Session overview
- Carbon pricing dominated the session, with Pierre Poilievre repeatedly citing Parliamentary Budget Officer testimony that 'the majority of households will see a negative impact as a result of the carbon tax' and demanding the Prime Minister either cancel the April 1 hike or call a carbon tax election.
- Justin Trudeau consistently defended the Canada carbon rebate by claiming eight out of 10 Canadian families in backstop provinces receive more money back than they pay, and invoked specific net benefit figures for Alberta ($723), Ontario ($255), and Newfoundland and Labrador ($303) per household.
- Yves-François Blanchet pressed the Prime Minister on Quebec's demand for full immigration powers, a $1-billion reimbursement for provincial services to asylum seekers, and federal interference in how municipalities use the Canada Community-Building Fund.
- The Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement received royal assent, with Trudeau accusing the Conservative leader of having 'turned his back on Ukrainians' by whipping his caucus and senators to vote against it; Poilievre countered by raising the government's authorization of gas turbine and detonator exports to Russia.
- NDP members raised concerns about cuts to women's shelter workers, the absence of a fully funded Canada disability benefit in the upcoming budget, a national school food program, and first nations housing gaps identified by the Auditor General.
- The Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act received royal assent, with Trudeau criticizing the Conservative leader for having 'ordered his members to obstruct and slow down' the legislation's passage.
For the first time in the session, the Prime Minister provided a concrete, specific figure â '$1,800 a year, for an average family of four, is the Canada carbon rebate' for Alberta â constituting an on-the-record government commitment to a specific rebate amount that Poilievre then used to calculate the net loss.
Poilievre cites a specific PBO figure of $1,605 in carbon tax costs to the average Nova Scotia family and notes a unanimous provincial legislature motion against the hike, then asks a precise and answerable numerical question: how much is the rebate?
Poilievre asked a specific factual question â how much is the rebate for the average Nova Scotia family given the PBO cost of $1,605 â and Trudeau answered entirely by explaining the backstop mechanism and provincial opt-out options, never stating the rebate figure.
Outstanding questions
- Pierre Poilievre asked how much the Canada carbon rebate is for the average Nova Scotia family, given that the Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated the cost to that family at $1,605 â the Prime Minister never provided that number (Exchange 10 and 11).
- Pierre Poilievre asked the Prime Minister how much of the $21 billion spent on outside consultants has been identified as fraud, beyond the $5 million already flagged by the department of public procurement (Exchange 35).
- Yves-François Blanchet asked whether the Prime Minister would reimburse Quebec the $1-billion bill for education, health, income security and childcare services provided to asylum seekers â Trudeau deflected to dental care for seniors without addressing the $1-billion reimbursement (Exchange 7).
- Blake Desjarlais asked when the Prime Minister would provide first nations communities with the resources they desperately need to close housing gaps identified as inhumane by the Auditor General â Trudeau acknowledged the report but made no specific new commitment (Exchange 9).
- Mike Morrice asked the Prime Minister to commit to a fully funded Canada disability benefit in budget 2024 â Trudeau said only that the government 'will have more to say in the coming months,' making no budget commitment (Exchange 40).
Poilievre asks whether the Prime Minister will reverse his inflationary deficits and taxes or face a non-confidence vote and a carbon tax election.
The question is dominated by partisan sloganeering ('conservateurs de gros bon sens,' 'premier ministre coûteux') with only a vague ask about reversing the April 1 carbon tax hike or facing a non-confidence vote.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les conservateurs de gros bon sens ont un plan pour réduire les taxes et les impÎts, bùtir des logements, réparer le budget et stopper les crimes. Pourtant, le premier ministre coûteux, avec l'appui du Bloc québécois, gonfle l'inflation avec les taxes et des déficits inflationnistes. Il veut encore des hausses de taxes le 1er avril. Est-ce que le premier ministre va renverser ses déficits et taxes inflationnistes ou est-ce qu'on va devoir le défaire avec un vote de censure et une élection sur les taxes et les impÎts?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, common-sense Conservatives have a plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. However, the costly Prime Minister, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, is making inflation rise with his taxes and inflationary deficits. He wants more tax hikes on April 1. Will the Prime Minister bring down his inflationary deficits and taxes, or will he have to be defeated with a non-confidence vote and an election over taxes?
Trudeau asserts that the Remise canadienne sur le carbone puts more money back into the pockets of 8 out of 10 families while fighting climate change.
Trudeau repeats the '8 familles sur 10' talking point and frames the carbon rebate positively but does not address the specific ask about the April 1 hike or the non-confidence threat.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la Remise canadienne sur le carbone remet plus d'argent dans les poches de 8 familles sur 10 d'un bout à l'autre du pays sous compétence fédérale. Nous donnons plus d'argent aux familles tout en luttant contre les changements climatiques. C'est ce que veulent la vaste majorité des Canadiens. Malheureusement, les conservateurs ne veulent pas aider à régler les problÚmes d'abordabilité, ils ne veulent pas lutter contre les changements climatiques. Heureusement, la majorité à la Chambre veut lutter contre les changements climatiques et donner plus d'argent aux citoyens. C'est ce que nous sommes en train de faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Canada carbon rebate puts more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 families across the country in areas where the federal tax applies. We are giving more money to families while fighting climate change. That is what the vast majority of Canadians want. Unfortunately, the Conservatives do not want to resolve affordability issues. They do not want to fight climate change. Fortunately, the majority of members in the House want to fight climate change and give people more money. That is what we are doing.
Citing the PBO's March 18 testimony that the majority of families are negatively impacted once economic effects are factored in, Poilievre asks whether Bloc MPs will vote for Quebec families or for the Prime Minister.
Poilievre cites the Parliamentary Budget Officer's March 18 committee testimony directly, making a specific factual claim that the majority of families are negatively impacted when economic effects are included, though the follow-up is directed at Bloc MPs rather than the Prime Minister.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est exactement le contraire de ce qu'a dit le directeur parlementaire du budget. Le 18 mars, il a dit en comité que lorsqu'on considÚre les impacts économiques, la majorité des familles sont négativement impactées par la taxe sur le carbone. Ce que le premier ministre dit n'est pas vrai. Les Canadiens vont payer plus. Il y a aussi une deuxiÚme taxe sur le carbone qui s'applique directement sur le dos des Québécois. Est-ce que les députés du Bloc québécois vont voter pour les familles québécoises ou est-ce qu'ils vont voter encore pour leur patron, le premier ministre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the opposite of what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. On March 18, he said in committee that when we consider the economic impact, most families will be negatively affected by the carbon tax. What the Prime Minister is saying is not true. Canadians are going to pay more. There is also a second carbon tax that applies directly on the backs of Quebeckers. Are the Bloc Québécois members going to vote for Quebec families or are they going to once again vote for their boss, the Prime Minister?
Trudeau argues that the costs of inaction on climate change are enormous and reiterates that the Remise canadienne sur le carbone puts more money back into 8 out of 10 families.
Trudeau pivots entirely to the costs of climate inaction (wildfires, floods, droughts) without engaging the PBO testimony or the specific claim that the majority of households face a net negative impact.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si le chef de l'opposition Ă©coutait parfois les Canadiens, il comprendrait que ceux-ci savent trĂšs bien que les coĂ»ts de l'inaction contre les changements climatiques sont Ă©normes. Il y a les feux de forĂȘt, les inondations, les sĂ©cheresses qui coĂ»tent Ă©normĂ©ment Ă nos fermiers, Ă nos agriculteurs, Ă nos pĂȘcheurs. C'est une rĂ©alitĂ© contre laquelle nous sommes en train de lutter tout en remettant plus d'argent dans les poches de 8 familles sur 10 partout au pays. La Remise canadienne sur le carbone produit des rĂ©sultats pour les familles canadiennes, et le Parti conservateur veut l'enlever.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition listened to Canadians once in a while, he would realize that they understand full well that the cost of inaction against climate change is enormous. Forest fires, floods, droughts, they all come at a high cost to our farmers and our fishers. This is a reality that we are dealing with, while putting more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 families across the country. The Canada carbon rebate is producing results for Canadian families, and the Conservative Party wants to eliminate it.
Poilievre quotes the PBO's March 18 testimony that the majority of households will see a negative impact from the carbon tax and asks whether the PM will spike the hike or face a carbon tax election.
Poilievre again quotes the PBO's testimony that 'the majority of households will see a negative impact as a result of the carbon tax' and poses a binary choice between spiking the hike or facing a non-confidence vote, giving it factual grounding but weakened by sloganeering.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, with the Parliamentary Budget Officer testifying again that âthe majority of households will see a negative impact as a result of the carbon tax.â Now, he wants to hike the tax on April Fool's Day. We will not stand for it. What will it be with the Prime Minister? Will he spike the hike, or will he face a non-confidence vote and a carbon tax election?
Trudeau claims the PBO report shows eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back than they pay and defends the plan as fighting climate change and making Canada more competitive.
Trudeau claims the PBO report 'lays out clearly that eight out of 10 Canadian families...get more money back every year,' directly contradicting the quoted testimony without addressing the economic-impact distinction the PBO made.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report lays out clearly that eight out of 10 Canadian families across the country, where the price on pollution applies, get more money back every year. That is how we put more money in the pockets of Canadians while having one of the strongest plans to fight climate change around the world. That is what the Conservative Party is standing against right now: money in the pockets of Canadian families and a real plan to fight climate change that is working, that is bringing down emissions, that is making us more competitive and that is helping build the future.
