Session overview
- Housing dominated Question Period, with Pierre Poilievre pressing the Prime Minister across nine exchanges on doubled costs, the $4-billion housing accelerator fund, deficits driving up mortgage rates, and Canada having the fewest houses per capita in the G7.
- Carbon pricing drew repeated challenges from multiple opposition members, with Poilievre citing Canada's ranking of 58th out of 64 countries in the Climate Change Performance Index and the Parliamentary Budget Officer's finding that the tax costs families more than they receive in rebates; the Prime Minister defended the climate action incentive and cited emission reductions.
- Indigenous affairs featured prominently, with NDP members pressing on intergenerational trauma, the mercury poisoning care home at Grassy Narrows, the red dress alert, and the government's progress on the 231 calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls; the government announced its action plan to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act on National Indigenous Peoples Day.
- The transfer of Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security penitentiary prompted Poilievre to call for the firing of the Minister of Public Safety; the Prime Minister confirmed the Correctional Service of Canada commissioner had ordered an additional review following ministerial outreach.
- The $210-million Canadian contribution to the Asian Infrastructure Bank drew opposition attacks; the Prime Minister acknowledged Canada is reviewing its participation in the bank, which he described as controlled by Beijing, but did not commit to withdrawing the funds.
- End-of-session procedural business included the government House leader obtaining unanimous consent for a motion deferring and disposing of supply votes, estimates, and several bills, and multiple opposition unanimous consent motions on topics including Bill C-321, the Paul Bernardo transfer, and a Bloc Québécois motion on Russian deportation of Ukrainian children were defeated.
The Prime Minister confirmed for the record that the decision to transfer Paul Bernardo was made independently by the Correctional Service of Canada and that, following outreach by the Minister of Public Safety, the commissioner ordered an additional review that is under way.
Highly specific: identifies Grassy Narrows by name, references a specific unfulfilled government promise (a mercury poisoning care home), and grounds the ask in a documented, decades-long toxic drinking water issue.
Asked directly whether he would fire the Minister of Public Safety over a 32% increase in violent crime, misleading hunters about rifle bans, and the Bernardo transfer, the Prime Minister did not address any of those three specific allegations and instead delivered a statement about reproductive rights, the right to love who you love, and Conservative candidates.
Outstanding questions
- Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP) asked when the government will deliver the mercury poisoning care home it promised to Grassy Narrows â the Prime Minister said the situation 'has gone on for far too long' and cited continued engagement but gave no timeline or commitment.
- Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) asked when the Prime Minister will implement the red dress alert and the remaining calls to justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls â the Prime Minister cited $125 million, $4 billion in housing and work toward a red dress alert but gave no date.
- Pierre Poilievre asked whether the public safety minister will still have his job when Parliament returns in the fall â the Prime Minister did not answer yes or no.
- Pierre Poilievre asked when Canada will get its $200 million back from the Asian Infrastructure Bank â the Prime Minister said only that Canada is reviewing its participation and will share conclusions when the evaluation is complete.
- RenĂ© Villemure and Marie-HĂ©lĂšne Gaudreau (Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois) asked the Prime Minister to announce a public independent inquiry into foreign interference â the Prime Minister said cross-party consultations are continuing but made no commitment to launch an inquiry.
Poilievre cites a 19% average rent increase in Quebec, 44% in some regions, and nearly 100,000 people at risk of homelessness in BC, asking the Prime Minister to reverse his 'anti-construction inflationary policies.'
Cites specific data points (19% rent increase in Quebec, 44% in some regions, 100,000 people at risk in BC) but the ask â reverse 'anti-construction inflationary policies' â is vague and compound.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aprĂšs huit ans de ce premier ministre et de ses politiques anti-construction et inflationnistes, le coĂ»t du logement a doublĂ©. En fait, on apprend aujourd'hui qu'Ă QuĂ©bec, en un an, le loyer moyen a augmentĂ© de 19 %. Dans certaines rĂ©gions de la province, c'est 44 %. En ColombieâBritannique, prĂšs de 100 000 personnes pourraient ĂȘtre Ă la rue Ă cause des augmentations de loyer. Le premier ministre va-t-il finalement renverser ses politiques anti-construction et inflationnistes qui ont causĂ© cette crise du logement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, after eight years under this Prime Minister and his anti-construction inflationary policies, the cost of housing has doubled. In fact, we learned today that, in Quebec, the average rent increased by 19% in the past year. In some areas of the province, it went up by 44%. In British Columbia, nearly 100,000 people could be out on the streets because of rent hikes. Will the Prime Minister finally reverse his anti-construction inflationary policies that caused this housing crisis?
Trudeau lists housing investments including a $4-billion accelerator fund and 100,000 new homes, accusing the Conservatives of attacking municipalities rather than working with them.
Lists existing programs ($4 billion accelerator, 100,000 homes, etc.) but does not address the cited rent figures or explain why current policies are working, pivoting instead to attacking the opposition.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si le chef de l'opposition officielle voulait prendre la crise du logement au sĂ©rieux, il aurait appuyĂ© nos investissements dans le domaine au lieu de s'attaquer aux municipalitĂ©s. Notre plan consiste Ă travailler avec les municipalitĂ©s, notamment en investissant 4 milliards de dollars pour accĂ©lĂ©rer les approbations de projets domiciliaires et crĂ©er 100 000 nouvelles habitations, en faisant le lien entre les investissements dans les infrastructures et le logement, Ă aider les Canadiens Ă Ă©pargner en vue d'acheter leur premiĂšre maison, Ă offrir de l'aide aux locataires Ă faible revenu et Ă convertir des terres fĂ©dĂ©rales excĂ©dentaires en logements abordables. Nous continuons d'ĂȘtre lĂ pour aider en matiĂšre de logement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the official opposition were actually taking the housing crisis seriously, he would have supported our investments in that area rather than going after municipalities. Our plan involves working with the municipalities, particularly by investing $4 billion to speed up residential construction approvals and create 100,000 new homes, by tying infrastructure investment to housing, by helping Canadians save money to buy their first home, by providing support for low-income renters and by converting surplus federal lands to affordable housing. We will continue to be there to help with housing.
Poilievre argues that it now takes 25 years to save a down payment in Toronto (formerly the length of a full mortgage), attributing this to deficit-driven interest rate hikes, and asks the Prime Minister to reverse the policies causing the housing crisis.
Offers a concrete comparative metric â 25 years to save for a down payment vs. 25 years to pay off a mortgage â and links deficits to interest rates, though the ask remains broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it now takes 25 years for the average Torontonian to save up for the average down payment on a house. It used to be that one could pay off a mortgage in 25 years; now, that is what it takes just to get a down payment, after the Prime Minister's anti-construction inflationary policies have doubled the cost of housing. He has done this with deficits that drive up interest rates and drive down salaries, and by funding bureaucracies that block home construction. Will the Prime Minister reverse the policies that caused the housing crisis, so Canadians can put a roof overhead?
Trudeau cites the creation of 900,000 jobs since before the pandemic and mentions work with municipalities on densification and permitting, without addressing the down-payment timeline or deficit-interest rate link.
Trudeau pivots to job creation (900,000 jobs) and general recovery talking points, never addressing the down-payment timeline figure or the specific deficits-driving-interest-rates argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have one of the strongest recoveries after the pandemic of all our peer countries, including seeing the creation of 900,000 new jobs across the country since before the pandemic. Our investments in supporting Canadians have made a real difference and have created growth in the economy. At the same time, we have continued to step up to support families in the construction of new homes by working collaboratively with municipalities to improve densification, to accelerate zoning changes and permitting, and to work to build more housing. As the Conservative leader chooses to pick fights with municipalities, we are going to work collaboratively to get housingâ
Poilievre cites Vancouver as the 3rd and Toronto as the 10th most overpriced housing market globally, noting both surpass New York, London, and Singapore, and that average Canadian house prices are nearly double those in the US despite Canada's larger land mass, asking the PM to reverse his policies.
Cites specific global rankings (Vancouver 3rd, Toronto 10th most overpriced), makes a pointed comparison with New York City, London, Singapore, and the US land-mass-to-population ratio, grounding the question in identifiable data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tells Canadians they have never had it so good, but in reality, housing costs have actually doubled under his leadership. In fact, they are among the worst in the world. Vancouver is now the third most overpriced market, and Toronto is the 10th. Both are worse than New York City; London, England; and even Singapore, a tiny island. In fact, the average house cost is almost double in Canada what it is in the United States, which has 10 times the people to house on a smaller land mass. The Prime Minister's anti-construction inflationary policies are not working. Will he reverse them so that Canadians can get a roof overhead?
Trudeau acknowledges Canadians are struggling with housing costs and characterises the Conservative solution as cutting existing support programs, offering no engagement with the international comparisons cited.
Trudeau acknowledges the housing struggle but responds entirely with attacks on what he characterises as Conservative cuts, never engaging the international rankings or the US comparison raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we across the House floor all recognize that Canadians are struggling with the cost of housing. The Conservative solution is to cut the programs that are supporting Canadian families, cut the programs that help municipalities invest in accelerating housing, cut the programs that help Canadians save up for a first down payment, and cut the programs that are delivering housing solutions for Canadians. We recognize there is more to do, but it does not start by cutting the existing programs that are helping Canadians. We are going to continue to work in partnership with the municipalities and help Canadians through these difficult times.
Poilievre argues that $80 billion in housing programs has produced doubled down payments, doubled mortgage costs, and a 120% rent increase, and asks the PM to 'get off the backs' of Canadians by stopping deficit spending and defunding gatekeeping bureaucracies.
References a specific $80-billion figure and quantifies outcomes (doubled down payment, doubled mortgage, 120% rent increase), making a causal argument about deficits and bureaucratic gatekeeping, though the ask is still broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's $80-billion worth of programs are not working. They have led to a doubling in the cost of an average down payment, double the necessary monthly mortgage payment, and a 120% increase in the average rent. This is way out of line with what is happening in other countries. Meanwhile, he continues to drive up interest rates on mortgages with his deficits, and to give money to local bureaucracies to block home building. Will the Prime Minister get off the backs and out of the way of Canadians so they can finally afford a home?
Trudeau accuses the Conservative leader of picking fights with municipalities and repeats the government's approach of densification, permitting acceleration, and tying infrastructure investments to housing, without addressing the $80-billion or cost metrics.
Trudeau again characterises the opposition as wanting cuts and repeats the densification/permitting/zoning talking points without addressing the $80-billion figure or the specific cost metrics cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, not only would the Conservative leader cut programs that are helping Canadians in what is, yes, a difficult housing market, but he also is choosing to pick fights with municipalities when we should be working with them, as the Liberals are doing, to increase densification, to accelerate permitting, to change zoning, and to make sure we are tying infrastructure investments, like the transit investments we are making in record numbers, to concentrations of housing and increasing housing stock. We know we need to continue to deliver more housing supply, and we are working with municipalities and provinces to do justâ
Poilievre argues that the $4-billion housing accelerator fund has actually decelerated home building by 19%, and asks why the PM will not link funding to completed homes rather than spending irresponsibly.
