Session overview
- Carbon pricing and food inflation dominated Question Period, with Conservatives repeatedly demanding the government scrap the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standards tax, citing 6.2% food inflation â the highest in the G7 â and 2.2 million monthly food bank visits; Liberals defended the Canada groceries and essentials benefit and a package of new food security measures announced Monday.
- Conservatives pressed repeatedly for passage of a Canadian sovereignty act, arguing that despite voting for Bill C-5, not a single new nation-building project has been approved and no regulations blocking development have been removed; Liberals pointed to specific projects including the port of Saguenay, LNG, the Crawford nickel mine and a Quebec CityâToronto high-speed rail network.
- The Bloc Québécois challenged the government on whether a deal had actually been reached with China to lift tariffs on Quebec pork, after the Prime Minister appeared to confirm such an agreement the previous day; the Minister of Foreign Affairs acknowledged discussions with China on pork, beef and canola but made no specific commitment.
- The housing crisis was raised across multiple exchanges, with Conservatives citing the Missing Middle Initiative report, a drop in home ownership among 30- to 34-year-olds from 60% to 52%, and new home sales down 45% in the GTA and 56% in Vancouver; Liberals promoted Build Canada Homes, the first-time homebuyers' GST break and claimed the fifth-best year for housing starts in Canadian history.
- Extortion in B.C.'s Lower Mainland prompted exchanges on public safety, with the Minister of Public Safety announcing deployment of up to 20 RCMP members and two helicopters in the Surrey area, $4 million in federal funding for the Surrey police, and a meeting with Premier Eby; Conservatives called for restoration of mandatory minimums and repeal of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.
- New retirees not receiving Old Age Security payments for up to nine months due to problems with the new CĂșram software system were raised by the Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois; the minister acknowledged processing delays affected 1.2% of OAS applicants and directed affected individuals to contact Service Canada.
The Minister of Public Safety disclosed specific, concrete commitments: deployment of up to 20 RCMP members, two helicopters in the Surrey area, and $4 million in federal funding to bolster the Surrey police's efforts to tackle extortion, grounded in a meeting held that morning with Premier Eby.
Precisely identifies a factual contradiction: the Prime Minister said China committed to lifting tariffs on Quebec pork, the industry says it never heard of this, and journalist Antoine TrĂ©panier reported it was not true â asking for government confirmation.
Asked specifically what the government had done for the Quebec forestry sector beyond refusing the industry's own proposal, Champagne responded only with a general assurance that the government is 'as good in economics as in history' and a vague reference to having invested 'hundreds of millions of dollars,' without identifying a single concrete measure or program.
Outstanding questions
- Yves-François Blanchet asked whether the government can confirm there is in fact no deal with China on pork tariffs, after the Prime Minister appeared to announce one the previous day â no confirmation or denial was provided.
- Jeff Kibble asked when the Prime Minister will deliver on his promised softwood lumber trade deal, given the closure of the Crofton, Atli and Chemainus mills on Vancouver Island â no timeline or negotiating update was provided.
- Elizabeth May asked how the government justifies laying off workers involved in marine emergency responses to oil spills across multiple departments â the President of the Treasury Board gave no answer on oil spill response capacity specifically.
- Lianne Rood and multiple Conservative members asked whether the government will table legislation to scrap the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standards tax â no commitment to introduce or consider such legislation was made.
- Andrew Lawton asked whether the government will accept the Federal Court of Appeal's ruling that the use of the Emergencies Act violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and will not appeal to the Supreme Court â the Government House Leader did not address the ruling or the question of an appeal.
Deltell asks whether the government is prepared to abolish the Liberal fuel tax to give relief to Canadian families, citing 6.2% food inflation (worst in the G7) and PBO findings of up to $1,000 in added costs.
