Session overview
- Ethics dominated the opening of Question Period, with CPC MP Melissa Lantsman pressing the government on what she called the sixth consecutive ethics breach, this time involving the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who wrote a letter in support of a business in his riding; the government acknowledged the error and said the parliamentary secretary had apologized, but declined to announce any further consequences.
- Carbon pricing and agriculture generated the most sustained debate, with CPC members citing specific cost figures â including a $2,000 single-month carbon tax bill for grain drying, a 35% fertilizer tariff, and projected costs of $150,000 per year per farm if the carbon tax triples â while ministers defended the rebate system and highlighted Canadian Agriculture Day investments including $150 million for the protein industries supercluster.
- Health care funding was contested from two directions: Bloc MP Yves-François Blanchet pressed the government on why provinces received $4.6 billion rather than the $28 billion they requested, and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh raised the issue of out-of-pocket surgical costs and the role of Loblaws-owned Maple, calling both practices clearly against the law under the Canada Health Act.
- Roxham Road and the Safe Third Country Agreement were raised by both the Bloc and NDP, with Bloc MP Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe demanding specific details on negotiations â who is negotiating, with whom, how often, and by what deadline â while NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice called on the government to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement; the government gave no specific answers on any of these points.
- Bill C-11 was debated between CPC and BQ members on one side and the Minister of Canadian Heritage on the other, with CPC MPs arguing the bill fails to subject online companies to Quebec's status of the artist laws and that the National Assembly's unanimous request to have Quebec's proposed amendments studied in parliamentary committee has been ignored; the minister did not commit to sending the bill back to committee.
- Official Languages saw intra-Liberal tension highlighted by Bloc MP Mario Beaulieu, who noted that the member for Mont-Royal and a West Island Liberal minister had both threatened to vote against Bill C-13 if it references the Charter of the French Language, framing the dissent as a mounting caucus rebellion.
Minister Kamal Khera provided concrete, verifiable figures in direct response to the question: restoring eligibility for retirement to age 65, increasing the guaranteed income supplement which has helped over 900,000 seniors and lifted 45,000 seniors out of poverty, enhancing the Canada pension plan, and increasing old age security for those 75 and over by 10%.
Blanchet provides a precise contrast between the $28 billion provinces demanded and the $4.6 billion received and asks a single, direct, answerable question about sufficiency.
Blanchet asked a precise fiscal policy question â whether $4.6 billion is enough, and if not why it will remain insufficient for 10 years, and whether this reflects a structural fiscal imbalance â and Rodriguez responded by dismissing the Bloc's motives rather than engaging with any part of the question.
Outstanding questions
- Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe asked who is negotiating on Canada's behalf regarding Roxham Road, with whom, at what frequency, since when, with what target date, and to whom the negotiator reports â none of these specifics were answered. (Exchange 16)
- Mr. Yves-François Blanchet asked why the government offered $4.6 billion rather than the $28 billion requested by provinces and territories, and why this underfunding will persist for 10 years, and whether this reflects a fiscal imbalance that will see Ottawa accumulate surpluses while provinces are financially strangled. (Exchange 7)
- Ms. Melissa Lantsman asked three times why no minister or parliamentary secretary has been fired or faced consequences for any of what she described as six consecutive ethics breaches, including by the trade minister for an illegal contract with her best friend â no specific answer was given to the question of consequences. (Exchanges 1, 2, 3)
- Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus and Mr. GĂ©rard Deltell both asked whether the government will send Bill C-11 back to committee to study the amendments proposed by Quebec and the unanimous motion of the National Assembly â the minister did not give a direct yes or no answer. (Exchanges 24, 25, 26, 27)
- Mr. Jagmeet Singh asked when the government will stop what he called American-style health care from entering the country, specifically citing out-of-pocket costs of $30,000 for hip surgery and $70 to see a family doctor, and the involvement of Loblaws-owned Maple, which he said is clearly against the law â the government restated its values but made no specific enforcement commitment. (Exchange 8)
Lantsman asks why no one in the Liberal government has been fired given what she calls the sixth consecutive ethics breach, quoting the Prime Minister's own 2013 words.
The question cites a Prime Minister quote and references a sixth consecutive ethics breach but the ask â why nobody gets fired â is rhetorical and compound rather than a single answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, âIt is hard not to feel disappointed in one's government when every day there is a new scandalâ. Those are the words of the Prime Minister in 2013. However, after eight years of his own leadership, we have a Canada that feels broken according to most Canadians. The Liberals have broken family budgets, they have broken the bail system and, again, they have broken the law. This time it is the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary. This is the sixth consecutive ethics breach from the Liberals, with no accountability for any of these cases. Why does nobody over there get fired?
Holland explains that the parliamentary secretary wrote a letter supporting a Black and multi-ethnic business in his constituency, recognized it was inappropriate, and has apologized.
The answer directly names the parliamentary secretary, describes the specific act (writing a letter supporting a business in his constituency) and states he apologized, addressing the accountability question with relevant facts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has apologized. The parliamentary secretary wrote a note in support of a business in his constituency, a business that supports Black and multi-ethnic communities across Canada. While it is admirable that all of us want to support local enterprises or businesses in our constituencies, the parliamentary secretary recognizes that it was inappropriate for him to write a letter supporting that agency and business in his riding. He has apologized.
Lantsman asks whether anyone in the Liberal government who broke the law â referencing the Caribbean trip, SNC-Lavalin, and the trade minister's contract â will be fired.
The question lumps together multiple past cases â Caribbean trip, SNC-Lavalin, the trade minister's contract â into a rhetorical pile rather than focusing on a single accountable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we see zero accountability, zero consequences and a zero on ethics. We hope the Prime Minister's upcoming trip to the Caribbean is more productive than the last one, which resulted in his own law-breaking. That, of course, was not the only time. He stepped in on SNC-Lavalin, and the only person who was fired in that case was the first female indigenous Attorney General. The trade minister refuses to pay back taxpayers for giving tens of thousands of dollars to her best friend in an illegal contract. Will anyone over there who broke the law get fired?
Holland cites nearly two million new jobs and 2.7 million fewer people in poverty since the Conservatives were in government, making no reference to the specific cases raised.
Holland does not address any of the specific cases cited and instead pivots entirely to employment and poverty statistics, answering a completely different question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that, every single day, we show up and do our utmost to serve Canadians. The reality is that this government has done that in all of its actions. The reality, as I have said on many occasions, is that there are almost two million Canadians today who have jobs who did not have jobs when the Conservatives were in government. There are 2.7 million fewer people in poverty today than when they were in office. I know they are focused on us. I know they are focused on politics. We are focused on delivering results for Canadians and improving their lives.
Lantsman quotes the outgoing Ethics Commissioner's statement about senior officials being unaware of their obligations and asks, for the third time, whether anyone will take responsibility for breaking the law.
The question quotes the outgoing Ethics Commissioner directly and asks a clear third-time accountability question about consequences for law-breaking, giving it some factual grounding despite the rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are focused on the Liberals who broke the law. There is one set of rules for the Liberals and another set of rules for everyone else. Do not take it from me. This is what the outgoing Ethics Commissioner said yesterday: âOver the last five years and on several occasions, I have observed senior officials being unaware of their obligations and mistakenly making assumptions.â For insiders, it is cushy contracts, special access and special treatment to get ahead, while Canadians get record inflation, record home prices and record despair. I will ask this for the third time: Is anyone over there going to take responsibility for breaking the law?
Holland references Canada's inflation rate being lower than Europe, the G7 average, the G20 average, the U.S. and the U.K., and criticizes Conservatives for voting against housing and child care measures.
Holland pivots to inflation comparisons with Europe, the G7 average, the G20 average, the U.S. and the U.K., and Conservative voting records, not addressing the Ethics Commissioner's quote or the accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear, hyperbole aside. The reality is that this side of the House is focused on helping shepherd the country through some of the most difficult times it has faced since World War II. While it is true that we have a lower inflation rate than Europe, the G7 average, the G20 average, the U.S., the U.K. or elsewhere, leading in difficult times is not enough. That is why we have concrete measures to actually help on issues like housing, as the member talked about, which the Conservatives voted against. We will help in areas like child care, which they voted against, and help vulnerable people. Unfortunately, those are actions they did not take when they had the opportunity.
Berthold cites statistics showing 44% of Canadians cannot face a $500 unexpected expense and asks whether the Prime Minister will recognize that his inflationary policies are responsible for the financial crisis Canadians face.
The question cites a specific poll statistic (44% of Canadians unable to face a $500 unexpected expense) and targets a named demographic (35-to-44-year-olds), but the ask â will the Prime Minister understand his inflationary policies are to blame â is still rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, regardons les faits: aprĂšs huit ans de ce premier ministre libĂ©ral, la situation financiĂšre des Canadiens n'a jamais Ă©tĂ© aussi prĂ©caire. AprĂšs huit ans de ce gouvernement libĂ©ral, 44 % des Canadiens disent ĂȘtre incapables de faire face Ă une dĂ©pense imprĂ©vue de 500 $. AprĂšs huit ans de promesses libĂ©rales, prĂšs de la moitiĂ© des jeunes de 35 Ă 44 ans sont inquiets et ont de la difficultĂ© Ă rĂ©pondre Ă leurs besoins financiers. Est-ce que le premier ministre va comprendre que c'est lui et ses politiques inflationnistes qui sont responsables de cette crise? Quand va-t-il cesser de nuire aux Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. After eight years of this Liberal Prime Minister, Canadians have never been in worse financial shape. After eight years of this Liberal government, 44% of Canadians say they could not afford an unexpected $500 expense. After eight years of Liberal promises, nearly half of 35- to 44-year-olds are worried and struggling to pay their bills. Will the Prime Minister understand that he and his inflationary policies are responsible for this crisis? When will he stop hurting Canadians?
St-Onge cites 2.7 million people lifted out of poverty since 2015 and references dental care and child care support, accusing Conservatives of voting against these measures.
St-Onge responds with the 2.7 million poverty figure and references dental care and child care, but does not address the specific poll data cited or the question of whether the government's policies caused the financial precarity described.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis que ce gouvernement est en poste, soit depuis 2015, nous avons sorti plus de 2,7 millions de personnes de la pauvreté par la mise en place de mesures qui soutiennent les personnes qui en ont le plus besoin. C'est ce que nous continuons de faire. Nous savons que les temps sont difficiles présentement. C'est pour cela que nous apportons du soutien pour que les familles puissent amener leurs enfants chez le dentiste et pour qu'il y ait des services de garde qui coûtent moins cher partout au pays. Nous sommes là pour soutenir les Canadiens. Chaque fois, les conservateurs votent contre ces mesures.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, since this government took office in 2015, we have lifted over 2.7 million people out of poverty by implementing measures that support those who need it most. That is what we continue to do. We know that times are tough right now. That is why we are providing support so that families can take their children to the dentist and so that there is cheaper child care across the country. We are here to support Canadians. The Conservatives vote against these measures every single time.
