Session overview
- Ethics dominated Question Period, with Conservative and Bloc Québécois members pressing the Prime Minister over an estimated $80,000 in free accommodations received at a Jamaican villa owned by Trudeau Foundation donors, and over a $140,000 donation to the Trudeau Foundation allegedly arranged by his brother Alexandre Trudeau and linked to the Chinese consulate.
- The Public Service Alliance of Canada strike â described as the biggest general strike in four decades involving 150,000 workers â dominated the Labour exchanges, with NDP members pressing the Prime Minister to explicitly rule out back-to-work legislation, which he declined to do directly.
- Carbon pricing generated sustained back-and-forth, with Pierre Poilievre repeatedly citing the Parliamentary Budget Officer's finding that the net cost to the average Ontario family is $1,820 above any rebates, and calling the carbon tax a "scam"; the Prime Minister disputed this interpretation and defended the climate action incentive cheque program.
- The Prime Minister announced that Chantier Davie de LĂ©vis has become the third official partner of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, representing $21 billion in economic benefits and 4,500 jobs in the Quebec City region, including work on six icebreakers and a polar icebreaker for the Canadian Coast Guard.
- Environment and Climate Change Canada's national greenhouse gas emissions inventory was cited by a government backbencher and the Prime Minister to highlight that Canadian emissions are down relative to both 2019 and 2005 levels while the economy has grown, offering a direct counterpoint to Conservative carbon-tax attacks.
- Yves-François Blanchet pressed the Prime Minister on whether the Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau Foundation solicited funds from the Chinese Communist Party, including $250,000 of a $1-million donation linked to a Chinese businessman, and on whether Alexandre Trudeau's signing of the donation agreement constituted an indirect contact between the Prime Minister and the foundation.
This was the only exchange in the session where a specific, concrete government commitment was confirmed: the Chantier Davie de LĂ©vis joining the National Shipbuilding Strategy, with stated figures of $21 billion in economic benefits and 4,500 jobs, and an enumeration of vessels already under design and construction.
Poilievre cites a specific document â the 2021-22 annual report â and a specific passage about "inactive member" status, directly contradicting the Prime Minister's prior statements, making this highly grounded and specific.
Responding to Pierre Poilievre's interjection of "Pay for it, freeloader," the Prime Minister made no attempt to address the vacation repayment question and instead pivoted entirely to budget 2023 talking points about the grocery rebate, credit card fees, and dental care â leaving the direct accountability question completely untouched.
Outstanding questions
- Pierre Poilievre asked multiple times whether the Prime Minister will repay the $80,000 in free accommodations received at the Jamaican villa of Trudeau Foundation donors; the Prime Minister never confirmed or denied repayment.
- Pierre Poilievre asked whether the Prime Minister will agree to have his brother Alexandre Trudeau appear before a parliamentary committee to testify about foreign interference; the Prime Minister did not answer and instead questioned the convention of accepting members' truthfulness.
- Jagmeet Singh and NDP members asked directly and repeatedly â including with an explicit yes-or-no framing â whether the Prime Minister commits to not introducing back-to-work legislation against PSAC workers; the Prime Minister never said "no" to back-to-work legislation.
- Yves-François Blanchet asked whether, given that the PMO contacted the Trudeau Foundation in 2016 to obtain answers to media questions, this constituted direct or indirect contact between the Prime Minister and the foundation, contradicting his repeated denials; the Prime Minister did not resolve this contradiction.
- Melissa Lantsman asked what the Trudeau Foundation donors who provided the $81,000 vacation gift received in return that ordinary Canadians did not; the Prime Minister described the family friendship without addressing the question of preferential access or benefit.
Poilievre cites a 50% increase in bureaucracy costs and a strike of 150,000 workers as simultaneous failures and asks how the Prime Minister will fix the government he broke.
The question references specific figures (50% cost increase, 150,000 workers) but the ask is vague and rhetorical ("fix the government he broke") rather than a single clear answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a failure to increase the cost of the bureaucracy by 50% with poorer services. It is a failure to have 150,000 workers go on strike in the biggest general strike in four decades. However, it is an especially incredible achievement of incompetence to do both of those things at the same time. Only the Prime Minister could pull that off. Now our veterans, immigrants, small businesses and taxpayers will be without services. How will the Prime Minister fix the government he broke?
Trudeau says he respects union work and that progress is being made at the bargaining table, which Canadians deserve.
The Prime Minister pivots to a statement of respect for unions and the principle of collective bargaining without addressing the specific failures cited or offering any concrete plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike the members opposite in the Conservative Party, we deeply respect the work that unions do across the country to stand up for good middle-class jobs. That is why we have ensured that the work is done at the bargaining table. We know there is progress being made, but it is an important principle to respect the work of the bargaining table. That is what we are encouraging people to continue to do, because, yes, Canadians deserve the services and we need to continue to support the public service that delivers those services to Canadians.
Poilievre argues that under Conservative government there was no general strike and government cost one-third less, and asks how the Prime Minister will repair the damage caused.
The French-language repeat of Exchange 1 references specific figures and a historical comparison to Conservative governance, but the ask remains vague and rhetorically framed.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, quand les conservateurs Ă©taient au pouvoir, il n'y a pas eu de grĂšve gĂ©nĂ©rale, et le gouvernement coĂ»tait un tiers de moins. C'est un Ă©chec d'augmenter le coĂ»t de la bureaucratie de 50 %. C'est un Ă©chec d'avoir une grĂšve de 150 000 travailleurs. En faisant les deux en mĂȘme temps, le premier ministre fait preuve d'une incompĂ©tence incroyable. Comment le premier ministre va-t-il rĂ©parer les dommages qu'il a causĂ©s Ă notre gouvernement et Ă nos contribuables?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives were in power, there was no general strike and running the government cost one-third less. It is a failure to increase the cost of the bureaucracy by 50%. It is a failure to have 150,000 workers go on strike. Having both at the same time demonstrates the Prime Minister's incredible incompetence. How will the Prime Minister fix the damage he has caused to our government and our taxpayers?
Trudeau says the government encourages everyone to remain at the bargaining table and will defend union principles, unlike Conservatives.
Trudeau again pivots to the principle of collective bargaining and a contrast with Conservatives without addressing the specific cost or strike failures raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les Canadiens continuent de compter sur les services fournis par le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral. C'est pour cela que nous encourageons tout le monde Ă rester Ă la table de nĂ©gociation. C'est lĂ qu'auront lieu les rĂ©sultats nĂ©cessaires. On va toujours ĂȘtre lĂ pour s'assurer que les Canadiens reçoivent les services nĂ©cessaires. On va aussi ĂȘtre lĂ , contrairement aux conservateurs, pour dĂ©fendre les principes syndicaux et le droit des gens de nĂ©gocier des conventions collectives. On va continuer de faire le travail Ă la table de nĂ©gociation.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians continue to rely on the services provided by the federal government. That is why we are encouraging everyone to stay at the bargaining table. That is where we will get results. We will always be there to ensure Canadians get the services they need. Unlike the Conservatives, we are also going to be there to defend union principles and the right to collective bargaining. We will continue to do the work at the bargaining table.
Poilievre states the Prime Minister effectively confirmed receiving $80,000 in free accommodations from Trudeau Foundation donors and asks whether he will pay back that gift.
The question cites a specific dollar figure ($80,000), identifies the recipients as Trudeau Foundation donors, and poses a single clear ask â will the Prime Minister pay back the gift â though "all but confirmed" is an assertion rather than a documented fact.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister all but confirmed yesterday that he was gifted 80,000 dollars' worth of free accommodations at the villa of a Trudeau Foundation donor. That is what anyone else would have had to pay to stay there over that nine-day vacation. He now has a big IOU to those Trudeau Foundation donors, who will obviously be expecting something in return for it. Everyday Canadians pay for their own accommodations when they go on vacation. Will the Prime Minister agree to pay back that $80,000 gift?
Trudeau says he stayed with long-time friends and that all rules were followed in consultation with the Ethics Commissioner.
Trudeau addresses the vacation context by describing a longstanding friendship and says he worked with the Ethics Commissioner, but does not answer whether he will repay the $80,000.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I went away with my family and my kids to stay with friends we have known for decades, in a place where I have stayed many times over the past decades, since I was one year old. Of course, in all these situations, we work with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure that all the rules are followed, and that happened in this case.
Poilievre clarifies he is only asking the Prime Minister to repay the $80,000 accommodation cost that any other family staying at that resort would have paid, not security or travel costs.
Poilievre narrows the ask precisely â not security, not the private jet, just the accommodation cost any other family would pay â making it a focused and answerable question, though it repeats the prior exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, nobody is raising qualms about the Prime Minister having a vacation. I know it is his favourite thing to do. I had a vacation at the same time. It was a Sunwing package, and I waited five hours at the airport. That being said, I paid for it myself. We are not asking for the Prime Minister to pay for the security, and we are not even asking him to pay for his private jet; we are simply asking him to pay the same price any other family who stayed at that resort would pay so that he does not owe anybody anything. Will he pay back that $80,000?
Trudeau describes the multi-generational family friendship and says all practices regarding prime ministerial travel and Ethics Commissioner requirements were followed.
Trudeau elaborates on the 50-year personal friendship and Ethics Commissioner compliance but still does not address whether he will repay the $80,000.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, these are family friends. My father was godfather to one of their children. Their father was godfather to one of my brothers. These are family friends we have had for many decades, close to 50 years. Over those 50 years, I have been to that vacation spot many times with my family, including with my father when he was still alive. Of course, we worked with the Ethics Commissioner to make sure all rules were followed, and we followed all the practices in regard to prime ministerial travel, including, unfortunately, having security along with us, which is a requirement for all prime ministers of any party.
Poilievre argues the $80,000 vacation from wealthy Trudeau Foundation donors who live in Bermuda creates an IOU and asks the Prime Minister to repay the gift to clear his conscience.
Poilievre sharpens the accountability angle by noting the hosts are Bermuda-based Trudeau Foundation donors and frames the IOU concern clearly, but the question is partially rhetorical in its framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we all agree the Prime Minister should have security. We have no problem with him having friends. My friends might buy me a cup of coffee or a beer, but not an $80,000 gifted vacation that obviously comes with an IOU. This came from wealthy Trudeau Foundation donors who live in Bermuda, a long way away for his friends. Now these people will have inordinate influence on him. The Prime Minister works for them rather than working for the Canadian people. Will the Prime Minister get rid of this IOU and clear his conscience by paying for his own vacation?
