Session overview
- The cost of living dominated Question Period, with CPC members citing 43% higher gas prices, a projected $1,000 increase in annual grocery bills, and a 25% rise in average home prices as evidence of a crisis the government was failing to address.
- The Bloc Québécois pressed the Prime Minister to recall Ambassador Bob Rae after his comments calling loi 21 'profondément discriminatoire', with Trudeau refusing and reaffirming his personal opposition to loi 21 across multiple exchanges.
- The NDP's Jagmeet Singh demanded three concrete federal actions on the omicron variant â accelerated booster access, free rapid testing, and investment to hire more health care workers â and received the only direct, on-point answer of the session from the Prime Minister.
- The fiscal update tabled the previous day was a recurring reference point; the government highlighted a one-time payment for GIS recipients who received CERB in 2020, a national tax on non-resident non-Canadian-owned residential real estate, and a $10-a-day child care agreement with New Brunswick as concrete commitments.
- Pierre Poilievre challenged the government with a targeted line of questioning linking the Bank of Canada's $400 billion in new money creation â including $200 billion in increased mortgage lending â directly to record housing price increases, a causal argument the Prime Minister did not engage with substantively.
- Mike Morrice (Green Party) raised the absence of the Canada disability benefit from both the throne speech and the fiscal update, noting that the previous Bill C-35 had been halted by the summer election call; the Prime Minister committed to moving forward but gave no timeline.
The Prime Minister made a specific, concrete commitment â a one-time payment for GIS recipients who received CERB in 2020 to alleviate financial hardship â directly responding to the member for Malpeque's question about an identified problem affecting low-income seniors.
Poilievre sharpens his causal argument by specifically linking the $400 billion of new cash printed into the financial system, of which $200 billion went into increased mortgage lending, to the record housing price increase, and asks a pointed accountability question about giving so much to the 'have yachts' at the expense of the have-nots.
Asked specifically whether the government would impose a cap on fertilizer use and why it was doing so while food prices rose, the Prime Minister ignored the fertilizer policy entirely, pivoted to blaming COVID for inflation, and was interrupted mid-answer by heckling before pivoting again to a generic call for vaccination.
Outstanding questions
- Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC) asked directly whether Canada has a housing bubble or whether the price surge is inflation â the Prime Minister never addressed the distinction.
- Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC) asked what Canada's concrete plan is to lower fuel costs given that Canada has no strategic petroleum reserve â the Prime Minister did not address the absence of a strategic reserve or provide a specific fuel-cost reduction plan.
- John Barlow (Foothills, CPC) asked why the Prime Minister is pursuing a cap on fertilizer use that would reduce crop production and increase food prices â the government's fertilizer policy was never explained or defended.
- Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP) asked whether the Liberals would fast-track the design and implementation of the Canada disability benefit so that Canadians with disabilities do not have to struggle through another three years â no timeline or legislative commitment was provided.
- Yves-François Blanchet (BeloeilâChambly, BQ) asked whether the Prime Minister had been consulted in advance and agreed with Ambassador Bob Rae's characterization of loi 21 as deeply discriminatory â the Prime Minister confirmed his personal opposition to loi 21 but never answered whether he had been consulted or approved Rae's remarks.
O'Toole asks why the Prime Minister is addressing his budget problem by creating a household budget problem for Canadians, citing 25% housing inflation and a 30-year cost-of-living crisis.
Cites specific figures (housing up 25%, 30-year worst inflation) but the ask is a rhetorical framing question rather than a precise, answerable accountability demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are paying more for food, more for gas and more for housing, and the Liberals either do not know or they do not really care. Housing is up 25%. At the same time, more and more Canadian families are vulnerable to interest rate hikes. The cost of living crisis is at its worst in 30 years. Why is the Prime Minister trying to fix his budget problem by creating a household budget problem for Canadians?
Trudeau points to the fiscal update, Canada's 106% job recovery versus 83% in the U.S., and pledges to have Canadians' backs.
Pivots to job-recovery statistics (106% vs. 83% in the U.S.) and the fiscal update without addressing the cost-of-living framing or the specific household-budget question posed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's economic and fiscal update provided Canadians with a transparent look at our finances as well as our plans to keep Canadians safe, particularly in regard to omicron, to make life more affordable and to ensure our economic recovery leaves no one behind. Thanks to the choices we made and the hard work of Canadians, Canada has recovered 106% of the jobs we lost due to the pandemic compared to 83% in the U.S. We know there are challenges ahead and the future remains uncertain, but one thing Canadians can always count on is that we will have their backs.
O'Toole cites gas prices up 43% and the highest inflation rate since the Bank of Canada began targeting inflation, asking how much longer the Prime Minister will ignore the cost-of-living crisis.
Cites gas up 43% and the highest inflation rate in 30 years, but the ask ('How much longer will you ignore the crisis?') is vague and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has their backs. In 30 years, he has given them the highest inflation rate since the Bank of Canada has been targeting inflation. Gas is up 43% alone. The Prime Minister likes to blame global supply chains. He does not seem to realize that he is responsible for road, rail and pipelines between Fort McMurray and Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. At least he would be responsible if he could ever get a pipeline built in our country. How much longer is the Prime Minister going to ignore the cost of living crisis hitting Canadian families?
Trudeau blames global pandemic-driven inflation and cites child care agreements with nine provinces and three territories and housing initiatives as evidence of support.
Trudeau attributes inflation to the global pandemic and lists child care agreements without engaging the specific gas-price figure or the pipeline/infrastructure point raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this global pandemic has been tough on individuals, but it has also been tough on economies. That is why it has led to global inflation and that is why we will continue to keep our promise of having the backs of people. That is what we indicated in the economic and fiscal update yesterday. That is what we are doing by moving forward on historic supports for Canadians, whether it is through tackling the housing crisis, moving forward on historic child care agreements with nine provinces and three territories or whether we are continuing to move forward in supporting Canadians in their day-to-day lives. We will be there for Canadians. That is what yesterday's fiscal update showed.
O'Toole states family grocery bills will be $1,000 higher next year and that Mary Brown's is raising the price of the Big Mary Monday by 25%, asking how many families will have to choose between heating and eating because the Prime Minister does not think about monetary policy.
Offers a concrete $1,000 grocery-bill figure and a named business example (Mary Brown's Big Mary Monday up 25%), but the 'heating and eating' framing and monetary-policy jab make the ask diffuse.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the family grocery bill is going to be $1,000 higher next year for Canadian families, for seniors on fixed income. The Prime Minister has their backs? He is failing them. If they want to dine out, it is just as bad. Even that great Newfoundland institution, Mary Brown's, is raising the price of the Big Mary Monday by 25% because of rising food costs. How many Canadian families will have to pick between heating and eating this winter because the Prime Minister does not think about monetary policy?
Trudeau defends pandemic spending decisions, says Canada has come back stronger, and promises to continue supporting Canadians with the rising cost of living.
Trudeau defends past pandemic spending and attacks Conservative criticism without addressing the grocery-cost figure, the Mary Brown's example, or monetary policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this pandemic, we have been focused on supporting Canadians. Even as the Conservatives kept saying that we were spending too much to support families, too much to support small businesses, too much to support Canadians through this health crisis, we knew that the smart thing to do to help fight this health crisis was to support Canadians. It was also the smart thing to do to support our economy, by investing up front and making sure that Canadians could make it through. We have come back stronger and better than before. There are many challenges. We are going to continue to stand up for the rising cost of living and support Canadians. We will be there for them.
O'Toole asks what the Liberal government is waiting for to solve the inflation problem and help families make ends meet.
Asks in broad terms what the Liberal government is waiting for to help families make ends meet, without citing specific data or a precise policy ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, chaque sac dâĂ©picerie coĂ»te de plus en plus cher. Certains vĂ©rifient sâil nây a pas dâerreurs sur la facture. Non, il nây a pas dâerreurs, câest juste lâinflation. Câest une rĂ©alitĂ© qui touche chaque famille canadienne. Quâattend le gouvernement libĂ©ral pour rĂ©gler ce problĂšme et aider les familles Ă joindre les deux bouts?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, every bag of groceries is costing Canadians more and more. Many are checking their receipts for errors. No, there are no mistakes; it is just inflation. It is a reality that affects every Canadian family. What will it take for the Liberal government to fix this problem and help families make ends meet?
Trudeau says global inflation stems from the global pandemic and urges Canadians to get vaccinated and get boosters to bring better days.
Trudeau attributes inflation to the pandemic and pivots to vaccination messaging, not addressing any concrete government measure to reduce the cost of living.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la crise mondiale de lâinflation est due directement Ă la crise mondiale de la pandĂ©mie. Câest pour cela que la meilleure chose que nous pouvons faire pour aider les familles Ă passer Ă travers cette crise Ă©conomique, câest dâen finir pour de bon avec la COVIDâ19. Câest pour cela que nous encourageons tout le monde Ă aller se faire vacciner et Ă recevoir la troisiĂšme dose, Ă faire vacciner ses enfants et Ă faire attention cet hiver aux rassemblements et aux dĂ©placements. Nous nous devons de continuer Ă faire tout ce que nous avons fait en tant que Canadiens pour nous garder en sĂ©curitĂ©. Câest comme cela que de meilleurs jours viendront.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the global inflation crisis is a direct result of the global pandemic. That is why the best thing we can do to help families get through this economic crisis is to end COVIDâ19 for good. That is why we are encouraging everyone to get vaccinated and to get the third dose, to get their children vaccinated, and to be cautious about gatherings and about travelling this winter. We must continue doing what we as Canadians have been doing to stay safe. That will bring us better days ahead.
O'Toole asks why the government is abandoning young workers' dream of affordable homeownership.
Frames homeownership as a lost dream for young workers but offers no data and asks only a general 'why are you letting them down?' question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au Canada, les jeunes ont toujours eu l'occasion d'avoir un futur prospĂšre, mais, sous ce gouvernement, le rĂȘve des jeunes travailleurs de devenir propriĂ©taires d'une maison n'existe plus. Leur rĂȘve est tombĂ© Ă l'eau. Les jeunes sont inquiets pour leur avenir. Pourquoi le gouvernement laisse-t-il tomber l'espoir des jeunes d'avoir une premiĂšre maison abordable?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in Canada, young people have always had the opportunity to have a prosperous future, but under this government the dream of young workers becoming homeowners no longer exists. Their dreams have been crushed. Young people are worried about their future. Why is the government shattering young people's hopes of buying a starter home?
Trudeau cites the first-time homebuyer program and contrasts it with the Conservative plan to give tax credits to large property owners.
