Session overview
- Opposition questioned the Prime Minister across six exchanges on the size of the current deficit and absence of fiscal anchors, citing Parliamentary Budget Officer statements that 'the deficit will absolutely be higher' and 'the labour market sucks, wages are not going up'; the government declined to disclose a deficit figure and pointed to the November 4 budget.
- The Bloc Québécois challenged the government on its apparent move to refer the use of the notwithstanding clause to the Supreme Court of Canada, with Blanchet arguing this threatened the Quebec consensus on state secularism and French language protections; Carney replied the matter was for the Court to decide.
- Public safety exchanges focused on bail and sentencing reform; the Justice Minister indicated forthcoming legislation would strengthen bail conditions for repeat violent offenders, impose stricter sentences, and restrict conditional sentence orders for sexual crimes against children.
- The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources announced that British Columbia and the federal government jointly approved the Ksi Lisims LNG export terminal, led by the Nisg̱a'a Nation, describing it as the second-largest project in the history of the country.
- The House paid extensive tributes to former Montreal Canadiens goaltender and MP Hon. Ken Dryden, who died September 5, and to former Minister of Fisheries Hon. Gail Shea, who died August 21, with remarks from all recognized parties and the Speaker.
- A procedural dispute arose after the Minister of Immigration said she would repeat her answer 'in English so she and other members of her party understand'; Bloc and CPC members demanded she withdraw the remark as disrespectful to French as an official language, while a government House leader defended her.
The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources made a specific, concrete announcement â the joint federal-BC approval of the Ksi Lisims LNG export terminal, led by the Nisg̱a'a Nation, described as the second-largest project in the history of the country â giving the public factual new information rather than a pledge or talking point.
Fortin quotes the exact text of section 3 of the Judges Act, names the appointee Robert Leckey, states a specific factual discrepancy (seven years vs. the required ten years of bar membership), and asks a direct yes-or-no question of the minister.
Asked directly how high the deficit will go and what the government's fiscal guardrail is, Champagne responded only with enthusiasm for the November 4 budget and nation-building rhetoric, without addressing either specific question asked.
Outstanding questions
- What is the actual size of the current deficit? â asked repeatedly by Pierre Poilievre, Kelly Block, Luc Berthold and Raquel Dancho; no figure was provided.
- What are the government's specific fiscal anchors or guardrails beyond the general commitments to balance the operational budget in three years and have a declining level of debt? â asked by Kelly Block and Raquel Dancho; no quantified targets were given.
- Will the Prime Minister make the Parliamentary Budget Officer's position permanent? â asked by Pierre Poilievre; Carney said he looks forward to consulting party leaders to achieve consensus but made no commitment.
- Does the Prime Minister commit to respecting Quebec's right to use the notwithstanding clause, including pre-emptively? â asked by Yves-François Blanchet; Carney said only that it was a matter for the Supreme Court to decide.
- Will the government remove Judge Robert Leckey from the Superior Court of Quebec given the legal challenge that his appointment violates the Judges Act? â asked by RhĂ©al Ăloi Fortin; Fraser said only that the judicial appointment process is solid and independent and declined to address the specific eligibility question.
Poilievre asks how large the Liberal deficit is.
A short, direct question about the size of the deficit, but phrased with no data or context to ground it.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, quelle est l'ampleur du déficit libéral?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, how big is the Liberal deficit?
Carney announces a budget on November 4 described as a generational investment, without mentioning the deficit.
The Prime Minister welcomes parliamentary pages and announces a November 4 budget without addressing the deficit figure at all.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, tout d'abord, je voudrais accueillir les nouveaux pages ici, au parlement, au nom de tous les députés. Il y aura un nouveau budget du gouvernement le 4 novembre. Ce sera un budget d'investissement, le plus grand investissement d'une génération pour le Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to welcome the new pages here to Parliament on behalf of all members. There will be a new government budget on November 4. It will be an investment budget, with the largest investment in Canada in a generation.
Poilievre again asks how big the deficit the Prime Minister is running is.
Same direct question repeated in English about the size of the deficit, but still lacks documentary grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, how big is the deficit that the Prime Minister is running?
Carney lists infrastructure and economic goals tied to the November 4 budget without addressing the deficit figure.
Carney pivots entirely to the November 4 budget and its investment agenda without giving any figure for the deficit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward, with the Minister of Finance, to releasing the budget on November 4. That budget will contain the biggest investment in this country's future in a generation: building homes, building new port infrastructure, new trade corridors and new energy infrastructure, and building the strongest economy in the G7.
Poilievre notes it is six months into the fiscal year, cites $50 billion in lost investment and 86,000 jobs killed, and asks yes or no whether the PM knows the size of his deficit.
Grounds the question with historical context (six months into the fiscal year), cites $50 billion in lost investment and 86,000 jobs lost, and demands a yes-or-no answer on whether the PM knows the deficit size.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, normalement, le gouvernement prĂ©sente le dĂ©ficit au dĂ©but de l'annĂ©e financiĂšre. Maintenant, ça fait six mois et on ne connaĂźt pas encore la taille du dĂ©ficit. L'incertitude a expulsĂ© 50 milliards de dollars d'investissement et tuĂ© 86 000 emplois. C'est la premiĂšre fois dans l'histoire du pays qu'un premier ministre ne peut pas dire quel est le dĂ©ficit six mois aprĂšs le dĂ©but de l'annĂ©e financiĂšre. Il dit ĂȘtre un grand expert fiscal. ConnaĂźt-il donc la taille de son dĂ©ficit, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government is supposed to present the deficit at the beginning of the fiscal year. That was six months ago, and we still do not know the size of the deficit. The uncertainty has driven out $50 billion in investment and killed 86,000 jobs. This is the first time in the history of the country that a prime minister cannot tell us what the deficit is six months into the fiscal year. He says he is a leading financial expert. Does he know the size of his deficit, yes or no?
Carney asserts he is a great fiscal expert and blames the tariff war for economic uncertainty, without giving a deficit figure.
Carney deflects by thanking Poilievre for the 'compliment,' asserting his fiscal expertise, and pivoting to the tariff war as the cause of uncertainty without ever stating the deficit figure.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie le chef de l'opposition de son compliment. Oui, je suis un grand expert fiscal et budgĂ©taire. Oui, je suis un grand expert, merci. Je sais que la situation actuelle Ă©conomique ici, au Canada, l'ampleur de l'incertitude, c'est la guerre tarifaire. Il faut contrĂŽler ce que nous pouvons contrĂŽler. Ăa, c'est l'investissement pour l'avenir du Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the compliment. Yes, I am a leading financial and budget expert. Yes, I am a leading expert, thank you. I know that in the current economic situation here in Canada, the great uncertainty comes from the tariff war. We need to control what we can control, which is investing in Canada's future.
Poilievre notes $40 billion in additional spending, argues deficits drive up inflation and interest rates, and asks whether the PM even knows the size of his own deficit.
Cites $40 billion in additional spending announced and links deficits to inflation, grocery prices, housing and interest rates, then asks a clear yes-or-no question on whether the PM knows the deficit size.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, surely, if he is such an expert, he would know the size of his own deficit. It is now halfway through the fiscal year. Six months have gone by, and he has announced $40 billion of additional spending. Deficits drive up inflation, grocery prices, housing costs and interest rates. They drive investment out of our country and create uncertainty that destabilizes our economy. That is why every other prime minister in Canadian history has announced the deficit at the beginning of the fiscal year. We are six months in. Does the Prime Minister even know the size of his own deficit?
Carney notes Canadian interest rates are lower than American ones and says the fiscal situation is strong, without providing a deficit figure.
Carney pivots to comparing Canadian and American interest rates and asserts the fiscal situation is strong, without stating the deficit figure or directly answering the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I know many things. The member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, just mentioned interest rates. One thing I know is that Canadian interest rates are much lower than American interest rates. They are lower because this country's fiscal situation is strong and because this government has a plan to grow this economy. We will keep doing it.
Poilievre cites the PBO's statements that the deficit will be higher, fiscal anchors do not exist, and the labour market sucks, and asks whether Liberal MPs threatened to have the PBO fired after 166 days.
Directly quotes the Parliamentary Budget Officer's statements â 'the deficit will absolutely be higher,' absence of fiscal anchors, 'the labour market sucks' â and raises the specific allegation that Liberal committee members threatened to have the PBO fired after 166 days.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the collapsing economy is bringing down interest rates, but the financial expert does not even know what his own deficit is. Another financial expert spoke yesterday. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said, âthe deficit will absolutely be higherâ because of âadditional spendingâ. He said that he does not know what the government's fiscal anchors are because they do not exist. He says, âthe labour market sucksâ and âwages are not going upâ. Is this why Liberal members on the committee who heard those truth bombs threatened that the Prime Minister would fire the Parliamentary Budget Officer after 166 days?
Carney denies the characterization about firing the PBO and outlines fiscal anchors including balancing the operational budget in three years and declining debt.
Carney denies recognizing the characterization about firing the PBO and lists fiscal anchors (operational budget balance in three years, declining debt), partially engaging the fiscal anchor question but not addressing the alleged firing threat or the rising deficit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not recognize that characterization. I just appointed the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and this government does have fiscal anchors. We are going to spend less so the country can invest more. We are going to balance the operational budget in three years. We are going to have a declining level of debt. We are going to do all of that because we are building the strongest economy in the G7 for Canadian families.
Poilievre alleges the PM made the PBO appointment temporary to silence him, and asks the PM to make the position permanent and reveal the size of the deficit.
Makes a specific allegation that the PM made the PBO appointment temporary to hold a sword over the PBO's head, and asks three linked things: legalizing math, making the position permanent, and revealing the deficit size.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made the appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer temporary so that he could hold a sword over his head and threaten him if he speaks the truth about the financial mess the Prime Minister has made. To a government that does not know how to count, there is nothing more terrifying than a man armed with a calculator. The Prime Minister wants to silence the Parliamentary Budget Officer from telling the truth about the fiscal mess that he has created under his watch. Will he legalize math, make the Parliamentary Budget Officer's position permanent and tell us how big the deficit is?
Oh, a consensus. Is that what you were looking for?
Carney commits to consulting with the Leader of the Opposition, the Bloc leader and other parties to reach consensus on making the PBO position permanent.
Carney directly commits to consulting with party leaders including Poilievre on making the PBO position permanent, which substantively addresses one of the three asks, though he ignores the deficit question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with respect to consultations on making the Parliamentary Budget Officer's position permanent, I look forward to speaking to the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the leaders of other parties in Parliament so we have a consensus on that appointment. I welcome that opportunity.
Yes, because this is the new spirit of collaboration that has been put forward by the member opposite.
Blanchet asks whether the PM commits to respecting Quebec's and provinces' right to use the notwithstanding clause, including pre-emptively, given wide Quebec consensus around state secularism.
Blanchet grounds the question in a polling consensus on Quebec's value of state secularism and the anticipated government legislation, asking specifically whether the PM commits to respecting Quebec's and provinces' right to use the notwithstanding clause even pre-emptively.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, voici une occasion de collaboration. On a entendu beaucoup de spĂ©culations au cours des derniĂšres heures concernant la possibilitĂ© que le gouvernement dĂ©pose cet aprĂšs-midi ce qui prendra la forme d'un assaut contre la disposition de dĂ©rogation de la Constitution, mais on ne sait pas encore vraiment ce que ça contiendra. Il y a par contre un sondage qui Ă©tablit qu'il y a un trĂšs large consensus au QuĂ©bec autour de la valeur de laĂŻcitĂ© de l'Ătat. Est-ce que le premier ministre s'engage Ă respecter le droit du QuĂ©bec et des provinces Ă recourir Ă la disposition de dĂ©rogation, mĂȘme de façon prĂ©ventive?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for collaboration. In the last few hours, there has been much speculation that the government might table what will essentially be an attack on the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution, but we do not really know yet what it will contain. That said, a poll shows there is a very broad consensus in Quebec about the importance of state secularism. Is the Prime Minister committed to respecting the right of Quebec and the provinces to invoke the notwithstanding clause, even pre-emptively?
Carney says the government's role is to defend the Charter and the Supreme Court will decide on the legality of repeated use of the notwithstanding clause.
Carney says defending the Charter is a key responsibility and that the Supreme Court will decide on the legality of repeated use of the notwithstanding clause, partially engaging the question but not directly committing to respecting pre-emptive use.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, une des responsabilitĂ©s les plus importantes du gouvernement du Canada est de dĂ©fendre la Charte canadienne des droits et libertĂ©s. C'est le job de la Cour suprĂȘme du Canada de dĂ©cider s'il est lĂ©gal d'utiliser la disposition de dĂ©rogation Ă rĂ©pĂ©tition. On verra quelle sera la dĂ©cision de la Cour.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important responsibilities of the Government of Canada is to defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is up to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether the repeated use of the notwithstanding clause is legal. We will see what the court decides.
Blanchet notes Quebec never adhered to the 1982 Constitution, invokes René Lévesque's practice of using the notwithstanding clause, and asks whether the PM is asking judges to be even more damaging to Quebec than Pierre Elliott Trudeau was.
Blanchet invokes the historical fact that Quebec never adhered to the 1982 Constitution and René Lévesque's practice of invoking the notwithstanding clause, but the question is framed as a pointed rhetorical comparison to Pierre Elliott Trudeau rather than a precise ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la disposition de dĂ©rogation est dans la Constitution canadienne de 1982, Ă laquelle le QuĂ©bec n'a jamais adhĂ©rĂ©. RenĂ© LĂ©vesque inscrivait la disposition de dĂ©rogation dans chacun de ses projets de loi suivant l'adoption de la Constitution, sauf par le QuĂ©bec. Le premier ministre s'en prend Ă l'hĂ©ritage de Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Est-ce qu'il demande aux juges d'ĂȘtre plus sĂ©vĂšres encore et plus nuisibles encore au QuĂ©bec que Pierre Elliott Trudeau?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the notwithstanding clause is enshrined in the 1982 Canadian Constitution, which Quebec never signed. René Lévesque included the notwithstanding clause in every one of his bills after the Constitution was signed by all of the provinces except Quebec. The Prime Minister is attacking the legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Is he asking judges to come down harder on Quebec and do more damage to it than Pierre Elliott Trudeau did?
Carney dismisses the framing and says simply that the Supreme Court will rule on the appropriate use of the notwithstanding clause.
Carney simply says it is a Supreme Court judgment on appropriate use of the notwithstanding clause and nothing more, without engaging the Trudeau comparison or the constitutional history raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce n'est pas du tout le cas. C'est un jugement de la Cour suprĂȘme du Canada en ce qui concerne l'utilisation appropriĂ©e de la disposition de dĂ©rogation. C'est simple.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is simply not the case. The Supreme Court of Canada will rule on the appropriate use of the notwithstanding clause. It is that straightforward.
Blanchet accuses the government of using the courts as a proxy to change the Constitution, asks whether the PM will respect the Quebec consensus, and offers to discuss opening the Constitution.
Blanchet notes 43 years of Quebec's non-adherence to the Constitution, accuses the government of hiding behind the courts to change the Constitution by proxy, and asks whether the PM will respect the Quebec consensus, adding an offer to discuss opening the Constitution.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en 43 ans, le QuĂ©bec, tous gouvernements confondus, n'a jamais adhĂ©rĂ© Ă la Constitution canadienne. Parce qu'elle ne permet pas, Ă ce stade-ci, de s'en prendre comme il le voudrait Ă la langue française et Ă la valeur quĂ©bĂ©coise de laĂŻcitĂ© de l'Ătat, le gouvernement semble tenter de se cacher derriĂšre la Cour et derriĂšre le gouvernement des juges. Il demande aux juges de changer la Constitution canadienne Ă sa place. Le premier ministre va-t-il respecter le consensus quĂ©bĂ©cois? S'il veut ouvrir la Constitution, je suis trĂšs ouvert.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in 43 years, no Quebec government has ever signed the Canadian Constitution. At this point in time, the Constitution does not allow the government to attack the French language and the Quebec value of secularism the way it wants to, so it appears to be trying to hide behind the court and a government by judges. It is asking the justices to change the Canadian Constitution on its behalf. Will the Prime Minister respect the consensus in Quebec? If he wants to open up the Constitution, I am very open to that.
Carney distinguishes legislative from judicial power and says the decision on the notwithstanding clause belongs to the Supreme Court, not to MPs.
Carney draws a separation between legislative and judicial power and defers entirely to the Supreme Court, without addressing the Quebec consensus or Blanchet's constitutional offer.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il y a le pouvoir lĂ©gislatif et le pouvoir judiciaire. Ce sera la dĂ©cision de la Cour suprĂȘme, pas celle des dĂ©putĂ©s du QuĂ©bec ou du reste du Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there is the legislative branch and the judicial branch. The decision will be made by the Supreme Court, not by the members of Parliament from Quebec or anywhere else in Canada.
Block cites three specific PBO quotes about a rising deficit, absent fiscal anchors, and a weak labour market, and asks how high the deficit will go and what the government's fiscal guardrail is.
Block directly quotes three PBO statements â 'the deficit will absolutely be higher,' 'I don't know that the government currently has fiscal anchors,' and 'the labour market sucks, wages are not going up' â and asks specifically how high the deficit will go and what the fiscal guardrail is.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to cap spending but is now set to double the deficit. This is another broken promise, another Liberal bait and switch. Here is what the PBO, Canada's financial watchdog, said about the PM's economic record: âthe deficit will absolutely be higherâ, âI donât know that the government currently has fiscal anchorsâ and âthe labour market sucks, wages are not going upâ. My question is this: How high will the deficit go and what is the government's fiscal guardrail?
Champagne expresses enthusiasm for the November 4 budget as a generational investment and says the government will build the strongest economy in the G7, without mentioning the deficit or fiscal guardrails.
Champagne redirects entirely to praise for the upcoming November 4 budget and nation-building rhetoric without addressing the deficit figure or the fiscal guardrail question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to see that our Conservative colleagues are so eager to see the great budget we are going to present on November 4. This is good news for Canadians indeed. It is going to be a generational investment in the future of this nation. We are going to build our country. We are going to protect our communities. We are going to empower Canadians. We are going to build the strongest economy in the G7. We are going to build like never before. We are going to build a Canada of the 21st century because we are the true north strong and free.
Block cites PBO confirmation of a rising deficit, reports of a possible $100 billion deficit, food inflation at 70% above target, and 25% of households unable to afford food, asking whether no fiscal anchor and a doubling deficit will drive inflation higher.
Block cites PBO confirmation that the deficit will be higher, reports suggesting it could push $100 billion, and food inflation at 70% above target with 25% of households unable to afford food, linking these to the absence of a fiscal anchor.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the PBO confirmed the deficit will be higher. Reports indicate it could even push $100 billion. Canadians know that massive Liberal deficits drive inflation. They pay for it at the grocery store, as food inflation is 70% above target. As a result, 25% of households cannot afford to put food on the table. Will the Prime Minister admit that having no fiscal anchor and doubling the deficit will only drive inflation higher?
