Session overview
- Finance dominated Question Period, with Pierre Poilievre repeatedly pressing the Prime Minister over the broken $40-billion deficit guardrail and alleged tensions between the Prime Minister and the finance minister.
- The Bank of Canada's announcement of another 50-basis-point interest rate cut was cited by both sides as evidence for their opposing positions on the state of the economy.
- Yves-François Blanchet questioned the Prime Minister on Quebec's secularism principles, asking specifically whether the Prime Minister sides with those who impose religion in Quebec's secular schools or those who defend the principle of laïcité.
- Firearms policy produced a sustained exchange, with Poilievre citing a 116% increase in gun crime and a specific Toronto case while Trudeau defended the assault-style weapons ban and red flag laws.
- The Speaker issued a ruling on the question of privilege raised by the member for LondonâFanshawe regarding alleged intimidation during the division on November 28, finding no prima facie breach of privilege but referring lobby conduct to the Board of Internal Economy and encouraging whips to address workplace concerns.
- The House adopted motions on the Fall Economic Statement delivery and on Syria by unanimous consent, and a member for LanarkâFrontenacâKingston apologized after admitting to flipping the bird toward the member for Kingston and the Islands.
Blanchet posed a direct and specific question â asking the Prime Minister to commit to removing the religious exemption in the Criminal Code that permits propagating hate and inciting violence â and Trudeau gave a rare direct answer confirming that propagating hate or encouraging violence is always illegal in Canada.
Cites three specific fiscal commitments made by the finance minister in 2022 with a clear, specific binary question about whether she crossed her own lines voluntarily or was pushed.
When Poilievre asked specifically what the plan is to find and deport the 30,000 people who have been ordered deported but lost track of, Trudeau responded only with a generic assertion that Canada remains the best country in the world and did not address the specific enforcement question at all.
Outstanding questions
- Pierre Poilievre asked what the deficit will be this year â the Prime Minister never provided a figure or committed to a number.
- Pierre Poilievre asked whether the finance minister voluntarily crossed her own fiscal guardrails or whether the Prime Minister pushed her â the Prime Minister did not answer this directly in any of the multiple exchanges.
- Pierre Poilievre asked for a specific plan to find and deport 30,000 people who have been ordered deported but have vanished â no plan was provided.
- Yves-François Blanchet asked whether the Prime Minister would remove the religious exemption in the Criminal Code that allows people to propagate hate and incite violence under a religious pretext â Trudeau confirmed existing law but did not commit to removing the exemption.
- Gord Johns asked the Prime Minister to commit to the timely passage of the clean technology and electricity investment tax credit for the forestry sector â the Prime Minister offered only general support for biomass and energy workers without any commitment on the specific tax credit.
Why is the PM pressuring his finance minister to break her promise of keeping the deficit at $40 billion?
Cites a specific Globe and Mail report and references the finance minister's $40B deficit commitment, but frames it with heavy rhetorical preamble about PM being 'weak'.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre, qui est faible, a perdu le contrĂŽle de l'immigration, des frontiĂšres, des dĂ©penses, de l'inflation, de la dette, et mĂȘme de ses ministres. Je cite le Globe and Mail: les tensions augmentent entre le premier ministre et la ministre des Finances Ă cause de la suspension de la TPS, une politique qui compromet son engagement de maintenir le dĂ©ficit Ă 40 milliards de dollars, comme l'avait promis la ministre des Finances. Pourquoi le premier ministre pousse-t-il sa ministre des Finances Ă briser sa promesse sur le dĂ©ficit inflationniste?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this weak Prime Minister has lost control of immigration, the border, spending, inflation, the debt and even his ministers. According to The Globe and Mail, relations between the Prime Minister and the finance minister âhave chilled as tensions grow over the push for politically strategic spending measures such as the GST holiday... risking the minister missing her pledge to keep the deficit at or below $40.1-billion.â Why is the Prime Minister pushing his Minister of Finance to break her promise on the inflationary deficit?
The PM accused Poilievre of creating drama to distract from Conservative votes against the tax break, dental care, and school food programs.
Deflects entirely to Conservative voting record on dental care, tax break, and school food program without addressing the fiscal feud or deficit promise.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le chef conservateur aime bien dramatiser les choses pour essayer de distraire les Canadiens du fait qu'il a votĂ© contre un congĂ© de taxe pour les Canadiens, contre les soins dentaires qui ont maintenant Ă©tĂ© donnĂ©s Ă 1,2 million de Canadiens, contre des investissements dans le programme d'alimentation scolaire. Il persiste Ă essayer de museler ses dĂ©putĂ©s pour les empĂȘcher de parler dans l'intĂ©rĂȘt de leur communautĂ©. Il refuse d'avoir sa cote de sĂ©curitĂ© pour pouvoir protĂ©ger notre dĂ©mocratie. C'est de ça qu'il veut distraire les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader likes to sensationalize things to try to distract Canadians from the fact that he voted against a tax holiday for Canadians, against dental care that is now being provided to 1.2 million Canadians, and against investments in the school food program. He continues to try to muzzle his MPs to prevent them from speaking in the best interest of their community. He refuses to get his security clearance to be able to protect our democracy. That is what he wants to distract Canadians from.
Why did the PM force his finance minister to break her $40B deficit limit promise, undermining her credibility?
Repeats and sharpens the deficit guardrail question with reference to the specific $40B promise, though still uses charged language about the PM 'attacking' his minister.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est le premier ministre qui essaie de museler sa propre ministre des Finances. Elle a fait une promesse de limiter le déficit à 40 milliards de dollars pour éviter davantage l'inflation qui coûte cher aux Canadiens qui ne peuvent pas nourrir leurs enfants. Maintenant, il a forcé sa ministre à briser cette promesse et il l'attaque dans les journaux. Pourquoi le premier ministre force-t-il sa ministre à briser sa promesse et à miner sa crédibilité?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister who is trying to muzzle his own Minister of Finance. She promised to keep the deficit to $40 billion to prevent higher inflation, which is very expensive for Canadians who cannot feed their children. Now, he has forced his minister to break that promise and he is attacking her in the papers. Why is the Prime Minister forcing his minister to break her promise and undermine her credibility?
Trudeau said inflation is now at the Bank of Canada's target, interest rates have dropped, and accused Poilievre of voting against the school food program and dental care.
Deflects to inflation reaching the Bank of Canada target and Conservative voting record rather than addressing the deficit guardrail or cabinet tensions.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on vient juste de voir pourquoi le chef conservateur perdure Ă jouer Ă ses petits jeux dramatiques. C'est parce que l'inflation est justement rendue au taux ciblĂ© par la Banque du Canada, qui a maintenant permis une baisse du taux directeur de 0,5 %. Nous sommes lĂ pour aider les Canadiens. Nous avons rĂ©duit l'inflation. Le chef conservateur parle des jeunes qui ont faim. Pourquoi donc a-t-il votĂ© contre le programme d'alimentation scolaire, qui va aider les jeunes d'un bout Ă l'autre de ce pays? Il est en train de bloquer l'accĂšs aux soins dentaires. Il est en train de ne pas ĂȘtre lĂ pour aider les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we just saw why the Conservative leader keeps playing his petty high-drama games. Inflation is now at the Bank of Canada's target rate, which allowed it to lower the key interest rate by 0.5%. We are there to help Canadians. We have reduced inflation. The Conservative leader talks about young people who are hungry. Then why did he vote against the school food program, which will help young people right across the country? He is blocking access to dental care. He is not there to help Canadians.
Why is the PM pushing past his finance minister's $40B deficit guardrail?
References the Globe and Mail report and the specific $40B guardrail with a clear causal question, but the rhetorical 'fiscal cliff' framing weakens precision.
Source text
The weak Prime Minister has lost control; he has lost control of the borders, lost control of immigration and lost control of spending, debt and inflation. Now he has lost control of his own cabinet. Yesterday The Globe and Mail reported that there is a big fiscal feud that has broken out between the Prime Minister and his finance minister. At stake is that the finance minister wanted to run a gigantic $40-billion deficit, but that was her guardrail, and now the Prime Minister is pushing her through that guardrail and pushing all Canadians off the fiscal cliff. Why?
Trudeau accused Poilievre of creating drama to distract from his refusal to get a security clearance and his muzzling of Conservative MPs.
Completely deflects to Poilievre muzzling MPs, foreign interference clearance, and housing cuts without touching the fiscal feud question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader likes to make up little dramas to try to distract Canadians from the fact that he voted against a tax break for all Canadians. He is trying to hide from the fact that he continues to muzzle his own MPs so they cannot be their communities' voices in Ottawa but are instead his voice in forcing them to face billions of dollars in cuts to housing programs. He continues to refuse to get his security clearance because he does not want to keep his own MPs safe from foreign interference. That is why he is trying to distract Canadians from what is going on.
Why won't the PM stand by the promise to keep the deficit under $40 billion?
The question is largely rhetorical ('weak bully,' feminist jab, 'lead by inspiration') with only a thin accountability core about the $40B deficit promise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Liberal MPs are not speaking out against him, not because he is allowing so much liberty but because he is so weak, and there is nothing worse than a weak bully. He is now cracking down on his own finance minister. Some feminist he is. On this side of the House, I lead by inspiration, while the Prime Minister leads by intimidation. Once again, why will the Prime Minister not follow my inspiration and stand up for the promise that he made to keep the deficit under $40 billion?
Trudeau said the government is focused on Canadians, citing the tax break, dental care for 1.2 million, and three million approved for care next year.
Deflects to dental care numbers and the tax break vote rather than addressing the deficit commitment or cabinet dynamics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again we see very clearly that for the Leader of the Opposition, it is all about him. Well, for us, it is all about Canadians. It is all about giving Canadians a tax break over the next two months, which the Conservative leader voted against. It is about delivering dental care to 1.2 million Canadians, while three million Canadians are already approved to access dental care in the coming year. The fact is that we continue to be there for Canadians. The Conservative leader continues to be there for himself to try to block the help we are delivering to Canadians and to make sure everyone thinks everything is broken, because he is busy breaking it.
Will the PM subject his finance minister to the humiliation of delivering a fiscal update that busts the $40B guardrail she set, following Carney's appointment stripping her authority?
Provides a specific timeline (eight months ago), names Mark Carney's appointment as economic adviser as the triggering event, and asks a pointed procedural question about the fiscal update.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he has been the Prime Minister for nine years. Let us review the chronology: Not even eight months ago, his minister said the deficit would not exceed $40 billion, the guardrail. Then he went and got his banker friend, carbon tax Carney, to become his top economic adviser, stripping the power away from his finance minister. Suddenly, the guardrail was broken. Is he really going to subject his finance minister to the humiliation of reading Carney's fiscal update, which busts through the guardrail?
Trudeau announced the Bank of Canada cut rates again today, calling it good news for affordability, and accused Poilievre of opposing the tax break for political self-interest.
Ignores the Carney appointment, fiscal update question, and deficit guardrail entirely, pivoting to today's Bank of Canada rate cut announcement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Bank of Canada announced interest rates are going down yet again. That is terrible news for the Leader of the Opposition, but it is great news for Canadians, for whom things will become more affordable. On top of that, a tax break will be out for Canadians over the next two months that the Leader of the Opposition voted against. Why? Because he cares more about his own political interests than he does about Canadians who are struggling. He will talk about the challenges Canadians are facing to try to instrumentalize them for his own gain, but he will not lift a finger to help Canadians.