Reading verbatim from the PBO's March 18 testimony that once economic impacts are factored in the majority of households will see a negative impact, Poilievre asks whether the PM will spike the hike or face a carbon tax election.
Poilievre reads verbatim from the PBO's March 18 testimony, specifically including the qualifier 'Once you factor in the rebate but also the economic impacts,' making this a precise, document-grounded question with a clear binary ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am going to read again the testimony from the March 18 appearance of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He said, âOnce you factor in the rebate but also the economic impacts...the majority of households will see a negative impact as a result of the carbon tax.â The Prime Minister plans to make this problem worse with a carbon tax hike on heat, on homes, on fuel and on food. We will not stand for it. Once again, which will it be? Will he spike the hike, or will we have a carbon tax election?
Trudeau asserts that 80 per cent of Canadian households in federal carbon tax areas get more money from the Canada carbon rebate than they pay and says there is no Conservative plan for rebate cheques or climate change.
Trudeau restates the '80 per cent of Canadian households...get more money every year' figure without addressing the 'economic impacts' distinction central to the quoted PBO testimony.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what will it be? It will be that Canadians get more money with the Canada carbon rebate. Eighty per cent of Canadian households, in areas where the federal carbon tax applies, get more money every year from the Canada carbon rebate than they pay in the price on pollution. On top of that, we are fighting climate change, making our industries more competitive and preparing a better future. There is no plan on the Conservatives' side of the House to either help Canadians with rebate cheques or fight climate change.
Poilievre cites a PBO table showing middle-class families in every applicable province pay more in carbon taxes than they receive in rebates, and asks why not let Canadians decide in a carbon tax election.
Poilievre references a specific PBO table showing that middle-class families in every province where the tax applies pay more than they receive, grounding the question in a concrete data source, though the ask for a 'carbon tax election' is political rather than parliamentary.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, not only did the Parliamentary Budget Officer testify that the majority of households will pay more in carbon taxes than they get back in rebates, but there is also a table showing that, in every single province in which this tax applies, middle-class families pay vastly more than they get back. Canadians know it, because, under the Prime Minister, they have seen their food, their fuel, their homes and their heating go through the roof. Why do we not just end the debate and let Canadians decide and have a carbon tax election?
Trudeau reiterates that the Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly spelled out that eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back than they pay in the price on pollution.
Trudeau repeats the same '8 out of 10 families get more back' talking point without acknowledging or rebutting the specific PBO table Poilievre cited showing province-by-province net costs for middle-class families.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly spelled out that eight out of 10 Canadian families in areas where the price on pollution applies get more money back every year than they pay in the price on pollution. That is because we created a plan that not only is one of the strongest plans to fight climate change in the world but also puts more money back in the pockets of middle-class Canadians, as we build a stronger future, better careers, more competitiveness and a safer environment for generations to come. That is the plan we have. That is not what they are doing.
Noting that everyone at the Assemblée nationale except the Liberals supports giving Quebec full powers over immigration, Blanchet asks whether the PM's flat refusal of Legault's essential demand is his vision of friendship with Quebec.
Blanchet cites a unanimous Assemblée nationale position calling for Quebec to have all powers over immigration and asks whether the PM's refusal constitutes his idea of friendship with Quebec, making it a specific policy question tied to a concrete legislative record.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, le premier ministre nous a fait une bonne blague. Il nous a dit comment il s'entendait bien et collaborait merveilleusement avec le premier ministre du QuĂ©bec. Or, dans les faits, tout le monde Ă l'AssemblĂ©e nationale du QuĂ©bec, sauf â on sera surpris â les libĂ©raux, demande que QuĂ©bec ait tous les pouvoirs en matiĂšre d'immigration. Est-ce qu'un refus tout net et sans explication du premier ministre du Canada Ă une demande essentielle de François Legault est sa vision de l'amitiĂ© envers le QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister made a good joke. He told us about how well he gets along with the Premier of Quebec and how well they work together. The reality is that everyone in the Quebec National Assembly except the Liberalsâno surprise thereâis calling for Quebec to be given all powers over immigration. Is blatantly refusing François Legault's critical request without any explanation the Prime Minister of Canada's idea of friendship with Quebec?
Trudeau says Quebec already has more immigration powers than any other province and that he sat down with Premier Legault last Friday to agree to work together to meet Quebec's objectives.
Trudeau notes that Quebec already has more immigration powers than any other province and says he met with Premier Legault the previous Friday to agree to work together, partially engaging the question but not addressing the demand for full powers.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, mon honorable collĂšgue sait trĂšs bien que le QuĂ©bec a plus de pouvoir en immigration que nâimporte quelle autre province dans tout le Canada et que je me suis assis avec le premier ministre Legault vendredi passĂ© pour dire: oui, travaillons ensemble pour atteindre les objectifs des QuĂ©bĂ©cois et du gouvernement du QuĂ©bec. Nous sommes lĂ pour aider les entreprises et pour nous assurer que les services aux citoyens et le logement ne sont pas dĂ©bordĂ©s. Nous allons travailler main dans la main comme nous l'avons toujours fait. Nous sommes lĂ pour remplir nos engagements envers les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et tous les Canadiens, tous ensemble.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows full well that Quebec has more power over immigration than any other province in Canada and that I sat down with Premier Legault last Friday to say, yes, let us work together to meet the objectives of Quebeckers and the Government of Quebec. We are here to help businesses and to ensure that public services and housing are not overwhelmed. We will work hand in hand, as we have always done. We are here to deliver for Quebeckers and all Canadians, all together.
Blanchet states that the federal government promised to reimburse Quebec for education, health and social services costs for immigrants, that the bill has reached $1 billion, and asks why the PM refuses to pay while Quebec faces a large deficit.
Blanchet raises a specific and quantified claim â a $1 billion bill owed to Quebec for services rendered to immigrants â with the context of Quebec's current deficit, making it a concrete financial accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si le premier ministre est lĂ pour remplir ses engagements envers les QuĂ©bĂ©cois, câest un Ă©norme Ă©chec de plus Ă son bilan. Cependant, le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec a payĂ© lâĂ©ducation, la santĂ©, la sĂ©curitĂ© du revenu, les services de garde et lâensemble des services de lâĂtat. Le gouvernement libĂ©ral a dit au QuĂ©bec de payer ça, et qu'il allait le rembourser. La facture est rendue Ă 1 milliard de dollars et il dit, pendant que le QuĂ©bec a un Ă©norme dĂ©ficit: arrange-toi avec le milliard de dollars, je ne te le donnerai pas, et parce que tu es mon ami, va-t'en chez vous.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is here to deliver for Quebeckers, then that is another epic fail to add to his record. The Government of Quebec has paid for education, health, income security, child care and all government services. The Liberal government told Quebec to pay for it and said that it would pay Quebec back. The bill has reached $1 billion, but now that Quebec has a huge deficit on its hands, the Liberal government is saying, âFind the $1 billion yourself. I will not be giving it to you because we are such good friends. Now scramâ.
Trudeau cautions Blanchet against claiming to represent more Quebecers than the Liberals do and pivots to federal health transfers as evidence of working in partnership with Quebec.
Trudeau entirely ignores the $1 billion reimbursement claim, instead questioning Blanchet's right to speak for Quebecers and pivoting to federal health transfers, making this a near-complete deflection.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je ferais attention, si jâĂ©tais le chef du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, de ne pas laisser entendre quâil y a plus de QuĂ©bĂ©cois du cĂŽtĂ© de son parti que du nĂŽtre. Nous aussi parlons pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois. Nous reprĂ©sentons des circonscriptions quĂ©bĂ©coises et nous sommes lĂ pour travailler main dans la main pour tenir nos engagements pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois. C'est le cas notamment sur le plan de la santĂ©, oĂč nous sommes en train de travailler pour apporter des amĂ©liorations dans les services et oĂč le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral est lĂ pour verser des milliards de dollars pour les prioritĂ©s des QuĂ©bĂ©cois et du QuĂ©bec. Nous sommes lĂ pour travailler ensemble et nous allons continuer de lâĂȘtre partout Ă la Chambre en tant que QuĂ©bĂ©cois.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if I were the leader of the Bloc Québécois, I would be careful not to imply that there are more Quebeckers on his party's side than ours. We also speak for Quebeckers. We represent Quebec ridings, and we are here to work hand in hand to deliver for Quebeckers, especially when it comes to health care, where we are working to improve services. The federal government is here to spend billions of dollars on the priorities of Quebeckers and Quebec. We are here to work together, and we will continue to do so on both sides of the chamber as Quebeckers.
Desjarlais accuses the Liberals of threatening to cut billions in services Indigenous communities rely on and asks whether the Prime Minister will honour his commitments to indigenous people.
Desjarlais raises real concerns about Indigenous service cuts and gutting of Indigenous Services but combines substantive issues with partisan framing about rich CEOs, and the ask is broad and compound rather than targeted.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first nations, MĂ©tis and Inuit communities across Canada are slipping further behind. Kids cannot access health services, and homes are falling apart. What are the Liberals doing? They are threatening to cut billions in services communities rely on. If it were up to the Conservative leader, Indigenous Services would be gutted altogether. The Liberals and Conservatives always seem to find ways to make rich CEOs even richer but never find money for real people. Will the Prime Minister honour his commitments to indigenous people or leave them out to dry?
Trudeau lists investments including tripling housing and mental health funding, building over 30,000 homes since 2016, compensating first nations children under the child welfare system, and announcing a new indigenous loans support program.
