Session overview
- Carbon tax dominated Question Period, with Pierre Poilievre repeatedly pressing the Prime Minister to confirm government documents showing the carbon tax will cost between $34 billion and $40 billion in lost GDP â a figure the Prime Minister never directly addressed.
- The Bloc québécois's support for the Liberal government triggered sharp exchanges, with Poilievre labelling the arrangement the 'Bloc libéral' and demanding to know why the Bloc was abandoning Quebecers to support the 'most costly and centralizing prime minister in history.'
- Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet pressed the Prime Minister repeatedly over the Special Representative for Islamophobia, Amira Elghawaby, citing a unanimous Assemblée nationale resolution calling for her resignation; the Prime Minister declined to call for her dismissal.
- Drug policy generated heated exchanges, with Poilievre citing the death of 13-year-old Brianna MacDonald in Abbotsford and calling for the closure of drug dens and defunding of what he called 'unsafe supply'; the Prime Minister defended a science-based approach.
- The Prime Minister announced a $1.8-billion housing agreement with the Quebec government to accelerate construction of 8,000 homes, and released blueprints for a renters' bill of rights and a homebuyers' bill of rights.
- Procedural tensions arose when Trudeau used unparliamentary language during exchanges with Blanchet and withdrew the words; Elizabeth May subsequently raised a point of order arguing that the nickname 'carbon tax Carney' for Mark Carney may offend Standing Order 11(2) on order and decorum.
The Prime Minister made a specific, concrete commitment: a $1.8-billion agreement signed with the Quebec government to accelerate construction of 8,000 homes, giving the public a defined dollar figure, a named intergovernmental partner, and a quantified housing target.
Cites two specific government-tabled documents â Environment and Climate Change Canada carbon pollution pricing data and the environment minister's carbon tax 2 document â with specific dollar figures totalling $34â$40 billion in lost GDP.
When asked why Ahmed Fouad Mostafa Eldidi â alleged to have appeared in an ISIS torture video â was admitted and granted citizenship and later linked to a terrorism plot, the Prime Minister did not address the immigration or security decisions at all, responding only that Poilievre should obtain top secret clearance.
Outstanding questions
- Poilievre asked at least six times what the true cost to GDP is of the 61Âą-a-litre carbon tax, citing government-tabled documents showing $34 billion to $40 billion in losses; the Prime Minister never provided an alternative figure (Exchange 12, 15, 18, 20, 21).
- Blanchet asked the Prime Minister to state his definition of islamophobia and received no definition in response (Exchange 6).
- Blanchet asked directly whether the Prime Minister sides with Amira Elghawaby or with the unanimous Assemblée nationale resolution calling for her resignation; the Prime Minister expressed confidence in universities but did not answer the choice put to him (Exchange 16).
- Poilievre asked why the Prime Minister will not close the La Maison BenoĂźt Labre hard drug injection site located near an elementary school following a stabbing nearby; the Prime Minister gave no answer specific to that site (Exchange 28).
- Poilievre asked why the Prime Minister would not require Mark Carney â referred to as 'carbon tax Carney' â to be sworn in as a public servant subject to ethics committee scrutiny given an apparent conflict of interest involving a request for $10 billion in federal tax dollars; the Prime Minister did not address the ethics or conflict of interest substance (Exchange 37).
Poilievre asks how the Bloc québécois can abandon Québécois to support what he calls the most costly and centralizing Prime Minister in history.
The question is almost entirely partisan framing attacking both the Bloc and the PM with slogans, with only a vague implicit ask about Bloc rationale.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on vient d'apprendre que le Bloc québécois va voter pour garder au pouvoir le premier ministre le plus coûteux et centralisateur de l'histoire. C'est un gouvernement qui a fait doubler le coût du logement et la dette nationale. Il a taxé la nourriture, puni les travailleurs et brisé notre systÚme d'immigration en poussant le Québec au point de rupture. Comment le Bloc québécois peut-il abandonner les Québécois pour soutenir le premier ministre le plus coûteux et le plus centralisateur dans l'histoire du pays?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we just found out that the Bloc Québécois is going to vote to keep the most costly and centralizing Prime Minister in power. This government has doubled the cost of housing and the national debt. It taxed food, punished workers and broke our immigration system, pushing Quebec to the breaking point. How can the Bloc Québécois abandon Quebeckers to support the most costly and centralizing Prime Minister in our country's history?
Trudeau accuses Poilievre of caring only about his own political interests and lists investments like dental care and childcare.
The PM deflects entirely to attacks on Poilievre's motives and lists programs without addressing the Bloc's decision or any specific claim.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, encore une fois, on voit que le chef de l'opposition ne se prĂ©occupe que de ses propres intĂ©rĂȘts politiques et pas des intĂ©rĂȘts des Canadiens ni des QuĂ©bĂ©cois. C'est pour cela que nous allons continuer d'investir dans les Canadiens. Nous allons continuer d'ĂȘtre lĂ pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois en mettant en Ćuvre le programme de soins dentaires et en faisant en sorte qu'il y ait plus de places en garderie. Nous allons ĂȘtre lĂ pour investir plutĂŽt que pour prĂŽner l'austĂ©ritĂ© et des coupes budgĂ©taires comme le ferait le chef conservateur pour tout le monde, on le sait trĂšs bien.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, we see that the Leader of the Opposition is concerned only about his own political interests and not the interests of Canadians or Quebeckers. That is why we will continue to invest in Canadians. We will continue to be there for Quebeckers by implementing the dental care program and by ensuring that there are more child care spaces. We will be there to invest instead of pushing for austerity and budget cuts, like the Conservative leader would do for everybody, as we well know.
Poilievre again asks why the Bloc québécois votes against Québec by supporting the Liberal Prime Minister, using the label 'Bloc libéral'.
Largely a restatement of partisan slogans with no new facts or specific ask beyond repeating the accusation against the Bloc.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'intĂ©rĂȘt des Canadiens, c'est de rĂ©duire les taxes et les impĂŽts, bĂątir des logements, rĂ©parer le budget et stopper les crimes pour que les QuĂ©bĂ©cois puissent gagner de plus gros chĂšques de paie et de pension pour acheter de la nourriture et qu'ils aient accĂšs Ă des logements abordables dans des communautĂ©s sĂ©curitaires. C'est ce qu'il faut aprĂšs neuf ans du « Bloc libĂ©ral » qui a fait doubler les coĂ»ts du logement, qui a doublĂ© la dette et brisĂ© notre systĂšme d'immigration. Pourquoi le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois vote-t-il contre le QuĂ©bec et pour ce premier ministre libĂ©ral et centralisateur?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is in Canadians' best interests to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, so that Quebeckers can get bigger paycheques and pensions to buy food and have access to affordable housing in safe communities. That is what we need after nine years of the âLiberal Blocâ, which doubled the cost of housing, doubled the debt and broke our immigration system. Why is the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois voting against Quebec and in favour of this centralizing Liberal Prime Minister?
Trudeau says Poilievre believes in slogans but not in Canadians, and claims the government is focused on Québécois and Canadians.
Trudeau ignores the question entirely, accusing Poilievre of loving slogans and listing programs while calling him obsessed with power.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on voit encore une fois que le chef conservateur aime beaucoup les slogans et croit aux slogans, mais il ne croit pas en les Canadiens et les QuĂ©bĂ©cois. Il ne veut pas investir pour aider les gens Ă obtenir des soins dentaires. Il ne veut pas ĂȘtre lĂ pour aider les aĂźnĂ©s et les jeunes. Il est lĂ pour couper dans les programmes. Il est lĂ pour lutter contre l'action climatique, contre l'argent dans les poches des Canadiens qui en ont besoin. Il n'a rien Ă offrir. Il est obsĂ©dĂ© par son propre dĂ©sir de pouvoir. Nous, nous sommes obsĂ©dĂ©s par les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et les Canadiens et ce que nous pouvons faire pour eux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, we are seeing that the Conservative leader is great on slogans and believes in slogans, but he does not believe in Canadians and Quebeckers. He does not want to invest to help people get dental care. He does not want to be there to help seniors and young people. He is there to cut programs. He is there to fight against climate action and against putting money into the pockets of Canadians who need it. He has nothing to offer. He is obsessed with his own thirst for power. We are obsessed with Quebeckers and Canadians and what we can do for them.
Poilievre asks why the NDP will not vote non-confidence to end what he calls the costly coalition, citing 24 carbon tax votes and 40 refusals to answer.
Cites specific figures (24 votes for carbon tax, 40 refusals to answer non-confidence question, two million food bank users, 1,800 tent encampments) but the ask is vague and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader sold out Canadians to sign on to a costly coalition that doubled the debt, doubled the housing costs and sent two million people to food banks and 1,800 to tent encampments. He voted 24 times for the carbon tax. Since he did his dramatic video, he has refused to answer 40 times whether he would vote non-confidence. Now that he knows that the Bloc is going to keep the Liberals in power, he will stand up and claim that he is voting against. Why will the NDP not stand up when it counts so that we can end this costly coalition and elect a common-sense government?
Trudeau accuses Poilievre of chasing his own political interests and notes that inflation has come down, saying the government will continue to deliver for Canadians.
Trudeau does not address the NDP's voting record or the non-confidence question, instead accusing Poilievre of playing political games and noting inflation has come down.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, we see that the Leader of the Opposition enjoys his political games and enjoys chasing after his own political interests; however, he does not have a second to care about Canadians' interests. He is actually in a bad mood because inflation has come down for Canadians. He does not care about their interests. That is why we are going to continue to deliver for Canadians. We are going to continue to step up with investments that are going to support Canadians as we fight climate change and build a brighter future for everyone.