What does the PM say to Quebec's Muslims who are happy and welcome within a host society that values secularism, given a Justice Committee report attacking Quebec's values?
References the Justice Committee report but the question is vague and rhetorical, asking what the PM says to Quebec Muslims rather than posing a clear accountability ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ComitĂ© permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne a dĂ©posĂ© un rapport qui fait littĂ©ralement figure de procĂšs contre les valeurs du QuĂ©bec. Pourquoi est-ce le cas? C'est parce que le QuĂ©bec est attachĂ©, comme la plupart des Ătats occidentaux, Ă la notion de la sĂ©paration entre l'Ăglise et l'Ătat. Je me demande ce que dit le premier ministre aux centaines de milliers de musulmans au QuĂ©bec qui sont heureux et bienvenus en français dans la sociĂ©tĂ© d'accueil qui est comme elle veut bien l'ĂȘtre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has tabled a report that literally puts Quebec's values on trial. Why is that? It is because Quebec, like most western nations, supports the separation of church and state. I wonder what the Prime Minister has to say to the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Quebec who are happy and welcome, in French, in a host society that knows exactly what it is.
Trudeau said the government will always defend freedom of thought, expression and belief, as well as individual rights under the Canadian Charter.
Gives a boilerplate Charter rights answer without engaging the specific committee report or Quebec secularism context Blanchet raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, de ce cĂŽtĂ©-ci de la Chambre, nous allons toujours dĂ©fendre la libertĂ© de penser, la libertĂ© d'expression et la libertĂ© de croyance. C'est une valeur fondamentale pour tous les Canadiens et pour tous ceux qui viennent au Canada. C'est pour ça que, de ce cĂŽtĂ©-ci de la Chambre, nous allons toujours dĂ©fendre les droits individuels et la Charte canadienne des droits et libertĂ©s. Ăa, c'est sans Ă©quivoque.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we will always protect freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of belief. That is a fundamental value held by all Canadians and by everyone who comes to Canada. That is why, on this side of the House, we will always protect individual rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is unequivocal.
Does the PM side with those imposing religion in secular Quebec schools or with those being attacked for enforcing secularism?
Sharpens the question to a binary: does the PM side with those imposing religion in secular Quebec schools or with those enforcing secularism who are being attacked?
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai envie de rendre cela un peu plus concret. Est-ce que le premier ministre prend fait et cause pour des gens qui, dans des écoles laïques au Québec, imposent la présence de la religion? Prend-il plutÎt fait et cause pour ceux qui sont littéralement agressés parce qu'ils veulent faire respecter le principe de laïcité dans les écoles québécoises? C'est l'un ou c'est l'autre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I really want to put this in clear, concrete terms. Does the Prime Minister side with the people who are imposing the presence of religion in secular schools in Quebec, or does he side with those who are being literally attacked for wanting to uphold the principle of secularism in Quebec schools? It has to be one or the other.
Trudeau defended Charter freedoms and added that institutions like universities are independent and responsible for hiring based on merit.
Answers with generic Charter defence and adds a vague point about merit-based hiring at independent institutions, tangentially touching secularism without directly taking a side.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est trÚs clair. Nous allons toujours défendre la liberté de croyance, la liberté d'expression et les libertés fondamentales que chérissent tant tous les Canadiens et tous les Québécois. C'est pour ça que nous allons de l'avant dans la défense de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Cela dit, que ce soit les universités, qui sont indépendantes, ou d'autres établissements, chacun a la responsabilité d'embaucher les meilleurs enseignants selon des critÚres basés sur le mérite. Tous les Québécois et tous les Canadiens s'attendent à cela.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear. We will always defend freedom of belief, freedom of expression and the fundamental freedoms so cherished by all Canadians and all Quebeckers. That is why we are moving forward to defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That said, whether it is at universities, which are independent, or at other institutions, everyone has a responsibility to hire the best teachers based on merit. All Quebeckers and all Canadians expect that.
Why won't the PM fight back against Trump's threats to Canadian jobs?
Mostly rhetorical framing comparing Trump to a bully and the PM to a pushover; the ask ('fight back') is vague and compound without specifying any policy action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump is a bully and bullies prey on weakness. When Trump says jump, the Prime Minister asks how high. When Trump trash-talks Canada, the leader of the Conservatives repeats that garbage. When Trump trolls Canada, hundreds and thousands of Canadians worry they might lose their job. Why will the Prime Minister not fight back and protect Canadian jobs?
Trudeau said the government is taking a serious Team Canada approach involving premiers, unions, and businesses to stand up for Canadian workers.
Offers general assurances of seriousness and a Team Canada approach but gives no specific measures or commitments to protect jobs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the job of a Canadian prime minister is to stand up for Canadian jobs, Canadian workers and the Canadian economy. That is exactly what we are doing, with a level of seriousness, a level of focus and, quite frankly, a team Canada approach that brings together the premiers and brings together different actors from unions, from businesses and with expertise across the country. That is why we will continue to take this seriously and not freak out like the NDP or repeat the attacks like the Conservatives. We will stand up for Canadians like we have before, as we will again.
When will the PM stop showing weakness in the face of Trump's mockery and threats to Canadian jobs?
Rhetorical challenge framing the PM as weak with no specific policy ask beyond 'stop being weak.'
Source text
His job is not safe either, Mr. Speaker. Le premier ministre ne fait rien pendant que le prĂ©sident dĂ©signĂ© Trump se moque de notre pays et menace les bons emplois canadiens. Je me suis battu contre les intimidateurs toute ma vie. Il faut ĂȘtre ferme et ne pas jouer leur jeu. Quand le premier ministre va-t-il arrĂȘter de faire preuve de faiblesse?
Hansard translation: Son emploi n'est pas garanti non plus, monsieur le Président. The Prime Minister does nothing while President-elect Trump thumbs his nose at our country and threatens good Canadian jobs. I have fought against bullies my entire life. We have to be firm and not play their game. When will the Prime Minister stop displaying weakness?
Trudeau cited the first Trump term when Canada responded firmly to steel and aluminum tariffs, successfully had them removed, and renegotiated NAFTA while protecting supply management and cultural exemptions.
Provides a relevant historical example â the Trump steel/aluminum tariff response during the first Trump administration â as concrete evidence of how Canada responded and succeeded.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il y a quelques années, dans la premiÚre administration de Donald Trump, quand il y a eu des tarifs imposés sur l'acier et l'aluminium partout au pays, nous avons répondu de façon raisonnable, mais ferme et ces tarifs ont été enlevés. Nous avons pu renégocier l'ALENA en protégeant non seulement la gestion de l'offre, mais des choses comme l'exemption culturelle, la continuité des échanges commerciaux entre les deux pays. Nous l'avons fait en prenant au sérieux les défis, mais en travaillant de façon responsable. C'est ce que nous ferons encore une fois.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, when Donald Trump's first administration imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum across the country, we responded reasonably, but firmly, and those tariffs were lifted. We were able to renegotiate NAFTA while protecting not only supply management, but things like the cultural exemption and trade continuity between the two countries. We did this by taking the challenges seriously, but working responsibly. That is what we will do again.
Did the finance minister voluntarily break her 2022 commitments on deficit trajectory, COVID debt repayment, and debt-to-GDP ratio, or did the PM push her to do so?
Cites three specific fiscal commitments made by the finance minister in 2022 with a clear, specific binary question about whether she crossed her own lines voluntarily or was pushed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister said in 2022, âThis is a line we shall not cross.â Then she listed three lines: one, that the deficit would only go down, and it went up; two, that she would pay off the COVID debt, and not only has she not paid off a penny, but the debt has gone up; and three, that the debt-to-GDP ratio would only drop, and it has risen. Did the finance minister voluntarily cross her own lines, or did the Prime Minister push her?
Trudeau cited falling interest rates, the two-month tax break, and three million Canadians approved for dental care, without addressing the fiscal commitments.
Deflects entirely to interest rates, dental care approvals, and the tax break without addressing any of the three named fiscal commitments or cabinet dynamics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is once again putting on his little dramatic acts because he is trying to distract Canadians from the core facts. First, interest rates are down again; second, Canadians will be getting a tax break over the next two months, despite the best efforts of the Conservative leader, who once again, twice this past week, saw that this House has no confidence in him; and third, three million Canadians are now approved for access to dental care for the coming year. These are things that he stood against but Canadians are getting anyway.
Did the finance minister smash through her $40B fiscal guardrail on her own or did the PM push her?
Repeats the guardrail question with some rhetorical escalation; the binary framing (voluntary vs. pushed) has a clear answer-requiring structure but the inflammatory language reduces precision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is silencing his own finance minister. She was already wildly irresponsible with the public purse, but not irresponsible enough for him. She wanted to keep the deficit at an already massive $40 billion, and he said it was not enough. Canadians are not paying enough inflation, according to him. Once again, did she voluntarily smash through her fiscal guardrail or did he push her?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau said Canada has the lowest deficit among G7 countries and is the third-largest recipient of foreign direct investment globally, and number one per capita in the G20.
Pivots to Canada's relative G7 deficit ranking and foreign investment figures â tangentially relevant but does not address the specific guardrail breach or cabinet dynamics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition puts on these little performances because he wants to try to distract Canadians from the facts. We have the lowest deficit among G7 countries and will continue to. We are the third-largest receiver in the world of foreign direct investment, number one per capita in the G20, because countries around the world and companies around the world have confidence not just in Canada but in Canadians. The question people should ask is, why does the Leader of the Opposition not have confidence in Canada or confidence in Canadians?
Given rising inflation across all four measures and the Bank of Canada's emergency rate cut to address economic softness, when will the PM call an election so Conservatives can fix the economy?
References today's Bank of Canada rate cut and the Governor's comments about a softer-than-expected economy, but conflates that with all four inflation measures being above target in an inaccurate framing that undermines the factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not have confidence in him, nor does his own party or his own cabinet, nor, apparently, does the Bank of Canada, which today was forced into an emergency panicked rate cut to confront the collapsing economy. The Governor of the Bank of Canada said the economy is softer than he expected it would be, and despite the fact that inflation is rising, that all four measures of it are above the target, he is being forced to cut the rates to save the economy from outright collapse. When will the Prime Minister stop breaking the economy and call a carbon tax election so Conservatives can fix it?
Trudeau said inflation has been within the Bank of Canada's target range for over 10 months and attributed rate cuts to successful economic management, including dental care and food programs.
Correctly rebuts the 'emergency panic cut' characterization by noting inflation has been within target for over 10 months, but doesn't address the softer economy concern or call an election.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, câest carrĂ©ment du nâimporte quoi du chef de lâopposition. Sorry, there is no good way to say that in English. The reality is he is just making this stuff up in a way we could not believe. Inflation has been within the target range of the Bank of Canada for over 10 months now. This is because we have been there to help Canadians with things like dental care, like a school food program, with investments that are growing the economy in a way that has brought down inflation and allowed the Bank of Canada to cut rates faster than just about any other G7 country. We are there for Canadians. He is the one voting against things to happen.
With inflation, unemployment, housing costs, and food bank use all rising, what will the deficit be this year?
Lists several specific economic indicators (10% unemployment in Toronto, doubled housing costs, two million food bank users, four inflation measures above target) but ends with a direct question about the deficit figure that is specific and answerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, do members know what is up? Inflation is up and unemployment is up. Inflation is not only up; every single measure of inflation is now above its target. Unemployment is up. It is at 10% in Toronto nowâ
Oh, oh!