Highly specific: cites the $4-billion housing accelerator fund by name and provides a concrete outcome metric â housing construction down 19% since its introduction â and proposes a clear alternative accountability mechanism (dollars tied to completed homes).
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can say all the right things, but he does not get anything done. I will give a perfect example. I know that the Prime Minister is trying to plagiarize my message on housing, but he cannot actually deliver on it. The reality is he brought in a $4-billion housing accelerator fund that has decelerated home building. Home building is actually down 19% versus what it was before he brought in this acceleration program. Instead of just spending money irresponsibly, why will the Prime Minister not tie dollars to houses that are actually complete?
Trudeau accepts the characterisation of 'saying all the right things,' reiterates the first-time homebuyers tax-free account and municipal partnerships, and accuses the Conservatives of picking fights rather than delivering.
Trudeau accepts the compliment sarcastically and asserts the government is 'doing the right things,' but does not address the 19% construction decline or the proposal to tie dollars to completed homes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will certainly accept the compliment that we are saying all the right things, and I will add to it because we are doing the right things. As we step up with the first-time homebuyers tax-free account, as we work with municipalities to deliver on accelerated housing construction, in partnership in the ways that we get things done, instead of picking fights like the Conservative leader continues to do, we will continue to deliver on helping Canadians through these difficult times.
Blanchet asks whether the Prime Minister is willing to meet quickly with his party and industry representatives to rapidly establish urgent programs to help small and medium businesses suffering from the northern Quebec and CĂŽte-Nord wildfires.
Identifies a specific context (wildfires in northern Quebec and CĂŽte-Nord), a specific affected group (small and medium businesses), and proposes a concrete process (meet rapidly with government and industry), though the ask for specific program types is not detailed.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le Nord du QuĂ©bec et la CĂŽteâNord sont aux prises avec de graves feux de forĂȘt. C'est aussi vrai pour d'autres endroits au Canada. Il y a des entreprises qui en souffrent. Si la grande entreprise a des moyens, il reste que beaucoup de petites et moyennes entreprises subissent un grave contrecoup et pourraient y rester. Nous avons fait des propositions pour venir en aide Ă ces entreprises. Je veux savoir du premier ministre s'il est prĂȘt Ă s'asseoir avec nous rapidement et avec l'industrie rapidement pour mettre en place rapidement des programmes qui sont urgents.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, northern Quebec and the north shore are grappling with major forest fires. That is also true for other parts of Canada. Businesses are suffering. Although big businesses may have the financial means to get through this, many small and medium-sized businesses have been dealt a serious blow from which they might not recover. We have proposed measures to help these businesses. I want the Prime Minister to tell us if he is prepared to sit down with us and the industry now to quickly put in place urgent programs.
Trudeau expresses solidarity with those affected, says safety is the priority, that Canada responded immediately to Quebec's request for help, and mentions Budget 2023 investments and supports for forestry workers, without committing to a specific meeting.
Trudeau expresses sympathy and mentions Budget 2023 investments and forestry worker supports but does not commit to or describe specific rapid SME assistance programs or agree to the requested meeting.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous sommes de tout cĆur avec tous ceux qui, au QuĂ©bec et dans tout le Canada, ont Ă©tĂ© touchĂ©s par ces incendies. La sĂ©curitĂ© est Ă©videmment notre prioritĂ© absolue. C'est pour cela que notre gouvernement a rĂ©pondu immĂ©diatement Ă la demande d'aide du QuĂ©bec. Nous allons continuer de travailler avec les provinces et les territoires tout au long de cette pĂ©riode difficile jusqu'Ă la reprise, et nous prenons des mesures pour soutenir les travailleurs du secteur forestier quĂ©bĂ©cois et d'autres secteurs affectĂ©s par ces feux de forĂȘt. Nous avons mis des choses en place au moyen du budget de 2023 avec des investissements substantiels.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our thoughts are with all those in Quebec and across Canada who have been affected by these fires. Safety is obviously our number one priority. That is why our government responded immediately to Quebec's request for help. We will continue to work with the provinces and territories throughout this difficult period and the recovery, and we are taking steps to support workers in Quebec's forestry sector and other sectors affected by these forest fires. We have put measures in place with substantial investments in the 2023 budget.
Blanchet asks the PM to act immediately by applying the existing pan-Canadian pandemic SME assistance model to the wildfire crisis, arguing the template already exists and the summer threat is urgent.
Sharper follow-up: explicitly references the pandemic SME assistance model as a ready-made template, argues the infrastructure already exists for rapid deployment, and frames urgency around the active summer wildfire threat.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, compte tenu du peu de temps qu'il nous reste, je vais devoir demander au premier ministre d'ĂȘtre plus prĂ©cis. Les entreprises et, Ă©videmment avec elles, de nombreux travailleurs sont aux prises avec un dĂ©fi Ă court terme qui pourrait les obliger Ă mettre la clĂ© sous le paillasson. Il faut des mesures, et elles doivent ĂȘtre rapides. Pour faciliter le processus, nous nous sommes inspirĂ©s des mesures pancanadiennes mises en place pour les petites et moyennes entreprises durant la pandĂ©mie. Le modĂšle et la grille existent dĂ©jĂ . On peut l'appliquer rapidement, parce que l'Ă©tĂ© n'est pas fini et que la menace est trĂšs grave. Peut-on agir ensemble maintenant?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, since we are running out of time, I will ask the Prime Minister to be more specific. Businesses and, obviously, many workers are faced with a short-term challenge that might force them to hide the key under the mat. They need measures, and they need them soon. To facilitate the process, we took inspiration from some of the pan-Canadian measures used for small and medium-sized businesses during the pandemic. The model and the structure already exist. We can apply it quickly because the summer is not over and the threat is very serious. Can we work together to take immediate action?
Trudeau distinguishes the pandemic response (pan-Canadian tools) from the current situation (provincial scope), says the federal government will work with affected provinces including through disaster assistance programs, and assures Quebec that Canada will be a partner.
Trudeau distinguishes the pandemic (pan-Canadian) from the current (provincial) context and mentions disaster assistance programs available to Quebec, but does not commit to adopting the pandemic model or acting on the specific short-term business support request.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous avons rĂ©agi Ă une crise pancanadienne avec des outils pancanadiens. Dans cette situation-ci, on voit que ce sont des entreprises dans certaines provinces qui sont affectĂ©es, et c'est pour cela que nous travaillons avec les provinces touchĂ©es. Le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec sait trĂšs bien que le Canada sera lĂ en tant que partenaire, y compris avec nos programmes d'aide en cas de catastrophe, qu'il va certainement pouvoir utiliser. Nous allons ĂȘtre lĂ , et nous allons ĂȘtre lĂ pour travailler avec le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec, qui va ĂȘtre lĂ pour aider les entreprises locales.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we reacted to a pan-Canadian crisis with pan-Canadian tools. In this situation, it is businesses in certain provinces that are affected, and that is why we are working with the relevant provinces. The Government of Quebec knows full well that Canada will be there as a partner, including with our disaster assistance programs, which it will certainly be able to use. We will be there, and we will be there to work with the Government of Quebec, which will be there to help local businesses.
Idlout, reflecting on the survivors' flag raising and naming specific residential school survivors including her mother, asks when the government will act to ensure future generations live with pride, dignity and respect, citing Liberal inaction on intergenerational trauma.
Opens with personal testimony and names specific survivors, which adds authenticity, but the question about government 'inaction' on intergenerational trauma is broad and the ask â 'when will the government act' â is unspecific about what action is sought.
Source text
Uqaqtittiji, this morning I was honoured to attend the raising of the survivors' flag. I thought of Monica Ittusardjuat, Ernie Bernhardt, Marie-Lucie Uviluq, the late Marius Tungilik and especially my mom, Carmen Idlout, who survived these horrible institutions. Survivors, without intention, pass on trauma to the next generations. The Liberal government's inaction allows intergenerational trauma to continue. When will the government act to ensure that future generations can live with pride, dignity and respect?
Trudeau thanks the member for attending, acknowledges the dual significance of June 21, and lists ongoing partnership work with indigenous communities on housing, health, land claims and reconciliation over the past seven and a half years.
Trudeau acknowledges the significance of the day and lists broad areas of partnership (housing, health, land claims) but does not address the specific inaction claim or identify any concrete new commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for being there at this important celebration this morning. I was touched to see so many people there, as well. Today, June 21, is a celebration of indigenous language and culture as, at the same time, we recognize the terrible intergenerational trauma and the impacts of residential schools. It is with mixed feelings that we continue to work together in partnership with indigenous communities across the country, whether it is on housing, whether it is on health, whether it is on resolving land claims, and continue to support indigenous leadership. We will continue on the path of reconciliation in partnership, as we have for the past seven and a half years.
Idlout asks when the government will deliver on its specific promise to build a mercury poisoning care home in Grassy Narrows, noting the community has waited years and that indigenous peoples have heard empty words for decades.
Highly specific: identifies Grassy Narrows by name, references a specific unfulfilled government promise (a mercury poisoning care home), and grounds the ask in a documented, decades-long toxic drinking water issue.
Source text
Uqaqtittiji, all I heard is empathy. What indigenous peoples need is action. Grassy Narrows is still waiting for the government to fulfill its promise to build the mercury poisoning care home in Grassy Narrows. After decades of toxic drinking water, just like countless first nations across this country, people in Grassy Narrows are left waiting for the government to keep a promise it made years ago. Indigenous peoples have heard empty words for decades. Will the government finally deliver the treatment centre that Grassy Narrows desperatelyâ
Trudeau says the Grassy Narrows situation has gone on too long, that the government continues to engage with local leadership and provide supports, and commits to continuing on the path of reconciliation, without specifying the care home or a timeline.
Trudeau acknowledges the Grassy Narrows situation has 'gone on for far too long' and mentions ongoing engagement and supports, but does not state when or whether the specific mercury poisoning care home will be built, nor address the broken promise directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been working with indigenous communities right across the country on responding to their needs. The situation in Grassy Narrows has gone on for far too long. It is one that we continue to engage in, working closely with local leadership and moving forward on giving the kinds of supports necessary. We recognize the scale of the challenges across the country and we will continue to walk the road of reconciliation, in partnership, in meaningful, serious ways as we always have.
Poilievre argues that mortgages on an average house have gone from 40% to 60% of average income over eight years and that house prices, mortgage payments, and rents have all doubled, asking the PM to stop funding gatekeeping and reduce deficits driving up mortgage rates.
Provides a baseline comparison (40% of average income for a mortgage eight years ago vs. 60% now) and links deficits to mortgage rates and gatekeeping to construction, though the ask is still compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister expects to be judged on his promises rather than his results. The results are these. Eight years ago, housing was affordable, taking a modest 40% of average income to pay mortgages on an average house, which is something that is now up to 60%. The average cost of a house has nearly doubled. The cost of a mortgage payment has doubled. The cost of monthly rent has doubled. It is double trouble after eight years of this Prime Minister. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister wants to keep doing what caused the problem in the first place. Will he instead stop funding gatekeeping that blocks construction and bring down the deficits that are driving up mortgage rates?