Berthold asks whether the government will assume its responsibilities for record inflation and food unaffordability instead of blaming others, noting that middle-class workers are turning to food banks.
The question is largely rhetorical, invoking food bank use and unaffordable food without citing specific data, and the ask â will the government assume its responsibilities â is vague.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, est-ce que ce premier ministre va comprendre aprÚs huit ans à ne pas répondre aux questions à la Chambre que ce n'est pas en blùmant les conservateurs qu'on va aider les Canadiens? L'inflation est à un sommet. La nourriture coûte tellement cher que des Canadiens se privent de repas. Des travailleurs de la classe moyenne sont obligés de se tourner vers les banques alimentaires parce qu'ils n'ont pas assez d'argent pour payer leurs factures. Je ne parle pas du coût de l'essence, des loyers, de l'hypothÚque. Est-ce que le gouvernement va assumer ses responsabilités au lieu de passer son temps à blùmer tout le monde?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, does this Prime Minister understand, after eight years of not answering questions in the House, that blaming the Conservatives is not the way to help Canadians? Inflation is at an all-time high. Food is so expensive that some Canadians are going without meals. Middle-class workers are being forced to turn to food banks because they cannot afford to pay their bills. That is all to say nothing of the rising cost of gas and housing, including rent and mortgage rates. Will the government assume its responsibilities rather than spending its time blaming everyone else?
Boissonnault lists Conservative votes against middle-class tax cuts, the $500 housing supplement, and additional worker benefits, framing the government as acting for Canadians while Conservatives vote against.
Boissonnault lists Conservative votes against middle-class tax cuts, the $500 housing supplement, and worker benefits without addressing the food bank or food affordability concerns raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, plusieurs fois Ă la Chambre, l'opposition conservatrice a eu l'occasion de voter avec les Canadiens. Quand nous avons baissĂ© les impĂŽts pour la classe moyenne, qu'ont fait les conservateurs trois fois? Ils ont votĂ© contre. Qu'ont fait les conservateurs quand nous avons mis en place un supplĂ©ment de 500 $ Ă l'allocation pour le logement pour les Canadiens? Ils ont votĂ© contre. Qu'ont fait les conservateurs quand nous avons donnĂ© plus d'argent aux travailleurs canadiens d'un ocĂ©an Ă l'autre? Ils ont votĂ© contre. Nous agissons pour le bien-ĂȘtre des Canadiens et des Canadiennes, et eux votent contre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative opposition has had many opportunities in the House to vote with Canadians. When we lowered taxes for the middle class, what did the Conservatives do three times? They voted against it. What did the Conservatives do when we introduced a $500 top-up to the housing benefit for Canadians? They voted against it. What did the Conservatives do when we gave more money to Canadian workers from coast to coast to coast? They voted against it. We are taking action to ensure the well-being of Canadians, and they are voting against that.
Blanchet asks plainly whether $4.6 billion is enough for health care, noting that provinces and Quebec had asked for $28 billion per year to rebuild functioning health systems, reduce wait times, and address mental health.
Blanchet provides a precise contrast between the $28 billion provinces demanded and the $4.6 billion received and asks a single, direct, answerable question about sufficiency.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les territoires, les provinces et le Québec ont demandé 28 milliards de dollars par année en santé et ils ont obtenu 4,6 milliards de dollars. Je comprends bien qu'ils n'avaient pas le choix. C'était cela ou rien. Or, pour reconstruire un systÚme de santé qui a de l'allure, pour réduire les attentes dans les urgences et en chirurgie, pour aider les gens aux prises avec des enjeux de santé mentale, alors que les provinces demandaient 28 milliards de dollars, ma question est simple: est-ce que 4,6 milliards de dollars, c'est assez?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the territories, the provinces and Quebec asked for $28 billion a year for health care, but they got $4.6 billion. I fully understand that they did not have a choice. It was that or nothing. To rebuild a decent health care system, reduce emergency room and surgical wait times, and help people grappling with mental health issues, the provinces asked for $28 billion. My question is simple: Is $4.6 billion enough?
Van Koeverden outlines the three key commitments premiers must accept â including data sharing and adherence to the Canada Health Act â to access bilateral funding in addition to the ongoing Canada Health Transfer increase.
Van Koeverden describes the three key commitments required of premiers under bilateral agreements and references the Canada Health Transfer but does not directly answer whether $4.6 billion is enough.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie mon collÚgue de sa question. Notre plan prévoit que les premiers ministres des provinces et des territoires acceptent trois engagements clés pour obtenir un financement par le biais d'accords bilatéraux sur mesure, en plus d'une augmentation du Transfert canadien en matiÚre de santé, ou TCS, en cours. Ces engagements comprennent un engagement sur la collecte, le partage et l'utilisation d'informations essentielles sur la santé afin de garantir l'augmentation du TCS et un engagement en faveur d'une structure d'accords bilatéraux sur mesure qui renforce la Loi canadienne sur la santé.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Under our plan, the premiers of the provinces and territories must agree to three key commitments to obtain funding through tailored bilateral agreements, in addition to an immediate top-up to the Canada health transfer, or CHT. These commitments include collecting, sharing and using vital information on health to guarantee the CHT top-up and entering into tailored bilateral agreements that strengthen the Canada Health Act.
Blanchet asks whether the gap between the $28 billion requested and $4.6 billion received reflects a structural fiscal imbalance whereby Ottawa accumulates surpluses while provinces are financially suffocated over time.
Blanchet sharpens the question by posing three mutually exclusive logical scenarios about the $4.6 billion figure and connects it to the structural question of fiscal imbalance, making it highly specific and difficult to dodge.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, bienvenue pour la question, et la preuve que c'est correct, j'en ai une autre. On parlait de 28 milliards de dollars d'argent frais, mais je veux savoir ceci. Si 4,6 milliards de dollars, ce n'est pas assez, pourquoi ne donner que cela? Si 28 milliards de dollars, c'est trop, qu'on nous explique pourquoi c'est trop. Si ce n'est pas assez, qu'on nous explique pourquoi cela va rester pas assez pendant 10 ans. Est-ce l'héritage du déséquilibre fiscal qui fait que, au fil des ans, Ottawa va engranger des surplus et, au fil des ans, les provinces vont étouffer financiÚrement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the member is quite welcome for the question, and just to show that there are no hard feelings, here is another. We were talking about $28 billion in new money, but I want to know this. If $4.6 billion is not enough, why give only that much? If $28 billion is too much, someone needs to explain why it is too much. If it is not enough, someone needs to explain why it will remain not enough for 10 years. Is the legacy of the fiscal imbalance that, over time, Ottawa will run surpluses and, over time, the provinces will financially suffocate?
Rodriguez accuses the Bloc québécois of not wanting federal-provincial agreements to succeed and claims the deal will help pediatric hospitals, reduce wait times, and address mental health delays, calling it good for Quebec and Quebecers.
Rodriguez does not address the fiscal imbalance argument or any of the three logical scenarios posed, instead accusing the Bloc québécois of not wanting federal-provincial agreements and claiming the deal is good for Quebec.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la pire chose qui peut arriver pour le Bloc québécois, c'est que les provinces et le Québec s'entendent avec le fédéral. C'est ce qui est arrivé. On a une entente avec le Québec et l'ensemble des provinces pour aider les hÎpitaux pédiatriques, pour réduire les listes d'attente et pour réduire les délais en santé mentale. C'est une bonne entente pour le Québec et les Québécois. C'est mauvais pour le Bloc québécois.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the worst thing that can happen to the Bloc Québécois is for the provinces and Quebec to agree with the federal government. That is what happened. We have an agreement with Quebec and all of the provinces to help the pediatric hospitals, to reduce waiting lists and to cut wait times for mental health services. This is a good deal for Quebec and Quebeckers. It is bad for the Bloc Québécois.
Singh cites costs of $30,000 for hip surgery and $70 for a family doctor visit, names Maple as owned by Loblaws, notes a former Liberal minister of health said it is clearly against the law, and asks when the government will stop American-style health care from entering Canada.
Singh cites specific out-of-pocket costs ($30,000 for hip surgery, $70 to see a family doctor), names the corporation Maple and its owner Loblaws, and invokes the former Liberal minister of health's finding that it is clearly against the law, giving the question real factual grounding despite some rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, under the government's watch, people across this country are spending money out of pocket for surgeries. It costs $30,000 for hip surgery and $70 to see a family doctor. In fact, one of the corporations making this happen, Maple, is owned by Loblaws, so Loblaws is not only ripping off Canadians when it comes to their groceries, but is also exploiting the desperation of Canadians who need to see a family doctor. On top of all this, it is actually against the law. According to the former minister of health under the Liberal government, it is clearly against the law. When will the government finally stop American-style health care from entering our country?
Van Koeverden states that all one should need to get health care is a health card, not a credit card, and that discussions with premiers included upholding the Canada Health Act and basing services on need not ability to pay.
Van Koeverden affirms the health card not credit card principle and states the Canada Health Act was raised with premiers, but does not address the specific costs cited, the Maple/Loblaws allegation, or what enforcement action is being taken.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we believe that all one should need to get health care is a health card, not a credit card. Canadians are proud of this system, and they should be. Our discussions with the premiers included the importance of upholding the Canada Health Act, which means making sure services are based on need and not someone's ability to pay. We will always protect Canadians' equitable access to universal public health care services, because the role of Canada's Minister of Health is to ensure the Canada Health Act is respected.
Singh asks whether the government will stop American-style health care from continuing, noting that thousands of people are paying thousands of dollars for operations and that their own former minister of health said it is clearly against the law.
Singh restates the core ask from Exchange 8 with slightly more direct framing â citing thousands of people paying thousands of dollars and invoking the former minister â but it is largely a reiteration.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the government really wants to defend public health care, it should stop American-style health care from entering our country. Les faits sont clairs. Des milliers de gens paient des milliers de dollars pour avoir des opĂ©rations. C'est clairement contre la loi. Leur propre ancienne ministre de la SantĂ© a dit cela. Le gouvernement a un choix: va-t-il laisser les soins de santĂ© Ă l'amĂ©ricaine continuer ou va-t-il arrĂȘter cela?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si le gouvernement souhaite vraiment dĂ©fendre le rĂ©gime public de soins de santĂ©, il devrait empĂȘcher qu'on applique au Canada le modĂšle amĂ©ricain. The facts are clear. Thousands of people are paying thousands of dollars to have operations. This is clearly against the law. Their former health minister said so herself. The government has a choice: Will it let American-style health care continue, or will it stop it?
Van Koeverden repeats that Canadians should need only a health card and not a credit card, and that the system must be based on need and not ability to pay.
