Session overview
- The largest bloc of questions focused on Iranian regime officials in Canada â CPC members pressed the government repeatedly on why only one of 239 individuals whose visas were cancelled has been deported, amid synagogue shootings in the GTA and the suspected homicide of an Iranian dissident.
- Pierre Poilievre devoted five consecutive exchanges to energy policy, accusing Prime Minister Carney of flip-flopping on oil and gas, opposing pipelines to the Pacific, keeping in place 'antidevelopment' Liberal laws, and lacking a strategic oil reserve â Carney countered by citing record exports exceeding five million barrels per day and the G7 release of 400 million barrels from the strategic reserve.
- The Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois raised the CĂșram IT system for Old Age Security, calling it a new Phoenix scandal with cost overruns approaching $5 billion and 85,000 seniors experiencing payment problems; the Prime Minister disputed the 'financial fiasco' label, saying CĂșram is within budget.
- Multiple CPC members cited a National Institute on Ageing survey finding that one in five Canadians over 50 is living near the poverty line, demanding the government scrap the industrial carbon tax and related regulations as drivers of food unaffordability; Liberal ministers consistently cited studies showing the industrial carbon price has zero impact on food prices.
- CPC members challenged the government on supervised drug consumption sites after a peer-reviewed study found that closing a site in Alberta led to no increase in deaths and increased uptake of addiction treatment; the Minister of Health defended the sites as life-saving while acknowledging no single solution exists.
- Jenny Kwan (NDP) pressed the government on Bill C-233, which would remove an exemption in Canada's arms export controls; the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated the government opposes the bill, saying it would decimate Canada's defence industry, weaken Canada's role in NATO and jeopardize the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces.
The Prime Minister made a specific, verifiable commitment on the public record â confirming that he and his G7 counterparts agreed today to release 400 million barrels from the strategic reserve, and explaining why Canada, as an exporter with record exports, does not maintain a domestic reserve under G7 rules.
Cites a peer-reviewed study published the previous day in a leading scientific journal showing closure of a supervised drug consumption site led to no increase in deaths and more people accessing addiction treatment, then asks a pointed, answerable question about whether the minister accepts that science.
Asked directly for a public inquiry into the CĂșram fiasco, Carney deflected entirely by noting the Bloc had not responded to a government briefing offer, never addressing the substance of the cost-overrun allegations or the call for an inquiry.
Outstanding questions
- Pierre Paul-Hus asked the government to table within seven days a plan to urgently enforce deportation orders against Iranian regime officials, re-evaluate Canada's terrorism threat level (unchanged since 2014), and stop approving asylum claims without in-person interviews â no minister committed to any of these three specific actions.
- Michelle Rempel Garner asked how many senior Iranian officials like Mahdi Nasiri are currently in Canada â the minister said 28 are in active removal proceedings but did not answer the total number of senior officials present.
- Christine Normandin asked whether the Prime Minister would call a public inquiry into the CĂșram system â Carney never answered yes or no, redirecting to the claim that CĂșram is within budget.
- Pierre Poilievre asked whether the Prime Minister would reverse his support for the industrial carbon tax and Liberal antidevelopment laws and approve new pipelines to the Pacific â Carney did not address the pipeline question or the antidevelopment laws directly.
- Dan Mazier asked why the Minister of Health continues to approve supervised drug consumption sites if a peer-reviewed study now shows closures lead to more people accessing life-saving addiction treatment and no increase in deaths â the minister cited other studies showing different results but did not justify continued approvals against the specific findings of this study.
Poilievre cites the government's admission that 239 visas were revoked but only one person expelled, and asks how many Iranian government agents remain in Canada threatening the population.
Cites specific numbers from Global News reporting and a government admission (239 visas revoked, 1 expelled) to ask how many Iranian regime agents remain in Canada.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are only two types of people: those who are Irish and those who wish they were. Le premier ministre a fait quatre volte-face à l'égard de l'Iran, mais, chez nous, ces volte-face sont encore pires. Le gouvernement libéral nie un reportage de Global News selon lequel il y a 700 agents du régime iranien ici, chez nous. Cependant, hier, les libéraux ont avoué qu'il y en a 239 dont les visas ont été retirés, mais qu'il y en a seulement un qui a été expulsé. Cela veut dire qu'il y a au moins 238 agents du régime ici, au Canada, pendant qu'on voit des attaques terroristes contre les synagogues et ailleurs. Est-ce que le premier ministre veut faire une autre volte-face et nous expliquer combien il y a d'agents du gouvernement d'Iran ici, menaçant notre population?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il n'y a que deux types de personnes: celles qui sont irlandaises et celles qui aimeraient l'ĂȘtre. The Prime Minister had four flip-flops on Iran, but the flip-flops at home have been even worse. The Liberal government is claiming that the Global News report that indicated that there are 700 Iranian agents here in Canada is false. However, yesterday, the Liberals admitted that 239 agents have had their visas revoked, but only one of them has been deported. That means that there are at least 238 Iranian agents here in Canada at a time when we are seeing terrorist attacks on synagogues and other places. Does the Prime Minister want to flip-flop again and tell us how many Iranian government agents are here threatening our population?
Carney states the government has banned 10,000 IRGC officers from entry, that there are 170 investigations, and 28 are currently under deep review.
Carney provides some figures (10,000 IRGC entry bans, 170 investigations, 28 under deep review) but does not directly answer the question of how many agents currently remain in Canada.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est une situation trĂšs sĂ©rieuse. PremiĂšrement, le gouvernement a dĂ©jĂ interdit Ă 10 000 officiers des Gardiens de la rĂ©volution islamique dâentrer au Canada. DeuxiĂšmement, il y a 170 investigations, et, comme le ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique l'a dit, 28 suivent actuellement un processus d'examen approfondi.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious situation. First, the government has already banned 10,000 IRGC officers from entering Canada. Second, 170 investigations are under way, and like the Minister of Public Safety said, 28 are currently being subject to an extensive review process.
Poilievre asks whether Carney will reverse Liberal antidevelopment laws and policies he attributed to the PM's book Values, including keeping 50% of energy in the ground and an industrial carbon tax that drove away an $8-billion project.
References Carney's book Values and specific policy claims (keeping 50% of energy in the ground, carbon tax, $8-billion project) but the ask is compound and rhetorically framed as a 'flip-flop' challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had four flip-flops on Iran in just the same number of days. This is a pattern. He has also flip-flopped on oil and gas. He wrote a book called Values, in which he said he wanted to keep 50% of our energy in the ground. He said in that book that he wanted to raise carbon taxes, and then he claimed that he had flip-flopped on that, while he has since kept in place every antidevelopment law that Trudeau passed, he has renamed the carbon tax, and he has brought in an industrial carbon tax that has driven away an $8-billion project. Will he flip-flop again and reverse these Liberal policies so that we can actually supply the world with the energy it needs in this critical time?
Carney claims Canada has record oil exports, has approved Ksi Lisims and a major LNG project, and is pursuing lowest-carbon LNG and oil exports.
Carney cites record oil exports, approval of Ksi Lisims, and LNG projects but does not address the specific book claims or the $8-billion cancelled project mentioned in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate receiving this gift on this day honouring Ireland. Canada has increased at record levels our oil exports. Canada has approved, under this government, Ksi Lisims. Canada has approved and started one of the biggest LNGs. Canada is working to the lowest-carbon LNG and the lowest-carbon oil exports in the world. We will maintain and increase our competitive position. We are driving straight forward.
Poilievre asserts Carney supported blocking Pacific pipelines, that the Major Projects Office has approved nothing, and that Ksi Lisims was approved under Harper, asking the PM to reverse the industrial carbon tax and antidevelopment laws to enable Pacific pipelines.
Makes specific claims (no approved oil pipeline, Major Projects Office approvals, Ksi Lisims approved under Harper) but the ask devolves into a rhetorical flip-flop challenge rather than a sharp single question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is driving in circles. He said that he wanted to keep 50% of our oil in the ground. He supported blocking the pipeline to the Pacific. He has not approved a single oil pipeline, and his Major Projects Office has not approved a project of any kind. He has just tried to take credit for a project approved by Prime Minister Harper. Next he will be trying to claim credit for the Canadian Pacific Railway. Will the Prime Minister flip-flop again, reverse his support of an industrial carbon tax and the Liberal antidevelopment laws, and get out of the way so that we can build pipelines to the Pacific to power paycheques for our people?
Oh, oh!
Carney says government policy is the lowest-risk, lowest-carbon and lowest-cost oil and gas, citing the MOU with Alberta, Bay du Nord, and Canadian LNG.
Carney repeats book policy language and references the MOU with Alberta and Bay du Nord without addressing the specific claim that Ksi Lisims was approved under Harper or that no new pipeline has been approved.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my book, as it is the policy of this government, we want the lowest-risk, the lowest-carbon and the lowest-cost oil and gas, and that is what makes ours competitive. That is the story of Canadian LNG. That is the story of the MOU with Alberta. That is the story of Bay du Nord. That is how we drive the country forward and not off a cliff like the member opposite.
Poilievre points out that Canada has zero oil stockpiles while the natural resources minister spoke of helping with stockpiles, and asks the PM to adopt a strategic oil and mineral reserve policy.
Cites the natural resources minister's statement about stockpiles and the specific claim that Canada's stockpiles are zero, then asks whether Carney will adopt a strategic oil and mineral reserve policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the world cannot put meaningless pieces of paper and meaningless MOUs in its gas tank. It needs real energy that comes out of our ground. The Prime Minister said he wants to keep it in the ground, and yet today we have the hilarious spectacle of the Liberal natural resources minister saying that Canada will do what it can to help with its stockpiles for the current energy shortage. Our stockpiles are zero. Will the Prime Minister flip-flop again and adopt my policy that we should have a strategic oil and mineral reserve so that we can supply the world in the future?