Trudeau argues that the previous Conservative government removed federal leadership from housing for nearly 10 years, which is part of why challenges accumulated, and references the 2017 national housing strategy as his government's response.
Trudeau pivots to blaming the previous Conservative government for a decade of inaction and references the 2017 national housing strategy, without engaging the income-to-mortgage-payment ratio cited or the current gatekeeping argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member opposite talks about what happened eight years ago because when we formed government, we realized that the previous federal government had done nothing on housing for close to 10 years. It had removed the federal government from any leadership role or partnerships around housing, which is part of why we have faced real challenges over the past decade in responding to the growth and needs of housing across this country. It is why we also put into place in 2017 a national housing strategy that has led millions of Canadians to get into new residences and refurbished homes across the country. It is why we have continued to invest and step upâ
Poilievre argues that under the previous Conservative government the average house cost $450,000 and rent was about 50% of today's level, and that Canada now has the fewest houses per capita in the G7 â fewer than when the PM took office â asking him to get out of the way and let Canadians build.
Cites specific figures ($450,000 average house price, rent 50% lower under Harper) and the G7 fewest-houses-per-capita claim, though the ask to 'get out of the way' remains vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's main criticism seems to be that the previous Conservative government did not hold enough meetings or spend enough money. What we actually delivered was affordable housing. The average house cost was $450,000 at the time. The average rent back then was about 50% of what it is today. Now, Canada has the fewest houses per capita in the G7. We have fewer houses per capita than when the Prime Minister took office eight years ago at a time when house construction actually dropped off. Therefore, will he get out of the way, let Canadians build and let them put a roof overhead?
Trudeau attacks the previous Conservative government for cutting programs for veterans, seniors, and youth and raising the retirement age to 67, claiming Canadians punished them at the ballot box, without addressing any of the housing supply or price figures cited.
Trudeau's answer is almost entirely an attack on the previous Conservative government's record on veterans, infrastructure, seniors, youth, and the retirement age, with no engagement of the housing supply per capita data or average price figures cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we all remember well that the previous Conservative government did not spend enough money investing in Canadians, did not support our veterans, did not support builds and infrastructure, cut and slashed programs, cut programs for seniors and for youth and raised the retirement age to 67 so that they could balance the budget in a fictional way for an election. Canadians saw through that and had the Conservatives lose that election. We have stepped up to continue to invest in Canadians, continue to invest in housing and continue to invest in supports that have seen the economy grow. I have seen record job creation and record numbers of peopleâ
Poilievre argues that despite $80 billion in housing programs Canada has the fewest houses per capita in the G7 and nearly double the house prices of the US, asking why the PM judges himself by how much he spends rather than how much gets done.
Repeats and sharpens the $80-billion programs claim, restates the G7 fewest-houses-per-capita and Canada-vs-US price comparison, and poses a pointed accountability question about measuring success by spending rather than results.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that his real criticism is that our programs were not expensive enough for the taxpayers. The fact is, it is bad enough for him to fail; it is even worse for him to fail expensively and that is what he has done. He does have an $80-billion housing program that has left us with the fewest houses per capita in the G7, even though we have the most land to build on, which is fewer houses per capita than when he took office. We now have almost double the house price in Canada versus the U.S., where they have 10 times the people to house on a smaller land mass. Why does the Prime Minister not stop judging himself by how much he can spend instead of judging by how much he can get done?
Trudeau says Conservatives consistently advocate cuts and austerity, references the party's 'underwhelming night' in recent by-elections as proof Canadians reject that approach, and asserts the government 'has their backs.'
Trudeau accuses Conservatives of proposing cuts and austerity and references by-election results on 'Monday night,' entirely avoiding the $80-billion spending-versus-results challenge and the housing supply data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives consistently get up and say that what we really need to grow the economy and help Canadians is cuts: cuts in the investments we are making for Canadians, cuts in the programs that are helping Canadians afford new homes and cuts in the programs that are incentivizing municipalities to increase density and accelerate house building. The reality is, that proposal of cuts and austerity is exactly why the Conservatives had such an underwhelming night on Monday night in those by-elections. Canadians know they need a government that has their backs. That is what we are doing.
Poilievre cites the PM's own housing agency projecting 19% fewer homes built this year than last despite the $4-billion housing accelerator fund, and asks why the PM will not adopt a policy of tying city funding to the number of houses actually completed.
Highly specific: cites the $4-billion accelerator fund by name, references the PM's own housing agency (CMHC) projecting 19% fewer houses built this year versus last, and proposes a concrete alternative policy â tying dollars to completed homes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just because the Prime Minister makes housing more expensive to taxpayers does not excuse the fact that he has made it more expensive for homebuyers. I will give an example: He has tried to plagiarise my message on the need to get housing built by inventing a $4-billion accelerator program. Since that time, housing construction has decelerated. This year, according to the Prime Minister's own housing agency, there will be fewer houses built than last year: 19% fewer. Why will he not actually take my policy, which is to link the number of dollars cities get to the number of houses that get completed?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau claims the $4-billion housing accelerator fund was a cornerstone of his last election platform, implies Poilievre copied it, and accuses him of proposing cuts rather than engaging the 19% decline or completion-based funding idea.
Trudeau claims the accelerator fund predated Poilievre's messaging (referencing the last election campaign), accuses him of 'sharpening knives,' and dismisses the question as proposing cuts, without addressing the 19% construction decline or the completion-based funding proposal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the $4-billion housing accelerator fund was actually a corner piece of our last election campaign, but apparently the current leader of the official opposition was too busy sharpening his knives to pay attention to our platform in the last election. We have demonstrated a level of commitment and focus on delivering for Canadians, while he continues to propose cuts.
Poilievre lists five specific government expenditures â $26M in CMHC bonuses, $181,000 for Governor General travel, $116M to McKinsey, $54M for the ArriveCAN app, and $6,000 for one hotel night â and asks whether the PM thinks Canadians would be better served by redirecting that money.
Lists five specific expenditures with dollar amounts ($26M CMHC bonuses, $181,000 Governor General travel, $116M McKinsey, $54M ArriveCAN, $6,000 hotel night) and asks a pointed question about fiscal priorities, though it bundles unrelated items.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says there is no room for savings in his sumptuous government spending, but I found some. For example, he gave CMHC $26 million in bonuses for making housing less affordable; he gave $181,000 for the Governor General's travel; $116 million to McKinsey, a company that supports him but actually helped cause the opioid crisis; $54 million for the ArriveCAN app; and $6,000 for one night in a hotel for the Prime Minister. Does he not think we can pass on that spending and put the money back in Canadians' pockets?
Trudeau reframes the question as being about cutting programs for Canadians and lists $10-a-day child care, the climate action incentive returning money to 8 in 10 Canadians, the grocery rebate, and the GST tax credit doubling benefiting 11 million Canadians, without addressing any cited expenditure.
Trudeau does not address any of the five specific expenditure items cited, instead pivoting to $10-a-day child care, the climate action incentive, the grocery rebate, and the GST tax credit doubling.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the Conservative leader continues to put forward is a program of cutting programs for Canadians. Whether it is billions of dollars for child care at $10 a day right across the country that he continues to campaign against, or whether it is investments in a climate action incentive that both puts a price on pollution and puts more money back in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadians that he would cancel, that is money in the pockets of families in his riding that he would he cancel. Whether it is by moving forward on things like a grocery rebate or the doubling of the GST tax credit that has helped out 11 million Canadians and will continue to support seniors and young people, we willâ
Poilievre presents a four-point housing plan: balance the budget to lower inflation and mortgage rates; require cities to increase permitted homes by 15% to receive infrastructure dollars, paid on completion; mandate high-density housing around all federally funded transit stations; and sell 6,000 underutilized federal buildings to fund affordable housing and deficit reduction.
Presents a multi-point, named policy plan with specific figures (15% required permit increase, 6,000 federal buildings) and a clear causal mechanism (balancing the budget to reduce inflation/interest rates), making it unusually substantive for a QP question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is a real plan to make housing affordable: Balance the budget to bring down inflation and interest rates on Canadians' mortgages; require that cities increase the number of permitted homes by 15% in order to get more infrastructure money and pay the money out once the houses are completed and the keys are in doors; require every federally funded transit station to have high-density housing all around it; and sell off 6,000 underutilized federal buildings to convert them into affordable housing and use the proceeds to reduce the deficit. How is that for a plan?
Trudeau says many elements of the plan overlap with government work already underway, disagrees with the cuts component, and cites Poilievre's vote against and delay of the $500 housing benefit top-up for low-income Canadians, claiming fiscal responsibility at the top of the G7 class.
Trudeau acknowledges overlap with existing government work on 'many elements' but does not identify which specific elements, dismisses the budget-balancing component, and focuses on accusing Poilievre of voting against the $500 housing benefit top-up, providing partial but incomplete engagement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, many of the elements in his supposed plan are things that we are already very much working on. The one place we disagree is his proposal to cut programs, to cut supports to low-income Canadians and to cut supports like the housing benefit that he not only voted against but delayed passage of in the House, when we were offering a $500 top-up to low-income Canadians. He has consistently stood against those kinds of supports and investments in Canadians, offering instead cuts and austerity at a time when Canadians need continued support. On fiscal responsibility, we are still at the top of the class in the G7.
Pauzé asks whether the Prime Minister agrees that doing more against climate change means saying no to new oil projects like Suncor's 16 offshore drilling applications off Newfoundland, invoking his own vote on the BQ motion.
The question is grounded in a specific event â the BQ motion, the PM's own vote, and a named Suncor project of 16 offshore drillings â and poses a clear yes/no accountability ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les feux de forĂȘt sont Ă l'origine de la motion sur l'environnement que le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois a fait adopter Ă la Chambre. Le premier ministre lui-mĂȘme a appuyĂ© cette motion qui reconnaĂźt que le fĂ©dĂ©ral doit en faire davantage pour lutter contre les changements climatiques. Je lui rappelle son vote avant qu'on parle de pĂ©trole. Actuellement, son gouvernement Ă©value s'il autorisera la pĂ©troliĂšre Suncor Ă entamer 16 forages Ă la recherche de pĂ©trole au large de TerreâNeuve. Est-ce que le premier ministre convient qu'en faire plus contre les changements climatiques, c'est Ă©galement dire non aux projets pĂ©troliers de ce genre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the environmental motion that the Bloc Québécois got the House to adopt was about the forest fires. The Prime Minister himself supported the motion, which recognizes that the federal government must do more to combat climate change. I would like to remind him how he voted before we talk about oil and gas. Right now, his government is assessing whether it will approve 16 Suncor projects to drill for oil off the coast of Newfoundland. Does the Prime Minister agree that doing more to combat climate change also means saying no to these types of oil and gas projects?
Trudeau says the government is not approving drilling such as at Anticosti, claims emissions have been reduced for the first time, and says Canada is on track for Paris and Glasgow targets, without addressing the specific Suncor evaluation.
