Session overview
- The dominant theme was the Liberal EV mandate, with CPC members repeatedly citing a ban on gas-powered vehicles by 2035, job losses of 90,000, and a $20,000 per-vehicle price increase, while Liberal ministers consistently denied a ban exists and defended the electric vehicle availability standard.
- Canada-U.S. trade relations and tariffs were raised by the Bloc Québécois, who questioned whether the Prime Minister returned empty-handed from the G7 and whether Bill C-5 addresses the tariff crisis, while the government maintained that progress was made and that Bill C-5 would add $200 billion to the Canadian economy.
- The Bloc Québécois accused both Liberals and Conservatives of stealing $814 million from Quebecers through the Canada Carbon Rebate, which the Bloc argued should not apply to Quebec since the consumer carbon price never applied there; the government confirmed Quebec was not subject to consumer carbon pricing and therefore not subject to the rebate.
- Housing affordability was challenged through questions about the housing minister's reported $10-million real estate portfolio and statements that home prices do not need to come down, with the minister citing CMHC data showing housing starts near 280,000 annually and the government's GST break for first-time homebuyers.
- Justice and public safety dominated several exchanges, with CPC members criticizing Bill C-5 for removing mandatory minimums for fentanyl trafficking and extortion, citing a 357% increase in extortion and a sentence of house arrest for a person found with 24 grams of fentanyl; the Minister of Justice indicated forthcoming reforms targeting violent offenders, repeat offenders and organized crime.
- The Minister of Transport confirmed she had written to the Province of B.C. to make clear that federal support for BC Ferries, which is explicitly for operating support, must not be used for anything other than the operation of ferries, and stated she has instructed all entities under control of Transport Canada to buy Canadian.
The Minister of Transport made a specific, on-the-record commitment that federal support to BC Ferries is explicitly for operating support and must not be used for anything other than the operation of ferries, and separately confirmed she has instructed all Transport Canada entities to buy Canadian.
Cites a specific figure ($814 million), references the Parliamentary Budget Officer's findings with direct quotes, and asks a precise accountability question about why Quebecers are being made to pay.
Asked a specific question about whether the government would commit to delivering universal pharmacare and whether Nova Scotia had received an invitation to negotiate, the minister gave a single-sentence non-answer that said only that the government is working closely with provinces and territories to provide the best health services.
Outstanding questions
- Andrew Scheer asked why the Prime Minister refuses to reveal his financial interests or self-admitted conflicts given his role as former chair of Brookfield, which is heavily invested in the EV supply chain â no minister addressed the conflict-of-interest allegation. (Exchange 3)
- Yves-François Blanchet asked whether workers should be content with a 30-day delay given the Prime Minister returned from the G7 without resolving tariff issues â the minister said progress was made but gave no timeline or specifics. (Exchange 7)
- Frank Caputo asked the Minister of Justice to commit legislatively to ensuring that people who traffic fentanyl cannot serve their sentence on house arrest â the minister spoke only of forthcoming reforms without specifying whether mandatory minimums for fentanyl trafficking would be reinstated. (Exchange 25, 26)
- Gord Johns asked whether the Liberal government would commit to delivering universal pharmacare for all Canadians, including whether Nova Scotia would be invited to negotiate a pharmacare deal â this received no substantive answer. (Exchange 40)
- Dominique Vien asked when the Prime Minister will change Bills C-5 and C-75 to ensure the safety of women in Canada following ten femicides in Quebec since the start of the year â no minister committed to amending or repealing those bills. (Exchange 31)
Scheer cites average new car prices of $67,000, used cars approaching $40,000, and a projected $20,000 per-vehicle cost increase from the Liberal EV mandate, asking why the government is pricing working Canadians out of vehicle ownership.
Cites specific price figures ($67,000 average new car, $40,000 used, $20,000 mandate premium) but frames the ask rhetorically as 'why are they pricing working Canadians out' rather than pressing for a specific policy commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is doubling down on its insane ban on gas-powered vehicles. The latest Liberal overreach kicks in next year, and soon one's favourite car, truck or van will be illegal. However, this mandate is already driving up prices. The average price of a new car is $67,000; used cars are approaching $40,000, and the Liberal mandate will add an additional $20,000 per vehicle. The Liberals have already priced working Canadians out of the housing market. Why are they pricing working Canadians out of the ability to buy a vehicle as well?
Dabrusin asserts there is no ban on gas-powered vehicles and accuses Conservatives of talking down the auto industry at a moment of U.S. tariff threats.
Denies the ban exists without addressing the price figures cited, then pivots to criticizing Conservatives for 'talking down' the auto industry rather than engaging with the affordability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us first start with a fact, which is that there is no ban on gas-powered vehicles. More to the point, once again, we are seeing the Conservatives talking down one of our most important industries, which is employing hard-working auto workers in our country at the very moment we are facing tariff threats from the United States. I find it rich that the Conservatives are choosing to take this position instead of talking up a growing and important industry. We stand with our auto workers.
Scheer cites a new report projecting 90,000 auto job losses from the ban on gas-powered vehicles, notes GM and Ford opposition, and asks why the government won't end the ban and let Canadians choose their vehicle.
Cites a specific report projecting 90,000 auto job losses from the ban and references GM and Ford opposition, making a clearer factual case, though the ask remains a broad policy reversal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there absolutely is a ban. It starts to come into effect next year, and it will absolutely devastate the auto sector here in Canada. The auto sector is already under fire from unjustified U.S. tariffs and the PM's inability to get a deal. GM and Ford are also saying that this ban will kill jobs. In fact, a new report says that this ban on gas-powered vehicles will kill 90,000 auto jobs. Instead of sending even more jobs to the U.S., why not end the ban on gas-powered vehicles and let Canadians decide what kind of vehicle they want to buy?
Dabrusin welcomes Conservative acknowledgment of unjustified tariffs and defends the EV standard as making new electric vehicles available and cheaper to operate, without addressing the job-loss figures.
Dabrusin acknowledges the tariff issue but does not address the 90,000 jobs figure, the GM/Ford statements, or the substance of the ban question, instead pivoting to general EV sector benefits.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear that the Conservatives are finally recognizing that we are talking about an industry that is facing unjustified tariffs from the United States. However, let us also talk about how our auto sector is important. We need to support it in this moment. It is creating well-paying union jobs in our country. An EV standard actually makes sure that new electric vehicles are available to Canadians. They are cheaper to operate; they are cheaper on upkeep, and Canadians want to be able to have access.
Scheer alleges the Prime Minister, as former chair of Brookfield which is heavily invested in the EV supply chain, is pushing the EV mandate for financial rather than environmental reasons, and asks whether the Prime Minister's undisclosed financial interests are driving the policy.
Raises a conflict-of-interest allegation linking the Prime Minister's prior role as chair of Brookfield and Brookfield's EV supply chain investments to the EV mandate, but conflates this with the policy question and does not cite documentary evidence of the financial interests.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we do not have to allow Canadians to buy one type of vehicle by banning their ability to buy the ones that they actually want. This is raising a lot of questions. Canadians and auto workers for GM do not want the EV mandate, but the Prime Minister is intent on pushing it through. Why? Well, right before becoming Prime Minister, he was chair of Brookfield, and he advocated for a ban on gas-powered cars. Brookfield is heavily invested in the EV supply chain, yet the Prime Minister refuses to reveal his financial interests or self-admitted conflicts. Is it not true that this is not about the environment but about the bottom line for Brookfield?
Solomon defends government investment in the auto and EV sector, citing Amino Corp. in St. Thomas as an example, without addressing the Brookfield conflict-of-interest allegation.
Solomon does not address the Brookfield conflict-of-interest allegation at all, pivoting entirely to defending auto sector investments and the trade war context.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are in a trade war launched by the United States that is targeting our auto workers and our auto sector. Make no mistake, we will fight for every job and every worker. We have invested in the auto sector, including in the EV sector, to build good jobs in places such as St. Thomas, where the Amino Corp. is employing people. This government will always invest in workers and make sure that the auto industry is growing, resilient and successful.
Paul-Hus asks why the Prime Minister wants to remove Canadians' ability to choose their vehicle, citing a projected 90,000 job losses and a $20,000 price increase on vehicles that already average $67,000.
Cites the 90,000 jobs and $20,000 price increase figures and the $67,000 average vehicle cost, but frames the question broadly and rhetorically about government control rather than pressing a specific commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, toutes les fois que ce gouvernement libéral propose une nouvelle mesure environnementale, c'est soit une taxe, soit une obligation. Là , les libéraux veulent interdire la vente de véhicules à essence, ce qui aura pour effet de couper 90 000 jobs au Canada. Ils veulent punir les Québécois qui choisiront un véhicule à essence en imposant une hausse de 20 000 $ sur des véhicules qui coûtent déjà en moyenne 67 000 $. Pourquoi le premier ministre veut-il enlever la possibilité aux Canadiens de choisir le véhicule qu'ils conduisent?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, every time this Liberal government proposes a new environmental measure, it is either a tax or an obligation. Now the Liberals want to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles, which will cut 90,000 jobs in Canada. They want to punish Quebeckers who choose gas-powered vehicles by imposing a $20,000 increase on vehicles that already cost an average of $67,000. Why does the Prime Minister want to take away Canadians' freedom to choose what vehicle they drive?
Dabrusin states there is no ban on gas-powered vehicles and notes that Quebec already has regulations in place to ensure access to electric vehicle sales.
