Session overview
- Carbon tax and inflation dominated Question Period, with Conservative members repeatedly demanding the government axe the carbon tax and end deficit spending, citing rising inflation, higher interest rates, and unaffordable grocery and housing costs; Liberal ministers defended the price on pollution and pointed to rebate programs returning more money to eight out of ten families.
- Housing affordability was the second major theme, with NDP, Conservative, and Bloc Québécois members pressing the government on skyrocketing rents and home prices; Housing Minister Sean Fraser cited the elimination of GST on new rental apartment construction as the centrepiece response, while the NDP called for two million units of co-op and social housing.
- Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet pressed the government on fossil fuel subsidies, urging Ottawa to redirect those funds to seniors' pensions and social housing; Energy Minister Jonathan Wilkinson maintained that a framework to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies is already in place.
- The Bloc Québécois raised the Davie Shipyard's exclusion from federal funding under the National Shipbuilding Strategy, noting that Irving received nearly $500 million while the Davie received zero, and demanding a firm date for the promised $8.5 billion in contracts; Procurement Minister Jean-Yves Duclos insisted work is already underway with nearly 1,000 workers on site.
- NDP MP Randall Garrison called on the government to condemn anti-2SLGBTQI+ demonstrations occurring across Canada, referencing anti-trans marches happening the same day; Minister Marci Ien expressed support for trans and queer youth but did not directly commit to supporting the NDP motion.
- A unanimous consent motion by Bloc Québécois leader Blanchet was moved calling on all parties and parliamentarians to provide their full cooperation to the independent public inquiry on foreign electoral interference, led by Justice Marie-Josée Hogue.
Defence Minister Bill Blair announced a specific new commitment: Canada will contribute $33 million to a British-led air defence partnership to equip Ukraine with tools to defend its skies and protect critical infrastructure, adding concrete detail to Canada's stated position of providing over $1.8 billion in military aid to Ukraine.
Morrice grounds the question in a specific organization (Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony), a specific prior commitment given in February question period, a subsequent letter co-signed by four other Waterloo region MPs to the Prime Minister, and the concrete consequence of the symphony cancelling its entire upcoming season.
Asked directly whether the Prime Minister would reject the Bloc Québécois demand to radically increase the carbon tax and whether he would end the tax to relieve farmers and struggling families, Anand did not address the carbon tax question at all, instead listing the grocery rebate, workers benefits, and old age security, and asking what the Conservatives' plan is.
Outstanding questions
- Pierre Poilievre (Exchanges 3, 4, 5) asked repeatedly whether the government will balance the budget and axe the carbon tax to bring inflation and interest rates down; no minister addressed the budget balance question or provided any fiscal timeline.
- Julie Vignola (Exchange 30) demanded a firm date for the $8.5 billion in federal contracts promised to the Davie Shipyard in April; Minister Duclos offered no date, instead asserting work is already underway.
- Jagmeet Singh (Exchanges 8, 9) asked what the Prime Minister will do to guarantee the construction of homes people can afford and to protect renters from renoviction and demoviction; Minister Fraser cited the GST elimination on apartments but made no specific commitment on renter protection or affordability targets.
- Yves-François Blanchet (Exchange 6) asked the government to recognize that the best solution for renters is to release the $900 million it is withholding for social housing in Quebec; Minister Fraser referenced ongoing conversations with his Quebec counterpart but gave no commitment to release the funds.
- Randall Garrison (Exchange 23) asked whether the Liberals will support the NDP motion condemning anti-2SLGBTQI+ hate when it returns to the House; Minister Ien expressed solidarity with trans and queer youth but did not confirm the government's support for the motion.
Poilievre notes that inflation has risen 43% since the Finance Minister declared victory on it and asks whether the government will reverse its inflationary taxes and deficits to bring interest rates down before a mortgage crisis.
Poilievre cites the recent inflation increase and the Finance Minister's prior declaration of victory on inflation, offering a specific factual hook, but the ask â reversing taxes and deficits â is compound and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aprĂšs huit ans, le premier ministre a dit que les temps sont difficiles pour les politiciens. Lors de sa retraite Ă Charlottetown, il a dit que l'inflation allait reculer. Cependant, on a appris hier qu'elle a augmentĂ©. En fait, depuis que la ministre des Finances a dĂ©clarĂ© la victoire sur l'inflation, cela a augmentĂ© de 43 %. Cela va peut-ĂȘtre forcer la Banque du Canada Ă augmenter les taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt pour les Canadiens, le peuple le plus endettĂ© du G7. Est-ce que le gouvernement va finalement renverser ses taxes et ses dĂ©ficits inflationnistes pour qu'on puisse rĂ©duire les taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt avant qu'il n'y ait une crise hypothĂ©caire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the Prime Minister has said that times are tough for politicians. At his retreat in Charlottetown, he said that inflation would go down. We learned yesterday that it has actually gone up. In fact, since the Minister of Finance declared victory over inflation, it has increased 43%. This could force the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates on Canadians, who are already carrying the highest debt levels in the G7. Will the government finally reverse its inflationary taxes and deficits so we can cut interest rates before we have a mortgage crisis on our hands?
Oh, oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
Champagne says the government listened to Canadians over the summer and will help with grocery and housing costs, and warns that Poilievre is too risky for Canada.
Champagne does not address the inflation data, the Finance Minister's prior statement, or the specific ask about taxes and deficits, instead pivoting to summer consultations and attacking Poilievre as too risky.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis heureux de voir l'enthousiasme de mes collĂšgues des deux cĂŽtĂ©s de la Chambre. Pendant l'Ă©tĂ©, nous avons fait une chose importante: nous avons Ă©coutĂ© les Canadiens et les Canadiennes. Ils nous ont dit trois choses. Ils veulent de l'aide avec le coĂ»t de l'Ă©picerie et avec le coĂ»t du logement. Une chose que les Canadiens ne nous ont pas dite, c'est d'arrĂȘter d'aider les familles, les jeunes et les plus vulnĂ©rables. Les Canadiens et les Canadiennes qui nous regardent savent que nous serons toujours lĂ pour eux, et ils commencent Ă comprendre que le chef conservateur est simplement trop risquĂ© pour le Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see so much enthusiasm from my colleagues on both sides of the House. During the summer, we did something important. We listened to Canadians. They told us three things. They want help with the cost of groceries and the cost of housing. One thing that Canadians did not tell us was to stop helping families, youth and the most vulnerable members of our society. The Canadians who are watching us today know that we will always be there for them, and they are beginning to understand that the Conservative leader is just too risky for Canada.
Poilievre makes a partisan quip comparing Champagne to Jean Chrétien and suggests even Liberals want to fire their Prime Minister because he costs too much and is not worth it.
Poilievre's second intervention is almost entirely a political jibe about the acting Prime Minister and the Liberal leader's unpopularity, with no substantive question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il me semble que les libĂ©raux sont, pour la premiĂšre fois, heureux de la personne qui les dirige Ă la pĂ©riode des questions. J'aimerais fĂ©liciter l'honorable dĂ©putĂ© pour ses nouvelles fonctions. C'est un petit gars de Shawinigan. On aura un autre petit gars de Shawinigan comme premier ministre, peut-ĂȘtre. Je peux comprendre pourquoi mĂȘme les libĂ©raux veulent congĂ©dier le premier ministre. C'est parce qu'il coĂ»te trop cher et il n'en vaut pas la peine ni le coĂ»t.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me as though, for once, the Liberals are actually happy with the person leading them in question period. I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his new duties. He is a little guy from Shawinigan. Perhaps we will have another little guy from Shawinigan as Prime Minister one day. I can understand why even the Liberals want to fire the Prime Minister. He costs too much and is not worth the cost or effort.
Champagne says the government convened grocery chain CEOs, will lower GST on housing, and will act to help Canadians, calling Poilievre's slogans tiresome.
Champagne mentions concrete actions â convening grocery chain CEOs, cutting GST on housing â that are at least topically relevant to affordability, though not responsive to any actual question asked.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pendant que le chef conservateur fait des tirades, les Canadiens nous disent une chose trÚs claire. Les Canadiens ont besoin de l'aide de notre gouvernement. C'est pour cela que nous sommes là , par exemple, pour ce qui touche à l'épicerie. Nous avons convoqué les chefs des grandes chaßnes d'alimentation cette semaine. Nous allons baisser la TPS sur le logement. Nous allons agir pour aider les Canadiens et les Canadiennes. S'il y a une chose dont les Canadiens sont tannés, c'est d'entendre des slogans du chef conservateur. Une chose qu'ils comprennent, c'est qu'il est seulement trop risqué pour le Canada. Nous serons là pour les Canadiens et les Canadiennes à chaque étape.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, while the Conservative leader is busy ranting, Canadians are clearly telling us one thing: They need our government's help. That is why we are here to help on the grocery front, for example. We called in the CEOs of the major grocery chains this week. We are going to lower the GST on housing. We are going to take action to help Canadians. If there is one thing Canadians are tired of, it is hearing the Conservative leader's slogans. One thing they understand is that he is just too risky for Canada. We will be there for Canadians every step of the way.
Poilievre contrasts the Prime Minister's trip to New York burning jet fuel with rising carbon taxes on Canadians and asks whether the government will balance the budget and axe the tax to bring inflation and interest rates down.
Poilievre raises the Prime Minister's New York trip and yesterday's inflation data as factual anchors, but the ask â balance the budget and axe the tax â is a compound slogan rather than a single precise question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at his recent retreat in Charlottetown, the Prime Minister said that life is really tough for politicians. Today he is off on another trip to New York for three days to give a couple of speeches and burn a whole lot of fuel, at the same time as he raises carbon taxes on Canadians for the crime of driving to work and feeding their families. Yesterday, inflation was way up. It is accelerating. It is higher than in the States and in Japan, which could drive up interest rates. Will the Prime Minister balance the budget and axe the tax to bring inflation and interest rates down?
Oh, oh!
Wilkinson says affordability is the top priority, lists GST removal on rental construction, home efficiency funding, and the grocery rebate, and argues the government can address both affordability and the climate crisis simultaneously.
Wilkinson acknowledges affordability as a top priority and lists several measures but does not address the budget-balancing or carbon-tax ask, instead pivoting to climate and attacking Conservatives for lacking a climate plan.
