Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 1755
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Normally when there is a request for unanimous consent, the Chair asks in the affirmative whether members agree.
Since this is a hybrid sitting of the House, if the Chair proceeds in this manner and there are any dissenting voices, especially from members participating by video conference, they might not be heard.
Therefore, for the sake of clarity, I will only ask for those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement. In this way, the Chair will hear clearly if there are any dissenting voices, and I will accordingly be able to declare whether or not there is unanimous consent to proceed.
All those opposed to the hon. minister's moving the motion will please say nay.
I am hearing no voices, so it is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
Pursuant to an order made Tuesday, May 26, the House shall now resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider matters related to the COVID-19 pandemic and other matters.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is under investigation for granting a $900-million contract to an organization to which he has personal ties.
Did the Prime Minister officially recuse himself from the decision-making process to give a contract to a friend, yes or no?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-07-08 12:13 [p.2536]
Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
The non-partisan public service clearly indicated that this was the only organization able to provide this service in the timeline needed. Obviously, the way this unfolded was not as intended, and that is why this charity is no longer administering the project.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was under investigation for the SNC-Lavalin scandal, he refused to give the Ethics Commissioner all the evidence that was asked for. He also prevented nine people from providing their full testimony.
I have a simple yes-or-no question. Will the Prime Minister commit today to waiving all privileges and confidences so that the Ethics Commissioner can do a full and proper investigation?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Actually, Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister who said something that was not true. When he was under investigation the last time, he refused to waive full and complete privileges and confidences, preventing not only the former attorney general but also people within the PMO from being able to fully participate in the investigation. That is his modus operandi when it comes to a scandal investigation: He does everything he can to prevent the full truth from coming out.
I have a simple yes-or-no question. Will he waive all cabinet confidences and privileges this time?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-07-08 12:14 [p.2536]
Mr. Speaker, once again, in the last situation, we did the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality and of waiving solicitor-client confidentiality in the situation so that the Ethics Commissioner could fully investigate the matter at hand. It was an unprecedented step we took because we deeply believe in transparency and accountability. That is what we did, and we will continue to work with all officers of Parliament.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, it was an unprecedented step because it was an unprecedented thing that the Prime Minister did. No other prime minister has tried to personally intervene in a criminal court proceeding, so pardon me for not giving him a gold star for handing over some documents to the Ethics Commissioner. We know that he will not waive full cabinet confidences and privileges, as he has refused to do so.
The Prime Minister claims that several organizations were considered to manage the grant program that WE Charity eventually got. Could the Prime Minister name the other organizations that were considered?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-07-08 12:15 [p.2536]
Mr. Speaker, the non-partisan public service made a clear recommendation that this was the only organization able to provide this service in the timeline needed. Obviously, the way this unfolded was not as intended, and that is why this charity is no longer administering the project.
We will work with the Ethics Commissioner and answer any questions the Ethics Commissioner may have, as we always do.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, this charity has received many sole-source contracts from the Prime Minister, some for millions of dollars. In the last few years, the real estate holdings that WE has accumulated have gone from $11.9 million to $43.7 million. That is 43 million dollars' worth of real estate holdings.
Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether any of the money that was allocated to this charity went to purchase real estate holdings?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-07-08 12:16 [p.2536]
Mr. Speaker, youth organizations in this country have done an exceptional job over the past years, and governments of all stripes have supported various youth organizations.
I can highlight, indeed, that the previous Conservative government provided half a million dollars in funding to WE over the period of 2012, 2013 and 2014. We believe in investing in young people, particularly during a time of pandemic, when they want to be involved and can be involved.
View Yves-François Blanchet Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I express my concern with all due respect, given the very good relationship we have with the Chair.
The Bloc Québécois legitimately represents a significant proportion of Quebec and does so, in many instances, in conjunction with the Quebec National Assembly and the Premier of Quebec. I am concerned that there is no appropriate penalty for a verbal aggression, for a significant harm, for an injury. Those are dangerous precedents that should not be set because things can be said without thinking. I think that the Prime Minister will understand what I am saying because he himself got a dose of the same medicine this morning. I will not say anything more about it, and I want to put all my trust in the Chair as to the future of this issue, but we have a duty to be extremely vigilant.
Today, the government is going to provide more details about a deficit the likes of which this country has never seen. A huge deficit can be justified depending on what is being done with the money. The Deputy Prime Minister made a very clear promise to adapt the Canada emergency response benefit. I may not be the Conservative Party's biggest fan, but I appreciate its members' support for using a modified CERB as a way to get people back to work. However, when the government fails to consider the unique needs of seasonal industries and artists, when its $14-billion transfer to the provinces and territories comes with strings attached, and when its fixed-rate program fails spectacularly, that means it did not always do as well as it could have with the money it borrowed to dole out during the crisis.
Another glaring example is all the money Air Canada got. Air Canada got some $800 million and access to the emergency wage benefit despite atrocious use of French in its service delivery, flooding the market in the Quebec regions to bring prices down and kill the competition, and, now, major service cutbacks across Canada, including a lot in the Quebec regions.
Does the Prime Minister agree that Air Canada has not served the Quebec regions well at all?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-07-08 12:20 [p.2537]
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the hon. member's question. I would point out that his preamble was a bit long, so I will try to condense his comments and reply the best I can. I will start with Air Canada.
This is not the first time the members of the Bloc Québécois have suggested that we should not be helping the workers of certain organizations or certain companies because the Bloc disagrees with their objective or their behaviour.
In the early days of the pandemic, the government made the decision to help Canadian families who needed it. We were not going to worry too much about what company they worked for, because workers who have jobs need that income to pay for groceries, support their families and pay their rent. We therefore made the decision to invest in and support families across the country, whether they work for Air Canada or a small business at the end of their street.
That is the choice we made, because if we did not invest in helping these families or spend money on helping the workers, they would have been forced to borrow money on their credit card, add to their mortgage and get further in debt. The federal government has the best interest rates, and it costs us less to borrow money. That is why what we were able to do is manageable. We were able to help Canadians during this crisis, first, so that we could control the spread of this pandemic and, second, to get the economy going again as soon as possible.
That is the choice we made as a government, as a party. Obviously, our opponents may have wanted us to do a bit less. That would have meant asking Canadians to go further into debt. That was unacceptable to us because that would have put the population at risk and undermined our economic recovery.
That was the choice we made, and it was the right choice.
Results: 1 - 15 of 1755 | Page: 1 of 117

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data