Trudeau mentions the first-time homebuyer program by name and contrasts it with the Conservative plan for tax credits to large property owners, providing some relevant context but no figures.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous reconnaissons à quel point l'accÚs à la propriété est un défi pour de plus en plus de Canadiens, incluant les jeunes. C'est pour cette raison que nous avons mis sur pied un programme d'accÚs à une premiÚre propriété, qui aide les acheteurs d'une premiÚre maison à payer les coûts associés et leur hypothÚque. Nous sommes là avec des programmes précis pour aider les jeunes et pour lutter contre cette crise du logement, contrairement aux conservateurs, qui avaient comme seul plan pour lutter contre la crise du logement de donner un crédit d'impÎt aux grands propriétaires d'immeubles. Ce n'est pas cela qui va aider les jeunes, et c'est pour cela que nous sommes là pour eux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we know what a challenge home ownership is for a growing number of Canadians, including young people. That is why we launched the first-time home buyer incentive to help first-time homebuyers pay for related costs and their mortgage. We have targeted programs to help young people and to combat this housing crisis, unlike the Conservatives, whose only plan to combat the housing crisis was to give a tax credit to large-scale landlords. That is not going to help young people, and that is why we are there for them.
Blanchet asks whether the Prime Minister will immediately recall Ambassador Bob Rae after Rae called loi 21 'profondément discriminatoire,' in violation of his duty of reserve toward a legitimately adopted Quebec law.
Precisely identifies Ambassador Bob Rae's statement characterizing loi 21 as 'profondément discriminatoire,' references the law's democratic legitimacy and Quebec consensus, and asks for an immediate concrete action (recall the ambassador).
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'ambassadeur du Canada à l'Organisation des Nations unies, Bob Rae, a déclaré que la loi 21 sur la laïcité au Québec était profondément discriminatoire. C'est pourtant une loi votée légitimement dans un parlement qui, comme tous, est souverain, et cette loi a fait l'objet d'un large consensus au Québec. Bob Rae a manqué à son devoir fondamental de réserve. Parce que c'est de toute évidence ce qu'il convient de faire, est-ce que le premier ministre peut rappeler l'ambassadeur Rae immédiatement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada's ambassador to the United Nations, Bob Rae, stated that Bill 21 on secularism in Quebec was profoundly discriminatory. This legislation, however, was legitimately voted upon in a parliament that, like all others, is sovereign, and there is broad support for the law in Quebec. Bob Rae failed in his fundamental duty to show restraint. Will the Prime Minister recall Ambassador Rae immediately, as that is clearly what should be done?
Trudeau reaffirms his deep disagreement with loi 21, citing the case of Fatemeh Anvari, and says the government supports Quebecers defending their rights in court, without addressing Rae's recall.
Trudeau states his personal disagreement with loi 21 and references Fatemeh Anvari losing her job, but does not address whether he will recall Ambassador Rae or comment on the ambassador's duty of reserve.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme je l'ai dit bien souvent, je suis en profond dĂ©saccord avec la loi 21. Je ne trouve pas que, dans une sociĂ©tĂ© libre, quelqu'un devrait perdre son emploi Ă cause de sa religion. C'est la position de notre gouvernement et de notre parti. Nous allons continuer d'ĂȘtre du cĂŽtĂ© des QuĂ©bĂ©cois qui sont eux-mĂȘmes choquĂ©s et déçus que Fatemeh Anvari ait perdu son emploi Ă cause de sa religion et nous appuyons et suivons les QuĂ©bĂ©cois qui dĂ©fendent leurs droits en cour parce qu'ils trouvent cette loi injuste.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I have often said, I strongly disagree with Bill 21. I do not believe that in a free society someone should lose their job because of their religion. That is the position of our government and our party. We will continue to be on the side of Quebeckers who are shocked and disappointed that Fatemeh Anvari lost her job because of her religion, and we support and will follow Quebeckers who defend their rights before the courts because they believe this bill is unfair.
Blanchet asks whether the Prime Minister was consulted about and agrees with Ambassador Rae's assertion that loi 21 is deeply discriminatory.
Sharpens the ask by asking directly whether the Prime Minister was consulted and agrees with Ambassador Rae's statement, making it a yes/no accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai en effet vu des gens qui ne méritent pas leur emploi, mais qui l'ont encore. On ne donnera pas de noms. Le premier ministre cautionne la diffamation d'une loi et d'une nation tout aussi légitimes que ses propres prétentions. Il cautionne le procédé employé par un ambassadeur d'insulter la nation québécoise au grand complet. Est-ce que je comprends qu'il avait été consulté et qu'il est d'accord avec l'affirmation de son ambassadeur?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have seen people who do not deserve to be in their jobs, but there they are. I will not name names. The Prime Minister is condoning a smear campaign against a law and a nation that are just as legitimate as his own pretensions. He is condoning an ambassador's decision to insult the Quebec nation as a whole. Am I to understand that he was consulted and agreed with his ambassador's statement?
Trudeau speaks of Quebecers' commitment to human rights and religious freedom, and again references Fatemeh Anvari losing her job, without confirming whether he was consulted or endorses Rae's statement.
Trudeau pivots entirely to Quebec's values around religious freedom and the Fatemeh Anvari case, never answering whether he was consulted or endorses the ambassador's remarks.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les Québécois sont des personnes qui défendent les droits de la personne, la liberté d'expression et l'égalité des sexes. Nous défendons aussi la liberté de conscience. Au Québec, nous défendons la liberté de religion. C'est pour cette raison que tant de Québécois sont surpris et déçus de voir la jeune enseignante Fatemeh Anvari perdre son emploi parce qu'elle est musulmane. Ce n'est pas correct de voir cela au Canada. C'est ce que je dis depuis des années et c'est ce que nous allons continuer à dire de ce cÎté-ci de la Chambre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are people who stand up for human rights, freedom of expression and gender equality. We also stand up for conscience rights. In Quebec, we stand up for freedom of religion. This is why so many Quebeckers are surprised and disappointed that young teacher Fatemeh Anvari lost her job because she is Muslim. That should not happen in Canada. This is what I have been saying for years and what we will continue to say on this side of the House.
Singh asks the Prime Minister to commit to three concrete steps: accelerating booster shot access, providing free rapid testing, and investing in health care to hire more health care workers.
Lists three concrete, specific federal actions (accelerate booster access, free rapid testing, hire more health workers) and asks for a clear commitment to all three.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are deeply concerned about the omicron variant and how it is impacting them and their families. The federal government has a role to play in fighting back against this variant. We have three clear steps the federal government can take. Will it help accelerate access to a booster shot, make sure Canadians have access to free rapid testing and invest in our health care system to hire more health care workers to deal with the crisis? Will the Prime Minister commit to these three concrete steps to fight the variant?
Trudeau encourages boosters and children's vaccination, announces increased travel advisories recommending Canadians stay home at Christmas, and says the government will continue to be there with rapid tests and to support provinces.
Trudeau addresses boosters and rapid tests by name and mentions travel advisories, but does not commit to the specific asks of accelerating booster access timelines or investing to hire more health care workers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, faced with the rise of the omicron variant this coming holiday season, Canadians are frustrated and exhausted. We understand that. It is a real challenge to see rising cases, but Canadians know what to do. We need to keep safe, we need to keep our loved ones safe and we need to keep our public health systems from getting overwhelmed. That is why getting booster shots and getting kids vaccinated are the most important things we can do. Second is avoiding non-essential travel. We just increased our travel advisories. We are recommending that Canadians stay home at Christmas and stay safe. We will continue to be there with rapid tests and we will continue to be there to support the provinces.
Singh presses the Prime Minister to commit to accelerating booster access, free rapid tests, and investing to hire more frontline health care workers to deal with the omicron variant.
Repeats the three specific asks (booster acceleration, free rapid tests, health care hiring investment) in a follow-up, maintaining specificity but losing some freshness.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is telling Canadians what they can do. I am telling the Prime Minister what he can do. Nous sommes au milieu d'une crise et nous avons de graves inquiĂ©tudes relativement au variant Omicron. Nous exigeons du gouvernement qu'il prenne trois mesures concrĂštes: accĂ©lĂ©rer l'accĂšs aux doses de rappel, accĂ©lĂ©rer l'accĂšs aux tests rapides gratuits et investir plus d'argent dans nos soins de santĂ© pour embaucher plus de travailleurs de la santĂ© de premiĂšre ligne. Le premier ministre vaâtâil prendre ces mesures afin d'aider les gens Ă faire face Ă ce variant?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre dit aux Canadiens ce qu'ils peuvent faire. Je vais lui dire, moi, ce qu'il pourrait faire. We are in the midst of a crisis and we have serious concerns about the omicron variant. We are calling on the government to take three clear steps: accelerate access to booster shots, accelerate access to free rapid testing and invest more money in our health care system to hire more frontline health care workers. Will the Prime Minister take these steps to help people deal with this variant?
Trudeau asserts the government is already doing all three measures, noting Canada has enough booster doses for everyone, and pledges continued support for rapid tests and health systems.
Trudeau claims the government is already doing all three things and references booster doses being available for everyone, but provides no timelines or funding figures and does not specifically address hiring more health workers.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous sommes dĂ©jĂ en train de faire les trois choses que le chef du NPD a mentionnĂ©es. Ă l'approche de la saison des FĂȘtes, on se doit effectivement de faire tout ce qu'on peut pour se garder en sĂ©curitĂ© et en santĂ© les uns les autres. Cela veut dire d'aller prendre une dose de rappel le plus rapidement possible. Le Canada a assez de doses de rappel pour tout le monde. Nous encourageons les gens Ă les prendre. Cela veut aussi dire de faire vacciner nos enfants. C'est important pour protĂ©ger nos communautĂ©s. Nous serons Ă©galement lĂ avec des tests rapides. Nous serons lĂ pour appuyer les systĂšmes de santĂ©. Nous allons ĂȘtre lĂ pour garder les Canadiens en santĂ©. Nous en avons Ă©normĂ©ment fait cette annĂ©e, et nous allons continuer.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are already doing the three things the NDP leader mentioned. As the holiday season approaches, we must do everything we can to keep each other safe and healthy. That means getting a booster shot as soon as possible. Canada has enough booster shots for everyone. We encourage people to get them. It also means getting our kids vaccinated. That is important in order to protect our communities. We will also be there with rapid tests. We will be there to support the health care systems. We will be there to keep Canadians healthy. We did a tremendous amount of work this year, and we are going to keep doing it.
Bergen asks whether the Prime Minister can relate to Canadians struggling to pay bills, given rising housing, gas, rent and grocery costs, and characterizes the fiscal update as recycled failed promises.