Trudeau deflects entirely to accusing Poilievre of using American tech giants to attack local and francophone news and Canadian institutions.
Trudeau completely ignores the $80,000 question and pivots to attacking Poilievre's alleged billionaire tech-giant friends and the CBC, with no connection to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not think Canadians are worried about the Leader of the Opposition's friends who buy him a cup of coffee. Canadians are worried about his billionaire friends that he is using to attack local news for Canadians right across the country. His issues with the CBC have brought him to involve American tech giants to try to attack the local news, the local culture and the francophone news that Canadians rely on from coast to coast to coast. Yes, we have our disagreements in this place, but when the Leader of the Opposition goes running to his billionaire tech giant friends to try to attack Canadian institutions, Canadians should be asking tough questions of this leader.
Blanchet states the Chinese regime was behind $250,000 of a $1 million solicitation to the Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau Foundation and asks whether the Prime Minister has the distance required to impose choices regarding an independent public inquiry.
Blanchet cites specific facts â a $1 million attempted donation to the UniversitĂ© de MontrĂ©al, $250,000 of a $1 million solicitation to the Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau Foundation, and a request for a statue â and poses a focused question about the Prime Minister's distance from a public inquiry.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il est maintenant Ă©tabli que le rĂ©gime chinois est derriĂšre le million de dollars qu'un homme d'affaires, Ă©galement chinois, voulait donner Ă l'UniversitĂ© de MontrĂ©al. Il est malheureusement assez clair aussi que, au moment d'en discuter avec Le Devoir, l'officier de l'UniversitĂ© devait s'en douter. Il est aussi clair que c'est de l'argent du Parti communiste chinois que la Fondation Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau a demandĂ©, a sollicitĂ© pour ses propres activitĂ©s et pour une statue de M. Trudeau. On parle d'une somme de 250 000 $ sur 1 million de dollars. N'est-il pas aussi clair pour le premier ministre qu'il n'a pas la distance requise pour imposer ses choix dans le cadre d'une enquĂȘte publique et indĂ©pendante?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it has now been established that the Chinese regime is behind the million-dollar donation that a businessman, also Chinese, wanted to give to the Université de Montréal. Unfortunately, it is also clear that, when speaking with Le Devoir about it, the university official had some doubts. It is also clear that the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation solicited funds from the Chinese Communist Party for its own activities and for a statue of Trudeau senior. We are talking about $250,000 out of the $1 million. Is it not also clear to the Prime Minister that he does not have the distance needed to impose his choices when it comes to an independent public inquiry?
Trudeau says it is the Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau Foundation that made those decisions and that he has had no direct or indirect engagement with the foundation for a decade.
Trudeau dismisses the question by saying it is the Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau Foundation's decisions, not his, and states he has had no direct or indirect engagement with the foundation for a decade, without addressing the inquiry question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme il en a l'habitude depuis bien des années, le Bloc québécois s'en prend au mauvais Trudeau. C'est la Fondation Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau qui a pris ces décisions-là . Pour ma part, cela fait une décennie que je n'ai eu aucun engagement direct ou indirect avec cette fondation et les décisions qu'on y prend.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is attacking the wrong Trudeau, as it has done for many years now. The Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation was the one who made those decisions. For the past decade, I myself have not had any direct or indirect involvement with the foundation and the decisions that it makes.
Blanchet asks how much the Green family donated to the Trudeau Foundation before the Prime Minister stayed with them, and challenges whether he could genuinely have been unaware of it.
Blanchet poses a pointed factual question â how much did the Green family donate to the Trudeau Foundation before the Prime Minister stayed with them â and challenges whether the Prime Minister's claimed ignorance is credible.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comment dĂ©finit-on le bon Trudeau? Le premier ministre a prĂ©tendu ne rien savoir de la gestion de la fondation Trudeau. J'ai de la misĂšre Ă imaginer qu'il ignorait l'existence du don de la famille Green. Je suis mĂȘme sĂ»r qu'il le savait. Admettons quand mĂȘme qu'il ne le savait pas. Maintenant, il devrait au moins s'en ĂȘtre informĂ©. Sinon, il ne fait pas son travail. Pourquoi ne nous dit-il pas combien la famille Green a donnĂ© Ă la fondation Trudeau avant qu'il n'aille faire un sĂ©jour dans la famille?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, how do we define the right Trudeau? The Prime Minister claimed he knew nothing about how the Trudeau Foundation was being run. I find it hard to believe that he was unaware of the donation by the Green family. In fact, I am sure he knew about it. Even if he was unaware of it, he should have at least looked into it. If not, he is not doing his job. Why does he not tell us how much the Green family donated to the Trudeau Foundation before he joined them on vacation?
Trudeau says he was not aware of the Green family donation, says it does not surprise him given their shared interests, and reiterates he has had no engagement with the Trudeau Foundation for a decade.
Trudeau directly states he was not aware of the Green family donation and reiterates his decade of non-engagement with the foundation, which partially addresses the question, though he provides no amount.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, quand je dis que je n'ai eu aucun engagement direct ou indirect avec la fondation Trudeau depuis une dĂ©cennie, c'est parce que je n'en ai pas eu. Alors, non, je n'Ă©tais pas au courant de ce don de la famille Green. Cela ne me surprend pas, parce que ce sont des amis de longue date qui s'intĂ©ressent au mĂȘme genre des choses que nous, mais je ne le savais pas. Je n'ai pas les dĂ©tails. L'opposition va devoir l'accepter. Ce que je dis est vrai, je n'ai pas eu d'engagement avec la fondation Trudeau depuis une dĂ©cennie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when I say that I have had no direct or indirect involvement with the Trudeau Foundation for over a decade, that is because I have had none. No, I was not aware of the donation by the Green family. It does not surprise me because they are long-time friends who are interested in the same things we are, but I was unaware of it. I do not have the details. The opposition will have to accept that. I am telling the truth. I have not had any involvement with the Trudeau Foundation for a decade.
Singh asks whether the Prime Minister will commit to not bringing in back-to-work legislation against Public Service Alliance of Canada workers and instead commit to negotiating a fair deal.
Singh identifies PSAC workers specifically, notes the failure to reach a negotiated agreement, and asks a single clear yes/no question about back-to-work legislation, though it is framed with some partisan preamble.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are extremely disappointed that the Liberal government did not arrive at a negotiated agreement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada. These are the workers who delivered unprecedented help during the challenging times of the pandemic. They deserve our respect. They do not deserve groans from the Conservatives. They deserve respect. These workers work hard, and now the government has to step up. The government often talks a good game about collective bargaining but ends up doing very much the same as the Conservatives. Will the Prime Minister commit to not bringing in back-to-work legislation and instead commit to negotiating a fair deal for these workers?
Trudeau says government negotiators are at the table bargaining in good faith and expresses optimism that the dispute will be resolved at the bargaining table, without committing on back-to-work legislation.
Trudeau says negotiators are at the table bargaining in good faith and this is the first day of labour disruptions, engaging the topic but not directly answering the yes/no question on back-to-work legislation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, government negotiators are, as we speak, at the table with the unions, bargaining in good faith toward getting to the right solution that will continue to deliver the services that Canadians rely on and that they were able to rely on through the pandemic from our extraordinary public service, but also making sure we are moving forward in responsible ways. This is something that we have always stood for. We will continue to support unions and collective bargaining. This is the first day of labour disruptions. We continue to be very optimistic that we are going to be able to see this resolved where it needs to, at the bargaining table.
Singh asks the Prime Minister directly, yes or no, whether he commits to not tabling back-to-work legislation against public service workers.
Singh asks a direct yes/no question â will the Prime Minister commit to not tabling back-to-work legislation â which is highly specific and answerable.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le gouvernement libĂ©ral parle souvent des droits des travailleurs. Souvent, ses actions sont les mĂȘmes que celles des conservateurs. Les travailleurs de la fonction publique ont travaillĂ© de façon acharnĂ©e pendant la pandĂ©mie. Ils mĂ©ritent le respect. Est-ce que le premier ministre s'engage Ă ne pas dĂ©poser une loi spĂ©ciale de retour au travail, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government talks a good game about workers' rights, but it often ends up doing very much the same as the Conservatives. Public servants worked hard during the pandemic and they deserve respect. Will the Prime Minister commit to not bringing in special back-to-work legislation, yes or no?
Trudeau says negotiators and unions are at the bargaining table with responsible proposals that recognize the hard work of the public service, without answering yes or no.
Trudeau describes the ongoing negotiation process and acknowledges the hard work of the public service but does not provide a yes or no answer to the back-to-work legislation question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme mes collĂšgues du NPD le savent trĂšs bien, nous sommes actuellement engagĂ©s. Nos nĂ©gociateurs et les syndicats sont Ă la table de nĂ©gociation. Ils mettent de l'avant des propositions responsables qui reconnaissent le travail acharnĂ© fait par la fonction publique pendant ces derniĂšres annĂ©es extrĂȘmement difficiles. Cela va aussi garantir que nous puissions continuer de rendre les services dont les Canadiens ont tant besoin, de façon responsable.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as my NDP colleagues are well aware, we are actively involved in negotiations right now. Our negotiators are at the table with the unions. They are putting forward responsible proposals that recognize the hard work that the public service has done over these past few extremely difficult years. That will also guarantee that we can continue to provide Canadians with much-needed services in a responsible manner.
Poilievre cites intercepted phone calls showing the Chinese consulate sought to influence the Prime Minister through a $140,000 donation to the Trudeau Foundation arranged by his brother, and asks whether the Prime Minister has ever discussed the foundation with his brother since that donation.
Poilievre cites intercepted phone calls, a specific $140,000 donation, the Prime Minister's brother as the signatory, and a specific purpose of influencing Liberal leadership decisions, and asks a pointed factual question about whether the Prime Minister has discussed this with his brother.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we now know from intercepted phone calls that the Chinese consulate sought to influence this Prime Minister by making a $140,000 donation to the Trudeau Foundation, that was arranged and signed off on by the Prime Minister's own brother. This was for the specific purpose of influencing the Prime Minister's decisions as Liberal leader and eventually as Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister really expect us to believe he has never discussed the Trudeau Foundation with his brother since that donation?