Source text
Mr. Speakerâ
Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that affordability is, of course, the top priority for the government. It is very clear that it is a huge concern on the minds of many Canadians. It has caused us to look at programs such as removing the GST from the construction of new rental units, providing money for home efficiency, the grocery rebate and a range of other things. However, I would say that it is also important that while we are addressing affordability, we do so in a manner that actually will allow us to also address the climate crisis. It is an existential threat to the future of our children. Shame on the Conservatives for having no climate plan. On this side of the House, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can do both.
Poilievre accuses the Prime Minister of carbon hypocrisy by flying to New York while imposing a carbon tax he wants to quadruple to 61 cents a litre on farmers, single parents, and working-class families, and asks him to axe the tax.
Poilievre invokes the specific figure of 61 cents a litre for the carbon tax and targets farmers and single parents, but the ask â "park the plane, end the high-carbon hypocrisy and axe the tax" â is largely rhetorical and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, they are prepared to thunderously applaud anyone, other than their own leader, who stands up in the House of Commons. No wonder the Prime Minister says that it is a really hard time to be a politician. Right now, speaking of hard times, he is off in New York for another three days, burning a lot of jet fuel while he applies a carbon tax, which he wants to quadruple to 61Âą a litre, on farmers, single parents and struggling working-class families who have to choose between eating and heating. Will the Prime Minister park the plane, end the high-carbon hypocrisy and axe the tax?
Anand cites the grocery rebate helping 11 million Canadians, workers benefits for 4.2 million, and indexed old age security for over six million, and challenges Conservatives to produce their own plan.
Anand lists the grocery rebate (11 million Canadians), workers benefits (4.2 million), and indexed old age security (six million) but does not address the carbon tax level or the hypocrisy charge, pivoting instead to attacking Conservatives for having no plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, our government actually has a plan to support Canadians during this time. We have, for example, the grocery rebate helping 11 million Canadians. We are helping 4.2 million Canadians with the workers benefits and over six million Canadians with indexed old age security. What is the Conservatives' plan? That is right; they do not have one.
Poilievre says the NDP supports the Liberals' 61-cents-a-litre carbon tax and that inflationary deficits have driven inflation back up, asking the government to end inflationary taxes and deficits to prevent Canadians from going bankrupt.
Poilievre characterizes the NDP-Liberal carbon tax as 61 cents a litre and links inflationary deficits to rising inflation, but the ask â end inflationary taxes and deficits â is a slogan with no single answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our plan is to axe the tax and use technology, not taxes. It is really incredible that this high-flying, high-carbon hypocrite is jetting around the world at the expense of Canadian taxpayers at the same time as he raises fuel taxes on everyday Canadians. The NDP supports him 100% in the 61Âą-a-litre carbon tax they want to impose. That and the inflationary deficits have driven inflation back up. Will the government finally end the inflationary taxes and deficits so we can bring down rates before Canadians go bankrupt?
Fraser accuses Poilievre of having opposed programs like employment insurance and the Canada pension plan throughout his career and says the government will continue to support Canadians in need.
Fraser does not address the carbon tax level, deficits, or inflation data, instead attacking Poilievre's record on EI and CPP and defending government programs in general terms.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over nearly two decades of Canadian politics, the member has not seen a program that helps Canadians that he does not want to cut. Over the course of my time in the chamber, I have watched him attack the programs that support my constituents, programs like employment insurance and the Canada pension plan. We are going to continue to put forward measures that are going to support Canadians during their time of need. He may dismiss them as big, fat government programs; I call them programs that put food on the table for families who live in my community.
Blanchet asks whether the government will set aside its desire to intrude into Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions and release the 900 million dollars it is withholding for social housing in Quebec.
Blanchet identifies a specific figure â 900 million dollars held back for social housing in Quebec â and asks a direct question about releasing those funds rather than pursuing jurisdictional interference, making the ask concrete and answerable.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, trop de Québécois et trop de Canadiens sont coincés entre un loyer hors de prix et la menace de l'itinérance. Le congé de TPS sur le logement locatif ne peut pas nuire, mais pourrait aussi ne pas du tout bénéficier aux locataires, qui en ont tant besoin. Le gouvernement accepte-t-il de mettre de cÎté son désir d'ingérence dans les compétences du Québec et des provinces et reconnaßt-il que la meilleure solution pour tout le monde est de débloquer les 900 millions de dollars qu'il retient pour le logement social au Québec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, too many Quebeckers and too many Canadians are having to choose between impossibly high rent and the threat of homelessness. Removing the GST on rental housing cannot hurt, but it may also do nothing to help tenants, who so desperately need it. Will the government agree to stop wanting to encroach on the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, and does it recognize that the ideal solution for everyone would be to release the $900 million it is withholding for social housing in Quebec?
Fraser says he has been in regular communication with his Quebec counterpart, including messages that morning and a hoped-for call that evening, and that they share the priority of building housing in Quebec.
Fraser says he has been in contact with his Quebec counterpart and that they share the priority of building housing, but does not address the specific 900 million dollars or explain why those funds are being withheld.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai eu beaucoup de conversations avec les gens du Québec. J'ai des conversations avec mon homologue, et mon équipe a des conversations avec son équipe. J'ai eu un échange de messages ce matin. J'espÚre avoir un appel ce soir. En réalité, nous partageons la priorité de construire des logements au Québec et partout au pays. Il est essentiel de travailler ensemble pour atteindre ces objectifs. Je vais continuer mes efforts. Je vais continuer de collaborer avec mon homologue et avec le Québec.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have had many conversations with the people of Quebec. I have spoken with my counterpart, and my team is speaking to his team. We exchanged messages this morning. I hope to get a call this evening. The fact of the matter is we both see building housing in Quebec and across the country as a priority. We must work together to achieve those objectives. I will keep working on this. I will continue to work with my counterpart and with Quebec.
Blanchet asks whether Ottawa should end its subsidies to the oil industry and use that money to increase pensions for seniors, end discrimination against those aged 65 to 75, and support social housing.
Blanchet links oil subsidies to inflationary spending and proposes a specific reallocation toward seniors' pensions and social housing, providing reasonable factual grounding, though the ask bundles several distinct policy changes.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au-delà de sa persistance dans l'ingérence, le Canada doit venir en aide aux plus démunis devant la hausse du coût de la vie et du logement. Il doit également contenir ses dépenses pour ne pas, à son tour, contribuer à l'inflation. Or, Ottawa verse des milliards de dollars à l'industrie pétroliÚre. Est-ce qu'Ottawa ne devrait pas plutÎt mettre fin aux subventions au pétrole et utiliser cet argent pour augmenter la pension aux aßnés, mettre fin à la discrimination envers les 65 à 75 ans et soutenir le logement social?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as long as Canada is bent on interfering, it should help the least fortunate cope with the rising cost of living and housing. It should also rein in its own spending so that it does not further contribute to inflation, yet Ottawa is giving billions of dollars to the oil industry. Would it not be better for Ottawa to end oil subsidies and use that money to increase seniors' pensions, end discrimination against people between the ages of 65 and 75, and support social housing?
Wilkinson states that fossil fuel subsidies were eliminated two or three months ago and that the government is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors and building a strong low-carbon economy.
Wilkinson directly states that fossil fuel subsidies were eliminated two or three months ago and commits to building a low-carbon economy, which partially addresses the subsidy question but does not engage with the reallocation to seniors or social housing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous devons bien sĂ»r combattre le changement climatique. Nous devons bien sĂ»r rĂ©duire les Ă©missions de gaz Ă effet de serre dans tous les secteurs de l'Ă©conomie. Dans le secteur du pĂ©trole, nous avons Ă©liminĂ© les subventions pour les Ă©nergies fossiles il y a deux ou trois mois, et nous allons construire une Ă©conomie qui va ĂȘtre trĂšs forte dans un avenir Ă faibles Ă©missions de carbone.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, of course we have to fight climate change. Of course, we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in all sectors of the economy. Regarding the oil industry, we ended fossil fuel subsidies two or three months ago, and we are going to build an economy that will make a major contribution to a low-carbon future.
Singh notes that Canada is losing more affordable homes than it is building and asks what the Prime Minister will say to a renter who can afford his home now but fears being renovicted or demovicted.
Singh raises the specific problem of renoviction and demoviction for renters currently in affordable units and asks what the Prime Minister will say to ensure they can stay, grounding the question in a recognizable policy gap even if the ask is somewhat broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister admitted that he could have and should have done more to build affordable homes in Canada. Now, the reality is that we have a situation where we are losing more affordable homes than we are building as a nation. What does the Prime Minister have to say to a renter who is living in a home he can afford right now but who lives in fear that one day that home will be renovicted or demovicted and he will lose it? What does the Prime Minister have to say to ensure that people will be able to stay in the homes they can afford?
Fraser points to the national housing strategy as the government's re-entry into social housing and the GST elimination on new rental apartments as steps to build more homes and help vulnerable Canadians.
Fraser references the national housing strategy and the GST elimination on apartments as responses but does not specifically address renoviction or demoviction protections, which were the core of Singh's question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern about making sure some of the most vulnerable Canadians have a safe and affordable place to call home. That was in fact the motivation for the national housing strategy where our government re-entered the social housing space after decades of governments, I should say of different partisan stripes, vacated it. In reality, we know we need to do more. That is why we moved forward with eliminating GST on apartments that are going to be rented to Canadians. Part of the solution to the housing crisis is to build more homes, and that is exactly what we are going to do.
Singh demands action rather than regrets and asks what the Prime Minister will do to guarantee construction of housing that people can actually afford.
Singh presses for concrete guarantees that affordable housing will actually be built, but the question is broad and lacks a specific policy mechanism or target number, mixing urgency with a somewhat vague ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on ne veut pas entendre de « j'aurais donc dû ». On veut que la job soit faite. En ce moment, c'est impossible de se trouver un logement abordable, parce qu'il n'y en a pas. Il n'existe pas de loyer abordable pour quelqu'un qui veut essayer de se trouver un logement ou un appartement. Qu'est-ce que ce premier ministre va faire pour garantir la construction de logements que les gens peuvent se permettre?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, âI should haveâ is not what people want to hear. People want the job done. Right now, finding affordable housing is impossible because there is none. Affordable rent for someone looking for housing or an apartment is non-existent. What is this Prime Minister going to do to ensure the construction of housing that people can afford?
