Session overview
- Pierre Poilievre dominated Question Period with repeated calls for a 'carbon tax election,' citing 25% poverty rates, two million food bank users, 38% more homeless people, and doubled housing costs after nine years of the Prime Minister.
- The government announced the IRGC has been listed as a terrorist entity today, with the Prime Minister stating it 'sends a strong message that Canada will use all tools of our disposal to hold the Iranian regime to account.'
- A prolonged dispute over the carbon tax centred on whether the government's own published data showing a $30-billion-a-year economic cost was included in the Prime Minister's claim that 'eight out of 10 Canadians' are better off with the Canada carbon rebate.
- Forestry jobs in Quebec became a flashpoint, with Poilievre and Blanchet both pressing the Prime Minister to reverse a federal decree they said threatens between 2,400 and 30,000 forestry jobs, while the Prime Minister defended it as required under species-at-risk law and framed it as a matter of protecting woodland caribou.
- Yves-François Blanchet challenged the government on the decline of French, citing Canada Post employees in Quebec not required to speak French, the rollback of French in the federal public service, and American corporate lobbying against loi 96; the Prime Minister disputed the characterization and invoked the Official Languages Act.
- The House passed a government motion at the end of sitting 335 that deemed several bills adopted at various stages â including Bill C-26 on cybersecurity, Bill C-40 on miscarriage of justice reviews, Bill S-9 on the Chemical Weapons Convention, and Bill S-16 on Haida Nation recognition â and adjourned Parliament until September 16, 2024.
The Prime Minister confirmed a concrete, specific government action â the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist entity â making this the only exchange in the session where a direct, verifiable commitment was publicly announced in response to a question.
Explicitly distinguishes between PBO numbers and government-published data, cites the government's own admission of a $30-billion annual economic impact, and asks a single precise yes/no question about whether that figure is included in the 'eight out of 10' claim.
When Poilievre asked directly whether the $30-billion annual economic cost published by the government was included in the 'eight out of 10' calculation, the Prime Minister responded by accusing the opposition leader of not believing in climate change rather than addressing the specific arithmetic question posed.
Outstanding questions
- Pierre Poilievre asked three times whether the government's own published $30-billion-a-year economic cost of the carbon tax is included in the 'eight out of 10 Canadians are better off' figure â the Prime Minister never answered yes or no.
- Pierre Poilievre asked whether the Prime Minister will reverse the federal decree on woodland caribou habitat protection that the Quebec Ministry of Natural Resources says could eliminate between 2,400 and 30,000 forestry jobs â no direct answer was given.
- Pierre Poilievre asked whether the Prime Minister will amend the capital gains inclusion rate increase to exclude anyone making less than $100,000 a year â the Prime Minister declined to address the proposed amendment and instead restated the $250,000-in-profit threshold.
- Yves-François Blanchet asked whether the Prime Minister will protect loi 96 from American corporate pressure and potential U.S. trade sanctions â the Prime Minister spoke generally about Canada's bilingualism and past trade negotiations but made no specific commitment regarding U.S. lobbying against loi 96.
- Blake Desjarlais asked when the Prime Minister will establish a five-year funding plan for Trade Winds to Success to support indigenous labour training â the Prime Minister cited overall indigenous investment figures but gave no timeline or commitment specific to Trade Winds to Success.
Poilievre cited statistics on poverty, food bank use, and housing costs, then asked whether the Prime Minister would call an election rather than force Canadians through another year and a half of hardship.
Cites some statistics (2 million food bank users, 25% poverty) but the ask is compound and rhetorical â call an election or suffer â rather than a single accountable question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on a appris encore, durant cette session parlementaire, que tout est brisĂ© au Canada. Le coĂ»t du logement a doublĂ©. Ce sont 2 millions de Canadiens qui doivent aller dans les banques alimentaires. Ce sont 25 % des Canadiens â un record â qui sont dans la pauvretĂ© aprĂšs neuf ans de ce premier ministre, avec l'aide du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois. Le premier ministre va-t-il forcer les Canadiens Ă souffrir une autre annĂ©e et demie dans cet enfer coĂ»teux ou va-t-il dĂ©clencher des Ă©lections maintenant pour que les Canadiens puissent Ă©lire un gouvernement qui va rĂ©duire les taxes et les impĂŽts, bĂątir des logements, rĂ©parer le budget et stopper les crimes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what this parliamentary session has taught us is that everything is broken in Canada. After nine years of this Prime Minister, with the help of the Bloc Québécois, the cost of housing has doubled, two million Canadians have to use food banks and a record-breaking number of Canadians, 25%, are living in poverty. Will the Prime Minister force Canadians to endure another year and a half of this costly hell or will he call an election today so that Canadians can elect a government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime?
Trudeau argued that if Poilievre truly cared about affordability he would support dental care, the school food program, child care, and housing densification measures.
Does not address the election call or the statistics cited; pivots entirely to listing Liberal programs the Conservatives oppose.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si le chef du Parti conservateur se préoccupait vraiment de la crise d'abordabilité à laquelle font face les Canadiens, il serait en train d'appuyer notre plan pour offrir des soins dentaires aux aßnés et aux jeunes de moins de 18 ans. Il serait en train de nous aider à fournir des repas à l'école à 400 000 enfants de plus par année. Il serait en train d'appuyer nos mesures pour créer des places en garderie. Il serait en train d'appuyer nos mesures ambitieuses pour créer de la densification et plus de logements. Toutefois, il préfÚre jouer à des jeux politiques plutÎt que de répondre aux besoins des Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the Conservative Party really cared about the affordability crisis Canadians are facing, he would be supporting our plan to provide dental care to seniors and young people under 18. He would be helping us provide school lunches to 400,000 more children per year. He would be supporting our measures to create child care spaces. He would be supporting our ambitious measures to create densification and build more housing. However, he prefers to play political games rather than help meet Canadians' needs.
Poilievre cited figures from Quebec's Ministry of Natural Resources projecting 2,400 to 30,000 job losses from a federal decree on the forestry sector, and asked whether the Prime Minister would reverse that decree.
Cites specific data from the Quebec Ministry of Natural Resources â between 2,400 and 30,000 jobs â and asks a clear, direct question about reversing a specific decree affecting the forestry sector.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on a déjà l'expérience de neuf ans de ces politiques qui ont causé la misÚre dont j'ai parlé tout à l'heure. Maintenant, le premier ministre veut imposer un décret au Québec pour fermer le secteur forestier. On a appris aujourd'hui du ministÚre des Ressources naturelles du Québec que cela va tuer entre 2 400 et 30 000 emplois, et le Bloc québécois est silencieux. Est-ce que le premier ministre va renverser ce décret radical pour qu'on puisse sauver les emplois de 30 000 travailleurs québécois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have nine years of experience with these policies that have caused the misery I was just talking about. Now, the Prime Minister wants to issue an order for Quebec to shut down the forestry sector. Today we learned from Quebec's ministry of natural resources that this is going to kill between 2,400 and 30,000 jobs, but the Bloc Québécois remains silent. Will the Prime Minister reverse this radical order so that we can save the jobs of 30,000 Quebec workers?
Trudeau accused the Conservatives of an anti-environment approach and said the government would continue working with Quebec to protect both forestry jobs and caribou.
Does not address the decree or the cited job-loss figures; deflects to a general environment-economy balance framing and a vague promise to work with Quebec.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, contrairement au chef du Parti conservateur, les QuĂ©bĂ©cois comprennent trĂšs bien que la seule façon de bĂątir un avenir plus fort, c'est en protĂ©geant l'Ă©conomie et l'environnement en mĂȘme temps. C'est comme ça qu'on va crĂ©er un avenir plus prospĂšre pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et pour tous les Canadiens. Encore une fois, on voit l'approche anti-environnement du Parti conservateur. Nous allons continuer de travailler avec le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec. Nous allons continuer de travailler pour protĂ©ger des jobs en foresterie et pour protĂ©ger les caribous. C'est ce Ă quoi les gens s'attendent d'un gouvernement responsable.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, unlike the leader of the Conservative Party, Quebeckers know full well that the only way to build a stronger future is to protect the economy and the environment at the same time. That is how we are going to create a more prosperous future for Quebeckers and for all Canadians. Again, we are seeing the Conservative Party's anti-environment approach. We will continue to work with the Government of Quebec. We will continue to work on protecting forestry jobs and protecting caribou. That is what people expect from a responsible government.
Poilievre cited statistics on poverty, homelessness, and housing costs and asked whether the Prime Minister would call a carbon tax election rather than continue for another year and a half.
Provides several statistics (25% poverty, 38% more homeless, 256 encampments, doubled housing costs) but the ask is again a compound election-call demand dressed in rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what this session of Parliament taught us is that, after nine years under the Prime Minister, everything is broken. There are 25% of Canadians now living in poverty, with two million lined up at food banks; 38% more people are homeless, and housing costs have doubled. It was not like this before, and it will not be like this after the Prime Minister is gone. Will he put us through another year and a half of this costly hell, or will he call a carbon tax election today so that we can elect a common-sense government to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime?
Trudeau countered that Poilievre prioritizes his own political interests, pointing to opposition to the school food program, dental care, child care, and job investments.
Ignores the statistics and the election question entirely, pivoting to attacking Poilievre's motives and listing Liberal programs opposed by Conservatives.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition actually cared more about Canadians than he does about his own political interests, he would be supporting the 400,000 kids we are going to help with the national school food program. Instead of opposing it at every turn, he would be voting in favour of the dental care program that has already helped over 200,000 seniors and will, as of next week, start helping young people and Canadians with disabilities. He would be standing with us on expanding child care spaces instead of campaigning against it. However, he does not care about Canadians. He cares only about himself.
Poilievre cited tent cities, 2 million food bank users including one in ten Torontonians, and 256 tent cities in Toronto, asking why the Prime Minister will not acknowledge these as consequences of his 'wackonomics.'
Cites some concrete figures (2 million food bank users, one in 10 Torontonians, 256 tent cities) but the term 'wackonomics' and the rhetorical framing lower the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, these are the same promises that he has been making for nine years. Instead of the theoretical utopia that he has promised, what Canadians are living through is hell. There are tent cities popping up across the country in places they never existed before. There are two million people lined up at food banks, with one in 10 Torontonians included in that number. Toronto is a town where, right now, it is impossible for almost anyone to afford a home, and there are 256 tent cities. Why will he not recognize that these are the very real consequences of his policy of wackonomics?
Trudeau referenced the most ambitious housing plan in Canadian history and raising the capital gains inclusion rate for those making over $250,000, framing Conservatives as siding with the wealthiest.
