Session overview
- Carbon pricing dominated Question Period, with Conservatives pressing the government repeatedly on the cost of a second carbon tax they called the 'fuel standard,' while ministers deflected to climate action and clean economy investments without providing specific cost figures.
- Finance minister Chrystia Freeland faced sustained criticism from both Conservatives and NDP over fiscal management, including the inability to state the annual cost of interest on the national debt, $60 billion in new spending, and rising grocery and rent costs.
- Justice Minister David Lametti defended the newly introduced Bill C-48 on bail reform, citing support from the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, while Conservatives argued it would not have prevented the release of the man who killed Constable Greg Pierzchala.
- The Bloc Québécois raised an ongoing ecological and public safety crisis at Kanesatake and Lac des Deux Montagnes, where the federal government owns the territory, and pressed for urgent action on contamination and crime affecting more than 2,000 Indigenous residents.
- Deputy Prime Minister Freeland announced that the one-time grocery rebate, up to $467 for eligible couples with two children, will be delivered on July 5, 2023, to 11 million low- and moderate-income Canadians.
- Foreign interference and democratic institutions were raised by both Bloc Québécois and an Independent member, with questions over the adequacy of a new CSIS directive to inform parliamentarians of threats and the status of the RCMP investigation into Chinese police stations operating in Canada.
The government made a specific, verifiable commitment: the one-time grocery rebate of up to $467 for eligible couples with two children will be delivered on July 5, 2023, to 11 million low- and moderate-income Canadians.
Highly specific: cites Canada as the only G7 country to have lost researchers since 2016 and reduced R&D investment over 20 years, notes graduate scholarships have not been indexed since 2003, and asks a clear targeted question about raising graduate scholarships.
Asked directly when the finance minister would understand that the carbon tax causes inflation, Bill Blair used the entirety of his answer to provide a wildfire situational update for western Canada, making no connection whatsoever to the question asked.
Outstanding questions
- How much will the clean fuel standard (carbon tax 2) add in extra diesel, gas and household costs per family? â asked repeatedly by Pierre Poilievre, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Shannon Stubbs, John Barlow, Jeremy Patzer, Kyle Seeback and Rosemarie Falk; never answered with a specific figure.
- What is the total annual interest cost Canadians pay on the national debt? â asked by Pierre Poilievre and GĂ©rard Deltell; the finance minister cited expert endorsements of fiscal credibility but did not state the figure.
- What exactly does the new CSIS directive on informing parliamentarians of threats mean by 'to the extent possible,' and who decides when it is not possible? â asked by RenĂ© Villemure; the parliamentary secretary confirmed the directive exists but did not clarify the limiting language.
- When will the government increase graduate student scholarships, which have not been indexed since 2003? â asked by Maxime Blanchette-Joncas; the parliamentary secretary cited research chair funding under budget 2022 without addressing graduate scholarship indexation.
- How many Chinese police stations are operating in Canada, and is there a threshold of intimidation of Chinese Canadians that must be reached before the government acts? â asked by Kevin Vuong; the parliamentary secretary confirmed the RCMP investigation is ongoing but gave no figures or timeline.
Why has the finance minister not been fired given her inability at the finance committee to state the interest cost on the national debt?
Cites a specific incident (finance committee testimony the previous day) and draws a concrete analogy, with an implicit but clear ask about ministerial accountability.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre a dit que doubler notre dette nationale n'Ă©tait pas un problĂšme parce que les taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt Ă©taient bas, mais ses propres dĂ©penses ont gonflĂ© l'inflation et les taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt. Hier, au ComitĂ© permanent des finances, la ministre Ă©tait incapable de dire combien nous payons pour l'intĂ©rĂȘt sur sa dette nationale. Si un agent hypothĂ©caire n'Ă©tait pas capable de donner le coĂ»t de l'intĂ©rĂȘt sur un prĂȘt, il serait congĂ©diĂ©. Alors, pourquoi ne pas congĂ©dier la ministre des Finances?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that doubling our national debt would not be a problem because interest rates were low, but his spending has increased inflation and interest rates. Yesterday, at the finance committee, the minister was unable to say how much interest we are paying on her national debt. If a mortgage broker could not tell someone the interest payment on a loan, they would be fired. Should we not fire the finance minister?
The minister deflected by asking what the Conservative leader's economic plan is and listing Liberal spending commitments.
Deflects entirely by demanding the opposition's economic plan rather than addressing the finance committee incident or the question of ministerial competence.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la personne qui est incapable de rĂ©pondre Ă une simple question, c'est le leader des conservateurs. Voici ma question: quel est son plan Ă©conomique? OĂč va-t-il faire des coupes? Est-ce que ce sera dans les transferts en santĂ©? Est-ce que ce sera dans les 200 milliards de dollars que notre gouvernement va investir dans les soins de santĂ©? Ce sera peut-ĂȘtre dans les 30 milliards de dollars que nous allons investir dans un systĂšme de garderie national. [Disturbance in the gallery]
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the person unable to answer a simple question is the leader of the Conservatives. My question is the following: What is his economic plan? Where will he make cuts? Will it be in health transfers? Will it be in the $200 billion that our government will invest in health care? Perhaps it will be in the $30 billion that we will be investing in a national day care system. [DĂ©sordre Ă la tribune]
Why is the finance minister not fired for being unable to answer how much Canadians are paying in interest on the debt she has racked up, as demonstrated at the finance committee?
References a specific, verifiable incident (finance committee testimony) and frames a concrete accountability question, though it relies on the same premise as exchange 1.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said there was no problem doubling our national debt, adding more debt than all previous prime ministers combined, because interest rates, he claimed, were low. His same spending has actually increased inflation and interest rates. Yesterday, the finance minister was unable to answer how much Canadians are paying for interest on the debt that she has racked up. If a mortgage broker could not tell someone the interest payment on a loan, he would be fired. Why is the finance minister not fired for her inability to answer that basic question?
The minister predicted the Conservative leader would remain in opposition, accused him of having no positive plan, and said he would cut $200 billion in health care and $300 billion in other investments.
Completely avoids the finance committee incident and the interest-on-debt question, pivoting instead to mocking the Conservative leader's electoral prospects and attacking his lack of a plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is someone whom we do not intend to have fired after the 2025 election, someone who I actually think should keep his job as leader of the Conservative opposition. One of the reasons he is going to keep his job is that he cannot answer a simple question for Canadians, and that is, what is his positive plan? What does he actually propose to do for the Canadian economy? The only thing we know is that he is going to cut. He is going to cut the $200 billion we are investing in our health care system. He is going to cut the $300 billion we are investing inâ
How much will Canadians pay in higher gas and diesel prices because of the second Liberal carbon tax, which the government calls a 'fuel standard'?
Identifies a specific second policy instrument called a 'fuel standard', distinguishes it from the first carbon tax, and asks a concrete cost question per family.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one thing we are going to cut is the carbon tax. Speaking of that tax, we know that the Prime Minister plans to raise it to 41Âą per litre or $1,500 net, after rebates, per family. What most people do not know is that there is a second carbon tax he plans to stack on top of the first one, a sneaky tax he calls a âfuel standardâ, which would hit home heating, gas and our factories, and create countless other higher costs. How much will Canadians pay in higher gas and diesel prices because of the second Liberal carbon tax?
The minister spoke about the importance of building a clean economy, citing a $120 billion green industrial plan, without addressing the 'fuel standard' or its costs.
Does not acknowledge the 'fuel standard' or carbon tax 2 at all, pivoting instead to a general defence of the green industrial plan and $120 billion investment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the Conservative leader actually talking about climate, because the reality is that the biggest challenge our planet faces and the biggest challenge our economy faces is building a clean economy. That is where the jobs are. That is where the jobs will be. We have invested $120 billion in our green industrial plan. It is creating jobs today. It will create jobs in the future. The Conservatives would wreck all of that.
If the minister is proud of carbon tax 2, the 'fuel standard', why will she not say exactly how much it will cost in higher diesel, gas and household costs per family?
Presses specifically on the 'fuel standard' as a second carbon tax with no rebate, applicable in every province and territory, and asks for a per-family cost in diesel, gas, and household expenses.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the question was about carbon tax 2. We already know about carbon tax 1. The Prime Minister has put in place a 14Âą-per-litre tax that will rise to 41Âą per litre. This raises gas, heat and grocery bills. Now the Liberals are sneaking in a second carbon tax called the âfuel standardâ. It has no rebate whatsoever, but will apply in every province and territory across the country. If the minister is so proud of her second tax, why will she not tell us exactly how much it will cost in higher diesel, gas and household costs per family?
The minister said Conservative leader does not understand the need for a clean economy plan, then described meeting an electrician named Jeff in Mississauga who said 'I have the skills to pay the bills.'
Ignores the 'fuel standard' question entirely and instead tells an anecdote about an electrician named Jeff in Mississauga to illustrate job creation in the clean economy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader obviously does not understand that what every industrial economy needs is a plan to build the clean economy of the future. However, I will tell members who does understand that: an electrician named Jeff, whom I met in Mississauga in March. I was there to talk with him about the investments we were going to make in electrifying the Canadian economy. He knows that means, for him, jobs. He told me, âI have the skills to pay the bills.â Thanks to our plan, those skills will be put to work, and the Jeffs across the country will pay their bills.
How much will carbon tax 2 add in extra diesel, gas and household costs per family?
