Session overview
- The dominant theme was ministerial accountability over the Emergencies Act, with CPC, BQ, and NDP members pressing the Prime Minister to fire the Minister of Public Safety for repeatedly claiming that law enforcement had asked for the Act to be invoked â a claim contradicted by the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, the RCMP, and the Ottawa Police.
- The Prime Minister consistently refused to say whether the Minister of Public Safety had acted honourably, instead deflecting by accusing Conservative politicians of having supported the illegal blockades and emphasizing that invoking the Emergencies Act was the government's decision, not the police's.
- Jagmeet Singh raised cost-of-living pressures â including housing, groceries, airport delays, and passport backlogs â calling for immediate increases to the GST credit and the Canada child benefit; the Prime Minister pointed to the upcoming Canada child benefit increase indexed to the cost of living and the child care fee reductions already underway.
- The BQ challenged the government on oil and gas emissions targets, citing reports that the industry would reach barely half its reduction targets and questioning the viability of carbon capture technology; the Prime Minister defended the plan by referencing endorsements from the Institut climatique du Canada, Ăquiterre, and Clean Prosperity.
- The Prime Minister announced a historic agreement with Denmark to resolve the 50-year territorial dispute over Hans Island, ending the Whisky War, and committed $100 million to the African Development Bank for agri-food small and medium enterprises in response to the global food security crisis worsened by Russia's aggression in Ukraine.
- The House gave unanimous consent to a motion recognizing Pierre Bruneau's 46-year career as anchor at TVA and his work with the Fondation Charles-Bruneau supporting children with cancer.
The Prime Minister made a concrete, specific announcement â a historic bilateral agreement with Denmark to permanently resolve the Hans Island / Whisky War territorial dispute â providing the House with a new fact of public record rather than a rhetorical position.
Calkins cites a named primary source document â the Prime Minister's 2015 'Open and Accountable Government' â with a direct quoted passage about earning and keeping trust, tying it precisely to the current ministerial conduct allegation.
Pierre Poilievre asked specifically why the Minister of Public Safety remained in cabinet given that two fellow ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, had contradicted him, but the Prime Minister responded only with accusations that Poilievre was concerned with 'the freedom of Canadians to protest illegally,' never addressing the minister's conduct or cabinet solidarity at all.
Outstanding questions
- Candice Bergen asked directly, 'Will the Prime Minister remove him from his portfolio, yes or no?' â the Prime Minister never answered yes or no.
- Michael Chong asked, 'Does he believe the minister has acted honourably?' â the Prime Minister did not answer the question, instead redirecting to Conservative support for blockaders.
- Luc Berthold asked specifically who asked, when they asked, and what exactly they asked for â 'Qui, quand, qu'est-ce qu'ils ont demandĂ© exactement?' â the Prime Minister did not provide any of those specifics.
- Jagmeet Singh asked whether the Prime Minister would support increasing the GST credit and the Canada child benefit immediately to help families right now â the Prime Minister referenced only the already-planned Canada child benefit indexation increase and child care reductions, without directly responding to the GST credit proposal.
- Kerry-Lynne Findlay asked how invoking a Canada-wide civil liberties-limiting act to force tow truck drivers to move trucks was proportional â the Prime Minister did not address the proportionality question at all.
Bergen cites the Minister of Emergency Preparedness's committee testimony contradicting the Minister of Public Safety's claim that law enforcement asked for the Emergencies Act, and asks whether the Prime Minister will remove the Minister of Public Safety.
The question identifies a specific contradiction between two named ministers on a specific claim about law enforcement requesting the Emergencies Act, and asks a direct yes/no accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness told the committee that law enforcement never asked for the Emergencies Act, which is yet another contradiction of the Minister of Public Safety. Nobody is backing him up, not even his own colleagues. It is clear the Minister of Public Safety has been misleading Canadians for months. Will the Prime Minister remove him from his portfolio, yes or no?
Trudeau argues that police do not grant themselves extraordinary powers and that Commissioner Lucki confirmed the Emergencies Act gave police the tools they needed, without addressing the contradiction or the removal request.
Trudeau addresses the general topic by invoking Commissioner Lucki's statement and the government's role in granting powers, but does not address the specific contradiction between his two ministers or the removal question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, allow me to be very clear with Canadians. Police do not grant themselves extraordinary powers; the government does that. Parliament debated it and voted on it. As Commissioner Lucki said, the Emergencies Act gave the police the powers they needed to get the job done. Municipalities, provincial leadership and police told us they needed more tools to bring these illegal blockades to an end. That is exactly what we did, and it is exactly what they did when we gave them more tools with the Emergencies Act.
Bergen lists three specific false statements attributed to the Minister of Public Safety â on apartment fires, foreign money, and law enforcement requesting the Emergencies Act â and asks whether the Prime Minister agrees Canadians deserve better.
Bergen cites three specific false claims attributed to the Minister of Public Safety and asks whether the Prime Minister agrees Canadians deserve better, grounding the question in concrete instances of alleged misleading.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety has misled Canadians several times. He said protesters started fires in an Ottawa apartment building. That was false. He said foreign money was funding the protest. That was not true. He said law enforcement asked for the Emergencies Act. That was also false. Does the Prime Minister agree that Canadians deserve better than a minister who repeatedly and overtly misleads them?
Trudeau accuses the Conservatives of supporting illegal blockaders and asserts police asked for more tools which the Emergencies Act provided, without addressing any of the three specific false claims.
Trudeau entirely pivots to attacking the Conservatives for supporting illegal blockades and does not address any of the three specific false claims cited or the substantive question about ministerial conduct.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what we see right now is the Conservatives desperately trying to distract Canadians from the fact that they stood with these illegal blockaders. They encouraged them. They continue to make apologies for these people having shut down communities, hurt our economy and cost people jobs, at the same time as police were trying to do their jobs. Police asked for more tools. We granted them more tools with the Emergencies Act, and we were able to get things back to normal in this country. People are free to protest legally, but not illegally. That is what Conservative politicians do not seem to understand.
Bergen asserts that the committee's investigation shows the legal threshold for the Emergencies Act was not met and suggests the Minister of Public Safety is covering for the Prime Minister, asking whether that is the real reason he will not be fired.
The question references the committee's investigation and asserts the legal threshold was not met, but the core ask â whether the minister is covering for the Prime Minister â is speculative and rhetorical rather than factually grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the only people whose actions are being scrutinized right now are those of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety. In fact, as the committee's investigation into the government's use of the act continues, it is clear the legal threshold was not met to justify its use. It is clearer by the day the Emergencies Act was used for one thing and one thing only, and that was to get the Prime Minister out of hot water. It looks like the reason the Prime Minister is not firing the Minister of Public Safety is that the minister is helping cover for the Prime Minister. Is that not the sad but real reality right now?
Trudeau lists the economic and community disruptions caused by the blockades, accuses Conservatives of supporting them, and notes that open and transparent inquiries are underway.
Trudeau recounts the disruptions caused by illegal blockades and mentions ongoing open and transparent inquiries, but does not address the specific assertion about the legal threshold or the cover-up allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for three weeks, our communities here in Ottawa were facing illegal blockades. The work on Parliament was disrupted. Supply lines were challenged. Border crossings were interrupted. People were losing their jobs and factories were closing. Conservative politicians stood with them, encouraging these illegal blockades. We worked with police to give them more tools, and when they asked for even more tools, we delivered the Emergencies Act, which allowed things to get back under control. There are open and transparent inquiries into that, and we are working with them on that.
Bergen alleges the minister's misleading is disrupting committee work and draws a contrast between the Prime Minister firing women who speak truth versus defending a minister who misleads Canadians.
The question mixes a factual claim about committee work being corrupted with a rhetorical comparison about female MPs being fired, resulting in a compound and partially unanswerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the inquiry and the committee's investigative work are finding that there is less and less evidence for the government to have used the Emergencies Act, and the evidence points to the only reason it was used was to cover up the problems the Prime Minister was finding himself in. Unfortunately, because the minister has been misleading, the work of the committee is being disrupted and corrupted. It is very interesting to see that, when strong women stand up and speak truth to the Prime Minister, he has no problem firing them. However, when a minister of the Crown misleads Canadians, that is completely fine and he overlooks it. Why does the Prime Minister get rid of people who have integrity and speak the truth, but defendâ
Trudeau accuses Conservatives of trying to change the channel and reiterates that police asked for more tools and that the Emergencies Act ended the crisis.
Trudeau dismisses the question as an attempt to change the channel and repeats the same talking points about illegal blockades and police tools, without engaging the comparison or the committee disruption allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, wow. We can see very clearly how desperately the Conservatives are trying to change the channel from the important work being done in the follow-up to the Emergencies Act to highlight the challenges that these illegal blockaders posed to our economy, to our municipalities and to Canadians. Police asked us for more tools because they said they could not deal with the situation with the existing tools. We delivered the Emergencies Act in a responsible, proportional way, which ended the crisis. At the same time, Conservative politicians kept supporting these blockadesâ
Bergen compares the current situation to the former defence minister's retention and asks whether the only reason the Minister of Public Safety is not being fired is that he is doing exactly what the Prime Minister wants.
The question links the current situation to a past defence minister controversy and makes broad character accusations, with the underlying ask being largely rhetorical and unanswerable in a factual sense.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the Prime Minister has kept a disgraced minister in his cabinet. He defended the former defence minister, who covered up sexual harassment in the military. The Prime Minister calls Canadians he disagrees with names. He divides and stigmatizes for political gain, and he demotes female MPs who stand up to him. Is it not true that the only reason he will not fire the Minister of Public Safety is because that minister is doing and saying exactly what the Prime Minister wants him to?
Trudeau accuses Conservatives of trying to distract and deflect and repeats that the government provided police with the necessary tools to end the illegal blockades.