Mentions the housing plan and capital gains inclusion rate change but does not address the tent-city or food-bank figures cited, pivoting instead to class-based framing against the Conservatives.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our plan is to invest in the most ambitious housing plan this country has ever seen and to invest in supports for seniors, supports for young people and supports for Canadians with disabilities. The Conservative leader is choosing to demonstrate what everyone knows Conservative parties do, which is protect the wealthiest and let everyone else fend for themselves. While we are asking the wealthiest Canadians to pay a little more by raising the capital gains inclusion rate for anyone making over $250,000 in a given year on selling properties, he is standing with the wealthiest, not with the middle class and people working hard to join it.
Poilievre cited statistics showing 76% of young people believe they will never afford a home, 38% more homeless, 256 encampments, 2 million food bank users, and one in four Canadians skipping meals, asking if this was the Prime Minister's vision of 'sunny ways for the middle class.'
Cites several specific statistics (76% of young people, 38% more homeless, 256 encampments, 2 million food banks, one in four skipping meals) but closes with a rhetorical 'sunny ways' jab rather than a precise answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the middle class does not exist after nine years of the Prime Minister. Here are the facts: Of young people, 76% believe they will never afford a home. There are 38% more homeless people, and, in Toronto alone, 256 homeless encampments. Two million people lined up at a food bank, and one in four Canadians is skipping meals because they cannot afford the price of food. Is this what he meant when he said sunny ways for the middle class?
Trudeau attacked Poilievre's 19-year parliamentary career, accusing him of amplifying Canadians' concerns as sound bites without offering solutions and of opposing dental care, pharmacare, and job investments.
Completely avoids the statistics and the 'sunny ways' reference, instead attacking Poilievre's parliamentary career and listing programs he opposes â a clear deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have seen throughout this session, and indeed throughout his career, which covers more than 19 years as a parliamentarian, that the leader of the Conservative Party is very quick to use sound bites that use Canadians, that exacerbate, exaggerate and indeed amplify the real concerns people are facing, but he is nowhere on solutions for them. He is standing against dental care, against pharmacare, against investments in the middle class and people working hard to join it, and against investments to create jobs and a future for Canadians because all he cares about is himself and his future.
Blanchet cited Canada Post's position that employees delivering or sorting mail in Quebec do not need to speak French, and asked whether the Prime Minister would order Canada Post to require that its Quebec employees speak French.
Cites a specific Canada Post policy claim â that French is not required to deliver or sort mail in Quebec â and asks a clear, targeted question about ordering Canada Post to require French-speaking employees.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pour livrer ou trier le courrier au QuĂ©bec, selon la SociĂ©tĂ© canadienne des postes, on n'a pas besoin de parler français. La raison, c'est que le facteur ne parle Ă personne, pas mĂȘme au chien qui le prend en chasse, ni au bureau, ni dans la rue, ni chez les gens, jamais. Est-ce que le premier ministre va rappeler Postes Canada Ă l'ordre et exiger que ses employĂ©s au QuĂ©bec parlent français?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, according to Canada Post, employees do not need to speak French to deliver or sort mail in Quebec. The reason given is that letter carriers do not talk to anyone, not even the dogs chasing them, not at the post office, not on the street, not at people's homes, never. Will the Prime Minister call Canada Post to order and demand that its employees in Quebec speak French?
Trudeau said the government would follow up on the Canada Post question and affirmed its commitment to ensuring the Official Languages Act is respected in federal institutions, including Canada Post.
Commits to following up on the Canada Post issue and references the Official Languages Act obligation, but provides no specific action or timeline, making the response more of a general pledge than a direct answer.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre gouvernement a toujours été là pour défendre les langues officielles au Canada. D'ailleurs, nous avons été le premier gouvernement fédéral à reconnaßtre que nous avons une responsabilité particuliÚre pour défendre le français, y compris au Québec. C'est pour ça que nous allons continuer à nous assurer que la Loi sur les langues officielles est respectée partout au pays, y compris dans des institutions fédérales comme Postes Canada. Nous allons faire un suivi sur cette question parce que c'est important que nous puissions toujours défendre nos deux langues officielles partout au Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our government has always been there to defend official languages in Canada. We were the first federal government to recognize that we have a special responsibility to protect French, including in Quebec. That is why we will continue to ensure that the Official Languages Act is respected across the country, including in federal institutions like Canada Post. We will follow up on this issue, because it is important that we continue to defend our two official languages across Canada.
Blanchet accused the Liberal government of allowing French to retreat everywhere while investing in the protection of English, and asked whether the Prime Minister recognizes that the effect of his policies is a decline of French.
Makes a broad claim that Liberal policies have caused French to decline and asks whether the Prime Minister recognizes this effect, but the question lacks specific data or documents to anchor it.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en matiÚre de français, le gouvernement libéral est une publicité trompeuse. En public, avec de grands effets et des élans risibles qui font plutÎt MoliÚre que Shakespeare, les libéraux sont des amoureux de la langue française, sauf quelques-uns à Montréal qui font chambre à part. En vérité, le gouvernement regarde le français reculer partout, tout le temps et investit dans la protection de l'anglais. Le premier ministre reconnaßt-il que l'effet de ses politiques est un recul du français?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to French, the Liberal government is a false advertiser. In public, with their grand gestures and ridiculous rhetoric, more reminiscent of MoliĂšre than Shakespeare, the Liberals love the French language, save for a few outliers in Montreal. The truth is that the government is looking on as French declines everywhere, all the time, yet it invests in protecting English. Does the Prime Minister recognize that his policies are causing French to decline?
Trudeau claimed no federal government before his had done more to protect official languages and support French in Quebec, and accused the Bloc of not caring about francophone communities outside Quebec.
Deflects by accusing the Bloc of picking identity fights and by counter-claiming the government has done more than any predecessor, without addressing the specific allegation of French declining under Liberal policies.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je comprends que le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois cherche toujours la chicane sur des questions d'identitĂ©. La rĂ©alitĂ©, c'est qu'aucun gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral avant nous n'en a fait plus pour protĂ©ger et soutenir les langues officielles partout au pays, y compris pour protĂ©ger le français au QuĂ©bec. Nous allons toujours ĂȘtre lĂ pour dĂ©fendre les langues officielles et nous allons toujours ĂȘtre lĂ pour dĂ©fendre les minoritĂ©s linguistiques. Je sais que le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois ne se prĂ©occupe pas du tout des communautĂ©s francophones au pays en dehors du QuĂ©bec, mais nous, nous allons ĂȘtre lĂ pour les langues officielles partout au pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Bloc Québécois is constantly trying to pick fights over identity issues. The truth is that no previous federal government has done more than we have to protect and support official languages across the country, including to protect French in Quebec. We will always be there to defend official languages, and we will always be there to defend linguistic minorities. I know that the Bloc Québécois cares nothing about francophone communities in Canada outside Quebec, but we will be there for the official languages across the country.
Singh stated that Liberals voted against stronger penalties for corporations ripping off Canadians and against banning harmful mergers, and asked why the Prime Minister is letting corporations rip off Canadians when one in four lives in poverty.
Refers to specific votes in Parliament against stronger corporate penalties and merger bans, and frames the question around corporations 'ripping off Canadians,' but the ask is broad and the framing is partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in this last week of Parliament, the Prime Minister showed us whose side he is really on. At a time when one in four Canadians is living in poverty, the out-of-touch Liberals voted against stronger penalties for corporations that are ripping off Canadians and against banning mergers that hurt people. Why is the Prime Minister letting corporations rip off Canadians when one out of four is living in poverty?
Trudeau cited raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% on day one and the capital gains inclusion rate increase for those making over $250,000, accusing Conservatives of aligning with the wealthiest.
Does not address the specific votes on corporate penalties or merger bans; pivots to capital gains inclusion rate and past NDP voting record, largely deflecting the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as a government, we have been focused from day one on helping young Canadians succeed. That is why, on day one, we raised taxes on the wealthiest 1% and lowered them for the middle class, which, at the time, the NDP voted against. We have continued to step up on asking the wealthiest to pay a little more in this most recent budget by raising the capital gains inclusion tax so that people making $250,000 or more on capital gains share a little more of those profits with Canadians who actually need it. Unfortunately, once again, the Conservatives have aligned themselves with the wealthiest in this country and are not there for people who need it.
Singh accused the Prime Minister of being so out of touch that he would not even support the words 'price reduction for Canadians' in his bill, and asked how the Prime Minister can be so disconnected.
References a specific bill and the specific phrase 'réduction des prix pour les Canadiens' that the government would not support, giving it some factual grounding, but the ask becomes personal and rhetorical at the end.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister is letting big corporations continue to rip off Canadians. Dans notre pays, 25 % des gens vivent dans la pauvretĂ©. Le premier ministre ne peut mĂȘme pas appuyer les mots « rĂ©duction des prix pour les Canadiens » dans mon projet de loi. Je sais que le premier ministre n'a pas vĂ©cu les dĂ©fis que les gens vivent aujourd'hui, mais comment peut-il ĂȘtre aussi dĂ©connectĂ©?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, encore une fois, le premier ministre laisse les grandes sociĂ©tĂ©s continuer d'arnaquer les Canadiens. In our country, 25% of the population is living in poverty. The Prime Minister cannot even support the words âlowering prices for Canadiansâ in my bill. I know the Prime Minister has not experienced the kind of challenges people are living through today, but how can he be so out of touch?
Trudeau listed government affordability measures including $10-a-day child care, pharmacare for insulin and reproductive health, a grocery code of conduct, and the national school food program.
Lists several affordability programs (child care, pharmacare, grocery code of conduct, school food program) without addressing the bill or the specific language Trudeau refused to support.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous reconnaissons Ă quel point les Canadiens font face Ă des dĂ©fis en matiĂšre d'abordabilitĂ©. C'est pour cela que nous mettons sur pied des programmes et que nous faisons des investissements qui sont en train d'aider les gens. Je parle des garderies Ă 10 $, de l'assurance-mĂ©dicaments pour l'insuline et la santĂ© reproductive, d'un code de conduite pour les grandes Ă©piceries pour mieux protĂ©ger les consommateurs et des 400 000 enfants qui vont avoir accĂšs Ă de meilleurs programmes d'alimentation scolaire grĂące Ă un programme national que nous sommes en train de crĂ©er. Nous allons continuer d'ĂȘtre lĂ pour aider les Canadiens et pour nous assurer que les mieux nantis paient leur juste part.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we recognize that Canadians are struggling with affordability challenges. That is why we are setting up programs and making investments that are helping people. I am talking about $10 day care, pharmacare for insulin and reproductive health, a code of conduct for major grocery chains to better protect consumers and a national school food program to ensure that 400,000 children will have access to meals. We will continue to be there to help Canadians and to make sure that those who are better off pay their fair share.