Cites the Parliamentary Budget Officer's figure of up to $1,000 in added costs and Statistics Canada's 6.2% food inflation figure, with a clear ask to abolish the fuel tax, though framed with partisan rhetoric.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la prĂ©occupation premiĂšre de toutes les familles qui nous Ă©coutent actuellement, c'est le prix du panier d'Ă©picerie. Malheureusement, l'inflation alimentaire frappe brutalement toutes les familles canadiennes. Elle est Ă 6,2 %. C'est le pire rĂ©sultat de tous les pays du G7. Un des facteurs qui expliquent ça, c'est la taxe libĂ©rale sur le carburant. Selon le directeur parlementaire du budget, cela peut coĂ»ter jusqu'Ă 1 000 $ de plus pour les familles. Nous, les conservateurs, voulons travailler pour les familles. Nous voulons travailler avec le gouvernement. Est-ce que le gouvernement est prĂȘt Ă abolir la taxe libĂ©rale sur les carburants pour donner du rĂ©pit aux familles canadiennes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the primary concern for all the families watching us right now is the cost of groceries. Unfortunately, Canadian families are being hit hard by food inflation, which currently stands at 6.2%. That is the worst result in the G7. One of the contributing factors is the Liberal fuel tax. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this tax could cost families an extra $1,000. We, the Conservatives, want to work for families. We want to work with the government. Is the government prepared to abolish the Liberal fuel tax to give Canadian families some relief?
Champagne lists several measures announced Monday, including the Allocation canadienne pour l'Ă©picerie, $500 million for the strategic response fund, immediate expensing for greenhouses, food bank funding, and a national food strategy, without addressing the fuel tax question.
The minister lists Monday's announcements (Allocation canadienne pour l'Ă©picerie, $500 million strategic fund, greenhouse expensing, food bank funding, national food strategy) but does not address the specific ask of abolishing the fuel tax.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie mon collÚgue de sa question. On sait que les conservateurs sont allergiques aux bonnes nouvelles. Je vais me permettre de leur rappeler ce que nous avons annoncé lundi. En plus de l'Allocation canadienne pour l'épicerie et les besoins essentiels, nous avons annoncé les mesures suivantes: 500 millions de dollars au Fonds de réponse stratégique pour aider la chaßne d'approvisionnement au pays; la passation en charges immédiate pour les serres pour cultiver plus chez nous; un fonds supplémentaire pour les banques alimentaires; une stratégie nationale de sécurité alimentaire qui visera à normaliser l'étiquetage au pays. J'espÚre que les conservateurs vont s'unir avec nous...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. We know that the Conservatives are allergic to good news. I will remind them of what we announced on Monday. In addition to the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, we announced the following measures: $500 million from the strategic response fund to help Canada's supply chain; immediate expensing for greenhouse buildings to have more food grown here at home; additional funding for food banks; and a national food security strategy that will standardize labelling in Canada. I hope the Conservatives will join usâ
Deltell repeats the call to abolish the Liberal fuel tax, citing 2.2 million Canadians at food banks and a specific 3% increase at a NeufchĂątel food bank, and criticizing the government's prior grocery-sector roundtable as ineffective.
References 2.2 million Canadians visiting food banks and a specific local example (service d'entraide Amélie et Frédérick on boulevard Bastien in Neufchùtel with a 3% increase), but the core ask repeats the prior question with more rhetorical framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le problĂšme, c'est que le ministre est bien fort en rhĂ©torique et en paroles, mais qu'en rĂ©sultats, il n'est pas lĂ . Souvenons-nous: il y a deux ans Ă peine, il Ă©tait tout fier de rassembler autour de lui les gens des Ă©piceries. Qu'est-ce que ça a donnĂ©? Ăa a donnĂ© la pire inflation alimentaire des pays du G7. Ăa ne marche pas, leur patente. Ce n'est pas pour rien qu'il y a 2,2 millions de Canadiens qui vont dans les banques alimentaires. Ă NeufchĂątel, sur le boulevard Bastien, au service d'entraide AmĂ©lie et FrĂ©dĂ©rick, c'est une augmentation de 3 %. Il faut aider directement les familles. Une des bonnes façons de le faire, c'est d'abolir la taxe libĂ©rale sur le carburant. Est-ce que le gouvernement va le faire pour le bien de tous les Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the minister talks a good game, but he does not get results. Let us not forget that, just two years ago, he was boasting about meeting with grocery executives. What came out of that? The result was the worst food inflation in the G7. The Liberals' plan is not working. It is not surprising that 2.2 million Canadians are using food banks. The charitable organization Amélie et Frédérick on Bastien Boulevard in Neufchùtel has seen a 3% increase in users. We need to provide families with direct assistance. One of the best ways to do that is to do away with the Liberal fuel tax. Will the government do that for the good of all Canadians?
