Session overview
- Housing affordability and homelessness dominated Question Period, with Conservatives repeatedly citing doubled housing costs, mortgage defaults, and people living in parking lots and cars after eight years of Liberal government.
- The Israel-Gaza conflict generated multiple exchanges, with Conservatives pressing the government on whether a missile that struck a hospital in Gaza originated with terrorists, and the Bloc calling for Canada to join a U.S.-led humanitarian initiative with Italy, Germany, France and the United Kingdom.
- Grocery affordability was contested between the NDP and the government, with Jagmeet Singh accusing the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry of having no plan after previously saying prices were coming down, and pushing for a motion to summon grocery CEOs back to Parliament.
- Quebec's inflation rate of 4.8%, the highest in Canada for a fourth consecutive month, was raised repeatedly by both Conservative and Bloc members in the context of food prices at 6.7% and rising mortgage costs.
- The Bloc's Bill C-319 to increase Old Age Security for seniors aged 65 to 74 was pressed in two exchanges, with seniors' groups including the AREQ and the Association québécoise des retraité(e)s des secteurs public et parapublic present on Parliament Hill to demand government support.
- The government announced $500,000 in completed financing for the FĂȘte nationale de l'Acadie celebrations in 2024, including $250,000 announced on the day of the sitting, alongside $2.8 million for the CongrĂšs mondial acadien.
The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources made a specific, concrete commitment that Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had agreed to advance collaboration on delivering clean, affordable and reliable electricity while phasing out coal by 2030 and driving to a net-zero electricity grid by 2035.
Raises a pointed and specific accountability questionâwhether the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing relationship is so damaged that Canada was not briefed on intelligence already confirmed by the U.S. Presidentâgrounded in the global retraction of media reports.
Lalonde's answer did not address the specific allegation that military chaplains have been told they cannot pray for the fallen on Remembrance Day, instead offering only a general tribute to veterans and service members.
Outstanding questions
- Melissa Lantsman asked whether Canada's Five Eyes partners had withheld from Canada verified intelligence â already shared with the rest of the world â about the source of the explosion in Gaza; the Parliamentary Secretary gave no substantive response on the intelligence-sharing question.
- Pierre Poilievre asked whether the government agrees with President Biden that the missile that struck the hospital in Gaza originated with terrorists in Gaza; the government's response condemned attacks on civilians and called for a humanitarian corridor but did not answer the specific factual question.
- Yves-François Blanchet asked whether the Prime Minister had spoken even once with the President of the United States in the eleven days since the Hamas attacks; the government did not confirm or deny whether such a call had taken place.
- Larry Brock asked whether the Prime Minister will cooperate with the several RCMP investigations given that he is the only Prime Minister found guilty of breaking two ethics laws and is now hiding behind cabinet confidence in the arrive scam app matter; the Parliamentary Secretary did not address the cabinet confidence claim or the Prime Minister's personal cooperation.
- Andréanne Larouche asked twice, with seniors' groups present on Parliament Hill, whether the government will support Bill C-319 to increase Old Age Security for all seniors aged 65 and over; the Minister of Labour and Seniors did not give a yes or no answer on supporting the bill.
Poilievre cites Quebec's 4.8% inflation rate and asks whether the government will reverse its inflationary policiesâincluding the fuel taxâso Quebecers can afford food, gas, and housing.
Cites a specific Quebec inflation figure (4,8 %) and raises a concrete policy (taxe sur l'essence et le diésel), but the ask is compound and wrapped in partisan framing ('huit longues années').
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aprĂšs huit longues annĂ©es au pouvoir, ce premier ministre n'en vaut pas le coĂ»t, surtout au QuĂ©bec, oĂč le taux d'inflation est de 4,8 %. C'est beaucoup plus Ă©levĂ© qu'ailleurs au Canada. AprĂšs huit ans de dĂ©ficits inflationnistes, la solution maintenant proposĂ©e par le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois et les libĂ©raux est de radicalement augmenter les coĂ»ts avec une taxe sur l'essence et le diĂ©sel, ce qui augmente le coĂ»t de tous les produits transportĂ©s. Est-ce que le gouvernement va finalement renverser ses politiques inflationnistes pour que les QuĂ©bĂ©cois puissent acheter de la nourriture, de l'essence et se payer un logement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, after eight long years in power, this Prime Minister is not worth the cost, especially not in Quebec, where the inflation rate is at 4.8%. That is a lot higher than elsewhere in Canada. After eight years of inflationary deficits, the solution that the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals are now proposing is to drastically increase costs with a tax on gas and diesel, which drives up the cost of all products that are transported. Will the government finally reverse its inflationary policies so that Quebeckers can buy gas and groceries and put a roof over their heads?
Champagne says the Conservatives have no right to lecture the government, accuses them of planning cuts, and claims the Liberals have a plan to help Canadians prosper.
Completely ignores the inflation figure and the carbon-tax policy question, pivoting instead to a generic attack on Conservative cuts and boilerplate about prosperity.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous n'avons aucune leçon à recevoir des conservateurs. Ce que les conservateurs proposent aux Canadiens et aux Canadiennes qui nous regardent aujourd'hui, c'est de couper dans les services, dans les investissements et dans l'avenir du Canada. Les Canadiens et les Canadiennes savent que nous avons un plan pour aider les Canadiens à prospérer dans l'économie du XXIe siÚcle. Les Canadiens réalisent surtout que les conservateurs sont trop dangereux pour ce pays et ils nous font confiance pour aller de l'avant.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we will not take lessons from the Conservatives. What the Conservatives are proposing to the Canadians who are watching today is to make cuts to services, investments and Canada's future. Canadians know that we have a plan to help them prosper in the 21st century economy. More importantly, Canadians realize that the Conservatives are too dangerous for this country, and they trust us to move forward.
Poilievre describes a 'middle-class homeless' phenomenon with seniors moving into their children's basements and asks whether the Prime Minister will reverse the policies that doubled housing costs.
Introduces a vivid anecdotal framing ('middle-class homeless,' parents in children's basements) but the ask is vagueâ'reverse the inflationary policies'âwithout specifying which policy or citing data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the member's lack of decorum and his emotionally charged approach to focus on Canadians, because I can actually take it. I can take the debate and have it out in the open. He talks about cuts. Canadians are making cuts in their own lives. We now have a new phenomenon in Canada, which is the middle-class homeless. We used to just have young people living in their parents' basements; now we have parents moving into their children's basements. Will the Prime Minister reverse the inflationary policies that doubled housing costs and are forcing seniors to move into their kids' basements just to avoid going homeless?
Anand cites Canada's AAA credit rating, lowest G7 debt-to-GDP ratio, and program supports for six million seniors, eleven million Canadians via the grocery rebate, and four million through business supports.
Anand recites macro-economic credentials (AAA rating, debt-to-GDP, unemployment) and program statistics that are not responsive to the specific housing-cost question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada has a AAA credit rating, the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 and low unemployment. In addition, we will always be there to support the middle class, whether it is six million seniors with the old age security benefit, 11 million Canadians with the grocery rebate or four million Canadians with business supports. What we do on this side of the House is invest in Canadians to build a stronger economy day after day and year after year, and we will continue on that course.
Poilievre cites a CBC story about a homeless man living in his car and describes nurses and carpenters in parking lots, asking Liberals to stop driving up the cost of living so Canadians can house, feed, and heat their families.
Quotes CBC reporting on a homeless man living in his car and references nurses and carpenters in parking lots, adding some anecdotal grounding, but the ask ('stop driving up the cost of living') remains broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, incompetent rating agencies mean absolutely nothing to the unhoused seniors who say that for affordable housing in metro Vancouver, the only thing that turns up is ânothing, nothing, nothingâ. Nor do they mean anything, to quote from the CBC, to him: âLiving in his broken-down car, homeless man says he has until Thursday to move.â We have nurses and carpenters living in parking lots after eight years of the Prime Minister doubling housing costs. Will the Liberals stop driving up the cost of living so that Canadians can house, feed and heat their families?
Holland argues that global inflation will not be fixed by cutting dental support to 3.5 million seniors, and warns that Conservative cuts would harm health care investments and lead to worse outcomes for seniors.
Holland pivots entirely to dental care cuts and health care investment, making no attempt to address housing costs or the specific anecdotes cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is the truth for seniors. The global inflation problem is not going to be fixed by cutting dental support to 3.5 million seniors, and that is what the Leader of the Opposition would do. On top of that, to get to the tens of billions of dollars of cuts he is talking about, it would mean cuts to our health care system, and it would mean making sure, unfortunately, that the investments, like we saw in B.C., to transform our health system would not happen. What does that mean? It does not mean just poor health outcomes. It means more costs in the future, it means a less resilient country and it means a much worse future for our seniors. That is what he is peddling.
Poilievre points to the government's own $10 billion in announced cuts, notes that Conservatives balanced budgets while growing health care, and asks the Prime Minister to acknowledge that homelessness caused by doubled housing costs means he is 'not worth the cost.'
References the government's own announced $10 billion in cuts and the previous Conservative government's record of balancing budgets while growing health care spending, giving it some factual grounding, but the ask remains a general rhetorical challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is actually the government that is promising over $10 billion of cuts right now, because it suddenly woke up and realized that it was bankrupt. When we were in office, we managed to balance the budget while growing health care spending every single year and, in fact, growing it faster than the current government. However, today the biggest threat to the health of Canadians is homelessness. People are losing their homes because the Prime Minister has doubled the cost of housing. Will he realize, with people living in parking lots, that after eight years he is just not worth the cost?
Oh, oh!
Anand says the government does not balance budgets on the backs of Canadians and cites lifting almost 500,000 children out of poverty with the Canada child benefit, accusing Conservatives of voting against such measures.
Anand deflects with the Canada child benefit statistic (lifting almost 500,000 children out of poverty) and attacks the Conservatives for voting against supports, without addressing the housing or deficit question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike the party opposite, on this side of the House we do not balance budgets on the backs of Canadians. On the contrary, we invest in Canadians. Let me give members one example: lifting almost 500,000 children out of poverty with the Canada child benefit. Every single time there is an opportunity to support Canadians, what does the other side of the House do? They vote against. That is not the way we will build a strong economyâ
Poilievre asks whether the government agrees with President Biden that the missile that struck the Gaza hospital originated with terrorists in Gaza, and accuses the Prime Minister of amplifying Hamas disinformation regurgitated by CBC.