Dabrusin denies the ban characterization and points to Quebec's existing ZEV regulations, which is partially relevant but does not address the job loss or price increase figures cited.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, commençons par clarifier une chose: nous ne bannissons pas les voitures Ă essence. Par ailleurs, au QuĂ©bec, des rĂšglements sont en place afin d'assurer que les QuĂ©bĂ©cois ont accĂšs Ă la vente de vĂ©hicules Ă©lectriques. Ces rĂšgles existent dĂ©jĂ , mĂȘme dans la circonscription de mon collĂšgue.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let us start by clarifying one thing: We are not banning gas-powered cars. Furthermore, in Quebec, regulations are in place to ensure that Quebeckers have access to the sale of electric vehicles. These rules already exist, even in my colleague's riding.
Paul-Hus argues the EV mandate is a matter of freedom of choice versus government control, using the example of a northern Quebec resident who hunts, fishes and works in the bush to illustrate why EVs are impractical for many Canadians.
Uses a concrete example of a northern Quebec resident who hunts, fishes and works in the bush to illustrate impracticality of EVs, but the question is largely rhetorical with no specific policy ask beyond stopping the obligation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je ferai remarquer Ă la ministre de l'Environnement qu'au QuĂ©bec, on a dĂ©jĂ commencĂ© Ă dire que, obliger les citoyens Ă acheter un vĂ©hicule Ă©lectrique pour 2035, ça ne fonctionne pas. Ce qui pose problĂšme pour nous, c'est qu'il s'agit d'une question de libertĂ© de choix, et non d'un besoin de contrĂŽle. Ce qu'on voit actuellement, c'est un gouvernement libĂ©ral qui veut contrĂŽler ce que les Canadiens font. Il y a plusieurs Canadiens qui ne sont pas en mesure d'acheter une voiture Ă©lectrique ou pour lesquels ça ne fonctionne pas, compte tenu de leurs conditions de vie. Prenons l'exemple de quelqu'un qui habite dans le Nord du QuĂ©bec, qui chasse, qui pĂȘche et qui travaille dans le bois. Comment va-t-il faire tout ça avec une voiture Ă©lectrique? C'est impossible. Obliger les Canadiens, ce n'est pas une mesure.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Minister of Environment that people in Quebec have already started saying that forcing people to buy an EV by 2035 is a nonâstarter. The problem for us is that this is a matter of freedom of choice, not a need for control. What we are seeing right now is a Liberal government that wants to control what Canadians do. Many Canadians cannot afford to buy an EV, or they find that an EV is not suitable for their lifestyle. Take the example of someone who lives in northern Quebec and hunts, fishes and works in the bush. It is impossible for this person to do all that with an EV. Forcing EVs on Canadians is not a solution.
Dabrusin reiterates that the government is not forcing anyone to buy electric vehicles or banning combustion vehicles, and notes that EVs are cheaper to use and maintain.
Dabrusin repeats that there is no obligation to buy EVs or ban on combustion vehicles and highlights EV cost advantages, but does not engage with the northern-Quebec practicality example.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je répÚte que nous n'obligeons pas les gens à acheter des véhicules électriques, pas plus que nous bannissons les véhicules à combustion. Il faut aussi dire que les véhicules électriques sont moins chers à utiliser. Ils sont moins chers à entretenir. Les Canadiens veulent avoir accÚs à ces véhicules. Pourquoi les conservateurs ne veulent-ils pas que les Canadiens aient ce choix?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, again, we are not forcing people to buy EVs, any more than we are banning internal combustion vehicles. It is also important to mention that EVs are less expensive to use and are cheaper to maintain. Canadians want access to these vehicles. Why do the Conservatives not want Canadians to have that choice?
Paul-Hus draws a parallel with the cancelled carbon tax, argues the EV mandate similarly imposes rules that raise prices and limit choice, and asks the government to stop imposing ideological obligations on Canadians.
Draws a parallel with the carbon tax cancellation as precedent for reversing the EV mandate, making a somewhat substantive political argument, but the ask is still broadly rhetorical about stopping ideological impositions.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le gouvernement a dĂ©jĂ essayĂ© de contrĂŽler la vie des Canadiens en imposant la taxe sur le carbone. Les libĂ©raux nous ont traitĂ© de tous les noms pendant des annĂ©es. Qu'est-ce qu'a fait le nouveau premier ministre? Il a annulĂ© la taxe sur le carbone, parce qu'il savait que cela ne fonctionnait pas. Maintenant, nous demandons la mĂȘme chose: qu'on arrĂȘte d'obliger les Canadiens. S'ils veulent une automobile Ă©lectrique, qu'ils l'achĂštent. S'ils veulent une auto Ă essence parce que cela correspond Ă leurs besoins, qu'ils le fassent. Nous demandons aux libĂ©raux de ne pas imposer des rĂšgles qui vont faire augmenter le prix des voitures et qui feront que les gens ne seront pas capables de payer encore une fois. Nous leur demandons de ne pas crĂ©er une obligation Ă cause de leur cĂŽtĂ© idĂ©ologique.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government already tried to control Canadians' lives by imposing the carbon tax. The Liberals called us every name in the book for years. What did the new Prime Minister do? He scrapped the carbon tax because he knew it was not working. Now, we are asking the same thing: Stop forcing things on Canadians. If they want an EV, let them buy one. If they want a gas-powered car because it suits their needs, let them buy that. We are asking the Liberals not to impose rules that will drive up car prices and make people buy something they cannot afford once again. We are asking them not to create an obligation based on their ideology.
Dabrusin calls the argument 'absurde,' reaffirms support for auto workers and the domestic auto sector, and accuses Conservatives of saying Canadian-made cars are not good.
Dabrusin dismisses the argument as 'absurde' and pivots to defending auto workers and the domestic auto sector without engaging with the carbon tax precedent or the affordability concerns raised.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce que nous entendons en ce moment, c'est vraiment absurde et c'est un peu n'importe quoi. Je vais le dire de nouveau, nous allons appuyer les gens qui travaillent pour les constructeurs automobiles. Si les conservateurs veulent dire que les automobiles que nous fabriquons ici au Canada ne sont pas des bonnes voitures, cela leur appartient. Le Parti libéral et moi allons toujours soutenir notre secteur de l'automobile.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing right now is completely absurd and a bit ridiculous. I will say it again: We will help people who work for automakers. If the Conservatives want to imply that the cars we manufacture in Canada are no good, that is their prerogative. The Liberal Party and I will always support our auto industry.
Blanchet notes the Prime Minister promised tariff issues would be resolved before the G7 but returned without gains, and asks whether workers must simply accept a 30-day delay.
References the Prime Minister's pre-G7 commitment to resolve tariff questions before the G7, notes he returned empty-handed, and asks a specific question about whether workers must settle for a 30-day delay.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le sujet de la campagne électorale était une crise grave, une crise tarifaire et commerciale. Le lendemain de la campagne électorale, pouf! il n'y avait plus rien. On a vu le premier ministre aller rencontrer le président Trump à Washington et revenir simplement sans faire de pertes ou faire de gains. Pourtant, le premier ministre a fait des concessions importantes depuis en matiÚre de droits de douane, de frontiÚres et de défense. Il a dit que toutes les questions de droits de douane seraient réglées avant le G7. Cependant, il revient les mains vides. Les travailleurs doivent-ils se contenter d'un délai de 30 jours?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the main issue during the election campaign was a serious crisis, a tariff and trade crisis. The day after the election campaign, poof, it disappeared. The Prime Minister went to Washington to meet with President Trump and came back with nothing to show for it. That said, the Prime Minister has since made significant concessions on tariffs, borders and defence. He said that all of the tariff issues would be resolved before the G7, but he is returning empty-handed yet again. Should workers be satisfied with a 30-day deadline?
LeBlanc describes the Kananaskis meeting as constructive, says tariffs and their economic impact on Canada and the U.S. were discussed, and expresses confidence in progress while committing to continue until the issue is resolved.
LeBlanc describes the Kananaskis meeting as constructive and expresses confidence in progress, but does not address the specific 30-day delay question or explain what concrete outcomes were achieved.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre et le prĂ©sident amĂ©ricain ont eu une rencontre constructive Ă Kananaskis lors du G7. Ils ont parlĂ© de plusieurs sujets. Ăvidemment, la prioritĂ© pour nous Ă©tait de parler directement au prĂ©sident amĂ©ricain de la question des droits de douane et, comme mon collĂšgue vient de l'indiquer, de l'impact des droits de douane sur l'Ă©conomie du Canada et les travailleurs du Canada, mais aussi de l'impact sur l'Ă©conomie amĂ©ricaine. Nous voulions parler du fait qu'il est nĂ©faste pour les AmĂ©ricains de continuer ce projet de droits de douane. J'ai pleinement confiance que nous avons fait du progrĂšs, mais nous n'allons pas arrĂȘter tant que ça ne sera pas rĂ©glĂ©.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the U.S. President had a constructive meeting in Kananaskis during the G7. They discussed a number of issues. Obviously, the priority for us was to speak directly to the U.S. President about the issue of tariffs and, as my colleague just indicated, the impact that tariffs are having not only on Canada's economy and Canadian workers, but also on the U.S. economy. We wanted to talk about the fact that it is harmful to Americans to continue with this tariff plan. I am confident that we have made progress, but we will not stop until this matter is resolved.
Blanchet argues that while nothing is happening on trade and tariffs, the government is muzzling Parliament and pushing Bill C-5, which he says has nothing to do with trade or tariffs in any foreseeable future, and asks whether the government has misplaced its priorities.