Champagne reiterates the Allocation canadienne pour l'Ă©picerie benefiting 12 million Canadians and pivots to asking whether the Conservatives will support the government's measures.
The minister deflects by repeating the Allocation canadienne pour l'Ă©picerie announcement and turning a question back on the Conservatives, without addressing the ask to abolish the fuel tax.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, mon collĂšgue est connu pour sa rhĂ©torique, mais, de notre cĂŽtĂ© de la Chambre, nous sommes connus pour les actions. Lundi, ce que nous avons annoncĂ©, c'est l'Allocation canadienne pour l'Ă©picerie et les besoins essentiels. Les conservateurs peuvent rire aujourd'hui, mais il y a 12 millions de Canadiens et de Canadiennes qui vont voir la diffĂ©rence Ă la fin du mois. Les familles canadiennes s'attendent Ă des gens responsables Ă la Chambre. Les conservateurs vont-ils ĂȘtre Ă la hauteur du moment et appuyer le gouvernement pour justement aider les Canadiens dans le besoin?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is known for his rhetoric, but, on this side of the House, we are known for taking action. On Monday, we announced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. The Conservatives may be laughing today, but 12 million Canadians will see a difference at the end of the month. Canadian families expect members of the House to be responsible. Will the Conservatives rise to the occasion and support the government in helping Canadians in need?
Uppal asks when the Liberals will deliver real and permanent relief for Canadian families, citing 6% grocery inflation (worst in G7), $1,000 extra cost per family, and costs from the industrial carbon tax and fuel standards tax.
Cites 6% grocery price increase, $1,000 extra cost per family, doubled costs since the PM took office, twice the U.S. rate, and 2 million food bank visits per month, with a clear ask about permanent relief, though somewhat compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada now has the worst record for food inflation in the entire G7, with grocery prices up 6%. That is an extra $1,000 for an average family in Canada to buy groceries. Costs have doubled since the Prime Minister has taken office. That is twice the rate of food inflation than in the United States. Over two million Canadians a month are having to go to food banks. The Liberals continue to pile on the costs with their industrial carbon tax and the fuel standards tax. When will they finally deliver real and permanent relief for Canadian families?
Dabrusin pivots to discussing the member for Battle RiverâCrowfoot's riding and Advanced Biofuels Canada's claim that clean fuel regulations create or preserve average farm revenue by $60,000, without addressing food inflation relief.
Dabrusin responds about the member for Battle RiverâCrowfoot and canola revenue under the clean fuel regulations, which is entirely unrelated to the question asked by the member for Edmonton Gateway about food inflation relief.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues might want to know that the member for Battle RiverâCrowfoot represents the second-largest canola-producing riding in all of Alberta. Advanced Biofuels Canada said that the clean fuel regulations will create or preserve âaverage farm revenue by $60,000â. That is money in the pockets of farmers in that riding. Why is the member not standing up for the farmers in his riding? We are.
Uppal calls on the Liberals to introduce legislation to permanently scrap the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standards tax, offering to fast-track any legislation that lowers food costs.
Asks specifically for legislation to permanently scrap the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standards tax, and frames it around concrete affected groups (farmers, truckers, families), but opens with a rhetorical dismissal of the government's band-aid solutions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have heard this all before, band-aid solutions that most Canadians will not even qualify for. Families need real action that actually lowers the cost of food at the grocery store. Conservatives are ready to fast-track any legislation that will help deliver real results for Canadians. When will the Liberals get serious about tackling food inflation and introduce legislation to permanently scrap the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standards tax that are driving up the costs for farmers, truckers and every family trying to put food on the table?
Champagne repeats the Monday announcements, including the groceries and essentials rebate, the $500 million strategic response fund, greenhouse expensing, food bank funding, and a national food strategy, without addressing the legislative ask.
