Session overview
- Taxation and affordability dominated the session, with Conservative members repeatedly demanding the government cancel planned increases to EI premiums, CPP contributions, the carbon tax, and other levies; the government responded by distinguishing EI and CPP contributions from taxes and pointing to its affordability plan including a doubled GST tax credit, a $500 housing benefit, and a dental care program for children under 12.
- Pierre Poilievre made his debut as Leader of the Opposition, with the Deputy Prime Minister offering congratulations before the exchanges became adversarial over housing affordability, payroll taxes, and EI premium history.
- Yves-François Blanchet raised the situation at chemin Roxham, questioning why the government tolerates irregular border crossings and calling for either suspension of the Safe Third Country Agreement or transfer of immigration powers to Quebec.
- Gun violence in Montreal, specifically a shooting at the Georges-Vanier metro station, prompted the Bloc Québécois to challenge the government's record on illegal firearms trafficking, with the Parliamentary Secretary citing record CBSA seizures and $321 million invested in border measures.
- The NDP raised 'greedflation,' citing Sobeys' profits up 20.2% and Loblaws' profits up 65% alongside rising grocery prices, while the government pointed to a permanent 1.5% corporate income tax increase on large banks and a 15% recovery dividend on excess pandemic profits.
- Second reading of Bill C-29, the National Council for Reconciliation Act, and second reading of Bill C-22, the Canada Disability Benefit Act, were highlighted as legislative milestones, with the minister describing the Canada disability benefit as a 'once-in-a-generation opportunity to lift hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty.'
Minister Qualtrough made a specific legislative commitment, confirming that Bill C-22, the Canada Disability Benefit Act, had begun second reading and describing it as a federal income supplement for working-aged persons with disabilities aimed at lifting hundreds of thousands out of poverty.
Poilievre directly rebuts Freeland's EI premium rate argument with specific dollar figures ($930 in 2015 vs $948 now on a $60,000 salary, total payroll taxes up from $3,400 to $4,100), grounding the question in concrete data.
Rather than addressing the question about cancelling tax hikes on paycheques and energy, Freeland attacked Poilievre's past comments about cryptocurrency and Bitcoin's price decline, making no reference to the affordability measures or tax policy raised in the question.
Outstanding questions
- Yves-François Blanchet asked whether the government is deliberately allowing tens of thousands of people to enter via chemin Roxham knowing Quebec cannot integrate them in French, and whether immigration powers will be ceded to Quebec â neither point was addressed by the Deputy Prime Minister.
- Kristina Michaud asked whether the minister can look Quebeckers in the eye and say there are fewer illegal firearms and fewer shootings in Montreal thanks to federal action â the Parliamentary Secretary cited investments and seizure statistics but did not directly answer whether the situation has improved.
- Louise Chabot asked whether the minister will extend the temporary EI measures set to expire Sunday given that a comprehensive EI reform was not delivered as mandated â the minister wound down the measures without committing to any extension or providing a timeline for comprehensive reform.
- John Barlow asked whether the Liberal agriculture minister will oppose any new taxes on farmers given that a Grain Farmers of Ontario study showed farmers receive less than 20% of their carbon tax back through the rebate â the minister did not address the rebate adequacy figures.
- Elizabeth May asked when the government will cancel TMX and Bay du Nord in light of new research on climate tipping points â the Parliamentary Secretary outlined Canada's 2030 emissions targets and net-zero-by-2050 plan but did not address either project.
Poilievre cites data showing homeownership at a 20-year low and housing costs rising from 32% to 50% of the average paycheque, and asks whether the government will cancel its planned tax increases on paycheques, gas, groceries, and home heating.
Cites specific data points (homeownership at 20-year low, housing costs rising from 32% to 50% of paycheque) and asks a clear policy question about cancelling tax hikes, though the ask bundles multiple taxes together.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on apprend aujourd'hui que le pourcentage de Canadiens qui ont leur propre maison est à son niveau le plus bas depuis 20 ans. C'est aprÚs l'arrivée au pouvoir de ce premier ministre que le prix des maisons a doublé. Quand il est arrivé au pouvoir, la famille moyenne pouvait payer les factures mensuelles liées à sa maison avec 32 % de son chÚque de paie; maintenant, c'est 50 %. Le gouvernement veut rendre cela encore pire en augmentant les taxes sur les chÚques de paie, l'essence, l'épicerie et le chauffage. Est-ce que le gouvernement va annuler ces augmentations de taxe pour que les Canadiens puissent acheter ou maintenir leur propre maison?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the percentage of Canadians who have their own home is at its lowest level in 20 years. It was after this Prime Minister came to power that housing prices doubled. When he came to power, the average family could pay monthly home-related bills with 32% of their paycheque; now it is 50%. The government wants to make matters worse by increasing taxes on paycheques, fuel, groceries and heating. Will the government cancel these tax increases so that Canadians can buy or keep their own home?
Freeland congratulates the new opposition leader and reflects on the value of a loyal opposition in Westminster democracy, without addressing the question.
Freeland entirely ignores the question and spends her response offering congratulations to the new opposition leader and reflecting on Westminster democracy, providing no substantive answer whatsoever.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, permettez-moi de commencer par fĂ©liciter le nouveau chef de l'opposition officielle. Cette semaine, qui a commencĂ© par les funĂ©railles de Sa MajestĂ©, a Ă©tĂ© une occasion oĂč nous avons pu prendre un moment pour rĂ©flĂ©chir aux bienfaits de la dĂ©mocratie de style Westminster. Une opposition loyale est un Ă©lĂ©ment essentiel de notre systĂšme politique. Il est clair que nous ne sommes pas en accord sur plusieurs points, mais j'espĂšre que nous pouvons tous...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, allow me to begin by congratulating the new leader of the official opposition. This week, which began with Her Majesty's funeral, was an opportunity for us to take a moment to reflect on the benefits of the Westminster style democracy. A loyal opposition is an essential element of our political system. It is clear that we disagree on many points, but I hope that we can allâ
Poilievre repeats that housing costs have gone from 32% to 50% of Canadians' paycheques and asks the government to cancel planned tax hikes on paycheques, gas, and other taxes.
Repeats the 32%-to-50% paycheque statistic and asks specifically about cancelling tax hikes, but is essentially a restatement of Exchange 1 with similar rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Deputy Prime Minister for her kind words and her congratulations. I look forward to being able to congratulate more young families on the ability to buy their own homes. It is nice to be in the House, but it would be nice for them to be in a home. Unfortunately, house prices have doubled under the government's policies. In fact, the share of the average Canadian's paycheque needed to pay the average monthly bill on housing has gone from 32% to 50%, and the government's solution is to raise paycheque taxes, gas taxes and other taxes. Will the government not cancel the tax hikes so Canadians can pay theirâ
Freeland states EI premiums were $1.88 in 2015 under the Conservative leader and will be $1.63 next year, arguing the rate is actually lower, and challenges the leader to explain the inconsistency.
Freeland provides specific EI premium numbers ($1.88 in 2015 vs $1.63 next year) that are directly relevant to the payroll tax argument, but does not address the broader housing cost question or the full basket of tax hikes mentioned.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have just heard EI premiums mentioned, so I want people to guess what EI premiums were in 2015. They were $1.88. Guess who was the minister in charge? It was the current Conservative leader. Guess what EI premiums will be next year? They will be $1.63. That is 25Âą lower. The leader of the official opposition needs to tell Canadians if he was misguided then or he is misguided now.
Poilievre counters Freeland's rate argument by citing that a $60,000 earner paid $930 in EI in 2015 versus $948 now, total payroll taxes rose from $3,400 to $4,100, and asks why the government will not cancel planned January 1 tax hikes.
Poilievre directly rebuts Freeland's EI premium rate argument with specific dollar figures ($930 in 2015 vs $948 now on a $60,000 salary, total payroll taxes up from $3,400 to $4,100), grounding the question in concrete data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the answer is neither. Guess what Canadians paid in 2015 in EI if they earned $60,000? It was $930. Guess what they pay now? It is $948. That is an increase. Furthermore, if we look at total payroll taxes, they have gone from $3,400 to $4,100 under the government. That is a $700 increase, and the government plans to raise EI premiums, that is the paycheque tax, on January 1, along with other taxes. Why will the government not cancel these tax hikes so Canadians can pay their bills?
Freeland argues that CPP and EI contributions fund retirement and job-loss safety nets and do not go into general government revenue, calling it irresponsible to suggest stopping these contributions.
Freeland pivots to a general defence of CPP and EI as social programs rather than addressing the specific dollar figures Poilievre cited, and does not rebut his numbers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the leader of the official opposition of something he should have figured out when he was the responsible minister. The CPP and EI contributions every working Canadian makes are how we all pay for our retirement and how we create a safety net for every Canadian in case we lose our jobs. These contributions do not go into general government revenue. At a time of global economic uncertainty, it is the height of irresponsibility for the Conservatives to suggest that we, as a country, stop putting money away for our retirement and a rainy day.
Poilievre argues EI surpluses go into general revenues, cites 40-year inflation highs and record food bank use, and asks the government to back down from its planned paycheque and energy tax hikes.
Poilievre rebuts Freeland's claim about general revenues, cites 40-year highs in inflation and food price inflation, record food bank use, and asks a direct question about cancelling planned EI and CPP premium hikes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in fact, EI premiums do go into general revenues when they go into surplus, and that is what the government plans to do. It plans to raise both EI and CPP premiums, the paycheque tax, right at a time when we are facing 40-year highs in inflation, all-time highs in increased housing prices, 40-year highs in food price inflation, and record food bank use. This is the last time that anyone should be raising any tax. Will the government back down from its planned tax hikes on paycheques and on energy?