Poilievre delivers a rhetorical summary of his platform slogans and asks why a common-sense government cannot be elected now.
Pure sloganeering with the 'axes taxes, builds homes, fixes the budget and stops the crime' tagline and no actual question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of this costly NDP carbon tax coalition, what has happened? What is up? Taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up. What Canadians need is hope. They can choose a common-sense government that axes taxes, builds homes, fixes the budget and stops the crime, so they can earn powerful paycheques and pensions that buy affordable food, gas and homes in safe neighbourhoods protected by a strong military. Why can we not bring it home now?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau mocks Poilievre's slogans and mentions that inflation has come down to 2%, dismissing him as caring only about his own interests.
Trudeau mocks the performance and mentions that inflation came down to 2%, which is a factual data point, but otherwise does not engage with any substance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that little performance shows just how much the Leader of the Opposition loves his slogans but does not actually put forward anyâ
Mr. Speaker, we point out the performance of the Leader of the Opposition, and his colleagues get all upset because they know that he does not actually care about Canadians. He does not care about the programs we are delivering. He does not care about stepping up to support Canadians. He is actually in a bad mood because inflation has come down to 2% and it ruins his little âjustinflationâ slogan. He is so upset because he cares about his own interests and not the interests of Canadians. We are going to stay focused on the things that matter for people while he spins little rhymes and tosses out his slogans. We will take this seriously, as we always have.
Poilievre invokes food bank users and tent encampment residents to argue the government should be replaced by a common-sense government.
Cites two million food bank users, 1,800 Ontario tent encampments, and 35 homeless encampments in Halifax, but the ask remains a vague call to 'fire this costly carbon tax coalition'.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the âjustinflationâ tag line works now better than ever. He can try to call himself Rocky Balboa and play fight songs to aggrandize himself as the star, but the people lined up at food banks, two million of them every month, know better. The people who are living in the 1,800 Ontario tent encampments know better. In the 35 homeless encampments in Halifax, the people there know better. They know that we need to fire this costly carbon tax coalition so we can elect a common-sense government that will bring it home for them.
Trudeau accuses Poilievre of exploiting vulnerable people and cites votes against dental care for 700,000 seniors and against a school food policy saving families $800 a year.
Trudeau accuses Poilievre of using vulnerable people for political gain and cites dental care for 700,000 seniors and $800 in grocery savings from the school food policy, but does not address the encampment figures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he sure loves to declaim about vulnerable people and perform his supposed empathetic concern, but the reality is he is using vulnerable people for his own political gains. If he actually cared about people, he would not have voted against dental care for 700,000 seniors; he would not have voted against a school food policy that is helping families with 800 dollars' worth of groceries a year. He is not making the investments in Canadians. He wants to cut programs and make Canadians suffer, so he can sit in the big chair.
Blanchet asks the Prime Minister to define islamophobie, given that special representative Elghawaby's interpretation of her mandate led her to criticize Quebec universities.
Asks a specific and answerable definitional question â what is the Prime Minister's definition of islamophobie â grounded in a concrete action by Mme Elghawaby.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre a nommĂ© une reprĂ©sentante spĂ©ciale chargĂ©e de la lutte contre lâislamophobie. Mme Elghawaby a jugĂ© que son mandat incluait de reprocher aux universitĂ©s quĂ©bĂ©coises de ne pas assurer ce quâelle a appelĂ© la sĂ©curitĂ© des Ă©tudiants. Il est possible qu'on ne voie pas la notion dâislamophobie de la mĂȘme façon. Il y a mĂȘme des gens pour dire que câest strictement un instrument activiste, libĂ©ral et politique. Jâaimerais savoir, pour nous Ă©clairer tous, quelle est la dĂ©finition de lâislamophobie, selon le premier ministre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister appointed a special representative on combatting Islamophobia. Ms. Elghawaby felt that her mandate allowed her to accuse Quebec universities of not protecting what she called âthe safety of studentsâ. Maybe the concept of Islamophobia means different things to different people. Some people even say it is simply an instrument of liberal political activism. For our general edification, I would like to know how the Prime Minister defines Islamophobia.
Trudeau says his government recognizes rising intolerance and has appointed special representatives against islamophobie and antisémitisme, and acknowledges systemic discrimination, without defining islamophobie.
Trudeau does not provide a definition of islamophobie at all, instead describing the government's general anti-discrimination appointments and recognizing systemic discrimination.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce gouvernement a reconnu quâil y a une montĂ©e de lâintolĂ©rance de toutes les sortes partout au pays. Nous nous devons de les identifier, de les reconnaĂźtre et de lutter contre elles. Câest pour ça que nous avons une reprĂ©sentante spĂ©ciale contre lâislamophobie. Nous avons une reprĂ©sentante spĂ©ciale contre lâantisĂ©mitisme. Nous avons reconnu, d'ailleurs, contrairement au Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, lâexistence de discrimination systĂ©mique Ă lâintĂ©rieur de toutes nos institutions. Nous nous devons de reconnaĂźtre les dĂ©fis pour pouvoir rassembler les Canadiens, reconnaĂźtre les dĂ©fis auxquels on fait face et travailler ensemble pour crĂ©er un pays plus paisible et plus respectueux quâil ne l'est maintenant.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this government has recognized the rise in intolerance of all kinds across the country. We have a duty to identify, recognize, and fight such intolerance. That is why we appointed a special representative on combatting Islamophobia. We have a special representative for combatting anti-Semitism. Unlike the Bloc Québécois, we recognize the existence of systemic discrimination within all of our institutions. We must recognize the challenges so that we can bring Canadians together, recognize the challenges we face, and work together to create a country that is more peaceful and more respectful than it is now.
Blanchet observes the PM could not define islamophobie and asks whether criticizing Quebec universities reduces islamophobie or polarizes Canada against Quebec.
Sharpens the prior exchange by pointing out the PM gave no definition and asks a specific follow-up: does criticizing Quebec universities reduce islamophobie or polarize Canada against Quebec?
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce nâest pas rien. Le premier ministre ne connaĂźt pas la dĂ©finition de lâislamophobie. Croit-il que, selon son absence de dĂ©finition, faire des reproches aux universitĂ©s du QuĂ©bec est de nature Ă rĂ©duire lâislamophobie â quoi que ce soit â ou plutĂŽt Ă polariser le Canada contre le QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is no small matter. The Prime Minister does not know the definition of Islamophobia. Without a definition, does he believe that criticizing Quebec universities is likely to reduce Islamophobia, whatever that might be, or will it instead pit Canadians against Quebeckers?
Trudeau asserts his Quebec identity, notes that the Liberal Party has more Quebec MPs than the Bloc, and speaks of the need to address systemic racism and discrimination in every province.
Trudeau does not address Mme Elghawaby's criticism of Quebec universities or the polarization question, instead asserting his Quebec identity and speaking generally about systemic racism.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme le dĂ©putĂ© dâen face le sait trĂšs bien, je suis un fier QuĂ©bĂ©cois. Je suis fier dâailleurs que le Parti libĂ©ral du Canada contienne plus de dĂ©putĂ©s quĂ©bĂ©cois que le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois. Nous sommes de fiers QuĂ©bĂ©cois et nous savons que, dans chaque province et dans chaque institution au pays, nous avons des dĂ©fis de racisme systĂ©mique et de discrimination systĂ©mique auxquels nous devons nous attaquer. Câest le travail que nous faisons parce que nous savons que tous doivent se sentir inclus et respectĂ©s Ă lâintĂ©rieur de notre pays. Malheureusement, on est en train de voir une montĂ©e de lâintolĂ©rance partout au pays. Câest de notre devoir Ă tous de rassembler les gens et de nous Ă©couter.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite well knows, I am a proud Quebecker. I am proud that the Liberal Party of Canada has more members from Quebec than the Bloc Québécois. We are proud Quebeckers, and we know that, in every province and in every institution across the country, we have systemic racism and discrimination challenges we must address. That is the work we are doing because we know that everyone needs to feel included and respected within our country. Unfortunately, intolerance is on the rise across the country. It is incumbent upon all of us to bring people together and listen to each other.
Boulerice asks what it will take for the Prime Minister to stand up against Conservative governments privatizing health care across the country.
The question raises a real concern about privatization of health care but is framed rhetorically ('se greffe une colonne vertébrale') without citing specific instances or a clear ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, un peu partout au pays, les gouvernements conservateurs privatisent nos soins de santĂ©. Ils veulent faire payer les gens pour voir un mĂ©decin. Ce nâest pas tellement diffĂ©rent au QuĂ©bec. Cependant, ce premier ministre est trop faible pour se tenir debout devant les conservateurs. Ce sont les gens qui en payent le prix. Quâest-ce que ça va prendre pour quâil se greffe une colonne vertĂ©brale et quâil dĂ©fende les principes dâun systĂšme de santĂ© public et universel?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Conservative governments across the country are privatizing our health care. They want to make people pay to see a doctor. It is no different in Quebec. However, this Prime Minister is too weak to stand up to the Conservatives. People are paying the price. What will it take for him to get a backbone and defend the principles of public, universal health care?
Trudeau blames the NDP for stopping work on progressive priorities and says the government will continue to defend the public health care system and invest in Canadians.