Trudeau invokes Anticosti as a deflection and offers general balance rhetoric without addressing the specific Suncor drilling evaluation or the motion he voted for.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous ne sommes quand mĂȘme pas en train d'approuver des forages sur l'Ăźle d'Anticosti, par exemple. Nous sommes lĂ pour continuer Ă dĂ©fendre la lutte contre les changements climatiques, et nous continuons d'ĂȘtre lĂ pour reconnaĂźtre que nous avons besoin de pĂ©trole dans le monde pendant encore plusieurs annĂ©es. Cet Ă©quilibre nous a permis de diminuer les Ă©missions pour la premiĂšre fois dans l'histoire des gouvernements du Canada. Nous sommes en train d'atteindre nos cibles de Paris et de Glasgow. Nous allons continuer de dĂ©montrer du leadership et de la responsabilitĂ© en crĂ©ant de la croissance Ă©conomique verte pour...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is not like we are in the process of approving drilling in places like Anticosti Island. We are here to keep defending the fight against climate change, and we recognize that the world will still need oil and gas for a number of years. Striking that balance has helped us reduce emissions for the first time in the Canadian government's history. We are on track to meet our Paris and Glasgow targets. We will continue to show leadership and responsibility by fostering green economic growth forâ
Michaud asks whether the Prime Minister can commit that there will be no new oil projects in Canada, given that fossil fuels are the main driver of climate change and the federal government is still authorizing oil companies to search for new deposits.
Michaud frames the question around the general principle of halting new oil projects, with factual grounding in the role of fossil fuels in climate change, but the ask â 'can the PM say it's over for new oil projects' â is broad rather than tied to a specific file.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cette motion, nous l'avons déposée pour que les travaux parlementaires se terminent sur un consensus et une conscientisation. Il faut en faire plus pour que les catastrophes naturelles qu'on vit ne deviennent pas normales. Or, pour y arriver, il faut prendre des décisions difficiles. Tout le monde sait que le principal accélérateur des changements climatiques, ce sont les énergies fossiles. Pourtant, le fédéral autorise encore les pétroliÚres à chercher de nouveaux gisements à exploiter. Ce qu'il faudrait, c'est réduire la production, et Ottawa pense encore à l'augmenter. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut au moins dire que c'est fini, les nouveaux projets pétroliers au Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we moved that motion so that Parliament could rise on a note of consensus and awareness. We need to do more to ensure that the natural disasters we are experiencing do not become the norm. To do that, though, we need to make some tough decisions. Everyone knows that the main factor speeding up climate change is fossil fuels. However, the federal government is still allowing oil companies to look for new deposits to develop. We need to reduce production, but Ottawa is still thinking about increasing it. Can the Prime Minister at least say that new oil and gas projects in Canada are a thing of the past?
Trudeau says the imperative is to reduce emissions, cites investments in hydrogen, nuclear, wind and solar, and says the government is trying to reduce fossil fuel emissions in the meantime, without committing to ending new oil projects.
Trudeau discusses emission reduction achievements and investments in hydrogen, nuclear, wind and solar but does not answer whether new oil projects will be halted, only saying the government is trying to reduce fossil fuel emissions in the meantime.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'impératif est de réduire les émissions qui sont en train de causer les changements climatiques. Sur ce plan, nous avons démontré notre capacité en tant que gouvernement pour justement réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre dont le Canada est responsable, et nous continuons de le faire. Nous savons trÚs bien que le monde a encore besoin d'énergie. C'est pour cela que nous sommes en train d'investir dans l'hydrogÚne, le nucléaire, l'éolien, le solaire et dans différents projets qui nous permettront de créer l'énergie carboneutre dont le monde va avoir besoin. Entretemps, nous sommes encore là pour essayer de diminuer nos émissions liées aux combustibles fossiles.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the main thing is to reduce the emissions that are causing climate change. In that respect, we have demonstrated our ability as a government to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions for which Canada is responsible, and we continue to do so. We know very well that the world still needs energy. That is why we are investing in hydrogen, nuclear, wind, solar and other projects that will enable us to create the net-zero energy the world will need. In the meantime, we are still working to reduce our fossil fuel emissions.
Poilievre asks why, instead of imposing a second carbon tax that would raise gas prices by 20Âą a litre and increase food costs, the government does not remove barriers so Quebec can supply more green electricity.
Poilievre combines a specific policy claim (second carbon tax raising gas prices by 20Âą a litre and raising food costs) with a broader ask about removing barriers to Quebec hydroelectricity, mixing facts with partisan framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au lieu d'enlever des barriÚres bureaucratiques pour que le Québec puisse produire davantage d'hydroélectricité verte, le premier ministre, avec l'appui du Bloc, veut imposer une deuxiÚme taxe sur le carbone aux Québécois, ce qui va faire augmenter le prix de l'essence de 20 ¹ le litre. Cela va aussi faire augmenter le coût de la nourriture, parce que les fermiers vont devoir payer davantage pour l'énergie afin de pouvoir produire. Au lieu de s'attaquer aux consommateurs du Québec et de partout au Canada, pourquoi ne pas enlever les barriÚres pour que le Québec puisse fournir davantage d'électricité verte?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, instead of cutting red tape so that Quebec can generate more green hydroelectricity, the Prime Minister, with the support of the Bloc, wants to impose a second carbon tax on Quebeckers, which will jack up the price of gas by 20Âą a litre. It will also make food more expensive, because farmers will have to pay more for the energy they need to produce it. Instead of going after consumers in Quebec and across Canada, why not eliminate barriers so that Quebec can provide more green electricity?
Trudeau says there is no first federal carbon price on Quebec because Quebec has its own approach, and cites large clean energy investment tax credits in Budget 2023 for Quebec and across the country.
Trudeau directly corrects the factual premise by noting there is no federal carbon price applied to Quebec, and references Budget 2023 clean energy tax credits, which partially addresses the hydroelectricity investment angle.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, le chef du Parti conservateur démontre qu'il n'a aucune compréhension de ce qui se passe au Québec. Tout d'abord, il n'y a pas de premier prix sur la pollution imposé par le fédéral au Québec, parce que le Québec a sa propre approche pour lutter contre les émissions. Ensuite, dans le budget de 2023, nous venons de proposer des crédits d'impÎt énormes pour la création d'énergie verte au Québec et partout au pays. C'est le genre de chose qui va permettre davantage aux Québécois d'avoir une économie verte et florissante dans un monde carboneutre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, the leader of the Conservative Party is demonstrating that he does not understand what is happening in Quebec. First of all, there has never been a federally imposed price on pollution in Quebec, because Quebec has its own approach to fighting emissions. Second, in budget 2023, we proposed generous tax credits to encourage green energy generation in Quebec and across the country. This is the kind of thing that will make it easier for Quebeckers to have a thriving green economy in a net-zero world.
Poilievre asks why the Prime Minister will not axe the carbon tax, citing the Newfoundland Liberal premier's warning that the July 1 tax hike will do nothing for the environment but will make his people go cold in winter and hungry all year.
Poilievre cites the Newfoundland Liberal premier's specific criticism and the July 1 tax hike date, giving the question factual grounding, but the ask conflates axing the carbon tax with demanding a 'real environmental plan,' making it compound and partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is not only Quebeckers who will have to pay more. On July 1, the Prime Minister plans to hit Atlantic Canadians with a massive new tax hike at the pump. Happy Canada Day, everyone. The Prime Minister wants us to pay more. Now, the Newfoundland Liberal premier has said that this will do nothing for the environment, but it will make his people go cold in the winter and hungry all year long. Why will the Prime Minister not axe the carbon tax and finally come up with a real environmental plan?
Trudeau says putting a price on pollution has produced emission reductions and that Canada is reaching its 2030 and net-zero targets, and that Atlantic Canadians will receive more money back in rebates starting in July.
Trudeau claims emissions are falling and Canada is reaching 2030 and net-zero targets, and says Atlantic Canadians will receive more money back starting in July, but does not engage the premier's specific quote about people going cold and hungry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we put a price on pollution, and we are now seeing the emission reductions right across the country. Canada is reaching its targets both for 2030 and towards net zero. That is what we have done by putting a price on pollution. However, at the same time we are putting a price on pollution right across the country, we are delivering more money back to Canadians in the jurisdictions where the federal backstop is in place. That is more money in the pockets of Atlantic Canadians starting this July as we fight climate change, which is having an impact, whether it is hurricanes or forest fires, that Atlantic Canadians hear of too strongly.
Poilievre asks why the PM will not axe the plan to raise gas prices by 61Âą a litre, citing Canada's rank of 58th out of 64 in the Climate Change Performance Index and the unanimous opposition of Atlantic premiers including a specific quote from Newfoundland's premier calling the PM's rationale 'completely illogical.'
Poilievre cites Canada's ranking of 58th out of 64 countries in the Climate Change Performance Index, a direct quote from the Newfoundland premier, and the unanimous position of Atlantic premiers, as well as the specific figure of 61Âą a litre, giving the question solid factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not hit a single environmental target with his tax, and Canada ranks 58th out of 64 countries in the Climate Change Performance Index. His plan is not working; it is just costing more. In fact, the premier of Newfoundland said that the Prime Minister's claim that we need to tax to save the environment is âcompletely illogical, it's a false dichotomy, it's a false dilemma, and it's as insulting to us as it is simplistic.â The unanimous opinion of Atlantic premiers is that this tax will hurt their people without helping the environment. Why will the Prime Minister not axe his plan to raise gas prices by 61Âą a litre?
Trudeau says energy companies are making record profits, that the climate action incentive delivers more money back than the price on pollution costs, and that pricing pollution is one of the most efficient ways to reduce emissions, without addressing the index ranking or the premiers' position.
Trudeau pivots to record profits by energy companies and the climate action incentive delivering more money than the price on pollution costs, without addressing the Climate Change Performance Index ranking, the Atlantic premiers' unanimous position, or the 61Âą figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while energy companies are making record profits right now across the country, Canadians need support, and that is why we are delivering a climate action incentive that delivers more money every three months to Canadians than the price on pollution costs them. Everyone, except apparently the Conservatives, understands that building in price signals on things we do not want, like pollution, is one of the most efficient ways of reducing emissions and of incentivizing behaviour. That is why our emissions are going down, and we are hitting our targets.
Poilievre asks why the PM will not axe the carbon tax, citing the Parliamentary Budget Officer's finding that it costs families more than they get back â over $2,000 per year for the average family â and the plan to raise it to 61Âą a litre.
Poilievre cites the Parliamentary Budget Officer's finding that the tax costs families more than they receive back, the specific figure of over $2,000 per year for the average family, and the planned increase to 61Âą a litre, making this well-grounded in cited sources.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he has not hit a single climate target since he brought this tax in. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom he appointed, in every province in Canada this tax will cost families more than they get back in these phony rebates. In fact, it will be over $2,000 for the average family per year. The plan is to raise the tax to 61Âą a litre. Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat and house themselves. Why does he not axe the tax so we can bring home lower prices?