Trudeau states he has had no engagement, direct or indirect, with the Trudeau Foundation in close to 10 years, including no knowledge of donations or his brother's activities on the foundation.
Trudeau directly states he has had no engagement, direct or indirect, with the Trudeau Foundation in close to 10 years, including no knowledge of donations or his brother's activities, which addresses the question though without engaging the intercepted phone call evidence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I have had no engagement, direct or indirect, with the Trudeau Foundation in close to 10 years. That includes not knowing what donations are taken, what decisions they are making or what my brother is doing on the foundation. I made that decision 10 years ago to not engage with the foundation and that is what we have all been consistent with.
Poilievre cites the 2021-22 Trudeau Foundation annual report listing the Prime Minister as an "inactive member" who has only withdrawn for the duration of his federal politics involvement, and asks why the Prime Minister keeps making statements of falsehood about his involvement.
Poilievre cites a specific document â the 2021-22 annual report â and a specific passage about "inactive member" status, directly contradicting the Prime Minister's prior statements, making this highly grounded and specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he has no direct or indirect involvement with the Trudeau Foundation. Really? The annual report for 2021-22 lists him as an inactive member and says that he has only withdrawn from the affairs of the foundation for the duration of his involvement in federal politics, meaning he can go back to that big pile of cash when he leaves office: cash that was contributed to the foundation by the regime in Beijing. Why does the Prime Minister keep making statements of falsehood about his involvement with his family foundation?
Trudeau argues that "inactive" means exactly what he has said â no involvement for 10 years â and pivots to listing dental benefits, child benefits, and child care delivered by his government.
Trudeau argues that "inactive" confirms his position rather than contradicts it but then pivots entirely to listing government benefits and accusing Poilievre, failing to address the annual report's statement that he may re-engage after leaving federal politics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Leader of the Opposition needs to look in a dictionary for the definition of âinactiveâ. It goes exactly to what I have said. I have had no involvement, direct or indirect, with the Trudeau Foundation for 10 years. I am completely inactive in that sense, because I am active delivering benefits for Canadians, delivering growth throughout the middle class, delivering dental benefits that the member voted against, delivering child benefits and delivering child care that have made a huge difference for Canadians. That is what I am active doing, and not any of that other stuff.
Poilievre lists four specific activities â vacation funded by Trudeau Foundation donors, appointment of the election interference watchdog, appointment of an active Trudeau Foundation member as rapporteur, and his brother facilitating a foreign dictatorship donation â and asks how these reconcile with the Prime Minister's claimed "inactive" involvement.
Poilievre lists four specific activities â vacation funding by donors, appointment of the election interference watchdog, appointment of the rapporteur, and the brother's role â and asks how these reconcile with "inactive" involvement, making it a well-grounded compound question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I did look up the word âinactiveâ and do they know what it does not include? It does not include getting the donors of the Trudeau Foundation to pay for their vacation. It does not include getting members of the Trudeau Foundation to be appointed as the election interference watchdog. It does not include appointing a rapporteur to look into that same interference who was an active member of the Trudeau Foundation, and it does it not include having a brother who facilitated the donation from a foreign dictatorship. How does the Prime Minister reconcile his inactive involvement with all of those activities?
Trudeau says viewers may be surprised by the opposition's focus on him rather than affordability, and lists budget measures including a grocery rebate, health care, dental care, and middle-class jobs.
Trudeau does not address any of the four specific activities cited and instead pivots entirely to affordability, budget measures, and accusing the opposition of voting against the budget.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, viewers watching at home may be surprised to see the extent to which the leader of the official opposition is choosing to focus on me, when they are worried about affordability, they are worried about growth, they are worried about health care, and when we are moving forward with a budget that would deliver a grocery rebate to Canadians, that would deliver health care, that would deliver dental care, that would deliver a plan for great jobs for the middle class for the coming years. That member and his party will be voting tonight against that budget that would help Canadians. Shame on them. We should be helping Canadians here; that is not what he is doing.
Poilievre notes that the Prime Minister's brother personally attended the donation announcement, signed the agreement, and orchestrated the transaction, and asks whether the Prime Minister has discussed the Trudeau Foundation with his brother since that donation was received.
Poilievre identifies the brother's specific roles â attending the announcement, signing the agreement â and asks the single clear factual question of whether the Prime Minister has discussed the Trudeau Foundation with his brother since that donation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister is doing is helping himself to Trudeau Foundation donor money. He is helping himself by using the influence his office gives to indirectly generate donations to the Trudeau Foundation. Speaking of that, his brother was the one who orchestrated the donation from the Beijing dictatorship to the Trudeau Foundation. He personally attended the announcement of the donation, and it is his name that signed the agreement for the donation. Has the Prime Minister discussed the Trudeau Foundation with his brother since that donation was received?
Trudeau directly answers "no" to the question and then pivots to listing budget 2023 affordability measures including the grocery rebate and auto-filing for taxes.
Trudeau directly answers "no" to the question but immediately pivots to listing budget 2023 measures, giving credit for the direct answer while losing points for the deflection that follows.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have already said ânoâ to that question. âNoâ is the answer, but at the same as he tries to focus on me and spinning all sorts of different conspiracy theories, we will continue to stay focused on Canadians and on delivering on our commitments in budget 2023 with affordability, including the grocery rebate, cracking down on hidden junk fees and predatory lending, and introducing auto-filing for taxes for low-income Canadians. We are there to support Canadians during this difficult time. The Leader of the Opposition is going to be voting against that tonight. He will be voting against the support for Canadians we are going to continue to deliver, despite his attacks.
Poilievre again asks the Prime Minister to repay only the $80,000 accommodation gift from Trudeau Foundation donors in Bermuda, not security or private jet costs.
Poilievre again narrows the ask to repaying only the $80,000 accommodation cost and identifies the hosts as donors to the Trudeau Foundation, but this is largely a repetition of prior exchanges with diminishing specificity added.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no attack. We are simply asking him to do what every other Canadian would normally do: The average Canadian pays for their own camping trip and pays for their own family vacation. He gets his vacations funded by Trudeau Foundation donors. We are not asking for him to pay for the security or even for the private jet. We are simply asking for him to pay back the $80,000 gift he got from his wealthy friends in Bermuda, who are donors to the Trudeau Foundation. Will he get this IOU out of his pocket and pay the money back?
Trudeau pivots entirely to describing historic health care deals with provinces, mental health care, dental care, and data collection improvements, with no reference to the $80,000 question.
Trudeau does not engage with the $80,000 question at all and pivots entirely to health care deals with provinces, dental care, and accusing Poilievre of voting against these.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while the Leader of the Opposition continues to focus on me, we will continue to focus on Canadians, including by moving forward on strengthening health care. We are in the process of signing historic deals with all the provinces to deliver more family doctors, to deliver better mental health care, to deliver better supports for our frontline workers and a reduction of backlogs, and to deliver better data collection right across the country, so we can make sure Canadians are getting the best possible health care from coast to coast to coast. On top of that, we are moving forward with a dental care plan that is going to deliver dental care for Canadians right across the country, and he voted against that.
Poilievre asks whether the Prime Minister will agree to have his brother come before a parliamentary committee to testify about foreign interference, given his brother's role in orchestrating and signing the Beijing donation to the Trudeau Foundation.
Poilievre asks a clear and specific question â will the Prime Minister agree to have his brother appear before a parliamentary committee to testify about foreign interference â grounded in the brother's documented role in the donation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister really expects us to believe that he has not discussed this donation that the dictatorship in Beijing directed to the Trudeau Foundation, even though it was his brother who signed off on the donation, orchestrated the transaction and signed the agreement to bring the money home. If he really expects us to believe that, then I have a very simple question: Will he agree to have his brother come before a parliamentary committee to testify about foreign interference in our country?
Trudeau invokes parliamentary convention on members telling the truth, says he has already said "no" to the question being asked, and pivots to asking if the opposition will accept a unanimous consent motion to accelerate the grocery rebate.
Trudeau does not answer the question about the brother testifying before committee, instead appealing to parliamentary convention on truth-telling and pivoting to the grocery rebate unanimous consent motion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I believe you, perhaps, can rule on this. There is a convention in Parliament that assumes and that accepts that members are telling the truth, so I do not know how many times I have to say ânoâ to his question he is asking. I do not know why it is so hard for people in the Conservative Party of Canada to accept that ânoâ means ânoâ, but we will continue to answer these questions in full truthfulness, and we will continue, despite the member's mudslinging and his personal attacks, to focus on delivering things for Canada. The member opposite and everyone in this House has an opportunity to accelerate the grocery rebate. Will they accept the unanimous consent motion that would do that?
Blanchet asks whether the Prime Minister speaks with his brother Alexandre Trudeau about the Trudeau Foundation and whether Alexandre is a direct or indirect contact with the foundation, referencing an allegedly irregular deal with two major Chinese donors concealed through a company.
The question references a specific named individual (Alexandre Trudeau), a specific transaction involving two donors concealed behind a company, and asks a direct yes/no question about contact with the foundation, grounding it in identifiable facts.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre dit qu'on se trompe de Trudeau. Il va ĂȘtre tout mĂȘlĂ©, car j'en ai un troisiĂšme: Alexandre Trudeau. Ce dernier aurait signĂ© une entente au mieux irrĂ©guliĂšre avec deux gros donateurs chinois qui auraient cachĂ© la transaction derriĂšre une entreprise. Cela pourrait intĂ©resser la ministre du Revenu national. Le premier ministre parle-t-il Ă son frĂšre, et est-ce que son frĂšre est un contact direct ou indirect avec la fondation?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says we have the wrong Trudeau. He is going to be thoroughly confused now, because I am adding a third one to the mix. Alexandre Trudeau allegedly signed a deal, one that was improper at best, with two major Chinese donors who used a company as a front for the transaction. This might interest the Minister of National Revenue. Has the Prime Minister spoken with his brother, and is his brother directly or indirectly connected with the foundation?
Trudeau repeats that he has had no direct or indirect contact with the Trudeau Foundation for 10 years, specifying that this includes not speaking with his brother about the foundation's operations.
