Session overview
- Children's pain medication shortage dominated the opening exchanges, with the Opposition pressing the government on why it took no action for seven months after learning of the shortage in April, while the government pointed to Health Canada securing a foreign supply and approving exceptional importation of infant and children's ibuprofen and acetaminophen.
- The carbon tax and cost-of-living crisis generated the largest volume of exchanges, with CPC members pressing repeatedly for cancellation of the planned tripling of the carbon tax on gas, groceries and home heating, while the government defended the price on pollution and cited the Parliamentary Budget Officer's finding that eight out of 10 families would be better off.
- Foreign interference in elections was pressed by multiple CPC members, who demanded the government name the 11 candidates allegedly funded by Beijing through its Toronto consulate in the 2019 election; the government declined to name them, urging all parties not to politicize the issue.
- Health care funding was pressed by the Bloc Québécois, with Alain Therrien citing the Fall Economic Statement's own projections to argue that the federal government has the fiscal room to transfer the 28 milliards de dollars demanded by Quebec and the provinces, while the government cited the Transfert canadien en matiÚre de santé at 45,2 milliards de dollars, up 4,8%.
- Official languages drew sharp exchanges between the Bloc Québécois and the government over Bill C-13, with the BQ arguing that Air Canada, CN and VIA Rail have chosen to opt out of the Charte de la langue française under the bill's framework, and alleging that a December 1 closure of debate was timed to coincide with Quebec's deadline for federally regulated enterprises.
- Canada's climate record at COP27 drew criticism from both the NDP and the BQ, with members citing Canada's ranking of 58 out of 63 countries on the climate change performance index and the government's approval of offshore oil exploration permits during the conference, including bids by ExxonMobil, BP, Equinor and QPI.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change conceded the general conclusion that Canada needs to do more on climate, confirmed a $9.1 billion emissions reduction plan investment, and stated the government's target of a 40% to 45% reduction in emissions by 2030 â the only exchange where the government made specific, quantified commitments in direct response to a critical question.
The question is highly specific: it names the number of candidates (11), the alleged source of funds (Beijing through its Toronto consulate), the election year (2019), the dollar magnitude (hundreds of thousands), and the context of the Prime Minister's conversation with President Xi, with a single clear ask.
Asked directly why the government will not provide relief from home heating costs and the planned tripling of the carbon tax, Freeland responded entirely by attacking Poilievre's past advice to invest in crypto, without addressing home heating bills, the carbon tax, or Atlantic Canada at all.
Outstanding questions
- Michael Chong asked on what date the Prime Minister and cabinet members became aware of the 11 election candidates allegedly funded by Beijing through its Toronto consulate â this received no answer, only calls for unity against foreign interference.
- Pierre Poilievre asked on what specific date cabinet became aware of the children's pain medication shortage, after the deputy minister of health confirmed the government knew in April â the government confirmed actions taken but never answered the specific date question.
- Alain Therrien asked when the government will transfer the 28 milliards de dollars demanded by Quebec and the provinces for health care, given projections in the Fall Economic Statement showing federal debt elimination while provincial deficits quadruple â the government cited current transfer levels but gave no commitment on the demanded amount.
- Mario Beaulieu asked why the Liberals and NDP are moving closure on Bill C-13 on December 1, the same day as Quebec's deadline for federally regulated enterprises to adhere to the new loi 101, and whether this timing is designed to allow companies like Air Canada to avoid compliance â no substantive answer was given.
- Daniel Blaikie asked when the Liberals will implement a windfall tax on big box stores and oil and gas companies seeing record profits, beyond the existing measures targeting financial institutions â the government listed existing taxes but did not commit to or rule out a broader windfall tax.
Why did the government do nothing about the children's pain medication shortage for seven months after learning of it in April?
Cites a specific factual revelation from the deputy minister of health (government knew in April) and asks a clear accountability question about why no action was taken for seven months.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les Canadiens se demandaient pourquoi les enfants des autres pays peuvent avoir accĂšs aux mĂ©dicaments pour la douleur, alors qu'ici, au Canada, il y a une grosse pĂ©nurie. Il y a des familles qui souffrent et des parents qui doivent aller aux ĂtatsâUnis pour acheter ces mĂ©dicaments. Hier, nous avons appris pourquoi: le sous-ministre de la SantĂ© a indiquĂ© que ce gouvernement Ă©tait au courant de la pĂ©nurie en avril, soit il y a sept mois. Cependant, il n'a rien fait depuis ce temps-lĂ . Pourquoi est-ce que ce gouvernement a fait en sorte que les enfants du Canada souffrent depuis sept mois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians were wondering why children in other countries were able to access pain medication easily, while there is a major shortage in Canada. Families are suffering, and some parents have to go to the United States to buy these medications. Yesterday, we learned the reason for that. The deputy minister of health said that this government knew about the shortage in April, seven months ago. However, it has done nothing since then. Why has this government made Canadian children suffer for seven months?
The Minister of Health announced on Monday that the government has secured a foreign supply of children's medication.
Announces the Monday supply announcement and exceptional importation approval but does not address the core question of why nothing was done for seven months after April.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en tant que ministre, mais aussi en tant que mÚre, je connais le stress que vivent les familles et les enfants canadiens. C'est pourquoi je suis trÚs contente que, lundi, mon collÚgue le ministre de la Santé ait annoncé que notre gouvernement a obtenu la garantie d'un approvisionnement en provenance de l'étranger de médicaments pour enfants. La santé des enfants demeure notre priorité.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as a minister and a mother, I know the stress that Canadian families and children are experiencing. That is why I am very pleased that my colleague, the Minister of Health, announced on Monday that our government has secured a foreign supply of children's medication. Children's health remains our priority.
On what date did cabinet members become aware of the children's pain medication shortage?
References the deputy minister's testimony and asks a precise, answerable question: on what date did cabinet members become aware of the shortage.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if it was a priority, why did they not do anything for seven months? We just found out yesterday from the deputy minister of health that the government knew in April that there was a shortage of children's pain medication. As a result of the government doing nothing, we have parents who have had to drive to the States. Sometimes they have to meet in dark parking lots to buy a bottle of Aspirin or Tylenol for $200, and their children are up all night, screaming. On what date did members of the cabinet become aware that this shortage was in place and that our children were suffering?
Health Canada has secured a foreign supply of children's medication available in coming weeks and has approved exceptional importation of infant and children's ibuprofen and acetaminophen, with distribution begun.
Provides specific details on Health Canada's actions (foreign supply secured, ibuprofen and acetaminophen importation approved, distribution begun) but does not answer the specific question about the date cabinet became aware.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, not only as a minister, but also as a mother, I am very aware of the stress and anxiety of parents across Canada and of Canadian children. That is why I was glad that, on Monday, my colleague the Minister of Health announced that Health Canada has secured a foreign supply of children's medication, which will be available for sale in the coming weeks. Health Canada has also approved the exceptional importation of infant and children's ibuprofen and acetaminophen. It has been imported and distribution has begun.
Will the government cancel its inflationary taxes and spending, including the planned tripling of taxes on gas, heat and groceries?
Cites specific inflation figures (30% food, 10% gas, 11% overall food) and references the tripling of taxes, but the ask is broad and compound.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, aujourd'hui, nous avons appris que le taux d'inflation est plus de trois fois plus élevé que la cible de la Banque du Canada. Les Canadiens paient parfois 30 % de plus pour certains aliments, dont le prix est en augmentation. Le prix de l'essence est de 10 % plus élevé et le prix de la nourriture en général est de 11 % plus élevé. The government's solution is to continue with inflationary deficits and taxes, tripling taxes on gas, heat and groceries. Will the Liberals cancel these inflationary taxes and spending so Canadians can afford to eat, heat and house themselves?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today we found out that the inflation rate is three times higher than the Bank of Canada's target. Canadians are paying up to 30% more for some foods, and the price is only going up. The price of gas is up 10% and the price of food in general is up 11%. La solution du gouvernement est de continuer d'enregistrer des déficits inflationnistes et de tripler les taxes sur l'essence, le chauffage et l'épicerie. Les libéraux annuleront-ils ces taxes et ces dépenses inflationnistes de sorte que les Canadiens puissent se nourrir, se loger et chauffer leur logement?
The minister noted that inflation has decreased or remained stable for four consecutive months and referenced a fiscally responsible and compassionate plan, without addressing the specific tax question.
Claims Canada's AAA credit rating has tripled (a deflection), notes four consecutive months of stable or declining inflation, and offers a vague plan reference without addressing the specific tax question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the only thing that has tripled under our government is Canada's AAA credit rating. La réalité, c'est que l'inflation au Canada a diminué ou est restée stable pendant quatre mois consécutifs. C'est une bonne nouvelle, mais nous comprenons que les Canadiens continuent d'avoir des difficultés. C'est pourquoi nous avons un plan responsable sur le plan fiscal et compatissant pour aider les Canadiens les plus vulnérables.
Why not give Canadians relief from rising home heating costs instead of tripling the carbon tax, especially given that home heating bills are up 77% in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Cites specific data (home heating bills up 77% in Newfoundland and Labrador) and references the failure of the carbon tax to reduce emissions or hit targets, with a clear ask to provide relief instead of tripling the carbon tax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, she tells Canadians that they have never had it so good. She is out of touch, and Canadians are out of money. One of the reasons is the rising cost of fuel. Home heating bills are up 77% in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are similar increases across the Atlantic, and northern Ontario will get hit hard because of oil heating, yet the government wants to triple the carbon tax to punish people further. This is after the tax has failed to reduce emissions or hit targets to fight climate change. Instead of hitting Canadians with more punishing taxes, why do the Liberals not give Canadians relief so they can keep the heat on?
The minister attacked the Conservative leader for advising Canadians to invest in crypto, claiming those who followed his advice lost at least 65% of their life savings.
