessary, based on science, to keep people safe. In regard to airport delays, we are hiring about 400 additional security screeners; we have added 25 kiosks at Pearson airport to speed up processing times, and we have increased overtime available to officers. It is a good thing Canadians are starting to travel again, and we will be there to support them. However, we are also going to continue to keep Canadians safe.
Why won't the Prime Minister bring back workers who were fired, stop the 4,000 tests for incoming travellers each day, and end restrictions as most other countries have done?
Lantsman makes a concrete trio of policy asks â bring back fired workers, stop the 4,000 tests for incoming travellers each day, end restrictions â but wraps them in partisan framing with 'why is the Prime Minister doing nothing.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the answer is nobody, except for the spin doctors in the Liberal cabinet. Instead of telling Canadians they are out of practice, he could bring back the workers they fired; he could stop the 4,000 tests for incoming travellers each day, and he could do what most other countries have done and end the restrictions. Why is the Prime Minister doing nothing?
Trudeau says the government will continue to evaluate and re-evaluate safety measures, crediting Canada's pandemic response as better than most peer countries and saying it has supported small businesses and families.
Trudeau says the government continues to evaluate and re-evaluate measures and credits Canada's pandemic track record as better than peer countries, without addressing any of the three specific asks.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we continue to evaluate and re-evaluate the measures we have to keep Canadians safe, and we will continue to do exactly that. Canada put in place measures that kept us on a better track through this pandemic than most of our peer countries. We will continue to make sure we are keeping Canadians safe, not just for the sake of keeping Canadians alive and healthy, which is in itself a noble goal, but also because that is the best way to restore our economy and our functioning, which is exactly what we are seeing with what the government has done to support small businesses and families across the country.
Will the Prime Minister create a registre des organisations criminelles â yes or no â given that the Public Safety Minister appeared to agree then reversed himself within two days, while Montreal gang shootings are approaching the scale of the biker wars of the 1990s?
Fortin cites a specific proposal â a registre des organisations criminelles â notes the Public Safety Minister's apparent reversal within two days, references the specific context of gun violence approaching the scale of the biker wars of the 1990s, and demands a clear yes-or-no answer.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il faut un registre des organisations criminelles pour combattre la guerre des gangs dans le Grand Montréal. Ce registre faciliterait le travail des policiers en érigeant en infraction le seul fait d'appartenir à un gang criminel. Avant-hier, le ministre de la Sécurité publique était d'accord. Hier, il refermait la porte. Aujourd'hui, qu'en dit le premier ministre? Pendant que le fédéral tergiverse, Montréal est en voie d'accoter la guerre des motards des années 1990 en matiÚre de fusillades. Aujourd'hui, on veut une réponse claire; on est tannés. Est-ce que le premier ministre va créer le registre des organisations criminelles? C'est oui ou c'est non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we need an organized crime registry to combat the gang wars in the greater Montreal area. This registry would make it easier for police officers to do their job because simply belonging to a criminal gang would become an offence. The day before yesterday, the Minister of Public Safety agreed with the idea. Yesterday, he slammed the door on it. Today, what does the Prime Minister have to say about it? While the federal government dithers, Montreal's shootings are beginning to resemble those of the biker wars in the 1990s. Today, we want a clear response. We are fed up. Will the Prime Minister create the organized crime registry? Yes or no?
Trudeau cites over 358 million dollars invested since 2017 in law enforcement and prevention, and a 250 million dollar Fonds pour bùtir des communautés plus sécuritaires, but does not answer yes or no on the registre des organisations criminelles.