Trudeau attacks the NDP for ending their working relationship rather than addressing the privatization concern, and makes no specific commitment on defending public health care principles.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous savons tous que le NPD se prĂ©occupe des valeurs progressistes partout au pays, mais il n'arrive pas Ă faire le boulot. Nous avons Ă©tĂ© trĂšs contents de travailler avec les nĂ©o-dĂ©mocrates pour offrir des choses concrĂštes aux systĂšmes de santĂ©, aux garderies, aux Canadiens, mais, malheureusement, ce sont eux qui ont peur des conservateurs. Ce sont eux qui ont dĂ©cidĂ© d'arrĂȘter de travailler pour les Canadiens. Des choses progressistes, ce n'est pas toujours facile Ă offrir, mais nous sommes rĂ©solus Ă continuer de le faire. Nous allons continuer de dĂ©fendre notre systĂšme de santĂ© publique. Nous allons continuer d'investir dans les Canadiens. Malheureusement, le NPD ne peut pas dire de mĂȘme.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the NDP cares about progressive values across the country, but it cannot get the job done. We were very happy to work with the NDP to do meaningful things for the health care systems, child care, for Canadians, but, unfortunately, they are the ones who are afraid of the Conservatives. They are the ones who decided to stop working for Canadians. It is not always easy to put forward progressive policies, but we are determined to continue to do that. We will continue to defend our public health care system. We will continue to invest in Canadians. Unfortunately, the NDP cannot say the same.
MacGregor notes that one year ago today the Liberals met grocery CEOs and promised to stabilize prices, and asks why the Prime Minister keeps caving to CEOs while prices remain high.
Grounds the question in a specific one-year-old commitment made when the Liberals met with grocery CEOs, giving it an accountability dimension, though the ask is still somewhat vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are failing on health care, and they are failing on groceries. One year ago today, the Liberals met with Canada's grocery CEOs and promised to stabilize prices. A year later, prices are still up, and grocery CEOs are still gouging families struggling to put food on the table. Meanwhile, the Conservatives remain silent on grocery greed; they want to give even more taxpayer money to the CEOs. Canadians are fed up. They are working harder and falling farther behind. Why does the Prime Minister keep caving to CEOs while Canadians pay the price?
Trudeau cites comprehensive reforms to the Competition Act to hold big grocers accountable and a national school food program saving parents up to $800 on grocery bills.
Trudeau cites Competition Act reforms and the national school food program saving parents up to $800, which is relevant context, but does not address whether the meeting's price-stabilization commitment was fulfilled.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the NDP is taking a page out of the Conservative playbook and choosing slogans rather than doing the hard work that will actually help Canadians. We have delivered some of the most comprehensive reforms to the Competition Act in order to hold big grocers accountable for the work that they are doing in terms of delivering for Canadians. We have also moved forward on a national school food program that is putting more food in the bellies of 400,000 kids across the country as provinces come on board, and it is going to save parents up to $800 on their grocery bills. These are tangible things that we are busy delivering while the Conservatives are playing politics.
Poilievre cites Canada's falling GDP per capita versus the US rising 19%, and asks how quadrupling the carbon tax to 61Âą a litre can be the solution when it is strangling growth.
Cites a specific New York Times article from April 30, 2014, GDP per capita comparisons, and a specific proposed tax rate of 61Âą a litre, making it reasonably grounded, though the ask is still partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on April 30, 2014, The New York Times put out âLife in Canada, Home of the World's Most Affluent Middle Classâ. Today, almost a decade after the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister has been in what he calls the âbig chairâ, Canada's GDP per capita is actually down, while the American one is up 19%. His carbon taxes are strangling growth. How could the solution possibly be to quadruple the tax to 61Âą a litre and send more jobs and businesses south?
Trudeau says Poilievre does not believe in climate change or the Canada carbon rebate, and asks how many wildfires, hurricanes and droughts must occur before he acts.
Trudeau does not address the GDP per capita data or the 61Âą-a-litre figure, instead questioning Poilievre's belief in climate change and citing wildfires, droughts and floods.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know the Leader of the Opposition does not believe in climate change and does not believe in putting more money in the pockets of Canadians with a Canada carbon rebate. How many wildfires, hurricanes and droughts are going to go after Canadians' lives and livelihoods before he understands we cannot have a plan for the economy unless we have a plan for the environment?
Poilievre asks, referencing a government-tabled report showing a $25-billion to $30-billion GDP loss from the carbon tax, what the true cost is if the government's own documents are wrong.
Specifically references a government-tabled report showing a $25-billion to $30-billion GDP hole from the carbon tax and asks the PM to confirm or correct that figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not have a plan for either, as evidenced by the fact that he came completely unglued on a radio station the other day. He started spitting out personal insults and crying âliar, liar, liarâ when he learned I had pointed to the government's report. It showed that the carbon tax will blow a $25-billion to $30-billion hole in our GDP. This was from a report the government tabled in the House of Commons. If, in fact, the government is lying about the true cost of the carbon tax to our economy, then what is the true cost?
Trudeau says the Parliamentary Budget Officer found eight out of 10 Canadian families do better with the Canada carbon rebate, and that Canada has brought down emissions faster than any other G7 country.
Trudeau cites the Parliamentary Budget Officer's finding that eight out of 10 families benefit from the Canada carbon rebate and claims emissions are down faster than any other G7 country, which is adjacent but does not address the GDP cost figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer demonstrated that eight out of 10 Canadian families do better with the Canada carbon rebate every three months over the cost of the price on pollution. On top of that, Canadians know the price on pollution has brought down our emissions faster than has happened in any other G7 country; at the same time, it is supporting Canadians in the middle class and those working hard to join it. We are going to continue to fight climate change and invest in a strong economy for the future while the Leader of the Opposition continues to deny climate change and cut programs and services that Canadians rely on.
Poilievre cites two government-tabled documents showing combined GDP losses of $34â$40 billion from both carbon taxes, and asks the PM to state the true GDP cost if he disputes those figures.
Cites two specific government-tabled documents â Environment and Climate Change Canada carbon pollution pricing data and the environment minister's carbon tax 2 document â with specific dollar figures totalling $34â$40 billion in lost GDP.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, someone cannot sit in the big chair if they cannot read their own government documents. Environment and Climate Change Canada's carbon pollution pricing data, tabled in the House by the government, said that it will cost between $25 billion and $30 billion in lost GDP when the tax is implemented. A further document tabled by the environment minister on carbon tax 2 says there will be another $9-billion hole, for a total of between $34 billion and $40 billion. Now he screams that this is all lies. Again, if the government documents are lying, what is the true cost of the carbon tax to our economy?
Trudeau says the costs of inaction on climate change would be catastrophic in terms of lost economic opportunity and jobs, and says the government is investing in a strong economy for the future.
Trudeau does not engage with the cited documents or the GDP cost figures at all, instead speaking broadly about the costs of inaction on climate change and foreign investment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every Canadian, except perhaps the Canadians in the Conservative Party of Canada, understands that the costs of inaction on climate change will be catastrophic, not just with wildfires, droughts, floods and hurricanes, but with lost economic opportunity, lost jobs and lost growth for Canadians as we solve the challenges of the 21st century. We are choosing to invest in a strong economy for the future. We are choosing to fight climate change and develop the solutions that the world is going to need, while the leader of the opposition offers a do-nothing climate change plan that will cost Canadians billions.
Poilievre argues the carbon tax has not stopped any natural disasters, warns a 61Âą-a-litre tax will cause a 'nuclear winter' for the economy, and challenges the PM to call a carbon tax election.
The specific 61Âą-a-litre figure and the challenge to call a carbon tax election give it some substance, but the 'nuclear winter' framing and compound accusations reduce its specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's carbon tax has not stopped a single flood or single fire in this country. He has not stopped any natural disasters. What he has done is driven Canadians into poverty. Quadrupling the tax to 61Âą a litre will cause a nuclear winter for our economy, something that his carbon tax coalition partners in the NDP have voted to bring about. If he really is so confident in a 61Âą-a-litre tax, why does he not call a carbon tax election and let Canadians decide?
Trudeau says Poilievre believes in slogans but not in climate change, and reiterates that the plan puts money in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadians and brings down emissions.
Trudeau restates the eight out of 10 Canadians benefit claim and talks about jobs and emissions without engaging the carbon tax election challenge or the 61Âą figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Leader of the Opposition is that he believes in slogans; he just does not believe in climate change. The fact is, our plan to fight climate change is not just putting more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadians across the country, but is bringing down emissions and creating jobs and opportunity for Canadians for generations to come. His climate change denialism, his do-nothing plan to fight climate change, is going to hurt Canadians. We are going to continue to build a strong economy for the future because we know that fighting climate change is part of it.
Poilievre again cites two government-tabled documents totalling a $34â$40-billion per year GDP and jobs loss and asks the PM to state the true GDP loss if he disputes those documents.
Persists in citing the two specific government-tabled documents and their combined $34â$40-billion GDP figure, making this a focused and factually grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not fighting climate change. He is driving production out of Canada to more polluting foreign jurisdictions rather than using our common-sense plan to green-light green projects that produce more energy around the world and displace emissions. That is a common-sense approach. The Prime Minister will still not answer the question on the full cost of his two carbon taxes. I have cited government documents tabled in the House that say that they will total between $34 billion and $40 billion per year in lost GDP and jobs. If his government documents are wrong, then what is the true loss of GDP as a result of his 61Âą-a-litre carbon tax?
Trudeau says foreign direct investment is up 60% since 2016 and Canada ranked third in the world after the U.S. and Brazil, making it number one in the G20 per capita.
Trudeau pivots to citing foreign direct investment up 60% since 2016 and Canada ranking third in the world, which is somewhat relevant to investment claims but entirely ignores the GDP cost documents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition talks about driving investment out of Canada. He must be remembering his own time as minister, because since 2016, foreign direct investment is up 60% in this country. Last year, we were third in the world after the U.S. and Brazil, which makes us number one for foreign investment in the G20 per capita. The reality is, we are continuing to show the world that it can have confidence in Canada and in Canadians. Why does he not have confidence in Canadians? Why will he not invest in Canada?