Freeland cites Canada's strongest economic growth and lowest deficit in the G7, historically high employment, and inflation lower than the US, UK, and eurozone, saying Canada will get through tough times together.
Freeland pivots entirely to economic talking points (strongest growth, lowest deficit in G7, inflation lower than US/UK/eurozone) without addressing the specific question about cancelling the planned premium increases.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the economy, expectations matter, and that is why it is so irresponsible for the Conservatives to talk down the Canadian economy. Yes, things are hard right now, but Canada is better positioned than any country in the world. We have the strongest economic growth and the lowest deficit in the G7. Employment is at historic highs. Inflation is lower in Canada than the U.S., the U.K. and the eurozone, and it has now come down for two months in a row. We will get through these tough times together.
Poilievre contrasts the government's optimism with the reality faced by 30-year-olds living with parents and families cutting food budgets, and asks the Liberals to cancel planned tax hikes on paycheques and energy.
Contains some factual reference (four in five families cutting diets) but is predominantly rhetorical with a reference to the Prime Minister 'jetting around the world singing songs,' weakening its accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, now the Liberals would have Canadians believe they have never had it so good. I guess if one is jetting around the world singing songs in a beautiful lobby, that might be true, but the 30-year-olds stuck living in their parents' basement because the Liberals have doubled housing prices might disagree. Those who cannot fill up their tanks with gas might disagree. Those who are among the four in five families that have cut their diets because they cannot afford food might disagree. The last thing they would want is a tax hike on their paycheques and their energy use. Will the Liberals therefore cancel those tax hikes?
Freeland attacks Poilievre's past advice to use crypto to 'opt out of inflation,' citing Bitcoin's 56% crash since then as evidence of irresponsibility.
Freeland does not address the tax hike question at all, instead attacking Poilievre's past advice to invest in crypto and citing Bitcoin's 56% crash as evidence of irresponsibility.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for Canadians who are struggling today to make ends meet, the last thing they are going to want to do is trust these highly irresponsible Conservatives. After all, just this spring their new leader described crypto as a way to âopt out of inflationâ. Since then, Bitcoin has crashed by 56%. A Canadian who invested in Bitcoin according to the reckless advice of this new leader would have seen her life savings destroyed. That is irresponsible and Canadians are smart enough to know it.
Blanchet asks whether the minister can ensure the rule of law will be restored at Roxham Road, implicitly criticizing the government's management of irregular border crossings.
Blanchet's question about Roxham Road and restoring the rule of law is partially substantive but the preamble is heavily rhetorical and the actual ask is cut off, making the full question unclear.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, tout d'abord, maintenant qu'il s'est rassis, je souhaite offrir mes salutations au nouveau chef de l'opposition officielle. Je me permets quand mĂȘme d'adresser mes salutations au dĂ©putĂ© de RichmondâArthabaska Ă©galement. Aussi, j'ai notĂ© l'adresse du Parlement sur un bout de papier, au cas oĂč quelqu'un pourrait la remettre au premier ministre. Si le premier ministre veut nous rejoindre Ă la Chambre, je lui suggĂšre de passer par le chemin Roxham, parce que c'est beaucoup plus rapide et que personne ne surveille. AprĂšs, par contre, estâce que le ministre pourrait s'assurer que l'Ătat de droit va ĂȘtre restaurĂ©...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, first, now that he has sat down, I want to congratulate the new leader of the official opposition. I also want to congratulate the member for RichmondâArthabaska. I jotted down the address for the House of Commons on a piece of paper and I was thinking that maybe someone could give it to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister wants to join us in the House, I suggest that he return to Canada via Roxham Road. It is much faster, since no one is monitoring that point of entry. After that, however, will the minister ensure that the rule of law is reinstatedâ
Freeland says the government believes in the strength of its asylum and immigration systems and is working closely with American counterparts on border issues including the Safe Third Country Agreement.
Freeland gives a general statement about working with American counterparts on the Safe Third Country Agreement and respecting international obligations, without addressing the specific rule-of-law concern raised.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous croyons en la force de notre systÚme d'asile et de notre systÚme d'immigration. Nous travaillons en étroite collaboration avec les intervenants concernés sur la situation à notre frontiÚre. Nous travaillons avec nos homologues américains sur les questions liées à notre frontiÚre commune, y compris l'Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs. Nous travaillons toujours en étroite collaboration avec tous nos partenaires pour respecter nos obligations nationales et internationales.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we believe that our asylum and immigration systems are strong. We are working closely with stakeholders on the border situation. We are working with our U.S. counterparts on issues related to our shared border, including the safe third country agreement. We always work closely with all of our partners to meet our national and international obligations.
Blanchet asks whether the government is deliberately allowing tens of thousands of people to enter via Roxham Road knowing Quebec cannot integrate them in French, and whether it will suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement and transfer immigration powers to Quebec.
Blanchet asks two concrete questionsâwhether the government is deliberately allowing Roxham Road crossings knowing Quebec cannot integrate them in French, and whether it will suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement and transfer immigration powers to Quebecâmaking it reasonably specific despite rhetorical framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on pourrait peutâĂȘtre attirer le premier ministre en lui suggĂ©rant de chanter ses rĂ©ponses. Il pourrait ainsi nous indiquer mĂ©lodieusement pourquoi son gouvernement tolĂšre une business de passeurs pour entrer au QuĂ©bec et au Canada. Puisqu'une consĂ©quence connue fait partie de l'intention, j'aimerais savoir du premier ministre s'il laisse entrer des dizaines de milliers de personnes au chemin Roxham parce qu'il sait que le QuĂ©bec est incapable de les intĂ©grer en français. Le premier ministre le faitâil exprĂšs? Ă dĂ©faut, peutâon suspendre immĂ©diatement l'Entente sur les tiers pays sĂ»rs et cĂ©der les pouvoirs en immigration au QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, maybe we could get the Prime Minister's attention by suggesting that he sing his answers. He could sing us a tune about why his government is allowing human smuggling into Quebec and Canada. Is the Prime Minister intentionally letting tens of thousands of people cross at Roxham Road because he knows that Quebec cannot sustain efforts to integrate them in French? Is the Prime Minister doing this on purpose, knowing what will happen? If not, will the government immediately suspend the safe third country agreement and devolve immigration powers to Quebec?
Freeland says immigration is essential to both the Canadian and Quebec economies, that Quebec welcomed over 50,000 new permanent residents last year, and calls on all MPs to work together to welcome immigrants.
Freeland pivots to the economic importance of immigration for both Canada and Quebec, mentions 50,000 new permanent residents in Quebec last year, but does not address Roxham Road, the Safe Third Country Agreement suspension, or transferring immigration powers to Quebec.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pendant l'été, j'ai parlé avec beaucoup d'entrepreneurs d'un bout à l'autre de notre pays, y compris des entrepreneurs du Québec. Ils m'ont dit que l'immigration est essentielle à notre économie; à l'économie canadienne et à l'économie québécoise. En tant que ministre des Finances, je suis complÚtement d'accord pour que le Québec établisse ses propres cibles d'immigration. L'an dernier, nous avons accueilli plus de 50 000 nouveaux résidents permanents dans la province. J'espÚre que tous les députés de la Chambre vont travailler ensemble pour accueillir des immigrants au Canada et au Québec. Nous avons besoin d'eux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I spoke with a lot of business owners across the country this summer, including business owners in Quebec. They told me that immigration is essential to our economy, in Canada and in Quebec. As Minister of Finance, I fully support Quebec having its own immigration targets. Last year the province welcomed more than 50,000 new permanent residents. I hope that all members in the House will work together to welcome immigrants to Canada and Quebec. We need them.
Singh cites bread up 15.4%, fresh fruit up 13.2%, and Sobeys corporate profits up 20.2% comparing 2021 to 2020, and asks what the government will do to tackle 'greedflation' caused by corporate greed.
Singh cites specific grocery price increases (bread up 15.4%, fresh fruit up 13.2%), Sobeys profit growth of 20.2%, and asks what the government will do to tackle 'greedflation,' making it reasonably specific with a clear ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the cost of groceries is up on average 10%. Bread is up 15.4%. Fresh fruit is up by 13.2%. Do members know what else is up? It is corporate profits. The corporate profit for the Sobeys corporation is up by 20.2% when we compare 2021 with 2020. We know that corporate greed is driving up the cost of living, so what is the government going to do to tackle âgreedflationâ caused by corporate greed?
Freeland cites the permanent 1.5% corporate income tax increase on Canada's largest banks and insurance companies, the 15% recovery dividend on their COVID excess profits, and the new luxury tax on private jets, cars over $100,000, and boats over $250,000.
Freeland references the 1.5% corporate income tax increase on banks and insurance companies and the 15% recovery dividend, but these measures target financial institutions, not grocery corporations, so the answer is tangential to the specific 'greedflation' question about Sobeys.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as Canadians know very well, our government is deeply committed to ensuring that everyone in Canada pays their fair share. We are permanently raising the corporate income tax by 1.5% on Canada's largest, most profitable banks and insurance companies, and we have introduced a recovery dividend of 15% on the excess profits of these institutions during the COVID pandemic. We also implemented, effective September 1, a 10% luxury tax on private jets and luxury cars worth more than $100,000, and boats and yachts worth more than $250,000.
Singh cites cooking oil up 27%, pasta up 32%, and Loblaws profits up 65% between 2020 and 2021, and asks what the government will do to address the greed of large grocery chains driving food inflation.