Trudeau does not answer yes or no on the registre des organisations criminelles, instead listing existing spending figures (358 million dollars since 2017, a 250 million dollar Fonds pour bùtir des communautés plus sécuritaires) without addressing the specific proposal.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pour mettre fin Ă la violence des gangs, il faut absolument s'attaquer aux causes profondes de la violence. Depuis 2017, nous avons investi plus de 358 millions de dollars pour amĂ©liorer les ressources en matiĂšre d'application de la loi et de poursuites, pour accroĂźtre la formation en matiĂšre d'application de la loi et de prĂ©vention et pour financer des stratĂ©gies locales pour prĂ©venir et combattre la violence. Nous avons aussi crĂ©Ă© le Fonds pour bĂątir des communautĂ©s plus sĂ©curitaires. C'est une enveloppe de 250 millions de dollars qui vise Ă empĂȘcher les jeunes Ă risque de commettre des actes criminels. Nous prenons tout cela au sĂ©rieux. Nous allons continuer avec des solutions qui fonctionnent.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, to put an end to gang violence, we must address the root causes of violence. Since 2017, we have invested more than $358 million to enhance law enforcement and prosecution resources, to increase law enforcement and prevention training, and to fund local strategies for preventing and combatting violence. We also created the $250âmillion building safer communities fund to prevent at-risk youth from committing crimes. We take all of this seriously. We will continue with solutions that work.
Why does the federal government give criminal gangs like the Hells Angels a passe-droit â membership in them is not criminal â when membership in entities on the liste des entitĂ©s terroristes is already criminal, and it is those gangs that are shooting everywhere right now?
Michaud grounds the question in a specific recent murder of a Hells Angels member in the Prime Minister's own riding, draws a clear legal analogy to the liste des entités terroristes, and asks why criminal gangs receive a passe-droit while joining terrorist groups is criminal.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, mercredi dernier, un membre des Hells Angels s'est fait assassiner en plein jour dans la circonscription du premier ministre. Celui-ci doit bien rĂ©aliser qu'on a un problĂšme avec les gangs de rue Ă MontrĂ©al. Il faut un registre des organisations criminelles en vertu duquel ĂȘtre membre d'un gang devient un crime. C'est simple, c'est le mĂȘme concept que la liste des entitĂ©s terroristes. En ce moment, adhĂ©rer Ă des groupes terroristes, c'est criminel, mais ĂȘtre membre des Hells Angels ou d'un gang de rue, c'est correct. Pourtant, ce sont les gangs qui tirent partout en ce moment. Pourquoi le fĂ©dĂ©ral leur laisserait-il un passe-droit?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, a member of the Hells Angels was killed in broad daylight in the Prime Minister's riding. He must realize that there is a gang problem in Montreal. We need an organized crime registry that makes it a crime to be a gang member. It is simple. It is the same concept as the list of terrorist entities. Right now, belonging to a terrorist organization is a crime, but being a member of the Hells Angels or a street gang is A-okay, even though gangs are the ones doing all the shooting right now. Why is the federal government giving them a free pass?
Trudeau says gang violence requires acting on root causes and not just symptoms, and cites hundreds of millions of dollars invested and more tools provided to police, without addressing the analogy to the liste des entités terroristes.
Trudeau dismisses the proposal as a solution simpliste and describes investments of hundreds of millions of dollars and more tools for police, without engaging with the specific legal analogy to the liste des entités terroristes or the passe-droit argument.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce serait bien beau d'avoir des solutions simplistes Ă des problĂšmes complexes, mais la rĂ©alitĂ© c'est que rĂ©soudre le dĂ©fi des gangs de rue et rĂ©soudre les dĂ©fis de la violence par armes Ă feu exige qu'on agisse de bien des diffĂ©rentes façons sur les origines du problĂšme, sur les fondements du problĂšme, mais aussi sur les symptĂŽmes. C'est exactement ce que nous faisons avec des centaines de millions de dollars investis dans les communautĂ©s en prĂ©voyant plus de consĂ©quences et en fournissant plus d'outils aux policiers afin de lutter contre la violence par armes Ă feu. Nous allons continuer d'ĂȘtre lĂ en tant que partenaires des municipalitĂ©s et des provinces dans la lutte contre la criminalitĂ©.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it would be nice if we could apply such simplistic solutions to complex problems like street gangs and gun violence, but the reality is that the root causes and symptoms of each of these issues need to be addressed very differently. That is exactly what we are doing by investing hundreds of millions of dollars in communities in order to get tougher and give the police more tools to tackle gun violence. We will continue to be there as we partner with the municipalities and provinces in the fight against crime.