Completely ignores the question about carbon tax and home heating costs, instead attacking the Conservative leader's cryptocurrency advice â a full deflection with no connection to what was asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, do members know who is broke in Canada today? It is anyone who actually listened to the Conservative leader in the spring, followed his advice and invested in crypto. Canadians who did that would have lost at least 65% of their life savings. Many of them would be completely wiped out. It is time for the Conservative leader to take responsibility, renounce his reckless advice and apologize to the Canadian people.
Why will the government not reverse its inflationary taxes so that Canadians can afford to live, given the minister's track record of poor economic predictions?
References the finance minister's prior statements on deflation and low interest rates as a basis for holding her accountable, but the overall ask is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is the minister who advised Canadians that there would be deflation rather than inflation. Her government said inflation and interest rates would stay low for decades, so they should borrow up a storm. Her most recent advice is that Canadians should pay their $6,000 home heating bills by cancelling their $13 Disney+ subscription. That is the advice we are getting from the finance minister. It is no wonder we have 40-year highs in inflation. Why will the government not reverse its inflationary taxes so that Canadians can afford to live?
Oh, oh!
The minister attacked the Conservative leader for living in a 19-room government mansion with a chef and chauffeur, and called on him to apologize for reckless cryptocurrency advice.
The minister attacks the Conservative leader's personal living arrangements and repeats the call to apologize for cryptocurrency advice, with zero connection to the question about inflationary taxes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader lives in a 19-room government mansion, rent- and mortgage-free. This mansion comes with a chef and a driveway, where his chauffeur can wait to pick him up. Allâ
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader lives in a 19-room government mansion, rent- and mortgage-free. The mansion comes with a chef and a driveway, where his chauffeur can wait to pick him up. All of these privileges are a recognition of the essential role of the official opposition, but with this privilege comes responsibility, and that responsibility means not giving Canadians reckless advice. It is time for the Conservative Leader to apologize today for this reckless advice.
Given that the fall economic update shows the federal government will pay off its debt entirely while Quebec and the provinces quadruple their deficits due to health costs, when will the minister transfer the $28 billion needed for health care?
Cites a specific page (page 20) of the fiscal update projecting federal debt elimination, contrasts this with provincial deficit projections, and asks for a specific dollar amount ($28 billion) to be transferred for health care.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, notre systĂšme de santĂ© est malade et l'argent pour le guĂ©rir est Ă Ottawa. C'est la ministre des Finances elle-mĂȘme qui l'a prouvĂ©. Dans sa mise Ă jour Ă©conomique, Ă la page 20, elle montre que, d'ici 30 ans, le fĂ©dĂ©ral va rembourser sa dette au complet. Pendant ce temps-lĂ , le QuĂ©bec et les provinces vont quadrupler leurs dĂ©ficits d'ici 20 ans, Ă cause des coĂ»ts en santĂ©. Le QuĂ©bec s'Ă©trangle pendant que le fĂ©dĂ©ral prĂ©voit mĂȘme faire des profits. Maintenant que la ministre a prouvĂ© que c'est elle qui a l'argent pour investir en santĂ©, quand va-t-elle verser les 28 milliards de dollars dont on a besoin pour soigner les gens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our health care system is sick and the money we need to heal it is in Ottawa. The Minister of Finance herself proved it. On page 18 of her economic update, she shows that, in the next 30 years, the federal government will pay off its debt in full. Meanwhile, Quebec and the provinces will quadruple their deficits in the next 20 years because of health care costs. Quebec is drowning while the federal government expects to even make a profit. Now that the minister has proven that she is the one with the money to invest in health, when will she give us the $28 billion we need to take care of people?
The minister noted that this year the Canada Health Transfer provides $45.2 billion to provinces and territories, a 4.8% increase, and said increased funding must translate into results.
Provides the specific current Canada Health Transfer figure ($45.2 billion, up 4.8%) but does not address the $28 billion ask or the core fiscal imbalance argument grounded in the minister's own economic update.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cette année, le Transfert canadien en matiÚre de santé fournira aux provinces et aux territoires un soutien de 45,2 milliards de dollars, soit une augmentation de 4,8 %. Nous savons que notre systÚme de soins de santé est confronté à de réels défis. Nous allons continuer de travailler pour aider et appuyer notre systÚme de soins de santé. Mon collÚgue le ministre de la Santé a été clair: l'augmentation du financement doit se traduire...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this year, the Canada health transfer will provide the provinces and territories with $45.2 billion, an increase of 4.8%. We know that our health care system is facing real challenges. We will continue to work to help and support our health care system. My colleague, the Minister of Health, has been clear: increased funding must translate intoâ
Now that the minister has proven she has the fiscal room, why does she not act to address the underfunding of health care that leaves patients on waiting lists and in hospital corridors?
Uses rhetorical examples of healthcare suffering to reinforce the previous exchange's ask, but the question is more emotional appeal than specific ask and lacks new factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le fĂ©dĂ©ral se vante qu'il va rembourser toutes ses dettes, pendant qu'il laisse le QuĂ©bec se dĂ©battre avec les coĂ»ts en santĂ©. Pendant ce temps-lĂ , il y a des citoyens qui souffrent et qui sont sur des listes d'attente interminables. Il y a ceux qui ont peut-ĂȘtre le cancer, mais qui ne le savent pas parce qu'ils n'ont pas accĂšs Ă des mĂ©decins. Il y a ceux qui passent la nuit Ă l'hĂŽpital sur des civiĂšres dans des corridors parce qu'il n'y a pas de lit pour eux. La ministre n'est-elle pas tannĂ©e elle aussi du sous-financement en santĂ©? VoilĂ les consĂ©quences. N'est-elle pas aussi Ă©cĆurĂ©e que nous de voir tout cela? Maintenant qu'elle a prouvĂ© que c'est elle qui a la marge de manĆuvre, qu'est-ce qu'elle attend?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the federal government brags about how it is going to pay off all its debts while leaving Quebec to grapple with health care costs. In the meantime, suffering people are languishing on endless waiting lists. Some may have cancer and not know it because they do not have access to doctors. Some spend the night on a gurney in the hospital hallway because there are no beds for them. Is the minister not also fed up with health underfunding? These are the consequences. Is she not as weary as we are of seeing all this? Now that she has proven that she is the one with room to manoeuvre, what is she waiting for?
The minister agreed that health care challenges are real, noted Quebec received $10.1 billion in health transfers this year (up 4.8%), and called for continued collaboration.
Acknowledges the real challenges, provides Quebec's specific transfer figure ($10.1 billion, up 4.8%) but does not address the fiscal gap argument or the specific demand for increased transfers.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis d'accord avec mon honorable collÚgue pour dire que les défis dans les soins de santé du Canada et du Québec sont réels. Nous devons tous travailler ensemble pour aider les Canadiens et les Canadiennes, les Québécoises et les Québécois. Je veux souligner que, cette année, le Québec a reçu 10,1 milliards de dollars en santé. C'est une augmentation de 4,8 %. Nous devons continuer de travailler ensemble.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that the challenges in health care in Canada and Quebec are real. We must all work together to help Canadians and Quebeckers. I want to point out that this year, Quebec received $10.1 billion for health. That is a 4.8% increase. We must continue to work together.
Why do the Liberals put big company executives ahead of struggling families instead of tackling corporate greed at large grocery chains whose profits are growing at three times the inflation rate?
References Loblaws profits growing at three times the inflation rate as a factual hook, but the ask about why the Liberals prioritize corporate executives over struggling families is rhetorical and compound.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, partout au pays, les gens en arrachent. Tout coûte plus cher. Se nourrir devient un luxe. Pendant que les grandes épiceries augmentent leurs profits sans cesse, les libéraux et la Banque du Canada disent aux travailleurs que c'est à eux de se serrer la ceinture. Les salaires des travailleurs n'augmentent pas et Loblaws fait des profits trois fois supérieurs au taux de l'inflation. Cela n'a aucun sens. Les libéraux refusent toujours de s'attaquer à la cupidité des grandes compagnies. Pourquoi les libéraux font-ils passer les chefs d'entreprise avant les familles qui en arrachent?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, people across the country are struggling. Everything costs more. Food is becoming a luxury. While the big grocery stores' profits keep increasing, the Liberals and the Bank of Canada are telling working people that they are the ones who need to tighten their belts. Workers' wages are not going up and Loblaws is making profits at three times the rate of inflation. It makes no sense. The Liberals still refuse to address corporate greed. Why are the Liberals putting business owners ahead of families who are struggling?
The minister cited the 2% tax on share buybacks by public corporations, the 15% COVID recovery dividend on banks and insurance companies, and the luxury tax as evidence of ensuring everyone pays their fair share.
Lists three existing measures (2% share buyback tax, 15% COVID recovery dividend on banks and insurance companies, luxury tax) but does not address the specific concern about grocery company profits or the windfall tax ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre gouvernement s'est engagé à faire en sorte que tous les Canadiens paient leur juste part. C'est pourquoi nous avons mis en place une taxe de 2 % sur les rachats d'actions par les sociétés publiques. C'est pourquoi nous avons mis en place un dividende de la relance de 15 % que les banques et les compagnies d'assurance doivent payer. C'est pourquoi nous avons mis en place une taxe de luxe.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that all Canadians pay their fair share. That is why we introduced a 2% tax on share buybacks by public corporations. That is why we introduced a 15% recovery dividend that banks and insurance companies must pay. That is why we introduced a luxury tax.
When will the Liberals implement a windfall tax on big box stores and oil and gas companies, as other jurisdictions have done, given that grocery companies' profits are growing at three times the rate of inflation?