Van Koeverden repeats the health card not credit card principle and the need-not-ability-to-pay framing without offering any new information, enforcement action, or direct response to the former minister's statement.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis d'accord. Nous croyons que tout ce dont on devrait avoir besoin pour obtenir des soins de santé au Canada, c'est sa carte de santé et non sa carte de crédit. Les Canadiens sont fiers de notre systÚme qui est fondé sur le besoin et non sur la capacité à payer. Les Canadiens doivent avoir accÚs aux services médicaux en fonction de leurs besoins et non de leur capacité à payer.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I agree. We believe that all one should need to get health care in Canada is a health card, not a credit card. Canadians are proud of our system, which is based on need, not ability to pay. Canadians should have access to medical services based on their need, not their ability to pay.
Barlow cites a Saskatchewan farmer's $2,000 monthly carbon tax bill for grain drying, a $34 million Liberal fertilizer tariff cost to eastern Canadian farmers, hundreds of farm bankruptcies, and 12% food price increases, asking the Prime Minister to axe the carbon tax.
Barlow cites a specific farmer's $2,000 monthly carbon tax bill for grain drying, a $34 million fertilizer tariff cost to eastern Canadian farmers, and a 12% food price increase, grounding the question in concrete figures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister, it has never been more expensive to grow or buy food. A Saskatchewan farmer told me yesterday that his carbon tax bill just to dry his grain was $2,000 in one month. The Liberal tariff on fertilizer costs eastern Canadian farmers more than $34 million. Under the Prime Minister's watch, we have lost hundreds of farms to bankruptcy, and food prices are up 12%. Will the Prime Minister help Canadians put food on the table and axe his farm-killing carbon tax?
Oh, oh!
Guilbeault attributes 70% of pump price increases to crude oil prices linked to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and 25% to provincial taxes and refining margins, adding that 100% of revenues are recycled to Canadians with 10% specifically to small businesses and agricultural industries.
Guilbeault begins by attributing 70% of pump price increases to crude oil linked to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and 25% to provincial taxes and refining margins before noting 100% revenue recycling with 10% to small businesses and agriculture, only partially engaging the agriculture-specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House of the facts: 70% of the prices we are seeing at the pump are related to crude oil prices going up, largely because of Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraineâ
Mr. Speaker, I am getting there. Another 25% is a result of provincial taxes and refining margins. We recycle 100% of the revenues to Canadians, with 10% specifically to small businesses and agricultural industries in Canada.
Barlow argues the carbon tax will cost a farmer $150,000 per year when tripled and cites produce up 13%, bread up 16%, and pasta up more than 20%, asking the Prime Minister to take responsibility for the food crisis and axe the farm-killing carbon tax.
Barlow cites specific projected costs ($150,000 per year in carbon tax for a large farm when tripled), and specific grocery price increases (produce up 13%, bread up 16%, pasta up more than 20%), giving the question solid factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I guess the minister did not understand I was asking a question about agriculture, not about oil prices. What the Liberals have to understand is their carbon tax has very real consequences. What it is doing is suffocating Canadian farm families and giving Canadian families sticker shock when they go to the grocery store. It is only going to get worse. When the Liberal-NDP carbon tax coalition triples its carbon tax, a farmer will be paying $150,000 a year in carbon tax. There are consequences. The consequences are that produce is up 13%, bread is up 16% and pasta is up more than 20%. Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for this food crisis and axe this farm-killing carbon tax?
Oh, oh!
Bibeau accuses Conservatives of twisting information and misquoting research on a typical farm size, references $1.5 billion in environmental farming investment, and notes a $150 million announcement for the supercluster on protein.
Bibeau accuses Conservatives of twisting information and misquoting research about a typical farm of 5,000 or 6,000 acres, then pivots to $1.5 billion in environmental farming investment and $150 million for the supercluster on protein, not addressing the projected carbon tax cost or the grocery price data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Conservatives are twisting the information, misquoting the research and talking about a typical farm of 5,000 or 6,000 acres, which is aâ
Mr. Speaker, he does not want to hear about everything we do for farmers. We are investing $1.5 billion in environmental farming. Yesterday we announced $150 million to support the supercluster on protein. We are working with farmers for farmers.
Rood asks the Prime Minister to take responsibility for food unaffordability, citing the plan to triple the carbon tax and fertilizer reductions as threats to farm families, and calls on the government to axe the carbon tax.
The question is largely rhetorical â invoking food sovereignty, empty cupboards, and empty stomachs â with no new specific data beyond what prior questioners already raised, and the ask is a repetition of axe the carbon tax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that Liberal minister is completely out of touch with reality. The reality is that after eight years of the Prime Minister, Canadians are struggling to eat and our food sovereignty is in jeopardy. The Liberal plan to triple the carbon tax is going to price our farm families right out of business. The carbon tax and fertilizer reductions are going to make it more difficult for Canadian farmers. The government is making it more difficult. Here is a news flash: no farms, no food. Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for empty cupboards and empty stomachs, give Canadian farm families a break and axe the carbon tax?
Oh, oh!
Wilkinson states that over eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back than they pay in the context of the carbon tax, and argues that ignoring climate change is not a responsible position for a political party in Canada.
Wilkinson cites the specific statistic that over eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back than they pay in the context of the carbon tax, which is at least a direct engagement, but then shifts to a broader argument about climate change and Conservative denial.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, my Conservative colleagues missed the point that over eight out of 10 Canadian families actually get more money back than they pay in the context of the carbon taxâ
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the Conservatives conveniently ignore that eight out of 10 Canadian families actually get more money back than they pay with respect to the price on pollution. In the modern age, it is not a responsible position for a political party in this country to take to simply ignore the reality of climate change, which the Conservatives do, conveniently, every day in this House. To have a relevant economic plan for this country, we need to have a plan to fight climate change. That is exactly what we are doingâ
Rood asserts farmers do not receive a rebate and the government has not hit a single climate target, and asks the Prime Minister to take responsibility for food unaffordability and give Canadian farm families a break by axing the carbon tax.
Rood asserts that farmers do not get a rebate and that the government has not hit a single climate target, and references big grocery chain fees alongside the carbon tax, but the question is still a rhetorical pile-on without new data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are the kings of misinformation. Farmers do not get a rebate, and the government has not even hit a single climate target. After eight years of the Prime Minister, the carbon tax is making food too expensive for Canadians. Fertilizer restrictions are making it harder for farmers to grow food. Big grocery chains are nickel-and-diming our produce farmers with high fees while they are raking in record high profits, and the government has done nothing. Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for his mounting failures, give Canadian farm families a break and axe the carbon tax?
Bibeau notes it is Canadian Agriculture Day and lists investments including nearly a half-billion dollars for green technologies, $150 million for the supercluster on protein, increased risk management program budgets, and an increased Partenariat canadien pour l'agriculture budget.
Bibeau references $1.5 billion in environmental farming investment, $150 million for the supercluster on protein, increased risk management program budgets, and an increased budget for the Partenariat canadien pour l'agriculture, none of which address the rebate claim or climate target accusation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aujourd'hui, c'est le Jour de l'agriculture canadienne et je suis trĂšs fiĂšre de tout ce que nous avons fait pour nos producteurs agricoles depuis des annĂ©es. Nous avons accordĂ© le plus grand financement au secteur pour aider les agriculteurs, notamment en matiĂšre de technologies vertes en agriculture. Nous avons versĂ© prĂšs d'un demi-milliard de dollars seulement pour les technologies vertes. Hier, nous avons annoncĂ© 150 millions de dollars de plus pour la supergrappe des industries des protĂ©ines. Nous sommes lĂ . Nous avons augmentĂ© nos budgets pour les programmes de gestion des risques, parce que nous savons que nos producteurs font face Ă des Ă©vĂ©nements climatiques extrĂȘmes et nous avons augmentĂ© le budget du Partenariat canadien pour l'agriculture, ce que les conservateurs n'ont jamais fait.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today is Canada's Agriculture Day, and I am very proud of everything we have done for our farmers over the years. We have provided the most funding to this sector to support farmers, with a focus on investments in green technology. We have provided nearly half a billion dollars for green technology alone. Yesterday we announced an additional $150 million for the protein industries supercluster. We are there for farmers. We have increased our budgets for risk management programs, because we know that our farmers are having to face extreme weather events. We also increased the budget for the Canadian agricultural partnership, something the Conservatives never did.
Lehoux asks when the government will eliminate the carbon tax and the 35% fertilizer tariff â noting Canada is the only G7 country imposing it â so that farmers can afford to feed Canadian families.
Lehoux cites a specific 35% fertilizer tariff and notes that Canada is the only G7 country to impose it, giving the question factual specificity beyond the general carbon tax rhetoric.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, aprÚs huit ans sous ce premier ministre, les Canadiens n'ont plus les moyens de se nourrir et les politiques de son gouvernement en sont directement responsables. Les agriculteurs canadiens sont écrasés par la taxe sur le carbone. Le gouvernement a également imposé un tarif de 35 % sur les engrais. En passant, le Canada est le seul pays du G7 à le faire. Cela fait augmenter encore plus le prix de tous les aliments. Quand supprimera-t-il enfin ces taxes pour que les agriculteurs puissent nourrir nos familles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, after eight years under this Prime Minister, Canadians can no longer afford to put food on the table, and this is a direct consequence of his government's policies. Canadian farmers are being crushed by the carbon tax. The government has also imposed a 35% tariff on fertilizer. Incidentally, Canada is the only G7 country doing this. This is further driving up the price of all food. When will the government finally scrap these taxes so that farmers can feed our families?
Bibeau clarifies that the carbon pricing system applies differently in Quebec since Quebec administers its own system, and describes the improved Programme de paiements anticipés offering loans up to $1 million with the first $250,000 interest-free.
Bibeau directly clarifies that the carbon pricing system does not apply the same way in Quebec since it is administered by Quebec, and describes the Programme de paiements anticipés with its up-to-$1-million loan and $250,000 interest-free threshold, which is responsive but does not address the fertilizer tariff claim.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je vais rappeler Ă mon collĂšgue du QuĂ©bec que le prix sur la pollution ne s'applique pas de la mĂȘme façon au QuĂ©bec. C'est administrĂ© par le QuĂ©bec. Je vais aussi profiter de l'occasion pour rappeler Ă tous nos producteurs et Ă nos productrices agricoles que nous avons amĂ©liorĂ© le Programme de paiements anticipĂ©s d'Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada. C'est un programme qui permet d'avoir un prĂȘt de courte durĂ©e allant jusqu'Ă 1 million de dollars, mais l'avantage, c'est que le premier 250 000 $ est sans intĂ©rĂȘt. J'encourage les producteurs Ă bĂ©nĂ©ficier de ce prĂȘt sans intĂ©rĂȘt.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague from Quebec that the price on pollution is not applied in the same way in Quebec. It is administered by Quebec. I would also like to take this opportunity to remind all of our farmers that we have improved the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada advance payments program, which provides short-term loans of up to $1 million. The advantage of this loan is that the first $250,000 is interest free. I encourage farmers to take advantage of this interest-free loan.