You know what is up, Mr. Speaker? Inflation is up. All four measures of inflation are now above target. Unemployment is up. In Toronto, it is over 10%. What else is up is housing costs. They have actually doubled. They have risen more than in any other country in the G7. What else is up? Food bank use is up. It, too, has doubled, with two million people lined up at the food bank. What else is up again? The promise-breaking inflationary deficit, so why does the Prime Minister not tell us, if he has figured out how to count, what the deficit will be this year?
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, the challenge faced by the Leader of the Opposition is he spent so long explaining to Canadians that everything is broken that when things start to get better, he refuses to actually help Canadians. He has voted against a tax break for Canadians over the next few months. He has voted against the dental care that has helped already well over a million Canadians. He is stuck in a place where, as Canadians are starting to come through the difficult times the global economy has put them in, he needs to continue to talk down Canadians, talk down our economy and scare people into voting for him. It will not work.
Trudeau mocked Poilievre for struggling to acknowledge improving conditions and accused him of voting against the tax break and dental care to serve his own political interests.
Entirely deflects with mockery of the opposition's predicament when 'things are getting better' and pivots to the tax break and dental care votes, ignoring the specific deficit question and economic statistics cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one has to take a moment to appreciate how difficult it must be to be the Leader of the Opposition at a time when things are getting better for Canadians. He spends all his time, and has for the pastâ
What did the PM offer the Bloc leader to get him to support large deficits, big bureaucracy, and inflationary federal spending against Quebec's interests?
References the Bloc's vote for $21B in spending and a total $500B figure, but the question about what was 'offered' to Blanchet is speculative and largely rhetorical rather than accountability-oriented.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois a votĂ© encore pour autoriser 21 milliards de dollars supplĂ©mentaires de dĂ©penses fĂ©dĂ©rales de ce gouvernement centralisateur, câest-Ă -dire, au total, 500 milliards de dollars en dĂ©penses inflationnistes, centralisatrices et libĂ©rales, plus de pouvoir pour le gouvernement ici, Ă Ottawa, et moins dâargent dans les poches des QuĂ©bĂ©cois. Quâest-ce que le premier ministre a offert au chef du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois pour le convaincre de soutenir de grands dĂ©ficits, la grande bureaucratie et lâĂ©norme inflation quâimpose le fĂ©dĂ©ral au QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Bloc Québécois again voted to authorize an additional $21 billion in federal spending by this centralizing government, in other words, a total of $500 billion in inflationary, centralizing and Liberal spending, more power for the government here in Ottawa and less money in the pockets of Quebeckers. What did the Prime Minister offer the leader of the Bloc Québécois to convince him to support big deficits, big bureaucracy and the enormous inflation the federal government is imposing on Quebec?
Trudeau listed programs the Conservatives voted against, including Kids Help Phone, affordable housing, Ukraine military aid, vehicle theft funding, hate crime support, dental care, and school food programs.
Deflects entirely by listing Conservative votes against various programs, not addressing the Bloc's voting rationale or any arrangement with the PM.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la question que les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et tous les Canadiens devraient se poser, câest pourquoi, au contraire, le Parti conservateur a votĂ© contre Jeunesse, JâĂ©coute, contre des fonds pour le logement abordable, contre de lâaide militaire pour lâUkraine, contre du financement pour la lutte contre les vols de vĂ©hicules au Canada, contre le soutien aux victimes de crimes haineux, contre les soins dentaires et contre le programme national dâalimentation scolaire. La question, ce nâest pas pourquoi des parlementaires ont appuyĂ© cela, câest pourquoi le chef conservateur se tient debout contre les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the question that Quebeckers and all Canadians should be asking instead is why the Conservative Party voted against Kids Help Phone, against funding for affordable housing, against military help for Ukraine, against funding to combat auto theft in Canada, against support for victims of hate crime, against dental care and against the national school food program. The question is not why parliamentarians supported that, it is why the Conservative leader stands against Canadians.
Will the PM pay for a course on how the Canadian parliamentary system works, since unlike the US there is no government shutdown but rather an election when confidence votes fail?
The question about parliamentary procedure is condescending and rhetorical rather than a genuine accountability question, though it contains a valid substantive point about government shutdowns not applying in Canada.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'argent ne va jamais faire ce qu'il dit. Il sert juste Ă gonfler la bureaucratie Ă Ottawa, comme toujours. Le chef du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois dit qu'il doit soutenir les dĂ©penses du gouvernement en votant pour des crĂ©dits d'impĂŽt, sinon le gouvernement va simplement arrĂȘter de fonctionner, comme aux ĂtatsâUnis. Or, nous ne sommes pas aux ĂtatsâUnis. Ici, si un vote Ă©choue, il n'y a pas d'arrĂȘt de fonctionnement du gouvernement; il y a des Ă©lections qui donnent aux gens un choix. Est-ce que le premier ministre va payer pour offrir des cours sur le fonctionnement du systĂšme parlementaire au chef du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that money will never do what he is saying it will do. It will only serve to bulk up the bureaucracy in Ottawa, as usual. The leader of the Bloc Québécois said that he has to support the government's spending by voting for tax credits or else the government will simply stop operating, much like in the United States, but we are not in the United States. Here, if a vote fails, the government does not stop running. There is an election, which gives people a choice. Will the Prime Minister pay to give the leader of the Bloc Québécois some training on how the parliamentary system works?
Trudeau accused Poilievre of showing contempt toward other parliamentary leaders and deflected to Conservative votes against the tax break and dental care for seniors.
Deflects by focusing on Poilievre's contempt for other parliamentarians rather than addressing the parliamentary procedure point or the Bloc's stated rationale for supporting government spending.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous commençons Ă nous habituer au mĂ©pris du chef conservateur Ă l'Ă©gard des membres du gouvernement, mais le fait qu'il commence Ă mĂ©priser d'autres dĂ©putĂ©s du Parlement, d'autres chefs de l'opposition, dĂ©montre rĂ©ellement son approche, qui n'est vraiment pas digne de cette Chambre ou de la responsabilitĂ© que nous avons tous de dĂ©fendre les intĂ©rĂȘts des Canadiens. Il ne peut pas expliquer pourquoi il a votĂ© contre un congĂ© de taxe pour les Canadiens. Il ne peut pas expliquer pourquoi il a votĂ© contre les soins dentaires pour les aĂźnĂ©s. Il choisit donc d'attaquer et d'insulter. Les Canadiens mĂ©ritent mieux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are starting to get used to the Conservative leader's contempt for government members, but the fact that he is beginning to treat other members of Parliament, other opposition leaders, with contempt shows his real approach, which is not worthy of this chamber or of the responsibility that we all have to defend the interests of Canadians. He cannot explain why he voted against a tax holiday for Canadians. He cannot explain why he voted against dental care for seniors. Instead, he is choosing to attack and insult. Canadians deserve better.
Blanchet asks whether the Prime Minister supports students and sex-ed teachers in Quebec schools or those who intimidate them using religion as justification.
The question raises a legitimate jurisdictional point but frames it as a binary choice between protecting students and siding with religious intimidators, making the ask rhetorical rather than specific.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les établissements d'enseignement supérieur sont-ils libres, comme le dit le premier ministre? C'est une bonne question. Par contre, ce qu'on sait, c'est que l'éducation est une compétence du Québec et qu'il revient au Québec de décider ce qui se passe dans les écoles du Québec. Je veux savoir, un peu comme pour la question précédente, si le premier ministre prend fait et cause pour les élÚves et les professeurs d'éducation sexuelle dans les écoles du Québec? Prend-il plutÎt fait et cause pour ceux qui les intimident et utilisent la peur pour des raisons religieuses?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, are higher education institutions free like the Prime Minister says? That is a good question. What we do know is that education falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, and it is up to Quebec to decide what happens in Quebec schools. As in the previous question, what I want to know is whether the Prime Minister is siding with the students and teachers of sex education in Quebec schools, or whether he is siding with those who wish to intimidate them and engage in religious fearmongering.
Trudeau says the federal government defends Charter rights and fundamental freedoms for all Canadians, including vulnerable children, while respecting provincial jurisdiction over education.
Trudeau invokes the Charter and federal responsibility to defend fundamental freedoms but does not address the specific Quebec jurisdictional tension or what concrete action he would take.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, quels que soient les champs de compĂ©tence partout au pays, que nous respectons, le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral a la responsabilitĂ© de s'assurer que tous les Canadiens sont protĂ©gĂ©s par la Charte canadienne des droits et libertĂ©s, et que la libertĂ© d'expression, la libertĂ© d'idĂ©es et la libertĂ© de croyance sont respectĂ©es partout dans notre pays. Ăvidemment, nous respectons le travail que font les provinces pour administrer les systĂšmes d'Ă©ducation, mais nous allons toujours ĂȘtre lĂ pour dĂ©fendre ces libertĂ©s fondamentales pour tous, particuliĂšrement pour les enfants vulnĂ©rables.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, regardless of the various jurisdictions across the country, which we do respect, the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that all Canadians are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that freedom of expression, freedom of thought and freedom of belief are respected across our country. Obviously, we respect the work that the provinces are doing to run their education systems, but we will always be there to defend these fundamental freedoms for everyone, particularly vulnerable children.
Blanchet asks the Prime Minister to at minimum remove the religious exemption in the Criminal Code that allows hate propaganda and incitement to violence under religious pretexts.
Blanchet identifies a specific Criminal Code provision allowing religiously-motivated hate speech and makes a concrete ask to remove that religious exemption, though the framing includes some rhetorical editorializing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il y a assez peu de leçons de courage dans ce qu'on observe dans ce Parlement. Je veux rappeler à tous qu'il y a dans le Code criminel une disposition qui permet aux gens, sous prétexte religieux, de propager la haine et d'inciter à la violence. à défaut d'avoir le courage de faire autre chose, peut-il au moins mettre fin à l'exception religieuse et mettre fin à la légitimité de la propagande haineuse et de l'invitation à la violence pour des raisons religieuses?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, examples of courage are few and far between in this Parliament. I want to remind everyone that there is a provision in the Criminal Code that allows people to spread hate and incite violence under the guise of religion. If he does not have the courage to do anything else, will he at least put an end to the religious exemption and stop allowing hate propaganda and incitement to violence on religious grounds?
Trudeau says spreading hate and encouraging violence are already illegal in Canada and that police and courts are there to enforce the law and protect people.
Trudeau states that spreading hate and inciting violence are already illegal in Canada and that courts and police will enforce the law, but does not address the specific Criminal Code religious exemption Blanchet raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, propager la haine ou encourager la violence est toujours illĂ©gal au Canada. C'est pour ça que nous nous attendons Ă ce que nos corps policiers et nos cours soient lĂ pour protĂ©ger les gens et s'assurer que la loi est suivie. Du cĂŽtĂ© du gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral, nous allons toujours ĂȘtre lĂ pour protĂ©ger et dĂ©fendre la Charte canadienne des droits et libertĂ©s, ainsi que les libertĂ©s d'expression, de croyances et d'idĂ©es au Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, spreading hate and encouraging violence are still illegal in Canada. That is why we expect our police forces and courts to be there to protect the public and enforce the law. The federal government will always be there to protect and defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of belief and freedom of thought in Canada.