Carney says oil exports have never been higher, currently over five million barrels per day, and will increase because they will be low-carbon, low-cost and low-risk.
Carney states exports are over five million barrels per day and will increase, but does not address the strategic reserve proposal or directly explain why Canada has no oil stockpile.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are many policies of the member opposite that I will not adopt. One of them is flip-flopping, jumping around and searching for ridings every election. The second thing I will not adopt is the importance of having the most competitive oil and gas in the world. Our oil exports have never been higher. Under this government, exports are over five million barrels per day, and that will increase, because they will be low-carbon, low-cost and low-risk.
Poilievre contrasts Canada's zero oil stockpiles with its strategic maple syrup stockpile, asking the PM to reverse antidevelopment policies to unlock production and supply the world.
Largely rhetorical with the maple syrup comparison, though the underlying substantive point about zero oil stockpiles is real; the ask to reverse antidevelopment policies is vague and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, sometimes the Prime Minister makes it too easy. Today we have zero oil stockpiles. We have a strategic maple syrup stockpile, which he could use to put maple syrup on the pancakes that he flip-flops on, but we do not have any oil to supply to the world in the time of this crisis. Will he reverse the antidevelopment policies that he has supported, which have come from the previous Liberal government, in order to unlock our production and power the world and the paycheques here at home?
Carney explains that G7 rules require oil reserves only from importers, not exporters, and announces that G7 leaders today confirmed the release of 400 million barrels from the strategic reserve.
Carney directly explains the G7 logic for oil reserves (exporters vs. importers) and announces the release of 400 million barrels from the strategic reserve, which directly addresses the stockpile question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is the way the G7 oil reserve works: If a nation is an importer, it has to have an oil reserve. If a nation is an exporter, which Canada is under this government, if it has record exports, which Canada does under this government, that is how it supplies the world. I salute the work of the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Finance, who, working with G7 counterparts, confirmed with my G7 leader counterparts today the release of 400 million barrels from that strategic reserve.
Poilievre asks directly how many of the 400 million barrels from the strategic reserve release are coming from Canada, and questions why Canada is importing gas from Australia while keeping reserves in the ground.
Asks a highly specific and answerable question â how many of the 400 million barrels are coming from Canada â and also cites the $8-billion cancelled project and Australia gas imports as factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, of the 400 million barrels of oil released from that strategic stockpile, how many are coming from Canada? There are exactly zero. The Prime Minister's excuse, the reason we have no stockpiles, he says, is that we are a producer of oil. This is exactly the opposite of logic. The United States is a producer of oil. They have stockpiles. We have reserves, which the Prime Minister is successfully keeping in the ground. Just last week, we saw an $8-billion project cancelled under his watch. We are importing gas from Australia. Why will he not get out of the way so that we can produce our own energy?
Carney says production and exports have never been so high, the government approved Bay du Nord, and is working with Alberta to produce the lowest-cost, lowest-carbon oil and gas.
Carney does not answer how many barrels Canada is contributing from the 400 million total, instead pivoting to record production and export figures and Bay du Nord.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite thinks he is on a rich vein, but he is tapping a dry well. Under this government, production has never been so high. Exports have never been so high. We approved Bay du Nord. We are working with the Province of Alberta to produce the lowest-cost, lowest-carbon oil and gas. We are expanding our exports. We are expanding our future.
Normandin asks whether the PM takes the CĂșram fiasco more seriously than his minister and whether he will launch a commission of inquiry, citing cost overruns approaching 5 billion dollars and 85,000 seniors affected.
Cites specific figures (85,000 seniors affected, cost overruns approaching 5 billion dollars, 10 times more than SAAQclic), names the CĂșram system, references a federal public service union comparison to Phoenix, and asks a clear double question about seriousness and a public inquiry.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, 85 000 aĂźnĂ©s ont des problĂšmes pour recevoir leur SĂ©curitĂ© de la vieillesse depuis la mise en place du nouveau systĂšme informatique CĂșram. Un syndicat de fonctionnaires fĂ©dĂ©raux parle mĂȘme d'un nouveau PhĂ©nix. Les dĂ©passements de coĂ»ts pour l'installation de CĂșram avoisinent dĂ©jĂ les 5 milliards de dollars, 10 fois plus que SAAQclic qui a pourtant crĂ©Ă© un vĂ©ritable scandale. Quand on aborde ces enjeux, la ministre nous accuse d'agiter des Ă©pouvantails. Est-ce que le premier ministre prend davantage le fiasco CĂșram au sĂ©rieux que sa ministre? Est-ce qu'il va dĂ©clencher une commission d'enquĂȘte?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, 85,000 seniors have been having problems receiving their OAS payments since the new CĂșram computer system was implemented. One federal public service union is even describing CĂșram as the new Phoenix. Cost overruns for implementing CĂșram are already approaching $5 billion, 10 times more than SAAQclic, which caused a real scandal. When we raise these issues, the minister accuses us of fearmongering. Is the Prime Minister taking the CĂșram fiasco more seriously than his minister? Will he launch an inquiry?
Carney says 7.7 million people are served without problems, delays were reduced by 10,000 last week, and it is the responsibility of Service Canada to implement solutions.
Carney acknowledges problems, gives a figure of 7.7 million unaffected users and a reduction of 10,000 delayed cases last week, but does not address the inquiry request or the cost overrun figures.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est la responsabilitĂ© de Service Canada et les faits sont comme cela. Maintenant, il y a 7,7 millions de personnes sans problĂšme pour qui les choses fonctionnent bien. Pendant la derniĂšre semaine, on a rĂ©duit de 10 000 le nombre de personnes aux prises avec des retards liĂ© Ă ces problĂšmes. Il y a des problĂšmes, mais c'est la responsabilitĂ© de Service Canada de mettre les solutions en Ćuvre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this is Service Canada's responsibility. Now there are 7.7 million people who are not having problems and for whom things are working well. Over the past week, the number of people experiencing delays related to these issues has been reduced by 10,000. There are some issues, but it is Service Canada's responsibility to implement solutions.
Normandin asks whether the PM and government will finally accept responsibility for CĂșram, citing thousands of seniors going into debt for rent and groceries as a result.
Highlights the human cost with concrete examples (debt, rent, groceries) and directly asks the PM to accept responsibility and take the situation seriously, though lacks new data compared to Exchange 7.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, CĂșram, c'est un fiasco sur le plan financier, mais ce l'est aussi pour des milliers d'aĂźnĂ©s pour qui c'est une tragĂ©die sur le plan humain. Il y a des gens qui doivent s'endetter pour payer leur loyer, l'Ă©picerie, les comptes. Le gouvernement continue Ă dĂ©fendre sa dĂ©cision de remplacer un systĂšme dĂ©passĂ© par un systĂšme qui ne marche pas. De l'inquiĂ©tude et de l'anxiĂ©tĂ©, c'est ça qu'Ă©prouvent des milliers d'aĂźnĂ©s depuis la mise en place de CĂșram. Est-ce que le gouvernement, et en particulier le premier ministre, va enfin se considĂ©rer comme responsable et prendre la situation au sĂ©rieux?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, CĂșram is a financial disaster, but for thousands of seniors, it is also a human tragedy. Some people are having to go into debt to pay their rent, buy groceries and pay their bills. The government keeps defending its decision to replace an outdated system with a malfunctioning system. CĂșram has left thousands of seniors worried and anxious since it was first introduced. Will the government, especially the Prime Minister, finally accept responsibility and take this situation seriously?
Carney says the government takes the situation seriously and disputes that it is a financial fiasco, claiming CĂșram is respecting its budget.
Carney says the government takes it seriously, then flatly contradicts the cost overrun characterization by claiming CĂșram is within budget, without providing supporting figures.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en tant que gouvernement, nous prenons cette situation, comme toutes les situations, au sĂ©rieux. C'est parce que nous sommes le gouvernement. Or, les mots ne sont pas des faits. Ce n'est pas un fiasco financier. Il y a un budget. CĂșram respecte son budget.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as the government, we take this situation, like every other situation, seriously. That is because we are the government. Words are not facts, however. CĂșram is not a financial disaster. There is a budget. CĂșram is staying on budget.
Lemire asks when the government will launch a public and independent commission of inquiry into the CĂșram fiasco, noting it was supposed to cost 1.75 billion dollars and has now far exceeded that.
Cites specific original budget figure (1.75 billion dollars) against current overruns of 5 billion dollars and asks a clear, single question about a public independent inquiry into the CĂșram fiasco.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est tout un banquier. C'est 5 milliards de dollars en dĂ©passement de coĂ»ts. Ă cela s'ajoute le coĂ»t humain pour les aĂźnĂ©s aux prises avec CĂșram. Ăa devait coĂ»ter 1,75 milliard de dollars, et ce n'est pas fini. On le sait parce que, chaque fois, c'est la mĂȘme chose. Ăa continue de grimper. Il y a des firmes privĂ©es et des consultants qui doivent ĂȘtre morts de rire aujourd'hui en entendant le premier ministre et en comptant leur pile de fric. C'est comme si ce gouvernement n'avait pas l'obligation de bien gĂ©rer l'argent du monde. C'est comme si personne n'Ă©tait responsable. J'aimerais entendre le premier ministre. Ă quand une commission d'enquĂȘte publique et indĂ©pendante sur le fiasco de CĂșram?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, he is quite the banker. We are talking about $5 billion in cost overruns. Add to that the human cost for seniors struggling with CĂșram. It was supposed to cost $1.75 billion, and it is not over yet. We know this because it is the same old story every time. The costs keep climbing. There are private firms and consultants laughing all the way to the bank as they listen to the Prime Minister today. This government acts like it has no obligation to manage public money properly. It is as though no one were responsible. I would like to hear from the Prime Minister. When will there be a public and independent inquiry into the CĂșram fiasco?
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh.
Carney says the government already offered the Bloc québécois a briefing that went unanswered, suggesting discussion should come before an inquiry.