Lehoux pushes back on Bibeau's answer by arguing that the carbon tax does affect Quebec because Quebec is not self-sufficient and imports products from other provinces where it applies, and asks when Liberals will have the courage to defend farmers as the carbon tax is set to triple on April 1.
Lehoux makes a substantive rebuttal that Quebec is not self-sufficient and imports products from other provinces that carry carbon costs, challenging the minister's prior answer with a logical argument, though the ask remains vague.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ma collĂšgue d'en face semble vivre sur une autre planĂšte. La taxe sur le carbone touche assurĂ©ment le QuĂ©bec, parce que nous ne sommes pas autosuffisants. Par exemple, le propane et le gaz naturel pour sĂ©cher le grain et chauffer les bĂątiments ont un impact. Nous importons aussi de nombreux produits d'autres provinces et territoires. Je n'ai donc pas de leçon Ă recevoir de ma collĂšgue. Le 1er avril prochain, les choses ne feront qu'empirer lorsque le gouvernement prĂ©voit de tripler la taxe sur le carbone. Les conservateurs continueront de dĂ©fendre les agriculteurs canadiens. Quand est-ce que les libĂ©raux feront preuve du mĂȘme courage?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite seems to be living on another planet. The carbon tax certainly does affect Quebec because we are not self-sufficient. For example, the propane and natural gas needed to dry grain and heat buildings has an impact. We also import many products from other provinces and territories, so I will take no lessons from my colleague. Things are only going to get worse on April 1 when the government plans to triple the carbon tax. The Conservatives will continue to defend Canadian farmers. When will the Liberals be courageous enough to do the same?
Guilbeault states directly that the federal carbon pricing does not apply in Quebec because Quebec has its own cap-and-trade system that was put in place before the federal carbon pricing, and reminds the member that climate change also has repercussions for farmers and Canadians across the country.
Guilbeault directly and factually confirms that the federal carbon pricing does not apply in Quebec because Quebec has its own cap-and-trade system that predates the federal system, directly rebutting the factual premise of the exchange, though he does not address the fertilizer tariff.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce que mon honorable collÚgue vient d'affirmer à la Chambre n'est simplement pas la vérité. La tarification fédérale du carbone ne s'applique pas au Québec puisque le Québec a son propre systÚme de plafonnement et d'échange, qui a été mis en place avant que le fédéral ne mette en place la tarification du carbone. J'aimerais également rappeler à mon collÚgue et à l'ensemble des conservateurs de l'autre cÎté de la Chambre que les changements climatiques ont aussi des répercussions sur les agriculteurs et les agricultrices de partout au pays, tout autant qu'ils ont des répercussions sur les Canadiens et les Canadiennes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what my hon. colleague just said in the House is simply not true. Federal carbon pricing does not apply in Quebec because Quebec has its own cap-and-trade system, which was implemented before the federal government introduced carbon pricing. I would also like to remind my colleague and all of the Conservatives across the way that climate change affects farmers across the country just as it affects all Canadians.
Brunelle-Duceppe demanded specific answers about the Roxham Road negotiations: who is negotiating, with whom, what the objectives are, how often discussions occur, when they began, what the target end date is, and to whom the negotiator reports.
The question is highly specific, listing seven distinct factual asks about the Roxham Road negotiations (who is negotiating, with whom, objectives, frequency, start date, target date, and accountability structure).
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cela fait six ans que le fĂ©dĂ©ral rĂ©pĂšte qu'il nĂ©gocie avec les AmĂ©ricains Ă propos du chemin Roxham. Toutefois, personne nâen a jamais entendu parler. Qui nĂ©gocie au nom du Canada? Avec qui nĂ©gocie-t-on? C'est quoi, les objectifs de la nĂ©gociation? Ă quelle frĂ©quence discute-t-on? Quand est-ce que les nĂ©gociations ont dĂ©butĂ©? C'est quoi, la date ciblĂ©e pour arriver Ă un rĂ©sultat? Ă qui le nĂ©gociateur rend-il compte des avancĂ©es et des obstacles? Nous voulons des rĂ©ponses.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for six years now the federal government has repeatedly said that it is negotiating with the Americans on Roxham Road, but no one has heard anything about it. Who is negotiating on behalf of Canada and with whom? What are the objectives of the negotiation? How often are discussions held? When did the negotiations begin? What is the target date for seeing some results? Who does the negotiator report the hits and misses to? We want answers.
Lalonde thanked the member for his committee work and stated the government is committed to modernizing the Entente, without addressing any of the seven specific questions.
The parliamentary secretary answered none of the seven specific questions, offering only that the government is committed to modernizing the Entente and thanking the member for his work.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais remercier le député de sa passion et de son travail sur ce dossier. Je sais qu'il travaille trÚs fort en comité. Il est certain que notre gouvernement travaille pour moderniser l'Entente. C'est exactement ce à quoi nous nous engageons. Je remercie mon collÚgue de sa question. Notre gouvernement va continuer de faire les bonnes choses et de moderniser l'entente.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his passion and his work on this file. I know he works very hard at committee. Certainly, our government is working to modernize the agreement. That is exactly what we are committed to doing. I thank my colleague for the question. Our government will continue to take appropriate action and modernize the agreement.
Brunelle-Duceppe pressed again for transparency on the Roxham Road negotiations, specifically asking the government to name the negotiator, identify the American counterpart, and disclose how many discussions have taken place.
The follow-up renews the same specific demands â naming the negotiator, identifying the interlocutor, and disclosing the number of discussions â framed around a transparency argument, though it is slightly less enumerated than the first question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cela fait du bien qu'on reconnaisse pour une fois le travail du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois dans le dossier des demandeurs d'asile. Pour une fois, ce gouvernement vient de nous dire Ă quel point nous travaillons et Ă quel point nous avons le sort des migrants et du QuĂ©bec Ă cĆur. Je remercie ma collĂšgue. Maintenant, cela ne change pas la donne. Nous n'avons toujours pas de rĂ©ponse au sujet des nĂ©gociations. Les gens qui dĂ©fendent les demandeurs d'asile ont le droit de savoir. Si les nĂ©gociations avançaient vraiment, le gouvernement serait capable de nous dire qui est le nĂ©gociateur, avec qui il discute, et combien de fois il a eues des discussions. Ce nâest pas compliquĂ©. Nous voulons de la transparence et des rĂ©ponses.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear the Bloc Québécois's work on the refugee file being recognized, for once. This government just admitted how hard we are working and how much we care about the future of migrants and of Quebec. I thank my colleague. Now, that does not change the facts. We still do not have an answer about the negotiations. People advocating for asylum seekers have the right to know. If the negotiations were truly moving forward, the government would be able to tell us who the negotiator is, with whom that individual is speaking, and how many meetings have taken place. It is not complicated. We want transparency and answers.
Lalonde noted that the migration crisis is a global challenge and reiterated the government's commitment to modernizing the entente, without providing any of the requested specifics.
Lalonde again provided no specifics, pivoting to the global nature of the migration crisis and repeating the commitment to modernize the entente without addressing who negotiates, with whom, or how often.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais juste dire que la crise migratoire n'existe pas seulement au Canada. Elle est partout. C'est un défi mondial. Je sais que mon collÚgue comprend trÚs bien cela; j'en suis sûre. Maintenant plus que jamais, nous devons continuer de travailler avec nos partenaires internationaux, avec nos provinces, avec nos territoires. Il est certain que notre gouvernement s'est engagé à moderniser cette entente. C'est ce que nous sommes en train de faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the migrant crisis is not happening only in Canada. It is happening everywhere. This is a global challenge. I know my colleague is well aware of that; I am convinced of that. Now more than ever, we must continue to work with our international partners, with the provinces and territories. Our government has committed to updating this agreement. That is what we are doing.
Lewis asked when the Liberals will abandon the carbon tax, claiming it has done nothing to reduce emissions and has made everything more expensive for Canadians.
The question is dominated by partisan framing ('ideological carbon tax,' 'cruel,' 'eight years of the Prime Minister') and the ask is a broad rhetorical call to abandon the carbon tax rather than a specific accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister, Canadians have never struggled more with paying for groceries, paying for rent and paying to put gas in their cars. Everything is more expensive, and the government still plans to increase its ideological carbon tax. This tax has done nothing to reduce emissions and has made everything more expensive. When will the Liberals abandon their cruel carbon tax, and let Conservatives fix what they broke?
Guilbeault cited statistics on greenhouse gas emissions, methane reductions in the oil and gas sector, and EV sales growth, and quoted the oil sands Pathways Alliance in support of the government's climate plan.
Guilbeault cited specific figures (greenhouse gas emissions down 9% below 2005 levels, methane emissions in the oil and gas sector down almost 40%, EV sales doubled) that are relevant to the emissions claims but did not address affordability or the specific ask to abandon the carbon tax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for most of us in the House, and for most Canadians, climate change is the reality and facts do matter, though I know not for everyone. The facts are that greenhouse gas emissions are down 9% below the 2005 level. That is a fact. Methane emissions in the oil and gas sector are down almost 40% two years before scheduled. That is another fact. EV sales in Canada have doubled in the last few years. That is another fact. If they will not take it from me, and they will not take it from environmentalists, maybe they will take it from the oil sands Pathways Alliance, which said, âWith positive industry and government collaborationââ
Lewis cited Statistics Canada data that a quarter of Canadians cannot afford a sudden $500 expense and asked when the Prime Minister will cancel plans to triple the carbon tax on April 1.
Lewis cites a Statistics Canada figure (a quarter of Canadians cannot afford a sudden $500 expense) and references the planned April 1 carbon tax tripling, giving some factual grounding, but the ask remains a broad rhetorical call.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, taxing Canadians to death is not going to fix the climate. Statistics Canada is reporting that a quarter of Canadians would not be able to afford a sudden expense of $500, yet the government still plans to triple the carbon tax on April 1. If the government would only cancel its plans to increase the carbon tax this year, Canadians would be able to afford to pay their bills once again. When will the Prime Minister take responsibility for overtaxing Canadians into poverty and let Conservatives fix what Liberals broke?
Guilbeault quoted the Cement Association of Canada, Electricity Canada, and the oil sands Pathways Alliance in support of the government's emissions reduction plan, without addressing the affordability statistic or the April 1 increase.
Guilbeault quoted industry associations (Cement Association of Canada, Electricity Canada, oil sands Pathways Alliance) in support of the climate plan but did not address the Statistics Canada affordability statistic or the specific question about the April 1 increase.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if they will not take it from me, they will not take it from environmentalists and they will not take it from experts, maybe they will take it from the Cement Association of Canada, which said about our climate change plan, âEmissions Reduction Plan provides cement industry with predictabilityâ. Electricity Canada welcomed the smart renewables and electrification pathways program. The oil sands Pathways Alliance, the five largest oil sands producers in the country, said, âWith positive industry and government collaboration, Canada has an incredible opportunity to help provide for global energy security while being a leader in producing clean energy.â That is what we are doing on this side of the House. We are fighting climate change. We are creating jobs and the economy of the 21st century.