Poilievre asks why the Prime Minister voted against removing GST from new homes, a policy his own housing adviser called the best in a generation, which would have saved buyers up to $50,000 and stimulated 30,000 new homes.
Poilievre cites specific figures ($50,000 savings, $3,000/year mortgage reduction, 30,000 additional homes) and references the PM's own housing adviser endorsing the policy, making it factually grounded with a clear accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister and the entire Liberal caucus voted against taking the GST off new homes, which would have saved up to $50,000 for a young couple trying to buy a home and almost $3,000 a year in lower mortgage payments, and would have stimulated an extra 30,000 additional homes built. Even the Prime Minister's own housing adviser said that this was the best housing policy he has seen in a generation. Why does the Prime Minister insist on taxing the young people who are struggling to pay the doubling housing costs, which he has brought since he took office?
Trudeau argues the Conservative plan would have cut billions in municipal housing investments and that Conservative MPs were privately lobbying for those same funds.
Trudeau pivots entirely to attacking the Conservative proposal's alleged funding cuts to municipalities rather than addressing the GST removal policy or the housing adviser's endorsement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have long learned that, whenever Conservatives make promises, they have to look at the small print. What the Leader of the Opposition actually proposed was to cut billions of dollars' worth of investments to municipalities across the country to create more density, to accelerate the construction of homes and to cut bureaucracy and red tape. Indeed, members of the Conservative Party have been advocating to invest in their communities and send money to their mayors, and the Leader of the Opposition wrote a letter in their names saying that none of them want those investments in housing. Shame on him.
Poilievre argues the Liberal housing fund creates bureaucracy rather than homes, and asks why the PM won't instead remove the GST and cut the bureaucracy blocking homebuilding.
Poilievre restates his GST position with some rhetorical flourishes ('density is in his head') and frames a compound ask about cutting bureaucracy, axing the tax and building homes, diluting the specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he is again imagining things. His program does not build homes; it builds bureaucracy. The only density is in his head. Our policy wasâ
Mr. Speaker, it is in his imagination. That is all. The Prime Minister wants to tax people up to $50,000 when they are buying a home so he can give more money to the very bureaucrats who block homebuilding. It is not that his housing funds do not help. It is worse. They actually block new homebuilding with more bureaucrats. Why do we not follow my plan to slash the bureaucracy, axe the tax and build the homes?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau says Conservative MPs are privately pleading with the minister for housing investments in their communities, contradicting their leader's position.
Trudeau focuses on Conservative MPs going behind Poilievre's back to seek housing funds rather than addressing the substance of the bureaucracy-cutting or GST argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the problem with what the Conservative leader is saying, leaving aside the childish insults, is that his own MPs are going behind his back, pleading to the minister to please send investments to build more homes to their municipalities, and complaining behind his back to the CBC that they cannot stand up for their communities. MPs are supposed to be their communities' voices in this place, but he gives them a rap on the knuckles if ever they dare be anything but his voice in their communities.
Poilievre challenges the Bloc for voting against removing GST on homes, arguing a sovereigntist party should not be funnelling young Quebecers' money to the centralizing federal government.
Poilievre pivots to attacking the Bloc on sovereignty grounds rather than pressing a specific policy question, making this more of a political jab than a substantive accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, le Bloc québécois a voté contre l'élimination de la TPS sur les maisons. J'aimerais qu'on m'explique. Un parti soi-disant souverainiste veut aller piger de l'argent dans les poches des jeunes Québécois qui achÚtent des maisons pour le donner au gouvernement le plus centralisateur de l'histoire, le méchant fédéral. Comment se fait-il qu'un parti souverainiste veuille concentrer le pouvoir et l'argent des Québécois ici, à Ottawa?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Bloc Québécois voted against eliminating the GST on homes. I would like someone to explain this to me. A self-proclaimed sovereignist party wants to take money out of the pockets of young Quebeckers who are buying homes and give it to the most centralizing government in history, the big bad feds. Why is a sovereignist party supporting the concentration of power and Quebeckers' money here in Ottawa?
Trudeau argues the $1.8 billion federal-provincial housing accelerator fund helps create density and cut red tape, and that Conservative Quebec MPs are afraid to defend it.
Trudeau defends the $1.8 billion housing accelerator fund for Quebec and claims Conservative MPs from Quebec can't speak up about its value due to fear of their leader, deflecting from the Bloc-sovereignty framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce que les députés du Bloc québécois et les députés conservateurs du Québec comprennent bien, c'est que le 1,8 milliard de dollars que le fédéral et le provincial sont en train d'investir pour le fonds accélérateur en matiÚre de logement aide à créer plus de densification, à accélérer la construction de logements et à éliminer la paperasse et la bureaucratie. Les députés conservateurs du Québec ne peuvent pas en parler ni dire à quel point les coupes de 1,8 milliard de dollars que propose le Parti conservateur seront nocives, parce qu'ils ont peur de leur chef.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what the members of the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative members from Quebec understand is that the $1.8 billion that the federal and provincial governments are investing in the housing accelerator fund is helping to create more density, to accelerate the construction of homes and to cut bureaucracy and red tape. The Conservative members from Quebec are not allowed to talk about that or about how harmful the $1.8 billion in cuts that the Conservative Party is proposing will be, because they are afraid of their leader.
Poilievre claims only the Conservatives support young Quebecers keeping money in their pockets, contrasting this with the Bloc voting to fund federal bureaucracy.
Poilievre makes a political assertion about Bloc hypocrisy and frames it as a statement rather than a question, with only a vague implicit ask about housing affordability.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous voulons mettre jusqu'à 50 000 $ dans les poches d'une jeune famille québécoise qui achÚte une maison, aprÚs que les programmes libéraux ont réussi à doubler le coût du logement et, en fait, à tripler le loyer à Montréal. Le Bloc québécois vote pour alimenter la bureaucratie fédérale avec l'argent des Québécois. Seul le Parti conservateur est en faveur de la souveraineté des jeunes Québécois de pouvoir garder l'argent dans leurs poches.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we want to put up to $50,000 in the pockets of a young Quebec family buying a house, after Liberal programs have managed to double the cost of housing and, in fact, triple the cost of rent in Montreal. The Bloc Québécois is voting to feed the federal bureaucracy with Quebeckers' money. The Conservative Party is the only party that wants to help young Quebeckers be sovereign and keep money in their pockets.
Trudeau says the federal government sent $900 million to Quebec for housing, and warns that the Conservative leader proposes to take that money away from Quebec.
Trudeau cites $900 million sent to Quebec specifically for housing and claims Conservative cuts would harm young Quebecers, partially engaging the housing substance without addressing the Bloc-sovereignty framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce sont 900 millions de dollars que ce gouvernement fédéral a envoyés au Québec pour créer plus de maisons, moins de bureaucratie, accélérer la construction de logements, éliminer la paperasse, et c'est de l'argent que le chef conservateur propose d'enlever au Québec. Ces jeunes Québécois qui ont besoin de trouver des maisons abordables et de bénéficier de possibilités ne vont pas voir de construction sous un gouvernement conservateur, parce que les conservateurs veulent couper dans les investissements pour le logement. C'est ce contre quoi les gens ont voté.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this federal government sent $900 million to Quebec to build more homes, reduce bureaucracy, accelerate housing construction and cut the red tape, but the Conservative leader is proposing to take that money away from Quebec. These young Quebeckers who need affordable homes and opportunities are not going to see any construction under a Conservative government because the Conservatives want to cut investments in housing. That is what people voted against.
Gazan asks the Prime Minister to adopt her Bill C-413, which would create legal mechanisms to end residential school denialism and protect survivors from incitement of hate, citing calls from multiple organizations.
Gazan cites specific stakeholders (special interlocutor, AFN, CMA, victims ombudsperson), names a specific bill (C-413), and makes a concrete ask about legal mechanisms against residential school denialism.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the special interlocutor, the AFN, the Canadian Medical Association and the victims ombudsperson are calling for legal mechanisms to end residential school denialism, but the Liberal Attorney General is missing in action when it comes to the rise of extremism against indigenous people. He has failed to protect survivors and their families from violence. Inciting hate is not free speech. Will the Prime Minister heed these calls and adopt my bill, Bill C-413, to protect survivors and their families from the incitement of hate?
Trudeau agrees that incitement to hatred is not free speech, affirms the importance of reconciliation, and says the government is working with Gazan on her private member's bill.
Trudeau agrees with the principle that incitement to hatred is not free speech and mentions working with the member on her private member's bill, but offers no concrete commitment or timeline on Bill C-413.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we agree. Incitement to hatred and incitement to violence are not free speech. We need to make sure that the path of reconciliation that this country is on is walked on by everyone. That is why we have stepped up significantly in our anti-racism strategy while we continue to work with that member on her private member's bill and move forward to make sure that everyone who believes in the better future for Canada, despite all those who continue to attempt to deny residential schools, hold together and prevent denialism from happening.
Desjarlais asks why the Prime Minister is standing by while Edmontonians freeze and die on the streets, noting four recent deaths and Liberal failure to counter Premier Smith's cuts to social services.
Desjarlais uses vivid statistics (4 Edmontonians dead, 100 lost limbs to frostbite) and names a specific provincial actor (Premier Smith) but frames the question with partisan blame that conflates federal and provincial responsibility.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is the holidays. Winter is here and people are dying. At a time when people should be gathered around the table, under a warm roof, four Edmontonians have died on the streets. Last winter, over 100 people lost a limb due to frostbite. Liberals have let people in Edmonton down. They are either too weak or do not care to stand up to Conservative Premier Danielle Smith's cuts to Edmonton's social services. Why is the Prime Minister, just like the Conservatives, standing by while Edmontonians freeze?
Trudeau says the federal government has made significant investments to combat homelessness, and is working directly with the City of Edmonton and Mayor Sohi on supports for unhoused people.
Trudeau acknowledges federal housing and homelessness investments, mentions working directly with the City of Edmonton and Mayor Sohi, providing some relevant specificity without addressing the Premier Smith accountability angle.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have put significant amounts of money forward for the provinces to tackle the issue of encampments and to tackle homelessness. We have made historic investments in increasing housing and decreasing homelessness. Provinces have been varied in their response to be willing to work with the federal government. That is why we are working directly with the City of Edmonton and Mayor Sohi to move forward on supports to fight homelessness in Edmonton, just as we are right across the country. It takes investment, compassion and partnership, and that is what we are doing.
McLeod asks the Prime Minister what more the government can do to support reconciliation with indigenous peoples.
A classic government-backbencher softball that simply asks the PM to enumerate more reconciliation commitments, with no accountability dimension whatsoever.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since 2015, our government has made reconciliation with indigenous people one of the most crucial priorities for Canada. We have made important progress from returning unceded land back to communities, making aggressive investments in housing, reforming health care and eliminating almost 150 long-term boil water advisories across the country. Would the Prime Minister tell Canadians what more we as a government can do to support reconciliation?
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Northwest Territories for his tireless advocacy and his leadership. We introduced the first nations clean water act to ensure clean drinking water for generations to come and give first nations the tools to manage their own drinking water infrastructure. It was shameful that, in the presence of chiefs gathered from across the country, members of the Conservative Party voted to refuse to send that bill to the Senate. They stood against us sending Bill C-61 to the Senate. Shame on them. We need to solve drinking water for generations to come.