Carney deflects by saying the government offered the Bloc québécois a briefing that went unanswered, pivoting away from the inquiry request entirely.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est curieux. Le gouvernement a déjà offert un breffage au Bloc québécois. C'est resté sans réponse. Il n'y a pas eu de réponse à notre offre de breffage. Il y a eu des discussions en comité.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the funny thing is that the government offered a briefing to the Bloc Québécois and has yet to receive a response. There was no response to our offer for a briefing. There were discussions in committee.
Oui, monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est intĂ©ressant. C'est une bonne idĂ©e d'avoir une discussion avant d'avoir une enquĂȘte.
Hansard translation: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. It is a good idea to have a discussion before having an inquiry.
Lantsman asks why only one of 239 visa-revoked Iranian regime officials has been removed while an Iranian Canadian critic has gone missing in a case now being investigated as a homicide, and when the minister will have them removed.
Cites 239 visa cancellations, one deportation, the government's stated excuses (asylum claims, no flights, privacy), and a specific homicide investigation of an Iranian Canadian dissident to ask when regime officials will be removed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for years the Liberals have known that there are hundreds of Iranian regime officials here in Canada. Two hundred and thirty-nine had their visas cancelled, yet we just learned that the government managed to remove exactly one of those. Its excuse is that they might claim asylum, there are no flights to Iran and we must protect their privacy. Meanwhile, an Iranian Canadian critic of the regime has gone missing, and police are now investigating that as a homicide. Why are the Liberals protecting terrorists, and when will the minister finally have them removed?
Anandasangaree says senior IRGC members will be removed, 28 are currently facing removal through due process, and offers the Leader of the Opposition a briefing if he obtains a security clearance.
Anandasangaree confirms 28 individuals are facing removal and due process is underway, which partially addresses the question, but does not explain the gap between 239 and 28 or address the homicide case.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. Those who are senior members of the IRGC will be removed. As we speak, right now, there are 28 individuals who are facing removal. We are going through due process and they will be removed. Let us also be very clear that if the party opposite wants more information, the Leader of the Opposition can go get a security check, and we will be more than glad to provide the requisite information for them to be accurate in their analysis.
Lantsman cites 700 IRGC agents in Canada and only one deportation after three and a half years, asking the minister to commit to returning within one week with a plan to expel more.
Cites 700 IRGC agents, only one deportation after three and a half years, and asks for a specific commitment to return to the House within one week with a plan to expel more than one regime activist.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows there are 700 IRGC agents in this country, and those are just the ones we know about. The minister knows that dissidents are being threatened. He knows that activist businesses are being shot out, and he knows that intimidation is happening under his watch, yet, after three and a half years, the Liberals have deported exactly one of those terrorists. Will the minister commit to returning to the House within one week with a plan to expel more than just one regime activist?
Anandasangaree says CBSA is working diligently on 28 removals, notes Canada has listed the IRGC as a terrorist entity and Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, and commits to continuing to ensure security.
Anandasangaree confirms CBSA is working on 28 removals, cites the IRGC listing as a terrorist entity and Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, but does not commit to the one-week timeline requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Canada Border Services Agency is working diligently to ensure the safety and security of Canadians, including 28 who are going through the process of being removed. Canada has identified the IRGC as a listed terrorist entity under Canadian law. We have listed Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. We will continue to ensure the security of Canadians by removing those who are inadmissible.
Rempel Garner asks how many senior Iranian officials like Mahdi Nasiri â who ran the Iranian regime's hardline propaganda newspaper and entered on a visitor visa â are currently in Canada.
Names a specific individual (Mahdi Nasiri), his specific role (running the Iranian regime's hardline propaganda newspaper), the visa type used (visitor visa), and asks a narrow, factual question about how many senior Iranian officials like him are in Canada.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Mahdi Nasiri ran the Iranian regime's hardline propaganda newspaper and held other very senior positions within the Iranian regime, yet the Liberals let him enter Canada on a visitor visa, and then they let him stay here. Earlier today, the minister claimed that the Global News reporting was false and that there are not 700 Iranian agents in Canada. I will ask the minister to be clear. How many senior Iranian officials like Mahdi Nasiri are in Canada?
Anandasangaree says there are 28 ongoing investigations of individuals deemed senior IRGC members, disputes the 700 figure as contrived by the Conservative Party, and offers a briefing to the Leader of the Opposition.
Anandasangaree gives the figure of 28 ongoing investigations for senior IRGC members but disputes the 700 figure without addressing the specific Mahdi Nasiri case or the broader class of senior officials beyond IRGC members.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are 28 current ongoing investigations that are going through our legal system, and they are deemed to be senior members of the IRGC. The Canada Border Services Agency is making a diligent effort to have them removed, but let us also be clear. We need to work with facts. Seven hundred IRGC members is not a fact. It is contrived by the Conservative Party. I am more than glad to offer a briefing to the Leader of the Opposition if he gets his security clearance.
Rempel Garner identifies a loophole allowing senior Iranian propagandists and officials to remain in Canada and asks whether the minister will table within a week a plan to review these loopholes.
Identifies a specific legal loophole allowing senior propagandists and senior officials of the Iranian regime to stay in Canada via IRB decisions, names Mahdi Nasiri, and asks for a plan to review these loopholes within a week.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this number was reported by a credible Canadian news outlet. The minister will not answer how many are here. There is a loophole in the law that allows senior propagandists and senior officials of the Iranian regime, like Mahdi Nasiri, to stay in Canada. The Liberals are just letting this happen. They are letting the IRB say that yes, senior propagandists and Iranian officials who subjugate women stay in Canada. The law needs to change. Will the minister agree to our common-sense Conservative proposal to table, within a week, a plan to review these loopholes and ensure that officials areâ
Anandasangaree says important legislation is being filibustered by the opposition, notes CBSA is working on removing 28 individuals believed to be IRGC members, and says the government will continue to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.
Anandasangaree does not address the loophole or the one-week plan request, instead pivoting to legislation being filibustered by the opposition and reiterating the 28 ongoing removal cases.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are some important pieces of legislation that are now going through the House, which the opposition has been filibustering and obstructing. What we need right now is to be able to work together to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. The Canada Border Services Agency is working diligently on the removal of 28 individuals who are believed to be members of the IRGC. They will continue to investigate credible information that goes to them, and we will continue to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.
Caputo cites three Toronto synagogue shootings, an Iranian dissident homicide investigation, and only one Iranian regime deportation, asking the Liberals to table a plan within a week to address the Iranian issue.
Cites three synagogue shootings in Toronto, one Iranian dissident kidnapping turned homicide investigation, and only one deportation, asking for a plan within a week to address the Iranian issue â a reasonable accountability ask though somewhat broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have compassion over world events. Sometimes those world events spill onto Canadian streets. Such is the case with the situation in Iran. Three synagogues in Toronto were shot up within the last few days. One Iranian dissident was kidnapped, and it is now a homicide investigation. Only one Iranian regime official has been deported. The question is this: Will the Liberals agree to table a plan within the next week to show Canadians how they will deal with this Iranian issue so that Canadians can walk their streets safely?
Fraser expresses concern about the synagogue shootings, cites funding to protect faith institutions, and points to the combatting hate act which would more severely punish hate crimes including those against communities of faith.
Fraser addresses the synagogue shootings and references funding to protect faith institutions and the combatting hate act but does not address Iranian regime officials, deportations, or the one-week plan requested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raised a number of issues in his question. One is the reality that many communities are facing when it comes to violence committed against their community of faith. We are all aghast at the horrors of the shootings that have taken place against synagogues in Canada over the last number of weeks, but it is important that we take action to actually provide solace to the communities who are facing such serious public safety threats. This includes funding to help protect the institutions where people practise their faith and pray, and it also includes legislative efforts that will more severely punish hate crimes in this country, including hate crimes committed against communities of faith. Members of the House have an opportunity to support the combatting hate act to help provide such protection to communities. I hope we can count on their support.
Paul-Hus asks where the plan is to expel Iranian regime officials from Canada, citing 239 revoked visas, only one expulsion, and the government's own committee testimony about asylum and privacy obstacles.
Cites 239 visa revocations, one expulsion, and the government's committee testimony about asylum eligibility and privacy as obstacles, asking where the plan is to expel Iranian regime officials â a reasonably specific accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les libĂ©raux savent depuis des annĂ©es que des hauts responsables du rĂ©gime iranien se trouvent au Canada. Pourtant, cette semaine, nous avons appris qu'ils en ont expulsĂ© un seul alors que 239 visas ont Ă©tĂ© rĂ©voquĂ©s. De plus, les reprĂ©sentants du gouvernement libĂ©ral ont dĂ©clarĂ© devant un comitĂ© qu'ils ne pouvaient pas expulser les responsables du rĂ©gime iranien, car ils Ă©taient admissibles Ă demander l'asile et qu'il fallait protĂ©ger leur vie privĂ©e. Tiens donc. OĂč est le plan pour expulser ces crapules de notre pays?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have known for years that senior members of the Iranian regime were living in Canada. This week, however, we learned that they expelled only one of them, even though 239 visas had been revoked. Liberal government officials also stated in committee that they could not expel members of the Iranian regime because they were eligible to claim asylum and their privacy had to be protected. Imagine that. Where is the plan to expel these scoundrels from our country?
MacKinnon defers to the public safety minister's earlier clarifications and asks the member to support Bill C-9 to protect communities of faith, including temples, synagogues, and mosques.