References other jurisdictions' windfall taxes as precedent and points to grocery company profits growing at three times the inflation rate, with a specific ask for a windfall tax on big box stores and oil and gas companies.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that when we are seeing Canadians struggling to buy groceries and we see the very same companies from which they are buying their groceries making profits that are growing at three times the rate of inflation, there is something seriously wrong with the economy that requires government intervention. We have seen other jurisdictions implement windfall taxes, not just on financial institutions but on big box stores and on oil and gas companies that are seeing record profits, and we want to see the same done here in Canada. When are the Liberals going to stop putting big corporations ahead of the needs of Canadians who are facing dire straits, and implement a windfall tax?
The minister cited the luxury tax on yachts, private jets and luxury cars, the 2% tax on share buybacks, and the 15% COVID recovery dividend on the largest banks and insurance companies as the government's measures to ensure fair taxation.
Repeats the same three existing measures from Exchange 8 (luxury tax, 2% share buyback tax, 15% COVID recovery dividend) without addressing the specific windfall tax ask on big box stores and oil and gas companies.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is absolutely committed to ensuring that everyone in Canada pays their fair share. That is why we have introduced a luxury tax on yachts, private jets and luxury cars. That is why we have introduced a 2% tax on share buybacks. That is why we have introduced a 15% COVID recovery dividend on the largest banks and insurance companies.
Will the finance minister cancel the planned tripling of taxes on groceries given 40-year highs in food inflation and the Parliamentary Budget Officer's finding that the government's claimed savings lack transparency?
References a PBO finding on transparency and cites a 40-year high in food inflation, but the ask about cancelling the 'cruel tripling of taxes on groceries' is framed in partisan language with a vague ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 40-year highs in Liberal food inflation are forcing more families into food banks than ever. Yesterday, the PBO said that the savings the Liberals are claiming are not transparent and have the finance minister looking more like Pinocchio. She is out to lunch while Canadians have to skip lunch. Will the finance minister show some compassion and cancel the cruel tripling of taxes on groceries?
The minister denied that a tripling of taxes is coming and accused the Conservatives of lacking compassion by voting against the Canada dental benefit, the Canada housing benefit, and child care.
Flatly denies that a tripling of taxes is coming and pivots to listing three measures Conservatives voted against (Canada dental benefit, Canada housing benefit, child care) without engaging the PBO transparency issue.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first of all, what my hon. colleague said is absolutely false. There is no tripling of taxes that is coming forward. When the Conservatives talk about compassion, they should look in the mirror. They have had several opportunities over the past couple of weeks to support families in need, whether it was the Canada dental benefit, which they voted against; whether it was the Canada housing benefit, which they voted against; or whether it was child care, which they voted against. They have had real opportunities to support Canadians, and at each opportunity they have not.
Why would anyone believe the Liberal government, given its record of failures across multiple portfolios?
A list of rhetorical accusations against multiple ministers with no specific facts or a real answerable question, functioning purely as a partisan speech.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, why would anyone take advice from the minister who broke Passport Canada and Service Canada, or an immigration minister who broke immigration, or a housing minister who broke housing, or a transport minister who broke our airports, or a finance minister who broke the banks of Canadians, or a Prime Minister who broke his promises and broke Canada? Why would anyone believe them? They should apologize for breaking Canada.
The minister accused Conservatives of not supporting Canadians, citing their votes against the Canada child benefit, the Canada dental benefit, and the Canada housing benefit.
Counters with a list of Liberal programs Conservatives voted against, which deflects from any substantive engagement but at least references specific programs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite like to pretend they support Canadians, but over the past seven years we have seen time and again that when there are actual opportunities for them to support hard-working Canadians, they do not. Instead of supporting Canadians through the Canada child benefit, which puts thousands of dollars into the pockets of lower-income families, they voted against it. Instead of supporting the Canada dental benefit, which is going to help low-income children access dental care, they voted against it. Instead of helping low-income renters with the Canada housing benefit, they voted against it. I am tired of their crocodile tears.
When will the Liberals stop their plan to triple the carbon tax and instead listen to struggling Canadians, including those paying three dollars a litre for diesel, $6,000 to heat their homes, or using food banks?
Cites specific figures (three dollars a litre for diesel, $6,000 home heating, 1.5 million food bank users in a single month) but the ask is broad and includes partisan framing about private jets and limousines.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal carbon tax is punishing Canadians. Has the Prime Minister spoken to anyone paying three dollars a litre to fill their truck with diesel, anyone out east who could pay $6,000 to heat their home this winter, or a single one of the 1.5 million Canadians who used the food bank in a single month? Of course not; it is private jets, limousines, $6,000 hotel rooms and $12,000 grocery bills for them. When will the Liberals join us in the real world, listen to struggling Canadians and stop their plan to triple the carbon tax?
The minister cited the heat dome, the atmospheric river in British Columbia, and hurricane Fiona as justification for the price on pollution as the best market mechanism to combat climate change.
Pivots entirely to climate change events (heat dome, atmospheric river, hurricane Fiona) as justification for the carbon tax without addressing the specific cost figures cited or the question of tripling.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if we want to level with Canadians, we just have to point to the heat dome two summers ago in Alberta, or the atmospheric river that fell on British Columbia, or hurricane Fiona, the worst natural disaster in this country's history. The best market mechanism to combat the existential threat of climate change is a price on pollution. The Conservatives do not like it. It is the responsible thing to do, and that is why we are doing it, to support Canadians and to support the planet.
When will the Liberals scrap their plan to triple the carbon tax, given that the Parliamentary Budget Officer says Canadians in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario pay more in carbon tax than they get back?
Cites the Parliamentary Budget Officer's finding that Albertans, Saskatchewanians, Manitobans and Ontarians pay more in carbon tax than they get back, and references a specific anecdote about diesel costs, making a focused ask about scrapping the tripling of the carbon tax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that the government has not hit a single environment target it has ever set. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who the Prime Minister himself chose, says that Canadians from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario pay more in carbon tax than they get back. He can tell his minister that cutting a Disney+ subscription will buy him a whole five litres of diesel. It might heat his home for a few hours this whole winter. I will ask this again. When will the Liberals join everyone in the real world, tell the truth, listen to struggling Canadians and scrap their plan to triple the carbon tax?
The parliamentary secretary referenced Lytton, B.C. burning to the ground at 50°C temperatures and accused the Conservatives of never mentioning climate change despite such disasters.
Pivots entirely to the story of the MP for MissionâMatsquiâFraser Canyon and Lytton, B.C. burning to the ground, attacking the Conservatives for not mentioning climate change â no engagement with the PBO finding or the specific tax question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the other day I listened to the MP for MissionâMatsquiâFraser Canyon, who spoke so eloquently about his community, especially the community of Lytton, B.C., which we all know burned to the ground. The temperatures reached 50°C in the worst environmental disaster, the worst climate catastrophe in our history, yet the words âclimate changeâ never come out of the hon. member's lips. They should stop this triple, triple, triple schtick and do something positive about climate change.
Can the Prime Minister commit to not increasing the carbon tax, given that it is the top recommendation from CFIB members and 94% of businesses cite transport and fuel cost increases as drivers of price increases?
Cites a specific CFIB survey with quantified findings (94% cite transport/fuel cost increases, 80% cite government costs, first recommendation is to stop carbon tax increases) and asks for a specific commitment not to increase the carbon tax.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, dans un récent sondage de la Fédération canadienne de l'entreprise indépendante, on apprend que 94 % des entreprises canadiennes et québécoises mentionnent que l'augmentation des prix est reliée au coût du transport et du carburant. De plus, 80 % des entreprises affirment que les coûts gouvernementaux comme les frais et les permis sont des facteurs importants de l'augmentation des prix. La premiÚre recommandation que donnent les membres de la Fédération au premier ministre est de stopper la hausse de la taxe sur le carbone. La Fédération le dit, et nous le disons aussi. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut s'engager à ne pas augmenter la taxe sur le carbone?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, according to a recent Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, survey, 94% of businesses in Canada and Quebec say that price increases are related to the cost of transportation and fuel. Furthermore, 80% of businesses say that government costs such as fees and permits have driven prices up significantly. CFIB members' first recommendation to the Prime Minister is to stop the carbon tax increase. That is what the CFIB says, and we agree. Will the Prime Minister commit to not increasing the carbon tax?
The parliamentary secretary cited the fall economic update's announcement on credit card fee reform to support small and medium-sized businesses.
Does not address the carbon tax question at all, instead pivoting to credit card fee reforms announced in the fall economic update â a partial topic match to the CFIB but a complete miss on the specific ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie le dĂ©putĂ© de cette question. Ce que nous avons entendu des groupes d'entreprises au Canada, et particuliĂšrement de la FĂ©dĂ©ration canadienne de l'entreprise indĂ©pendante, c'est qu'il faut appuyer nos petites et moyennes entreprises. Dans l'Ă©noncĂ© Ă©conomique de l'automne, nous avons annoncĂ© que nous allions nous pencher sur le systĂšme des cartes de crĂ©dit pour appuyer les petites et moyennes entreprises en diminuant les frais d'utilisation demandĂ©s par les grandes institutions et les grandes banques. Si la situation ne peut pas ĂȘtre rĂ©glĂ©e par la nĂ©gociation, nous prĂ©senterons un projet de loi. C'est de cette façon que nous appuyons les petites et moyennes entreprises ici au Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. What we have heard from business groups in Canada, including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, is that we have to support our small and medium-sized businesses. In the fall economic statement, we announced plans to work on the credit card system to support small and medium-sized businesses by lowering credit card transaction fees charged by big institutions and big banks. If we cannot negotiate a solution to this situation, we will introduce legislation. That is how we are supporting small and medium-sized businesses here in Canada.
Will the Prime Minister listen to Quebec businesses and commit to not increasing CPP and EI contributions and other planned federal taxes, given that 78% of SMEs with average debts of $150,000 feel persistent stress and 17% are considering closing permanently?