Champagne lists the same Monday announcements again ($500 million strategic fund, greenhouse expensing, food bank funding, national food strategy, unit pricing standard) without addressing the legislative ask on the industrial carbon tax or fuel standards tax.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are good talkers, but I can tell members they have a short memory, because on Monday, Canadians noticed what will be happening. They are going to have a rebate for groceries and essentials. In addition to that, let me help the Conservatives with their householders, so they do not forget to tell their constituents. There will be $500 million for the strategic response fund to strengthen food production in the country, the immediate expensing of greenhouses, additional funding for food banks and a national food strategy, and we are working toward a standard price per unit. Instead of shouting in the House, the Conservatives should get on board, support Canadians, and make this countryâ
Rood asks whether the Liberal government will work with Conservatives to scrap the industrial carbon tax and fuel standards tax, boost grocery competition, and cut red tape for farmers, citing 6.2% food inflation and $1,000 extra costs per family.
Cites 6.2% food inflation, the G7 comparison, $1,000 extra cost per family, and names specific actors (farmers, truckers, food processors) impacted by the industrial carbon tax and fuel standards tax, with a compound but identifiable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, food inflation is up 6.2%, the highest in the G7, and grocery prices are rising twice as fast since the Prime Minister took office. Families will pay over $1,000 more this year just to eat. Farmers, truckers and food processors have been clear: The Liberals' industrial carbon tax and their new fuel standards tax are driving up costs from field to fridge. Conservatives are ready to act, so will the Liberal government work with us to scrap these taxes, boost grocery competition and cut red tape for our farmers?
Hajdu criticizes the Conservatives for opposing the groceries and essentials benefit that will help 12 million families with up to $1,900 after citing Food Banks Canada all fall, without addressing the carbon tax or fuel standards question.
Hajdu does not address the carbon tax or fuel standards tax question and instead criticizes the Conservatives for opposing the government's groceries and essentials benefit, without engaging with the substance of the ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all fall, the Conservatives across the aisle quoted Food Banks Canada time and time again in their litigation on the cost of food. Now, when the government steps up to help 12 million families with up to $1,900 to pay for those very costs of food, the Conservatives are fighting against it. Why can Conservative MPs not listen to their constituents, get out of the way and help those very Canadians they claim to care about?
Rood argues that two parents working full time earning over $14.87 an hour will not qualify for the Liberal rebate, and asks the government to address the root cause of food inflation rather than recycling broken policies.
Provides a specific income threshold ($14.87/hour for two working parents) to argue most families will not qualify for the rebate, cites 2.2 million food bank visits monthly, and asks the government to address the root cause rather than rebates.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is the cold, hard truth: If two parents work full time and they make over $14.87 an hour, their families get nothing. That is right. Members heard me. Most families will not even qualify for this rebate. Once again, the Liberals gaslight Canadians while we see 2.2 million visits to food banks every single month. Liberal taxes and policies are what are driving up the cost of food. Recycling their broken policies does nothing to lower it. When will the government stop pretending that rebates will fix inflation and, instead, deal with the root cause?
Hajdu lists government affordability measures including affordable child care saving up to $16,000 per year, the school food program, and the new tax benefit helping 12 million Canadians, without addressing the eligibility threshold cited.
Hajdu does not address the $14.87/hour eligibility threshold raised by the member and instead lists government affordability measures (affordable child care saving up to $16,000, school food program, the new tax benefit) without engaging with the specific qualification critique.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives like to talk about making life affordable, but every time Canadians ask for help and the government provides that help, whether it is through affordable child care, which, by the way, saves families up to $16,000 a year; the school food program, which reaches families all across the country; or this new tax benefit that will help 12 million Canadians, they say, âOh, that is not exactly the right thing.â They have no answers, not for their constituents, not for any Canadian.
Blanchet asks the government to confirm there is in fact no deal with China on pork tariffs, pointing out that the Prime Minister claimed such a commitment existed while the pork industry said it had never heard of it and journalist Antoine Trépanier reported it was untrue.
Precisely identifies a factual contradiction: the Prime Minister said China committed to lifting tariffs on Quebec pork, the industry says it never heard of this, and journalist Antoine TrĂ©panier reported it was not true â asking for government confirmation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, le premier ministre nous a dit que la Chine s'était engagée à lever ses droits de douane sur le porc québécois. L'industrie du porc, qui n'avait jamais entendu parler de ça, était à la fois surprise et trÚs heureuse. On la comprend. Ce matin, Antoine Trépanier nous apprenait que ce n'est pas vrai du tout. On ne peut pas faire ça aux gens. On ne peut pas ainsi créer des espoirs. Est-ce que le gouvernement nous confirme qu'il n'y a en effet aucune entente sur le porc avec la Chine?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister told us that China had committed to lifting its tariffs on Quebec pork. The pork industry, which did not know about this, was both surprised and very happy, understandably so. This morning, Antoine Trépanier reported that this is not in fact true. The government should not treat people this way. It should not be creating false hope. Can the government confirm that there is, in fact, no agreement on pork with China?