Trudeau highlights the First Nations Clean Water Act (Bill C-61) providing clean water for generations and criticizes Conservatives for voting against sending it to the Senate.
Trudeau provides a specific answer referencing Bill C-61 (First Nations Clean Water Act) and criticizes the Conservatives for voting against sending it to the Senate, offering concrete legislative information.
Poilievre asks the PM to reverse his drug liberalization policies, citing decriminalization with BC NDP, fentanyl precursor legality, uninspected containers, and Bill C-5 house arrest provisions.
Poilievre includes some policy specifics (80% of precursor chemicals legal, 99% uninspected containers, Bill C-5) but packages them in ideological framing with an emotionally charged, compound ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the weak Prime Minister has lost control of our borders. He started by teaming up with the British Columbia NDP to decriminalize fentanyl. He has kept 80% of fentanyl precursor ingredients legal. He allows 99% of shipping containers to come into our country uninspected. He passed Bill C-5, which gives house arrest to the kingpins who produce that poison. Will the Prime Minister reverse his radical liberalization of drugs so that not one more mother will have the heartbreak of losing a child to an overdose?
Trudeau says the government uses an evidence-based, compassion-based public health approach to the opioid crisis and will continue relying on scientists and frontline workers.
Trudeau speaks generically about an evidence-based, compassion-based public health approach without addressing any of the specific statistics Poilievre cited or the concrete policy reversals requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the toxic drug epidemic has been hitting hard in communities right across the country and, indeed, across North America. That is why we have been stepping up by using an evidence-based, compassion-based, public health-based approach to solving the opioid epidemic and the toxic drug crisis. We are going to continue to lean on scientists, researchers and compassionate frontline workers as we invest to support Canadian families from coast to coast to coast. It is not more ideology proposed by the Leader of the Opposition that is going to solve this. It is the careful application of reasonable responses.
Poilievre cites a Globe and Mail report saying the government lost control of the immigration system and asks what the plan is to locate and deport 30,000 people who have received deportation orders but gone missing.
Poilievre cites a Globe and Mail characterization and a specific statistic (30,000 people ordered deported but lost track of) making a pointed accountability ask, though it is framed with partisan rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister's weird, woke, liberalization ideology that has caused the 47,000 deaths and the 200% increase in overdoses. However, just like the Prime Minister has lost control of the drugs, he has lost control of immigration. Do not take my word for it. The Globe and Mail said that the Liberal government âlost control of Canada's immigration systemâ, highlighting that there are now 30,000 people who have been ordered deported that the Prime Minister has now lost track of. What is his plan to find them and deport them?
Trudeau says Canada remains the best country in the world, that the government will defend Canada's borders and work with American partners, and accuses Poilievre of talking down Canada.
Trudeau does not address the 30,000 missing deportees at all, instead pivoting to general claims about defending Canada's interests and attacking Poilievre for talking down Canada.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, despite the Leader of the Opposition trying to pretend it is not true, Canada remains the best country in the world, and the fact that we are facing significant challenges, like other places around the world, does not take away from that. We will continue to roll up our sleeves. We will continue to defend Canada's interests, defend Canada's borders and work with our partners in the United States. The Leader of the Opposition cannot help talking down Canada and Canadians. We are going to work with Canadians, with provinces, in a team Canada approach and protect Canada's structures and systems.
Poilievre asks what the government's plan is to remove people whose permits and visas will expire over the next year and a half, in addition to the 30,000 already ordered deported.
Poilievre raises the concern about millions of visa/permit holders whose status will expire but the question is vague on what specific plan is demanded and combines it with personal attacks.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have the best country with the worst Prime Minister. He is weak, woke and wasteful, and he has lost track of 30,000 people who have been ordered deported but have now vanished. Now, we have millions of other people who are going to come up for exit when their permits and visas expire over the next year and a half, and the Prime Minister will not tell us what the plan is to get people out of the country who are not supposed to be here.
Trudeau says Canadians have confidence in Canada's strong and rigorous immigration system that adjusts to the country's needs, while accusing the Conservative leader of putting partisan attacks ahead of policy.
Trudeau speaks broadly about Canada having a strong immigration system that adjusts to needs and opportunities, without offering any plan for managing upcoming permit expirations or the 30,000 deportees.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians continue to have confidence in immigration as a good thing for our economy, a good thing for our country, because they know we have a strong and rigorous immigration system that adjusts, depending on the needs and the opportunities for Canada to grow and integrate more people. That is what we are continuing to defend. That is what we fight for every single day. While the Leader of the Opposition talks down Canada, talks down Canadians and puts partisan attacks ahead of reasonable policy solutions, we are going to do the work necessary to protect Canadians and protect our immigration system.
Poilievre cites three Chileans who escaped a Laval detention centre, 750 dangerous foreigners in Quebec the government can't deport, and 30,000 people lost after deportation orders, asking for the deportation plan.
Poilievre cites specific cases (three escaped Chilean nationals, 750 dangerous foreigners in Quebec, 30,000 lost deportees) and asks a clear, specific question about the deportation plan.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, voilà encore une réponse faible de la part d'un premier ministre faible qui a perdu le contrÎle de notre systÚme d'immigration. Trois Chiliens qui sont au Canada illégalement se sont évadés d'un centre de surveillance à Laval. Ces trois fugitifs s'ajoutent à prÚs de 750 étrangers considérés comme dangereux qui se trouvent au Québec et que ce gouvernement est incapable d'expulser. En plus, on apprend que le gouvernement a littéralement perdu la trace de 30 000 personnes pour lesquelles on a donné un ordre d'expulsion. Quel est le plan pour les expulser?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is another weak response from a weak Prime Minister who has lost control of our immigration system. Three Chileans who are in Canada illegally escaped from a holding centre in Laval. In addition to these three fugitives, there are nearly 750 foreigners in Quebec who are considered to be dangerous but who this government is incapable of deporting. What is more, apparently the government has literally lost track of 30,000 people who have been ordered deported. What is the plan to deport them?
Trudeau says the government has made significant investments in border security, contrasting this with the Conservatives who fired 1,100 border agents and cut police services when in power.
Trudeau pivots to comparing Conservative record on border agents (firing 1,100) and gun policy rather than addressing the specific cases of escaped individuals or the deportation plan.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au fil des derniÚres années, nous avons fait des investissements considérables dans notre agence de sécurité frontaliÚre. Nous avons fait des investissements dans nos corps policiers. Cela contraste avec les conservateurs, qui ont congédié 1 100 agents frontaliers quand ils étaient au pouvoir. Ils ont fait des coupes dans nos services policiers. Ils ont fait des coupes dans nos services frontaliers. Ils ont choisi de réduire la sécurité du Canada tout en encourageant la vente d'armes de plus en plus dangereuses. C'est pour ça que nous avons mis fin à la possibilité d'acheter des armes de style arme d'assaut, et nous allons continuer de protéger les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, over these past few years, we have made considerable investments in our border security agency. We have made investments in our police forces. That is in contrast to the Conservatives, who laid off 1,100 border officers when they were in power. They made cuts to our police services. They made cuts to our border services. They chose to reduce Canada's security while encouraging sales of ever more dangerous firearms. That is why we made it impossible to buy assault-style weapons, and we will continue to protect Canadians.
Blanchet asks the PM whether he is not worried that Conservatives' insistent attacks on the Bloc might push it to become even more sovereigntist.
Blanchet describes this himself as 'une question un peu Ă©trange' â it is essentially asking the PM to comment on whether Conservative pressure might make the Bloc more sovereigntist, which is not a serious accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai une question un peu étrange pour le premier ministre. Le chef conservateur profite de sa fonction pour dire à peu prÚs n'importe quoi à propos du Bloc québécois, du Québec ou de moi. Il fait cela tout en refusant avec une « trouillardise » incroyable depuis plus d'un an toutes les invitations à débattre publiquement que je lui ai envoyées encore et encore. Là , aujourd'hui, on va une étape plus loin. Le premier ministre ne s'inquiÚte-t-il pas que les conservateurs insistent avec passion pour que le Bloc québécois soit encore plus indépendantiste?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have a bit of a strange question for the Prime Minister. The Conservative leader is taking advantage of his position to say all kinds of things about the Bloc Québécois, Quebec and me. He is doing this while cravenly refusing the many invitations I have issued again and again for over a year to debate me publicly. Today, he has gone a step further. Is the Prime Minister not concerned that the Conservatives are firmly determined to push the Bloc Québécois even further toward independence?
Trudeau says few Quebecers take the Conservative leader seriously and attacks him for opposing women's rights, wanting to legalize assault-style weapons, and eliminating dental care.
Trudeau doesn't engage with the sovereignty question and instead pivots to attacking Poilievre on women's rights, assault-style weapons, and dental care, which is deflection though loosely relevant to the political context.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je sais trĂšs bien que les dĂ©putĂ©s du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, comme tous les autres parlementaires Ă la Chambre, n'Ă©coutent pas avec grand sĂ©rieux ce que le chef conservateur est en train de dire. D'ailleurs, trĂšs peu de QuĂ©bĂ©cois prennent au sĂ©rieux ce chef conservateur qui se dresse contre les droits des femmes, qui veut lĂ©galiser Ă nouveau les armes de style arme dâassaut, qui veut Ă©liminer le programme de soins dentaires qui a aidĂ© dĂ©jĂ des centaines de milliers de QuĂ©bĂ©cois. Nous sommes lĂ pour investir en travaillant avec nos collĂšgues du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois et du NPD pour aider les gens. Les conservateurs, eux, veulent juste la chicane.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that members of the Bloc Québécois, like all other parliamentarians in the House, do not take what the Conservative leader is saying very seriously. In fact, very few Quebeckers take this Conservative leader seriously, in light of his position against women's rights, his support for making assault-style weapons legal again and his wish to get rid of the dental care program, which has already helped hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers. We are here to invest by working with our Bloc Québécois and NDP colleagues to help people. The Conservatives just want to pick fights.
Blanchet suggests Parliament should wish each other Merry Christmas and reconvene only at an election, implying the institution is no longer functioning productively.
Blanchet's question is essentially a rhetorical suggestion to adjourn for Christmas and call an election â it is not a real question seeking accountability or information.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, un comitĂ© parlementaire de la Chambre des communes s'en prend au QuĂ©bec. Le ministre de l'Immigration s'en prend au premier ministre du QuĂ©bec. La boĂźte Ă questions des conservateurs est vide. Cela fait huit fois qu'ils rĂ©pĂštent les mĂȘmes. La boĂźte Ă rĂ©ponses du gouvernement est vide depuis longtemps. On n'affronte plus les dĂ©fis auxquels on devrait s'attarder dans ce Parlement. Est-ce qu'il ne serait pas temps qu'on se souhaite rĂ©solument Joyeux NoĂ«l, parce qu'on en a le droit, et qu'on se revoie lors d'Ă©lections?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a House of Commons committee is attacking Quebec. The Minister of Immigration is attacking Quebec's premier. The Conservatives' question box is clearly empty, since they have repeated the same thing eight times. The government has not had any answers for a long time, and we are no longer dealing with the challenges that we should be dealing with in this Parliament. Is it not time for us all to heartily wish each other a merry Christmas, because we have the right to do so? We can see each other again when it is time for an election.
Trudeau says there is still work to do: presenting an economic update, expanding dental care eligibility, and delivering free prescription contraceptives and insulin.