Cites specific CFIB survey data (78% of SMEs with average debts of $150,000 feel persistent stress, 17% considering closing permanently) and asks for a specific commitment not to increase CPP, EI, and other federal taxes.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est une des demandes de la FĂ©dĂ©ration canadienne de l'entreprise indĂ©pendante, mais il y a d'autres demandes Ă©galement. Sait-on que sur les 4 % des PME qui ont des dettes moyennes de 150 000 $, 78 % ressentent un stress persistant et 17 % pensent fermer dĂ©finitivement? Les petites et moyennes entreprises sont le cĆur de l'Ă©conomie canadienne et elles demandent clairement au premier ministre de ne pas augmenter les cotisations au RĂ©gime de pensions du Canada et Ă l'assurance-emploi, ainsi que les autres impĂŽts fĂ©dĂ©raux qui sont prĂ©vus. Est-ce que le premier ministre va ĂȘtre Ă l'Ă©coute des entrepreneurs et des entreprises du QuĂ©bec? Va-t-il les Ă©couter?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is one thing the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is calling for, but there are other things as well. Are members aware that of the 4% of SMEs with an average debt of $150,000, 78% are experiencing persistent stress and 17% are thinking of closing permanently? Small and medium-sized businesses are the heart of the Canadian economy, and they are clearly asking the Prime Minister to not increase Canada pension plan premiums and EI premiums, as well as other planned federal tax hikes. Will the Prime Minister listen to Quebec entrepreneurs and businesses? Will he listen to them?
The parliamentary secretary cited the investment tax credit for clean technologies, the union training and innovation program, and the government's stance on share buybacks as measures supporting small and medium-sized businesses.
Does not address the CPP, EI or federal tax commitments asked about, instead citing the investment tax credit for clean technologies, sustainable jobs program, and share buyback measures from the fall economic update.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les petites et moyennes entreprises nous ont parlé à plusieurs reprises de la question des chaßnes d'approvisionnement qui a été soulevée par le député d'en face. Ce que nous faisons a été annoncé dans l'énoncé économique de l'automne par la ministre des Finances. Elle a mentionné que nous allons appuyer nos petites et moyennes entreprises. We will, for example, use an investment tax credit for clean technologies. We will also ensure that there are new sustainable jobs under the union training and innovation program. The last part is critical to enterprises. What we are doing, by getting tough on share buybacks, is ensuring that people are supporting their employees and not their board of directors.
Why do the Liberals and NDP want to guarantee, through Bill C-13, that companies like Air Canada can continue to avoid French-language requirements in Quebec, as Air Canada has already announced it will do?
The question cites a specific individual (Michael Rousseau), a specific bill (C-13), and Air Canada's announced choice, making a pointed accountability ask, though it is framed heavily in rhetorical terms.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, rappelons-nous Michael Rousseau, le PDG d'Air Canada, fier d'avoir habitĂ© Ă MontrĂ©al toute sa vie sans parler français. Le projet de loi Câ13 lui assure de pouvoir continuer. Le projet de loi Câ13 offre le choix aux entreprises comme Air Canada. Elles peuvent se soumettre Ă la Charte de la langue française ou elles peuvent continuer Ă se dĂ©filer. Grosse surprise: Air Canada a annoncĂ© qu'elle choisit de se dĂ©filer grĂące au projet de loi Câ13. Pourquoi les libĂ©raux et le NPD veulent-ils garantir Ă tous les Michael Rousseau de ce monde qu'ils n'auront jamais besoin d'apprendre un mot de français pour travailler au QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let me remind everyone of Michael Rousseau, the CEO of Air Canada, who was proud to have lived his entire life in Montreal without having to speak French. Bill Câ13 will ensure that he can continue to go on as before. Bill Câ13 gives companies like Air Canada a choice. They can abide by the Charter of the French Language or they can continue ignoring it. Big surprise, Air Canada announced that it will not abide by it thanks to Bill Câ13. Why do the Liberals and the NDP want to assure all the Michael Rousseaus of this world that they will never have to learn a word of French to work in Quebec?
The parliamentary secretary accused the Bloc and Conservatives of spreading misinformation and asserted that C-13 will make companies like Air Canada promote and protect French, calling on the opposition to work together.
The parliamentary secretary dismisses the premise as 'fausses informations' and offers a generic assertion that C-13 will promote French, without addressing the specific claim that Air Canada announced it would not opt into the Charte de la langue française.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il est profondĂ©ment dĂ©cevant que le Bloc et les conservateurs continuent de faire circuler leurs fausses informations sur le projet de loi Câ13. Soyons clairs. Le projet de loi Câ13 fera en sorte que les entreprises comme Air Canada fassent preuve de leadership en matiĂšre de protection et de promotion du français pour que tous les Canadiens et les Canadiennes puissent travailler et se faire servir en français dans les entreprises au QuĂ©bec et ailleurs au Canada. J'espĂšre que le Bloc et les conservateurs seront Ă l'Ă©coute des intervenants et qu'ils commenceront Ă travailler avec nous pour protĂ©ger et promouvoir le français partout au Canada, y compris au QuĂ©bec.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is extremely disappointing that the Bloc and the Conservatives continue to spread misinformation about Bill C-13. Let us be clear. Bill Câ13 will ensure that companies like Air Canada show leadership on protecting and promoting French so that Canadians can work and be served in French at businesses in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. I hope that the Bloc and the Conservatives will listen to stakeholders and begin working with us to protect and promote French across Canada, including in Quebec.
Why are the Liberals and NDP using time allocation to push through Bill C-13 by December 1, effectively allowing Air Canada, CN, VIA Rail and other federally regulated companies to avoid the new Loi 101?
The question cites a specific December 1 deadline, names specific companies (Air Canada, CN, VIA Rail) that have not complied with the new Loi 101, and ties a specific legislative timeline (time allocation) to an identifiable outcome, making it reasonably factually grounded.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le QuĂ©bec a donnĂ© aux entreprises de compĂ©tence fĂ©dĂ©rale jusqu'au 1er dĂ©cembre pour adhĂ©rer Ă la nouvelle loi 101. Air Canada ne l'a pas fait, Ă©videmment, ni le CN, ni VIA Rail, ni bien d'autres. Ils attendent que le projet de loi Câ13 passe pour se dĂ©filer. Cela tombe bien. Les libĂ©raux et le NPD veulent imposer un bĂąillon sur le projet de loi Câ13 pour finir les dĂ©bats le 1er dĂ©cembre. Quelle coĂŻncidence! Michael Rousseau devrait se prendre un billet de 6/49. SĂ©rieusement, pourquoi les libĂ©raux et le NPD magouillent-ils pour laisser ces entreprises continuer Ă angliciser le QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Quebec has given federally regulated businesses until December 1 to comply with the new Bill 101. Unsurprisingly, Air Canada has not complied, and neither have CN, Via Rail and many others. They are waiting for Bill Câ13 to pass so they can be off the hook. That works out well. The Liberals and the NDP want to impose closure on Bill Câ13 to end the debate on December 1. What a coincidence. Michael Rousseau should buy a lottery ticket. Seriously, why are the Liberals and the NDP scheming to allow these businesses to keep anglicizing Quebec?
The parliamentary secretary accused the Conservatives and Bloc of spreading misinformation and of obstructing Bill C-13 in committee and the House, and said the government would focus on protecting and promoting French.
The parliamentary secretary repeats the 'fausses informations' accusation and blames the opposition for obstruction without addressing the specific companies' non-compliance, the December 1 deadline, or the time allocation question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, il est décevant que les conservateurs et le Bloc...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, again, it is disappointing that the Conservatives and the Blocâ
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, encore une fois, il est dĂ©cevant que les conservateurs et le Bloc fassent circuler de fausses informations sur le projet de loi Câ13. Ce sont les conservateurs et le Bloc qui font obstacle au projet de loi au ComitĂ© permanent des langues officielles et qui veulent empĂȘcher le projet de loi d'avancer Ă la Chambre des communes, comme ils l'ont fait le 12 mai. Pour prendre parti, il faut arrĂȘter de jouer Ă des jeux politiques. Nous allons nous concentrer sur la protection et la promotion du français partout au Canada, y compris au QuĂ©bec.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, again, it is disappointing that the Conservatives and the Bloc are spreading misinformation on Bill Câ13. The Conservatives and the Bloc are the ones putting up barriers to the bill at the Standing Committee on Official Languages and preventing it from moving forward in the House of Commons, as they did on May 12. If they are going to take sides they need to stop playing politics. We are going to focus on protecting and promoting French throughout Canada, including in Quebec.
Who are the 11 election candidates who received hundreds of thousands of dollars funnelled by Beijing through its Toronto consulate in the 2019 election, and what is the government hiding?
The question is highly specific: it names the number of candidates (11), the alleged source of funds (Beijing through its Toronto consulate), the election year (2019), the dollar magnitude (hundreds of thousands), and the context of the Prime Minister's conversation with President Xi, with a single clear ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is refusing to answer a very simple question: Who are the 11 election candidates who, in the 2019 election, received hundreds of thousands of dollars funnelled by Beijing through its Toronto consulate? Yesterday, the Prime Minister talked to President Xi about these 11 candidates, but the government and the Prime Minister have yet to tell the House who these 11 candidates are. What are they hiding?
The parliamentary secretary said foreign interference is a threat to democracy and implored all members to stand together against it, without addressing the identity of the 11 candidates.
The parliamentary secretary offers only generic statements about foreign interference being a threat to democracy and calls for unity, completely ignoring the specific ask of identifying the 11 candidates.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, any kind of foreign interference is a threat to our democracy. We must stand together. It is a threat to every single member of the House, and I implore the members on the other side to stand together with all members of the House to fight foreign interference, whose only goal is to sow chaos and destroy our democracy. We will never tolerate it.