Challenges the government's priorities by contrasting Parliament being muzzled with the irrelevance of Bill C-5 to tariff resolution, making a substantive procedural and policy argument, though the ask is broad.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si le G7 a Ă©tĂ© un progrĂšs, on n'est pas sorti du bois. Pendant que le gouvernement musĂšle le Parlement, suspend l'Ătat de droit, empĂȘche les Ă©lus qui ne sont pas d'un bord ou l'autre conservateurs de s'exprimer, rien ne se passe en matiĂšre de commerce et de droits de douane. On parle de pĂ©trole. Pourtant, le projet de loi Câ5 n'a rien Ă voir avec le commerce et n'a rien Ă voir avec les droits de douane dans un avenir prĂ©visible. Est-ce que le gouvernement et le premier ministre ont mal placĂ© leurs prioritĂ©s?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the G7 is considered progress, then we are not out of the woods yet. The government is muzzling Parliament, suspending the rule of law, and preventing elected members who are not siding with the Liberals and the Conservatives from speaking, but meanwhile nothing is happening on trade and tariffs. There is talk about oil. However, Bill C-5 has nothing to do with trade and nothing to do with tariffs in the foreseeable future. Have the government and the Prime Minister misplaced their priorities?
LeBlanc argues Bill C-5 directly addresses U.S. tariff threats by enabling major Canadian infrastructure projects built in partnership with Indigenous peoples, provinces and territories, and implies the Bloc does not support pan-Canadian cooperation.
LeBlanc argues Bill C-5 directly responds to U.S. tariff threats by building major Canadian projects, but does not address the specific claim about Parliament being muzzled or the timeline relevance of C-5 to current trade disputes.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au contraire, le projet de loi sur l'unitĂ© de l'Ă©conomie canadienne vise prĂ©cisĂ©ment Ă rĂ©pondre Ă la menace que reprĂ©sentent les droits de douane des ĂtatsâUnis et Ă l'instabilitĂ© Ă©conomique. Lors de la campagne Ă©lectorale, le premier ministre a Ă©tĂ© trĂšs clair. Nous allons bĂątir des grands projets au Canada et nous allons les bĂątir de la bonne façon en respectant les normes environnementales et en travaillant en partenariat avec les peuples autochtones, les provinces et les territoires. Je sais que notre ami du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois n'est peut-ĂȘtre pas content quand nous travaillons avec les provinces et les territoires pour faire de grandes choses au Canada. C'est prĂ©cisĂ©ment ce que nous allons faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the bill on one Canadian economy seeks specifically to respond to the threat of U.S. tariffs and economic instability. During the election campaign, the Prime MInister was very clear. We are going to build major projects in Canada and we are going to build them the right way by respecting the environmental standards and working in partnership with indigenous peoples, the provinces and the territories. I know that my friend from the Bloc Québécois may not be happy about us working with the provinces and territories to do great things in Canada, but that is precisely what we are going to do.
Blanchet claims Bill C-5 will have no impact on the tariff conflict or the economy and will instead have a large negative impact on public finances for years, calling it the Prime Minister's business plan against Quebec workers' interests.
Specifically claims Bill C-5 will have no impact on the Canadian economy or the tariff conflict, characterizes it as the Prime Minister's business plan against Quebec workers' interests, making a pointed substantive challenge.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il va falloir arrĂȘter de dĂ©biter les phrases apprises. Le projet de loi Câ5 n'aura aucun impact sur l'Ă©conomie canadienne, quoiqu'il aura un gros impact nĂ©gatif sur les finances publiques pendant de nombreuses annĂ©es. Le projet de loi Câ5 n'a aucun impact sur le conflit tarifaire et n'a aucun impact prĂ©visible sur le commerce qui touche la production, l'Ă©conomie canadienne. Est-ce qu'on peut arrĂȘter de prendre les gens pour des valises et admettre que le projet de loi Câ5 est le plan d'affaires du premier ministre Ă l'encontre de l'intĂ©rĂȘt des travailleurs du QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals need to stop regurgitating stock answers. Bill Câ5 will not have any impact on the Canadian economy, but it will have a huge negative impact on the public purse for many years to come. Bill Câ5 will have no impact on the tariff war and no foreseeable impact on production-related trade or on the Canadian economy. Will the Liberals stop taking people for fools and admit that Bill Câ5 is the Prime Minister's business plan and that it goes against the interests of Quebec workers?
Freeland disputes the claim, citing economists who have studied the impact of internal free trade in Canada and concluded it will add $200 billion to the Canadian economy with GDP growth of 2% to 4%.
Freeland cites economists' analysis projecting Bill C-5's internal free trade provisions will add $200 billion to the Canadian economy with 2-4% GDP growth, directly countering the claim of no economic impact.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai beaucoup de respect pour mon collĂšgue du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, mais je ne peux pas ĂȘtre d'accord sur l'idĂ©e que le projet de loi Câ5 n'ajoutera rien Ă l'Ă©conomie canadienne. Les Ă©conomistes qui ont Ă©tudiĂ© l'impact du libre-Ă©change Ă l'intĂ©rieur du Canada ont conclu que cette mesure ajoutera 200 milliards de dollars Ă l'Ă©conomie canadienne et qu'il y aura une croissance du PIB se situant entre 2 % et 4 %. C'est un effet important.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois colleague, but I cannot agree with the notion that Bill Câ5 will have no impact on the Canadian economy. Economists who have studied the impact of free trade within Canada have found that this measure will add $200 billion to the Canadian economy and grow the GDP by 2% to 4%. That is a significant impact.
Redekopp argues that Saskatoon's -30°C winters make EVs impractical for families, that the mandate will hike prices by $20,000, and asks the Prime Minister to repeal the electric vehicle mandate.
Invokes the specific context of Saskatoon winters at -30°C and the $20,000 price hike figure, but the question is heavily rhetorical and uses labels like 'radical former environment minister' and 'unscientific, job-killing' without citing sources.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in Saskatoon, winter temperatures often hit -30°C, so families need vehicles that actually work in the winter, but the Prime Minister, backed by his radical former environment minister, is doubling down on Justin Trudeau's plan to ban gas-powered cars and force Canadians to buy expensive EVs that do not stand up to the cold. His plan would hike car prices by $20,000 and leave families stranded. It is out of touch, unaffordable and anti-choice. Will the Prime Minister stop punishing Canadians for living in a cold country and repeal his unscientific, job-killing electric vehicle mandate now?
Solomon references the U.S. trade war and calls on Conservatives to support rather than attack the auto sector, without addressing the EV mandate or cold-weather concerns.
Solomon does not address the cold-weather performance concern, the $20,000 price figure, or the EV mandate question at all, pivoting entirely to the U.S. trade war and asking the opposition to support the auto sector.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are in a trade war that was launched by the U.S. As we know, the auto sector is already under attack. Let us hope that my colleagues will join us by not attacking the auto sector, but by supporting jobs across the auto sector in all forms and making sure that our communities remain strong in that industry.
Redekopp combines 50,000 jobs lost from U.S. tariffs with 40,000 from the self-imposed gas-powered car ban for a total of 90,000 auto sector jobs at risk, and asks the Prime Minister to admit his failures and stand up for those jobs.
Cites specific figures of 50,000 jobs from tariffs and 40,000 from the EV ban for a combined 90,000 total, making a clear numerical argument, though the framing is highly partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the government is doing. It is attacking the auto sector. Our supposedly âelbows upâ Prime Minister promised to get tough with the U.S., but these unjustified tariffs will kill 50,000 Canadian auto sector jobs. While he is bungling the trade talks, his self-imposed ban on gas-powered cars will gut another 40,000 jobs. The combination of these two failures will be disastrous for our auto industry. That is 90,000 jobs gone, poof. Will the Prime Minister admit that his failures are killing our auto sector and finally stand up for 90,000 Canadian jobs?
MacKinnon asserts there is no ban on gas-powered vehicles, calling the Conservative line of questioning 'fake showmanship,' and pledges to stand up for the auto sector and give consumers choice.
MacKinnon denies a ban exists using everyday examples (Ski-doo, F-150, plumber's truck) and accuses Conservatives of fabricating the issue, without addressing the 90,000 jobs figure or distinguishing between the tariff and mandate job-loss claims.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this line of questioning is somewhat absurd. Whether someone wants to get on a Ski-doo, get on an all-terrain vehicle, gas up their F-150 or have the plumber take their truck to work, that is a person's choice in this country. There is no ban on gas-powered vehicles. This is the completely conjured up, fake showmanship from the Conservatives. It is unbelievable. There is an auto sector in Canada. We are going to stand up for the people in it. We are going to protect it and we are going to give consumers choice.
Aboultaif cites an Ipsos poll showing two-thirds of Canadians oppose the 2035 ban on new gas-powered vehicle sales, projects 38,000 job losses, a $138.7 billion cost, 1,000 additional jobs lost from U.S. tariffs, and a $20,000 per vehicle price increase, asking when the Liberals will repeal their EV mandate.
Cites an Ipsos poll showing two-thirds of Canadians oppose the 2035 ban, a specific job loss figure of 38,000, a cost figure of $138.7 billion, and a further 1,000 jobs from U.S. tariffs, making this one of the more data-dense questions of the exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, an Ipsos poll says that two-thirds of Canadians disagree with the disastrous Liberal plan for the ban of the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035. The EV mandate would eliminate 38,000 jobs and cost $138.7 billion. U.S. tariffs could mean 1,000 more jobs lost. Prices will go up by $20,000 per vehicle. Canadian jobs will vanish. When will the Liberals repeal their EV mandate?
Oh, oh!