Repeats the specific per-family cost question about carbon tax 2 and connects it to concrete cost categories (vehicle, home heating, food), maintaining focus on a single answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the minister wants is for Jeff to pay her bills. With a higher carbon tax, Jeff will have to pay more tax on his vehicle, more tax on his home heating and more tax on the food that the farmers and truckers, who are taxed by this scheme the Liberals are putting forward, bring to him. I have already said that the first carbon tax is 41Âą per litre and $1,500 net per family. Now the Liberals promise a second tax. Therefore, I will ask the question again. How much will carbon tax 2 add in extra diesel, gas and household costs per family?
The minister said she wants people like Jeff to pay their bills through the green industrial plan and noted that 900,000 more jobs have been added since before the pandemic.
Continues the Jeff anecdote by mentioning his wife is an emergency room nurse and citing 900,000 jobs added, without addressing carbon tax 2 or its costs at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what I want is for people like Jeff in Mississauga, people who have the skills, to be able to pay their bills today, tomorrow and 10 years from now. Jeff's wife, by the way, is an emergency room nurse, and our investments in health care are helping her pay the bills too. That means investing in a green industrial plan. Our focus is relentlessly on Canadians and jobs, and we have added 900,000 more jobs than we had before the pandemic.
What is the government doing about the major ecological crisis at Kanesatake, Oka, and lac des Deux Montagnes, on federally owned Indigenous territory, given that no action has been taken since 2021?
Identifies a specific location (Kanesatake, Oka, lac des Deux Montagnes), describes a concrete ecological crisis on federal-owned Indigenous territory, and notes inaction since 2021.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les citoyens de Kanesatake, d'Oka et les riverains du lac des Deux Montagnes vivent une crise écologique majeure. Le lac des Deux Montagnes, la nappe phréatique et le sol sont probablement tous compromis. Or, le territoire est autochtone, mais le propriétaire en est le gouvernement fédéral. Mon collÚgue de Mirabel sonne l'alerte depuis son élection en 2021. Rien n'a été fait. Que fait le gouvernement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the residents of Kanesatake and Oka and people living on the shores of Lac des Deux Montagnes are experiencing a major ecological crisis. Lac des Deux Montagnes, the water table and the soil are probably all contaminated. These are indigenous lands, but they belong to the federal government. My colleague from Mirabel has been sounding the alarm since he was elected in 2021. Nothing has been done. What is the government doing?
The minister acknowledged the seriousness of the issue and said her colleague is working closely with Indigenous leaders to resolve it.
Acknowledges the seriousness and says the responsible minister is working closely with Indigenous leaders, but provides no specifics about what action is being taken or when.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie mon collĂšgue de sa question. C'est vraiment un enjeu sĂ©rieux et difficile. Comme ma collĂšgue l'a dit hier en rĂ©ponse Ă la mĂȘme question, elle est en train de travailler en Ă©troite collaboration avec les leaders autochtones. Nous savons que nous devons travailler avec les leaders autochtones Ă rĂ©soudre ce problĂšme qui est vraiment grave et sĂ©rieux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. This is a very serious and difficult issue. As my colleague said yesterday in response to the same question, she is working closely with indigenous leaders. We know that we need to work with indigenous leaders to resolve this issue, which is very serious and critical.
When will the government act with full determination on the security crisis at Kanesatake, where criminality and violence have prevented a solution and more than 2,000 Indigenous people are living in fear?
Adds a specific dimension (security crisis, violence, more than 2,000 Indigenous people living in fear) to the prior ecological question and asks when the government will act with the determination the situation requires.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Ă une crise Ă©cologique s'ajoute une crise de sĂ©curitĂ©. Si le gouvernement ignore la criminalitĂ©, les menaces et la violence qui ont empĂȘchĂ© une solution en vertu de la loi, il est le seul Ă l'ignorer. Plus de 2 000 Autochtones vivent dans la peur, ainsi que des nonâAutochtones dans les environs. AprĂšs des annĂ©es Ă faire semblant d'ignorer la situation, quand le gouvernement va-t-il agir avec toute la dĂ©termination que commande la situation?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is an ecological crisis as well as a safety crisis. The government is the only one that is unaware of the crime, the threats and the violence that prevented a legal solution. More than 2,000 indigenous people are living in fear, as are the non-indigenous people in the surrounding area. After years of turning a blind eye to the situation, when will the government act with the resolve this situation warrants?
The minister agreed the situation is serious on environmental and security grounds and assured the House the government is working closely with Indigenous leaders.
Agrees the situation is serious on both environmental and security fronts and says the government is working with Indigenous leaders, but gives no specifics on planned actions or timelines.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis complÚtement d'accord avec le leader du Bloc québécois que c'est une situation sérieuse, que c'est une situation grave et que c'est une situation difficile en matiÚre d'environnement et en matiÚre de sécurité. Je veux assurer la Chambre et tous les Canadiens que nous travaillons, avec ma collÚgue la ministre responsable, en étroite collaboration avec les leaders autochtones pour résoudre la situation.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the leader of the Bloc Québécois that this is a serious situation. It is a serious and difficult situation in terms of the environment and safety. I want to assure the House and all Canadians that my colleague, the minister responsible, and I are working closely with indigenous leaders to resolve the situation.
How does the minister think a single mom will be able to afford a $5,000-a-year rent increase, given a 23% rise for a two-bedroom apartment in London, Ontario?
Cites a specific statistic (23% rent increase for a two-bedroom in London, Ontario, equating to $394/month or nearly $5,000/year) and frames a concrete question about affordability for a single mother.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is acting like the skyrocketing cost of rent is not a crisis, when it is one of the biggest challenges faced by Canadians right now. For example, in London, Ontario, we have an increase, for a two-bedroom apartment, of 23%. For a single mom, that means an increase of $394 a month. Over a year, that is almost $5,000. How does the minister think a single mom will be able to afford that increase of $5,000 a year on her expenses?
The minister cited the government's early learning and child care investments, noting that child care fees have been reduced by 50% this year across Canada.
Responds about child care cost reductions (50% reduction this year) rather than addressing rent affordability or any housing measure, which is a tangential pivot.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a very important issue, and one way that single mother will be able to afford the cost of living more easily is through our investments in early learning and child care. Her fees across Canada have been reduced by 50% this year. So many moms across the country have told me that child care costs are like a second mortgage. We are bringing those costs down. That is real help for real people, and we are glad to be working with provinces and territories to deliver it.
When will the government fight inflation and tax the excess profits of large grocery companies, given that grocery prices rose 9% in April while their CEOs and corporations make massive profits?
Cites a specific April grocery inflation figure (9%) and asks a focused question about taxing excess profits of large grocery companies, though it bundles two issues.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that does not address the problem of high rent. We need action clearly on that, and we need it now. Il est clair aussi que l'inflation ne touche pas seulement les loyers. Elle frappe aussi les familles en augmentant le coût de l'épicerie. On a vu que le prix de l'épicerie a augmenté au mois d'avril de 9 %. C'est une augmentation massive pour les familles. Pendant ce temps, les PDG et les grandes entreprises d'épicerie font des profits et des salaires massifs. Quand ce gouvernement va-t-il enfin lutter contre l'inflation et taxer les profits excessifs de ces entreprises?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, cela ne rÚgle pas le problÚme des loyers élevés. Le gouvernement doit agir, et il doit le faire maintenant. It is also clear that inflation is affecting more than just rent. It is also hitting families by increasing the cost of groceries. In April, grocery prices increased by 9%. That is a huge increase for families. At the same time, CEOs are earning huge salaries and the big grocery stores are raking in massive profits. When is this government finally going to fight inflation and tax these companies' excess profits?
The minister cited a $2-billion one-time grocery rebate to help 11 million Canadians and a tax on certain luxury goods as measures to ensure the wealthy pay their fair share.
References the $2-billion grocery rebate helping 11 million Canadians and a luxury goods tax, which are partially relevant but do not address a grocery-sector excess-profits tax specifically.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous sommes d'accord avec le leader du NPD que nous devons aider les moins nantis et que nous devons en faire davantage pour nous assurer que les plus riches paient leur juste part. C'est précisément ce que notre gouvernement est en train de faire. Nous avons investi 2 milliards de dollars dans le remboursement unique pour l'épicerie, qui va aider 11 millions de Canadiens en payant leur épicerie et nous avons mis en place une taxe sur certains biens de luxe.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the NDP leader that we must help the less well off and do more to make sure that the wealthy pay their fair share. This is exactly what our government is doing. We invested $2 billion in the one-time grocery rebate that is going to help 11 million Canadians by paying for their groceries, and we introduced a tax on certain luxury goods.
When will the finance minister stop misleading Canadians about fiscal responsibility, given that she abandoned her commitment to balance the budget by 2028 within 144 days?
References a specific prior commitment (balanced budget by 2028), cites a 144-day timeline to reversal, and names Mark Carney and John Manley, but the ask is compound and heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has misled Canadians like Jeff for years. The latest time was when she gave false hope, saying she would show fiscal responsibility and balance the budget by 2028. It took her only 144 days after that statement until she did a massive flip-flop and proved her budget will never be balanced and will run massive deficits forever. It is these massive deficits that gave Canadians the highest inflation and bank interest rate hikes in a century. Even random Liberals like Mark Carney and John Manley agree with us. When will the finance minister stop misleading Canadians, get off Jeff's back and stop her inflationary spending?
The minister said Jeff and his wife are real people benefiting from government investments, and that Canada maintains the strongest fiscal position in the G7 with its AAA rating reiterated and the lowest deficit in the G7.