Characterizes the fiscal update as 'high-tax, high-deficit' and cites a 30-year housing high, but the personal 'Can you relate?' question is largely rhetorical and not policy-specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's high-tax, high-deficit report was more of the same recycled promises that have failed for six years. Housing prices are at a 30-year high and gas prices, rent and groceries are all up. The Liberals' solution is to send their bill to struggling working Canadians, families and businesses. Has the Prime Minister ever struggled to pay a bill, maybe a rent bill, a credit card bill or a grocery bill? Can he relate in any way to what everyday Canadians are going through right now?
Trudeau highlights the 2015 tax increase on the wealthiest 1% and corresponding middle-class tax cut, and says ending the pandemic is the best way to help Canadians.
Trudeau pivots to the 2015 tax cut for the middle class and the pandemic response without engaging the fiscal update critique or the relateability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the very first thing our government did back in 2015 was to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% and lower them on the middle class, a measure the Conservatives voted against. We have continued to be there for Canadians every step of the way, including with historic investments in housing and with measures that are fighting the omicron variant and the current pandemic. What the Conservatives do not realize is that the best way to help Canadians and the best way to get our economy back to normal is to end this pandemic once and for all. That is what we on this side of the House are focused on.
Bergen asks when the Prime Minister will get serious about finances and monetary policy, citing a tax increase on small businesses taking effect January 1 and working Canadians' inability to afford food or homeownership.
References a specific January 1 tax increase on small businesses but the ask ('when is the Prime Minister going to get serious?') is vague and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the government and what the Prime Minister continually do is raise taxes on Canadians. On January 1, he is going to be raising taxes again on struggling small businesses. The Liberals and their elite friends are doing just fine with this âjust inflationâ, but working Canadians are struggling to put food on the table and even dream of buying their own home. The Prime Minister has been in office for six years and the Canadian dream has never been further out of reach than it is right now, so when is the Prime Minister going to get serious about the finances and economics of this country, pay attention to monetary policy and think about struggling working Canadians?
Trudeau says the government lowered the small business tax rate, supported small businesses through the pandemic, and frames payroll tax increases as securing Canadians' retirements through CPP changes.
Trudeau defends the small business tax rate reduction and frames CPP contribution increases as securing retirements, not addressing the specific January 1 increase or monetary policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way over the past six years we have been there for small and medium-sized businesses. We lowered the small business tax rate. We have been there to support small businesses through this historic pandemic and they have responded positively. We have seen our economy bouncing back faster than many economies around the world because we were there for our small businesses. What the Conservatives are talking about when they talk about payroll taxes is the fact that we are securing Canadians' retirements. We have made changes to CPP to make sure Canadians can retire better. The Conservatives simply are not there for our seniors.
Vien asks what the Prime Minister has to say to young families who are overwhelmed and discouraged and must abandon their dream of homeownership.
Frames the housing affordability issue for young families under 40 but provides no specific data and the ask is a general 'what do you say to these families?' with no policy specificity.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le chef de l'opposition officielle l'a bien dit, et c'est documentĂ©: l'inflation fait mal. Les jeunes familles qui veulent accĂ©der Ă la propriĂ©tĂ© sont freinĂ©es par l'inflation galopante. Le rĂȘve d'avoir une maison est devenu inaccessible pour les 40 ans et moins, qui voient maintenant les prix monter chaque mois. On le sait, le premier ministre est bien loin de ces soucis de nos jeunes. Qu'aâtâil Ă dire aux jeunes familles qui sont Ă©touffĂ©es et dĂ©couragĂ©es, et qui doivent abandonner leur rĂȘve d'accĂ©der Ă la propriĂ©tĂ©?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the official opposition rightly said, inflation hurts. It is well documented. Young families who want to buy a house cannot afford it because of runaway inflation. The dream of owning a home has become out of reach for those aged 40 and under, who are now seeing prices rise every month. We know that the Prime Minister is out of touch with our young people's concerns. What does he have to say to the young families who are struggling and discouraged and who have to give up their dreams of home ownership?
Trudeau points to the first-time homebuyer program and says ending the pandemic is the path through the economic crisis.
Trudeau cites the first-time homebuyer program and ending the pandemic as solutions, without providing any figures or concrete timelines relevant to the question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis des annĂ©es, nous investissons de plus en plus dans nos jeunes, parce que nous savons Ă quel point il est important de permettre Ă des jeunes de rĂ©aliser leur rĂȘve. Câest pour cela que nous avons crĂ©Ă© le programme dâaccĂšs Ă une premiĂšre propriĂ©tĂ©. Câest pour aider justement les jeunes Ă acheter leur maison plus rapidement et Ă payer leur hypothĂšque. Nous allons aussi continuer dâaider notre Ă©conomie en faisant la chose dont les conservateurs ne parlent jamais, câestâĂ âdire en finir avec cette pandĂ©mie pour de bon. Câest comme cela que nous allons passer Ă travers cette crise Ă©conomique; c'est en en finissant avec le virus. Câest pour cela que nous devons maintenir nos mesures.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for years, we have been investing more and more in our young people because we know how important it is to help young people achieve their dreams. That is why we created the first-time home buyer incentive, to help young people buy a home more quickly and pay their mortgage. We will also continue to help our economy by doing the one thing that the Conservatives never talk about, and that is putting an end to this pandemic once and for all. We are going to get through this economic crisis by eliminating the virus. That is why we need to maintain our measures.
Vien cites Canadian Real Estate Association figures showing a 25% increase in home prices in 2021, with the national average now at $720,000 and Quebec at $445,000, and asks what the Prime Minister will concretely do for young families.
Cites specific Canadian Real Estate Association data released that day showing a 25% price increase in 2021, and specific average home prices ($720,000 nationally, $445,000 in Quebec), and asks what concrete action the government will take.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce nâest pas moi qui le dis, câest lâAssociation canadienne de lâimmeuble, qui a rĂ©vĂ©lĂ© aujourdâhui des chiffres inquiĂ©tants. Pour 2021, on parle d'une augmentation du prix des maisons de 25 %. Comment une jeune famille de la classe moyenne peut-elle espĂ©rer accĂ©der Ă la propriĂ©tĂ© quand le prix moyen dâune maison au Canada se situe maintenant Ă 720 000 $ et, au QuĂ©bec, Ă 445 000 $? Le premier ministre continue de nous dire que câest un problĂšme mondial, mais ça affecte les jeunes, ici et maintenant. Quâest-ce quâil va dire Ă ces jeunes-lĂ ? Quâest-ce quâil va faire concrĂštement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am not the one saying it. The Canadian Real Estate Association put out some disturbing figures today, showing that for 2021, house prices increased by 25%. How can a young middle-class family ever hope to get on the property ladder when the average price for a home in Canada is now $720,000, and $445,000 in Quebec? The Prime Minister keeps telling us it is a global problem, but it is affecting young people here and now. What is he going to say to those young people? What real action is he going to take?
Trudeau cites $4 billion for municipalities to accelerate housing construction, first-time homebuyer assistance, and measures to reduce transaction costs from the election platform, contrasting with the Conservative plan for tax credits to wealthy landlords.
Trudeau references $4 billion for municipalities and the first-time homebuyer initiative from the election platform, but does not engage the specific CREA figures cited or explain how these measures address a 25% annual price increase.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous avons prĂ©sentĂ© une plateforme ambitieuse concernant le logement pour aider justement les jeunes et les moins jeunes Ă accĂ©der Ă la propriĂ©tĂ© ici. Avec 4 milliards de dollars pour les municipalitĂ©s pour accĂ©lĂ©rer la construction de logements, avec de lâaide pour les premiers propriĂ©taires, avec des initiatives pour rĂ©duire les coĂ»ts des transactions, nous avons des plans concrets. Malheureusement, les conservateurs nâavaient quâun seul plan: donner des crĂ©dits dâimpĂŽt aux propriĂ©taires riches pour quâils vendent leurs immeubles. Ce nâest pas cela qui va aider les jeunes dont parle la dĂ©putĂ©e. Nous allons ĂȘtre lĂ pour les jeunes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have put forward an ambitious housing platform to help people of all ages become homeowners here in Canada. With $4 billion for municipalities to accelerate housing construction, help for first-time buyers, and initiatives to reduce transaction costs, we have real plans. Unfortunately, the Conservatives had only one plan, which was to give tax credits to wealthy landlords so they could sell their buildings. That is not going to help the young people the member is talking about. We are going to be there for young people.
Dancho cites home heating gas up 30%, fuel up 40%, national average home price now three-quarters of a million dollars, and a $1,000 annual grocery increase, asking what it will take for Liberals to address the cost-of-living crisis.
Cites specific Manitoba-relevant figures (home heating gas up 30%, fuel up 40%, $1,000 annual grocery increase, national average home price three-quarters of a million dollars) but the closing ask is partly personal and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the rising cost of living is hitting Manitoba families hard. This year alone, gas prices for home heating went up 30%, fuel for our cars went up a staggering 40%, the average national home price, as we found out today, is now three-quarters of a million dollars and next year Canadian families will be paying an additional $1,000 on their annual grocery bills. None of this was really addressed in yesterday's important fiscal update. What is it going to take for the Liberals to realize the cost-of-living crisis Canadians face? Will they have to lose their homes or just the Prime Minister losing his?
Trudeau says ending the pandemic is the best path forward and lists existing programs including the CCB, $10-a-day child care, GIS boosts, student supports, and affordable housing without addressing the specific cost figures.
Trudeau pivots to vaccination, CCB, $10-a-day child care, GIS boosts and affordable housing without addressing any of the specific figures cited or explaining what the fiscal update does for these costs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the best thing we can do to grow the economy and help Canadians through these difficult times is put an end to this pandemic. That is why we are continuing to move forward with vaccinations, with encouraging Canadians to get their boosters, with support for kids to get vaccinated and with public health measures that are going to support small businesses and keep our economy moving forward. We know there is always more to do and that is what we are doing. We have done it over the years by supporting families, seniors and youth, whether through increases to the CCB, $10-a-day child care, boosts in the GIS, more supports for students or more affordable housing. I could go on.
Dancho accuses the Prime Minister of spending more than all predecessors combined while producing declining investment, record inflation, and unaffordable housing, and asks why Liberals are so out of touch with Canadians' financial challenges, citing a January 1 tax increase.
References spending exceeding all predecessors combined and a January 1 tax increase, but the core ask ('Why are Liberals so out of touch?') is rhetorical and the claims are unsubstantiated in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can make all the excuses he wants, but the fact remains that he has spent more money than all of his predecessors combined, yet his record is declining investment and competitiveness, a lacklustre economic growth record, record inflation and housing prices that are taking away the dreams from half of Canada's young people, who may never own a home. To top it off, the Prime Minister is raising taxes on Canadians on January 1. Why are the Liberals so out of touch with the financial challenges facing Canadian families?