Trudeau ignores all specific allegations and returns to the same deflection about Conservatives standing on the wrong side of the illegal blockades issue.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, we see the lengths to which the Conservatives will go to try to distract and deflect from the fact that they stood on the wrong side of this issue. They stood against hard-working Canadians who were disrupted in their daily lives: people who lost their jobs. Factories and supply chains were interrupted, all because of illegal blockades. The Conservatives continue to stand with those at the illegal blockades while we worked hard to make sure the police had the tools necessary to put an end to them.
Blanchet states that neither the RCMP, nor the Ontario provincial police, nor the Ottawa police requested the Emergencies Act, directly contradicting the Minister of Public Safety, and asks whether the government misled Quebecers and Canadians.
Blanchet specifically identifies three named police forces â the GRC, the Ontario Provincial Police, and the Ottawa police â that made no request, directly challenging the Minister of Public Safety's claim and asking for acknowledgment of misleading Canadians.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre a imposĂ© en dĂ©but d'annĂ©e la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence dans le cadre de l'occupation civile, mais illĂ©gale, bien sĂ»r, de la Colline du Parlement. Le ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique a dit que cela avait Ă©tĂ© fait Ă la demande des corps policiers. Or, il n'y a eu aucune demande de corps policier, ni de la GRC, ni de la police provinciale de l'Ontario, ni de la police d'Ottawa. Le ministre reconnaĂźtâil une seconde fois en deux jours que son gouvernement a induit les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et les Canadiens en erreur?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the year, the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act during the civil, yet obviously illegal, occupation of Parliament Hill. The Minister of Public Safety said he did that at the request of police forces, but there was no such request from law enforcement, the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police, or the Ottawa police. Does the minister acknowledge that for the second time in two days, his government has misled Quebeckers and Canadians?
Trudeau argues that police do not grant themselves extraordinary powers and cites Commissioner Lucki's statement that the Emergencies Act gave police the powers they needed, without addressing the absence of requests from the specific forces named.
Trudeau invokes Commissioner Lucki's statement and the principle that governments grant extraordinary powers rather than police, partially engaging the topic but not directly acknowledging the specific contradiction about the absence of requests from the named forces.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je tiens Ă dire trĂšs clairement aux Canadiens que les forces policiĂšres ne s'accordent pas de pouvoirs extraordinaires ellesâmĂȘmes. C'est le gouvernement qui doit le faire. Le Parlement a ensuite dĂ©battu le projet de loi et l'a adoptĂ©. Comme l'a affirmĂ© la commissaire Lucki de la GRC, la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence a donnĂ© aux policiers les pouvoirs dont ils avaient besoin pour accomplir la tĂąche. Les municipalitĂ©s, les dirigeants provinciaux et les policiers nous ont dit qu'ils avaient besoin de plus d'outils pour dĂ©manteler ces barrages. C'est exactement ce que nous avons mis fourni.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear with Canadians that police do not grant themselves extraordinary powers. It is the government that must do it. Parliament subsequently debated the bill and passed it. As RCMP Commissioner Lucki stated, the Emergencies Act gave the police the powers they needed to get the job done. Municipalities, provincial leaders and police told us that they needed more tools to dismantle these blockades. That is exactly what we did.
Blanchet notes that the Deputy Prime Minister and the former Minister of Public Safety both testified at the mandatory review committee that the Emergencies Act was a purely political decision not requested by police, and asks which minister is not telling the truth.
Blanchet cites the testimony of specific witnesses at the mandatory parliamentary review committee â the Deputy Prime Minister and the former Minister of Public Safety â who said the invocation was a purely political decision not requested by police, and asks which minister is not telling the truth.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, le comitĂ© mixte d'examen qu'impose la loi recevait la viceâpremiĂšre ministre et l'ancien ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique, devenu ministre de la Protection civile. Ils ont tĂ©moignĂ© qu'il s'Ă©tait agi d'une dĂ©cision purement politique, pas Ă la demande des corps policiers. Qui donc ne dit pas la vĂ©ritĂ©? Quel ministre ne dit pas la vĂ©ritĂ©? Le premier ministre, lui, il dit quoi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the joint committee that is required under the act received the Deputy Prime Minister and the former public safety minister, who is now the Minister of Emergency Preparedness. They testified that it was a purely political decision and was not made at the request of police. Who is not telling the truth? Which minister is not telling the truth? What is the Prime Minister saying?
Trudeau repeats that it is the government's role to invoke the Emergencies Act and that police and provincial authorities asked for more tools, without addressing the contradiction between his two ministers' testimonies.
Trudeau reframes the issue around the principle that governments grant powers rather than police and asserts that authorities asked for more tools, but does not address the direct contradiction between his ministers' testimonies or answer which one is truthful.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, notre gouvernement et les ministres ont toujours Ă©tĂ© extrĂȘmement clairs: ce n'est pas aux corps policiers de se donner de nouveaux pouvoirs, mais c'est aux politiciens et au gouvernement de prendre cette dĂ©cision. C'est exactement ce que nous avons fait. Quand les corps policiers, les autoritĂ©s provinciales et municipales nous demandaient plus d'outils, nous leur en avons donnĂ© et, ensuite, nous avons regardĂ© quand ils en avaient encore besoin d'autres. Nous nous sommes dit que la seule façon de le faire, c'est d'appliquer la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our government and our ministers have always been extremely clear that police do not grant themselves new powers. It is up to politicians and the government to make that decision. That is exactly what we did. When law enforcement and provincial and municipal authorities asked us for more tools, we delivered them. Then we saw that they needed even more. We realized that the only way to give them what they needed was to invoke the Emergencies Actâ
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement et tous nos ministres ont toujours été trÚs clairs: ce n'est pas aux corps policiers de se donner plus de pouvoirs, mais c'est au gouvernement et aux politiciens de prendre cette décision. à la suite des demandes de nos corps policiers et de nos dirigeants provinciaux afin d'obtenir plus d'outils, nous avons mis en application la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence de façon raisonnable et proportionnée. C'est exactement ce à quoi les gens s'attendaient de notre part et c'est cela qui a fini par régler la situation.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government and all our ministers have always been very clear that police do not grant themselves new powers. It is up to politicians and the government to make that decision. When law enforcement and provincial authorities asked us for more tools, we invoked the Emergencies Act in a reasonable and proportional way. That is exactly what people expected of us, and that is how we were finally able to resolve the situation.
Singh cites statistics on housing and food insecurity, characterizes tomorrow's Finance Minister speech as a reannouncement of previous measures, and asks why the Prime Minister refuses to deliver immediate financial support directly to families.
Singh cites specific statistics â one in four Canadians losing their home, one in four going hungry â and references tomorrow's announced speech, making a reasonably grounded ask for direct financial support, though the ask is somewhat compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one in four Canadians will lose their home if interest rates continue to rise. One in four Canadians is going hungry because they cannot afford their groceries. The Minister of Finance is going to give a speech tomorrow that was supposed to respond to their needs. Instead, it is going to be a reannouncement of previous measures, none of which will help people right now. People need immediate support so they can make ends meet. Why does the current Prime Minister continue to ignore the plight of people and refuse to deliver financial support directly to families who need it most?
Trudeau highlights child care cost reductions already landing in bank accounts and an upcoming Canada child benefit increase indexed to cost of living as concrete immediate helps.
Trudeau pivots to child care cost reductions and the Canada child benefit increase indexed to cost of living, which are relevant supports but do not directly address Singh's specific request for immediate direct financial support for housing and grocery affordability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I recommend that my hon. colleague, and indeed all colleagues in the House, take advantage of the opportunities coming up to speak with Canadians who have seen their child care expenses cut in half in different parts of this country as more parts of this country, like Ontario and others, do that in the coming weeks and months. That is because of federal investments made over the past many months that are landing right now in people's bank accounts and pocket books. At the same time, in the coming weeks, we will be increasing the Canada child benefit alongside the cost of living. Those are concrete helps delivered nowâ
Singh asks whether the Prime Minister will support the NDP's proposal to increase the GST credit and the Canada child benefit immediately to help families right now.
Singh presses on the timing issue with a specific ask â support for increasing the GST credit and the Canada child benefit now â naming two concrete policy instruments, making this a reasonably specific follow-up.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that would not happen until next year, and people need help today. Les gens ont besoin d'aide maintenant pour payer les factures, pour joindre les deux bouts, pour acheter l'épicerie. Est-ce que le premier ministre va appuyer notre proposition d'augmenter le crédit de la TPS et l'Allocation canadienne pour enfants pour aider maintenant les familles qui ont besoin d'aide?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, les effets de ces mesures ne se feront pas sentir avant l'an prochain. Or, c'est maintenant que les gens ont besoin d'aide. People need help right now to pay the bills, to make ends meet, to put food on the table. Will the Prime Minister support our proposal to increase the GST rebate and the Canada child benefit so we can get help now to the families who need it?
Trudeau confirms the Canada child benefit will increase in the coming weeks due to indexation to the cost of living and reiterates that child care cost reductions are arriving for families, but does not address the GST credit increase.
Trudeau directly confirms the Canada child benefit will increase in the coming weeks because it is indexed to the cost of living, partially addressing the CCB portion of Singh's ask, but does not address the GST credit increase proposal.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'Allocation canadienne pour enfants va augmenter dans les semaines Ă venir, parce que nous l'avons indexĂ©e au coĂ»t de la vie, ce qui va ĂȘtre de l'aide directe pour les familles de façon immĂ©diate. D'ailleurs, les familles de partout au pays bĂ©nĂ©ficient de la rĂ©duction des coĂ»ts pour les CPE et les garderies, parce que nous avons investi au cours des derniers mois avec les provinces pour rĂ©duire ces coĂ»ts. Dans la province de l'Ontario et dans d'autres provinces, cela s'en vient dans les semaines et les mois Ă venir. Nous sommes lĂ pour aider les familles et nous allons continuer de l'ĂȘtre dans l'immĂ©diat.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Canada child benefit will be increasing in the coming weeks because we indexed it to the cost of living, and this increase will provide direct, immediate assistance to families. Families across the country are benefiting from reduced fees for early childhood centres and day cares because we have invested money with the provinces in recent months to lower these costs. People in Ontario and in other provinces will see these changes in the weeks and months to come. We are here to support families, and we will continue to be there for them with immediate help.