Fraser acknowledges the difficulty, cites the national housing strategy and last week's GST elimination on apartment construction as measures to increase supply and reduce rental costs.
Fraser reiterates the national housing strategy and the GST elimination on apartment construction as concrete action, engaging the topic meaningfully but still not providing targets or timelines that would directly answer the guarantee Singh sought.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cela est difficile pour les personnes qui ne trouvent pas de maison abordable. C'est pour cette raison que nous avons mis en Ćuvre des stratĂ©gies nationales de logement, entamĂ©es il y a quelques dĂ©cennies. Ce sont des investissements nĂ©cessaires. Nous recommençons Ă construire des maisons abordables. In addition, he wants to see action. Last week, we eliminated the GST on the construction of apartments in this country. This is going to add to the supply. This is going to reduce the cost for people to rent and will provide protection for people who are struggling to find a place to call home. It is the right path forward. We are going to continue.
Paul-Hus asks whether the Prime Minister will reject the Bloc's demand to radically increase the carbon tax on Quebecers.
Paul-Hus asks the Prime Minister to reject the Bloc's proposal to radically increase the carbon tax, which is a relatively clear binary ask, but the framing is heavily partisan and does not cite a specific Bloc proposal or document.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la taxe sur le carbone a Ă©tĂ© imposĂ©e par les libĂ©raux, mais le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois propose de l'augmenter encore plus radicalement. Le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois prĂ©tend vouloir dĂ©fendre l'intĂ©rĂȘt des QuĂ©bĂ©cois, mais, soyons clairs, le Bloc veut prendre l'argent des QuĂ©bĂ©cois et le donner au fĂ©dĂ©ral. Cela coĂ»te cher de voter Bloc. Est-ce que le premier ministre va rejeter la demande du Bloc de radicalement augmenter la taxe sur le carbone sur le dos des QuĂ©bĂ©cois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals came up with the carbon tax and now the Bloc Québécois is proposing to drastically increase it. The Bloc Québécois claims to stand up for the interests of Quebeckers, but let us be clear, the Bloc wants to take money from Quebeckers and hand it over to the federal government. Voting Bloc is costly. Will the Prime Minister reject the Bloc's request to drastically increase the carbon tax at Quebeckers' expense?
St-Onge says Quebecers understand the costs of the environmental crisis after wildfires and floods and that pollution can no longer be free, without addressing the Bloc's specific proposal.
St-Onge does not address whether the government will reject the Bloc's demand to radically increase the carbon tax, instead speaking generally about the cost of the environmental crisis and attacking Conservatives for having no climate plan.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce que les QuĂ©bĂ©cois comprennent, ce sont les coĂ»ts liĂ©s Ă la crise environnementale. AprĂšs avoir vu les feux de forĂȘt et les inondations pendant tout l'Ă©tĂ©, et cela se poursuit avec la saison des ouragans, ce que les QuĂ©bĂ©cois comprennent, c'est que la pollution ne peut plus ĂȘtre gratuite au pays. Ils veulent que le gouvernement continue d'agir pour les gĂ©nĂ©rations futures. Nous allons continuer. Ce qui est dommage, c'est que le Parti conservateur n'a aucun plan pour lutter contre les changements climatiques.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what Quebeckers understand is the cost of the environmental crisis. After all the forest fires and floods we saw all summer, and now with the hurricane season, what Quebeckers understand is that pollution can no longer be free in this country. They want the government to keep taking action for future generations. We will keep going. It is a shame that the Conservative Party has no plan to fight climate change.
Paul-Hus invokes John Manley's warning that Liberal deficits press the accelerator on inflation, cites $284 million spent on passport redesign with a $123 million overrun, and asks the Prime Minister to commit to stop wasting Canadians' money.
Paul-Hus cites former Liberal Finance Minister John Manley's specific critique of deficit spending and provides a concrete example â $284 million for passport renewals with a $123 million overrun â making the question factually grounded and specific.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'aimerais savoir ce que la ministre pense d'un ancien ministre libĂ©ral des Finances, M. John Manley, qui a dĂ©clarĂ© que les dĂ©ficits du premier ministre appuient sur la pĂ©dale d'accĂ©lĂ©rateur de l'inflation. Cela oblige la Banque du Canada Ă appuyer davantage sur les freins en augmentant les taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt. Je donne un exemple de dĂ©pense complĂštement folle. Le gouvernement a dĂ©pensĂ© 284 millions de dollars pour refaire les passeports canadiens, soit un tiers de milliard de dollars. Il s'agit d'un dĂ©passement de 123 millions de dollars par rapport au budget prĂ©vu. C'est du gaspillage et cela n'a pas de bon sens. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut s'engager Ă cesser de brĂ»ler dans le feu l'argent des Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the minister thinks of a former Liberal finance minister, John Manley, who said that the Prime Minister's deficits are like stepping on the gas when it comes to inflation. This forces the Bank of Canada to step harder on the brakes by increasing interest rates. Here is an example of completely ridiculous spending. The government spent $284 million to redo Canadian passports. That is a third of a billion dollars, and it was $123 million over budget. That is an outrageous waste. Will the Prime Minister promise to stop burning Canadians' money?
Beech says the passport backlog has been completely eliminated, printers are five times faster, and Canadians will soon be able to renew passports online, presenting the spending as delivering better services.
Beech directly states that the passport backlog has been completely eliminated and that printers are now five times faster, engaging the passport spending example, but does not address Manley's critique of deficits and inflation or the cost overrun specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is my first chance to rise in the House as the Minister of Citizensâ Services. I would like to thank my wife, my constituents and, of course, the caucus. I look forward to working with everybody in the House to improve citizensâ services. I am very happy to report that, thanks to the hard work of the now House leader, the passport backlog has been completely eliminated. In addition, our investment means that the printers are now five times faster and people can check their passport applications online. They will soon be able to renew their passports online as well. That is delivering better services for Canadians.
Lantsman says eight years of Liberal government doubled home prices, rent, and mortgage payments through inflationary spending, notes fewer homes are being built this month than last, and asks the housing minister to admit the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.
Lantsman's question is largely partisan framing â doubling home prices, rent, and mortgage payments attributed to NDP-Liberal spending â with a rhetorical ask for the housing minister to admit the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, eight years of the Prime Minister has punished Canadians with an NDP-Liberal government that spent billions of dollars to double the price of a home, to double the rent and double the mortgage payment, all because of the Liberals' inflationary spending. They are building fewer homes this month than they did last month. Inflation is up; homebuilding is down. When will the housing minister stand up and admit that the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost?
Fraser says that when Poilievre was housing minister he spent $300 million promising 25,000 homes but fewer than 100 were built, and outlines the current GST elimination on apartments and plans to change the way cities build homes.
Fraser cites a specific counter-example â Poilievre's $300 million program that promised 25,000 homes but built fewer than 100 â and mentions the GST elimination and city-building plans, providing substantive if partially deflecting content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with enormous respect for my hon. colleague, when her party leader was the housing minister, he advanced a program with $300 million that he said would build 25,000 homes. Fewer than 100 were built. We have advanced programs that are going to build homes and that have been building homes. The reality is that we know we need to do more. That is why we are eliminating the GST on apartments to be constructed. That is why we are advancing a plan to change the way cities build homes. It is working. We cannot do it alone, but we will bring communities and provinces with us. It is the right path forward. I hope the Conservatives join us.
Lantsman says home costs have doubled, calls Fraser the minister who made international students sleep on the streets and lost track of a million people, and asks whether Canadians should trust him to fix housing or anyone on the government side to fix inflation.
Lantsman uses colourful rhetoric about international students sleeping on streets, losing a million people, and European castle prices, but the question â whether Canadians should trust Fraser to fix housing â is rhetorical and unanswerable in any specific sense.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the cost of a home has doubled in this country. The minister who made international students sleep on the streets and lost track of a million people is now in charge of building homes in this country. How does one lose a million people? He is recycling broken campaign promises from eight years ago that will not fix the fact that buying a castle in Europe is now cheaper than buying a family home in Kitchener. Are Canadians supposed to trust the guy who broke immigration to fix housing, or anyone over there to fix inflation?
Oh, oh!
Fraser warns against playing politics with immigration, defends welcoming ambitious levels of newcomers, and says the government has removed taxes on home construction and is changing the way cities build homes.
Fraser reacts to the immigration framing rather than the housing question, defends newcomer levels, and repeats the GST removal on home construction without substantively addressing the trust or competence question posed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with respect, I think it is very dangerous when any member of the House starts playing politics with immigration. With respect, if the Conservatives think that breaking the immigration system is tied to the fact that we have welcomedâ
Mr. Speaker, welcoming an ambitious level of newcomers is not breaking the immigration system, and we want to make sure communities are equipped to welcome them. We are not going to take lessons from the Conservatives, who failed miserably when it came to housing, by doing absolutely nothing. We have removed taxes on home construction. We are changing the way cities build homes. We are going to build Canada and we are going to advance the measures to make it happen.
Lewis says Liberal deficit spending has driven inflation and doubled mortgage rates, leaving housing prices at an all-time high, and asks the Prime Minister to stop inflationary spending so Canadians can keep a roof over their heads.
Lewis links reckless deficit spending to inflation and doubled mortgage rates in a cause-effect chain that has some factual basis, but the ask â stop inflationary spending â is a compound slogan without a specific policy target.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, they lost track of a million people. After eight years of the Prime Minister, housing prices are at an all-time high, and many Canadians have lost hope of ever owning their own home. This is a direct result of the NDP-Liberal government's reckless deficit spending that has poured countless cash into the economy, driving up inflation, which has driven up interest rates, which has doubled mortgage rates. Will the Prime Minister finally stop his inflationary spending so Canadians can once again keep a roof over their heads?
Bendayan accuses Conservatives of feigned compassion, notes they voted twice against lowering taxes for the middle class, and says the government is providing supports in a fiscally responsible way.
Bendayan does not address deficit spending, inflation, or mortgage rates, instead accusing Conservatives of feigned compassion and citing two prior votes against middle-class tax cuts, which is a deflection to opposition record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I hope this feigned compassion on behalf of the Conservatives is not fooling Canadians, because on two previous occasions, the Conservatives voted against lowering taxes for the middle class in this country. We have been criss-crossing the country over the course of the summer. Not a single Canadian has told us they would like us to cut our programs. Canadians are relying on the supports that our government is providing, and we are providing them in a fiscally responsible way.