Ferreri raised a constituent's heating bill tripling and the PBO's finding that the average Canadian will not receive more in carbon tax rebates than they pay, asking the Prime Minister to scrap the carbon tax or step down.
Ferreri names a specific constituent (John) with a concrete detail (heating bill nearly tripled), references the PBO's finding on rebates, and asks a pointed either/or question, but the framing is heavily rhetorical and the 'step down' element undermines the accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister, Canadians are suffering and struggling to make ends meet, yet he wants to dismiss their pain and say things have never been better. John's heating bill has nearly tripled this winter, despite using the same amount as last year, and the PBO is on record explaining the average Canadian will not receive more in their carbon tax rebate than they use. It is long overdue for the Prime Minister to listen to the people he works for. It is time to show leadership and admit when something is not working. Will he scrap the carbon tax and, if not, will he step down and let us fix what he broke?
Boissonnault criticized Conservatives for lacking a climate plan and cited 2.7 million people lifted out of poverty and 326,000 jobs created since September, without addressing the carbon tax rebate finding or the heating bill.
Boissonnault pivoted entirely to criticizing Conservative climate policy, cited 2.7 million people lifted out of poverty and 326,000 jobs created since September, and did not address John's heating bill, the PBO finding on rebates, or the carbon tax question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. former critic for tourism, and every single Conservative member on that side of the House, ran on a plan to combat climate change. It seems there has been a change of management and now they do not believe in climate change. Guess what, they do not have a plan to address climate change. They do not have a plan to address affordability. They do not have a plan to help seniors. They do not have a plan to position this country for robust economic growth. We raised 2.7 million people out of poverty, and 326,000 jobs were created since September. We have a plan; they do not. Thank goodness for Canadians.
Ferreri claimed anxiety, depression, addiction, and suicide are rising because of the Prime Minister's spending, called the carbon tax a tax plan that has failed to meet any emissions targets, and asked whether he will scrap it.
The question is primarily rhetorical, linking mental health trends to the carbon tax and government spending without citing specific data, and the ask is a simple 'will he scrap the carbon tax' with no new factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals certainly do not have any results. After eight years of the Prime Minister, Canadians are out of money, and it is destroying their mental health. Anxiety, depression, addiction and suicide continue to rise because of the Prime Minister's outrageous, unethical and wasteful spending. The punitive carbon tax is not compassionate, nor is it responsible leadership. It is not a climate plan. It is a tax plan, and it has failed to meet any emissions targets. The Prime Minister has a chance right now, this second, to listen, act and help Canadians, so will he do it? Will he scrap the carbon tax?
Holland cautioned against invoking mental health rhetorically, accused the Conservatives of fearmongering and refusing to offer solutions, and did not address the carbon tax or emissions targets.
Holland responded by commenting on the use of mental health as a rhetorical device and accused the Conservatives of fearmongering, without addressing the carbon tax question or any emissions targets.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, invoking mental health is something that we should consider at all moments, but I will tell everyone what does not help mental health when the world is going through something as difficult as it is. It is to expand people's fears, to increase people's anxieties. The party opposite refuses to offer solutions. All it offers is fearmongering and pretending that Canada is an island alone while it goes through what the world is suffering. That is not reality. That is not truth, and it certainly does not help those who are suffering from mental illness.
Blaney noted the government has failed to raise OAS for people under 75 and asked whether the government will raise the guaranteed income supplement in the upcoming budget to lift all seniors out of poverty.
Blaney identifies a specific gap (OAS not raised for those under 75) and asks a concrete question about raising the guaranteed income supplement in the upcoming budget, though she does not cite specific figures for the shortfall.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, seniors built this country and they deserve dignity, but soaring food and housing costs are leaving so many behind. Under the government, seniors are struggling to keep up with the basic everyday costs, but the Liberals honestly do not seem to care. The government has failed to raise the OAS for people under 75, so will it raise the guaranteed income supplement in this budget to lift all seniors out of poverty?
Khera cited past actions including restoring retirement eligibility to age 65, increasing the guaranteed income supplement (helping over 900,000 seniors and lifting 45,000 out of poverty), enhancing the Canada pension plan, and increasing old age security for those 75 and over by 10%, without committing to a new GIS increase in the budget.
Khera listed several past measures including the guaranteed income supplement increase (citing 900,000 seniors helped and 45,000 lifted out of poverty), the CPP enhancement, and the 10% OAS increase for those 75 and over, but did not directly commit to raising the GIS in the upcoming budget as asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we recognize the challenges that all Canadians, including seniors, are facing. That is precisely why we have been there for them every step of the way since 2015 by restoring the age of eligibility for retirement back to 65; increasing the guaranteed income supplement, which has helped over 900,000 seniors, and has actually lifted 45,000 seniors out of poverty; enhancing the Canada pension plan; or, recently, increasing the old age security for those 75 and over by 10%. We have been there for seniors, and we will continue to make sure that we have their backs now and into the future.
Masse asked when the government will stop backtracking on the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund 60/40 cost-share agreement with Windsor for flooding infrastructure on the Great Lakes, which is being jeopardized by construction cost increases.
Masse identifies a specific project (disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, 60/40 cost-share with the City of Windsor), a specific problem (construction cost escalation due to global inflation jeopardizing the partnership), and asks a direct question about whether the government will live up to its commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the City of Windsor and the federal government partnered to address climate change and pollution by tackling devastating flooding under the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund by agreeing to a 60% to 40% cost-share. With rampant global inflation, construction costs have escalated, and now the Liberals are using this as an opportunity to squeeze the partnership and jeopardize important work on the Great Lakes. For all the Liberals' bluster on fighting climate change, one would think that they would show some shame here. Windsor residents need action on the climate emergency, not patronizing lip service. When will the government stop backtracking and live up to its word for a change?
O'Connell cited record government investments in Windsor and the surrounding area and the government's commitment to green and climate-resilient infrastructure, without addressing the specific cost-share dispute or the flooding project.
O'Connell spoke only in generalities about record investments in Windsor and the government's commitment to green and climate-resilient infrastructure, without addressing the specific disaster mitigation and adaptation fund cost-share dispute or the Windsor flooding project.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government has made record investments to Windsor and the surrounding area. Our commitment to investing in infrastructure is solidified in the fact that we are investing in green and climate-resilient infrastructure. It is not just about creating good jobs. It is also about creating resilient communities. That is precisely what our infrastructure plan is doing. We are working with communities and partners to set those priorities and make sure that our communities are resilient into the future.
Mr. Speaker, the increasing impacts of climate change have made it clear that more needs to be done to fight the climate crisis, not less. National governments play an integral role in leading this work by greening their operations, an area in which Canada continues to demonstrate its leadership on the global stage. The net-zero government initiative invites governments from around the world to lead by example and achieve net-zero emissions from national government operations by no later than 2050. Could the President of the Treasury Board please update the House on this initiative?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his hard work. Canada has joined the net-zero government initiative, and Canada is showing global leadership on climate change. We are working with countries around the world to pledge to achieve net-zero emissions from government operations by 2050. Our planet needs us to aggressively reduce our emissions, and the government is leading by example.
Paul-Hus noted that Bill C-11 contains no formal consultation mechanism with Quebec and that the government ignored Quebec's April 29, 2022 intervention and February 4, 2023 letter, asking whether C-11 will be sent back to committee to study Quebec's proposed amendment.
Paul-Hus cites two specific government documents (Quebec's April 29, 2022 intervention and February 4, 2023 letter), identifies a specific gap in Bill C-11 (no mechanism for formal consultation with Quebec), and asks a concrete yes/no question about sending C-11 back to committee.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'alliance bloquiste-libĂ©rale continue de travailler contre les intĂ©rĂȘts supĂ©rieurs du QuĂ©bec. PremiĂšrement, le projet de loi Câ11 qu'ils proposent ne permet pas d'assurer que les entreprises en ligne sont assujetties aux lois du QuĂ©bec en ce qui a trait au statut de l'artiste quĂ©bĂ©cois. DeuxiĂšmement, ce projet de loi ne contient aucun mĂ©canisme de consultation formelle du gouvernement du QuĂ©bec. Le ministre du Patrimoine canadien a affirmĂ© que son gouvernement collabore extrĂȘmement bien avec le gouvernement, alors qu'il a ignorĂ© l'intervention du 29 avril 2022 et la lettre du 4 fĂ©vrier 2023. Est-ce que le gouvernement va envoyer le projet de loi Câ11 en comitĂ©, afin qu'on Ă©tudie l'amendement proposĂ© par le QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc-Liberal alliance continues to work against Quebec's best interests. First, their proposed bill, Bill Câ11, fails to ensure that online businesses are subject to Quebec's status of the artist legislation. Second, this bill contains no mechanism for formal consultation with the Quebec government. The Minister of Canadian Heritage has stated that his government is collaborating extremely well with the government, yet he has ignored the input from April 29, 2022, and the letter from February 4, 2023. Will the government send Bill Câ11 to committee so that it can consider Quebec's proposed amendment?
Rodriguez asserted that there is a consensus in Quebec supporting Bill C-11 and the artists it benefits, and dismissed Conservatives for not understanding the importance of culture, without addressing the Quebec consultation requests or the committee referral question.
Rodriguez claimed there is a consensus in Quebec supporting Bill C-11 and mocked Conservatives for not talking about culture, without addressing the specific Quebec intervention, the February 4 letter, or whether the bill will go back to committee.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il y a un consensus au Québec sur l'importance du projet de loi et sur l'importance d'appuyer nos artistes, nos créateurs, nos directeurs, nos producteurs, ceux qui font ce qu'il y a de mieux en musique, en cinéma, en télévision. Tout le monde est d'accord, sauf les conservateurs qui ne parlent jamais de culture. En fait, pour eux, la culture, c'est ce qu'on retrouve dans un pot de yogourt.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there is a consensus in Quebec on the importance of the bill and the importance of supporting our artists, creators, directors, producers, those who top the best-of lists in music, film and television. Everyone agrees, except the Conservatives, who never talk about culture. In fact, their daily dose of culture comes from their morning yogurt.
Deltell cited the National Assembly's unanimous request to be heard on Bill C-11, pointed to section 7 of the bill as centralizing power over the CRTC in cabinet, and asked whether Quebec's proposals will be heard in parliamentary committee.