Berthold argues that the Prime Minister's own statement in QP â that police do not grant themselves new powers â confirms police never asked for the Emergencies Act, directly contradicting the Minister of Public Safety, and asks whether the Prime Minister will ask him to resign.
Berthold uses the Prime Minister's own words from the same QP session to argue he has just contradicted the Minister of Public Safety, creating a pointed and factually specific accountability trap, though the removal ask is familiar.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la vérité commence à paraßtre. Le premier ministre a dit aujourd'hui: « Ce n'est pas aux corps policiers de se donner de nouveaux pouvoirs. » Donc, il reconnaßt que les policiers n'ont pas demandé la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence. C'est exactement le contraire de ce qu'a dit le ministre de la Sécurité publique à plusieurs reprises. La responsabilité ministérielle pour ce gouvernement libéral, cela ne veut plus rien dire. Est-ce que le premier ministre va lui aussi induire la Chambre en erreur et répéter les propos du ministre de la Sécurité publique ou va-t-il lui demander de démissionner?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, now the truth is starting to come out. Today, the Prime Minister said that âpolice do not grant themselves new powersâ. He was admitting that the police did not ask for the Emergencies Act. That is the exact opposite of what the Minister of Public Safety has repeatedly said. Ministerial responsibility means nothing to this Liberal government anymore. Is the Prime Minister also going to mislead the House and repeat what the Minister of Public Safety said, or will he ask him to resign?
Trudeau asserts that police and provincial authorities repeatedly asked for more tools and that the government responded, including by invoking the Emergencies Act, accusing Conservatives of siding with the barricaders.
Trudeau argues that police asked for more tools and the government responded, including ultimately with the Emergencies Act, without acknowledging the contradiction Berthold identified or addressing the resignation demand.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pendant cette crise des barricades, les corps policiers, les autorités provinciales et les autorités municipales nous ont demandé à maintes reprises plus d'outils pour en finir avec ces barricades et ces manifestations illégales et c'est exactement ce que nous avons livré, y compris par l'entremise de la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence, que nous avons invoquée de façon responsable et restreinte pour pouvoir en finir avec ces barricades. C'est exactement ce qui s'est passé, pendant que les politiciens conservateurs, eux, se rangeaient du cÎté des manifestants et des « barricadeux ».
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, during this crisis, law enforcement and provincial and municipal authorities continually asked us for more tools to deal with these illegal blockades and demonstrations, and that is exactly what we delivered. That includes invoking the Emergencies Act in a responsible and limited way to deal with these blockades. That is exactly what happened, while Conservative politicians stood with the protesters and blockaders.
Berthold presses the Prime Minister to specify who asked, when, and what exactly was requested, arguing the Prime Minister is repeating the same misleading claims as the Minister of Public Safety and asking whether he will apologize and request the minister's resignation.
Berthold asks the pointed follow-up of who asked, when, and exactly what they requested, pressing the Prime Minister to substantiate his repeated claim that police asked for the Emergencies Act â a specific and accountable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, qui, quand, qu'est-ce qu'ils ont demandĂ© exactement? Le premier ministre vient de dire que les policiers ont demandĂ© au gouvernement de mettre en place des mesures spĂ©ciales, donc d'invoquer la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence. Le premier ministre est en train de rĂ©pĂ©ter les mĂȘmes choses que le ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique. C'est scandaleux. Le premier ministre, lui aussi, induit la Chambre en erreur. Il a le choix aujourd'hui. Il peut faire la chose honorable: s'excuser et demander Ă son ministre de dĂ©missionner. Va-t-il le faire, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, who asked, when did they ask and what exactly did they ask for? The Prime Minister just said that police officers asked the government to implement extraordinary measures by invoking the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister is repeating what the Minister of Public Safety said. This is scandalous. The Prime Minister is misleading the House too. He has a choice today. He can do the honourable thing: apologize and ask his minister to resign. Will he do so, yes or no?
Trudeau says police asked for more tools and the government responded with extra RCMP and resources, ultimately invoking the Emergencies Act, but provides no specific names, dates, or details of requests.
Trudeau clarifies that police asked for more tools generally â officers, resources â and the government eventually invoked the Emergencies Act, but does not provide the specific who, when, or what details Berthold explicitly asked for.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les conservateurs sont Ă©videmment prĂȘts Ă tout pour faire oublier leur rĂŽle quand ils ont encouragĂ© ces « barricadeux ». Ce que j'ai dit, c'est que, oui, les corps policiers ont demandĂ© plus d'outils et nous leur en avons donnĂ©. Nous avons envoyĂ© des membres de la GRC, nous avons envoyĂ© des ressources supplĂ©mentaires. Quand ils ont eu besoin d'encore plus de ressources et d'outils, nous avons fini par invoquer la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence. Ce n'est pas Ă la police d'invoquer une telle loi, c'est au gouvernement de le faire et c'est exactement ce que nous avons fait.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are clearly willing to do anything to make people forget about how they sided with the blockaders. What I said was that, yes, police forces asked for more tools, and we gave them those tools. We sent in members of the RCMP and additional resources. When they needed even more resources and tools, we ended up invoking the Emergencies Act. It is not up to the police to invoke that kind of act. It is up to the government, and that is exactly what we did.
Kusie cites the Minister of Public Safety's April statement that police recommended invoking the Emergencies Act and contrasts it with colleagues' contradictions, asking when the Prime Minister will fire the minister for misleading Canadians.
Kusie cites a specific April statement from the Minister of Public Safety using his exact words â 'at the recommendation of police' â and contrasts it with contradictory statements from his colleagues, grounding the accountability question in a datable public commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in April, the Minister for Public Safety said that at the recommendation of police, we invoked the Emergencies Act, but his colleagues are saying that there was never a recommendation from law enforcement. When he was appointed as the Minister, he swore an oath to be true and faithful, but we know he has not lived up to that pledge. Will the Prime Minister hold the minister accountable and fire him for misleading Canadians?
Trudeau sarcastically refers to Conservatives' April activities supporting barricaders and then asserts police continually asked for more support and tools, with the Emergencies Act being the government's â not the police's â decision.
Trudeau deflects with a jab at Conservative MPs' April activities and then repeats the general claim that police continuously asked for more support and tools, without addressing the specific quoted statement or the firing request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can understand if perhaps Conservative politicians' recollections of what happened in April are a little bit fuzzy. They were out celebrating and supporting the people barricading our streets here in Ottawa and preventing goods from flowing across the border. What we were doing was talking to police who continually were asking for more support and more tools, whether it was more resources, more money or more RCMP officers. We were there to respond to their need for more tools and we finally did that with the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which was the government's decision and not police officers' decision.
Kusie quotes the Minister of Emergency Preparedness's committee testimony stating he was not aware of any law enforcement recommendation and that the Emergencies Act was a government decision, directly contradicting the Minister of Public Safety, and asks when the Prime Minister will fire the Minister of Public Safety.
Kusie directly quotes the Minister of Emergency Preparedness's exact testimony â 'I'm not aware of any recommendation of law enforcement. Quite frankly, this is a decision of government' â creating a precise and documented contradiction with the Minister of Public Safety's repeated claims.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety told Canadians over and over again that the authorities were the ones who had asked for the Emergencies Act, yet the Minister of Emergency Preparedness testified, âI'm not aware of any recommendation of law enforcement. Quite frankly, this is a decision of government.â The Minister of Public Safety has not lived up to his oath of office, so when will the Prime Minister take immediate action and fire the Minister of Public Safety?
Trudeau accuses Conservative politicians of supporting and celebrating with barricaders and repeats that police continually asked for more help, with the government ultimately invoking the Emergencies Act in a proportional and reasonable way.
Trudeau deflects entirely to Conservative behaviour during the blockades and repeats the general assertion that police asked for help, without addressing the direct ministerial contradiction evidenced by the quoted testimony.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while Conservative politicians were busy supporting and celebrating with barricaders along Wellington Street and across the country, we were working with police who continually asked for more help and more support to be able to deal with this public order emergency. That is exactly what we continued to do throughout the three weeks, until and up to the moment in which we chose to bring in the Emergencies Act to restore order to this country and to the situation. We did it in a proportional and reasonable way, and it brought an end to these illegal actions.
Calkins notes that the Minister of Public Safety's own department and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness both confirmed police did not ask for the Emergencies Act, cites the Prime Minister's 2015 'Open and Accountable Government' document on earning and keeping trust, and asks when the Prime Minister will fire the Minister of Public Safety.
Calkins cites a named primary source document â the Prime Minister's 2015 'Open and Accountable Government' â with a direct quoted passage about earning and keeping trust, tying it precisely to the current ministerial conduct allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety's own department confirmed that the police did not ask for the Emergencies Act to be invoked, and now the Minister of Emergency Preparedness has also publicly agreed. In the Prime Minister's 2015 âOpen and Accountable Governmentâ document, he wrote: For Canadians to trust our government we must trust Canadians, and we will only be successful in implementing our agenda to the extent that we earn and keep this trust. The Minister of Public Safety has shattered that trust. When will the Prime Minister fire him?
Trudeau accuses Conservatives of supporting barricaders and asserts the government worked with law enforcement and authorities who needed more tools, ultimately invoking the Emergencies Act responsibly, without addressing the cited document.