Anand speaks generally about engagement with beef, canola, and agriculture sectors and supply chain diversification, without mentioning pork or addressing whether a deal with China exists.
Anand does not mention pork, does not confirm or deny the deal, and speaks only in generalities about engagement with agriculture sectors and supply chain diversification, completely failing to address the specific factual question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la rĂ©alitĂ©, c'est que nous continuons d'ĂȘtre engagĂ©s au sein de nos partenariats avec tous les membres de l'industrie dans le secteur du bĆuf et du canola, dans les secteurs de l'agriculture. En mĂȘme temps, nous allons continuer de diversifier nos chaĂźnes d'approvisionnement pour notre Ă©conomie intĂ©rieure. C'est dans l'intĂ©rĂȘt national et c'est notre plan de ce cĂŽtĂ©-ci de la Chambre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we remain committed in our partnerships with all industry stakeholders in the beef and canola industries, in the agriculture industry. At the same time, we will continue to diversify our supply chains for our domestic economy. That is in the national interest and that is our plan on this side of the House.
Blanchet presses for a response that actually contains the word 'pork' and asks the government to commit to making the lifting of Chinese tariffs on Quebec pork an absolute priority, linking it to Quebec's EV purchases.
Blanchet sharpens the ask, noting the prior answer contained no reference to pork, and specifically requests confirmation that lifting Chinese tariffs on Quebec pork be made an absolute priority, grounding it in the EV import context.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je n'ai pas entendu le mot « porc », « pig » ou « cochon ». Il n'y a aucune référence au porc dans la réponse. Ma question est simple. Le premier ministre, qui est la nouvelle incarnation du bon Dieu, nous a dit ceci hier: on a deal avec les Chinois, qui lÚvent les droits de douane sur le porc. Est-ce que le gouvernement peut au moins faire une réponse qui contient le mot « porc »? Peut-il s'engager rapidement à faire de la levée des droits de douane sur le porc québécois une priorité absolue? AprÚs tout, les Québécois sont les principaux acheteurs de voitures électriques au Canada, et on en fait venir 50 000.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the words âpigâ, âhogâ or âporkâ. There was no reference to pork in the answer. My question is simple. The Prime Minister, who is the new incarnation of God, told us yesterday that we now have a deal with the Chinese, who are lifting tariffs on pork. Can the government at least include the word âporkâ in its answer? Can it quickly commit to ensuring that lifting tariffs on Quebec pork is a top priority? After all, Quebeckers are the leading buyers of electric cars in Canada, and the government is bringing in 50,000 of them.
Anand mentions discussions with China on pork, beef, and canola, and says Canada wants an 'agréable' deal for the pork sector and its economy, but does not confirm or deny whether a deal exists or commit to it as an absolute priority.
Anand this time mentions pork alongside beef and canola, acknowledges discussions with China, and says Canada wants an 'agréable' deal for the pork sector, but does not confirm or deny the Prime Minister's claim of a commitment, nor commit to making it an absolute priority.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, comme je l'ai dit, nous avons eu des discussions avec la Chine au sujet de plusieurs secteurs de notre Ă©conomie, y compris le porc, le bĆuf et le canola. Chaque fois, nous continuons de dire que c'est dans l'intĂ©rĂȘt canadien d'avoir une entente « agrĂ©able » pour notre secteur du porc et pour notre Ă©conomie. C'est notre stratĂ©gie de ce cĂŽtĂ©-ci de la Chambre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have had discussions with China about several sectors of our economy, including pork, beef and canola. Each time, we continue to say that it is in Canada's interest to have a âfriendlyâ agreement for our pork sector and for our economy. That is our strategy on this side of the House.
Blanchet asks what the government has actually done for Quebec's forest industry beyond refusing the industry's proposal, referencing a Radio-Canada interview that morning with the minister responsible for negotiations.