MacKinnon defers entirely to the public safety minister's earlier answer and pivots to asking the member to support Bill C-9, which concerns faith institution protection rather than expelling Iranian regime officials.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique vient d'Ă©lucider tout ce qu'il fait pour justement assurer que nous enlevons la possibilitĂ© de rester au Canada aux gens qui sont soupçonnĂ©s. Cependant, j'invite mon collĂšgue Ă appuyer notre projet de loi Câ9, qui est Ă l'Ă©tude Ă la Chambre et qui provient de notre plateforme Ă©lectorale et, sauf erreur, de la leur aussi. Nous nous sommes engagĂ©s Ă protĂ©ger les communautĂ©s de foi, les temples, les synagogues, les mosquĂ©es au Canada. La mesure lĂ©gislative est Ă l'Ă©tude Ă la Chambre. Est-ce que le dĂ©putĂ© et ses collĂšgues vont voter en faveur de remplir leur engagement Ă©lectoral?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety has just clarified everything he is doing precisely to ensure that we deny suspected individuals the possibility of remaining in Canada. However, I encourage my colleague to support our Bill Câ9, which is currently before the House. It was part of our election platform and, unless I am mistaken, it was part of theirs as well. We are committed to protecting faith communities, temples, synagogues and mosques in Canada. The legislation is before the House. Will the member and his colleagues vote in favour of delivering on their election promise?
Paul-Hus demands the government table a plan within seven days covering urgent enforcement of deportation orders for Iranian regime officials, re-evaluation of the terrorism threat level (unchanged since 2014), and ending no-interview asylum approvals.
The question lists three specific policy demands and sets a concrete seven-day deadline for a plan, making it reasonably specific and accountable.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce qu'on a entendu du ministre de la Sécurité publique aujourd'hui, c'est trÚs peu par rapport à ce qu'il y a à faire. Aujourd'hui, on a soumis des points précis au gouvernement. Je répÚte ce qu'on demande au gouvernement: on demande d'appliquer d'urgence les ordres d'expulsion des responsables du régime iranien, d'évaluer le niveau de menace terroriste au Canada, qui n'a pas été changé depuis 2014, et de cesser d'approuver toute demande d'asile sans entrevue en personne. Le gouvernement disposera dans la prochaine semaine d'un plan. Le gouvernement a sept jours pour soumettre le plan aux conservateurs. Va-t-il le faire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Public Safety shared today is very little compared to what needs to be done. Today, we submitted specific points to the government. Allow me to repeat what we are asking the government to do. We are asking it to urgently enforce deportation orders for Iranian regime officials, to evaluate Canada's terrorism threat level, which has remained unchanged since 2014, and to stop approving any refugee claims without an in-person interview. The government has one week to come up with a plan. The government has seven days to show its plan to the Conservatives. Will it?
MacKinnon notes the government designated part of the Iranian community as a terrorist entity and pivots to asking whether Conservatives will support protecting faith communities.
The minister notes the IRGC listing but immediately pivots to a rhetorical counter-question about protecting faith communities, never addressing the seven-day deadline or the three specific demands.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement a désigné cette portion de la communauté iranienne comme une entité terroriste. Le ministre de la Sécurité publique prend des mesures solennelles afin de répondre à la situation qui est en cours. Cependant, je répÚte ma question à mon honorable collÚgue. Il s'est engagé, comme moi, comme nous tous, à protéger les communautés de foi au Canada, à protéger les centres communautaires, les entreprises juives, les entreprises musulmanes, les temples, les synagogues. Est-ce que le député et ses collÚgues vont répondre oui à ces communautés au Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government has designated that segment of the Iranian community as a terrorist entity. The Minister of Public Safety is taking serious measures to respond to the current situation. However, I want to repeat my question to my hon. colleague. He is committedâas I am, as we all areâto protecting faith communities in Canada, to protecting community centres, Jewish businesses, Muslim businesses, temples and synagogues. Will the member and his colleagues say yes to these communities in Canada?
Garon asks why the Liberals weakened the Expropriation Act through Bill C-15 to limit landowners' rights along the high-speed rail route, citing the mayor of Terrebonne and the Union des producteurs agricoles de la LanaudiĂšre, instead of building social acceptability.
The question cites Bill C-15, names the mayor of Terrebonne and the Union des producteurs agricoles de la LanaudiĂšre, and raises specific concerns about weakened expropriation rights and agricultural land, giving it reasonable factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les gens de Terrebonne s'inquiĂštent des expropriations liĂ©es au train Ă grande vitesse et ils ont raison, parce que, dans le projet de loi Câ15, les libĂ©raux ont affaibli la Loi sur l'expropriation spĂ©cifiquement pour limiter les droits des propriĂ©taires sur le tracĂ© du train. Le maire de Terrebonne exige de vraies consultations. L'Union des producteurs agricoles de la LanaudiĂšre craint que nos meilleures terres agricoles soient coupĂ©es en deux puis abandonnĂ©es. Tout le monde s'inquiĂšte. Pourquoi les libĂ©raux facilitent-ils les expropriations et traitent-ils les Terrebonniens en citoyens de seconde classe au lieu de s'arranger pour gagner de l'acceptabilitĂ© sociale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the people of Terrebonne are worried about expropriation for the high-speed rail project, and they are right to worry, because in Bill C-15, the Liberals weakened the Expropriation Act specifically to limit the rights of property owners along the rail alignment. The mayor of Terrebonne is calling for real consultations. The LanaudiĂšre chapter of the Union des producteurs agricoles is afraid that our best farmland will be cut in half and then abandoned. Everyone is worried. Why are the Liberals making expropriation easier and treating the people of Terrebonne like second-class citizens instead of working to earn social licence?
MacKinnon says the high-speed rail project will benefit communities representing 40% of Canada's population and commits to doing it with respect and social acceptability, without addressing Bill C-15 or expropriation specifics.
MacKinnon offers only aspirational rhetoric about the high-speed rail project benefiting 40% of Canadians and commits vaguely to 'respect' and 'acceptabilité sociale,' never addressing the expropriation provisions of Bill C-15 or the stakeholders' concerns.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le projet du train Ă grande vitesse fait rĂȘver les Canadiens, fait rĂȘver les gens de Terrebonne, fait rĂȘver des communautĂ©s entiĂšres partout au QuĂ©bec et en Ontario. Nous allons pouvoir changer la donne pour les gens dans ces endroits-lĂ . Il s'agit de 40 % de la population canadienne, notamment les gens de Terrebonne. Nous allons faire ce projet-lĂ avec respect, dans le respect des normes et avec, effectivement, une acceptabilitĂ© sociale. Nous allons le faire, le train Ă grande vitesse au Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the high-speed rail project is inspiring Canadians, inspiring the people of Terrebonne, inspiring entire communities across Quebec and Ontario. It will be a game-changer for the people in those places, who represent 40% of the Canadian population, including the people of Terrebonne. We will complete this project in a respectful way, in compliance with standards and with social licence. We are going to build high-speed rail in Canada.
Garon cites Alto's CEO confirming that expropriations will occur and quoting him as saying 'J'espĂšre que ce ne sera pas l'outil principal,' asking why the Liberals threaten Terrebonnians instead of including them in the project.
Garon quotes the CEO of Alto directly, using the phrase 'J'espÚre que ce ne sera pas l'outil principal' to demonstrate that expropriation is a confirmed tool, sharpening the accountability ask about gré à gré versus coercion.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pendant que le ministre rĂȘve, Alto ne fait rien pour rassurer les gens de Terrebonne. Au contraire, son PDG a confirmĂ© aux mĂ©dias qu'il y en aurait, des expropriations. Ăa ne fait pas rĂȘver, ça. Le PDG d'Alto a dit: « JâespĂšre que ce ne sera pas lâoutil principal ». Autrement dit, on va faire des offres aux Terrebonniens le long du tracĂ©, et s'ils ne sont pas contents, eh bien, Alto va utiliser les outils donnĂ©s par les libĂ©raux pour les exproprier. Ce n'est pas ça, du grĂ© Ă grĂ©. Pourquoi les libĂ©raux n'incluent-ils pas les Terrebonniens dans le projet au lieu de les menacer?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is working on being inspiring, Alto is doing nothing to reassure the people of Terrebonne. On the contrary, its CEO has confirmed to the media that there will be expropriations. That is not very inspiring to hear. Alto's CEO said he hopes that expropriation will not be the primary tool. In other words, people along the route in Terrebonne will get offers, and if they are not happy, well, Alto will use the tools granted by the Liberals to expropriate the land. That is not a negotiation. Why will the Liberals not include the people of Terrebonne in the discussion rather than threatening them?
MacKinnon pledges to consult landowners, mayors, prefects and farmers and to deliver world-class technology, without addressing the CEO's statements or the specific expropriation concerns.
MacKinnon repeats rhetorical flourishes about Canadians dreaming of the technology and commits vaguely to consulting stakeholders without addressing the CEO's quoted statement or the distinction between gré à gré and expropriation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les Terrebonniens, les QuĂ©bĂ©cois, les Ontariens, voire les Canadiens rĂȘvent Ă cette technologie. Nous allons faire en sorte de bien le faire, de consulter les propriĂ©taires de terrain, les communautĂ©s, les maires, les prĂ©fets, les agriculteurs. Nous allons faire ça dans le respect de tout le monde et nous allons aboutir Ă une technologie de pointe qui fait l'envie du monde, qui va changer la donne pour nos communautĂ©s et qui va faire rĂȘver les Canadiens. C'est ça, le train Ă grande vitesse.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, people in Terrebonne, people across Quebec and Ontario, and even across Canada, are dreaming of this technology. We will make sure we do this right, consulting with landowners, communities, mayors, reeves and farmers. We will respect everyone, and we will end up with the most advanced technology that Canadians can only dream of for now, technology that is the envy of the world and that will be a game-changer for our communities. That is high-speed rail.
Baber asks whether the Liberals will table a plan to enforce deportation of Iranian officials, disrupt Iranian money laundering, and re-evaluate Canada's terrorism threat level, noting three synagogues were shot at and an Iranian dissident is missing.