The member asks whether the Prime Minister will commit to presenting a rapid plan to address the explosion of mental health problems, particularly among youth, noting the 2022 budget does not address it.
The question identifies a real problem (mental health crisis among youth) but the ask â a 'plan rapidement' â is vague and rhetorical rather than tied to specific numbers or commitments.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les impacts nĂ©gatifs de la pandĂ©mie sont gigantesques. Il y a eu l'augmentation du coĂ»t de la vie, les entreprises ont de gros problĂšmes d'approvisionnement et une pĂ©nurie de main-d'Ćuvre jamais vue. Il y a un autre problĂšme majeur: l'explosion des problĂšmes de santĂ© mentale. Ce gouvernement libĂ©ral se doit d'agir maintenant. Son budget de 2022 n'y rĂ©pond pas. Le premier ministre peut-il prendre l'engagement de prĂ©senter un plan rapidement pour protĂ©ger, entre autres, notre jeunesse qui a payĂ© trĂšs cher l'impact de cette crise?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the pandemic has had a tremendous negative impact. The cost of living is rising, businesses are having real supply chain issues and we are experiencing an unprecedented labour shortage. Another major problem is the huge rise in mental health issues. This Liberal government must act now. Its 2022 budget is not enough. Will the Prime Minister commit to swiftly presenting a plan to protect our young people, among others, who have suffered a lot as a result of this crisis?
The Prime Minister says the government will invest in mental health and support youth mental health in partnership with provinces, citing historic investments, but offers no specifics.
The Prime Minister deflects by thanking the member for acknowledging pandemic causes of inflation, then offers only vague assurances of future investment without any specifics.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je veux d'abord remercier le dĂ©putĂ© conservateur de reconnaĂźtre que la pandĂ©mie est Ă la source des hausses du coĂ»t de la vie et des difficultĂ©s quant aux chaĂźnes d'approvisionnement. Nous allons continuer d'ĂȘtre lĂ pour aider les familles qui font face Ă des difficultĂ©s. En mĂȘme temps, et Ă©videmment, nous allons ĂȘtre lĂ pour investir dans la lutte contre les problĂšmes de santĂ© mentale. Nous serons lĂ pour appuyer la santĂ© mentale des jeunes. Nous avons dĂ©jĂ fait des investissements historiques et nous continuerons de travailler en partenariat avec les provinces en respectant, bien sĂ»r, leurs champs de compĂ©tence pour mettre en place des mesures pour la santĂ© mentale des jeunes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Conservative member for acknowledging that the pandemic is responsible for the rising cost of living and the supply chain issues. We will continue to be there to help families that are struggling. At the same time, we will obviously be there to invest in addressing mental health issues. We will be there to support the mental health of young people. We have already made historic investments, and we will continue to work with the provinces, while, of course, respecting their jurisdictions, to implement mental health measures for young people.
The member asks the Prime Minister to explain why the Liberal government broke its platform commitment, specified on page 75, to immediately provide $250 million and then $625 million for a Canada mental health transfer.
The question cites a specific page of the Liberal platform (page 75), specific dollar amounts ($250 million immediately and $625 million in the budget), and asks for an explanation of why those commitments were broken â a precise, document-grounded accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, four times in the past two weeks I have asked questions about the Canada mental health transfer, an election commitment quite obviously broken by the Liberal government. The minister never even pretended to attempt an answer. Page 75 of the Liberal platform clearly promises immediate funding of $250 million and then another $625 million in this year's budget. There has to be an explanation as to why the Liberals broke this significant promise to vulnerable Canadians. Could the Prime Minister simply tell us what that explanation is?