Deltell cites a unanimous resolution of the National Assembly and identifies a specific provision of Bill C-11 (section 7 giving cabinet more power over the CRTC), asking a direct yes/no question about allowing Quebec's proposals to be heard in committee.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il y a plus qu'un consensus au QuĂ©bec, il y a unanimitĂ© Ă l'AssemblĂ©e nationale qui demande Ă ĂȘtre entendue par ce gouvernement pour le projet de loi Câ11. On comprend que l'alliance bloquiste-libĂ©rale nâa peut-ĂȘtre pas lu attentivement le projet de loi qui, dans la section 7, donne plus de pouvoirs au conseil des ministres pour diriger le CRTC. Ăa, c'est la centralisation du pouvoir au fĂ©dĂ©ral; et le Bloc est d'accord lĂ -dessus. Est-ce que le ministre libĂ©ral ou bloquiste, on ne sait plus trop, pourrait dire Ă la Chambre que, oui, on va permettre d'entendre la proposition du QuĂ©bec et les amendements en comitĂ© parlementaire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there is more than a consensus in Quebec; there is unanimity. The National Assembly voted unanimously to demand that this government hear what it has to say on Bill Câ11. We realize that members of the Bloc-Liberal alliance may not have read the bill carefully. Clause 7 gives greater power to cabinet to direct the CRTC. This centralizes power at the federal level, and the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois is okay with that. Could the Liberal or Bloc minister, since it is hard to know which is which, tell the House that, yes, they will allow the Quebec proposal and the amendments to be heard in parliamentary committee?
Rodriguez reiterated the consensus among the government, the Bloc québécois, and the NDP on requiring online broadcasters like Netflix and Disney to contribute to local content production, without addressing the National Assembly's request or the committee question.
Rodriguez made a joke at Deltell's expense, reiterated the consensus among Liberals, the Bloc québécois, and the NDP on requiring online broadcasters like Netflix and Disney to contribute to local content, and did not address the National Assembly's unanimous request or the committee hearing question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je ne sais pas si c'est parce que c'est la journée de l'agriculture, mais mon collÚgue est tout le temps dans le champ. En ce qui concerne la culture, il y a un consensus au gouvernement avec le Bloc québécois, le NPD et la société québécoise sur l'importance de travailler et de faire en sorte que les diffuseurs en ligne comme Netflix, Disney et les autres, qu'on aime beaucoup, contribuent à la production de contenu de chez nous, de contenu québécois et canadien en matiÚre de musique, de film, de télévision. Tout le monde est d'accord, sauf les conservateurs.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is because today is Canada's Agriculture Day, but my colleague always seems to be in the weeds. When it comes to culture, there is a consensus in the government with the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and Quebec society on the importance of working together to ensure that online broadcasters like Netflix, Disney and others, which are very popular, contribute to the production of homegrown content, in other words Quebec and Canadian content in music, film and television. Everyone agrees, except the Conservatives.
Paul-Hus accused the Liberal-Bloc alliance of working against Quebec's interests across several bills and asked again whether Bill C-11 will be sent to committee to study Quebec's proposed amendments.
The question repeats the committee referral ask for Bill C-11 but embeds it in rhetorical references to Bills C-5 and C-75 that are not germane, diluting its specificity.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il est clair que, l'alliance bloquiste-centralisatrice-libĂ©rale, tout ce qu'elle fait pour le QuĂ©bec actuellement, ça ne marche pas. Pensons au projet de loi Câ5, qui permet aux violeurs de rester chez eux, ou au projet de loi Câ75, qui permet d'avoir des cautions pour des bandits libĂ©rĂ©s, alors qu'ils sont encore violents. Maintenant, c'est au tour du projet de loi Câ11. Pour comble d'insulte, ils refusent de considĂ©rer la motion adoptĂ©e Ă l'unanimitĂ©. MĂȘme les bloquistes ont votĂ© unanimement pour que le projet de loi Câ11 soit pris en charge par le fĂ©dĂ©ral. Le ministre peut-il nous dire si le projet de loi Câ11 va ĂȘtre envoyĂ© en comitĂ© pour y ĂȘtre Ă©tudiĂ© avec les amendements?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that everything the Bloc-centralist-Liberal alliance is currently doing for Quebec is not working. Just think of Bill Câ5, which allows rapists to stay at home, or Bill Câ75, which lets criminals who have been released to obtain bail even if they are still violent. Now, there is Bill Câ11. To add insult to injury, they are refusing to consider the motion that was adopted unanimously. Even the Bloc voted unanimously for the federal government to move on Bill Câ11. Can the minister tell us if Bill Câ11 will be sent to committee to be studied together with the amendments?
Rodriguez thanked the Bloc québécois for understanding the importance of culture and urged Conservative Quebec MPs to support Bill C-11 for the benefit of Quebec's music, television, and film, without addressing the committee referral request.
Rodriguez thanked the Bloc for understanding the importance of culture in Quebec and encouraged Quebecers' elected Conservative MPs to support Bill C-11, without answering whether the bill will be sent to committee with Quebec's amendments.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie mes amis du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois qui, eux, ont compris l'importance de la culture au QuĂ©bec. Je comprends mal que des dĂ©putĂ©s quĂ©bĂ©cois, Ă©lus par d'autres QuĂ©bĂ©cois, ne comprennent pas Ă quel point ce projet de loi est important pour faire en sorte qu'on appuie notre musique, notre tĂ©lĂ©vision, nos films, et pour que nous continuions Ă ĂȘtre non seulement les meilleurs chez nous, mais les meilleurs dans le monde.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois friends who have understood the importance of culture in Quebec. I am confused about why Quebec MPs elected by other Quebeckers do not understand how important this bill is to ensure support for our music, television and movies so that we can continue to be not just the best in Canada, but the best in the world.
Deltell noted that the government is quarrelling with the Quebec government and the National Assembly over Bill C-11, and asked whether the minister will guarantee that Quebec's concerns will be heard in parliamentary committee.
Deltell sharpens the framing by noting the government is now in conflict with the Quebec government itself and the National Assembly, and asks a direct yes/no question about whether Quebec's concerns will be heard in parliamentary committee.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, qui l'eĂ»t cru? Non seulement le gouvernement libĂ©ral ne se chicane plus avec le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, mais voilĂ qu'il se chicane avec le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec Ă l'AssemblĂ©e nationale. Ăa, ce n'est pas parler au nom du QuĂ©bec. Le fait est que le foyer du fait français est au QuĂ©bec. Le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec et l'AssemblĂ©e nationale veulent ĂȘtre entendus en comitĂ© parlementaire. Est-ce que la nouvelle vedette du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, qui s'adonne Ă ĂȘtre ministre de l'alliance entre le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois et le Parti libĂ©ral, pourrait se lever et assurer au QuĂ©bec que, oui, on entendra les dolĂ©ances du QuĂ©bec en comitĂ© parlementaire concernant ce projet de loi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, who would have thought? Not only is the Liberal government no longer bickering with the Bloc Québécois, but now it is bickering with the Government of Quebec at the National Assembly. That is not what it means to speak on behalf of Quebec. The fact is that Quebec is the home of the French fact. The Government of Quebec and the National Assembly want to be heard in parliamentary committee. Could the new star of the Bloc Québécois, who happens to be minister of the alliance between the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party, stand up and assure Quebec that, yes, Quebec's grievances over this bill will be heard in parliamentary committee?
Rodriguez declared that Bill C-11 is good for Quebec's artists, producers, and the French language, and accused Conservatives of trying to kill the bill, without committing to hearing Quebec's concerns in committee.
Rodriguez argued that Bill C-11 is good for Quebec's artists, producers, and the French fact, accused Conservatives of wanting to kill the bill, and did not answer whether Quebec's concerns will be heard in parliamentary committee.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on le sait: ĂȘtre QuĂ©bĂ©cois, cela veut dire qu'on est capable de tendre la main et que, si parfois on n'est pas d'accord sur certaines choses, on est capable de travailler pour les intĂ©rĂȘts du QuĂ©bec. C'est ce que nous faisons actuellement avec le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois et avec le NPD, contrairement Ă ce que font les conservateurs. Le projet de loi Câ11 est bon pour nos artistes, nos producteurs et nos artisans. C'est bon pour le fait français et pour la production en français. Les conservateurs veulent tuer ce projet de loi. Honte Ă eux! C'est bon pour le QuĂ©bec, et nous irons de l'avant.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we know that being a Quebecker means being able to reach out and that if there are disagreements over certain things, being able to work for the interests of Quebec. That is what we are currently doing with the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois and with the NDP, unlike what the Conservatives are doing. Bill Câ11 is good for our artists, our producers and our artisans. It is good for the French fact and for French productions. The Conservatives want to kill this bill. Shame on them. It is good for Quebec and we will forge ahead.
Beaulieu described Liberal caucus divisions over Bill C-13, noting the member for Mont-Royal and others announced they would vote against it if it references the Charte de la langue française, and asked whether the minister will bring them into line.
Beaulieu identifies specific named Liberal MPs (député de Mont-Royal) threatening to vote against Bill C-13, gives a specific reason (the mention of the Charte de la langue française), and implies a question about party discipline, though the actual question is cut off.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les dĂ©chirements du caucus libĂ©ral sur le projet de loi Câ13 ressemblent Ă une comĂ©die musicale. Chaque jour, les tensions entre les diffĂ©rentes gangs s'amplifient. C'est un vĂ©ritable West Island story. Hier, le dĂ©putĂ© de Mont-Royal brisait les rangs et annonçait qu'il voterait contre le projet de loi Câ13 si ce dernier mentionne l'existence de la Charte de la langue française. Aujourd'hui, coup de thĂ©Ăątre, un ministre libĂ©ral du West Island menace aussi de voter contre. Un ministre libĂ©ral contre un projet de loi libĂ©ral, ça fait un bon show, mais est-ce que la ministre va les ramener Ă l'ordre...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the rifts in the Liberal caucus over Bill Câ13 are playing out like a musical. Tensions between the different gangs escalate from one day to the next. It is a real West Island story. Yesterday, the member for Mount Royal broke ranks and announced he would vote against Bill Câ13 if it mentions the Charter of the French Language in any way. Today, in a dramatic turn of events, a Liberal minister from the West Island also threatened to vote nay. A Liberal minister opposing a Liberal bill, that makes for good theatre, but will the minister responsible call them to orderâ
Petitpas Taylor reaffirmed the government's commitment to protecting and promoting French in Canada and outlined what Bill C-13 will accomplish for the Commissioner of Official Languages and federally regulated workplaces, without addressing the named Liberal dissidents.