The question references three specific asks (deportation enforcement, disruption of money laundering, re-evaluation of terrorism threat level) and cites three synagogues being shot at, but bundles them into a somewhat broad 'playground for the revolutionary guard' framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week, three synagogues were shot at in Toronto. The war abroad is spilling onto our streets, while hundreds of Iranian agents are operating in Canada. The Conservatives are calling on the Liberals to table a plan within a week to enforce the deportation of Iranian officials, to disrupt Iranian efforts to launder money and to re-evaluate Canada's terrorism threat level. Will the Liberals stop the Iranian regime here at home, or will Canada remain a playground for the revolutionary guard?
Fraser acknowledges hate crimes targeting faith communities and urges all parties to support the combatting hate act, Bill C-9, to criminalize behaviours targeting people on the basis of faith.
Fraser acknowledges the hate-crime problem but pivots entirely to promoting the combatting hate act, Bill C-9, without addressing deportation enforcement, money laundering disruption, or the terrorism threat level re-evaluation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, like one of the previous questioners, raised the very real challenge of communities that are facing hate crimes, including synagogues that are being shot up in this country. There are efforts to intimidate and obstruct people from practising their faith, not just at synagogues but at temples, at mosques and at our churches. We need to do more to ensure that people can live freely. That means rights that are not just written on paper but actually enjoyed in communities. This includes adopting new laws that would criminalize certain behaviours that target people on the basis of their faith. We have an opportunity to support the combatting hate act to deliver this outcome now for Canadians. I hope the Conservative members will join us.
Baber notes that only one IRGC official has been deported after four years, cites officials who claimed no flights to Iran and privacy concerns as barriers, and asks when the government will re-evaluate the terrorism threat level, close gaps in national security, and deport regime agents.
Baber cites the specific fact that only one IRGC official has been deported in four years, names a missing Iranian dissident and the gym shooting, and asks a clear question about deporting regime-connected individuals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, shooting at synagogues is already illegal. Just like the Prime Minister, the justice minister is all talk and no action. Now an Iranian dissident is missing, and police fear that he has been murdered. Meanwhile, some Canadians actually recognized an Iranian official at the gym. The Conservatives are asking the Liberals to table a plan within a week to re-evaluate Canada's terrorism threat level, to identify gaps in our national security and to rid our country of the IRGC. When will the Liberal government start protecting Canadians and finally deport those who are connected to the Iranian regime?
Anandasangaree states that security threat levels are assessed by the RCMP and CSIS, not politicians, and that 28 IRGC-linked individuals are currently going through the removal process by the Canada Border Services Agency.
Anandasangaree provides the concrete figure of 28 IRGC-linked individuals currently going through the removal process and clarifies that threat levels are assessed by the RCMP and CSIS rather than politicians, partially engaging the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our security threat levels are assessed by our law enforcement agencies, including the RCMP and CSIS. It is not politicians who assess those threats, and that is a very good thing. Let me also say that the Canada Border Services Agency is making every effort to remove those who are inadmissible to Canada, who are members of the IRGC. There are 28 of them who are now going through the process. We will ensure the safety and security of Canadians, and we will ensure that those who are inadmissible to Canada are removed.
Ho asks the Liberal government to table a plan to take action against the Iranian regime operating in Canada, citing three synagogues shot at in the GTA, a missing Iranian dissident in B.C. investigated as a homicide, and a boxing gym in Thornhill shot 17 times.
Ho cites three specific incidents (three synagogues shot at, an Iranian dissident missing and investigated as a homicide, a boxing gym shot 17 times after a rally) and asks for a concrete plan, though the ask is broad and somewhat compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, never have foreign conflicts spilled onto our streets the way they have under the Liberal government. Three separate synagogues were shot at in a week in the GTA. An Iranian dissident in B.C. has gone missing, and police are investigating it as a homicide. An Iranian dissident in Thornhill had his boxing gym shot up 17 times the day after organizing a rally in Richmond Hill. Canadians are watching violence and intimidation spread in their own communities, while the Liberals sit back and do nothing. Will the Liberal government table a plan to take action against the Iranian regime operating here at home so that Canadians can feel safe on their own streets?
Anandasangaree notes visiting two attacked synagogues, announces $10 million for security coordination at places of worship and Jewish community centres, and urges passage of Bill C-9.
Anandasangaree mentions visiting two of the attacked synagogues, announces a $10 million security coordination fund and references Bill C-9, but does not address the specific plan demanded regarding Iranian agents.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to visit two of the synagogues that were attacked last week. It is deeply heartbreaking to see that their sense of security has been breached. As a government, we are taking decisive action, including $10 million that was just announced to ensure the coordination of security efforts in places of worship as well as other community centres within the Jewish community. However, that is not enough. We also have legislation in front of the House, Bill C-9, which the Jewish community has been asking for us to pass. I urge the party opposite to pass it forthwith.
Ho asks when the Liberals will enforce deportation orders for Iranian regime officials, implement the foreign influence registry, stop rubber-stamping refugee claims without in-person interviews, and crack down on regime money laundering, citing committee testimony that officials cited no flights to Iran and privacy concerns as barriers to removal.
Ho cites specific testimony from a House immigration committee that officials could not deport IRGC members due to no flights and privacy concerns, notes only one removal after four years, and lists three specific asks: enforcing deportation orders, closing human-rights-abuser loopholes, and cracking down on regime money laundering.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not need more photo ops. They need results. This week, we learned the Liberals have only removed one IRGC official after nearly four years. At the House immigration committee, Liberal officials said they could not deport them because there were no flights to Iran and because they needed to protect their privacy. Conservatives are calling for the enforcement of deportation orders for Iranian regime officials, the closing of loopholes that allow human rights abusers to be admitted and a crackdown on regime money laundering in Canada. I am going to ask again. When will the Liberal government implement the foreign influence registry, stop rubber-stamping refugee claims without in-person interviews and finally deport the regime agents who are terrorizing our communities?
Fraser states the IRGC has been listed, that inadmissible individuals will be removed, and pivots to urging support for Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, without addressing the registry, in-person interviews, or the specific barriers to deportation.
Fraser confirms the IRGC is listed and that inadmissible individuals will be removed, but does not address the specific barriers cited (no flights, privacy), the foreign influence registry, or the rubber-stamping of refugee claims without in-person interviews.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as has been litigated during the debate in this chamber already today. The IRGC has been listed, and that carries with it certain consequences about the inadmissibility of certain individuals. Their files are reviewed and the people who are not allowed to remain in Canada will in fact be removed. The concern underlying the questions in the House of Commons today have to do with the safety of Canadians, including the safety of Jewish Canadians to practise their faith freely in a context where synagogues are being shot up. There is a piece of legislation, the combatting hate act, Bill C-9, that has been before the House. We have an opportunity to offer the protection communities are asking for. It is a shame that the party opposite will not listen to Jewish Canadians and do what they are asking.
Gill asks whether the Liberal government will table a plan within one week to deal with Iranian agents in Canada, noting three synagogues were shot up, an Iranian dissident has disappeared, and the government has removed only one Iranian official linked to the IRGC.
Gill raises specific incidents and cites the removal of only one Iranian official to contrast with 'hundreds more on our streets,' but the ask (table a plan within one week) echoes prior questions without adding new specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's sovereignty is not negotiable, but foreign conflicts are spilling onto our streets. Three synagogues have been shot up this past week. An Iranian dissident has disappeared, and the police think he may have been killed. However, the Liberals are patting themselves on the back because they removed one Iranian official linked to the IRGC. There are hundreds more on our streets. The number one job of any government is to protect its citizens. They are not doing that. Will the Liberal government table a plan within one week to deal with the Iranian agents in our country and on our streets? It is about time it did that.
Sahota says the government does have a planâthe IRGC listingâwhich gives the CBSA tools to declare individuals inadmissible and remove them, and references the new $10 million announcement for religious community security.
Sahota confirms the IRGC listing as the plan, references CBSA working through files and removing IRGC-linked individuals, and mentions the $10 million announcement, giving partial but relevant context without full specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we do have a plan. That is why we listed the IRGC as a terrorist entity. This provides our law enforcement and the CBSA with the tools to hold people inadmissible in our country and then remove them. The CBSA is working through the files and is removing those with links to the IRGC. This is the plan. Along with that, we are protecting our institutions. We just made an announcement for an extra $10 million today to make sure that our religious communities are safe.
Idlout asks the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs how the government is moving beyond food subsidies to create a food economy for northerners.
This is a government-backbench softball inviting the minister to describe food economy initiatives, with no accountability element.
Source text
Uqaqtittiji, I am proud to join a team that will take the larger picture of meeting the current political environment and that is set on meeting the immediate needs of the north. Northerners know that food security is about more than getting food on the shelves. It is about addressing the cost of living, local capacity and true food sovereignty. Can my colleague, the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs, tell the House how our government is moving beyond food subsidies and creating a food economy for those who call the north home?
Chartrand states that $200 million is supporting the evolution of nutrition north this year, that regional engagements are concluding with a food sovereignty summit, and that the government is transitioning from a food subsidy to a food economy model.
Chartrand provides a concrete figure ($200 million supporting the evolution of nutrition north), notes regional engagements concluding with a food sovereignty summit, and articulates a policy direction from food subsidy to food economy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me start by welcoming the member for Nunavut to this side of the House. I also want to acknowledge her strong advocacy for the north. We know that a subsidy alone will not solve the food insecurity issue in the north. That is why we are looking at moving from a food subsidy to a food economy in the north. This year alone, we have $200 million supporting the evolution of nutrition north. We are concluding regional engagements at the end of the month with a food sovereignty summit. I look forward to working with my colleague toâ
Cobena cites a National Institute on Ageing survey showing one in five Canadians over 50 are living near the poverty line and cannot cover a $500 emergency, and asks when the Prime Minister will scrap the inflationary Liberal taxes making life unaffordable for seniors.