The Prime Minister states the government invested about $69 billion more than usual in health care over two years, including mental health programs, and commits to future action respecting provincial jurisdiction.
The Prime Minister does not address the Canada mental health transfer or the broken platform promise at all, instead citing aggregate COVID-era health spending of $69 billion and provincial jurisdiction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last two years we invested about $69 billion more than the federal government usually does in health care across the country, much of it transfers to provinces, much of it direct investments in things like vaccines and mental health programs, like the national wellness hotline and website. There is much more to do and we will do that, but we will do that in full respect of the provinces' jurisdiction over health care and defining how we can move forward in a way that works for all Canadians. On this side of the House, we respect the division of powers laid out by the Constitution.
The member asks why the Prime Minister is breaking his word on the Canada mental health transfer, quoting the Prime Minister's own statement against slogans and counting his repeated use of 'having Canadians' backs.'
The member quotes the Prime Minister's own words and presses again on the broken Canada mental health transfer promise, but the framing is increasingly rhetorical (counting 'having Canadians' backs' references) and the ask is a repeat.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, then why did they make the promise? The Prime Minister recently stood here and actually said, with a straight face, âWe will not simply fall back on slogans and easy solutions....â Instead, with the current government, it is always only slogans and no solutions. More than 30 times this year, including a couple of times today, the Prime Minister has responded to legitimate questions by shrugging them off and offering yet another mind-numbing reference to âhaving Canadians' backsâ. On his signature promise of a Canada mental health transfer, he is turning his back on Canadians who really need help. Again, simply, why is he breaking his word on such an important commitment?
The Prime Minister repeats his commitment to invest in mental health in partnership with provinces and territories, again citing over $69 billion in additional health care funding, without addressing the broken Canada mental health transfer promise.
The Prime Minister again does not address the Canada mental health transfer specifically, repeating the need to work with provinces and re-citing the $69 billion figure without engaging the broken promise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have said time and time again that we will be there to step up on investing more in health care, including on mental health, across the country, but that needs to be done right. It needs to be done in partnership with the provinces and territories. We cannot simply expect that throwing money at a problem is going to solve it in terms of delivery for Canadians. That is why we intend to work closely with the provinces in partnership on delivering better mental health care and on delivering better supports for Canadians, as we have throughout this pandemic with historic investments of over $69 billion in additional funding for health care.
The member asks the Prime Minister to inform the House about the Minister of Environment and Climate Change's roundtable with 25 major financial institutions on sustainable finance and climate goals.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the Prime Minister to inform the House about a ministerial roundtable happening that same day, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aujourd'hui, le ministre de lâEnvironnement et du Changement climatique animera une table ronde aux cĂŽtĂ©s des 25 principales institutions financiĂšres, compagnies d'assurance et caisses de retraite du Canada afin d'exploiter le pouvoir de la finance durable, et ce, dans la lutte contre les changements climatiques. L'honorable premier ministre peut-il informer la Chambre de cette importante initiative qui aidera le Canada Ă atteindre ses objectifs en matiĂšre d'Ă©missions de gaz Ă effet de serre, tout en soutenant une Ă©conomie forte Ă long terme?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will host a round table discussion with Canada's top 25 financial institutions, insurance companies and pension funds with the aim of harnessing the power of sustainable finance in the fight against climate change. Can the hon. Prime Minister tell the House about this important initiative that will help Canada meet its greenhouse gas emission targets, while supporting a strong economy over the long term?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'aimerais d'abord remercier la dĂ©putĂ©e de DorvalâLachineâLaSalle de sa question et de son travail acharnĂ© dans sa circonscription. La table ronde est une Ă©tape cruciale alors que le Canada continue d'exploiter les finances du secteur privĂ© dans des options d'investissement durable. Il est Ă©vident que les capitaux et l'expertise du secteur privĂ© sont nĂ©cessaires pour atteindre nos objectifs climatiques et crĂ©er une Ă©conomie rĂ©siliente aux changements climatiques. Les discussions d'aujourd'hui axĂ©es sur l'action aideront le Canada Ă atteindre ses objectifs d'Ă©missions de gaz Ă effet de serre, tout en soutenant sa force Ă©conomique Ă long terme.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to thank the member for DorvalâLachineâLaSalle for her question and her hard work in her riding. The round table is a critical step as Canada continues to leverage private sector finance in sustainable investment options. We clearly need to harness private sector capital and expertise in order to achieve our climate goals and create a climate-resilient economy. Today's action-oriented discussions will help Canada meet its greenhouse gas emission targets, while supporting long-term economic strength.