Trudeau provides several concrete claims â tripling investments, building over 30,000 homes since 2016, compensating first nations children, announcing an indigenous loans support program â that partially address the question though without responding to the specific threat of cuts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are unequivocally committed, and have been since 2015, to working in partnership with first nations, Inuit and MĂ©tis communities across the country to advance self-determination and reconciliation. We have tripled investments in indigenous housing, mental health, access to clean drinking water and jobs, to contribute to economic reconciliation. We have also moved forward to compensate first nations children and families who suffered under the discriminatory child welfare system. We have built over 30,000 homes since 2016, and we recently announced that we will move forward in creating an indigenous loans support program. There is, of course, much more to do, but we will keep doing it.
Citing the Auditor General's finding that the government has no plan to close housing gaps leaving first nations in inhumane conditions, Desjarlais asks when the PM will take first nations housing seriously and provide the resources communities desperately need.
Desjarlais cites the Auditor General's finding that the government has no plan to close housing gaps keeping first nations in inhumane conditions, grounding the question in a specific audit conclusion and making a clear ask for resources.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that answer is little comfort to the residential school survivors and children who rely on those services. Imagine having to live in a mouldy home with young children, knowing that it is not a healthy place for them. That is the heartbreaking situation first nations are facing across the country. The Auditor General herself says that the government has no plan to close the housing gaps that are keeping first nations in inhumane conditions. Shame on them. When will the Prime Minister take first nations housing seriously and provide the communities with the resources they desperately need?
Trudeau says the government has made historic investments in housing in indigenous communities after decades of underfunding and commits to continuing to work in partnership with first nations, thanking the Auditor General for her report.
Trudeau acknowledges the Auditor General's report and claims historic investments but provides no specific plan, numbers, or timeline to close the housing gap identified by the Auditor General.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have made historic investments in housing and indigenous communities after decades of wrongful underfunding by previous governments of all stripes. We are working every single day to do more. We are committed to working in partnership with first nations and their communities. We thank the Auditor General for her work and her report, and we will continue to move forward to do even more in partnership with indigenous people across this country.
Citing the PBO figure of $1,605 in carbon tax costs to the average Nova Scotia family and a unanimous Nova Scotia legislature motion against the federal hike, Poilievre asks how much the rebate will be for the average Nova Scotia family.
Poilievre cites a specific PBO figure of $1,605 in carbon tax costs to the average Nova Scotia family and notes a unanimous provincial legislature motion against the hike, then asks a precise and answerable numerical question: how much is the rebate?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, among provincial parties, there has been an outbreak of common sense on the carbon tax. In fact, Nova Scotia Liberals, NDP members and Conservatives passed a unanimous motion in their legislature this week calling on their federal MPs to vote against the Prime Minister's 23% carbon tax hike. It is no wonder: The cost of the carbon tax to the average Nova Scotia family will be $1,605, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer; $1,605. How much will the rebate be for the average family?
Trudeau explains that the federal price on pollution is a backstop and that every province has the option to replace it with its own climate plan as long as it is as rigorous, without providing any rebate figure for Nova Scotia.
Trudeau explains the backstop mechanism and provincial opt-out options without providing any rebate figure for Nova Scotia, entirely avoiding the specific numerical question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the federal price on pollution is a backstop. It is a system we put in place to both fight climate change everywhere across the country and put more money back in the pockets of Canadian families where it applies. Every single province had and continues to have the option to replace the federal price on pollution with its own program, as long as it is as rigorous and stringent as the federal price on pollution. As long as they have a plan to fight climate change, as long as it is strong enough, they can do what they want. That is the option the provinces have. They can take that option. We are going to keep puttingâ
Noting the PM did not answer the previous question and that Nova Scotia has a climate plan the PM rejected, Poilievre asks specifically how much the rebate is for the average Nova Scotia family given $1,500 in costs.
Poilievre presses the specific unanswered numerical question from the previous exchange, citing a $1,500 cost figure for the average Nova Scotia family and noting the PM's avoidance, making it a sharp and precise accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is demonstrably false, because Nova Scotia actually has a climate change plan, which he rejected and overrode with a federal carbon tax that is opposed by New Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives unanimously in the province's legislature. I noticed he would not answer my question. He has been bragging about these rebates, but then when we talk about the cost, all of a sudden, he forgets the rebates. I am going to give him a second chance. In the province of Nova Scotia, the cost to the average family will be $1,500. It will be $1,500 per Nova Scotia family. How much is the rebate?
Trudeau asserts that eight out of 10 families in backstop provinces do better with the Canada carbon rebate than with the extra costs of the price on pollution, without providing a specific Nova Scotia rebate figure.
Trudeau repeats the '8 out of 10 families do better off' assertion without providing any specific rebate figure for Nova Scotia, continuing to avoid the direct numerical question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. The reality is, for eight out of 10 families right across the country in backstop provinces, families do better off with the Canada carbon rebate than they do with the extra costs of the price on pollution. This is a plan to fight climate change, but it is also a plan to put more money in the pockets of families from coast to coast to coast. The Conservative leader does not care about fighting against climate change and he does not care about affordability either, because he would rip up the rebate cheques and he would do less on fighting climate change. We are going to keep delivering for Canadians.
Poilievre notes that Liberal ministers had cue cards with rebate figures, cites the PBO's figure of $1,500 in costs for the average Nova Scotia family, and asks for the specific rebate amount.
Poilievre references the specific PBO figure of $1,500 in costs for the average Nova Scotia family and asks for the corresponding rebate number â a precise, factual, and repeatedly unanswered question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he still will not answer the question. All the Liberal ministers came in with little cue cards a week ago with all these rebates on them. They were waving them around very proudly, and then we went to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and asked for the full price by province. We quoted that, for example, in Nova Scotia, it is $1,500 in costs to the average family according to the PBO. Again, that is $1,500 in costs. What is the rebate, the number?
Trudeau accuses Conservatives of misleading Canadians and says the PBO himself said his words cannot be taken out of context because he did not calculate the costs of inaction on climate change.
Trudeau accuses the Conservatives of misleading Canadians and says the PBO 'admitted' his words were taken out of context because he did not calculate climate inaction costs, without ever providing the Nova Scotia rebate figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we see the lengths to which the Conservative Party will go to mislead Canadians about a plan that fights climate change and puts more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadian families. The Parliamentary Budget Officer himself admitted and said that we cannot take his words out of context, because he did not calculate the costs of inaction on fighting climate change. He did not calculate the competitive advantages of the innovation, the solutions and the economic growth that come with putting a price on pollution. The Conservative Party is not telling the full story.
Poilievre notes that NDP leadership candidates and Naheed Nenshi have gone silent on the carbon tax, cites the PBO figure of $2,900 in carbon tax costs to the average Alberta family, and asks what the rebate will be.
Poilievre cites a specific PBO figure of $2,900 in carbon tax costs to the average Alberta family and poses a precise numerical question about the rebate amount, grounding the exchange in concrete data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer did not include the cost of climate change because the carbon tax does not address the cost of climate change. He made it clear the carbon tax will do nothing to change the cost of climate change, and that is why the tax costs more for every family in every province. Let us go to Alberta, where two of the NDP leadership candidates have come out against the carbon tax. The Prime Minister's only friend in the province, Naheed Nenshi, has gone totally silent. Albertans will pay $2,900 in carbon tax per family. What will the rebate be for them?
Trudeau states that the Canada carbon rebate is $1,800 a year for an average family of four and reiterates that this is more than the extra cost of the price on pollution according to the PBO.
Trudeau finally provides a specific figure â '$1,800 a year, for an average family of four, is the Canada carbon rebate' â directly answering the rebate question, though not addressing the net-cost discrepancy Poilievre raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, $1,800 a year, for an average family of four, is the Canada carbon rebate. That is helping them. According to an analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, it is more than they pay in an extra price on pollution because of the price we put in at the federal level. The price on pollution puts more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadian families and fights climate change while building a stronger, more competitive future. Conservatives have no plan to fight climate change and no plan to help Canadians with rebate cheques.
Using the PM's own $1,800 rebate figure against the PBO's $2,943 cost figure, Poilievre asks whether the PM understands that the average Alberta family will pay $1,100 more in carbon taxes than it gets back in rebates.
Poilievre uses the PM's own just-stated figure of $1,800 against the PBO figure of $2,943 to demonstrate a net cost of $1,100 per Alberta family and asks a pointed arithmetical question: does the PM understand that $2,900 is bigger than $1,800?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister found his cue card and finally talked about the rebate. He said the average family in Alberta will get $1,800 while it is paying $2,943. In other words, next year alone, after this forthcoming hike, the average Alberta family will pay $1,100 more in carbon taxes than he gives back in his phony cheques. Will the Prime Minister tell us if he understands that $2,900 is bigger than $1,800?
Trudeau cites a Finance Ministry analysis showing a net benefit of $723 per average Alberta household for an average income quintile group of 2.5 persons, rather than addressing the $2,900 versus $1,800 discrepancy directly.
Trudeau introduces a different Finance Ministry statistic â a net benefit of $723 per average Alberta household â rather than directly addressing the discrepancy between the two figures, providing some numerical engagement but switching data sources.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, how about a different stat, a stat the finance ministry analyzed? It turns out that for an average income quintile group with an average household of 2.5 Canadians, the average net benefit per household in Alberta is $723 a year. That is $723 in the pockets of the average Albertan family because we put a price on pollution that puts more money back in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadian families. That is what we are doing. That is how we fight climate change.
Contrasting independent PBO figures with Finance Ministry numbers, Poilievre cites the PBO's $1,674 cost to the average Ontario family from the federal carbon tax and asks how much the rebate is in Ontario.