Responds with AAA credit rating, lowest deficit in the G7, and strongest fiscal position claim â relevant fiscal facts, but does not address the specific flip-flop allegation or the 144-day timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Jeff is a real person, and he told me how glad he is that the government is investing in a green industrial policy and how glad his wife, Cheryl, is that we are investing in supporting our health care system. We are making those essential investments while maintaining the strongest fiscal position in the G7. Our AAA rating has been reiterated, and we have the lowest deficit in the G7. That is compassion and responsibility at the same time.
Can the minister tell Jeff how much more it will cost him to heat his home and fill his tank because of the second carbon tax?
Asks a concrete question about the cost to Jeff of heating his home and filling his tank due to the second carbon tax, though it is embedded in rhetorical framing including the Disney+ reference.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister did not tell Jeff that the solution was to cancel Disney+. Because of her high-tax-and-spend government, Canadians like Jeff cannot even afford Disney+, and are skipping meals. She is going to give Canadians like Jeff higher gas, grocery and home heating bills with her second carbon tax. Can she tell Jeff how much more it is going to cost him to heat his home and fill his tank?
The Minister of Environment and Climate Change reminded the House that the Conservative Party's 2021 platform proposed carbon pricing up to $170 a tonne, which is what the government is doing.
Deflects entirely by citing the Conservative Party's 2021 platform carbon pricing proposal of $170 a tonne, without addressing the cost of the second carbon tax or the 'fuel standard'.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind our hon. colleagues on the other side of the room that in their platform in 2021, the Conservative Party of Canada campaigned to put in place carbon pricing that would go up to $170 a tonne. That is exactly what our government is doing while investing in Canadians and building the economy of the future.
When will the government take its own advice and recognize that its $60 billion spending increase â $4,300 for every family in Canada â is making life more unaffordable, contrary to its stated commitment to fiscal restraint?
Quotes the finance minister's own prior public statement about 'fiscal restraint' and 'not pouring fuel on the inflationary fire', then cites $60 billion in new spending equating to $4,300 per family, creating a clear contradiction to press.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, before tabling the budget, the finance minister said that âby exercising fiscal restraintâ and by not pouring fuel on the inflationary fire, the Liberals would ensure they could responsibly invest in Canadians. However, we need to pay attention to what the government does and not what it says, and what the government did was increase spending by $60 billion, or $4,300 for every family in Canada. When will the government take its own advice and realize its spending is making life more unaffordable for Canadians?
Oh, oh!
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speakerâ
Oh, oh!
The minister cited Parliamentary Budget Officer testimony that Canada compares favourably in the G7 on net debt-to-GDP, and a Moody's representative's comment that Canada's deficit is very low by European standards.
Cites Parliamentary Budget Officer testimony about Canada's net debt-to-GDP comparing favourably in the G7 and a Moody's conversation referenced by the PBO â relevant fiscal facts, though they do not directly address the $60 billion spending increase figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, instead of believing partisan hacks reading their talking points, I think Canadians should listen to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. When theâ
Mr. Speaker, instead of listening to partisan hacks reciting their canned talking points, I think Canadians tend to trust the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In testimony before the finance committee, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, âWhen looking at G7 countries, Canada compares very favourably on net debt-to-GDP.â He also said that, having spokenâ
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to share with the House that, further on in his testimony before the finance committee, the Parliamentary Budget Officer described a conversation he had had with an individual from the credit rating agency Moody's, who had said that Canada's deficit should make us âquite happy because by European standards that's very low.â Canada's economy is strong, and our fiscal position is strong. No one should believe the Conservatives when they say otherwise.
Is the finance minister being overruled by the Prime Minister or another leadership contestant, or can Canadians simply not take the promises she makes seriously, given that the budget contradicted her stated commitments on fiscal restraint?
Cites three specific prior statements by the finance minister (new spending matched with savings, restraint to not pour fuel on the fire, debt-to-GDP as the red line) and poses a binary accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it takes a hack to know a hack. Last fall, the finance minister said that new spending needed to be matched with government savings. She said that the government needed to exercise restraint to not pour fuel on the fire. She also said that the debt-to-GDP ratio was the red line. That seems all pretty clear to me, except the government did not take the finance minister's advice. Only one thing can be true. Either the finance minister is being overruled by the Prime Minister or another leadership contestant, or Canadians cannot take the promises she makes seriously. Which one is it?
Oh, oh!
The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons cited the Conservative government's worst growth record since R.B. Bennett, noted 2.7 million fewer people in poverty and two million more jobs since the Conservatives were in power.
The Government House Leader answers instead of the finance minister, deflects to the Conservative government's growth record under R.B. Bennett comparison and poverty/jobs statistics, without addressing the finance minister's contradictory statements.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise because I think it is important to add some context here. We know the party opposite was in power for 10 years, and during that period of time, it was the worst growth record we had seen since R.B. Bennett. Do members know what is differentâ
Mr. Speaker, I will tell members what is different: 2.7 million people who were in poverty when the Conservatives were in power are not in poverty today. There are two million more jobs since that party was in power. Yes, these times are difficult across the world right now, but we are leading, and we will continue to do so.
What is the annual interest on the debt that Canadians must pay, giving the Deputy Prime Minister the chance to answer what she could not answer at the finance committee yesterday?
Asks a precise, single factual question â the annual interest on the debt â directly referencing yesterday's finance committee incident where the minister could not answer.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je trouve vraiment dommage que le leader parlementaire du gouvernement empĂȘche la ministre des Finances de rĂ©pondre Ă une question toute simple. Hier, une question toute simple a Ă©tĂ© posĂ©e par mon collĂšgue de Simcoe-Nord. C'est trĂšs simple. Tous ceux qui ont une dette savent ce qu'est l'intĂ©rĂȘt sur la dette, combien cela leur coĂ»te. Malheureusement, la ministre des Finances, la vice-premiĂšre ministre, n'avait pas la rĂ©ponse. J'offre la chance Ă la vice-premiĂšre ministre de se reprendre. Quel est l'intĂ©rĂȘt sur la dette que les Canadiens doivent payer tous les ans?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a real shame that the government House leader will not let the Minister of Finance answer a very simple question. My colleague from Simcoe North asked a very simple question yesterday. It is very simple. Anyone who is carrying debt knows what the interest on that debt is, and how much it is costing them. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Prime Minister, did not have the answer. I am offering the Deputy Prime Minister a chance to redeem herself. How much interest on the debt will Canadians have to pay every year?
The minister cited former Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page's statement that Budget 2023 rests on a credible fiscal strategy and that the government's fiscal anchor â the declining debt-to-GDP ratio â is maintained.
Does not provide the interest-on-debt figure at all, instead citing former Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page's endorsement of the 2023 budget's fiscal strategy and the declining debt-to-GDP ratio.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, les conservateurs croient que les Canadiens ne sont pas intelligents. Les Canadiens savent que notre économie est forte. Je veux citer un autre expert, soit l'ancien directeur parlementaire du budget, Kevin Page. Il a dit que le budget de 2023 repose sur une stratégie fiscale crédible et que l'ancrage fiscal du gouvernement, le ratio décroissant, est maintenu. Ce n'est pas nous qui le disons.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives seem to believe that Canadians are devoid of intelligence. Canadians know that we have a strong economy. I would like to quote another expert, the former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page. He said that the 2023 budget has a credible fiscal strategy and that the government's fiscal anchor, the declining ratio, will be maintained. We are not the ones saying it.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister in agreement with what she said in November about not pouring fuel on the inflationary fire, or does she not know the answer, given that her budget included $60 billion in new spending?
Presses both on the unanswered interest-on-debt question and on the contradiction between the minister's November statement against 'pouring fuel on the inflationary fire' and $60 billion in new spending, creating a clear binary accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, encore une fois, la vice-premiĂšre ministre refuse de rĂ©pondre Ă une question toute simple. Tous les Canadiens qui ont une hypothĂšque doivent savoir quel est l'intĂ©rĂȘt sur la dette. Parlons maintenant de la rĂ©alitĂ© de son budget, parce que son budget a prĂ©sentĂ© 60 milliards de dollars de nouvelles dĂ©penses. C'est un ingrĂ©dient parfait pour crĂ©er et nourrir de l'inflation. Pourtant, il y a quelques mois Ă peine, elle disait qu'il ne fallait pas jeter de l'huile sur le feu de l'inflation. La vice-premiĂšre ministre est-elle d'accord sur ce qu'elle disait en novembre dernier ou, encore, ne sait-elle pas ce qu'est la rĂ©ponse?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Deputy Prime Minister refuses to answer a very simple question. Every Canadian with a mortgage has to know how much interest they are paying on their debt. Let us now consider how realistic her budget is, because it included $60 billion in new spending. That is a recipe for creating and fuelling inflation. However, just a few months ago, she said that we must not pour fuel on the fire of inflation. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with what she said last November, or, once again, does she not know the answer?
The Minister of Health said he finds it surprising to blame inflation on low- and middle-income families, and asked what the member would say to the 400 children in his riding who received the dental benefit.
The Minister of Health deflects entirely, pivoting to dental benefits for 400 children in the opposition member's riding and accusing Conservatives of wanting to take that benefit away, with no connection to the fiscal questions asked.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis évidemment intéressé par les arguments économiques de mes collÚgues. Je trouve étonnant que l'on blùme l'inflation sur le dos des contribuables des familles à faible et à moyen revenu au Canada. Le gouvernement canadien les aide, effectivement, mais les blùmer pour l'inflation qu'on observe est plutÎt cruel. Je demanderais à mon collÚgue de nous dire ce qu'il répondrait aux 400 enfants de sa circonscription qui ont reçu la prestation dentaire au cours des derniers mois. Est-ce qu'il pense que nous devrions la leur retirer?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am obviously interested in my colleagues' financial arguments. I find it astounding that they are blaming inflation on Canada's low- and middle-income taxpayers. The Canadian government is helping them, but blaming them for today's inflation is rather cruel. I would ask my colleague to tell us what he would say to the 400 children in his riding who received the dental benefit in recent months. Does he believe we should take it away from them?