Singh cites grocery price increases of 10% average, cooking oil up 27%, pasta up 32%, and Loblaws profits up 65% between 2020 and 2021, asking specifically what the government will do about grocery chain greedâa focused, data-grounded ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les temps sont difficiles avec le coĂ»t de la vie qui augmente. Le coĂ»t de l'Ă©picerie a augmentĂ© en moyenne de 10 %. Par exemple, le prix de l'huile a augmentĂ© de 27 %, alors que celui des pĂątes a augmentĂ© de 32 %. En mĂȘme temps, les profits des grandes chaĂźnes de supermarchĂ© ont aussi augmentĂ©. Loblaws a vu ses profits augmenter de 65 % entre 2021 et 2020. Il est indĂ©niable que la cupiditĂ© des grandes chaĂźnes de supermarchĂ© a contribuĂ© Ă l'inflation. Qu'est-ce que ce gouvernement va faire pour rĂ©gler cette cupiditĂ© des grandes chaĂźnes de supermarchĂ©?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, times are tough with the rising cost of living. On average, the cost of groceries has gone up by 10%. For example, cooking oil prices have gone up by 27%, while pasta has gone up by 32%. At the same time, big grocery chains have seen their profits increase. Loblaws' profits grew 65% when comparing 2021 and 2020. No one can deny that their greed played a role in inflation. How is this government going to address the greed of these big grocery chains?
Freeland reiterates the permanent 1.5% corporate income tax increase on the largest banks and insurance companies and the 15% recovery dividend on their COVID excess profits.
Freeland repeats the same answer about the 1.5% bank tax increase and the 15% recovery dividend, which target financial institutions rather than grocery chains like Loblaws, so the answer does not address the specific concern raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous avons Ă©tĂ© et nous restons dĂ©terminĂ©s Ă faire en sorte que chacun paie sa juste part. Nous augmentons de façon permanente l'impĂŽt sur le revenu des sociĂ©tĂ©s de 1,5 % pour les plus grandes banques et compagnies d'assurance. Nous avons aussi introduit un dividende pour la relance de 15 % sur les bĂ©nĂ©fices excĂ©dentaires de ces compagnies pendant la pandĂ©mie de la COVIDâ19.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have been, and we remain, committed to ensuring that everyone pays their fair share. We are permanently increasing the corporate tax rate by 1.5% for the largest banks and insurance companies. We also introduced a 15% recovery dividend on the excess profits these institutions made during the COVID-19 crisis.
Vien cites National Payroll Institute data showing 85% of Canadians are anxious about inflation and interest rates and 37% are living paycheque to paycheque, asking the government to commit once and for all to not raising taxes further.
Vien cites National Payroll Institute data (85% of Canadians anxious, 37% living paycheque to paycheque) and asks a direct yes-or-no question about committing to no further tax increases, though the ask is somewhat broad.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'Institut national de la paie rĂ©vĂšle que 85 % des Canadiens sont anxieux en raison de l'inflation et de la hausse des taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt. De plus, 37 % d'entre eux vivent d'une paie Ă l'autre et doivent tout dĂ©penser ou, pire encore, dĂ©penser plus que leur paie. Cela commence Ă ne pas bien aller. Ce gouvernement est insensible. Il refuse de prĂ©senter un plan concret pour aider ces gens. Va-t-il, une fois pour toutes, s'engager Ă ne pas augmenter davantage les taxes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, according to the National Payroll Institute, 85% of Canadians are worried about inflation and rising interest rates. Furthermore, 37% of them are living from paycheque to paycheque and have to spend everything they earn or even more than they earn. Things are starting to look bad. This government could not care less. It is not interested in coming up with a concrete plan to help these people. Once and for all, will the government pledge not to raise taxes again?
Freeland cites Canada's AAA credit rating and lowest G7 deficit, and announces plans to double the GST/HST tax credit, create a $500 housing allowance, and create a dental care program for children under 12.
Freeland cites Canada's AAA credit rating, lowest G7 deficit, and announces specific relief measures (doubling GST/HST credit, $500 housing allowance, dental care for children under 12) but does not commit to not raising taxes further.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le Canada a une cote AAA et le plus faible dĂ©ficit du G7. Il s'agit de responsabilitĂ© fiscale. Ce qu'il faut aussi, c'est de la compassion. C'est pourquoi nous allons doubler le crĂ©dit d'impĂŽt pour la TPS/TVH, crĂ©er une allocation pour le logement de 500 $ et crĂ©er un programme de soins dentaires pour les enfants de moins de 12 ans. Les Canadiens peuvent se permettre d'ĂȘtre compatissants, et nous le serons.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada has a AAA rating and the lowest deficit in the G7. That is fiscal responsibility. The other thing we need is compassion. That is why we are going to double the GST tax credit, create a $500 housing benefit and launch a dental program for children under 12. Canadians can afford to be compassionate, and we will be.
Vien cites food price inflation of 10.8%, the largest increase in 40 years, describes parents struggling to feed their children, and asks the Prime Minister to promise not to raise taxes further.
Vien cites food prices up 10.8% as the largest increase in 40 years and asks a simple yes-or-no question about whether the Prime Minister will promise not to raise taxes further, grounded in a specific statistic.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement est jovialiste. La réalité, c'est que l'inflation mine le moral des Canadiens. Le prix des aliments a augmenté de 10,8 % par rapport à l'an dernier. C'est l'augmentation la plus marquée depuis les 40 derniÚres années. Des parents peinent à nourrir adéquatement leurs enfants et doivent faire des choix déchirants. Pourtant, ce gouvernement veut augmenter les taxes des contribuables qui sont déjà pris à la gorge. La question est bien simple: est-ce que le premier ministre peut, oui ou non, donner un peu de répit et promettre de ne pas augmenter davantage les taxes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government is looking through rose-coloured glasses. The reality is that inflation is eroding Canadians' morale. The cost of food is up 10.8% over last year, the largest increase in the last 40 years. Parents are struggling to feed their children properly and have to make agonizing choices. This government, however, wants to raise taxes for taxpayers who are already stretched to the limit. The question is very simple. Will the Prime Minister give Canadians a break, yes or no, and promise not to raise taxes any further?
Freeland challenges Conservatives to support the government's plan, asking rhetorically whether they think a family of four earning $35,000 or a low-income essential worker could not benefit from $500 in support.
Freeland pivots to challenging Conservatives to support the government's relief plan, citing a $500 benefit for families earning $35,000, but does not answer the yes-or-no question about committing to no further tax increases.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si les conservateurs veulent vraiment aider les Canadiens, ils doivent appuyer notre plan. Pensent-ils vraiment qu'une famille de quatre personnes gagnant seulement 35 000 $ ne pourrait pas bénéficier d'un montant d'environ 500 $ pour l'aider à faire son épicerie? Pensent-ils qu'un travailleur essentiel à faible revenu qui a du mal à payer son loyer ne pourrait pas bénéficier de 500 $? Nous pensons que, si les conservateurs veulent vraiment aider les Canadiens, ils doivent appuyer notre plan.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives really want to help Canadians, they should support our plan. Do they really think that a family of four earning only $35,000 would not benefit from roughly $500 to help them buy groceries? Do they think that a low-income essential worker who is struggling to pay the rent could not use an extra $500? We believe that if the Conservatives really want to help Canadians, they should support our plan.
Strahl says constituents are at their breaking point struggling to afford food and housing, and asks the government to stop making things worse by cancelling its planned tax hikes on paycheques, home heating, groceries, and gas.
Strahl's question is mostly anecdotal and rhetorical ('heartbreaking stories,' 'nothing left to give') with no specific data cited and a vague ask to 'cancel its punishing tax hikes.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every day I hear heartbreaking stories from my constituents struggling to put food on their tables and keep a roof over their heads. People are at their breaking point. They have nothing left to give, but the government wants to take more. It is set to raise taxes on paycheques, home heating, groceries and gas. Why will the government not stop making things worse and cancel its punishing tax hikes?
Freeland says if Conservatives really cared about hard-working Canadians they would support the government's plan, citing a $500 grocery benefit for families earning $35,000, dental care for children, and housing support for low-income workers.
Freeland promotes the government's relief plan with specific examples ($500 for families earning $35,000, dental care for six-year-olds, $500 for low-income essential workers) but does not address the specific tax hike cancellation request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that if the Conservatives really cared about hard-working Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet, they would support our plan. Do they really think a family of four earning just $35,000 a year could not use around $500 this fall to help buy groceries? Do they really think a six-year-old should not go to the dentist because her parents cannot afford it? Do they think a low-income essential worker struggling to pay her rent could not use an extra 500 bucks? I think Canadians deserve this support. I wish the Conservatives would agree.
Strahl cites grocery prices up 10%, gas over two dollars a litre in the Lower Mainland of B.C., and housing consuming 50% of Canadians' paycheques, and asks the Liberals to cancel their punishing tax hikes.
Strahl cites grocery prices up 10%, gas over two dollars per litre in the Lower Mainland, and housing eating 50% of paycheques, but the question is largely a restatement of earlier exchanges with similar rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not support the Liberals' plan to raise taxes on the paycheques of Canadians, raise taxes on their gas, raise taxes on their groceries and raise taxes on their home heating. We will never support that plan. Grocery prices are up 10%. Gas now costs over two bucks a litre in the Lower Mainland of B.C., and housing now eats up 50% of Canadians' paycheques. Why will the Liberals not stop making things worse and cancel their punishing tax hikes on Canadians?
Freeland accuses Conservatives of abandoning their core principles of saving for retirement and a well-funded EI system, noting that the current Conservative leader presided over an EI premium 25 cents higher than next year's rate.