The Prime Minister directly addresses the contact question by repeating his standard denial of direct or indirect contact for 10 years and extending it to conversations with his brother about the foundation, but then pivots to partisan attacks on the Bloc and Conservatives.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je l'ai dit bien souvent, cela fait 10 ans que je n'ai pas de contact direct ou indirect avec la fondation Trudeau. Cela inclut le fait que je ne parle pas avec mon frÚre du fonctionnement de la fondation Trudeau. J'ai plein de responsabilités, y compris celle d'investir pour la classe moyenne au Canada et celle de protéger la langue française et la culture du Canada contre des conservateurs qui veulent l'attaquer. Pendant que le Bloc continue de chercher des théories du complot, je vais continuer de répondre aux attentes des Canadiens tous les jours, parce que c'est ce à quoi les Québécois et les Canadiens s'attendent de notre gouvernement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, I have had no engagement, direct or indirect, with the Trudeau Foundation in 10 years. That includes not speaking with my brother about the foundation's operations. I have plenty of responsibilities, including investing for Canada's middle class and protecting Canada's French language and culture from Conservatives who want to attack it. While the Bloc continues to spin conspiracy theories, I will continue to deliver for Canadians every day, because that is what Quebeckers and Canadians expect from our government.
Blanchet challenges the Prime Minister's claim of no contact with the Trudeau Foundation by citing that his cabinet asked the foundation questions in 2016, and sarcastically asks whether he is Prime Minister between vacations.
The question cites a specific fact â that the Prime Minister's cabinet posed questions to the Trudeau Foundation in 2016 â and uses it to challenge the credibility of his claim of no contact, though it also includes rhetorical flourishes about vacations.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre ignorait tout. Il ne parle pas à son frÚre. Parle-t-il à son cabinet? En 2016, son cabinet a posé des questions à la fondation Trudeau. Il ne parle pas à son cabinet. Quand le service du renseignement lui dit, mois aprÚs mois, qu'il y a de l'ingérence chinoise, il n'écoute pas. Il n'écoute personne et il ne parle à personne. Est-ce qu'il est premier ministre entre deux vacances chez des amis?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knew nothing. He does not talk to his own brother. Does he talk to his office? Back in 2016, his office asked the Trudeau Foundation for answers, but he does not talk to his office. The intelligence service has been telling him month after month about Chinese interference, but he does not listen. He does not listen to anyone or talk to anyone. Does he only work as Prime Minister between vacations at his friends' properties?
Trudeau explains that his cabinet contacted the Trudeau Foundation in 2016 to gather information to answer media questions, reiterating that he personally has had no direct or indirect engagement with the foundation for a decade.
Trudeau directly explains why his cabinet contacted the foundation in 2016 (to answer media questions he was receiving), which substantively addresses the implicit contradiction raised, though he does not fully reconcile it with his no-contact claim.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le chef du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois se souvient peut-ĂȘtre que, en 2016, il y avait Ă©normĂ©ment de couverture mĂ©diatique et de questions par rapport Ă la fondation Trudeau. Justement, mon cabinet a eu besoin d'aller chercher des rĂ©ponses aux questions que les mĂ©dias nous posaient, parce que nous n'Ă©tions pas au courant de ce qui se passait au sein de la fondation Trudeau et parce que je n'ai pas d'engagement direct ou indirect avec la fondation Trudeau depuis une dĂ©cennie. C'est le chef du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois qui le dit lui-mĂȘme dans sa question.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois surely remembers the widespread media coverage and questions concerning the Trudeau Foundation back in 2016. The whole reason my office had to ask for answers to the questions we were getting from the media was because we were unaware of what was happening at the Trudeau Foundation and because I have had no direct or indirect involvement with the Trudeau Foundation for a decade. The leader of the Bloc Québécois said so himself in his question.
Lantsman cites the specific cost of $81,000 ($9,000 over nine nights) for a stay at a superelite villa belonging to a Trudeau Foundation donor and asks the Prime Minister whether he will pay that money back.
The question cites a specific cost ($9,000 per night, $81,000 total), identifies the villa as belonging to a Trudeau Foundation donor, and asks a single clear yes/no accountability question about repayment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees that the Prime Minister is entitled to a vacation. Everyone agrees that the cost of security for any prime minister when he travels is a reality. However, everyone also agrees that $9,000 over nine nights at a superelite villa of a Trudeau foundation donor raises some questions. That is $81,000. I will ask the Prime Minister the question again because he has not answered yet. Will he pay that money back?
Trudeau begins describing his long-standing relationship with the family but is cut off before addressing the repayment question.
Trudeau begins to answer but the exchange is cut off before he can complete his response, leaving the specific question about repayment entirely unanswered.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I went with my family and my children to a place that I have been to probably dozens and dozens of times over the past decades because they are long-standingâ
Pierre Poilievre heckles "Pay for it, freeloader" â this is not a formal question.
This is a heckle from the floor by Pierre Poilievre ("Pay for it, freeloader") and not a parliamentary question at all.
Source text
Pay for it, freeloader.
Trudeau deflects to promoting budget 2023 measures including the grocery rebate, credit card fee reductions, and dental care, accusing Conservatives of focusing on him rather than Canadians.
Trudeau does not address the heckle but instead pivots entirely to promoting budget 2023 measures (grocery rebate, credit card fees, dental care) with no connection to the vacation or ethics issue raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the extent to which the Conservative Party does not want to talk about budget 2023 and all the measures we are putting forward to support Canadians, whether it is the grocery rebate, the work we are doing to support small businesses by reducing credit card fees or moving forward on dental care support, which the Conservatives continue to oppose. We will continue to focus on Canadians while they, for some reason, focus on me.
Lantsman asks what the Trudeau Foundation donors received for the gift of the $81,000 luxury villa stay that ordinary Canadians did not receive, characterizing the arrangement as pay to play.
The question references the $81,000 figure, frames the vacation as a pay-to-play arrangement, and asks a specific question about what the donors received in return that ordinary Canadians did not, though it also includes rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are focused on the Prime Minister's vacation, and I know that there are a lot of Canadians who believe that he should take a permanent vacation, but this is like a vacation auction: One donates to the foundation and one gets a holiday with a Prime Minister. It is pay to play. He did not pay the $81,000 back for his luxury villa because, if he did, he would have said so. What did those donors get for the gift that ordinary Canadians, who he works for, did not?
Trudeau describes the family as long-standing friends with a godfather relationship going back decades and states that all rules were followed as verified with the Ethics Commissioner.
Trudeau describes the personal friendship with the family (godfather references) and states rules were followed with the Ethics Commissioner, but does not answer what the donors received or whether he repaid the $81,000.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that family includes a godfather to one of my brothers, and my father was godfather to one of those children. We have been family friends for decades, and we will continue to be family friends for decades more. As always, we worked with the Ethics Commissioner to make sure that all the rules were followed. That is what Canadians know and understand. Canadians are probably puzzled as to why the Conservative Party continues to stand against dental care, against for low-income Canadians and against child care, which is saving Canadians hundreds of dollars a month at a time of need.
Paul-Hus asks the Prime Minister to confirm that he will personally pay for the accommodation he used in Jamaica, framing it as an ethical and moral responsibility of any prime minister.
The question cuts through the rhetoric to ask a single specific yes/no question â will the Prime Minister confirm he will pay for his accommodation in Jamaica â grounded in the ethical obligation of a prime minister to cover personal expenses.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous savons tous que le premier ministre ne vit pas la mĂȘme rĂ©alitĂ© que la majoritĂ© des Canadiens. On sait qu'il a plus peur de la fin du monde que de la fin du mois. On sait aussi que ses amis qu'il a invitĂ©s en vacances sont trĂšs trĂšs riches. Or, comme premier ministre, il a une responsabilitĂ© Ă©thique et morale d'assumer ses dĂ©penses personnelles durant ses voyages. Le premier ministre peut-il nous confirmer qu'il va payer l'hĂ©bergement qu'il a eu en JamaĂŻque?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Prime Minister is not living the same reality as the majority of Canadians. We know that he is more afraid of his reign ending than of paying bills at the end of the month. We also know that the friends he invited on vacation are extremely wealthy. As Prime Minister, he has an ethical and moral responsibility to pay for his personal expenses during his trips. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he will pay for his accommodations in Jamaica?
Trudeau states that all rules were followed after working with the Ethics Commissioner regarding his vacation with friends, but does not confirm whether he will or has paid for the accommodation.
Trudeau acknowledges the importance of public trust and the role of the Ethics Commissioner, and states that all rules were followed, but does not directly confirm whether he will pay or has paid for the accommodation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est extrĂȘmement important que les Canadiens puissent avoir confiance dans le travail que nous faisons tous, les parlementaires, de façon intĂšgre et responsable. C'est pour cela que nous avons un commissaire aux conflits d'intĂ©rĂȘts et Ă l'Ă©thique qui rĂ©git notre travail et qui nous donne des conseils sur comment continuer de le faire de façon intĂšgre pour garder la confiance des Canadiens. Or, dans ce cas-ci oĂč je suis allĂ© prendre des vacances chez des amis, nous avons travaillĂ© avec le commissaire Ă l'Ă©thique pour nous assurer que toutes les rĂšgles Ă©taient suivies, et elles l'ont Ă©tĂ©.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important that Canadians have confidence in the work that we, as parliamentarians, all do with integrity and accountability. That is why we have a Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner who oversees our work and advises us on how to continue to do it with integrity in order to maintain the trust of Canadians. In this particular situation, specifically my vacation while staying with friends, we worked with the Ethics Commissioner to make sure that all the rules were followed, and they were.
Paul-Hus cites a pre-trip briefing warning about perception, identifies the property as Prospect Estate with rental rates of $1,100 USD to $8,000 USD per day, notes payments were also made for entourage accommodations, and asks directly whether the Prime Minister will pay the $80,000 owed.