Villemure asks what 'dans la mesure du possible' means in the minister's new CSIS directive on informing parliamentarians of threats â specifically, who has the discretion to withhold that information.
Cites the specific directive and its exact quoted language 'dans la mesure du possible,' asking a pointed and answerable question about what that caveat means and who holds discretionary power.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique a publiĂ© une nouvelle directive au Service canadien du renseignement de sĂ©curitĂ©, ou SCRS, une directive suffisamment importante, qu'il fallait la rendre publique. Je cite: « L'agence de renseignement va devoir aussi informer les parlementaires des menaces les visant, âdans la mesure du possibleâ. » Mais, qu'est-ce que ça veut dire? Le SCRS ne devrait-il pas avec cette directive informer les parlementaires, toujours, de toutes les menaces? Qu'est-ce que ça signifie « dans la mesure du possible »? Est-ce Ă la discrĂ©tion du SCRS, du ministre, de mon beau-frĂšre Luc, de qui? Franchement, cette directive crĂ©e davantage de confusion et de crainte qu'elle ne rassure. Le ministre va-t-il nous l'expliquer clairement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety has issued a new directive to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, a directive that was so important that it had to be made public. It says, and I quote: âCSIS will seek, wherever possible...to ensure that parliamentarians are informed of threats...directed at themâ. What does that mean? Should the directive not be telling CSIS that it always has to inform parliamentarians of any threat? What does âwherever possibleâ mean? Whose discretion is it up to? Are we talking about CSIS, the minister, or maybe my brother-in-law Luc? Who? Quite frankly, this directive is causing more confusion and concern than it is providing reassurance. Will the minister explain it clearly?
Damoff states that the minister gave a directive to CSIS to ensure all parliamentarians are informed of any threats whatsoever, citing the WellingtonâHalton Hills case as the motivation.
The Parliamentary Secretary affirms the principle that all MPs should be informed and references the member for WellingtonâHalton Hills, but does not explain what 'dans la mesure du possible' means or who exercises discretion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question because it is important that all MPs are aware of any threats that are made against any of us because a threat against one is a threat against us all. We know that the hon. member for WellingtonâHalton Hills was subjected to threats, and he was not aware of them. That is why the minister did give a directive to CSIS to ensure that all parliamentarians of the House are informed of any threats whatsoever.
Gaudreau asks whether the new CSIS directives, with their hedged language about informing parliamentarians, will actually resolve the foreign interference problem, implying they are inadequate and a public inquiry is still needed.
The question references specific issues (threats against MPs, Trudeau Foundation funding) and mocks the directive's hedged language, but the core ask â whether the directives will resolve foreign interference â is broad and somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis des mois, on demande une commission d'enquĂȘte publique indĂ©pendante. Des menaces contre des dĂ©putĂ©s au financement de la fondation Trudeau, tout ce qu'on entend justifie une enquĂȘte sĂ©rieuse. Le gouvernement nous dit qu'il agit. Comment? Avec ces nouvelles directives, le Service canadien du renseignement de sĂ©curitĂ© s'efforcera, dans la mesure du possible, de veiller, en temps opportun, Ă peut-ĂȘtre informer, si nĂ©cessaire, les parlementaires de menaces. Wow! Je suis trĂšs rassurĂ©e. Franchement, le ministre croit-il vraiment que ces directives-lĂ vont rĂ©gler la question de l'ingĂ©rence Ă©trangĂšre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have been calling for an independent commission of public inquiry for months. From threats against MPs to funding for the Trudeau Foundation, everything we are hearing justifies a serious inquiry. The government is telling us that it is taking action. How? With these new directives, CSIS will seek, whenever possible, to ensure, in a timely manner, that parliamentarians are perhaps informed of any threats, if necessary. Wow. I feel so reassured. Does the minister honestly believe that these directives are going to solve the problem of foreign interference?
LeBlanc says the directives are part of a sustained effort, that interference involving parliamentarians is unacceptable, and that professional intelligence agencies will handle the situation appropriately.
LeBlanc repeats that the directives are part of a broader effort and that interference is unacceptable, but does not address what the hedged language means or whether the directives are sufficient, deflecting with general reassurances.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ma collÚgue sait fort bien que ces directives font partie d'un effort soutenu de notre gouvernement de contrer l'ingérence étrangÚre. Nous l'avons dit publiquement. Le premier ministre l'a dit la semaine passée, le ministre de la Sécurité publique l'a répété cette semaine. Des menaces ou des ingérences qui impliquent les députés ou les parlementaires sont carrément inacceptables. Nous avons pris des mesures qui s'imposent pour nous assurer que les agences de renseignement professionnelles vont prendre cela en main, vont travailler avec les députés et vont régler la situation comme il se doit.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows full well that these directives are part of our government's ongoing efforts to counter foreign interference. We have said so publicly. The Prime Minister said so last week, and the Minister of Public Safety said it again this week. Threats or interference involving members or parliamentarians are completely unacceptable. We have taken the necessary measures to ensure that the professional intelligence agencies take the matter in hand, work with members and resolve the situation appropriately.
Stubbs asks why the government will not eliminate the carbon tax, citing a constituent's doubled heating bill and the April carbon tax hike adding 14Âą a litre to gas.
Includes a specific anecdote (Glen from Athabasca, double heating bill, quarter being carbon tax) and a figure (14Âą a litre), but the ask 'Why will the costly coalition not axe the costly carbon tax?' is a rhetorical demand rather than a specific answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives warned that the costly coalitionâs carbon tax would make everything more expensive, and today, Canadians cannot afford the basics. They have to choose between heating, eating and housing. Glen from Athabasca says that his heating bill was double what it was last year, and a quarter of it was carbon tax. The Liberal's April carbon tax hike has already added 14Âą a litre to gas and spiked inflation. After eight years, the truth is that the Liberals are out of touch and Canadians are out of money. Why will the costly coalition not axe the costly carbon tax?
Guilbeault points to record forest fires in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia as evidence that climate change is real and claims the government's plan has reduced carbon pollution by 50 million tonnes.
Guilbeault pivots entirely to wildfire smoke and a talking point about reducing pollution by 50 million tonnes, never addressing the cost-of-living claims or the specific figures cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are in mid-May and already we are seeing record forest fires in northern Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. I have talked to people in Calgary who say that they cannot breathe because of the forest fires in northern Alberta. Our plan to fight climate change is working. We have reduced carbon pollution by 50 million tonnes. What is the answer of the Conservative Party? It is to make pollution free again, making climate change and forest fires worse. That is not how we will do it on this side of the House.
Stubbs asks whether the government understands how much more gas and groceries will cost Canadians under a second carbon tax, citing 80% of Canadians paying more than they receive and a projected 60Âą-a-litre combined cost.
Cites a specific statistic (80% of Canadians pay more than they get back, 60Âą a litre combined cost) and references a second carbon tax, but the questions are compound and partially rhetorical ('Do they really think Canadians can affordâŠ').
Source text
Mr. Speaker, of course the carbon tax has not reduced emissions, and 80% of Canadians pay more than they will ever get back. However, the Liberals did admit that their carbon tax is meant to make driving more expensive. They plan to triple those costs. What are they going to do? They are going to kick Canadians while they are down and add a second carbon tax. Together, those taxes will cost struggling Canadians 60Âą a litre more at the pumps. Do the costly coalition partisan hacks even know or care how much more gas, groceries and home heating are going to cost struggling Canadians under their carbon tax? Do they really think Canadians can afford thousands more?
Guilbeault reads from page 79 of the Conservative platform's 'Low Carbon Fuel Standard' section to argue that the Conservatives themselves committed to a similar measure.
Guilbeault reads from the Conservative platform page 79, deflecting to opposition hypocrisy rather than addressing the cost figures or the second carbon tax question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, allow me to read from the Conservative platform in the last election. On page 79, in the section called âLow Carbon Fuel Standardâ, it states, âWeâll finalize and improve the Clean Fuel Regulations to reduce carbon emissions from every litre of gasoline (and other liquid fuels) we burn, turning them into a true Low Carbon Fuel Standard.â The difference between the Conservative Party and us is that they are all talk and we are all about action.
Barlow asks how much the new second carbon tax (with no rebate) will cost Canadians, citing figures of 41Âą per litre on fuel, 34% food cost increase, and $150,000 average farm family carbon tax bill.
Cites specific figures â 41Âą per litre, 34% food cost increase, $150,000 average carbon tax per farm family â and asks a specific cost question about the second carbon tax, though the framing is highly partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal-NDP carbon tax coalition is making life unaffordable for Canadians. What the Liberals do not understand is that there are very real and painful consequences when they hike the carbon tax. When they triple the carbon tax, the price of fuel per litre goes up 41Âą, the cost of food goes up 34%, and the average a Canadian farm family pays in carbon taxes is $150,000 a year. If that sounds bad, we have not seen anything yet. The Prime Minister is going to add a second carbon tax on Canadians, this time with no rebate. How much is this new carbon tax scam going to cost Canadians?