Trudeau gives a substantive answer listing specific upcoming legislative priorities (economic statement, dental care expansion, free contraceptives, free insulin), providing real programmatic content despite the non-question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis toujours prĂȘt Ă souhaiter un joyeux NoĂ«l Ă tout le monde Ă la Chambre et Ă tout le monde partout au pays, mais nous avons encore du travail Ă faire. Nous avons un Ă©noncĂ© Ă©conomique Ă prĂ©senter, qui va offrir de l'aide aux QuĂ©bĂ©cois et aux Canadiens. Il y aura des investissements dans notre avenir pendant qu'on fait face Ă des dĂ©fis avec les AmĂ©ricains. Nous avons du travail Ă faire lors de la prochaine pĂ©riode de travaux parlementaires au printemps pour ajouter des gens Ă la liste des gens admissibles aux soins dentaires. Nous sommes lĂ pour offrir des contraceptifs sur ordonnance gratuits et de l'insuline gratuite Ă ceux qui en ont besoin. Nous avons du travail Ă faire et nous allons le faire pour les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am always willing to wish everyone in the House and across the country a merry Christmas, but we still have work to do. We have to present the economic update, which will provide help for Quebeckers and Canadians. It will include investments in our future, while we are dealing with challenges with the Americans. We have work to do during the upcoming spring parliamentary session to add people to the list of those who are eligible for dental care. We are here to provide free prescription contraceptives and free insulin to those who need it. We have work to do, and we are going to do it for Canadians.
Poilievre argues the Bloc voted to keep the Liberal government in power and frames a coming election debate as a choice between Conservative and Bloc positions on housing and bureaucracy.
Poilievre frames this as a partisan attack on the Bloc rather than posing a clear answerable question, with no specific factual ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, oui, il est temps de déclencher des élections. Hier, le Bloc québécois a voté à plusieurs reprises contre des élections. Il a voté pour garder ce gouvernement au pouvoir. Il va y avoir un débat et le chef du Bloc québécois va devoir faire face au fait que les conservateurs veulent éliminer la TPS sur les nouveaux logements et qu'il veut l'imposer. Le chef du Bloc québécois veut gonfler la bureaucratie fédérale en soutenant ce gouvernement. Nous allons l'éliminer. Voilà le choix que les Québécois feront.
Hansard translation: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is time for an election. Yesterday, the Bloc Québécois voted several times against an election. It voted to keep this government in power. There is going to be a debate and the leader of the Bloc Québécois is going to have to deal with the fact that the Conservatives want to eliminate the GST on new housing and the Bloc does not. The leader of the Bloc Québécois wants to create more federal bureaucracy by supporting this government. We want to get rid of it. That is the choice Quebeckers will make.
Trudeau lists a series of measures the Liberals voted for and Conservatives voted against, without addressing Poilievre's claims about the Bloc.
Trudeau pivots entirely to listing Conservative votes against various measures rather than addressing the substance of Poilievre's challenge to the Bloc.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, Ă la Chambre, nous avons votĂ© en faveur du Plan d'action canadien de lutte contre la haine du Canada, en faveur du Programme national de commĂ©moration de l'Holocauste, en faveur de l'Allocation canadienne pour le logement. Cependant, les conservateurs ont votĂ© contre. Nous avons votĂ© en faveur des fonds d'urgence pour les vĂ©tĂ©rans, en faveur de la stratĂ©gie nationale pour la protection des enfants contre l'exploitation sexuelle sur Internet. Toutefois, les conservateurs ont votĂ© contre. Oui, je reconnais que les parlementaires des autres partis ont votĂ© en faveur de ces bonnes choses. Les conservateurs votent continuellement contre l'intĂ©rĂȘt des Canadiens, contre de l'aide directe pour ceux qui en ont besoin.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the House, we voted in favour of Canada's action plan on combatting hate, in favour of the national Holocaust remembrance program, in favour of the Canada housing benefit. However, the Conservatives voted against. We voted in favour of the veterans emergency fund and in favour of the national strategy for the protection of children from sexual exploitation on the Internet. However, the Conservatives voted against. I recognize that parliamentarians from other parties voted in favour of these good things. The Conservatives continually vote against the interest of Canadians, against direct help for those who need it.
Poilievre cites record strike levels since 1981 and asks the PM to bring both sides of the Canada Post dispute together to end the strike.
Poilievre cites a specific data point (most strikes since 1981) and asks a clear question about resolving the Canada Post strike, though partisan framing weakens it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is a weak Prime Minister who has lost control of spending, debt and inflation. Workers are now forced to fight to make up lost wages. That is why, last year, Canada had more strikes than in any year since 1981, that is, since the last Trudeau was breaking the country and its economy. Canadians are now suffering because they cannot get their donations to charities, small businesses cannot get their payments and the economy is losing millions. Will he sit the two sides down, get a deal and put an end to this dreadful strike?
Trudeau says the minister has brought both sides together and they believe in bargaining-table solutions, while citing Conservative anti-union history.
Trudeau references the minister's efforts to bring both sides together but does not address whether he will intervene directly or provide a timeline, instead attacking Conservative union policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservative Party, whose attacks on unions are well documented, from Bill C-575 and Bill C-377, its anti-union bills that the Leader of the Opposition voted for, to continually choosing to use back-to-work legislation, as it did time and time again, we believe that the best deals happen at the bargaining table, which is why the minister has gotten the two sides of Canada Post together to try to find a solution that will work. We know that small businesses are hurting. Canadians in rural and remote areas are hurting. We will continue to look to help them, and we will get this resolved the right way.
Poilievre repeats his question in French about the Canada Post strike, asking when the PM will bring both sides together to reach a deal.
Essentially a French repeat of Exchange 32 with the same specific ask about Canada Post, slightly weakened by repetitive partisan framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il est faible. Il a perdu le contrÎle. Il a perdu le contrÎle des dépenses, des dettes et de l'inflation. Cela a forcé les travailleurs à se battre pour les augmentations de salaire. L'année derniÚre, on a eu le plus grand nombre de grÚves depuis 1981, quand son pÚre a brisé l'économie. Maintenant, il y a une grÚve chez Postes Canada qui coûte cher aux organismes à but non lucratif et aux petites entreprises. Cela coûte cher à notre économie. Quand le premier ministre va-t-il tenir compte des deux cÎtés pour conclure une entente et mettre fin à cette grÚve?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this weak Prime Minister has lost control. He has lost control of spending, debt and inflation. This has forced workers to fight for wage increases. Last year, we had the highest number of strikes since 1981, when his father broke the economy. Now the strike at Canada Post is turning out to be very costly for non-profit organizations and small businesses. It is costing our economy a lot of money. When will the Prime Minister listen to both sides and reach an agreement to end this strike?
Trudeau reiterates his government's encouragement of continued negotiations and acknowledges hardship for small businesses and rural communities, without committing to a specific intervention.
Trudeau again deflects to Conservative anti-union record rather than specifying what concrete steps will be taken to resolve the strike.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'hostilité du Parti conservateur du Canada contre les travailleurs et les syndicats est bien documentée. Je n'ai pas besoin de revenir dessus. Cependant, nous allons continuer de nous assurer que les meilleures ententes arrivent à la table des négociations. C'est pour ça que nous encourageons les deux cÎtés de continuer à travailler parce que, oui, les petites entreprises en arrachent, les OSBL ont besoin de services postaux et les Canadiens qui vivent dans des endroits ruraux et lointains dépendent de Postes Canada. C'est pour ça que nous travaillons pour trouver des solutions et pour essayer de régler la situation.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada's hostility towards workers and unions is well documented. I do not need to revisit that. We will continue to ensure that the best agreements are reached at the bargaining table. That is why we encourage both sides to keep working on it, because, yes, small businesses are suffering, NPOs need postal services, and Canadians living in rural and remote areas depend on Canada Post. That is why we are working to find solutions to try to resolve the situation.
A Liberal backbencher asks the PM to explain what the government has done to protect Canadians from gun violence, referencing the Polytechnique anniversary.
A classic LibâLib softball setup invoking the Polytechnique anniversary to prompt the PM to highlight the government's gun policy record.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la semaine derniĂšre, nous avons marquĂ© le 35e anniversaire du massacre de l'Ăcole polytechnique. Les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et les Canadiens partout au pays ont pleurĂ© les 14 femmes qui ont Ă©tĂ© assassinĂ©es dans un acte sadique de violence fondĂ© sur le genre. Ces derniĂšres annĂ©es, des fusillades de masse ont provoquĂ© une incroyable tragĂ©die dans plusieurs communautĂ©s, comme Portapique, Truro et la ville de QuĂ©bec. Le premier ministre peut-il expliquer les mesures prises par le gouvernement pour protĂ©ger les Canadiens contre la violence armĂ©e?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, last week marked the 35th anniversary of the Ăcole Polytechnique massacre. Quebeckers and Canadians across the country mourned the 14 women who were killed in a sadistic act of gender-based violence. In recent years, mass shootings have caused unbelievable tragedy in many communities, such as Portapique, Truro and Quebec City. Can the Prime Minister explain the measures that are being taken by the government to protect Canadians against armed violence?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie la dĂ©putĂ©e de SaintâLaurent de sa question et de son travail acharnĂ©. Contrairement au chef des conservateurs, nous choisissons toujours la sĂ©curitĂ© des Canadiens et non pas le lobby des armes Ă feu. Câest pour ça que, grĂące au programme de rachat, nous retirons les armes Ă feu de type assaut de nos communautĂ©s. Soyons clairs, nous allons toujours condamner la violence contre les femmes grĂące Ă des mesures telles que les lois « drapeaux rouges » et du financement pour prĂ©venir la violence fondĂ©e sur le genre. Nous allons toujours ĂȘtre lĂ pour dĂ©fendre les femmes et lutter contre la violence familiale. Les conservateurs vont ĂȘtre lĂ pour qu'il y ait plus dâarmes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saint-Laurent for her question and for her hard work. Unlike the Conservative leader, we always choose Canadians' safety over the gun lobby. That is why we are taking assault-style firearms out of our communities through the buyback program. Let us be clear. We will always condemn violence against women through measures such as red-flag legislation and funding to prevent gender-based violence. We will always be there to defend women and to help put an end to family violence. The Conservatives will be there to make sure that there are more guns.
Trudeau cites the assault-weapons buyback program, red flag laws, and funding to prevent gender-based violence, contrasting Liberals with the Conservative 'gun lobby.'
Trudeau's answer is mostly partisan contrast with Conservatives rather than a substantive account of specific gun-control measures and their outcomes.
Poilievre cites a 116% increase in gun crime and quotes Toronto Police questioning how a repeat offender on parole allegedly murdered a woman while supposedly in a supervised setting.
Poilievre cites a specific statistic (116% increase in gun crime), references a named police question to the PM, and grounds the question in a concrete recent incident.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us see what the police have to say about that. After a 116% increase in gun crime under this Prime Minister and a repeat violent offender out on early parole allegedly murdered a 34-year-old woman in Toronto on Sunday. The Toronto Police had this question for the Prime Minister: âHow was this person, with their history, allowed to access a firearm and be alone with a partner when they were supposedly living in a supervised community setting? What answers are you providing ... to the victimâs family, or our communities who continue to see the heartbreaking results of your weak policies on crime?â
Trudeau defends red flag laws and accuses Conservatives of wanting to re-legalize assault-style weapons, without addressing the specific parole and supervision failure raised.