Lewis invokes John Manley's warning that Liberal deficit spending acts like a gas pedal on inflation, notes that Canadians once paid off mortgages in 25 years but now need 25 years just to save a down payment, and asks the Prime Minister to stop reckless spending.
Lewis again cites John Manley's gas-pedal metaphor and offers a concrete comparison â 25 years to pay off a mortgage versus 25 years to save for a down payment â giving the question factual texture, though the ask remains a broad call to stop reckless spending.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, former Liberal finance minister John Manley said that the Liberal deficit spending is like pressing a gas pedal on inflation while the Bank of Canada is trying to press the brakes on it by raising interest rates. Eight years ago, Canadians could afford to pay off their mortgage in 25 years. Now it takes 25 years just to save for a down payment. When will the Prime Minister stop his reckless spending so Canadians can once again afford to buy homes?
Bendayan says rating agencies recently confirmed Canada's AAA credit rating as proof of responsible spending and announces the GST removal on apartment construction to build more homes for Canadian families.
Bendayan cites Canada's AAA credit rating confirmed by rating agencies as evidence of fiscal responsibility and mentions the GST removal on apartments, engaging the fiscal theme but not addressing the specific mortgage-affordability comparison or Manley's critique directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, just a few weeks ago, rating agencies confirmed Canada's AAA credit rating. That is because what we are doing is spending in order to support Canadians, but doing so in a responsible way. We have just announced the next step in our plan to build more homes faster. What we will do is create more apartment buildings for more Canadian families right across the country. The response from the Conservative leader was that we do not need any more of those. Canadians do need their federal government, and this is the federal government that has their backs.
Given that the government sent three ministers to the World Petroleum Congress while oil companies are profiting, will it announce the end of all subsidies to oil companies at the UN?
The question cites a concrete event (the World Petroleum Congress in Calgary), notes three ministers attending, and asks a specific policy question about whether the government will announce the end of all subsidies to oil companies at the UN, though it wraps the ask in rhetorical framing about oil company profits.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cette semaine, il y a le CongrĂšs mondial du pĂ©trole Ă Calgary. Ottawa y a dĂ©lĂ©guĂ© trois ministres. Ce n'est pas banal comme message. En mĂȘme temps, il a le culot de se prĂ©senter Ă une rencontre des Nations unies sur les changements climatiques. Or, pendant ce temps, les pĂ©troliĂšres s'en mettent plein les poches. Tout le monde sait que, la principale raison de la hausse du coĂ»t du pĂ©trole Ă la pompe, c'est les profits des pĂ©troliĂšres. Est-ce que le gouvernement va annoncer Ă l'ONU la fin de toutes les subventions aux pĂ©troliĂšres?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this week, Calgary is hosting the World Petroleum Congress. Ottawa has sent three ministers there. That sends a clear message. At the same time, they have the nerve to attend a United Nations meeting on climate change. Meanwhile, oil and gas companies are lining their pockets. Everyone knows that the main reason gas prices have gone up is oil and gas company profits. Will the government announce an end to all oil and gas subsidies at the UN?
Wilkinson says a framework is in place to reduce and eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and that he delivered a speech in Calgary about climate change and the need to reduce emissions across all sectors including oil.
Wilkinson references an existing framework to reduce and eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and notes his Calgary speech on emissions reductions, which partially addresses the subsidy question but does not answer whether a specific announcement will be made at the UN.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je l'ai dit, nous avons mis en place un cadre pour réduire et éliminer les subventions au secteur des énergies fossiles. Bien sûr, j'étais à Calgary. J'ai fait un discours au sujet du changement climatique et de la nécessité de réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre dans tous les secteurs de l'économie, et cela inclut bien sûr le secteur du pétrole.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have put in place a framework to reduce and eliminate subsidies to the fossil fuel sector. Of course I was in Calgary. I gave a speech about climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in all sectors of the economy, and that, of course, includes the oil and gas sector.
Should Ottawa take money given to oil companies and instead invest it in social housing and seniors' pensions, given that oil company profits are exacerbating inflation?
The question combines several policy areas (oil subsidies, social housing, seniors' pensions) into a compound rhetorical ask without citing specific figures, making it broad and difficult to answer precisely.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le gouvernement subventionne des pĂ©troliĂšres riches qui n'en ont pas du tout besoin. En mĂȘme temps, il retient l'argent pour le logement social. En mĂȘme temps, il refuse d'ajuster la pension des aĂźnĂ©s, lesquels croulent sous l'inflation. Cette inflation est exacerbĂ©e par les profits des pĂ©troliĂšres. Est-ce qu'Ottawa ne devrait pas prendre l'argent donnĂ© aux pĂ©troliĂšres et, Ă la place, l'investir dans le logement social et la pension aux aĂźnĂ©s?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government is subsidizing rich oil companies that have absolutely no need of subsidies. At the same time, it is withholding money needed for social housing and refusing to adjust seniors' pensions, who are being hard hit by inflation. This inflation has been exacerbated by oil company profits. Why does Ottawa not take the money it gives to oil companies and invest it in social housing and seniors' pensions instead?
Wilkinson disputes the premise by noting a framework exists to reduce and eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and emphasizes the importance of transitioning to a low-carbon economy.
Wilkinson again repeats the framework to reduce and eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and pivots to a general statement about building a low-carbon economy, without addressing the housing or seniors' pension redirection ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis dĂ©solĂ©, mais mon honorable collĂšgue dit des choses qui ne sont pas vraies. Nous avons mis en place un cadre pour rĂ©duire et Ă©liminer les subventions au secteur des Ă©nergies fossiles. Bien sĂ»r, c'est quelque chose qui est trĂšs important. Il faut accĂ©lĂ©rer le dĂ©veloppement d'une Ă©conomie qui va ĂȘtre prospĂšre dans un avenir qui doit ĂȘtre Ă faibles Ă©missions de carbone.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but what my hon. colleague said is untrue. We established a framework to reduce and eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. Obviously, this is a very important issue. We have to move faster on developing an economy that can prosper in what must be a low-carbon future.
Why are Liberals and the Bloc uniting to impoverish Quebecers by supporting radical carbon tax increases?
The question is primarily partisan framing labelling a "coalition libérale-bloquiste pour la hausse des taxes radicales" and asking why Liberals and Bloc unite to impoverish Quebecers, with no specific facts or a single answerable ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si on taxe le producteur de légumes, le camionneur qui les transporte et le transformateur, inévitablement, le prix sera plus cher sur la facture d'épicerie des familles québécoises. Alors que la moitié des Canadiens peinent à survivre d'une paie à l'autre, la coalition libérale-bloquiste pour la hausse des taxes radicales trouve qu'on ne paie pas assez cher. Non seulement le Bloc québécois soutient les taxes sur le carbone, mais ses députés veulent les augmenter radicalement. Pourquoi les libéraux et les bloquistes s'unissent-ils pour appauvrir les Québécois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the government taxes vegetable growers, the truckers who transport those vegetables and the processors, then Quebec families are bound to have higher grocery bills. While half of Canadians are surviving paycheque to paycheque, the Liberal-Bloc coalition seeking to drastically increase taxes thinks that Canadians are not paying enough. Not only does the Bloc Québécois support the carbon tax, but its members want to drastically increase it. Why have the Liberals and the Bloc joined forces to impoverish Quebeckers?
Champagne says the government summoned grocery CEOs to express Canadians' frustration and demand action to stabilize prices, and calls on Conservatives to unite with the Liberal caucus instead of using slogans.
Champagne does not address carbon pricing or the specific framing at all, instead pivoting to the government's meeting with grocery CEOs about food prices, which is tangential to the question asked.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est dĂ©solant pour les Canadiennes et les Canadiens d'entendre une question comme cela. Cette semaine, les Canadiens et les Canadiennes ont vu que nous agissions de ce cĂŽtĂ©. Qu'avons-nous fait pour les Canadiens? Nous avons convoquĂ© les PDG des grandes sociĂ©tĂ©s de partout au pays pour leur exprimer la frustration de millions de Canadiens et de Canadiennes et leur dire que c'est assez et que nous avons besoin d'agir pour stabiliser les prix au Canada. Au lieu de faire des slogans, les conservateurs devraient s'unir avec le caucus libĂ©ral pour agir dans l'intĂ©rĂȘt des Canadiens. VoilĂ ce Ă quoi les gens s'attendent d'eux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing for Canadians to hear a question like that. This week, Canadians saw that we, on this side of the House, are taking action. What have we done for Canadians? We met with corporate CEOs from across the country to share with them the frustration felt by millions of Canadians and to tell them that enough is enough and that we need to do something to stabilize prices in Canada. Rather than coming up with slogans, the Conservatives should unite with the Liberal caucus to act in the interest of Canadians. That is what people expect of them.
Why does the Prime Minister endorse the Bloc Québécois's desire to radically increase carbon taxes, which will add 20¹ per litre of gasoline and hurt Quebec families?
The question cites a specific figure (20¹ per litre addition from the second carbon tax) and frames a reasonably identifiable ask about why the Prime Minister endorses Bloc Québécois demands to radically increase taxes, but the framing remains heavily partisan.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on entend toutes sortes d'excuses de la part de la coalition libérale-bloquiste pour des hausses de taxes radicales. On dit que la taxe sur le carbone n'a pas d'effet au Québec; c'est faux. La deuxiÚme taxe sur le carbone, appuyée par le Bloc québécois, va ajouter 20 ¹ au coût de chaque litre d'essence. AprÚs huit ans, les libéraux ont réussi à convaincre le chef du Bloc québécois de prendre plus d'argent dans les poches des Québécois pour l'envoyer à Ottawa. C'est à l'évidence irresponsable si on veut aider les familles qui en arrachent. Voter pour le Bloc québécois coûte cher. Pourquoi le premier ministre endosse-t-il la volonté du Bloc québécois d'augmenter radicalement les taxes sur le dos des Québécois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we hear all sorts of excuses from the Liberal-Bloc coalition for drastic tax increases. They say that the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, but that is false. The second carbon tax, which the Bloc Québécois supports, will add 20¹ to the cost of a litre of gas. After eight years, the Liberals have managed to convince the Leader of the Bloc Québécois to take more money from Quebeckers and send it to Ottawa. That is totally irresponsible if the goal is to help families who are struggling. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly. Why is the Prime Minister endorsing the Bloc Québécois's wish to drastically increase taxes at Quebeckers' expense?