Cobena cites a National Institute on Ageing survey showing one in five Canadians over 50 live near the poverty line and cannot cover a $500 emergency, but the ask ('scrap the inflationary Liberal taxes') is broad and rhetorically framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have had countless seniors in NewmarketâAurora come up and tell me that they have had to leave retirement and find jobs because they are struggling to eat, heat and afford a roof over their heads. This reality is backed up by data. A new survey from the National Institute on Ageing revealed that one in five Canadians over the age of 50 are living near the poverty line and cannot even cover a $500 emergency. When will the Prime Minister stop punishing seniors and scrap the inflationary Liberal taxes that are making life so unaffordable?
Hodgson discusses record oil production, full natural gas pipelines, TMX pipeline export growth of 100%, and LNG shipping at capacity, without addressing seniors' poverty or the taxes cited.
Hodgson's answer about all-time-high oil production, natural gas pipelines, TMX exports, and LNG capacity has no connection to seniors' affordability or the taxes cited in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is what Canadians understand. There is a major international war raging. Canadians understand that our allies' supply of energy and their national security are being threatened. Canadians also understand that our actions are limiting those shortages and reducing the impact on prices. Oil production is at an all-time high. Natural gas pipelines are full. Exports on the TMX pipeline are up 100% in the last year. Our LNG facility, the second-largest in the world, is now shipping at capacity. We are doing what we need to do.
Cobena argues that Liberal taxes and regulations are inhibiting competition in the food supply chain and asks the Prime Minister to cut them so Canadians can get relief in the grocery aisle.
Cobena frames a basic economic argument about costs, competition and prices but the ask is general ('cut taxes and regulations') with no specific measure cited, making it more rhetorical than factually grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the member, during all my studies and over 15 years working in finance, there is one basic economic truth that always held. When costs go up, prices go up and when competition is fierce, prices come down, yet during this food affordability crisis, the Liberals are inhibiting competition all while piling taxes and regulations on those who grow, ship and sell our food. When will the Prime Minister finally apply this basic economic fundamental and cut taxes and regulations so Canadians can get real relief in the grocery aisle?
Oh, oh!
Hodgson says building LNG Canada and Cedar LNG through the Major Projects Office is creating good-paying jobs that allow Canadians to afford groceries, without addressing food-sector taxes or competition.
Hodgson pivots to LNG Canada, Cedar LNG and the Major Projects Office as job creators, with no connection to food affordability, taxes, regulations, or competition in the grocery sector.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians understand is that when they have good-paying jobs, they can afford things. We are building LNG Canada. We are building Cedar LNGâ
Mr. Speaker, through the Major Projects Office, we are building, and we are giving Canadians good-paying jobs. We are helping them afford the groceries they need.
Epp cites unreliable fertilizer supplies, a rising fuel tax to 17Âą, shuttered agricultural research stations, and the G7's worst food inflation, and asks when the Prime Minister will scrap the Liberal taxes and policies making life unaffordable.
Epp cites a rising fuel tax to 17Âą, shuttered agricultural research stations, and the G7's worst food inflation, but combines multiple grievances with a broad ask, reducing sharpness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our farmers and fishermen are being punished with unreliable fertilizer supplies and a rising fuel tax to 17Âą that is driving up the cost of everything. Instead of supporting them, the Liberals have shuttered agricultural research stations and fuelled the G7's worst food inflation. It is outrageous that while he plays economist, one in five Canadians over 50 is now trapped in poverty, choosing between eating and heating. When will the current Liberal Prime Minister accept responsibility for what he can control and scrap the Liberal taxes and policies that are making life unaffordable for Canadians?
Dabrusin says studies show the industrial carbon price has zero impact on food prices and mentions government support for greenhouse farmers through investments and tax incentives to increase capacity and production.
Dabrusin quotes a study claiming the industrial carbon price has zero impact on food prices and mentions greenhouse production support, but does not address the fuel tax increase, shuttered research stations, or the G7 food inflation comparison.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me say it once again. Studies show that the impact of the industrial carbon price on the price of food is zero. However, if we want to talk about how we are supporting Canadians and Canadian food security, the member for Chatham-KentâLeamington might be interested in what we are doing to support greenhouse production. It is a big thing that is helping farmers in his area. We are supporting greenhouse farmers with investments and tax incentives to increase capacity and production. That will help Canadian food security. If the member wants to talk about taxes, the first thing that this government did was cut them.
Epp cites a letter from 15 national agriculture organizations warning that closing agricultural research centres will undermine food affordability, notes the fuel tax rising from 7Âą to 17Âą, and carbon taxes rising on steel, aluminum, plastic and farm equipment, asking when the Liberals will stop driving up food prices.
Epp quotes a letter from 15 national agriculture organizations to a committee warning that closing agricultural research centres will undermine food affordability, cites the fuel tax rising from 7Âą to 17Âą, and names additional carbon taxes on steel, aluminum, plastic and farm equipment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me tell members what 15 national agriculture organizations wrote to the committee. They wrote that closing agricultural research centres will undermine research that they say is fundamental to keeping food affordable. At the same time, the Liberal government is pushing ahead with its fuel tax, which is rising from 7Âą to 17Âą per litre, while also raising the carbon taxes on steel, aluminum, plastic and farm equipment. All of these Liberal decisions have a direct impact on Canada's agriculture sector, causing production costs to rise, which get passed on to Canadians at the grocery store. These costs are imposed at home, not abroad. When will these Liberals stop driving up food prices for Canadians?
MacDonald cites declines in the R&D system including a 15% drop in public investment in agriculture knowledge generation, a 77% drop in private-sector outsourced R&D to universities, and a 30% shrinkage in enterprises conducting R&D, warning against continuing on this path.
MacDonald quotes statistics showing declines in public R&D investment (down 15%), private-sector outsourced R&D (down 77%), and the number of enterprises conducting R&D (down 30%), which is relevant context but does not address the fuel tax increase or explain the government's research station closures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue down the path. We must change our direction in regard to research. Let me quote some of the numbers over the past few years. The research and development system is becoming less diverse. Public investment in agriculture knowledge generation, which includes R and D, has declined by 15%. Private sector outsourced R and D to universities is down 77%. The number of enterprises conducting research and development has shrunk by 30%. If the members on the other side want to continue down this path, it will put us at an unfair advantage politically, economically and universally.
Cody cites the National Institute on Ageing statistic that one in five Canadians over 50 is living at the poverty line, unable to afford groceries, heating or a $500 emergency, and asks whether the Liberals are telling seniors to accept permanently unaffordable living conditions.
Cody cites the National Institute on Ageing finding that one in five Canadians over 50 is living at the poverty line, but the question is primarily rhetorical in framing ('Are the Liberals really telling seniors to just lower their standards?') with no specific policy ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a community member wrote to me about what they are seeing every day. They are seeing frail seniors standing outside grocery stores begging for help and Canadians lining up at food banks after a lifetime of work. The National Institute on Ageing states that one in five Canadians over 50 is now living at the poverty line. Many cannot afford groceries, heating their homes, essential goods and services or even a $500 emergency. Rising costs are not driven by events abroad. They are the result of policies imposed here at home, which continue to make life more expensive. Are the Liberals really telling Canadian families and seniors that they should just lower their standards and accept that life is permanently unaffordable?
McLean lists the government's legislation to reduce taxes for nearly 22 million Canadians, the permanent national school food program, the Canada disability benefit, and old age security, and quotes a senior named Dava Houston praising the grocery rebate.
McLean lists several government measures (tax cuts for 22 million Canadians, national school food program, Canada disability benefit, old age security) and quotes a named senior, but does not address the specific poverty statistic or the cost drivers cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected a government they know they can rely on to support the social fabric of this country, including the support of our seniors. That is why we introduced legislation to reduce taxes for nearly 22 million Canadians. We made the national school food program permanent. We launched the Canada disability benefit. We ensured that old age security would continue for those who are 65. This is what seniors like Dava Houston are saying. They are seeing a lot of talk from the Conservatives about the grocery rebate helping no one, but as a senior, they disagree. This benefit is specifically targeted to help those on fixed incomesâ
Kramp-Neuman asks the Prime Minister to scrap the carbon tax now rising to 17Âą a litre and cut regulations driving up food prices, citing National Institute on Ageing data showing one in five seniors cannot afford necessities and noting Canada has the worst food price inflation in the G7.
Kramp-Neuman cites the National Institute on Ageing finding on seniors and notes Canada has the G7's worst food price inflation, but the ask to 'scrap the taxes and cut the regulations' is broadly framed and compound rather than targeting a specific measure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one in five seniors cannot afford necessities, such as food and housing. Women, renters and seniors with health challenges are being hit the hardest, living in conditions comparable to the poverty line. The Liberal government often blames global pressures when the fact is that Canada has the worst food price inflation in the G7. The Prime Minister's rebranded carbon tax, now increasing to 17Âą a litre, is a policy entirely within his control. Will the Prime Minister take responsibility, scrap the taxes and cut the regulations that are driving up food prices and start making life more affordable for the Canadians who are struggling?
Hajdu accuses the Conservatives of viewing dental care, school food programs, tax cuts and child care as ideological, without addressing the carbon tax increase, the food price inflation statistic, or the G7 comparison.
Hajdu characterizes Conservative positions on dental care, school food programs, tax cuts and child care as ideological without engaging the carbon tax, food price inflation statistic, or the G7 comparison raised in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just yesterday, I heard a Conservative member of Parliament say that helping people was ideological. Maybe they should get together and talk to each other, because if you think that helping people fix their teeth is ideological, feeding a hungry kid at school is ideological, cutting taxes is ideological or having child care that costs people $16,000 less a year is ideological, then I actually think that you are out to lunch.
The member cited a National Institute on Aging finding that one in five Canadians over 50 is living near the poverty line and asked when the Prime Minister will scrap Liberal policies, including carbon taxes, that make life unaffordable for seniors.
Cites the National Institute on Aging statistic (one in five Canadians over 50 near poverty line) but the ask is vague and compound, wrapped in partisan framing about carbon taxes and Liberal responsibility.