The question cites specific details â a pre-trip briefing warning about perception, the property name Prospect Estate, nightly rental rates of $1,100 USD to $8,000 USD, payments for additional staff accommodations â and asks directly whether the Prime Minister will pay the $80,000 owed.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'Ă©quipe du premier ministre lui a fait un breffage avant son voyage. Elle lui a dit de faire attention Ă la perception. On parle de la perception relative au fait que le premier ministre est allĂ© en voyage chez des amis multimillionnaires alors que les Canadiens souffraient, durant le temps des FĂȘtes, Ă cause d'un manque d'argent. Je veux bien comprendre que ses amis l'aient invitĂ©, mais on appelle l'endroit oĂč il est allĂ© un Prospect Estate. C'est une propriĂ©tĂ© qui est louĂ©e, oĂč les gens vont et paient entre 1 100 dollars amĂ©ricains et 8 000 dollars amĂ©ricains par jour. Le premier ministre a Ă©tĂ© accueilli dans un endroit qui est fait pour ĂȘtre louĂ©. On a aussi payĂ© des installations Ă d'autres personnes de l'Ă©quipe, de l'entourage. Le problĂšme, c'est que, d'un point de vue Ă©thique et moral, le premier ministre doit payer ses dĂ©penses personnelles. Va-t-il payer les 80 000 $ qui sont dus?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's staff briefed him before his trip and told him to be careful of the optics. We are talking about the optics of the Prime Minister vacationing during the holidays with multimillionaire friends while Canadians were suffering for lack of money. I can understand that his friends invited him, but he went on vacation at Prospect Estate, a rental property where people pay between $1,100 U.S. and $8,000 U.S. per day. The Prime Minister vacationed at a rental property. Accommodation for other members of his team and entourage were also paid for. The problem is that from an ethical and moral point of view, the Prime minister must pay for his personal expenses. Will he pay back the $80,000 he owes?
Trudeau states he has visited these friends since he was one year old, describes it as a genuine long-standing friendship where they visit each other, and repeats that all rules were followed in consultation with the Ethics Commissioner.
Trudeau recounts visiting the friends since he was one year old and having a genuine long-standing friendship, and repeats that rules were followed with the Ethics Commissioner, but does not address the specific rental rate details, the briefing, or whether he will pay the $80,000.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'avais un an la premiĂšre fois que nous sommes allĂ©s visiter ces amis chez eux. Au fil des dĂ©cennies, j'ai continuĂ© d'ĂȘtre ami avec ces gens et de les visiter. Parfois, j'allais chez eux, et, parfois, ils viennent chez moi. Nous sommes de vrais amis. Je pense que mĂȘme les conservateurs devraient comprendre ce concept de vrais amis de longue date. C'est sĂ»r que, comme dans tous les cas, nous avons travaillĂ© avec le bureau du commissaire Ă l'Ă©thique pour nous assurer que toutes les rĂšgles Ă©taient suivies, et elles l'ont Ă©tĂ©.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I was one year old the first time we went to visit these friends at their home. Over the decades, I have maintained my friendship with these people and continued visiting them. Sometimes, I went to their home, and sometimes they came to mine. We are true friends. I believe that even the Conservatives should understand the concept of a long-standing true friendship. Obviously, as in every case, we worked with the Office of the Ethics Commissioner to ensure that all the rules were followed, and they were.
Boulerice asks whether the Prime Minister will impose back-to-work legislation as the Conservatives did against postal workers in 2011, or instead negotiate a good deal for workers who responded during the pandemic.
The question references a historical specific (2011 Conservative back-to-work legislation against postal workers) and asks a direct binary question about whether the Prime Minister will impose special legislation, but is also heavily rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je me rappelle du moment oĂč j'ai Ă©tĂ© Ă©lu, en 2011. Les conservateurs venaient d'imposer une loi spĂ©ciale contre les postiers et les postiĂšres. C'est quand mĂȘme fou. Douze ans plus tard, un gouvernement libĂ©ral menace de se comporter comme les conservateurs. Au NPD, c'est clair. Nous serons toujours du bord des travailleurs et des travailleuses. Est-ce que le premier ministre va faire un conservateur de lui-mĂȘme et imposer une loi spĂ©ciale ou va-t-il vouloir nĂ©gocier une bonne entente pour tous ceux et celles qui ont rĂ©pondu Ă l'appel pendant la pandĂ©mie?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I remember when I was elected in 2011. The Conservatives had just imposed special legislation against postal workers. It is crazy. Twelve years later, a Liberal government is threatening to do the same thing as the Conservatives. The NDP is clear. We will always side with workers. Will the Prime Minister turn into a Conservative and impose special legislation or will he try to negotiate a good agreement for those who answered the call during the pandemic?
Trudeau says the government is working in good faith at the bargaining table and respects union work, and commits to continuing negotiations to ensure service continuity, but does not rule out special legislation.
Trudeau affirms good-faith bargaining and respect for unions but does not directly answer whether back-to-work legislation is on or off the table, making his response partially relevant but not a clear commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, malgrĂ© la difficultĂ© que j'ai eu Ă entendre l'honorable dĂ©putĂ©, je pense qu'il soulignait que nous avions peut-ĂȘtre menacĂ© d'imposer une loi quelconque. Nous sommes en train de travailler de bonne foi Ă la table de nĂ©gociation. Depuis des annĂ©es, nous avons dĂ©montrĂ© Ă quel point nous respectons le travail des syndicats, ce travail essentiel qu'ils font pour dĂ©fendre la classe moyenne et les bons emplois pour les gens, y compris au sein de la fonction publique. Nous allons continuer de travailler de bonne foi Ă la table de nĂ©gociation pour assurer la continuitĂ© de la prestation de services aux Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, despite the difficulty I had hearing the hon. member I think he was saying that we may have threatened to impose some sort of legislation. We are working in good faith at the negotiating table. For years, we have demonstrated our deep respect for the work of unions, this essential work they do to defend the middle class and good jobs, including within the public service. We will continue to work in good faith at the negotiating table to ensure the continuity of service delivery for Canadians.
Mathyssen asks the government to commit to not introducing back-to-work legislation against striking PSAC workers in London, framing the choice as between showing "Conservative colours" or respecting workers' legitimate demands.
The question asks a direct binary question about committing to not introducing back-to-work legislation, but the framing around "Conservative colours" is rhetorical and undermines its specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, PSAC workers who serve the people of London are on strike today demanding a fair deal from the government. These workers deserve respect. People in London are looking carefully at what the government will do next. Will it do what it usually does and show its Conservative colours, or will it listen to workers' legitimate demands and commit to not introducing back-to-work legislation?
Trudeau cites the elimination of Conservative anti-union legislation Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 as proof of pro-labour credentials and affirms continued good-faith bargaining, but does not commit to ruling out back-to-work legislation.
Trudeau cites the repeal of Bills C-525 and C-377 as evidence of pro-labour credentials and affirms good-faith bargaining, but does not directly answer the specific commitment asked about back-to-work legislation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I question the member opposite's mention of our Conservative colours. She knows full well that the very first thing we did when we were elected was to eliminate the Conservative anti-union legislation Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. The attacks the Conservatives laid on labour were legendary, and that is why we worked in partnership with organized labour across this country to deliver real services to Canadians. That is why we continue to sit at the bargaining table in good faith to work with them to continue to deliver the quality of services that Canadians have always received from the public service and deserve to continue to receive.
Blois asks the Prime Minister to comment on the government's approach to protecting local media and vibrant news outlets, contrasting it with what he describes as the Conservative leader copying extreme right-wing American playbook tactics against Canada's media.
This is a government-backbench softball setup that attacks the Conservative leader rather than asking an accountability question, with a vague request for the Prime Minister to "comment on the government's approach" to media protection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my constituents in KingsâHants rely on getting quality news to inform them on what is happening at home and across Canada. The recent attacks by the Conservative opposition leader on Canada's media and journalists is resembling the same type of playbook of the extreme right-wing politics in the United States. By attacking Canada's public broadcaster, they are undermining an important way Canadians stay informed, particularly in francophone communities and in rural Canada. Could theâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, the fact that I am getting drowned out is a real illustration of where the Conservative Party of Canada is at right now. Let me ask this: Could the Prime Minister comment on the government's approach to protecting local media and vibrant news outlets in this country, in opposition to what the opposition party is standing for right now?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for KingsâHants for his extraordinary hard work. I know that he and MPs from coast to coast to coast have heard from constituents who understand the vital role that local news plays in their communities. That is why it is so disappointing to see the Conservative leader copy and paste right-wing talking points from the States in his effort to shut down these local news outlets. On this side of the House, we will always stand up for the important services that rural individuals, francophones and, indeed, families across the country rely on.
Trudeau thanks the member, criticizes the Conservative leader for copying right-wing American talking points to shut down local news, and pledges to stand up for services that rural individuals, francophones, and families rely on.
Trudeau thanks the member and echoes the partisan attack on the Conservative leader for copying right-wing talking points, pledging to stand up for local news, rural individuals, and francophones, but provides no specific policy detail or factual information.
Berthold cites the Trudeau Foundation annual report showing two family seats reserved for the Prime Minister and Alexandre Trudeau, notes at least $160,000 of taxpayer money was spent at a foundation donor's property, and asks how many times the Prime Minister has stayed there since becoming an MP.
The question cites specific facts from the annual report (two family seats reserved, $160,000 of taxpayer money spent at a foundation donor's property) and asks a specific countable question â how many times has the Prime Minister stayed at that property since becoming an MP.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la fondation Trudeau porte le nom du pÚre du premier ministre actuel et, selon le rapport annuel, deux siÚges y sont réservés pour les membres de la famille: le premier ministre et son frÚre, Alexandre Trudeau. La fondation est une affaire de famille puisqu'on a appris que le premier ministre a choisi de dépenser au moins 160 000 $ de l'argent des contribuables chez des donateurs de la fondation. Il a dit à plusieurs reprises aujourd'hui qu'il avait séjourné plusieurs fois à cet endroit. Combien de fois a-t-il séjourné à cet endroit depuis qu'il est député?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Trudeau Foundation bears the name of the current Prime Minister's father, and according to its annual report, two seats on the board are reserved for family members: the Prime Minister and his brother, Alexandre Trudeau. The foundation is a family affair, since we have learned that the Prime Minister has chosen to spend at least $160,000 of taxpayers' money visiting its donors. He has said several times today that he has stayed there many times. How many times has he vacationed in that place since he became a member of Parliament?
Trudeau accuses the Conservatives of manufacturing conspiracy theories and repeats that he has had no direct or indirect engagement with the Trudeau Foundation for 10 years, without answering the question about number of stays.