Asks a specific, answerable yes/no questionâwhether the government agrees with President Biden's conclusion about the origin of the Gaza hospital missileâwhile citing the disinformation context and the Prime Minister's amplification of Hamas claims.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member is right about one thing: They do not balance the budget on the backs of Canadians; they run massive inflationary deficits on the backs of Canadians. On another matter, our hearts were broken to see a hospital in Gaza struck by a missile. Disinformation peddled by Hamas and regurgitated by CBC was then amplified by the Prime Minister. Does he agree with President Biden that the offending missile originated with terrorists in Gaza?
Gould condemns Hamas's terrorist attacks, states that attacks on civilians are wrong, calls on all parties to observe international law, and expresses condolences for innocent Palestinian victims, without addressing the specific Biden-intelligence question.
Gould condemns Hamas attacks and calls for observance of international law and a humanitarian corridor but never directly answers whether the government agrees with Biden's assessment that the missile originated with terrorists in Gaza.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government has been unequivocal in condemning the terrorist attacks of Hamas against Israeli citizens. We are also adamant that attacks on civilians are wrong. We call on all parties to observe international law. Our hearts go out to the innocent Palestinian victims who have died as a result of this attack. We will continue to work with partners around the world to call for a humanitarian corridor.
Blanchet asks whether Canada will join the United States initiativeâalong with Italy, Germany, France, and the United Kingdomâcalling for humanitarian aid to reach Gaza civilians unconditionally.
Asks a reasonably specific policy questionâwhether Canada will join the U.S.-led initiative with Italy, Germany, France, and the U.K.âgrounded in the humanitarian corridor context, though the initiative is not named precisely.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans le terrible conflit qui dĂ©chire la bande de Gaza, il y a des civils qui y perdent la vie ou qui vivent dans une dĂ©tresse sans nom. L'aide humanitaire doit pouvoir se rendre aux civils de la bande de Gaza et l'aide doit pouvoir se rendre sans condition, quelle que soit l'origine des conditions. Le Canada, pour faire son travail dans ce contexte, a besoin d'une voix forte. Il a besoin d'une voix forte pour porter le dĂ©sir de paix des amis d'IsraĂ«l, des amis de la Palestine ou des amis de la paix en gĂ©nĂ©ral. Dans cet esprit, est-ce que le Canada va rejoindre l'initiative des ĂtatsâUnis, avec l'Italie, l'Allemagne, la France et le RoyaumeâUni?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in the terrible conflict that is tearing apart the Gaza Strip, civilians are losing their lives or living in unspeakable distress. Humanitarian aid needs to get to the civilians on the Gaza Strip and aid has to get there unconditionally, no matter where it comes from. To do its work under these circumstances, Canada needs a strong voice. It needs a strong voice to convey the desire for peace on behalf of our Israeli friends, Palestinian friends or friends of peace in general. In that spirit, will Canada join the initiative undertaken by the United States with Italy, Germany, France and the United Kingdom?
Gould notes that Canada's Foreign Affairs minister was among the first to travel to the region and that Canada has been pressing for a humanitarian corridor and defending the rights of all innocent civilians.
Gould notes that the Foreign Affairs minister was among the first to visit the region and that Canada called for a humanitarian corridor, but never directly answers whether Canada is joining the specific U.S.-led initiative Blanchet named.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie mon honorable collÚgue de sa question. La ministre des Affaires étrangÚres a été une des premiÚres à se rendre dans ces régions pour justement montrer que nous sommes là pour nos amis israéliens et nos amis palestiniens. Nous étions une des premiÚres nations à s'exprimer d'une forte voix au sujet de la situation entre Israël et le Hamas. Nous continuons de faire pression pour un corridor humanitaire. Nous sommes là pour défendre les droits de tous les civils innocents.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was one of the first to go to these regions to show that we are there for our Israeli friends and our Palestinian friends. We were one of the first nations to speak out in a strong voice about the situation between Israel and Hamas. We are continuing to push for a humanitarian corridor. We are here to stand up for the rights of all innocent civilians.
Blanchet asks whether the Prime Minister spoke even once with the President of the United States in the past 11 days, arguing Canada needs credibility and actionânot just wordsâto have influence in the conflict.
Asks a pointed and specific questionâwhether the Prime Minister spoke even once with the U.S. President in the past 11 daysâwhich is concrete and checkable, though embedded in rhetorical framing about credibility.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous Ă©tions une des premiĂšres nations, mais nous sommes une nation beaucoup trop petite en termes de poids pour ĂȘtre entendu seule. Il faut des amis et il faut aussi de la crĂ©dibilitĂ©. Puisque nous n'avons pas eu d'Ă©cho de cela, dois-je comprendre que le premier ministre du Canada, au cours des 11 derniers jours, n'a pas parlĂ© une seule fois au prĂ©sident des ĂtatsâUnis? Comme on dit dans les deux pays voisins du QuĂ©bec, you must walk the talk. Dans le vernaculaire quĂ©bĂ©cois, on dit qu'il faut que les bottines suivent les babines. Pour que les belles paroles et les belles intentions aient un sens crĂ©dible et rĂ©el, est-ce que le premier ministre ne devrait pas considĂ©rer de mettre ses bottines?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we were one of the first nations, but our nation has too little weight on the international stage to be the only voice. We need friends and we need credibility. Since we have heard nothing about that, am I to understand that the Prime Minister of Canada, over the past 11 days, has not once talked to the President of the United States? As they say in Quebec's two neighbouring countries, âyou must walk the talkâ. We have a similar expression in Quebec. To give these fine words and good intentions any substance and credibility, is it not time for the Prime Minister to start walking?
Gould states that since the beginning of the crisis both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Affairs minister have been in contact with allies and regional partners and that Canada is playing a leadership and collaborative role.
Gould says the Prime Minister and the Foreign Affairs minister have been in contact with allies and members of the region since the start of the crisis, but does not confirm or deny the specific claim about no call with the U.S. President.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cette crise est vraiment horrible pour toutes les personnes concernées; il y a beaucoup de victimes innocentes, tant du cÎté israélien que du cÎté palestinien. Depuis le début de cette crise, le gouvernement du Canada, tant le premier ministre que la ministre des Affaires étrangÚres, a été en contact avec ses alliés et avec les membres de la région. Nous sommes là pour jouer un rÎle de leadership et un rÎle de collaboration afin de résoudre ce conflit.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this crisis is truly horrible for everyone involved. There are many innocent victims on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Since the beginning of this crisis, the Government of Canada, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, have been in contact with our allies and members from the region. We are there to provide leadership and co-operation in resolving this conflict.
Singh contrasts the Minister of Industry's pre-Thanksgiving claim that grocery prices were coming down with his later admission that CEO plans are too secret, and asks whether the minister will support the NDP motion to summon the grocery CEOs back to Parliament.
Cites the minister's own prior public statement about grocery flyers and his subsequent backtrack, making a specific binary askâwill the minister support the NDP motion to summon grocery CEOs back to Parliamentâwhich is clearly answerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, before Thanksgiving, the Minister of Industry said that prices for groceries were coming down and that Canadians just needed to check out grocery flyers. Now the minister is backtracking and saying that, well, he is not sure because the grocery CEOs' plans are too secret. If the minister cannot get answers, then we will. Will the minister of grocery flyers support our motion to summon the grocery CEOs back to Parliament?
Champagne says the government did something unprecedented by calling the five grocery CEOs to Ottawa and urges all members to send the same message to stabilize prices, without addressing the specific NDP motion.
Champagne recounts calling the five grocery CEOs to Ottawa but does not directly answer whether the government will support the NDP motion to summon them back to Parliament.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised in a way by the question. We did something that has never been done in Canadian history. We called the five grocery CEOs to Ottawa and expressed the frustration of 40 million Canadians about the price of groceries. I would urge all members of this House to give the same message that I gave: Make sure they help Canadians and help us to stabilize prices in Canada. That is what Canadians expect.
Singh asks the government to answer yes or no: will it support the NDP's motion to force the major grocery CEOs to return before the committee, given the minister has admitted he does not know their plans because they are too secret.
Sharpens the prior exchange with a clear yes-or-no askâwill the government support the NDP motionâand anchors it in the minister's own contradictory public statements, making it highly specific and answerable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, clearly the minister's plan to ask them nicely is not working. Je vais rĂ©sumer la situation. Un jour, le ministre dit que les prix diminuent dans les circulaires, mais, maintenant, il ne connaĂźt pas les plans des PDG pour stabiliser les prix parce quâils sont trop secrets. Câest trĂšs clair que le ministre nâa pas de plan, alors nous allons lui en donner un. Nous avons dĂ©posĂ© une nouvelle motion pour forcer les PDG des grandes Ă©piceries Ă revenir devant le comitĂ©. Le gouvernement va-t-il lâappuyer, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, de toute évidence, le plan du ministre, qui consiste à leur demander gentiment, ne fonctionne pas. Let me summarize the situation. Earlier, the minister said that prices in the flyers are dropping but, now, he does not know how CEOs plan to stabilize prices because their plans are too secret. It is quite clear that the minister does not have a plan, so we are going to give him one. We have moved a new motion to force the CEOs of the big grocery stores to appear before the committee again. Will the government support it, yes or no?
Champagne says the government itself wrote to the committee chair to ask that the major grocery chain CEOs be invited to come and explain their plans to Canadians, implying support without explicitly endorsing the NDP motion.
Champagne claims the government itself wrote to the committee chair asking that grocery CEOs be invited to explain their plans, which is directly relevant to the motion, though he does not explicitly say 'yes' to the NDP's specific motion.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis content que le chef du NPD me pose cette question. Non seulement câest ce que nous avons proposĂ©, mais jâai mĂȘme Ă©crit au prĂ©sident du comitĂ© pour lui demander dâinviter les PDG des grandes chaĂźnes alimentaires du Canada Ă venir expliquer leur plan aux Canadiens. Je suis content de sa question parce que câest nous-mĂȘmes qui avons demandĂ© au prĂ©sident du comitĂ© parlementaire de demander aux PDG de venir sâexpliquer devant les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the leader of the NDP asked me that question. Not only is this what we proposed, but I even wrote to the committee chair asking him to invite the CEOs of Canada's major grocery store chains to come and explain their plan to Canadians. I am happy to answer his question, because we were the ones who asked the chair of the parliamentary committee to invite the CEOs to come and explain themselves to Canadians.