The Prime Minister describes the roundtable as a crucial step to harness private sector capital and expertise for sustainable investment options to meet Canada's greenhouse gas emission targets and build a climate-resilient economy.
The Prime Minister describes the roundtable as a crucial step to harness private sector capital for sustainable investment and climate objectives, providing some relevant context about the initiative's purpose.
The member asks whether Canada supports Taiwan's participation at next week's World Health Assembly and at the ICAO triennial assembly in September.
The member asks two precise, answerable yes/no questions tied to specific upcoming international events (World Health Assembly next week and ICAO triennial assembly in September) regarding Canada's position on Taiwan's participation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions for the Prime Minister. First, the World Health Assembly will be meeting next week. Does Canada support Taiwan's participation at next week's meeting? Second, the International Civil Aviation Organization's upcoming triennial assembly will be taking place in September. Does Canada support Taiwan's inclusion at that upcoming triennial assembly?
The Prime Minister states Canada's long-standing position supports Taiwan's inclusion in multilateral fora and multilateral bodies to ensure its perspective is heard.
The Prime Minister gives a clear affirmative answer on Canada's support for Taiwan's inclusion in multilateral fora, which addresses both questions, though without specifying the named bodies.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's position on Taiwan is long-standing. We support its inclusion in multilateral fora and multilateral bodies to make sure that its perspective is heard.
The member asks why the Prime Minister did not establish a public health inquiry into Canada's COVID response before considering signing amendments to the international health regulations at the World Health Assembly meeting of May 22â28.
The member identifies a specific upcoming event (May 22â28 World Health Assembly), names two specific items under discussion (WHO global pandemic treaty and amendments to the international health regulations), and asks a pointed sequencing question about a public inquiry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on May 22 to May 28, representatives from 194 countries will meet in Geneva at the World Health Assembly to discuss the WHO global pandemic treaty and to vote on amendments to the international health regulations. Why did the Prime Minister not establish a public health inquiry into our COVID response before considering signing amendments to the international health regulations?
The Prime Minister says Canada is an active WHO member pushing for better science and international collaboration on pandemics, and commits to protecting Canada's sovereignty and choices for its citizens.
The Prime Minister speaks generally about Canada's role at the WHO and preparing for future pandemics, but does not address the specific question about a public health inquiry into Canada's COVID response or the sequencing concern raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as an active member of the WHO, Canada has always been there to push for better science and to push for better impacts in the way we collaborate around the world. Canada is a leading voice on ensuring not only that we make it through this pandemic, which is continuing to be ongoing, but also that we prepare for future pandemics, which, unfortunately, may well be the reality for decades and generations to come. We will continue to be active, strong participants in international fora around health while always respecting and protecting Canada's sovereignty and choices to make the right decisions for its own citizens.
The member asks when the Prime Minister will establish a public inquiry into government COVID responses, arguing it is irresponsible to negotiate pandemic response powers internationally without first learning lessons from Canada's own pandemic policies.