Duclos says it is radical and irresponsible to deny climate change exists and notes that the Conservative Party itself proposed a price on pollution just two years ago, accusing them of inconsistency.
Duclos pivots entirely to accusing Conservatives of denying climate change and contradicting their own prior carbon pricing proposal, without addressing the specific 20Âą-per-litre claim or the question about the Bloc's demands.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce qui est radical et irresponsable, c'est de nier l'existence des changements climatiques. Ce que l'élite conservatrice fait depuis plusieurs années, c'est de dire à 80 % des Canadiens qui reçoivent davantage dans leurs poches qu'ils ne méritent pas qu'on fasse en sorte que leur vie soit plus abordable. Ce qui est irresponsable et inacceptable, c'est que, il y a à peine deux ans, le Parti conservateur proposait un prix sur la pollution. Maintenant, en 2023, il change d'idée.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what is drastic and irresponsible is denying that climate change exists. What the Conservative elites have been doing for years now is telling the 80% of Canadians who are keeping more money in their pockets that they do not deserve to have us make their lives more affordable. What is irresponsible and unacceptable is that just two years ago, the Conservative Party was proposing a price on pollution. Now, in 2023, they are changing their minds.
Given that mortgage interest rates are up 31% and inflation is up 4% this month, will the Prime Minister stop his inflationary spending so Canadians can keep a roof over their heads?
The question cites specific figures (mortgage interest rates up 31%, inflation up 4% this month) and references the finance minister's prior public commitment, giving it reasonable factual grounding, though it ends with a vague "stop inflationary spending" ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want right now is for inflation to come down and for interest rates to fall, not to pour fuel on the fire of inflation. That was what the finance minister promised last year. Instead, mortgage interest rates are up 31%. Inflation is up 4% this month alone. After eight years, the Liberal-NDP government refuses to be the financial steward this country so desperately needs. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Will the Prime Minister finally stop his inflationary spending so Canadians can keep a roof over their heads?
Holland argues that Conservative spending cuts would harm vulnerable Canadians by eliminating dental care for 3.5 million seniors, 181,000 people with disabilities, and one million children.
Holland does not address mortgage rates, inflation figures, or the finance minister's commitment at all, instead attacking Conservative cuts to dental care, child disability benefits, and children's coverage â an almost complete pivot from what was asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us be specific about what they are talking about when they are talking about cuts. When they are talking about dealing with global inflation, they want to do it on the backs of the most vulnerable, as if cutting from the most vulnerable people in Canada is going to somehow fix global inflation. That means, as an example, with the dental care program that we are rolling out, 3.5 million seniors would lose their dental care. That means 181,000 people with disabilities would lose their dental care. That means one million children would lose their dental care. That is what they are talking about. Let us be clear about what their real plan is.
Citing former Liberal finance minister John Manley's criticism of contradictory fiscal policy, will the Prime Minister stop inflationary spending so people do not go bankrupt, yes or no?
The question quotes former Liberal finance minister John Manley by name with a specific analogy about contradictory fiscal policy, grounding the ask in a credible non-partisan source, though it still ends with a yes/no ask that is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is completely false and is empty, condescending rhetoric. Let us quote former Liberal finance minister John Manley: âThis is a bit like driving your car with one foot on the gas and the other on the brake generally, especially if there's slushy conditions under your tires. Thatâs not a good plan for controlling the direction of your vehicle, not a good plan for controlling the direction of the economy either.â After eight years, the Liberal-NDP government is still not able to address the housing and living crisis that it helped create. Again, will the Prime Minister finally stop his inflationary spending so people do not go bankrupt, yes or no?
Gould says Conservatives in government had higher unemployment, lower wages, and stagnant poverty rates, and warns that their cuts would roll back child care, dental care, and pensions.
Gould does not address the Manley quote, the inflationary spending concern, or the housing and living crisis, instead attacking the Conservative record on unemployment, wages, poverty, and listing assumed Conservative cuts â a clear deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives were in government, they had higher unemployment, lower wages and stagnation when it came to poverty rates. When they are talking about cutting, they are talking about cutting things like child care. They are talking about cutting things like dental care. They are talking about rolling back pensions, just as they did when they were in government. What Canadians need right now is a government that is there for them, and what they cannot afford are the risky ideas of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Given that Canada is among the lowest G7 countries in social housing stock and it will take 125 years to build needed community housing under the Liberals' national housing strategy, will the Liberals commit to building two million units of co-op and social housing?
The question cites a specific statistic (125 years to build needed community housing under the Liberals' national housing strategy), places Canada's social housing stock in G7 context, and makes a concrete ask for two million units of co-op and social housing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives and Liberals caused the housing crisis by cancelling the national co-op and social housing program 30 years ago. Canada is now among the lowest of the G7 countries in social housing stock. Seniors, families and everyday Canadians need a home that they can afford. Under the Liberals' national housing strategy, it will take at least 125 years to build the community housing that we need. Talk is cheap. Bold action is needed. Will the Liberals put people before profits and commit to building two million units of co-op and social housing?
Fraser agrees more housing is needed including subsidized housing, acknowledges federal governments vacated this space for decades, points to the national housing strategy since 2017 delivering hundreds of thousands of subsidized homes, and pledges further measures including tax incentives and changes to how cities build.
Fraser agrees on the need for more subsidized housing, acknowledges federal governments vacated the space for decades, references the national housing strategy re-entry in 2017, and mentions tax incentives and changing how cities build homes, engaging substantively though without directly committing to two million units.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I share my hon. colleague's perspective that we need to build more housing in this country, including subsidized housing for low-income families. I also agree with the NDP that the reason we find ourselves with such an extraordinary housing shortage is that federal governments of different partisan stripes for decades have vacated the space. We re-entered the sector in 2017 with the advancing of the national housing strategy. We are seeing hundreds of thousands of subsidized homes provide safety and security for low-income families. We will continue to advance more measures to build housing stock, including tax incentives to get builders building and to change the way that cities build homes, but we will not forget the most vulnerable along the way.
Will the Liberals join New Democrats in condemning anti-2SLGBTQI+ hate by supporting the NDP motion when it returns to the House?
The question references a specific prior parliamentary event (Conservatives blocking an NDP motion in June) and makes a concrete ask about whether Liberals will support the returning motion, though the framing includes emotional advocacy language.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as Canadians, we should be making sure that all our kids feel safe, loved and supported. However, right now, anti-trans demonstrations across Canada are making this impossible, especially for trans kids. In June, the Conservatives blocked an NDP motion calling on all Canadian leaders to condemn this rising tide of hate and violence. Will the Liberals join New Democrats in condemning this anti-2SLGBTQI+ hate by supporting our motion when it comes back to the House? Will they join us in demonstrating that Canada is truly a country where there is no space for hate?
Ien affirms that the government stands with trans and queer youth, acknowledges the demonstrations taking place, and says trans and queer kids deserve to be heard and to have safe spaces, without explicitly committing to support the specific motion.
Ien affirms standing with trans and queer youth, reflects on demonstrations outside Parliament, and addresses the balance between parental roles and centering trans and queer kids, engaging substantively with the spirit of the question though stopping short of a direct commitment to support the specific motion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I give a special thanks to the member across for his work, his advocacy and his lived experience. Absolutely we stand with trans and queer youth. As I reflect on what has happened outside these walls today and the marches that we see, I remind everybody that as a parent I understand the need for parents to be at the centre of their kids' lives. However, I also very much understand the need to centre trans and queer kids and make sure they are heard and make sure they have safe spaces. To those kids, we are with them and we hear them. I have spoken to them acrossâ
Could the Minister of National Defence share what Canada is doing to support the Ukrainian people against Russia's invasion?
This is a government-backbench softball question with no accountability dimension, simply inviting the Minister of National Defence to describe Canada's support for Ukraine.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as we speak, the Ukrainian people are risking everything and sacrificing their lives to defend their homeland against Russia's genocidal invasion. Russia's invasion is not just an existential threat to Ukraine. It is also the primary reason for food and energy price inflation here in Canada and around the world. It is a major threat to global security and to Canada's security. Canada must stand with the Ukrainian people until they win. Could the Minister of National Defence share with Canadians what Canada is doing to support the brave people of Ukraine?
Blair states Canada has provided over $1.8 billion in military aid and announced a $33 million contribution to a British-led air defence partnership to equip Ukrainians to defend their skies and protect critical infrastructure.
Blair provides specific figures ($1.8 billion in military aid already provided, $33 million announced for a British-led air defence partnership) and a concrete detail about Canadian soldiers training Ukrainian soldiers in the United Kingdom, making this a substantively informative answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the member for Etobicoke Centre for his exceptional leadership in support of Ukraine. In the face of Russia's unrelenting brutality and aggression, Ukrainians have fought back with remarkable strength and courage. Canada continues to stand with them. Canada has already provided over $1.8 billion in military aid, and earlier this week, while visiting our soldiers in the United Kingdom, who are training Ukrainian soldiers, I announced that Canada will contribute $33 million to a British-led air defence partnership. This investment will equip Ukrainians with the tools they need to defend their skies and protect critical infrastructure. Canada, our partners and allies will always support Ukrainian friends, and the comprehensive militaryâ
Given that the carbon tax is crushing Canadian farmers by raising costs for drying grain and operating combines, will the government come to its senses and axe the tax?
The question references attendance at the International Plowing Match as grounding but relies on anecdotal farmer concerns rather than data, and the ask to "axe the tax" is a slogan rather than a specific policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was at the International Plowing Match, which was in my riding, and I spoke with farmers from all across Canada. What is their number one concern? It is the carbon tax. Whether it is drying grain or driving their combine, the carbon tax is crushing Canadian farmers. When farmers pay more, Canadians pay more at the grocery store. After eight years of paying more, Canadians cannot afford the Liberal government. Will it come to its senses and axe the tax?
MacAulay says he understands farming difficulties and cites climate-related agricultural disasters such as Hurricane Fiona and extreme temperatures as the reason the government invests in addressing climate change.