Champagne announces the Bank of Canada reduced the interest rate to 2.5% and says this shows the government's plan is working.
Champagne pivots to announcing the Bank of Canada's interest rate cut to 2.5% as evidence the plan is working, which is tangentially related but does not address the deficit figure, the $100 billion estimate, or the fiscal anchor question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to share good news with the House. The rate has gone down to 2.5% today. The Bank of Canada just announced it. The Conservatives should celebrate. Consumers are celebrating. Businesses are celebrating. Canada is celebrating. One thing it tells all Canadians is that our plan is working. We are going to build the strongest economy in the G7.
Dancho cites PBO statements that splitting the budget into operating and capital does not change the government's bottom line or international debt measures, and asks how much Liberal debt is being added to Canada's bottom line.
Dancho quotes the PBO on the labour market and specifically on the budget-splitting plan â 'The bottom line of the government will not change. The international public sector standards that everyone uses to measure the deficit and levels of debt will not change' â and asks how much Liberal debt is being added to Canada's bottom line.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the PBO, Canada's top budget watchdog, has painted a dismal picture of the Prime Minister's economic record, saying, âthe labour market sucks, wages are not going upâ. It gets worse for the Prime Minister, with his big plan to split the budget into operating and capital. The PBO is not fooled by the smoke and mirrors. He said, âThe bottom line of the government will not change. The international public sector standards that everyone uses to measure the deficit and levels of debt will not change.â As it turns out, debt is debt, so can the Prime Minister tell us just how much Liberal debt he is adding to Canada's bottom line?
Hajdu says Canadians chose a Liberal government six months ago because they want investment in major projects, skills training, food for kids and dental care.
Hajdu pivots entirely to the last election result and a list of investment priorities without addressing the debt figure, the budget-splitting plan, or the PBO quotes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the last election, only six months ago, Canadians chose a Liberal government. They chose a Liberal government because they know they need investment. They need investment in the big projects that are going to drive great jobs all across the country. They need investment in the skills training that helps evolve the next generation of workers. They need investment in food for kids, in dental care for adults and in the many ways that our government can support Canadians.
Dancho argues that splitting the budget is cooking the books because there is only one taxpayer and one bank account, and asks whether the PM will admit this.
Dancho argues that budget-splitting is effectively cooking the books since there is only one taxpayer and one bank account, and references the PBO's bottom-line comment, but the ask â 'will the Prime Minister admit he is really just cooking the books' â is largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, however the Liberals want to try to spin their massive deficits, the top financial watchdog in the country says there is only one bottom line, and we will trust the PBO's word over 10 years of Liberal deficits any day. With the plan to split the budget, it is as if the Prime Minister has forgotten that it is all linked to the same bank account, and there is really only one taxpayer. With the deficit set to double, let us just call a spade a spade. Will the Prime Minister admit he is really just cooking the books and hoping Canadians do not notice?
Joly announces the Bank of Canada rate cut to 2.5% and references $5 billion to help businesses adapt and efforts to attract foreign direct investment.
Joly announces the Bank of Canada rate cut to 2.5% and mentions $5 billion to help businesses pivot, which is tangentially related to fiscal policy but does not address the budget-splitting allegation or the deficit figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is good news today. The Bank of Canada has reduced the interest rate to 2.5%. This is something that all entrepreneurs and all businesses are taking note of, and obviously consumers as well. We are focused on jobs, and we heard across the country this summer that we need to be there for businesses that are trying to pivot and adapt. That is why we put $5 billion on the table to help them. Meanwhile, we are going around the world attracting foreign direct investments because we need to build Canada strong.
Rood cites the PBO's quote that 'the labour market sucks,' 86,000 job losses, youth unemployment over 14%, and Canada's second-highest G7 unemployment, asking whether the PM will admit his jobs plan has completely failed.
Cites the PBO quote 'the labour market sucks, wages are not going up,' 86,000 job losses, youth unemployment over 14%, and Canada's second-highest G7 unemployment, but the ask â 'does the Prime Minister have the guts to admit his so-called jobs plan has completely failed' â is primarily rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canada's top financial watchdog, just ripped the Liberal job record, saying, âthe labour market sucks, wages are not going upâ. Eighty-six thousand Canadians have lost their jobs since the Liberals took office. Youth unemployment is over 14%, and Canada now has the second-highest unemployment in the G7. This is another classic Liberal bait and switch. I have one simple question: Does the Prime Minister have the guts to admit that his so-called jobs plan has completely failed Canadians?
Gainey acknowledges pressures on young Canadians and cites 18,000 jobs from the Darlington nuclear project and jobs in critical minerals as examples of the government's nation-building job creation.
Gainey acknowledges pressures on young Canadians, then pivots to future nation-building projects citing 18,000 jobs from the Darlington nuclear project and jobs in critical minerals, without addressing the PBO quote or the 86,000 job losses cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with everything going on in the world, we understand the pressures that Canadians, particularly young Canadians, are facing. This new government is getting busy with nation-building projects, which will create quality jobs, quality careers and opportunities, in particular for youth, across this country, including 18,000 jobs during the construction of a new Darlington nuclear project in Ontario, for example, and hundreds of jobs in critical minerals and mining in Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Building the strongest economy in the G7 means more opportunities for youth and for all Canadians across the country.
Berthold quotes three PBO statements on the rising deficit, absent fiscal anchors, and lack of clarity, and asks how deeply into the red the deficit will go under this Liberal Prime Minister.
Berthold directly quotes three PBO statements â 'le dĂ©ficit sera absolument plus Ă©levĂ©,' 'je ne sais pas si le gouvernement a actuellement des garde-fous fiscaux,' and 'il n'y a aucune clartĂ©, aucune structure' â and asks how deep into the red the deficit will go.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce premier ministre libĂ©ral avait promis de plafonner les dĂ©penses gouvernementales, mais il est en train de doubler le dĂ©ficit. C'est une autre promesse non tenue, une autre tromperie libĂ©rale. Hier, le directeur parlementaire du budget a Ă©tĂ© cinglant sur le bilan des six premiers mois de cet autre premier ministre libĂ©ral. Le dĂ©ficit sera absolument plus Ă©levĂ©, a-t-il dit. Je ne sais pas si le gouvernement a actuellement des garde-fous fiscaux, a-t-il dit. Il n'y a aucune clartĂ©, aucune structure, a-t-il dit. MĂȘme le directeur parlementaire indĂ©pendant ne sait pas cela. Est-ce que quelqu'un dans ce gouvernement peut nous dire jusqu'oĂč, dans le rouge libĂ©ral, va s'enfoncer le dĂ©ficit de cet autre premier ministre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister promised to cap government spending, but he is doubling the deficit. This is another broken promise, another Liberal bait and switch. Yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer issued a scathing indictment of the latest Liberal Prime Minister's first six months in office. âThe deficit will absolutely be higherâ, he said. âI don't know that the government currently has fiscal anchorsâ, he said. He said there is no clarity, no structure. Even the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer does not know these things. Can anyone in this government tell us how far into the Liberal red the latest Prime Minister's deficit will go?
Champagne expresses eagerness for November 4 and describes the budget as a generational investment plan to build the strongest economy in the G7, without mentioning the deficit or fiscal anchors.
Champagne redirects entirely to the November 4 budget as a generational investment plan and invites Conservatives to vote with the government, without addressing the deficit figure or the PBO quotes.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ça fait plaisir de voir que les conservateurs ont hùte au 4 novembre. Nous aussi, nous avons hùte, parce que, le 4 novembre, nous allons présenter un plan d'investissement générationnel pour l'avenir du Canada. Nous allons construire notre pays. Nous allons protéger nos communautés. Nous allons bùtir l'économie canadienne. Ensemble, avec les Canadiens et les Canadiennes, nous allons bùtir l'économie la plus performante du G7. J'ai hùte de voir les conservateurs voter avec le gouvernement pour bùtir le pays de demain. Vive le Canada!
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see that the Conservatives are looking forward to November 4. We are looking forward to it too, because, on November 4, we will present a generational investment plan for Canada's future. We are going to build our country. We are going to protect our communities. We are going to build the Canadian economy. Together with Canadians, we will build the strongest economy in the G7. I look forward to seeing the Conservatives vote with the government to build the country of tomorrow. Long live Canada.
Berthold asks whether the Prime Minister will admit that doubling the deficit without fiscal guardrails will worsen inflation and punish families, citing the PBO's warning of a deficit potentially reaching $100 billion.
Cites the Parliamentary Budget Officer's finding and a specific $100-billion deficit figure, and asks whether doubling the deficit without fiscal guardrails will worsen inflation â a reasonably grounded ask, though wrapped in partisan framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, est-ce que mes collĂšgues savent ce que dit le directeur parlementaire du budget au sujet du 4 novembre? Le directeur parlementaire du budget a confirmĂ© que le dĂ©ficit sera beaucoup plus Ă©levĂ©. Des rapports indiquent qu'il pourrait mĂȘme atteindre 100 milliards de dollars. Les Canadiens savent que des dĂ©ficits massifs libĂ©raux alimentent l'inflation. Ils en paient le prix Ă l'Ă©picerie. L'inflation alimentaire est 70 % au-dessus de l'objectif. Au lieu d'intimider le directeur parlementaire du budget en lui rĂ©pĂ©tant sans cesse qu'il est lĂ par intĂ©rim et en soulignant le nombre de jours qu'il reste Ă son mandat, est-ce que le premier ministre va admettre que doubler le dĂ©ficit sans garde-fou fiscal va aggraver l'inflation et punir les familles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues know what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said about November 4? The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that the deficit is going to be a lot higher. Reports indicate that it could reach as high as $100 billion. Canadians know that massive Liberal deficits fuel inflation. They are the ones paying the price at the grocery store. Food inflation is 70% higher than the target. Instead of bullying the Parliamentary Budget Officer by constantly reminding him that his appointment is only temporary or pointing out how many days he has left until his term of office ends, will the Prime Minister admit that doubling the deficit without any fiscal anchors will raise inflation and punish families?
Lightbound lists government measures â tax cuts for 22 million Canadians, GST elimination for first-time homebuyers, and $215 billion in GDP benefits from internal trade â without addressing the deficit or inflation question.
The minister ignores the deficit and inflation question entirely, pivoting to a list of government spending announcements and GDP figures from the Institut économique de Montréal.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les Canadiens nous ont envoyĂ© un mandat clair pour augmenter leur pouvoir d'achat et libĂ©rer le pouvoir de l'Ă©conomie canadienne. Augmenter le pouvoir d'achat des Canadiens, c'est une baisse d'impĂŽt pour 22 millions de Canadiens. Augmenter le pouvoir d'achat des jeunes Canadiens, c'est Ă©liminer la TPS sur les nouvelles maisons pour les premiers acheteurs. LibĂ©rer le pouvoir de l'Ă©conomie canadienne, c'est unifier l'Ă©conomie canadienne avec 215 milliards de dollars de retombĂ©es pour le PIB, selon l'Institut Ă©conomique de MontrĂ©al. C'est bĂątir de grands projets d'un bout Ă l'autre du pays. C'est des bonnes jobs pour les Canadiens et pour les jeunes Canadiens Ă ContrecĆur, en Saskatchewan, en Ontario et partout au pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have given us a clear mandate to increase their purchasing power and unleash Canada's economic potential. We are increasing Canadians' purchasing power by lowering taxes for 22 million Canadians. We are increasing young Canadians' purchasing power by eliminating the GST on new homes for first-time buyers. We are unleashing Canada's economic potential by unifying Canada's economy, resulting in $215 billion in GDP benefits, according to the Montreal Economic Institute. We are building major projects right across the country. We are creating good jobs for Canadians and young Canadians in ContrecĆur, Saskatchewan, Ontario and everywhere else in Canada.
Fortin asks the Minister of Justice, citing section 3 of the Judges Act requiring ten years of bar membership, whether Robert Leckey â who has only seven years at the Barreau du QuĂ©bec â legally meets the criteria to be a Superior Court judge.
Fortin quotes the exact text of section 3 of the Judges Act, names the appointee Robert Leckey, states a specific factual discrepancy (seven years vs. the required ten years of bar membership), and asks a direct yes-or-no question of the minister.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la Loi sur les juges est claire. Je cite l'article 3: 3 Peuvent seules ĂȘtre nommĂ©es juges dâune juridiction supĂ©rieure dâune province [...] les personnes qui [...] a) sont des avocats inscrits au barreau dâune province depuis au moins dix ans [...] Pourtant, Robert Leckey a Ă©tĂ© nommĂ© juge Ă la Cour supĂ©rieure du QuĂ©bec mĂȘme s'il n'est membre du Barreau du QuĂ©bec que depuis sept ans. Ma question pour le ministre est simple. Est-ce qu'Ă son avis Robert Leckey rĂ©pond aux critĂšres lĂ©gaux pour ĂȘtre juge Ă la Cour supĂ©rieure du QuĂ©bec, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Judges Act is clear. Section 3 states, and I quote: 3 No person is eligible to be appointed a judge of a superior court in any province unless ... that person (a) is a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years' standing at the bar of any province However, Robert Leckey has been appointed a judge of the Superior Court of Quebec even though he has been a member of the Barreau du Québec for just seven years. My question for the minister is simple. Does he believe that Robert Leckey meets the legal criteria to be a judge on the Quebec Superior Court, yes or no?
Fraser notes there is a legal challenge to the nomination and defends the independence and solidity of the Canadian judicial appointment process without addressing the eligibility question.
Fraser acknowledges a legal challenge exists but does not answer yes or no on the eligibility question, instead pivoting to general praise of the nomination process and judicial independence.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous savons qu'il y a une contestation en justice de la nomination de ce juge Ă la Cour supĂ©rieure du QuĂ©bec. Le processus canadien de nomination des juges est trĂšs solide et indĂ©pendant, et nous voulons le garder ainsi. L'indĂ©pendance des juges est une base importante de notre dĂ©mocratie. Elle protĂšge l'Ătat de droit. Dire le contraire va Ă l'encontre de ces principes. Nous allons toujours dĂ©fendre l'indĂ©pendance de nos tribunaux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the legal challenge to the appointment of this judge to the Quebec Superior Court. Canada has a very robust and independent judicial appointment process, and we want to keep it that way. Judicial independence is an important foundation of our democracy. It protects the rule of law. To say otherwise undermines those principles. We will always defend the independence of our courts.
Fortin demands that the minister remove Judge Leckey from his position, arguing the appointment violates the Judges Act and was motivated by partisan Liberal considerations on secularism and French language.
Fortin makes a direct, specific demand â that the minister dismiss Judge Leckey â backed by the legal argument from the previous exchange, though the partisan accusation about Liberal partisanship dilutes the sharpness slightly.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, parlons-en, de leur systĂšme de nomination des juges solide et indĂ©pendant. Avec Robert Leckey, le processus vient de faire une nomination qui enfreint la Loi sur les juges du Canada. Ă notre avis, s'il a Ă©tĂ© nommĂ©, c'est prĂ©cisĂ©ment parce que c'est un libĂ©ral. Les libĂ©raux s'attendent Ă ce qu'il dĂ©fende des positions libĂ©rales sur la laĂŻcitĂ© et la langue française Ă l'intĂ©rieur mĂȘme des tribunaux du QuĂ©bec. C'est le QuĂ©bec qui devrait sĂ©lectionner les juges du QuĂ©bec. Dans l'immĂ©diat, le ministre va-t-il enfin dĂ©mettre le juge Leckey de ses fonctions?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about their robust and independent judicial appointment system. The appointment of Robert Leckey, done through that very system, violates Canada's Judges Act. We believe that he was appointed precisely because he is a Liberal. The Liberals expect him to defend Liberal positions on secularism and the French language within Quebec's courts. Quebec should get to select the judges who serve in Quebec courts. Will the minister immediately relieve Justice Leckey of his duties?
Fraser states that judges are expected to make decisions independently based on the law and that appointments are made on quality and merit, not partisan affiliation, without addressing the dismissal demand.
Fraser offers only a general defence of judicial independence and merit-based appointments, completely ignoring the demand to dismiss Leckey and the underlying legal eligibility question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member will appreciate that we have a different perspective. We expect the justice to make decisions independently based on the law. The rule of law in this country is a fundamental pillar of our democracy, with which we may not show compromise. We must insist that we have an independent process based on recommendations by people who can assess the validity of the nominations that come before us. We appoint judges based on their quality and on their merit, not on their partisan affiliation. I hope all members will support the independence of this essential process in a democracy.
Davidson asks how many more Canadians will be forced to use food banks when the government doubles the deficit, citing the rise to four million annual visits at Toronto's largest food bank.
Davidson cites specific food bank visit milestones (one million, two million, three million, four million) and invokes the Prime Minister's own stated standard of judgment, but the final ask â how many more will be forced to go when he doubles the deficit â is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' talk is as empty as Canadians' cupboards. It took 40 years before Toronto's largest food bank saw one million annual visits. However, under the Liberal government, demand has exploded. It had two million, then three million and now four million visits from hungry Canadians. The Prime Minister says to judge him on food prices, and Canadians are judging him as they stand in the longest food bank lines this country has ever seen. How many more people will be forced to go there when he doubles the deficit?
Zerucelli says the government is building a strong economy through major projects, homes built with Canadian steel and lumber, and job creation, without addressing food bank demand or the deficit.
Zerucelli does not address food bank demand or the deficit question at all, instead pivoting to major infrastructure projects and job creation announcements.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one of the best ways to deal with food inflation is to give Canadians real opportunities. That is what we are doing by building a strong economy, a building economy. We are building big, building bold and building right now. We are building with major projects. I was pleased to stand with the Prime Minister last week in Edmonton, where we announced the first tranche of projects through the Major Projects Office. We announced our plan to build homes using Canadian steel, Canadian lumber and Canadian unionized workers. This will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, apprenticeship opportunities, training opportunities and real careers. We are optimistic about the future of this country, and I hope the opposition gets on board.
Davidson asks whether the Liberal government will keep spending until every table in the country is empty, arguing that Liberal deficits are driving grocery prices higher while one in four households struggles to afford food.
Davidson cites front-line food bank workers calling the situation 'horrific,' the one-in-four households statistic, and the causal link between Liberal spending and higher grocery prices, but closes with a hyperbolic rhetorical question rather than a precise ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister should go to a food bank and tell Canadians lining up there just how good they have it. While he pats himself on the back, food bank workers on the front lines are calling the situation horrific. One in four households is struggling to afford food. Parents are skipping meals so their kids can eat. While families go hungry, Liberal spending keeps driving grocery prices even higher. Will the Liberal government keep spending until every single table in this country is empty?
Long says the government consulted Canadians over the summer and received a clear message to spend less on government operations and invest more in the economy and nation-building, and that they will build the strongest economy in the G7.