Poilievre challenges the PM's use of Finance Ministry numbers versus independent PBO figures, cites the specific PBO cost of $1,674 for the average Ontario family, and asks the precise answerable question of how much the rebate is in Ontario.
Source text
The Prime Minister wants you to know, Mr. Speaker, that he has alternative facts. I get mine from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who reports directly to Parliament and is independent. He is using numbers that come from officials who report to him and depend on him for their jobs. Let us take another province, Ontario, where the Liberal leader has now come out against the Prime Minister's carbon tax. Maybe she knows that the average cost to an Ontario family of the federal carbon tax is $1,674 for this coming year. How much is the rebate in Ontario?
Trudeau states that the average net benefit per household in Ontario is $255 a year and reiterates that the Parliamentary Budget Officer demonstrated that eight out of 10 Canadian families in backstop regions do better with the price on pollution.
Trudeau provides a specific figure â 'the average net benefit per household in Ontario is $255 a year' â directly answering the question, though this is a net figure from Finance rather than the gross rebate amount Poilievre asked for.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the average net benefit per household in Ontario is $255 a year. That is fighting climate change while putting more money in the pockets of Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer himself demonstrated that eight out of 10 Canadian families in regions that get the carbon price backstop do better with the price on pollution. It puts more money back in their pockets than it costs them on the fight for climate change. This is the plan we are delivering for Canadians. That is the plan the member wants to scrap.
Blanchet asks whether the Prime Minister's disregard for Quebec is deliberate because he knows he will never gain seats there, or because it is politically profitable in the rest of Canada to undermine Quebecers.
Blanchet references polling trends to frame a partisan accusation that the PM disrespects Quebec, but the ask â whether contempt for Quebec is strategic â is rhetorical and unanswerable as posed.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je ne crois pas tant que ça aux sondages. Il ne faut pas gouverner avec les sondages, mais un moment donnĂ©, Ă la longue, le premier ministre devrait savoir, avant de dire qui parle pour qui, que dans tous les sondages depuis je ne sais plus combien de temps, le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois est toujours devant les libĂ©raux. Si le premier ministre est si bas dans les intentions de vote, tellement bas que mĂȘme les conservateurs sont meilleurs que les libĂ©raux au Canada, c'est peut-ĂȘtre parce qu'il ne respecte ni le QuĂ©bec, ni les QuĂ©bĂ©cois, ni l'AssemblĂ©e nationale. Est-ce qu'il pense que mĂ©priser le QuĂ©bec est bon parce qu'il sait qu'il ne fera jamais de gains au QuĂ©bec, ou parce que c'est payant au Canada de planter les QuĂ©bĂ©cois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I do not put much stock in polls. Polls should not dictate a government's choices. That said, before he says who is speaking for whom, the Prime Minister ought to know that the Bloc Québécois has been ahead of the Liberals in every poll for longer than I can remember. If the Prime Minister is doing that poorly in the polls, so poorly that even the Conservatives are outperforming the Liberals in Canada, perhaps it is because he does not respect Quebec, Quebeckers or the National Assembly. Does he think that treating Quebec with contempt is a good idea because he knows he will never gain any seats in Quebec anyway, or because trashing Quebeckers will at least win him votes in Canada?
Trudeau argues the Liberals have won more Quebec seats than the Bloc in the last three elections and lists federal investments in health, dental care, and child care as proof of representing Quebec.
Trudeau pivots to seat counts and lists programs (accords en santé, soins dentaires, 6 milliards de dollars pour les garderies) rather than addressing the accusation of mépris for Quebec.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les gens savent trĂšs bien que dans les dĂ©mocraties il y a un sondage qui compte. Ăa se passe le jour des Ă©lections. Depuis les trois derniĂšres Ă©lections, le Parti libĂ©ral a plus de siĂšges au QuĂ©bec que le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois. C'est parce que nous sommes lĂ pour agir concrĂštement pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et pour tous les Canadiens avec des accords en santĂ©, avec de l'aide pour les soins dentaires et pour les aĂźnĂ©s, avec 6 milliards de dollars pour les garderies aux QuĂ©bec, avec des investissements qui aident Ă crĂ©er de la croissance Ă©conomique. Ce sont des jobs pour l'avenir pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et pour un monde plus vert pour tous. Ce sont les investissements que nous faisons pour reprĂ©senter le QuĂ©bec, et nous allons continuer de remplir nos engagements.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, people know very well that in democracies, there is only one poll that counts, and that is on election day. The Liberal Party has won more seats in Quebec than the Bloc Québécois in the last three elections. That is because we are here to deliver meaningful results for Quebeckers and all Canadians with health agreements, help for dental care and seniors, $6 billion for day care in Quebec and other investments that help create economic growth, jobs for the future for Quebeckers and a greener world for all. These are the investments we are making to represent Quebec, and we will continue to deliver.
Blanchet asks whether the Prime Minister will stop pretending to work for Quebecers, pointing to inaction on health transfers, immigration powers, and judicial appointments.
Blanchet identifies specific policy areas (transferts en santĂ©, pouvoirs en immigration, nomination de juges) where he claims inaction, but the culminating ask â will the PM pretend to do his job for Quebecers â is sarcastic and unanswerable as posed.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on a senti une petite vulnĂ©rabilitĂ©, mais c'est parce qu'on ne sait pas s'ils vont ĂȘtre assis de ce cĂŽtĂ©âlĂ ou de l'autre. Si on veut vraiment l'Ă©coute des QuĂ©bĂ©cois, on va faire des transferts en santĂ© qui ont du bon sens. On va transfĂ©rer les pouvoirs en immigration. On va nommer des juges. On va faire la job comme du monde. Pour l'instant, on ne fait rien et on lit des cartons Ă la Chambre. Est-ce que le premier ministre va faire semblant de faire sa jobpour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we sensed a little vulnerability, but it is just that we do not know whether they will be sitting at this end of the House or that end. If the government really wants to get Quebeckers' attention, it will make adequate health care transfers. It will transfer immigration powers. Judges will be appointed. Things will get done the right way. So far, the government is not getting anything done, and its members are reading from cue cards in the House. Will the Prime Minister at least go through the motions of doing his job for Quebeckers?
Trudeau cites 1.5 million senior enrolments in the dental care plan, with more than a third from Quebec, as evidence the government is delivering results for Quebecers.
Trudeau responds with dental care statistics (1,5 million de Canadiens aßnés, plus du tiers du Québec) but does not address the specific policy failures on health transfers, immigration powers, or judicial appointments that Blanchet cited.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, parlons de faits concrets: 1,5 million de Canadiens aĂźnĂ©s se sont inscrits Ă notre rĂ©gime de soins dentaires, contre lequel les conservateurs ont votĂ©. De ce nombre, plus du tiers sont des aĂźnĂ©s du QuĂ©bec. Des centaines de milliers de QuĂ©bĂ©cois ĂągĂ©s vont avoir des soins dentaires gratuits grĂące aux investissements du fĂ©dĂ©ral dans les soins dentaires. Nous sommes lĂ pour livrer des rĂ©sultats pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois. Nous allons toujours ĂȘtre lĂ pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et pour tous les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let us consider the facts: 1.5 million Canadian seniors have signed up for our dental care plan, which the Conservatives voted against. More than a third of those seniors live in Quebec. That means hundreds of thousands of Quebec seniors will be getting free dental care thanks to federal investments in dental care. We are here to deliver results for Quebeckers. We will always be here for Quebeckers and for all Canadians.
Poilievre notes that the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature, with Liberal premier support, passed a motion opposing the April 1 tax hike, and asks what the rebate will be given the PBO's cost figure of $1,874 for the average family.
Poilievre cites a specific PBO figure ($1,874 cost to the average Newfoundland and Labrador family), references the legislature's motion and the Liberal premier's support for it, and asks a single concrete question about the rebate amount.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, now the legislature in Newfoundland and Labrador has acknowledged that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost after eight years. It passed a motion, supported by the Liberal premier and personal friend of the Prime Minister, to oppose the April 1 tax hike. It must have heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the cost to Newfoundlanders of the carbon tax this year will be $1,874 for the average Newfoundland and Labrador family. What will their rebate be?
Trudeau states the average net benefit per household in Newfoundland and Labrador is $303 a year and notes the province may create its own price on pollution plan if it is as strong as the federal backstop.
Trudeau provides a specific net benefit figure ($303 per household) but does not directly state the rebate amount asked, and the $303 figure contradicts the PBO framing without directly engaging it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the average net benefit per household in Newfoundland and Labrador is $303 a year. That is the money that they pocket with our price on pollution and the Canada carbon rebate cheques that go to households across the province. The province is open to creating its own price on pollution, its own plan to fight climate change, as long as it is as strong as the federal backstop. The province is welcome to do that if it wants to do it a different way, but in the meantime we are going to both fight climate change and deliver more money to the families in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Poilievre, citing PBO figures of a $1,874 cost and $1,497 rebate for a net loss of $377 for the average Newfoundland family, asks the PM to stop denying the facts and challenges him to call an election on the carbon tax.
Poilievre directly cites PBO figures (cost $1,874, rebate $1,497, net loss $377) to challenge the PM's prior answer and asks a pointed question about calling an election to defend the carbon tax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here are the facts directly from the Parliamentary Budget Officer: The cost to the average Newfoundland family is $1,874, and the rebate is $1,497, for a net loss of $377 and growing. These are the facts. Could the Prime Minister stop denying the facts? If the Prime Minister really wants to contest and argue that he should be able to raise the tax, why does he not have the courage to call an election and let Canadians decide?