Poilievre cited a parliamentary vote, the IRGC's role in killing 55 Canadians, its role in October 7, and a by-election, asking why the Prime Minister always puts his political security above national security when it comes to listing the IRGC.
Cites specific prior events â a parliamentary vote, the killing of 55 Canadians, October 7, and a by-election â to hold the Prime Minister to account for the timing of listing the IRGC, making a clear causal argument, though the ask is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a vote in Parliament in favour of banning the IRGC was not enough to convince the Prime Minister to list it as a terrorist organization six years ago. The organization killing 55 Canadians in an unprovoked attack on a passenger aircraft was not enough to make him do it. Even its role in the October 7 attack and its subsequent role in inciting hatred on our streets was not enough. It took a by-election for the Prime Minister to change his mind. Why is the Prime Minister always putting his political security above national security?
Trudeau announced that the IRGC has been listed as a terrorist entity today, stating this sends a strong message that Canada will hold the Iranian regime accountable and that there can be no impunity for Iran's support of terrorism.
Confirms that the IRGC has been listed as a terrorist entity today and states it sends a strong message, but does not address the core question about why political timing (the by-election) drove the decision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today we have listed the IRGC as a terrorist entity. This sends a strong message that Canada will use all tools of our disposal to hold the Iranian regime to account. There can be no impunity for Iran's disregard for human rights and its support of terrorism. This is yet another of the extremely strong measures we have taken against the Iranian regime, some of the strongest measures in the world.
Poilievre asked whether the government's 'eight out of 10 Canadians are better off' calculation included the $30-billion-a-year economic cost that government-published data showed the carbon tax imposes.
Asks a precise, answerable question â did the 'eight out of 10 Canadians' calculation include the $30-billion-a-year economic cost the government's own data revealed â grounding it in government-published data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was also forced to release data from his own government showing that there would be a $30-billion-a-year hit to our economy as a result of his job-killing carbon tax, data that he had, up until then, been hiding. He has been going around claiming that Canadians are better off because they pay this tax. Did the calculations that went into his âeight out of 10 Canadiansâ talking points include this $30-billion-a-year cost to the Canadian economy and to Canadian families?
Trudeau cited the Parliamentary Budget Officer's confirmation that eight out of 10 Canadians get more back from the Canada carbon rebate than they pay, and accused Poilievre of relying on erroneous figures the PBO admitted were mistakes.
Repeats the 'eight out of 10 Canadians' talking point and accuses Poilievre of using erroneous PBO figures, but does not directly answer whether the $30-billion cost was included in those calculations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that eight out of 10 Canadians in jurisdictions that have the federal carbon price get more money back from the Canada carbon rebate than they pay with this price on pollution. That is fact. The Conservative leader has been using erroneous figures, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said he made a mistake on, to continue to attack our plan on fighting climate change and putting more money back in people's pockets. Eight out of 10 Canadians are better off.
Poilievre asked directly whether the 'eight out of 10 families are better off' figure includes the $30-billion-a-year economic cost when distributed among those families.
An extremely tight, single factual yes/no question: does the 'eight out of 10' figure include the $30-billion annual economic cost when distributed among those families â highly specific and directly answerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, does that include the $30-billion-a-year economic cost when distributed among those eight out of 10 families?
Trudeau repeated that the PBO confirmed eight out of 10 Canadians are better off with the Canada carbon rebate and accused Conservatives of basing attacks on erroneous PBO calculations, without answering whether the $30 billion was included.
Does not answer yes or no; repeats the claim that the PBO's erroneous calculations underpin Conservative attacks and restates the 'eight out of 10' figure without addressing the $30-billion cost inclusion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives are basing their attacks on climate action and affordability on erroneous calculations that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has admitted that he made. The fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer also calculated, without making any mistakes, that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off with the Canada carbon rebate and the price on pollution means that we are not only fighting climate change and bringing down emissions, but also putting more money back in the pockets of Canadians who need support right now, money that the Conservative Party wants to take away.
Poilievre clarified he was using the Liberal government's own published data showing a $30-billion annual economic hit, and asked specifically whether the Prime Minister's 'eight out of 10 families are better off' claim includes that $30-billion cost.
Explicitly distinguishes between PBO numbers and government-published data, cites the government's own admission of a $30-billion annual economic impact, and asks a single precise yes/no question about whether that figure is included in the 'eight out of 10' claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am not using Parliamentary Budget Officer numbers. I am using numbers that the Liberal government has now published. The government has admitted that its carbon tax will hit Canadians with $30 billion in annual losses to wages and higher prices. That is the government's data. It published those numbers. Once again, I have a very specific question: When the Prime Minister claims that eight out of 10 families are better off, does that include the $30 billion in costs that he now admits the government will impose on the economy?
Trudeau said all government and PBO studies confirm that eight out of 10 families in jurisdictions with the federal price on pollution have more money in their pockets than the price costs them, backed by independent economists.
Asserts that all studies confirm the 'eight out of 10' result and again cites independent economists and the PBO, but never directly answers whether the $30-billion cost is incorporated into that calculation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much clearer I can be, but I will try. Based on everything the government knows, all the studies we have made and all the studies the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made, we can affirm very clearly, and it is backed up by independent economists, that eight out of 10 families in jurisdictions across the country where the federal price on pollution applies do better off with more money in their pockets than the price on pollution costs them with the Canada carbon rebate. Liberals are fighting to put more money in the pockets of Canadians, and the Conservatives are wrong on this.
Poilievre showed that dividing the government's admitted $30-billion annual cost by 17 million Canadian families yields roughly $2,000 per family, and asked why the Prime Minister will not include that $30 billion in the calculation to show whether families are truly better off.
Provides a specific arithmetic demonstration â $30 billion divided by 17 million families equals roughly $2,000 per family â using government-published numbers and asks a direct, answerable question about putting that cost back into the calculation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot say yes because he knows that, when we take the $30 billion a year and divide it by the 17 million Canadian families, we come up with almost $2,000 per Canadian family based on numbers published by his own government. It is like he is saying someone can afford a house as long as they do not take into consideration the down payment and the monthly mortgage payments. If we take out $30 billion of costs, we do not have a real calculation. Why does the Prime Minister not put the $30 billion back into the calculator and show Canadians whether they are really better off?
Trudeau claimed that Poilievre's math only works if he believes climate change is not real, and that failing to account for the costs of extreme weather events and green economic transition makes the Conservative calculation incomplete.
Completely avoids the arithmetic and the $30-billion question, instead claiming Poilievre's math only works if he believes climate change is not real â a complete pivot that does not engage the specific calculation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is quite stunning to hear the leader lay it out so clearly that all of his math depends on one factor that he believes, which is that climate change is not real. That is according to the Leader of the Opposition. That is the only way to make sure his math works. He says there are no costs to Canadians from extreme weather events and there are no costs to Canadians about degrading competition when the world is switching toward greener solutions. If people do not believe in climate change, then his math works. However, if we know that climate change is a real threat to Canadians and the economy, then we need to act, and that is what we are doing.
Poilievre asserted that the carbon tax will not reduce by one penny the cost of climate change, eliminate one flood or drought, or change the weather, and asked whether the Prime Minister will admit he has been misleading Canadians about the carbon tax's costs and benefits.
Makes a specific empirical claim â the carbon tax will not eliminate a single flood, drought, or storm â and asks the Prime Minister to admit he has misled Canadians, but the phrasing is adversarial and compound rather than a clean accountable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all we have to accept is the fact that the Prime Minister's carbon tax will not reduce, by one penny, the cost of climate change to Canadians. It will not eliminate one flood, one drought, one storm or one anything. The carbon tax literally does nothing to change the weather or the climate. What it does is make Canadians poorer. Will the Prime Minister finally admit that all along he has been misleading Canadians, and that he knew he had the data that Canadians pay more, get less and get screwed over by the carbon tax?
Trudeau again said the Conservative leader's math only makes sense if he believes climate change has no cost, and affirmed the government will continue helping Canadians through climate action that also puts more money in people's pockets.
Repeats the claim that Poilievre's math only makes sense if he denies climate change, and pivots to innovation and green jobs without addressing the specific allegation that the government misled Canadians using data it possessed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the only way the Conservative leader's math makes sense is that he believes that climate change has no cost for Canadians. Canadians right across the country are seeing the impacts of climate events. There is a need to innovate and create greener, cleaner jobs for the future as we deliver our resources to the world. The fact that the Conservative leader does not believe in climate change means that he does not believe that the climate action that puts more money in people's pockets is worth it. That is exactly where we disagree, and we are going to continue to help Canadians get through this.
Blanchet asks whether the Prime Minister will take responsibility and protect Quebec's loi 96 against potential U.S. sanctions being pushed by American companies who misunderstand the law.
Identifies a specific and current external pressure (American companies lobbying Biden over loi 96) and poses a clear binary accountability question about whether the PM will protect Quebec's language law.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en raison d'une mauvaise comprĂ©hension de la loi 96 sur le français au QuĂ©bec, des entreprises amĂ©ricaines font des pressions sur le gouvernement de Joe Biden afin que les ĂtatsâUnis imposent des sanctions pour contrecarrer la loi linguistique du QuĂ©bec. Est-ce que le premier ministre va prendre ses responsabilitĂ©s face aux ĂtatsâUnis? Le premier ministre va-t-il protĂ©ger une loi adoptĂ©e de façon lĂ©gitime au QuĂ©bec ou va-t-il laisser notre principal partenaire commercial dicter nos propres lois linguistiques?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, because American companies misunderstand Bill 96 on French in Quebec, they are pressuring Joe Biden's government to impose U.S. sanctions to counter Quebec's language law. Will the Prime Minister shoulder his responsibilities when it comes to the United States? Will the Prime Minister protect a law that was legitimately passed in Quebec, or will he let our largest trading partner dictate our own language laws?
Trudeau notes Quebec has good representatives in Washington and says Canada will continue protecting its cultural and linguistic reality in negotiations, as it did during NAFTA renegotiation.
Trudeau acknowledges Quebec's Washington representation and Canada's bilingual identity but never commits to defending loi 96 against U.S. sanctions, leaving the direct ask unanswered.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je sais que, depuis bien des annĂ©es, le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec a de trĂšs bons reprĂ©sentants Ă Washington et ailleurs dans le monde pour parler des enjeux relatifs Ă ses lois provinciales. En mĂȘme temps, en tant que pays bilingue qui protĂšge le français et l'anglais sur son territoire, nous allons continuer d'ĂȘtre lĂ dans nos nĂ©gociations, comme ce fut le cas lors de la renĂ©gociation de l'ALENA il y a plusieurs annĂ©es avec le gouvernement amĂ©ricain, pour protĂ©ger la culture et la rĂ©alitĂ© linguistique du Canada ainsi que la spĂ©cificitĂ© de nos citoyens d'un bout Ă l'autre de ce pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I know that, for many years, the Government of Quebec has had very good representatives in Washington and elsewhere in the world to talk about issues relating to its provincial laws. At the same time, as a bilingual country that protects French and English within its borders, we will continue to be there during negotiationsâas we were during the renegotiation of NAFTA several years ago with the American governmentâto protect Canada's culture and linguistic reality as well as the distinct character of our citizens from coast to coast to coast.