Who are the 11 candidates who received illicit funds from Beijing, are any of them members of the House, and will any of them be candidates in the next federal election?
The follow-up sharpens the ask further by asking whether the 11 candidates are current members of the House or prospective candidates in the next election, adding important accountability dimensions while citing the government's years-long inaction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been asking for years for a plan from the government to combat Beijing's meddling in our democracy, but it has failed to act, and now we have a situation where candidates are receiving illicit funds from Beijing funnelled through its Toronto consulate. Canadians deserve answers. Who are these candidates? Are they members of the House? Are they going to be candidates in the next federal election? Again, who are these 11 election candidates?
Oh, oh!
The parliamentary secretary repeated that foreign interference is an attack on every member of the House and the fabric of democracy, and said national security agencies continue to monitor and react to threats.
The parliamentary secretary again provides only boilerplate about foreign interference sowing chaos and national security agencies monitoring threats, entirely ignoring the specific questions about who the candidates are and their current status.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again I will suggest that we need to step back and remember what is motivating foreign interference. Foreign interference is designed to sow chaos and destroy every fabric of our democracy. We are taking actionâ
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the hon. members do not want to hear the answer to that question. Foreign interference is an attack on every single member of the House. It is an attack on the very fabric of our democracy. We must stand together. We must stand as one against any kind of foreign interference. Our national security agencies continue to monitor and react to threats from foreign bad actors. Canadians expect us to work together on this and to stand united against foreign interference.
The Prime Minister was briefed in January on the names of the 11 candidates allegedly funded by the Communist regime in Beijing â why does he want to protect those names and what is he covering up?
The question is specific in citing that the Prime Minister was informed in January of the names of the 11 candidates and asks directly why he wants to protect those names, though it carries some rhetorical framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis déçu et dĂ©sappointĂ© que le gouvernement refuse de dĂ©voiler les noms des 11 candidats qui auraient Ă©tĂ© financĂ©s par le rĂ©gime communiste de PĂ©kin. C'est la rĂ©alitĂ©. La maniĂšre d'arrĂȘter le chaos et de ne pas le faire, c'est d'ĂȘtre transparent avec les Canadiens, d'ĂȘtre ouvert et de dire la vĂ©ritĂ©. Le premier ministre a Ă©tĂ© informĂ© en janvier des noms des 11 candidats qui auraient Ă©tĂ© financĂ©s par le rĂ©gime communiste de PĂ©kin. Pourquoi veut-il protĂ©ger les noms de ces candidats? Qu'est-ce que le premier ministre veut couvrir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed that the government is refusing to disclose the names of the 11 candidates who allegedly received funding from the communist regime in Beijing. That is the reality. The only way to stop the chaos and to not create chaos is to be open and transparent with Canadians and to tell the truth. The Prime Minister was informed in January of the names of the 11 candidates who allegedly received funding from the communist regime in Beijing. Why does he want to protect the names of those candidates? What is the Prime Minister trying to hide?
The minister said the matter requires sticking to the facts and warned against politicizing questions of democracy and foreign interference, inviting colleagues not to play games on such important issues.
The minister says transparency is important but warns against politicizing the issue, without addressing why the names have not been disclosed or acknowledging the January briefing claim.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie le collÚgue de sa question. J'ai énormément de respect pour lui, mais je pense que, sur des questions comme celle-là , il faut s'en tenir aux faits. Je pense qu'il est dangereux de politiser une question comme celle-là . On parle de la démocratie, on parle d'interférence étrangÚre. J'inviterais mes collÚgues de l'autre cÎté de la Chambre à ne pas jouer à des jeux sur ces questions, qui sont trÚs importantes pour tous les Canadiens et les Canadiennes qui nous regardent aujourd'hui.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have a great deal of respect for him, but I think that we need to stick to the facts on issues like this one. I think it is dangerous to politicize an issue like this. We are talking about democracy and about foreign interference. I would invite my colleagues opposite not to play politics on these matters, which are very important to all the Canadians who are watching us today.
Given that no one was prosecuted after Beijing's 2019 network of candidates and that the regime repeated its interference in 2021, what are the Liberals hiding about their failure to send a clear message against foreign interference?
The question makes a substantive argument â that inaction after 2019 emboldened Beijing to interfere again in 2021 with no prosecutions and no clear message â and asks what the Liberals have to hide, though it is framed more rhetorically than Exchange 20.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la transparence, ce n'est pas un jeu. Nous avons été informés que, en 2019, un réseau clandestin de candidats avait été financé par le régime communiste de Pékin. Le gouvernement n'a rien fait. En 2021, voyant qu'il n'y avait aucun obstacle, le régime communiste de Pékin a recommencé en influençant encore les élections. Le résultat, c'est que personne n'a été poursuivi, que personne n'a été condamné et qu'on n'a aucunement envoyé le message clair au régime communiste de Pékin qu'on ne tolérera jamais aucune ingérence étrangÚre dans nos élections. C'est le fondement de notre démocratie. Qu'est-ce que les libéraux ont à cacher?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, transparency is not a game. We have been informed that the communist regime in Beijing funded a clandestine network of candidates in 2019. The government did nothing. In 2021, seeing no obstacles in its way, the communist regime in Beijing went right back to influencing elections. No one was prosecuted, and no one was convicted. A clear message needs to be sent to the communist regime in Beijing: We will never tolerate foreign interference in our elections. This is the foundation of our democracy. What do the Liberals have to hide?
The minister agreed that transparency is necessary, said all parliamentarians oppose foreign interference, and promised the government would act accordingly, but did not address the lack of prosecutions or the 2021 recurrence.
The minister agrees transparency is important and says all parliamentarians oppose foreign interference, but deflects from the specific accountability question about inaction and the lack of prosecutions.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous sommes tout à fait d'accord que, dans une question comme celle-là , la transparence est de mise. Par contre, je devrais dire à mon collÚgue que, des deux cÎtés de la Chambre, nous n'accepterons jamais une interférence étrangÚre dans notre démocratie. Tous les parlementaires ici sont d'accord sur cette question. Nous allons agir en conséquence. J'inviterais chacun des députés de la Chambre à ne pas ramener la politique dans une question aussi fondamentale que la démocratie au Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we fully agree that transparency is required on an issue like this. However, I should point out to my colleague that neither side of the House will ever accept foreign interference in our democracy. All parliamentarians here agree on that point. We will act on it. I would urge every member of the House not to politicize an issue as fundamental as democracy in Canada.
With McMaster Children's Hospital at 140% capacity, wait times over 12 hours, and shortages of cribs and infusion pumps, will the government take immediate action to ensure children get the emergency medical care they need?
The question cites specific facts â McMaster Children's Hospital at 140% capacity, 12-hour wait times, shortages of cribs and infusion pumps â and makes a clear ask for immediate federal action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, provincial health care systems across the country are collapsing. Pediatric emergency rooms are being overwhelmed and wait times are more than 12 hours. In Hamilton, McMaster Children's Hospital is currently at 140% capacity and there is a shortage of cribs and infusion pumps. Children are suffering and parents are terrified, so will the government take immediate action now so that children get the emergency medical care they so desperately need?
The parliamentary secretary called the wait times inexcusable and the drug shortage unacceptable, attributed the crisis to a bad flu season, and encouraged Canadians to get vaccinated and stay home when sick â but offered no specific federal action.
The parliamentary secretary acknowledges the concerns and concedes wait times are 'inexcusable' and the drug shortage 'unacceptable,' but pivots to public health messaging about vaccines rather than outlining any specific federal emergency action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we share the deep concerns of my colleague and parents across this country. These wait times are inexcusable. The shortage of drugs is unacceptable. We must do more, particularly for children in our ridings. Right now, we have a really, really bad flu season. Right now, parents are going through this because the cold and flu are rearing their ugly heads. As we see an increase in these types of illnesses, we should all be protecting ourselves and those around us, so I encourage everybody to make sure they are up to date on vaccines and do everything they can. If they do not feel good, stay home.
Given Canada's ranking of 58 out of 63 countries on climate action at COP27, when will the Liberals stop giving billions in subsidies to big oil and gas and own up to their climate failure?
The question cites a specific ranking (58 out of 63 countries at COP27) and names specific concerns about subsidies to big oil, making a pointed ask, though it combines substantive critique with rhetorical framing about 'climate failure.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, people are worried about the climate crisis, especially since Canada just received embarrassingly low marks for climate action at COP27, scoring 58 out of 63 countries. Only Russia, South Korea, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia and Iran ranked lower. While people are losing their jobs, homes and lives during heat waves, flooding and forest fires, the Liberals keep handing out subsidies to big oil, breaking climate target after climate target. When will the Liberals own up to their climate failure and stop giving away billions to big oil and gas?
The parliamentary secretary acknowledged the report's general conclusion that more must be done, cited $9.1 billion in the emissions reduction plan, a 40%-45% reduction target by 2030, methane cuts, elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, and a cap on oil and gas emissions.
The parliamentary secretary acknowledges the ranking, agrees more must be done, and lists several specific policy measures and a dollar figure ($9.1 billion), though he does not address the specific subsidies-to-big-oil allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the report the hon. member mentions did not take into account some of our most recent action, but we agree with the general conclusion that we need to do more. That is why we are investing $9.1 billion in our emissions reduction plan. We have an ambitious plan to get to a 40% to 45% reduction in emissions by 2030. We are cutting methane emissions, we are eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, we are capping emissions on oil and gas and we are investing heavily in the clean economy.
Can the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion tell the House about the government's plan to build more affordable housing for Canadians?