Trudeau claims the price on pollution puts more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 families and notes that three elections have been won on the issue.
Trudeau does not engage the specific PBO numbers at all and instead deflects by claiming eight out of 10 families are better off and noting the Liberals won three elections, ignoring the factual challenge entirely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are busy delivering for Canadians a price on pollution that puts more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 families across the country. He wants an election on the price on pollution? We had three, and we won them all.
Poilievre accuses the PM of doubling housing costs and driving two million people to food banks, and asks why he will not call a carbon tax election if he believes in his policies.
Poilievre deploys rhetorical statistics (two million people lining up at food banks, 8,000 in a Facebook group about dumpster meals) to frame an election challenge rather than asking a specific accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, then he should not be afraid to have one more. This is a Prime Minister who has doubled housing costs. He sent two million people lining up at food banks and 8,000 joining a Facebook group learning how they can eat a meal out of a dumpster, and now his best solution is to hike the tax on their heat, their home, their fuel and their food. If he really believes in it, why does he not call a carbon tax election now?
Trudeau says Poilievre repeatedly claims Canada is broken, then cites child care, dental care, and the climate plan as delivering for Canadians.
Trudeau deflects entirely by noting Poilievre says Canada is broken, then lists child care, dental care, and the climate plan without addressing housing costs, food bank usage, or the election challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have heard time and time again over these past many months the Leader of the Opposition talk about how Canada is broken. We are focused on supporting Canadians with things like child care, dental care and a plan to fight climate change that puts more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadian families right across the country. That is the approach that is delivering for Canadians. We still have more work to do, and we are going to keep doing it to deliver for Canadians every single day we are in the House.
Poilievre, citing main estimates and public accounts showing $20.7 billion collected and only $18.6 billion returned, challenges the finance minister's claim that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral and asks when Canadians will get their $2 billion back.
Poilievre cites specific figures from main estimates and public accounts ($20.7 billion collected, $18.6 billion returned, over $2 billion profit) to directly contradict the finance minister's prior claim of revenue-neutrality, and asks when Canadians get the $2 billion back.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister claimed that the carbon tax was revenue-neutral, that the government did not keep a single penny. It turns out it keeps hundreds of billions of pennies. It has collected, so far, $20.7 billion and has only paid back $18.6 billion. In other words, the government has profited by over $2 billion by pillaging the pockets of Canadians. When will the Canadian people get their $2 billion back? If the Prime Minister is so sure about taking it away, why does he not call an election to defend it?
Trudeau accuses Poilievre of wanting to cancel the Canada carbon rebate and claims the government delivers money to communities, individuals, small businesses, and indigenous communities to fight climate change.
Trudeau does not address the $2-billion discrepancy or the revenue-neutrality claim, instead accusing Poilievre of wanting to cancel rebates and pivoting to climate plan talking points.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader is now complaining about $2 billion that he would never give to Canadian businesses, would never give to Canadians, because he would scrap the Canada carbon rebate. We are actually delivering money across the country to communities, to individuals, to small businesses and to indigenous communities to fight climate change and help them afford their groceries. The Conservative leader wants to eliminate the carbon rebate. He wants to eliminate the plan to fight climate change. He has no plan for the future of the economy.
Boulerice states that for the first time Canada is ranked the most polluted country in North America, worse than the United States, and asks whether the Minister of Environment and Climate Change is proud of that record.
Boulerice cites Canada being ranked the most polluted country in North America for the first time as a factual hook, but the ask â is the minister proud â is rhetorical rather than a substantive accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le Canada est le premier, le no 1. Les libĂ©raux devraient ĂȘtre fiers, mais attention, de quoi est-il le premier? Il est le premier de la pollution de l'air. Pour la premiĂšre fois, le Canada est le pays le plus polluĂ© en AmĂ©rique du Nord. Nous sommes pires que les ĂtatsâUnis. Avec la crise climatique et les feux de forĂȘt, les gens suffoquent. Ils Ă©touffent. Cela les rend malades. Il y a des gens qui meurent et ça va empirer. Est-ce que le ministre de lâEnvironnement et du Changement climatique est fier de reprĂ©senter le pays le plus polluĂ© de l'AmĂ©rique du Nord?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada is in first place. We rank number one. The Liberals should be proudâbut wait, first place for what? Canada ranks number one for air pollution. For the first time, Canada is the most polluted country in North America. We are worse than the United States. With the climate crisis and forest fires, people are suffocating. They cannot breathe properly. Pollution is making them sick. People are dying, and it is going to get worse. Is the Minister of Environment and Climate Change proud to represent the most polluted country in North America?
Trudeau attributes the ranking to last year's terrible wildfires, says more must be done to fight climate change, and criticizes the Conservative Party for wanting to withdraw from the fight and the NDP for having no plan at election time.
Trudeau acknowledges the wildfires drove the air pollution ranking but immediately pivots to attacking the Conservative Party and claiming the NDP has no climate plan, not addressing the specific air quality ranking or any policy remedy.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je comprends que cela fait un bon clip pour le NPD, mais on parle des feux de forĂȘt. Effectivement, l'annĂ©e passĂ©e, les feux de forĂȘt ont Ă©tĂ© Ă©pouvantables. La rĂ©alitĂ©, c'est que nous nous devons de faire encore plus pour lutter contre les changements climatiques. Or, le Parti conservateur veut se retirer de notre lutte contre les changements climatiques. Il veut enlever les chĂšques de remise que nous livrons aux Canadiens. Quant au NPD, il n'a jamais eu de plan pour lutter contre les changements climatiques quand vient le temps des Ă©lections. Nous avons Ă©tĂ© lĂ en prĂ©sentant un plan concret et nous allons continuer d'ĂȘtre lĂ pour protĂ©ger les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I understand that those remarks make a good sound bite for the NDP, but this is really about forest fires. Last year's forest fires were terrible. The reality is that we need to do even more to fight climate change. The Conservative Party wants to step back from our fight against climate change. They want to take away the rebate cheques we deliver to Canadians. The NDP, meanwhile, has never had a plan to fight climate change when it comes to election time. We have always been there with a concrete plan, and we will continue to be there to protect Canadians.
Gazan asks why the Liberal government does not stop wasting millions on private consultants and instead invest in fair wages for shelter workers, noting cuts to women's shelters have caused a burnout crisis among predominantly female care workers.
Gazan cites a specific statistic (75% of the care economy is women) and references cuts to women's shelters along with a burnout crisis among workers, and poses a direct contrast between spending on private consultants versus fair wages, giving the question moderate specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government continues to fail women, including care workers in women's shelters. The cuts to women's shelters have impacted not only women fleeing violence but also shelter workers, who are facing a burnout crisis, consistently overworked and underpaid. Seventy-five percent of the care economy is women. This is a gender equality issue. Why do the so-called feminist Liberals not stop wasting millions on private consultants and invest in fair wages for shelter workers to help save lives?
Trudeau cites commitments to raise personal support worker wages to $25 an hour, child care wage grids through historic child care agreements, and support for indigenous care workers as evidence of investing in the care economy.
Trudeau references commitments to raise personal support worker wages to $25 an hour and child care wage grids but does not address cuts to women's shelters, spending on private consultants, or the burnout crisis specifically cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have demonstrated from day one that we are there to work with the provinces to invest in the care economy, whether it is commitments to raise personal support worker wages to $25 an hour, whether it is through our historic child care agreements that are creating wage grids for early childhood educators or whether it is moving forward on strengthening support for indigenous communities and for care workers in and from indigenous communities, we will continue to be there. We recognize there is more work to do. We are there to do it, hand in hand with the different jurisdictions across the country.
Sorbara asks the Prime Minister to update the House on the progress of the early learning and child care legislation.
This is a government-backbench softball: Sorbara simply asks the PM to update the House on a bill his own government tabled, providing no accountability pressure.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les parents de ma circonscription, VaughanâWoodbridge, parlent depuis des annĂ©es de la difficultĂ© de trouver des places en garderie pour leurs enfants. C'est pourquoi nous avons mis de l'avant notre projet de loi sur l'apprentissage et la garde des jeunes enfants, que le Parti conservateur a tentĂ© de retarder. Le premier ministre peut-il informer la Chambre de l'Ă©tat d'avancement de cet important projet de loi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for years, parents in my riding, VaughanâWoodbridge, have been talking about how hard it is to find child care spots for their children. That is why we introduced our bill on early learning and child care, which the Conservative Party tried to delay. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the current status of this important bill?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les services de garde d'enfants sont non seulement un soutien pour les parents, mais un soutien pour notre Ă©conomie. Je suis tellement heureux de voir qu'avec le soutien du dĂ©putĂ© de VaughanâWoodbridge et de notre caucus, la Loi relative Ă l'apprentissage et Ă la garde des jeunes enfants au Canada a reçu la sanction royale, hier. Malheureusement, le chef conservateur a ordonnĂ© Ă ses dĂ©putĂ©s d'obstruer et de ralentir le passage de cette loi. MalgrĂ© cela, nous tenons la promesse que nous avons faite aux Canadiens. Peu importe oĂč ils vivent, ils auront accĂšs Ă des services de garde abordables, inclusifs et de qualitĂ©.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, child care supports not only parents, but also our economy. I am so happy to see that with the support of the member for VaughanâWoodbridge and our caucus, the Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act received royal assent yesterday. Unfortunately, the Conservative leader ordered his members to obstruct and delay the passage of this bill. Nevertheless, we have kept our promise to Canadians. No matter where they live, they will have access to affordable, inclusive and quality child care.