Trudeau pivots to red flag laws and Conservative opposition rather than directly answering the Toronto Police's question about how a repeat violent offender accessed a firearm while in supervised custody.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, despite Conservative opposition, we continue to move forward on bringing in red flag laws and yellow flag laws to make sure that people who are charged with domestic violence do not have access to firearms. Conservatives stood against that and fought against that every step of the way. Just like they are working hard to make legal again assault-style weapons that we rendered illegal in this country four years ago, they want to unfreeze the handgun bans. Last time they were in office, they cut 1,100 workers from the CBSA who were there to prevent illegal guns flowing in from the United States.
Poilievre says the government spent $60 million without removing a single gun and asks why the PM focuses on hunters rather than locking up criminals.
Poilievre cites a specific $60-million expenditure and the 116% gun-violence increase, giving factual grounding, though the rhetorical 'Grandpa Joe' framing weakens accountability focus.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not banned a single gun. He spent over $60 million to fail to take a single gun off the road. He has had to give an amnesty to reverse all of the announced gun bans that he did, standing in front of a cartoon image of a scary Hollywood-style gun. What has been the sum total of all of this? It has been a 116% increase in gun violence since he became Prime Minister. When will he realize that banning Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle is not going to stop crime and that instead we actually have to lock up the criminals?
Trudeau asserts that thousands of assault-style weapons have been collected and destroyed and attacks Conservatives for promising to re-legalize them.
Trudeau claims thousands of assault-style weapons have been collected and destroyed but does not address the $60-million spend or the amnesty reversal Poilievre cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, instead of trying to scare Grandpa Joe, the member should be honest with Grandpa Joe. We have banned assault-style weapons and already we have seen thousands of assault-style weapons collected and destroyed. These are things that we are doing that the Conservative Party and its funders, the gun lobby, continue to stand against. They would re-legalize assault-style weapons in this country and unfreeze the market on handguns. That is what they promised the gun lobby, and they hide behind Grandpa Joe because they cannot admit it out loud.
Poilievre asks why the PM is focused on hunters when 99% of shipping containers go uninspected and gun violence has risen 116% under his leadership.
Poilievre references the 99% unispected shipping containers and the $60-million failure, giving some factual grounding, but the 'turkeys' quip pulls the question toward rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he admitted he does not even know what an assault rifle is, let alone be able to ban one. He spent $60 million and his government admits it did not take a single firearm off the road. There has been a 116% increase in gun violence under his leadership and 99% of the shipping containers that come in are not inspected at all, even though the previous Conservative government increased the number of frontline border officers. Why is the Prime Minister so busy trying to protect turkeys from hunters that he does not protect Canadians from criminals?
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, not only has the House defined what an assault-style weapon is, over the objections of Conservatives, but we are now removing those guns and destroying those guns while we compensate those who lawfully purchased them. That is what responsible gun control looks like. Unfortunately, the leader of the Conservative Party has promised the gun lobby that he will relegalize assault-style weapons, reopen the frozen market for handguns and make things more dangerous for Canadians, and particularly for women, right across the country. Shame on him.
Trudeau states the House has legally defined assault-style weapons and the RCMP is now removing and destroying them while compensating lawful purchasers.
Trudeau provides a partial factual response about the legal definition of assault-style weapons and ongoing collection and compensation, though he doesn't address border inspection rates.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, not only has the House defined what an assault-style weapon is in law, but the RCMP is now acting on that classificationâ
A Liberal MP asks the PM to update Canadians on what the government is doing to improve their lives.
A LibâLib softball asking the PM for an update on making life better for Canadians, with a partisan jab at Conservatives built in.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been through a lot in the last few years, and they are looking to all levels of government for relief and support. That is something I hear at the doors in Halifax West, and it is the call I bring every day to Ottawa when I represent my constituents, unlike the Conservatives, who have been forbidden to advocate for their communities. Can the Prime Minister give an update on what this Liberal government is doing to make life better for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Halifax West for her advocacy and her hard work. There was good news this morning. The Bank of Canada has cut its interest rate by another 50 points, and today we announced that three million Canadians have been approved for dental care, with more than 1.2 million Canadians, mostly seniors, already having received care. The good news does not stop there. On Saturday, a tax break will go into effect for all Canadians. The Conservative voted against it, but it is real. Canadians are going into Christmas and the holiday season with lower interest rates, lower taxes and more money in their pockets.
Trudeau announces the Bank of Canada cut rates by 50 basis points, three million Canadians approved for dental care, and a tax break starting Saturday, contrasting with Conservative votes against these measures.
Trudeau provides concrete, timely information: a 50-basis-point Bank of Canada rate cut, three million dental care approvals, and the upcoming GST holiday â substantive content despite the setup.
Johns asks the PM to commit to timely passage of clean technology investment tax credits for forest biomass energy, noting a competitive disadvantage vs. U.S. IRA incentives.
Johns cites a specific policy comparison (U.S. IRA biomass incentives vs. undelivered Canadian clean tech tax credits promised in 2023) and asks for a commitment to timely passage.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, forest biomass energy production has the potential to provide Canadian electrical grids with a sustainable source of energy. This will also create high-paying jobs for rural communities, like the paper mill in Port Alberni. The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act includes tax incentives for biomass, putting Canada's forest sector at a competitive disadvantage. The Liberals promised a clean technology and electricity investment tax credit in 2023 but failed to deliver. Will the Prime Minister finally commit to the timely passage of these tax incentives to help protect Canadian jobs in the forestry sector?
Trudeau praises biomass as an important energy solution and pledges to stand up for energy workers and innovation, but makes no specific commitment on the tax credits.
Trudeau gives only generic affirmation of biomass and forestry sector importance without committing to specific legislation or a timeline for the promised tax credits.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, biomass is an important part of the solution as we move forward into being more reliant on renewable energy and understanding how important our forestry industry is not just for creating good jobs and goods to export and build homes with, but also to contributing to our energy opportunities and challenges. We will continue to stand up for innovation in our energy industry. We will continue to stand up for energy workers right across the country in all industries as we work to decarbonize, as we work to invest and innovate and as we create a better future for all Canadians.
May asks why the government won't offset deficits by taxing excess profits of big oil and banks and by introducing a wealth tax on billionaires.
May asks a fairly specific policy question about taxing excess profits of oil companies and banks to offset deficits, though it is somewhat compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Monday, we will find out the extent of Canada's deficit. The Greens offer some solutions: Offset deficits by taxing the excess profits of big oil and big banks and by taxing the billionaire class. Why will the government not make them pay their fair share?
Trudeau notes a pandemic-era excess profits tax on banks and insurance companies was introduced and says the government ensures polluters don't have unlimited pollution, but doesn't address a current oil-sector excess profits tax or billionaire tax.
Trudeau references the pandemic-era excess profits tax on banks and insurance companies and pivots to carbon pricing for oil and gas, partially engaging but not directly addressing a billionaire wealth tax or current oil sector excess profits.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, following the pandemic, we actually brought in an excess profits tax on the big banks and insurance companies that were very profitable through a very difficult time for Canadians, and those measures continue. We will always look at making sure everyone pays their fair share. In regard to the oil and gas companies that are creating incredible profits by selling oil and gas to Canadians, we are actually making sure there is a limit to how much they can pollute, because no industry should have unlimited pollution. They can continue to produce, but they need to reduce their emissions. They need to invest in new ways of supporting their workers and supporting our future.
Members acknowledged the presence of guests in the gallery with applause; no substantive exchange took place.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Bravo!
Hansard translation: Hear, hear!
The Government House Leader moves a procedural motion scheduling the Fall Economic Statement and reply periods for December 16.
This is a procedural unanimous consent motion, not a question-and-answer exchange.
No summary.
No ministerial answer was given; it is a procedural motion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order, or usual practice of the House, at 4:00 p.m. on Monday, December 16, 2024, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings to permit the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to make a statement followed by a period of up to 10 minutes for questions and comments; after the statement, a Member from each recognized opposition party, and a Member of the Green Party, may reply for a period approximately equivalent to the time taken by the Minister's statement and each statement shall be followed by a period of 10 minutes for questions and comments.
Various members move unanimous consent motions on Syria, the fall economic statement, and the Mirabel expropriations, followed by points of order about parliamentary decorum including an apology for 'flipping the bird.'
This exchange consists entirely of unanimous consent motions and procedural points of order, with no accountability question posed to a minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That, (a) the House welcomes the end of the brutal and corrupt Assad regime; (b) Canada has been and will continue to be a friend to the Syrian people who have the right to live in peace and dignity; (c) in this time of great uncertainty for their country, Canada stands in solidarity with the Syrian people as they pursue their legitimate aspiration to build an inclusive state for all; (d) the House call on the Canadian government to help advance efforts for a democratic Syria that respects the rights of all its people; and (e) we call on the transition government to reject extremism and support an inclusive government that represents the diversity of Syrians.
No.
No.
No.
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je demande le consentement unanime de la Chambre pour l'adoption de la motion suivante, qui est appuyĂ©e par les dĂ©putĂ©s de Mirabel, de LouisâSaintâLaurent et de RosemontâLa PetiteâPatrie: Ătant donnĂ© la construction de l'aĂ©roport international de Mirabel, qui a entraĂźnĂ© l'expropriation de milliers de familles en 1969, que les familles ayant perdu leur maison, leur terre et leur communautĂ© Ă la suite de cette expropriation forcĂ©e souffrent de traumatismes et d'une douleur indicible, et qu'en raison de la fin des vols commerciaux de l'aĂ©roport de Mirabel, il est demandĂ© que la Chambre prĂ©sente des excuses officielles aux rĂ©sidents et rĂ©sidentes de Mirabel qui ont Ă©tĂ© expropriĂ©s en 1969.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion, which is seconded by the members from Mirabel, Louis-Saint-Laurent and RosemontâLa Petite-Patrie: Given the construction of Mirabel International Airport, which led to the expropriation of thousands of families in 1969, given that the families who lost their homes, land and community following this forced expropriation are suffering from trauma and unspeakable pain, and given that commercial flights at Mirabel airport have ended, that this House issue an official apology to the residents of Mirabel who were expropriated in 1969.
Non.
Hansard translation: Nay.
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for LanarkâFrontenacâKingston, in a red-faced fashion, clearly flipped the bird over to this side, which is another way of saying gave the finger. That is highly unparliamentary and I would ask him to uncategorically withdraw the finger. It is not appropriate. He should apologize to all parliamentarians.
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, when the parliamentary secretary was making his statement, I could not understand what was being said through the interpretation because you have failed to keep order in this place. Please correct that so we can hear what is being said.
Mr. Speaker, my point of order was with respect to the member for LanarkâFrontenacâKingston, who, in a very angered, red-faced manner, flipped the bird to the government. That is highly inappropriate. The member knows that and he should uncategorically apologize for the manner in which he expressed himself. That is what we are asking him to do.
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I bore witness to the member for LanarkâFrontenacâKingston, in an outrage, disgrace this place and all members by yelling out of turn and then giving you the finger. We expect this place to have a level of decorum and respect, and the member has demonstrated multiple times a breach of the very important decorum of this place. He gave the finger. I witnessed it and many members saw it. We expect an apology and a withdrawal, and we demand that he understand the severity of the issue.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of Parliament for 24 years. This is the first time I have flipped the bird to anybody. To correct the member, it was not to the government; it was to the member for Kingston and the Islands, but of course, nobody deserves that, and I withdraw it and apologize to the House.