Freeland states that Albertans are getting back more than $1,000 and shares an anecdote about a young welding instructor named Kayla who supports the green economy plan.
Freeland mentions the $1,000-plus rebate for Albertans but ignores the specific cost figures cited and pivots to an anecdote about Kayla the welding instructor, not addressing the second carbon tax question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member for Foothills surely knows, Albertans are getting back more than $1,000. That goes directly into the pockets of Alberta families. I was in Edmonton and Calgary recently and met a great, young woman whose name is Kayla. She teaches people how to weld. She told me that we need a plan, an economic plan, for the green economy. She understands that is where her job is going to be and where the jobs of the apprentices she is training are going to be. Albertans get that. It is only the Conservatives who do not.
Barlow asks how much gas and groceries will cost Canadian families when the government implements its new second carbon tax with no rebates, while noting the government has not met a single emissions target.
Asks how much gas and groceries will cost under the second carbon tax and notes the government has missed every emissions target, but the framing is largely rhetorical and the 'carbon tax scam' language dominates.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the NDP-Liberal carbon tax coalition is forcing Canadians to make a choice between food on the table or a roof over their head. The carbon tax punishes families, farmers and small businesses who are all struggling to make ends meet, and for what? The Liberals have not met a single emissions target they have set. Instead of admitting their carbon tax scam is a failure, they are doubling down with a second carbon tax, this time with no rebates. How much are gas and groceries going to cost Canadian families when they implement their new carbon tax scam?
Bibeau says farmers are the first to be affected by climate change and that government programs to help them adopt good practices and new technologies are oversubscribed.
Bibeau speaks generally about farmers being affected by climate change and government programs being oversubscribed, never addressing the cost question about the second carbon tax.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je voudrais dire que, les premiers Ă ĂȘtre affectĂ©s par les changements climatiques, ce sont nos producteurs et nos productrices agricoles. Ils sont extrĂȘmement engagĂ©s dans la lutte contre les changements climatiques et dans la rĂ©duction des Ă©missions. Nos programmes pour les aider Ă adopter des bonnes pratiques et Ă pouvoir acquĂ©rir des nouvelles technologies, de mĂȘme que nos programmes d'investissement dans la recherche et l'innovation sont oversubscribed, comme on dit en bon français. Nous avons Ă©normĂ©ment de demandes. Cela dĂ©montre un intĂ©rĂȘt. Nous allons continuer Ă travailler fort pour rĂ©duire nos Ă©missions et lutter contre les changements climatiques.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our farmers are the first to be affected by climate change. They are heavily involved in the fight against climate change and in reducing emissions. Our programs for helping them apply best practices and learn new technologies, and for investing in research and innovation, are oversubscribed. We are being flooded with applications. This demonstrates the level of interest. We will continue working hard to reduce our emissions and fight climate change.
Gazan asks when the government will address the housing crisis with urgency, citing the federal housing rights watchdog's call for an investigation and the government's $150 million cut to women's shelters while barely releasing funds announced in 2020.
References a specific federal watchdog call for investigation, a specific $150 million cut to women's shelters, and a timeline anchor (funds announced in 2020), making it reasonably grounded with a clear ask about urgency.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the federal watchdog for housing rights has called for an investigation into the government's failure to prevent and eliminate homelessness among women and gender-diverse people across Canada. Those who are especially at risk are indigenous women and two-spirit people. Instead of addressing it, the Liberals refuse to reverse their cut of $150 million to women's shelters, while barely releasing any of the funds they first announced in 2020 for shelters and transitional housing. When will the government stop with the empty promises and deal with this housing crisis with the urgency it requires?
Hussen states that Reaching Home funding has nearly doubled to almost $4 billion, supporting over 5,000 projects, and notes the rapid housing initiative as an additional measure.
Hussen cites the doubling of Reaching Home funding from just over $2 billion to almost $4 billion and mentions the rapid housing initiative, but does not address the $150 million cut to women's shelters or the watchdog's specific investigation call.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member. We have gone from just over $2 billion in funding for Reaching Home, Canada's homelessness strategy, to almost $4 billion. That is a doubling of the funding going to over 5,000 different projects to help divert tens of thousands of Canadians from homelessness to permanent housing solutions, as well as transitional homes. We have also introduced the rapid housing initiative, which is having tremendous success on the ground.
Bachrach asks whether the minister will commit to respecting the collective bargaining rights of WestJet pilots, who could strike as soon as Friday, or whether he intends to follow the Conservative 2012 precedent of forcing workers back.
Cites a specific imminent strike deadline (Friday), identifies the specific dispute (WestJet pilots seeking fair pay, better conditions, job security), and asks a clear yes/no commitment question, though it includes a partisan framing about 2012 Air Canada.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, WestJet pilots could be on strike as soon as this Friday if they do not reach a deal with the airline. They are seeking fair pay, better conditions and more job security. In 2012, when Air Canada pilots voted to strike, the Conservative government of the day was quick to force them back to work. Will the minister stand today to commit to respecting the collective bargaining rights of these pilots, or does he intend to follow the example set by the Conservatives?
Sheehan confirms the Minister of Labour is on the ground in Toronto, that federal mediators resolved 93% of disputes without work stoppages last year, and that the focus is on the bargaining table.
Sheehan confirms the Minister of Labour is on the ground in Toronto for negotiations and cites the specific figure that federal mediators resolved 93% of federal disputes without work stoppages last year, partially addressing the collective bargaining rights commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, right now the Minister of Labour is on the ground in Toronto to make sure the parties reach a fair agreement, one that works for everyone. Our federal mediators are very good at what they do. Last year, they resolved 93% of federal disputes without any work stoppages. We are focused on the bargaining table because that is where the best deals are always reached.
Longfield asks when Canadians can expect the one-time grocery rebate created by Bill C-46, framing it as targeted inflation relief for over 11 million low- and moderate-income Canadians.
Softball government-backbench question that references Bill C-46 and the grocery rebate but simply asks when Canadians will receive it, functioning as a setup for a ministerial announcement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the rising cost of food affects Canadians, small businesses and families who are trying to put a nutritious meal on the table in my riding and across the country. Last week, with the passage of Bill C-46, came the creation of the new one-time grocery rebate that will deliver targeted inflation relief for over 11 million low- and moderate-income Canadians and families who need it most. Can the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance tell this House when Canadians can expect this timely grocery rebate?
Freeland confirms that 11 million low- and medium-income Canadians will receive up to $467 for eligible couples with two children, with payments going out on July 5 of this year.
Freeland provides the specific answer: up to $467 for eligible couples with two children, delivered on July 5 of this year, directly addressing the question with concrete figures and a date.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to do so, and I would like to start by thanking the hon. member for Guelph for his advocacy on behalf of his constituents and all Canadians. The one-time grocery rebate will deliver targeted inflation relief to 11 million low- and medium-income Canadians and families who need it most. That is going to be up to an extra $467 for eligible couples with two children, and people will get that support on July 5 of this year.
Patzer asks how much more Canadians will pay after the Prime Minister implements a second carbon tax through fuel regulations on top of the existing carbon tax that is still set to triple.
Asks specifically about the cost impact of a second carbon tax (Clean Fuel Regulations) on top of the existing carbon tax for farmers and consumers, with some contextual grounding, but uses partisan language that weakens specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it has been a good start to seeding for the farmers in southwest Saskatchewan, and what do they get as a thanks from the Prime Minister this year for being the most sustainable and innovative farmers in the world? Carbon tax 2.0. The Liberals are bringing in fuel regulations that are going to gouge producers and consumers above and beyond the first carbon tax, which they are still going to triple. We already know the first carbon tax has caused the price of food to go up, so how much more are Canadians going to have to pay after the Prime Minister puts in the second carbon tax?
Guilbeault restates that the Conservative Party committed to a low-carbon fuel standard, then cites commitments by Dairy Farmers of Canada and Egg Farmers of Canada to reach net-zero by 2050.
Guilbeault deflects by noting the Conservative platform commitment to a low-carbon fuel standard and citing statements by Dairy Farmers of Canada and Egg Farmers of Canada, not addressing the cost question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have cleared up the fact that the Conservative Party of Canada had committed to put in place a low-carbon fuel standard during the last election campaign, but let us talk about what the farmers are saying. The Dairy Farmers of Canada has committed the dairy farms sector to reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The Egg Farmers of Canada has announced a commitment to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The farming sector knows very well how climate change is impacting them. It seems the only one who does not know about this is the Conservative Party of Canada.
Seeback asks when the finance minister will acknowledge that the carbon tax causes inflation, tracing its cost through the entire food supply chain from farm to grocery store.
Describes the carbon tax supply chain in a moderately specific way and asks when the finance minister will understand the inflationary link, but the 'partisan hack finance minister' framing renders it largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is incredible, he actually does not know how food ends up on his plate. The farmer pays a carbon tax, the truck that picks up the farmer's food pays a carbon tax to take it to the processor, the processor pays a carbon tax, the truck that picks it up from the processor to take it to the grocery store pays a carbon tax, the grocery store pays a carbon tax and then Canadians cannot pay for food. When will the partisan hack finance minister finally understand that the carbon tax causes inflation?
Oh, oh!
Blair provides an emergency update on western Canada wildfires, citing 209 active fires (75 out of control), nearly 30,000 evacuees, and federal resources deployed including Canadian Armed Forces and the Red Cross.