Trudeau cites the 2015 middle-class tax cut, the Canada child benefit, infrastructure and housing investments, and attacks the Conservative plan to give tax breaks to wealthy landlords.
Trudeau's answer was interrupted and then restated general talking points about middle-class tax cuts, the Canada child benefit, housing investments, and attacking the Conservative housing plan, without addressing the January 1 tax hike or the out-of-touch framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the first thing we did was raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% so we could lower them for the middle class, and Conservative politicians voted against that. Throughout this pandemic, we have had Canadians' backs, with historic supports for families, for seniors, forâ
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way, this government has been there for Canadians, whether by bringing in the Canada child benefit, reducing taxes for the middle class and raising them on the wealthiest 1% or moving forward with historic investments in infrastructure, housing and transportation. These are all things the Conservative Party chose to vote against. When we put forward a historic housing plan to support Canadians, with billions of dollars' worth of initiatives, the Conservatives put forward a plan to give tax breaks to wealthy landlords who are selling their buildings. That is not how we support Canadians. This government is supporting them.
Blanchet asserts the teacher herself described her hijab as a political symbol contesting loi 101, not a religious symbol, and asks whether the Prime Minister intends to finance challenges to loi 21.
Raises a specific factual claim about the teacher's own characterization of her hijab as a political symbol contesting loi 101, and asks whether the Prime Minister plans to fund challenges to loi 21, but wraps it in partisan framing about the UN ambassador.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'enseignante que le premier ministre veut dĂ©peindre comme une victime a dit elle-mĂȘme qu'il ne s'agissait pas d'un symbole religieux Ă ses yeux, mais bien d'un symbole politique de contestation de la loi 101. Elle a Ă©tĂ© embauchĂ©e et affectĂ©e Ă une classe aprĂšs l'adoption de la loi 21. Or le premier ministre applaudit l'ambassadeur du Parti libĂ©ral Ă l'ONU pour avoir insultĂ© le QuĂ©bec. Est-ce que le premier ministre envisage de financer des contestations de la loi 21?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to position a teacher as a victim, but she herself said that she did not consider it a religious symbol but a political symbol of opposition to Bill 101. She was hired and assigned to a classroom after Bill 21 was passed, but the Prime Minister is commending the Liberal Party's ambassador to the UN for insulting Quebec. Is the Prime Minister planning to fund challenges to Bill 21?
Trudeau accuses the Bloc of trying to make this a provincial-federal issue and says Quebecers are genuinely questioning whether a free society should cost someone their job over religion.
Trudeau ignores the specific question about funding legal challenges to loi 21 and instead pivots to a rhetorical framing about Quebecers questioning whether a free society should allow job loss over religion.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on voit que le Bloc québécois est mal pris, parce que des milliers de Québécois sont en train de se poser des vraies questions. Ils se demandent si, dans une société libre, quelqu'un devrait perdre sa job à cause de sa religion. Le Bloc doit alors faire ce qu'il fait toujours: essayer d'en faire un enjeu provincial-fédéral et s'attaquer au gouvernement à Ottawa, au lieu d'écouter les Québécois qui ont de vraies préoccupations sur la liberté d'expression, sur la liberté de conscience et sur la liberté de pratiquer sa religion dans une société libre. Je sais que les Québécois se posent ces questions. Pourquoi le Bloc ne se les pose-t-il pas?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois finds itself in a tricky position because thousands of Quebeckers are asking themselves some tough questions. They are wondering if, in a free society, a person should lose their job because of their religion. The Bloc has no choice but to do what it always does: try to turn this into a federal-provincial issue and attack the government in Ottawa instead of listening to Quebeckers who have genuine concerns about freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom to practise one's religion in a free society. I know Quebeckers are asking themselves these questions. Why is the Bloc not doing the same?
Blanchet asks whether the Prime Minister will admit he does not have the courage to openly oppose loi 21 because he fears Quebec public opinion, which is largely favourable to laïcité.
Blanchet challenges the Prime Minister to admit he lacks the courage to openly confront loi 21 because of Quebec public opinion broadly favouring laïcité, but the question is rhetorical and compound rather than precise.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il faut me dire pourquoi je suis tenté de proposer au premier ministre de ressortir la fameuse colonne. Est-ce qu'on se fait un référendum sur la loi 21 au Québec? Qu'est-ce que cela va donner? Le premier ministre peut-il avoir le courage, aprÚs ne pas l'avoir eu à l'élection fédérale, d'affronter la loi 21, et de dire qu'il n'aura pas le courage, à l'élection québécoise, d'affronter la loi 21? Peut-il avoir le courage de reconnaßtre que c'est parce qu'il a peur de l'opinion publique québécoise, qui est largement favorable à la laïcité québécoise?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why I am tempted to again tell the Prime Minister to grow a spine. Should Quebec hold a referendum on Bill 21? What happens then? Would the Prime Minister have the courage of confronting Bill 21, after shying away from it in the federal election, and of saying that he will not have the courage to confront Bill 21 in the Quebec election? Does he have the courage to admit that it is because he is afraid of Quebec public opinion, which is largely in favour of Quebec secularism?
Trudeau asserts that Quebec and Canada are already secular societies and argues that legislating on freedom of expression and conscience to cost a Muslim person her job because she is Muslim is incompatible with a free society.
Trudeau does not engage with the specific challenge about political courage or public opinion on laïcité, instead restating his general position that Quebec and Canada are secular and that religious practice should not bar anyone from a profession.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le QuĂ©bec et le Canada sont dĂ©jĂ des sociĂ©tĂ©s laĂŻques. On ne se pose pas une question sur la religion d'un policier ou d'un juge, car on sait que n'importe quelle religion que quelqu'un pratique dans sa vie personnelle ne devrait pas l'empĂȘcher de pratiquer une profession ou d'avoir un rĂŽle important dans notre sociĂ©tĂ©. C'est ce que nous sommes en train de dĂ©fendre, et c'est justement pour cela que les QuĂ©bĂ©cois sont en train de se poser des questions. Ils se demandent comment, dans une sociĂ©tĂ© libre, on peut lĂ©gifĂ©rer sur la libertĂ© d'expression, sur la libertĂ© de conscience, et faire perdre la job Ă une personne musulmane parce qu'elle est musulmane.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Quebec and Canada are already secular societies. We do not ask police officers or judges about their religion, because we know that whatever religion someone practises in their personal life should not prevent them from practising a profession or having an important role in our society. That is what we are defending, and that is precisely why Quebeckers are asking themselves some questions. They are wondering how, in a free society, their government can legislate on freedom of expression and freedom of conscience, and how someone can lose their job because they are Muslim.
Rempel Garner asks the Prime Minister to admit that his delays, obstruction, and failure to build energy infrastructure have caused massive fuel inflation forcing the U.S. to beg human rights-abusing oil cartel countries to increase production.
Rempel Garner links specific events (Keystone cancellation, Line 5 challenge, Biden's request to oil cartel countries) to fuel price inflation and asks the Prime Minister to admit his delays and obstruction contributed to it, but the ask is compound and partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after cancelling the Keystone pipeline and challenging Line 5, the United States finds itself in the same boat as Canada, with soaring fuel prices as winter sets in. To deal with this lack of fuel and inflation, President Biden has begged human rights-abusing oil cartel countries to increase their oil production. Will the Prime Minister admit that his delays, obstruction and lack of ability to get energy infrastructure built in Canada have led to massive fuel inflation that has Canadians paying a lot for energy from climate-destroying countries?
Trudeau says this government is actually getting TMX built, unlike the Conservatives who were focused on 'drill, baby, drill' but failed to get pipelines built, and touts investment in low-carbon transformation.
Trudeau does not address the specific causal claim about delays and obstruction driving fuel inflation, instead pivoting to the TMX pipeline and a clean-energy transition narrative while attacking the Conservative record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after years of a Conservative government that was focused on âdrill, baby, drillâ but unable to get pipelines built, this is the government that is actually getting TMX built to access new markets for our oil resources. At the same time, we recognize that we need to reduce our carbon emissions and invest in the oil workers in Alberta and elsewhere, so we can transform our energy mix to be more low-carbon, to reach net zero and to support good jobs. The Conservative Party is stuck in its failed past while we look to the future.
Rempel Garner notes the Americans are releasing oil from their strategic energy reserve to bring prices down and asks what Canada's plan is to lower fuel costs for Canadians who cannot afford electric vehicles or LRT.
Rempel Garner makes a concrete reference to the U.S. releasing oil from its strategic energy reserve to lower prices and asks specifically what Canada's plan is to lower fuel costs, providing a clear and answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, most Canadians do not have the luxury of the Prime Minister's privileged future. No one is going to magically buy them an electric vehicle in the next couple of weeks. Nobody is going to magically build them an LRT in the next couple of weeks. They are struggling to pay their fuel costs now. The Prime Minister has failed to provide them with low-cost carbon alternatives, and his lack of action on energy infrastructure has driven up prices. The Americans are releasing oil from their strategic energy reserve in order to bring prices down. We do not have one here. Could the Prime Minister tell us what Canada's plan is to lower fuel costs?
Trudeau says the government's plan is to support Canadians now and into the future through investments in clean technology, renewables, and fighting climate change.
Trudeau does not mention a strategic energy reserve, does not outline any specific plan to lower fuel costs, and instead offers a generic statement about supporting Canadians through the pandemic and investing in clean technology.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our plan from the beginning of this pandemic has been to have Canadians' backs now and into the future. That is exactly what we are doing, not only by supporting them now with initiatives that are making life more affordable, but also by recognizing that the direction our world is going in is toward lower-carbon emissions. Therefore, our investments in clean technology, our investments in renewables and our investments in fighting climate change are what is going to guarantee a better present and future for all Canadians.
Rempel Garner notes the Prime Minister voted against a bill to reduce fuel price costs for farmers last year and asks what he will materially do to lower fuel costs after failing to build pipelines.
Rempel Garner cites a specific vote against a bill to reduce fuel price costs for farmers and asks what the Prime Minister will materially do to lower fuel costs after failing to build pipelines, making it relatively concrete.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister just said is that he has spent Canada into oblivion to make our prices higher for consumers. That is insane. Come on. Right now, Canadians are struggling to pay for gas. They do not have the ability to magically buy an electric car. We need to get fuel prices under control. Last year, the Prime Minister voted against a bill to reduce fuel price costs for farmers. Could the Prime Minister tell Canadians what he is going to materially do, after failing to build pipelines, to lower fuel costs?