I certainly accept that apology and take no offence to it, Mr. Speaker. Maybe it is a Kingston thing.
No summary.
No ministerial answer was provided; the exchange is procedural and administrative in nature.
Source text
Mr. Speakerâ
You have no idea what I was going to say. It gets good. Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the House leaders. I move that, given that the Liberal government willâ
Mr. Speaker, I was just giving the government an opportunity to defend its own economic update, but this one is differentâ
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In response to our House leader's point of order, I want to point out that before he even had a chance to say a wordâ
Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify what your ruling is going to be moving forward. Are we to expect now that if somebody says no before a word is spoken on a point of order, you are going to stand up and shut down that member from speaking, regardless of which party it is, from now on? Is that the precedent?
The Speaker ruled on the November 29 question of privilege raised by the member for LondonâFanshawe regarding alleged intimidation during the November 28 recorded division, finding that while the noise and disruption were a clear breach of decorum, they did not prevent any member from voting or participating in proceedings and therefore did not constitute a prima facie question of privilege; the Speaker referred the management of the opposition lobbies to the Board of Internal Economy and the whips of all parties, and noted that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is already conducting a study on harassment. Andrew Scheer raised a point of order asking whether the ruling also addressed the behaviour of NDP members after adjournment, and Peter Julian and Elizabeth May challenged the parliamentary language Scheer used in his point of order.
- The Speaker
- Andrew Scheer
- Ms. Elizabeth May
- Mr. Peter Julian
Source text
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 29 by the member for LondonâFanshawe concerning alleged intimidation during the proceedings of the House. In her intervention, the member claimed that before and during the taking of the last recorded division on Thursday, November 28, the disorderly behaviour of many Conservative Party members reached an unacceptable level. She alleged that members were disruptive to the point where she and her colleagues could not hear their names being called by the table officers. Furthermore, she indicated that her caucus had, prior to the vote, alerted the Chair and the Table to the possibility of intentional disruptions because of what she felt was inappropriate behaviour in the shared opposition lobby. This made it difficult for her to carry out her duties as the deputy House leader for the NDP and constituted a breach of privilege and even a contempt. The member described the behaviour of the Conservative Party members both in the House and in the lobby as unacceptable, toxic and designed to intimidate other members as they carried out their parliamentary duties. Le dĂ©putĂ© de New WestminsterâBurnaby a pris la parole afin dâappuyer la question de privilĂšge de sa collĂšgue. En plus de se prononcer sur le manque de dĂ©corum observĂ© durant le vote, il a fait allusion Ă dâautres agissements rĂ©prĂ©hensibles de la part de certains dĂ©putĂ©s conservateurs, quâil a accusĂ©s dâavoir Ă©tĂ© sous lâemprise de lâalcool. Il a rappelĂ© Ă la Chambre que les whips ont la responsabilitĂ© de garantir aux dĂ©putĂ©s et aux employĂ©s un milieu de travail sĂ»r et exempt de harcĂšlement. Other members intervened on the matter, frequently with conflicting accounts of what occurred in the lobbies leading up to the vote, as well as on the floor of the House during the sitting and after adjournment. In particular, the House leader of the official opposition rose to fully deny the accusations made by the member for LondonâFanshawe and the member for New WestminsterâBurnaby. He detailed the events of the evening in question as he saw them, stating that it was the members of the New Democratic Party who acted in a harassing manner toward members and staff of the Conservative Party. He argued that if any contempt occurred, it was a result of the behaviour of New Democratic Party members, who stormed up the aisle to confront the Chair at the adjournment of the House and then approached the Conservative benches to confront some other members. He therefore requested that the member for LondonâFanshawe withdraw her question of privilege. La prĂ©sidence traitera en premier lieu des prĂ©occupations relatives aux comportements dans l'antichambre de l'opposition. Ă la page 295 de La procĂ©dure et les usages de la Chambre des communes, troisiĂšme Ă©dition, se trouve la description suivante: Ces antichambres, dont les portes communiquent avec la Chambre, sont meublĂ©es de tables et de fauteuils et Ă©quipĂ©es notamment de matĂ©riel de bureau pour les besoins des dĂ©putĂ©s. Dans les antichambres, les dĂ©putĂ©s mĂšnent leurs affaires et peuvent retourner immĂ©diatement dans la salle de sĂ©ance. Les whips des partis affectent du personnel dans lâantichambre et des pages sây tiennent Ă disposition pour prendre des appels ou livrer des messages. Les antichambres sont interdites au public. Le personnel de sĂ©curitĂ© en contrĂŽle lâaccĂšs, conformĂ©ment aux consignes Ă©tablies par le Bureau de la sĂ©curitĂ© institutionnelle aprĂšs consultation avec les whips. Whips and their staff have always ensured a harmonious cohabitation within the opposition lobby, a shared working space currently used by the three opposition parties as well as independent members. By tradition and convention, the lobbies have been viewed as a sort of sanctum that affords members and caucuses the needed privacy to plan and coordinate their work in the chamber. However, lobbies are not an extension of the House chamber, at least not in terms of its deliberative function. Ultimately, how lobbies operate and are regulated is an administrative matter under the purview of the Board of Internal Economy, as are other working spaces beyond the chamber. En ce qui concerne la consommation d'alcool dans l'enceinte parlementaire, le prĂ©sident Regan a traitĂ© de ce sujet dans une dĂ©cision sur une question de privilĂšge rendue le 20 novembre 2018 et qui se trouve Ă la page 23625 des DĂ©bats. Il a dĂ©clarĂ©: L'article 52.3 de la Loi sur le Parlement du Canada prĂ©voit que c'est le Bureau, et non le PrĂ©sident, qui est: [âŠ] chargĂ© des questions financiĂšres et administratives intĂ©ressant a) la Chambre des communes, ses locaux, ses services et son personnel; b) les dĂ©putĂ©s. Par consĂ©quent, c'est toujours le Bureau de rĂ©gie interne qui doit ĂȘtre saisi des questions de mĂȘme nature [âŠ] La question de l'utilisation des antichambres et du comportement des dĂ©putĂ©s et de leur personnel dans ces piĂšces devrait donc ĂȘtre renvoyĂ©e au Bureau de rĂ©gie interne. Ă cette fin, j'encourage les dĂ©putĂ©s qui ont des prĂ©occupations Ă cet Ă©gard Ă en parler avec leurs reprĂ©sentants au sein du Bureau pour qu'on y aborde ce sujet. The whips of all parties also play a crucial role in the management of the lobbies. The Chair therefore strongly encourages them to look into this issue and work together in finding a suitable solution that all can adhere to. Indeed, the Chair has written earlier today to the whips of the opposition parties to this effect. Concerning the behaviour of members in the House during the vote on Thursday, November 28, the excessive noise did indeed hamper members' ability to hear the clerks conducting the roll call. The Chair intervened midway through the vote to call the House to order. I also made a statement the following morning, referring members to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 643, which sets out the conduct expected during the taking of a vote, which includes not making any noise. In my statement of November 29, found at page 28,339 of Debates, I stated: The Chair hopes this will serve as a good reminder to all members of the expectations in regard to decorum during divisions. I understand that some votes are the subject of strong disagreements, but it is still expected that all members comport themselves appropriately. Je rĂ©pĂšte donc Ă la Chambre que pendant les votes par appel nominal, les dĂ©putĂ©s doivent demeurer respectueux afin que ces votes puissent se dĂ©rouler de maniĂšre ordonnĂ©e. J'ajouterais que l'ajournement de la Chambre devrait Ă©galement se dĂ©rouler de maniĂšre ordonnĂ©e. S'approcher du fauteuil du PrĂ©sident ou de la banquette d'un collĂšgue pour continuer Ă faire valoir ses arguments n'est ni utile ni propice Ă un climat respectueux. La Chambre avait, techniquement, ajournĂ© ses travaux lorsque ces Ă©vĂ©nements sont survenus, mais ceux-ci ont nĂ©anmoins eu un effet nĂ©faste sur le fonctionnement de la Chambre. The member for LondonâFanshawe also complained that, in addition to the noise, the pointed heckling was inappropriate and was received by many members as harassing or intimidating. As Chair, I wholeheartedly agree that the level of noise in the chamber during the last vote on November 28 was indeed outside of the acceptable range. The lack of decorum and noisy disruptions experienced that evening do not meet the expectations Canadians have of us. La dĂ©putĂ©e de LondonâFanshawe estime que les Ă©vĂ©nements ont nui Ă sa capacitĂ© de s'acquitter de ses fonctions parlementaires. Je comprends les prĂ©occupations de la dĂ©putĂ©e, mais je ne peux pas conclure que cela a empĂȘchĂ© un dĂ©putĂ© de voter ou de participer aux dĂ©libĂ©rations. Therefore, I cannot agree that the member was interfered with in the performance of her parliamentary duties. What happened that night was clearly a breach of decorum. I do not excuse this or seek to normalize it, but I am not aware of any precedents where incidents of this nature rose to matters of contempt or breaches of privilege. I nonetheless take concerns about harassment and intimidation very seriously. While moments of strong disagreement and political tension are common in this place, there is still an expectation that we, as elected officials, treat each other with civility and respect. Apart from being a deliberative and law-making body, the House is also a workplace. In addition to members, employees of the House administration and staff from political parties themselves support within these august walls our parliamentary democracy. They are all entitled to a safe working environment at all times. The Chair believes that these concerns warrant, at a minimum, a discussion between the whips. They, and in fact any member voluntarily seeking productive solutions to conflicts, may explore available support options provided by the House administration to help mediate this situation. Avant de terminer, je tiens Ă signaler que le ComitĂ© permanent de la procĂ©dure et des affaires de la Chambre rĂ©alise actuellement une Ă©tude sur le harcĂšlement. Cette Ă©tude rĂ©pond dĂ©jĂ Ă la demande de la dĂ©putĂ©e de LondonâFanshawe, Ă savoir de renvoyer la question du harcĂšlement et de l'intimidation Ă ce comitĂ©. Les contre-arguments soulevĂ©s par le leader Ă la Chambre de l'opposition officielle s'inscriraient Ă©galement dans les paramĂštres de l'Ă©tude du ComitĂ©. Moving forward, as Speaker, I have strong expectations that the whips will address the matter in a serious and timely way. Of all the workplaces in Canada, the House of Commons, as the heart of our democracy, should serve as a role model. Members are passionate in defending their views, and this can bring vigorous debates in the House. However, when away from the cameras, we are all colleagues and we should all work together to ensure a productive and safe workplace for not only ourselves but also our staff and all those who support us in this great place. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the matter raised, I cannot find that this constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. I thank all members for their attention. The hon. member for ReginaâQu'Appelle is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly listened to your ruling. I understand that it was basically addressed to the question of privilege raised by the NDP member about what may or may not have happened in the lobby. You have ruled that what goes on in the lobby does not fall under the purview of a question of privilege. In response to that, points were raised about the erratic and unhinged behaviour of the NDP members in the chamber, even though the mace was off the table. I am just wondering whether you are going to come back to address those questions that were raised as well.
Mr. Speaker, is âerratic and unhingedâ considered parliamentary language in this place?
Mr. Speaker, that language was utterly inappropriate from my colleague, the official opposition House leader. It borders on misogyny. I would suggest, given the Conservatives' history of being drunk and disorderly in the House of Commons, they should take lessons from your ruling.