Trudeau ignores the cited document and its quoted content entirely, deflects to Conservative support for barricaders, and repeats the standard talking points about providing tools to law enforcement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while Conservative politicians were out there supporting barricaders and while they continued to support those illegal actions, we were working with law enforcement and municipal and provincial authorities across this country who were telling us they needed more tools. We delivered more tools, whether it was more police officers or more resources, until we realized we needed to take a further step. We chose to invoke the Emergencies Act to give them even further tools. We did it in a responsible and proportional way, and it worked.
Calkins quotes the Prime Minister's 'Open and Accountable Government' document stating ministers cannot repudiate cabinet colleagues unless they resign, argues only one minister can be right, and asks which minister the Prime Minister agrees with and when he will fire the Minister of Public Safety.
Calkins cites a second specific passage from the Prime Minister's own 'Open and Accountable Government' document on cabinet solidarity and resignation, then poses a direct either/or question about which minister the Prime Minister agrees with â a sharply focused accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness made it clear last night at committee that the Minister of Public Safety has misled Canadians. The Prime Minister's âOpen and Accountable Governmentâ document also reads: Ministers cannot dissociate themselves from or repudiate the decisions of Cabinet or their Ministry colleagues unless they resign from the Ministry. Only one of these two ministers can be right. The Prime Minister cannot agree with both of them, so which one does he agree with, and when will the Prime Minister fire the Minister of Public Safety?
Trudeau reiterates that the government worked with local police services, provided extra officers and resources, and ultimately invoked the Emergencies Act in a limited and restrained way, without identifying which minister he agrees with or addressing the document.
Trudeau does not engage the cited document passage, does not say which minister he agrees with, and instead repeats the standard claim about providing tools to police and the government's role in invoking the Emergencies Act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way we worked with local police services and with responsible authorities to ensure that they got the resources and the tools they needed to get the situation back under control. They continually asked for more tools, and we continued to step up with extra officers, extra resources, extra finances and ultimately the Emergencies Act. Absolutely, it is only a government that can choose to invoke that, and to do so in a limited and restrained way is exactly what we did.
Therrien cited 24-hour passport lineups and a shortage of 3,000 border services agents and asked when the Prime Minister will fix the border fiasco.
The question cites specific figures (24-hour passport queues, 3,000 missing border agents) and names responsible ministers, but the concluding ask is vague and rhetorical ('mettre de l'ordre').
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le fiasco fĂ©dĂ©ral aux frontiĂšres bat des records. Partir Ă l'Ă©tranger est devenu un vĂ©ritable parcours du combattant. D'abord, ça prend 24 heures en file pour obtenir un passeport grĂące au manque de vision de la ministre de la Famille. Ensuite, les voyageurs doivent patienter pendant des heures Ă l'aĂ©roport, notamment parce qu'il manque 3 000 agents des services frontaliers grĂące au ministre des Transports. C'est une tempĂȘte parfaite pour les voyageurs. Quand plusieurs ministres Ă©chouent simultanĂ©ment comme cela, c'est parce que le problĂšme vient de plus haut. Quand le premier ministre va-t-il mettre de l'ordre dans son fiasco aux frontiĂšres?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the federal border fiasco is breaking records. Going abroad has become a real endurance test. First, travellers have to wait in line for 24 hours to get a passport, thanks to the Minister of Families' lack of vision. Then, travellers have to wait for hours at the airport, mainly because border services are short 3,000 officers thanks to the Minister of Transport. It is a perfect storm for travellers. When several ministers fail at the same time like that, it is because the problem comes from above. When will the Prime Minister sort out his fiasco at the border?
Trudeau acknowledged global airport challenges and cited the hiring of approximately 600 new passport office employees and investments to help airports.
The Prime Minister acknowledges the problem, cites hiring of 600 new passport employees, and references airport investment, which partially addresses the question but does not speak to the 3,000 missing border agents figure.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous comprenons tout Ă fait que les gens font face Ă des difficultĂ©s Ă cause de la pandĂ©mie mondiale. C'est pourquoi ce n'est pas seulement au Canada qu'il y a des dĂ©fis dans les aĂ©roports et aux postes frontaliers. On voit cela un peu partout dans le monde. C'est pourquoi nous avons embauchĂ© environ 600 nouveaux employĂ©s dans les bureaux des passeports, et c'est pourquoi nous faisons des investissements pour aider les aĂ©roports, parce que nous savons que les aĂ©roports et les compagnies aĂ©riennes font face Ă des pĂ©nuries de main-d'Ćuvre. Nous sommes lĂ pour les appuyer. Je sais que ce sont des moments difficiles pour les Canadiens, mais nous travaillons fort pour tout rĂ©gler.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we absolutely understand that people are facing challenges because of the global pandemic. That is why it is not just in Canada that there are challenges at airports and border crossings. We are seeing this all over the world. That is why we have hired about 600 new employees at passport offices, and that is why we are making investments to help the airports, because we know that the airports and airlines are facing labour shortages. We are there to support them. I know these are difficult times for Canadians, but we are working hard to fix everything.
Therrien catalogued multiple ministerial failures and asked when the Prime Minister would address his own problems instead of meddling in Quebec's jurisdictions.
The question is a laundry list of ministerial controversies (Foreign Affairs ambassador party, 'faits alternatifs' on Emergencies Act, immigration backlogs, environment minister as oil promoter) with no specific ask beyond a broad swipe at federal intrusion into Quebec jurisdiction.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cela ne s'arrĂȘte pas lĂ : la ministre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres est aussi dans le trouble, parce que son personnel est allĂ© fĂȘter Ă l'ambassade de Russie. Quelle bonne idĂ©e! La ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique est aussi dans le trouble Ă cause de ses « faits alternatifs » sur les mesures d'urgence. Que dire du ministre de lâImmigration, chez qui les demandes de rĂ©sidence permanente vont se cacher pour mourir, ou encore du ministre de lâEnvironnement, devenu promoteur pĂ©trolier? Ă un moment donnĂ©, quand tous les musiciens faussent, c'est toujours Ă cause du chef d'orchestre. Dans ce cas-ci, c'est le premier ministre. Quand va-t-il s'attaquer Ă ses propres problĂšmes au lieu de toujours se mĂȘler des compĂ©tences du QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it does not end there. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is also in trouble because her staff attended a party at the Russian embassy. What a great idea that was. The Minister of Public Safety is in trouble too because of his âalternative factsâ on the Emergencies Act. What about the Minister of Immigration, who runs a department where permanent residence applications seemingly go to die, or the Minister of Environment, who has become an oil and gas developer? Ultimately, when all the musicians are playing out of tune, the conductor is always to blame. In this case, the conductor is the Prime Minister. When will he start looking after his own affairs instead of always meddling in Quebec's jurisdictions?
Trudeau said he is there to serve all Canadians including Quebecers and will continue to partner with provincial governments and municipalities.
Trudeau's answer ignores every specific allegation and offers only a generic commitment to serve Canadians and support provinces, which is essentially boilerplate.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis lĂ pour servir tous les Canadiens, y compris les QuĂ©bĂ©cois. C'est pourquoi nous allons continuer Ă faire des investissements pour aider les familles quĂ©bĂ©coises et pour rĂ©gler les dĂ©fis, que ce soit Ă nos frontiĂšres ou dans nos systĂšmes de santĂ©. Nous allons toujours ĂȘtre des partenaires des gouvernements provinciaux, des municipalitĂ©s, des petites entreprises et des Canadiens qui ont besoin d'aide. Nous savons que cette pandĂ©mie a Ă©tĂ© difficile, mais nous avons Ă©tĂ© lĂ pour les Canadiens et nous allons continuer de l'ĂȘtre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am here to serve all Canadians, including Quebeckers. That is why we will continue to make investments to help Quebec families and address challenges, whether at our borders or in our health care systems. We will always work in partnership with provincial governments, municipalities, small businesses and Canadians who need help. We know this pandemic has been difficult, but we have been there for Canadians and we will continue to be there.
Findlay cited the emergency preparedness minister saying police did not recommend the Emergencies Act while the public safety minister said they did, and asked the Prime Minister to request the public safety minister's resignation.
The question draws a sharp factual contradiction between the emergency preparedness minister's and the public safety minister's statements about whether police recommended invoking the Emergencies Act, and asks a clear accountability question about resignation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the emergency preparedness minister said the police did not recommend enacting the Emergencies Act, and nor would it have been appropriate. The public safety minister has said for months that the police requested the act. The Deputy Prime Minister, in committee, is now amazingly vague on her recollections on this controversial issue. The RCMP and Ottawa Police said they did not request that the act be used, period. When will the Prime Minister uphold accountability, transparency and ethics and ask for the public safety minister's resignation?
Trudeau accused Conservative politicians of standing with blockaders and said police and local authorities asked for more resources, which the government delivered including through the Emergencies Act.
Trudeau deflects entirely by attacking Conservatives for supporting blockaders and reframes the question, never addressing the specific contradiction between ministers or the resignation ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing, the lengths to which Conservative politicians will go to try to deflect from the fact that they were standing with blockaders and continue to support the illegal protests. We worked with police and local authorities every step of the way, who asked for more resources, which we delivered, whether it was more police officers, whether it was more financial resources or, ultimately, the Emergencies Act, which we chose to bring in to give people the tools necessary to put an end to these illegal protests.
Findlay argued that needing the Emergencies Act beforehand and using it after invocation are different things, cited proportionality concerns about forcing tow truck drivers to move trucks, and asked again for the public safety minister's resignation.
The question makes a substantive distinction between needing the act beforehand versus using it after invocation, references a pattern of government scandals (SNC, WE), and repeats the specific resignation ask, though it adds rhetorical padding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety misled Canadians repeatedly. Using the Emergencies Act after its invocation and needing the act beforehand are two very different things. The current Liberal government invoked a Canada-wide civil liberties-limiting act to force tow truck drivers to move trucks, which is not exactly proportional. The scandal-ridden Liberal government has a serious issue with transparency. From SNC to WE, it seems to be in its DNA. When will the Prime Minister ensure the public safety minister's resignation?