Trudeau accuses the Conservative leader of wanting inaction on climate change, cites wildfires and hurricane Fiona, says the rebate delivers $1,000 a year to a family of four in Carleton, and mentions Volkswagen, Rio Tinto and Stellantis investments, without engaging the PBO finding.
Trudeau dismisses the question as the Conservative leader wanting inaction, pivots to wildfires and Fiona, and cites $1,000 a year for a family of four in Carleton and corporate investments like Volkswagen and Stellantis, never addressing the PBO finding or the $2,000 figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader is desperate to demonstrate why not taking action and not fighting climate change is the best solution for Canadians. Canadians only have to look out the window at wildfires, atmospheric rivers and intense hurricanes such as Fiona to know that we have to continue to step up in the fight against climate change. What we have been able to do is not only return more money with a rebate, including $1,000 a year in the riding of Carleton for the average family of four, but also move forward on drawing in investments like Volkswagen, Rio Tinto, Stellantis and others that continue to invest in growing the economy of Canadaâ
Gazan asks why the Prime Minister is not acting with urgency, citing a CBC report card showing only two of 231 calls for justice have been fully implemented, and demands implementation of all calls for justice and a red dress alert system.
Gazan cites a specific CBC report card, the concrete figure of only two of 231 calls for justice implemented, and identifies a specific mechanism â a red dress alert system â making the question factually grounded with a clear ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a CBC report card on the government's progress in implementing the calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls gave a failing grade. Only two of the 231 calls for justice have been fully implemented to date. This is unacceptable. The Liberals must implement all the calls for justice now and put in place a red dress alert system to keep indigenous women, girls and diverse-gendered folks safe. Why is the Prime Minister not acting with urgency in the face of an ongoing genocide?
Trudeau cites $125 million for the MMIWG national action plan, the appointment of a special representative for an indigenous and human rights ombudsperson, $4 billion for indigenous housing, and confirms work is under way on a red dress alert.
Trudeau responds with specific dollar figures ($125 million for the national action plan, $4 billion for indigenous housing), mentions the appointment of a special representative, and confirms the government is working to implement a red dress alert, partially addressing the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our hearts are with survivors and families of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people. Addressing this ongoing violence requires living up to our goals as a country and all the calls for justice. We are taking a whole-of-government approach, including $125 million to implement the national action plan for MMIWG, the appointment of a special rep to consult on the creation of an indigenous and human rights ombudsperson, and $4 billion to support indigenous housing needs. We are also working to implement a red dress alert. We agree that there is always more to do, but we are taking this seriously and working in partnership with indigenous peoples right across the country.
Gazan asks when the Prime Minister will implement the red dress alert and the remaining calls to justice, noting it has been almost four years since the national inquiry and only two calls to justice have been addressed.
Gazan sharpens her ask by referencing the four-year timeline since the national inquiry, the House's unanimous recognition of the violence as a Canada-wide emergency, and repeats the specific red dress alert demand, though the question largely reiterates the previous exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have had enough with the platitudes. We need action now. The Prime Minister acknowledged this as an ongoing genocide. The House unanimously recognized the violence against indigenous women, girls and diverse-gendered folks as a Canada-wide emergency. It has been almost four years since the national inquiry. Only two calls to justice have been addressed. When will the Prime Minister implement the red dress alert and the remaining calls to justice? We are a target. Our lives are on the line. Our lives matter.
Trudeau defends $4 billion in indigenous housing investments, cites $100 million to create 22 new indigenous shelters and transitional homes, and says the government is working seriously on reconciliation, but gives no timeline for the red dress alert.
Trudeau defends the $4 billion housing investment and the $100 million for 22 new indigenous shelters and transitional homes but does not give a timeline for the red dress alert or address the specific count of calls to justice implemented, and pivots to praising indigenous leaders.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I understand how much more there is to do, but to dismiss $4 billion in housing investments for indigenous people as platitudes is not doing justice to the incredible indigenous leaders who are working across the country to deliver for their citizens, in partnership with the federal government. It dismisses the hard work indigenous leaders are doing to create more housing, more safe spaces, and more shelters, with $100 million to create 22 new indigenous shelters and transitional homes. Those are not platitudes. We are working seriously, and we look forward to continuing to work with all members in the House on reconciliation.
Shanahan asks the Prime Minister to inform constituents of Notre-Dame-de-GrĂąceâWestmount and Winnipeg South Centre what their new Liberal MPs will fight for, framing it around Monday's byelection results.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the PM to congratulate newly elected Liberal MPs and describe their priorities, with no accountability element whatsoever.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, Canadians clearly rejected the Conservative partyâs failed approach under their new leadership and instead opted in favour of delivering real results for Canadians today and for generations to come. Whether in Quebec, the Prairies or southwestern Ontario, we see Canadians supporting the Liberal governmentâs approach to creating jobs and creating and ensuring a clean, growing economy of the future. Can the Prime Minister inform constituentsâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, I can bring it home. On Monday, Canadians clearly rejected the Conservative Party's failed approach under its new leadership and instead opted in favour of delivering real results for Canadians today and for generations to come. Whether in Quebec, the Prairies or southwestern Ontario, we see Canadians supporting this Liberal government's approach to creating jobs and ensuring a clean, growing economy of the future. Can the Prime Minister inform the constituents of Notre-Dame-de-GrĂąceâWestmount and Winnipeg South Centre of what their new Liberal members of Parliament will fight for?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie la dĂ©putĂ©e de ChĂąteauguayâLacolle de sa question et de son travail acharnĂ©. J'aimerais fĂ©liciter tous les candidats des rĂ©centes Ă©lections partielles. J'ai trĂšs hĂąte d'accueillir Anna Gainey et Ben CarrâŠ
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for ChĂąteauguayâLacolle for her question and for her hard work. I would like to congratulate all the candidates in the recent by-elections. I look forward to welcoming Anna Gainey and Ben Carrâ
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie la dĂ©putĂ©e de ChĂąteauguayâLacolle de sa question et de son travail acharnĂ©. J'aimerais fĂ©liciter tous les candidats des rĂ©centes Ă©lections partielles. J'ai trĂšs hĂąte d'accueillir Anna Gainey et Ben Carr Ă la Chambre. Communities in Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba had a choice between the Conservative Party's divisive rhetoric, austerity and cuts, or our plan to continue to strengthen the middle class, make life more affordable, fight climate change and so much more. There is a lot more hard work left ahead of us, and our team will be even stronger with these two new, strong voices in Ottawa.
Trudeau congratulates all byelection candidates, welcomes Anna Gainey and Ben Carr to the House, and says communities chose the Liberal plan to strengthen the middle class, make life more affordable, and fight climate change over Conservative divisive rhetoric and cuts.
Trudeau names the two new Liberal MPs â Anna Gainey and Ben Carr â explains the choice voters made in the byelections, and outlines the government's priorities of strengthening the middle class, affordability, and fighting climate change, providing some real informational content.
Poilievre asks whether the Prime Minister will eliminate his inflationary deficits to reduce mortgage interest rates and allow Canadians to keep their homes, citing the Bank of Canada's projection of a 40% increase in mortgage payments and the IMF identifying Canada as the country most at risk of a default crisis.
Poilievre cites the Bank of Canada's projection of a 40% increase in mortgage payments and the IMF's characterization of Canada as the country most at risk of a payment default crisis, grounding the question in named institutions, though the ask conflates deficits with interest rates in a debatable causal claim.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les augmentations exorbitantes des taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt de l'annĂ©e derniĂšre sont incroyables et sans prĂ©cĂ©dent. Elles ont Ă©tĂ© causĂ©es par le dĂ©ficit inflationniste de ce gouvernement. Les Canadiens s'inquiĂštent de perdre leur maison. Selon la Banque du Canada, le Canadien moyen peut voir une augmentation de 40 % de ses paiements hypothĂ©caires. Le Fonds monĂ©taire international dit que le Canada est le pays le plus Ă risque de vivre une crise de dĂ©fauts de paiement. Est-ce que le premier ministre va finalement Ă©liminer ses dĂ©ficits inflationnistes pour rĂ©duire les taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt sur les hypothĂšques et pour permettre aux Canadiens de garder leur maison?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, last year's exorbitant increases in interest rates were incredible and unprecedented. They were caused by this government's inflationary deficit. Canadians are worried about losing their homes. According to the Bank of Canada, the average Canadian could see a 40% increase in their mortgage payments. The International Monetary Fund says that Canada is the country most at risk of experiencing a default crisis. Will the Prime Minister finally eliminate his inflationary deficits to lower interest rates on mortgages and ensure that Canadians can keep their homes?
Trudeau says Canada has the lowest deficit in the G7, the best debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and a AAA credit rating, arguing the fiscal approach is responsible while also investing in low-income Canadians, housing and municipalities.
Trudeau responds with specific comparative fiscal metrics â lowest deficit in the G7, best debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and AAA credit rating â which directly contest Poilievre's inflationary deficit framing, though he does not address the Bank of Canada or IMF figures cited.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous avons le dĂ©ficit le plus bas du G7. Nous avons le meilleur ratio dette-PIB du G7 et nous gardons une cote AAA selon les agences d'Ă©valuation partout au monde. Nous avons une approche fiscalement responsable pour protĂ©ger notre Ă©conomie et crĂ©er de la croissance. En mĂȘme temps, nous investissons pour appuyer les Canadiens Ă faible revenu, pour aider les gens Ă acheter un nouveau logement, et nous investissons aussi avec les municipalitĂ©s pour crĂ©er plus de logements, plus de construction de nouveaux appartements et logements.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have the lowest deficit in the G7. We have the best debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and we still have a AAA rating from rating agencies around the world. We are taking a fiscally responsible approach to protecting our economy and creating growth. At the same time, we are investing to support low-income Canadians, to help people buy new homes, and we are also investing with municipalities to create more housing and to build more new apartments and housing units.
Poilievre asks the PM to eliminate his inflationary deficits to bring down mortgage rates, citing that housing payments now require over 60% of a family's pre-tax income and that a possible summer bank rate increase could push Canadians to bankruptcy.
Poilievre cites the specific threshold of over 60% of pre-tax income for average housing payments and a potential 40% increase in monthly payments from another possible bank rate increase, but largely repeats the previous exchange's ask, reducing its accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister, it now takes well over 60% of a family's pre-tax income to make monthly payments on an average house. That is mathematically impossible, but it is possibly about to get worse. The Prime Minister's inflationary deficits are driving up interest rates faster than at any time since any of us have been alive. This means that Canadians could face 40% increases in their monthly payments. There may be another bank rate increase this summer that could push Canadians to bankruptcy. Before Canadians lose their homes, will he get rid of his inflationary deficits to bring down those terrible mortgage rates?
Trudeau repeats that Canada has the lowest deficits in the G7, the best debt-to-GDP ratio, and a AAA credit rating shared only with Germany and the United States among large economies, and contrasts this with Conservative cuts to programs and services.