Long pivots entirely to describing the Conservative leader's summer activities and claiming the government will build the strongest economy in the G7, with no engagement on food prices, food banks, or deficit spending.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while the Conservative leader was spending the summer trying to get his job back, we criss-crossed the country getting feedback from Canadians with respect to what they want to see in this budget. Their message was resoundingly clear. They want us to spend less on government operations and invest more in our economy, in national projects and in nation building. That is exactly what we are doing. We are going to build the strongest economy in the G7.
Goodridge asks the Prime Minister to admit that doubling the deficit will make food inflation worse, citing specific price increases for beef, canned soup, and potatoes, and noting food inflation is 70% above target.
Goodridge cites specific price increases â beef up 33%, canned soup up 26%, potatoes up 16% â food inflation 70% above target and 40% since the Liberals took office, and asks a clear question about whether doubling the deficit will make food inflation worse.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said Canadians would judge him on the cost at the grocery store. He is failing. Grocery prices are 70% above their own targets. Since the Liberals took office, food inflation has skyrocketed by 40%. It is another broken Liberal promise. Families are struggling to keep up. I do not know if the ministers shop for groceries themselves, so I will put this simply: Beef is up 33%, canned soup is up 26% and potatoes are up 16%. Will the Prime Minister admit that doubling the deficit will make food inflation worse?
Hajdu says Conservatives only propose cuts while the government invests in child care, food programs, skilled trades, unions, and Canadian work, without addressing food price statistics or the deficit.
Hajdu does not address any of the cited statistics or the deficit-inflation link, instead pivoting to an attack on Conservative cuts and a list of government program votes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives propose cuts, but we are building over on this side and they should get on board with that. Every time they have a chance to stand with Canadians, whether it is to vote for child care, whether it is to support food programs or whether it is to make sure that families get what they need to thrive and survive, including the investment in skilled trades, the investment in unions and the investment in actual Canadian work, they fail because they have no vision. Their vision is to cut, cut, cut.
Goodridge argues that Liberal deficits are fuelling food inflation and asks whether the government will cut the deficit so food prices come down, noting one in four families is struggling to put food on the table.
Goodridge references one in four families struggling to put food on the table and frames the deficit-inflation link, but is cut off before completing the question, and the framing is more rhetorical than sharply targeted.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, families cannot eat the word salad served up by the minister, unfortunately. Food inflation is rising and one in four families is currently struggling to put food on the table. Meanwhile, Liberal deficits are fuelling inflation, driving prices even higher. Liberals are more interested in feeding bureaucracies in Ottawa than in tackling the serious problems facing Canadian families that are struggling to put nutritious food on the table and in their kids' lunch boxes. Food banks and school lunch programs are band-aids. We need real solutions to the real root cause of the problem: rising food costs. Will the minister cut the deficit so foodâ
McLean speaks about protecting seniors through housing support, retirement security, old age security, and purpose-built housing, with no reference to food costs or the deficit.
McLean answers a completely different topic â seniors' housing, retirement security, and old age security â having no connection to food costs, deficit reduction, or the question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government is protecting Canadians, and that includes seniors: their safety, their right to housing, their retirement security. Seniors are living longer. They are living healthier lives than ever. This government will always support and empower Canadian seniors. They are an important part of this economy. We are showing action, such as cutting red tape and constructing purpose-built housing so seniors can age with dignity in their own communities. We are ensuring that seniors have the funds they need to retire and to be able to afford groceries through such programs as old age security.
Godin asks the Prime Minister what he has to say to families, seniors, and young people in PortneufâJacques-Cartier and across Canada to ease the burden of rising costs of living and give them hope.
This is a government-backbench softball question broadly asking what the Prime Minister has to say to families, seniors, and young people about the cost of living, with no specific policy ask or factual challenge.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ma question s'adresse au premier ministre. Depuis 10 ans, sous ce gouvernement libĂ©ral, les Canadiens subissent une hausse constante du coĂ»t de la vie. Le logement, l'alimentation et l'Ă©nergie, entre autres, pĂšsent Ă©normĂ©ment sur le portefeuille des familles, des aĂźnĂ©s et des jeunes. Dans PortneufâJacquesâCartier, comme partout ailleurs au Canada, les citoyens sont dĂ©couragĂ©s et ressentent une profonde inquiĂ©tude quant Ă l'avenir. Qu'est-ce que le premier ministre a Ă rĂ©pondre aux familles, aux aĂźnĂ©s et Ă nos jeunes pour allĂ©ger ce fardeau et leur donner un peu d'espoir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. For 10 years, under this Liberal government, Canadians have been struggling with the ever-rising cost of living. Right now, housing, grocery and energy costs are taking their toll on the wallets of families, seniors and young people. Like everywhere else in Canada, people in PortneufâJacquesâCartier are feeling discouraged and extremely worried about the future. What does the Prime Minister have to say to families, seniors and young people to ease this burden and give them a little hope?
Lightbound cites tax cuts for 22 million Canadians, GST elimination for first-time homebuyers, the Canada Child Benefit, housing investments, and nation-building job creation as measures to reduce the cost of living and build the strongest G7 economy.
Lightbound provides a reasonably substantive list of government commitments â tax cuts for 22 million Canadians, GST elimination for first-time buyers, Canada Child Benefit, housing investments, and job creation â directly responsive to the open-ended prompt.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, diminuer le coĂ»t de la vie et augmenter le pouvoir d'achat des Canadiens, c'est le sens de notre engagement. C'est le mandat qui nous a Ă©tĂ© donnĂ© par les Canadiens. C'est pourquoi l'une des premiĂšres choses que nous avons faites, ça a Ă©tĂ© de baisser les impĂŽts pour 22 millions de Canadiens. Ăa a Ă©tĂ© d'Ă©liminer la TPS pour les premiers acheteurs, pour que les jeunes Canadiens aient plus de facilitĂ© Ă accĂ©der Ă la propriĂ©tĂ©. Toutefois, nous ne nous arrĂȘtons pas lĂ . Avec les investissements que nous faisons pour bĂątir le Canada, pour crĂ©er de bons emplois bien rĂ©munĂ©rĂ©s, nous allons pouvoir nous permettre d'avoir non seulement l'Ă©conomie la plus forte du G7, mais aussi de financer des programmes sociaux importants, comme l'Allocation canadienne pour enfants, comme des investissements dans le logement, qui aident les Canadiens d'un bout Ă l'autre du pays, y compris dans PortneufâJacquesâCartier.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are committed to making life more affordable and increasing Canadians' purchasing power. That is the mandate that Canadians gave us. That is why one of the first things that we did was to lower taxes for 22 million Canadians. That is why we eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers to make it easier for young Canadians to buy a home. However, we are not stopping there. With the investments that we are making to build Canada and create good, well-paying jobs, we will be able to not only make our economy the strongest in the G7, but also fund important social programs, such as the Canada child benefit and housing investments that help Canadians across the country, including those in PortneufâJacquesâCartier.
Fancy asks the Minister of Jobs and Families to update the House on how the government is working to support and improve labour mobility across provinces and territories to support nation-building projects.
This is a government-backbench question asking a minister to update the House on labour mobility efforts, with no specific factual challenge or accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as this government focuses on nation-building projects that will connect our country, trade workers will be in high demand. They need to be able to move freely and have their skills recognized across provinces and territories if we are going to deliver on building a stronger, more inclusive economy. Can the Minister of Jobs and Families update the House on how our government is working to support and improve labour mobility across the country?
Hajdu says the government has worked diligently with provinces and territories to ensure workers can travel across the country to access good jobs, without specifying any particular agreements or measures.
Hajdu briefly states that the government has worked with provinces and territories to ensure workers can cross the country to access jobs, but provides no specific measures, timelines, or outcomes, making the answer vague despite some relevant content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. As the Conservatives laugh over there, it is clear that many of them have never met a labourer who actually has barriers to crossing the country to get to good jobs. In fact, we have worked diligently with the provinces and territories to make sure that, no matter where the work is, if there is a worker who wants to do it, they can get there and take that job. The Conservatives can laugh all they want, but we are doing the hard work over here.
Brock asks why the Liberals are clinging to soft-on-crime laws instead of keeping Canadians safe, citing a murderer with 59 prior convictions, a carjacking ring with bailed suspects in Peel Region, and 40 repeat offenders arrested 6,000 times in Vancouver.
Brock cites three specific examples â 59 prior convictions before a mass murder in Saskatchewan, a carjacking ring in Peel Region with bailed suspects, and 40 repeat offenders arrested 6,000 times in Vancouver â though the closing ask is broad and somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, crime, chaos and fear are ravaging communities right across Canada after 10 years of the Liberals' prioritizing soft-on-crime laws. In Saskatchewan, a man out on release after 59 prior convictions murdered 11 people. In Peel Region, half the suspects in a violent carjacking ring were out on bail. In Vancouver, just 40 repeat offenders were arrested 6,000 times, yet the government takes no action. Why are the Liberals clinging to laws that let dangerous criminals back on the streets instead of keeping Canadians safe?
Sahota references Bill C-2 on stronger borders and announces upcoming legislation to stiffen bail, make sentencing stricter, and partner with police to fight organized crime, without addressing the specific cited cases.
Sahota references Bill C-2 and announces upcoming bail and sentencing reforms, which is partially responsive, but provides no specifics on timelines, what laws will change, or how the cited cases would have been handled differently.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the second bill we introduced in the House was Bill C-2, our stronger borders measure, which gives police the tools to deal with many issues, including organized crime. The next thing we are going to do is stiffen bail and make sentencing a lot stricter. We are going to partner with police services across the country to fight organized crime, make it tougher for violent offenders to get bail and impose stricter sentences. We are taking action on this front to make sure that Canadians are safe.
Brock asks whether the Prime Minister will back the Conservative 'three strikes and you're out' law to keep repeat violent offenders in jail, citing 256 people charged with homicide while on release last year.
Brock cites the specific statistic of 256 people charged with homicide while on release, references the Conservative 'three strikes and you're out' law by name, and asks a direct yes-or-no question about whether the Prime Minister will back it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been listening to that for five months: empty promises, empty words. Last year, 256 people were charged with homicide while on release. That is, 256 Canadians would be alive today if these violent criminals had been behind bars. If Conservatives' âthree strikes and you're outâ law were in place, these repeat offenders would have been in jail and not destroying families. Nearly five months after taking office, the Prime Minister has failed to act. If he truly wants to crack down on violent crime, he will back our common-sense Conservative law to keep criminals in jail and to restore safe streets. Will he do that?
Oh, oh!
Fraser announces upcoming legislation this fall that would include stricter bail conditions for repeat violent offenders and harsher sentences, and asks Conservatives to support it when it comes to a vote.
Fraser commits to upcoming legislation including stricter bail conditions for repeat violent offenders and harsher sentences, which directly addresses the substance of the ask, though he does not say yes to backing the Conservative law specifically and conditions his answer on opposition support.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, dangerous people who commit serious crimes should not be walking freely in our streets if they pose a public safety threat to Canadians. I have good newsâ
Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleagues for the applause. I hope they will meet that with their votes when it comes time to support the legislation we will be advancing this fall. I have good news for my friend opposite. This legislation would include serious reforms to make stricter bail conditions for people who are repeat violent offenders. It would have harsher sentences for those people who would pose risks to the public's safety. We will do what we can to strengthen Canada's laws. We will do what we can to bring the provinces along with us. My hope is only that all members of this House will do the right thing and vote for the legislation when it comes forward.
Davies asks whether the Liberals will introduce Criminal Code changes to prevent repeat child sex offenders from being released early, citing Daniel Senecal's early release and subsequent sexual assault of a three-year-old girl identified as little E.
Davies names a specific individual (Daniel Senecal), his sentence and early release, and describes the harm to a named victim (little E, a three-year-old), making a concrete case for policy change, though the ask â 'introduce changes to the Criminal Code today' â is somewhat broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Daniel Senecal raped and choked a 12-year-old boy in my riding. He was sentenced to 18 months but was released six months early. While on parole, this monster attacked and sexually abused his next victim, little E, a three-year-old little girl, almost killing her and leaving her fighting for her life before the firefighters arrived on the scene. Failed Liberal justice policies have allowed repeat child sex offenders to be let out early. Will the Liberals introduce changes to the Criminal Code today and bring home justice for victims like little E?
Fraser condemns the acts, announces the government will restrict conditional sentence orders for sexual crimes and crimes against children, and pledges to work with provinces, while asking that the issue not be used as partisan fodder.
Fraser condemns the acts, commits to restricting conditional sentence orders for sexual crimes including crimes against children, and pledges to work with provinces, engaging the substance of the ask, though he does not commit to acting 'today' as demanded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my hon. colleague for raising this question on the floor of the House of Commons. Such horrific acts can be met only with condemnation from members of Parliament on both sides of the aisle. As we seek to move forward with legislation, we will be restricting conditional sentence orders when it comes to sexual crimes and sexual crimes against children. We will do what we can to make sure that we work with provinces so that they can fund their systems properly, as well as to ensure that we work together to keep Canadians safe. My hope is that crime and horrific circumstances such as these will not be used as partisan fodder. I will work sincerely with my colleague opposite to advance the kinds of changes that will keep children safe in this country.
Paul-Hus describes the Conservative leader's proposed 'loi des trois coups' â barring repeat serious offenders from bail, probation, parole, or house arrest â and asks whether the Prime Minister will adopt it.
Paul-Hus describes the Conservative leader's proposed 'loi des trois coups' in some detail and asks whether the Prime Minister will adopt it, but the framing is partly a recitation of party policy and the final ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le chef conservateur a annoncĂ© qu'il mettrait fin Ă la vague de criminalitĂ© violente crĂ©Ă©e par les libĂ©raux en adoptant la « loi des trois coups ». Cette loi empĂȘchera les criminels reconnus coupables de trois infractions graves de bĂ©nĂ©ficier d'une libĂ©ration sous caution, d'une probation, d'une libĂ©ration conditionnelle ou d'une dĂ©tention Ă domicile. De plus, elle maintiendra les criminels violents derriĂšre les barreaux plus longtemps afin de les Ă©loigner de leurs victimes et de les Ă©loigner de nos rues. Est-ce que le premier ministre a besoin de bonnes idĂ©es pour combattre le crime? Si oui, est-ce qu'il va adopter la loi du chef de l'opposition?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader has announced that he would put an end to the wave of violent crime created by the Liberals by adopting a âthree strikes and you're outâ law. This law would prevent criminals who have been convicted of three serious offences from getting bail, probation, parole or house arrest. What is more, it would keep violent criminals behind bars longer to keep them away from their victims and off our streets. Does the Prime Minister need some good ideas for fighting crime? If so, will he adopt the opposition leader's law?
Fraser announces upcoming legislation that would strengthen bail for repeat violent offenders and those involved in auto theft and home invasion with organized criminal organizations, to be tabled within weeks.
Fraser says he has consulted law enforcement, provinces, and stakeholders, announces specific upcoming reforms to bail for repeat violent offenders and those involved in auto theft and home invasion with organized crime, and gives a timeline of weeks â substantively responsive though not committing to the specific Conservative law.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to good ideas, I can assure my colleague opposite that I have been taking them from law enforcement, from provincial governments and from stakeholders in the public safety space since the day of my appointment to this position. We will be introducing legislation that would strengthen Canada's bail system, making it harder for repeat violent offenders and for those who commit serious crimes with organized criminal organizations, including auto theft and home invasion. The Conservatives will have to wait a matter of weeks before this legislation comes forward. My hope is that they will support the common-sense measures that would help keep communities safe in every part of this country.
Paul-Hus asks whether the Prime Minister will follow the advice of David Lametti â architect of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which enabled house sentences and easy bail â who now advises the Prime Minister's Office, or instead listen to Conservatives.
Paul-Hus specifically names Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, their effects on conditional sentences and bail, and names David Lametti as currently advising the Prime Minister's Office, creating a concrete tension the minister must address.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on a vĂ©cu dans les derniĂšres annĂ©es la mise en Ćuvre du projet de loi Câ5, celui qui touche au Code criminel et qui permet d'avoir des peines Ă la maison, et du projet de loi Câ75, qui permet d'avoir des libĂ©rations sous caution trĂšs facilement. Ces lois-lĂ ont Ă©tĂ© mises en place par l'ancien ministre de la Justice, David Lametti, qui est actuellement le conseiller du bureau du premier ministre. Est-ce que le premier ministre va Ă©couter David Lametti ou va-t-il Ă©couter la bonne raison et Ă©couter les conservateurs?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in recent years, we have witnessed the implementation of Bill C-5, which amends the Criminal Code and allows sentences to be served at home, and Bill C-75, which makes it very easy for offenders to be released on bail. These bills were put in place by the former justice minister, David Lametti, who is currently an adviser to the Prime Minister's Office. Will the Prime Minister listen to David Lametti, or will he listen to reason and listen to the Conservatives?
Fraser disputes Paul-Hus's characterization of Bill C-5, noting it restricts conditional sentencing orders for serious crimes such as attempted murder, and reiterates the government's plan for harsher sentences and stricter bail reforms.
Fraser directly contests Paul-Hus's characterization of Bill C-5, noting it restricts conditional sentencing for serious crimes, which is a factual rebuttal, though he does not address Bill C-75 or the David Lametti question at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is the second time this week I have received a question about a piece of legislation that the questioner has seemingly not read. Bill C-5, among other things, actually restricts the use of conditional sentencing orders for serious crimes, such as attempted murder and advocating genocide. We want to continue to put measures in place that will have harsher sentences for repeat violent offenders. We will also advance reforms that would make it harder to get bail for people who pose a public safety threat. I would ask that all members of the House pull the partisan rhetoric out of such a serious issue as public safety and get together to advance reforms that will protectâ
Lantsman asks whether the government's housing strategy is to hope Canadians do not know basic math, citing a 16% drop in housing starts, $13 billion for a new bureaucracy, and a projected output of only 4,000 homes against the 500,000-per-year promise.
Lantsman cites specific numbers â the 500,000 homes per year promise, a 16% drop in housing starts, $13 billion for a new bureaucracy, and 4,000 homes as 1.6% of current builds â making a pointed, numerically grounded challenge to the government's housing strategy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would build 500,000 homes a year, doubling housing starts. Instead, housing starts are down 16%, and his $13-billion brand new bureaucracy might someday, maybe, build a grand total of 4,000 homes. That is 1.6% of what we already build. It is a rounding error. Is this really the government's housing strategy: to hope that Canadians do not know basic math?
Robertson says the announced projects are just the start and can support up to 45,000 new affordable homes, with many more on the way, and accuses Conservatives of getting the numbers wrong.
Robertson disputes Lantsman's figures by saying the announced projects are just the start and can support up to 45,000 new affordable homes with more on the way, which partially addresses the math challenge, but does not explain the housing starts decline or the $13-billion bureaucracy claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives seem a little confused, so let me help here. First, the projects that we announced were just the start. Second, they can support up to 45,000 new affordable homes. Third, we have many more projects on the way. This is not the first time the Conservatives have gotten the numbers wrong, so I would like to invite them to take a moment and rework their talking points. We have no intention of slowing down. It is time to build.