Poilievre cites the Bank of Canada deputy governor's warning, investment ratios of 55Âą and 65Âą per dollar versus US and OECD peers, and a 100-year Canada-US economic gap, and asks the PM for the real GDP cost number from his own 61Âą-a-litre carbon tax documents.
Cites the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada's 'In emergency, break glass' comment, specific investment ratios (55Âą and 65Âą per dollar), a 100-year high Canada-US economic gap, and requests a specific number â the true GDP cost of the 61Âą-a-litre carbon tax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada said of Canada's investment problems, âIn emergency, break glassâ. Canadian workers get 55Âą of investment for every dollar American workers get and only 65Âą for every dollar that an OECD worker gets. The gap between the Canadian and U.S. economy is now at a 100-year high after nine years of the NDP-Liberals. I will ask this one last time. The Prime Minister's own documents show that his 61Âą-a-litre carbon tax will blow a $40-billion hole in our economy. If that number is not right, what is the real number?
Trudeau says international economists, climate experts and academics back his plan, accuses Poilievre of relying on 'late-night, far-right conspiracy YouTube videos', and says the government is delivering a stronger future while Poilievre denies climate change.
Trudeau does not provide any GDP cost figure, instead dismissing Poilievre as relying on 'late-night, far-right conspiracy YouTube videos' and restating general claims about fighting climate change and growing the economy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again we see that the Leader of the Opposition is frustrated that international economists, climate experts and academics all back our plan to both fight climate change and grow a strong economy, while he is stuck with late-night, far-right conspiracy YouTube videos. The reality is, we are delivering concretely to build a stronger future for Canadians, to fight climate change and to grow the economy, while he is hiding his head in the sand and even refusing to admit that climate change is real.
Blanchet read a unanimous Assemblée nationale motion demanding Amira Elghawaby's resignation and asked the Prime Minister whether he sides with her or with the Assemblée nationale du Québec.
Blanchet cites a specific unanimous Assemblée nationale motion verbatim and poses a clear binary choice about whose side the Prime Minister is on regarding Amira Elghawaby.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, voici une motion adoptĂ©e Ă l'unanimitĂ© par l'AssemblĂ©e nationale du QuĂ©bec: QUE l'AssemblĂ©e nationale rappelle que l'Ă©ducation est une compĂ©tence exclusive du gouvernement du QuĂ©bec; QU'elle affirme que l'embauche des professeurs dans les Ă©tablissements d'enseignement supĂ©rieur doit se faire sur la base de critĂšres liĂ©s Ă l'excellence et Ă la compĂ©tence, et certainement pas en fonction de la religion; QU'elle rĂ©itĂšre qu'embaucher des professeurs sur la base de la religion est non seulement discriminatoire, mais aussi contraire au principe de laĂŻcitĂ© de l'Ătat; [...] QU'elle rappelle Ă©galement qu'Amira Elghawaby a tenu des propos insultants envers la nation quĂ©bĂ©coise en la qualifiant de raciste; QU'enfin l'AssemblĂ©e nationale rĂ©itĂšre sa demande formulĂ©e le 31 janvier 2023, soit la dĂ©mission d'Amira Elghawaby. Avec qui se range le premier ministre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a motion that was unanimously adopted by the Quebec National Assembly: THAT the National Assembly recall that education is under the Québec government's exclusive jurisdiction; THAT it affirm that recruitment of faculty in higher education institutions should be based on excellence and competence, and definitely not on religion; THAT it reiterate that recruiting faculty on the basis of religion is not only discriminatory, but also contrary to the State's principle of secularism; ...THAT it also recall that Amira Elghawaby made insulting remarks about the Québec nation by calling it racist; THAT, lastly, the National Assembly reiterate its 31 January 2023 call for the resignation of Amira Elghawaby. Where does the Prime Minister stand on this?
Trudeau said universities must hire the best people while respecting diversity policies, and that systemic discrimination must be fought â without mentioning Elghawaby or the AssemblĂ©e nationale motion.
Trudeau addressed university hiring diversity policies generally but entirely ignored the Assemblée nationale motion and the specific question about Elghawaby's resignation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je veux ĂȘtre trĂšs clair. Les universitĂ©s doivent embaucher les meilleures personnes pour les postes Ă combler. C'est leur responsabilitĂ©. Toutefois, nous reconnaissons aussi que les universitĂ©s ont des politiques qu'elles ont mises en place pour s'assurer que leurs employĂ©s reflĂštent la diversitĂ© des communautĂ©s dans lesquelles elles sont Ă©tablies. J'ai pleinement confiance dans les universitĂ©s, et nous devons toujours continuer Ă veiller contre la discrimination systĂ©mique dans toutes nos institutions d'un bout Ă l'autre de ce pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. Universities must hire the best people for the jobs that need to be filled. They have a responsibility to do so. However, we also recognize that universities have policies in place to ensure that their employees reflect the diversity of the communities in which they operate. I have every confidence in our universities, and we must always continue to guard against systemic discrimination in all institutions across this country.
Blanchet demanded a direct answer: does the Prime Minister stand with Amira Elghawaby against Québec, or with the unanimous Assemblée nationale calling for her resignation?
Blanchet sharpens the binary choice from Exchange 16 â Elghawaby versus the AssemblĂ©e nationale â but the rhetorical framing ('ce qu'il n'est pas') reduces its accountability precision.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, est-ce que ça prend neuf ans pour apprendre à ne pas répondre aux questions? L'Assemblée nationale du Québec, de façon unanime, dit: cette employée du fédéral nous a tous insultés et nous demandons sa démission. Je demande au premier ministre s'il se range avec Mme Elghawaby contre le Québec ou s'il se range avec l'Assemblée nationale du Québec. Ce sont tous des élus à l'Assemblée nationale du Québec, ce qu'il n'est pas. Qu'il se fasse une idée.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, does it take nine years to learn not to answer questions? The Quebec National Assembly unanimously declared that this federal employee has insulted all of us and it wants her to resign. I am asking the Prime Minister whether he is taking Ms. Elghawaby's side against Quebec, or siding with the Quebec National Assembly. All of them are elected members of the National Assembly of Quebec, which he is not. He should make up his mind.
Trudeau accused Blanchet of insulting federally elected Québec MPs by suggesting they have less legitimacy than members of the Assemblée nationale, without addressing Elghawaby.
Trudeau completely ignored the question about Elghawaby and the Assemblée nationale motion, instead counter-attacking Blanchet for allegedly delegitimizing federally elected Québec MPs.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, suggérer dans cette place qu'un député du Québec, élu par des Québécois, ne représente pas la voix de ses concitoyens est une insulte à toute cette place. Le Bloc québécois, élu ici à Ottawa, devrait avoir honte d'avoir tenu ces propos.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, to suggest in this place that a member from Quebec, elected by Quebeckers, does not represent the voice of his constituents is an insult to everyone here. The Bloc Québécois, elected to be here in Ottawa, should be ashamed for making those comments.
Poilievre cited investment flow data showing $450 billion more Canadian dollars invested in the U.S. than returned over nine years, attributing this to high carbon taxes, and asked when the Prime Minister will abandon his plan to hike the tax to 61Âą a litre.
Poilievre cites a specific investment differential ($30â100 billion surplus pre-2014 versus $450 billion outflow post-2015) and names the 61Âą-per-litre carbon tax figure, giving factual grounding, though the closing ask is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, from 2000 to 2014, Canadians attracted $30 billion to $100 billion more in American investment than the reverse. In the last nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, 450 billion more Canadian dollars were invested in the U.S. than were returned. That is Canadian money building U.S. pipelines and U.S. mines, and U.S. businesses paying American workers with Canadian money. That is the consequence of a high carbon tax and a high energy price, which drive jobs away. When will the Prime Minister learn that his radical plan to hike the tax to 61Âą a litre will destroy our economy further?
Trudeau said the IMF projects Canada to have stronger growth than the U.S. next year and argued the price on pollution is drawing investment into growing sectors.
Trudeau cited an IMF growth projection for Canada versus the U.S. but did not address the investment outflow data or the specific 61Âą-per-litre figure raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the problem with that argument is that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand that the International Monetary Fund and others have projected Canada to have stronger growth than the United States next year, despite the fact that we have a price on pollution, or perhaps because of the fact that we have a price on pollution. It is drawing in investment from around the world in the growing sectors of the economy to ensure good jobs in mining, in environmental research and in various industries, because we know the future is greener.
Poilievre argued that Canada has the worst per capita GDP growth since the Depression, citing OECD forecasts and G7 comparisons, and warned that quadrupling the carbon tax to 61Âą a litre would be an economic catastrophe.
Poilievre stacks several specific claims â per capita GDP below 10-year-ago levels, OECD worst growth forecast for three decades, worst G7 per capita drop since COVID â but the closing statement about 61Âą per litre replaces a direct question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our per capita GDP is smaller than it was 10 years ago. It is perhaps the first time since the Great Depression that that has happened. The Prime Minister has had the worst economic growth since the Depression. The OECD says that Canada will have the worst economic growth this year and for the next three decades. Our economy has dropped more per capita since before COVID than any other G7 country. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The Prime Minister wants to quadruple the carbon tax to 61Âą a litre, which would be an economic catastrophe for this country.
Trudeau called the presentation a 'brokenist argument' and said Canada has the strongest fiscal position among advanced economies, which the government is using to fund dental care, child care, and pharma.