Blair does not address the carbon tax or inflation question at all, instead providing an update on the western Canada wildfire situation with figures on active fires and evacuations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity, if I may, to answer this question by giving members an update on the situation that is going on across western Canada. There are currently 209 wildfires burning in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, 75 of which are out of control. Mostly hot, dry and windy conditions in the next week will continue to exacerbate things for those communities. There are close toâ
Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to speak about the situation Canadians are facing particularly across western Canada, where there are 209 wildfires burning, 75 of which are burning out of control. Unfortunately, mostly hot, dry and windy conditions over the next week will exacerbate the situation, and shifting winds have pushed smoke across the country, impacting a number of urban communities, Calgary and Winnipeg in particular. Close to 30,000 Canadians have been evacuated from their communities. The Government of Canada is there for those Canadians. We have deployed Canadian Armed Forces resources, the Canadian Red Cross and additional police resources. Together we will be there for the people of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan through this very difficult time.
Melillo asks when the finance minister will scrap the carbon tax, citing a planned 41Âą-a-litre gas tax and a second carbon tax that people in northern Ontario cannot afford.
Asks when the finance minister will scrap the carbon tax and references a 41Âą-a-litre figure and a second carbon tax, but the question is largely a rhetorical attack framed around 'eight years of the Prime Minister.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly disappointing to see the minister politicizing these disasters for his own gain. The fact of the matter is after eight years of the Prime Minister Canadians are struggling like never before as the cost of government is driving up the cost of living and people are struggling to afford gas, groceries and home heating. Now they are planning a 41Âą-a-litre tax on gas as well as a second carbon tax, which people in northern Ontario cannot afford, though they have little choice but to pay. When will the finance minister finally scrap the failed carbon tax scam?
Holland argues that the Conservative Party fails to see the link between climate change and the economy, calling extreme weather events an existential threat and defending the government's dual approach of climate action and affordability.
Holland argues that Conservatives fail to see the link between climate change and the economy and makes a general case for climate action, not addressing the specific cost figures or the second carbon tax question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is unfortunate is that the Conservative Party fails to see a link between climate change and the impact on the economy; that the Conservatives fail to see extreme weather events as being an existential threat to this planet; that they think they can bury their head in the sand and forget that climate change exists and think that there will be an economy for anybody. If we want to have a planet, we must take action on climate, and we are doing that while making sure that life is more affordable for Canadians and we will continue to do that.
Falk asks how high the second carbon tax must go, noting that the Liberals have missed every environmental target they have set.
Asks how high carbon tax 2.0 must go, with a sarcastic reference to preventing forest fires and hurricanes, but the question is mostly rhetorical and builds on an interrupted setup.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, these Liberals have missed every single environmental target that they have created; let alone these Liberals have increased the carbon tax. We know there is carbon tax 2.0. How high does the carbon tax have to go so that the current government can stop blamingâ
Triple it.
Mr. Speaker, they want to triple the carbon tax to prevent forest fires and hurricanes. How much does this carbon tax 2.0 have to go up?
Bibeau says farmers are the first to know the cost of climate change through drought, flooding, and hurricanes, and that the government has put in place risk management and agri-environmental programs to help them.
Bibeau speaks to farmers' experience with drought, flooding, and hurricanes and mentions risk management and agri-environmental programs, but does not address the cost level of carbon tax 2.0.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les premiers Ă savoir combien le changement climatique coĂ»te, ce sont nos producteurs agricoles quand ils font face Ă une sĂ©cheresse comme il y a eu dans l'Ouest il y a deux ans, Ă une inondation comme il y a eu en ColombieâBritannique il y a deux ans et Ă un ouragan comme il y a eu un dans l'Atlantique il y a Ă peine plus d'un an. C'est vraiment eux qui sont les premiers et c'est pour cela que nous avons mis en place des programmes de gestion de risque pour les aider. Il y a le Partenariat canadien pour une agriculture durable pour les aider. Il y a des programmes agroenvironnementaux pour les aider Ă ĂȘtre plus rĂ©silients et Ă faire face Ă la situation.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our farmers are the first to realize the price we are paying for climate change, whether it is because of a drought like the one in the west two years ago, a flood like the one in British Columbia two years ago or a hurricane like the one in the Atlantic provinces just over a year ago. They really are the first ones, and that is why we have created risk management programs to help them. There is the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership. There are agri-environmental programs to help them be more resilient and deal with the situation they are facing.
Blanchette-Joncas asks when the government will raise graduate scholarships, noting they have not been indexed since 2003 while minimum wage doubled, and citing Canada as the only G7 country to have lost researchers since 2016 and reduced R&D investment over 20 years.
Highly specific: cites Canada as the only G7 country to have lost researchers since 2016 and reduced R&D investment over 20 years, notes graduate scholarships have not been indexed since 2003, and asks a clear targeted question about raising graduate scholarships.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis 20 ans, le Canada s'enfonce dans la médiocrité en matiÚre de recherche et de science. C'est le seul pays du G7 à avoir perdu des chercheurs depuis 2016 et le seul à avoir réduit ses investissements en recherche-développement depuis 20 ans. Il n'a pas indexé ses bourses d'études aux cycles supérieurs depuis 2003. Pendant que le salaire minimum doublait, celui de nos étudiants n'a pas monté d'une cenne. Quel message cela envoie-t-il à notre relÚve? Tous les étudiants et leurs associations nous écoutent en ce moment. Quand ce gouvernement va-t-il se réveiller et hausser les bourses d'études supérieures?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to research and science, Canada has been racing to the bottom for the past 20 years. It is the only G7 country that has lost researchers since 2016 and the only one that has reduced its investments in R and D over the past 20 years. It has not indexed its graduate scholarships since 2003. While the minimum wage has doubled, our students' wages have not gone up one red cent. What message does this send to the next generation? All the students and their associations are watching us right now. When is this government going to wake up and increase the value of graduate scholarships?
Fillmore cites budget 2022's $38.3 million over four years for federal granting councils to add new Canada Excellence Research Chairs in STEM fields and says the government will continue to support a robust science and research ecosystem.
Fillmore cites $38.3 million over four years for Canada Excellence Research Chairs from budget 2022, which is tangentially related to supporting research but does not address graduate scholarship indexation or the specific comparative data cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government has been steadfast in its support of science, scientists and scientific research in Canada. That is why budget 2022 proposed $38.3 million over four years for the federal granting councils to add new and internationally recruited Canada excellence research chairs in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We will continue to support a robust science and research ecosystem that reflects Canada's strengths and that advances Canadian interests.
Vignola asks why taxpayers pay over $100,000 in clothing costs for governors general â with a budget of $130,000 per mandate â given that governors general earn a sufficient salary to clothe themselves.
Cites a specific dollar figure (over $100,000 in clothing for the last two governors general, with a $130,000-per-mandate budget), asks a pointed and answerable accountability question about whether governors general should pay for their own clothes given their salary.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, quand on frĂ©quente rĂ©guliĂšrement la cour du roi Charles III, il peut arriver que l'on se sente inadĂ©quatement habillĂ©. C'est sĂ»rement pourquoi nos deux derniĂšres gouverneures gĂ©nĂ©rales ont coĂ»tĂ© aux contribuables, tenons-nous bien, plus de 100 000 dollars en linge. Ce sont 100 000 $ de vĂȘtements et de chaussures. Cela pourrait ĂȘtre plus parce qu'il y a un budget de 130 000 $ par mandat pour l'habillement. Les gouverneurs gĂ©nĂ©raux ont le droit de s'habiller comme ils veulent, mais, au salaire qu'ils font, ne pourraient-ils pas payer leur linge?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when someone regularly attends the court of King Charles III, they could feel underdressed. That is surely why our last two governors general billed taxpayersâwait for itâmore than $100,000 for clothing. That is $100,000 in clothing and shoes. It might be more because they have a clothing allowance of $130,000 per term. Governors general have the right to dress as they wish, but given how much money they make, could they not pay for their own clothing?
Rodriguez acknowledges that many Canadians are struggling financially and that the public expects responsible management of public money, including by governors general, but provides no specific answer about the clothing budget.
Rodriguez acknowledges that Canadians expect public money to be managed responsibly and that this applies to governors general, but offers no specific response to the clothing budget question, the figures cited, or any commitment to review the practice.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on sait trÚs bien qu'il y a beaucoup de Canadiens en ce moment qui ont de la misÚre à joindre les deux bouts. Les gens s'attendent à ce que l'on gÚre leur argent publiquement. Cela inclut évidemment les députés et les sénateurs, le gouvernement et le gouverneur général.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we know very well that many Canadians are having trouble making ends meet at this time. People expect us to manage their money with transparency. That obviously includes members and senators, the government and the Governor General.
The member argues Bill C-75, Bill C-5, and the newly tabled bail reform bill collectively weaken public safety, and asks the Prime Minister to admit his errors and repeal the law stemming from C-75.