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to describe the government's housing plan with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know that building more affordable housing must continue to be a priority, especially now as we see so many struggling to find the housing they need. I see how great the need is in my riding of Surrey Centre, and the same is true in so many parts of this country. Can the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion please tell the House about the government's plan to build more affordable housing for Canadians?
The minister announced a $78 million investment in Ottawa to create 271 new rental units prioritizing women, children, indigenous people and families, delivered through surplus federal lands via the federal lands initiative.
The minister provides specific information: a $78 million investment in Ottawa, 271 new rental units, priority populations identified, and the mechanism (federal lands initiative), making it a substantive answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his strong advocacy on this really important issue. Our government continues to recognize that making sure we have access to safe and affordable housing remains a priority. Just this week, I announced $78 million in an investment in Ottawa to create 271 new rental units. This will prioritize women and children, indigenous people and families so they can access safe and affordable housing. It is being done through surplus federal lands provided through the federal lands initiative. This is the national housing strategy at work.
With gas home heating costs expected to increase by 100% this winter and six out of 10 Canadian families heating with natural gas, why are the Liberals insisting on tripling the carbon tax and further punishing Canadians for heating their homes?
The question cites a specific statistic (gas home heating costs expected to increase by 100%, six out of 10 families heat with natural gas) and references the planned tripling of the carbon tax, though it closes with rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this winter is likely to be as cold, punishing and long as the last winter. This is very bad news for Canadian families, because we have heard that gas home heating costs are expected to increase by 100%. Six out of 10 Canadian families heat their homes with natural gas. That means there will be hundreds if not thousands of dollars more spent on home heating bills this winter by Canadian families. It is only going to be made worse by the Liberals, who are going to triple the carbon tax. Why are they so insistent on punishing Canadians for heating their homes?
The parliamentary secretary cited the Parliamentary Budget Officer's conclusion that eight out of 10 families will be better off under the carbon tax and argued that climate inaction costs Canada $20 billion a year.
The parliamentary secretary cites the Parliamentary Budget Officer's finding that eight out of 10 families will be better off and adds a cost-of-climate-inaction figure ($20 billion/year), which is partially relevant but does not address the specific home heating cost increase claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my hon. colleague from Winnipeg that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has weighed in on this many times. Eight out of 10 families will be better off. The other thing the Parliamentary Budget Officer says is that the tab for climate destruction in this country is $20 billion a year. Members have heard me talk about Lytton and the floods in Manitoba. We cannot afford these climate disasters. The Conservatives are doing absolutely nothing about them.
Given that Canada spent over $100 billion on climate change and ranked 58 out of 63 countries at COP27, will the Liberals axe the carbon tax so Canadian families can afford to live?
The question cites $100 billion in climate spending and the COP27 ranking of 58 out of 63 countries, making some factual grounding, but combines these with partisan framing and an ask to 'axe the carbon tax' that is more of a demand than a targeted accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have spent over $100 billion on climate change, and their carbon tax has increased the cost of food, home heating and gas. Things are getting worse than ever before. Inflation is at a 40-year high. Now we are finding out that Canada, with all this spending and all these taxes, is ranked 58 out of 63 countries in the world on the climate change performance index by COP27. We are at the bottom of the barrel on climate change. The Liberals do not have a climate change plan. They have a tax plan. When will they axe the carbon tax so that Canadian families can afford to live?
The minister said the carbon tax puts more money in the pockets of Canadian households and listed instances where the Conservatives voted against Liberal policies that benefited families, without addressing the COP27 ranking.
The minister deflects by criticizing the member's preamble and pivoting to a series of past Conservative votes against Liberal measures, without addressing the COP27 ranking or the home heating cost issue raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I find it revealing that in the preamble to the hon. member's question, she seemed to criticize us for making serious investments in climate change. It should come as no surprise, though, that the Conservatives oppose our measures, because she knows very well that the policy we have advanced actually puts more money in the pockets of Canadian households. I am not surprised that they are opposing it, because at every instance since 2015, they have opposed measures that actually leave ordinary families better off. When we raised taxes on the wealthiest to give a tax break to the middle class, the Conservatives voted against it. When we stopped sending child care cheques to millionaires to put more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families, they voted against it. Now, when we are charging people for pollution and giving that money directly to families, they oppose that too.
Given that the housing crisis has worsened since the 2017 'life-changing plan,' why did the minister give $48 million in bonuses to housing bureaucrats for a job not done?
The question cites a specific claim (the 'life-changing plan' quote from 2017), a specific dollar figure ($48 million in bonuses), and holds the minister to the worsening housing crisis, making it a reasonably specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister broke his promise to Canadians. In 2017, he launched his national housing strategy, calling it, among other things, a âlife-changing planâ to get Canadians into homes and to keep them there. The minister even recently gave housing bureaucrats $48 million in bonuses for a job well done, but we all know the housing crisis has gotten worse under the government. Will the minister please explain to the House and to Canadians why he gave $48 million in bonuses to bureaucrats for a job not done?
The minister stated that the government does not determine compensation rates for an independent Crown corporation, then attacked the Conservative leader as the 'biggest gatekeeper' and listed Conservative votes against housing measures.
The minister says the government does not determine compensation for an independent Crown corporation (a partial factual response) but then pivots entirely to attacking the Conservative leader and listing Conservative votes against housing measures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is yet another example of playing ignorance when they know better. We do not determine the compensation rates for an independent Crown corporation. Perhaps the member has the courage to talk to his leader so he stops being the biggest gatekeeper and supports housing for Canadians. When we introduced legislation to delivery much-needed rental supports to Canadians, what did that side do? They opposed it. When we presented plans to invest in rapid housing solutions for the most vulnerable, they opposed it. That is their record and they cannot get away from it.
With the Auditor General having just reported that the government spent so much to deliver so little, why did the minister give $48 million in bonuses to federal housing gatekeepers while tent cities grow and more Canadians are left out in the cold?
The question references the Auditor General's findings from the previous day and again presses on the $48 million in bonuses, tying it to visible homelessness outcomes (tent cities), making it a reasonably grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Auditor General laid the facts bare for all Canadians. Never, ever has a government spent so much to deliver so little. Canadians see the results. They see the tent cities growing all across this country. Can the minister please explain to the House and to every single Canadian who cannot find a home right now why the government would give $48 million in bonuses to federal housing gatekeepers while more and more Canadians get left out in the cold?
Oh, oh!
The minister attacked the Conservative leader as the 'biggest gatekeeper,' cited statistics about 62,000 people prevented from entering homelessness, 32,000 housed, and 10,250 homes delivered through the rapid housing initiative, without addressing the bonuses.
The minister again deflects entirely to criticizing the Conservative leader and listing statistics about government housing programs without addressing the $48 million bonus question or the Auditor General's findings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member took that same level of advocacy to his leader, who has been the biggest gatekeeper in this House against supports for Canadian first-time homebuyers, against supports for rapid housing initiatives in communities facing homelessness, against supports for 64 different community entities to reduce and prevent homelessnessâ
Mr. Speaker, they are living up to their record, but when someone actually states their true record on this side of the House, they have a problem listening to it, but those are the facts. When it is first-time home buyers saving up to $40,000 in a tax-free savings account, they vote against it. When it is providing more supports to communities facing homelessness through the pandemic by preventing 62,000 people from entering homelessness and providing permanent solutions for 32,000 Canadians experiencing homelessness, they vote against. The rapid housing initiative has delivered 10,250 deeply affordable homes; they voted against that.
With ExxonMobil, BP, Equinor and QPI winning offshore exploration permits and committing $238 million encouraged by the abolition of federal environmental assessments, how many more Bay du Nord projects will the government authorize?
The question cites specific facts â oil exploration permit auction results naming ExxonMobil, BP, Equinor and QPI, a $238 million investment commitment, and the abolition of federal environmental assessments â and asks how many more Bay du Nord-type projects will be authorized.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en pleine COP27, les grands gagnants ont Ă©tĂ© dĂ©voilĂ©s. Je parle malheureusement des gagnants des enchĂšres pour les permis d'exploration pĂ©troliĂšre en pleine mer au large de TerreâNeuve. Les laurĂ©ats sont: ExxonMobil, BP, Equinor et la compagnie d'Ătat du Qatar, QPI. EncouragĂ©s par l'abolition des Ă©valuations environnementales par le fĂ©dĂ©ral, ils ont promis d'investir pas moins de 238 millions de dollars pour trouver du pĂ©trole. Ă 238 millions de dollars, pas besoin de dire qu'ils comptent bien en trouver, du pĂ©trole. Combien d'autres Bay du Nord le gouvernement va-t-il leur autoriser?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with COP27 in full swing, the big winners have been revealed. Unfortunately, I am talking about the winners of the bidding process for oil exploration licences in Newfoundland's offshore. The winners are ExxonMobil, BP, Equinor and the Qatar state-owned company, QPI. Incentivized by the federal government's decision to eliminate environmental assessments, they have promised to invest no less than $238 million to find oil. If they are willing to invest $238 million, needless to say, they expect to find oil. How many more Bay du Nord projects does Ottawa plan to authorize?
The parliamentary secretary clarified that the bid process does not authorize production activities, and that any proposed production would be subject to the Impact Assessment Act, the climate plan, and a net-zero requirement by 2050.
The parliamentary secretary clarifies that the bid process does not authorize production activities, states that any proposed production would be subject to the Impact Assessment Act and net-zero requirements by 2050, which directly addresses the authorization question, though she does not answer the 'how many more' ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je veux clarifier que le processus d'appel d'offres n'autorise pas en soi les activités de production dans la zone extracÎtiÚre. Je tiens à préciser que toute proposition de production dans les zones visées serait d'abord soumise à la Loi sur l'évaluation d'impact, qu'elle devrait s'inscrire dans le cadre de notre plan climatique et offrir le meilleur rendement en matiÚre d'émissions, y compris un rendement net nul d'ici 2050. Ce sont seulement des offres d'exploration, ce ne sont pas des permis.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that the bidding process does not in itself authorize production activities in the offshore area. I would also point out that any proposal for production within the boundaries would first and foremost be subject to the Impact Assessment Act, would have to fit within the framework of our climate plan and would have to offer the best emissions performance, including net-zero emissions by 2050. These are merely licence bids for exploration, not the actual licences.