Trudeau dismisses the question as a conspiracy theory and repeats his 10-year no-contact claim regarding the Trudeau Foundation, but does not answer the specific question about how many times he has stayed at the property.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, encore une fois, on voit les conservateurs en train d'essayer de manigancer des thĂ©ories du complot. La rĂ©alitĂ©, c'est que nous allons continuer de toujours respecter les recommandations du conseiller Ă l'Ă©thique en ce qui concerne tous mes voyages et dĂ©placements personnels. En mĂȘme temps, je peux encore une fois souligner que cela fait 10 ans que je n'ai aucun engagement direct ou indirect avec la fondation Trudeau.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are once again attempting to peddle conspiracy theories. That fact is that we will always continue to respect the recommendations of the Ethics Commissioner when it comes to my trips and personal travel. I can also reiterate that it has been 10 years since I have had any direct or indirect involvement with the Trudeau Foundation.
Berthold uses the Prime Minister's own earlier statement about having visited "dozens and dozens of times" to ask directly and simply how many times he has stayed at the Jamaica estate since becoming an MP.
The question presses for a specific number using Trudeau's own words from earlier in QP ("dozens and dozens of times") and asks how many times he has stayed at the Jamaica estate since becoming an MP, a clear and answerable factual question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est tellement difficile d'avoir des rĂ©ponses du premier ministre sur des questions pourtant toutes simples. On lui a demandĂ© combien il avait payĂ©, personnellement, pour ses derniĂšres vacances en JamaĂŻque. Le premier ministre refuse de rĂ©pondre. J'ai posĂ© une question toute simple Ă la suite d'une affirmation qu'il a lui-mĂȘme faite aujourd'hui. Il a dit qu'il avait sĂ©journĂ© des dizaines de fois en JamaĂŻque dans ce domaine privĂ©. Je lui demande de nous dire, honnĂȘtement et simplement, combien de fois il a sĂ©journĂ© en JamaĂŻque depuis qu'il est dĂ©putĂ©.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, getting answers from the Prime Minister, even to the simplest questions, is so difficult. We asked him how much he personally paid for his most recent vacation to Jamaica. The Prime Minister refused to answer. I asked a very simple question following a statement that he made today. He said that he had stayed on this private estate in Jamaica dozens of times. I am asking him to tell us, in honest straightforward terms, how many times he has vacationed in Jamaica since becoming an MP.
Trudeau states this is the only time he visited these friends since becoming Prime Minister and believes he went only once while he was an MP before becoming Prime Minister.
Trudeau directly answers by specifying this is the only time since becoming Prime Minister, and that to his recollection he visited only once as an MP before becoming Prime Minister, which substantively addresses the question asked.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est la seule fois oĂč je suis allĂ© visiter ces amis depuis que je suis premier ministre. De mĂ©moire, je crois y ĂȘtre allĂ© seulement une fois au cours des annĂ©es oĂč j'Ă©tais dĂ©putĂ©, avant de devenir premier ministre. Comme cela doit toujours ĂȘtre le cas, nous travaillons avec le bureau du commissaire Ă l'Ă©thique pour nous assurer que toutes les rĂšgles sont suivies, mĂȘme quand nous allons en visite chez des amis.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this was the only time I have gone to see these friends since I became Prime Minister. From memory, I believe I only went once during the years I served as an MP, before becoming Prime Minister. We are working with the Office of the Ethics Commissioner, as we must always do, to ensure that all the rules are followed, even when we go visit friends.
Strahl contrasts the hardship of Canadians (one in five skipping meals, 1.5 million monthly food bank users, doubled rents) with the Prime Minister's $81,000 Jamaica villa vacation at a Trudeau Foundation donor's property, and asks how much the Prime Minister paid back out of his own pocket.
The question cites specific statistics (one in five Canadians skipping meals, 1.5 million food bank users monthly, doubled rents/mortgages, $81,000 villa cost) to contextualize a direct question about how much the Prime Minister paid back from his own pocket.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one in five Canadians are skipping meals, and 1.5 million Canadians are using a food bank every month. Their rents or mortgage payments have doubled since the Prime Minister took office, and many of them do not know how they will be able to pay the bills at the end of each month. While Canadians are struggling with the cost of living, the Prime Minister jets off on a Jamaican vacation for $81,000 at a private villa, courtesy of a big-time Trudeau foundation donor. How much of that gift did the Prime Minister pay back out of his own pocket?
Trudeau pivots to budget 2023 affordability measures and challenges Conservatives to support a unanimous consent motion to accelerate delivery of the grocery rebate to 11 million Canadians, without addressing the repayment question.
Trudeau pivots entirely to promoting budget 2023 measures and challenges Conservatives to support a unanimous consent motion on the grocery rebate, without addressing the specific repayment question or any of the cited cost-of-living statistics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the Conservative Party really cared about Canadians and affordability, instead of personal attacks on me, they would move forward on supporting the budget we are putting forward tonight, which is delivering affordability supports, and mental, dental and health care supports to Canadians, as well as building great jobs in the growing green economy right across the country. Indeed, Conservatives will have an even sooner opportunity to do that. Will they let pass the unanimous consent motion to accelerate delivery of the grocery rebate to 11 million Canadians across the country? I hope they support that motion now.
Kusie cites $21 billion more spent on the public service and $22 billion on outside consultants since 2015, identifies disruptions to passports, immigration, and tax refunds, and asks the Prime Minister to apologize to both the public service and Canadians for failing to reach a negotiated agreement.
The question cites specific spending figures ($21 billion more on public service, $22 billion on outside consultants since 2015), identifies specific service disruptions (passports, immigration, tax refunds), and asks a pointed accountability question about why negotiations failed and whether the Prime Minister will apologize.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since 2015, the Prime Minister has spent $21 billion more on the public service and $22 billion on outside consultants, yet he was not capable of negotiating an agreement with the public service. It is Canadians who are suffering. It is Canadians who are not receiving their passports, Canadians' loved ones whose immigration processes will be elongated and Canadians who will not receive their tax refunds. Will the Prime Minister take responsibility and apologize, not only to the public service, but also to Canadians, for failing to reach a negotiation?
Trudeau accuses Conservatives of defaulting to back-to-work legislation and contrasts this with his government's respect for unions and collective bargaining, affirming ongoing constructive talks, but does not address the spending figures, service disruptions, or the request for an apology.
Trudeau contrasts his government's approach with the Conservative back-to-work playbook and asserts ongoing constructive bargaining, but does not address the cited spending figures, the service disruptions, or the request for an apology.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know all too well what the Conservative playbook would be on this: back-to-work legislation even before the picket lines were brought up. That is what they have done before. That is their go-to on this. On this side of the House, we actually respect and work with unions as partners. We respect the right to collective bargaining. We have been at the table working constructively. They continue to be at the table, right now, in constructive conversations. We will continue to be there to make sure that Canadians get the services they need and that public servants continue to get the respect they deserve, but they do not get that from the Conservatives.
Blanchet notes that Trudeau's own cabinet admits contacting the Trudeau Foundation (which bears his father Pierre Elliott Trudeau's name and whose member Alexandre Trudeau received or requested $200,000 plus $50,000 for a statue), and asks whether cabinet contact with the foundation constitutes indirect contact by the Prime Minister himself.
The question builds on specific facts established earlier in QP (cabinet contact with the foundation in 2016, Alexandre Trudeau's $200,000 donation request, $50,000 for a statue of Pierre Elliott Trudeau) to pose a logical challenge: does cabinet contact with the foundation constitute indirect contact for the Prime Minister?
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Cabinet du premier ministre admet donc qu'il a posé des questions à la fondation Trudeau, qui porte en effet le nom de son pÚre, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, et dont le frÚre Alexandre Trudeau a reçu ou demandé un don de 200 000 $, en plus de 50 000 $ pour une statue de son pÚre, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. En admettant que son cabinet jase avec la Fondation Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau, le premier ministre n'indique-t-il pas ainsi avoir eu des contacts pas pire directs avec la fondation Trudeau?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Office has admitted that it sent questions to the Trudeau Foundation, which is named after his father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. This is the same foundation for which his brother, Alexandre Trudeau, received or solicited a donation of $200,000, plus $50,000 for a statue of his father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. By admitting that his office is in touch with the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, is the Prime Minister not saying that he has had relatively direct involvement with the Trudeau Foundation?
Trudeau explains that his cabinet reached out to the Trudeau Foundation in 2016 to answer questions being asked in the House and by media, and reiterates that he personally has had no direct or indirect interaction with the Fondation Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau for 10 years.
Trudeau explains why his cabinet reached out (to answer media questions in 2016) and repeats his 10-year no-contact claim, but does not directly address the logical argument that cabinet contact constitutes indirect contact through him.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en 2016, il y avait beaucoup de questions qui circulaient, des questions que je recevais à la Chambre, au sujet de la fondation Trudeau. C'est pour cela que mon cabinet a demandé de répondre à quelques questions pour qu'on puisse savoir exactement de quoi il s'agissait à la fondation. Comme je l'ai dit, cela fait 10 ans que je n'ai aucune interaction directe ou indirecte avec la Fondation Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau. Je ne comprends pas quel élément de cette réponse le chef du Bloc québécois refuse d'accepter, mais c'est la vérité et c'est ce que je dis depuis longtemps.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a lot of questions were being asked in 2016, questions that were being put to me in the House, about the Trudeau Foundation. That is why my office asked for answers to various questions, so that we could understand exactly what bearing they had on the foundation. As I have said, I have had no direct or indirect involvement with the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation for 10 years. I fail to understand what part of this response the leader of the Bloc Québécois refuses to accept, but it is the truth, and it is what I have been saying for a long time.
Blanchet asks why the Prime Minister does not let Parliament choose someone to lead an independent public inquiry into the interference matter, so he can get back to his work.