References a specific Radio-Canada interview with the minister responsible for negotiations that morning and asks what the government has done for Quebec's forest industry beyond refusing the industry's proposal, though framed sarcastically.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, elle parle d'une entente agrĂ©able. Les porcs vont ĂȘtre tellement contents. Cela dit, ce matin, le ministre responsable des nĂ©gociations avait une entrevue Ă RadioâCanada et il a dit que pendant que nous nous intĂ©ressions Ă l'histoire, il s'intĂ©ressait Ă la forĂȘt quĂ©bĂ©coise. Mon Dieu, c'est le jour des rĂ©vĂ©lations, c'est l'Ă©piphanie. Peut-on me dire ce qu'a fait le gouvernement pour la forĂȘt, Ă part refuser la proposition de l'industrie? Ou est-il aussi mauvais en Ă©conomie qu'en histoire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, she is talking about a "friendly" agreement. The pigs will be thrilled. That said, the minister responsible for the negotiations was interviewed on Radio-Canada this morning and he said that, while we are focusing on history, he is focusing on Quebec's forests. My goodness, what a day of revelations it has been. It is the Epiphany. Can someone tell me what this government has done for forestry, apart from rejecting the industry's proposal, or is this government as bad at economics as it is at history?
Champagne claims the government has put hundreds of millions of dollars into the forestry industry and has always been there for workers and the industry, without specifying amounts, programs, or addressing the refused proposal.
Champagne claims hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested to help the forestry industry and says the government has always been there for workers and the industry, but provides no specifics, amounts, or programs, and does not address the refused industry proposal.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je peux rassurer mon collĂšgue: nous sommes aussi bons en Ă©conomie qu'en histoire. S'il y a une chose que je peux dire, et on n'a pas besoin de se faire rappeler ça, c'est qu'on a travaillĂ© avec le secteur de la foresterie. Je sais que, des fois, on se souvient peu des choses, mais on a mis des centaines de millions de dollars pour aider l'industrie de la forĂȘt. Je viens d'une rĂ©gion qui comprend ça. On a toujours Ă©tĂ© lĂ pour les travailleurs. On a toujours Ă©tĂ© lĂ pour l'industrie. On sera toujours lĂ pour dĂ©fendre les intĂ©rĂȘts du Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that we are as good at economics as we are at history. If there is one thing I can say, it is that we worked with the forestry sector, and I think everyone is aware of that. I know that some folks like to forget these things, but we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to help the forestry industry. I come from a region that understands that. We have always been there for workers. We have always been there for the industry. We will always be there to defend Canada's interests.
Cobena asks the Liberal government to immediately table legislation to cut taxes on those who bring food to Canadian tables and boost competition in grocery chains, citing 2.2 million monthly food bank visits, 6.2% food inflation, and a $17,600 annual family food cost.
Cites specific statistics (2.2 million food bank visits monthly, 6.2% food inflation double the U.S. rate, $17,600 annual food cost for a family) and asks for legislation to cut taxes and boost competition, though the ask is somewhat compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are critical statistics every member of Parliament must take seriously. There are 2.2 million visits to food banks every single month. Canada's food inflation is 6.2%, and that is double that of the U.S. This year it will cost $17,600 to feed a family. That is a national emergency we must take seriously, and Conservatives want to expedite a real solution. Will the Liberal government immediately table legislation to cut taxes that punish those who bring food to our tables and boost competition in grocery chains?
Van Koeverden says the government takes the statistics and Food Banks Canada's recommendations seriously, that the top recommendation was the groceries and essentials benefit, and that independent research shows industrial carbon prices have negligible or zero impact on food costs.
Van Koeverden invokes Food Banks Canada's top recommendation for a groceries and essentials benefit and claims industrial carbon prices have negligible or zero impact based on independent research, which is partially responsive but does not address the legislative ask on taxes and grocery competition.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, to the member's question, not only do we take the statistics very seriously, but we also take the recommendations of the organizations that are working to feed hungry Canadians extremely seriously. The top recommendation of Food Banks Canada was to create a groceries and essentials benefit. The Conservatives have a chance to support that motion and to vote in favour of it to help Canadians at the grocery store. We know, based on the research that has been done by independent agencies, that industrial carbon prices not only have a negligible impact or zero impact, but many of them actually help. As such, if the Conservatives want to help Canadians at the grocery store, they should vote in favour of the groceries and essentials benefit.