Lantsman asks whether Canada's relationship with its Five Eyes partners is so damaged that they did not share with Canada the verified intelligenceâalready confirmed by the U.S. Presidentâthat led to global media retractions about the explosion attributed to IRGC-backed terrorists.
Raises a pointed and specific accountability questionâwhether the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing relationship is so damaged that Canada was not briefed on intelligence already confirmed by the U.S. Presidentâgrounded in the global retraction of media reports.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government is saying that it has not been briefed on verified intelligence confirmed by the President of the United States that has led to the retraction of media reports around the world about yesterday's explosion by IRGC-backed terrorists, who killed innocent civilians in Gaza. After eight years, is the relationship with our closest allies, our Five Eyes partners, so damaged that they do not even share with Canada what they have already told the rest of the world?
Damoff describes the loss of Palestinian lives in Gaza as horrifying, calls it an unthinkable act, and says it is imperative that innocent Palestinians be protected and that international law be upheld.
Damoff's response describes the Gaza situation as a tragedy and calls for protection of innocent Palestinians and upholding of international law, with zero connection to the intelligence-sharing question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the situation in Gaza is a tragedy. The loss of Palestinian lives is absolutely horrifying. This is an unthinkable act, and it is imperative that innocent Palestinians be protected and that international law be upheld.
Hallan cites the Business Council of Canada's warning against permanent deficits, claims the Prime Minister has added more debt than all governments from 1867 to 2015 combined, and asks the Prime Minister to support the Conservative motion for balanced budgets to prevent a mortgage default crisis.
Cites the Business Council of Canada warning and the claim that the Prime Minister added more debt than all governments between 1867 and 2015 combined, giving some factual grounding, but the askâsupport a 'common-sense, fiscally responsible motion'âis a partisan label rather than a specific policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Business Council of Canada is warning the Liberal-NDP government that it can no longer run large, permanent deficits without fear. After eight long years, the Prime Minister has added more debt than every government between 1867 and 2015 combined, creating 40-year highs in inflation and the fastest interest rate hikes ever. There is a massive fear of a looming mortgage default crisis if the Liberals do not balance the budget now. He is just not worth the cost. Will the Prime Minister stand up today and support our common-sense, fiscally responsible motion to bring in balanced budgets so that Canadians can keep their homes?
Bendayan says Canadians fear Conservative cuts to programs they rely on, notes that Canada child benefit cheques are arriving this week in Calgary Forest Lawn, and claims 400,000 families in that riding will benefit.
Bendayan pivots to fear of Conservative cuts and recites Canada child benefit figuresâincluding an evidently inflated claim of 400,000 families in a single ridingâwithout addressing the deficit or mortgage default concerns raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talks about fear. There is also fear among Canadians that the Conservatives are going to cut programs they rely on. This week, Canada child benefit cheques will arrive at Canadians' doors and in the member's riding of Calgary Forest Lawn. That means individuals will get up to $10,000 lowered from their child care fees. There are 400,000 families in Calgary Forest Lawn who will get the Canada child benefit cheques.
Seeback cites the Prime Minister's promise of low interest rates, notes they are now at a 30-year high due to Liberal inflationary deficits, andâreferencing the Business Council of Canadaâasks the finance minister to stop running inflationary deficits so interest rates fall and families keep their homes.
References the Prime Minister's specific public promise about low interest rates, cites the Business Council of Canada's warning, and notes interest rates at a 30-year high, giving it reasonable factual grounding, though the ask is still broadly framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised that interest rates were going to remain low and Canadians believed him, so they went out, bought homes and took out mortgages, but after eight years of Liberal inflationary deficits, interest rates are at a 30-year high, and many Canadian families are now finding that they cannot pay their mortgage. In fact, the Business Council of Canada just said that governments cannot permanently run deficits without fear. Will the finance minister stop running her inflationary deficits so that interest rates will come down and Canadian families will not lose their homes?
Bendayan corrects her earlier figure to 400,000 families in Alberta collecting the Canada child benefit cheques this week, warns Conservatives would cut those supports, and notes Canada is running the lowest deficit among G7 countries.
Bendayan corrects her earlier figure to 400,000 families in Alberta collecting Canada child benefit cheques and mentions the lowest G7 deficit, without addressing interest rates, the Prime Minister's low-rate promise, or the mortgage affordability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, allow me to correct the record. There are actually 400,000 families in Alberta collecting the Canada child benefit cheques. Those cheques are coming out this week. Under what the Conservatives are proposing, they would have those cheques completely removed. They would be cutting those supports for Canadians. I will remind members that, while we continue to support Canadians, here in Canada we are also running the lowest deficit among all G7 countries.
Seeback references a ship-worker in Vancouver paying $7,500 a month for a mortgage and asks the government to cut inflationary deficits and get interest rates under control, with a yes-or-no demand.
Opens with a partisan quip about cutting 80 MPs before pivoting to a shipworker paying $7,500/month in mortgage costs, which adds a concrete anecdote, but the askâcut inflationary deficits yes or noâis still a blunt rhetorical demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is only one cut that we are going to make. We are going to cut about 80 members from that side of the House when we form a common sense Conservative government. When we do that, we would address the concerns, such as the ship-worker in Vancouver who is paying $7,500 a month for a mortgage. What do they say? They talk about an AAA credit rating. How out of touch are they? They are gaslighting Canadians. Will they cut these inflationary deficits and get interest rates under control, yes or no?
Oh, oh!
Wilkinson says he is pleased to hear about Seaspan, announces the commitment to build 18 Coast Guard vessels worth almost $16 billion providing employment for Seaspan employees for decades, and says the government will create good economic jobs and ensure affordability.
Wilkinson uses the word 'Seaspan' to pivot to an announcement about 18 Coast Guard vessels worth almost $16 billion in his own riding of North Vancouver, which has no connection to the mortgage affordability or deficit question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the member of the opposition speak about Seaspan. It is a very important member of the business community in my riding of North Vancouver. I was very pleased, a couple of years ago, to join the Prime Minister to announce the commitment to build an additional 18 Coast Guard vessels, worth almost $16 billion, which will provide well-paid employment for the employees of Seaspan for decades to come.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to create good economic jobs. We are going to ensure economic opportunities for Canadians. We are going to ensure affordability at the same time.
Paul-Hus cites RBC's upcoming renewal of 41% of its mortgage portfolio and a 30% monthly inflation rate on mortgage costs, and asks the government to explain how Canadians will pay their mortgages without ending up on the street.
Cites a specific RBC statistic (41% of mortgages up for renewal) and notes 30% monthly inflation on mortgage costs, making a reasonably concrete factual case, though the askâexplain how people will pay their mortgageâis more rhetorical than policy-specific.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans les prochains mois, on s'attend Ă une vague de renouvellement des prĂȘts immobiliers. Par exemple, la Banque Royale du Canada devra renouveler 41 % de ses prĂȘts hypothĂ©caires. Cela va ĂȘtre difficile avec les taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt qui ne cessent de monter. On vit une inflation sur les coĂ»ts hypothĂ©caires de 30 % chaque mois. AprĂšs huit ans sous ce premier ministre, rien ne va plus. Est-ce qu'il peut expliquer aux gens comment ils vont faire pour payer leur hypothĂšque et ne pas se retrouver Ă la rue?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there is going to be a wave of mortgage renewals in the coming months. The Royal Bank of Canada, for one, will be renewing 41% of its mortgages. Non-stop interest rate hikes will make that difficult. Inflation is driving mortgage costs up by 30% every month. After eight years of the Prime Minister, everything is broken. Can he explain to people how they are supposed to pay their mortgage and not end up homeless?
Bendayan cites Statistics Canada's report of inflation falling again in Canada and references a bill before Parliament to stabilize grocery prices, accusing Conservatives of playing political games with measures that would help Canadians.
Bendayan cites Statistics Canada's report of inflation falling and references a bill to stabilize grocery prices, which is tangentially related to affordability but does not address the mortgage renewal crisis or explain how homeowners will manage higher payments.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, Statistique Canada avait de bonnes nouvelles: l'inflation a encore baissé ici, au Canada. Notre gouvernement continue de travailler afin d'aider les Canadiens qui ont de la misÚre à joindre les deux bouts. Justement, ici, à la Chambre, nous avons présenté un projet de loi que les parlementaires étudient et qui va pouvoir stabiliser le prix de l'épicerie partout au Canada. Les conservateurs jouent à des jeux politiques avec des mesures qui vont pouvoir aider les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Statistics Canada shared some good news: Inflation is down again here in Canada. Our government is working to help Canadians struggling to make ends meet. In fact, here in the House, we introduced a bill that parliamentarians are studying and that will stabilize grocery prices across Canada. The Conservatives are playing political games with measures that will help Canadians.
Paul-Hus corrects the previous answer by citing Statistics Canada data showing Quebec's inflation at 4.8%âthe highest in Canada for four consecutive monthsâand food inflation at 6.7%, asking whether the Prime Minister recognizes it is shameful that Canadians cannot afford to feed their families.
Directly contradicts the previous answer by citing Statistics Canada data on Quebec's 4.8% inflation (highest in Canada for four consecutive months) and food inflation at 6.7%, giving it solid factual grounding, though the ask devolves into a rhetorical flourish.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je ne sais pas oĂč elle a lu ces bonnes nouvelles. Selon Statistique Canada, l'inflation a bondi au QuĂ©bec et s'Ă©tablit Ă 4,8 %. Cela fait quatre mois consĂ©cutifs que le QuĂ©bec affiche le taux d'inflation le plus haut au Canada. L'inflation sur le prix des aliments est Ă 6,7 %. AprĂšs huit ans sous ce premier ministre qui est aidĂ© par ses amis du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, les gens ont littĂ©ralement de la difficultĂ© Ă nourrir leur famille. Est-ce que ce sont les voies ensoleillĂ©es qu'il a promises il y a huit ans? Ce gouvernement libĂ©ral n'en vaut pas le coĂ»t. Est-ce que le premier ministre reconnaĂźt qu'au Canada en 2023 c'est honteux que les gens aient de la difficultĂ© Ă se nourrir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where she got that good news from. According to Statistics Canada, inflation in Quebec has jumped to 4.8%. Quebec has had the highest inflation rate in Canada for four consecutive months. Food price inflation stands at 6.7%. After eight years under this Prime Minister, supported by his Bloc Québécois friends, people are literally struggling to feed their families. Are these the sunny ways he promised eight years ago? This Liberal government is not worth the cost. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that it is shameful that, in Canada in 2023, people are having trouble feeding themselves?