Trudeau announces that the Early Learning and Child Care Act received royal assent yesterday, despite Conservative efforts to obstruct and slow its passage.
Trudeau delivers real legislative information â that the Early Learning and Child Care Act received royal assent yesterday â and contrasts it with Conservative obstruction, making it a substantively informative answer.
Poilievre cites Canada's last-place real per capita GDP growth in the G7, a per capita GDP smaller than five years ago described as the worst since the Great Depression, and the PBO's estimate of an $18-billion GDP cost and $1,000 per family from the carbon tax, asking why the PM will not call a carbon election.
Poilievre cites real GDP per capita data, the G7 comparison, a five-year decline described as the worst since the Great Depression, and a PBO figure ($18-billion GDP hole, $1,000 per family), giving the question solid factual grounding, though the election-call demand is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost to our economy. Real per person GDP has grown more slowly in Canada than in all the rest of the G7. It is dead last. In fact, our per capita GDP is smaller than it was five years ago, which is the worst record since the Great Depression. The Parliamentary Budget Officer calculates that the carbon tax will blow an $18-billion hole in the size of our GDP, $1,000 in economic costs per family. If he really thinks that is worth the cost, why will we not have a carbon election toâ
Trudeau argues that Canada's population is growing faster than other countries and repeats that the price on pollution puts more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadian families in backstop provinces.
Trudeau counters only with a population-growth observation rather than engaging the GDP per capita figures or the PBO's $18-billion estimate, then repeats the eight-out-of-ten-families claim without addressing the economic costs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at the same time, our population is growing faster than that of other countries around the world, if one is going to be telling the full story. The reality is that our price on pollution puts more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadian families in the backstop provinces. This is a fact recognized by the Parliamentary Budget Officer and recognized by Canadians, who see both a real plan to invest in the jobs and careers of the future, the competitiveness Canada needs, and the fight against climate change to keep us safe, while putting more money in the pockets of Canadian families from coast to coast to coast.
Poilievre accuses the PM of blowing an $18-billion hole in GDP with the carbon tax while Canadians line up at food banks and live in tents, and asks when he will realize he is not worth the cost after eight years.
Poilievre references the $18-billion GDP figure and the April 1 carbon tax hike, and deploys food bank and tent-living imagery, but the ask is a rhetorical demand to resign or reverse course rather than a specific accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government gets bigger and the people get poorer. After eight years, he is not worth the cost. He is blowing another $18-billion hole in our GDP with the carbon tax, a hole that will mean lower wages and a lower quality of life for the Canadian people. The Prime Minister now wants to quadruple the carbon tax, starting with his April Fool's Day hike. When will he realize that after eight years of Canadians' lining up at food banks and living in tents, he is not worth the cost?
Trudeau asserts that the price on pollution returns every dollar it collects to the jurisdictions in which it is collected and claims eight out of 10 families in backstop provinces receive more money back.
Trudeau repeats that the price on pollution returns every dollar to the jurisdiction where it is collected, a claim directly contradicted by the $2-billion discrepancy raised in exchange 21, without engaging the GDP or living-standards arguments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the price on pollution returns every dollar it collects to the jurisdictions in which it is collected. That is the fact that built our program, our fight against climate change. The reality is that we are creating jobs and we are creating growth, and we are putting more money back in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadian families in backstop provinces. This is the plan that fights climate change, builds a stronger economy and supports Canadians right now with rebate cheques that the Leader of the Opposition would cancel.
Poilievre cites main estimates and public accounts showing $20 billion collected and only $18 billion returned to challenge the revenue-neutrality claim, notes the B.C. NDP is implementing a federally mandated tax, and asks whether the PM will allow British Columbia to cancel the April 1 hike.
Poilievre cites specific main estimates and public accounts figures ($20 billion collected, $18 billion returned), notes only one provincial party supports the tax, and asks a concrete policy question â will the PM allow B.C. to cancel the April 1 hike.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, based on his own main estimates and public accounts, he has collected over $20 billion in taxes and returned only $18 billion, so it is factually inaccurate to say that he has given every penny back. In fact we know that in every single province where the carbon tax applies, Canadians pay more than they get back. Furthermore, there is only one provincial party that supports the tax; the B.C. NDP is happily implementing this federally mandated tax grab. Will the Prime Minister today allow British Columbia to cancel the April Fool's Day tax hike?
Trudeau states that B.C. has had its own price on pollution since 2008 and the federal government has no involvement in B.C.'s price on pollution, calling Poilievre's claim a simple error of fact.
Trudeau provides a relevant factual point â B.C. has had its own price on pollution since 2008 and the federal government has no involvement â which partially addresses the B.C. question, but does not engage the revenue figures or the broader revenue-neutrality challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in a question and a contrast on facts, the reality is that the B.C. government has had a price on pollution since 2008, and the federal government has no involvement in British Columbia's price on pollution. It is a simple error of fact that the leader of the Conservative Party is trying to share with the House. He must be mistaken. Maybe it is an honest mistake, but the reality is that he is wrong on that fact, just like he is wrong on the fact that he does not understand that eight out of 10 Canadian families do better with the price on pollution.
Poilievre, citing page 75 of the B.C. budget and the Vancouver Sun's reporting that the B.C. NDP will raise $9 billion over three years while returning only $3.5 billion to low- and middle-income earners, asks the PM to end the carbon tax coalition with the B.C. NDP so British Columbians can get their money back.
Poilievre cites page 75 of the B.C. budget, quotes the Vancouver Sun with specific revenue figures ($9 billion over three years, $3.5 billion in climate action tax credits returned), and asks a concrete policy question about ending the arrangement with the B.C. NDP.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, page 75 of the B.C. budget confirmed that the province was bringing in the tax hike on April 1 because it is forced to by federal law. According to the Vancouver Sun, â[The NDP] budget and fiscal plan, presented in February, says the carbon tax will raise $9 billion over three years. The New Democrats plan to give back $3.5 billion in climate action tax credits to low- and middle-income folks, and spend the rest as they see fit.â Will the Prime Minister end the carbon tax coalition with his B.C. provincial NDP counterparts so that British Columbians can get their money back?
Trudeau explains that every province can put forward its own plan to fight climate change as long as it is sufficiently rigorous, that the federal backstop returns more money directly to Canadians in eight out of 10 cases, and that B.C. and others are free to do their own thing.
Trudeau does not engage the B.C. budget figures or the Vancouver Sun quote at all, instead explaining the general framework of provincial flexibility on carbon pricing without addressing whether the federal law mandates the B.C. hike or the revenue distribution figures cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one would think that for someone who has been railing against our plan to fight climate change and put more money in people's pockets for months now, he would actually have done his research to understand how it works. Every single province has the ability to put forward its own plan to fight climate change as long as it is sufficiently rigorous to be fair to the other provinces that are also doing the same. That is what a Canada-wide plan to fight climate change is all about. Yes, the federal backstop gives back more money directly to Canadians in eight out of 10 cases, but B.C. and others are free to do their own thing.
Blanchet asks the PM to back down â in front of 12 Charlevoix mayors â and allow municipalities to spend Fonds pour le dĂ©veloppement des collectivitĂ©s du Canada money according to their own needs rather than having the federal government impose housing priorities on them.
Blanchet raises a specific program â the Fonds pour le dĂ©veloppement des collectivitĂ©s du Canada â and references 12 Charlevoix mayors as a concrete stakeholder group to ground the ask, though the framing mixes partisan rhetoric about interference with the substantive question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, assis au milieu dâune centaine de dĂ©putĂ©s libĂ©raux qui risquent de perdre leur job, le premier ministre persiste Ă faire des ingĂ©rences dans les affaires des provinces. Il se vante dâune assurance-mĂ©dicaments qui existe dĂ©jĂ et parle des aĂźnĂ©s alors quâil refuse dâaugmenter la pension de la SĂ©curitĂ© de la vieillesse. Il y a un autre exemple: le Fonds pour le dĂ©veloppement des collectivitĂ©s du Canada. Ce sont des sommes somme toute pas trĂšs importantes, mais dont les municipalitĂ©s font dâhabitude Ă peu prĂšs ce quâelles veulent selon ce que sont leurs besoins. Le gouvernement veut leur imposer ses propres choix. Peut-il, devant 12 maires de Charlevoix, reculer et laisser les municipalitĂ©s faire ce quâelles veulent?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, seated in the middle of a hundred or so Liberal members who are at risk of losing their jobs, the Prime Minister continues to interfere in provincial affairs. He boasts about pharmacare, which already exists, and talks about seniors, when he has refused to increase old age security. Another example is the Canada community-building fund. We are not talking about a lot of money, really, but the municipalities are used to using it as they see fit. The government wants to impose its own choices on them. With 12 mayors from Charlevoix looking on, can he back off and let the municipalities do what they want?
Trudeau corrects Blanchet on old-age security, stating it was increased for seniors 75 and over, and pivots to pharmacare, arguing Quebecers need diabetes medication and contraception coverage, without addressing the Fonds pour le développement des collectivités du Canada.