Lantsman asks whether appointing officials associated with a 150% home price surge in Vancouver and a 700% development charge hike in Toronto to lead a new $13-billion housing body constitutes success.
Cites specific figures (150% home price increase, 700% development charge hike, $13 billion) and names individuals, but the ask is rhetorical ('Is this really the definition of success?') rather than a precise accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, only in Liberal land do we solve the housing crisis by blowing $13 billion on a fourth bureaucracy after the first three already failed. Those numbers are right. Who is leading the master plan? It is the former mayor of Vancouver. He doubled rents and jacked up home prices by 150%. Just to make the circus more complete, he handed a key role to his buddy from Toronto, the same person who slapped a 700% hike on development charges and oversaw home prices double when she was there. Is this really the definition of success for the minister?
Robertson accuses Conservatives of trashing local officials and claims the government is taking action with local partners, without addressing the specific appointments or figures.
The minister deflects entirely by accusing Conservatives of 'trashing local officials' and pivoting to opposition record, without addressing any of the specific figures or personnel decisions cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again we hear the Conservatives trashing local officials and government. It is unbelievable. They are talking about mayors, they are talking about councillors and they are talking about public servants, rather than looking at themselves. Many of us who have served at the local level have dealt with Conservative governments that did nothing for affordable housing and did nothing to improve affordability for Canadians. We are taking action and working with our partners at the local level.
Kronis notes that housing starts are down 16% despite a promise to double them, and asks when the Prime Minister will admit he is doubling gatekeepers and deficits rather than homes.
Cites a specific data point (housing starts down 16% against a promise to double them), the $13-billion housing czar, and a 700% tax hike, making it reasonably grounded, though the closing line is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to double housing starts, but they are down 16%. It is no surprise when we see who is in charge. The housing minister oversaw a 150% surge in home prices and doubled rents in Vancouver, while the new $13-billion housing czar helped hike Toronto homebuilding taxes by 700%. When will the Prime Minister admit that all he is doubling are gatekeepers and deficits?
Robertson pledges to build affordable housing at unprecedented scale and accuses Conservative governments of having vacated the field on affordable housing for a decade.
Robertson does not address the 16% decline in housing starts or the specific personnel concerns, instead pivoting entirely to Conservative record on affordable housing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will just remind the members opposite that we are focused on building affordable housing at a scale never seen before, certainly not by Conservative governments, which vacated the field on affordable housing for their decade in power. That set us back enormously. We are now building back. We are looking forward. We are going to employ Canadians in building affordable housing at a scale that is unprecedented. We expect the members opposite to support our work.
Hardy cites a study showing Quebec families spend over 30% (low-income up to 70%) of income on housing, a $4.2-billion economic loss, and a 16% drop in housing starts, asking when the Prime Minister will stop bureaucracy and start building.
Cites a study showing families spending over 30% (low-income up to 70%) of income on housing, a $4.2-billion economic loss for Quebec, and the 16% drop in housing starts, providing solid factual grounding, though the final ask ('stop bureaucracy') is somewhat vague.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans MontmorencyâCharlevoix, la crise du logement est bien rĂ©elle. Nous ne sommes pas les seuls. Partout au QuĂ©bec, les familles Ă©touffent. Une rĂ©cente Ă©tude a dĂ©montrĂ© que les familles dĂ©pensent maintenant plus de 30 % de leurs revenus pour se loger. Pour des familles Ă faible revenu, on atteint mĂȘme 70 %. L'impact direct, c'est une perte de 4,2 milliards de dollars pour l'Ă©conomie quĂ©bĂ©coise. Le premier ministre avait promis de doubler les chantiers. Ils ont chutĂ© de 16 %. Ce n'est pas Ă©tonnant avec toute la bureaucratie et les limites administratives auxquelles les entrepreneurs font face. Le premier ministre va-t-il stopper la bureaucratie et commencer Ă bĂątir des logements?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in MontmorencyâCharlevoix, the housing crisis is very real. We are not the only ones affected. Families across Quebec are struggling. A recent study showed that families now spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Low-income families spend as much as 70%. The direct impact is a loss of $4.2 billion for the Quebec economy. The Prime Minister promised to double construction, but housing starts are down 16%. That is not surprising, given all the bureaucracy and red tape developers are facing. Will the Prime Minister start building homes, not bureaucracy?
Lightbound cites the GST elimination on first homes and the $13-billion Maisons Canada investment as responses to the housing crisis, and notes the opposition leader oversaw construction of only six affordable housing units as minister.
Lightbound mentions the GST elimination and the $13-billion Maisons Canada investment but does not address the specific Quebec figures or the bureaucratic barriers cited; he pivots to attacking the opposition leader's record.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il est vrai que la crise du logement frappe particuliÚrement les jeunes Canadiens. C'est pourquoi non seulement nous avons éliminé la TPS pour les premiÚres maisons, mais nous avons aussi annoncé, avec mon collÚgue le ministre du Logement et de l'Infrastructure, Maisons Canada. Un investissement initial de 13 milliards de dollars va avoir un effet de levier immense pour bùtir des milliers de logements abordables partout au pays. Je noterais au passage que, quand le chef de mon collÚgue était ministre, il a présidé à la construction de seulement six logements. On parle d'une magnitude significativement plus importante. Je dirais que mon collÚgue le ministre du Logement et de l'Infrastructure a pris un bon départ.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the housing crisis is hitting young Canadians particularly hard. That is why we not only eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers, but also announced âbuild Canada homesâ, together with my colleague, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure. An initial investment of $13 billion will create the leverage to build thousands of affordable homes across the country. Incidentally, I would note that, when my colleague's leader was a minister, only six housing units were built on his watch. We are going to build on a much larger scale. I would say that my colleague, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, is off to a good start.
Lapointe asks the Minister of Finance and National Revenue what measures the government is taking to improve CRA service delivery given increased demand.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to share what the government is doing to improve CRA service delivery, with no accountability challenge.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les rĂ©sidants de ma circonscription ont communiquĂ© avec moi et mon Ă©quipe pour exprimer leur frustration face au retard qu'ils subissent lorsqu'ils tentent de contacter l'Agence du revenu du Canada. Nous savons que les employĂ©s dĂ©vouĂ©s de l'ARC fournissent des services inestimables aux Canadiens, mais la rĂ©alitĂ© est claire: la demande a considĂ©rablement augmentĂ© ces derniĂšres annĂ©es et le systĂšme doit ĂȘtre amĂ©liorĂ©. Le ministre des Finances et du Revenu national pourrait-il informer la Chambre des mesures prises par le gouvernement pour amĂ©liorer la prestation des services Ă l'ARC?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my constituents have been telling me and my team how frustrated they are with the delays they experience when they try to contact the Canada Revenue Agency. We know that the dedicated employees of CRA provide invaluable services to Canadians, but the facts are clear: Demand has increased significantly in recent years and the system needs to be improved. Can the Minister of Finance and National Revenue inform the House of the measures the government is taking to improve the CRA's service delivery?
Champagne acknowledges CRA service levels are unacceptable and announces he has directed the CRA to present a 100-day plan to improve services, committing to provide technology, processes and guidance.
Champagne acknowledges the service level is unacceptable, announces a specific 100-day improvement plan for the CRA, and commits to providing technology and processes â a reasonably substantive response to the setup question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je veux d'abord remercier ma collÚgue de son excellente question. Le niveau de service offert par l'Agence du revenu du Canada est inacceptable. C'est pour cela que j'ai demandé à l'Agence du revenu du Canada de présenter un plan de 100 jours pour améliorer les services auxquels les Canadiens sont en droit de s'attendre. J'en profite pour remercier tous les agents de l'Agence de leur travail. Nous allons leur fournir la technologie, les processus et l'encadrement pour offrir le meilleur niveau de service auquel les citoyens canadiens sont en droit de s'attendre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent question. The level of service provided by the CRA is unacceptable. That is why I asked the CRA to present a 100-day plan to improve the services that Canadians have a right to expect. I also want to thank all of the CRA agents for their hard work. We will give them the technology, processes and support they need to deliver the highest level of service that Canadians have a right to expect.
Rempel Garner asks why the immigration minister is admitting people faster than homes are being built, and flags that potentially millions have expiring visas whose departure is unverified.
Raises a real tension between record-low housing completions and high immigration intake and flags the specific problem of expiring visas without knowing whether holders will leave, but the ask is somewhat vague ('why is the immigration minister letting in people faster').
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the question is for the immigration minister. New housing completions are at record lows, but the Liberals are welcoming unprecedented numbers of people under every immigration stream. On top of this, there are potentially millions of people who have expiring visas, and the Liberals do not even know if they will leave. Why is the immigration minister letting in people faster than the Liberals are building homes to house people who are already here in Canada?
Diab says measures are working, citing the lowest non-pandemic population growth since WWII in Q1 2025 and reductions in temporary resident numbers and permanent resident targets by over 20%.
Diab provides specific figures on population growth and reductions in temporary and permanent resident targets, which are partially responsive, but does not address the expiring-visa compliance question specifically raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nos mesures fonctionnent. Oui, elles fonctionnent. Au premier trimestre de 2025, le Canada a connu la plus faible croissance dĂ©mographique hors pandĂ©mie depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Nous poursuivons la mise en Ćuvre de notre plan sur les niveaux d'immigration, un plan qui rĂ©duit notre population de rĂ©sidents temporaires de centaines de milliers et qui rĂ©duit notre cible de rĂ©sidents permanents de plus de 20 %. Notre objectif est clair: rendre notre systĂšme viable et attirer les meilleurs talents.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our measures are working. Yes, they are working. In the first quarter of 2025, Canada experienced the lowest non-pandemic demographic growth since the Second World War. We are continuing to implement our plan on immigration levels, a plan that reduces our temporary resident population by hundreds of thousands and reduces our permanent resident target by over 20%. Our objective is clear: to make our system viable and attract the best talent.
Rempel Garner invokes the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report to challenge the minister's claim that the immigration plan is working, arguing it still leaves a massive housing gap, and asks why the minister is spreading misinformation.
Specifically cites the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report to challenge the minister's claim that the plan is working, and directly asks why the minister is 'spreading misinformation' while setting levels too high â factually grounded but rhetorically charged.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister just claimed that there is no problem, that everything is okay. She is spreading misinformation, because the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report says that the Liberal's current immigration plan, the one that she just said is working, leaves a massive housing gap, because the minister is still setting levels way too high. If Canada is to be a place where everyone can succeed, we need to ensure that everybody has a place to live and to call home, so why is the minister spreading misinformation while still welcoming unsustainable numbers of people to Canada when Canada is in the middle of a housing crisis?
Diab reiterates that measures are working using Q1 2025 population data, reductions in permanent and temporary resident targets, and a 50% drop in student and temporary worker admissions, without addressing the PBO report.
Diab repeats the same figures from the previous exchange â Q1 2025 population growth, 20% reduction in permanent residents, 50% drop in student and temporary worker admissions, one-third reduction in asylum claims â but does not engage with the PBO report cited by Rempel Garner.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat it in English so she and other members of her party understand: Our measures are working. In the first quarter of 2025, Canada recorded the smallest non-pandemic population gain since the government started to keep records in 1946. We are following through on our immigration plan, and that is reducing our temporary resident number and our permanent resident number by 20%. Our plan is clear: Bring sustainability to our system and attract best talent. Our student and temporary worker admissions are down by 50%. Asylum claims are down by a third, andâ
Kirkland cites a CBC investigation uncovering extreme landlord abuse of international students, including rent exchanged for sexual services, and asks when the abuse will end.
References a specific CBC investigation revealing abuse including rent-for-sexual-services arrangements, giving it factual grounding, but 'when will the abuse end?' is an unanswerable vague ask combined with partisan framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have a serious situation. The Liberals have welcomed unsustainable levels of international students to Canada every year but did not think about where they would live. Things are so bad that this year a CBC investigation uncovered extreme abuse by landlords, who were in some cases offering free or discounted rent in exchange for sexual services. This is not fair to anyone. The Liberals broke the immigration system. When will the abuse end?
Diab says the government is returning the international student program to sustainable levels, citing almost 90,000 fewer student arrivals in the first half of 2025 versus 2024 and 100,000 fewer study permit holders compared to end of 2024.
Diab provides specific figures â almost 90,000 fewer students arrived JanuaryâJune 2025 versus 2024, and 100,000 fewer study permit holders compared to end of 2024 â which are relevant data points, though she does not address the landlord abuse issue raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians gave our government a mandate just a few months ago: to return the international student program to sustainable levels, and we are doing exactly that. Almost 90,000 fewer students arrived between January and June 2025, compared to the same period in 2024, and the latest numbers show 100,000 fewer study permit holders in Canada compared to the end of 2024. We want to attract the best and the brightest talent to Canada. We will do that, but we will also protect the students who are here.
McKinnon asks the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources for an update on Canada's work to become an energy superpower, diversify exports and build the strongest G7 economy.
A government-backbench question that is essentially a speech providing its own talking points and simply asking the minister for an update â no accountability challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government will win the trade war thrust upon us, by making Canada an energy superpower, diversifying our exports and building the strongest economy in the G7, all while working with first nations rights holders. Selling our resources responsibly will generate revenues needed to deliver the programs Canadians rely on, while helping our allies shift away from higher-emissions fuel sources, and taking cards away from autocrats and giving them back to Canadians. It is a win-win. Can the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources share an update with the House about Canada's work to achieve these objectives?
Hodgson announces the joint federal-BC approval of the Ksi Lisims LNG terminal led by the Nisg̱a'a Nation, describing it as the second-largest project in Canadian history, and lists LNG Canada phase 1, Cedar LNG, Woodfibre LNG and Ksi Lisims LNG as evidence of progress.
Hodgson announces a specific project approval (Ksi Lisims LNG, led by the Nisg̱a'a Nation), names it as the second-largest project in Canadian history, and lists four LNG projects â a substantive and specific answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have good news for everyone. This week, we are putting âone project, one reviewâ into action. This week, British Columbia and the federal government jointly approved the new Ksi Lisims LNG export terminal, led by the Nisg̱a'a Nation, with a first nations-owned pipeline attached. That project will be the second-largest project in the history of the country. We have LNG Canada phase 1, Cedar LNG, Woodfibre LNG and Ksi Lisims LNG. We are building the strongest economy in the G7.
Malette notes that the federal government committed over $1.2 billion to support the forestry sector but has failed to follow through, and asks when it will help Kap Paper in Kapuskasing, a link for five sawmills representing thousands of jobs.
Identifies a specific company (Kap Paper), a specific commitment ($1.2 billion), a specific affected constituency (Kapuskasing) and thousands of jobs, making it reasonably specific, though it could be sharper about what 'follow through' failure means.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for more than 45 years, communities in northern Ontario have endured the devastating impact of U.S. tariffs on their forestry sector. In Kapuskasing, Kap Paper is a vital link for five sawmills, and if that link breaks, more will be challenged. That is thousands of jobs on the line. While the federal government has committed to over $1.2 billion to support the industry, it has failed to follow through. When will it help the workers at Kap Paper?
Hodgson says the government has allocated $1.2 billion across three programs for the softwood lumber industry and is helping to retool and rebuild it, but does not address Kap Paper specifically.
Hodgson acknowledges the $1.2 billion allocation across three programs and commits to helping retool and rebuild the industry, but does not address the specific claim that the government has failed to follow through on funding for Kap Paper.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a logging town. I know exactly what the softwood lumber industry is going through. We allocated $1.2 billion in three different programs to the softwood lumber industry. We are helping retool the industry and rebuild the industry for the reality that is going on in the economy today. We will make the industry strong again.
Boulerice calls on Liberals to stop arms sales to the Netanyahu government, impose severe sanctions, and enforce international law in response to the killing of 18,000 children in Gaza.
Boulerice frames his intervention around the deaths of 18,000 children in Gaza and calls for arms sale cessation, sanctions and international law enforcement, but the statement is more of a speech than a specific accountable question with a single clear ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, sur la Colline, depuis lundi, des citoyens et des citoyennes lisent le nom des 18 000 enfants de Gaza tués dans le génocide qui se déroule sous nos yeux; des enfants parfois tués par un sniper alors qu'ils allaient chercher de la nourriture. Ils n'auront pas assez de toute la semaine pour lire chacun de ces noms. Ce drame exige des actions sérieuses. Il faut cesser la vente d'armes au régime Nétanyahou. Il faut imposer des sanctions sévÚres. Il faut faire respecter le droit international. Les libéraux doivent agir. Le monde entier nous regarde et nos enfants se demanderont ce que nous avons fait.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, since Monday, there have been people on the Hill reading the names of the 18,000 children of Gaza who have been killed in the genocide that is unfolding right before our eyes. Some of these children were killed by a sniper on their way to pick up food. An entire week will not be enough time to read all of these names. This tragedy requires serious action. It is time to stop the sale of weapons to the Netanyahu regime. Tough sanctions must be imposed. International law must be respected. The Liberals must act. The entire world is looking at us and our children will be asking us how we responded.
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'invoque le RĂšglement. En rĂ©ponse Ă une dĂ©putĂ©e conservatrice, la ministre de l'Immigration a dit qu'elle lui rĂ©pondrait en anglais pour ĂȘtre certaine d'ĂȘtre comprise. Je voudrais juste rappeler Ă mes collĂšgues et peut-ĂȘtre Ă la ministre aussi qu'Ă la Chambre, nous pouvons parler dans la langue officielle de notre choix, et que c'Ă©tait peut-ĂȘtre sous-estimer la trĂšs grande qualitĂ© du travail de nos interprĂštes. J'aimerais bien que ces propos-lĂ soient retirĂ©s.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In response to a Conservative member, the Minister of Immigration said that she would answer her in English to be sure she was understood. I would just like to remind my colleagues, and perhaps the minister as well, that we are free to speak in the official language of our choice in the House, and perhaps that underestimated the very high quality of our interpreters' work. I would like that to be withdrawn.
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je vois que vous alliez passer au point suivant, mais la demande de mon collĂšgue de BerthierâMaskinongĂ© Ă©tait que la ministre retire ses paroles.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I see that you were going to move on to the next item, but my colleague from BerthierâMaskinongĂ© requested that the minister withdraw her remarks.
Monsieur le Président, je ne vois aucune raison pour laquelle la ministre devrait offrir des excuses. Elle a cité des chiffres que la députée d'en face n'avait pas compris. Elle les a donc répétés.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why the minister should apologize. She cited numbers that the member opposite did not understand, so she repeated them.
Anand says the situation is intolerable, notes Canada is pressing for an immediate ceasefire, has sanctioned extremist settlers including ministers, has provided $355 million in aid, and announces Canada intends to recognize the State of Palestine the following week.