Petitpas Taylor listed general commitments on protecting and promoting French and official language minority communities and outlined what Bill C-13 will do for the Commissioner of Official Languages and federally regulated private businesses, without addressing the named dissidents or the intra-caucus conflict.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, notre engagement pour faire notre juste part afin de protĂ©ger et de promouvoir le français partout au pays, y compris au QuĂ©bec, ainsi que pour protĂ©ger et promouvoir nos communautĂ©s de langues officielles en situation minoritaire est trĂšs clair. Je tiens Ă prendre un instant pour remercier les membres du comitĂ© qui travaillent pour faire avancer ce dossier. Avec l'adoption du projet de loi Câ13, nous allons pouvoir outiller le commissaire aux langues officielles en ce qui concerne son travail, un travail essentiel. Aussi, nous allons voir des changements pour les entreprises privĂ©es de compĂ©tence fĂ©dĂ©rale et nous assurer que les gens peuvent travailler et se faire servir en français.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear about our commitment to do our fair share to protect and promote French across the country, including in Quebec, and to protect and promote our official language minority communities. I want to take a moment to thank the committee members who are working to advance this file. With the passage of Bill Câ13, we will be able to give the Commissioner of Official Languages the tools he needs to do his work, which is essential. We will also be seeing changes for federally regulated private businesses to make sure that people can work and get service in French.
Beaulieu named the members for Mont-Royal, Westmount, and Saint-Laurent as Liberal opponents of Bill C-13 and noted a Liberal minister has also threatened to vote against it, asking whether the Liberal Quebec dissenters are the real defenders of French.
Beaulieu names multiple specific Liberal members (Mont-Royal, Westmount, Saint-Laurent) threatening to vote against Bill C-13 and frames a provocative accountability question about who the real defenders of French are, but the question is more rhetorical than a direct ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le dĂ©putĂ© de Mont-Royal est contre la reconnaissance de la Charte de la langue française dans le projet de loi Câ13. Il s'ajoute au dĂ©putĂ© de Westmount et Ă la dĂ©putĂ©e de SaintâLaurent. Maintenant, un ministre libĂ©ral menace de les rejoindre et de voter contre un projet de loi libĂ©ral. Cela commence Ă en faire plusieurs, des libĂ©raux qui s'opposent au projet de loi Câ13. Rendu lĂ , on est en droit de se demander: les dissidents du caucus libĂ©ral quĂ©bĂ©cois, les rebelles, est-ce ceux qui veulent dĂ©fendre le français?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the member for Mount Royal is against recognizing the Charter of the French Language in Bill Câ13, as are the member for Westmount and the member for SaintâLaurent. Now, a Liberal minister is threatening to join them and to vote against a Liberal bill. There are starting to be quite a few Liberals who are opposed to Bill Câ13. At this point, one has to wonder whether the Quebec Liberal caucus dissidents, the rebels, are the ones who want to defend French.
Rodriguez asserted that Bill C-13 is good legislation recognizing that French is a threatened language requiring more support, and accused Conservatives and the Bloc of forming a coalition to defeat it, without addressing the Liberal internal dissent.
Rodriguez defended Bill C-13 as recognizing that French is a threatened language and needing more support, but accused a coalition of Conservatives and the Bloc of voting against it, which is a deflection that mischaracterizes the question about Liberal internal dissent.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le projet de loi Câ13 est un bon projet de loi. Il reconnaĂźt qu'il y a une langue qui est menacĂ©e, le français, et qu'il faut en faire plus pour le français au QuĂ©bec et Ă l'extĂ©rieur du QuĂ©bec. Cependant, la coalition entre les conservateurs et le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois vote contre ce projet de loi. Elle fait tout pour dĂ©faire ce projet de loi. Nous, du cĂŽtĂ© libĂ©ral, allons continuer Ă nous battre pour dĂ©fendre le français partout au pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Bill Câ13 is a good bill. It recognizes that French is threatened and that more needs to be done to protect French both within and outside Quebec. However, the Conservative-Bloc coalition plans to vote against this bill. It is doing everything to defeat it. We, on the Liberal side, will continue to fight to defend French across the country.
Brassard alleged that Liberal-connected insiders like McKinsey received $120 million while Canadians struggle with food and housing costs, and asked whether the Prime Minister will step aside and let Conservatives fix the problem.
Brassard mentions a specific figure ($120 million to McKinsey) and frames a clear either/or ask, but the question is heavily laden with partisan rhetoric ('palms greased,' 'Liberal-connected insider') that undermines its accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the current Prime Minister, Canadians are struggling to pay for their food and for their heat, and moms are going to bed every night worried about keeping roofs over their heads. However, if someone is a Liberal-connected insider, or a friend of the Prime Minister like McKinsey, they get their palms greased to the tune of $120 million, yet the Prime Minister does not care. He takes no responsibility either. Will the Prime Minister either step aside and let Conservatives fix the problem, or is he going to add to the problem like he has over the last eight years?
Holland stated that Canadians decide who governs, defended the independent arm's-length contracting process as meeting high standards, and accused Conservatives of suggesting they would engage in political interference with public service contracts.
Holland argued that contract decisions are made through an independent arm's-length process without political interference and accused Conservatives of suggesting they would engage in political interference, pivoting away from the $120 million McKinsey figure entirely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is Canadians who decide who gets to sit in government, not Conservative MPs. The second point I would make is that the member is suggesting that the Conservatives would engage in political interference and interfere with the independent, arm's-length process to engage contracts. Canada has one of the highest standards in the world for how contracts are engaged. Those decisions are made without political interference, and I find it disturbing that the Conservatives continue to come back and say that they would, if that is what I am hearing, politically interfere and make decisions about what the public servants engage in, in terms of contracts.
Lloyd asked why the Liberal government has awarded at least $120 million in contracts to McKinsey & Company rather than trusting the professional public service.
Cites a specific dollar figure ($120 million) and raises a clear accountability concern about McKinsey contracts undermining the public service, though the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's professional and independent public service is the backbone of our federal government. Public servants are the ones the government should trust to provide professional advice, not the high-priced consultants at McKinsey & Company. Nonetheless, the Liberal government has awarded at least $120 million in contracts to McKinsey, undermining our hard-working public servants by creating a legion of shadow consultants who are accountable not to Canadians, but to their shareholders. Why does the Liberal government trust foreign consulting firms more than our own professional public service?
Holland said contracting decisions are made by the public service at arm's length and accused Conservatives of inconsistency regarding Dominic Barton.
Holland deflects by praising the public service, asserts arm's-length decision-making without evidence, then pivots to attacking Conservative inconsistency over Dominic Barton rather than addressing the $120 million figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been in this place for some time. He would recognize that he is absolutely correct to state that the public servants we have are the best in the world. We owe them a tremendous debt for all they do, and that is why we ensure that they are the ones who actually make the decisions with respect to those contracts. Those are made at arm's length. The reality is that one day the Conservatives are trying to cook up these conspiracies and talk about âshadowâ whatever they are talking about, and the next day they are talking about Dominic Barton, the former campaign manager to Stephen Harper. They are saying he is right and should be lauded as one of the great Canadians. I do not know what they are talking about over there.
Lloyd, citing CUPE's term 'shadow public service,' asked when the Liberals will stop spending taxpayer dollars on private consulting firms rather than the public service.
Attributes the 'shadow public service' phrase to CUPE and notes exponential growth in private-consultant spending, giving some factual grounding, though the ask is vague and rhetorical at its close.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the creation of the âshadow public serviceâ are not my words; they are the words from the Canadian Union of Public Employees. The Liberals claim they stand in support of our professional public servants, but after eight years, their record says otherwise. After eight years, the amount of taxpayer cash that goes to private consultants has grown exponentially. This was funding that our public service could have used to improve services for Canadians. The Liberal government seems so intent on breaking the public service, just like it breaks everything else. When will the Liberals stop wasting taxpayer dollars on unethical consulting firms that are not accountable to Canadians?
Holland reasserted arm's-length contracting and shifted to citing job growth and poverty-reduction figures since the Conservatives left power.
Holland repeats the arm's-length claim without any data and then pivots entirely to employment and poverty statistics unrelated to the consulting-contract question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that these are decisions made by the public service at arm's length and that it is inappropriate for the members opposite to imply they would use political influence to influence these contracts, but I will talk about what has grown since the Conservatives left power and we have had the opportunity to serve Canadians. As I indicated earlier, there are almost two million more people who have jobs today than when the Conservatives were in power. There are 2.7 million fewer people in poverty, hundreds of thousands of children and hundreds of thousands of seniors who are not in poverty today. That is what has improved. That is what has changed since the Conservatives left power.
Chatel asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food what the government is doing to support the development of Canada's agricultural sector.
A government-backbench softball on Canadian Agriculture Day asking broadly what the government is doing to support the agricultural sector, with no specific accountability ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on a beaucoup parlé du Jour de l'agriculture canadienne qu'on célÚbre aujourd'hui. On parle aussi de plus en plus de sécurité alimentaire mondiale. Quand on parle de sécurité alimentaire, on parle aussi de notre économie. L'agriculture est un des piliers trÚs importants de l'économie canadienne au XXIe siÚcle. J'aimerais demander à la ministre de l'Agriculture et de l'Agroalimentaire si elle peut nous dire ce que le gouvernement fait pour soutenir le développement de cet important secteur économique.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about Canada's Agriculture Day, which is being celebrated today. There is also more talk about global food security lately. When we talk about food security, we are also talking about our economy. Agriculture is one of the key pillars of the Canadian economy in the 21st century. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food if she can tell us what the government is doing to support the development of this important economic sector.
Bibeau cited a $150 million additional investment in the protein supercluster and nearly $20 million announced that morning for two initiatives to help businesses find labour.
Bibeau provided two concrete recent investments: $150 million additional for the protein supercluster and nearly $20 million for two labour-support initiatives announced that morning.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aujourd'hui nous cĂ©lĂ©brons nos productrices et nos producteurs agricoles et les excellents aliments qu'ils produisent de façon toujours plus durable. Je profite de l'occasion pour informer les gens de nos derniĂšres initiatives et de nos derniers investissements. Hier, nous avons investi 150 millions de dollars de plus dans la supergrappe pour les protĂ©ines, et, ce matin, j'ai annoncĂ© prĂšs de 20 millions de dollars pour deux initiatives qui visent Ă soutenir nos entreprises dans leur recherche de main-d'Ćuvre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate our agricultural producers and the wonderful food they produce in an increasingly sustainable way. I want to take this opportunity to update people on our latest initiatives and investments. Yesterday, we invested an additional $150 million in the protein supercluster, and this morning I announced nearly $20 million for two initiatives to support our businesses in their search for workers.
Aitchison asked how Canadians can trust the housing minister to fix the housing crisis when the minister refuses to acknowledge that a crisis exists.
Cites several specific indicators (vacancy rates, rental rates at $2,000/month, home prices doubled, nine out of ten young non-owners) but the closing ask is rhetorical and compound rather than a single precise question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the government, housing is broken. Health care workers are living in tents, students are living in homeless shelters, vacancy rates are at an all-time low and rental rates are now $2,000 a month. Home prices have doubled under the government's watch, and nine out of 10 young people who do not own homes in this country think they never will. Everyone agrees that Canada is in a housing crisis, everyone except the housing minister that is. If the minister refuses to even acknowledge that a crisis exists, how can Canadians trust him to fix it?