MacAulay does not address the carbon tax's impact on grain drying or combines, instead pivoting entirely to climate-related agricultural disasters (Hurricane Fiona, drought, extreme cold) as justification for climate investment, without engaging the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, being a farmer, I understand the trouble and difficulties farmers have. Imagine going to a potato field and having to take a bulldozer to pull the potato harvest. Out in the Prairies, there is not enough rain to grow a crop. Fiona blew our barns down and it killed our dairy cattle. It blew the wharves to pieces. That is why we, as a government, have invested in climate change and will continue to invest to make sure that farmers and the country itself can grow crops and have fishing and harbours.
Since carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2 have not stopped the climate events the minister cited, proving it is a tax not an environment plan, will the government actually help Canadians and axe the tax?
The question challenges the government's claim that its policy is a climate plan rather than just a tax plan with a logical argument, but the "axe the tax" ask remains a slogan and the question lacks specific data or a precise policy alternative.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member says the government is investing in climate change. What they have are investments in a tax plan. If it was a climate plan that was going to fix climate change, carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2 would have actually done something. All of these things he talked about are still happening. Why? It is because it is a tax; it is not an environment plan. What this tax does is make everything more expensive for Canadians. They say they are going to help. Will they actually help and axe the tax?
Oh, oh!
Van Koeverden says farmers believe in climate change and want to help fight it, that affordability is a top issue, and that the government has a plan to address both climate change and affordability through measures including the climate action incentive, while Conservatives have no plan for either.
Van Koeverden says farmers believe in climate change and want to help fight it, acknowledges affordability concerns, and references the climate action incentive, but does not engage with the specific argument that the carbon tax is not an environment plan or address the ask to axe the tax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I represent a rural riding too, and what the member does not get is that farmers believe in climate change and they want to help fight it. I spent the summer with my community listening to their concerns and I heard them loud and clear. Affordability is a major issue and we are reminded harshly, through theâ
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, like the member, I live in a rural riding, and unlike the Conservatives, I spent the summer talking to my constituents and hearing their concerns. I heard them loud and clear. Affordability is a top issue, but we are also reminded harshly, through extreme weather events throughout the summer, that fighting climate change is more important than ever. We have a plan to address both. That is important. This is about environment and climate change as well as affordability, but the Conservatives do not have a plan for either. Our climate action incentive sends more money back toâ
Does the Liberal agriculture minister truly support quadrupling the carbon tax on farmers, truckers and processors, knowing the consequences mean higher food prices for Canadians, given that only 2% of farmers think Liberals support agriculture and farmers pay close to $1 billion in carbon taxes?
The question cites a specific figure (only 2% of Canadian farmers think Liberals support agriculture, close to $1 billion in carbon taxes paid by farmers, diesel up 70Âą per litre) and asks a direct yes/no question about whether the minister supports quadrupling the carbon tax on farmers knowing it means higher food prices.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, the Liberal agriculture minister claims that farmers support the carbon tax. How out of touch can a minister be? Only 2% of Canadian farmers think the Liberals even support agriculture, because they know that the Prime Minister is unaffordable. Farmers cannot afford to pay close to $1 billion in carbon taxes. They cannot afford it when diesel goes up 70Âą a litre. They cannot afford to pay more in fertilizer and feed and higher interest rates. Does the Liberal agriculture minister truly support quadrupling the carbon tax on farmers, truckers and processors, knowing the consequences mean higher food prices for Canadians?
MacAulay says farmers understand the costs of climate change through events like Hurricane Fiona and extreme temperatures, and the Liberal government will continue to invest in addressing climate change to support farmers.
MacAulay does not address the figures cited, the 2% statistic, or the quadrupling question, instead again pivoting to climate disaster examples (Hurricane Fiona, extreme temperatures) to justify climate investment â nearly identical to his previous answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that farmers are fully aware of what is taking place in this country. Hurricane Fiona blew down their barns and killed their cattle. Temperatures went to 50 below zero and extreme winds were over 200 kilometres an hour, blowing everything to pieces. Farmers fully understand that that adds costs to everything. That is why the Liberal government has continued and will continue to invest in climate change and to stand with our farmers.
Given that the second carbon tax applies to Quebec despite Bloc claims otherwise and agricultural input costs keep rising, will the Prime Minister say whether he will listen to the Bloc Québécois's demand to radically increase the carbon tax?
The question makes a specific claim that the second carbon tax applies to Quebec contrary to what the Bloc claims and asks whether the Prime Minister will listen to the Bloc's demand to radically increase the carbon tax, but it is heavily partisan in framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre et son partenaire, le Bloc québécois, font grimper le prix des denrées alimentaires en continuant à soutenir la taxe sur le carbone. Oui, la deuxiÚme taxe sur le carbone s'applique au Québec, contrairement à ce que les bloquistes prétendent. Les intrants ne cessent d'augmenter pour nos agriculteurs et le prix du transport continue d'exploser. Or, le Bloc veut radicalement augmenter la taxe sur le carbone. Oui, ça coûte cher, voter pour le Bloc. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut nous dire s'il va écouter la demande du Bloc québécois de radicalement augmenter la taxe?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his ally, the Bloc Québécois, are driving up food prices by continuing to support the carbon tax. Yes, the second carbon tax applies to Quebec, contrary to what the Bloc claims. Input costs continue to rise for our farmers and transportation costs continue to skyrocket, yet the Bloc wants to drastically increase the carbon tax. Yes, voting Bloc is costly. Can the Prime Minister tell us if he is going to listen to the Bloc Québécois's request to drastically increase the tax?
Rodriguez responds with rhetorical questions about the costs of wildfires, flooding, tornadoes, and health impacts, concluding that Canada cannot afford the Conservatives.
Rodriguez does not address the carbon tax in Quebec, the second carbon tax, or the Bloc's demands, instead responding entirely with rhetorical questions about the costs of wildfires, flooding, and tornadoes â a near-complete deflection.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, mon collĂšgue veut parler de coĂ»ts. Combien coĂ»tent nos forĂȘts qui brĂ»lent? Combien coĂ»tent nos lacs et nos riviĂšres qui dĂ©bordent? Combien coĂ»tent les tornades et les ouragans qui frappent nos rĂ©gions? Combien tout cela coĂ»te-t-il en matiĂšre de coĂ»ts de santĂ© pour nos enfants? Une chose est claire: le Canada n'a pas les moyens d'avoir les conservateurs.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my colleague wants to talk about costs. How costly is it to deal with our burning forests? How costly is it to clean up overflowing lakes and rivers? How costly is it rebuild after tornadoes and hurricanes hit our regions? How much does it all add up to in health care costs for our children? One thing is clear: Canada cannot afford the Conservatives.
Given that Irving received nearly $500 million to modernize its shipyard while Davie received zero, and zero of the seven icebreaker contracts promised in April have been awarded, what is the value of the federal commitment to Davie as of today?
The question cites specific figures (nearly $500 million to Irving, zero to Davie, zero contracts from the seven icebreaker promise made in April) and asks a pointed accountability question about the value of the federal commitment to Davie as of today.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, quand le fédéral a enfin nommé la Davie comme troisiÚme partenaire de la Stratégie nationale de construction navale, on pensait que les choses allaient mieux aller à Québec. Est-ce que quelque chose a changé? Non, rien n'a changé. Le fédéral a donné prÚs de 500 millions de dollars à Irving pour moderniser son chantier. Combien a-t-il donné à la Davie? Zéro. Combien a-t-on reçu des sept contrats de brise-glaces que le premier ministre est venu promettre, en avril, lors d'une belle opération photo? Zéro; il y a eu zéro subvention et zéro contrat. En date d'aujourd'hui, combien vaut l'engagement du fédéral envers la Davie?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, when the federal government finally appointed Davie as the third partner in the national shipbuilding strategy, we thought things would get better in Quebec City. Has anything changed? No, nothing has changed. The federal government gave Irving nearly $500 million to modernize its shipyard. How much did they give to Davie? Nothing. How many of the seven icebreaker contracts the Prime Minister promised in April during a nice photo op went to Davie? None. It got no subsidies and no contracts. As of today, how many dollars has the federal government committed to Davie?
Duclos says he was pleased to be at the spring announcement alongside the member and that workers, 1,300 suppliers, and political and economic partners in the Quebec region were delighted with the decision, asserting the government stands with workers.
Duclos does not provide any figures, contract details, or timelines, instead describing worker enthusiasm at the spring announcement and accusing the member of a partisan operation, without engaging the specific zero-funding and zero-contract claims.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis trĂšs heureux de rĂ©pondre Ă cette question. Je soulignerais d'ailleurs que ma collĂšgue a eu la chance d'ĂȘtre prĂ©sente, elle aussi, lors de l'annonce extraordinaire que nous avons eu l'occasion de faire au printemps dernier. Elle a pu constater, comme elle a pu le faire aujourd'hui mĂȘme, Ă quel point les travailleurs, les 1 300 fournisseurs ainsi que tous les partenaires politiques et Ă©conomiques de la rĂ©gion de QuĂ©bec Ă©taient enchantĂ©s de cette dĂ©cision et de ce choix que nous avons fait en faveur de la rĂ©gion de QuĂ©bec. Elle devrait â et je pense qu'elle va le faire un peu en dehors de cette opĂ©ration partisane â reconnaĂźtre que nous sommes lĂ pour les travailleurs, que nous sommes lĂ pour les fournisseurs et que nous sommes lĂ pour la rĂ©gion de QuĂ©bec.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer this question. I would like to point out that my colleague also had the chance to attend the incredible announcement we made last spring. She was able to see, as she did today, just how happy the workers, the 1,300 suppliers and all the political and economic partners in the Quebec City area were with this decision and the choice we made to help the Quebec City area. She should recognizeâand I think she will when she is somewhat less engaged in this partisan effortâthat we are there for workers, that we are there for suppliers and that we are there for the Quebec City area.
Despite Davie and the Quebec government investing $840 million to compensate for federal inaction, and with $8.5 billion in promised contracts and 1,800 jobs at stake, when will the contracts from Ottawa arrive? A specific date is requested.