Martinez Ferrada says that CMHC announced this morning that housing starts have increased by 98% and that the government's programs will help all Canadians have a roof over their heads.
Martinez Ferrada cites CMHC's announcement of a 98% increase in housing starts, which is entirely unresponsive to the food affordability and mortgage-cost questions asked, amounting to a non sequitur deflection.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce qu'il faut faire pour l'abordabilitĂ©, c'est aussi donner un toit Ă tous les Canadiens et Ă toutes les Canadiennes. C'est exactement ce que nous faisons de ce cĂŽtĂ© de la Chambre. Ce matin mĂȘme, la SCHL a dit que les mises en chantier avaient augmentĂ© de 98 %. Les programmes que nous avons mis en place vont aider tous les Canadiens et les Canadiennes Ă avoir un toit. C'est exactement ce que nous allons faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, affordability also means putting a roof over the heads of all Canadians. That is exactly what we are doing on this side of the House. Just this morning, CMHC reported a 98% increase in housing starts. The programs we have implemented will help all Canadians have a roof over their heads. That is exactly what we are going to do.
Is it the Liberals' intended legacy that Canada becomes one of the world's top oil producers, with a 10% production increase and 500,000 additional barrels per day, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights?
Cites S&P Global Commodity Insights data and a specific 10% production increase and 500,000 barrels figure, but the ask â about Liberal legacy â is rhetorical rather than a precise, answerable demand.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la firme S&P Global Commodity Insights révÚle que le Canada sera l'une des locomotives de la production pétroliÚre au monde entier en 2024. Oublions la transition verte. Le Canada sera un des plus grands promoteurs pétroliers de la planÚte. Les conservateurs applaudissent quand on en parle, pourtant, ce n'est pas leur bilan. C'est le bilan des libéraux. C'est sous leur gouverne que la production pétroliÚre augmente de 10 % en pleine crise climatique. C'est sous leur gouverne que le Canada va produire 500 000 barils de pétrole de plus chaque jour. Est-ce que c'est vraiment cela, l'héritage que les libéraux veulent laisser?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights, Canada will be one of the global drivers of oil production in 2024. Forget about the green transition. Canada will be one of the largest oil developers on the planet. The Conservatives applaud when we talk about this, but this is not their record. It is the Liberals'. It is under the Liberal watch that oil production is increasing by 10% in the midst of a climate crisis. It is under the Liberal watch that Canada will produce 500,000 more barrels of oil a day. Is that really the legacy that the Liberals want to leave?
The minister says climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions and that the government has a detailed plan to reduce them while growing a low-carbon economy.
The minister speaks generally about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and having a detailed plan but never addresses the specific production figures or the legacy question posed.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, mon honorable collÚgue sait que ce qui cause les changements climatiques, ce sont les émissions de gaz à effet de serre. On doit réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre dans chaque secteur de l'économie. Nous avons un plan trÚs détaillé pour réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre et pour faire croßtre une économie prospÚre à faible émission de carbone. Nous allons continuer de faire cela.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change. We must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in every sector of the economy. We have a very detailed plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and grow a prosperous, low-carbon economy. We will continue to do that.
Why should Quebecers pay $30.9 billion (nearly $800 per person) for Trans Mountain, which will enable record oil production and increased pollution?
Grounds the question in a specific cost figure â $30.9 billion for Trans Mountain, nearly $800 per person â linking the project to increased oil production, making it reasonably concrete, though the framing is rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le Canada deviendra une locomotive mondiale de la production pétroliÚre en 2024. C'est grùce à la vigueur de Trans Mountain. C'est Trans Mountain qui permettra au Canada de fracasser des records pétroliers et, donc, des records de pollution. Or, les contribuables paient pour Trans Mountain. Cela nous coûte 30,9 milliards de dollars. C'est presque 800 $ par personne, y compris les bébés. Les libéraux nous facturent 800 $ chacun pour polluer davantage, sans compter les subventions ni les coûts des catastrophes naturelles. Comment les libéraux osent-ils demander aux Québécois de payer pour polluer plus?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada will be a global driver of oil production in 2024, on the strength of Trans Mountain. Thanks to Trans Mountain, Canada will shatter oil production records and, therefore, pollution records. However, taxpayers are footing the bill for Trans Mountain. It is costing us $30.9 billion, or roughly $800 per person, babies included. The Liberals are charging each of us $800 to pollute more, not including the cost of subsidies or natural disasters. How dare the Liberals ask Quebeckers to pay more to pollute more?
The minister points to the Northvolt investment as the largest private investment in Quebec's history, arguing it makes Quebec a champion of the green economy and the auto industry.
The minister completely pivots to the Northvolt investment announcement without addressing Trans Mountain costs, the $30.9 billion figure, or the per-person cost cited.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie ma collÚgue de sa question. Je me demande pourquoi elle ne parle pas de ce que le gouvernement a fait récemment. Récemment, nous avons annoncé le plus gros investissement privé de l'histoire du Québec qui s'appelle Northvolt. C'est justement pour faire des batteries et des véhicules électriques. Ma collÚgue aurait dû se concentrer sur cette question parce que non seulement le Québec va devenir champion de l'industrie automobile, mais il sera le champion de l'économie verte. C'est exactement ce que nous sommes en train de faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I wonder why she has nothing to say about what the government has recently done. We recently announced the largest private investment in Quebec's history, known as Northvolt, precisely to manufacture batteries and electric vehicles. My colleague should have focused on this issue, because Quebec will not only become a champion of the auto industry, but also a champion of the green economy. This is exactly what we are doing.
When will the Prime Minister stop inflationary spending so Canadians facing skyrocketing mortgage rates, like constituent Lindsay who is paying an extra $1,250 a month, can keep their homes?
Uses a constituent anecdote (Lindsay, $1,250/month extra) to add human detail, but the ask â stop inflationary spending â is vague and the 'Liberal-NDP promised rates would not go up' premise is not precisely sourced.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over and over, the Liberal-NDP government promised interest rates would not go up, but after eight miserable years of the Prime Minister, Canadians know that is not true. Mortgage defaults and forced home sales are on the rise. Lindsay is one of hundreds who wrote to me to tell me about her skyrocketing mortgage rate. She is paying an extra $1,250 a month. She does not have an extra $1,250 a month. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost, so when will he stop his inflationary spending so Canadians like Lindsay can keep their home?
The parliamentary secretary highlights a $42 million housing announcement for Peterborough and says the Conservatives voted against the programs that made the funding possible.
The parliamentary secretary pivots to a $42 million Peterborough housing announcement and attacks the member's voting record rather than addressing mortgage defaults, forced sales, or inflationary spending.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to visit Peterborough, that member's riding, where I announced $42 million for the construction or renovation of over 1,100 units of housing. What is interesting is that the member voted against every program that made that funding possible, and then she tried to take credit for it. It is astounding what the Conservatives continue to do. What Canadians need is a government to be behind them to see more construction built and to see the Canada child benefit continue to have an effect, as well as dental care and child care. They are against all of those.
When will the Prime Minister produce a plan to balance the budget, given that the PBO says the deficit will be at least $6 billion more than the finance minister's $40 billion projection and officials cannot state what the government spends on debt interest?
Cites the March deficit projection of $40 billion, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's finding of a $6 billion shortfall, and a Senate committee where officials could not state debt interest charges â reasonably specific factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal government, the deficit continues to rise. In March, the finance minister said that this year the deficit was going to be $40 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer just told us that she was off by at least $6 billion. Earlier this month, in a Senate committee, finance officials could not even say what the Liberal-NDP government is spending on debt interest charges. The Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost, so when will the Prime Minister come up with a plan to balance the budget so Canadians can keep their homes?
The minister pivots entirely to criticizing the Alberta government's proposal to remove Alberta pensioners from the Canada Pension Plan.
The minister entirely ignores the deficit figures, the PBO finding, and the debt interest question, instead pivoting to the Alberta pension plan issue and accusing Conservative Albertans of silence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I find it highly shocking that Albertans from the Conservative Party in the House are absolutely silent on a matter that really affects the middle class in Alberta. We are talking about the Government of Alberta trying to take Alberta pensioners out of the Canadian pension plan, destabilizing the pension plan for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They talk a big game in this chamber, but when it comes to actually defending Albertans, they sit on the sidelines while we have their backs.
After eight years of inflationary Liberal spending, a young Montrealer must earn $116,000 a year to buy a home â do the Liberals realize the Prime Minister is not worth the cost for middle-class youth?
Cites a $116,000 income threshold figure for Montreal homebuyers and a 20% down payment requirement, giving some specificity, but the closing ask is rhetorical and broadly framed.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aprĂšs huit ans de dĂ©penses inflationnistes, le premier ministre a littĂ©ralement tuĂ© le rĂȘve des jeunes QuĂ©bĂ©cois de devenir propriĂ©taires. Imaginez: un jeune MontrĂ©alais doit gagner 116 000 $ par annĂ©e s'il pense pouvoir s'acheter une maison, sans compter la mise de fonds de 20 %. Combien d'annĂ©es cela va-t-il prendre Ă un jeune pour gagner ce salaire et mettre assez d'argent de cĂŽtĂ©? AprĂšs huit ans, les libĂ©raux rĂ©alisent-ils que le premier ministre n'en vaut pas le coĂ»t et que les jeunes de la classe moyenne ne peuvent plus se permettre d'avoir un premier ministre qui hypothĂšque jusqu'Ă leur avenir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, after eight years of inflationary spending, the Prime Minister has literally killed young Quebeckers' dreams of becoming homeowners. Imagine. A young person in Montreal has to earn $116,000 a year if they want to buy a house, and that is not counting the down payment of 20%. How many years will it take a young person to earn that kind of salary and save enough money? After eight years, do the Liberals realize that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost and that middle-class young people can no longer afford a Prime Minister who is mortgaging their future?