MacKinnon denies there is a ban on gas-powered vehicles, invites the member to a Ski-doo ride, and pledges to build all kinds of vehicles with unionized Unifor workers, without addressing any of the cited figures.
MacKinnon does not engage with the Ipsos poll, the 38,000 jobs figure, the $138.7 billion cost, or the $20,000 per vehicle price increase, instead denying the ban and inviting the member to a Ski-doo ride.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble understanding the actual line of questioning from the opposition. They are trying toâ
Mr. Speaker, I know the member of Parliament. He knows there is no ban on gas-powered vehicles. I will invite him to the riding, and we will go out on a Ski-doo ride when the winter comes. The fact is that Canadians have choice and will continue to have choice. In the meantime, we are going to power a new industry to put Canadian auto workers, Unifor workers, unionized men and women, to work building all kinds of vehicles in this country.
Diotte argues that Liberals view gas and diesel as evil, notes EV sales are sagging and auto manufacturers oppose the mandates, and asks the Prime Minister to reverse the reckless policy and let Canadians buy the vehicles they want.
Notes EV sales are sagging and manufacturers oppose the mandates, but relies heavily on partisan rhetoric ('gas and diesel are pure evil,' 'real clunker') and lacks specific data or a precise policy ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is on the website. It is not a surprise to Albertans that Liberals think that gas and diesel are pure evil. Why else would they be sticking with Justin Trudeau's EV mandates? EV sales are sagging and auto manufacturers are dead set against these mandates. This Liberal idea is a real clunker, and it is an affront to free choice. Will the Prime Minister reverse this reckless policy and let Canadians buy the vehicles they actually want to buy?
MacKinnon describes a gas station near his house offering various grades of gasoline and diesel, asserting Canadians have choice, without addressing the EV mandate or the concerns raised.
MacKinnon's answer about grades of gasoline and diesel at a street corner gas station is entirely non-responsive to the EV mandate question, offering no engagement with the policy or the stated concerns.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when I go down to the street corner gas station near my house, they have this thing called a pump. The pump offers various choices of grades of gasoline, and for the hon. member's benefit, there is a yellow one that says âdieselâ. If someone happens to have a diesel engine, they stick that pump into their vehicle. People have a choice to run their diesel truck or run their diesel car. That is all good. Canadians have the choice. Let us drive on.
Strauss reads from Canada's electric vehicle availability standard on the government's website, notes EV sales are down 45% in Canada, and asks why the Liberals will not respect Canadians' right to choose the vehicle that serves their family best.
Strauss directly references Canada's electric vehicle availability standard on the government's own website and cites the specific statistic that EV sales are down 45% in Canada, making this one of the more grounded questions on the EV mandate.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, contrary to that member's remarks, on my phone right now, I am reading Canada's electric vehicle availability standard, regulated targets for zero-emission vehicles. It is on the government's website. It is regulating and mandating this, while Canadians are not choosing to buy EVs. EV sales are down 45% in our country right now, and that is okay. Living in a liberal democracy means different people make different choices for their families based on their different needs, as they see fit. Why will the Liberals not respect the right of Canadians to choose the vehicle that serves their family best?
Dabrusin asks why Conservatives are talking down a climate-competitive Canadian industry during a tariff dispute and cites IEA reports showing global EV purchase rates are rising, without addressing the 45% Canadian sales decline or the regulation text.
Dabrusin does not address the 45% EV sales decline or the existence of the regulation on the government's website, instead pivoting to the IEA's global EV growth rates and criticizing Conservatives for undermining a climate-competitive industry.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Conservatives. Why, in this moment, when we are facing unjustified tariffs from the United States, are they talking down a climate-competitive industry that is right here in our country? In fact, globally, if they looked at the reports, including the International Energy Agency's reports, global rates for the purchase of EVs are going up, so this is a growing sector. I hope they will support it, because we do.
Martel notes that Bloc and Liberal MPs voted against the CPC motion to cancel the ban on gas-powered vehicles yesterday, argues the ban would penalize regions like Saguenay with cold weather and limited public transit, and asks why the Prime Minister wants to dictate to Canadians what vehicle to buy.
References yesterday's vote against the CPC motion to cancel the gas vehicle ban and contextualizes the question with the specific regional reality of Saguenay (cold weather, limited public transit), but the ask is broadly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, les bloquistes et les libĂ©raux ont votĂ© contre notre motion pour annuler l'interdiction des vĂ©hicules Ă essence. Ils veulent imposer leur mode de vie Ă tout le monde sans ĂȘtre conscients de la rĂ©alitĂ©. Cette interdiction pĂ©naliserait directement des rĂ©gions comme la mienne et plusieurs autres. Au Saguenay, il fait froid et les transports en commun sont moins disponibles que dans les grands centres. Nous avons besoin de nos vĂ©hicules Ă essence. Pourquoi le premier ministre veut-il dicter aux Canadiens le type de vĂ©hicule qu'ils doivent acheter?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Bloc and the Liberals voted against our motion to end the ban on gas-powered vehicles. They want to impose their way of life on everyone, but they do not understand people's reality. This ban would penalize regions like mine and many others. In Saguenay, it is cold, and public transit is less readily available than in big cities. We need our gas-powered vehicles. Why does the Prime Minister want to dictate what kind of vehicle Canadians should buy?
MacKinnon jokes about the member coaching the Saguenéens de Chicoutimi, references Zamboni machines available in gasoline, natural gas, and electric versions as evidence of consumer choice, and says workers will build all three.
MacKinnon's response about Zamboni machines running on gasoline, natural gas, and electricity is facetious and does not engage with the regional transit or cold-weather concerns, the vote result, or the substance of the EV mandate question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je reconnais mon honorable collĂšgue. Il Ă©tait l'entraĂźneur des SaguenĂ©ens de Chicoutimi. Ils ne sont pas aussi bons que les Olympiques de Gatineau, mais je m'Ă©gare. Il a peut-ĂȘtre trop respirĂ© l'air de la Zamboni. Au Canada, on a le choix: il y a des Zamboni Ă essence, il y a des Zamboni au gaz naturel et il y a des Zamboni Ă©lectriques. Le choix existe pour les arĂ©nas du Canadien et pour les consommateurs. Les travailleurs vont construire les trois. Ăa va bien aller pour tout le monde.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I recognize my hon. colleague. He coached the Chicoutimi Saguenéens. They are not as good as the Gatineau Olympiques, but that is neither here nor there. Maybe he breathed in too much Zamboni exhaust. In Canada, we have options. We have gas-powered Zambonis, natural gas-powered Zambonis and electric Zambonis. Canadian arenas have options, and consumers have options. Workers are going to build all three. Everyone will get what they want.
Will the Liberals and Bloc stop forcing consumers to buy electric vehicles, given that a new car already averages $66,000 and the Liberal mandate to tax gasoline cars would add $20,000 to the price?
Cites a specific average car price ($66,000) and a $20,000 tax increase figure, but the ask is broadly rhetorical ('will Liberals and Bloquistes stop hurting our regions?') rather than a single accountable question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le prix moyen d'une nouvelle voiture est dĂ©jĂ de 66 000 $. Le mandat libĂ©ral de mettre une taxe sur les voitures Ă essence augmentera le prix de 20 000 $. Les SaguenĂ©ens doivent avoir le libre choix du vĂ©hicule qui rĂ©pond Ă leurs besoins Ă un prix abordable et non ĂȘtre forcĂ©s de conduire un vĂ©hicule Ă©lectrique. On a besoin des pickups Ă essence pour aller dans le bois et travailler. On veut ĂȘtre certains de revenir Ă la maison le soir. Est-ce que les libĂ©raux et les bloquistes vont continuer Ă nuire Ă nos rĂ©gions?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the average price of a new car is already $66,000. The Liberals want to put a tax on gas-powered cars, which will increase the price by $20,000. The people of Saguenay should have the freedom to choose the vehicle that meets their needs at an affordable price and not be forced to drive an electric vehicle. Many people need gas-powered pickups to go into the woods and work. People want to be sure they can get home at the end of the day. Will the Liberals and the Bloc continue to harm our regions?
The government claims it will build regions like BĂ©cancourt through EV industry support, and suggests Conservatives consult Doug Ford on electric vehicles.
Does not address the cited figures or the specific concern about gasoline vehicle mandates, instead pivoting to BĂ©cancourt EV manufacturing and invoking Doug Ford as a deflection.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, non seulement nous n'allons pas nuire aux régions, mais nous allons construire des régions. Nous allons construire des régions comme Bécancourt, qui est maintenant dans l'industrie automobile. Nous allons soutenir l'électrification des transports. I want to also suggest to my Conservative colleagues across the way that there is a guy in Queen's Park. His name is Doug Ford, and he supports electric vehicles. He supports an automobile industry in Ontario and across Canada. I suggest that they maybe they give Doug Ford a call to see what he thinks about EVs.
Why are Liberals and Conservatives making Quebecers pay $814 million in Canadian Carbon Rebate cheques, as confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer who says the funds come from the consolidated fund and that interest is accruing?