Anand acknowledges the intolerable situation, cites $355 million in aid, mentions sanctions on extremist settlers including ministers, references ongoing court proceedings, and announces Canada will recognize the State of Palestine the following week â a substantive and specific answer.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la situation Ă laquelle sont confrontĂ©s les Palestiniens est intolĂ©rable. Cette question est devant la cour et nous suivons de prĂšs l'Ă©volution de la situation. Aussi, le Canada exerce des pressions pour que toutes les parties acceptent un cessez-le-feu immĂ©diatement. Nous n'attendrons pas pour agir. Nous avons sanctionnĂ© les colons extrĂ©mistes, y compris les ministres. Nous avons versĂ© 355 millions de dollars en aide, et nous avons aussi l'intention de reconnaĂźtre l'Ătat de Palestine la semaine prochaine.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the situation that Palestinians are facing is intolerable. This matter is before the court and we will be closely following the situation as it develops. Canada is putting pressure on all parties to agree to an immediate ceasefire. We will not wait to act. We have sanctioned extremist settlers, including ministers. We have provided $355 million in assistance and we also intend to recognize the state of Palestine next week.
No summary.
Exchange 41 consists entirely of procedural points of order about the immigration minister's language remark; there is no policy question and no ministerial answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are at a time when I think we need to bring some decorum to this place, and what the minister said undermined the seriousness of the debate. It made light of it, and to my Bloc colleague's point, she did not do her job as the minister, so I would like an apology too.
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai compris de l'intervention prĂ©cĂ©dente de ma collĂšgue qu'elle voulait des excuses. Mon collĂšgue de BerthierâMaskinongĂ© n'a pas demandĂ© d'excuses. Il a demandĂ© tout simplement que la ministre rectifie ses propos. Ce sont des propos indignes de la fonction d'une ministre et indignes envers le statut de la langue française comme langue officielle Ă la Chambre. Je pense que, dans l'esprit de collaboration qui est censĂ© ĂȘtre celui des libĂ©raux, elle devrait retirer simplement ses paroles.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I understood from my colleague's previous intervention that she wanted an apology. My colleague from BerthierâMaskinongĂ© did not ask for an apology. He asked for a simple correction from the minister. Her comments were unbecoming of a minister and unworthy of the status of French as an official language in the House. I think that, in the Liberals' supposed spirit of co-operation, she should just withdraw her statement.
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est important de valoriser les deux langues officielles, qui, pour tous sauf pour les libĂ©raux, sont le français et l'anglais. Je pense que la requĂȘte de mon collĂšgue du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois est trĂšs lĂ©gitime et j'invite ma collĂšgue Ă retirer tout simplement ses propos. On n'en parlera plus et ça va dĂ©montrer que les libĂ©raux respectent le français et l'anglais.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is important to promote both official languages which, for everyone except the Liberals, are French and English. I think the request from my Bloc colleague is justified, and I invite our colleague to simply withdraw her comments. That way, we can move on, and it will demonstrate that the Liberals respect both French and English.
No summary.
No ministerial answer was given; the exchange is a procedural dispute recorded as a series of interventions.
Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a tribute to the late Hon. Ken Dryden, recalling his career as a six-time Stanley Cup champion, five-time Vezina Trophy winner, Conn Smythe Trophy winner, lawyer, author, and Member of Parliament for York-Centre, and crediting his leadership on affordable child care as paving the way for the system families access today.
- Lib Right Hon. Mark Carney
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour a national hero and a personal idol. Earlier this month, we lost the Hon. Ken Dryden. Ken's story is profoundly Canadian. He was born in Hamilton, grew up in Islington and was the son of a builder and kindergarten teacher. He joined the Islington Hornets in Toronto as a goaltender at the age of seven. Il a fait son entrĂ©e dans la LNH en se joignant aux Canadiens de MontrĂ©al 16 ans plus tard. Ken was the reason I became a goalie, although I never mastered his ability to lean on his stick or to keep the puck out of the net. Ken Dryden was a six-time Stanley Cup champion and five-time Vezina Trophy winner, and he was the only person, and I say this with confidence, who will ever win the Conn Smythe Trophy for most valuable player in the playoffs before they have won the Calder Memorial Trophy as rookie of the year. When Ken Dryden entered the NHL, he was already pursuing a law degree at McGill. His former teammates were in awe of Ken's work ethic, bringing textbooks into the dressing room and going to lectures after practice. Exam time and the playoffs overlapped, and in the spring of 1973, a few weeks after winning his second Stanley Cup, he graduated from McGill. Je me souviens. J'avais 8 ans et Ken Ă©tait au sommet de son art; il avait mis sa carriĂšre d'hockeyeur sur pause pour faire ses Ă©tudes et son barreau. AprĂšs avoir Ă©tĂ© admis au barreau, il a gagnĂ© la Coupe Stanley quatre fois de plus. Peu de joueurs prennent leur retraite de la Ligue nationale de hockey pour devenir avocat, Ă©crivain, politique et fonctionnaire. AprĂšs avoir accrochĂ© ses patins, Ken a consacrĂ© sa vie au service public. C'est pourquoi Ken Ă©tait unique. Il avait des rĂȘves plus grands que lui. Il les a poursuivis avec concentration et dĂ©termination. Cela lui a bien servi. Certains de mes chers collĂšgues ici prĂ©sents ont eu le privilĂšge de servir aux cĂŽtĂ©s de Ken. Comme dĂ©putĂ©, il a servi les gens de York-Centre pendant sept ans. Son leadership et son engagement envers la dĂ©fense de l'accĂšs Ă des garderies abordables ont ouvert la voie Ă de futurs leaders, tels que la dĂ©putĂ©e d'UniversityâRosedale, qui ont finalement permis de mettre en place le systĂšme auquel les familles ont accĂšs aujourd'hui. Oui, Ken Dryden croyait en la solidaritĂ©, ce que nous nous devons les uns aux autres. Ken Dryden challenged us to dream big and to be bold for our future. As parliamentarians and as Canadians, let us work toward that future with Ken's values of hard work, solidarity and ambition. Few Canadians have given more or stood taller for our country. Ken Dryden was big Canada. Ken Dryden was best Canada. My deepest condolences to Ken's wife, Lynda, and their two children, Sarah and Michael. Our thanks to them for sharing their husband and father with our country. May we pick up Ken's torch and hold it high, and may he rest in peace.
Members from the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party, as well as the Speaker, paid tribute to the late Hon. Ken Dryden, honouring his hockey achievements with the Montreal Canadiens, his law degree from McGill, his writing and public service career, his championship of child care as minister of social development, and his personal kindness toward colleagues across party lines.
- CPC John Brassard
- BQ Martin Champoux
- NDP Leah Gazan
- GP Elizabeth May
- The Speaker
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I too rise to pay tribute to a remarkable Canadian whose contributions have transcended the arenas of sport, public service and social advocacy, the Hon. Ken Dryden. I do so not just as a member of Parliament, but as a kid who grew up in Montreal watching Ken Dryden play for the Canadiens. I have a personal connection to the Dryden family by way of my wife's family, who lived not too far from Murray, Margaret, Ken, Dave and Judy's home in central Etobicoke on Pinehurst Crescent. My mother-in-law Jean Berry served on the board of Ken's dad's charity, Sleeping Children Around the World, and edited Murray's book With God Nothing is Impossible. When Lynda and Ken moved back to Toronto, my wife Liane babysat their two children while they searched for a home. I had the occasion to visit Dryden's childhood home several times in Islington with my mother-in-law, and the home later became a warehouse of bed kits for Murray's charity. What struck me was that Murray had paved the backyard so young Ken and Dave could hone their skills in net with the neighbourhood kids, who, as I was told by Murray, would gather often to play ball hockey and ice hockey in the winter. The nets were still there when I visited. Members can imagine how I felt seeing the very spot where my hockey hero, the member for Foothills's hero and many of our Quebec colleagues' hero learned the art of being a goaler. Dave Stubbs of NHL.com wrote that Dryden was ânever a conventional goaltender. Not with his lanky, even gangly body type, accentuated even more by his stand-up style of playâ. I thought about that as I stood in the Dryden backyard. In fact, his style was so unconventional that âlegendary Boston Bruins and New York Rangers sniper Phil Esposito...during the 1971 Stanley Cup Playoffs was so frustrated by Dryden stoning the Bruins in an NHL Quarterfinals upset that he grumbled about the goalie having âarms like a giraffe.ââ More than half a century later, Esposito revisited the confusing comparison to a giraffe's anatomy after Dryden's death and said, âOK, maybe [he had] the legs of a giraffe.â Much has been said about his hockey accomplishments since his passing on September 5: the Stanley Cups he won, the Vezina Trophy, the Conn Smythe Trophy, the 1972 Summit Series and being drafted by the Boston Bruins in the 1964 NHL draft, which he did find out until the mid-seventies because it was a much simpler time back then, with no cellphones, no Internet and no hockey database websites. However, it is what he accomplished outside of playing hockey that has been so intriguing. The legendary American broadcaster Al Michaels, who Dryden was sitting beside during the Miracle on Ice, when arguably the greatest call in sports history was made, referred to Ken recently on a podcast as a âRenaissance manâ who knew everything about everything. Father Raymond J. de Souza, in the National Post, said of Dryden, âIn team sports, no one ever packed so much achievement into as few years (only eight seasons) as did Drydenâsix Stanley Cups plus the 1972 Soviet series.â He said, âOnly Michael Jordan was comparable, but the 1992 U.S. basketball âdream teamâ was not nearly as important as the 1972 series.â Ătonnamment, Ken Dryden Ă©tait meilleur et plus imposant hors de la glace que sur la glace. Il existe de nombreux excellents joueurs de hockey, mais aucun n'Ă©tait aussi habile Ă analyser la sphĂšre publique et, finalement, Ă servir le public au sein du Cabinet fĂ©dĂ©ral. J. de Souza noted that Ken Dryden âspent a year...in classrooms as Ontario's youth commissioner to more fully understand the challenges of education.â He went on to say: He moved into a middle-class home for a week to observe what life was like for a typical Toronto family in the early '90s. His novel of that experience, âThe Moved and the Shakenâ...[was] a reminder in public policy, in journalism, in culture, to pay attention not only to the movers and the shakers, but those whom they move and shake. We would be wise to let that be a reminder to all of us as we contemplate the decisions we make and the impact they have on our fellow Canadians. Comme tous les enfants qui ont grandi Ă l'Ă©poque oĂč Ken Dryden Ă©tait gardien de but pour les Canadiens de MontrĂ©al, il a inspirĂ© tant de gens Ă jouer Ă ce poste dans les rues ou sur la glace et Ă se reposer en adoptant la pose Dryden, le bloqueur appuyĂ© sur son bĂąton, qui a Ă©tĂ© immortalisĂ©e dans des statues Ă MontrĂ©al et au Temple de la renommĂ©e du hockey. As de Souza wrote this week, âWhat other sports figure is sculpted at rest rather than in action? Itâs the sports version of Auguste Rodin's âThe Thinkerâ because Dryden was the great sportsman-thinker of his time, perhaps any time.â Il n'y a jamais eu aucun doute sur la façon dont Ken Dryden a vĂ©cu sa vie et sur le fait qu'il croyait aux miracles. En tant que figure plus grande que nature, il Ă©tait curieux, humble et respectueux envers les nombreuses personnes qu'il a rencontrĂ©es au cours de son parcours miraculeux, y compris envers un jeune garçon qui a grandi sur la 6e avenue Ă Verdun et qui idolĂątrait Ken Dryden. Il aimait le Canada et tout ce qu'il aspirait Ă ĂȘtre. Finally, having met his dad, Murray, on several occasions, and knowing the impact he had on so many lives around the world, I am not surprised Ken lived his life the way he did. Murray and Margaret Dryden taught Ken well, and it showed in who he was as a person and in everything he did. On behalf of our Conservative team and our leader, with great respect and admiration for a truly remarkable Canadian, and Canadien, we send our condolences to Lynda and the entire Dryden family. May Ken rest, in his famous pose, in peace.
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, des souvenirs de mon enfance, comme les souvenirs de l'enfance de centaines de milliers de petits QuĂ©bĂ©cois sont remplis de soirs d'hiver sur des rues oĂč la neige durcie nous faisait une surface parfaite pour jouer au hockey. Des fois trois d'un bord, trois de l'autre; des fois quatre contre quatre; un gardien de but, puis deux ou trois joueurs qui jouaient Ă l'attaque. Il n'y avait pas de dĂ©fenseur quand on jouait dans la rue. C'Ă©tait un temps oĂč ça ne coĂ»tait pas un bras pour jouer au hockey. Pas besoin de louer une patinoire, pas besoin d'Ă©quipement qui coĂ»te cher: une tuque Ă pompons, des mitaines, un bĂąton de bois mĂȘme pas courbĂ©, puis des rĂȘves plein la tĂȘte. « Guy Lafleur s'empare de la rondelle. Il est seul, il tire... Et le but! » C'est ça que tous les jeunes garçons criaient dans la rue; ça, puis les cĂ©lĂšbres et sempiternelles « Auto! » On tassait le but sur le cĂŽtĂ© de la rue. On attendait que l'auto passe, on remettait le but en place, puis on continuait. Ce qu'on entendait par la suite, c'Ă©tait « Guy Lafleur reprend le disque, il s'avance, et... L'arrĂȘt de Ken Dryden! Ken Dryden avec un arrĂȘt spectaculaire. » Tous les jeunes qui comptaient des buts dans les rues du QuĂ©bec, c'Ă©tait des Guy Lafleur. Tous les jeunes qui faisaient des arrĂȘts dans tous les quartiers, tous les « goalers », c'Ă©tait des Ken Dryden. De Chibougamau Ă VeniseâenâQuĂ©bec, de Shawinigan Ă Drummondville, « L'arrĂȘt de Ken Dryden! » Le meilleur gardien du monde, c'Ă©tait lui. C'Ă©tait nous aussi quand on arrĂȘtait une balle de tennis gelĂ©e en jouant en plein milieu de la rue par un soir de janvier. C'est lui qui nous donnait des coupes Stanley, qui rendait le Canadien imbattable. N'y a-t-il pas de plus bel hommage pour quelqu'un que d'ĂȘtre celui auquel des milliers et des milliers d'enfants s'identifient? Le numĂ©ro 29 du Canadien de MontrĂ©al. Quand on aimait le hockey, Guy Lafleur et Ken Dryden, c'Ă©tait ceux qui faisaient le plus vibrer le QuĂ©bec. Pour au moins deux gĂ©nĂ©rations de QuĂ©bĂ©cois, Ken Dryden incarne notre jeunesse. Il explique, comme d'autres avant lui, comme d'autres aprĂšs lui, notre passion pour le hockey et l'importance du Canadien de MontrĂ©al dans notre identitĂ©. Ă sa famille, nous offrons nos plus sincĂšres condolĂ©ances et nous exprimons aussi, au nom de tous les amateurs de notre sport national, notre reconnaissance pour les prouesses qu'il nous a offertes. Je ne peux passer sous silence son service public. Ălu en 2004, alors que le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois avait fait Ă©lire 52 dĂ©putĂ©s, M. Dryden a Ă©tĂ© briĂšvement ministre sous Paul Martin avant de se retrouver sur les banquettes de l'opposition jusqu'en 2011. C'Ă©tait un homme affable, intelligent. Il Ă©tait apprĂ©ciĂ© de tous, ce qui n'est pas banal dans le contexte politique qu'on connaĂźt. Sa bataille pour protĂ©ger les jeunes sportifs du flĂ©au des commotions cĂ©rĂ©brales est admirable et nous avons la responsabilitĂ© collective de reprendre son flambeau. Pour son travail Ă la Chambre, pour son engagement afin de protĂ©ger nos jeunes sportifs, pour les coupes Stanley qu'il a donnĂ©es aux partisans des Canadiens et au nom de tous les jeunes devant un but le soir de l'hiver dans les annĂ©es 1970, qu'on me permette, au nom du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, de dire simplement: merci, monsieur Dryden.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my childhood memories, like the childhood memories of hundreds of thousands of Quebecker children, are filled with winter nights on streets where the hard snow had made a perfect surface for us to play hockey. Sometimes three-on-three, sometimes four-on-four, one goalie, and two or three players on offence. There was no one on defence when we played in the street. At that time, it did not cost an arm and a leg to play hockey. There was no need to rent a skating rink and no need for expensive equipment. It was enough to have a pompom toque, mittens, a wooden stick that was not even curved, and a head full of dreams. âGuy Lafleur picks up the puck. He is alone; he shootsâHe scores!â That is what all the young boys would shout on the streetâthat, and the familiar and endless calls of âCar!â The goal would be shoved to the side of the road. They would wait for the car to pass, put the goal back in place and carry on. Then we heard, âGuy Lafleur takes the puck back; he is in the zone, andâSave by Ken Dryden! Ken Dryden with a spectacular save.â Every kid scoring goals on the streets of Quebec, they were all Guy Lafleurs. Every kid making saves in every neighbourhood, all the goalies, they were Ken Drydens. From Chibougamau to VeniseâenâQuĂ©bec, from Shawinigan to Drummondville, âSave by Ken Dryden!â He was the best goalie in the world. We were too when we stopped a frozen tennis ball while playing smack in the middle of the road on a January night. He was the one who earned some of our Stanley Cups, who made the Canadiens unbeatable. Is there any more beautiful tribute to someone than to say that he was the one with whom thousands and thousands of children identify? Everyone wants to be Montreal Canadiens number 29. For anyone who loved hockey, Guy Lafleur and Ken Dryden were the ones who thrilled Quebec the most. For at least two generations of Quebeckers, Ken Dryden was the embodiment of our youth. He, like others before him and others after him, explains our passion for hockey and the importance of the Montreal Canadiens to our identity. We offer our deepest condolences to his family, and on behalf of all fans of our national sport, we express our gratitude for the achievements he earned for us. I would be remiss if I did not mention his public service. Elected in 2004, when the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois had 52 members elected, Mr. Dryden served briefly as a minister under Paul Martin before ending up on the opposition benches until 2011. He was an affable, intelligent man. He was liked by everyone, which is no small feat in today's political climate. His fight to protect young athletes from the scourge of concussions is admirable, and we have a collective responsibility to carry on his legacy. For his work in the House, for his commitment to protecting our young athletes, for the Stanley Cups he delivered to Canadiens fans and on behalf of all young people standing in goal on a winter's night in the 1970s, allow me, on behalf of the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois, to simply say thank you, Mr. Dryden.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleagues, friends and everyone across Canada that I know, when we hear the name Ken Dryden, as we have heard today, the first image for many is of a towering figure in the net, calm, steady, unshakable, leading the Montreal Canadiens to six Stanley Cups and earning his place in the Hockey Hall of Fame. However, Ken Dryden's greatest legacy is not measured in wins or banners, but in his tireless work to ensure that every child in this country has a chance to dream, learn and succeed. Ken Dryden understood something fundamental, which is that greatness in sport comes and goes, but greatness in service to others is a lasting legacy. Even while he was guarding the net for the Canadiens, he was also finishing his law degree at McGill University. It is a sign of his determination, balance and foresight, which would define his life after hockey. He could have chosen an easy path of fame and comfort. Instead, he chose learning, leadership and ultimately public service. He retired, in fact, at the height of his career. Dryden then became a writer, a teacher, eventually a member of Parliament and then the minister of social development. In that role, he championed what he has always believed, which is that the future of Canada rests in the opportunities we give to our children. Ken Dryden had a deep respect for children, who are often overlooked in places of power. At a time when we find so many people and groups disconnected from our very own humanity, Ken Dryden reminded us always that every child matters, that every child had a right to dignity, safety and security and to be nurtured as a flower, to grow and to flourish. What inspires me time and again is that he reminded us that early childhood education was not, in fact, a luxury, but a necessity, and that child care was not a private burden, but a public responsibility. As somebody who started their career in early childhood education, that meant so very much to me and early childhood educators throughout the country. He also understood that, if we want to build a stronger country, we must start by giving every child, no matter where they came from, a fair chance to grow, thrive and succeed. He deeply cared about the human rights of children, something that is often up for debate in political spaces. What inspires me the most in Dryden's persistence is that he never settled for short-term fixes or political convenience. He called on governments of every stripe to think beyond election cycles and to think about generations. His questions were always about what kind of country we wanted to leave our children. We need to learn from his example. We need to work across party lines to ensure that we never lose sight of ensuring that children in Canada are given everything they need to thrive and are provided with everything they need to live in dignity and flourish as the delicate flowers Ken Dryden was able to see in all children. Reflecting on this, I know that, through listening to Ken Dryden and seeing what he did, he pushed all of us to see education as not simply reading and arithmetic, but as the very foundation of citizenship. A strong education system does not produce workers. He reminded us that it produces good leaders, dreamers and citizens with compassion and courage. As somebody who comes from the field of education, we often lose sight of how to build a good country. It goes beyond the pocketbook. It is about ensuring the well-being of all people. Today, as we reflect on Ken Dryden's legacy, we are reminded that true leadership is not about the applause we receive in the arena, but about the lives we lift up in our communities. His commitment to children and education has touched countless families. His vision continues to challenge us to be better, to do more and to dream bigger to ensure that the next generations are better off than the ones before. Let us honour Ken Dryden not only with our words but also with our actions. Let us carry forward his fight for universal child care, for stronger schools, for policies that put children at the very heart of every decision we make, whether in Canada or across the world. In the end, the most fitting tribute we can offer Ken Dryden is through our very own actions. On behalf of the NDP, I offer condolences to his wife Lynda, his children Sarah and Michael, the rest of his family members and all those whose lives he touched.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to have a chance to add my words to those of my colleagues on the passing of a remarkable Canadian whom I was very, very lucky to know. Obviously I did not get to know him because I play hockey. I did not get to know him in courtrooms, although I was a practising lawyer. I got to know him before I was involved in partisan politics, while I was working with other women leaders and other people in civil society working for child care when Ken Dryden was minister of social development. I will not take all my time, because so many good words have been said of the way in which he inspired youth, the way in which he championed important causes, and the remarkable achievement of being a successful NHL player while also, as my friend from Winnipeg Centre said so eloquently, making sure his education was completed. Although many people will debate whether choosing the practice of law was a good choice, I endorse it myself. Because Ken Dryden had such a keen mind and a heart for public service, he did so much for this country and for women. Let me share what I remember. I remember Ken Dryden's working ceaselessly to get signed agreements with each of the 10 provinces in this country to guarantee that we would have affordable early education and child care for every Canadian child. I remember working with Martha Friendly, who founded the University of Toronto's Childcare Resource and Research Unit, and her tireless work with then minister Dryden. It is Martha I want to quote now. I never heard Ken Dryden say these words, but Martha said she will never forget Ken Dryden saying, as he started on this mission, âWe need to get the system so in place that weâre painted into a corner and it canât ever be removed.â Unfortunately that did not occur. He created a universal child care program, and it obviously set a benchmark. It set the stage, and we still have work to do, because every child in Canada deserves the best start in life and deserves high quality early education and child care, and every parent needs to know that when they drop their child off at child care, it is affordable and they are not choosing between their rent and child care. Let me close with Ken Dryden's own words. When he achieved this for Canadians, the selfless, hard work in a very partisan and difficult place, Ken Dryden described himself as âthe luckiest guy in governmentâ because he was given a tough job to achieve something meaningful. I would ask all of us to reflect on that. When will we feel we have accomplished something that makes us feel we are the luckiest person in Parliament because we were given an impossible task and we accomplished it? His family, Lynda, Sarah, Michael and his grandchildren, has our deepest sympathy and gratitude for sharing a remarkable human being, a truly decent human being of remarkable talent and skill, who gave his life, his dedication and service to inspiring Canadians, not just when he served in this place but also with the legacy he left for us to achieve and deliver on the promises he started so brilliantly to deliver.