The parliamentary secretary says Montrealers cannot understand why the Conservatives are delaying a housing bill that would help build more apartments and homes.
The parliamentary secretary deflects to blaming Conservatives for delaying a housing bill in Parliament rather than addressing the $116,000 income figure or affordability for young Montrealers.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce que les MontrĂ©alais ne comprennent pas, c'est pourquoi les conservateurs retardent la mise en Ćuvre de mesures qui vont pouvoir aider Ă construire davantage d'appartements et de maisons dans le pays. Nous avons un projet de loi et les conservateurs, mĂȘme ceux qui ont dit publiquement qu'ils allaient voter pour cette mesure, ne veulent pas procĂ©der. Nous sommes retardĂ©s et nous n'arrivons pas Ă jouer notre rĂŽle parce que les conservateurs retardent un projet de loi Ă la Chambre. C'est honteux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what Montrealers do not understand is why the Conservatives are delaying the implementation of measures that will help build more apartments and houses across the country. We have a bill and the Conservatives, even those who stated publicly that they would vote in favour of this measure, do not want to move forward. We are behind schedule and we cannot do our job because the Conservatives are holding up a bill in the House. That is shameful.
When will the Prime Minister stop mortgaging the future of children, given that Quebec has had the highest inflation in Canada at nearly 5% for four consecutive months and interest rates are at a 40-year high?
Cites Quebec's inflation rate of nearly 5% for a fourth consecutive month and the highest interest rates in 40 years, providing some factual grounding, though the ask is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les libĂ©raux auraient pu appeler ce projet de loi hier ou aujourd'hui pour que nous puissions en discuter, mais ils ne l'ont pas fait. Ce sont eux qui retardent l'adoption du projet de loi. AprĂšs huit ans, les consĂ©quences des libĂ©raux sont dĂ©sastreuses. C'est au QuĂ©bec que l'inflation est la plus haute au pays. Elle est Ă prĂšs de 5 %, et ce, pour le quatriĂšme mois de suite. Comme tous les parents quĂ©bĂ©cois, je m'inquiĂšte pour l'avenir de mes enfants qui font face aux taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt les plus Ă©levĂ©s des 40 derniĂšres annĂ©es. La bouffe coĂ»te trop cher, les loyers sont inabordables et les taux d'intĂ©rĂȘt explosent. Quand le premier ministre cessera-t-il d'hypothĂ©quer l'avenir de nos enfants?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals could have put the bill on the agenda for yesterday or today so we could discuss it, but they did not. They are the ones holding up the bill. After eight years, the consequences of the Liberals' policies have been disastrous. Quebec has the highest inflation rate in the country. It is close to 5% for the fourth month in a row. Like all parents in Quebec, I am worried about the future of my children, who are facing the highest interest rates in 40 years. Food is too expensive, rents are unaffordable and interest rates are skyrocketing. When will the Prime Minister stop mortgaging our children's future?
The minister argues that Conservatives never balanced the budget during their time in government despite cutting pensions, EI, border security, the military, and science, and that the Liberal side supports economic growth.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage responds with attacks on the Conservative fiscal record in government rather than addressing Quebec's inflation rate, interest rates, or the question of mortgaging children's futures.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on sait que les conservateurs aiment se targuer d'ĂȘtre le parti de l'Ă©conomie et de donner des leçons d'Ă©conomie. La rĂ©alitĂ© c'est que, la derniĂšre fois qu'ils ont Ă©tĂ© au pouvoir, non seulement ils ont brĂ»lĂ© les budgets laissĂ©s derriĂšre par les libĂ©raux, mais ils ont aussi rĂ©ussi Ă ne jamais Ă©quilibrer le budget, et ce, mĂȘme s'ils ont coupĂ© dans la pension, l'assurance emploi, la sĂ©curitĂ© aux frontiĂšres, l'armĂ©e, les prisons fĂ©dĂ©rales, la science et la recherche. De ce cĂŽtĂ©-ci de la Chambre, nous soutenons la croissance Ă©conomique. Les conservateurs sont peut-ĂȘtre bons avec la hache, mais ils le sont beaucoup moins avec la calculatrice.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, the Conservatives always claim to have the strongest economic record and want to lecture us on the economy. The reality is that the last time they were in power, not only did they burn through the budgets left behind by the Liberals, but they also managed to never balance the budget, despite all their cuts to pensions, employment insurance, border security, the army, federal prisons, science and research. On this side of the House, we support economic growth. The Conservatives may be good with an axe, but they are not so good with a calculator.
Will the Liberals provide the funding required to the city of Toronto to ensure that unhoused people, including refugees and asylum seekers being turned away from an over-capacity shelter system, do not sleep or die on the streets this winter?
Identifies a specific and urgent situation â Toronto's shelter system beyond capacity with hundreds turned away daily including refugees â and makes a clear ask for federal funding to the city of Toronto before winter.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, city of Toronto housing advocates have warned that unhoused people will die as the weather gets colder. Toronto's shelter system, the largest in Canada, is beyond capacity. Hundreds of people are being turned away every day, including refugees and asylum seekers. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have walked away from housing and left the city scrambling to house people in need. Toronto is pleading for support. Will the Liberals step up to provide the funding required to the city of Toronto so no one has to sleep or die on the streets this winter?
The parliamentary secretary notes that the government doubled reaching home initiative funding and that Toronto has received $290 million to combat homelessness, pledging to continue working with not-for-profit organizations.
The parliamentary secretary references doubling reaching home initiative funding and a $290 million figure for Toronto, which is relevant, but does not directly address the capacity crisis or commit to additional emergency funding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member for a number of years now, and I do not doubt for a moment her commitment to housing. She knows, because she voted for it, that we doubled the funding for homelessness through the reaching home initiative, and Toronto has received $290 million to combat homelessness. We will continue to work with not-for-profit organizations that are on the ground doing the vital work to get people off the streets and providing them with the wraparound supports they need to make a transition toward something better.
What are the Liberals going to do to get people in the Tri-Cities area, where homelessness is up 86%, into affordable homes before winter arrives?
Cites a specific 86% increase in homelessness in Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody and names the Tri-Cities Homelessness & Housing Task Group, giving concrete local grounding, though the ask is general.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, homelessness in Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody is up by 86%. Community leaders from the Tri-Cities Homelessness & Housing Task Group are calling for political courage. I agree. People being unable to find a home is past the point of a crisis, and with colder weather on its way, action is needed, but the Liberals are out of touch, and their lack of concern is appalling. What are the Liberals going to do to get people into affordable homes before the winter?
The parliamentary secretary says the government was the first in Canadian history to recognize housing as a human right, citing the national housing strategy that has housed 70,000 people and kept 122,000 from homelessness.
The parliamentary secretary references the national housing strategy, 70,000 people housed, and 122,000 kept from homelessness, which are relevant statistics, but does not address the specific 86% increase in the Tri-Cities or offer concrete winter actions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the current government was the first government in Canadian history to recognize that there is a human right to housing. We continue to act in that vein through the national housing strategy, a strategy that has resulted in 70,000 people being taken off the street; 122,000 who were very close to being homeless are no longer in that position. Because of the vital supports they have been given, they are now housed. We will continue to do everything we can, and we embrace partnership through working with provinces, municipalities and, I emphasize, not-for-profit organizations, which are key to all this.
How is the government working with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to support the transition away from coal-fired electricity while being mindful of affordability?
A government-backbench softball that sets up the minister to tout Bill C-49 and clean energy partnerships with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on helping Atlantic Canada drive the tremendous economic opportunities that exist for clean energy in our region. That is exactly why we advanced Bill C-49, in close partnership with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. We also have a mutual goal of getting off coal-fired electricity while expanding clean energy grids. Premiers Higgs and Houston were both in Ottawa this week to talk about their provincial plans to do just that. Could the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources explain how our government is working in co-operation with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to support that crucial transition while being mindful of affordability?
The minister says Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick agreed this week to advance collaboration on clean, affordable and reliable electricity, phasing out coal by 2030 and achieving a net-zero electricity grid by 2035.
The minister provides substantive information about the agreement with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to phase out coal by 2030 and achieve a net-zero electricity grid by 2035, directly addressing the question's substance.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his continued advocacy for Atlantic Canadians. He and his Atlantic Liberal colleagues stood up against the Conservatives who opposed Bill C-49. This includes Conservative members from Atlantic Canada whose communities would benefit from the good, sustainable jobs and economic opportunities this bill would bring. This week, Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick agreed to advance collaboration and progress on delivering clean, affordable and reliable electricity while phasing out coal by 2030, driving to a net-zero electricity grid by 2035. This would fight climate change and create good jobs and economic opportunity across Atlantic Canada.
Why has the Liberal government set its Lebanon travel advisory at 'Avoid non-essential travel' rather than the highest level, when the U.S. State Department has issued a 'Do Not travel to Lebanon' advisory?
Directly contrasts the U.S. State Department's highest-level 'Do Not travel to Lebanon' advisory with Canada's lower 'Avoid non-essential travel' level, making a precise and verifiable comparison with a clear accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the State Department updated their travel advisory to Lebanon to the highest level, advising all U.S. citizens of the following: âDo Not travel to Lebanon.â However, the Liberal government's overall travel advisory for Lebanon advises Canadian citizens to âAvoid non-essential travelâ, which is not the highest level. Why is the Liberal government always a dollar short and a day late when it comes to protecting the safety and security of Canadians overseas?
The parliamentary secretary says the minister has advised Canadians in Lebanon to make plans to leave because the situation could be volatile, and asserts Canada always acts to protect Canadians at home and abroad.