Cites a specific figure ($814 million), references the Parliamentary Budget Officer's findings with direct quotes, and asks a precise accountability question about why Quebecers are being made to pay.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les libĂ©raux et les conservateurs ont tous votĂ© pour faire payer aux QuĂ©bĂ©cois 814 millions de dollars en chĂšques de fausse Remise canadienne sur le carbone. C'est confirmĂ© par le directeur parlementaire du budget qui dit que « les fonds vont de toute Ă©vidence venir du fonds consolidĂ© ». Pire encore, les QuĂ©bĂ©cois vont continuer de payer. Le directeur parlementaire du budget dit aussi que « [c]'est clair qu'on paye de l'intĂ©rĂȘt lĂ -dessus, parce qu'en situation de dĂ©ficit, chaque dĂ©pense additionnelle entraĂźne des emprunts additionnels ». Pourquoi est-ce que les libĂ©raux et les conservateurs volent les QuĂ©bĂ©cois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and the Conservatives all voted to make Quebeckers pay $814 million in bogus Canada carbon rebate cheques. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed it, saying that the funds will obviously be drawn from the consolidated revenue fund. Worse still, Quebeckers are going to keep paying. The Parliamentary Budget Officer also said that there was no doubt that there would be interest to pay on that amount because, in a deficit situation, every additional expenditure results in additional borrowing. Why are the Liberals and Conservatives stealing from Quebeckers?
Quebec did not participate in consumer carbon pricing, so the rebate does not apply to Quebec.
Addresses the topic by explaining Quebec did not participate in consumer carbon pricing and therefore the rebate does not apply, which is substantively relevant, but does not engage with the PBO's specific finding about consolidated fund payments or interest costs.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est trÚs simple. Le Québec n'a pas participé à la tarification du carbone pour les consommateurs. La remise est une mesure de rajustement pour les communautés et les provinces qui ont été soumis à cette tarification. Le Québec n'y a pas participé, donc la remise ne s'applique pas à eux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. Quebec did not participate in consumer carbon pricing. The rebate is an adjustment for communities and provinces subject to such pricing. Quebec did not participate, so the rebate does not apply to Quebeckers.
The Bloc asserts that the 44 Quebec Liberal and 11 Quebec Conservative MPs voted to take $814 million from Quebecers and rejected the unanimous motion of the National Assembly demanding reimbursement, rhetorically asking what purpose those MPs serve.
This exchange is largely rhetorical, questioning the purpose of Quebec Liberal and Conservative MPs rather than posing a specific factual question, though the $814 million context from the previous exchange lingers implicitly.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, parfois on nous demande Ă quoi ça sert, le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois. Au minimum, ça sert Ă avoir des dĂ©putĂ©s qui ne volent pas 814 millions de dollars aux QuĂ©bĂ©cois pour faire des chĂšques aux Canadiens. Il y a 44 libĂ©raux du QuĂ©bec en ce moment. Les 44 libĂ©raux ont votĂ© pour voler les QuĂ©bĂ©cois, tout comme les 11 conservateurs du QuĂ©bec. Ils ont tous rejetĂ© la motion unanime de l'AssemblĂ©e nationale qui demandait le remboursement. Ă l'Ă©vidence, ces dĂ©putĂ©s ne dĂ©fendent pas les QuĂ©bĂ©cois. Alors, la vraie question, ce n'est pas Ă quoi ça sert, le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, c'est Ă quoi ils servent, ces gensâlĂ .
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, sometimes we are asked what the Bloc Québécois is good for. At the very least, it is good for having members of Parliament who do not steal $814 million from Quebeckers to write cheques for Canadians. Right now, there are 44 Liberal members from Quebec. All 44 of them voted to steal from Quebeckers, as did the 11 Conservatives from Quebec. They all rejected the National Assembly's unanimous motion calling on the government to pay back that money. Clearly, these members do not stand up for Quebeckers. The real question is not what the Bloc Québécois is good for, but what these people are good for.
The carbon price did not apply to Quebec, so the rebate did not apply either.
Repeats the same substantive point from the previous answer â carbon pricing did not apply to Quebec â which is at least consistent, but does not address the accountability concern about the 44 Quebec Liberal MPs' vote.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est trÚs simple. Le prix sur le carbone ne s'appliquait pas au Québec, alors ça ne s'appliquait pas au moment de la remise. C'est trÚs simple.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. The carbon tax did not apply in Quebec, so Quebeckers did not get the rebate. It is very simple.
Given CMHC data showing housing starts down over 50% in Belleville and nearly 60% in Toronto, and the housing minister's reported $10-million real estate portfolio, why is he telling young Canadians that home prices do not need to go down?
Cites specific CMHC data (Belleville starts down 50 points, Toronto down 60%) and references a reported $10-million real estate portfolio, with a pointed ask about whether the minister is unable or unwilling to lower prices, though the conflict-of-interest framing somewhat muddies the policy ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, CMHC released May's housing starts, and predictably for the government, the outlook is not good. In Belleville, starts are down over 50 points, and in Toronto, nearly 60%. The minister's staggering ignorance of the plight of everyday Canadians is not surprising when we remember that he is not only stuck up in his ivory tower here in Ottawa but also sitting on a massive, $10-million, real estate portfolio. Why is the housing minister telling young Canadians that home prices do not need to go down? Is he unable, or unwilling?
The government is aware of housing affordability challenges, has delivered a GST break for first-time homebuyers, and will go further and faster on housing construction.
Does not address the CMHC housing starts data cited, the minister's statement about prices not needing to fall, or the conflict-of-interest allegation; offers only a vague commitment to pace of construction and a GST break reference.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are well aware of the challenges Canadians have with housing affordability. That is why they elected us to represent them and drive the pace of housing construction in Canada. That is what we will do. That is what we will deliver. We have already delivered on the GST break for first-time homebuyers. We are going to take it further and faster.
How can Canadians trust a government that cannot lower housing costs and a minister who has a personal financial interest in keeping prices high and young Canadians in the basement?
Builds on the conflict-of-interest theme but the ask â how can Canadians trust a minister with personal interest in keeping prices high â is rhetorical and compound rather than a specific accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, tell that to the young Canadians who cannot afford a home. For a decade, the Liberal government has continuously failed to address the housing crisis with solutions. To add insult to injury, it appointed a minister who has a significant interest in seeing housing prices soar sky-high. The housing minister is actually part of the problem. How can Canadians actually trust a government that cannot lower housing costs, and a minister who has personal interest in keeping prices high and young Canadians in the basement?
The answer does not address the question, instead attacking Pierre Poilievre for past comments about housing types and for living in taxpayer-funded housing.
Entirely ignores the housing policy question and the minister's conflict of interest, instead attacking Pierre Poilievre over past comments about a house in Niagara Falls, a co-op, and his use of taxpayer-funded housing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians remember when Pierre Poilievre stood in front of a Canadian woman's house in Niagara Falls and called it a âshackâ. I remember when Pierre Poilievre stood in the House and called the co-op where I grew up âSoviet-styleâ housing. Now, if that were not enough, the Conservatives are stigmatizing modern, modular, affordable housing as shipping containers. The Conservatives voted against every single measure to support lower-income families to be able to access affordable housing. It is people like me, who grew up in that type of housing, whom the Conservatives want to insult. That is pretty ironic, given that, despite not getting re-elected, Pierre Poilievre continues to live in taxpayer-funded government housing.
Will the housing minister admit that the government spent a decade driving up housing prices and apologize to Canadians, given that he owns real estate worth millions and has said prices must not fall?
References media reports of the housing minister's multi-million-dollar real estate portfolio and his stated position that prices must not fall, but the ask â admit the government drove up prices and apologize â is rhetorically framed rather than a specific policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, under the Liberals, we have become a country with two kinds of families: those that already own real estate and those that likely never will. The media reports that the housing minister owns real estate worth millions of dollars, while he tells Canadians who cannot afford a home that prices must not fall. Will the minister, the former mayor of one of the most unaffordable places on earth, admit that his government spent a decade driving up housing prices and apologize to Canadians for crushing their dreams of home ownership?
The minister represents policies to create hundreds of thousands of new homes and will comply with strict ethics regulations; questioning that is unseemly.
Does not address the conflict-of-interest allegation or the minister's statement about prices, instead vaguely citing new home creation policies and asserting ethics compliance without specifics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister has stood up and articulated and represents policies, which we debated in an election campaign, that will create hundreds of thousands of new homes for Canadians. In the meantime, he will of course be in compliance with the very strict ethics code and regulations that we in the House of Commons all live under. Doubting that is, frankly, unseemly on the part of the member.
According to CMHC, housing starts are down 10% in Vancouver, 58% in Toronto, 51% in Hamilton, and 71% in London â all cities that received housing accelerator fund money â so why is the minister protecting real estate investors instead of helping Canadians locked out of home ownership?
Cites specific CMHC figures for multiple cities (Vancouver down 10%, Toronto down 58%, Hamilton down 51%, London down 71%), connects them to the housing accelerator fund, and poses a clear accountability question about protecting real estate investors.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of the Liberals' driving prices up, housing supply has never been worse. According to CMHC, housing starts are down 10% in Vancouver, down 58% in Toronto, down 51% in Hamilton and down 71% in London. All these cities received funding under the Liberals' so-called housing accelerator fund, and their housing starts are falling. Why is the minister protecting real estate investors instead of giving hope to millions of Canadians locked out of home ownership by the government?
The member's facts are wrong; national housing starts are at almost 280,000, near a record level, with unprecedented rental housing construction, and the government will double the rate.
Directly disputes the city-level data by citing a national figure of almost 280,000 starts and claims record-level construction and unprecedented rental housing, which partially engages the question, but does not address the specific city declines cited or the housing accelerator fund allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member needs to check the facts. The housing starts across Canada are up to almost 280,000 pace this year, which is almost at a record level. We have been building at a strong pace this year and last. We are seeing unprecedented levels of rental housing being constructed for the first time in decades. The government is delivering, and we will take it further. We will double the rate.