Trudeau dismissed the statistics as a 'brokenist argument' and pivoted to listing social programs (dental, child care, pharma) and Canada's fiscal position, without addressing any of the cited economic data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what that little performance just showed is that the Leader of the Opposition is using his brokenist argument around Canada to explain why he would cut dental programs, cut child care, step away from any climate action and withdraw support to draw in investment. That is his excuse. The problem with that argument, however, is that Canada actually has the strongest fiscal position of any of the world's advanced economies. Our choice is putting that strong fiscal position in service of investment in dental care, in child care, in pharma, in Canadians.
Poilievre cited record food bank usage â two million Canadians, one million monthly in Ontario, one in four children â and the Prime Minister's own undelivered food program, then asked how much quadrupling the carbon tax will take from GDP.
Poilievre cites two million people at food banks, one million monthly in Ontario, and the specific claim that one in four kids lines up at food banks (attributed to the Prime Minister's own admission), plus millions spent on bureaucracy for an undelivered food program, and asks for the GDP impact of the carbon tax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there the Prime Minister goes again, telling Canadians they have never had it so good. It has never been so good for those two million people lined up at food banks and for the one million people every month who go to food banks in Ontario. There are record-smashing increases in homelessness. By his own admission, after he promised a food program that has not delivered a single meal despite millions spent on bureaucracy, one in four kids lines up at food banks. Now here is the worst: He proposes to quadruple the carbon taxes on heat, housing, fuel and food. How much will that take from our GDP?
Trudeau argued that the price on pollution returns more money to middle-class Canadians than it costs and accused the Opposition Leader of wanting to cut programs rather than invest in Canadians.
Trudeau repeated the claim that the price on pollution puts more money back in pockets via the Canada carbon rebate without addressing the specific GDP cost question or the food bank statistics raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the problem the member has is that he cannot admit that the price on pollution puts more money back in the pockets of Canadians in the middle class and those working hard to join it. He continues to spew the line that Canada is broken, and whenever I point out that we have a strong fiscal balance sheet that we should be putting in service of programs and supports for Canadians, he says, no, we need cuts. That is not the path forward for Canada, and that is the choice Canadians get to make. Do we go with austerity and cuts to programs, or do we invest in Canadians and their future?
Poilievre cited his own government's documents showing $25 billion per year in economic costs from the carbon tax, argued that six in ten families and 100% of the middle class are worse off, and asked how the House can have confidence in the government given its own documents contradict its claims.
Poilievre references a specific government document admitting $25 billion per year in economic costs from the carbon tax and uses it to challenge the eight-out-of-ten-Canadians-better-off talking point, asking how the House can have confidence in the government given its own documents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians who cannot eat or heat and house themselves are living in austerity now, and as to the Prime Minister's false PMO talking point about eight out of 10 Canadians being better off, it conveniently excludes the $25 billion per year in economic costs that his own government admits the carbon tax imposes on Canadians. That is why six in 10 Canadian families and 100% of the middle class are worse off with his carbon tax. His documents show that Canadians are worse off. If he does not have confidence in his own government documents, how can this House have confidence in his government?
Trudeau said Canada carbon rebate cheques put more money in Canadians' pockets than the price on pollution costs them and accused the Opposition Leader of having no climate plan.
Trudeau repeated the Canada carbon rebate cheques talking point and accused Poilievre of having no climate plan, without addressing the $25 billion government document or the confidence question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians across the country have received the Canada carbon rebate cheques, which put more money in their pockets every three months than the price on pollution costs them, on average. That not only allows us to fight climate change and boost our economy in strong ways that create the innovative solutions the world is going to increasingly rely on, but helps Canadians with affordability at a challenging time. The member would eliminate those Canada carbon rebate cheques and puts forward no plan to fight climate change. That is not how we build a future for Canada.
Gazan cited a 22% year-over-year increase in one-bedroom rents in Winnipeg â the largest in the country â and asked why the Prime Minister is allowing corporate landlords to price people out of their homes.
Gazan cites a specific 22% rent increase for a one-bedroom in Winnipeg (largest in the country) and names corporate landlords, but the question of why the Prime Minister 'is allowing' this is more rhetorical than directly answerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, under the Liberals, housing prices in Winnipeg are out of control. The average rent for a one-bedroom suite in Winnipeg has increased over 22% since last year, the largest jump in the country. Corporate landlords are buying up affordable housing and jacking up rents because they know they have the support of both the Liberals and the Conservatives. I can tell them one thing: They are not the answer to our housing crisis. My question for the Prime Minister is this: Why is he allowing corporate landlords to price people out of their homes?
Trudeau said he looks forward to working with the NDP Premier of Manitoba on a renters' bill of rights and mentioned measures like counting rent toward credit score calculations.
Trudeau mentioned a renters' bill of rights and measures like using rent for credit scores but did not address corporate landlords or the specific 22% Winnipeg rent increase cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I very much look forward to working with the NDP Premier of Manitoba on a renters' bill of rights. We just presented a number of measures that will directly help renters, like ensuring that rent is counted toward the calculation of credit scores so people can get a mortgage and protecting renters from landlords. We recognize, as I am sure the NDP does, that that is largely in provincial jurisdiction, but I am very glad to hear that the NDP Premier of Manitoba will be stepping up to work with the federal government on delivering for Canadians in Manitoba and indeed right across the country.
Desjarlais asked the Prime Minister to stop planned federal demovictions in Edmonton Griesbach, where hundreds of affordable homes on public land are set to be bulldozed for developers, citing a specific constituent facing homelessness.
Desjarlais raises a specific case â federal demovictions in Edmonton Griesbach on public land â names a constituent (Kim), and asks a clear yes/no: will the Prime Minister stop the demovictions and stop selling land to developers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is not in provincial jurisdiction is what is happening in Edmonton Griesbach. The federal government is set to bulldoze hundreds of homes in my community so that developers can get rich. These homes are on public land and are some of the last affordable units in my city due to decades of Liberal and Conservative cuts. Kim, a single mom raising a child with a disability, is scared she will be homeless. Will the Prime Minister stop the demovictions, stop selling off land to rich developers and build homes that people can actually afford?
Trudeau said the government has made ambitious housing investments, wants public lands used for affordable housing, and accused the NDP of playing politics with Conservatives rather than working with the government.
Trudeau spoke generally about ambitious housing investment and willingness to work with the NDP, but did not address the specific demovictions in Edmonton Griesbach or Kim's situation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government has put forward one of the most ambitious investments in housing this country has ever seen. We are happy to work hand in hand with the NDP to make sure that public lands get used for affordable housing. We are doing everything we can to push back against provinces that are attacking public affordability of homes. We would very much like to continue working with the NDP on this matter. However, the NDP is choosing to play politics with the Conservatives and put politics first. We are going to continue to work to make sure that the member's residents in Edmonton Griesbach and, indeed, right across the country get better affordability and better homes because that is what this federal government is focused on, not politics.
Gerretsen cited a U.S. Department of Justice revelation that Russia is funnelling money to Conservative media figures and asked what the government is doing to protect Canadians from this foreign interference threat.
This is a government-backbench softball referencing a U.S. DOJ revelation about Russia funnelling money to Conservative media figures, but the question is a setup for the Prime Minister to promote the government's response rather than hold it to account.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice revealed that Russia is funnelling money to Conservative media figures to push its far-right propaganda. This is a clear threat to our democracy and Canada's national security, yet the leader of the Conservative Partyâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice revealed that Russia is funnelling money to Conservative media figures to push a far-right propaganda. This is a clear threat to our democracy and Canada's national security, yet the leader of the Conservative Party is directing his MPs to block the public safety committee's study on this real issue. Could the Prime Minister tell the House what our government is doing to protect Canadians from this very real threat of foreign interference?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for his advocacy on this unbelievably important issue. It is extremely alarming that Russia is pushing its propaganda in our democracy, but it is even more appalling that it is using far-right Canadian Conservative influencers to divide Canadians. We must all stand against this. I call on all parties, including the Conservative Party of Canada, to stand up to investigate these allegations and follow up on them. Let it get through committee.
Trudeau called the situation alarming, said far-right Canadian Conservative influencers are being used to divide Canadians, and urged all parties including the Conservatives to let the matter proceed through committee.
Trudeau called on all parties to let the public safety committee study the allegations but provided no specific government measures, making it a partial engagement without substantive detail.
Poilievre cited specific federal housing fund transfers to Toronto ($500 million), Ottawa ($200 million), and Mississauga ($113 million), noting each city subsequently raised building taxes by 42%, 11%, and 22% respectively, and asked why the Prime Minister keeps funding gatekeepers who block rather than build housing.
Poilievre cites specific dollar amounts given to Toronto ($500 million), Ottawa ($200 million), and Mississauga ($113 million) and the resulting building tax hikes (42%, 11%, 22%), grounding the accountability question in verifiable data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister, housing costs have doubled. He said he was going to create a $4-billion fund to give to cities to speed up home building. He gave Toronto city hall a half a billion. What did it do? It hiked building taxes by 42%. He gave Ottawa city hall $200 million so that it could hike taxes by 11%. He gave Mississauga city hall $113 million so it could hike taxes by 22%. Why does the Prime Minister keep funding bloated local government gatekeepers that block housing rather than building the homes?
Trudeau called Poilievre a 'failed Harper housing minister' who got nothing built and said his government will continue working with cities, provinces, and non-profits to get homes built.
Trudeau dismissed the question with a personal attack on Poilievre as a 'failed Harper housing minister' without addressing any of the specific city fund amounts or the building tax hikes cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us not take any lessons from that failed Harper housing minister, who did not get anything built while he was on the job. We are going to continue to do what he did not, which is working with cities, working with provinces and territories, and working with non-profits to get homes built.
Poilievre stated housing construction is down, cited Canada's worst G7 housing inflation and slowest building permits, and asked why the Prime Minister won't link federal dollars to housing completions to incentivize faster permits and lower building taxes.