Blanchet lists multiple failures on French â francisation of immigrants, French declining in the federal public service, minority language funding going to anglophones in Quebec, and federal funding to fight loi 96 â and asks whether the PM understands that francophones doubt French has a future.
Blanchet lists several specific grievances (francisation, federal public service, minority language funding, loi 96 court challenge) but the cumulative ask â whether the PM understands that francophones doubt French's future â is rhetorical rather than a single answerable question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il a une allergie au simple mot « oui ». On le voit: incapacitĂ© Ă franciser le nombre d'immigrants que le QuĂ©bec accueille gĂ©nĂ©reusement; recul du français dans la fonction publique canadienne; employĂ©s sous compĂ©tence fĂ©dĂ©rale unilingues anglais au QuĂ©bec; protection d'un dĂ©putĂ© qui insulte des chercheurs dĂ»ment invitĂ©s au Parlement; tout l'argent pour la protection des langues dites minoritaires au Canada remis aux anglais au QuĂ©bec; financement pour contrer la loi 96 jusqu'en Cour suprĂȘme. Est-ce que le premier ministre comprend que, chez les francophones du QuĂ©bec et du Canada, dont nous sommes peut-ĂȘtre les seuls amis, on se demande si le français a un avenir ici?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, he is allergic to the simple word âyesâ. We can see it: The inability to ensure that the number of immigrants Quebec so generously welcomes learn French, the decline of French in the Canadian public service, the unilingual English federally regulated employees in Quebec, the protection given a member who insults researchers duly invited to Parliament, all the money for protecting so-called minority languages in Canada sent to anglophones in Quebec, and the funds spent on fighting Bill 96 all the way to the Supreme Court. Does the Prime Minister realize that francophones in Quebec and Canadaâand we might be their only friendsâare wondering if French even has a future here?
Trudeau accuses Blanchet of always looking for a fight, notes Liberals have more Quebec MPs than the Bloc, and promises hundreds of millions for francisation and defence of French across Canada.
Trudeau deflects by pointing to Liberal caucus size from Quebec and offering general commitments to French and francisation funding, addressing none of the specific failures enumerated.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je comprends que le chef du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois cherche toujours la chicane. Je lui rappellerai qu'il y a d'ailleurs plus de QuĂ©bĂ©cois dans notre caucus libĂ©ral qu'il y en a dans son caucus du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois et que nous allons toujours dĂ©fendre le français Ă la fois au QuĂ©bec et partout au pays. Nous allons ĂȘtre lĂ pour investir des centaines de millions de dollars pour le QuĂ©bec, pour la francisation des nouveaux arrivants. Nous allons continuer de dĂ©fendre le français d'un bout Ă l'autre de ce pays avec une attention particuliĂšre pour le QuĂ©bec parce que nous savons que le QuĂ©bec doit demeurer français d'abord et avant tout, et nous sommes lĂ pour l'appuyer.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the leader of the Bloc Québécois is always looking to pick a fight. I would remind him that there are more Quebeckers in our Liberal caucus than in his Bloc Québécois caucus and that we will always stand up for French, both in Quebec and across the country. We will be there to invest hundreds of millions of dollars for Quebec, for ensuring that newcomers learn French. We will continue to defend French from coast to coast to coast, with a special focus on Quebec, because we know that Quebec must remain French, first and foremost, and we are there to support it.
Poilievre accuses the Bloc québécois of voting for tax increases on Quebec farmers, homebuilders, doctors, and small businesses and asks why the 'Bloc libéral' keeps funnelling Quebec money to the federal government.
Poilievre lists four specific capital gains tax impacts on Quebec sectors but frames the question as partisan labelling ('Bloc libéral') with a vague ask about why the Bloc takes money from Quebec for the federal government.
Source text
La semaine derniÚre, le Bloc québécois a voté en faveur d'une hausse de taxe sur les fermiers québécois pendant une crise du coût de la nourriture, en faveur d'une hausse de taxe sur les constructeurs de logements pendant une crise du logement, en faveur d'une taxe sur les médecins pendant une pénurie de médecins et en faveur d'une taxe sur les petites entreprises québécoises pendant une crise économique. Pourquoi le « Bloc libéral » cherche-t-il toujours à prendre l'argent du Québec pour nourrir le gouvernement central, libéral et colossal?
Hansard translation: Last week, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of a tax hike for Quebec farmers during a food-pricing crisis, a tax hike for home builders during a housing crisis, a tax on doctors during a doctor shortage and a tax on small businesses in Quebec during an economic crisis. Why is the Liberal Bloc always trying to take Quebec's money to feed the massive, centralist Liberal government?
Trudeau admits he is not sure he followed the question and pivots to saying the Bloc recognizes that Conservatives defend the wealthy, expressing satisfaction that the Bloc shares the Liberal position on the capital gains inclusion rate.
Trudeau admits he did not follow the question and pivots to praising the Bloc for recognizing Conservatives defend the wealthy, never addressing the specific tax impacts on Quebec farmers, builders, doctors, or small businesses.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je ne suis pas certain d'avoir suivi l'intervention du chef du Parti conservateur, mais je peux souligner que le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois est un parti qui va, oui, chercher la chicane des fois avec le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral, mais qui reconnaĂźt quand mĂȘme que, la manie des conservateurs de dĂ©fendre les plus riches et d'en faire moins pour ceux qui en ont besoin, ce n'est pas la bonne voie pour qui que ce soit au pays, quelles que soient nos allĂ©geances politiques. Le fait que les conservateurs continuent de se placer Ă l'encontre d'une initiative qui va demander aux mieux nantis de contribuer un peu plus pour aider nos jeunes et nos aĂźnĂ©s, c'est vraiment dĂ©solant, et je suis content que le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois adopte la mĂȘme position que nous.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I followed what the leader of the Conservative Party was saying, but I can say that, although the Bloc Québécois is a party that sometimes picks fights with the federal government, it still recognizes the Conservatives' propensity for defending the wealthy and doing less for those who need it most. That is not the right way to go for anyone in this country, no matter what our political affiliation may be. The fact that the Conservatives continue to oppose an initiative that will ask the wealthiest members of our society to contribute a little more to help our young people and seniors is really disappointing, and I am pleased that the Bloc Québécois is adopting the same position we are.
Citing Angus Reid data showing one in five Canadians earning $50,000â$100,000 fear being hit by the tax increase, Poilievre asks whether the PM will support an amendment to exclude everyone holding less than 1% of Canada's wealth.
Poilievre cites a specific Angus Reid finding (one in five Canadians earning $50,000â$100,000 believe they will be affected) and proposes a concrete, answerable amendment to exclude anyone below the top 1% of wealth.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Bloc québécois s'allie toujours aux libéraux pour les garder au pouvoir. C'est le « Bloc libéral ». On apprend aujourd'hui de l'Institut Angus Reid qu'un Canadien sur cinq qui gagne entre 50 000 $ et 100 000 $ par année croit qu'il sera touché par la hausse de taxe du « Bloc libéral ». Si le premier ministre veut nier cela, il y a une façon trÚs claire de le faire. Il peut appuyer un amendement pour exclure de la hausse de taxe tous les gens qui ont moins de 1 % de la richesse du Canada. Va-t-il le faire, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois always aligns itself with the Liberals to keep them in power. It is the Liberal Bloc. Today the Angus Reid Institute reported that one in five Canadians earning between $50,000 and $100,000 a year believes they will be impacted by the Liberal Bloc tax hike. If the Prime Minister wants to deny that, there is a very clear way for him to do it. He can support an amendment to exclude from the tax hike anyone who holds less than 1% of Canada's wealth. Will he do that, yes or no?
Trudeau says he and the Bloc leader sometimes join forces against Conservatives who defend the wealthy and do not invest in housing, seniors, or child care, without addressing the amendment proposal or the survey data.
Trudeau ignores the Angus Reid data and the specific amendment proposal entirely, instead pivoting to contrasting Liberal and Conservative values on housing, seniors, and child care.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, tout le monde Ă la Chambre sait trĂšs bien qu'il y a des sujets sur lesquels moi et le chef du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois sommes en dĂ©saccord. Nous en avons parlĂ© assez souvent. Cependant, de temps en temps, nous nous rallions pour chercher tous les deux la chicane avec les conservateurs, qui veulent continuer de dĂ©fendre les mieux nantis et protĂ©ger les plus riches de ce pays pour ne pas investir dans le logement, pour ne pas investir dans de l'aide pour les aĂźnĂ©s et pour ne pas investir pour plus de places dans les garderies. Nous savons qu'il faut ĂȘtre lĂ pour la classe moyenne et pour ceux qui travaillent fort pour s'y joindre, pendant que les conservateurs, eux, veulent protĂ©ger leurs amis les plus riches. Ce n'est pas comme ça que nous allons crĂ©er une Ă©conomie plus forte pour tout le monde.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, everyone in the House knows full well that there are issues on which the Bloc leader and I disagree. We have talked about them often enough. However, from time to time, we come together to pick a fight with the Conservatives, who want to continue to defend those who are better off and protect the wealthiest in this country. We also go after them for not investing in housing, for not investing in assistance for seniors and for not investing in more child care spaces. We know we need to be there for the middle class and those who are working hard to join it, while the Conservatives want to protect their rich friends instead. That is not how we are going to create a stronger economy for everyone.
Poilievre cites Angus Reid data showing one in five Canadians making $50,000â$100,000 believe they will be affected and asks whether the PM will amend the tax increase law to exclude anyone making less than $100,000.
Poilievre again references the Angus Reid finding and poses a specific, concrete policy ask: will the PM amend the law to exclude anyone earning under $100,000.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, people who make between $50,000 and $100,000 a year are too rich for the Prime Minister? I guess he wants to make them poor. He is succeeding at that. One in five Canadians told Angus Reid that they will be affected, including one in five people making between $50,000 and $100,000 a year. It is another tax targeting the middle class by the promise-breaking Prime Minister. If those Canadians are wrong and they will not be affected, will the Prime Minister announce that he will amend his tax increase law to exclude anybody making less than $100,000 a year?
Trudeau states the capital gains inclusion rate increase applies to people making more than $250,000 in profits from selling investments in a given year, and frames it as asking the wealthiest to contribute more for housing and dental care.