The parliamentary secretary says the minister advised Canadians in Lebanon to make plans to leave and that Canada always stands up for Canadian safety, but does not explain the discrepancy in advisory levels or justify why Canada's level is lower than the U.S. level.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the hon. member. We are never late protecting Canadians. We will always stand up for the security and safety of Canadians here in Canada and abroad. As the Speaker knows, yesterday the minister indicated that Canadians in Lebanon should make plans to leave. We are aware that the situation could be volatile there, and we want to make sure Canadians are safe. She has advised Canadians to leave the area.
Given the government was late during the fall of Kabul in August 2021 and in Beirut in 2006, will it clearly and timely communicate security threats to Canadians throughout the Middle East and North Africa amid current protests and violence targeting western interests?
References two specific past failures (Kabul August 2021 and Beirut 2006) and a current outbreak of protests and violence targeting western interests, making a concrete ask about timely communication of security threats.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government has been late. It was late in the fall of Kabul in August 2021. Has the government not learned the lessons of 2006 and 2021 of Beirut and Kabul? Throughout the Middle East and North Africa, there has been an outbreak of protests and violence targeting western interests and western missions. Will the government clearly communicate to Canadians the information necessary to ensure their safety and inform Canadians about security threats they are facing in the region in a timely manner?
The parliamentary secretary says the government has communicated and will continue to do so, with decisions made by officials on the best advice, to ensure Canadians are safe abroad.
The parliamentary secretary gives only a brief assurance that decisions are made on best advice and that Canada will ensure Canadians are safe, with no substantive engagement with the Kabul or Beirut precedents or the specific communication ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have and we will continue to. These decisions are made by officials on the best advice. We will continue, as we always do, to ensure that Canadians are safe when they are abroad.
Can the government offer concrete solutions to Quebecers, end its out-of-control spending, and abolish the carbon tax, given that Quebec has the highest inflation in Canada for a fourth consecutive month?
Cites Quebec's inflation leadership for a fourth consecutive month and names specific cost pressures (groceries, housing, gas), but the ask â abolish the carbon tax â is a standard partisan talking point rather than a precise policy question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aprĂšs huit ans de mauvaise politique, ce gouvernement continue dâalimenter lâinflation avec ses dĂ©penses hors de contrĂŽle. On apprend aujourdâhui que le QuĂ©bec est le champion de lâinflation au Canada pour un quatriĂšme mois de suite. LâĂ©picerie, les logements, lâessence, tout coĂ»te plus cher, gracieusetĂ© des libĂ©raux appuyĂ©s par le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois. Les experts ne prĂ©voient pas de retour Ă la normale de sitĂŽt. Ce gouvernement peut-il enfin offrir des solutions concrĂštes aux QuĂ©bĂ©cois, mettre fin Ă ses dĂ©penses incontrĂŽlĂ©es et abolir la taxe sur le carbone?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, after eight years of bad policy, this government continues to fuel inflation with uncontrolled spending. Today, we learned that Quebec has won Canada's inflation game for the fourth month in a row. Groceries, housing, gasoline, everything costs more, courtesy of the Liberals, backed by the Bloc Québécois. Experts are not expecting things to return to normal anytime soon. Can this government finally offer Quebeckers concrete solutions, put an end to out-of-control spending and abolish the carbon tax?
The parliamentary secretary points out that the federal carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, which has its own cap-and-trade system, and argues Conservatives want to roll back climate action.
The parliamentary secretary correctly points out that the federal carbon tax does not apply in Quebec, which is a relevant and direct rebuttal, though it does not address the broader inflation concerns raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cela me surprend toujours que des conservateurs du QuĂ©bec parlent de la taxe sur le carbone parce que la taxe sur le carbone fĂ©dĂ©rale ne s'applique pas au QuĂ©bec, qui est un leader en matiĂšre d'actions contre les changements climatiques. Nous ne voulons pas reculer sous les conservateurs. Nous ne voulons pas arrĂȘter notre action afin de protĂ©ger notre environnement au QuĂ©bec. Les conservateurs sont complĂštement dĂ©connectĂ©s.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it always surprises me when Quebec Conservatives talk about the carbon tax because the federal carbon tax does not apply in Quebec, which is a leader in action against climate change. We do not want the Conservatives to set us back. We do not want to stop taking action to protect our environment in Quebec. The Conservatives are completely out of touch.
Will the Prime Minister renounce his inflationary carbon tax, especially given that the Liberals and Bloc québécois are now adding a second carbon tax, pushing young Quebecers into debt and financial anxiety?
Mentions a second carbon tax and ties it to Liberal-Bloc support, but the ask â renounce the carbon tax â is a broad rhetorical demand without new specific data beyond the earlier inflation references.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, huit ans de politiques libĂ©rales inflationnistes ont poussĂ© les QuĂ©bĂ©cois Ă s'endetter encore davantage. Des jeunes craignent de ne jamais pouvoir s'acheter une maison. Certains souffrent mĂȘme d'anxiĂ©tĂ© financiĂšre. MalgrĂ© cela, les libĂ©raux et le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois ajoutent une deuxiĂšme taxe sur le carbone. Nous ne le rĂ©pĂšterons jamais assez, cela coĂ»te trop cher de voter Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois. La question est simple: le premier ministre va-t-il renoncer Ă sa taxe sur le carbone inflationniste?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, eight years of Liberal inflationary policies have driven Quebeckers further into debt. Young people fear they will never be able to buy a house. Some are even experiencing financial anxiety. Despite that, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois are adding a second carbon tax. We can never say it enough: It is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois. My question is simple. Will the Prime Minister scrap his inflationary carbon tax?
The minister challenges the Conservatives to specify where they would make cuts â housing, pensions, dental care, childcare, or culture â without addressing the carbon tax or inflation.
The minister responds with a series of rhetorical questions about where the Conservatives would cut (housing, pensions, dental care, childcare, culture) without engaging with the second carbon tax claim or inflation concerns.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ma collĂšgue parle de faire des coupes, mais oĂč veut-elle les faire? Est-ce que c'est en logement? Est-ce qu'il y a trop d'argent dans le logement? Est-ce que c'est dans les pensions? Est-ce que les conservateurs pensent que nos aĂźnĂ©s reçoivent trop d'argent? Est-ce que les conservateurs pensent que nous ne devrions pas intervenir pour les soins dentaires? Est-ce que c'est dans les garderies? Nous ne devrions pas ĂȘtre lĂ pour aider nos familles? C'est peut-ĂȘtre sur le plan de la culture. Ils sont tellement bons lĂ -dedans, ils ont passĂ© leur temps Ă faire des coupes dans la culture. Ă quel endroit veulent-ils faire des coupes? Qu'ils mettent leurs culottes et qu'ils nous disent oĂč ils vont faire des coupes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks about making cuts, but where does she want to make these cuts? Is it in housing? Is there too much money in housing? Is it in pensions? Do the Conservatives think that our seniors are getting too much money? Do the Conservatives think that we should not get involved in dental care? Is it in child care? Should we not be there to help our families? Maybe culture is the target. They are so good at that, they spent their time making cuts in culture. Where do they want to make cuts? Let them show some backbone and tell us where they want to make cuts.
Will the Liberals support Bill C-319 to increase the old age security pension for all seniors aged 65 and over, ending the two-tier system for seniors?
Names a specific piece of legislation â Bill C-319 â and the specific policy gap (OAS not increased for seniors aged 65 to 74), with a clear yes-or-no ask about government support.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les libĂ©raux ont crĂ©Ă© une injustice condamnable quand ils ont instaurĂ© deux classes d'aĂźnĂ©s en refusant d'augmenter la pension de vieillesse des aĂźnĂ©s de 65 Ă 74 ans. Aujourd'hui, ils ont une occasion historique de corriger cette injustice qu'ils ont eux-mĂȘmes crĂ©Ă©e. Ils peuvent s'assurer que tous les aĂźnĂ©s sont traitĂ©s Ă©quitablement face au coĂ»t de la vie qui explose et Ă l'incertitude Ă©conomique. Vont-ils appuyer le projet de loi Câ319 du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois et mettre fin aux deux classes d'aĂźnĂ©s en augmentant la pension de tous aĂźnĂ©s de 65 ans et plus?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals committed a serious injustice when they created two classes of seniors by refusing to increase the old age pension for seniors 65 to 74. Today, they have an historic opportunity to correct this injustice that they created. They can ensure that every senior is treated fairly in light of the spike in the cost of living and the economic uncertainty. Will they support the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois's Bill Câ319 and end the two classes of seniors by increasing the pension for all seniors 65 and over?
The minister cites restoring the retirement age to 65, increasing the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and raising OAS for the most vulnerable seniors despite Bloc québécois opposition, but does not say whether the government will support Bill C-319.
The minister lists several measures taken for seniors (restoring retirement age to 65, increasing GIS, increasing OAS for the most vulnerable) but does not directly say whether the government will support Bill C-319.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous avons fait des progrÚs énormes pour aider les aßnés. Ces efforts ont permis de réduire la pauvreté des personnes de plus de 65 ans. Nous avons rétabli l'ùge de la retraite à 65 ans. Nous avons augmenté le Supplément de revenu garanti, et ce, malgré l'opposition constante du Bloc québécois. Oui, nous avons augmenté la Sécurité de la vieillesse pour les aßnés les plus vulnérables.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have made a lot of progress to help seniors. These efforts have helped reduce poverty among people 65 and over. We restored the age of retirement to 65. We increased the guaranteed income supplement despite constant opposition from the Bloc Québécois. Yes, we have increased old age security for the most vulnerable seniors.
With AREQ, the Association québécoise des retraité(e)s des secteurs public et parapublic, the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale, and the Table de concertation des aßnés du Québec on Parliament Hill today calling for support of Bill C-319, will the Liberals finally listen and support the bill?