Trudeau mentions the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and investing its profits in green transformation, then attacks the Conservatives' anti-climate-change agenda and promotes the price on pollution.
Trudeau's answer was interrupted and then pivoted entirely to attacking the Conservative climate agenda and promoting the price on pollution, without addressing the specific ask about materially lowering fuel costs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Conservative failure on pipelines, we have actually invested in the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, and we are taking the profits from that pipeline to invest in the green transformation of our economyâ
Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable to hear the Conservatives continuing to double down on their anti-climate-change agenda and their oil and gas lobbying efforts to try to hold Canadians in the past, instead of recognizing that supporting them right now with a price on pollution that puts more money in their pockets than before and moves us forward into the future is the rightâ
Rempel Garner argues the Prime Minister has failed both to provide low-carbon alternatives and to reduce fuel costs, noting he is comfortable with fuel coming from Saudi Arabia where women are not seen as people, and asks why he has failed on both fronts.
Rempel Garner makes a pointed argument about Canadian energy reducing fuel costs while achieving climate action and contrasts it with importing oil from Saudi Arabia, but the final 'Why?' is vague and the question is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, somebody in Papineau who is struggling to pay for a tank of gas is not an oil and gas lobbyist; they are one of his constituents. He owes it to them to not only provide low-carbon alternatives, which he has failed to provide, but also to reduce their fuel costs. The Prime Minister has failed on all these fronts. He has failed to buy energy infrastructure. He is perfectly fine with having that tank of gas come in from Saudi Arabia, where women are not seen as people. He should have a plan that both sees Canadian energy lower the cost of fuel and ensures that we have climate action. The Prime Minister has failed on both fronts. Why?
Trudeau says the Conservatives fail to understand that a plan for the economy requires a plan for the environment, and touts the price on pollution returning more money to the average Canadian family than it costs them.
Trudeau does not address the Saudi Arabia comparison, the failure on energy infrastructure, or the dual failure on fuel costs and climate action, instead promoting the price on pollution returning money to average families.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives continue to fail to understand that we do not have a plan for the future of our economy if we do not have a plan for the future of our environment, to fight climate change. That is exactly what we have led on, including with a price on pollution that returns more money to the average Canadian family than it costs them in a given year. On top of that, we are moving forward with real supports for families and for communities as we challenge the rising price of goods. That is what we are continuing to do. As we finish with this pandemic for good, we need to keep focused on the things that matter for Canadians.
Singh notes housing prices have risen nearly 25% in one year and asks why the Prime Minister did nothing in the economic update to address the housing crisis.
Singh cites a specific statistic â housing prices up nearly 25% in one year â and asks why the Prime Minister did nothing in the economic update to address the housing crisis, but the ask is broad rather than targeting a specific measure.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on est dans une crise du logement. Le prix du logement a augmenté de presque 25 % en un an. Il est impossible de trouver du logement abordable. Malgré tout cela, le premier ministre n'a rien fait dans la mise à jour économique pour régler cette crise. Pourquoi le premier ministre refuse-t-il de faire face à la crise du logement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there is a housing crisis going on. The cost of housing has increased by almost 25% in one year. It is impossible to find affordable housing. Despite that, the Prime Minister did not include anything in the economic update to tackle this crisis. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to deal with the housing crisis?
Trudeau lists specific measures from the economic update including the housing accelerator fund, a more flexible first-time homebuyer incentive, a new rent-to-own program, reduced closing costs, and a national tax on non-resident non-Canadian-owned residential real estate.
Trudeau lists several specific programs â fonds pour accĂ©lĂ©rer la construction de logements, Incitatif Ă l'achat d'une premiĂšre propriĂ©tĂ©, programme de location avec option d'achat, and a national tax on non-resident non-Canadian-owned residential real estate â engaging substantively with housing measures.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous l'avons dit clairement: ce gouvernement accorde la prioritĂ© au logement abordable et Ă l'accĂšs Ă la propriĂ©tĂ©. Nous allons aider les municipalitĂ©s Ă bĂątir plus de logements et de meilleurs logements plus rapidement grĂące Ă des programmes comme le fonds pour accĂ©lĂ©rer la construction de logements. Nous aiderons Ă©galement les familles Ă acheter leur premiĂšre maison plus tĂŽt Ă l'aide d'un Incitatif Ă l'achat d'une premiĂšre propriĂ©tĂ© assoupli et d'un nouveau programme de location avec option d'achat. Nous allons rĂ©duire les frais de clĂŽture pour les nouveaux acheteurs. La mise Ă jour prĂ©sentĂ©e hier Ă©nonce notre plan pour mettre en Ćuvre une taxe nationale visant les biens immobiliers rĂ©sidentiels au Canada appartenant Ă des personnes non rĂ©sidentes et non canadiennes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we clearly stated that this government's priority is affordable housing and access to home ownership. We will help municipalities build more and better housing more quickly with programs such as the housing accelerator fund. We will also help families buy their first home sooner with a more flexible first-time home buyer incentive and a new rent-to-own program. We will reduce closing costs for new buyers. The economic update presented yesterday outlines our plan to put a national tax on non-resident, non-Canadian owned residential real estate in Canada.
Singh asks the Prime Minister to fulfil his own promises by specifying whether he will ban blind bidding, put a tax on foreign buyers, and put a tax on property flippers, and why he has not done so already.
Singh asks three specific and named policy questions â banning blind bidding, implementing a tax on foreign buyers, and a tax on property flippers â while holding the Prime Minister to his own prior promises, making it a strong accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, those are great measures, but the Prime Minister had an opportunity to put them in place, to put them forward. Not only are Canadians dealing with the omicron variant, but they are dealing with inflation that is driving up the cost of living. They are dealing with a housing crisis that makes it impossible to find a home they can afford. The Prime Minister promised to take some actions, and we are saying, âTake those actions.â Will the Prime Minister fulfill his own promises to ban blind bidding? Will the Prime Minister put a tax on foreign buyers? Will the Prime Minister finally put a tax on property flippers? Why has he not done it already?
Trudeau confirms yesterday's update includes a national tax on non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential real estate, and reiterates the first-time homebuyer incentive, rent-to-own program, reduced closing costs, and housing accelerator fund, but does not address blind bidding or a flippers tax.
Trudeau addresses the foreign buyer tax specifically by referencing yesterday's update, and reiterates the first-time homebuyer incentive, rent-to-own program and housing accelerator fund, but does not address blind bidding or the property flippers tax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's update includes our plan to implement a national tax on non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential real estate in Canada. We are moving forward on our commitments, including helping families buy their first homes sooner with a more flexible first-time homebuyer incentive and a new rent-to-own program, and by reducing closing costs. We are helping municipalities build more and better homes faster, with programs like the housing accelerator funds. We are continuing to support Canadians, because we promised to have their backs, and that is exactly what we are doing.
MacDonald asks the Prime Minister to update the House on plans to address the unintended GIS clawback affecting low-income seniors who collected the Canada emergency response benefit.
This is a government-backbench softball question that frames the GIS clawback as an 'unintended effect' and invites the Prime Minister to announce a remedy, with no real accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my riding of Malpeque is home to many seniors who are on fixed incomes and who are concerned about their economic security in these uncertain times. Unfortunately, many low-income seniors who rely on the guaranteed income supplement saw their benefits rolled back if they collected the Canada emergency response benefit. Seniors I have spoken to now understand this was an unintended effect of the unprecedented urgent support programs that the government rolled out. I am hoping the Prime Minister will be able to update the House and seniors in my riding on how we plan to address this issue and ensure that seniors have the support they need moving forward.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Malpeque for his hard work. Yesterday's economic and fiscal update demonstrated to Canadians our government's plan to finish the fight against COVID-19 and ensure our economic recovery leaves no one behind. To do exactly that, we will be investing in a one-time payment to these affected seniors, to alleviate financial hardship for GIS recipients who received CERB in 2020. We will always be there for seniors, and seniors know they can count on the Liberal government.
Trudeau announces a one-time payment to GIS recipients who received CERB in 2020 to alleviate financial hardship, as part of the economic and fiscal update.
Trudeau provides a specific and substantive answer, announcing a one-time payment to GIS recipients who received CERB in 2020 to alleviate financial hardship, directly responsive to the setup.
Poilievre cites The Canadian Real Estate Association economists calling the $120,000 year-over-year price gain the biggest gain of all time, notes that wages, immigration and GDP are all down, and asks why real estate prices are up by record amounts despite declining purchasing power.
Poilievre cites The Canadian Real Estate Association's top economists describing a $120,000 year-over-year housing price gain as 'the biggest gain of all time,' systematically eliminates alternative explanations (supply chains, COVID, wages, immigration, GDP), and asks a sharp analytical question about why prices rose despite declining underlying drivers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, asked about the $120,000 year-over-year increase in housing prices, the top economists for The Canadian Real Estate Association say this is the biggest gain of all time and that certainly in dollars it is far larger than anything that has ever happened. Why is this? We cannot blame supply chains, because land does not have supply chains. We cannot blame COVID, because almost all of the houses in Canada were built before COVID happened. In fact, the things that drive house prices, namely wages, immigration and GDP, are all down. If the underlying means with which to buy housing are all down, why is it that real estate prices are up by record amounts?
Trudeau lists government housing programs including the housing accelerator fund, the first-time homebuyer incentive, a rent-to-own program, reduced closing costs, and the national tax on non-resident non-Canadian-owned residential real estate, without addressing the economic causation question.
Trudeau does not engage with the economic argument at all, instead listing housing programs and the national tax on non-resident non-Canadian-owned residential real estate without addressing why prices rose when wages, GDP and immigration were down.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been clear that housing affordability and home ownership are priorities for this government. We will help municipalities build more and better homes faster with programs like the housing accelerator fund. We will also help families buy their first home sooner with a more flexible first-time homebuyer incentive and a new rent-to-own program, and by reducing housing closing costs. Yesterday's update includes our plan to implement a national tax on non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential real estate in Canada, and we will keep being there to have Canadians' backs as they deal with the rising cost of housing.
Poilievre asserts prices rose when the government printed $400 billion of new cash, with $200 billion going into increased mortgage lending benefiting the investor class, and asks why the Prime Minister gave so much to the 'have yachts' and took from the have-nots.