Source text
Mr Speaker, what happens abroad may be beyond our control, but the Liberal policies making life more expensive are not. Our seniors are paying the price. Seniors are being forced to work, with retirement slipping further out of reach. The National Institute on Aging reports that one in five Canadiens over 50 is now living on the poverty line, yet the Liberals are making it worse by sneaking in carbon taxes that drive up the price of essentials. When will the Prime Minister take responsibility for what he can control and scrap the Liberal policies that are making life unaffordable for Canadians, including seniors?
The Parliamentary Secretary acknowledged seniors are struggling, promoted the government's 'opportunities agenda' focused on getting resources to market, and claimed Conservatives want to cut pensions.
The Parliamentary Secretary pivots to an 'opportunities agenda' and accuses Conservatives of wanting to cut pensions, never addressing the specific NIA statistic or the carbon tax claim raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member talks about seniors who are struggling in his community. They are struggling in my community, too. We have to acknowledge that. At the same time, what do we do to help those seniors? We put forward a serious plan for the future, an opportunities agenda, which is focused on getting our resources to market and building up the infrastructure to do it. That is how we build an opportunities agenda that has purchasing power attached to it, because it leads to jobs. We talk about the programs and pensions, which the Conservatives want to cut, by the way, but all of that relies on a strong economy, which is exactly what the government is focused on delivering.
The member cited the National Institute on Aging finding and the fuel charge rising from 7Âą to 17Âą, asking the Prime Minister to assume responsibility and eliminate taxes impoverishing Canadians and Quebecers.
Cites the National Institute on Aging statistic and a specific price increase (fuel charge from 7Âą to 17Âą), giving some factual grounding, though the ask to 'assume responsibility and eliminate taxes' remains vague.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, selon l'institut national sur le vieillissement, un Canadien sur cinq ĂągĂ© de plus de 50 ans vit maintenant dans des conditions comparables Ă celles du seuil de la pauvretĂ©. Pendant ce temps-lĂ , le premier ministre s'entĂȘte avec sa taxe sur les carburants, dont le coĂ»t passera de 7 Âą Ă 17 Âą. Le premier ministre peut-il enfin assumer ses responsabilitĂ©s, cesser de nier la rĂ©alitĂ© et Ă©liminer ses taxes qui appauvrissent les Canadiens et les QuĂ©bĂ©cois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, according to the National Institute on Ageing, one in five Canadians over the age of 50 is now facing a poverty-level standard of living. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is stubbornly sticking to his fuel tax, which will increase from 7Âą to 17Âą. Can the Prime Minister finally take responsibility, stop denying reality and axe his taxes that are making Canadians and Quebeckers poorer?
The minister stated that studies clearly show the industrial carbon price does not affect food prices, calling the impact zero, and said the government invests in agricultural producers.
The minister responds to the carbon pricing aspect by asserting studies show the industrial carbon price has zero impact on food prices, but does not address the specific 7Âą-to-17Âą fuel charge figure or the poverty statistic cited.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il faut que je le dise de nouveau: des Ă©tudes dĂ©montrent clairement que le prix sur le carbone industriel ne se rĂ©percute pas sur le prix de la nourriture. Alors, l'impact, c'est zĂ©ro. Je veux ĂȘtre trĂšs claire pour tout le monde qui Ă©coute. Ce que nous faisons, c'est que nous investissons dans nos producteurs agricoles partout au pays pour nous assurer que nous avons de la nourriture, de la bonne nourriture pour tout le monde, ici, au pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: Studies clearly show that the industrial carbon pricing does not affect food prices. There is zero impact. I want to make this very clear to everyone watching. We are investing in our agricultural producers across the country to ensure that there is food, good food, for everyone here at home.
The member asserted Canada has the worst food inflation in the G7, argued the industrial carbon tax raises costs across supply chains for steel, aluminium, plastic, and agricultural equipment, and asked when the government will abolish its taxes on food.
Introduces a specific claim that Canada has the worst food inflation in the G7 and notes the industrial carbon tax applies to steel, aluminium, plastic, and agricultural equipment, but the ask to 'abolish taxes on food' is broad and rhetorically framed.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, zéro, c'est leur score. Le Canada affiche la pire inflation alimentaire du G7. De plus, ce gouvernement continue d'augmenter la taxe sur le carbone industriel sur l'acier, l'aluminium, le plastique et l'équipement agricole, ce qui fait grimper les coûts dans toutes les chaßnes d'approvisionnement. Quand ce gouvernement abolira-t-il ses taxes sur la nourriture afin que les Canadiens puissent avoir enfin une vie abordable?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is zero is their score. Canada has the worst food inflation in the G7. On top of that, this government continues to increase the industrial carbon tax on steel, aluminum, plastics and agricultural equipment, which is driving up costs throughout all supply chains. When will this government eliminate its taxes on food so that Canadians can finally have an affordable life?
The Secretary of State rejected the 'zero' characterization, cited the Allocation canadienne pour enfants and the recent Allocation canadienne pour l'Ă©picerie et les besoins essentiels as purchasing-power gains, and attributed the situation to a global phenomenon.
The Secretary of State does not address the G7 food inflation claim or the supply-chain cost argument, instead listing the Allocation canadienne pour enfants and the Allocation canadienne pour l'Ă©picerie et les besoins essentiels as purchasing-power measures.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je ne crois pas que nous avons zĂ©ro. Tout ce que nous faisons depuis que nous sommes Ă©lus, c'est de donner du pouvoir d'achat aux Canadiens, en particulier aux personnes ĂągĂ©es. Je vais le rĂ©pĂ©ter. L'allocation canadienne pour enfants, qui n'est effectivement pas pour les personnes ĂągĂ©es, est quand mĂȘme un gain significatif de pouvoir d'achat. La rĂ©cente Allocation canadienne pour l'Ă©picerie et les besoins essentiels redonne du pouvoir d'achat aux gens pour qu'ils fassent face Ă la situation actuelle, qui est mondiale. Ăa, tout le monde le sait.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I disagree that our score is zero. All we have been doing since we were elected is giving purchasing power to Canadians, especially seniors. I will say it again. The Canada child benefit, although not for seniors, still represents a significant boost in purchasing power. The recent Canada groceries and essentials benefit is giving people back some purchasing power to cope with the current global situation. Everyone knows that.
The government MP asked the Minister of Housing to describe what the Drummondville seniors project brings to seniors and how Maisons Canada will help other projects take shape.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the minister to describe what a specific Drummondville seniors project delivers and how Maisons Canada will help other projects.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre gouvernement travaille pour aider les Canadiens de tous les milieux à trouver un bon lieu pour vivre. Tout récemment, un projet pour aßnés a ouvert Drummondville avec l'appui de plusieurs partenaires. Le ministre du Logement et de l'Infrastructure peut-il dire à la Chambre ce que ce projet va apporter aux aßnés? Comment Maisons Canada va-t-elle aider d'autres projets à prendre de forme?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our government is working to help Canadians from all walks of life find a decent place to live. With the support of a number of partners, a seniors project recently opened in Drummondville. Can the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure tell the House what this project has to offer seniors? How is Build Canada Homes going to help other projects get off the ground?
The minister confirmed 100 housing units are now open in Drummondville as part of efforts to make housing more accessible for seniors, and urged colleagues to support the Maisons Canada legislation.
The minister provides a concrete fact (100 logements now open in Drummondville), frames it within affordable housing efforts for seniors, and calls on colleagues to support the Maisons Canada legislation, directly answering the setup question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le projet de Drummondville marque une étape importante pour le logement abordable pour les aßnés, avec 100 logements maintenant ouverts. Ce nouvel immeuble s'inscrit dans nos efforts pour rendre le logement plus accessible. Il constitue un progrÚs concret pour répondre aux besoins des aßnés de la région. J'encourage mes collÚgues à appuyer la loi sur Maisons Canada pour que nous ayons plus d'outils.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Drummondville project is an important milestone in affordable housing for seniors, with 100 units now open. This new building reflects our efforts to make housing more accessible. It represents tangible progress in meeting the needs of the region's seniors. I encourage my colleagues to support the Build Canada Homes legislation so that we have more tools.
The member cited a peer-reviewed study published the day before showing that closing a supervised drug consumption site led to no increase in deaths, no increase in emergency room visits, and more users accessing addiction treatment, and asked whether the minister accepts the science that consumption sites are not the solution to addiction.
Cites a peer-reviewed study published the previous day in a leading scientific journal showing closure of a supervised drug consumption site led to no increase in deaths and more people accessing addiction treatment, then asks a pointed, answerable question about whether the minister accepts that science.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a peer-reviewed study published yesterday in a world-leading scientific journal found that closing a supervised drug consumption site led to no increase in deaths and no increase in emergency room visits. In fact, after the drug site closed, users were more likely to access life-saving addiction treatment. Every single drug consumption site in Canada exists only because the health minister approved it under federal law. The minister claims to follow science, so does she accept the science that proves consumption sites are not the solution to addiction?
The minister stated there is no single solution and that different studies show different results on supervised consumption sites, and maintained that the sites save lives and do not prevent treatment.
The minister acknowledges different studies exist and reiterates there is no single solution, but never engages with the specific peer-reviewed study cited or its findings, deflecting with generalities.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme mon collÚgue le sait déjà , car je l'ai répété plusieurs fois, il n'y a pas une seule solution pour résoudre cette crise. C'est sûr. Il y a différentes recherches qui montrent plusieurs résultats.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, because I have said it several times, there is no single solution to this crisis. We know that. Various studies have shown a variety of results.
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme mon collĂšgue le sait dĂ©jĂ parce que je lui ai dit plusieurs fois, il y a beaucoup d'Ă©tudes diffĂ©rentes qui montrent des rĂ©sultats diffĂ©rents sur la question des sites de consommation supervisĂ©e. Comme il le sait, il n'y a pas une seule solution autour de cette question. Les sites de consommation supervisĂ©e, c'est pour sauver des vies et ceux-ci n'empĂȘchent pas les traitements. Nous pouvons en faire le tour ensemble.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, because I have told him several times, a lot of different studies have shown a variety of results with respect to supervised consumption sites. As he knows, there is no single solution to this problem. Supervised consumption sites are there to save lives. They do not get in the way of treatment. We can discuss this further.