The question cites specific figures ($500 million to Irving vs. zero to Davie, $840 million invested by Davie and the Quebec government, $8.5 billion in promised contracts, 1,800 jobs at stake) and makes a single concrete ask for a date when contracts will arrive.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, 500 millions de dollars de fonds publics du fĂ©dĂ©ral ont Ă©tĂ© versĂ©s Ă Irving Oil et zĂ©ro pour la Davie. Le fĂ©dĂ©ral investit l'argent des QuĂ©bĂ©cois contre les QuĂ©bĂ©cois, mais on s'est retroussĂ© les manches. La Davie et le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec ont investi, ensemble, 840 millions de dollars pour compenser l'injustice du fĂ©dĂ©ral. MalgrĂ© l'inaction d'Ottawa, la Davie est prĂȘte. Ce gouvernement a promis 8,5 milliards de dollars de contrats en avril dernier; 1 800 emplois en dĂ©pendent. Quand les contrats arriveront-ils? On veut une date.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the federal government gave Irving Oil $500 million in public funds and gave none to Davie. The federal government is investing Quebeckers' money against Quebeckers, but we know how to get things done. Together, Davie and the Government of Quebec invested $840 million to compensate for the federal government's unfairness. Despite Ottawa's inaction, Davie is ready. This government promised $8.5 billion in contracts last April, and 1,800 jobs depend on those contracts. When will Davie get those contracts? We want a date.
Duclos says contracts are already in place with almost 1,000 workers currently on site, contracts for the next 20 to 25 years coming, and thousands more workers to be hired along with tens of thousands through 1,300 suppliers, calling it extraordinary news for the Quebec region.
Duclos claims workers are already on the job (almost 1,000 workers currently on site), that contracts are already there, and that contracts for 20 to 25 years ahead plus thousands more workers are coming, but provides no specific date or contract details as requested, and disputes the zero-contract premise without evidence.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je serais enchantĂ© d'offrir un breffage Ă ma collĂšgue. Je pense qu'elle a oubliĂ© ce qu'elle a entendu au printemps dernier, c'est-Ă -dire Ă quel point les travailleurs n'attendent pas de contrats. Les contrats sont dĂ©jĂ lĂ . Il y a presque 1 000 travailleurs sur le chantier au moment oĂč nous nous parlons. Il va y avoir des contrats pour les 20 Ă 25 prochaines annĂ©es et des milliers d'autres travailleurs vont ĂȘtre engagĂ©s, sans parler des dizaines de milliers d'autres qui vont travailler pour les 1 300 fournisseurs. C'est une nouvelle extraordinaire pour la rĂ©gion de QuĂ©bec, et j'invite ma collĂšgue Ă la cĂ©lĂ©brer, comme nous.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to give my colleague a briefing. I think she forgot what she heard last spring, and that is that the workers are not waiting for contracts. The shipyard has already been given contracts. Nearly 1,000 people are working at the shipyard as we speak. There will be contracts for the next 20 to 25 years and thousands more workers will be hired, not to mention the tens of thousands of others who will work for the 1,300 suppliers. That is wonderful news for the Quebec City region, and I would invite my colleague to celebrate that as we are.
Ellis cites food price increases of more than 70% on lettuce, carrots, and potatoes and asks whether the Prime Minister will cancel his plans to increase the carbon tax.
The question cites specific price increases (70%+ on lettuce, carrots, potatoes) but the ask is compound and rhetorical, demanding cancellation of the carbon tax without engaging a specific policy mechanism or commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every member of the House receives emails, letters and phone calls explaining how unaffordable life has become due to the NDP-Liberal government's punishing carbon tax. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, everything costs more, and inflation on basic necessities such as food continues to rise. The price of lettuce is up. The price of carrots is up, and the price of potatoes is up, all by more than 70%. Quite frankly, Canadians are fed up. Will the Liberal Prime Minister cancel his plans to increase his inflationary carbon tax?
Fraser attacks the Conservatives over a reported $45,000 trip to the United Kingdom and $600 bottles of champagne, then argues Conservatives oppose offshore renewable energy against the wishes of Nova Scotia's provincial Conservative government.
The minister ignores the carbon tax question entirely, pivoting to an attack about a $45,000 Conservative trip and champagne, then pivoting again to offshore renewable energy in Nova Scotia â no substantive engagement with affordability or carbon pricing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to take seriously a question from the hon. member after I read a news article, just a couple of evenings ago, indicating that he and some of his Conservative colleagues went on a $45,000 trip to have $600 bottles of champagne in the United Kingdom, so they could meet with people who oppose sensible policies to put a price on pollution. The reality is that we are going to continue to put forward measures that grow the economy. I will take this moment to point out that the Conservatives, contrary to the will of the provincial Conservative government in Nova Scotia, are opposing a regulatory framework that would allow us to build offshore renewable energy. Conservatives need to get with the times. We are going to build a green economy for the future.
Ellis invokes the Bank of Canada governor's statement that carbon tax increases drive inflation and asks when the Prime Minister will cancel his plans to increase the carbon tax.
Ellis references the Bank of Canada governor's statement on carbon tax and inflation as a factual anchor, but the overall ask remains the same compound rhetorical demand to cancel the carbon tax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the Liberal government would like to do is deflect from the things that are very important to Canadians, such as their inflationary carbon tax. Even the governor of the Bank of Canada has stated clearly that, with the carbon tax announcement that has it going up, inflation increases each year. The ongoing punishment for Canadians simply trying to buy food, put a roof over their heads, for which the minister is failing again just as he did on immigration, and heat their homes, must stop. After eight years, the Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the cost. When will he cancel his plans to increase his inflationary carbon tax?
Van Koeverden accuses Conservatives of offering only slogans and bumper stickers, links expensive lettuce to climate change-driven drought, and attacks the member for meeting millionaire climate change deniers in Europe.
Van Koeverden does not address the Bank of Canada governor's statement or the specific carbon tax question, instead accusing Conservatives of only offering slogans and attacking the member for allegedly hobnobbing with climate change deniers in Europe.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a serious responsible government needs to have a plan to address both affordability and climate change, but all these Conservatives have are slogans and catch phrases to stick on T-shirts and bumper stickers. Groceries are too expensive, but one of the main driving forces behind, for example, expensive lettuce in drought-prone places is climate change. While that member was hobnobbing with millionaire climate change deniers in Europe, we were here continuing to address the issues that face Canadians and playing a leadership role in addressing the threats of climate change in Canada.
Richards references the Bank of Canada governor's warning that carbon tax increases are causing inflation and asks the Prime Minister to cancel his inflationary carbon tax increases.
Richards again cites the Bank of Canada governor's warning about carbon tax increases causing inflation but the ask is the same repetitive demand to cancel the carbon tax, lacking a new specific hook or document.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, eight years of the NDP-Liberal government have depleted Canadians' savings, raised their taxes and increased the prices at their local grocery stores. Cutting his carbon tax could bring immediate relief for Canadians, but the Prime Minister refuses. Even the Bank of Canada governor is now warning that the Liberals' carbon tax increases are causing inflation. The policies of the Prime Minister are not worth the cost, and Canadians know it. Will he finally side with Canadians and cancel his inflationary carbon tax increases?
Wilkinson states that eight out of ten families get more money back than they pay in the price on pollution, then accuses Conservatives of hypocrisy for previously supporting cap and trade and running on a price on pollution in the last election.
Wilkinson offers the relevant statistic that eight out of ten families get more money back than they pay in the price on pollution, which partially engages the affordability concern, but then pivots to attacking Conservative hypocrisy over past cap-and-trade and carbon pricing positions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House a number of times, the price on pollution was put in place in a manner where eight out of 10 families get more money back than they pay in the price on pollution. I would have to say that the hypocrisy coming from that side of the House is unbelievable. The last Conservative government, within which the Leader of the Opposition was a minister, proposed cap and trade, which is a form of pricing pollution. In the last election, the Conservative Party and everybody in this chamber ran on putting a price on pollution. Now the Conservative Party campaigns actively against a price on pollution. How can the Canadian public believe anything these people have to say?
Chatel asks what the Minister of Tourism intends to do to realize the full ecotourism and recreational tourism potential of the Outaouais region.
This is a government-backbench softball setup: Chatel asks a vague open-ended question about what the Minister of Tourism intends to do to realize the ecotourism potential of the Outaouais region.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on parle beaucoup d'abordabilité maintenant, mais il faut aussi bùtir une économie qui va créer de bons emplois et une qualité de vie pour les Canadiens. En Outaouais, on a un extraordinaire potentiel écorécréotouristique. J'aimerais savoir ce que la ministre du Tourisme entend faire pour essayer de réaliser ce plein potentiel en Outaouais.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about affordability these days, but we also need to build an economy that will create good jobs and a better quality of life for Canadians. The Outaouais boasts tremendous ecotourism and recreation potential. I would like to hear what the Minister of Tourism plans to do to help the Outaouais achieve its full potential.
Martinez Ferrada announces $700,000 in financial assistance to eight businesses in the Outaouais region through DĂ©veloppement Ă©conomique Canada to increase accommodation supply and attract longer stays.
Martinez Ferrada provides a concrete answer, citing $700,000 in financial assistance to eight businesses in the Outaouais region through DĂ©veloppement Ă©conomique Canada to increase accommodation supply, which directly addresses the question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la députée de Pontiac a raison. Le tourisme est le moteur économique de nos régions. C'est pourquoi le gouvernement, à travers Développement économique Canada, a remis une aide financiÚre de 700 000 $ à huit entreprises de la région de l'Outaouais pour augmenter l'offre en hébergement. C'est parce qu'on veut que les gens viennent et restent plus qu'une journée. D'ailleurs, je nous invite tous à visiter la région de l'Outaouais parce qu'il y a beaucoup d'activités récréotouristiques. Je remercie la députée de Pontiac pour tout le travail qu'elle fait pour le développement économique de nos régions.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the member for Pontiac is quite right. Tourism is the economic engine of our regions. That is why, through Canada Economic Development, the government has allocated $700,000 in financial assistance to eight businesses in the Outaouais region to increase lodging availability, because we want people to come and stay for more than just a day. I would encourage everyone to visit the Outaouais region because there are so many recreational and tourism activities. I thank the member for Pontiac for all the work she does for the economic development of our regions.
Davidson cites new documents showing Canadians were billed more than a quarter of a million dollars for a three-day cabinet meeting focused on tackling inflation and asks the Prime Minister to axe the carbon tax and respect taxpayers.