Freeland attacks Conservative economic principles, invokes the EI premium comparison ($1.88 in 2015 vs next year's rate) already raised in Exchange 2, and asks what Conservatives stand for, without addressing the specific tax hike cancellation request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives used to be a party that had a few core economic principles. They used to believe in saving for retirement. They used to believe in fiscal responsibility and in a well-funded EI system. In fact, when the current Conservative leader was the minister responsible for EI, he actually presided over an EI premium that was 25Âą higher than the one that will go into effect next year. The Conservatives need to pick a lane. What do they really stand for these days?
Genuis claims the government's tax increases are causing a national unity crisis and asks the government to cancel its planned tax increases on Canadians' paycheques.
Genuis frames the tax question as a 'national unity crisis' and accuses the Prime Minister of exploiting division, which is largely rhetorical and assertion-based, though there is an identifiable ask about cancelling planned paycheque tax increases.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government's tax increases are causing a national unity crisis, and those tax hikes will target those who can least afford to pay. The Prime Minister knows that more carbon tax increases will divide our country further and make life even less affordable, but the Prime Minister has taken the same approach all along: to raise taxes on working people, put basic necessities like transportation and food out of reach and then try to politically exploit the division that results. Will the government change course and cancel its planned tax increases on Canadians' paycheques?
Freeland defends the price on pollution by citing specific rebate amounts ($745 for Ontario families this year, $1,079 for Alberta families) and asks whether Conservatives want families to pay back those amounts.
Freeland partially engages by defending carbon pricing with specific rebate figures ($745 for Ontario families, $1,079 for Alberta families) but does not address the broader paycheque tax question or the national unity framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I spent some time in Alberta this summer, and I have some very clear views on who is trying to divide Canadians. I have a question for the members opposite when it comes to the price on pollution, because the reality is that we are putting money back into the pockets of Canadians. Will the Conservatives ask Ontario families to pay back $745 this year? Do they want Alberta families to pay back $1,079 this year, or Saskatchewan familiesâ
In a Bohemian Rhapsody parody, Genuis asks when the Prime Minister will cancel planned tax increases on gas, home heating, and groceries to spare Canadians from the inflation monstrosity.
Genuis's question is almost entirely a Bohemian Rhapsody parody with no factual grounding, and the actual policy ask (cancel tax increases on gas, home heating, and groceries) is buried in the performance and essentially rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, is this real life? I ask because that answer was pure fantasy. We have inflation landslides and no escape from poverty. When will the Prime Minister open up his eyes and see? He is not a poor boy, but he should have some sympathy. For too many Canadians, opportunity had just begun and now the government is going to throw it all away. Money is not easy come, easy go in this economy, so when will the government cancel its planned tax increases on gas, home heating and groceries and spare us from this inflation monstrosity?
Freeland focuses on the carbon pricing rebate of $1,079 for Alberta families and invokes Preston Manning's past advocacy for a price on pollution, questioning whether the Alberta MP really wants to stop those payments.
Freeland repeatedly cites the $1,079 rebate for Alberta families and invokes Preston Manning's support for a price on pollution, engaging the carbon pricing topic but not addressing the broader tax hike cancellation question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a little shocking to me that an MP from Alberta would be wanting to spare Alberta families a cheque for $1,079, which is what they are getting because of our carbon pricing scheme. I also want to remind the member opposite that it was an Albertanâ
Mr. Speaker, what I would like to ask you and, through you, all Canadians is whether the member opposite, who is an Alberta MP, is really suggesting that our government stop paying $1,079 to every family in Alberta this year. I think the people in the member's riding could really use that support and would appreciate it. I think they remember that it was Preston Manning who advocated strongly for a price on pollution.
Citing the shooting at station de métro Georges-Vanier, the member asks whether the minister can tell Quebeckers there are fewer illegal firearms and fewer shootings in Montreal thanks to federal action, and if not, when the government will truly act.
The question cites a specific recent shooting at station de métro Georges-Vanier, uses a comparative framing (more shootings, more illegal guns, more victims) to ground the challenge, and poses a direct yes/no accountability ask to the minister, though the rhetorical tripling weakens precision.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier encore, il y a eu une autre fusillade à Montréal à la station de métro Georges-Vanier, faisant encore un mort et deux blessés graves. Combien en faudra-t-il avant que le fédéral réalise que ses mesures contre le trafic d'armes illégales ne fonctionnent pas? Il n'y a pas moins de fusillades, il y en a plus. Il n'y a pas moins d'armes illégales, il y en a plus. Il n'y a pas moins de victimes, il y en a plus. C'est cela, les faits. Est-ce que le ministre est capable de regarder les Québécois dans les yeux et leur dire qu'aujourd'hui, il y a moins d'armes illégales et moins de fusillades à Montréal grùce au fédéral? Sinon, quand est-ce qu'il va agir pour vrai?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, there was yet another shooting in Montreal, at the Georges-Vanier metro station, leaving one man dead and two others seriously injured. How many people have to be injured or killed before the federal government realizes that its measures to combat illegal gun trafficking are not working? There have been more shootings, more illegal guns and more victims, not fewer. Those are the facts. Can the minister look Quebeckers in the eyes and tell them today that there are fewer illegal weapons and fewer shootings in Montreal thanks to the federal government? If not, when will he take real action?
The parliamentary secretary states the government is taking the strongest action in a generation, directing $46 million to support law enforcement in Quebec and $42 million to steer youth away from crime, and continues to invest in hardening the border.
The answer cites $46 million and $42 million figures directed to Quebec and mentions border hardening, but does not directly answer whether there are fewer illegal firearms or fewer shootings in Montreal â the specific yes/no challenge posed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are taking the strongest action in a generation to keep communities safe from gun violence. We are working closely with the Quebec government and municipal leaders such as Mayor Plante to make communities in Quebec safer. We have directed $46 million to support law enforcement in Quebec and $42 million to Quebec to steer youth away from a life of crime. We also continue to invest in hardening our border to prevent illegal gun trafficking. When it comes to protecting Canadians and Quebeckers, we are the party Canadians can trust to enforce the law and keep Canadians safe.
The member argues that Quebeckers see more illegal firearms than ever in Montreal and will only believe the government when they see results instead of shootings, asking when the government will take this seriously.
The question broadens to link border control failures with other government failures (passeports, aéroports, chemin Roxham) in a rhetorical framing, weakening specificity, though the core accountability ask about results versus shootings remains.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est exaspĂ©rant. Tous les QuĂ©bĂ©cois voient qu'il y a plus d'armes illĂ©gales que jamais Ă MontrĂ©al. Ils voient aussi que le gouvernement qui est censĂ© contrĂŽler ces armes-lĂ aux frontiĂšres est le mĂȘme qui est responsable des passeports, des aĂ©roports et du chemin Roxham et qui nous dit que tout va bien. C'est le festival des Ă©checs. Alors non, les QuĂ©bĂ©cois ne croient pas ce gouvernement quand il dit qu'il fait tout pour contrer le trafic d'armes. Les QuĂ©bĂ©cois vont le croire quand ils vont voir des rĂ©sultats au lieu de voir des fusillades. Quand est-ce qu'il va prendre cela au sĂ©rieux?
Hansard translation: It is frustrating, Mr. Speaker. Every Quebecker can see that there are more illegal weapons than ever in Montreal. They also see that the government that is supposed to control these weapons at the border is the same government that is responsible for passports, airports and Roxham Road, the same government that is telling us that everything is fine. It has been one failure after another, so no, Quebeckers do not believe this government when it says that it is doing everything it can to stop gun trafficking. Quebeckers will believe the government when they see results instead of shootings. When will the government take this seriously?
The parliamentary secretary states that CBSA seized a record number of illegal firearms at the border last year, more than double 2020 seizures, and that over $321 million was invested in the border this year for X-ray scanners, detector dogs and specialized training.
The answer provides a concrete statistic â CBSA seized a record number of illegal firearms at the border, more than double the seizures in 2020 â and cites over $321 million invested in border infrastructure this year, partially addressing the results question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, fighting gun violence means cracking down on smuggling at our borders, and that is why we are doing just that. Last year, CBSA seized a record number of illegal firearms at the border, more than double the seizures in 2020. This year alone we invested over $321 million into the border for more X-ray scanners, detector dogs and specialized training. When it comes to protecting our borders, we are the only party Canadians can trust to enforce the law and keep Canadians safe.
The member asks whether the government will cancel its planned paycheque tax increases, noting that Canadians making $60,000 will face over $1,000 in increased paycheque taxes on January 1.
The question cites a specific threshold ($60,000) and a specific figure (over $1,000 increase) for planned paycheque taxes on January 1, and poses a single clear ask â will the government cancel its planned paycheque tax increases.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the price of food, gas and housing continues to go up, yet the government wants to brag about a one-time $500 rent cheque, which will almost certainly be vaporized by inflation, and we now know that on January 1 next year, the Liberals will increase paycheque taxes on anyone making $60,000 by over $1,000. Will the government cancel its planned paycheque tax increases?
The Deputy Prime Minister calls for compassion for struggling Canadians and questions why Conservatives will not support giving about $500 to families struggling to buy groceries and $500 to Canadians struggling to pay their rent.
The minister does not address the specific $60,000/$1,000 claim or the January 1 date, instead pivoting to a call for compassion and defending the $500 grocery and rent measures, answering a completely different question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Canadians who are watching and listening to us today want one thing above all from us all, and that is compassion. They want us to understand that things are tough. They want to know we have a plan to get through it, and they want to know we are going to support them. That is why I just do not understand why the Conservatives will not support us in giving about $500 to families struggling to buy groceries, $500 to Canadians struggling to pay their rent.
Citing that one in five Canadians have taken on more debt to afford basics and referencing constituents Michelle and Steven, the member asks when the government will cancel its planned paycheque tax increases.