The member presses for a specific commitment â a date or timeline for a public inquiry into government COVID responses â which is a clear, answerable ask, though the rhetorical framing slightly dilutes the specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to know what the government is signing away. It is irresponsible to negotiate pandemic response powers when we have not had a public inquiry into our own pandemic policies. How can we prepare for the future when we have not learned the lessons from the past two years? Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians today when a public inquiry into government COVID responses will be established?
The Prime Minister states the lesson from the past two years is that vaccines save lives and criticizes the Conservative Party for not supporting vaccination as the way through the pandemic.
The Prime Minister does not address the question about a public inquiry at all, instead pivoting to vaccines saving lives and criticizing the Conservative Party's stance on vaccination.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is the lesson we have all learned from the past two years: Vaccines save lives. We know that basing our response to this pandemic on the best public health advice, which includes getting as many Canadians vaccinated as possible to keep them safe, is exactly the way through. It is a shame to continue to see the Conservative Party supporting the view that vaccination is not the way through this pandemic. As we deal with the continued consequences of this pandemic, we will continue to stand with science and ensure Canadians continue to get vaccinated.
The member asks what measures Canada is taking to hold Russian collaborators accountable for the invasion of Ukraine and prevent them from entering Canada.
This is a government-backbench setup question framed around Canadians being 'outraged' and asking broadly what measures Canada is taking â a predictable prompt for a ministerial announcement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are outraged by Russia's despicable invasion of Ukraine. They are following the situation closely and were pleased to see economic sanctions on those who have a role to play in this. They also want to ensure those directing, perpetrating and supporting this wilful violence are held accountable for their actions. Can the Prime Minister tell us what measures Canada is taking to hold Russian collaborators accountable and prevent them from entering our country?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Calgary Skyview for his incredibly hard work in his community. Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine is being met with severe, coordinated economic sanctions and increased pressure from Canada and our allies. Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine on February 24, Canada has sanctioned 915 individuals from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. We recently strengthened our regime by introducing legislation allowing officials to bar entry or remove those sanctioned for their role in Putin's war. We will ensure the sanctions have further consequences in terms of immigration and access to Canada will continueâ
The Prime Minister states Canada has sanctioned 915 individuals from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus since February 24, and has introduced legislation allowing officials to bar entry or remove those sanctioned for their role in Putin's war.
The Prime Minister provides a specific number (915 individuals sanctioned from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus since February 24) and references new legislation allowing officials to bar entry or remove sanctioned individuals, giving concrete information.
The member asks when the Prime Minister will stop offering empty words and take real action to help Indigenous women, citing systemic RCMP discrimination, overrepresentation in prisons, and disproportionate rates of violence linked to the failure to implement MMIWG calls for justice.
The question raises real, documented issues (MMIWG calls for justice, overrepresentation of Indigenous women in prisons) but the ask â 'stop offering empty words and start acting' â is vague and compound rather than pointing to a specific unfulfilled commitment.
Source text
Uqaqtittiji, there are consequences when the Liberal government fails to implement the calls for justice by the national inquiry on MMIWG. Indigenous women and land defenders continue to face systemic discrimination and violence from the RCMP. Indigenous women are increasingly overrepresented in Canada's prisons. Indigenous women are still experiencing disproportionate rates of violence. When will the Prime Minister stop offering empty words and start acting to help indigenous women?
The Prime Minister cites the 2017 federal strategy to prevent gender-based violence and an investment of nearly $540 million in the most recent budget to develop a national action plan alongside provinces and territories.
The Prime Minister cites the 2017 federal strategy to prevent gender-based violence and nearly $540 million in the most recent budget for a national action plan, which is relevant but does not address the specific failures regarding MMIWG calls for justice or RCMP conduct raised in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, everyone has the right to live free from violence. Since we formed government, we have taken real action to end gender-based violence in our communities, with specific emphasis on the violence faced by indigenous women and girls right across the country. We developed the first federal strategy to prevent gender-based violence in 2017, and we are making historic investments to prevent and end gender-based violence. Our most recent budget invests nearly $540 million to develop a national action plan alongside provinces and territories to prevent gender-based violence and support survivors. We know there is an urgent need for even more action. We will not stop until gender-based violence comes to an end.