Honorables collĂšgues, je vous remercie beaucoup de vos paroles en hommage Ă notre ami et collĂšgue l'honorable Ken Dryden. Comme vous l'avez dit, nous devons beaucoup Ă notre ancien collĂšgue pour les grands moments qu'il nous a fait vivre sur la glace, Ă l'Ă©crit, et ici mĂȘme Ă la Chambre des communes. He was a man for all seasons, who contributed to this country and its identity in so many profound ways. As a hockey hero, lawyer, author of books exploring Canada's soul, politician, thinker, professor and, as so many of us here today know, as a gentleman. We are grateful for all the great moments he gave us, moments etched in our individual memories and collective consciousness. Il a Ă©tĂ© un vĂ©ritable hĂ©ros dans le panthĂ©on canadien, un modĂšle d'intĂ©gritĂ© et d'humilitĂ©, un homme qui a su poursuivre l'excellence dans des champs d'activitĂ© divers. Je me souviendrai toujours de son arrivĂ©e sur la scĂšne en pleines sĂ©ries Ă©liminatoires en mars 1971, lorsqu'une Ă©quipe et sa ville, MontrĂ©al, Ă©taient Ă court d'espoir dans les quarts de finale contre les champions, les Bruins. Ce fut un vĂ©ritable baptĂȘme du feu pour ce jeune sans expĂ©rience de la Ligue nationale de hockey dont on n'avait jamais entendu parler, mais qui nous a conduits jusqu'Ă la coupe. His career as a hockey player had so many dramatic moments, and yet as a person, he eschewed drama for civility. I recall reading that one time the fiery Johnny McKenzie, of what were then called the Big Bad Bruins, crowded in front of the net and ran into Ken's stick. McKenzie was ready to answer with a well-placed punch, only to hear Ken calmly say, âExcuse me.â McKenzie later said, âHow could I get mad at a nice [guy who says sorry]?â It is as much a story about Ken Dryden as it is about the power of civility. Hockey and saying sorry, it does not get much more Canadian than that. As a colleague, I saw him stay at an event well beyond what was expected because he would grant every last person time to share their Ken Dryden story, a moment that meant something to them during a game they saw in person or on TV. Comme pour la plupart des hĂ©ros, il existe de nombreuses anecdotes sur Ken Dryden qui permettent de mieux comprendre son influence et sa contribution Ă son pays. Son arrivĂ©e dans ma ville natale, MontrĂ©al, dans les annĂ©es 1970, Ă©tait quelque chose de significatif, voire magique. The fortunes of the Canadiens changes when the lanky Cornell-educated player from Toronto arrived in net. Je crois que son sĂ©jour Ă MontrĂ©al a Ă©galement aidĂ© Ken, qui Ă©tait toujours curieux, Ă explorer plus en profondeur la passion de ce pays pour le hockey et Ă dĂ©couvrir une comprĂ©hension de l'Ăąme du Canada et un amour pour la langue française. Ici, Ă la Chambre, Ken Dryden Ă©tait toujours Ă©rudit, toujours calme sous pression comme il l'Ă©tait sur la glace, toujours Ă l'Ă©coute et toujours dĂ©sireux d'en faire davantage pour son pays. Il a Ă©tĂ© une source d'inspiration pour nous tous et pour tous les Canadiens, dont certains l'ont immortalisĂ© dans des Ćuvres d'art et mĂȘme dans une piĂšce de thĂ©Ăątre. After his death, a letter writer to a national newspaper said that if ever we are unsure of what to do, we should ask ourselves, âWhat would Ken Dryden do?â These are wise words in tribute to a very wise man. Nous prĂ©sentons nos condolĂ©ances Ă sa famille et espĂ©rons que son hĂ©ritage extraordinaire sera une source de rĂ©confort et de fiertĂ©. Merci.
Hansard translation: Hon. colleagues, thank you very much for your words in tribute to our friend and colleague, the Hon. Ken Dryden. As you said, we owe a great deal to our former colleague for the great moments he gave us on the ice, in his writings and right here in the House of Commons. C'Ă©tait un homme aux multiples facettes, dont les contributions ont marquĂ©, profondĂ©ment et de multiples façons, le pays et l'identitĂ© canadienne. Joueur de hockey, avocat, auteur de livres qui explorent l'Ăąme du Canada, politicien, penseur, professeur, il Ă©tait aussi, comme bon nombre d'entre nous le savent, un gentleman. Nous sommes reconnaissants des merveilleux moments qu'il nous a fait vivre, des moments qui restent gravĂ©s dans nos souvenirs personnels et notre conscience collective. He was a true Canadian hero, one of the greats, a model of integrity and humility, and a man who pursued excellence in a variety of areas. I will always remember when he arrived on the scene in the middle of the playoffs in March 1971, when Montreal and its team had run out of hope in the quarter-finals against the champions, the Bruins. It was a true baptism of fire for a young man with no NHL experience, whom we had never heard of, but who took us to the cup. Sa carriĂšre de joueur de hockey a Ă©tĂ© marquĂ©e par de nombreux moments spectaculaires, mais en tant que personne, il Ă©vitait les Ă©clats dramatiques et prĂ©fĂ©rait la courtoisie. Je me souviens d'avoir lu que le fougueux Johnny McKenzie, un des joueurs de l'Ă©quipe qu'on appelait les Big Bad Bruins, s'Ă©tait immiscĂ© prĂšs du filet. Il s'Ă©tait butĂ© au bĂąton de Ken et Ă©tait prĂȘt Ă rĂ©torquer par un coup de poing bien placĂ© quand il a entendu Ken lui dire calmement « dĂ©solĂ© ». Comme McKenzie l'a racontĂ© ensuite: « Comment aurais-je pu me fĂącher contre un bon [gars qui se dit dĂ©solĂ©]? » Cette histoire en dit long sur Ken Dryden et sur le pouvoir de la courtoisie. Il n'y a rien de plus canadien que le hockey et le fait de s'excuser. En tant que collĂšgue, je l'ai vu rester Ă un Ă©vĂ©nement bien plus longtemps qu'on s'y attendait parce qu'il accordait Ă chaque personne le temps de raconter son anecdote Ă propos de Ken Dryden et d'un moment qui l'avait marquĂ©e pendant un match vu en personne ou Ă la tĂ©lĂ©vision. Like with most heroes, there are many stories about Ken Dryden that help us better understand his impact and his contribution to his country. His arrival in my hometown of Montreal in the 1970s was momentous, even magical. Le sort des Canadiens change lorsque ce joueur de Toronto, un homme grand et mince qui avait Ă©tudiĂ© Ă Cornell, arrive devant le filet. I think Ken's time in Montreal also helped him, given his boundless curiosity, to more fully explore this country's passion for hockey and to discover some sense of Canada's soul and a love for the French language. Here, in the House, Ken Dryden was always well spoken, always calm under pressure, just as he was on the ice, always listening and always wanting to do more for his country. He was an inspiration to us and to all Canadians, some of whom immortalized him in works of art and even in a play. AprĂšs sa mort, une personne a Ă©crit, dans une lettre envoyĂ©e Ă un journal national, que lorsqu'on hĂ©site sur la voie Ă suivre, on devrait se demander ce que Ken Dryden ferait. VoilĂ de sages paroles qui rendent hommage Ă un homme d'une grande sagesse. We offer our condolences to his family and hope that his extraordinary legacy will be a source of comfort and pride. Thank you.
Dominic LeBlanc delivered a government tribute to the late Hon. John McCallum, honouring his career as an economist, dean of arts at McGill, chief economist at the Royal Bank of Canada, cabinet minister under three prime ministers, and architect of Canada's resettlement of more than 40,000 Syrian refugees, remembering him as a close personal friend of great kindness and humour.
- Lib Dominic LeBlanc
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai l'honneur de prendre la parole au nom du gouvernement et de mes collĂšgues du caucus libĂ©ral, afin de rendre hommage Ă la vie d'un de nos anciens collĂšgues, quelqu'un que vous avez aussi bien connu, monsieur le PrĂ©sident, et un de mes grands amis, le regrettĂ© l'honorable John McCallum, dont la gentillesse, la gĂ©nĂ©rositĂ© et l'incroyable sens de l'humour ont marquĂ© tous ceux qui ont eu le plaisir de le connaĂźtre. Je me permets de faire un bref survol de sa longue et distinguĂ©e carriĂšre. Avant de se lancer en politique, John Ă©tait rĂ©putĂ© ĂȘtre l'un des grands Ă©conomistes canadiens. Il a commencĂ© sa carriĂšre acadĂ©mique dans l'Ouest, Ă l'UniversitĂ© du Manitoba, avant d'accĂ©der au poste de doyen de la FacultĂ© des arts de l'UniversitĂ© McGill, oĂč il fut au premier plan des dĂ©bats sur l'unitĂ© nationale qui occupaient alors tous les esprits des Canadiens. En 1994, il quitte la vie universitaire pour le secteur privĂ©, occupant alors le poste de vice-prĂ©sident principal et Ă©conomiste en chef de la Banque Royale du Canada. C'est lĂ qu'il s'est forgĂ© une rĂ©putation comme Ă©conomiste trĂšs bien respectĂ©, mais capable de vulgariser les grandes tendances Ă©conomiques pour le commun des mortels, un atout qui m'a beaucoup aidĂ© au long de notre amitiĂ©. After more than half a decade at RBC, John decided in 2000 to enter public life, and he was elected in the riding of MarkhamâThornhill. That was when I met John for the first time. As luck would have it, we were sitting next to each other on that very first day in the House of Commons almost 25 years ago. From there on, we quickly became friends, finding common interests, not just in political matters but in family holidays together, on fishing trips in New Brunswick and family holidays abroad as well. I will forever cherish those memories, and seeing John's wife, Nancy, and their children on Parliament Hill today reminded me of those happy moments. John became minister in January 2002, and later I had the opportunity to serve as his parliamentary secretary at National Defence, the highlight of what was then my first term in the House of Commons. In those early years, in addition to his ministerial responsibilities, John made a name for himself as a courageous and outspoken advocate on pivotal issues that helped shape Canada into a more open, tolerant and welcoming society. In June 2001, as a backbencher, he introduced a motion in the House of Commons to nominate Nelson Mandela as an honorary citizen of Canada, making Canada the first country to extend such an honour to this iconic champion of equality and human rights. Fast-forward to 2015, when, building on his ability to leverage Canada's global reputation as a compassionate and progressive nation, John, as the newly appointed minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship, spearheaded Canada's efforts to resettle more than 40,000 Syrian refugees in record time. The scale of the task cannot be overstated. It required mobilizing considerable government, local, private sector and community resources, and John poured his heart and soul into this noble effort. His success was our nation's success, and all of us can be proud of the way Canadians opened their homes and their hearts, as they have time and time again over the course of history, to those people fleeing war and persecution. John McCallum led that effort brilliantly. John embodied those values and led those debates. Tout au long de sa carriĂšre, il a servi les Canadiens et les Canadiennes avec intelligence, dĂ©vouement et gentillesse. I would like to offer our sincerest condolences to his beloved wife, Nancy, and to their three boys, Andrew, Jamie and Duncan. May they find comfort in knowing the profound impact their husband and their father had on our country and his numerous friends and colleagues, myself included. His legacy will live on here in the House of Commons, in his community and in the lives of the thousands of people whom he helped to find hope and solace. Rest in peace, my friend. Thank you for your friendship and remarkable service to our country.
Members from the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party, as well as the Speaker, paid tribute to the late Hon. John McCallum, recalling his careers in academia, banking, and public service, his role in the Syrian refugee resettlement initiative, his nomination of Nelson Mandela as an honorary citizen of Canada, and his personal kindness and humour toward colleagues across party lines.
- CPC Michelle Rempel Garner
- BQ Claude DeBellefeuille
- NDP Jenny Kwan
- GP Elizabeth May
- The Speaker
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to John McCallum, a long-serving member of Parliament and cabinet minister. My Liberal colleague just outlined John's long and accomplished career in economics and finance, and he certainly brought that knowledge and skill set to his role in this place. I first met John when I was elected in 2011. I was young and somewhat naive, if members can believe that, but John was always kind to me, and that is something that one remembers in this place. There is a line in the Fleetwood Mac song Landslide that of late, given my advancing age, has recently started to punch me in the gut: Time makes you bolder Even children get older And I'm gettin' older, too It is hard to believe that nearly nine years have passed since I last rose in this place to pay tribute to John, who at that point had announced his retirement as a member of Parliament after a long and successful career. At the time, I noted that I was not delivering a eulogy, so finding myself doing so today is a reminder of one of the things John used to say when we routinely chatted: âTime passes quickly here, so make each day count.â That is wisdom from John that we should all take in our roles. At the time, John was the immigration minister and I was the immigration critic. I guess some things never change, John. After John retired, I realized that he had two particularly admirable qualities I think everybody in this place would do well to emulate. The first was his remarkable sense of humour. I have to say, John, if you are listening, that I deeply enjoyed sparring with you. John's wit and cleverness were eclipsed only by his gregariousness and his very good sense of humour. For example, John and I once had a rather famous sparring match in the House, wherein he implied that I should smile more. I raised the issue in a point of order, and he apologized. After the interaction, he came up to me and genuinely apologized, albeit with that signature twinkle in his eye. If anyone knew him, they knew this: There was always this little twinkle in John's eye. Feeling bold, I accepted his apology with a flourish, saying, âThank you, Emperor Palpatine.â John paused for a moment; he roared with laughter, and he encouraged me to embrace the dark side. In that instant, all was well. That sense of humour is something that served John so well in this place, where the three-sword-length distance between the government and opposition benches can feel rather short on some days. He was always known across the aisle for his good humour, and that is something he will be remembered for. I find myself sometimes chuckling about things he would say to me, especially coming back into this role. The other admirable quality that I will remember about John was that as a minister, he respected the role of the opposition. In my experience with John, I found that he understood that in this place, and in order for democracy to work, he could not ignore his opposition critic. When we disagreed, I found that he still respected the work I had put into the file. When we sparred, he would usually take the time to tell me that he had thought about what he had brought up and would try to explain to me his position and why he felt it was more important. Oftentimes, he did try to consider where I was going, and on more than one occasion we actually managed to find common ground. He would be honest with me. He was very upfront about what he thought he could get through his caucus or where he thought I needed to bend in order to find compromise. Sometimes we found compromise and sometimes we did not, but at the end of the day, I trusted John because I knew he was coming at his work from a sense of trying to respect our democratic institutions and from a place of love and support for the people in his community. I have to say that I have sorely missed that dynamic since John left. I was spoiled as an opposition critic. I will always respect him for that. A few years ago, John and I found ourselves accidentally seated beside each other on a plane. It was funny; people were walking down the aisle and saw us seated together, and they were like, âUh-ohâ, but it was one of the best plane rides I have ever had. Many of the members share what we shared, as we are on a plane quite often. He was extremely wistful and imparted some sage words of advice. I remember this: He said, âOur lives are short. Make each day count. Spend less time on a plane and more time with your family, Michelle.â It is advice that is hard to internalize in this place. Certainly, I still struggle with it every day, but it underscores that life in public service cannot be walked alone. My deepest condolences go to Nancy, Andrew, Jamie and Duncan, and to their families, for a loss that I think a lot of people across the country felt. I also extend my gratitude to John's family for their support to John throughout his time in public office. John, may you rest in peace.