Trudeau said Conservatives minimized real disruptions to Canadians and that the government used proportional, responsible measures to end the blockades.
Trudeau attacks Conservatives for minimizing blockade disruptions and celebrating with protesters, completely ignoring the minister's alleged misleading statements and the resignation question.
Source text
Again, Mr. Speaker, we see Conservative politicians minimizing the very real disruptions that Canadians faced during the blockades. The Conservatives stood with and encouraged the blockaders while at the same time ignoring Canadians who were afraid to go to work or leave their apartments, Canadians who were losing their jobs and businesses that were shut down because of supply chain disruptions. These are things that we took seriously. While Conservative politicians were celebrating alongside the blockaders, we used proportional, responsible measures and we got it done.
Vien quoted the emergency preparedness minister saying he was unaware of any law enforcement recommendation, which directly contradicts the public safety minister's repeated claims, and asked whether the Prime Minister would ask for the public safety minister's resignation.
The question quotes a direct, verbatim statement by the emergency preparedness minister from committee ('Je ne suis au courant d'aucune recommandation des forces de l'ordre') that directly contradicts the public safety minister, and asks a specific accountability question about resignation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, le ministre de la Protection civile, le collĂšgue mĂȘme du ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique, a affirmĂ©: « Je ne suis au courant d'aucune recommandation des forces de l'ordre. TrĂšs franchement, c'est une dĂ©cision du gouvernement. » Cela contredit en tout point ce que le ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique a affirmĂ©. Il a induit les Canadiens et la Chambre en erreur. Il doit y avoir des consĂ©quences. Est-ce que le premier ministre va faire la bonne chose: demander sa dĂ©mission?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, the very colleague of the Minister of Public Safety, said, âI am not aware of any recommendation from law enforcement. Quite frankly, this was a decision of governmentâ. This completely contradicts what the Minister of Public Safety said. He has misled Canadians and the House. There must be consequences. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and ask for his resignation?
Trudeau said that during the blockades, police and provincial authorities including an Alberta minister told the government they no longer had the necessary tools, and that the Emergencies Act provided specific, proportionate tools to end the crisis.
Trudeau acknowledges that authorities asked for more tools and resources and invokes the Emergencies Act justification, but does not address the direct contradiction between cabinet ministers or the resignation question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pendant la crise des barricades, les corps policiers et les autorités provinciales, y compris un ministre albertain, nous ont dit qu'ils n'avaient plus les outils nécessaires pour mettre fin à ces défis. Ils avaient besoin de plus de ressources et d'outils. Nous leur avons donné plus de ressources et plus de policiers, mais finalement, nous avons choisi d'invoquer la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence, parce que cela nous donnait des outils spécifiques et proportionnés pour pouvoir mettre fin à cette crise. C'est exactement ce que cela a donné.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, during the blockades, police forces and provincial authorities, including an Alberta minister, told us that they no longer had the tools to deal with these challenges. They needed more resources and tools. We gave them more resources and more police officers, but ultimately, we chose to invoke the Emergencies Act because it gave us specific and proportionate tools to be able to put an end to the crisis. That is exactly what happened.
Vien stated that neither the RCMP nor the Ottawa Police Service requested invocation of the Emergencies Act, accused the PM of deflecting and blaming others, and asked again for the public safety minister's resignation.
The question specifically asserts that neither the RCMP nor the Ottawa Police Service requested invocation of the Emergencies Act and challenges the Prime Minister on ministerial accountability, though it adds rhetorical characterization of the PM's behaviour.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, contrairement Ă ce qu'a affirmĂ© le ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique, ni la GRC ni le Service de police d'Ottawa n'ont demandĂ© d'invoquer la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence. Cependant, comme Ă son habitude, quand il est confrontĂ© Ă ses contradictions, ce premier ministre esquive, met le blĂąme sur d'autres et, quand rien ne fonctionne, il attaque bassement. Il fait cela depuis le dĂ©but de la pĂ©riode des questions. La responsabilitĂ© ministĂ©rielle semble ĂȘtre un concept qui Ă©chappe Ă ce gouvernement. Va-t-il demander la dĂ©mission de son ministre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Minister of Public Safety said, neither the RCMP nor the Ottawa Police Service asked the government to invoke the Emergencies Act. However, true to form, whenever the Prime Minister is confronted with his contradictions, he dodges the issue or blames others, and when that does not work, he takes cheap shots, which is what he has been doing throughout question period. Ministerial responsibility appears to be a foreign concept for this government. Will he ask his minister to resign?
Trudeau told the member she should ask her colleagues why they were encouraging civil disorder rather than supporting law enforcement, and restated that the Emergencies Act provided responsible, proportionate tools that ended the illegal blockades.
Trudeau redirects to Conservative support for civil disorder and blockaders, restates Emergencies Act justification, and does not address the contradiction between ministers or the accountability ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je comprends l'indignation de mon honorable collÚgue, mais elle devrait demander à ses collÚgues, qui encourageaient le désordre civil et les gens qui participaient aux barricades, pourquoi ils appuyaient ces gens et non les forces de l'ordre, qui voulaient protéger les Canadiens chez eux et qui avaient besoin de plus d'outils. Nous leur avons fourni ces outils au moyen de la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence de façon responsable et proportionnée, et cela a mis fin à ces barricades illégales.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I understand my hon. colleague's indignation, but she should be asking her colleagues, who were encouraging civil disorder and supporting the people involved in the blockades, why they were backing those folks rather than law enforcement, who wanted to protect Canadians in their homes and needed additional tools. We provided police with those tools through the Emergencies Act in a responsible and proportionate manner, which is what put an end to these illegal blockades.
Singh said airport delays could have been prevented with advance hiring, good wages, and appropriate working conditions, and asked what the Prime Minister would do now to hire staff and ensure they are well paid to address airport delays.
The question identifies the specific problem of airport delays, attributes them to insufficient advance action on staffing, wages, and working conditions, and asks what the Prime Minister will do now to hire staff and ensure good pay, but remains fairly general.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it did not take a crystal ball to realize that Canadians would start travelling again, and what we have seen in the airports are massive delays across the country. These are delays that could have been prevented if sufficient steps had been taken ahead of time: hiring staff, making sure they have good wages and making sure the conditions of work are appropriate so that we can have the staffing levels required so that there are no delays. What is the Prime Minister going to do now to hire staff and make sure they are well paid so that they can deal with the delays in the airports for Canadians trying to travel?
Trudeau acknowledged airline and airport staffing shortages as a global problem, cited early investments in CBSA and passport office hiring, and said the government is working hard every day to solve the challenges.
Trudeau acknowledges the staffing shortage problem, notes it is global (citing Amsterdam and Paris), mentions early investment in CBSA and passport office staff, and admits ongoing challenges, which is relevant but does not commit to specific new measures on wages.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for actually highlighting one of the big challenges that are being faced right now by airlines and airports, which is staffing shortages. That is something that is not just happening in Canada; indeed, we are seeing those kinds of disruptions at airports around the world, whether it be Amsterdam, whether it be Paris, whether it be other significant airports around the world that are facing these kinds of challenges and delays. We invested early in hiring more staff for CBSA and hiring more staff at passport offices. Fortunately we did, because the problems would have been even worse, but we do recognize that there are challenges, and we are working hard every day to solve them for Canadians.
Singh asked whether the Prime Minister would ensure that the necessary workers are hired to meet the demand for passports given extreme delays.
The question is brief and asks specifically whether the Prime Minister will hire the necessary workers to address passport delays, but lacks detail and is somewhat redundant given earlier exchanges.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce n'est pas surprenant que les gens veuillent voyager encore. Ils vont avoir besoin de leur passeport pour voyager, mais les dĂ©lais pour obtenir un passeport sont extrĂȘmes. C'est inacceptable. Est-ce que le premier ministre va s'assurer qu'on embauche les travailleurs nĂ©cessaires pour rĂ©pondre aux besoins des gens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that people want to travel again. They will need their passport to travel, but the wait times for getting a passport are excessive. It is unacceptable. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the necessary workers are hired to meet the needs?
Trudeau said 600 new employees were hired earlier in the year and 600 more will be hired, and that over 360,000 passports have been issued since April 1, while acknowledging that Canadians are still waiting.
Trudeau provides specific numbers: 600 new employees already hired, 600 more to be hired, and 360,000 passports issued since April 1, which directly and substantively addresses the staffing question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est exactement ce que nous avons fait. En début d'année, bien avant ces défis-là , nous avons embauché 600 nouveaux employés, et nous allons en embaucher 600 de plus, car nous savons à quel point il est important de délivrer les passeports. Cela nous a permis de délivrer plus de 360 000 passeports depuis le 1er avril, mais il y a encore des Canadiens qui attendent. C'est inacceptable, et c'est pourquoi nous travaillons jour et nuit pour régler la situation et aider les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have done. At the beginning of the year, long before these challenges arose, we hired 600 new employees and we are hiring 600 more, because we know how important it is to deliver passports. This has allowed us to deliver more than 360,000 passports since April 1, but there are still Canadians waiting. That is unacceptable, which is why we are working day and night to resolve this situation and help Canadians.
Thompson asked the Prime Minister to share the significance of the historic agreement between Canada and Denmark that resolved the Hans Island territorial dispute.
This is a government-backbench softball question designed to allow the Prime Minister to announce the Hans Island agreement; it provides no accountability challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Hans Island has been subject to a 50-year-long territorial dispute between Canada and Denmark. While the Whisky War raged on, it was high time that we found a permanent solution that affirmed Canada's sovereignty and respected the rights of the Inuit. Can the Prime Minister share with this House the significance of the announcement of the historic agreement between Denmark and Canada that resolved this dispute?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for St. John's East for her important question and for her tremendous hard work. As global security is threatened, it is more important than ever for democracies like Canada and Denmark to work together to resolve our differences in accordance with international law. That is why we jointly announced a historic agreement to settle the Whisky War and the dispute over Hans Island once and for all. We will continue working with our partners, like Denmark, to protect the security and stability in the Arctic while doing so hand in hand with indigenous peoples.