The question cites a specific statistic (one in five Canadians have taken on more debt) and names constituents (Michelle and Steven) to ground the ask, and repeats the direct question about cancelling paycheque tax increases, though the framing remains somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want is more money in their pockets. Canadians are actually choosing between affording housing and food. They are people like Michelle and Steven in my riding, who are struggling to put food on the table for their three kids. They do not want more government hand outs. They simply want to be able to afford to pay their bills and buy their groceries. In fact, one in five Canadians have taken on more debt and more loans just to afford the basics. When will the government cancel its planned paycheque tax increases?
The minister asserts there are no tax increases, reframes EI and CPP as not being taxes, notes that families in Alberta are already receiving a 50% reduction in child care fees, and cites economist Ricardo Tranjan as saying this helps families with the high cost of living.
The minister asserts there are no tax increases and reframes EI and CPP as not being taxes, mentions a 50% reduction in child care fees in Alberta, and cites economist Ricardo Tranjan, but does not address the specific January 1 paycheque tax increase claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again the Conservatives are wrong. There are no tax increases. We are talking about EI and CPP, and we are helping families. In fact, families in Alberta, including in that member's riding, are already receiving a 50% reduction in child care fees. Economist Ricardo Tranjan said today that this is helping families pay for the high cost of living. It is helping them pay for groceries, and it is making sure they have the things their children need. We are delivering for Canadian families every single day.
The member states that basic essentials are getting more expensive and asks whether the government will cancel its planned tax increases on Canadians' paycheques.
The question repeats the paycheque tax increase ask without adding new data beyond a general reference to rising prices, relying more on rhetorical framing than the earlier exchange's specific figures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with basic essentials getting more and more expensive, Canadians continue to feel the crunch of sky-high inflation. Families are barely getting by, or worse, they are just hanging on, and the government is going to punish them further by raising their paycheque taxes on January 1. Canadians simply cannot afford the Liberal government anymore, so will the government cancel its planned tax increases on Canadians' paycheques?
The Deputy Prime Minister says Canadians are smart and understand the difference between taxes and paying EI premiums and paying into the Canada pension plan, and states the government has a plan to support Canadians.
The minister dismisses the premise by distinguishing taxes from EI premiums and CPP contributions and says Canadians are smart enough to understand this, but does not engage with the specific January 1 increase claim or the $1,000 figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, do members know one of the big differences between our government and the Conservative members opposite? We know that Canadians are smart. We know that Canadians understand the difference between taxes and paying their EI premiums and paying into the Canada pension plan. Canadians know that saving up for our retirement and creating a fund to be sure that we get support if we lose our jobs are smart policies. We know Canadians need support. That is why we have a plan to give it to them.
The member cites that paycheque taxes for a Canadian making $60,000 a year will have increased by almost $1,000 since the Liberal government took office and asks whether the government will cancel its planned tax increases on Canadians' paycheques.
The question cites a specific figure â paycheque taxes for a Canadian making $60,000 a year will have increased by almost $1,000 since the Liberal government took office â and poses a clear ask about cancelling planned tax increases, making it more grounded than the previous exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the big difference is that we would leave money in Canadians' pockets. With rising inflation, Canadians cannot afford any more taxes. Paycheque taxes are heading toward an all-time high for Canadians. As of January 1, the paycheque taxes of a Canadian making $60,000 a year will have increased by almost $1,000 since the Liberal government took office. Will the government listen to Canadians and cancel their planned tax increases on Canadians' paycheques?
The Deputy Prime Minister accuses Conservatives of pursuing populist partisan talking points and fiscal irresponsibility, and says they are unwilling to help Canadians with $500 rent payments, the doubling of the GST tax credit, and dental care for kids.
The minister does not address the $60,000/$1,000 figure or the January 1 date, instead accusing Conservatives of fiscal irresponsibility and populist partisan talking points, and pivoting to the $500 rent measure, the doubling of the GST tax credit, and dental care.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the sad reality is that, in pursuit of populist partisan talking points, the Conservatives have become the party of fiscal irresponsibility. The other real shame is that they are unwilling to set partisanship aside and join with the rest of the House to help the Canadians who need it the most, with $500 to pay their rent, the doubling of the GST tax credit and help for kids who need to go see a dentist. It is hard to understand.
Citing Statistics Canada's confirmation that one-third of people in Nunavut live in overcrowded houses needing repair â three times the rate for non-indigenous Canadians â and noting a 2017 promise for an indigenous housing strategy never delivered, the member asks the Liberals to commit to a 'by indigenous, for indigenous' national housing strategy before the next budget.
The question cites a same-day Statistics Canada release confirming one-third of people in Nunavut live in overcrowded houses in desperate need of repair, compares it to a rate three times higher than non-indigenous Canadians, references a specific 2017 promise, and poses a clear ask about a 'by indigenous, for indigenous' national housing strategy before the next budget.
Source text
Uqaqtittiji, today Statistics Canada confirmed that one-third of people in Nunavut are living in overcrowded houses that are in desperate need of repair. That rate is three times higher than it is for non-indigenous Canadians. In 2017, the government promised an indigenous housing strategy, but no one has seen one since. The Liberals are failing indigenous peoples. Will the Liberals commit to putting in place a âby indigenous, for indigenousâ national housing strategy before the next budget?
The minister acknowledges housing as the most common issue raised in the north and cites Budget 2022's $4 billion in distinctions-based indigenous housing including $845 million in Inuit Nunangat, saying the government is going in the right direction.
The minister acknowledges housing as the top issue in the north, cites Budget 2022's $4 billion in indigenous housing including $845 million in Inuit Nunangat, but does not commit to a 'by indigenous, for indigenous' national housing strategy before the next budget as specifically asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. In all my travels in the north and the Arctic, both virtual and real, housing is the issue that comes up the most often. However, our government has been making historic investments in distinctions-based housing. Budget 2022, as an example, invested $4 billion in indigenous housing, including $845 million alone in Inuit Nunangat. We realize there is a lot of work to do, and we are committed to getting that work done, but we are going in the right direction.
The member states that indigenous peoples are 11 times more likely to use a shelter, one in five Canadians cannot find affordable housing, and corporate landlords are treating housing as a stock market, asking when the Liberals will stop the financialization of housing to keep rent affordable.
The question cites that indigenous peoples are 11 times more likely to use a shelter and one in five Canadians cannot find affordable housing, but the ask â stopping the financialization of housing â is broad and the question conflates multiple issues including corporate landlords and renovictions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace that indigenous peoples are 11 times more likely to use a shelter. One in five Canadians cannot find housing they can afford, and home ownership is out of reach for too many young people. The Liberals continue to allow corporate landlords to treat housing as a stock market and not a basic human right. The government should not be in the business of financing corporate landlords to renovict people from their homes. When will the Liberals stop the financialization of housing to keep rent affordable for families that are struggling to keep a roof over their heads?
The minister highlights the Canada housing benefit now in place in 10 provinces and three territories, direct rental supports for vulnerable renters, construction of affordable rental units, and notes the rapid housing initiative delivered almost 41% of units to indigenous communities.
The minister highlights the Canada housing benefit in 10 provinces and three territories, direct rental supports, affordable rental unit construction, and notes the rapid housing initiative delivered almost 41% of units to indigenous communities, but does not address the specific financialization of housing ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that we have been very much focused on putting in place cutting-edge programs, such as the Canada housing benefit, which is now in place in 10 provinces and three territories, and on delivering direct rental supports right into the pockets of Canadian renters in vulnerable situations. On top of that, we have been building affordable rental units from coast to coast to coast. I want to remind the hon. member that the rapid housing initiative alone has delivered almost 41% of the units to indigenous communities.
The member notes that working-age persons with disabilities are twice as likely to live in poverty, references the Accessible Canada Act and Bill C-22, and asks the minister to explain how the Canada disability benefit will help lift working-age persons with disabilities out of poverty.
This is a government-backbench softball setup that cites Bill C-22 and the Accessible Canada Act to invite the minister to promote the Canada disability benefit, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know that working-age persons with disabilities in Canada are twice as likely to live in poverty as those without. That is why we have taken action to build a Canada that is disability inclusive. In 2019, we passed the groundbreaking Accessible Canada Act, legislation that aims to realize a barrier-free Canada. Yesterday, Bill C-22, Canada Disability Benefit Act began second reading. Can the Hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion please share with the House how the Canada disability benefit will help lift working-age persons with disabilities out of poverty?
The minister describes the Canada disability benefit as a federal income supplement for working-aged persons with disabilities and a once-in-a-generation opportunity to lift hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty, calling on all members to help pass it quickly.
The minister provides substantive context about the Canada disability benefit as a federal income supplement for working-aged persons with disabilities and states it could lift hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty, though no specific dollar amounts or timelines are given.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we took a major step forward in creating the groundbreaking Canada disability benefit, a federal income supplement for working-aged persons with disabilities. With the Canada disability benefit, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to lift hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty. We have the opportunity of a lifetime to send a message to our citizens with disabilities that they matter, and that we will no longer sit by and let them struggle. I hope everyone understands the moment we have in front of us. I hope we will celebrate this together and work to pass it as quickly as we can.
The member argues the Liberals are fuelling food inflation with nonsensical fertilizer policy and tax hikes on farmers, noting grocery prices are up 10%, and asks why the Liberals are making the food affordability crisis worse by hiking taxes on farmers.