Trudeau directly states the capital gains inclusion rate affects those making more than $250,000 in profits on investments in a given year, which partially addresses the concern but does not commit to the amendment requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our increase of the capital gains inclusion rate will affect people who make more than $250,000 in profits when they sell successful investments within a given year. We feel that those people can make a slightly smaller amount of profit so that we can make sure we are investing in young people who can afford housing, so that we can help seniors with the cost of dental care, and so that can we can deliver free insulin and free prescription contraceptives across this country. We are asking the wealthiest and the most successful to pay a little bit more so we can help those who need it, and the Conservatives are choosing to stand with the wealthiest.
Poilievre quotes Scott Brison's 'socialist bafflegab' characterization, notes that former Liberal finance ministers Morneau and Manley and former Bank of Canada governor Dodge all oppose the tax increase, and asks whether the PM will reverse it.
Poilievre cites named Liberal figures â Scott Brison, Bill Morneau, John Manley, and David Dodge â and their specific criticisms, but the ask ('will he reverse the job-killing tax') is a broad rhetorical demand rather than a precise policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, âsocialist bafflegabâ are not my words but the words of Scott Brison, the former Liberal president of the Treasury Board, the very person to whom the Prime Minister entrusted all of his spending. Add to that Bill Morneau and John Manley, two former finance ministers who have now said they are against the tax increase, and David Dodge, a Liberal former governor of the Bank of Canada. Now that all of these Liberals say the Prime Minister is up to socialist bafflegab, will he reverse the job-killing tax on Canadians?
Trudeau says it is no surprise that Conservatives revert to defending the wealthy and lists Liberal investments in school food programs, child care, dental care, and supports for Canadians with disabilities.
Trudeau does not engage with any of the named critics or their arguments, instead pivoting to a list of Liberal spending programs and attacking Conservatives for siding with the wealthy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it should actually be no surprise to Canadians to see the Conservatives, after pretending to care about workers and after pretending to care about vulnerable people, revert to type and against an ask for the wealthiest to pay a little bit more in taxes so we can invest even more in Canadians who need it, whether it is through a national school food program, whether it is expanding places in child care or whether it is delivering dental care for seniors and Canadians with disabilities. These are all things the Conservatives stand against, just like they stand against asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share. That is a shame.
Zarrillo asks why the PM has not moved forward on building affordable seniors' housing at the closed Canada Post office at 45 Mary Street in Port Moody, which has city and community support.
Zarrillo identifies a specific site (45 Mary Street, Port Moody) with community and city support and asks concretely why the PM has not acted to build affordable seniors' housing there.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the housing crisis is hurting seniors in Port Moody. The Liberals have promised to build more affordable housing, yet they continue to sit on their hands and drag their feet. The closed Canada Post office at 45 Mary Street is a good location for quality affordable homes for seniors. New affordable homes at this location have the support of the city and the community, but the Liberals have yet to put a shovel in the ground. Why will the Prime Minister not step up and build the affordable homes seniors need in Port Moody?
Trudeau says the government is using public and federally held lands including post office buildings for affordable housing through long-term leases, as part of its housing plan, without mentioning 45 Mary Street.
Trudeau speaks generally about federally held lands including post office buildings being used for affordable housing but does not address 45 Mary Street specifically or explain the delay.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that we have been able to contribute to a massive number of seniors' homes across the country over the past years, but we also know we get to do even more with the most ambitious plan on housing this country has ever seen. From increased density to more affordable homes and using public lands and federally held lands like post office buildings and Department of National Defence properties to build more homes that are affordable for Canadians, this is our plan to ensure that we are delivering for seniors and for future generations. While the Conservatives want to sell off public lands to the highest bidders, we are going to make sure long-term leases give affordable homes for seniors and all Canadians.
Barron acknowledges the Liberals are moving open-net fish farms out of B.C. coastal waters but asks whether the decision will include necessary funds to support impacted first nations and coastal communities given the lack of a real job strategy.
Barron references the government's announced move on open-net fish farms and asks a specific follow-up: will the decision include funds to support impacted first nations and coastal communities, acknowledging the absence of a job strategy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, finally, after years of dragging their heels, word is out that the Liberals are moving open-net fish farms out of B.C. coastal waters. Most first nations and British Columbians want to see these polluting farms out of our waters, but where is the plan? The Liberals have spent years delaying on a real job strategy for all those people impacted. Coastal communities cannot be left behind. Will the Prime Minister's decision include the delivery of necessary funds to support impacted first nations and coastal communities?
Trudeau says protecting the environment and reconciliation are top priorities and that the government will support indigenous communities with economic opportunities as it moves forward on protecting wild salmon.
Trudeau speaks in general terms about protecting the environment, wild salmon, and supporting indigenous communities economically but makes no specific commitment on funding for impacted coastal communities.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, protecting our environment is one of the top priorities of the current government and has been since we took office in 2015, as has reconciliation. As we move forward on the right kinds of things to protect our environment, including protecting wild salmon, we are also going to be there to make sure that we are supporting indigenous communities with economic opportunities and growth to continue to be able to provide for their communities, to continue to be able to thrive in Canada's economy of the future.
Liberal MP Carr asks the PM to reflect on progress made toward truth and reconciliation ahead of National Indigenous Peoples Day, with reference to Manitoba's large indigenous population.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the PM to offer reflections on reconciliation progress ahead of National Indigenous Peoples Day, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as we approach National Indigenous Peoples Day on June 21, indigenous and non-indigenous people from across Canada will engage in meaningful celebrations. At the same time, we will undertake important reflections on our past and on the path that we are on to secure a better future. Manitoba is home to Canada's largest indigenous population. Alongside our provincial colleagues, we have been working hard to build bridges through new investments and partnerships, including with Canada's first-ever first nations premier. Can the Prime Minister offer the House his reflections on the important progress that we have made together on our collective journey towards truth and reconciliation?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg South Centre for his commitment to reconciliation. We will always be there for indigenous people, and we will keep working with them in full partnership. As a government, we created the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. We appointed the first-ever indigenous Governor General and indigenous Supreme Court justice, and we created the indigenous languages commissioner. We also recently passed legislation, Bill C-29, to keep future governments accountable on the path of reconciliation to work with indigenous peoples. We are all excited to celebrate National Indigenous Peoples Day with indigenous communities later this week.
Trudeau lists government milestones including the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, the first indigenous Governor General, the first indigenous Supreme Court justice, the indigenous languages commissioner, and Bill C-29.
Trudeau lists concrete government actions â National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, first indigenous Governor General, first indigenous Supreme Court justice, indigenous languages commissioner, Bill C-29 â providing genuine informational content.
Poilievre cites the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland on the carbon tax, a former Liberal finance minister on investment flight, and the Liberal Treasury Board president's 'socialist bafflegab' accusation, and asks whether the PM will admit he is Canada's first NDP Prime Minister.
Poilievre names specific critics â a Liberal premier, a former Liberal finance minister he appointed, and the Liberal Treasury Board president he appointed â and their criticisms, but the ask ('admit he is actually not even a Liberal') is a rhetorical taunt rather than a policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland says the Prime Minister's carbon tax will harm working-class people just trying to heat their home or drive to work. The former Liberal finance minister, whom he appointed, says that the latest job-killing tax that he has brought in will drive investment out of the country, and the Liberal Treasury Board president, whom he appointed, accuses the Prime Minister of socialist bafflegab. With Liberals accusing the Prime Minister of socialist bafflegab, will he just admit that he is actually not even a Liberal? He is Canada's first NDP Prime Minister.
Trudeau says nine years of investing in the middle class has created growth, and reiterates that his carbon pricing plan puts more money in eight out of ten Canadian families' pockets while asking the wealthiest to share more profits.
Trudeau pivots entirely to reiterating his government's record on the middle class and climate, without engaging any of the named critics or their specific criticisms.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have demonstrated over the past nine years that investing in the middle class and people working hard to join it can create growth for the country. That is why we are continuing to step up to put back growth for work by putting more money in the pockets of Canadians, whether it is through a plan to fight climate change that puts more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadian families across the country, or whether it is by moving forward on asking the wealthiest who are selling off profitable investments to share a little more of those profits with Canadians who need it, by countering the housing crisis by investing in young people. Once again, Conservatives stand with the wealthiest. We stand with the middle class.
Poilievre notes that 76% of young Canadians say they cannot afford a home and that Toronto increased permit wait times and costs by 50% after receiving $500 million from the PM, and asks why the PM keeps funding gatekeeping bureaucracies instead of building homes.
Poilievre cites a specific statistic (76% of young people say they cannot afford a home) and a specific policy outcome (Toronto permit wait times and costs up 50% since $500 million transfer) to challenge the housing accelerator fund's effectiveness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he is countering the housing crisis? He doubled housing costs. He is helping young people? Seventy-six per cent of them say they cannot afford a home after nine years of the Prime Minister, but it is getting worse. The Prime Minister gave half a billion dollars to the Liberal-NDP mayor and council at Toronto city hall, supposedly to accelerate homebuilding. What is the consequence? Since that money was handed over, Toronto city hall has increased wait times and costs for building permits by 50%. Why does the Prime Minister keep forcing taxpayers to bloat the gatekeeping bureaucracies instead of doing what we want: build the homes?
Trudeau says housing starts are up across the country as a result of the housing accelerator fund and projects close to four million new homes over the coming decade through density, public lands, and renter protections.
Trudeau claims housing starts are up and references the housing accelerator fund and a projection of four million new homes over a decade but does not address the Toronto permit wait time increase or the specific $500 million outcome.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the challenging fact that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to avoid is that just last week it was demonstrated that housing starts are up across this country. That is part of where we have been investing with communities across the country in the housing accelerator fund that is delivering more homes built faster. Indeed, we are going to see close to four million new homes in the coming decade because Canadians know that more density, better use of public lands, better protection for renters and better math for home builders to be able to build more affordable homes are the things that are going to make a difference in Canadians' lives.
Poilievre cites Altus Group data on Canada's high development charges and second-slowest OECD permit times, notes Toronto raised both by 50% after receiving $500 million, and asks again why the PM keeps funding gatekeepers instead of removing them.
Poilievre cites the Altus Group on Canada having significantly higher development charges and the second-slowest permit wait times in the OECD, and specifically links the $500 million Toronto transfer to a 50% increase in charges and wait times.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, well, I think we can all agree that the Prime Minister needs better math. However, here is the math. The Altus Group says that Canada's development charges are significantly higher and our wait times for getting building permits are the second-slowest in the entire OECD. What is the Prime Minister doing? He is giving half a billion dollars to the City of Toronto, which has just increased its development charges and its permit wait times by 50%. Once again, why does the Prime Minister keep funding the gatekeepers instead of removing them so we can build the homes?