Trudeau reiterates the G7 lowest deficit, best debt-to-GDP ratio, and AAA credit rating from Germany, the US and Canada, adding a contrast with Conservative cuts, but still does not engage the 60% income threshold figure or the potential summer rate increase.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada has the lowest deficits in the G7. We have the best debt-to-GDP ratio, and the lowest one in the G7 as well. We are one of the three largest economies in the world, along with Germany and the United States, to have a AAA credit rating from the bond rating agencies. Our fiscal plan is sustainable, even as we continue to invest to support low-income Canadians, to support municipalities in building more housing, and to move forward with a plan, while the Conservative Party, once again, continues to talk about cuts to programs, cuts to services and cuts for Canadians.
Poilievre asks when Canada will get its $200 million back from the Asian Infrastructure Bank, which he describes as controlled by Beijing and designed to build the infrastructure of Beijing's Communist empire, citing statements from the bank's own executives that they could not find a single tangible benefit to Canada.
Poilievre cites a specific dollar amount ($210 million to the Asian Infrastructure Bank), names the institution as controlled by Beijing, references a five-year-old warning and quotes from the bank's own executives speaking out against it, with a clear single ask about getting the $200 million back.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada has the worst household debt in the G7, by far the worst, and that debt risks blowing up when rates rise. One of the ways the Prime Minister has been wasting money is that he gave $210 million to the Asian infrastructure bank, which is controlled by Beijing and designed to build the infrastructure of Beijing's Communist empire throughout Asia. We warned him five years ago and now some of that bank's own executives are speaking out against it. He claims he is stalling his involvement in the bank, but the real question is this: When will we get our $200 million back?
Trudeau says Canada has long invested in global infrastructure through multilateral development banks, that the government is reviewing participation in the Asian Infrastructure Bank, and will make the decision right for Canadians, without addressing the $200 million recovery.
Trudeau defends involvement in multilateral development banks for climate and growth reasons, acknowledges the review of participation in the Asian Infrastructure Bank, but gives no timeline or commitment to recovering the funds, and does not address the executive's quote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada has long been involved in investing in infrastructure around the world because we know that it creates growth and opportunity in the global south. It continues to contribute to fighting climate change, as people are building more resilient infrastructure and indeed energy infrastructure. We are part of multilateral development banks all around the world. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, we are reviewing our participation in the Asian infrastructure bank, and we will make the decision that is right for Canadians.
Poilievre asks when Canadians will get their $200 million back from the Asian Infrastructure Bank, quoting one of the bank's own executives who said he could not find 'a single, tangible benefit to communicate back home here to Canada' consistent with Canadian values.
Poilievre directly quotes an executive of the Asian Infrastructure Bank saying there is not 'a single, tangible benefit to communicate back home here to Canada' and repeats the specific $200 million figure with a clear ask, though it largely repeats the previous exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he is defending the $200 million he gave to a bank, one of whose executives said, âI didn't find a single, tangible benefit to communicate back home here to Canada of what this bank does that is consistent with our values in a way that would benefit Canadians.â While Canadians are starving and cannot heat their homes, he is forcing them to give $200 million to this bank controlled by Beijing to expand a Communist empire in Asia. When will Canadians get their $200 million back from this Liberal-friendly bank?
Trudeau says the government is evaluating continued participation in this multilateral development bank controlled by Beijing and is looking carefully at its positive global impact and support for the global south, without addressing the quoted executive or the return of funds.
Trudeau says the government is evaluating continued participation in this 'multilateral development bank controlled by Beijing' and discusses positive global impacts, but does not address the quoted executive's criticism or give any commitment to recovering the funds.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are evaluating our continued participation in this multilateral development bank controlled by Beijing. We continue to look very carefully at how we are having a positive impact around the world with investments in infrastructure and how we are delivering for Canadians in the fight against climate change, in growth around the world that benefits Canadians and in participation in supports for the global south.
Villemure asks whether the Prime Minister will finally announce a public and independent inquiry into foreign interference, noting that the session's defining story was four months lost by the Liberals resisting such an inquiry.
Villemure grounds the question in a concrete parliamentary record â four months spent resisting a public inquiry â and frames it as a clear yes/no ask about announcing a public independent inquiry, though it relies partly on the characterizations of outside observers rather than a specific document.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les bilans de session des observateurs de la politique fĂ©dĂ©rale sont identiques. L'histoire de la session, ce sont les quatre mois perdus par les libĂ©raux Ă tenter d'Ă©viter une commission d'enquĂȘte sur l'ingĂ©rence chinoise. D'ailleurs, cette perte de temps, c'est ce que tout le monde retient Ă cause de l'obstination de ce gouvernement Ă continuer de dĂ©fier la volontĂ© populaire et la Chambre. Il est plus que temps de passer Ă une autre Ă©tape. Le gouvernement dit faire preuve d'ouverture et le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois collabore. Le premier ministre va-t-il enfin annoncer une commission d'enquĂȘte publique et indĂ©pendante sur l'ingĂ©rence Ă©trangĂšre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, observers of federal politics have come to the same conclusion about this session. They call it four months of time wasted by the Liberals on trying to avoid an inquiry into Chinese interference. A waste of time is what everyone is taking away from this government's stubborn defiance of the will of the people and of the House. It is high time we moved on to the next steps. The government says it is open to ideas, and the Bloc Québécois is co-operating. Will the Prime Minister finally announce the launch of an independent public inquiry into foreign interference?
Trudeau says fighting foreign interference must remain non-partisan, that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has spoken to the opposition leader about the path forward, and that when there is a non-politicized consensus, steps will be taken together.
Trudeau says the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has spoken to the opposition leader about a path forward and that action will be taken when there is a consensus that is not politicized, which is tangential to the specific ask of announcing an inquiry and does not commit to one.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la lutte contre l'ingérence étrangÚre dans nos institutions démocratiques est et devra rester un enjeu non partisan. Le ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales a parlé au chef de l'opposition concernant la voie à suivre. Quand il va y avoir un consensus entourant une voie à suivre qui ne sera pas politisée, nous allons prendre ces mesures ensemble.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the fight against foreign interference in our democratic institutions is and must remain a non-partisan issue. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities has spoken to the Leader of the Opposition about a way forward. Once we reach a consensus on a way forward, free from political overtones, we will be able to take steps together.
Gaudreau asks the Prime Minister to announce the public inquiry into foreign interference, arguing that the conditions are perfectly aligned â BQ collaboration, NDP support, constructive ministerial discussions â and that the commission should get to work.
Gaudreau makes a concrete case that conditions are aligned â BQ collaboration, NDP support, constructive ministerial talks â and asks for an announcement of the inquiry, but the question is largely a continuation of the previous exchange without new factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, tout est pourtant dĂ©jĂ en place pour qu'on puisse passer Ă autre chose. Le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois collabore. Le premier ministre sait qu'il peut compter sur le NPD pour faire tout ce qu'il dĂ©sire. La population est derriĂšre nous. Le ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales discute constructivement avec les oppositions, ce que nous saluons. Si le premier ministre a bien l'intention de lancer une commission d'enquĂȘte, il ne trouvera jamais meilleur alignement des astres. Le premier ministre va-t-il enfin annoncer cette commission pour qu'elle se mette enfin au travail et que nous puissions tous enfin passer au prochain appel?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, everything is already in place so that we can move on to other things. The Bloc Québécois is collaborating. The Prime Minister knows that he can count on the NDP to do whatever he wants. We have the public's support. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is having constructive discussions with the opposition parties, which we commend. If the Prime Minister really intends to launch a public inquiry, the stars could not be better aligned to do so. Will the Prime Minister finally announce that he is launching a public inquiry so that the work can finally be done and we can all move on to something else?
Trudeau says work on foreign interference continues through the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, and that coordination with opposition parties is under way to find a process that will not end in partisan attacks.
Trudeau lists existing oversight bodies â the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency â and says coordination with opposition parties is under way to avoid partisan toxicity, but does not commit to announcing an inquiry.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le travail continue de se faire pour contrer l'ingérence étrangÚre, effectivement, par le Comité des parlementaires sur la sécurité nationale et le renseignement, par l'Office de surveillance des activités en matiÚre de sécurité nationale et de renseignement et par d'autres instances. Oui, nous voulons bien travailler avec les partis de l'opposition. Je remercie les partis de leur collaboration jusqu'à maintenant. Cependant, les Canadiens savent trÚs bien que nous avons besoin d'un processus qui ne va pas finir en attaque partisane ou en toxicité comme ce fut le cas du dernier essai. C'est pour cela que nous nous coordonnons avec les autres partis pour avoir quelque chose qui va fonctionner et pour prendre cela au sérieux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to work to counter foreign interference, mainly through the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and other bodies. Yes, we want to work with the opposition parties. I thank them for their co-operation to date. However, Canadians are well aware that we need a process that will not end in partisan attacks and toxicity, as it did on the last attempt. That is why we are coordinating with the other parties to come up with something that will work so that the issue can be taken seriously.
Poilievre asks whether the Prime Minister will recover the nearly $200 million invested in the Asian infrastructure bank, which the Prime Minister himself admitted is controlled by Beijing.
Poilievre cites a specific dollar figure ($200 million / quarter-billion), references the Prime Minister's own admission about Beijing control, and asks a clear yes-or-no question about recovering the funds.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just admitted that the Asian infrastructure bank is âcontrolled by Beijingâ. He says he is not going to get our money back. He is just going to review our participation. While Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves, he is forcing them to give almost a quarter-billion dollars to this Beijing-backed bank. Je pose la question: est-ce que le premier ministre va reprendre nos 200 millions de dollars de cette banque qu'il avoue ĂȘtre contrĂŽlĂ©e par PĂ©kin?
Trudeau says Canada is re-evaluating its participation in the bank and will share conclusions with Canadians when the evaluation is complete, without committing to recovering funds.
Trudeau acknowledges the review is under way but does not address whether Canada will recover the money, instead pivoting to broader infrastructure investment rationale.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, notre engagement envers la construction d'infrastructures Ă travers le monde, particuliĂšrement dans les pays du Sud Ă©mergents, continue. Nous sommes prĂ©sents pour des investissements, pour des routes, pour des centrales d'Ă©nergie et d'autres choses Ă travers le Sud et nous allons continuer de l'ĂȘtre. Effectivement, nous sommes en train de rĂ©Ă©valuer notre participation Ă cette banque asiatique d'investissement. Nous allons partager avec les Canadiens nos conclusions quand nous finirons cette Ă©valuation.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we remain committed to building infrastructure around the world, particularly in emerging southern nations. We are there for investments, for roads, for power plants and other things across the south, and we will continue to be. Yes, we are in the process of reassessing our participation in this Asian investment bank. We will share our findings with Canadians when we complete the assessment.
Poilievre asks whether the Prime Minister will finally announce a public inquiry into Beijing's interference in Canada's democracy before the next election.