How can the housing minister, who reportedly owns a $10-million real estate portfolio including three luxury properties, tell young Canadians priced out of the market that prices do not need to come down?
References a reported $10-million real estate portfolio and three luxury properties with some factual specificity, but the question â asking how the minister can sit in his Vancouver penthouse and tell young Canadians prices need not fall â is largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the housing minister is part of the problem. He said that housing prices do not need to come down, and now we know why: He has a $10-million real estate portfolio, including three, not one or two but three luxury properties. Housing costs have doubled under the Liberals, putting home ownership out of reach for more and more Canadians. How can the minister sit in his Vancouver penthouse and tell young Canadians who are priced out of the market that prices do not need to come down?
The answer invokes 'glass houses,' claims Conservative members also own investment properties, and criticizes Pierre Poilievre for living in taxpayer-funded government housing while voting against affordable housing measures.
Does not address the minister's real estate holdings, his statement about prices, or housing policy; instead invokes the 'glass houses' idiom, claims Conservative members also have investment properties, and again attacks Pierre Poilievre's use of taxpayer-funded housing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying about people in glass houses. Well, a lot of the Conservative members also have quite a few investment properties. They rent out their units. However, for another thing, I just want to reiterate that their leader, Pierre Poilievre, did not get re-elected, and he continues to live in taxpayer-funded government housing. What is clear is that any time the Conservatives have an opportunity to support lower-income or vulnerable families and their access to truly affordable housing, they vote against every single measure.
What is the government doing to ensure seniors, especially those on fixed incomes, can age with dignity and security?
A classic government-backbench softball: opens with a riding anecdote and invites the Secretary of State to list government programs for seniors, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, I had the pleasure of attending the Seniors Month celebration in my riding of PickeringâBrooklin. This event brought together dozens of local seniors for an afternoon filled with live music, dancing, light refreshments and the presentation of the Senior of the Year award. It was a vibrant testament to the vital role that seniors play in enriching our community. Seniors are the backbone of our town, serving as volunteers, caregivers and lifelong contributors. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for Seniors what our government is doing to ensure that seniors, especially those on a fixed income, can age with dignity and security in communities like mine and across the country.
The government has provided a 10% OAS increase, increased the GIS for low-income seniors, made dental care available to seniors aged 65 and older, and invested in the new horizons program.
Provides a substantive list of actual initiatives â 10% OAS increase, GIS increase, dental care for seniors 65+, and the new horizons program â which constitutes real policy information even if delivered in a favourable framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her advocacy. Our government is committed to ensuring that seniors can age with dignity. We have introduced several initiatives that are making a real difference in the lives of seniors. We have provided an OAS increase of 10%, increased the guaranteed income supplement for low-income seniors, made dental care available to seniors aged 65 and older and invested in projects under the new horizons program. We will continue to work with provinces, municipalities and community partners to ensure that every senior from Pickering to Vancouver Island has what they need to thrive.
When will the Liberals legislate to ensure that people who traffic fentanyl â such as someone who had 24 grams and received a house arrest sentence â cannot serve their sentence at home, given that Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimums for fentanyl trafficking?
Opens with a precise and vivid factual anchor (0.2 mg lethal dose, 24 grams = enough to kill thousands, actual sentencing outcome of house arrest), names Bill C-5 specifically, and asks a clear legislative question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the equivalent of five to seven grains of salt, a 0.2 milligram dose, is how much fentanyl it takes to kill somebody, so it is no surprise that Canadians would be shocked to hear that somebody who had 24 grams of fentanyl, enough to kill thousands of people, was sentenced to house arrest. Whom do I blame? Again, it is not the judge, not the prosecutor and not the defence lawyer. I blame the Liberals for their lack of action and for passing Bill C-5. When will the Liberals finally legislate so that people who traffic fentanyl cannot serve their sentence on the couch?
The minister says the government will implement reforms targeting violent offenders, repeat offenders and organized crime responsible for fentanyl, and hopes to work across the aisle.
Acknowledges the fentanyl crisis and mentions forthcoming reforms targeting violent offenders, repeat offenders and organized crime, but does not address Bill C-5 by name, the house arrest sentence cited, or give any specifics on what legislation is coming or when.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is clear the fentanyl crisis is responsible for the taking of innocent lives in this country. It is incumbent upon all members of the House to approach this with empathy, but also with a level of seriousness to prevent fentanyl from sweeping through the nation and causing such damage. Going forward, we are going to be implementing a series of reforms that will target violent offenders, repeat offenders and organized crime, which is responsible for the preponderance of fentanyl in this country. I hope that we can work across the aisle on this important issue to help keep Canadians safe and protect our communities.
The minister voted for Bill C-5, which removed mandatory minimums for fentanyl trafficking, gun trafficking and extortion with a firearm; will he commit on camera to legislate to end house arrest sentences for fentanyl traffickers?
Specifically notes the minister voted for Bill C-5, names the mandatory minimums removed (fentanyl trafficking, gun trafficking, extortion with a firearm), and asks for a direct on-camera commitment to legislate â reasonably specific but the emotional framing dilutes the sharpness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that all sounds great. Unfortunately, the minister voted for Bill C-5, which took away mandatory minimums for people serving sentences for fentanyl trafficking, for gun trafficking and for extortion with a firearm. Fentanyl is killing people: brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers. Will the minister look into the camera and tell people whose children are victims, people who have died from fentanyl, that he will legislate to end the insanity?
The minister says serious crimes will be treated seriously and serious offenders punished seriously, and calls for a non-partisan approach to protect Canadians and communities.
Does not address Bill C-5, the mandatory minimums removed, or make any commitment to specific legislation; instead speaks in vague generalities about treating serious crimes seriously and avoiding partisanship.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we approach this issue with the seriousness with which it deserves, including respect for decisions that have come from courts in the country. As we move forward, we are going to work in a manner that will ensure that serious crimes will be treated seriously and that serious offenders will be punished seriously. I hope we can avoid turning something as serious as the fentanyl crisis into a partisan issue for political gain, and instead work to advance measures in a collaborative manner to help protect Canadians, their families and communities in every region of this country.
When will the Liberals fix the justice system and clean up the streets, given that a safe injection site worker who helped someone try to get away with murder received only house arrest with educational programming and gym access?
References a specific case (safe injection site worker receiving house arrest) but frames it with heavy partisan rhetoric ('lawless Liberals who care more about criminals than victims') and the ask is vague and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a worker at a so-called safe injection site in Toronto helped someone literally try to get away with murder. Her sentence was a house arrest sentence with educational programming and daily trips to the gym, par for the course from the lawless Liberals, who care more about criminals than victims and who think bail should be as easy to get as free drugs. When will the Liberals stop ignoring pleas from Canadians to fix the justice system and clean up the streets?
The minister rejects the claim of caring more about criminals, says the government gives law enforcement tools to prevent and punish crime, and thanks law enforcement for recent busts, hoping for cross-partisan collaboration on criminal justice reforms later this year.
Rejects the characterization of caring more about criminals, mentions giving law enforcement tools, and cites recent law enforcement busts, but does not address the specific sentence cited, safe injection sites, or propose any concrete reform.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is beyond reprehensible that a member of the House would accuse another member of caring more about criminals than about Canadians. We should be able to work together to, certainly, punish wrongdoers but also to give law enforcement the tools it needs to keep their community safe. We have been giving tools to law enforcement so that we not only punish wrongdoers after a crime has been committed but also prevent it in the first instance. I want to thank the law enforcement officials who have been in the news recently for the various busts that they have been responsible for and for bringing people to justice. I hope that we can work together across partisan lines to advance important reforms to the criminal justice system later this year that would help further protect our communities.
Violent crime is up 50%, opioid overdoses are up 200%, carfentanil is appearing in Elgin County, and the justice committee adjourned after 16 minutes without tabling any bills â when will the Liberals table a crime bill?
Cites the justice committee adjournment after 16 minutes, specific statistics (violent crime up 50%, opioid overdoses up 200%), carfentanil warnings in Elgin County, and asks a direct question about tabling a crime bill â reasonably specific though the statistics are not sourced.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the minister does not want to be criticized for caring more about criminals than victims, he should look at his own government's record. The Liberals adjourned the justice committee meeting yesterday after 16 minutes to start their summer vacation, without tabling or discussing a single motion or bill related to justice. Violent crime is up 50%. Opioid overdoses are up 200%. Health officials in my riding are warning about carfentanil on the streets of Elgin County. People are dying, and those who are responsible are walking free. When will the Liberals table a crime bill and focus on that instead of their summer break?
The government is present and ready to work; at the justice committee yesterday, it was a Conservative member who sought to make it easier for people charged with intimate partner violence to get bail, which the minister opposed, and he says he will stay to protect victims and advance reforms to punish wrongdoers.
Engages the justice committee accusation by offering a counter-narrative about what actually happened (a Conservative member sought to make it easier for those charged with intimate partner violence to get bail), which is substantive, but does not address the specific crime bill timeline asked or the statistics cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the member's eyes betray him, but we are here and ready to work to advance reforms to protect our communities. Yesterday at the justice committee, although the accusation is that there was an attempt to get home early for summer, what actually happened was that a Conservative member was seeking to advance reforms that would have made it easier for people who have been charged with intimate partner violence to get out on bail. I think that is a bad idea, and I am willing to stay here and work to protect the victims of intimate partner violence and to advance reforms that would punish wrongdoers. Once again, it is not about caring more about criminals than about Canadians, but it seems that the member cares more about his social media clicks than he does about advancingâ
With extortion up 357% and the Liberals having voted down a Conservative bill to enforce a three-year mandatory minimum and restore a four-year minimum for extortion involving a non-restricted firearm (repealed by Bill C-5), will the Prime Minister adopt the Conservative plan to crack down on violent extortion?