Cites specific legislation (C-75, C-5, and the newly tabled bail reform bill) and a concrete counterfactual (the Pierzchala accused would still have been released), with a clear ask to repeal C-75.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre dit n'importe quoi lorsqu'il parle de sa volontĂ© d'amĂ©liorer la sĂ©curitĂ© publique. Il fait tout le contraire. PremiĂšrement, il a adoptĂ© le projet de loi C-75 qui facilite l'obtention d'une libĂ©ration sous caution pour les criminels violents. AprĂšs, il a adoptĂ© le projet de loi Câ5 pour Ă©liminer les peines d'emprisonnement obligatoire pour les crimes graves. Maintenant, son projet de loi sur la rĂ©forme de libĂ©ration sous caution dĂ©posĂ© hier est tellement faible, que mĂȘme l'accusĂ© du meurtre du policier Greg Pierzchala aurait quand mĂȘme Ă©tĂ© libĂ©rĂ© sous caution. Le premier ministre peut-il admettre ses erreurs et tout simplement annuler la loi dĂ©coulant de Câ75?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when he starts talking about his interest in improving public safety, the Prime Minister will say anything. His actions tell a different story, though. To start with, he passed Bill C-75, which makes it easier for violent criminals to obtain bail. After that, he passed Bill Câ5 to get rid of mandatory jail sentences for serious crimes. Now he has a bail reform bill, which was tabled yesterday, that is so weak that even the person charged with murdering police officer Greg Pierzchala would still have gotten bail. Can the Prime Minister admit to his mistakes and simply repeal the law arising from Bill Câ75?
Lametti says he is proud to have tabled legislation targeting violent repeat offenders and firearms offences, and that police associations across Canada publicly supported the bill.
Lametti defends the new bill and cites police association support but does not address the specific counterfactual about the Pierzchala accused or the request to repeal C-75.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis fier d'avoir dĂ©posĂ© hier Ă la Chambre un projet de loi pour renforcer notre systĂšme de libĂ©ration sous caution, qui vise les rĂ©cidivistes violents et les offenses liĂ©es aux armes. C'est exactement ce que les provinces et les associations policiĂšres ont demandĂ©. Les associations policiĂšres partout au Canada ont appuyĂ© nos dĂ©marches hier publiquement. Il y a des provinces qui vont faire la mĂȘme chose.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have tabled a bill in the House yesterday to strengthen our bail system. It targets repeat violent offenders and offences involving weapons. This is exactly what the provinces and police associations asked for. Police associations across Canada have publicly endorsed the steps we took yesterday. Several provinces will do likewise.
Moore argues Bill C-48 does not substantially improve public safety, citing that the man who killed Constable Pierzchala would still have been released under it, and asks when the Liberals will end catch-and-release.
Raises a specific counterfactual (the man who killed Constable Pierzchala would still have been released under Bill C-48) and names the bill, but the ask ('end catch-and-release') is a rhetorical framing rather than a precise policy request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the only bail reform in Bill C-48 is in its name. Violent repeat offenders could still count on the Liberal government for its catch-and-release system to get them back out on the street, sometimes within hours of their arrest. This bill does not substantially improve public safety. In fact, the man who killed Constable Pierzchala would still have been out on release even if this legislation had been in place. When will the Liberals finally do what they have been asked and end catch-and-release?
Lametti quotes the Canadian Police Association praising Bill C-48 as common-sense legislation and says it will make the bail system stronger and fairer.
Lametti quotes the Canadian Police Association endorsing Bill C-48 but does not address the specific Pierzchala counterfactual raised by the member.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote the Canadian Police Association. ...we appreciate that [ministers] have worked collaboratively with stakeholders and introduced this common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns that our members have raised. Police, provinces and territories seem to agree about the common-sense nature of our approach. We have the support of police associations, we have the support of provinces. This would go a long way towards making our bail system not only stronger but fairer.
Moore argues the bill is tokenism, noting that 13 premiers unanimously called for fundamental change and that repeat violent criminals charged with weapons trafficking, attempted murder, and robbery remain bail-eligible under Bill C-48.
References the 13 premiers' unanimous call and lists specific offences (weapons trafficking, attempted murder, robbery) still eligible for bail, but the ask remains the rhetorical 'end catch-and-release.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, doing the bare minimum, tokenism is not enough. It is not enough in light of the challenges that our police face. It is not enough when 13 premiers unanimously call for fundamental change to Canada's broken bail system. Under this legislation, repeat violent criminals charged with weapons trafficking, attempted murder and robbery are all still eligible for bail under this Liberal catch-and-release program. When will the Liberal government do what has been asked of it, protect Canadians, make our streets safer, and end catch-and-release?
Lametti says Bill C-48 does exactly what the premiers asked for and more, and quotes the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police saying the bill will go a long way to eliminate preventable harm from violent and repeat offenders.
Lametti quotes the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police directly endorsing Bill C-48 and asserts it goes further than what the premiers asked, engaging the substance though not addressing the specific listed offences.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this bill did exactly what the premiers asked for in their letter to the Prime Minister and more. We went further by working with the provincial justice ministers and ministers of public safety. Here is what the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have said: We are convinced that the legislative changes put forth in Bill C-48 will go a long way to help eliminate the preventable harm and senseless tragedies attributable to violent and repeat offenders across Canada.
Shanahan asks what message the government wants to send to Canadians concerned about gun violence and the use of firearms in violent crimes.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking a Heritage minister what message the government wants to send about gun violence, with no specific accountability ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les citoyens dans ma circonscription, ChĂąteauguayâLacolle, sont inquiets. La violence armĂ©e est un flĂ©au qui continue de soulever des craintes dans la population. Les armes Ă feu sont utilisĂ©es dans de trop nombreux crimes violents. Elles rendent nos communautĂ©s moins sĂ©curitaires. Je sais que, comme moi, le ministre du Patrimoine canadien partage ces prĂ©occupations. Peut-il nous dire quel est le message que le gouvernement du Canada dĂ©sire adresser aux Canadiens qui s'inquiĂštent de cette situation?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the people in my riding of ChĂąteauguayâLacolle are concerned. Gun violence is a scourge that continues to raise concerns for people. Firearms are used in far too many violent crimes. They make our communities less safe. I know that, like me, the Minister of Canadian Heritage shares these concerns. Can he tell us what message the Government of Canada has for Canadians who are worried about this situation?
Rodriguez says the government is acting through Bill C-21, acknowledges it is not perfect but that the only way to keep assault weapons out of communities is to have a Liberal government.
Rodriguez mentions Bill C-21 and acknowledges the government would have liked to go further, but the answer is mostly political messaging rather than substantive policy detail.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie ma collĂšgue de sa question et de son Ă©norme travail dans sa communautĂ©. Les gens de ma circonscription, HonorĂ©-Mercier, comme ceux de ChĂąteauguayâLacolle, sont trop souvent confrontĂ©s Ă la violence armĂ©e. Je suis fier de pouvoir leur dire que nous agissons avec le projet de loi Câ21. Ce n'est pas un secret que nous aurions voulu aller plus loin, mais mĂȘme le projet de loi le plus sĂ©vĂšre ne sert Ă rien si nous ne pouvons pas l'adopter. Le projet de loi Câ21 n'est peut-ĂȘtre pas parfait, mais il va rendre nos communautĂ©s beaucoup plus sĂ©curitaires. Ce qui est clair, c'est que, la seule façon de garder les armes d'assaut hors de nos communautĂ©s, c'est d'avoir un gouvernement libĂ©ral.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for all of the work that she does in her community. Like the residents of ChĂąteauguayâLacolle, the people in my riding of HonorĂ©-Mercier are too often faced with gun violence. I am proud to be able to tell them that we are taking action with Bill C-21. It is no secret that we would have liked to go even further, but even the strictest bill is no good if we cannot pass it. Bill C-21 may not be perfect, but it will make our communities a lot safer. What is clear is that the only way to keep assault weapons out of our communities is to have a Liberal government.
Aitchison asks how the Minister of Housing can tell Canadians they have never had it so good when rent and home prices have doubled over eight years and the minister's own officials project a 32% decline in housing starts.
Cites a specific statistic (32% projected decline in housing starts from officials), references doubled rents and home prices over eight years, and calls out the minister's non-answers from earlier in the same sitting.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the same day we learned that the price of the average home shot up again, the Minister of Housing would not answer simple questions about the housing crisis. We asked why rent had doubled over the last eight years. We asked why home prices have doubled over the last eight years. We asked him why his own officials have said that they could see a 32% decline in housing starts this year. He told us we were playing games. How can the minister stand in this House and, continually, in the midst of a housing crisis, tell Canadians they have never had it so good?
Hussen attacks the Conservative housing plan, listing what it allegedly lacks including plans for homelessness, women's housing, northern housing, rapid housing, co-op housing, first-time homebuyers, renters, seniors' housing, and accessible housing.
Hussen entirely deflects to criticizing the Conservative platform, listing what it allegedly lacks, without addressing any of the three specific questions posed (rent doubling, home price doubling, 32% decline in housing starts).
Source text
Mr. speaker, it is really hard to take the party opposite seriously on housing. In their previous election platform, Conservatives did not even have the words âaffordable housingâ in their platform. Now they have released a so-called plan that does not have the word âhomelessnessâ. There is no plan for women's housing. There is no plan for northern housing. There is no plan for rapid housing. There is no plan for co-op housing. There is no plan for helping first-time homebuyers. There is no plan for helping renters. There is no plan for seniors' housing. There is no plan for accessible housing. There is absolutely no plan on that side of the house.
Vien asks when the Prime Minister will abandon inflationary policies like the carbon tax, citing rising inflation and the possibility of further Bank of Canada rate hikes.
References inflation news and the possibility of a Bank of Canada rate hike as context, but the ask ('abandon his disastrous plans') is vague and rhetorical with no specific policy mechanism cited.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, avec ce premier ministre, tout coĂ»te dĂ©jĂ plus cher et voilĂ que l'inflation repart de plus belle Ă la hausse. Certains experts affirment mĂȘme que la Banque du Canada pourrait hausser Ă nouveau les taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt. C'Ă©tait dans tous les mĂ©dias. Ce n'est rien pour rassurer les Canadiens. Ce premier ministre persiste et signe: il veut mettre de l'avant d'autres politiques inflationnistes comme sa taxe sur le carbone. Quand va-t-il abandonner ses plans dĂ©sastreux pour l'ensemble des Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with this Prime Minister everything already costs more and now inflation is taking off again. Some experts are even saying that the Bank of Canada might increase interest rates yet again. It was in all the media. That is not reassuring for Canadians. This Prime Minister is at it again. He is proposing other inflationary policies like his carbon tax. When will he abandon his disastrous plans for Canadians?