Trudeau responds to the pharmacare mention and old-age security points not raised by Blanchet in this exchange, and does not directly address the Fonds pour le développement des collectivités du Canada or the imposition of housing conditions on municipalities.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le chef du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois se trompe. Nous avons augmentĂ© la pension de la SĂ©curitĂ© de la vieillesse pour les aĂźnĂ©s de 75 ans et plus, parce que nous savons qu'ils ont plus de coĂ»ts que les autres familles. Oui, nous reconnaissons que, mĂȘme au QuĂ©bec, et partout au pays, il y a des gens qui ne peuvent pas se payer leur mĂ©dicament contre le diabĂšte et leur contraception parce quâils ne sont pas couverts. Nous sommes lĂ pour travailler avec QuĂ©bec pour tenir nos engagements et pour que les gens puissent avoir leur mĂ©dicament contre le diabĂšte et puissent avoir la contraception. Nous allons ĂȘtre lĂ pour nous assurer que les gens restent en santĂ©.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois is mistaken. We increased old age security for seniors 75 and up because we know that they have more expenses than other families. Yes, we recognize that even in Quebec and across the country, there are people who cannot afford their diabetes medication or their birth control because they are not covered. We are here to work with Quebec to deliver results and ensure that people can get their diabetes medication and their birth control. We will be here to ensure that people stay healthy.
Blanchet, noting that Quebec already covers diabetes medication, asks the PM to be honest and allow municipalities to use Fonds pour le développement des collectivités du Canada money for their own priorities rather than being forced to direct it to housing.
Blanchet returns sharply to the specific program (Fonds pour le développement des collectivités du Canada), corrects the PM's prior non-answer, and asks a clear yes/no accountability question about whether the government will leave municipalities free to use the fund as they choose.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je ne sais pas si les aĂźnĂ©s utilisent beaucoup de contraceptifs, mais je sais quâau QuĂ©bec, les mĂ©dicaments pour le diabĂšte sont payĂ©s. Je reviens Ă un point, car je pense quâil ne sait pas de quoi je parle. Le Fonds pour le dĂ©veloppement des collectivitĂ©s du Canada devrait permettre aux municipalitĂ©s de faire les travaux quâelles choisissent. Or, le gouvernement, pour faire semblant de mettre de lâargent dans le logement, veut obliger de petites municipalitĂ©s Ă mettre lâargent du Fonds pour le dĂ©veloppement des collectivitĂ©s du Canada dans le logement. Le gouvernement peut-il ĂȘtre honnĂȘte et intĂšgre et laisser les municipalitĂ©s faire ce quâelles veulent avec leur argent?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if seniors use a lot of birth control, but I know that in Quebec, diabetes medication is paid for. I will come back to one point, because I do not think he knows what I am talking about. The Canada community-building fund should allow municipalities to do whatever work they choose to do. However, to make it look like it is putting money into housing, the government wants to force small municipalities to invest money from the Canada community-building fund in housing. Can the government be honest and let municipalities do what they want with their money?
Trudeau describes the Fonds pour accélérer la construction de logements and a $900-million agreement with Quebec for municipal housing construction, framing it as respecting provincial jurisdiction, but does not directly address whether conditions will be imposed on the Fonds pour le développement des collectivités du Canada.
Trudeau addresses housing investment but conflates the Fonds pour le développement des collectivités du Canada with the Fonds pour accélérer la construction de logements and the $900-million Quebec agreement, not directly answering whether the FDCC will have conditions imposed on municipalities.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il me semble quâon a des dĂ©fis en ce qui a trait aux faits aujourdâhui. Notre Fonds pour accĂ©lĂ©rer la construction de logements, partout au pays, donne de lâargent directement aux municipalitĂ©s pour pouvoir crĂ©er plus de logements plus rapidement; sauf au QuĂ©bec, oĂč nous avons donnĂ© au gouvernement du QuĂ©bec 900 millions de dollars quâil a ajoutĂ©s Ă un autre montant de 900 millions de dollars pour les municipalitĂ©s partout au QuĂ©bec pour crĂ©er du logement plus rapidement. Nous sommes lĂ pour travailler dans le respect des compĂ©tences, en partenariat avec QuĂ©bec, pour tenir nos engagements pour les municipalitĂ©s, petites et grandes, partout dans la province.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it seems there are some challenges today when it comes to the facts. Our housing accelerator fund gives money directly to municipalities across the country so that they can build more housing more quickly, except in Quebec, where we gave the Government of Quebec $900 million. It then combined that with another $900 million for municipalities across Quebec to build housing more quickly. We are here to work in a manner that is respectful of jurisdictions, in partnership with Quebec, to deliver for municipalities large and small across the province.
Poilievre cited statistics on rising car theft in Toronto and Montreal and asked the Prime Minister to accept his plan to scan every shipping container, reinforce ports, and put career car thieves behind bars.
Cites specific statistics (200% increase in Toronto, 100% in Montreal, 12,000 cars, one every 40 minutes) and proposes a concrete plan (scan every shipping container, reinforce ports, put career car thieves behind bars), though the ask is directed at the Prime Minister rather than the responsible minister and is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister's catch-and-release policies and his mismanagement of our ports, car thefts have gone up by over 200% in Toronto and 100% in Montreal. There are 12,000 cars stolen in Canada's biggest city every single year. That is one car stolen every 40 minutes. Will the Prime Minister accept my common-sense plan to scan every shipping container, reinforce our ports and put career car thieves behind bars?
Trudeau cited $121 million for Ontario to crack down on organized crime and car theft and $28 million for border services, and accused the Conservatives of voting against these measures.
Trudeau cites specific dollar figures ($121 million for Ontario, $28 million for border services) but does not address the specific proposal to scan every shipping container, pivoting instead to Conservative voting record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, cracking down on auto theft starts with going after organized crime. We are doing that with $121 million for Ontario to crack down on organized crime and car theft, and the Conservative Party voted against it. The public safety minister also announced $28 million for border services in collaboration with police across the country. To stop organized crime, we are cracking down on money laundering, which is something the Conservative Party also voted against. We will take no lessons from the Conservative Party that chose to weaken our borders and pull money back from enforcement services any chance it got while it was in government.
Poilievre cited $60 million spent on arrive scam and only five CBSA officers monitoring 500,000 shipping containers at the port of Montreal, asking the Prime Minister to cut back on consultants and put boots on the ground.
Cites a specific figure ($60 million on arrive scam), a concrete operational detail (five CBSA officers monitoring 500,000 shipping containers at the port of Montreal), and asks whether the Prime Minister will cut consultants and put boots on the ground.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we pulled money back from back-office bureaucracy and costly consultants that now chew up the budget. CBSA is now spending $60 million on arrive scam, while only five CBSA officers are monitoring 500,000 shipping containers at the port of Montreal. Conservatives put more CBSA agents on the front line at the port of Montreal and across the country. Will the Prime Minister not accept my common-sense plan to cut back on the consultants and put boots on the ground?
Trudeau claimed the Conservative government cut hundreds or thousands of law enforcement positions including CBSA officers and back-office experts, and said the Liberals are investing in these capabilities.
Trudeau does not address the specific figures cited (arrive scam spending or the five officers at Montreal) but instead disputes the Conservative record on CBSA staffing cuts and claims to be investing in enforcement, deflecting from the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government, in which that leader was a minister, cut hundreds, if not thousands, of positions in law enforcement across the country, including those of CBSA officers and those back-office experts who actually analyze the bills of lading and the origins to designate and find out where these auto thefts are happening and which containers have stolen vehicles in them. We are investing in them. We are giving more money, so they can do their work. The common sense that the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward is nonsense. We know that they are all about cuts, not investments in keeping Canadians safe.
Poilievre cited CBSA's own numbers showing officer counts grew from 12,673 to 14,113 under the Conservatives, refuting Trudeau's prior claim of cuts, and again asked why the Prime Minister would not accept his plan to scan shipping containers.
Directly refutes the Prime Minister's prior claim with specific CBSA staffing numbers from the department's own data (12,673 to 14,113 officers) and reiterates the concrete proposal to scan shipping containers, making it a sharply focused accountability exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, why do we not just look at the CBSA's own numbers on this. In the first year of the Conservative government, there were a total of 12,673 CBSA officers. In the last year, there were 14,113. I know that the Prime Minister is not great with numbers, but 14,000 is bigger than 12,000. By the way, if he wants to analyze whether stolen cars are in shipping containers, why does he not accept my plan to scan those shipping containers? Would that not be common sense?
Trudeau dismissed the container-scanning plan by alluding to its impact on supply chains and shipping, and attacked Poilievre for listening to high-priced corporate lobbyists, without engaging the staffing figures.
Trudeau does not engage with the CBSA staffing figures cited and does not address the container-scanning proposal on its merits, instead attacking Poilievre's connections to corporate lobbyists and dismissing the plan based on supply chain impacts without any data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will let the Leader of the Opposition's high-priced corporate lobbyist friends, who give him so much money at fancy cash-for-access private events, explain to him the impact on supply chains and shipping in Canada to try to scan 600,000 containers a day. The fact is, we are doing everything necessary to invest in countering organized crime, to track those containers and to do the work. He is not paying attention to the things that actually grow the country, even though he is listening to high-priced lobbyists.
Chahal asked the Prime Minister to update the House on the modernized Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, which President Zelenskyy had asked for.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the Prime Minister to update the House on the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Calgary and my home province of Alberta are home to tens of thousands of proud Ukrainian Canadians. Since Russia's illegal war on Ukraine, Canada's commitment towards Ukraine has never been stronger. That is why our government introduced a modernized Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, which President Zelenskyy asked for, to be there to help Ukraine rebuild after it defeats Russia. Shamefully, the Conservative Party did not want to accept Ukraine's reasonable request for assistance. Can the Prime Minister update the House on this crucial trade agreement?