The question cites grocery prices up 10% and references fertilizer policy and fuel tax hikes on farmers, but does not specify which taxes or policies by name and the ask is broad and rhetorically framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the price of groceries is rising at a forty-year high, and the Liberals are fuelling food inflation with nonsensical fertilizer policy and tax hikes on farmers. Food security and affordability are critical issues for Canadians, and our farmers offer a solution by growing affordable and sustainable food. Instead, the Liberals are attacking our producers with nonsensical fertilizer policy and tax hikes on fuel. Grocery prices are up 10%. Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. Why are the Liberals making the food affordability crisis even worse by hiking taxes on our farmers?
The minister states the government had the biggest agriculture budget in history last year at more than $4 billion and invested $1.5 billion in agri-environmental programming, arguing that climate change is the biggest threat to food security.
The minister cites last year's agriculture budget of more than $4 billion and $1.5 billion in agri-environmental programming but does not address the specific fertilizer policy or fuel tax hike claims, instead pivoting to climate change as the real threat to food security.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure members that we are there to support our farmers. Last year, we had the biggest budget in the history of the agriculture department. It was more than $4 billion. Recently, we have invested $1.5 billion in agri-environmental programming because our farmers know that the biggest threat to their production is climate change. The biggest threats to food security are droughts, floods and climate change.
The member cites a Grain Farmers of Ontario study showing farmers get less than 20% of their carbon tax back, references the government's finance department figure of $800 in average carbon tax rebate against tens of thousands spent on inputs, and asks whether the agriculture minister will defend Canadian farmers and oppose any new taxes on them.
The question cites a specific Grain Farmers of Ontario study showing farmers get less than 20% of their carbon tax back, references the government's own finance department figure of $800 in average carbon tax rebate for farmers, and contrasts that with tens of thousands spent on inputs, posing a clear ask about opposing new taxes on farmers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the biggest threats to Canadian farmers are the Liberal government and its devastating policies. The minister is misleading Canadian farmers in the House, and she knows it. For example, the Liberals said that the carbon tax would be revenue neutral, and they know that it is not for Canadian farmers. In fact, a Grain Farmers of Ontario study showed that they get less than 20% of their carbon tax back with the Liberal rebate. Even its finance department knows it, saying that the average farmer gets $800 back through the carbon tax rebate. They spend tens of thousands of dollars a year on inputs, and that is one day in a combine. With the food affordability crisis where it is, will the Liberal agriculture minister defend Canadian farmers and oppose any new taxes onâ
The minister states the government supports farmers day and night and highlights the clean technology program to help farmers acquire new technologies and be more energy efficient, without addressing the carbon tax rebate figures cited.
The minister does not address the Grain Farmers of Ontario study, the $800 rebate figure, or the revenue-neutrality claim, instead pivoting to the clean technology program and general support for farmers, failing to engage the specific factual challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am here, and we are here, to support farmers day and night, all year long. We are investing in our farmers. We are investing in the agriculture sector. I will talk about the clean technology program, as one example, because we know that farmers need equipment, and they need new technologies to be more energy efficient to be able to do precision agriculture to fight against climate change, which is the real threat to food security.
Describing constituent Jake who works 200-plus hours of overtime yet struggles to make ends meet, the member asks whether the government will cancel its planned tax increases on Canadian paycheques given the planned tripling of the carbon tax.
The question uses a named constituent (Jake, 45 years old, $30/hour, over 200 hours of overtime) for rhetorical grounding but relies on a general reference to tripling the carbon tax and planned tax increases without specifying the January 1 EI/CPP figures, and the ask is the repeated paycheque tax cancellation question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 45-year-old Jake makes $30 an hour and has put in over 200 hours of overtime this year, but he is still struggling to make ends meet for his family. The Liberal government is planning to triple the carbon tax on gas, heat and everything else. It is the most expensive government in history, and the more it spends, the more things cost, and the more Canadians like Jake continue to hang on by a thread. Will the Liberal government give Canadians like Jake a break and cancel its planned tax increases on Canadian paycheques?
The parliamentary secretary says the government is focused on addressing affordability and that the price on pollution and climate action rebate will put more money in people's pockets, with eight out of 10 families better off and cheques arriving in October.
The parliamentary secretary mentions the price on pollution, the climate action rebate, and states eight out of 10 families will be better off with cheques arriving in October, which is tangentially related to affordability but does not address the planned paycheque tax increase ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are totally focused on addressing the affordability challenge for Canadian families. I know that in my home province of Manitoba many families are struggling, and that is why I am so heartened to hear about the measures that have been introduced by the finance minister. That is why it is important that the price on pollution and the climate action rebate will put more money in people's pockets. Eight out of 10 families will be better off. The good news is that these cheques will arrive in the mail in October. It will be orderly, and that will help with cash flow and affordability.
The member frames the affordability crisis as a mental health crisis causing anxiety, depression and suicide, asserts the government has doubled the national debt adding more debt than all previous governments combined, and asks again whether the government will cancel its planned tax increases on Canadian paycheques.
The question escalates the framing to a mental health crisis and states the national debt has doubled with more debt added than all previous governments combined, but the core ask remains the same vague paycheque tax cancellation question without new data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that was an insulting answer to Canadian families everywhere. This affordability crisis is a mental health crisis. When one cannot afford to put food on the table for one's family, that is a mental health crisis of anxiety, depression and suicide. That is compassion when one can pay to feed one's family. This Liberal government has doubled our national debt, adding more debt than all previous governments combined, yet it is planning to increase taxes on gas, heat and groceries. I will ask it again: Will this government cancel its planned tax increases on Canadian paycheques?
The minister denies there are tax increases, highlights the Canada child benefit of up to $7,000 for children under six for low-income families, and notes the 50% reduction in child care fees by end of December, contrasting with the Conservatives' $100 monthly cheques to millionaires.
The minister denies the premise of tax increases, pivots to the Canada child benefit (up to $7,000 for children under six for low-income families), child care fee reductions of 50% by end of December, and contrasts with the Conservatives' $100 monthly cheques, engaging affordability broadly but not the paycheque tax increase claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just because the Conservatives repeat something does not make it true. We are not raising taxes. In fact, this government has given more money back to families than any previous government. Let us talk about the Canada child benefit. That could return up to $7,000 for children under the age of six for low-income families. That is different from the $100 in cheques the Conservatives sent every month to millionaires. Let us talk about child care and the 50% reduction in fees by the end of December. That is thousands of dollars for Canadian families. That is real help that is going to help real Canadians. We understand things are difficult, and we are thereâ
The member states the minister had a mandate to introduce a comprehensive EI reform this summer and did not do it, notes that when temporary measures end Sunday 60% of workers will lose access, and asks whether the minister can at least extend the temporary measures.
The question cites a specific mandate to introduce a comprehensive EI reform this summer that was not fulfilled, names a specific date (Sunday) when temporary measures will end, and provides a concrete statistic (60% of workers without access) alongside a clear dual ask â was the reform done, and will temporary measures be extended.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la ministre avait reçu le mandat d'instaurer une rĂ©forme globale de l'assurance-emploi cet Ă©tĂ© et elle ne l'a pas fait. Dimanche, quand les mesures temporaires prendront fin, la ministre abandonnera 60 % des travailleurs Ă leur sort. Dimanche, elle les replongera dans le mĂȘme vieux programme auquel 60 % d'entre eux n'auront pas accĂšs. Une rĂ©forme globale s'impose. Dans l'intervalle, est-ce que la ministre peut au moins prolonger les mesures temporaires? Personne ne devrait pĂątir parce qu'elle n'a pas fait son travail.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the minister was given the mandate of overhauling employment insurance this summer and she did not do it. On Sunday, the temporary measures will come to an end, and the minister will leave 60% of workers to fend for themselves. On Sunday, she will put them back into the same old program and 60% will not have access to it. The system must be overhauled. In the meantime, could the minister at least extend the temporary measures? No one should suffer because she failed to do her job.
The minister states that the temporary EI measures were a response to extraordinary pandemic circumstances including shutdowns and record high unemployment, and that winding them down is justified now, assuring workers they will still have access to a robust, modern and excellent EI system.
The minister acknowledges the winding down of temporary measures and links them to extraordinary pandemic circumstances, asserting the EI system remains robust and modern, but does not address the 60% access figure, the specific Sunday deadline, or commit to any extension of temporary measures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the changes to the EI system put in place during the pandemic were in response to extraordinary economic circumstances, shutdowns, lockdowns, job losses and record high unemployment rates. We are not there anymore thanks in great part to the work of our team on this side of the House. We are proud of the work we have done. We are winding down our temporary measures, but there is good reason for that. I can assure every worker in Canada that they will still have access to a robust, modern and excellent EI system that will be there for them.
The member notes the government has been promising EI reform since 2015 â seven years of delay â and asks whether the minister understands that workers who lose their jobs cannot delay their financial problems the way the government keeps delaying reform.
The question cites seven years of broken promises on EI reform since 2015 and draws a pointed contrast between the government delaying reform and workers who cannot delay their financial problems, though the ask remains the same broad reform question without new data.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce devait ĂȘtre cet Ă©tĂ©; ce sera peut-ĂȘtre Ă la fin de l'annĂ©e. Cela fait depuis 2015 que son gouvernement promet une rĂ©forme de l'assurance-emploi. Cela fait sept ans qu'il pellette cela par en-avant. Cela fait sept ans que la ministre rencontre des travailleurs qui ont cotisĂ© toute leur vie et qui se retrouvent sans un sou. Encore aujourd'hui, elle pellette la rĂ©forme par en avant. Est-ce qu'elle sait que les travailleurs qui perdent leur emploi, eux, ne peuvent pas pelleter leurs problĂšmes financiers par en-avant?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it was supposed to be done this summer; it may be coming at the end of the year. Her government has been promising EI reform since 2015. For seven years the government has been putting it off. For seven years the minister has been meeting with workers who have paid their premiums their entire lives and now find themselves penniless. Today, she is again putting off the reform. Does she realize that workers who lose their jobs cannot put off their financial problems?