Poilievre asserts housing construction is down, cites worst G7 housing inflation and slowest building permits in the G7, and proposes a specific policy (linking federal dollars to housing completions), giving the question measurable grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, they are not being built. In fact, housing construction is down, way down. The Prime Minister should take lessons from everyone because, after nine years in power, he has the worst housing inflation in Canadian history and by far the worst housing inflation in the G7, and now he is bloating up the same bureaucracies that have given us the slowest building permits in the G7. Why will the Prime Minister not follow my common-sense plan to link federal dollars to housing completions to incentivize local governments to speed up permits, free up land and actually cut building taxes?
Trudeau said Poilievre's plan was universally panned by experts and failed in the House, and said the government is working with premiers, municipalities, and non-profits to turn things around.
Trudeau said Poilievre's housing plan was 'universally panned by experts' and failed in the House, and said the government is working with premiers and municipalities, without addressing the G7 data or the specific completions-linked funding proposal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition's so-called housing plan was universally panned by experts, which is why it failed in the House of Commons. The reality is that we have been working with premiers, working with municipalities and working with non-profits to turn the ship around, which he neglected when he was the so-called housing minister. The reality is that we are delivering for Canadians. We have a lot more work to do, and the Leader of the Opposition's slogans and divisive attacks are not going to get any homes built for anyone.
Poilievre cited housing prices and rents from his time as minister ($450,000 average home, $950â$1,100 rent), noted nearly 200,000 homes were built, referenced a RE/MAX survey showing 28% of Canadians considering leaving the country due to doubled housing costs, and asked the Prime Minister to remove gatekeepers.
Poilievre cites specific figures from his tenure as housing minister â $450,000 average home price, $950 one-bedroom rent, $1,100 two-bedroom rent, nearly 200,000 homes built â and a RE/MAX survey showing 28% of Canadians considering leaving due to housing inflation, giving the question data grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when I was housing minister, the average home price was $450,000. The rent was $950 for a one-bedroom unit and $1,100 for a two-bedroom unit. It has now doubled to over $2,000. As well, we built almost 200,000 homes at rock-bottom, low prices. Now, fast-forward a decade, and 28% of Canadians told a RE/MAX survey that they are considering leaving the country because of housing inflation doubling under the Prime Minister. Why does he not get his gatekeepers out of the way and follow my common-sense plan to build the homes?
Trudeau said Poilievre's plan consists entirely of slogans and personal attacks, and cited a Vancouver Chinatown Foundation unit made affordable by federal investment as an example of government action.
Trudeau dismissed the plan as 'slogans and personal attacks' and cited a single Vancouver Chinatown Foundation housing unit, without addressing any of the specific figures cited by Poilievre.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, like so many of his plans, his plan consists entirely of slogans and personal attacks on me, on mayors and on Canadians who are working to get things done. We are investing. We are in partnership with municipalities to change zoning laws, to invest in public lands and to support non-profits to build more units. I was just in Vancouver meeting with the extraordinary folks of the Vancouver Chinatown Foundation who are delivering a unit that a young woman can now live in and afford because of investments this federal government has delivered. We are going to be there for Canadians, while the Leader of the Opposition is there for himself.
Poilievre cited a stabbing near the La Maison BenoĂźt Labre hard drug injection centre near a primary school last week and asked the Prime Minister to finally close the injection site and invest in addiction treatment instead.
Poilievre cites a specific recent stabbing near La Maison BenoĂźt Labre injection site close to a primary school, references his request from approximately three months prior to close it, and asks a clear yes/no question about closing the site.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la semaine derniĂšre, une femme a Ă©tĂ© poignardĂ©e prĂšs du centre d'injection de drogues dures La Maison BenoĂźt Labre, tout prĂšs d'une Ă©cole primaire. Cette tragĂ©die aurait pu ĂȘtre Ă©vitĂ©e si le premier ministre avait acceptĂ© ma demande, il y a Ă peu prĂšs trois mois, de fermer le centre d'injection de drogues dures et d'investir dans le traitement contre la dĂ©pendance Ă la drogue. Est-ce que le premier ministre va finalement fermer ce centre d'injection de drogues dures Ă cĂŽtĂ© d'une Ă©cole?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, last week, a woman was stabbed near the La Maison BenoĂźt Labre hard drug injection site, next to an elementary school. This tragedy could have been avoided if the Prime Minister had agreed to my request about three months ago to close the hard drug injection site and invest in treatment for drug addiction. Will the Prime Minister finally close this hard drug injection site next to a school?
Trudeau said Canadians deserve safe communities, that responding seriously requires listening to experts working on the opioid crisis, and that decisions will be based on science and evidence, not ideology â without mentioning La Maison BenoĂźt Labre or the stabbing.
Trudeau acknowledged the need for safe communities and investment in opioid responses but did not address the specific site, the stabbing, or the closure request, instead invoking science over ideology.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, tous les Canadiens méritent de vivre dans des communautés sécuritaires et c'est une responsabilité que nous allons toujours prendre au sérieux. Relever sérieusement un tel défi passe par l'écoute d'experts et de ceux qui travaillent en premiÚre ligne pour répondre au défi des opioïdes et des drogues toxiques afin d'aider les gens à traverser ces moments. Oui, nous devons investir dans de l'aide pour ces gens. Nous devons aussi investir dans des façons de protéger les citoyens. Nous allons nous baser sur la science et l'évidence, et non sur l'idéologie et la politique.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians deserve to live in safe communities, and that is a responsibility we will always take seriously. Taking this type of challenge seriously means listening to experts and those working on the front lines to address the challenge of opioids and toxic drugs in order to help people get through times like these. Yes, we need to invest in helping these people. We also need to invest in ways to protect Canadians. We will base our decisions on science and evidence, not on ideology and politics.
Blanchet asked whether the Prime Minister will support the Bloc québécois bill that would eliminate religious exceptions in hate speech and incitement-to-violence law as a way to combat Islamophobia and polarization.
Blanchet asks whether the Prime Minister will support the Bloc's bill removing religious exceptions in hate speech and incitement-to-violence law, which is a specific legislative ask, but it is embedded in rhetorical framing about the Prime Minister being 'sent to the showers.'
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, assurĂ©ment, je n'y Ă©tais pas. J'aimerais que le premier ministre me rappelle de quelle date Ă quelle date il a siĂ©gĂ© Ă l'AssemblĂ©e nationale du QuĂ©bec. Cela dit, s'il veut lutter contre l'islamophobie et si tous les partis ici veulent lutter contre l'islamophobie, et donc la polarisation, ils devraient considĂ©rer d'adopter le projet de loi dĂ©posĂ© par le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois qui interdit ou qui met fin Ă l'exception et aux prĂ©textes religieux en matiĂšre de propagande haineuse et d'incitation Ă la violence. Est-ce que le premier ministre va faire ça avant d'ĂȘtre envoyĂ© aux douches?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Prime Minister to remind me of the dates when he held a seat in the Quebec National Assembly. I was not around for that. That being said, if he and all the parties here want to fight Islamophobia and polarization, they should consider passing the bill introduced by the Bloc Québécois, which prohibits or puts an end to the religious exception and religious pretexts when it comes to hate propaganda and inciting violence. Will the Prime Minister do that before he is sent packing?
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
Trudeau did not address the Bloc bill and instead questioned what Bloc MPs are doing in Ottawa if they believe federal Québec MPs have less legitimacy than members of the Assemblée nationale, before withdrawing an unparliamentary word.
Trudeau entirely ignored the Bloc's bill on religious exceptions and instead attacked Blanchet for allegedly arguing that federally elected Québec MPs lack legitimacy, then withdrew an unparliamentary word.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le chef du Bloc québécois insiste et signe. La réalité, c'est qu'il vient juste de dire trÚs clairement que tout élu fédéral du Québec a moins de légitimité que quelqu'un d'élu à l'Assemblée nationale. On peut donc se poser la question: maudit, qu'est-ce qu'ils font ici, les députés du Bloc québécois, s'ils n'ont aucune légitimité pour parler pour le Québec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois is doubling down. The reality is that he just very clearly stated that federal MPs from Quebec have less legitimacy than members of the Quebec National Assembly. That leads me to wonder what the hell the members of the Bloc Québécois are doing here if they have no legitimacy to speak for Quebec?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous sommes trĂšs clairs. Nous sommes ici pour dĂ©fendre les intĂ©rĂȘts du QuĂ©bec Ă Ottawa, au fĂ©dĂ©ral. Lui, je ne sais pas trop ce qu'il fait ici s'il ne croit pas qu'il a une lĂ©gitimitĂ© pour parler pour le QuĂ©bec.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are very clear. We are here to defend the interests of Quebec in Ottawa, at the federal level. I am not sure what he is doing here if he does not believe he has the legitimacy to speak for Quebec.
Monsieur le Président, je retire le mot de Cambronne.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the bad word.
Monsieur le Président, ce n'était effectivement pas le mot de Cambronne, c'était un autre mot, et je le retire aussi.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it was not a bad word. It was a different word, but I withdraw it too.
Blanchet asked the Prime Minister, as a federally elected Québec MP, to assume Québec's will by supporting and adopting the Bloc's bill ending religious exceptions in hate speech and incitement-to-violence law.