Cites a specific statistic (extortion up 357%), names the defeated Conservative bill and its precise penalties (three-year mandatory minimum, four-year minimum for extortion with a non-restricted firearm), and connects it directly to Bill C-5's repeal â a fairly specific and grounded question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, extortion is up 357%. The Trudeau Liberals voted down a common-sense Conservative bill that would enforce a three-year mandatory minimum penalty for extortion and restore a four-year minimum penalty for extortion involving a non-restricted firearm, because it was repealed by the Liberals in Bill C-5. Will the Prime Minister finally adopt the Conservative plan to crack down on violent extortion?
The minister praises Project Yankee, a joint police operation that dismantled an organized crime group in the tow truck industry, resulting in seizures of firearms and vehicles, 20 arrests, and over 100 criminal charges including conspiracy to commit murder.
Does not address extortion, the Conservative bill, Bill C-5, or mandatory minimums at all; instead delivers an unrelated statement praising Project Yankee for dismantling a tow truck industry organized crime group.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Toronto Police Service, Durham police, my friend who represents York Regional Police, and the OPP, for their work to dismantle an organized crime group operating in the tow truck industry. Project Yankee has resulted in the seizure of firearms and vehicles, the arrest of 20 individuals and more than 100 criminal charges, including multiple counts of conspiracy to commit murder. It is another day and another criminal organization dismantled by law enforcement. Canada's new government will always be there to protect Canadians.
With ten femicides in Quebec since the start of the year, including five in five weeks and a killing yesterday in Vaudreuil-Dorion, when will the Prime Minister correct his predecessor's errors that left these women without protection?
Grounds the question in a documented pattern (ten femicides in Quebec since the start of the year, five in five weeks, a specific death yesterday in Vaudreuil-Dorion) and asks whether the system failed the victim, but the ask â when will the PM correct Trudeau's errors â is vague and rhetorically framed.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il y a eu dix fĂ©minicides depuis le dĂ©but de l'annĂ©e au QuĂ©bec, dont cinq en cinq semaines. Hier, une femme a Ă©tĂ© tuĂ©e Ă VaudreuilâDorion. Elle Ă©tait dans une situation qualifiĂ©e de toxique, voire violente. Le systĂšme l'aurait-elle abandonnĂ©e, comme tant d'autres avant elle? Quand le premier ministre corrigera-t-il les erreurs de son prĂ©dĂ©cesseur, M. Trudeau, qui ont contribuĂ© Ă laisser ces femmes sans protection?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there have been 10 femicides in Quebec since the beginning of the year. At one point, there were five in five weeks. Yesterday, a woman was killed in Vaudreuil-Dorion. She was in a toxic and violent relationship. Did the system let her down, as it has many other women before her? When will the Prime Minister correct the mistakes made by his predecessor, Mr. Trudeau, which contributed to leaving these women unprotected?
The government will automatically revoke gun licences for those convicted of intimate partner violence or subject to protection orders, is implementing Mass Casualty Commission recommendations, and is continuing the national action plan to combat gender-based violence.
Does not address the specific femicides cited, the Vaudreuil-Dorion case, or the allegation that the system failed victims; instead lists existing policy commitments (gun licence revocation, Mass Casualty Commission recommendations, national action plan) without connecting them to the concrete cases raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every Canadian should feel safe in their community, especially in their home. We will automatically revoke gun licences for individuals convicted of intimate partner violence offences and those subject to protection orders. We are delivering on the recommendations made by the Mass Casualty Commission related to community safety, policing and countering gender-based violence. The implementation of the national action plan to combat gender-based violence continues to support the work of building a Canada free of gender-based violence that supports victims, survivors and their families no matter where they live.
Vien asks when the Prime Minister will repeal bills C-5 and C-75, which she argues protect criminals over victims and contribute to rising violence against women.
The question names specific bills (C-5 and C-75) as contributing to gender-based violence but the ask is vague ('passer Ă l'action et changer ces lois') and the framing is heavily partisan.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les faits sont tĂȘtus. Sous les libĂ©raux, la violence envers les femmes ne fait qu'augmenter. En conservant les projets de loi Câ5 et Câ75 adoptĂ©s par Justin Trudeau, ce gouvernement protĂšge les criminels plutĂŽt que les victimes. C'est bien connu et bien su. Pendant ce temps, les femmes ont peur. Ce gouvernement doit faire une introspection et admettre qu'il est responsable du problĂšme. Quand le premier ministre va-t-il passer Ă l'action et changer ces lois pour assurer la sĂ©curitĂ© de toutes les femmes au Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, facts are stubborn things. Under the Liberals, violence against women has continued to rise. By maintaining Bill Câ5 and Bill Câ75, which were passed by Justin Trudeau, this government is protecting criminals rather than victims. That is a well-known fact. Meanwhile, women are living in fear. The government needs to take a good hard look in the mirror and admit that it is responsible for the problem. When will the Prime Minister take action and change these laws to keep all women in Canada safe?
Provost speaks about the Liberal government's work to ban assault-style firearms, with no reference to C-5, C-75, or the specific question on gender-based violence.
The minister does not address C-5, C-75, or gender-based violence, instead pivoting entirely to assault-style firearms restrictions â a non-answer to the question asked.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie ma consĆur de sa question. Je suis trĂšs Ă©mue de me lever Ă la Chambre pour ce sujet-lĂ . Je suis ici avec le gouvernement libĂ©ral parce que, jusqu'en mars cette annĂ©e, le gouvernement libĂ©ral n'a cessĂ© de travailler pour rĂ©duire la dangerositĂ© des armes Ă feu pour les Canadiens en interdisant les armes de style d'assaut. Il reste des rĂšglements Ă faire. Nous allons les faire, parce qu'il faut aller jusqu'au bout. C'est ça, un gouvernement qui lutte contre le crime.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I am deeply moved to rise in the House on this issue. I am here with the Liberal government because, up until March of this year, the Liberal government worked tirelessly to reduce the risk of gun violence in Canada by banning assault-style weapons. We still need to make regulations. We are going to do that because we need to see this through. That is what a government that fights crime is all about.
Bezan cites new DND reports showing less than 50% of equipment is operational and only 46% of navy ships seaworthy, asking why anyone should believe the Prime Minister's defence promises.
Bezan cites a specific Department of National Defence report with concrete figures (less than 50% operational, 46% of navy ships seaworthy) and asks why the Prime Minister's claims should be believed given departmental contradictions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, new reports from the Department of National Defence confirmed today that less than 50% of the equipment used by our armed forces is operational. Only 46% of our navy ships are seaworthy, and fewer than half of the land vehicles and aircraft needed by our army and air force are even serviceable. While the Prime Minister makes grandiose claims of fixing the armed forces, the actual numbers tell a very different story. Money without results will not defend Canada's sovereignty. Why should anyone believe the Prime Minister when his own defence department contradicts his promises?
McGuinty lists defence investments including $72 billion, $40 billion for NORAD and procurement of aircraft, submarines, and ships, without addressing the operational readiness statistics.
McGuinty recites spending commitments and procurement lists but does not address the specific operational readiness figures cited or explain the contradiction between promises and departmental data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. In the last decade, we have tripled our defence spending. We are investing $72 billion through our defence policy update, $40 billion through NORAD modernization and $11 billion to train our next generation of aviators. We are procuring 200 new aircraft, 12 submarines, six Arctic and offshore patrol ships, two joint support ships and so much more. Now more than ever, it is time to support and equip our forces with what they need to meet the challenges we face.
Bezan says the department previously promised to meet operational targets this year but has now delayed them seven years, asking where the plan is to address armed forces readiness.
Bezan references departmental targets missed and a seven-year delay to reach operational standards, making a reasonably grounded follow-up, though 'where is the plan?' is a broad ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, throwing money at the problem does not fix the problem. The facts show that the lost Liberal decade has reduced the capabilities needed by the armed forces to protect Canada today. Last year, the department said it would meet its targets this year, but now the Liberals have kicked the can down the road for another seven years before the operations of the armed forces will be up to standard. Under Liberal watch, our armed forces simply do not have the tools they need to do the job to deal with today's growing threats. The Prime Minister's talk is cheap. Where is the plan?
McGuinty references $4.5 billion for Ukraine, $15 billion in government spending reductions, and careful consideration of military readiness impacts, without addressing the seven-year operational delay.
McGuinty pivots to Ukraine funding, government spending reductions, and outside expertise â none of which address the operational readiness timeline or the seven-year delay cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister announced $4.5 billion yesterday for our efforts in Ukraine. We have committed to reducing overall government spending by more than $15 billion while ensuring the services and supports that Canadians rely on are there. We have exceptional expert staff dedicated to meeting our priorities, but we also sometimes rely on outside expertise, and the member knows this, but we are committed to doing so in a transparent and fiscally responsible way. Any potential reductions in spending are being considered carefully, and minimizing the impact on military readiness is the driving force behind each decision.
Saini asks the Minister of Jobs and Families to update Canadians on the plan to deliver dental care to uninsured Canadians.
A government-backbench softball setup citing a general statistic about dental cost avoidance and asking the minister to update Canadians on the dental care plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one in four Canadians avoids visiting a dentist because of cost and accessibility. Delaying preventive care can have a wide-reaching impact, including more expensive treatments, worsening health outcomes and lost productivity. Can the Minister of Jobs and Families please update Canadians on our plan to deliver dental care to uninsured Canadians?