The minister highlights that by end of December workers will have access to 26 weeks of sickness benefits instead of 15, commits to sharing a vision for EI modernization by end of year, and expresses willingness to work with the member to allow better access and more adequate benefits.
The minister acknowledges the 35-second constraint, cites a specific upcoming change â 26 weeks of sickness benefits instead of 15 by end of December â and commits to sharing a vision for EI by end of year, partially engaging the reform delay critique without addressing the broader 60% access problem.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not have time in 35 seconds to lay out all the impressive changes we have made to the EI system over the past seven years, but let me highlight an upcoming one. By the end of this December, workers will have access to 26 weeks of sickness benefits instead of 15. I am looking forward to working with the member opposite as we modernize the EI system and as we allow better access and more adequate benefits for our workers. I can assure her and everyone that by the end of year, they will know what the vision for EI is.
Will the government cancel planned carbon tax increases that are making it harder for farmers to put food on the table and raising transport costs?
The question links carbon tax increases to food prices and transport costs but the ask is vague and compound, and rhetorical framing dominates over specific data.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le prix des aliments continue d'augmenter dans notre pays. Au lieu de s'attaquer à l'inflation, ce gouvernement veut continuer à menotter les Canadiens avec des prix d'épicerie élevés. La hausse prévue de la taxe carbone ne fera que rendre plus difficile pour les agriculteurs de mettre de la nourriture sur la table, sans compter la montée des prix du transport de ces produits. Les Canadiens sont en difficulté et ils veulent voir une lumiÚre au bout du tunnel. Le gouvernement annulera-t-il ces hausses de taxes imposées aux agriculteurs canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the price of food keeps going up in our country. Instead of addressing inflation, this government wants to keep saddling Canadians with higher grocery bills. The planned carbon tax increase will only make it harder for farmers to put food on the table, not to mention raising the price of transporting these products. Canadians are having a tough time, and they want to see a light at the end of the tunnel. Will the government cancel these tax hikes on Canadian farmers?
The parliamentary secretary attacked the Conservative Party for debating whether climate change is real and said the government is building the economy of tomorrow and working for affordability.
The answer pivots entirely to attacking the Conservative leadership race and the Harper record, never addressing the carbon tax's effect on farmers or the request to cancel increases.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Conservative leadership race over the last number of weeks, the party is still debating whether climate change is real. That is not surprising since the Harper Conservatives did absolutely nothing for 10 years on the climate file. While the Conservatives are stuck in the past, we are looking to the future. We are building the economy of tomorrow and the clean jobs of tomorrow, and we are working for affordability.
Given that the carbon tax will increase home heating fuel by 80% as noted by Liberal Premier Furey, will the government cancel new taxes on gas, home heating, groceries and paycheques?
The question cites a specific figure (80% increase in home heating fuel cost), references Liberal Premier Furey, and uses named constituents to ground the ask, though the final ask is compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the proposed carbon tax will increase the cost of home heating fuel by 80%, as pointed out by Liberal Premier Furey. Seniors in my riding of CumberlandâColchester, such as Catherine, June and Carol, reach out to my office every day because they are in dire straits. Sadly, Carol had to sell her wedding rings to pay for food. On their behalf, will the government cancel new taxes on gas, home heating, groceries and their paycheques?
The parliamentary secretary said the climate plan is designed so the majority of Canadians receive more in climate action incentive payments than they pay at the pump, and that payments will now be quarterly.
The answer mentions the climate action incentive payments mechanism and notes payments will be quarterly, which is partially relevant, but does not address the 80% figure or cancel any taxes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think all sides of the House are concerned about affordability and our citizens. One party on this side of the House is doing something about it, and that is why our climate plan is designed so that the majority of Canadians receive more in climate action incentive payments than they pay at the pump. The hon. member will also know that as the carbon price increases, so do the climate payments. They will now be paid quarterly to help with both cash flow and affordability.
Given that the PBO shows carbon pricing is a failure and nearly 40% of Atlantic Canadians experience energy poverty, will the government commit today to cancelling tax increases, yes or no?
The question cites the PBO and a specific statistic (almost 40% of Atlantic Canadians experience energy poverty) and references all Atlantic premiers, making it reasonably grounded, with a yes/no ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, well, I think we know from the PBO that the carbon pricing plan is a failure. We also know that almost 40% of Atlantic Canadians currently experience energy poverty, by far the highest rate in the entire country, which is vocalized by all of the Atlantic premiers. Clearly, Atlantic Canadians are being priced out of their own lives. They cannot afford to house themselves, heat their homes or feed their families. The government needs to commit today to cancelling tax increases. The question is simple: Will it do this, yes or no?
The parliamentary secretary cited the Minister of Environment's announcement of $120 million from the low carbon economy fund to help Atlantic Canadians transition away from heating oil to cleaner energy.
The answer references a specific $120 million announcement from the low carbon economy fund for Atlantic Canada, which is relevant context, but does not answer yes or no on cancelling tax increases.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House realize that there are unique affordability challenges in Atlantic Canada. That is why the Minister of Environment, just last week, announced $120 million from the low carbon economy fund to help Atlantic Canadians transition away from heating oil to cleaner energy. We have a plan for the environment. We have a plan for affordability. Every time that plan comes to the floor, the Conservatives vote against it. They have no plan.
Can the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations update the House on steps taken to establish the permanent, independent, Indigenous-led national council for reconciliation called for by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to update the House on Bill C-29 and the national council for reconciliation, citing Calls to Action 53â56.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en 2017, notre gouvernement a acceptĂ© toutes les recommandations du rapport de la Commission de vĂ©ritĂ© et rĂ©conciliation et s'est engagĂ© Ă mettre en Ćuvre les 94 appels Ă l'action. L'une des principales recommandations Ă©tait que le gouvernement Ă©tablisse un conseil national de rĂ©conciliation permanent indĂ©pendant et dirigĂ© par des Autochtones pour suivre et Ă©valuer le progrĂšs de la rĂ©conciliation Ă tous les ordres de gouvernement et dans la sociĂ©tĂ© civile. Le ministre des Relations CouronneâAutochtones peutâil informer la Chambre des mesures prises par le gouvernement pour Ă©tablir ce conseil et soutenir ses opĂ©rations?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in 2017, our government accepted all the recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report and committed to implementing the 94 calls to action. One of the main recommendations was that the government establish a permanent, independent, indigenous-led national council for reconciliation to monitor and evaluate progress on reconciliation at all levels of government and in civil society. Could the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations tell the House what measures the government has taken to establish this council and support its operations?
The minister announced second reading debate on Bill C-29, which would create the permanent, independent and apolitical council to monitor reconciliation progress and implement Calls to Action 53 to 56.
The minister directly identifies Bill C-29, links it to Calls to Action 53 to 56, describes the council as independent, permanent and apolitical, and invites all parliamentarians to support it.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie le dĂ©putĂ© de son importante question sur le conseil national de rĂ©conciliation. Aujourd'hui, nous allons dĂ©battre en deuxiĂšme lecture du projet de loi Câ29, une mesure lĂ©gislative pour la crĂ©ation de ce conseil indĂ©pendant permanent et apolitique pour surveiller les progrĂšs Ă long terme en matiĂšre de rĂ©conciliation et mettre en Ćuvre notamment les 94 appels Ă l'action. Le projet de loi Câ29 rĂ©pond aux appels Ă l'action nos 53 Ă 56 de cette commission. J'invite donc tous les parlementaires Ă appuyer ce projet de loi et Ă poser les gestes concrets vers la rĂ©conciliation.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his important question about the national council for reconciliation. Today we are set to begin second reading of Bill Câ29, a bill that will establish an independent, permanent and non-political council to monitor long-term progress on reconciliation and implement the commission's 94 calls to action. Bill Câ29 fulfills calls to action 53 to 56. I urge all parliamentarians to support this bill and take concrete steps toward reconciliation.
LaRue's Haulage in Keswick has paid more than $65,000 in carbon taxes since May with just 20 trucks; with the carbon tax tripling they could go under â will the Liberals scrap this tax?
The question cites a specific named business (LaRue's Haulage in Keswick), a specific dollar figure ($65,000 in carbon taxes since May), and a specific fleet size (20 trucks), making it well-grounded.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, LaRue's Haulage in Keswick has served the community of YorkâSimcoe for over 75 years, but the future is looking bleak for small businesses like theirs because of the carbon tax. LaRue's has paid more than $65,000 in carbon taxes since May, and that is with just 20 trucks on the road. They are holding on by their fingernails, but with the carbon tax tripling, local businesses like LaRue's could go under. This is happening right across the country. The carbon tax is crushing Canadian small business. Will the Liberals scrap this tax?
The parliamentary secretary referred to the emissions reduction plan and its broad support from environmental groups, industry and farmers, and criticized Conservatives for voting against it every time.
The answer pivots to the emissions reduction plan and its broad support, never addressing LaRue's Haulage, the $65,000 figure, or the risk to small businesses from a tripling carbon tax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have put a price on pollution, indeed, but we have also introduced a number of measures that will build the future economy as well as create jobs and make life more affordable for Canadians. Perhaps the hon. member has heard of our emissions reduction plan, which is going to get us to our 2030 targets. It has broad support, from environmental groups to industry to farmers. Unfortunately, every single time this comes to the floor, the Conservatives vote against it. They have no plan for the environment. They have no plan for the economy.
With Canadians falling further behind and the government wanting to triple the tax on home heating and gasoline, will the Liberals cancel these punishing taxes?