Names four specific seniors' organizations present on the Hill â AREQ, Association quĂ©bĂ©coise des retraitĂ©(e)s des secteurs public et parapublic, Association fĂ©ministe d'Ă©ducation et d'action sociale, and Table de concertation des aĂźnĂ©s du QuĂ©bec â demanding a direct answer on Bill C-319, making this a well-grounded follow-up.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce n'est pas suffisant. Si les aĂźnĂ©s Ă©taient satisfaits du fĂ©dĂ©ral, les groupes qui les reprĂ©sentent comme l'AREQ, l'Association quĂ©bĂ©coise des retraitĂ©(e)s des secteurs public et parapublic, l'Association fĂ©ministe d'Ă©ducation et d'action sociale et la Table de concertation des aĂźnĂ©s du QuĂ©bec ne seraient pas sur la Colline aujourd'hui. Ils sont ici pour demander au gouvernement d'appuyer le projet de loi Câ319. C'est eux-mĂȘmes, les aĂźnĂ©s, qui nous disent que c'est le projet de loi Câ319 qui changera les choses dans leur vie. C'est eux-mĂȘmes qui dĂ©montrent que seule la hausse Ă©quitable de la pension pour tous les aĂźnĂ©s les protĂ©gera de la prĂ©caritĂ©. C'est cela que les aĂźnĂ©s attendent des libĂ©raux. Est-ce qu'ils vont enfin les Ă©couter et appuyer le projet de loi Câ319?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. If seniors were satisfied with the federal government, groups representing them such as AREQ, the Association quĂ©bĂ©coise des retraitĂ©(e)s des secteurs public et parapublic, the Association fĂ©ministe d'Ă©ducation et d'action sociale and the Table de concertation des aĂźnĂ©s du QuĂ©bec would not be on the Hill today. They are here to ask the government to support Bill Câ319. Seniors themselves are the ones telling us that Bill Câ319 will make a difference in their lives. They are the ones saying that only a fair pension increase for all seniors will get them out of their precarious situation. That is what seniors expect from the Liberals. Will they finally listen and support Bill Câ319?
The minister again cites restoring the retirement age from 67 to 65, increasing the GIS despite Bloc québécois opposition, and increasing OAS for the most vulnerable seniors, without answering whether the government supports Bill C-319.
The minister repeats the same talking points about restoring retirement age and increasing GIS without ever saying whether the government will support Bill C-319, directly failing to answer the yes-or-no question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous avons rétabli l'ùge de la retraite de 67 à 65 ans. Nous avons augmenté le Supplément de revenu garanti et nous l'avons fait malgré l'opposition du Bloc québécois. Nous avons augmenté la pension des aßnés les plus vulnérables qui risquent plus de souffrir de handicap et d'avoir besoin de soins de santé.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have restored the retirement age from 67 to 65. We increased the guaranteed income supplement, despite opposition from the Bloc Québécois. We increased pensions for the most vulnerable seniors, who are more likely to live with disabilities and require health care.
Fast asks whether the state of the mental health system is so poor that Canadians are being offered assisted suicide instead of help, and demands the government bring 'a full stop to this madness.'
The question references the day's vote and cites reports of Canadians being offered assisted suicide, but is dominated by inflammatory rhetoric ('fascination with assisted death,' 'madness') and the ask is a vague 'full stop' demand rather than a specific, answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today, this House will vote on whether to protect the mentally ill against assisted suicide, but yesterday the justice minister falsely claimed that euthanizing vulnerable Canadians was good public policy and the only way to comply with Canadian law. Meanwhile, we are hearing more and more reports of Canadians crying out for help and being offered assisted suicide instead. Is this the sorry state of our mental health system? Millions of Canadians oppose the government's fascination with assisted death. Will the government now bring a full stop to this madness?
Holland expresses shared concern for vulnerable people, cites 'critical investments' in mental health, and says the government is working to reconstitute the joint committee to responsibly examine the issue.
The minister acknowledges the emotional weight of the issue and mentions reconstituting the joint committee, which is relevant context, but does not address the specific claim that the justice minister 'falsely claimed' euthanizing vulnerable Canadians was good policy or the day's vote directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, of course, there is not one among us in this House who does not have people they love who are deeply vulnerable and have been in a state of mental health crisis. Every single person in this House wants to make sure those people get the support and strength they need. That is why we are making critical investments there. We also have to make sure, for the people who are trapped in mental illness and in deep, profound suffering, that we examine the best way to deal with those circumstances. That is why we are working to reconstitute the joint committee so that we can look at this process and look at how to responsibly deal with these issues in a way that respects and protects vulnerable people.
Richards asks why military chaplains are reportedly being told they cannot pray for the fallen on Remembrance Day, contrasting this with their historical role in wartime.
Richards raises a specific policy concern about military chaplains being told they cannot pray on Remembrance Day, grounding it in historical examples, but does not cite a specific policy document and the ask is vague ('What is going on?').
Source text
Mr. Speaker, each year on November 11, we gather to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our nation. Now, under the Liberal government, our military chaplains are being told they cannot even pray for the fallen. During World War II, chaplains led prayer on the boats on the eve of the D-Day landings. Chaplains have provided last rites to dying soldiers in the field. The Prime Minister is now telling Canadians that, on Remembrance Day, they cannot even pray for those who fought for our country. What is going on?
Lalonde thanks members of the Armed Forces and veterans for their service and affirms that Canadians will always remember their sacrifice on November 11, without addressing the chaplain prayer issue.
Lalonde's response, delivered entirely in French, is a general expression of gratitude to veterans and a statement that the country will always remember their sacrifice, with no engagement whatsoever with the specific allegation about chaplains and prayer.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, aujourd'hui, je voudrais remercier nos membres des forces armées et tous les vétérans qui ont servi notre pays. Tous les jours au Canada, nous devons dire merci à ces hommes et à ces femmes qui, en ce moment particuliÚrement, défendent ce qu'on fait. Le 11 novembre, tout comme plusieurs de mes amis ici et mes collÚgues, nous nous souvenons et nous allons toujours nous souvenir du sacrifice de nos vétérans.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to thank our members of the armed forces and all the veterans who have served our country. Every day in Canada, we must say thank you to these men and women who, in these times in particular, are defending what we do. On November 11, like many of my friends here and my colleagues, we remember. We will always remember the sacrifice of our veterans.
Bezan asks when the Prime Minister will start supporting troops, citing reports that military families cannot afford housing and food after eight years of Liberal government.
Bezan raises two distinct issues â discrimination against people of faith and military housing affordability â citing reports of troops leaving and families asking for food donations, but the compound question and rhetorical framing weaken its accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are discriminating against people of faith who want to pay tribute to our veterans. It is bad Liberal policy that is actually driving down morale in the Canadian Armed Forces. It was reported that troops are leaving the forces in droves because of the lack of good, affordable housing. Sadly, military families are being forced to ask for donations to help offset the high cost of food and housing. After eight long years, the troops can no longer afford the Liberals or make that sacrifice. When will the Prime Minister finally start supporting our troops?
Lalonde says military members and families are the top priority, references $55 million in budget 2022 for residential housing for CAF members, and attacks the Conservative record of cutting defence spending below 1%.
Lalonde cites a specific figure ($55 million in budget 2022 for residential housing) which is partially responsive to the housing concern, but deflects on the faith discrimination issue by attacking the Conservative record on defence spending.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will not take any lessons today from that side of the House. When the Conservatives were in power, they actually cut spending to fall below 1%. Let me be very clear: Military members and their families are our top priority. We are taking steps to ensure that they are supported. In budget 2022, we invested $55 million in residential housing for CAF members. We will be there for our troops. We will always support them.
Arseneault asks the Minister of Canadian Heritage to provide an update on how the government supports the Acadian community, its culture, and Acadia Day celebrations.
This is a government-backbench softball setup where Arseneault, having just participated in the funding announcement, asks the minister to provide an update on support for the Acadian community â a clear invitation for a government communication moment.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en tant que membre de la communautĂ© acadienne du Nouveau-Brunswick et fier dĂ©putĂ© de MadawaskaâRestigouche, je suis heureux d'avoir participĂ© Ă l'annonce, il y a quelques instants, confirmant le financement des cĂ©lĂ©brations communautaires de la FĂȘte nationale de l'Acadie pour 2024. Mes collĂšgues acadiens et moi-mĂȘme avons continuellement veillĂ© Ă ce que ces importantes cĂ©lĂ©brations continuent de bĂ©nĂ©ficier d'un soutien. Est-ce que la ministre du Patrimoine canadien peut fournir une mise Ă jour sur la façon dont ce gouvernement soutient la communautĂ© acadienne, sa culture et les cĂ©lĂ©brations de la fĂȘte de l'Acadie?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Acadian community of New Brunswick and proud member of Parliament for MadawaskaâRestigouche, I am pleased to have participated in the announcement a few moments ago confirming funding for Acadian community celebrations of National Acadian Day in 2024. My Acadian colleagues and I have always ensured that these major celebrations continue to receive support. Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage update us on how this government supports the Acadian community and its culture, as well as National Acadian Day celebrations?
St-Onge confirms the completion of a $500,000 funding package for the FĂȘte nationale de l'Acadie, with $250,000 announced that day to enable celebrations in all communities, plus $2.8 million for the CongrĂšs mondial acadien.
St-Onge provides specific figures â $500,000 total for FĂȘte nationale de l'Acadie celebrations, $250,000 announced that day, and $2.8 million for the CongrĂšs mondial acadien â directly addressing the question with concrete information.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je dois dire que mes collĂšgues ont travaillĂ© extrĂȘmement fort pour qu'on puisse en arriver Ă l'annonce d'aujourd'hui et je les remercie de leur collaboration. L'annonce qu'on a faite aujourd'hui, c'est de rĂ©affirmer le soutien du gouvernement du Canada Ă la culture et Ă l'histoire acadiennes. Avec l'annonce d'aujourd'hui, on a donc complĂ©tĂ© le montage financier de 500 000 $, qui est le montant nĂ©cessaire pour pouvoir cĂ©lĂ©brer la FĂȘte nationale de l'Acadie. Les 250 000 $ annoncĂ©s aujourd'hui permettront la tenue de fĂȘtes dans toutes les communautĂ©s. C'est une excellente nouvelle. Au total, avec les 2,8 millions de dollars pour le CongrĂšs mondial acadien, ça va fĂȘter fort en Acadie cette annĂ©e.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I must say that my colleagues worked extremely hard leading up to today's announcement, and I thank them for their collaboration. Today's announcement is a reaffirmation of the Government of Canada's support for Acadian culture and history. Today's announcement completes the funding package of $500,000, which is the amount required to celebrate National Acadian Day. The $250,000 announced today will make celebrations possible in every community. This is excellent news. Together with the $2.8 million set aside for the CongrĂšs mondial acadien, Acadia will be celebrating in style.