With no heads of state confirmed for COP15 in Montreal, is the lack of credibility on biodiversity due to Canada approving oil exploration drilling in a marine protected area where fishing is banned?
The question makes a specific and pointed argument â that Canada is allowing oil drilling in a marine protected area where fishing is banned, undermining its credibility to host COP15 on biodiversity â with an implicit accountability ask, though it is framed more as an argument than a single clear question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au mĂȘme moment, le Canada rĂ©itĂšre son invitation Ă MontrĂ©al pour la COP15 sur la biodiversitĂ©. Or, Ă trois semaines de l'Ă©vĂ©nement, aucun chef d'Ătat n'a confirmĂ© sa prĂ©sence. Ăvidemment, tous les pays voient bien que le Canada approuve des forages d'exploration pĂ©troliĂšre dans une zone marine protĂ©gĂ©e. Le Canada ne permet mĂȘme pas de pĂȘcher lĂ pour protĂ©ger la biodiversitĂ©, mais il permet de dĂ©foncer le fond marin pour trouver du pĂ©trole. Si pas grand monde veut venir Ă la COP15, c'est peut-ĂȘtre parce qu'n trouve que, comme pour la lutte contre les changements climatiques, le Canada n'a aucune crĂ©dibilitĂ© en matiĂšre de biodiversitĂ©.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, at the same time, Canada once again extended an invitation to COP15 on biodiversity being held in Montreal. The event is three weeks away and not one head of state has confirmed their attendance. Obviously, all countries are quite aware that Canada is approving oil exploration drilling in a marine protected area. Canada does not even allow fishing in those areas to protect biodiversity, yet it allows companies to bore through the ocean floor to find oil. If not all that many people are interested in attending COP15, it may be because they believe that Canada has no credibility on biodiversity, as is the case with the fight against climate change.
The parliamentary secretary said Canada is proud of its biodiversity work and COP15 hosting role, committed that the northeast Newfoundland slope marine refuge will remain a refuge, and reiterated that the bid process does not authorize production.
The parliamentary secretary says the refuge will remain a refuge, commits to examining exploration activities on a case-by-case basis, and reiterates that the bid process does not authorize production, providing some relevant information but not addressing the credibility concern or the specific contradiction raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous sommes trĂšs fiers de notre travail en matiĂšre de biodiversitĂ© et nous sommes fiers d'ĂȘtre lĂ pour la COP15 Ă MontrĂ©al. Je vais ĂȘtre claire: le refuge marin du talus nordâest de TerreâNeuve restera un refuge dans les conditions actuelles et nous examinerons toutes les activitĂ©s d'exploration dans un refuge marin au cas par cas. Comme je l'ai dit, le processus d'appel d'offres n'autorise pas d'activitĂ©s de production ou de dĂ©veloppement dans la zone extracĂŽtiĂšre. Toute production proposĂ©e dans la zone serait d'abord soumise Ă la Loi sur l'Ă©valuation d'impact.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our work on biodiversity and we are proud to be at COP15 in Montreal. I will be clear. The Northeast Newfoundland Slope marine refuge will remain a refuge under current conditions, and we will examine all exploration activities in the refuge on a case-by-case basis. As I said, the tendering process does not authorize offshore production or development activities. Any proposed production offshore would first be subject to the Impact Assessment Act.
Jeneroux asks whether the Prime Minister will stop inflationary spending and stop raising taxes, using the Disney+ comment as evidence of being out of touch.
The question references the Disney+ comment as a concrete anecdote but the ask is a vague compound demand to stop inflationary spending and stop raising taxes, with no specific measure cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, grocery prices continue to soar, and gas prices are hitting a record high. That means parents cannot afford to pay their bills and feed their kids, and they are terrified where the next paycheque will come from. The Liberals' answer to this is âJust cancel your $13-a-month Disney+ subscription.â That is how out of touch the Prime Minister truly is. Will the Prime Minister stop his inflationary spending and stop raising taxes?
Boissonnault deflects to criticizing the Conservative leader's crypto advice and lists government support measures including the GST credit, student loans, housing top-up, child care and dental care.
The minister lists several measures (GST credit doubling, student loan interest, $500 housing top-up, child care, dental care) but does not address the Disney+ comment or the specific ask about spending and taxes, pivoting instead to criticizing the Conservative leader's crypto advice.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians are going through a tough time. We are all in a global inflationary cycle. We are not going to take any lessons from the member opposite, whose leader advised Canadians to invest in crypto as a hedge against inflation. That was totally irresponsible and totally reckless. It would have ruined people's savings. I can tell members that the compassionate approach is to double the GST credit, to permanently eliminate interest on student loans, to make sure that $500 top-ups go to people who need it for housing, to cut child care fees in half and to provide dental care to half a million kids. That is the compassionate and responsible thing to do. It is what we are doing.
Jeneroux cites Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem's statement that inflation increasingly reflects domestic conditions and asks why the minister will not acknowledge homegrown inflation, and again asks the government to stop inflationary spending and raising taxes.
The question cites a specific statement from Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem and references Mark Carney's position, giving it factual grounding, but the ask remains the same vague compound demand as the previous exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, even future Liberal leader Mark Carney has confirmed that inflation is homegrown. Why will the minister not? Inflation has reached the highest rate in four decades, and now Bank of Canada governor, Tiff Macklem, has stated that increasingly the inflation we are seeing in Canada reflects what is going on in Canada. Canadians cannot continue to afford this NDP and Liberal coalition. Will the Prime Minister stop his inflationary spending and stop raising taxes?
Boissonnault argues that CERB recipients and pandemic-supported businesses did not cause inflation and points to higher inflation in Germany, the EU, the UK, Australia and the United States as evidence.
The minister does not engage with the Macklem or Carney citations and instead deflects to CERB recipients, pandemic business supports, and international inflation comparisons, never addressing why the governor's statement is wrong.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, moms in Riverbend who received the CERB did not cause inflation nor did businesses that received supports during the pandemic cause inflation. If our investments in Canadians had caused inflation, we would be the only country in the world with inflation. Germany, the EU, the U.K., Australia and the United States all have higher inflation. What are we doing on this side? We are investing in supporting Canadians who need the support when they need it the most. The Conservatives do not like it and Canadians do. That is why we are doing what we are doing.
Vien argues that Liberal-caused inflation is impoverishing Canadians who must choose between food, housing and transportation, and asks the Liberals to renounce their planned tax and fee increases.
The question is largely rhetorical partisan framing about 'inflation libérale' with vivid anecdotes but no specific measure or data cited, and the ask is a vague demand to renounce tax hikes.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'inflation libérale est causée par les libéraux. Elle appauvrit les Canadiens, qui doivent choisir entre se nourrir, se loger ou se déplacer. Cette crise libérale fait mal à tout le monde. Certains sautent des repas. Des travailleurs fréquentent les banques alimentaires. Des étudiants se réfugient dans des refuges. Insensibles à tout cela, les libéraux pigent encore dans le portefeuille des Canadiens pour payer leur gùchis. Peuvent-ils faire la seule chose qui est raisonnable et renoncer à augmenter les taxes et les impÎts?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals caused the Liberal inflation that is impoverishing Canadians, who have to choose between putting food on the table, keeping a roof over their heads and getting around. This Liberal crisis is hurting everyone. Some people are skipping meals. Workers are using food banks. Students are staying in shelters. The Liberals do not care about any of that and are still reaching into Canadians' wallets to pay for their mess. Will the Liberals do the only sensible thing and cancel their plans to raise taxes?
Gould rejects the premise, notes Canada's inflation is lower than the United States and the European Union, and states the government has supported Canadians while Conservatives voted against those supports.
Gould dismisses the premise, cites Canada's lower inflation versus the United States and the European Union, and accuses Conservatives of voting against Canadians, without addressing any specific tax measure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just because the Conservatives repeat something three times does not make it true. Let us focus on the facts. When it comes to supporting Canadians, on this side of the House we have been there, and the Conservatives have voted against supporting Canadians every step of the way. When it comes to inflation, Canada is lower than the United States, it is lower than the European Union, and it is lower than many other countries in the world. That does not mean it is an easy time for Canadians right now, but we are there to support them. We are continuing to do that, and we hope the Conservatives would join us if they truly cared about Canadians.
Weiler asks what the government is doing to ensure Canadians, particularly workers, families and the most vulnerable, have access to housing in urban centres.
This is a government-backbench softball asking broadly what the government is doing on housing, with no specific accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, de nombreux Canadiens, en particulier les travailleurs, les familles et les personnes les plus vulnérables, ont de plus en plus de mal à trouver un logement dans de nombreux centres urbains du Canada. Ottawa n'est pas à l'abri de cette tendance. La présidente du Conseil du Trésor peut-elle dire à la Chambre ce que notre gouvernement fait pour s'assurer que les Canadiens ont un logement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians, particularly workers, families and the most vulnerable, are finding it increasingly difficult to find housing in many of Canada's urban centres. Ottawa is no exception. Can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House what our government is doing to ensure that Canadians have a roof over their heads?
Fortier announces that the previous Monday the government announced the construction of 271 affordable units in OttawaâVanier for families, women, youth and Indigenous peoples.