The question opens with a rhetorical jab about tree planting, cites a pre-pandemic statistic (half of Canadians within $200 of not paying bills) but the ask is vague and compound, mixing several taxes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, how is the tree planting going? Before the pandemic, half of Canadians were within $200 of not being able to pay their bills. During the pandemic, the Liberals increased taxes on home heating, gasoline and workers' paycheques. Now, when Canadians are falling further and further behind, they want to triple the tax on home heating and gasoline and take more money from workers' paycheques. Canadians cannot afford this. Will the Liberals finally listen to struggling Canadians and cancel these punishing taxes?
The parliamentary secretary said carbon pricing is widely recognized as the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions and quoted a Conservative MP who said his province should return to the federal carbon price because it comes with rebates.
The answer pivots to quoting a Conservative MP from New Brunswick Southwest who favours the federal carbon price for its rebates, avoiding any direct engagement with the affordability concern raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, carbon pricing is widely recognized by nearly everyone except Conservative politicians as the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions while also driving clean innovation. I wonder if they could talk to their colleague from New Brunswick Southwest, who says his province should go back to using the federal carbon price because at least it comes with rebates. We agree with that hon. member.
While the Prime Minister is abroad giving musical performances, will the Liberals cancel all tax and premium increases for workers and seniors as Conservatives are demanding?
The question is heavily rhetorical, includes a partisan jab about the Prime Minister's musical performances abroad, and the ask to cancel all tax and premium increases is vague and compound.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'inflation donne des maux de tĂȘte aux Canadiens. Les taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt jouent de mauvais tours Ă ceux qui renouvellent leur hypothĂšque. L'essence, l'Ă©picerie et les biens de consommation montent en flĂšche et le gouvernement veut toujours augmenter les taxes et les impĂŽts. Pendant que le premier ministre prĂ©sente des prestations musicales Ă l'Ă©tranger, les libĂ©raux annuleront-ils toutes les hausses d'impĂŽt et de taxes pour les travailleurs et les aĂźnĂ©s, comme nous, les conservateurs, l'exigeons?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, inflation is causing headaches for Canadians across the country. Interest rates are wreaking havoc on mortgage renewals. The price of gas, groceries and consumer goods is skyrocketing, yet the government is still looking to increase taxes. While the Prime Minister is busy serenading people overseas, will the Liberals listen to the Conservatives and cancel all the tax increases on workers and seniors?
The Deputy Prime Minister invited Conservatives to vote for the government's plan, citing doubling the GST credit to provide up to $500 for families in need, dental care for children under 12, and an unspecified allowance.
The Deputy Prime Minister pivots to the government's affordability plan with specific measures â doubling the GST tax credit (up to $500 for families), dental care for children under 12 â which is substantive content though not directly responsive to the cancel-taxes ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si les conservateurs veulent vraiment aider les Canadiens, j'ai une idée. Ils peuvent voter en faveur de notre plan, qui va vraiment aider ceux qui ont besoin d'aide, les moins nantis d'entre nous. Nous allons doubler le crédit d'impÎt pour la TPS afin de fournir jusqu'à 500 $ aux familles dans le besoin. Nous avons créé des soins dentaires pour les enfants de moins de 12 ans et créé une allocation...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives really want to help Canadians, I have an idea. They can vote in favour of our plan, which will truly help those who need it, the less fortunate among us. We are going to double the GST credit, providing families in need with up to $500. We have established dental care for children under the age of 12 and created a benefitâ
Could the Minister of Seniors update the House on what the government is doing to focus on affordability for Canadian seniors who rely on OAS and GIS?
This is a government-backbench softball asking the Minister of Seniors to update the House on affordability measures for seniors, with no accountability pressure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, many seniors in my riding of St. John's East rely on their pensions and on benefits like the OAS and GIS to help make ends meet. They have expressed real concern about being able to cover their rent while living on a fixed income. Could the Minister of Seniors please update the House on what our government is doing to focus on affordability for Canadian seniors?
The minister cited doubling the GST tax credit (giving vulnerable seniors $700), $500 for nearly two million low-income renters, and a 10% OAS increase for seniors aged 75 worth $800 more for a full pensioner.
The minister provides specific figures: doubling the GST tax credit giving vulnerable seniors $700, $500 for nearly two million low-income renters, and a 10% OAS increase for seniors aged 75 equalling $800 more for a full pensioner.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her advocacy. We recognize the challenges that seniors are facing, and our government has been there for them. Now, to help seniors who are struggling, with our affordability plan we are doubling the GST tax credit. That means vulnerable seniors will receive $700 in their pockets. Nearly two million low-income renters who are struggling with their rent will receive $500. We also increased old age security for seniors aged 75 by 10%. That means $800 more for a full pensioner. On this side of the House, we are going to continue to deliver for seniors.
When will the Liberals act to rebuild health care in Canada, given what the Canadian Medical Association is calling an 'unprecedented health crisis' and the Conservative threat to privatize health care?
The question references the Canadian Medical Association's characterization of an 'unprecedented health crisis' but the ask â when will the Liberals act to rebuild health care â is vague and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not getting the care they need in our health care system. This is not surprising. The government has failed to offer real solutions to fix what the Canadian Medical Association is calling an âunprecedented health crisisâ. This failure of leadership is paving the way for the Conservatives, who want to privatize health care, putting profits over patients. Health care workers and Canadians are counting on the federal government to protect their public health care system. When will the Liberals act to rebuild health care in Canada?
The minister cited a $2-billion investment to support a reduction in surgeries and an additional $1-billion investment to reduce pressure on long-term care, health care workers and patients.
The minister provides two specific dollar figures ($2-billion investment to support reduction in surgeries and $1-billion investment to reduce pressure on long-term care) but does not address the specific concern about protecting public health care from privatization.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for that question. The member pointed to a health care crisis. We have a health care crisis because we have a health care workers' crisis. We need to support them through the very hard time they are going through, with the investments we have already announced and implemented, including the $2-billion investment we are making now to support a reduction in surgeries and the additional $1-billion investment to reduce the pressure on long-term care, health care workers and patients. We are going to continue that because we are there for patients and health care workers.
Given a new study showing irreversible tipping points are exceeded even at 1.5°C global heating â including loss of the Labrador current â when will the government cancel TMX and Bay du Nord?
The question references a specific new study on tipping points, names specific phenomena (stalled ocean currents, permafrost collapse, forest dieback, loss of the Labrador current) and the 1.5°C threshold, making it factually grounded, though the ask conflates two distinct projects.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week, a new study reviewed those points of no return called tipping points: stalled ocean currents, permafrost collapse and forest dieback. The conclusion was that even at 1.5°C global heating, irreversible and globally damaging thresholds are exceeded. The nine most dangerous have among them the loss of the Labrador current, which looms large. This is dangerous for Canadians. We can avoid this, but only with urgent action. When will the government wake up and cancel TMX and Bay du Nord?
Mr. Speaker, there seemed to be some confusion on the government's part during question period, so I would like to seek unanimous consent to table a document showing that combined CPP and EI premiums have gone up almost $700 under the current government. I would like to be able toâ
The parliamentary secretary said the government has an ambitious sector-by-sector path to reach 2030 targets and net zero by 2050, citing electric vehicle incentives, energy retrofits and reducing oil and gas emissions.
The answer does not address the tipping points study, the 1.5°C finding, the Labrador current, TMX or Bay du Nord, instead listing general emissions reduction plan measures like electric vehicle incentives and energy retrofits.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we share the member's concern about our climate future. We hear about it every day, every week, from our constituents. Just to remind the hon. member, we have an ambitious sector-by-sector path for Canada to reach its 2030 targets and to move to net zero by 2050. It is a very practical road map. A couple of examples are incentives in infrastructure for electric vehicles, energy retrofits for greener homes and buildings, reducing oil and gas emissions, and supporting our farmers.
Ms. AndrĂ©anne Larouche (Shefford, BQ) sought unanimous consent for a motion offering the House's condolences to the family of Mahsa Amini â also known by her Kurdish name Jina â a 22-year-old woman who died after being arrested in Tehran for 'wearing inappropriate clothing' by the Iranian morality police, and expressing the House's solidarity with the women of Iran fighting for their rights and freedoms. The exchange did not include a recorded vote or confirmation of the outcome, as it was interrupted.
- BQ Ms. Andréanne Larouche
- Mr. Jake Stewart
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'aimerais d'abord saluer le dĂ©putĂ© de Willowdale, qui voulait dĂ©poser une motion semblable. Il y a eu consultations entre les partis, et je pense que vous constaterez qu'il y a consentement unanime Ă l'Ă©gard de la motion suivante: Que la Chambre offre ses condolĂ©ances aux proches de Mahsa Amini, de son nom kurde Jina, jeune femme de 22 ans morte aprĂšs avoir Ă©tĂ© arrĂȘtĂ©e Ă TĂ©hĂ©ran pour « port de vĂȘtements inappropriĂ©s » par la police des mĆurs iranienne, et offre sa solidaritĂ© aux femmes dâIran qui luttent pour leurs droits et libertĂ©s.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to acknowledge the hon. member for Willowdale, who wanted to introduce a similar motion. There have been discussions among the parties, and I think that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House offer its condolences to the relatives of Mahsa Amini, from her Kurdish name Jina, a 22-year-old woman who died after being arrested in Tehran for "wearing inappropriate clothing" by the Iranian morality police, and offer its solidarity to the women of Iran who are fighting for their rights and freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to table this report. In question period, the House leader of the official opposition, the member for Thornhill and others cited a March 2022 report by the Parliamentary Budgetâ