Poilievre sharpens his causal argument by specifically linking the $400 billion of new cash printed into the financial system, of which $200 billion went into increased mortgage lending, to the record housing price increase, and asks a pointed accountability question about giving so much to the 'have yachts' at the expense of the have-nots.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the question is: Why did housing prices go up so much with wages, GDP and immigration down? With all of the housing supply being right here in Canada, not linked to a so-called global supply chain, what is causing this eye-popping record increase in the cost of owning a house? It just so happens that prices started rising right when the government began printing $400 billion of new cash into the financial system, $200 billion of which went into increased mortgage lending, with the investor class getting the preponderance of that new money. Why did the Prime Minister give so much to the âhave yachtsâ and take from the have-nots?
Trudeau cites the 2017 national housing strategy, claiming the government has supported the creation of nearly 100,000 new units and repaired over 300,000 more, and notes Conservatives voted against these programs.
Trudeau does not address the money printing or mortgage lending claim, instead citing the 2017 national housing strategy and statistics about units created and repaired, while noting Conservatives voted against housing programs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve a safe and affordable place to call home. That is why in 2017 we moved forward with a national housing strategy. Since 2015, our government has supported the creation of nearly 100,000 new units, repaired over 300,000 more across all housing programs and helped more families get the housing they need. By supporting families through programs like the rapid housing initiative, the first-time homebuyer incentive and the Canada housing benefit, we are continuing to help Canadians, but those are all programs the Conservative Party voted against.
Poilievre cites an average house price of $720,000 nationally and $1 million in Canada's biggest city, notes this broadens the gap between rich and poor, and asks why Canada has the world's second-biggest housing bubble.
Poilievre cites specific figures â $720,000 for an average house nationally and $1 million in Canada's biggest city â and asks why Canada has the world's second-biggest housing bubble, grounding the question in concrete data though the framing includes some rhetorical flourish.
Source text
We did, because they all failed, Mr. Speaker. The proof is in the pudding. Housing prices now are higher than ever before. It costs $720,000 for the average house, not a fancy mansion like the one the Prime Minister inherited or the one taxpayers pay to house him in. An average house costs $1 million in Canada's biggest city. This is broadening the gap between rich and poor. He cannot blame the rest of the world for the problem that is happening here at home. Why exactly does Canada have the world's second-biggest housing bubble?
Trudeau says the government will keep investing in housing and that the Conservatives' election plan was to give tax breaks to wealthy landlords selling their buildings, while accusing them of personal attacks.
Trudeau does not address the 'world's second-biggest housing bubble' characterization or the specific price figures, pivoting entirely to attacking the Harper government's housing record and the Conservatives' election plan to give tax breaks to wealthy landlords.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives continue to focus personal attacks on me, we are going to stay focused on Canadians. We will continue to invest in housing. We will continue to be there with solutions for Canadians. Indeed, we will take no lessons from Conservatives when it comes to housing, because the Harper government played no leadership role on housing, and the Conservatives' plan on housing in the last election was to give tax breaks to wealthy landlords selling their buildings. That made no sense.
Poilievre argues cheap debt from money printing has doubled investor borrowing and inflated housing costs out of reach for young people, and asks a precise binary question: does Canada have a housing bubble or is it just inflation?
Poilievre makes a specific causal argument about cheap debt enabling investors to double their borrowing due to money printing, connects it to 30-year-olds living with parents at Christmas, and asks a precise binary question â housing bubble or inflation â that is directly answerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what makes sense to him is to give cheap debt to investors to buy their buildings. Investors have doubled the amount they have been able to borrow on the cheap because of the Prime Minister's money printing. I am sorry that the Prime Minister took my question personally, but the 30-year-olds who will be celebrating Christmas in their parents' homes are taking that personally as well. They cannot afford houses for themselves, because this Prime Minister's policies have inflated those costs out of existence. Here is a simple question: Does Canada have a housing bubble or is it just inflation?
Trudeau says the government chose to support young Canadians, seniors, workers and small businesses through the pandemic, and defends its spending as both necessary for the health crisis and beneficial for economic recovery.
Trudeau does not answer the binary question of whether Canada has a housing bubble or inflation, instead offering a broad defence of pandemic spending and attacking Conservatives for saying the government spent too much.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, young people in Canada, and indeed all Canadians, have faced real challenges over these past 19 months with the COVID pandemic and extra pressures on so many different things. That is why as a government we chose to be there for them. We chose to invest in young Canadians, in seniors and in workers and to support small businesses. These are the things that the Conservative Party continues to say that we should not have done: that we invested too much and spent too much in supporting Canadians through this pandemic. The fact is that not only was it right to support Canadians through this health crisis, but it was also the right thing to do to make sure our economy comes back as strong as possible, as it is.
Blanchet corrects the Prime Minister's claim that the teacher lost her job, draws a parallel with his own inability to wear a Bloc logo mask in the House, and asks why a referendum on loi 21 should not be organized in Quebec.
Blanchet makes a factual correction about the teacher not having lost her job, draws an analogy about his own inability to wear a Bloc logo mask in the House, and asks why a referendum on loi 21 should not be organized, but the question is rambling and the ask is semi-rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, voici deux petits Ă©lĂ©ments de fait: cela ne semble pas choquer le premier ministre que, par exemple, je n'ai pas le droit de siĂ©ger Ă la Chambre avec un masque arborant un logo du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois. Estâce une restriction Ă ma libertĂ© fondamentale? Voici une autre correction de fait: cette enseignante n'a pas perdu son emploi. Le premier ministre pourrait arrĂȘter de rĂ©pĂ©ter des menteries, cela servirait vraiment tout le monde. Je regarde tous ces gens-lĂ et j'aimerais que tous les QuĂ©bĂ©cois voient les libĂ©raux marcher sur une loi de leur propre nation. Tirons cela au clair. Pourquoi n'organiserionsânous pas un rĂ©fĂ©rendum sur la loi 21 au QuĂ©bec? On ne demandera pas au premier ministre de le faire, car le mot « rĂ©fĂ©rendum » lui donne de l'acnĂ©. Pourquoi ne trancherait-on pas sur les prĂ©tentions d'appui...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there are two little things I want to point out. The Prime Minister seems fine with the fact that I do not have the right to sit in the House with a mask bearing the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois logo. Is that a restriction of my fundamental freedom? I also want to set the record straight. This teacher did not lose her job. If the Prime Minister could stop repeating lies, that would be great. I am looking at all these people over there, and I would like all Quebeckers to see the Liberals trampling over a law from their own nation. Let us get this sorted out. Why not hold a referendum on Bill 21 in Quebec? We would not ask the Prime Minister to do it, since the word âreferendumâ makes him break out in hives. Why not vote on the claims of supportâ
Trudeau accuses the Bloc of always trying to attack the federal government regardless of the topic, and lists federal contributions to Quebec including military support for CHSLDs, 8 of every 10 dollars in pandemic support, and billions for health care.
Trudeau does not address the referendum proposal or the factual correction about the teacher's employment status, instead accusing the Bloc of wanting to sow conflict between federal and provincial governments and listing federal supports to Quebec.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, mon dieu, que le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois veut semer la chicane entre le fĂ©dĂ©ral et le provincial. C'est tout ce qu'il fait. C'est ce pour quoi il existe. Quel que soit le sujet, le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois a toujours des façons d'attaquer le mĂ©chant gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral. Je m'excuse, mais ce gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral a Ă©tĂ© lĂ pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois pendant les 19 derniers mois, avec l'armĂ©e pour les CHSLD, avec 8 $ sur 10 en appui pendant la pandĂ©mie venant directement du gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral et avec des milliards de dollars pour le systĂšme de santĂ©. Nous avons Ă©tĂ© lĂ pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois, et c'est peutâĂȘtre pour cela que le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois est tant frustrĂ©.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my God, does the Bloc Québécois ever want to stir up trouble between the federal and provincial governments. That is all it does. That is why it is here. No matter what the topic is, the Bloc Québécois always finds a way to attack the big, bad federal government. I am sorry, but this federal government has been there for Quebeckers over the past 19 months, with the army in long-term care homes, with $8 out of every $10 in pandemic support coming directly from the federal government, and with billions of dollars for the health care system. We have been there for Quebeckers, and that may be why the Bloc Québécois is so frustrated.
Blanchet accuses Ambassador Bob Rae of insulting the Quebec nation and asks whether the same values of humanity applied to the Uyghur nation, the Tigré conflict, Indigenous peoples without clean water, and Raïf Badawi.
Blanchet fires off a rapid series of unconnected grievances â Bob Rae insulting Quebec, the Uyghur nation, the TigrĂ©, Indigenous peoples lacking clean water, and RaĂŻf Badawi â without a focused ask, making it a scatter-shot rhetorical challenge rather than a coherent question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, chicane, chicane, chicane, de grĂące, Jean Charest, sors de ce corps! Bob Rae insulte le QuĂ©bec, la nation quĂ©bĂ©coise, l'AssemblĂ©e nationale du QuĂ©bec et s'en prend Ă ses propres citoyens. Pendant ce tempsâlĂ , le premier ministre fait un peu le smatte ici. Que dit le premier ministre Ă la nation ouĂŻghoure? Estâce que les mĂȘmes valeurs d'humanitĂ© s'appliquent? Que dit le premier ministre lorsque son ambassadeur ne se lĂšve pas pour le TigrĂ©? Que dit le premier ministre lorsque les Autochtones n'ont pas d'eau potable? Que dit le premier ministre Ă RaĂŻf Badawi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, trouble, trouble, toil and trouble. For goodness' sake, get thee behind me, Jean Charest. While Bob Rae insults Quebec, the Quebec nation, the National Assembly of Quebec and attacks his own people, the Prime Minister is working so hard here to come off as a nice guy. What does the Prime Minister have to say to the Uighur nation? Do the same values of humanity apply? What does the Prime Minister have to say when his ambassador does not stand up for the Tigray region? What does the Prime Minister have to say when indigenous people do not have clean drinking water? What does the Prime Minister have to say to Raif Badawi?
Trudeau repeats that many Quebecers not represented by the Bloc deeply question whether a free society should cost someone their job because of their religion, citing this as a concern he shares as a Quebecer.
Trudeau does not address any of the specific issues raised â Uyghurs, TigrĂ©, Indigenous water access, or RaĂŻf Badawi â instead repeating his claim that many Quebecers question whether a free society should cost someone their job over religion.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cette chicane du Bloc québécois est pour éviter de faire face à la réalité, à savoir qu'il y a énormément de Québécois qui ne sont pas représentés par le Bloc québécois qui se demandent profondément si, dans une société libre, on devrait faire perdre sa job à quelqu'un à cause de sa religion. C'est quelque chose qui choque énormément de gens. C'est une préoccupation que je partage en tant que Québécois. J'ai souligné, dÚs les débuts du projet de loi 21, que cela m'inquiÚte qu'une société libre impose à quelqu'un quoi porter ou ne pas porter en ce qui a trait à sa religion.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is stirring up trouble to avoid facing the reality that many Quebeckers who are not represented by the Bloc Québécois are seriously wondering if, in a free society, someone should lose their job because of their religion. Many people are shocked by this. As a Quebecker, I share this concern. I noted from day one of Bill 21 that I had concerns about a free society telling someone what to wear or not wear when it comes to their religion.