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au dĂ©but de la pause estivale, le 21 juin dernier, la Chambre perdait un parlementaire aguerri, un ministre influent, un Ă©conomiste et un universitaire de renom, ainsi qu'un diplomate. John McCallum nous a quittĂ©s Ă l'Ăąge de 75 ans. Pilier du Parti libĂ©ral sous trois premiers ministres â Jean ChrĂ©tien, Paul Martin et Justin Trudeau â, M. McCallum laisse une marque indĂ©lĂ©bile sur l'histoire rĂ©cente de la politique fĂ©dĂ©rale. C'est d'abord dans sa ville natale, MontrĂ©al, qu'il se dĂ©marqua, notamment Ă titre de professeur Ă l'UQAM, puis comme doyen de la FacultĂ© des arts de l'UniversitĂ© McGill. Au terme d'une carriĂšre universitaire de prĂšs de 20 ans, au cours de laquelle il s'est totalement illustrĂ© en matiĂšre de commerce, M. McCallum a mis son expertise Ă l'Ă©preuve Ă titre d'Ă©conomiste en chef de la Banque Royale du Canada Ă partir de 1994. Puis, l'appel de la politique se fit entendre. Avec le soutien de Jean ChrĂ©tien, John McCallum fit son entrĂ©e par la grande porte Ă la Chambre des communes en l'an 2000, Ă titre de dĂ©putĂ© de Markham, dans la banlieue nord de Toronto. Deux ans plus tard, Jean ChrĂ©tien le nommait ministre de la DĂ©fense. C'est un nouveau premier ministre, Paul Martin, qui lui confia ses prochains mandats en tant que ministre des Anciens Combattants en 2003, puis du Revenu en 2004, un poste qu'il occupa jusqu'Ă la dĂ©faite libĂ©rale de 2006. S'ensuit alors un long passage dans l'opposition durant lequel M. McCallum resta fidĂšle au poste en tant que l'un des porteâparole clĂ©s de sa formation politique. Presque une dĂ©cennie plus tard, il refit son entrĂ©e au Cabinet en tant que ministre de l'Immigration, des RĂ©fugiĂ©s et de la CitoyennetĂ©, cette fois sous Justin Trudeau. Ce dut ĂȘtre le comble de l'ironie de retourner au Conseil des ministres Ă la demande d'un nouveau patron qui n'Ă©tait qu'un simple Ă©tudiant Ă McGill lorsque M. McCallum y Ă©tait doyen. John McCallum prit sa retraite de la politique en 2017 pour devenir ambassadeur du Canada en Chine, poste qu'il occupa jusqu'en 2019 avant de devenir conseiller stratĂ©gique au privĂ©. En tant que reprĂ©sentante du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, ce serait un euphĂ©misme que de dire que nous avons eu des diffĂ©rends politiques majeurs avec M. McCallum. Fervent opposant Ă la souverainetĂ© du QuĂ©bec, sa contribution au dĂ©bat public sur l'Ă©conomie d'un QuĂ©bec souverain n'a pas manquĂ© d'en faire sourciller plusieurs. Bien que nous nous soyons trouvĂ©s souvent dans des camps adverses durant le plus grand affrontement politique de l'histoire du QuĂ©bec et du Canada, nous retenons aujourd'hui de M. McCallum le souvenir d'un intellectuel affable, souriant et Ă la parole franche, dotĂ© d'un grand sens de l'humour, mais aussi d'un sens de l'Ătat. Au nom du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, je tiens Ă offrir mes condolĂ©ances Ă son Ă©pouse, Nancy, Ă ses trois fils, Ă ses six petits-enfants, Ă ses proches et Ă la famille politique libĂ©rale. Merci, monsieur McCallum, de votre service public.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on June 21, at the beginning of the summer break, the House lost a seasoned parliamentarian, an influential minister, an economist, a renowned academic and a diplomat, when John McCallum passed away at the age of 75. Mr. McCallum was a pillar of the Liberal Party who served under three prime ministers: Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin and Justin Trudeau. He left an indelible mark on the recent history of federal politics. He first made his mark in his hometown of Montreal as a professor at UQAM and then as the dean of the faculty of arts at McGill University. Following an academic career of nearly 20 years, during which he made a name for himself in the field of commerce, Mr. McCallum put his expertise to the test as the chief economist for the Royal Bank of Canada in 1994. Then, politics called. With the support of Jean Chrétien, John McCallum was elected to the House of Commons in 2000 as the member for Markham, a northern suburb of Toronto. Two years later, Jean Chrétien appointed him as defence minister. A new prime minister, Paul Martin, appointed him to serve as veterans affairs minister in 2003 and revenue minister in 2004, a position he held until the Liberals were defeated in 2006. This was followed by an extended period in the opposition, during which Mr. McCallum did his duty as one of the key critics for his political party. Nearly a decade later, he returned to Cabinet as the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, this time under Justin Trudeau. It must have been he ultimate irony to return to Cabinet at the request of a new boss who was just a student at McGill when Mr. McCallum was a dean there. John McCallum retired from politics in 2017 to become Canada's ambassador to China, a position he held until 2019, when he became a strategic adviser in the private sector. As the Bloc Québécois representative, I admit it would be an understatement to say we had major political differences with Mr. McCallum. He was strongly opposed to Quebec's sovereignty, his contribution to the public debate on the economics of Quebec's separation raised many eyebrows. Although we often found ourselves on opposing sides during the biggest political battle in the history of Quebec and Canada, we remember Mr. McCallum today as a smiling, affable intellectual, who spoke frankly, had a great sense of humour and also a sense of statesmanship. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to offer my condolences to his wife, Nancy, his three sons, his six grandchildren, his loved ones and the Liberal political family. Thank you for your public service, Mr. McCallum.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP, I too rise to pay tribute to the late Hon. John McCallum. It has already been said in this place that he had many accomplishments. He was a recognized and respected economist; he was a recognized academic; he was a recognized parliamentarian; and of course he was a recognized diplomat. In the face of all that work and all that effort, though, before all of it, he was a son, a brother, a husband, a father, and a friend and colleague, and that is how I knew John: as a colleague in this place, as many, like me, have cited as their experience with John. Like them, in 2015, when I was first elected, John was also in this House. He was the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. I was the critic for the NDP, and as a newly elected member of Parliament, I was so often lost in this place. Shortly after the election, a constituent phoned me to ask for help on an immigration matter. It was actually a family who needed to come and see their dying father before they departed. In my eagerness to support them, I did not know what to do. I picked up the phone, I searched the directory and I called John's office. I left a message and I was not sure if anybody was even going to pick it up, because it was early days after the election. Lo and behold, John McCallum called me back, and he put his office and his staff onto it, even though he did not have very much staff, as he said to me. However, he put people onto it and ensured that they would do their best to support the family, and that he did. I will never forget that moment in time when a minister picked up a call and responded to a call from an opposition MP in helping their constituent. That kindness was something that I will never forget about John McCallum, that level of responsiveness that he took to the job and that respect he has shown not only to me as a colleague but more importantly to his role as the minister of immigration in respecting the needs of Canadians. That was the John McCallum I was reminded of when I heard about his passing. I then thought about his work. As he cited at the time, being the minister of immigration was a significant job, because the government was working through the Syrian refugee initiative. It was an ambitious initiative and it was a tough one to accomplish, and that he did. There were some missteps here and there and everywhere, as in all things that we try to do. John McCallum, though, took to the job with a sense of humility, I would say. He was not bragging about that work and he was also open to what he could learn and what I, as the opposition critic, could offer to help him do that job better. I offered many different suggestions, and in the Syrian refugee initiative, there were many lessons learned. One important lesson was for us to take in and utilize the knowledge of the communities of people who are new arrivals and have established themselves and have the language and cultural experience to welcome newcomers but do not really have a place in the established structure of resettlement services. I went to John and said, âLook, we should be leveraging the strength of all Canadians in this effort.â He said to me, âWhat do you think we should do?â I offered some suggestions, including helping these younger, newer organizations to build capacity, and for us to utilize their strength and harness their strength in the resettlement effort. That is exactly what he did. I appreciate a parliamentarian, a minister, who brings that kind of view to this place. After all, that is why we run for office. I am absolutely sure that was the reason John ran for office as well. It was to help Canadians so that we can support each other. The responsiveness of John as minister is something to be noted, but I also want to acknowledge something else. I remember when he left this place back on January 31, 2017, and he gave his final speech in Parliament. He looked back on what he felt was good, the things he accomplished, and he singled out two things in particular: âthe nomination of Nelson Mandela to be an honorary citizen back in 2001 and, in particular, the Syrian refugees.â We should always remember that. Why it stood out is that it showed Canada's compassion and kindness, and it showed that Canada is different. In nominating Nelson Mandela, who is an icon of social justice, that is also what it stood for. Let me close with a quote. John McCallum said the following: what makes me really proud is not that we got the job done, although that is good, but that at a time when so many countries around the world are closing their doors to refugees, ordinary Canadians across this land have come out and have welcomed our newcomers with open hearts. That is what makes me very proud to be a Canadian. Those were the words of John McCallum in this place on his way out as a parliamentarian. For that, I honour you. I honour your work. I thank his family for his service to our community and for sharing him. Last but not least, I say let those words be a reminder of what we need to continue to do, especially during these very difficult times in the global community.
Monsieur le Président, c'est un honneur pour moi aussi de prendre la parole cet aprÚs-midi pour rendre hommage à notre collÚgue et cher ami John McCallum. C'était quelqu'un d'extraordinaire, un génie. Il a travaillé comme avocat, je pense, et comme professeur. C'était un universitaire et un érudit. He was not just someone who had a few degrees here and there; he was the dean of arts at a university. He was a chief economist at the Royal Bank. He did all of this and had a political career. His articles remain noted for their scholarly importance in the fields in which he practised in economics. We knew each other through a strange circumstance, I suppose. I got to know him quite well. We became friends. I can share, as the member for Vancouver East and the member for Calgary Nose Hill have said, how kind he was to people in other parties, sharing ideas and his humour. I will not digress into the circumstances of how I got to know him too deeply, but I was on a hunger strike in front of Parliament Hill in 2003 to try to get a toxic waste site cleaned up in Cape Breton. That is when I really got to know John McCallum. When I think back on it, I remember how often I tried to get him to stop smoking. Of course, he passed away from lung cancer. The reason I got to know him so well is that I was sitting in front of Parliament Hill for 17 days on a hunger strike, so the members of Parliament I got to know best were the ones who went out for smoke breaks the most often. When he left to become the ambassador to China, I told him it was good because my chances of getting him to stop smoking had gone downhill and that he could smoke anywhere in China as I did not think there were any rules against smoking. He was a man of enormous kindness. There were some people who would rush by me as I sat in front of Centre Block. By the way, it was not illegal. I got a permit from the Parliament Hill people to be able to sit right in front of the members' doors to stay on this hunger strike. John, like our colleague whom I should mention, Ralph Goodale, was really worried about my health. Not that I need to mention him, but I can say his name now because he is not here. So were quite a few members of Parliament and even members of cabinet. While I was worried about John and his smoking, he was worried about me being on a hunger strike, so he kept checking on me. It meant a great deal that he would stop, talk and check on me through this period, and we became really good friends. I appreciated his sense of humour. He would stop and we would talk about anything, because I was sitting in a good spot for stopping and having a conversation. He also tried to help to resolve the situation we were in at that point, trying to get a toxic waste site cleaned up. In the end, and that is a longer story, we did. What I want to share is with respect to his incredible thoughtfulness and kindness when at last I was here as a member of Parliament. The friendship we forged through those unusual circumstances on his smoke breaks lasted. Just as our colleague from Vancouver East said, I would go to him as the then minister of immigration, and he would unfailingly make time to listen to specific cases. I would plead with him that he not deport the person and ask if he could see his way clear to talking to his officials, because there were things there that just did not add up in the way the department had decided to handle the matter. He was patient and kind. He was willing to listen. He would try to apply his immense brain to the very specific local concerns I brought to him. I want Canadians to know that if they go to a Wikipedia page, everything that was ever controversial pops up. Let us forget all of that. Canada and every Canadian owe people in public life a debt of gratitude, and there are not many who serve as long as John McCallum. John McCallum served in the cabinets of the following former prime ministers: the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, the Right Hon. Paul Martin and the Right Hon. Justin Trudeau. He did so with a generosity of spirit toward those of us in opposition that has rarely been matched. Yes, there is no doubt that there could be sparring, as I would say to my friend from Calgary Nose Hill. Those were good moments. However, that was with a good heart and nothing that could be considered mean-spirited. He was a kind and generous man of enormous intellect. He had a great, deep and abiding love for this country, which he lived out every day. I would say to his wife, Nancy; his children; and his six grandchildren that he has gone too soon. From the bottom of my heart, I ask the Lord to receive him into his kingdom. He was a wonderful man. We will miss him. Thank you for sharing him with us.
Honorables collÚgues, c'est maintenant à mon tour de rendre hommage à notre collÚgue l'honorable John McCallum, professeur, économiste, banquier, parlementaire, ami. à partir de 2000, aprÚs une carriÚre comme banquier et ensuite comme doyen de la Faculté des arts de l'Université McGill, il s'est dévoué au service public. Comme on l'a déjà mentionné, il a été ministre dans trois gouvernements et donc responsable de plusieurs dossiers épineux: la défense nationale, les anciens combattants, le revenu, l'immigration, les réfugiés et la citoyenneté. It was in this role that we saw his many talents put to the test for the benefit of the tens of thousands of Syrian refugees who were fleeing dire circumstances in the hope of a new beginning. As many have noted, he was the mastermind behind the very complicated logistical and humanitarian challenge of bringing Syrian refugees to Canada, where they were able to start new lives. That was one of the brighter moments of our recent history, and we have our late friend to thank for helping Canada open its doors and hearts to those in need. In a world that seems always full of thorny economic challenges, John McCallum was there to provide cogent explanations. Sa vocation de professeur lui a donné la patience nécessaire pour expliquer des questions complexes. Lorsqu'il est arrivé ici, il a encore trouvé la patience de répondre à des questions difficiles. Il l'a toujours fait avec gentillesse, avec humour et avec son sourire caractéristique. Il a apporté son intelligence et son savoir à la politique tout en restant toujours accessible, ce qui est sans aucun doute la clé de son succÚs ici, mais aussi la clé de son succÚs partout. We know that John was a family man and that he will be much missed. We take this time to express our deepest condolences to all who loved him. He will always be remembered for his service to Canada. Qu'il repose en paix.
Hansard translation: Hon. colleagues, it is now my turn to pay tribute to our colleague, the Hon. John McCallum, a professor, an economist, a banker, a parliamentarian and a friend. Beginning in 2000, after a career as a banker and then as dean of the faculty of arts at McGill University, he devoted himself to public service. As others have mentioned, he served as a minister in three governments, taking on a number of challenging files: national defence; veterans; revenue; and immigration, refugees and citizenship. C'est Ă ce titre que nous avons vu ses nombreux talents mis Ă l'Ă©preuve au profit des dizaines de milliers de rĂ©fugiĂ©s syriens qui fuyaient des circonstances dĂ©sastreuses dans l'espoir d'un nouveau dĂ©part. Comme beaucoup l'ont fait remarquer, il a Ă©tĂ© le cerveau derriĂšre le dĂ©fi logistique et humanitaire trĂšs complexe consistant Ă faire venir des rĂ©fugiĂ©s syriens au Canada, oĂč ils ont pu commencer une nouvelle vie. Ce fut l'un des plus beaux moments de notre histoire rĂ©cente, et nous pouvons remercier notre regrettĂ© ami d'avoir aidĂ© le Canada Ă ouvrir ses portes et son cĆur aux personnes dans le besoin. Dans un monde qui semblait toujours rempli de dĂ©fis Ă©conomiques Ă©pineux, John McCallum Ă©tait lĂ pour fournir des explications convaincantes. As a professor, he developed the patience to explain complex issues. As a member of Parliament, he again practised patience in answering tough questions, always with kindness, humour and his trademark smile. He brought his intelligence and knowledge to politics while always remaining approachable, and I have no doubt that was the key to his success here and in all aspects of his life. Nous savons que John Ă©tait un pĂšre de famille et qu'il manquera beaucoup Ă ses proches. Nous souhaitons exprimer nos plus sincĂšres condolĂ©ances Ă tous ceux qui l'aimaient. On se souviendra toujours de lui pour les services qu'il a rendus au Canada. May he rest in peace.
Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) and Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib) paid tribute to the Hon. Gail Shea, former MP for Egmont and the first woman from Prince Edward Island appointed to the federal cabinet, who passed away on August 21. Both members honoured her career as a provincial and federal politician, her roles as minister of fisheries and oceans and minister of national revenue, her strong support for the seal hunt, her community roots in Skinners Pond, and her warmth as a mother, grandmother and great-grandmother.