Trudeau announced a historic agreement to settle the Whisky War and the dispute over Hans Island once and for all, framing it as an example of democracies resolving differences under international law in cooperation with indigenous peoples.
Trudeau delivers substantive information about the historic agreement with Denmark to resolve the Hans Island dispute, framing it within Arctic security and indigenous partnership, which is genuinely informative even if prompted by a friendly question.
Chong cited the emergency preparedness minister's committee statement that he was unaware of any recommendation from law enforcement, contrasting it with the public safety minister's repeated claims, and asked the Prime Minister directly whether he believes the minister has acted honourably.
Chong asks a pointed, simple yes-or-no accountability question â does the Prime Minister believe the minister has acted honourably â grounded in the specific, documented contradiction between the public safety minister and the emergency preparedness minister's committee testimony.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister has said repeatedly that law enforcement recommended that the government invoke the Emergencies Act, but yesterday the emergency preparedness minister said at committee, âI am not aware of any recommendation from law enforcement.â Suspending civil liberties is serious; so is misleading the House. I have a simple question for the Prime Minister: Does he believe the minister has acted honourably?
Trudeau said Conservative politicians were supporting blockaders while the government worked with law enforcement to deliver tools including the Emergencies Act in a proportional and responsible way.
Trudeau does not answer whether the minister acted honourably, instead attacking Conservatives for supporting blockaders and restating the Emergencies Act justification, which is a full deflection from the direct question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while Conservative politicians were out supporting the blockaders and standing with the illegal protesters, we were busy working with law enforcement and authorities across the country to deliver them tools that they needed, whether it be extra police officers or extra financial resources or tools. We were there for that. Ultimately, we chose to deliver, in a proportional and responsible way, the Emergencies Act, which had measures that helped put an end to these blockades. This was something that we had to do for the good of all Canadians.
Chong argued that no cabinet colleague or deputy minister concurs with the public safety minister's claim that police requested the invocation of the act, and asked whether the minister would reflect on the principle of ministerial accountability and decide on the honourable course of action.
Chong builds a specific case that the public safety minister's claim about police requesting the act is contradicted by no cabinet colleagues and not even his deputy minister, and asks whether the minister will reflect on ministerial accountability and take the honourable course of action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister is putting the government in a very difficult position. He has said the police requested the invocation of the act. Clearly, that is not the case. None of his cabinet colleagues concur with him. Neither does his deputy minister. The minister needs to take some time to reflect on the principle of ministerial accountability and on the integrity of our parliamentary system. He needs to decide what the honourable course of action is. Will he do that?
Trudeau said the government worked with police services and local authorities every step of the way and invoked the Emergencies Act to deliver tools police used to end the illegal blockades.
Trudeau restates the Emergencies Act justification and attacks Conservative support for illegal protesters, completely ignoring the specific question about the minister reflecting on the principle of ministerial accountability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way we worked with police services and local authorities on ensuring that they had the tools they needed to be able to put an end to these illegal blockades and these illegal protests. When we chose to invoke the Emergencies Act, it was to deliver more tools that the police ultimately used to put an end to these illegal disruptions to so many Canadians' lives. While Conservative politicians were busy celebrating with and encouraging these illegal protesters, we acted to keep Canadians safe.
Seeback argued that the public safety minister clearly did not tell the truth, cited the precedents of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott as ministers who resigned on principle, and asked the Prime Minister to show principles and get the minister fired.
Seeback invokes the precedent of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott as ministers who resigned on principle and asks whether the Prime Minister will fire the public safety minister, but the framing is heavily rhetorical and the question is largely performative.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this, today, is how ministerial accountability dies: a Prime Minister who obfuscates and will not answer, and a minister who refuses to resign. The Minister of Public Safety clearly and unequivocally did not tell the truth. Ministers in the past have resigned on principle, ministers like Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott. Will the Prime Minister show that he has some principles and get that minister fired?
Trudeau said Conservatives were supporting and celebrating alongside illegal protesters while the government focused on delivering support to police services, ultimately invoking the Emergencies Act to give them the tools to end the illegal blockades.
Trudeau again deflects to Conservative support for illegal protesters and restates the Emergencies Act justification, entirely ignoring the invocation of Wilson-Raybould and Philpott and the specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while we were focused on serving Canadians and getting them back to work, getting their lives back and getting their streets back, Conservative politicians were busy supporting and celebrating alongside these illegal protesters and barricaders. We focused on delivering the support that police services needed to put an end to this, which ultimately led up to us choosing to invoke the Emergencies Act, which gave them the tools necessary that worked to put an end to these illegal blockades. That was what we were focused on and that is what we continue to be focused on: Canadians.
Seeback accused the Prime Minister of avoiding accountability, said the public safety minister has misspoken, misled, and misinformed the House and the Canadian public, and demanded that the minister resign or be fired.
The question is largely rhetorical and repetitive, characterizing the PM's behaviour as 'a poor man's master class on how to avoid accountability,' with no new factual content and a vague ask for the minister's resignation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what we are witnessing here today by the Prime Minister is a poor man's master class on how to avoid accountability. We deserve accountability. Canadians deserve accountability. The minister needs to be held to account. He has misspoken, he has misled and he has misinformed this House and the Canadian public. His position is completely untenable. The Prime Minister would not even answer a question directly on this. The Prime Minister needs to show some principles, show that his minister has some principles and get him to resign or fire him.
Trudeau announced the Public Order Emergency Commission, an independent public inquiry to examine the circumstances leading to the declaration and the measures taken, and said the government is acting in openness and transparency.
Trudeau mentions for the first time the Public Order Emergency Commission as an independent public inquiry established under the act, which is a substantive and relevant piece of information, though he still deflects to Conservative blockade support.
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. We are acting in openness and transparency. We know that the members of the Conservative Party might not want light shed on these events, given their support of these blockades, but Canadians want to know the truth.
Pauzé cited a Globe and Mail report warning that the oil and gas industry would reach barely half its emissions reduction targets due to no cap on fossil fuel production and ineffective carbon capture technologies, calling carbon capture 'licorne pétroliÚre,' and asked whether the PM recognizes the irresponsibility of setting unattainable targets.
The question cites a Globe and Mail report warning that the oil and gas industry will reach only half its emissions reduction targets, identifies specific reasons (no cap on fossil fuel production, ineffective carbon capture), and characterizes carbon capture as 'licorne pétroliÚre,' asking whether the PM recognizes the irresponsibility of unattainable objectives.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, d'aprÚs le Globe and Mail, les hauts fonctionnaires préviennent que l'industrie pétroliÚre et gaziÚre arrivera à peine à la moitié de ses cibles de réduction d'émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Pourquoi? C'est parce que, d'une part, le premier ministre refuse de plafonner les productions d'énergie fossile et, d'autre part, ces cibles sont fondées sur des technologies inefficaces en matiÚre de captation de carbone. Il faut enfin se le dire: la captation de carbone, c'est de la licorne pétroliÚre. Le premier ministre est-il conscient qu'il est irresponsable d'avoir des objectifs qu'on n'a aucune chance d'atteindre, et que, par ailleurs, des licornes, cela n'existe pas?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, according to The Globe and Mail, senior public servants are warning that the oil and gas industry will barely reach half of its reduction target for greenhouse gas emissions. Why? Because the Prime Minister refuses to cap fossil fuel production and because these targets are based on inefficient carbon capture technologies. We have to admit that carbon capture is an oil unicorn. Does the Prime Minister realize that it is irresponsible to have targets that we have no hope of reaching?
Trudeau cited the Institut climatique du Canada, Ăquiterre, Clean Prosperity, and leading scientists as approving the government's plan and confirming it credibly defines each sector's contributions to meeting climate targets.
Trudeau cites the Institut climatique du Canada, Ăquiterre, Clean Prosperity, and leading scientists as endorsing the plan, which is a relevant counter-reference, but does not address the specific fossil fuel production cap issue or the carbon capture criticism.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'honorable dĂ©putĂ©e devrait peut-ĂȘtre Ă©couter des organisations comme l'Institut climatique du Canada, Ăquiterre, Clean Prosperity, ainsi que des scientifiques de premier plan qui ont approuvĂ© nos plans et conviennent que notre plan dĂ©finit de maniĂšre crĂ©dible les contributions que chaque secteur doit apporter pour nous permettre d'atteindre nos objectifs climatiques. Nous avons promis un plan ambitieux et rĂ©alisable pour rĂ©duire la pollution et crĂ©er des opportunitĂ©s pour les Canadiens, et c'est exactement ce que nous offrons avec ce plan de rĂ©duction des Ă©missions.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should perhaps listen to organizations such as the Canadian Climate Institute, Ăquiterre and Clean Prosperity, and also leading scientists who approved our plans and agree that our plan credibly outlines the contributions that every sector must make to achieve our climate targets. We promised an ambitious and achievable plan to reduce pollution and create opportunities for Canadians, and that is exactly what we are delivering with the emissions reduction plan.
Michaud cited a gap of 38 megatonnes between the government's projected 81-megatonne oil and gas industry reduction and specialists' estimated 43-megatonne actual reduction, invoked the UN Secretary-General's 'dangerous disconnect' warning, and asked when the PM would recognize that meeting targets without cutting oil production is not feasible.