The question has a clear identifiable ask â let Parliament choose someone to lead a public independent inquiry â but is framed in heavily rhetorical and colourful language that undercuts its specificity.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre se fait rĂŽtir comme des burgers sur le barbecue dont il parlait un peu plus tĂŽt. Pendant tout ce temps-lĂ , il ne s'occupe pas de son travail. Cela n'allait dĂ©jĂ pas si bien que cela dans son travail. J'ai une solution pour lui pour mettre un terme au supplice de la goutte. Pourquoi ne pas laisser le Parlement choisir quelqu'un pour diriger une enquĂȘte publique et indĂ©pendante Ă laquelle il ne touchera plus pour enfin recommencer Ă essayer de continuer Ă faire son travail?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is being grilled like burgers on the barbeque he was talking about earlier. Meanwhile, he is not doing his job, which was already not going well. I have a solution to help him put an end to the torture. Why not let Parliament choose someone to lead an independent public inquiry that he will not have anything more to do with so that he can finally try to get back to doing his job?
Trudeau ignores the inquiry question and instead asks the Bloc to vote in favour of the budget, listing affordability and dental care measures.
Trudeau deflects entirely to the budget vote, ignoring the specific ask about a parliamentary-chosen inquiry commissioner and pivoting to an unrelated policy list.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si le chef du Bloc québécois veut que ce gouvernement continue de faire son travail, il n'a qu'à voter en faveur de notre budget ce soir. Nous sommes là pour mettre en place des mesures qui aideront les Canadiens avec le coût de la vie. Nous sommes là pour aider les petites entreprises avec les coûts des cartes de crédit. Nous sommes là pour aider les Canadiens avec des investissements dans les systÚmes de santé et de l'aide pour les soins dentaires. Nous sommes là pour créer de bons emplois pour la classe moyenne pour les années à venir avec un virage vert qui va créer de bons emplois et de la croissance partout au pays. Le chef du Bloc québécois a un choix trÚs simple: va-t-il appuyer notre budget qui répond aux attentes des Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the Bloc Québécois wants this government to continue to do its job, all he has to do is vote in favour of our budget this evening. We are here to implement measures that will help Canadians with the cost of living. We are here to help small businesses with credit card costs. We are here to help Canadians with investments in the health care system and dental care. We are here to create good jobs for the middle class for the years to come with a green shift that will create good jobs and growth across the country. The leader of the Bloc Québécois has a very simple choice. Will he support our budget, which meets Canadians' expectations?
Poilievre cites 1.5 million Canadians using food banks monthly and a projected 41Âą-per-litre carbon tax costing $1,500 net per household, and asks the Prime Minister to axe the tax.
Poilievre cites a specific figure â 41Âą-per-litre carbon tax costing $1,500 per household net after rebates â and points to food bank usage statistics, giving the question some factual grounding, though the ask is a familiar partisan refrain.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all that matters is the results. The result is that after eight years under the Prime Minister, one in five Canadians is skipping meals and 1.5 million are eating at food banks every single month. Some people are eating out of garbage bins because of the Prime Minister's inflationary policies. His solution is to bring in a 41Âą-per-litre carbon tax that will cost $1,500 per household in net expenses after rebates on higher home bills, higher grocery bills and higher gas bills. We are voting against it. Will the Prime Minister axe his tax if he really wants to help?
Trudeau lists social programs â the Canada child benefit, child care spaces, and dental care â without addressing the carbon tax cost figures or food bank statistics raised.
Trudeau does not address the $1,500 net cost figure or the food bank numbers, instead pivoting to the Canada child benefit, child care spaces, and dental care, which are unrelated to the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the leader opposite wants to talk about what we have done since 2015, so let us talk about that. We have lifted over 435,000 children out of poverty through the Canada child benefit, which his party campaigned against. We have created over 50,000 child care spaces to date and cut child care fees in half across the country, including six provinces and territories that are at $10 a day, and he voted against it. We have helped over 230,000 kids access dental care so far, which his party voted against. Every step of the way, we have been there for Canadians; he has been there for himself.
Poilievre argues the carbon tax raises costs for farmers and truckers who bring food to grocery stores, exacerbating hunger, and asks the Prime Minister to axe the carbon tax.
The question is dominated by personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric about medical assistance in dying at food banks, with no new factual grounding; the ask repeats the prior exchange's demand without additional specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is from the guy who just stuffed his face with a free $80,000 vacation. Sometimes you make it easy for me, Justin. If only it were a laughing matter that one in five Canadians are eating at food banks. Some of them are going to the CEO of those food banks and asking for help with medical assistance in dying. The Prime Minister's solution is to raise taxes on farmers and truckers who bring food to our grocery stores, which will inevitably lead to more hunger and famine. If he has any common sense at all, will he finally axe his carbon tax?
Trudeau argues that fighting climate change and growing the economy are inseparable, that emissions have come down, and that Canadians will have better jobs through the green transition.
Trudeau offers a general defence of the price on pollution and its economic rationale but does not address the food tax argument on farmers and truckers, making the response largely tangential.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, everyone in Canada knows that we cannot have a plan for growing the economy if we do not have a plan to fight climate change. Everybody knows that except the Conservative Party of Canada. We have moved forward by putting a broad price on pollution and bringing down our emissions over the past number of years. We have also put more money back in the pockets of Canadians, and Canadians know that as we fight climate change and support them through this challenging time, they will be able to have better jobs for themselves and their kids for the coming decades.
Citing the Parliamentary Budget Officer's calculation of a $1,500 net household cost above rebates, Poilievre asks whether raising taxes on food is the Prime Minister's solution to 1.5 million Canadians visiting food banks.
Poilievre cites the Parliamentary Budget Officer report and a specific $1,500 net household cost figure, asks a direct question about whether raising food-related taxes is the government's solution to food bank usage, making this reasonably specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, and yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer he appointed has calculated that the cost of the carbon tax to the average family is $1,500 more than these phony rebates they get back. This is not just a 41Âą-a-litre tax on gas he wants to impose. In addition, it will raise the cost for farmers and truckers to bring food, so it is a food tax. Is his solution to the fact that 1.5 million Canadians are starving and going to food banks to raise taxes on food?
Trudeau cites a grocery rebate and claims that a family of four in Carleton will receive over $1,000 in carbon price returns this year, framing the policy as both climate and economic support.
Trudeau partially engages by mentioning the grocery rebate and citing over $1,000 in carbon price returns for Ontario families of four, but does not directly address the Parliamentary Budget Officer's net-cost finding or the food tax argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our solution is to continue to invest in affordability for Canadians, including with a grocery rebate. We really hope the Conservatives will vote to accelerate this, even though they will probably vote against it tonight in the budget vote. In regard to the price on pollution, the member knows that constituents in his riding, the average family of four, will be receiving over a thousand dollars in carbon price returns this year. That offsets the cost of the price on pollution they are facing. It is both a plan to fight climate change and to grow the economy while supporting Canadians, and we will continue with it.
Shanahan asks the Prime Minister to say more about the announcement that Chantier Davie in LĂ©vis has become the third official shipyard in the National Shipbuilding Strategy and its importance for the Canadian economy.
This is a government-backbench softball setup inviting the Prime Minister to announce good news about the Chantier Davie joining the National Shipbuilding Strategy; there is no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la Stratégie nationale de construction navale est un programme qui nous permet de créer et de maintenir de bons emplois partout au pays. Alors que la Stratégie comptait sur les chantiers navals Seaspan et Irving, nous venons d'apprendre que le Canada compte dorénavant un troisiÚme chantier naval officiel: le Chantier Davie de Lévis. Le premier ministre peut-il nous en dire davantage sur cette annonce et son importance pour l'économie canadienne?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the national shipbuilding strategy is a program that allows us to create and maintain good jobs across the country. Until now, the strategy relied on the Seaspan and Irving shipyards, but we have just learned that Canada now has a third official shipyard, the Davie shipyard in LĂ©vis. Would the Prime Minister expand on this announcement and its importance for Canada's economy?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie la dĂ©putĂ©e de ChĂąteauguayâLacolle de sa question et de son travail acharnĂ©. Nous avons annoncĂ© rĂ©cemment que le Chantier Davie de LĂ©vis est devenu le troisiĂšme partenaire de la StratĂ©gie nationale de construction navale. L'entente reprĂ©sente 21 milliards de dollars en retombĂ©es Ă©conomiques et 4 500 emplois dans la rĂ©gion de QuĂ©bec. Davie travaille dĂ©jĂ sur la conception et la construction de six brise-glaces et d'un brise-glace polaire pour la Garde cĂŽtiĂšre canadienne. Nous allons ĂȘtre lĂ pour le Chantier Davie et nous allons ĂȘtre lĂ pour les travailleurs de QuĂ©bec, d'une façon que le Parti conservateur n'a jamais pu l'ĂȘtre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for ChĂąteauguayâLacolle for her question and for the hard work she does. We recently announced that the Davie shipyard in LĂ©vis has become the third partner under the national shipbuilding strategy. The deal represents $21 billion in economic benefits and 4,500 jobs in the Quebec City region. Davie is already working on the design for six icebreakers and one polar icebreaker, to be built for the Canadian Coast Guard. We will be there for the Davie shipyard and we will be there for the workers of Quebec, in a way the Conservative Party was never able to.
Trudeau confirms the Chantier Davie partnership, citing $21 billion in economic spinoffs, 4,500 jobs in the Quebec City region, and work already underway on six icebreakers and one polar icebreaker for the Canadian Coast Guard.
Trudeau provides concrete figures â $21 billion in economic spinoffs, 4,500 jobs in the Quebec City region, and six icebreakers plus one polar icebreaker under design and construction â directly addressing the question with specific data.
Poilievre argues the carbon tax is a net cost of $1,500 per family and has not achieved climate targets, calling it a scam, and asks the Prime Minister to axe the tax.
Poilievre repeats the $1,500 net cost claim and the 41Âą-per-litre figure but frames the question heavily around a scam analogy and rhetorical flourishes, reducing its accountability value relative to earlier iterations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, so if people just pay this 41Âą-a-litre tax, the Prime Minister will send them something called a âcarbon price returnâ. That is his latest term for it. It is almost like when one gets one of those emails asking for the password to one's bank account, so that a carbon price return can be deposited into it. Canadians know this tax is a scam. It has not reached any of the climate change targets, and yet it is going to be a net cost to every family of $1,500. Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves. Will the Prime Minister axe his tax?
Trudeau tells Poilievre to visit his riding of Carleton where residents received climate action incentive cheques last Friday, totalling over $1,000 annually for Ontario families of four.