Mr. Speaker, after the Conservative leader turned his back on Ukrainians and forced his own caucus to do the sameâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, after the Conservative leader turned his back on Ukrainians and forced his own caucus to do the same, he whipped his senators last night to vote against the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement that Ukraine asked for. Our Liberal caucus, including the member for Calgary Skyview, never backed down. Despite the Conservative Party's efforts to derail Ukraine's hopes to rebuild after it wins the war, the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement received royal assent last night. While Conservative politicians sell out to the Kremlin, we will stand with Ukraine.
Trudeau announced that the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement received royal assent last night, while attacking the Conservative leader for whipping his senators to vote against it.
Trudeau provides a concrete update â the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement received royal assent last night â which is real information, though the answer is heavily wrapped in partisan attack on the Conservative Party.
Poilievre cited $5 million in additional fraud identified by the department of public procurement out of $21 billion spent on outside consultants â a 100% increase â and asked how much of that $21 billion is fraud.
Cites specific figures ($60 million arrive scam, $5 million in additional fraud, $21 billion on outside consultants, 100% increase) and asks a precise, pointed question about how much of the $21 billion is fraud.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the $60-million arrive scam is just the tip of the iceberg. We have now learned that there is $5 million in additional fraud that has been identified by the department of public procurement, and this is out of the $21 billion the Prime Minister is now spending on outside consultants, which is a 100% increase, done fully with the support of the NDP. Can the Prime Minister tell us how much of this $21 billion is fraud?
Trudeau said the situation is unacceptable, that authorities are looking into the procurement process, and that all federal contracts with the companies concerned have been suspended, but did not quantify fraud within the $21 billion.
Trudeau acknowledges the situation is unacceptable and notes investigations and suspended contracts, but does not answer the specific question of how much of the $21 billion is fraud, pivoting instead to attacking Poilievre on Ukraine.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the situation is obviously unacceptable, which is why authorities are looking into the procurement process. Anyone who took advantage of our COVID response to save Canadians' lives should face consequences. All federal contracts with these companies have been suspended as the investigation continues. However, everyone in the House noticed how quickly the Leader of the Opposition pivoted from the question on Ukraine. The reality is, his members are ashamed of him for forcing them to vote against Ukrainian Canadians, to vote against Ukraine, and to vote against support the Ukrainian president was asking for.
Poilievre accused the Prime Minister of being fake and phony on Ukraine, citing the authorization of gas turbine exports to pump gas from Putin's economy and allowing Russian detonators, implicitly challenging his Ukraine credentials.
Poilievre cites specific accusations (authorization of gas turbine exports, Russian detonators) but the question is largely a speech with no clear single answerable ask, heavily dominated by personal attack and partisan framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has demonstrated once again that he is a fake and a phony becauseâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a fake and a phony on this issue, just like on everything else. He saysâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, this is a Prime Minister who authorized the export of gas turbines to pump gas from Putin's economy into Europe to fund the war. He is someone who signed on to allow Russian detonators to blow up Ukrainians on the battlefield, and he is pro Russia's energy policy to fund the Russian economy. We will take no lessonsâ
Oh, oh!
Oh, oh!
Trudeau dismissed the question as weak sauce and redirected entirely to the Conservative leader's role in voting against the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement that President Zelenskyy requested.
Trudeau does not engage with the specific accusations about gas turbines or detonators, instead pivoting entirely to the Conservative vote against the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is pretty weak sauce from the Leader of the Opposition. The reality is that President Zelenskyyâ
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is flailing in every way he can to try to divert attention away from the fact that his members voted against a request made by President Zelenskyy himself to support a Canada-Ukraine free trade deal. The reality is that constituents across the country feel betrayed by the Conservative Party voting against Ukraine.
Poilievre argued that Conservatives support Ukraine by advocating for missiles rather than turbines and detonators for Russia, then pivoted to affordability concerns and asked whether the Prime Minister would call a carbon tax election.
The question is primarily rhetorical, mixing Ukraine policy with a call for a carbon tax election; the ask is vague and compound, with no specific factual grounding for the election demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Ukrainians asked for us to give missiles. The Conservatives support Ukraine, not giving turbines and detonators to Russia, which is what he has done. The Prime Minister has failed Ukrainians abroad, and he has failed Canadians at home. Canadians are good and decent people. They do not have to live this way. They do not have to give up the things they used to take for granted, such as affordable food and homes, all for the incompetence and ego of one man. He is not worth the cost or the corruption. Will he call a carbon tax election so Canadians can decide?
Trudeau accused Poilievre of trying to distract from the Conservative vote against Ukraine, noting that Ukraine itself has a price on pollution, and did not address the carbon tax election demand.
Trudeau does not engage with the Ukraine-specific accusations or the carbon tax election demand, instead focusing entirely on attacking Poilievre for the Conservative vote against Ukraine and the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, members can notice how desperate the Leader of the Opposition is to try to find any excuse he can to justify their voting against Ukraine. Suddenly, he is not talking about the price on pollution that Ukraine put in itself years ago. He is not using that as an excuse, even though that was all we heard as a justification for why they voted against Ukraine, voted against Ukrainian Canadians and voted against the reconstruction of Ukraine, which we are committed to through a free trade agreement. He stood in the House and voted against Ukraine, and he is now trying to do anything he can to hide from it. He let down Ukraine, and that showed who he is.
Fortier asked the Prime Minister to inform Canadians why the government's plan â which returns $1,120 annually to constituents in OttawaâVanier through the Canada carbon rebate â is so important.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the Prime Minister to explain why the government's plan is so important, with no accountability dimension and only a vague implicit ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, climate change is a reality that impacts my constituents in OttawaâVanier. They have asked the government to reduce emissions while putting more money back in their pockets. That is why, every year, they receive $1,120 from the Canada carbon rebate. While Conservative politicians fail to recognize that climate change is real and that there is an even greater cost of inaction, can the Prime Minister inform Canadiansâ
Mr. Speaker, while Conservative politicians fail to recognize that climate change is real and that there is an even greater cost of inaction, can the Prime Minister inform Canadians as to why our plan is so important?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for OttawaâVanier for her hard work. The opposition leader would take away over $1,000 from families in Ontario every year. That amount might be minimal to him when he is cashing his CCB cheque, but it is not to middle-class families. We now know why he wants to take money away from Canadians. He is in the pocket of big business. We learned from media reports that he was partying with oil lobbyists and CEOs at private, cash-for-access fundraisers in Banff just last year. He cares about his wealthy donors getting richer. He does not care aboutâ
Trudeau said the opposition leader would take away over $1,000 from families in Ontario every year and accused him of being in the pocket of big business based on media reports of cash-for-access fundraisers in Banff with oil lobbyists and CEOs.
Trudeau cites the $1,000 figure from the Canada carbon rebate but quickly pivots to attacking Poilievre for cash-for-access fundraisers with oil lobbyists and CEOs in Banff, providing little substantive policy content.
Barron asked the Prime Minister to commit to including a national school food program in the spring budget, noting that the Liberals have been delaying for years.
Barron identifies a specific program (national school food program), notes years of delay, and asks whether the Prime Minister will commit to funding it in the spring budget, making it a reasonably specific ask with some accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, families in NanaimoâLadysmith and across Canada should not have to worry about how to keep their kids fed while at school. A national school food program would make sure kids get the food they need to grow and learn, but the Liberals have been delaying for years. What about the Conservatives? They voted against feeding kids while putting the profits of CEOs first. Children should not be left to go hungry. Will the Prime Minister make sure a national school food program is in the spring budget?
Trudeau said members would have to wait until April 16 for the budget, previewed support on housing and affordability, and said the government will keep delivering including by working with provinces on important programs like school food programs.
Trudeau declines to confirm whether the national school food program will be in the budget, citing the April 16 budget date, but previews housing and affordability measures and says the government will keep working with provinces on school food programs â partial but not a direct commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, like all members in the House, the member is going to have to wait until April 16 to find out what is in the budget. I can give people a preview right now. There will be support on housing. There will be help on affordability for Canadians. There will be opportunities to invest in growing the economy and creating good jobs for the future while we help Canadians through tough times right now. We are focused on young people. We are focused on seniors. We are going to keep delivering, including by working with provinces on important programs like school food programs.
Morrice noted that nine months after unanimous passage of legislation for the Canada disability benefit, there is still no funding commitment, and asked the Prime Minister to commit to a fully funded benefit in budget 2024.
Morrice cites a specific timeline (nine months since legislation passed with unanimous support), draws a pointed contrast with MAID legislation, and asks for a concrete commitment to a fully funded Canada disability benefit in budget 2024.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the powerful advocacy of people with disabilities across the country, every MP in the House supported legislation meant to lift people with disabilities out of poverty. Nine months later, there is still no commitment from the government to fund what will be called the Canada disability benefit. When it came to MAID legislation, this government sure moved fast to make sure that people with disabilities could die well. Will the Prime Minister show he is ready to ensure that people with disabilities live well and commit to a fully funded benefit in budget 2024?
Trudeau said the government was very pleased to move forward on the Canada disability benefit and will have more to say in the coming months, but did not commit to a fully funded benefit in budget 2024.
Trudeau does not commit to a fully funded benefit in budget 2024, instead saying the government will have more to say in the coming months and offering general claims about past investment in people with disabilities, while partially engaging the topic.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member is better than the question he just asked. He knows that it is really important to be there both to protect people when they are most vulnerable and to support their wishes. That is something that is foundational in Canada. In regard to people living with disabilities, we have invested more in people with disabilities over the past eight years than ever before, and there is more to do. We were very, very pleased to move forward on the Canada disability benefit, and we will have more to say in the coming months.