The question cites a specific numerical gap â 81 megatonnes projected by government versus 43 megatonnes estimated by specialists, a difference of 38 megatonnes â and references the UN Secretary-General's characterization of a 'dangerous disconnect,' asking a pointed question about the feasibility of meeting targets without cutting oil production.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, entre les 81 mĂ©gatonnes de rĂ©duction des Ă©missions que le gouvernement prĂ©voit pour l'industrie gaziĂšre et pĂ©troliĂšre et les 43 mĂ©gatonnes que les spĂ©cialistes estiment qu'elle va couper pour vrai, il y a une diffĂ©rence de 38 mĂ©gatonnes. Ăa, c'est le poids de la pensĂ©e magique. Hier, le secrĂ©taire gĂ©nĂ©ral de l'ONU qualifiait de « dĂ©connexion dangereuse » l'Ă©cart entre ce qui doit ĂȘtre fait pour lutter contre les changements climatiques et ce que les politiciens font vraiment. Quand est-ce que le premier ministre va comprendre que c'est complĂštement dĂ©connectĂ© de penser qu'atteindre ses cibles sans couper dans le pĂ©trole, cela n'arrivera pas?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there is a difference of 38 megatonnes between the government's 81-megatonne emissions reduction target for the oil and gas industry and the 43 megatonnes that experts estimate the industry will actually cut. That is how much wishful thinking weighs. Yesterday, the UN Secretary-General described the discrepancy between what needs to be done to combat climate change and what politicians are actually doing as a âdangerous disconnectâ. When will the Prime Minister understand that it is completely unrealistic to think that Canada can meet its targets without cutting oil production?
Trudeau said the cited analysis was preliminary and did not account for new measures, investments, and regulations, and cited the Institut canadien pour des choix climatiques, Institut Pembina, Conseil canadien des affaires, and Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada as having confirmed the feasibility of the plan.
Trudeau characterizes the cited analysis as preliminary and not accounting for new measures, and counters with references to the Institut canadien pour des choix climatiques, Institut Pembina, Conseil canadien des affaires, and Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada, which is substantively responsive but does not directly address the 38-megatonne gap or the oil production cut question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'analyse à laquelle mon honorable collÚgue se réfÚre était une analyse préliminaire qui ne tenait pas compte des nouvelles mesures, des investissements et des rÚglements qui vont augmenter notre capacité de réduire les émissions. Je suggérerais à ma collÚgue de se référer à de prestigieuses organisations comme l'Institut canadien pour des choix climatiques, l'Institut Pembina, le Conseil canadien des affaires et la Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada, qui ont confirmé la faisabilité de notre plan et ont modélisé des projections conformes à celles énoncées dans notre plan.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the analysis my colleague is referring to was a preliminary one that did not take into account new measures, investments and regulations that will increase our capacity to reduce emissions. I would suggest that my colleague look to prestigious organizations, such as the Canadian Climate Institute, the Pembina Institute, the Business Council of Canada and the Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada, which have confirmed the feasibility of our plan and modelled projections consistent with those set out in our plan.
Ms. Rood cited the former minister of public safety's statement that invoking the Emergencies Act was 'a decision of government,' contradicting claims that police called for it, and asked if the Prime Minister would accept personal responsibility for the misinformation and fire his minister.
Cites a specific quote from the former minister of public safety to contradict the Prime Minister's claim, with a clear ask to fire the minister, though the framing is partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has repeatedly parroted the Minister of Public Safety by saying that police called for the use of the Emergencies Act. This false information was spread by the Minister of Public Safety, and by defending such incompetence, the Prime Minister is being played for a fool. We know this information is false because the former minister of public safety has said, âQuite frankly, this is a decision of government.â Will the Prime Minister accept personal responsibility for this misinformation and fire his minister?
The Prime Minister defended the invocation of the Emergencies Act as proportionate and responsible, saying the government worked closely with police and authorities, without addressing the misinformation allegation or the call to fire the minister.
The Prime Minister does not address the specific allegation of misinformation or the demand to fire the minister, instead pivoting to defending the invocation of the Emergencies Act and attacking Conservatives.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear over the past weeks, and indeed through all the questions asked during this question period, that throughout the crisis in February, we were working closely with police services and with provincial and municipal authorities who were asking for more tools, which we continually delivered, whether it was more police officers, more concrete resources or ultimately in choosing to invoke the Emergencies Act, which gave proportionate and responsible tools that allowed the police services to put an end to these illegal blockades that the Conservatives were busy supporting.
Mr. Barrett cited the emergency preparedness minister's statement that law enforcement did not ask for the Emergencies Act, contradicting the public safety minister's repeated claims, and asked the Prime Minister to fire that minister.
Cites a specific quote from the emergency preparedness minister contradicting the public safety minister's claims, and presents a clear, single ask to fire the minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister has continued to tell the country that law enforcement told him to invoke the Emergencies Act, but that is just not true. Yesterday the emergency preparedness minister said: I do not believe that would have been an appropriate thing for law enforcement to ask, and they did not ask. Cabinet is clearly isolating the minister. We gave him the chance to resign honourably and he refused. Will the Prime Minister fire that minister?
The Prime Minister attacked Conservatives for standing with protesters and defended the invocation of the Emergencies Act, without addressing the ministerial contradiction or the demand to fire the minister.
The Prime Minister entirely sidesteps the specific allegation of dishonesty and the ministerial contradiction, pivoting to attacking Conservatives for supporting protesters.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what we see today is a Conservative Party desperate to try to prevent Canadians from remembering that Conservative politicians stood side by side with these barricaders, blockaders and illegal protesters while they were trying to disrupt Canadians' lives, while they were harming our economy, while they were hurting factories and workers across the country with their illegal protests. We worked with police services and authorities to give them the tools they needed to put an end to these barricades, including deciding, ultimately, to invoke the Emergencies Act in a proportional and responsible way.
Mr. Barrett declared the public safety minister no longer fit for the Queen's Privy Council and asked the Prime Minister to fire him, invoking the precedent of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott.
The question is largely rhetorical, using characterizations like 'barefaced falsehood' and referencing Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott for partisan effect, though it retains the single ask of firing the minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, well, birds of a feather, I guess, because to fire someone in his cabinet for dishonourable conduct, the Prime Minister would have to look himself in the mirror. The public safety minister uttered a barefaced falsehood at committee, and he continues to shamelessly mislead Canadians. He is no longer fit for the Queen's Privy Council. Will the Prime Minister fire him today?
The Prime Minister repeated that the government worked with police and invoked the Emergencies Act responsibly, without addressing the fitness of the minister or the demand to fire him.
The Prime Minister repeats his prior defence of the Emergencies Act and attacks Conservatives, offering no response to the specific allegation or the demand to fire the minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while Canadians were struggling through the impacts of these illegal blockades and these illegal protests, while Conservatives were standing with them and encouraging them, we were working with police services and authorities across the country to bring an end to the disruption faced by so many ordinary Canadians in their lives. That is why we delivered more and more tools throughout the three-week process and ultimately why we decided to invoke the Emergencies Act in a proportional and responsible way.
Ms. Dhillon asked what Canada is doing to help people facing food insecurity caused by Russia's war in Ukraine, climate change, and the pandemic.
This is a government-backbench softball question that broadly asks what Canada is doing about global food insecurity without any specific accountability ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la guerre injuste en Ukraine a des conséquences considérables dans tous les pays du monde. Cette guerre cause une pénurie alimentaire mondiale. Le conflit, combiné aux effets du changement climatique et de la pandémie, menace de faire basculer des dizaines de millions de personnes dans l'insécurité alimentaire, la faim et la famine, surtout en Afrique. L'honorable premier ministre peut-il informer la Chambre de ce que fait le Canada pour aider les personnes qui sont confrontées à une telle crise?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the unjust war in Ukraine is having a tremendous impact on countries all around the world. This war has led to a global food shortage. The conflict, combined with the effects of climate change and the pandemic, is threatening to push tens of millions of people into food insecurity, hunger and famine, especially in Africa. Could the hon. Prime Minister tell the House what Canada is doing to help the people facing this kind of crisis?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je veux remercier la dĂ©putĂ©e de DorvalâLachineâLaSalle de sa question et de son travail acharnĂ©. L'agression de la Russie a des consĂ©quences importantes et immĂ©diates sur la sĂ©curitĂ© alimentaire mondiale et la nutrition des personnes les plus vulnĂ©rables du monde. C'est pourquoi nous avons annoncĂ© que le Canada verserait 100 millions de dollars Ă la Banque africaine de dĂ©veloppement pour soutenir la croissance des petites et moyennes entreprises agroalimentaires. Ce financement va aider Ă accroĂźtre la sĂ©curitĂ© alimentaire sur le continent, tout en favorisant une croissance Ă©conomique inclusive et durable.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for DorvalâLachineâLaSalle for her question and for her hard work. Russia's aggression has had significant and immediate consequences on global food security and nutrition for the most vulnerable people in the world. This is why we have announced that Canada would contribute $100 million to the African Development Bank to support the growth of small and medium-sized agri-food enterprises. This funding will help increase food security across the continent while supporting inclusive and sustainable economic growth.
The Prime Minister announced that Canada would provide $100 million to the African Development Bank to support the growth of small and medium agri-food enterprises and increase food security on the continent.
The Prime Minister provided a specific answer citing a $100-million contribution to the African Development Bank to support agri-food small and medium enterprises, which is concrete and relevant.
Mr. Brassard characterized the government as having a culture of deception and asked the Prime Minister to fire the Minister of Public Safety, invoking the precedent of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott.
The question is largely rhetorical, relying on broad characterizations of a 'culture of deception' and invoking Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, with the only specific ask being the firing of the minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this culture of deception, deflection, not being accountable, blaming others, entitlement and division has been a culture created by the Prime Minister. He has set the example for others in his cabinet to follow, so it is no surprise to anyone to see the public safety minister using the tactics of his Prime Minister. The Prime Minister did not hesitate to force out Jody Wilson-Raybould or Jane Philpott for speaking the truth to his power. Will the Prime Minister for once do the right thing, do the honourable thing, and fire the Minister of Public Safety?
The Prime Minister spoke about fighting inflation, cutting child care fees in half, and increasing the Canada child benefit, with no reference to the minister's conduct.