Trudeau cites a specific payment â over $1,000 for Ontario families of four every year via quarterly climate action incentive cheques â which is somewhat responsive, but does not address the $1,500 net cost claim or acknowledge the Parliamentary Budget Officer figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the member opposite choose to spend a little time in his riding of Carleton, because if he did, he would hear from family members and individuals in his riding who just last Friday received a climate action incentive cheque. This went to families right across his riding, right across Ontario, with one payment every three months that will total over $1,000 for Ontario families of four. This will help them offset the price that we have put on pollution and continue to build good jobs and a better future for all Canadians. That is what we are doing. People know we have to fight climate change and support families.
Citing page 3 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, Poilievre states the net cost to the average Ontario family above and beyond rebates is $1,820 per year, and asks the Prime Minister to axe the carbon tax.
Poilievre cites a specific page â page 3 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report â and a precise net cost figure of $1,820 per Ontario family above rebates, making this one of the more factually grounded questions of the session.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have spent time in my riding, and what they are talking about is that they cannot afford to put gas in their car because the Prime Minister's carbon tax is already 14Âą a litre, rising to 41Âą a litre. On page 3 of the report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom he appointed, it says that the net cost to the average Ontario family above and beyond any rebate cheques they will get is $1,820 a year. This is not an environmental plan. It is a tax scam. Will he axe the tax?
Trudeau claims the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report shows eight out of ten families do better with the climate action rebate than the carbon price costs them, without addressing the $1,820 net cost figure on page 3.
Trudeau claims the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report concurs with the government's analysis that eight out of ten families do better with the climate action rebate, which directly contradicts the specific page-3 figure Poilievre cited without acknowledging that contradiction, making the response tangential.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report concurs with our analysis, which points out that eight out of 10 families across the country in regions where the federal backstop is brought in do better with the climate action rebate than the carbon price costs them. This is something that is well established. What is less clear is how the Conservative Party of Canada plans to grow the economy and create good jobs for the future when it refuses to accept climate change is real and that it also provides an opportunity to innovate and grow the economy.
Citing page 3 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report showing a net cost of $1,820 per Ontario family and the environment minister's alleged admission that Canadians pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, Poilievre asks the Prime Minister to admit the carbon tax is a scam.
Poilievre again cites page 3 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, adds the specific allegation that the environment minister admitted Canadians pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, and asks the Prime Minister to acknowledge this directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, page 3 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report shows that when they add the fiscal and economic costs, the net cost is $1,820 per Ontario family above and beyond the rebates, with the vast majority paying more than they get back. Apparently the environment minister did not get the memo. He let the cat out of the bag and admitted that Canadians would pay more in taxes than they got back in any benefits, proving that everything the Prime Minister has said on this tax has been false. Why will the Prime Minister not admit what his environment minister has already said and say this is a scam?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau pivots to the cost of climate inaction, citing flooding, wildfires, and droughts in Conservative-held ridings, without addressing the Parliamentary Budget Officer figure or the environment minister's alleged statement.
Trudeau does not address the environment minister's alleged admission or the page-3 figure; instead he pivots to climate impacts in Conservative ridings â flooding, wildfires, droughts â which is a deflection from the specific question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it would do some good for the Leader of the Opposition to speak to some of his caucus members, whether from the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley in B.C. or whether from across the Prairies, places where they are dealing with flooding or more extreme wildfires. To think that there is no cost associated with climate changeâ
Mr. Speaker, over the past years we have seen right across the country that the cost of inaction on fighting climate change is getting alarmingly high. This includes in many Conservative-held ridings that should be telling this to their leader. Whether in floods, wildfires or droughts, we are seeing the impacts of climate change that are going to get worse and worse. That is why it is necessary to have a plan to fight climate change and grow the economy in sustainable ways that would give great jobs to Canadians for the coming decades. That is exactly what we have done with our approach on fighting climate change and in our latest budget.
Zuberi notes that Environment and Climate Change Canada published the national greenhouse gas emissions inventory last week and asks the Prime Minister to inform the House of Canada's record on GHG emission reductions.
This is a government-backbench setup referencing the recently published national greenhouse gas emissions inventory and inviting good-news messaging; it has no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la semaine passée, Environnement et Changement climatique Canada a publié l'inventaire national des émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Cet exercice annuel résume l'évolution de la lutte contre le changement climatique au Canada. Il y a beaucoup de bonnes nouvelles dans le rapport. Le premier ministre peut-il informer la Chambre du bilan du Canada en matiÚre de réduction des émissions de GES?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, last week, Environment and Climate Change Canada released Canada's national greenhouse gas inventory. This annual exercise summarizes Canada's progress in the fight against climate change. There is a lot of good news in the report. Can the Prime Minister inform the House about Canada's record on reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie le dĂ©putĂ© de PierrefondsâDollard de sa question. Cette derniĂšre est trĂšs pertinente, particuliĂšrement en raison des questions que les conservateurs viennent juste de poser. Nous sommes heureux d'annoncer que les Ă©missions du Canada sont en baisse par rapport aux niveaux de 2019 et de 2005, et nous continuons de faire croĂźtre notre Ă©conomie en mĂȘme temps. Ces progrĂšs n'ont pas Ă©tĂ© rĂ©alisĂ©s par hasard. Depuis 2015, nous avons posĂ© des gestes historiques, notamment en mettant un prix sur la pollution...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for PierrefondsâDollard for the question. It is very important, especially in light of the questions the Conservatives just asked. We are pleased to report that Canada's emissions are down from 2019 and 2005 levels, and we continue to grow our economy at the same time. This progress did not just come out of nowhere. Since 2015, we have taken historic action, and this includes putting a price on pollutionâ
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous sommes heureux d'annoncer que les Ă©missions du Canada sont en baisse par rapport aux niveaux de 2019 et de 2005, et nous continuons de faire croĂźtre notre Ă©conomie en mĂȘme temps. Ce progrĂšs n'a pas Ă©tĂ© rĂ©alisĂ© par hasard. Depuis 2015, nous avons posĂ© des gestes historiques, notamment en mettant un prix sur la pollution. Alors que les politiciens conservateurs disent qu'on doit choisir entre la qualitĂ© de l'air et la vigueur de l'Ă©conomie, nous atteignons ces deux objectifs, en plus d'ĂȘtre en voie d'atteindre nos cibles climatiques pour 2030.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to report that Canada's emissions are down from 2019 and 2005 levels, and we continue to grow our economy at the same time. This progress did not just come out of nowhere. Since 2015, we have taken historic action, and this includes putting a price on pollution. While Conservative politicians say that we have to choose between clean air and a strong economy, we are achieving both, and are on track to meet our 2030 climate targets.
Trudeau states that Canadian emissions are down compared to 2019 and 2005 levels while the economy has grown, attributing progress to actions since 2015 including putting a price on pollution, and says Canada is on track to meet its 2030 climate targets.
Trudeau provides substantive information â Canadian emissions are down relative to 2019 and 2005 levels, economic growth has continued simultaneously, and Canada is on track to meet 2030 targets â which directly addresses the question with specific comparative data.
Desjarlais asks the government to commit, yes or no, to protecting workers' rights and not forcing workers back to work.
Desjarlais asks a direct yes-or-no question about whether the government will commit to not forcing workers back to work, but the framing is largely rhetorical and the question lacks specific factual grounding about which workers or which legislation is at issue.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of non-answers today. Workers deserve decent wages and good working conditions. The Liberal government claims it supports workers, but at the last moment, the Liberals act like Conservatives and do not have the workers' backs when they take a stand. For the final and last time today, will the government commit to protecting workers' rights and not force workers back to work? Is the answer yes or no?
Trudeau says negotiations are proceeding at the bargaining table with respect for public servants and responsibility to taxpayers, without providing the yes-or-no commitment requested.
Trudeau does not answer yes or no, instead offering platitudes about good-faith bargaining and respect for public servants, which is tangential to the specific commitment requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in full respect, in debate, in discussions and negotiations at the bargaining table, which is where that needs to happen. Our negotiators and the unions are hard at work finding a way to ensure that we continue to support and respect the extraordinary public servants who have worked so hard, including over these past difficult years of the pandemic, to deliver services for Canadians at the same time as we move forward in a way that is responsible for Canadian taxpayers. This is the work we will do in good faith and positivity, just as we have always engaged with unions across the country.
Vuong argues the carbon tax at 14.3Âą a litre raises the cost of living and contributes to inflation, and raises the separate issue of tax cascading where the GST is levied on top of all other gasoline taxes, asking why the Prime Minister does not lower the carbon tax and axe the tax on gasoline taxes.
Vuong raises a specific mechanism â GST being levied on top of other gasoline taxes, which he calls tax cascading â and cites 14.3Âą per litre, giving the question some factual grounding, though it is mixed with rhetorical framing and the ask conflates two separate issues.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, most Canadians know that the federal carbon tax is a farce. It siphons 14.3Âą a litre from the pockets of consumers. It increases the cost of living. It contributes to inflation and it causes even higher food prices. Sadly, the carbon tax does little to fight climate change. Equally disturbing, there isâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, most Canadians know that the federal carbon tax is a farce. It siphons 14.3Âą a litre from the pockets of consumers. It increases the cost of living. It contributes to inflation and it causes even higher food prices. Sadly, the carbon tax does little to fight climate change. Equally disturbing, there is tax cascading, where the government levies the GST on all the other gasoline taxes. It is taxing taxes. If the Prime Minister wants to provide a meaningful, sustained rebate to financially struggling Canadians, why does he not lower his carbon tax cash cow and axe the tax on gasoline taxes?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau attacks Vuong for abandoning the environmental commitments his constituents expected of him and aligning with Conservative talking points, without addressing the tax cascading argument or the specific rates cited.
Trudeau does not address the tax cascading argument or the GST-on-gasoline-taxes issue at all, instead attacking Vuong for abandoning his constituents' environmental interests, making this effectively a non-answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can only think of the poor residents of SpadinaâFort York, who elected a member who would promise to fight for the environment, fightâ
Mr. Speaker, I can only feel bad for the citizens of SpadinaâFort York, who elected someone they thought was going to stand up for them and deliver them supports while putting a price on pollution and returning more money to the pockets of hard-working Ontarians, and now he is just spewing Conservative talking points. It is a real shame to see that, but on this side of the House, we will continue to stand and fight for Canadians and for the fight against climate change.