Poilievre references a specific upcoming meeting tomorrow, states Conservative readiness to cooperate, and asks a direct yes-or-no question about whether a public inquiry into Beijing interference will be announced.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au sujet de la question de l'ingĂ©rence de PĂ©kin dans notre dĂ©mocratie, j'ai dĂ©jĂ parlĂ© au ministre de ce premier ministre pour indiquer l'appui du Parti conservateur. Nous sommes prĂȘts Ă fournir les noms et les mandats dĂšs que le premier ministre annoncera le dĂ©clenchement d'une enquĂȘte publique. Demain, le ministre veut avoir un appel avec des membres de l'opposition. Est-ce que, finalement, le premier ministre va annoncer une enquĂȘte publique en ce qui concerne l'ingĂ©rence de PĂ©kin pour qu'on puisse protĂ©ger notre dĂ©mocratie avant la tenue des prochaines Ă©lections?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on the issue of Beijing's interference in our democracy, I have already spoken to the minister to indicate the Conservative Party's support. We are ready to provide the names and mandates as soon as the Prime Minister announces a public inquiry. Tomorrow, the minister wants to have a call with members of the opposition. Will the Prime Minister finally announce a public inquiry into Beijing's interference so that we can protect our democracy before the next election?
Trudeau says he recognizes opposition parties are now in a position to collaborate but wants guarantees about the framework and the person leading the work before proceeding.
Trudeau acknowledges opposition willingness to collaborate but conditions progress on guarantees about process and personnel, deflecting from the direct question of whether a public inquiry will be called.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je reconnais que les partis de l'opposition sont maintenant en position de collaborer pour établir un processus qui va bien fonctionner. Ayant vu comment les partis de l'opposition se sont comportés dans les derniers mois face à un ancien gouverneur général réputé, nous voulons des garanties que tout le monde est d'accord au sujet de l'encadrement et de la personne qui mÚnera les travaux afin qu'on ne retombe pas dans des attaques personnelles qui vont miner la confiance des Canadiens envers nos institutions.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the opposition parties are now in a position to work together to establish a process that will work well. Given how the opposition parties have behaved in recent months toward an esteemed former governor general, we want guarantees that everyone agrees on the framework and the individual who will conduct the work so that we do not go back to personal attacks that will undermine Canadians' trust in our institutions.
Poilievre asks whether the Prime Minister will commit to paying for his own vacations this summer, citing a $61,000 hotel bill for a New York weekend trip.
Poilievre cites a specific cost figure ($61,000 for hotels), identifies a specific trip (New York weekend), and asks a pointed question about whether the PM will pay for his own vacations, though the framing is partially rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister jetted off to New York for a weekend with celebrities, and now we know the price tag. While Canadians cannot eat, heat or house themselves, he stuck them with a $61,000 bill just for hotels for himself and his entourage. It was one weekend and $61,000 of fun. Canadians cannot pay their own bills and they certainly cannot afford to pay his. Will he commit to paying for his own vacations this summer?
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Conservative Party no longer resembles that led by Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney or even Stephen Harper. The leader of the official opposition is taking the Conservatives into the ditch on the far right to outflank Max Bernier by spewing conspiracy theories about the World Economic Forum, supporting candidates who are against reproductive rights and promoting hate against LGBTQ+ communities. It is the same playbook we have seen in the United States. Can the Prime Minister reassure my constituents, including those who identify as Progressive Conservatives, that our Liberal government is the best vehicle to drive Canada forward?
Trudeau says the New York trip was mid-week official business to meet Ursula von der Leyen and Mia Mottley on the economy and climate change, noting former PM Harper also attended meetings with the same organization.
Trudeau identifies his meeting partners (Ursula von der Leyen and Mia Mottley) and reframes the trip as mid-week official business, mentioning former PM Harper attended the same organization's meetings, but does not address the hotel cost or the question of personal payment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to be in New York to meet with Ursula von der Leyen and Mia Mottley to engage in important conversations about the future of our economy and the fight against climate change. These are things that matter. It was a mid-week trip, and I happen to know that former prime minister Harper was also attending meetings, at the same time we were down there, with the same organization. These are things that matter in terms of Canada's leadership in the world. They matter in terms of outcomes for Canadians. We will continue to do the work that Canadians expect of this government to lead on the global stage.
Poilievre asks whether the Prime Minister will commit to firing the public safety minister, citing a 32% violent crime increase, misleading hunters on rifle bans, and withholding information about a notorious killer's prison transfer.
Poilievre cites three specific charges against the public safety minister (32% violent crime increase, misleading hunters on rifles, sitting on information about Paul Bernardo's transfer) and asks a direct question about firing him, though the compound framing reduces precision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister has presided over a 32% increase in violent crime under the government. The public safety minister misled hunters when he planned to ban their rifles. The public safety minister sat on information about the transfer of one of Canada's most notorious killers to have more freedom and comfort by getting him out of a maximum-security prison when he could have passed a law to prevent it. Will the Prime Minister commit today to firing his incompetent public safety minister?
Trudeau attacks the Conservative leader for hand-picking candidates who want to take away Canadians' freedoms on love, abortion, and movement, without addressing any of the allegations against the minister.
Trudeau does not address any of the three specific allegations or the question of the minister's tenure, instead attacking the Conservative leader over candidate selection and reproductive rights.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader talks about freedom, but he is all talk, no walk on freedom when he hand-picks candidates who want to take away Canada's freedoms. Let me be very clear. In Canada, everyone has the freedom to love who they love, everyone has the freedom to choose what they do with their own bodies, with safe access to abortion, andâ
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader is all talk, no walk when it comes to freedom when he hand-picks candidates who want to take away Canadians' freedoms. Let me be very clear. In Canada, everyone has the freedom to love who they love, everyone has the freedom to choose what they do with their own bodies, with safe access to abortion, and everyone has the freedom to move safely in their communities without damaging blockades. On this side of the House and in our candidates, we will always stand up for Canadians' freedoms.
Poilievre asks whether the Prime Minister will fire the public safety minister, arguing Bill C-83 enabled Paul Bernardo's transfer and that the minister's office knew about it for three months.
Poilievre makes a specific legislative claim about Bill C-83 enabling Paul Bernardo's transfer, asserts the minister's office knew three months in advance, and asks a direct yes-or-no question about firing the minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the only thing the Prime Minister has done is free Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security penitentiary into relative freedom in a place where he can have access to other people and where he has more comforts and can put guards in danger. The Prime Minister interfered with Corrections Canada's decisions by introducing Bill C-83, which allowed this kind of transfer to go ahead. The Minister of Public Safety knew of the transfer, or his office knew at least, for three months while he claimed that they could not walk down the hallway and tell him. He is incompetent. Will the Prime Minister fire him, yes or no?
Trudeau says the transfer decision was independent and made by the Correctional Service of Canada, and that following outreach by the Minister of Public Safety, the commissioner ordered an additional review now under way.
Trudeau acknowledges the difficulty for victims' families, confirms the transfer decision is independent of Correctional Service of Canada, and states the commissioner ordered an additional review following minister outreach â partially addressing the accountability question but not the firing question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know how difficult this decision is for families of the victims. We share the deep concerns that Canadians have been expressing. The decision to transfer incarcerated persons is an independent decision made by the Correctional Service of Canada. Following outreach by the Minister of Public Safety, the commissioner ordered an additional review, which is under way and will be completed soon.
Poilievre asks whether the public safety minister will still have his job in the fall, arguing the minister could have issued directives or adopted the Conservative law requiring mass murderers to stay in maximum-security penitentiaries.
Poilievre makes a specific claim that the minister can issue directives to keep mass murderers in maximum security, references a specific Conservative bill, and asks a direct yes-or-no question about whether the minister will still have his job in the fall.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister can actually order reviews, which means he can also issue directives to ensure that all mass murderers are kept in maximum-security penitentiaries. He could also adopt our law today, which would require that every mass murderer stay in a maximum-security penitentiary. That would be an apolitical way to solve the problem, but the Liberals have not done that, even though the minister knew about this problem, or ought to have known, three months ago. Can the Prime Minister confirm this: Will the public safety minister still have that job when we come back here in the fall?
Trudeau says supporting victims is top of mind, that after learning of the transfer the minister was in touch with the commissioner, and that the commissioner has ordered an additional review now under way.
Trudeau repeats that the minister contacted the commissioner and that an additional review is under way, without addressing the question of the minister's job security or engaging with the directive-issuing argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, being there and supporting victims is always top of mind for this government. After learning of the transfer, the minister was in touch with the commissioner, and the commissioner has ordered an additional review, which is now under way and will be completed soon.
Liberal MP Weiler asks the Prime Minister to update the House on the forthcoming release of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act action plan on National Indigenous Peoples Day.
This is a government-backbench softball that praises indigenous achievements in the member's riding and asks for an update on the forthcoming UNDRIP action plan release, serving as a setup rather than an accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today on National Indigenous Peoples Day, we recognize and celebrate the important contributions of indigenous peoples to our country, as well as the diverse culture, language and heritage of indigenous peoples. In my riding, I think of the work of the Lil'wat Nation to restore language to their education programs, the shĂshĂĄlh Nation becoming the first self-governing nation in Canada and obtaining justice for day scholars, and the transformative developments of the Squamish Nation with the Senakw housing development, done in a way that highlights their heritage. While much work has been done on the road to reconciliation, much remains to be done together. Can the Prime Minister please update this House on the forthcoming release of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act action plan?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for West VancouverâSunshine CoastâSea to Sky Country for his hard work. Today, on National Indigenous Peoples Day, we released our action plan to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, developed in partnership with first nations, Inuit and MĂ©tis. The Conservative leader voted against that bill and associated himself with those who deny the realities of residential schools. Canada cannot go backwards. We must always choose to confront the truth and strive to right these wrongs.
Trudeau announces that the action plan to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act was released today, developed in partnership with first nations, Inuit and MĂ©tis.
Trudeau provides a substantive answer confirming the action plan was released today, developed in partnership with first nations, Inuit and MĂ©tis, though he appends a partisan attack on the Conservative leader.
Desjarlais asks when the Liberal government will properly invest in a 'for indigenous, by indigenous' housing strategy, citing statistics that indigenous people are 11 times more likely to use a shelter or live in inadequate homes.
Desjarlais cites specific statistics (58% of houseless in Edmonton identify as indigenous; 11 times more likely to use a shelter), identifies a clear policy ask â a 'for indigenous, by indigenous' housing strategy â and asks when it will be implemented.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in Edmonton, 58% of those currently houseless identify as indigenous. Under the Liberal government, indigenous people are now 11 times more likely to use a shelter or live in inadequate homes than non-indigenous people. The New Democrats have been calling on the government to address the housing crisis that first nations, Inuit and MĂ©tis communities have had to deal with. When will the Liberal government finally start to invest properly in a âfor indigenous, by indigenousâ housing strategy so that everyone can live with safety and dignity?
Trudeau says budget 2023 commits $4 billion to a co-developed urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy, on top of $6.7 billion invested since 2015.