Davidson cites "new documents" showing more than a quarter of a million dollars billed for a three-day cabinet meeting focused on tackling inflation, which is a specific factual claim, but the ask collapses into a rhetorical demand to axe the carbon tax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, new documents show the Liberals billed Canadians more than a quarter of a million dollars for a three-day cabinet meeting supposedly focused on tackling inflation. Instead of coming up with any real plans to make life more affordable, the out-of-touch Prime Minister and his cabinet spent their time eating expensive meals at high-end restaurants. Inflation is out of control, but the Liberals will not stop living large. Will the Prime Minister take the silver spoon out of his mouth, axe the carbon tax and show respect to Canadian taxpayers?
Gould lists government measures including the Canada child benefit, child care fee cuts of over 50%, and lifting 450,000 children out of poverty, without addressing the cabinet meeting expenses or the carbon tax.
Gould does not address the cabinet meeting expenses or the carbon tax, instead listing unrelated government accomplishments â Canada child benefit, child care fee reductions, lifting 450,000 children out of poverty â which are tangential deflections.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the government has been focused on for the last eight years is making sure that we are advancing measures that help Canadians. We increased the Canada child benefit, and instead of sending cheques to millionaires, we made sure that the poorest and most vulnerable were getting the maximum they could have. When it comes to child care, we have cut fees in half by over 50%. When it comes to child poverty, we have lifted 450,000 children out of poverty. What the Conservatives do not understand is that we have been not only listening to Canadians, but also acting on their behalf, and we continue to work hard for Canadians every single day.
Thomas argues the carbon tax applies to every heating bill, grocery bill, and fuel cost and asks when the government will get rid of the punitive carbon tax.
Thomas makes general assertions about the carbon tax applying to heating, groceries, and fuel costs but offers no specific data or document, and the ask is a vague rhetorical demand to scrap the tax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, somehow life is less affordable than it has ever been because there is this punitive thing called the carbon tax, which the Liberals have applied to every single heating bill of Canadians, every single grocery bill of Canadians and every single fuel cost that Canadians incur at the pump. Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, and the government does not care. There is a very tangible action that could be taken on behalf of Canadians, and that is to scrap the tax. When will the government find itself on side with the Canadian public and finally get rid of the punitive carbon tax?
Gould points to hundreds of thousands of Canadians displaced by wildfires and the evacuation of Yellowknife due to unprecedented wildfires, framing climate action as existential and accusing Conservatives of ignoring it.
Gould pivots entirely to climate change impacts â wildfires, the evacuation of Yellowknife â and does not address affordability or the carbon tax question, accusing Conservatives of burying their heads in the sand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly disappointing to hear from the members opposite when it comes to being there for Canadians because, over the past summer, there have been hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have been displaced from their homes due to wildfires and climate change-related disasters. In fact, an entire community in Yellowknife was evacuated because of unprecedented wildfires. The Conservatives can continue to bury their heads in the sand. We will continue to act to fight climate change because this is existential. Our job as a government is to protect Canadians, and we will continue to do that.
Thomas argues Canadians are spending hundreds of dollars at the grocery store and walking out with only a couple of bags, and asks when the government will axe the tax and give Canadians hope.
Thomas offers a rhetorical anecdote about grocery costs but no specific data or policy hook, and the ask is the same recurring demand to axe the tax with no new factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the hon. member concede that, despite the carbon tax, nothing is being accomplished in taking care of the environment and getting us to a better place. Canadians are certainly worse off. They are struggling to afford the basic necessities of life. They are going to the grocery store, literally spending hundreds of dollars and walking out with nothing more than a couple bags of groceries. That is not okay, and after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are fed up. They cannot afford the cost anymore. When will the government finally make the right decision, axe the tax and give Canadians hope?
Van Koeverden argues that without a plan for climate change there is no plan for affordability or the economy, and claims Conservative recommendations would cut the Canada child benefit, child care, dental care, and the guaranteed income supplement.
Van Koeverden does not address the grocery affordability question or the carbon tax, instead arguing that Conservative ideas would cut social programs like the Canada child benefit, child care, dental care, and the guaranteed income supplement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is 2023, and if one does not have a plan to address climate change, one does not have a plan for affordability or for the economy either. It is clear that every single idea the Conservatives put forth makes it clear that they are out of touch. In fact, the only recommendations those Conservatives have put forward would cut social programs. I am talking about things that actually support Canadians, such as the Canada child benefit, child care, dental care and the guaranteed income supplement. The Conservative plan to fix global inflation by cutting people's services and benefits is no plan at all. It is irresponsible, and it is risky. It would put Canadian families at risk.
Hanley asks the Minister of Small Business to outline how the government is continuing to support small businesses, including CEBA loan holders, given rising costs and ongoing pandemic recovery challenges.
This is a government-backbench softball: Hanley sets up the minister with a broad question about supporting small businesses and CEBA loan holders, providing some context about Yukon businesses.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the backbone of communities across our country, making up 98% of all businesses and employing two-thirds of Canadian workers, but many Yukon business owners have reached out to me over the past few months outlining their struggles with rising costs while still trying to recover from the pandemic. Could the Minister of Small Business outline how we are continuing to support small business in Canada, including CEBA loan holders, at this time?
Valdez announces additional flexibilities for CEBA loan repayment, including a full one-year extension on the repayment deadline, more flexibility on refinancing, and more time to access loan forgiveness.
Valdez directly addresses the CEBA loan question, citing a full one-year extension on the repayment deadline, more flexibility on refinancing, and more time to access loan forgiveness, which are concrete specifics responsive to the ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I was also a small business owner during the pandemic, and I really understand the struggles many continue to face. That is why we are offering additional flexibilities for small businesses to repay their CEBA loans, which are both balanced and fiscally responsible. This includes a full one-year extension on the repayment deadline, more flexibility on refinancing and more time to access the loan forgiveness. We will keep listening to small businesses across the country, and that includes all Canadians.
Bachrach states that hay harvests in northern B.C. are down as much as 90% due to extreme drought, that local and provincial governments are waiting, and asks how long farmers will have to wait for the minister to come to the table with support to source hay.
Bachrach grounds the question in specific facts â hay harvests down as much as 90%, months of advocacy, local and provincial governments waiting â and poses a clear, time-sensitive ask about when federal support will arrive.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, farmers in northern B.C. have been hit hard by extreme drought, another symptom of the worsening climate crisis. Hay harvests are down as much as 90%, and many farmers are struggling to feed their animals. We are seeing herds sold off, and we are seeing family farms lost. For months we have been calling on the government to provide support to source hay from other parts of Canada and the United States. Local governments and the provincial government are waiting, and farmers are waiting for the minister to finally come to the table. How long will they have to wait?
MacAulay confirms that B.C.'s provincial government has sent the papers to his department, that the situation is being analyzed, and pledges that farmers will be compensated through business risk management plans once the analysis is complete.
MacAulay acknowledges that the provincial government has sent the papers to his department and confirms they are being analyzed, which is a relevant update, but provides no timeline or specific commitment, making the answer only partially responsive.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question and fully understand the stress farmers are under. As he is fully aware, his provincial government in B.C. has sent the papers to my department. We are analyzing the situation, and as soon as that is done, we will make sure the farmers are compensated. This is what the business risk management plans are for: to make sure we help farmers in difficult situations. We will continue to do so.
Morrice notes that the Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony was promised a solution in February question period, that he and four other Waterloo region MPs wrote to the Prime Minister two months ago with no reply, and that the symphony has now cancelled its entire upcoming season, and asks whether the federal government will step in to ensure it avoids insolvency.
Morrice grounds the question in a specific organization (Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony), a specific prior commitment given in February question period, a subsequent letter co-signed by four other Waterloo region MPs to the Prime Minister, and the concrete consequence of the symphony cancelling its entire upcoming season.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since last fall, I have been pressing the federal government to provide emergency support to the Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony, which may have to close its doors because ticket sales have not returned to prepandemic levels. I was told in question period back in February that a solution would be found. When nothing was done, two months ago, four other Waterloo region MPs and I wrote to the Prime Minister, imploring the federal government to step in with a one-time support. We have not heard back, and on Monday, the symphony cancelled its entire upcoming season. Will the federal government step in to ensure the symphony avoids insolvency?
St-Onge states the government is actively in touch with the organization about its financial struggles, references extraordinary pandemic-era support measures, and says the government will work with the organization to see how existing programs could support it, without committing to specific action.
St-Onge acknowledges active contact with the organization and references pandemic support measures and existing programs, but does not address the specific prior commitment given in February, the unanswered letter to the Prime Minister, or whether the government will provide one-time emergency support to prevent insolvency.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are actively in touch with the organization about its ongoing financial struggles. Recovering from the pandemic remains a challenge for performing arts organizations, which is why we took extraordinary measures to support them during the pandemic. We continue to support arts organizations through a range of programs, and we will work with the organization to see how our programs could support it.
Blanchet moves a unanimous consent motion calling on all parties to confirm their full collaboration with the independent public inquiry into foreign electoral interference and the appointment of Justice Marie-Josée Hogue as chief commissioner.
This is a unanimous consent motion rather than a question: Blanchet proposes that all parties confirm their full collaboration with the public inquiry into foreign electoral interference and the appointment of Justice Marie-Josée Hogue, which is a procedural action not scorable as a question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si vous le demandez, vous constaterez qu'il y a consentement unanime Ă l'Ă©gard de la motion suivante. Je propose: Attendu que tous les partis ont convenu des paramĂštres de mise en place d'une commission d'enquĂȘte publique et indĂ©pendante sur l'ingĂ©rence Ă©lectorale Ă©trangĂšre en sol canadien; Et attendu que tous les partis ont convenu de la nomination de la juge MarieâJosĂ©e Hogue Ă titre de commissaire en chef de cette enquĂȘte; Que tous les partis et parlementaires assurent leur pleine collaboration Ă cette enquĂȘte.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That whereas all parties have agreed on the parameters for the establishment of a public and independent commission of inquiry into foreign electoral interference on Canadian soil, whereas all parties have agreed to the appointment of Judge Marie-Josée Hogue as Chief Commissioner of this inquiry, all parties and parliamentarians pledge their full cooperation to this inquiry.
No answer was given; the exchange was a unanimous consent motion, not a ministerial response.
No ministerial answer was given; this was a unanimous consent motion moved in the House, so there is no answer to score.