Rayes notes the word 'inflation' was absent from the economic statement and cites that 60% of Canadian families are struggling to make ends meet, asking when the Prime Minister will address the rising cost of living.
The question references a specific statistic (60% of Canadian families struggling) and the omission of the word 'inflation' from the economic statement, but the ask is broad and somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans l'Ă©noncĂ© Ă©conomique d'hier, il ne manquait manifestement aucune dĂ©pense, mais il manquait un mot: « inflation ». Cela ne semble pas dĂ©ranger le premier ministre, contrairement aux 60 % des familles canadiennes qui peinent Ă arriver Ă la fin du mois juste pour payer la nourriture Ă leurs enfants et Ă leur famille. La rĂ©alitĂ© est que le coĂ»t de la vie n'a jamais Ă©tĂ© aussi haut au Canada depuis 30 ans. Quand le premier ministre vaâtâil s'attaquer Ă cette augmentation qui touche directement les familles, les aĂźnĂ©s et les bien nantis?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's economic update was not short on spending, but it was missing one word: inflation. That does not seem to bother the Prime Minister, unlike 60% of Canadian families, who are struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table for their children and families. The reality is that the cost of living is the highest it has been in Canada in 30 years. When will the Prime Minister do something about this increase that is directly affecting families, seniors and the wealthy?
Trudeau argues the best way to make life more affordable is to end COVID-19, describes inflation as a global pandemic-driven phenomenon, and promises continued support for Canadians.
The Prime Minister deflects to COVID-19 and Omicron rather than addressing the specific accusation about inflation or offering concrete measures, and pivots to criticizing the Conservative Party.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la meilleure façon de faire croĂźtre notre Ă©conomie et de rendre la vie plus abordable pour les citoyens, c'est de mettre fin Ă la COVIDâ19, plus particuliĂšrement le variant Omicron. Le Parti conservateur ne semble toujours pas avoir compris ce fait. L'inflation causĂ©e par cette pandĂ©mie mondiale se manifeste partout dans le monde et les Canadiens font face Ă une hausse des prix. Comme nous l'avons dit durant la pandĂ©mie, nous allons continuer Ă soutenir les Canadiens avec des mesures concrĂštes pour les appuyer pendant cette crise.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the best way to grow our economy and make life more affordable for Canadians is to end COVID-19, specifically the omicron variant. The Conservative Party still does not seem to understand that. Inflation caused by this global pandemic is happening all over the world and Canadians are facing rising prices. As we have been saying during the pandemic, we will continue to stand by Canadians with concrete measures to support them during this crisis.
Rayes cites a 43% rise in gas prices and over $1,000 more in annual food costs for families, arguing the government benefits from inflation through higher taxes, and demands concrete action.
The question cites a specific figure (43% increase in gas prices, over $1,000 more for food) and frames a pointed argument that the government benefits from inflation through higher tax revenues, but the ask remains broad.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, voici des chiffres pour vous et pour le premier ministre. Le prix de l'essence est en hausse de 43 % et cela va coûter exactement plus de 1 000 $ aux familles canadiennes pour se nourrir l'année prochaine. Ce qui est drÎle, c'est que cela semble faire l'affaire du premier ministre, parce que la vie coûte plus cher aux Canadiens. Que font alors les gens? Ils payent plus de taxes, avec pour effet que cela donne plus d'argent au premier ministre, qui en aura plus à dépenser. C'est assez, cela coûte cher aux gens, ils ont de la misÚre à arriver et à maintenir le budget familial. Quand le premier ministre va-t-il s'attaquer concrÚtement à cette hausse du coût de la...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, here are some figures for you and for the Prime Minister. The price of gas has increased 43% and Canadian families will spend $1,000 more on food next year. What is bizarre is that the Prime Minister seems to be fine with this, with the cost of living being higher for Canadians. What will people do? They will pay more taxes, and that will give the Prime Minister more money to spend. Enough is enough. This is costing people a lot of money, and they are having trouble staying within their family's budget. When will the Prime Minister take concrete action to tackle the increase in the cost ofâ
Trudeau reiterates his government's promise to support Canadians throughout the pandemic and accuses Conservatives of saying the government was doing too much for seniors, students and small businesses.
Trudeau does not address the cited figures or the tax-revenue argument, instead repeating a general promise to support Canadians and criticizing the Conservative Party for opposing pandemic measures.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis le dĂ©but de cette pandĂ©mie, nous avons fait une promesse aux Canadiens: nous allons ĂȘtre lĂ pour eux et les appuyer pendant cette crise. C'est exactement ce que nous avons fait bien que le Parti conservateur continue de dire que nous en faisions trop pour les aĂźnĂ©s, trop pour les Ă©tudiants et trop pour les petites entreprises. Nous avons Ă©tĂ© lĂ pour appuyer les Canadiens, pas seulement parce que c'est la façon de passer au travers de cette pandĂ©mie, ce qui doit encore ĂȘtre notre prioritĂ©, mais parce que c'est ce qui permet Ă notre Ă©conomie et Ă nos emplois de revenir le plus rapidement. C'est pour cela que nous sommes lĂ pour les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this pandemic, we made a promise to Canadians: We said that we would be there for them and would support them during this crisis. That is exactly what we have done, despite the fact that the Conservative Party continues to say that we did too much for seniors, too much for students and too much for small businesses. We were there to support Canadians, not just because that is how to get through this pandemic, which should remain our priority, but also because it will help our economy and jobs recover more quickly. That is why we are there for Canadians.
Rayes argues inflation benefits the government by inflating tax revenues, calls on the Prime Minister to take concrete action to lower the cost of living for working families.
The question is largely rhetorical, framing inflation as deliberately beneficial to the Prime Minister, with no new facts cited and an incomplete, vague ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'inflation, c'est juste bon pour ce premier ministre. Ce n'est pas bon pour les familles canadiennes, les honnĂȘtes travailleurs qui travaillent dur pour gagner de l'argent afin de nourrir leur famille, s'acheter une maison et mettre de l'essence dans leur auto. C'est assez clair. Plus les gens dĂ©pensent, plus cela leur coĂ»te cher parce qu'ils doivent payer les taxes pour gonfler les coffres de ce gouvernement qui aime dĂ©penser et faire augmenter le coĂ»t de la vie encore plus. C'est assez, tout ce qu'on demande, ce sont des mesures concrĂštes. C'est ce Ă quoi les gens s'attendent. Quand va-t-il se mettre au travail pour...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, inflation is only good for the Prime Minister. It is not good for Canadian families, the honest workers who are working hard to earn a living so they can feed their families, buy a home and fill up the tank. That is very clear. The more people spend, the more expensive it gets because they have to pay taxes to fill the government's coffers. This government loves to spend and increase the cost of living even more. Enough is enough. All we want are some concrete measures. That is what people want. When will he get to work forâ
Trudeau lists measures including indexing the allocation canadienne pour enfants to cost of living, creating $10-a-day child care, increasing the Supplément de revenu garanti, and providing more aid to students and affordable housing.
Trudeau lists several specific measures â increasing the allocation canadienne pour enfants indexed to cost of living, $10-a-day child care, increasing the SupplĂ©ment de revenu garanti, student aid and affordable housing â which are partially responsive to the demand for concrete measures.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est avec des mesures concrĂštes que nous sommes lĂ pour appuyer les Canadiens depuis des mois et des mois et que nous allons continuer de l'ĂȘtre. Nous l'avons dĂ©jĂ fait et nous continuerons de rendre la vie des familles, des aĂźnĂ©s et des gens de la classe moyenne plus abordable avec diverses mesures, comme nous l'avons dĂ©jĂ fait en augmentant l'allocation canadienne pour enfants en fonction du coĂ»t de la vie, en crĂ©ant des services de garde et des places en garderie Ă 10 $ par jour pour toutes les familles au pays, en augmentant le SupplĂ©ment de revenu garanti pour les aĂźnĂ©s plus vulnĂ©rables et en offrant plus d'aide aux Ă©tudiants et des logements abordables. Je pourrais continuer, mais je vais arrĂȘter ici.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have been there with concrete measures for Canadians for months and months and we will continue to be there. We have already made, and will continue to make, life more affordable for families, seniors and the middle class with a range of measures, as we have already done by increasing the Canada child benefit and tying it to the cost of living, by increasing the guaranteed income supplement for the most vulnerable seniors, and by providing more assistance to students and more affordable housing. I could go on, but I will leave it there.
Diab asks the Prime Minister to share which measures in the economic update will help Canadians finish the fight against COVID-19.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the Prime Minister to highlight measures from the economic update, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, la ministre des Finances a livrĂ© une mise Ă jour Ă©conomique et budgĂ©taire qui partage notre plan pour assurer le rebond du Canada. Mes Ă©lecteurs d'Halifax-Ouest veulent voir un rebond solide, vert et inclusif. En parallĂšle, cependant, nous voyons un nouveau variant qui nous rappelle que la lutte contre la COVIDâ19 n'est pas encore terminĂ©e. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut partager avec la Chambre les mesures dans la mise Ă jour Ă©conomique qui permettraient aux gens d'Halifax-Ouest et de partout au Canada de finir le combat contre la COVIDâ19?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance delivered an economic and fiscal update that shares our plan for Canada's recovery. My constituents in Halifax West want a strong, green and inclusive recovery. At the same time, however, we are seeing a new variant that reminds us that the fight against COVID-19 is not over yet. Can the Prime Minister share with the House the measures in the economic update that will help people in Halifax West and across the country finish the fight against COVID-19?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie la dĂ©putĂ©e d'Halifax-Ouest de sa question et de son travail acharnĂ©. La meilleure façon d'assurer une reprise Ă©conomique robuste pour tous les Canadiens est de terminer la lutte contre la COVIDâ19. Notre mise Ă jour Ă©conomique propose un plan pour s'assurer que les doses de rappel et les tests rapides sont gratuits pour tous les Canadiens, pour appuyer les travailleurs et les entreprises par l'entremise du Programme de soutien en cas de confinement local et pour dĂ©penser 2 milliards de dollars pour acquĂ©rir des produits thĂ©rapeutiques et des traitements contre la COVIDâ19. Nous serons lĂ pour les Canadiens Ă chaque Ă©tape.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Halifax West for her question and her hard work. The best way to ensure a robust economic recovery for all Canadians is to finish the fight against COVID-19. Our economic update proposes a plan to ensure that booster shots and rapid tests are free for all Canadians, to support workers and businesses through the local lockdown program, and to spend $2 billion to procure therapeutics and treatments against COVID-19. We will be there for Canadians every step of the way.