Guilbeault clarifies that Quebec has its own carbon pricing system called cap-and-trade, distinct from the federal system, and offers to arrange a briefing for the member.
Guilbeault notes that Quebec has its own cap-and-trade system distinct from the federal carbon price, which is partially responsive to the Quebec-based questioner, but he does not engage with the inflation or interest rate arguments.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je l'ai déjà souligné à plusieurs reprises à la Chambre, le Québec a un systÚme de tarification du carbone qui est différent de celui du Canada et qui se nomme plafonnement et échange. Je serais trÚs heureux d'expliquer à ma collÚgue d'en face comment le systÚme québécois fonctionne. Mon bureau sera tout à fait disposé à lui organiser un breffage au sujet de cette question.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I have already pointed out several times in the House, Quebec has a carbon pricing system called cap and trade and it is different than Canada's system. I would be pleased to explain to my colleague opposite how the Quebec system works. My office would gladly arrange a briefing on this issue.
Lehoux argues the government has driven up food production costs through the carbon tax and a 35% tariff on fertilizer, says he has invoices proving the carbon tax affects Quebec, and asks when the government will eliminate the carbon tax.
Cites a specific tariff (35% on fertilizer), references the carbon tax impact on food production costs, and mentions having invoices as evidence, though the ask is still the generic 'eliminate the carbon tax.'
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le gouvernement a fait grimper le coĂ»t de la production alimentaire en imposant Ă nos agriculteurs la taxe sur le carbone et le tarif de 35 % sur les engrais. Nos exploitations familiales sont Ă bout. La ministre continue de suggĂ©rer aux agriculteurs de s'endetter davantage et affirme que la taxe sur le carbone ne touche pas le QuĂ©bec. Je peux aussi montrer au ministre de lâEnvironnement et du Changement climatique des factures qui dĂ©montrent clairement que c'est faux, sans compter le transport des produits entre les provinces. Le gouvernement doit donc comprendre qu'il cause des dommages aux agriculteurs et aux familles canadiennes. Quand supprimera-t-il enfin la taxe sur le carbone?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government has driven up the cost of food production by charging our farmers the carbon tax and the 35% tariff on fertilizer. Our family farms are stretched thin. The minister continues to suggest to farmers that they go further in debt and says that the carbon tax does not affect Quebec. I can also show the Minister of Environment and Climate Change bills that clearly show that is not true, not to mention the shipping of goods between the provinces. The government needs to understand the harm it is causing to farmers and Canadian families. When will it finally cut the carbon tax?
Bibeau reiterates that the federal carbon price does not apply in Quebec, contrasts government investments in risk management and innovation with Conservative cuts, and mentions a 25% increase to the Partenariat canadien pour une agriculture durable.
Bibeau repeats the point that the federal carbon price does not apply in Quebec and pivots to criticizing Conservative cuts and listing government investments, without addressing the fertilizer tariff or the invoices the member references.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme mon collĂšgue le ministre de lâEnvironnement et du Changement climatique l'a prĂ©cisĂ©, le QuĂ©bec a son propre systĂšme. Le prix sur la pollution imposĂ© par le fĂ©dĂ©ral ne s'applique pas au QuĂ©bec. Contrairement aux conservateurs, qui, dans leur temps, ont coupĂ© les programmes de gestion de risque et les programmes de recherche et d'innovation, nous investissons. Nous accompagnons nos producteurs et nos productrices pour qu'ils puissent adopter les bonnes pratiques environnementales et avoir accĂšs aux nouvelles technologies. Nous avons augmentĂ© de 25 % le Partenariat canadien pour une agriculture durable.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said, Quebec has its own system. The price on pollution imposed by the federal government does not apply to Quebec. Unlike the Conservatives, who cut risk management and research and innovation programs when they were in power, we are making investments. We are supporting our farmers so that they can adopt good environmental practices and have access to new technologies. We have increased the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership by 25%.
Sousa asks the minister to update the House on action the government is taking to protect communities from gun violence, gang violence, carjacking, and organized crime.
A government-backbench question asking the minister to update the House on government action on gun violence, a classic softball setup with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country deserve to feel safe from gun violence and crime. In my riding of MississaugaâLakeshore, I have heard from constituents who do worry about the safety of their loved ones. They worry about gang violence, carjacking and organized crime. Can the minister please update this House on the action this government is taking to make our neighbourhood safer for everyone?
Lametti cites nearly $400 million invested in law enforcement and addressing guns and gangs, the push to remove assault-style firearms, border investments to stop illegal smuggling, and the bail reform bill introduced the previous day.
Lametti cites a specific investment figure (nearly $400 million) for law enforcement and guns and gangs, references Bill C-48 tabled the previous day, and mentions the assault-style firearms policy, providing some substantive content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from MississaugaâLakeshore for his hard work. We have promised Canadians we would crack down on gun violence. Assault-style firearms have no place in our communities. That is why we are pushing forward with smart policy to get these weapons off our streets, investing in our borders to stop illegal smuggling and investing nearly $400 million to support law enforcement and address guns and gangs. Yesterday, I introduced a bill that would make it harder to get bail after committing a crime involving a firearm. What do the Conservatives do? They vote against these measures and they filibuster. We have a plan. They have a record of slashing police budgets and stalling.
Desjarlais asks when the government will implement the #Act4QueerSafety campaign's calls for more funding to combat hate and the Dignity Network's call for a special rapporteur to protect 2SLGBTQ rights at home and abroad.
Cites the #Act4QueerSafety campaign's call for funding and the Dignity Network's call for a special rapporteur as concrete proposals, making the ask reasonably identifiable, though two separate asks are bundled together.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia, a day when we commit to fighting discrimination in all its forms. Sadly, queer communities across Turtle Island and the world are increasingly under threat. Lives are at stake here. The #Act4QueerSafety campaign and others have put forward concrete proposals for more funding to combat hate. Additionally, the Dignity Network has long called for a special rapporteur to ensure that 2SLGBTQ rights at home and abroad are protected. When will the government go beyond words, start acting and implement the calls to action?
Sudds affirms that homophobia, transphobia, transmisogyny, and biphobia have no place in Canada and states that 75% of the 2SLGBTQI+ action plan investments go directly to critical lifelines supporting these communities.
Sudds affirms the government's commitment and mentions that 75% of 2SLGBTQI+ action plan investments go to community lifelines, but does not address the specific asks of more funding from #Act4QueerSafety or the special rapporteur proposed by the Dignity Network.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every Canadian deserves to feel safe and supported, no matter where they are or whom they love. Homophobia, transphobia, transmisogyny, biphobia and all forms of violence and racism have no place in Canada or in the world. We know that a disproportionate amount of hate is directed at 2SLGBTQI+ communities, and that is why 75% of the 2SLGBTQI+ action plan investments go directly to the critical lifelines supporting these communities. Our government will continue to support them and reaffirm their right to be true andâ
Vuong asks how many Chinese police stations the government knows about, how much longer the RCMP needs to complete its investigation, and what threshold of intimidation of Chinese Canadians must be reached before the government acts.
Vuong asks several pointed and specific accountability questions about the Chinese police stations file: whether the minister knows the number of stations, how much longer the RCMP needs, and what threshold of intimidation triggers action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister has reached the startling conclusion that there may be more Chinese police stations operating in Canada, not that he would inform the House, having decided to share this stunning revelation of the obvious with CTV last weekend. Does the government have a particular number of stations in mind before it takes the matter seriously? How much longer does the RCMP now need to complete an investigation into what is already known? In case they missed it on TV, do they even know about the other stations? Is there a threshold for the number of Chinese Canadians who must be intimidated before the government acts?
Damoff says the government takes all threats from Russia, China, and other foreign actors very seriously, that the RCMP is conducting investigations as information comes forward, and assures Canadians they are safe.
Damoff states the government takes foreign threats seriously and that the RCMP is conducting investigations, but does not address the number of stations, the timeline, or the threshold questions posed by the member.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we take all threats from Russia, China and other foreign actors very seriously. As the hon. member knows, the investigation of these Chinese police stations is being conducted by the RCMP, and the RCMP will continue to conduct investigations as information comes forward. Canadians can be assured not only that we are taking this seriously, but that they are safe here in Canada.
Members acknowledged a presence in the gallery with applause; no question was asked and no substantive exchange took place.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Mr. Michael Barrett (LeedsâGrenvilleâThousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) raised a point of order, claiming that during question period the member for York SouthâWeston said 'that is a lie' while the member for Fundy Royal was questioning the justice minister, and asked that the member for York SouthâWeston be given the opportunity to rise and apologize for the unparliamentary comment.
- CPC Mr. Michael Barrett
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during question period, the hon. member for Fundy Royal was asking a question of the justice minister, and the member for York SouthâWeston said that is a lie. This, of course, is unacceptable and unparliamentary. I believe if you consult Hansard, you will find that they did in fact capture it being said and that if you give the member for York SouthâWeston the opportunity now, he will, of course, rise and apologize for this unacceptable and unparliamentary comment made to the hon. member for Fundy Royal.