Brock asks whether the Prime Minister will cooperate with the several RCMP investigations, given he has allegedly shut down debate and committees and is hiding behind cabinet confidence.
Brock references the ArriveCAN investigation and ethics convictions as factual anchors and asks a specific question â will the Prime Minister cooperate with RCMP investigations â but the compound framing and use of 'arrive scam app' reduce precision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, no one is above the law, and that includes the Prime Minister. After eight years, he is the only one in Canadian history who has been found guilty of breaking not one, but two, ethics laws and now, with the arrive scam app, the RCMP is investigating criminality in the highest echelons of the government. What was the Prime Minister's response? He shut down debate, and he shut down committees. Now he is hiding behind cabinet confidence. He is not worth the cost. Under dark clouds of suspicion, will the Prime Minister cooperate with the now several RCMP investigations?
Oh, oh!
O'Connell states that the Prime Minister does not dictate committees, expresses faith in the RCMP, and says any misconduct will have consequences, but does not address cabinet confidence or cooperation with investigations.
O'Connell says the government has faith in the RCMP and that misconduct will have consequences, but does not address the specific allegation that the Prime Minister is hiding behind cabinet confidence or answer whether he will cooperate with the investigations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite should know by this time, the Prime Minister does not dictate committees. It is the responsibility of members of the House to determine what the committees decide to move forward with. With that being said, we have faith and trust in the RCMP and those who are said to investigate any accusations of wrongdoing.
Mr. Speaker, we look forward to any reports that come forward from the RCMP. Any form of misconduct will have consequences.
Barrett asks whether the government will protect whistle-blowers who have come forward about the $1-billion 'green slush fund,' in which $150 million in taxpayer money was allegedly mismanaged through conflicts of interest.
Barrett cites a specific $1-billion 'green slush fund,' $150 million in mismanaged taxpayer money, and asks a concrete question about protecting whistle-blowers, though the Jody Wilson-Raybould comparison and partisan framing dilute the accountability focus.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians would love for reports to come from the RCMP, but the Prime Minister is hiding behind cabinet confidences and the NDP-Liberal coalition to keep Canadians in the dark about wrongdoing. That is why they were not able to launch that criminal investigation into the government. If members can believe this, there is a $1-billion so-called green slush fund that, through misappropriation and conflicts of interest, the government has had to suspend because $150 million in taxpayers' money has been mismanaged. Now, whistle-blowers are looking for employment and reprisal protection, but we know that the government will do what it always does and throw a whistle-blower under the bus, just like it did with Jody Wilson-Raybould when she called out corrupt Liberals. Will they protect these whistle-blowers?
Champagne says that upon hearing of misconduct allegations, the government immediately commissioned a third-party independent expert to investigate, has suspended funds in good governance, and commits to ensuring proper governance across all government agencies.
Champagne confirms a third-party independent investigation was commissioned, that funds have been suspended, and commits to proper governance â directly engaging the mismanagement allegation â but does not specifically address whistle-blower protection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians watching at home should remember what the facts are in the House. The moment that we heard about allegations of misconduct, we immediately commissioned a third-party independent expert to investigate these allegations, who reported back to me. We have suspended, in good governance, the funds that would be disbursed to protect the interests of Canadians. I can assure the member that we will take all measures required to make sure that proper governance is applied in all agencies of the Government of Canada.
Soroka asks when the government will repeal the 'no more pipelines act,' which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional, arguing it is destroying the natural resource sector.
Soroka references the Supreme Court ruling on the 'no more pipelines act' as a factual anchor and asks a specific action â repeal the bill â but relies heavily on partisan framing and does not cite specific provisions or the court's findings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has declared the Liberals' no more pipelines act as unconstitutional. Ignoring concerns from Canadians, the Prime Minister and his minister for carbon taxes seem hell-bent on destroying our natural resource sector. After eight years of the Prime Minister's anti-resource agenda, Canadians are suffering. Common sense Conservatives would advocate for our natural resource sector. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. When will the NDP-Liberal government do the right thing and repeal this disastrous bill?
Wilkinson defends the government's environmental rules as restoring confidence after Conservative cuts in 2012 and says surgical tweaks will be made to address the Supreme Court decision, without specifying what those tweaks are.
Wilkinson engages the Supreme Court decision and mentions 'surgical tweaks,' which is somewhat responsive, but spends most of his answer attacking the Conservative record on environmental legislation rather than explaining what changes will be made or when.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians understand that, when the Conservative Party was in power, it gutted the environmental legislation that existed in this country in 2012. It undermined the confidence that Canadians had that the environment was going to be protected and that the rights of indigenous peoples would be respected, such that good projects could go ahead. We have put into place a system of better rules to ensure environmental sustainability and respect for indigenous rights, which will accelerate the work we are doing to ensure that good projects move ahead. With respect to the Supreme Court decision, there are some surgical tweaks that we will make to ensure that we move forward.
Carr asks what role the government is playing in addressing the anxieties of Jewish and Muslim Canadians amid rising anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
This is a government-backbench exchange; Carr cites the statistic that Jews are victims of 67% of reported hate crimes and shares personal anecdotes, but the question is a broad setup asking what role the government is playing rather than holding it to account.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Jews in Canada represent just 1% of the population, and as Irwin Cotler reminds us, they are victims of 67% of reported hate crimes in Canada. Anti-Semitism is on the rise and Islamophobia is too. I met with Jewish students yesterday who are afraid to be outed as Jews in their own community for fear of their safety. I have spoken with Muslims who are afraid to be outed as Muslims in their own communities for fear of their safety. Can the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion let us know what role the government is playing in addressing the real anxieties of Jews and Muslims in Canada right now?
Khera announces the appointment of Ms. Deborah Lyons as Canada's special envoy on preserving holocaust remembrance and combatting anti-Semitism, who will work with the special representative on combatting Islamophobia to support both communities.
Khera provides a concrete answer by naming the specific appointment of Ms. Deborah Lyons as Canada's special envoy on preserving holocaust remembrance and combatting anti-Semitism and explains how she will coordinate with the special representative on combatting Islamophobia.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I first want to acknowledge just how difficult the past few days and weeks have been for both the Jewish and Muslim communities. I want them to know that all of us here stand with them and in solidarity with those communities. On Monday, we announced the appointment of Ms. Deborah Lyons as Canada's special envoy on preserving holocaust remembrance and combatting anti-Semitism. As she stated, she will work closely with her counterpart, the special representative on combatting Islamophobia, to support both communities during this difficult time when feelings of anxiety, tension and fear are on the rise. Diversity is at the core of who we are as Canadians. We all need to be united in standing up against hate and intolerance whenever and wherever.
Blaney asks what the government will do to ensure Canadian Armed Forces members do not become homeless given rising housing costs are driving them out of service.
Blaney raises a specific issue â CAF members leaving due to rising housing costs â and asks a concrete question about what the government will do, though the framing blames both Liberals and Conservatives equally and lacks documentary citations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, those who join the Canadian Forces do so because they believe in service to their country. Now, members are leaving their jobs because they cannot keep up with rising house costs. Those who keep us safe cannot afford a home, and the Liberals' and Conservatives' solution is to leave housing to condo developers, who keep costs so high. The people who serve us deserve better. What is this government going to do to ensure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces do not become homeless?
Lalonde says military members and families are the top priority, that the government is working with stakeholders to acquire additional housing, and cites $55 million in budget 2022-23 for residential housing for CAF members.
Lalonde repeats the $55 million housing investment from budget 2022-23 and mentions working with stakeholders to acquire additional housing, which is relevant but does not address the specific concern about members becoming homeless or the scale of departures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for raising this. As an advocate, she has brought forward a lot of issues in the House. However, let me be very clear. Military members and their families are our top priority, and we are taking steps to ensure that they are supported. This is why we are working with our stakeholders to align resources and acquire additional housing. In budget 2022-23 alone, we have invested $55 million in residential housing for CAF members.
May asks whether the minister will commit to reviewing the recommendations of the expert environmental law panel created under former minister McKenna and putting them in place to fix the impact assessment legislation.
May makes a technically grounded argument identifying which specific sections of the impact assessment law the Supreme Court found in excess of federal jurisdiction, references the expert panel created under former minister McKenna, and asks a specific, actionable question about reviewing those panel recommendations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the incredible irony here is that the portions of the impact assessment law that the Supreme Court found were in excess of federal jurisdiction were the sections created by Stephen Harper in wrecking our previous, predictable, strong environmental assessment legislation and the so-called designated project list, which was a very bad idea. The expert environmental law panel created under former minister McKenna, and then ignored by the government in bringing forward Bill C-69, has the answers the government needs. Will this minister commit to reviewing those recommendations and putting them in place?
Wilkinson says the government respects the court decision and will make amendments to the act, and affirms that Parliament enacted legislation to protect the environment and will continue to do so, but does not address the McKenna panel recommendations specifically.
Wilkinson confirms amendments will be made to the act and that Parliament's authority to protect the environment will continue, which is partially responsive, but does not address May's specific ask about reviewing the McKenna expert panel's recommendations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I think we can agree that the Conservative Party destroyed environmental legislation in this country and undermined the integrity of those processes such that it was incumbent upon the new government to bring into place better rules that would allow major projects to be built in this country. These would be projects that respect environmental rights and the rights of indigenous peoples. We have delivered on that. We certainly respect the decision of the court, and we will be making amendments to the act. However, the Supreme Court was clear, and I will be very clear about this, that the Parliament of Canada enacted legislation to protect the environment, and we certainly will continue to do that.
Warren Steinley (CPC) rose on a point of order seeking unanimous consent to have the House concur in a quote attributed to the Speaker upon taking the chair, comparing the Speaker's role to that of a hockey referee. The House did not grant unanimous consent.
- Some hon. members
- Mr. Warren Steinley
Source text
Hear, hear!
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that the House concur in the following: âThe Speaker, to use the old hockey analogy, is nothing more than a referee. If there is one thing I know, it is that nobody pays good money to go see the referee. They go to see the stars: you, the players on the ice.â This was said by you, Mr. Speaker, upon taking the chairâ
No.