Hussen cited record government investments in housing and attacked Conservatives for wanting the federal government to do less on housing.
Hussen does not acknowledge the specific statistics, does not confirm or deny the existence of a crisis, and pivots to attacking the Conservative member for MissionâMatsquiâFraser Canyon's stated position.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our record is clear. We recognize that more Canadians need to have access to safe and affordable housing. We have invested record amounts of money to make sure that we build more and faster. The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives' record is clear. That member should talk to the member for MissionâMatsquiâFraser Canyon, who said that the federal government needs to do less, that we need to dump housing on provinces. Our record is clear. We believe that the federal government has an active role to play. They believe we should do less, and that is why they vote against every housing measure that comes to the floor of the House.
Barrett asked why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister gets to keep his job after being found to have broken ethics laws by using his position to further a company's interests.
Identifies a specific individual (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister), a specific violation (using his position to further a company's interests), and asks a direct question about employment consequences.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, another day and another Liberal is caught breaking ethics laws. This time it is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister who was caught using his position to further the interests of a company. Now the Liberals are so brazen in their law-breaking that they have a member of the ethics committee who is breaking ethics laws. These Liberals think they are above the law. For everyday Canadians there are consequences when they break the law. So why does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister get to keep his job after he broke the law?
Oh, oh!
Holland confirmed the parliamentary secretary errantly sent a letter supporting a business serving Black and multi-ethnic communities, acknowledged it was inappropriate, and said he apologized and endeavours to do better.
Holland confirms the parliamentary secretary sent the letter errantly and apologized, partially addressing the question, but does not directly answer why he gets to keep his job beyond characterizing it as a mistake.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has apologized, as I indicated in the House. There was a company that supports Black and multi-ethnic communities acrossâ
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the parliamentary secretary errantly, and he has admitted his mistake, supported a business that is supporting and reflects Black and multi-ethnic communities across Canada. He wanted to support the important work it was doing, but recognized that it was inappropriate for him to send that letter. Let me say of that parliamentary secretary that he is somebody with passion and dedication who serves his constituents and his country. The difference, I guess, between ourselves and the Conservatives is that, when we make a mistake, we apologize and endeavour to do better.
Barrett asked, given a pattern of ethics violations across cabinet including the Prime Minister himself, who will resign first â the Prime Minister or his parliamentary secretary.
Lists multiple specific past ethics violations (trade minister, intergovernmental affairs minister, former finance minister, Prime Minister) but asks a compound rhetorical question about who will resign first rather than a single precise ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, maybe when Canadians are caught breaking the law, the government is okay if they just say âsorryâ. After eight years of the Prime Minister, Canadians do not expect that the Prime Minister will take any action when his ministers and parliamentary secretaries break the law, because he would have to hold himself to a high standard as well, having twice been caught breaking ethics laws. It is a cabinet of serial lawbreakers, with the trade minister, the intergovernmental affairs minister, the former finance minister and even the Prime Minister. Both the Prime Minister and his parliamentary secretary broke the law. Who is going to resign first?
Oh, oh!
Holland maintained that the parliamentary secretary's mistake did not warrant resignation and defended the principle of taking ownership of mistakes.
Holland reiterates that the parliamentary secretary made a mistake and apologized, and directly states the mistake does not warrant resignation, which partially addresses the resignation question but without substantive justification.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the parliamentary secretary did send a letter attempting to support a business that he believed in, but recognized that it was inappropriate for him to send that letter. The idea that the parliamentary secretary would give up his position for such a mistake is, I think, terrible. The reality is, in my estimationâ
Mr. Speaker, they can yell and scream, but maybe they should reflect. We all make mistakes in life. We take ownership for them. The parliamentary secretary did exactly that. The level of his mistake absolutely does not warrant his resigning.
Sorbara asked the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance to update the House on the government's transformational investments in Canada's auto sector.
A government-backbench softball timed to the Canadian International AutoShow anniversary asking broadly about transformational investments in the auto sector, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing a renaissance in Canada's auto sector, and this is only the beginning. As chair of the auto caucus, I am excited to share that the awaited Canadian International AutoShow is back, celebrating its 50th anniversary, where Canadian innovation in this sector will be on full display. Can the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance update the House on the transformational investments our government is making in Canada's auto sector to track new investments and create great jobs and bright futures for all Canadians?
Boissonnault cited more than $15 billion invested in the EV and battery supply chain last year and hundreds of millions more committed to Canadian electric vehicle production powered by Canadian critical minerals.
Boissonnault cited more than $15 billion invested in the EV and battery supply chain in the last year and mentioned hundreds of millions to support Canadian EV production, providing concrete figures relevant to the ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the MP for VaughanâWoodbridge, for his hard work on the file. Our auto-manufacturing sector is the centrepiece of the Canadian economy and a source of many well-paying Canadian jobs. Last year alone, we saw more than $15 billion invested in the EV and battery supply chain. Our government is working with auto manufacturers and labour organizations to ensure that the Canadian auto sector remains strong and competitive not only today, but for decades to come. We are putting hundreds of millions of dollars on the table to make sure that Canada is a leader in the production of electric vehicles built by Canadians and powered by Canadian critical minerals. This is good news for Canada and for Canadians.
Boulerice asked when the Liberals will suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement so the Roxham Road issue can finally be resolved.
Boulerice references a specific motion adopted the previous day by the Assemblée nationale du Québec and asks a precise policy question about suspending the Safe Third Country Agreement.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, de nombreuses personnes ayant passé par le chemin Roxham sont venues à mon bureau à Montréal. Contrairement à ce que dit le Bloc québécois, le chemin Roxham n'a rien à voir avec un tout inclus. Hier, l'Assemblée nationale du Québec a adopté une motion pour dénoncer cette comparaison insensible et déconnectée, une comparaison qui alimente les préjugés. C'est aussi l'inaction des libéraux dans ce dossier qui a laissé la place à ce genre de discours qui sÚme la division et la désinformation. Quand est-ce que les libéraux vont suspendre l'Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs pour qu'on puisse finalement régler cet enjeu?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a number of people who crossed into Canada at Roxham Road have come to my office in Montreal. Contrary to what the Bloc Québécois says, Roxham Road is nothing like an all-inclusive vacation. The Quebec National Assembly adopted a motion yesterday to denounce this insensitive and out-of-touch comparison, one that feeds prejudice. Liberal inaction on this issue has also left room for this kind of divisive and misleading rhetoric. When will the Liberals suspend the safe third country agreement so we can finally fix this?
Lalonde said the Safe Third Country Agreement is an important bilateral tool and that the government will continue working with U.S. counterparts to modernize it, without addressing suspension.
Lalonde does not address the suspension request at all, instead affirming the importance of the Safe Third Country Agreement as a bilateral tool and pledging to continue working with U.S. counterparts to modernize it.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je pense que, comme Canadiens, on doit tous protĂ©ger nos frontiĂšres et assurer la sĂ©curitĂ© de ces gens qui quittent pour des raisons humanitaires, parce qu'ils subissent des violences. L'Entente sur les tiers pays sĂ»rs est un outil bilatĂ©ral important. Nous allons continuer de travailler avec nos homologues aux ĂtatsâUnis pour moderniser cette entente.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I think that, as Canadians, we all have a duty to do our part to protect our borders and ensure the safety of people who are fleeing for humanitarian reasons, because they are suffering abuse. The safe third country agreement is an important bilateral tool. We will continue to work with our counterparts in the United States to modernize this agreement.
Rayes asked whether the government will take necessary measures to address a 30-year-old tax law that penalizes Canadian companies like Zenit Nutrition before the next budget.
Rayes names a specific company (Zenit Nutrition) in his constituency, references a prior question on December 2nd, and identifies a specific 30-year-old tax law penalizing Canadian businesses using local and healthy ingredients, making a concrete pre-budget ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le 2 décembre dernier, j'ai questionné le gouvernement en lien avec un problÚme d'une loi fiscale vieille de 30 ans qui fait que des entreprises canadiennes, comme Zenit Nutrition dans ma circonscription, sont pénalisées par notre systÚme de taxation, malgré le fait qu'elles utilisent des produits exclusivement locaux et santé dans la fabrication de leurs produits alimentaires. Ces hommes et ces femmes entrepreneurs se battent contre des multinationales, et ils ne demandent qu'à pouvoir compétitionner de façon égale. Le gouvernement libéral dit qu'il veut aider notre économie canadienne. Va-t-il prendre les mesures nécessaires pour écouter les entrepreneurs avant le prochain budget?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on December 2, I asked the government a question concerning a 30-year-old tax law whereby Canadian companies, like Zenit Nutrition in my riding, are penalized by our tax system despite the fact that they use only local and healthy ingredients in producing their food products. These men and women entrepreneurs are fighting multinationals, and they are only asking to be able to compete on an equal footing. The Liberal government says that it wants to help our Canadian economy. Will it take the necessary steps to listen to entrepreneurs before the next budget?
Boissonnault said the government listens to small and medium enterprises and committed to taking the member's specific question, discussing the issue, and providing a robust response.
Boissonnault does not address the specific tax law or Zenit Nutrition but commits to taking the specific question, discussing the issue, and providing a robust response, which is a vague but non-dismissive engagement.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement est à l'écoute des petites et moyennes entreprises. Il est aussi à l'écoute des entreprises qui alimentent les Canadiens et les Canadiennes et qui nourrissent nos communautés. Nous allons prendre cette question particuliÚre du député, nous allons discuter de cet enjeu et nous allons fournir une réponse robuste.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government is listening to small and medium-sized businesses. It is also listening to businesses that provide food to Canadians and feed our communities. We will take the member's specific question, discuss this issue and provide a strong response.
Paul-Hus invoked a point of order alleging the Minister of Environment had misled the House by claiming Quebec does not pay a carbon tax, and sought unanimous consent to table his own propane bill showing a carbon tax of 6.2 cents per litre.
Paul-Hus raises a point of order with a specific factual claim â citing his own propane bill showing a carbon tax charge of 6.2 cents per litre â to correct a minister's statement, but it is a procedural request rather than a true question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'invoque le RĂšglement. Durant la pĂ©riode de questions orales, le ministre de l'Environnement a induit la Chambre en erreur en prĂ©tendant qu'au QuĂ©bec on ne paie pas de taxe sur le carbone. Je demande le consentement unanime de la Chambre pour dĂ©poser ma propre facture de propane oĂč c'est inscrit clairement que je paie une taxe sur le carbone de 6,2 Âą par litre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During Oral Questions, the Minister of Environment misled the House by suggesting that people in Quebec do not pay a carbon tax. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to table my own personal propane bill, which clearly shows that I paid 6.2Âą per litre in carbon tax.
Non.
Hansard translation: Nay.
The House denied unanimous consent without debate.
The House simply denied unanimous consent with 'Non,' providing no substantive answer or engagement with the factual claim.