The member asks, citing 6.8% inflation, whether the Prime Minister will introduce a tax rebate similar to the one the Martin government provided, to help Canadians cope with the extra GST revenue the government is collecting.
The member cites a specific inflation figure (6.8%), references a specific historical precedent (the Martin government tax rebate), and asks a yes/no question about a GST rebate â reasonably specific, though rhetorical framing is present.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the soaring cost of gas has eviscerated Canadian consumers. With an unprecedented 6.8% inflation rate, people are wondering where next month's mortgage or rent is coming from, all while the GST is slashing through what remains in their pocketbooks. The government knows it is raking in billions of extra dollars. Will the Prime Minister introduce a tax rebate, as the fiscally prudent and compassionate Martin government did, to help Canadians, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, I understand the reason to apologize, but it does raise the issue that getting a list from the party whips is not the rule in this place. It is a tradition that has grown, but it is not what any other western parliamentary democracy does. Every Speaker has the right to identify the person who catches his eye.
The Prime Minister says the government has been there to support Canadians through the pandemic, pointing to the indexed Canada child benefit and historic child care investments, without addressing the tax rebate question.
The Prime Minister does not address the tax rebate question at all, instead listing existing programs (Canada child benefit, child care investments) without engaging the specific GST rebate ask or the Martin government comparison.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way through this pandemic and beyond, we have been there to support Canadians, and we will continue to by making investments to support families, ensuring the Canada child benefit is indexed to the cost of inflation so it continues to match Canadians' spending powers, and moving forward with historic investments in child care that are saving families across this country thousands of dollars every year, which will help them with the rising costs of living. We know Canadians are facing challenges. We will continue to be there to support them.
Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Lib) moved a unanimous consent motion asking the House to acknowledge the genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka and recognize May 18 of each year as Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day.
- Lib Mr. Gary Anandasangaree
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it I trust that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That this House acknowledge the genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka and recognize May 18 of each year as Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day.
Mr. Yvan Baker (Lib) moved a unanimous consent motion asking the House to recognize the 1944 mass deportation of the Crimean Tatar people by the Soviet regime, known as the Surgunlik, as genocide, and to designate May 18 of each year as Crimean Tatar Deportation (Surgunlik) Memorial Day.
- Lib Mr. Yvan Baker
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it I hope that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: (i) on May 18, 1944, the Soviet Union, under the orders of Joseph Stalin, commenced the Surgunlikâthe mass deportation of the Crimean Tatar people from Crimea; (ii) there is clear and ample evidence that the deportation of the Crimean Tatars from their homeland was intended by the Soviet regime as a means of collective punishment and to destroy the Crimean Tatar people. (iii) the mass deportation led to: a. Approximately 200,000 Crimean Tatars being deported from their homeland; b. Thousands of Crimean Tatars dying during the deportation; c. Tens of thousands of Crimean Tatars dying from starvation, disease, forced labour and continuous abuse by the Soviet regime; d. All Crimean Tatars being deprived of their property, their freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement; (iv) on November 12, 2015, the Parliament of Ukraine recognized the mass deportation of the Crimean Tatars by the Soviet regime in 1944 as genocide and designated May 18 as an official day of commemoration; (v) on March 18, 2014, the Russian Federation annexed the Autonomous Republic of Crimea following a military invasion of Ukraine; (vi) since then, Crimean Tatars face renewed persecution, including forced disappearances, attacks on their freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, and their dispossession of private property by the occupying Russian Federation; the House: (a) recognize that the mass deportation of the Crimean Tatars by the Soviet regime in 1944, known as the Surgunlik, constituted a genocide against the Crimean Tatar people. (b) designate May 18th of each year as Crimean Tatar Deportation (Surgunlik) Memorial Day.