Fortier provides a concrete announcement â 271 affordable units in OttawaâVanier announced the previous Monday â which constitutes a specific, verifiable piece of information, though the scope is narrow.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je veux remercier mon collĂšgue de son travail acharnĂ© et de son importante question. Lundi dernier, dans OttawaâVanier, la rĂ©gion de la capitale nationale, nous avons annoncĂ© la construction de 271 unitĂ©s abordables pour les familles de notre rĂ©gion. Quelle bonne nouvelle! Nous faisons des investissements pour aider les femmes, les jeunes et les peuples autochtones pour qu'ils puissent avoir un lieu sĂ»r et abordable dans notre rĂ©gion.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his hard work and his important question. On Monday, in OttawaâVanier, in the national capital region, we announced the construction of 271 affordable housing units for families in our area. What great news. We are making investments to help give women, youth and indigenous peoples a safe and affordable place to live in our region.
Lawrence asks whether the Liberals will show compassion by cutting their planned tax hikes on gas, groceries and home heating, framing it around parents facing a difficult winter.
The question uses a seasonal anecdote to frame the home heating and grocery affordability issue but does not cite any specific data, measure, or prior commitment, and the ask is the same vague compound demand repeated across exchanges.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this morning the first snowfall arrived in my riding, and the children were out playing, making snowmen and throwing snowballs. However, the snow unfortunately served as a harsh reminder of the difficult winter to come and the challenges parents will face as they decide whether they pay for home heating or they pay for groceries. Will the Liberals finally show some compassion and cut their planned tax hikes on gas, groceries and home heating?
Boissonnault says the government reduced taxes on no less than five occasions and lists measures Conservatives voted against, including the Canada child benefit, middle-class tax cuts, small business tax reductions, the $15 minimum wage and dental care.
Boissonnault lists five instances where the government reduced taxes and notes Conservative votes against each, but never names the planned tax hikes referenced in the question or explains how they affect home heating or groceries.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on no less than five occasions the Liberal government reduced taxes on Canadians, and every single time the Conservatives voted against it. What did they vote against? They voted against the Canada child benefit, cutting taxes on the middle class, reducing taxes on small businesses and reducing taxes on workers. They voted against the $15 minimum wage. When they had a chance to support half a million kids to get dental care for the first time in their lives, which they receive on the other side of the House, they voted against it.
Gladu argues Canadians will pay thousands more to heat their homes because of the carbon tax and out-of-control spending, and asks the Liberals to end inflationary spending and cancel plans to triple taxes on gas, groceries and home heating.
The question is predominantly rhetorical partisan framing with labels like 'greedy NDP-Liberal costly coalition' and no specific data or document cited, and the ask is the same vague compound demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, winter is here and Canadians will be paying thousands more dollars to heat their homes because of the inflationary Liberal carbon tax. They will paying more for everything because of the out-of-control spending of this greedy NDP-Liberal costly coalition. Canadians need help now. Will the Liberals end their inflationary spending and cancel their plans to triple taxes on gas, groceries and home heating?
That is cold comfort to hungry families.
Holland acknowledges inflation is making it difficult for people across the world to pay their bills, states Canada is below the EU and the G7 in inflation rates, and argues the situation demands maturity and real answers rather than raising anxiety.
Holland engages with inflation and climate change thematically, notes Canada is below the EU and the G7, and acknowledges the difficulty for Canadians, but does not address the carbon tax tripling or any specific tax measure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today there are a couple of things that are happening across the world that we have to be very mindful of: the existential crisis of climate change and the reality of inflation. Inflation is something that is making it very difficult for people across the world to pay their bills. Canada is below not only the EU but also the G7, with one of the lowest inflation rates that exist in the world. That is not good enough.
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite says, it is cold comfort. What they expect are solutions, not raising anxiety, not raising fears and not pretending those issues do not exist. Climate change is real. Inflation is real. It demands maturity and real answers.
Small cites constituents Thelma and Everett of Twillingate who spent $5,500 on home heating fuel last winter and notes home heating fuel has increased 77.3% in Newfoundland and Labrador, rising to 97.3% with the carbon tax, and asks the Prime Minister to cancel the plan to triple the carbon tax.
The question is well-grounded: it names specific constituents, cites a specific home heating fuel cost of $5,500, quantifies a 77.3% price increase in Newfoundland and Labrador, and calculates a combined 97.3% increase with the carbon tax, making it one of the most factually specific questions in the session.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Thelma and Everett from Twillingate spent $5,500 on home heating fuel last winter. They wrote to me saying, âwe are in our sixties, still working, with no pensions. We can't afford that kind of bill.â Since last winter, the price of home heating fuel has increased by 77.3% in Newfoundland and Labrador. With the addition of the carbon tax on that the grand total is 97.3%. Will the Prime Minister have mercy on Thelma and Everett, and many like them, and cancel his plan to triple the carbon tax on gas, groceriesâ
It's unparliamentary.
Holland says constituents would want to know that money paid for the price on pollution is returned to them and pivots to arguing that the Conservatives are lying to their grandchildren by ignoring the climate crisis.
Holland acknowledges the constituents' anxiety and mentions that money paid for the price on pollution is returned to them, but never engages with the 77.3% or 97.3% figures, the specific $5,500 cost, or the carbon tax tripling plan, then pivots to attacking the Conservatives on climate change.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the member's constituents, the people he was referring to, are facing a great deal of anxiety. They would want to know, as an example, that the money they are paying for the price on pollution they will actually get back. The member opposite knows that. They would also want to hear that they have a government that cares, if they have grandchildren, about the type of world they will be inheriting. The costs that are involved with climate change are in the trillions upon trillions of dollars. Let us talk about the legacy the Conservatives are giving to their grandchildren by ignoring the climate crisis, pretending it is not real, pretending the facts are not facts, lying to them, frankly, about the reality of that circumstanceâ
Sidhu asks the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development to update the House on Ontario's progress in building out the Canada-wide early learning and child care system.
This is a government-backbench softball asking for an update on Ontario's progress with the Canada-wide early learning and child care system, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Canada-wide early learning and child care system is now up and running across the country. Families in my home province of Ontario are already seeing the benefits of the significant investments that Canada and the province are making. Can the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development update the House on the progress that Ontario has reached as this national system continues to build out?
Gould reports that 92% of licensed child care providers in Ontario have signed on, families are receiving rebates of up to 25% backdated to April 1, and will receive a 50% fee reduction as of December 31.
Gould provides specific and verifiable data: 92% of licensed child care providers in Ontario have signed on, families are receiving rebates of up to 25% dating back to April 1, and fees will be reduced by 50% as of December 31, making this a substantive informational answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Brampton South, who has been a tireless advocate for universal child care in this country. I am really pleased to report to the House that Ontario has had 92% of licensed child care providers sign on. That means families are receiving rebates of up to 25% dating back to April 1, and as of December 31 they will receive a 50% reduction in fees. I spoke to one mother who said she specifically went back to work because she can now afford it because of these child care fees. Child care is a home run. It is a win for our children, it is a win for our families and it is a win for our economy.
MacGregor notes that the RCMP commissioner agreed the previous day with the need for transparency between the RCMP and the government, and asks whether the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety will commit to supporting his bill to ensure that transparency.
The question references a specific event â the RCMP commissioner agreeing with the accountability need the previous day â and cites the member's own bill, making it reasonably concrete, though the ask about whether the government will support the bill could be sharper.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to be able to trust that the government will not manipulate RCMP investigations into serious crimes, but lately they have not been so sure. People want more accountability from the current government. Yesterday, the RCMP commissioner agreed. That sounds like a clear endorsement of my bill to ensure transparency between the RCMP and the government. Will the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety commit to restoring public trust in our institutions by supporting my proposal?
Damoff affirms that the independence of law enforcement is vital to democracy, commits to reviewing the bill, and says she looks forward to continuing to work with MacGregor on RCMP independence.
Damoff affirms the principle of RCMP independence and commits to reviewing the bill and continuing to work with the member, which is a partial engagement â she neither endorses nor rejects the bill, leaving the core ask unanswered.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the independence of our law enforcement is vital to our democracy, and I thank my colleague for his important advocacy and work on this issue and all issues related to public safety. Good government is essential for good policing. We will review his bill, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and all members of the House on the continued independence of the RCMP.
Vuong raises constituent concerns about illegal cannabis shops selling copycat pot edibles that look like candy and are poisoning children, notes that the Cannabis Council of Canada says lack of enforcement lets black market operators flourish, and asks what the government is doing to stop these illegal pot shops.
The question references specific constituents' concerns, identifies copycat pot edibles targeting children, cites a meeting with the Cannabis Council of Canada, and links illegal shops to firearms purchases and organized crime, making it reasonably specific, though the ask is broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Izabela and many other parents from my riding are worried about the proliferation of illegal cannabis shops in our community, which specifically target children. They are selling copycat pot edibles that doctors say look like candy, but are poisoning kids. I also recently met with the Cannabis Council of Canada. It feels that a lack of enforcement on the many regulatory rules that legitimate businesses must follow allow black market operators to flourish. The millions of dollars gained from illegal cannabis selling is known to be used to buy firearms and fund organized crime. What is the government doing to stop these illegal pot shops?
Van Koeverden states that child health and safety is the government's most important priority, references the Cannabis Act as a flexible framework designed to displace the illegal market, and says he will look at what the member raised.
Van Koeverden affirms the importance of child health and safety and references the Cannabis Act as a flexible framework, but provides no specific enforcement actions, data, or commitments, and essentially says he will look into the issue.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for raising this important issue. The health and safety of our children is fundamental and the most important thing for this government. The Cannabis Act is there to protect the health and safety of Canadians, while serving as a flexible legislative framework that adapts and responds to the ongoing emerging needs of Canadians to help displace that illegal and illicit market. I will have a look at what the member opposite has raised, and I thank him again for his advocacy.