Trudeau says removing the GST on purpose-built middle-income apartment buildings led to thousands of new units being announced within days by developers, presenting this as the correct model for housing investment.
Trudeau offers a concrete example â removing GST on purpose-built apartment buildings â and says it triggered thousands of new units being announced within days, which is relevant but does not address development charges or permit wait times.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is a concrete example of how one makes the math work to build more homes. Last year, we made a decision to take off the GST on purpose-built, middle-income apartment buildings, the kind of apartment buildings we need more of right across the country. Within a few days after having announced that we would no longer be charging the GST on new apartment buildings, thousands of new units were being announced by developers across the country, because, suddenly, they were able to bring projects onto the table that had not been on it before. That is how to invest in housing. That is how we deliver for Canadians.
Poilievre cites permit times three times longer than the U.S. and U.K., Toronto's increase from 21 to 32 months, and asks why the PM will not adopt his plan requiring municipalities to permit 15% more housing completions as a condition of federal funding.
Poilievre cites a specific comparative data point (permits take three times longer in Canada than the U.S. and U.K.), a specific Toronto trend (21 to 32 months in two years), and proposes a concrete conditional funding policy (15% more housing completions required to receive federal funds).
Source text
Mr. Speaker, permits take three times longer to get in Canada than in the U.S. and in the U.K. In the last two years, in Toronto, the wait time has gone from 21 months to 32 months, all while the Prime Minister has given that bureaucracy $500 million to subsidize its building-blocking bureaucracy. Why will he not follow my common-sense plan to require municipalities to permit 15% more housing completions as a condition of getting their federal funds?
Trudeau says the Conservative leader has no housing plan, attacks his record as housing minister under Harper, and claims his proposals to reimpose GST and withdraw densification funds would slow construction.
Trudeau attacks Poilievre's record as housing minister and claims Poilievre's plans would slow construction by reimposing GST and withdrawing funds, without engaging the 15% completions proposal or the permit wait time data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The Conservative leader has no plan to address the housing crisis. When he was housing minister under the Harper government, he had no plan to address the housing crisis. That government decided to get out of any federal engagement in housing, and we are seeing those consequences even 10 years later. The reality is that his plan to reimpose GST on apartment-building construction would slow down apartment-building construction. His plan to withdraw funds that are needed for densification of permitting would slow down housing construction. That is not what Canadians need.
Blanchet asks whether the PM agrees that the woodland caribou issue is a test of balancing wealth creation and environment, and whether the solution should be negotiated among Quebec, the forestry industry, and indigenous peoples.
Blanchet frames a genuine policy dilemma â protecting the woodland caribou without destroying forestry jobs â and asks two related but answerable questions: does the PM agree this is a test of balancing wealth creation and environment, and should the solution be negotiated among Quebec, the forestry industry, and indigenous peoples?
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le caribou forestier est en danger de disparition avec lâaide des conservateurs. Ăa ne doit pas se produire. Par contre, des milliers dâemplois liĂ©s Ă la forĂȘt, une des plus Ă©cologiques et importantes richesses du QuĂ©bec, sont aussi en danger de disparition avec lâaide des libĂ©raux. Je nâaccepte ni lâun ni lâautre. Le premier ministre est-il dâaccord pour dire que lâenjeu du caribou forestier est un test de notre capacitĂ© Ă concilier crĂ©ation de richesse et environnement? Est-il dâaccord pour que la solution soit nĂ©gociĂ©e entre le QuĂ©bec, lâindustrie forestiĂšre et les Autochtones?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with some help from the Conservatives, the woodland caribou is at risk of extinction. That must not happen. However, thousands of forestry jobs are also at risk of extinction, with some help from the Liberals. Our forests are one of Quebec's most ecological and important assets. I cannot accept either prospect. Does the Prime Minister agree that the woodland caribou issue is a test of our ability to reconcile the creation of wealth with the environment? Does he agree to let Quebec, the forestry industry and indigenous peoples negotiate a solution together?
Trudeau says the federal government has worked for 10 years to help Quebec develop a caribou protection plan balancing the environment and jobs, and remains ready to support Quebec communities and the economy.
Trudeau confirms the federal government's willingness to collaborate with Quebec and protect both the caribou and jobs, and mentions 10 years of federal engagement, but does not directly answer whether the solution should be left to Quebec, industry, and indigenous negotiations.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au cours de 10 derniĂšres annĂ©es, soit depuis lâĂ©poque prĂ©cĂ©dant notre arrivĂ©e au gouvernement, le gouvernement du Canada travaille trĂšs fort pour aider le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec Ă prĂ©senter un plan de protection du caribou et atteindre nos objectifs communs de protĂ©ger lâenvironnement et les emplois. Le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral reste toujours disposĂ© Ă collaborer avec le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec et Ă lâĂ©pauler pendant quâil met en Ćuvre des mesures pour assurer le rĂ©tablissement de lâespĂšce dans le cadre dâune stratĂ©gie globale. Nous restons disposĂ©s Ă soutenir les communautĂ©s locales, les emplois et, bien sĂ»r, la dynamique Ă©conomie quĂ©bĂ©coise.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 years, from the time before we took office, the Government of Canada has been working hard to help the Government of Quebec come up with a plan to protect the caribou and achieve our common objectives of protecting the environment and jobs. The federal government remains ready to work with and assist the Quebec government while it implements measures to ensure the species' recovery as part of a comprehensive strategy. We remain ready to support local communities, jobs and, of course, Quebec's dynamic economy.
Blanchet warns that federal decrees would cause economic catastrophe in forestry, and declares that the Bloc will work toward negotiated solutions in support of Quebec as the sole authority over forests, implicitly asking the federal government to let Quebec lead.
Blanchet's second exchange is more of a declaration of intent (the Bloc will seek negotiated solutions) than a question, though it implicitly challenges the federal government to avoid imposing decrees and to respect Quebec's jurisdiction over forests.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si le gouvernement impose des dĂ©crets, ce sera la catastrophe Ă©conomique dans la forĂȘt. Si le QuĂ©bec nâarrive pas Ă une entente avec lâindustrie, les Ă©cologistes, les Autochtones, les syndicats et les milieux municipaux, le caribou forestier sera condamnĂ©. Les conservateurs prĂ©tendent rĂ©gler ça, mais, dans un an et demi, les entreprises seront dĂ©jĂ fermĂ©es, lâespĂšce sera plus menacĂ©e et les emplois seront perdus. Je ne sais pas ce que dira le premier ministre, mais moi, je dis ceci: le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois et moi allons nous investir dans la recherche de solutions nĂ©gociĂ©es et convenues en appui au gouvernement du QuĂ©bec, seule autoritĂ© en matiĂšre de forĂȘt.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the government imposes decrees, that will lead to economic disaster for the forestry industry. If Quebec does not reach an agreement with the industry, environmentalists, indigenous peoples, unions and municipalities, the woodland caribou will disappear. The Conservatives claim to be fixing this, but in a year and a half, businesses will already be closed, the species will be more at risk and jobs will be lost. I do not know what the Prime Minister will say, but I will say this. The Bloc Québécois and I will commit to finding negotiated and agreed-upon solutions to support the Quebec government, which has exclusive jurisdiction over forestry.
Trudeau agrees to work in partnership with Quebec as it has done for years, but adds that after a decade the government had to show it respects its own laws on protecting species at risk, which Quebecers and Canadians expect.
Trudeau agrees to work in partnership with Quebec, acknowledges 10 years of engagement, and adds that after so many years the federal government had to demonstrate it is a state governed by law and respects its own Species at Risk Act, which partially addresses the implied concern about federal decrees.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous sommes d'accord pour travailler main dans la main en partenariat avec le QuĂ©bec. C'est exactement ce que nous faisons depuis des annĂ©es. Ăa fait 10 ans que diffĂ©rents gouvernements fĂ©dĂ©raux s'engagent pour protĂ©ger le caribou forestier, mais aussi pour protĂ©ger les communautĂ©s et les emplois. Nous sommes lĂ pour travailler en partenariat avec le QuĂ©bec, mais aprĂšs tant d'annĂ©es, nous devions dĂ©montrer que nous sommes un Ătat de droit et que nous respectons nos propres lois sur la protection des espĂšces en pĂ©ril. C'est ce Ă quoi tous les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et tous les Canadiens s'attendent.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we agree that we need to work hand in hand with Quebec. That is exactly what we have been doing for years. Various federal governments over the past 10 years have been committed to protecting the woodland caribou, while also protecting communities and jobs. We are here to work in partnership with Quebec, but after so many years, we had to demonstrate that we are a state governed by the rule of law and that we respect our own laws on the protection of species at risk. That is what all Quebeckers and all Canadians expect.
Poilievre argues that without Bloc support the decree would not exist, and announces Conservatives would cancel the decree to protect forestry jobs.
Mostly rhetorical partisan framing blaming the Bloc for keeping the government in power; the 'question' is an implicit promise rather than an answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est quand mĂȘme ironique de voir le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois chercher le rĂŽle du fĂ©dĂ©ral dans un champ de compĂ©tence provincial. La dĂ©putĂ©e bloquiste de Matane a dit que le fĂ©dĂ©ral a le droit de s'en mĂȘler et de sacrifier les emplois des travailleurs forestiers. En plus, si le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois n'avait pas votĂ© pour accorder sa confiance au gouvernement et pour garder ce premier ministre au pouvoir, ce dĂ©cret n'aurait pas existĂ© en premier lieu. Les conservateurs vont annuler ce dĂ©cret pour protĂ©ger les emplois et pour permettre au gouvernement de protĂ©ger la nature et l'industrie. C'est ça, notre gros bon sens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic to see the Bloc Québécois looking for the federal government to play a role in an area of provincial jurisdiction. The Bloc MP from Matane said that the federal government has the right to get involved and to sacrifice forestry jobs. What is more, if the Bloc Québécois had not voted confidence in the government and kept this Prime Minister in power, this decree would not have existed in the first place. The Conservatives are going to reverse this decree to protect the jobs and to allow the government to protect nature and the industry. That is common sense to us.
Trudeau argues Conservatives refuse any environmental responsibility and that protecting the environment and economy must go together.