- CPC Pierre Poilievre
- Lib Robert Morrissey
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on August 21, many of us were saddened to learn of the passing of our former colleague and long-time friend Gail Shea. At four foot five, she was a little lady who packed a big punch, and she put her fight to work on behalf of farmers, fish harvesters, workers and veterans. She was proud of her roots and her commitment to the island that gave her her upbringing, her career and of course her beloved family. In addition to being a great fighter for her people, she was a woman of incredible warmth and generosity. In fact, those who knew Gail always found out that if she learned of their presence on beloved Prince Edward Island, they would be making the obligatory and extremely enjoyable visit to her residence to enjoy seafood casserole and many other island delights. She had a generous heart, and I often turned to her for encouragement. In times of confusion and stress, I would call her to get her counsel. In the many years after she left Parliament, she continued as a mentor and friend to me. She always lifted the spirits of the people she knew. I think of my friends from Atlantic Canada. She visited my friend from Newfoundland and his community. My friends from New Brunswick would see her pop up in their community to bring her smile, her humour and often her razor-sharp intellect. There are so many stories of the kindness she showed to people in the community, all the personal details that she would remember about people's lives. I remember when I first started running for leader of the Conservative Party, she anticipated my long travels away from my family and gifted me two beautiful little teddy bears that I brought home to my kids. My daughter, who has a tendency to develop a great attachment to different kinds of objects and toys, held on to that teddy bear for days and days after I left on my subsequent trip. My wife told me that little Valentina held that teddy bear close to her heart. Gail was very proud of her Irish roots, reminding us all that there are only two types of people: those who are Irish and those who wish they were. If I walked down the hallways of the parliamentary precinct while she was preparing for question period, I could hear the beautiful sound of Gaelic music and an Irish harp echoing off the walls as she quietly prepared. Her love of music was reflected in her efforts to get the Stompin' Tom Centre inaugurated in honour of the great Canadian legend. She was also the first female cabinet minister at the federal level from Prince Edward Island, and she was very proud of that commitment. She then went on to serve as minister of fisheries and minister of national revenue. Most importantly of all, she was the MP for Egmont. She was also a provincial member of Parliament and was elected there after defeating a Liberal in a riding that had not switched blue for 40 years prior to her election. This often meant she was challenging the way things were. She was taking strong and principled stances. This meant there would occasionally be controversy. One day, when she was at a press conference, a lady walked up pretending she was about to fix a technical problem on her microphone and threw a pie in her face. Most people would have thought the press conference would end and the politician behind the mic would quickly run away and do so in shame. She simply took her hand, wiped off her face and said, âback to the business at handâ. It turned out the protester was angry because of Gail's principled support of the all-important seal hunt, but if that protester with her bad behaviour thought she was going to change Gail's mind, she said it only increased her âresolve to support the seal hunt and our northern and coastal communities that depend on the hunt for part of their annual income.â She was an iron lady, never backing down and unflappable, and was determined and resolved to stand for what she knew was right. She would serve provincially and federally, and most importantly, she would continue to do the most important job she had. There were three jobs she had, actually, that she bragged about most often: mom, grandmother and great-grandmother. Gail carried in her heart her strong faith in God and her love of the people who surrounded her. She will rightly be remembered as a great Islander and a great Canadian. I was honoured to attend the mass and funeral that Islanders put on for Gail a few weeks back. It was a celebration of life that then carried over, as all Irish funerals do, to the local Legion, where it went on into the very late hours of the night. They say of the Irish that they are the only people who cry at every wedding and laugh at every funeral, and so it was once again. On behalf of all Conservative MPs, ministers, volunteers and others who served with Gail and experienced the wonderful warmth of her personality and her faith, I wish my condolences, thoughts and prayers to the entire Shea family and to all Islanders who cherish the memory she left behind. On behalf of my family and our Conservative caucus, may she rest in peace, in the peace of God, and may her Irish eyes be smiling at us all from above.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute, on behalf of the government caucus, to a former member of Parliament who sadly left us a few weeks ago, the Hon. Gail Shea. Politics can be challenging and it can be tough at times, but Gail was prepared to step up and put herself forward as a candidate in numerous elections. Gail, as pointed out, was a member of Parliament for the riding of Egmont, the riding I now represent. She served as a cabinet minister in the government of former prime minister Stephen Harper, and she also served in the government of the former premier of Prince Edward Island, the Hon. Pat Binns. On a personal note, I knew Gail for most of my life. We grew up in neighbouring communities, coastal fishing communities, a few kilometres from one another at a time when the fishery was not as valuable as it is today. We both attended the same high school, and our lives often revolved around the same community we called home, the town of Tignish, where, as the Leader of the Opposition referenced, her funeral service was held a few weeks ago. It is the furthermost community in the western part of our home province of Prince Edward Island. Gail was very proud of her family, and there is no question that her family was very proud of Gail. She was also deeply attached to her home community of Skinners Pond. On a lighter note, when Gail became a minister of the Government of Canada, she said in conversation that there were now two famous people from Skinners Pond, a very little community. The other person was Canadian icon musician Stompin' Tom Connors, who a lot of people would remember. Gail made it a priority of hers to get Tom Connors to choose that community to be the location of a centre that would commemorate his legacy, a very deep legacy in traditional Canadian music, and house all the artifacts attached to his distinguished career as a Canadian. Make no mistake: Stompin' Tom Connors put Canada first. Although she was not elected at the time that this particular centre came to realization, it was her vision. Since it was heavily federally funded and I had the option, I personally asked her to attend the official opening in 2017 and join me on stage to cut the ribbon to officially open the centre. She was extremely touched and appreciated the opportunity to be there. Gail's legacy will live on, both through her various accomplishments as a public representative and through her commitment to volunteerism, because after leaving politics, she immersed herself in the community on a volunteer basis. She was very involved in the local Royal Canadian Legion. These organizations will certainly miss her presence over the years. Her family, especially her five children, who I know well, Sally, Sandy, Kelly, Holly and Shawn, can be very proud of their mother and the contribution she made to our part of this wonderful country, the small part that I referenced in western Prince Edward Island. Family took precedence over every other aspect of her accomplished life, and I know her family members, children and grandchildren will miss her. The most important tribute we can give to a former parliamentarian or legislator, which I say unequivocally, is this: Her community is a better place today because of her years of service. I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to say a few words here today on behalf of the government caucus about the life of Gail Shea, and pay tribute to a life well lived and filled with value and contributions that will have a long-lasting legacy. I will leave with this. Let us not take our health for granted. Life passes by quickly. I want to thank Gail for her contribution to Prince Edward Island and to Canada, this country we all so love.
Alexis DeschĂȘnes (GaspĂ©sieâLes Ăles-de-la-MadeleineâListuguj, BQ), Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP), Elizabeth May (SaanichâGulf Islands, GP) and the Speaker each paid tribute to the Hon. Gail Shea, honouring her as a trailblazer who shattered glass ceilings in provincial and federal politics, a steadfast defender of the sealing industry and rural coastal communities, and a devoted mother, grandmother and community volunteer whose legacy will long be remembered across Prince Edward Island and Canada.
- BQ Alexis DeschĂȘnes
- NDP Lori Idlout
- GP Elizabeth May
- The Speaker
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous soulignons aujourd'hui la vie et la contribution de Gail Shea, ex-ministre conservatrice, mais surtout citoyenne engagĂ©e de l'ĂleâduâPrinceâĂdouard, qui nous a quittĂ©s le 21 aoĂ»t dernier Ă l'Ăąge de 66 ans. Issue d'une famille de pĂȘcheurs de l'Ouest de son Ăźle, Mme Shea a su rassembler les gens au-delĂ des allĂ©geances politiques, d'abord en se faisant Ă©lire Ă l'AssemblĂ©e lĂ©gislative de l'ĂleâduâPrinceâĂdouard Ă partir de l'an 2000, en tant que conservatrice dans une forteresse libĂ©rale. Elle s'y dĂ©marqua jusqu'en 2007, notamment en portant les lourdes responsabilitĂ©s de ministre des Transports et des Travaux publics. Puis, en 2008, un nouveau dĂ©fi l'attirait loin de chez elle: la politique fĂ©dĂ©rale. Encore une fois, Gail Shea gagnait la confiance des Ă©lecteurs en tant que Bleue dans le bastion rouge d'Egmont. Plus encore, elle faisait directement son entrĂ©e au sein du cabinet ministĂ©riel de Stephen Harper dans un poste nĂ©vralgique pour sa rĂ©gion et la mienne: ministre des PĂȘches et des OcĂ©ans. Elle fut ainsi la premiĂšre femme de l'ĂleâduâPrinceâĂdouard Ă devenir ministre. Elle demeurera au cabinet conservateur jusqu'Ă son dĂ©part de la politique en 2015. Mme Shea est notamment connue dans son coin de pays pour s'ĂȘtre tenue debout pour les rĂ©gions maritimes, notamment en rĂ©sistant contre des prĂ©jugĂ©s tenaces au sujet de l'industrie de la chasse au loup-marin. Ceux qui l'ont cĂŽtoyĂ©e sont unanimes, y compris ses adversaires politiques. Ils se souviennent surtout d'une femme qui n'a jamais oubliĂ© d'oĂč elle venait ni les gens qu'elle reprĂ©sentait, y compris les pĂȘcheurs. Au nom du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois et Ă titre de porte-parole de ma formation politique en matiĂšre de pĂȘches et d'ocĂ©ans, je tiens Ă offrir mes condolĂ©ances Ă la famille et aux proches de Gail Shea. Puissions-nous aussi, dĂ©putĂ©s recrues comme moi, mais Ă©galement les plus aguerris, ne jamais oublier d'oĂč nous venons et pour qui nous travaillons.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today we honour the life and contributions of Gail Shea, a former Conservative minister and, more importantly, a dedicated citizen of Prince Edward Island, who passed away on August 21 at the age of 66. Ms. Shea came from a fishing family in western P.E.I. She had a knack for bringing people together across political lines, first by being elected to the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island in 2000 as a Conservative in a Liberal stronghold. Up until her departure in 2007, she made her mark there, notably by shouldering the heavy responsibilities of the role of minister of transportation and public works. Then, in 2008, she was lured away from home by a new challenge: federal politics. Once again, Gail Shea won voters' trust as a blue candidate in the red stronghold of Egmont. What is more, she was given a role in Stephen Harper's cabinet straightaway as minister of fisheries and oceans, a position that is crucial for her region and mine. She was the first woman from Prince Edward Island to become a minister. She remained in the Conservative cabinet until she left politics in 2015. Ms. Shea was known in her part of the country for standing up for the Maritimes, specifically by resisting stubborn misconceptions about the seal hunting industry. Everyone who knew her, including her political opponents, remember her most as a woman who never forgot where she came from or the people she represented, including fishers. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois and as my party's critic for fisheries and oceans, I offer my sincere condolences to Gail Shea's family and loved ones. May new members like me and seasoned members alike also never forget where we come from or the people we serve.
Uqaqtittiji, I am privileged to represent Nunavut in honouring the work of the Hon. Gail Shea. I did not know Gail personally. I send my condolences to her family, her friends and, I am sure, her wide-ranging community. One of the privileges that we gain as parliamentarians is how much we learn about Canada, Canadians and the hopes and strengths we see for our future. I have learned that Gail Shea, who died on August 21, was a trailblazer in Canadian politics and that she was a devoted public servant and a proud Islander. Gail Shea's legacy will long be remembered across Prince Edward Island, Canada and abroad. I am told that Gail Shea's journey began in Skinners Pond, a small fishing community that shaped her values and her unwavering commitment to service, which included her serving as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island from 2000 to 2007 and being the member of Parliament from 2008 to 2015 for the riding of Egmont. She brought those values to the legislative assembly, where she served with distinction and shattered glass ceilings as the province's first female minister of transportation and public works. Her leadership continued on the federal stage, where she made history as the first woman from Prince Edward Island appointed to the federal cabinet. As minister of fisheries and oceans, and later as minister of national revenue, she championed rural communities, stood firm for Canadian industries and always put her constituents first. Gail Shea was known for her strength, her warmth and her fierce dedication. She was a mother to five children, Sally, Kelly, Sandy, Holly and Shawn, a grandmother of 17, and a mentor to many more. Her colleagues across party lines remember her as someone who could âmove a mountainâ and who ânever...forgot where she came fromâ. I have learned that Gail Shea and I have a common sense of pride for the strengths of our constituents, especially in the sealing industry. During a time when the sealing industry experienced such controversy because of lobby groups, she showed great leadership. Was I ever pleased to hear what she had to say about the sealing industry: âI can tell you that this incident actually strengthens my resolve to support the seal hunt. If this is what it takes to stand up for Canadian sealing families and this industry I'm certainly very proud to do it.â I have learned that she has remarked that this was one of the lower points in her political career, and to hear that later shows that she had great strength. This quote captures her spirit. She was unapologetically principled, deeply rooted in her community and proud to stand for what she believed in. Gail Shea's legacy is seen in our continued work, in the policies she helped shape and in the lives she impacted. She showed us that politics can be both fierce and compassionate. She showed us that leadership means listening, serving and never forgetting where we come from. May her children, who I mentioned earlier, continue to provide warm and welcoming gatherings with lots of great seafood and continue to welcome visitors to their beautiful island. I am aware that in her memorial, in lieu of flowers, they had requested, and I do suggest this as well, that donations be made to Children's Wish Foundation and Community Hospital O'Leary's palliative care wing. On behalf of the NDP, we hope she rests in peace.
Mr. Speaker, I thank all the previous speakers. I knew Gail Shea. Of the people we have paid tribute to today, though I knew them all, it was only with Gail Shea that I served at the same time in an overlapping period. She was always a great person to visit with, to have fun with and to chat with. She was certainly formidable. It has already been noted that she was a trailblazer. I want to mention, of course, one aspect of her political success. Coming from the Maritimes myself, I know this was the case, or I am pretty sure it was, but Prince Edward Islanders can correct me if I have this wrong. As far as I can tell, in the years that I have known Prince Edward Islanders of different parties in politics, there had never been a time when a Prince Edward Island MP got elected to Parliament, joined a federal cabinet and then survived the next election. There tended to be a bit of a tradition of defeating anybody who ended up in cabinet. I am looking over at some of my friends here, and I cannot say their names out loud, to see if I got that wrong, but I think she was the very first. We know she was the first federal minister woman to enter any cabinet from Prince Edward Island in this country. She served at the provincial level, and she served in the cabinet of Stephen Harper. She survived to run again and get re-elected. She was, as we know, someone of great energy, good humour and a very big heart to welcome all. I think of what it must have been like for her that, in 2021, she lost her dear husband Russell. The two of them had 45 years of marriage. I still think she died very young at 66. They had 45 years of marriage and five children. That is a rich life before we count the number of successes she experienced in politics, the number of times she was elected, and the numbers of times and the different ways in which she served. One of my favourite memories, and I cannot remember why it was, but of course this is Canada, so we were sitting with each other on an airplane. She was Irish and both of us were Christian. I said that reminded me that I had known a friend, an Irish small child, when I was a small child. This friend had misunderstood, âSurely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my lifeâ. I told Gail that this friend had thought all through her childhood that it was actually, âSurely, good Mrs. Murphy shall follow me all the days of my lifeâ. Being that the child was Irish, it seemed to fit, and Gail loved that. There was something about Gail that one could imagine her as good Mrs. Murphy following us all the days of our lives. She was kind-hearted, hard-working and dedicated, and someone who was an inspiration to know. She showed that life after politics as a grandmother can be a whole lot better than life in politics. The leader of the official opposition mentioned that he was at the funeral. How many people have 29 honorary pallbearers, including a former prime minister and former colleagues? She will be missed. It is appropriate that today we take the time to honour her memory, thank her for her service, and thank her family and Skinners Pond for sharing her with Canada.
Honorables collĂšgues, j'aimerais moi aussi prendre un moment pour dire quelques mots Ă propos de notre amie l'honorable Gail Shea. Gail Shea entered federal politics the way many politicians do, at the provincial level, serving in the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island from 2000 to 2007, where she served as minister of community and cultural affairs and the minister of status of women, as well as minister of transportation and public works. Indeed, she was the first woman minister of transportation of her province. Here in this place, she represented the riding of Egmont, as we know, between 2008 and 2015. Elle Ă©tait aussi ministre des PĂȘches et des OcĂ©ans, ministre du Revenu national et ministre de l'Agence de promotion Ă©conomique du Canada atlantique. Encore une fois, elle a brisĂ© un plafond de verre en Ă©tant la premiĂšre femme de l'ĂleâduâPrinceâĂdouard nommĂ©e au Cabinet fĂ©dĂ©ral. I remember her during question period answering questions. Yes, she gave answers in her own down-to-earth and sincere manner. Elle a toujours accordĂ© une importance primordiale aux prĂ©occupations de ses Ă©lecteurs, en particulier celles des communautĂ©s rurales confrontĂ©es Ă des problĂšmes liĂ©s Ă l'agriculture et Ă la pĂȘche. GrĂące Ă son amour pour sa famille, sa communautĂ© et son pays, elle dĂ©gageait une amabilitĂ© et une ouverture d'esprit que le monde entier associe Ă sa province et Ă sa rĂ©gion. Her heart and home were always open to her large family and circle of friends, which was very large indeed, as she connected with everyone she met. She was a friend and fan of the legendary folk hero Stompin' Tom Connors, who also hailed, as we know, from Skinners Pond. Both Islanders shared a love of country and an appreciation of the towns and people who make Canada unique. Nos pensĂ©es vont aux membres de sa famille et aux nombreux amis de l'honorable Gail Shea. Qu'elle repose en paix, sachant que les Canadiennes et les Canadiens lui sont reconnaissants pour son dĂ©vouement Ă sa communautĂ©, sa province et son pays.
Hansard translation: Hon. colleagues, I would also like to take a moment to say a few words about our friend, the Hon. Gail Shea. Comme beaucoup d'autres politiciens, Gail Shea a fait le saut en politique fĂ©dĂ©rale aprĂšs avoir siĂ©gĂ© Ă l'assemblĂ©e lĂ©gislative de sa province. En effet, de 2000 Ă 2007, elle a Ă©tĂ© dĂ©putĂ©e provinciale de l'ĂleâduâPrinceâĂdouard, occupant les postes de ministre des Affaires communautaires et culturelles, ministre responsable de la Condition fĂ©minine, et ministre des Transports et des Travaux publics. D'ailleurs, elle a Ă©tĂ© la premiĂšre femme Ă devenir ministre des Transports dans sa province. Ă la Chambre des communes, elle a, comme nous le savons, reprĂ©sentĂ© la circonscription d'Egmont de 2008 Ă 2015. She also served as minister of fisheries and oceans, minister of national revenue and minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Once again, she broke a glass ceiling by becoming the first woman from Prince Edward Island to be appointed to the federal cabinet. Je me souviens d'elle Ă la pĂ©riode des questions. Elle rĂ©pondait toujours aux questions de façon rĂ©aliste et sincĂšre. She always prioritized the concerns of her constituents, especially those in rural communities who had issues related to farming and fishing. Her love for her family, her community and her country was reflected in the kindness and open-mindedness that defined her, qualities that the whole world associates with her province and her region. Son cĆur et son domicile Ă©taient toujours ouverts Ă son important cercle de parents et d'amis. Ce cercle comptait beaucoup de personnes, car elle nouait des liens avec tous ceux qu'elle rencontrait. Elle Ă©tait une amie et partisane du lĂ©gendaire hĂ©ros de la musique folklorique, Stompin' Tom Connors, qui, comme nous le savons, venait lui aussi de Skinners Pond. Les deux PrinceâĂdouardiens avaient en commun leur amour pour le Canada et leur reconnaissance pour les villes et les gens qui en font un pays unique. Our thoughts are with the Hon. Gail Shea's family and her many friends. May she rest in peace, knowing that Canadians are grateful for her dedication to her community, her province and her country.