Blanchet reiterates the specific Bloc bill on religious exceptions to hate speech law and asks the Prime Minister, as a QuĂ©bec MP at Ottawa, to carry that provincial will â a clearer legislative ask than Exchange 29 but still partly framed as a linguistic jab.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, soit je n'ai pas Ă©tĂ© clair, soit M. Trudeau est lui-mĂȘme la preuveâŠ
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, either I was unclear, or Mr. Trudeau himself is living proofâ
Monsieur le Président, je retire le gros mot. Le premier ministre est la preuve qu'il y a des efforts à faire pour le français auprÚs des Québécois, parce qu'il n'a pas compris ce que j'ai dit. Je souhaite que le Parlement étudie et adopte la loi qui interdira l'exception religieuse. Il est un élu du Québec, mais à Ottawa, alors qu'il assume la volonté du Québec en ce sens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the bad word. The Prime Minister is living proof that some Quebeckers need to work on their French, because he did not understand what I said. I hope Parliament studies and passes the bill that would prohibit the religious exception. He is an elected member from Quebec, but in Ottawa, so he should reflect the will of Quebec in that capacity.
Trudeau explained that in Canada's federal system both provincial and federal MPs can represent Québec and said he will continue to defend the interests of his Papineau constituents while keeping the interests of the whole country front and centre.
Trudeau described how federal and provincial representation coexist in the federation and asserted his role as a proud Québécois defending his constituents, but did not address the Bloc bill on religious exceptions.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans notre systĂšme fĂ©dĂ©ral et dans notre fĂ©dĂ©ration, la rĂ©alitĂ©, c'est qu'on peut avoir des dĂ©putĂ©s Ă©lus Ă QuĂ©bec pour reprĂ©senter le QuĂ©bec, et qu'on peut avoir des dĂ©putĂ©s Ă©lus Ă Ottawa pour reprĂ©senter le QuĂ©bec et tous les autres Canadiens aussi. Je vais continuer de faire ma job en tant que fier QuĂ©bĂ©cois pour dĂ©fendre les intĂ©rĂȘts de mes concitoyens dans Papineau, et je serai toujours lĂ pour garder l'intĂ©rĂȘt du pays au complet Ă l'avant-plan en mĂȘme temps.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in our federal system and in our federation, the reality is that we can have elected members in Quebec City to represent Quebec, and we can have elected members in Ottawa to represent Quebec and all other Canadians too. I will continue to do my job as a proud Quebecker to defend the interests of my constituents in Papineau, and I will always be there to make the entire country's interests a priority.
Citing the case of 13-year-old Brianna MacDonald who died of a drug overdose after being offered drug paraphernalia rather than treatment, Poilievre asked when the Prime Minister will end the 'radical agenda,' close drug dens, defund unsafe supply, and treat addiction.
The question cites a specific named victim and her family's account, grounding it in a real case, but the ask is compound and rhetorical ('end this radical agenda, close the drug dens, defund unsafe supply and treat addiction').
Source text
Mr. Speaker, children âare not able to buy alcohol, they are not able to buy marijuana [or] cigarettes, but they can have access to crack pipes and kits to be able to do safe injection? Itâs just wrong.â These are the words of the stepfather of Brianna MacDonald, the 13-year-old girl who lost her life to a drug overdose in Abbotsford after she was denied treatment but offered drug paraphernalia by the authorities. When will the Prime Minister end this radical agenda, close the drug dens, defund unsafe supply and treat addiction to bring our loved ones home drug-free?
The Prime Minister said such tragedies are unthinkable, that the government works with local and provincial authorities, and that science, compassion and investments are the answer rather than ideology.
The Prime Minister offers general platitudes about science, compassion and investments without addressing the specific case of Brianna MacDonald, the paraphernalia provision, or any of the specific policy asks.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, tragedies like that are unthinkable, and we need to do everything we can, as orders of government, to bring them to an end, to protect kids, to protect communities and to protect vulnerable people. That is why we work hand in hand with local authorities and with provincial authorities on the plans that will suit them, that will keep communities safe. We know there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. We know that ideology is not the answer. Only the application of science, of compassion and of investments will help people through this terrible epidemic.
Poilievre noted the family begged for treatment but was given drug paraphernalia, cited 47,000 drug overdose deaths and Alberta's 50% reduction in overdoses through treatment, and asked why the Prime Minister will not follow the science and back plans that work.
The question cites 47,000 drug overdose deaths and Alberta's claimed 50% reduction in overdoses as factual anchors, and asks a direct if somewhat rhetorical question about following the science.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this young girl's family begged the hospital for treatment for their vulnerable teenager. Instead, she was given drug paraphernalia. This is all part of the radical experiment that the Prime Minister and the NDP have imposed that has contributed to 47,000 drug overdose deaths, with the biggest increases in the places where this approach has been tried. Alberta has reduced overdoses by 50% with treatment. Why will he not follow the science and back the plans that work?
The Prime Minister dismissed the question as a campaign ad for B.C. Conservative leader John Rustad and accused the Leader of the Opposition of focusing on ideology rather than delivering solutions.
The Prime Minister does not engage with the statistics cited, dismisses the question as a Conservative campaign ad, and offers no substantive response to the Alberta comparison or the overdose death figures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for anyone puzzled by the nod link to federal jurisdiction in that question, that was an ad in support of John Rustad, the B.C. Conservative leader, who is about to be in a campaign. The Leader of the Opposition continues to focus on ideology while we roll up our sleeves and work with partners on delivering solutions for Canadians. We need to lead with compassion and science, and that is what we will always do.
Poilievre argued the federal government enables drug dens through Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act exemptions and hundreds of millions in unsafe supply funding, and asked whether the Prime Minister will vote for Bill C-379 to impose mandatory jail time for career car thieves.
The question identifies specific federal levers (Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act exemptions, hundreds of millions in unsafe supply funding) and asks about a specific bill, Bill C-379, with a concrete vote framing the ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is federal because the federal Prime Minister is offering a Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act exemption to allow the drug dens to go ahead, and he has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on tax-funded, unsafe supply, which is killing our people and addicting our kids. It is just like on car theft, where he has brought in catch and release and house arrest for career car thieves. Today, he has a chance to reverse himself and vote for common-sense Bill C-379 to bring in mandatory jail time for career car thieves. Will he do the right thing?
The Prime Minister said mandatory minimums do not work and have been struck down by the Supreme Court, and cited increased scanners, policing investments and AI as measures to combat auto theft, without mentioning Bill C-379.
The Prime Minister references increased scanners, policing investments and AI for auto theft but does not address Bill C-379, the Criminal Code exemption, or the unsafe supply spending cited in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, we see a return to the failed Stephen Harper, tough-on-crime policies that do not work. Mandatory minimums struck down by the Supreme Court do not work. What has worked is increasing the number of scanners, after Stephen Harper's government cut them; increasing investments in policing and AI to process and discover containers that have cars in them, to crack down on auto theft; and stepping up with science and solutions, instead of just flailing around and using the same failed Harper playbook.
Liberal MP Angelo Iacono asked the Prime Minister to share the results of the $1.8 billion housing agreement with Quebec as they affect his riding of Alfred-Pellan and Quebec broadly.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the Prime Minister to highlight results of a pre-announced $1.8 billion housing deal in the member's own riding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, alors que les Canadiens sont confrontĂ©s Ă une crise du logement, notre gouvernement propose de vraies solutions pour y rĂ©pondre. En novembre dernier, nous avons conclu une entente de 1,8 milliard de dollars sur le logement avec le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec. Le premier ministre peut-il partager avec nous les fruits de cette entente qui livre des rĂ©sultats dans ma circonscription, AlfredâPellan, et partout au QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are dealing with a housing crisis, but our government is proposing real solutions. Last November, we reached a $1.8âbillion housing agreement with the Government of Quebec. Can the Prime Minister tell us how that agreement is delivering results in my riding, AlfredâPellan, and throughout Quebec?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie le dĂ©putĂ© dâAlfredâPellan dâavoir dĂ©fendu cet important dossier. En novembre dernier, nous avons signĂ© un accord historique de 1,8 milliard de dollars avec le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec pour accĂ©lĂ©rer la construction de 8 000 logements. Nous savons que la question du logement ne peut ĂȘtre rĂ©solue que si tous les ordres de gouvernement travaillent ensemble. Le plan du chef conservateur en matiĂšre de logement est risible et a Ă©tĂ© ridiculisĂ© par tous les experts du pays. Il veut mĂȘme dĂ©chirer cette entente avec QuĂ©bec. Il nâest pas sĂ©rieux en matiĂšre de logement et il sâattaque aux Ă©lus quĂ©bĂ©cois. Si toutes les politiques sont comme ça, il lui reste beaucoup de travail Ă faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for AlfredâPellan for championing this important file. Last November, we signed an historic $1.8âbillion agreement with the Government of Quebec to speed up the construction of 8,000 housing units. We know that the housing issue can only be resolved if all levels of government work together. The Conservative leader's housing plan is laughable and has been ridiculed by every expert in the country. He even wants to tear up this agreement with Quebec. He is not serious about housing, and he attacks elected officials in Quebec. If all of his policies are like that, then he has a lot of work to do.
The Prime Minister said the historic $1.8 billion agreement with Quebec will accelerate construction of 8,000 homes and that all orders of government must work together on housing.
The Prime Minister provides specific figures â a $1.8 billion agreement with Quebec to accelerate construction of 8,000 homes â though he pivots quickly to attacking the Conservative leader rather than detailing riding-specific results.
Poilievre cited the case of Ahmed Fouad Mostafa Eldidi, who allegedly appeared in an ISIS torture video and was admitted to Canada in 2018 and later found by French authorities to be plotting a terrorist attack in the Toronto area, and asked why the Prime Minister will not secure Canada's borders against terrorism.