The Prime Minister pivots entirely to cost-of-living measures and child care, making no connection to the question about the minister's conduct.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while Conservatives continue to focus on me, I will continue to focus on Canadians alongside all of the extraordinary members of our team. We are focused on fighting against inflation, on supporting Canadians with the cost of living, including such things as cutting child care fees in half and increasing the Canada child benefit with the cost of inflation, as will happen in the coming weeks. We will continue as well to make sure that the Conservative politicians who stood with illegal protesters and blockaders, fostering division in this country, are remembered by Canadians, because we chose to invoke the Emergencies Act to put an endâ
Mr. Poilievre noted that the public safety minister claimed 13 times that police told him to invoke the Emergencies Act, that police denied this, and that the Deputy Prime Minister and another minister also said it was not true, asking why the minister remains in cabinet.
Cites the specific number of 13 repetitions of the minister's claim, references the Deputy Prime Minister and another minister contradicting it, and notes the Prime Minister's own refusal to call the minister honourable, making it a well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, not once, not twice, but 13 times did this public safety minister claim that the police told him to suspend people's civil liberties with the Emergencies Act. Not only did the cops say that this is not true, but yesterday two of his fellow ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, said that it is not true. Today, the Prime Minister refused to say that his public safety minister had acted honourably. If his fellow ministers do not think he is honourable and truthful, why is he still in cabinet?
The Prime Minister defended the invocation of the Emergencies Act to keep Canadians safe and put an end to barricades, without addressing the minister's alleged falsehoods or the contradiction from fellow ministers.
The Prime Minister does not address the specific allegation of the minister stating falsehoods, the contradiction from fellow ministers, or the question of why the minister remains in cabinet, instead repeating his standard defence of the Emergencies Act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while the member opposite supposedly concerns himself with the freedom of Canadians to protest illegally, we are going to continue to stand with Canadians who had their lives disrupted by the illegal blockades and the protesters who went to such lengths to shut down our economy over the month of February. We continue to work with police officers, with services, with local authorities to give them the tools needed, and ultimately we chose to invoke the Emergencies Act to keep Canadians safe and put an end to these barricades.
Mr. Poilievre argued that everything the government said about truckers was false, including the claim that police asked for the Emergencies Act, and asked the Prime Minister to fire the Minister of Public Safety.
The question combines a pointed accountability ask about firing the minister with a broader partisan argument about vaccine mandates and trucker characterizations, diluting its specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he referred to disrupting people's lives. This is from the guy who took away the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people because of an unscientific mandate that robbed them of their individual freedom.
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, disrupting people's lives? This is a Prime Minister who disrupted the lives of tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands, because of a personal medical decision. Everything the government has been saying about our truckers has been false from the very beginning, starting with the claim that they would spread a virus even though they were in a truck all alone all day long, and ending with the recent claim that the police had asked for the Emergencies Act. Now that the government has admitted that the public safety minister stated falsehoods, will the Prime Minister do the honourable thing and fire him?
The Prime Minister defended the government's pandemic measures, citing science and noting Canada recovered 115% of jobs lost during the pandemic compared to 95% in the U.S., without addressing the minister's conduct.
The Prime Minister pivots to defending pandemic measures and citing economic recovery statistics (115% vs. 95% of jobs recovered), making no connection to the specific question about the minister's falsehoods.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way throughout this global pandemic, we had Canadians' backs, and that meant ensuring that we followed science, that we did everything necessary to keep people safe and that we did everything necessary to make sure our economy would spring back as quickly as possible. The member opposite knows full well that he stood against our scientific measures to keep Canadians safe. He stood against the measures we put forward to support small businesses, to support families in getting through this pandemic, and indeed stood against the measures that have led us to recovering 115% of the jobs lost during the pandemic, while the U.S. has only recovered 95%. We had Canadians' backs. That is what we were doing during the pandemic.
Mr. Noormohamed asked how new cybersecurity legislation will enable Canadian organizations to protect critical cyber infrastructure.
This is a government-backbench question that broadly asks about new cybersecurity legislation without any specific accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the digital era, cybersecurity is national security. Our critical infrastructure relies on interconnected networks and cyber-systems every day. From our financial system to telecommunications and from the energy sector to the transportation sectors, organizations need to be well prepared to be able to prevent and respond to cyber incidents. Can the Prime Minister inform this House how new legislation on cybersecurity will enable Canadian organizations to protect critical cyber infrastructure and our communities?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Vancouver Granville for his question and his hard work. Cybersecurity is national security. Bill C-26 will help both the public and private sectors better protect themselves against cyber-attacks and is one part of our robust strategy to defend Canada and the crucial infrastructure that Canadians rely on. We will always protect the safety and security of Canadians and we will take any actions necessary to safeguard our telecommunications infrastructure.
The Prime Minister stated that Bill C-26 will help both the public and private sectors protect themselves against cyber-attacks as part of a robust strategy to defend Canada's crucial infrastructure.
The Prime Minister named Bill C-26 and described its purpose of protecting public and private sectors against cyber-attacks as part of a broader strategy, providing relevant though somewhat vague information.
Mr. Singh cited the government's $724.1-million announcement to support indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people facing gender-based violence and alleged that zero dollars of that amount had been spent two years later, asking why the government was making announcements instead of taking concrete steps.
Cites a specific dollar figure ($724.1 million) from a specific announcement two years prior and a specific outcome (zero dollars spent), providing strong factual grounding for a clear accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the Liberal government announced $724.1 million to support indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people in the face of gender-based violence. However, here is the thing: We are dealing with the Liberals. Two years later, can members guess how much money was spent? It is zero dollars. Zero dollars was spent to support indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people facing gender-based violence. Why is the government making announcements instead of taking concrete steps to support people facing gender-based violence?
The Prime Minister denied the claim, said the government invested hundreds of millions of dollars into grassroots organizations, referenced the June 2021 national action plan, and cited budget 2021's $2.2-billion investment, without specifically accounting for the $724.1-million announcement.
The Prime Minister flatly denied the claim and cited budget 2021's $2.2-billion investment and the June 2021 national action plan, but did not specifically account for the $724.1 million announcement or address the allegation that zero dollars was spent.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. Over the past two years, we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars directly into grassroots organizations that have been there to support survivors of domestic violence and gender-based violence. Addressing the ongoing violence, including that related to the MMIWG, requires living up to our goals as a country and respecting all the calls to justice. In June 2021, partners from across the country came together and released the national action plan to finally end this ongoing tragedy, and it will be supported by budget 2021's $2.2-billion investment in concrete measures that will keep people safe.
Mr. Vuong asked the Prime Minister to eliminate tax cascading â the application of HST to the excise tax, carbon tax, and provincial tax on fuel â and provide Canadians with a fuel tax rebate.
Identifies a specific mechanism called 'tax cascading' and describes the layering of HST on the excise tax, carbon tax, and provincial tax with a clear ask to eliminate it and provide a fuel tax rebate, though it includes some rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing soaring gas prices. However, most consumers are unaware of the federal government's hidden fleecing. It is called âtax cascadingâ, and it must stop. In Ontario, the government applies HST to fuel purchases and then applies it to the excise tax, the carbon tax and the provincial tax. The government is taxing taxes. If it is serious about helping Canadians, the government should take its triple-dipping tax hands out of consumers' pockets. Will the Prime Minister eliminate tax cascading and provide Canadians with a fuel tax rebate from the massive slush fund that he is raking in?
The Prime Minister spoke about cutting child care fees in half and increasing the Canada child benefit to match the cost of inflation, without addressing tax cascading or a fuel tax rebate.
The Prime Minister does not address tax cascading, the excise tax, or a fuel tax rebate, instead speaking about child care fees and the Canada child benefit, which are entirely unrelated to the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the investments we have made have been directed at supporting families and the vulnerable through these difficult times. We chose to invest billions of dollars to ensure that child care fees get cut in half this year, and we are seeing, right across the country, that this is having an incredibly positive impact on families where it is coming into place. A lot of people in various jurisdictions, like the member's own province of Ontario, are looking forward to that kicking in for them as well. We are also increasing the Canada child benefit to match the cost of inflation in the coming weeks to make sure that families have more money for the cost of living and the cost of groceries and everyday items. That is part of what we are doing to have Canadians'â
Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (BQ) sought unanimous consent for a motion to salute the 46-year career of Pierre Bruneau as chef d'antenne at TVA network, recognize his contribution to journalism in Quebec, acknowledge his engagement with children with cancer through the Fondation Charles-Bruneau since 1990, and wish him well in his future projects.
- BQ Mr. Yves-François Blanchet
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, vous constaterez qu'il y a consentement unanime Ă l'Ă©gard de la motion suivante: Que la Chambre: a) salue le travail extraordinaire de monsieur Pierre Bruneau comme chef d'antenne du rĂ©seau TVA pendant 46 ans, alors qu'il animera son dernier bulletin de nouvelles ce jeudi soir; b) souligne l'apport remarquable de monsieur Pierre Bruneau Ă l'information au QuĂ©bec grĂące Ă sa rigueur, son dĂ©vouement et son immense talent de communicateur; c) rappelle aussi son engagement auprĂšs des enfants atteints de cancer grĂące Ă la Fondation CharlesâBruneau depuis 1990 et qu'elle lui en tĂ©moigne sa reconnaissance; d) souhaite Ă monsieur Pierre Bruneau bonne chance dans ses futurs projets.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House: (a) salute the extraordinary work of Mr. Pierre Bruneau as anchor of the TVA network for 46 years, as he will host his last newscast this Thursday evening; (b) underline the remarkable contribution of Mr. Pierre Bruneau to information in Quebec thanks to his rigour, his dedication and his immense talent as a communicator; (c) recall his commitment to children with cancer through the Charles-Bruneau Foundation since 1990 and express its gratitude to him; and (d) wish Mr. Pierre Bruneau good luck in his future projects.