Trudeau deflects entirely to a generic environment-versus-economy contrast, not addressing the decree or the Bloc's role.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Parti conservateur démontre jour aprÚs jour qu'il ne comprend pas que la seule façon de bùtir une économie en santé pour les Canadiens pour les années à venir, c'est aussi de protéger l'environnement. Or, il refuse d'accepter quelque responsabilité que ce soit pour protéger l'environnement. Oui, les autres partis à la Chambre et la grande majorité des Canadiens comprennent trÚs bien qu'il faut travailler pour protéger l'environnement et travailler pour protéger l'économie. C'est juste les conservateurs qui ont fait le choix de laisser pour compte l'environnement et l'avenir des Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, day after day, the Conservative Party is showing us that it does not understand that the only way to build a healthy economy for Canadians for years to come is also to protect the environment. It refuses to accept any responsibility for protecting the environment. The other parties in the House and the vast majority of Canadians understand very well that we have to work to protect the environment and work to protect the economy. It is just the Conservatives who made the choice to abandon the environment and Canadians' future.
Poilievre asks whether the Prime Minister will cancel the minister's decree, arguing Quebec can protect nature and jobs without federal interference and that 30,000 jobs are at risk.
Identifies 30,000 jobs at stake and poses a direct yes/no ask â will the Prime Minister cancel the decree â though framed in partisan rhetoric about federal incompetence.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Québec, la nation québécoise est capable de protéger la nature et les emplois sans l'ingérence de ce gouvernement bloquiste-libéral incompétent ici à Ottawa. Nous croyons que nous pouvons faire les deux, mais que la décision sur la maniÚre de protéger la nature revient au gouvernement du Québec. Il y a 30 000 emplois qui sont en jeu maintenant. Est-ce que le premier ministre va annuler le décret radical de son ministre libéral?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec nation is capable of protecting nature and jobs without interference from this incompetent Liberal Bloc government here in Ottawa. We believe that we can do both, but it is up to the Government of Quebec to decide how to protect nature. There are now 30,000 jobs at stake. Will the Prime Minister rescind his Liberal minister's radical decree?
Trudeau says the decree is based on legislation championed by Brian Mulroney and criticizes Conservatives for abandoning progressive-conservative environmental values.
Trudeau pivots to Brian Mulroney's environmental legacy and does not address the decree or the 30,000 jobs mentioned.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce décret soi-disant radical est basé sur un projet de loi proposé par le premier ministre, qui, selon tous les experts, en a fait le plus pour protéger l'environnement au Canada, c'est-à -dire l'ancien premier ministre Brian Mulroney, un progressiste-conservateur. C'est dommage de voir à quel point le Parti conservateur est en train de renier quelque chose que les progressistes-conservateurs comprenaient trÚs bien. Ils comprenaient qu'on ne peut bùtir une économie forte qu'en protégeant l'environnement. Brian Mulroney l'a démontré bien souvent dans sa carriÚre. Maintenant, les conservateurs ont tout oublié ça et s'attaquent à la planÚte et à notre avenir.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this so-called radical decree is based on a bill proposed by the prime minister that all experts say did the most to protect the environment in Canada. I am talking about former prime minister Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative. It is unfortunate to see the Conservative Party abandoning something that the Progressive Conservatives understood very well. They understood that we can only build a strong economy by protecting the environment. Brian Mulroney demonstrated that time and time again over the course of his career. Now, the Conservatives have forgotten all that and are attacking the planet and our future.
Poilievre notes the RCMP commissioner confirmed six active criminal investigations into NDP-Liberal government contracts, citing the $60-million arrive scam and $20 million to two basement contractors, and asks if the Prime Minister will personally co-operate with the criminal investigation.
Cites a specific confirmed fact â RCMP commissioner confirming six active criminal investigations â and references the $60-million arrive scam and $20 million to two basement contractors, with a direct ask about personal co-operation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, Brian Mulroney savait que protéger l'environnement n'avait rien à voir avec le fait de hausser les taxes et d'abolir des emplois. Moving on to the Liberal scandals, the RCMP commissioner just confirmed that there are now six active criminal investigations into contracts awarded by the NDP-Liberal government. That is on top of the $60-million arrive scam app, which saw $20 million go to two contractors who work out of their basement and do not even do IT work. Will the Prime Minister promise to personally co-operate with this criminal investigation so that Canadians can know where their money went?
Trudeau says the situation is unacceptable, that anyone who took advantage of COVID responses should face consequences, and that all federal contracts with these companies have been suspended.
Trudeau acknowledges the situation is unacceptable and notes contracts have been suspended, but does not address the specific ask about personal co-operation with the investigation.
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 responses to save Canadian lives should face consequences. All federal contracts with these companies have been suspended as the investigations continue.
Fortier asks the Prime Minister to describe the government's plan to make life more affordable for Canadians.
A government-backbench softball setup praising the government's inflation record and asking the Prime Minister to outline the affordability plan, with no accountability value.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la pandĂ©mie et la guerre en Europe ont provoquĂ© une crise inflationniste mondiale. Notre gouvernement s'est efforcĂ© de freiner l'inflation et notre plan fonctionne. Le Canada est devenu le premier pays du G7 Ă rĂ©duire ses taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt. Les conservateurs, eux, ne savent faire qu'une chose, et c'est faire des coupes. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut nous dire quel est notre plan pour rendre la vie plus abordable pour les Canadiens et les Canadiennes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the pandemic and the war in Europe have caused a global inflationary crisis. Our government has endeavoured to curb inflation, and our plan is working. Canada was the first G7 nation to lower its interest rates. The only thing that the Conservatives know how to do is make cuts. Can the Prime Minister tell us our plan for making life more affordable for Canadians?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie la dĂ©putĂ©e d'OttawaâVanier de sa question et de son travail acharnĂ©. Trop de Canadiens sont aux prises avec le coĂ»t de la vie. VoilĂ pourquoi les Canadiens ont besoin d'un gouvernement qui les soutient. C'est pourquoi nous investissons dans des programmes comme les soins dentaires, l'assurance-mĂ©dicaments, les services de garde d'enfants et l'Allocation canadienne pour enfants, qui sera d'ailleurs envoyĂ©e Ă des millions de familles demain. Ă chaque Ă©tape, les conservateurs ont tentĂ© de nous empĂȘcher de soutenir les Canadiens. MalgrĂ© leurs slogans bidon, ils ne se prĂ©occupent pas des Canadiens, juste d'eux-mĂȘmes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for OttawaâVanier for her question and for her hard work. Too many Canadians are struggling with the cost of living. That is why Canadians need a government that has their backs. That is why we are investing in programs like dental care, pharmacare, child care, and the Canada child benefit, which is going out to millions of families tomorrow. Every step of the way, the Conservatives have tried to stop us from supporting Canadians. Despite their empty slogans, they do not care about Canadians, just themselves.
Trudeau cites soins dentaires, assurance-médicaments, services de garde d'enfants, and the Allocation canadienne pour enfants being sent to millions of families the next day.
Trudeau lists several programs â soins dentaires, assurance-mĂ©dicaments, services de garde d'enfants, Allocation canadienne pour enfants â providing some real programmatic information though it is standard promotional messaging.
Poilievre cites $21 billion a year on outside consultants, $1,400 per family, and $200 million to McKinsey, and asks the Prime Minister to stop sending the bill for this spending to Canadians.
Cites specific figures â doubling consultant spending to $21 billion a year, $1,400 per family, $200 million to McKinsey â grounding the question in data, though the ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, speaking of taking care of their friends, the Prime Minister has literally doubled the amount spent on outside consultants, all the way up to $21 billion a year. That works out to $1,400 per family in taxes, just to fund federal government consultants. One of them is $200 million to the Prime Minister's famous consulting firm, McKinsey. It is no wonder that Canadians are forced to pay higher taxes. Will the Prime Minister finally put an end to this costly, self-licking ice cream cone and stop sending the bill to Canadians?
Trudeau argues only those making more than $250,000 in profit from investments are asked to pay more, and lists housing, dental care, and child care as investments for Canadians.
Trudeau does not address consultant spending at all, instead pivoting to the capital gains tax on those making more than $250,000 and listing housing, dental care, and child care.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the only Canadians we are asking to pay a little more are those who have been very successful in these past years and are able to make more than $250,000 in profit from selling off investments. These are things that we think we can be asking of Canadians who have been successful, to support Canadians who need a little more help, whether it is with the most ambitious housing plan this country has ever seen, whether it is dental care that has already delivered supports, in just eight weeks, to 200,000 seniors, or whether it is more spaces in child care. However, the Conservatives continue to protect the wealthiest instead of supporting Canadians.
Poilievre contrasts the Prime Minister's $220,000 food bill on a six-day jet-setting trip â citing beef brisket, parsley potatoes with truffle oil, beef tenderloin with port wine sauce, braised lamb shanks, and cheesecake with pistachio brittle â with Canadians lining up at food banks.
Cites a specific figure â $220,000 for food on a six-day trip â and names specific menu items like beef brisket, parsley potatoes with truffle oil, beef tenderloin with port wine sauce, braised lamb shanks, and cheesecake with pistachio brittle, but the closing ask is purely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is a bit rich, coming from him as he raises taxes on single moms for the crime of driving to the grocery store, while he treats himself to a jet-setting experience where the food on the plane of a six-day trip was $220,000: beef brisket, parsley potatoes with truffle oil, beef tenderloin with port wine sauce, braised lamb shanks and even cheesecake with pistachio brittle. With Canadians lined up at the food bank, what is on the menu for the Prime Minister this summer?
Trudeau accuses the Conservative leader of using cheap attacks to hide that he stands with the wealthiest Canadians against investments in housing, dental care, and child care.
Trudeau does not address the $220,000 food cost or the trip at all, deflecting entirely to Conservatives standing with the wealthiest Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader continues to use cheap attacks and slogans while he tries to hide from the fact that he is standing with the wealthiest Canadians and against the idea of their paying a little more so that young Canadians can buy a home, so that seniors can get their teeth fixed, so that young families can find a place in child care. These are the investments we are making that the Conservatives are standing against. We will continue to deliver for Canadians who need them, while the Conservative leader chooses to protect the interests of his wealthy friends.
Poilievre cites $220,000 for food on a six-day trip, homelessness up 38%, 256 homeless encampments in Toronto, and two million Canadians at food banks, and asks for a carbon tax election to choose a government that would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
Repeats the $220,000 food figure, adds homelessness up 38%, 256 homeless encampments in Toronto, and two million Canadians at food banks, but closes with a compound rhetorical demand for a carbon tax election.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing cheap about the $220,000 that the Prime Minister spent on one trip, for food alone.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing cheap about the Prime Minister's spending $220,000 for food alone on a six-day jet-setting tour for himself. All the while, homelessness is up 38%. Toronto has 256 homeless encampments, where one in 10 people in that city is now eating at food banks. They join two million Canadians. The good news is that life was not like this before this Prime Minister, and it will not be like this after he is gone. Can we not have a carbon tax election now to choose a government that would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime?
Oh, oh!
Oh, oh!
Trudeau says Conservatives have stood against dental care for seniors, child care investments, supports for Canadians with diabetes, and birth control, accusing them of being filled with slogans while the government is focused on supporting Canadians.