Cobena repeats her call for the Liberal government to immediately cut taxes on farmers, truckers, and food processors and boost competition in grocery chains, framing Canada's food inflation crisis as homegrown and caused by Liberal policies.
Identifies food inflation doubling since 2019, Canadian prices rising twice as fast as in the U.S., and names specific structural causes (high taxes on farmers, truckers, food processors; lack of competition; reckless spending), but the ask is a repeat of the prior question without added specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Liberals have tried this before, and it has only made matters worse. Canada is a country full of farms and fields, yet we are known as the food inflation capital of the G7. Food inflation has doubled since 2019. This is a homegrown crisis caused by high taxes on farmers, truckers and food processors, lack of competition in grocery chains and reckless inflationary spending. I ask this again: Will the Liberal government immediately cut taxes that punish those who put food on our tables and boost competition in grocery chains?
Van Koeverden claims farmers identify climate change as the number one cause of food inflation, citing lettuce from California, imported coffee, and beef as examples, and says the government is working to build more greenhouses and increase domestic producers.
Van Koeverden pivots to claiming farmers identify climate change as the number one cause of food inflation and discusses lettuce, coffee, and beef as examples, without addressing the legislative ask on taxes or grocery competition.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, farmers know that the number one cause of food inflation in Canada and globally is climate change. When they are listing off the products that are most affected by climate change, they often list lettuce, which is impacted by climate change in California; coffee, which is imported to Canada as we do not grow coffee here; and beef, which is impacted by climate change. The Conservatives can continue to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that climate change does not exist, but we are working with farmers to increase the number of domestic producers. We are working to build more greenhouses so that Canadians can buy more Canadian food.
Lewis asks the Prime Minister to scrap the industrial carbon tax and fuel standard tax to bring down food costs, citing the 2026 food price report showing $17,600 annual cost to feed a family of four, $1,000 more than last year.
Cites the 2026 food price report's finding that it will cost $17,600 to feed a family of four, $1,000 more than last year, and asks specifically about scrapping the industrial carbon tax and fuel standard tax, though framed with a partisan jab at the Prime Minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister spends his time with the world elites, life at home is getting harder for Canadians, including families in HaldimandâNorfolk. The 2026 food price report is alarming. This year, it will cost $17,600 to feed a family of four, which is $1,000 more than it cost last year. The Prime Minister's industrial carbon tax and fuel standard tax are driving up food prices. Will he scrap the taxes and bring down the cost of food for Canadians?
McLean cites the National Institute on Ageing's fourth annual report commending government actions and Food Banks Canada's support for the groceries and essentials benefit, without addressing the ask to scrap the industrial carbon tax or fuel standard tax.
McLean references the National Institute on Ageing's fourth annual report and Food Banks Canada's support for the groceries and essentials benefit, without addressing the carbon tax or fuel standard tax question at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the National Institute on Ageing's fourth annual report was just released, and it commends the actions the government is taking. It agrees with us, and its data shows that reducing expenditures in one area can result in an overall reduction in hardship as money is freed up for other household needs. That is why organizations like Food Banks Canada agree that the groceries and essentials benefit will make a real difference in the lives of Canadians, helping them to afford baby formula, helping them to afford lettuce and helping them to afford coffee and toilet paper. I do not understand why the Conservatives want to be obstructionist about feeding 12 million Canadians.
Lewis repeats her call to cut the industrial carbon tax and fuel standard tax, citing Statistics Canada's 6.2% food inflation figure and personal anecdotes about the burden on working Canadians.
Cites Statistics Canada's 6.2% food inflation figure (highest in G7) and repeats the ask about cutting the industrial carbon tax and fuel standard tax, but the personal anecdotes dominate over factual grounding and the ask is a repetition without added specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. Statistics Canada shows that food inflation is up 6.2%, which is the highest in the G7. I remember, as a university student, putting food back on the shelf because I could not afford it. I am so blessed today, but even recently I did not buy a package of meat because it cost four times more than I paid for it last year. Imagine what average Canadians who are working two jobs are going through, sacrificing every single day just to get by. Will the Liberals give Canadians a break and cut the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax?