Trudeau directly answers 'when' by pointing to budget 2023, cites specific dollar amounts ($4 billion additional and $6.7 billion since 2015), and references a co-developed urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy, though does not elaborate on implementation timelines.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question of âwhenâ is in budget 2023. That is exactly what we did. We committed to working with indigenous peoples to co-develop an urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy. Budget 2023 includes an additional investment of $4 billion in this indigenous housing strategy, on top of the $6.7 billion since 2015. Housing remains a top priority as part of reconciliation. We will continue to work with partners on this right.
Vuong asks how much the clean fuel regulation will cost Canadians per litre, noting British Columbians already pay 17Âą per litre and citing independent analysis that it increases net greenhouse gas emissions.
Vuong cites a specific per-litre cost in British Columbia (17Âą), references independent analysis claiming the clean fuel regulation increases net greenhouse gas emissions, and asks a specific question about the cost to the rest of the country, though framed with partisan language.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada Day is quickly approaching. To celebrate, the Liberal government is giving the gift to Canadians of another tax, the clean fuel regulation, but the only things being cleaned are Canadians' pocketbooks, as independent analysis has found that it actually increases net greenhouse gas emissions, this time with no rebate. Thanks to the NDP, British Columbia already has one in place, which is costing British Columbians 17Âą per litre. Can the Prime Minister share with Canadians how much the rest of the country will have to pay for his overspending and for his latest tax grab?
Trudeau argues that the cost of inaction on climate change would be cataclysmic, citing extreme weather events, and says the carbon price puts more money back into Canadians' pockets through the climate action incentive four times a year.
Trudeau does not provide any cost figure for the clean fuel regulation, instead pivoting to climate change impacts (Hurricane Fiona, forest fires, atmospheric river) and describing the carbon price and climate action incentive without addressing the specific question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have seen across the country, whether with Hurricane Fiona on the east coast, with forest fires raging across the country with greater intensity than in previous years or with the atmospheric river that B.C. was hit with just a few years ago, that the cost of inaction on climate change would be cataclysmic. That is why we put forward a price on pollution that is bringing down our emissions and is going to allow us to reach our targets at the same time as we put more money back into the pockets of Canadians with the climate action incentive four times a year. We are supporting Canadians while we fight climate change.
Government House Leader Mark Holland moved a comprehensive motion governing end-of-session House business, covering the supply period and estimates, deferred votes, and the deemed passage or referral of several bills including Bill C-9, Bill S-8, Bill C-40, Bill C-42, and a new MĂ©tis governments recognition bill. The House agreed unanimously.
- Lib Mark Holland
- Some hon. members
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I move that notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House: (a) on the last allotted day in the supply period ending June 23, 2023, the proceedings on the opposition day motion shall conclude no later than 10:30 p.m., the House shall then proceed to the putting of the question on the motion and then, if required, the taking of any division or divisions necessary to dispose of the motion, and the Speaker shall then put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motions to concur in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, and to the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, and for the passage at all stages of any bill based on the said estimates; (b) notices of opposed items in relation to the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, and to the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, listed on the Notice Paper be deemed withdrawn; (c) the recorded divisions on government legislation currently deferred to the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions today be deemed further deferred to the conclusion of all proceedings in relation to the estimates tonight; (d) the motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons related to the appointment of Harriet Solloway as Public Sector Integrity Commissioner pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2) be deemed moved, a recorded vote be deemed requested and deferred after the recorded division on the motion for third reading of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts; (e) in relation to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, the amendment to the motion respecting Senate amendments made to the bill be deemed withdrawn and the motion respecting Senate amendments made to the bill, standing on the Notice Paper, be deemed adopted; (f) Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, be deemed read a third time and passed; (g) Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews), be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights; (h) Ways and Means Motion No. 18, notice of which was tabled on June 16, 2023, be deemed concurred in, a bill based thereon standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, entitled âAn Act respecting the recognition of certain MĂ©tis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to give effect to treaties with those governments and to make consequential amendments to other Actsâ, be deemed to have been introduced and read a first time, deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs; and (i) the written questions dated June 20, 2023, standing on the Notice Paper, be deemed to have been transferred to the Order Paper on Wednesday, June 21, 2023, for the purposes of Standing Order 39.
Agreed.
Brunelle-Duceppe sought unanimous consent for a motion regarding the forced deportation of thousands of children by Russia from Ukraine, referencing OSCE reporting and ICC arrest warrants against Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, but consent was denied.
This was a request for unanimous consent on a motion about Russian deportation of Ukrainian children, not a question period exchange; it was blocked before being fully read.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il y a eu consultation entre les partis. Je pense que vous constaterez qu'il y a consentement unanime Ă l'Ă©gard de la motion suivante: Ătant donnĂ© que 1) selon le rapport de l'Organisation pour la sĂ©curitĂ© et la coopĂ©ration en Europe, des milliers d'enfants ont Ă©tĂ© dĂ©portĂ©s de force par la Russie, de l'Ukraine vers la FĂ©dĂ©ration de Russie; 2) la Cour pĂ©nale internationale a lancĂ© des mandats d'arrĂȘt contre Vladmir Poutine et Maria LvovaâBelova...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties. I think that, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: Given that (1) according to the report of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, thousands of children have been forcibly deported by Russia from Ukraine to the Russian Federation; (2) the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria LvovaâBelovaâ
Non.
Hansard translation: Nay.
null
The motion was denied unanimous consent; there is no substantive answer to score.
Karen Vecchio raised a point of order alleging the Prime Minister directed an F-bomb at the member for Winnipeg Centre during Question Period and requested a formal apology; the Prime Minister denied saying anything after finishing his answer. Several other members attempted to move unanimous consent motions on topics including assaults against health care workers and first responders, the public safety minister appearing before committee, Bill C-320 on victims' rights, and tabling a Parliamentary Budget Office document, all of which were denied, and Mark Strahl withdrew earlier unparliamentary remarks.
- CPC Mrs. Karen Vecchio
- Lib Right Hon. Justin Trudeau
- Some hon. members
- Lib Mr. Kody Blois
- An hon. member
- Mr. Todd Doherty
- Mr. Glen Motz
- Mr. Colin Carrie
- Mr. Mark Strahl
- Mrs. Tracy Gray
- Ms. Lianne Rood
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I stand here in a bit of disbelief. Following some very difficult questions asked by my NDP colleague and friend from Winnipeg Centre, I watched, along with other members and colleagues, as the Prime Minister sat down and directed an F-bomb at the member for Winnipeg Centre, and a little bit more of that. Honestly, just play it back. I would ask for a formal apology and for the Prime Minister of Canada to stand and apologize to my female colleague and friend from Winnipeg Centre, especially on National Indigenous Peoples Day.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to let my answer to that question stand and say that I said absolutely nothing after finishing that answer.
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This afternoon I had the opportunity to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question. I started my question with a preamble and I supported it by facts, and then I asked the Prime Minister if I could hear how his government would administer differently the policies that are being articulated from the official opposition. I know this made the House leader quite upset, but I just want to see if I can have some parameters around how best I should frame my question. If I am not able to ask it, I would be very interested in hearing the right hon. Prime Minister's response.
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, an Ottawa police officer, Sergeant Eric Mueller, was ambushed with two of his colleagues three weeks ago. Eric Mueller lost his life. An Ottawa police officer was attacked this past weekend. A London fire chief was viciously assaulted while attending a fire emergency on the weekend. A nurse was punched and kicked this past weekend. On the last day of this session, we need to send a message to our first responders and frontline heroes that violence against them is unacceptable. Therefore, there have been discussions among parties, and I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to pass the following motion. I move that notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of this House, Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to assaults against health care professionals and first responders, be amended by replacing the term âhealth care professionalsâ with âhealth care workersâ throughout the entirety of the bill; be amended by replacing the term âfirst respondersâ with âpublic safety personnelâ throughout the entirety of the bill; be amended by adding after clause 269.02 on the definition of a health care worker, for the purpose of subclause (1), âhealth care worker includes any individual employed in a health careââ
No.
Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent that the Minister of Public Safety appear before the Standing Committee of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for two hours no later than Friday, June 23, regardingâ
No.
Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks, we have all agreed on the importance of victims' rights. Today I am asking for unanimous consent from the House to adopt the following motion: I move that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-320, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act on disclosure of information to victimsâ
No.
Mr. Speaker, the last time I spoke in the House, I used language that was deemed unparliamentary. I would like to withdraw those remarks and apologize to the Speaker for the disorder that they caused.
Mr. Speaker, this is on the point of order from my colleague for ElginâMiddlesexâLondon. I was also witness to the Prime Minister saying the F-word in question period today after his response to an opposition party member. This is shocking and unparliamentary language. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Prime Minister to apologize, because heâ
Mr. Speaker, during question period today, the Prime Minister kept deflecting on how the second carbon tax is going to hurt our farmers and put our food security and safety at risk. I would like unanimous consent to table the Parliamentary Budgetâ
No.
Several members sought unanimous consent for various motions, including Blake Desjarlais on rising hate and violence directed toward the 2SLGBTQI+ community, Michelle Rempel Garner on directing the government to provide complete answers to members, Andrew Scheer on tabling a quote from the Minister of Finance, Rick Perkins on the Volkswagen contracts being over budget, Jasraj Singh Hallan on tabling a document purporting to be the Liberals' plan to balance the budget, Dane Lloyd on ordering production of documents, and Randall Garrison seeking consent for Desjarlais to re-read his motion; all were denied. Todd Doherty also alleged the Speaker had made unparliamentary remarks toward a colleague.
- NDP Mr. Blake Desjarlais
- Some hon. members
- Michelle Rempel Garner
- Andrew Scheer
- Mr. Rick Perkins
- Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan
- Mr. Dane Lloyd
- Mr. Todd Doherty
- Mr. Randall Garrison
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, given the rising tide of hate and violence directed toward the 2SLGBTQIâ
No.
Mr. Speaker, in light of your ruling made yesterday, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, the house direct the government to provide complete answers to membersâ
No.
Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that there will be agreement on this one, because I would like to table a quote from the speech from the Minister of Finance from the fall economic update. She said that the government should notâ
No.
No.
Mr. Speaker, apparently the government members do not want me to thank you. As the House knows, I serve as the chair of the industry committee in the House. Through that role, I have had access to the two Volkswagen contracts that have beenâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, I will reinform the House that I serve as the vice-chair of the industry committee; as such, in that role, I have had access to the two Volkswagen contracts. Those two contracts, as we know the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said, are already $3 billion over budget, soâ
Mr. Speaker, I think I have intercepted what looks like the Liberals' plan to balance the budget, and I would like to table this document with the House today.
Mr. Speaker, the 10th time is the charm. I am seeking consent from the House that an order of the House to issue all memoranda, briefing notes, emailsâ
Oh, oh!
I rise on a point of order directed at you, Mr. Speaker. Uncharacteristically, you may have let your emotions get the better of you today, and you yelled something unparliamentary towards one of my colleagues across the way here. I thought maybe you would want to apologize.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for unanimous consent to allow the member for Edmonton Griesbach to read his unanimous consent motion to the House.
No.