The member noted the study uses individual-level linkable health data for the first time in Canada, and asked why the minister is still approving drug consumption site exemptions if the research shows closing sites leads to more people accessing life-saving treatment with no increase in deaths.
Specifies that this is the first study in Canada using individual-level linkable health data, making a precise methodological claim, and asks a direct and answerable question about why the minister is still approving exemptions given the research findings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is the first study in Canada to use individual-level, linkable health data. That means, for the first time, we can see exactly what happened to the people who have used these sites. Every drug consumption site in Canada operates under an exemption granted by the federal health minister. If the research now says that closing a drug consumption site leads to more people getting life-saving treatment and no increase in deaths, why on earth is the minister still approving them?
The minister said she grants exemptions when provinces fund the supervised consumption centres after consulting their own environments, and reiterated that the centres save lives while also working on treatments.
The minister explains that exemptions are granted when provinces fund the centres after consultation, and gestures at both harm reduction and treatment, but does not address the individual-level linkable data finding or explain why that evidence does not change the approval approach.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, mon collÚgue doit savoir que cette ministre fait ces exemptions chaque fois que les provinces qui financent ces centres de consommation supervisée financent ces projets aprÚs consultation avec leur propre environnement. Moi, je vais dire que, comme je l'ai déjà dit, oui, on a ces centres pour sauver des vies, mais, aussi, on travaille sur les traitements.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my colleague should know that this minister grants exemptions every time the provinces that fund these supervised consumption sites fund projects following consultations with their own communities. I have said it before, and I will say it again: Yes, these sites exist to save lives, but there is also work being done on treatment.
The member cited a 400% increase in overdose deaths in British Columbia, a doubling in Quebec, 50,000 Canadians dead, and the Alberta study showing no increase in deaths after a site closed, asking how many Canadians must die before the Liberals acknowledge their policies have failed and shift to prevention.
Cites specific statistics (400% increase in BC overdose deaths, doubled in Quebec, 50,000 Canadians dead) and references the Alberta study, but the question is broad and rhetorically charged, asking how many must die before the government changes course.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, une autre expĂ©rience libĂ©rale en matiĂšre de drogue a Ă©chouĂ©. Les libĂ©raux ont promis que les sites d'injection allaient rĂ©duire les dĂ©cĂšs liĂ©s aux surdoses. Pourtant, en ColombieâBritannique, on parle d'une augmentation de 400 %. Au QuĂ©bec, ça a doublĂ©. On parle de 50 000 Canadiens qui sont morts. Maintenant, une Ă©tude marquante en Alberta montre que la fermeture d'un centre d'injection n'a menĂ© Ă aucune augmentation des dĂ©cĂšs. En fait, les gens sont allĂ©s chercher plus de traitements. Combien de Canadiens vont devoir mourir avant que les libĂ©raux acceptent de dire que leurs politiques ont Ă©chouĂ© Ă rĂ©gler le vrai problĂšme, et de changer de cap pour travailler sur des approches en prĂ©vention?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, another Liberal drug experiment has failed. The Liberals promised that safe injection sites would reduce overdose deaths, but these deaths have increased by 400% in British Columbia and doubled in Quebec. Fifty thousand Canadians have died. Now, a landmark study in Alberta has shown that the closure of a safe injection site did not lead to an increase in deaths. In fact, more people sought treatment. How many Canadians will have to die before the Liberals admit that their policies have failed to address the real problem? When will they finally take a preventive approach?
The minister argued the government can simultaneously save lives through supervised consumption centres, offer treatment, and work on prevention, and asserted that overall drug death figures have fallen in Canada.
The minister invokes a 'walk and chew gum' framing to defend simultaneous harm reduction and treatment approaches, and claims overall drug death numbers have fallen in Canada, but does not engage with the specific BC and Quebec figures cited or address the Alberta study's findings directly.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce que mon collĂšgue doit savoir, c'est qu'on peut marcher et manger de la gomme en mĂȘme temps. Qu'est-ce que ça veut dire? Ăa veut dire qu'on peut Ă la fois sauver des vies grĂące Ă des centres supervisĂ©s de consommation, offrir des traitements et travailler en prĂ©vention. Ce que vous devez savoir, c'est que nous travaillons en collaboration avec toutes les provinces pour rĂ©duire le taux de consommation chez les personnes. D'ailleurs, mĂȘme si votre Ă©tude ne le montre pas, ce sont tous les chiffres sur les dĂ©cĂšs liĂ©s Ă la consommation de drogue qui ont baissĂ© au Canada...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what my colleague should know is that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. What does that mean? It means that we can save lives through supervised consumption sites, provide treatment and work on prevention. What you should know is that we are working in co-operation with all of the provinces to reduce the rate of drug use. What is more, even if your study does not show this, all of the figures on drug-related deaths are down in Canadaâ
The government MP noted the port of Vancouver had a record-breaking year for exports in 2025 and asked the Minister of International Trade what this means for Canadian workers and growing trade opportunities.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the minister to explain what a record-breaking year at the port of Vancouver means for workers and trade opportunities.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 2025, the port of Vancouver had a record-breaking year for exports, moving more Canadian goods to global markets than ever before. This is a point of pride for the constituents in Richmond EastâSteveston, who help power this success every day through their work in trade, transportation and port operations. Could the Minister of International Trade update the House on what this record-setting year at the port of Vancouver means for Canadian workers and for Canada's growing trade opportunities?
The minister reported 170 million tonnes of cargo moved through the port (the highest in its history), non-U.S. exports up 17% in 2025, with growth to China, South Korea, Japan, and the Middle East, and noted a record number of trade agreements being signed.
The minister provides specific and verifiable data: 170 million tonnes of cargo (highest in the port's history), non-U.S. exports up 17% in 2025, and lists new markets (China, South Korea, Japan, Middle East), directly responding to the setup question with concrete numbers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that member from Richmond, B.C., has been a tireless champion for the port of Vancouver and its workers. We are talking about 170 million tonnes of cargo, which is the highest in the port's history. That is more exports to China, South Korea, Japan, the Middle East and more. Non-U.S. exports were up by 17% in 2025, and we are not stopping there. We are a signing a record number of trade agreements to open new opportunities for the workers who are producing world-class products to get products out the door. This is how we build Canada strong.
The member raised the concern that Canadian soldiers deployed before the gun-grab program started would return after the amnesty period ends with no opportunity to declare their firearms, effectively making them criminals, and asked why the Liberals will not extend the amnesty period.
Identifies a specific logistical gap â deployed Canadian soldiers returning after the amnesty period ends having had no opportunity to declare their firearms â but wraps it in partisan language ('gun-grab scheme', 'Plinksters and turkey guns') that reduces its sharpness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals tried to clarify the rules behind their ridiculous gun-grab scheme. Canadian soldiers who were deployed before the gun-grab program started will return after the amnesty period ends. This means that they would have no opportunity to declare their firearms under this gun-grab policy. Because of this, many armed forces members will return to Canada as criminals because the Liberals will not extend the amnesty period. This is very troubling. If the Liberals trust our deployed soldiers with the biggest guns we have, why on earth would they not trust them with their Plinksters and turkey guns when they get home?
The minister noted over 42,000 firearms are enrolled in the compensation program and that law-abiding gun owners will abide by the law, confirming the amnesty period expires on October 30 and expressing his intent to ensure they receive compensation.
The minister cites 42,000 firearms enrolled in the compensation program and confirms the amnesty period expires on October 30, but does not address the specific concern about deployed soldiers who will return after that date having no opportunity to comply.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the over 42,000 firearms enrolled in the compensation program. The corresponding individual law-abiding gun owners are going to abide by the law. The amnesty period expires on October 30, and I look forward to ensuring that those law-abiding gun owners get the compensation they deserve.
The member cited the Prime Minister's Davos remarks on honesty, noted that former Liberal ministers Allan Rock and Lloyd Axworthy publicly support Bill C-233, and asked the Prime Minister to be honest with reality and vote yes to Bill C-233.
Cites a Prime Minister's Davos statement on honesty, names former Liberal cabinet ministers Allan Rock and Lloyd Axworthy as public supporters of Bill C-233, and asks a specific yes/no question about whether the Prime Minister will vote yes on Bill C-233.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told a story about living within a lie in Davos and said, âThe power of the less power starts with honesty.â Former Liberal cabinet ministers Allan Rock and Lloyd Axworthy, who have been honest about Canada's complicity in the killing of civilians, have come out publicly in support of Bill C-233. They said that Parliament now faces a clear choice to maintain an outdated exemption that undermines Canada's credibility or adopt a modern principled statement that reflects our commitments and responsibilities. Will the Prime Minister be honest with reality and vote yes to Bill C-233?
The minister stated the government opposes Bill C-233, arguing Canada has one of the strongest export regimes in the world with human rights applied to every permit, and that the bill would decimate Canada's defence industry, weaken its NATO role, and jeopardize the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces.
The minister directly states the government opposes the bill and gives substantive reasons (strongest export regime, human rights applied to every permit, concerns about decimating defence industry, weakening NATO role, jeopardizing Canadian Armed Forces capabilities), though she does not engage with Rock and Axworthy's specific arguments.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government opposes the bill. Canada has one of the strongest export regimes in the world, with human rights considerations applied to every single permit issued for military goods. The changes proposed in the bill would decimate Canada's defence industry, weaken Canada's role in NATO and jeopardize the capabilities of our Canadian Armed Forces. The bill would not close a loophole. It would create new vulnerabilities. It is irresponsible to propose a bill like this.
This exchange recorded only a procedural acknowledgment of a presence in the gallery and contained no substantive question or answer.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!