Hajdu states that as of May 29, 2025, all eligible Canadians can apply for the Canadian dental care plan, with four million approved and over two million having received care.
Hajdu provides concrete figures â all eligible Canadians can apply as of May 29 2025, four million approved, two million received care â directly responsive to the setup question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the last elections, Canadians chose to place their vote with a party that knows Canada is strong when we take care of each other. As of May 29, 2025, all eligible Canadians can now apply for the Canadian dental care plan, and to date, four million Canadians have been approved for coverage and over two million have received care, including people in my community of Thunder BayâSuperior North. For more information, visit Canada.ca/dental.
Albas asks the Minister of Transport to guarantee that none of the $36 million federal transfer to BC Ferries will fund the purchase of vessels from a Chinese state-owned enterprise.
Albas names a specific federal transfer of $36 million to BC Ferries and asks for a conditional commitment that none of it fund the Chinese state-owned enterprise purchase, with a clear yes/no ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, David Eby, the Premier of British Columbia, has doubled down and made the plan for BC Ferries to purchase four new vessels from a Chinese state-owned enterprise his own. The Minister of Transport has said she will give BC Ferries $36 million this year. Will the minister commit today that she will personally guarantee that not one cent of this transfer will go to the Chinese shipyard? Will she stand up against David Eby's moral failure, support Canadian jobs in steel and shipbuilding and make this transfer conditional on BC Ferries supporting jobs here in this great country?
Freeland says she has written to B.C. making clear the federal support must be used only for operating costs, and expresses support for Canadian shipbuilding.
Freeland states she has written to B.C. specifying federal support is for operating costs only and must not be used otherwise, partially addressing the ask but not explicitly guaranteeing the condition or committing to withhold funds if violated.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I share the concern and anger of other members of this House about the purchase of Chinese ferries. I have written to the Province of B.C. to make clear that the federal government's support for BC Ferries, which is explicitly for operating support, must not be used for anything other than the operation of ferries. We owe it to the people of B.C. to support the operation of their ferries. We also owe it to the people of Canada to support Canadian shipbuilding, Canadian steel and Canadianâ
Albas accuses the government of being on 'team China' rather than 'team Canada' by continuing to fund BC Ferries without conditions preventing the Chinese shipyard purchase.
Albas's follow-up is largely rhetorical ('team Canada' versus 'team China' framing) with no new specific ask beyond broadly challenging the minister's approach.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, she is just going to write a cheque to them with no conditions. During the election, the Liberals were all elbows up and talking about team Canada in the face of unjustified American tariffs on steel and aluminum, and I thought it was bad enough that the government has been elbows down since the election on protecting Canadian jobs. Now, does the government not see that by going along to get along with David Eby, it is not on team Canada, but on team China?
Freeland reiterates that federal support is limited to operating costs, states the federal government has no authority over BC Ferries, and objects strongly to the suggestion that Premier Eby would act in China's interests.
Freeland reiterates that federal support covers only operating costs and federal authority does not extend to BC Ferries procurement, which is somewhat responsive, but spends significant time objecting to the 'team China' characterization rather than addressing the policy gap.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my answer was very clear, as have been my previous answers on this question: Federal government support goes only to operating costs; the federal government has no authority over BC Ferries. However, I want to object, in the strongest possible terms, to the insult to a premier of a Canadian province and a suggestion that a Canadian premier would act in the interests of China and not of Canada. All of our premiers are patriots, as are all members of this House.
Kronis argues that federal policies prevent Canadian shipbuilders from bidding on BC Ferries contracts and asks whether the Liberals will fix those broken policies.
Kronis raises a substantive point â that federal policies prevent Canadian companies from bidding â and asks whether those policies will be fixed, though it is framed with rhetorical flourishes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the BC Ferries deal did not sink Canadian shipbuilders; Ottawa did. Our shipbuilding unions say Canadian companies could not bid because federal policies stack the deck against them. It is the federal government's job to set fair conditions so provinces can build at home, but all the government does is rearrange Liberal deck chairs. What I want to know is this: Will the Liberals fix their broken policies or are we going to just keep waving goodbye to good Canadian jobs from the dock?
Freeland says she has instructed all Transport Canada entities to buy Canadian, or from free trade partners where that is not possible, framing it as the right approach at all levels of government.
Freeland states she has instructed Transport Canada entities to buy Canadian and, where not possible, from free trade partners, which is a relevant policy response, though she does not address the specific claim about federal policies stacking the deck against Canadian bidders.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion among the Conservative MPs about what is provincial jurisdiction and what is federal jurisdiction. There is no such confusion on this side of the House. Having said that, I want to inform all members of this House that I have instructed all the entities under control of Transport Canada to buy Canadian and, where that is not possible, to buy reciprocally from free trade partners that give Canada access to their government procurement. That is what we should all be doing at all levels of government.
Sousa asks the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime to speak to government actions to crack down on organized crime following the success of project outsource.
A government-backbench softball referencing project outsource and asking the Secretary of State to speak to anti-organized-crime actions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, Peel police announced the outcome of project outsource, an 11-month project that has led to multiple arrests connected with extortions, shootings and fraud. This affects my community and others. Can the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime speak to the actions the government is taking to crack down on organized crime, protect our streets and keep Canadians safe?
Sahota acknowledges Peel police, references project outsource as a blow against criminal networks, and cites the strong borders act as giving police the tools needed to replicate that success.
Sahota thanks Peel police, references project outsource, and names the strong borders act as a legislative tool, providing relevant though promotional information in response to the setup.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank Chief Nishan Duraiappah, who is here in Ottawa today to collaborate with our new government on public safety. I thank the dedicated officers of Peel police, who, through project outsource, have dealt a significant blow against criminal networks responsible for intimidating and harming members of our community. The strong borders act would give police across the country the tools needed to replicate the success of project outsource. Organized crime should be on high alert. Canada's new government will do what it takes to dismantle their networks, seize their gunsâ
Gill cites extortion up nearly 400%, attributes it to Liberal repeal of mandatory minimums and bail reform gutting, and asks the Prime Minister to adopt the Conservative plan to crack down on violent crime.
Gill cites a specific statistic (extortion up nearly 400%), names repealed mandatory minimums and gutted bail reform as causes, and asks whether the Prime Minister will adopt the Conservative plan, though the final ask is broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as a retired police officer who served on the front lines for nearly three decades, I have seen first-hand the damage violent criminals can do, especially when the justice system fails to hold them accountable. Today, extortion is up nearly 400%, and that is not a coincidence. The Liberals repealed mandatory minimums and gutted the bail reform act. They even voted down a Conservative bill to restore serious penalties for extortion involving firearms. My former colleagues working on the front lines are begging for help. Will the Prime Minister finally listen and adopt the Conservative plan to crack down on violent crime?
Fraser says the government is working with police federations and advancing reforms to strengthen sentencing for violent repeat offenders and address bail issues related to home invasions, human trafficking, auto theft, and organized crime.
Fraser acknowledges the member's service, references work with police federations, and outlines forthcoming reforms on sentencing for violent repeat offenders, bail, home invasions, human trafficking, and auto theft â substantive but not specific enough to fully address the Conservative plan comparison.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first, let me acknowledge and thank my hon. colleague for his years of service to promote public safety in this country. We are working alongside police forces and federations representing frontline members to understand the needs of frontline officers to ensure they have the resources to help keep communities safe. In addition, we are moving forward with a series of reforms that are going to strengthen sentencing regimes for violent repeat offenders, as well as addressing the needs of the bail system, particularly targeting home invasions, human trafficking, auto theft and other offences related to organized crime. I am happy to work with the hon. member and benefit from his experience as we advance these important reforms.
Johns says Nova Scotia is waiting for a Health Canada invitation to negotiate a pharmacare deal and asks the government to commit to delivering universal pharmacare for all Canadians.
Johns names Nova Scotia specifically as waiting for a pharmacare negotiation invitation, links the urgency to Trump's trade war job losses, and asks for a commitment to universal pharmacare â reasonably specific with an identifiable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia is ready to negotiate a pharmacare deal, but it is still waiting on an invitation from Health Canada. The Prime Minister has not committed to expanding pharmacare for all Canadians. Access to essential medications should not depend on where one lives or one's private coverage. With the job losses from Trump's trade war, the need for public medication coverage is clear. Will the Liberal government commit to delivering universal pharmacare for all Canadians?
Michel says the government is working closely with provinces and territories to provide the best health services to Canadians, offering no specifics on pharmacare or Nova Scotia.
Michel's response is a single generic sentence about working closely with provinces and territories for the best health services, completely failing to address Nova Scotia's pending invitation, universal pharmacare, or any specific commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie le député de l'opposition de sa question et je peux lui assurer que nous travaillons étroitement avec les provinces et les territoires pour donner le meilleur service de santé aux Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition member for his question, and I can assure him that we are working closely with the provinces and territories to provide the best health care for Canadians.
Scheer attempts a point of order referencing a document on Canada's Electric Vehicle Availability Standard; Albas raises a separate point of order asking the Minister of Transport to table her letter to David Eby.
These are points of order, not substantive QP exchanges, and are not scoreable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have in my hands a document entitled âCanadaâs Electric Vehicle Availability Standardâ, with a timeline where it says that the requirements increase toâ
No.
Mr. Speaker, on another point of order, I would ask the Minister of Transport to table her letter to David Eby that she referred to in question period today, out of respect for transparency.
No ministerial answer was provided; the exchanges were procedural points of order.
No ministerial answer was given to score.