The question cites a specific named individual (Ahmed Fouad Mostafa Eldidi), a specific year of entry (2018), a specific alleged act (appearing in an ISIS torture video), and a French intelligence tip about a planned terrorist attack, giving it strong factual specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 2015, Ahmed Fouad Mostafa Eldidi appeared in an ISIS torture video dismembering a human body on a crucifix. In 2018, the NDP-Liberal government let him in, later giving him citizenship, only to find, from French authorities, that he was plotting a massive terrorist attack on people living in the Toronto area. Also, in the last several weeks, we learned that another potential terrorist gained access under a student visa to plan an attack on New York City Jews. Why will the Prime Minister not reverse the damage he has done to our borders, secure our country and stop the terrorism?
The Prime Minister said the Leader of the Opposition should obtain the top secret security clearance offered to him rather than putting on 'a little performance,' and stated the government does not play politics with national security.
The Prime Minister does not address the named individual, the entry circumstances, or the security breach at all, instead pivoting entirely to the security clearance issue and accusing the Leader of the Opposition of performing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition was genuinely serious in his concern for national security, he would choose to get the top secret clearance that we have offered him instead of putting forward this little performance. We, on this side of the House, do not play politics with national security.
Poilievre alleged that the company Mark Carney chairs is seeking $10 billion in federal tax dollars to control Canadians' pensions, labelled this a conflict of interest, and asked the Prime Minister to call a carbon tax election.
The question references a specific claim â that the company Mark Carney chairs is seeking $10 billion in federal Canadian tax dollars to control Canadians' pensions â but is heavily wrapped in rhetorical nicknames and a demand for an election rather than a precise, documentable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, carbon tax Carney is already getting his way. Only days after he took on the unofficial and unelected role as finance minister, we learned that the company he chairs is now seeking 10 billion federal Canadian tax dollars, money to control Canadians' pensions. He has gone from carbon tax Carney to conflict of interest Carney and, now, coincidence Carney. Will the Prime Minister cut loose carbon tax Carney and call a carbon tax election so Canadians can choose their future?
The Prime Minister accused the Leader of the Opposition of pivoting away from the security clearance issue and of being jealous that top economists back the government's plan, characterizing him as relying on far-right YouTube videos.
The Prime Minister does not address the $10 billion claim, Mark Carney's company, or the conflict of interest allegation, pivoting entirely to a personal attack about YouTube videos.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is a hard pivot away from security clearance. The reality is the member is jealous that top-notch economists and world-renowned experts back our plan to fight climate change and grow the economy, but he is stuck with late-night, far-right conspiracy videos on YouTube.
Poilievre asked why Mark Carney will not be sworn in as a public servant subject to ethics committee scrutiny and conflict of interest law, arguing this is necessary to dispel the appearance of conflict of interest.
The question raises a concrete procedural point â that Carney has been blocked from the ethics committee and is not sworn in as a public servant subject to conflict of interest law â but mixes this with rhetorical framing and a bilingual partisan aside about the Bloc.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if carbon tax Carney has nothing to hide, then he would simply sign up and have an ethics clearance and an ethics committee review. We have tried to bring him to the ethics committee. Cependant, le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois a travaillĂ© avec les libĂ©raux pour l'en empĂȘcher. We tried to get him to follow the conflict of interest law, but the Prime Minister refuses to swear him in as a public servant. If there is no conflict of interest, why will carbon tax Carney not do a full job as a public servant that can be scrutinized by our ethics committee, rather than fleecing Canadians?
The Prime Minister said Mark Carney has chosen to fight with the Liberal Party against Conservative economic plans and urged Canadians to see the Leader of the Opposition's ideas as ridiculous and dangerous, without addressing the ethics or public servant questions.
The Prime Minister does not address the ethics committee, the conflict of interest law, or the public servant status of Mark Carney, instead making personal remarks about the Leader of the Opposition and praising Carney's decision to join the Liberal Party.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, do not forget that the Leader of the Opposition is really cheesed that we did not hire him for the government payroll. That Mark Carney has chosen to step up to fight with the Liberal Party against the reckless and dangerous economic plans of the Conservative Party should be an example to all Canadians. People across the country are beginning to see how ridiculous and dangerous the ideas that the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward are, and are stepping up to roll up their sleeves and fight back against that brokenist, austere vision of not helping Canadians, of hurting Canadians, of going back to a time when Canadians did not have a bright future.
Liberal MP Sonia Sidhu asked the Prime Minister what protections Canadians will find in the new blueprints for a renters' bill of rights and a homebuyers' bill of rights.
This is a government-backbench setup asking the Prime Minister to describe protections in the new renters' bill of rights and homebuyers' bill of rights, providing minimal independent factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, rental markets and home prices in communities across the country are making it difficult for Canadians to find an affordable place to live. The current systems in place to guide or protect Canadians while they make these important purchases are not enough. Can the Prime Minister tell us what protection Canadians will find in the new blueprints for a renters' bill of rights and a homebuyers' bill of rights?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Brampton South for her advocacy on this important issue. This week, we released the blueprints for a renters' bill of rights and a homebuyers' bill of rights. They lay out a plan to help protect renters from unfair practices like renovictions and excessive rent increases, something the Conservative leader could not care less about. The Conservative leader is a failed Harper housing minister with a laughable record. Lazy politicians come up with lazy policies and failed results. That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition is offering Canadians.
The Prime Minister said the blueprints released this week will protect renters from renovictions and excessive rent increases, while attacking the Conservative leader's housing record.
The Prime Minister mentions the release of blueprints for a renters' bill of rights and homebuyers' bill of rights and names one specific protection (against renovictions and excessive rent increases), though much of the answer pivots to attacking the Conservative leader.
NDP MP Heather McPherson asked why the Liberals failed to support a UN vote that day demanding Israel end its unlawful occupation of Palestinian territories, accusing them of choosing whose human rights matter and refusing to uphold international law.
The question cites a specific UN vote on Israel's unlawful occupation of Palestinian territories that occurred on the day of the exchange, providing a concrete, verifiable accountability hook, though the framing includes partisan characterization.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, people living in Gaza and the West Bank continue to suffer unbearable atrocities. Canadians have been pleading with the government to do more to promote peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. Today, the Liberals had a chance. Today, they had a chance, and yet, they failed to support a UN vote that demanded that Israel end its unlawful occupation of Palestinian territories. Once again, they are choosing whose human rights matter. Why are the Liberals refusing to uphold international law and protect the lives of Palestinians?
The Prime Minister called for an immediate ceasefire, release of all hostages, urgent increase in humanitarian assistance in Gaza, protection of Palestinian civilians, and a return to a two-state solution, without addressing the specific UN vote.
The Prime Minister calls for an immediate ceasefire, release of all hostages, increased humanitarian assistance and Palestinian civilian protection, but does not explain or address the government's specific vote at the UN that was the subject of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there has been too much suffering from Hamas's horrific attacks on October 7 to the heartbreaking catastrophe in Gaza. It has to end. We call for an immediate ceasefire, for the release of all hostages, for an urgent increase in humanitarian assistance in Gaza and for Palestinian civilians to be protected. We need to return to a path to peace based on a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace and security.
Green MP Mike Morrice cited over a decade of unfulfilled promises for two-way, all-day GO train service from Kitchener to Toronto, noted the federal government has committed over three-quarters of a billion dollars (40% of project costs), and asked the Prime Minister to join him in calling for accountability from Premier Ford and a timeline for completion.
The question cites a specific infrastructure project (two-way, all-day GO train service from Kitchener to Toronto), a decade-long delay, and a specific federal commitment of over three-quarters of a billion dollars (40% of project costs), making a targeted accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it has been over a decade since my community was promised two-way, all-day GO train service from Kitchener to Toronto, yet we still do not even have a timeline for completion. Folks in my community are stuck on overcrowded buses that are getting worse and worse each year. The federal government has already committed 40% of the project costs. That is over three-quarters of a billion dollars. Will the Prime Minister join me and local community leaders in calling for accountability from Premier Ford and pushing for a timeline for project completion?
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The Liberal government chose to fund a Russian propaganda film, and if you seek it, you may find unanimous consent to table an article that isâ
No.
The Prime Minister said the government has put record infrastructure investments on the table and called on all premiers to step up and not listen to the Conservative leader in Ottawa who wants to cut infrastructure spending, without addressing the specific Kitchener GO train project or Premier Ford.
The Prime Minister speaks only generally about record infrastructure investment and calls on premiers to step up, without addressing the Kitchener GO train project, its timeline, or the specific federal commitment cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, indeed, this government has put record amounts of infrastructure investment on the table to support Canadians in building transit, in building the infrastructure they need to get to and from work, and to be able to afford better homes closer to work. These are the things we are continuing to invest in. We call on all premiers to step up in their investments, to work with us on investing, to not listen to their Conservative colleague in Ottawa who wants to cut and underinvest in infrastructure, and instead, to work with us to invest in a stronger future for all Canadians.
Green Party MP Elizabeth May raised a point of order arguing that referring to Mark Carney as 'carbon tax Carney' during question period may offend Standing Order 11(2) on order and decorum, expressing concern about setting a pattern of using offensive nicknames against respected Canadians who have not been elected. The Speaker was asked to rule on whether the nickname constituted a slur under the Standing Orders.
- GP Ms. Elizabeth May
- Some hon. members
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with some trepidation based on comments made in question period. I have been diving through the Standing Orders to see what order I find has been offended. You might find it in Standing Order 11(2) under âorder and decorumâ. Of course, Standing Order 16 protects members of Parliament, the royal family and other parts of the Government of Canada from disrespectful comments and, well, the commentary is there. However, I find it worrying that we may be setting a pattern of being able to abuse with offensive nicknames people who are respected Canadians, Canadian citizens who have not been elected. I therefore suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and you can rule on whether it is appropriate, that to say a slur like âcarbon tax Carneyâ might offend Standing Order 11(2).
Oh, oh!