Trudeau does not address the $220,000, homelessness figures, or the election call, instead listing Conservative votes against dental care, child care, and pharmacare.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, we see the extent ofâ
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives over this past session have stood in this House to stand against dental care for seniors. They have stood in this House to stand against expanding child care investments in spaces. They have stood in this House to stand against the kinds of investments that are helping Canadians with diabetes and helping Canadians afford birth control. These are the choices that they are making. They are filled with slogans and bumper stickers that do not solve problems, but amplify anger, while we are focused on supporting Canadians. Canadians can make their choice about the kind of country they want to live in.
Sorbara asks the Prime Minister for an update on how the government is making life more affordable through housing investments, contrasting it with the Conservative record and noting the Leader of the Opposition only got six units built when he was housing minister.
A government-backbench softball that attacks the Opposition Leader over six units built when he was housing minister and asks for an update on housing investments, with no accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are looking for strong action from their government on making housing more affordable. The results of decades of Conservative government inaction are in, and it is no wonder. When the Leader of the Opposition was housing minister, he only got six units built. Since 2015, we have been committed to getting the government back into housing. Can the Prime Ministerâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are looking for strong action from their government on making housing more affordable. The results of decades of Conservative government inaction are in, and it is no wonder. When the Leader of the Opposition was housing minister, he was a disaster, and he only got six units built. Since 2015, we have been committed to getting the government back into housing. Can the Prime Minister provide an update on how the government is making life more affordable through housing investments?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for VaughanâWoodbridge for his extraordinary hard work. For decades, governments have ignored the important role the federal government has to play in housing. That is why we brought the federal government back into the business of homebuilding, working through an ambitious plan to build four million more homes, and as we just saw this week, Canada's housing starts are going up with more homes being built right across the country. While the Conservatives would abandon the most vulnerable so their rich friends can pay less, we will not rest until we ensure fairness for every generation.
Trudeau says the government brought the federal government back into homebuilding with an ambitious plan to build four million more homes and that housing starts are going up across the country.
Trudeau references a plan to build four million more homes and notes housing starts are going up as confirmed that week, providing some real though general information.
Desjarlais asks when the Prime Minister will establish a five-year funding plan for Trade Winds to Success so it can continue to empower indigenous labour, noting no movement has been made despite Liberal commitments.
Names a specific organization â Trade Winds to Success training society â describes its mandate, notes the lack of government movement despite commitments, and asks for a specific five-year funding plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Trade Winds to Success training society helps indigenous people build up the trade skills we need to rebuild our own communities and our own future. Not only does the organization create a pathway to apprenticeship, but it also guarantees indigenous peoples' opportunity for good-paying jobs. Despite the Liberals' commitment to support them, no movement has been made. Is this yet another empty promise to indigenous peoples? When will the Prime Minister establish a five-year funding plan for Trade Winds to Success so it can continue to empower indigenous labour?
Trudeau cites tripled investments in indigenous communities since 2015, with $32 billion expected in 2024-25, over $1 billion for indigenous health care, $338 million for indigenous entrepreneurship, and $5 billion for the indigenous loan support program in Budget 2024.
Trudeau cites $32 billion in indigenous investments, $1 billion for health care, $338 million for indigenous entrepreneurship, and $5 billion for the indigenous loan support program from Budget 2024, but does not address Trade Winds to Success or the five-year funding plan specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague well knows, we are unequivocally committed to working in partnership with first nations, Inuit and MĂ©tis communities to advance self-determination, reconciliation and economic opportunity. We have indeed tripled investments in indigenous communities since 2015, with $32 billion in investments expected in 2024-25 alone. Budget 2024 includes over $1 billion to improve access to proper health care for indigenous people, $338 million to support indigenous entrepreneurship and a monumental investment of $5 billion for the indigenous loan support program. There is lots more to do.
May asks whether the Prime Minister is open to working over the summer with all members of Parliament with top secret security clearance in a confidential setting to determine a shared course of action to reduce the threat of foreign interference.
Poses a clear, specific procedural ask â whether the Prime Minister is open to working over the summer with all MPs with top secret security clearance in a confidential setting to address foreign interference â with a genuine accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentarians who serve on the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians have done an amazing job and deserve the thanks of all Canadians. In the face of foreign interference, we need to put Canada first and commit to working together. My question for the Prime Minister is this: Is the Prime Minister open to working over the summer with all members of Parliament with top secret security clearance who are willing, in a confidential setting, to work in the hope of determining a shared course of action to reduce the threat of foreign interference?
Monsieur le Président, j'ai une motion à présenter, mais avant de faire cela, je tiens à vous remercier, et à remercier les autres occupants du fauteuil. Je tiens à remercier le greffier et tout son personnel. Je tiens d'ailleurs à remercier tout le personnel qui nous soutient si bien à la Chambre. Je parle bien entendu des pages et des membres du Service de protection parlementaire. Nous sommes exceptionnellement bien servis par le personnel du Parlement et je tiens à exprimer la gratitude de l'ensemble des parlementaires pour ce que fait le personnel. I also want to thank all of my colleagues on the government side for their support for a rookie House leader. I want to thank all the colleagues who chose the wrong political path for their support as well, including my colleague House leaders. Despite all indications to the contrary, we have developed a very good working relationship. I thank them and, through them, thank their caucuses as well.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to put forward, but before I do that, I would like to thank you and all of the other chair occupants. I want to thank the clerk and all of his staff. I also want to thank all of the staff who support us so well in the House. I am, of course, talking about the pages and the members of the Parliamentary Protective Service. We are exceptionally well served by the parliamentary staff, and I want to express gratitude for all that they do on behalf of all parliamentarians. Je tiens aussi Ă remercier tous mes collĂšgues du cĂŽtĂ© du gouvernement du soutien qu'ils m'ont offert Ă titre de nouveau leader parlementaire. Je remercie Ă©galement tous les autres dĂ©putĂ©s qui m'ont aussi soutenu, y compris mes collĂšgues leaders parlementaires, mĂȘme si leur choix d'allĂ©geance politique laisse Ă dĂ©sirer. MalgrĂ© ce que l'on pourrait croire, nous avons Ă©tabli une trĂšs bonne relation de travail. Je les remercie et, par leur entremise, je remercie Ă©galement leur caucus respectif.
Trudeau says the public inquiry is the best place for these discussions, notes the commission has agreed to study the matter, and adds that the Leader of the Opposition would need to get his top secret security clearance to participate in such a discussion.
Trudeau says the public inquiry is the best place for these discussions and notes the commission has agreed to study the issue, but pivots to a partisan jab about the Leader of the Opposition not having his security clearance rather than directly addressing May's proposal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the Green Party and other party leaders who have taken this issue seriously by getting their security clearances. We feel that the public inquiry is the best place for these discussions to continue, and we are pleased that the commission has agreed to study this. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition would actually have to get his top secret security clearance in order to have a top secret discussion among party leaders.
Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon moved a motion to advance several pieces of legislation by deeming them passed at various stages, including Bill C-26 on cybersecurity, Bill C-40 on miscarriage of justice reviews, Bill S-6 on regulatory modernization, Bill S-9 on the Chemical Weapons Convention, and Bill S-16 on recognition of the Haida Nation and Haida Nation Council, and to deem the House adjourned until Monday, September 16, 2024. MacKinnon also thanked House staff, pages, the Parliamentary Protective Service, and fellow House leaders across party lines.
- Lib Steven MacKinnon
Source text
moved: Que, nonobstant tout article du RĂšglement, ordre spĂ©cial, ou usage habituel de la Chambre: a) en ce qui concerne le projet de loi C-26, Loi concernant la cybersĂ©curitĂ©, modifiant la Loi sur les tĂ©lĂ©communications et apportant des modifications corrĂ©latives Ă d'autres lois, les motions dâamendement Ă lâĂ©tape du rapport, inscrites au Feuilleton des avis au nom du ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique, des Institutions dĂ©mocratiques et des Affaires intergouvernementales, soient rĂ©putĂ©es adoptĂ©es avec dissidence, et le projet de loi, tel que modifiĂ©, soit rĂ©putĂ© adoptĂ© Ă lâĂ©tape du rapport avec dâautres amendements avec dissidence et rĂ©putĂ© lu une troisiĂšme fois et adoptĂ© avec dissidence; b) le projet de loi C-40, Loi modifiant le Code criminel et d'autres lois en consĂ©quence et abrogeant un rĂšglement (examen des erreurs judiciaires), soit rĂ©putĂ© lu une troisiĂšme fois et adoptĂ© avec dissidence; c) le projet de loi S-6, Loi concernant la modernisation de la rĂ©glementation, soit rĂ©putĂ© lu une deuxiĂšme fois avec dissidence et renvoyĂ© au ComitĂ© permanent de lâindustrie et de la technologie; d) le projet de loi S-9, Loi modifiant la Loi de mise en Ćuvre de la Convention sur les armes chimiques, soit rĂ©putĂ© lu une deuxiĂšme fois et renvoyĂ© Ă un comitĂ© plĂ©nier, rĂ©putĂ© Ă©tudiĂ© en comitĂ© plĂ©nier, rĂ©putĂ© avoir fait lâobjet dâun rapport sans amendement, rĂ©putĂ© adoptĂ© Ă lâĂ©tape du rapport et rĂ©putĂ© lu une troisiĂšme fois et adoptĂ©; e) le projet de loi S-16, Loi concernant la reconnaissance de la Nation haĂŻda et du Conseil de la Nation haĂŻda, soit rĂ©putĂ© lu une deuxiĂšme fois avec dissidence et renvoyĂ© au ComitĂ© permanent des affaires autochtones et du Nord; f) aprĂšs les affaires courantes plus tard aujourd'hui, la Chambre soit rĂ©putĂ©e ajournĂ©e jusquâau lundi 16 septembre 2024, pourvu que, aux fins de lâarticle 28 du RĂšglement, elle soit rĂ©putĂ©e avoir siĂ©gĂ© les jeudi 20 juin et vendredi 21 juin 2024.
Hansard translation: propose: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House: (a) in relation to Bill C-26, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, the report stage motions in amendment, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, be deemed adopted on division, and the bill, as amended, be deemed concurred in at report stage with further amendments on division and deemed read a third time and passed on division; (b) Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews), be deemed read a third time and passed on division; (c) Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization, be deemed read a second time on division and referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology; (d) Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, be deemed read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed; (e) Bill S-16, An Act respecting the recognition of the Haida Nation and the Council of the Haida Nation, be deemed read a second time on division and referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs; and (f) following Routine Proceedings later today, the House shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 16, 2024, provided that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Thursday, June 20, and Friday, June 21, 2024.