Trudeau outlines that the economic update includes free booster doses and rapid tests, the Programme de soutien en cas de confinement local, and $2 billion to acquire therapeutic products and COVID-19 treatments.
Trudeau provides specific details from the economic update: free booster doses and rapid tests for all Canadians, the Programme de soutien en cas de confinement local, and $2 billion for therapeutic products and COVID-19 treatments.
Barlow asks why the Prime Minister intends to put a cap on crop production through a policy to cap fertilizer use, which he argues would bankrupt Canadian farm families and increase food prices.
Barlow identifies a specific Liberal policy â a cap on fertilizer use â and links it to food price increases, but the question conflates multiple concerns and the ask is broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal agriculture minister recently said that it is not like the government can enact a law to lower the price of food. I have a message for the Prime Minister. Liberal policies have increased the prices of everything, including food. A new Liberal policy to put a cap on fertilizer use would do exactly that: It would increase the price of food, not to mention that the policy would be devastating. It would bankrupt Canadian farm families who would no longer be able to feed the world, and it would increase the price of groceries. Why is the Prime Minister intent on putting a cap on crop production while at the same time increasing the price of food for Canadians?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau attributes inflation to COVID-19 and global economic disruptions, recommends vaccination including a third booster shot, and says the best way to support farmers is to invest in ending the pandemic.
Trudeau does not address the cap on fertilizer use at all, instead attributing inflation to COVID-19 disruptions and pivoting to vaccination messaging, with no connection to the fertilizer policy raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives do not seem to recognize this inflation is a result of the COVID pandemic and disruptions around the world to our economy because of it. We will continue to be there to support Canadians. The first thing we can do, and the thing we recommend so strongly to our Conservative politician friends, is to make sure people are getting vaccinated, to make sure we get out and get that third boosterâ
Mr. Speaker, the best way to support Canadians from one end of this country to the other, whether workers or farmers or teachers or young people, is to invest in ending this pandemic for good. That is what we are doing.
Barlow asks why the Prime Minister is ignoring farmers and science by listening to eco-activists and implementing a cap on fertilizer use that would make food unaffordable.
Barlow returns to the fertilizer cap policy and frames it as ignoring farmers and science, but the question is more rhetorical than the previous one and the ask remains vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadian farm families bear the responsibility of feeding the world. It is a responsibility and a burden they carry with pride, but the Liberal policy to put a cap on fertilizer use would set farming back decades. If Canadians think the price of food at the grocery store is high now, they should just wait. When Canadian farmers cannot use innovative, sustainable and environmentally friendly practices to feed Canadians, it will exacerbate the cost-of-living crisis. Why is the Prime Minister ignoring farmers and ignoring science? Why is he listening to eco-activists who want to make food unaffordable for Canadians?
Trudeau says the government has supported farmers and points to reversing the Harper government's shutdown of the PFRA by bringing back a Canadian water agency, and frames the government's approach as standing up for a cleaner environment.
Trudeau does not address the cap on fertilizer use or the science argument; he pivots to criticizing the Harper government's shutdown of the PFRA, mentions a Canadian water agency, and speaks generally about supporting farmers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been there for farmers and we will continue to be because they put food on our tables, they support Canadians and they are the heart of our rural communities. We have continued to be there to support them through the difficult months of this pandemic, and we have been there in the past. Farmers have told me how frustrated they were by the Harper government's shutdown of the PFRA, which is why we are bringing back a Canadian water agency and why we are continuing to support them in every possible way as we move toward a lower carbon future. We want farm families to be strong well into the future. That is why, unlike the Conservatives, we are standing up for a cleaner environment and a better economic future for all.
Barlow attacks the Prime Minister personally over his trust fund derived from gas stations and asks whether the Prime Minister will sign a giving pledge to give away his energy wealth trust fund.
The question is largely a personal attack referencing the Prime Minister's million-dollar trust fund from a chain of gas stations, with an unanswerable ask about signing a giving pledge â it has no real accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister dismissed the concerns of Canadians and he belittled my province by not taking fuel prices seriously and comments such as âdig, baby, digâ. This is coming from a Prime Minister whose million-dollar trust fund came from a chain of gas stations. I ask the Prime Minister this. Will he sign a giving pledge and give away his energy wealth trust fund?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau characterizes the question as a personal attack, declines to engage with it, and reaffirms his government's commitment to supporting Canadians through rising costs of living and the Omicron variant.
Trudeau dismisses the question as a personal attack, does not address the giving pledge or the trust fund, and pivots to a general message about supporting Canadians through rising costs of living and Omicron.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will admit to regularly being surprised by the depths the Conservatives will stoop toâ
Mr. Speaker, I have to admit it is surprising to see the extent to which, even during a global pandemic and even during a time when Canadians face increased costs of living and are worried about the omicron variant, these Conservatives find new ways to stoop low on personal attacks. Let them continue to focus on me. I can handle it. What we are going to focus on is being there for Canadians every step of the way. We will be there to support Canadians through the rising costs of living. We will be there to support them through this omicron variant. We will be there to have Canadians' backs regardless of the noise produced by the Conservative Party of Canada.
Long, noting the recently signed New Brunswick child care agreement, asks the Prime Minister to update the House on how $10-a-day child care will change the lives of Canadian families.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the Prime Minister to update the House on how $10-a-day child care will change the lives of Canadian families, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this pandemic has exposed what parents in my riding of Saint JohnâRothesay have long known: Without access to affordable child care, parents and mostly mothers cannot work. I am proud that earlier this week our government signed another agreement, this time with my province of New Brunswick, to provide accessible, affordable and high-quality $10-a-day child care to the people of Saint JohnâRothesay. Can the Prime Minister update the House on how $10-a-day child care will change the lives of Canadian families?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the outstanding member for Saint JohnâRothesay for his advocacy for families in his riding. For Canadian families, child care is not a luxury, it is a priority. Our agreement with New Brunswick will improve child care for all children in the province no matter where they live. By 2026, fees in New Brunswick will average $10 a day, rather than the current $35 a day. We will ensure children have the best start in life, while improving access to high-quality, affordable, flexible and inclusive early learning and child care. I will remind the Conservatives who are shouting at me right now that they moved against that in the last election, and we got it done for New Brunswickers.
Trudeau says that by 2026, child care fees in New Brunswick will average $10 a day rather than the current $35 a day, improving access to high-quality, affordable, flexible and inclusive early learning and child care.
Trudeau provides specific details: the New Brunswick agreement will reduce fees from the current $35 a day to an average of $10 a day by 2026, which is directly responsive to the question.
Singh says the Liberal government has cut help that the most vulnerable seniors rely on, with seniors calling his office saying they cannot afford groceries or rent, and demands the Prime Minister fix the problem rather than offer a vague one-time payment.
Singh identifies a specific problem â the Liberal government cutting help that the most vulnerable seniors rely on, causing GIS recipients to lose benefits â and demands a concrete fix rather than a vague one-time payment, making it a reasonably specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in this very difficult time, the Liberal government has cut the help that the most vulnerable seniors in our country rely on. We have received numerous calls from seniors across this country who are telling us they cannot afford to pay for groceries, they cannot afford to pay their rent and they are worried they are going to lose their homes; many of them already have. The response from the Liberal government is a vague promise for a one-time payment sometime in the future. That is not acceptable and that is not a solution. When will the Prime Minister understand how serious this is and fix it?
Trudeau acknowledges that seniors accessed income support during the crisis and should not be penalized, and confirms a major investment through a one-time payment for seniors whose benefits have been affected.
Trudeau acknowledges the GIS issue and confirms a one-time payment for seniors whose benefits have been affected, but does not provide details such as amounts or timelines, only partially addressing the urgency Singh raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning, our government's priority has been to be there for the most vulnerable, including our seniors. That is why we worked hard to strengthen income security for seniors, including with increases to the GIS. We know seniors accessed income support because they needed it during the crisis. They should not be penalized for that now. That is why we are making a major investment through a one-time payment for seniors whose benefits have been affected. We will always be there for seniors across this country.
Morrice notes that Bill C-35, which would have created a Canada disability benefit, was halted by the summer election call and was absent from both the throne speech and the economic update, and asks whether the government will fast-track the benefit's design and implementation.
Morrice identifies a specific bill (Bill C-35), a specific benefit (Canada disability benefit), notes its absence from the throne speech and the economic update, and asks for a concrete commitment to fast-track its design and implementation â making this a well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians with disabilities are disproportionately living in poverty across the country. It does not have to be this way. Last summer's election call put a halt to Bill C-35, which would have created a Canada disability benefit, a guaranteed basic income for Canadians with a disability. While I was glad to see the Liberals promise to move forward with this benefit in their most recent election platform, it was not in the throne speech or in yesterday's economic update. When will the Liberals do what they said they would do? Are they willing to fast-track the design and implementation of the Canada disability benefit so our neighbours living in poverty do not have to struggle through another three years?
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will take this time to say that the Government of Saskatchewan and its legislature has unanimously passed a motion that I hope the House passes right now. There have been consultations with the Minister of Justice and House leaders, and I believe you will receive the consent of the House for the following motion. I move that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, the motion in my name, the member for ReginaâLewvan, listed on the Order Paper under Business of Supply, with respect to the amending of the Saskatchewan Act in the Constitution, be deemed adopted.
Nay.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you seek it again, you will find unanimous consent. I am sure the member for Winnipeg North spoke out of turn and meant to agree with the motion. He is the only one who said no.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This member knows better than that. We cannot ask for a unanimous consent motion after you have already entertained one.
Trudeau confirms the government's commitment to moving forward with a Canada disability benefit and says it is working in partnership with stakeholders under the principle that nothing about them happens without them, but gives no timeline or fast-track commitment.
Trudeau confirms the commitment to a Canada disability benefit and references working with stakeholders under the principle of nothing about them without them, but provides no timeline, no fast-track commitment, and no response to the three-year concern raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians living with a disability face higher levels of poverty and marginalization than just about any other group in Canada. That is why we have committed to moving forward with a Canada disability benefit. We continue to work hand in hand with stakeholders and community members. We need to make sure that nothing about them happens without them. That is why we are working in partnership with them to do that. We look forward to having the member opposite's support as we move forward on that. I will take my remaining seconds to wish to everyone a very merry Christmas, happy new year and happy holidays.