McLean shares her personal background growing up in a single-parent household and invokes Food Banks Canada's support for the government's groceries approach, without addressing the carbon tax or fuel standard tax question.
McLean shares her own personal background story and invokes Food Banks Canada's support for the government's approach, without addressing the industrial carbon tax or fuel standard tax question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, like many of my constituents in EsquimaltâSaanichâSooke, I grew up in a single-parent household. I had a single mother and a handicapped sister, and making ends meet was really challenging. It is families like this that we have in mind, like the one I grew up in, like the ones that exist in my riding and in that member's riding. They are the ones we want to feed, and Food Banks Canada is supporting what we are doing. Again, I do not understand why the Conservatives are opposed to feeding families.
Gladu asks the Liberals to immediately introduce a bill to eliminate the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax and boost grocery competition, citing 6.2% food inflation, $17,000 annual food cost, 2.2 million monthly food bank visits, and the taxes adding approximately 17Âą per litre.
Cites 6.2% food inflation, $17,000 annual food cost, 2.2 million monthly food bank visits, and quantifies the carbon and fuel standard taxes at approximately 17Âą per litre, naming specific affected groups, with a clear legislative ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, food inflation is up 6.2%, the highest in the G7. A family now pays more than $17,000 a year for food, and 2.2 million people are lined up at food banks every month, thanks to the Liberals' industrial carbon tax and fuel standard tax, adding up to about 17Âą a litre, which is hitting farmers, truckers and food prices. Conservatives are ready to fast-track legislation to reverse these devastating impacts. Will the Liberals immediately introduce a bill to eliminate the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax to boost grocery competition and cut red tape for our farmers?
Valdez claims a young family of four will save over $50,000 per year through the combined effect of the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, Canada child benefit, affordable child care, dental care, the national school food program, and tax cuts, without addressing the legislative ask.
Valdez does not address the legislative ask to eliminate the industrial carbon tax or the fuel standard tax, instead listing a package of government benefits (Canada groceries and essentials benefit, Canada child benefit, affordable child care, dental care, school food program, tax cuts) totalling $50,000 in claimed annual savings.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while members opposite minimize our affordability plan, let us take an example of a young family of four this year. With supports like the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, the Canada child benefit, affordable child care, dental care, the national school food program and the fact that we cut taxes for millions of Canadians, this family will save over $50,000 a year. This is real affordability. While members opposite continue to obstruct Parliament, we are going to stand up for Canadians.
Gladu asks the government to commit to legislation today to make life affordable for hard-working Canadians, arguing that food prices are rising twice as fast as in the U.S. and that Canadians have sacrificed enough.
Cites food prices rising twice as fast as in the U.S. and twice as fast since the PM took office, and a 5% grocery price increase, but the ask is vague ('commit to legislation today to make life affordable') and heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals take thousands of dollars from Canadians; they return a pittance. Canadians are not fooled. Food prices in Canada are rising twice as fast as in the U.S. and twice as fast since the Prime Minister took office. Grocery prices are up 5%, and his response to the cost of living crisis is to tell Canadians to sacrifice more. Canadians have sacrificed enough. With the ever-increasing cost to eat and heat, there is little left for Canadians to give up. When will the government finally stop asking families to sacrifice and commit to legislation today to make life affordable for hard-working Canadians?
Valdez lists government affordability measures including tax cuts for 22 million Canadians, the permanent national school food program benefiting 400,000 kids, $16,000 in child care savings, and the Canada groceries and essentials benefit for 12 million Canadians, without addressing a legislative commitment.
Valdez lists government measures (22 million Canadians with tax cuts, school food program for 400,000 kids, $16,000 child care savings, groceries and essentials benefit for 12 million Canadians) without addressing the legislative commitment asked for or the carbon/fuel tax question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how the Conservatives can look their constituents in the eye when all they do in the House is obstruct what we are doing and the progress we are making. We cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. We are making the national school food program permanent. This is going to help 400,000 kids eat healthy meals at school. We are saving families $16,000 per year through affordable child care. We are providing relief for 12 million Canadians through our Canada groceries and essentials benefit. This is going to make a real difference, especially for families in my riding of MississaugaâStreetsville.
Roberts cites Food Banks Canada data showing rising senior usage and asks whether the Prime Minister will work with Conservatives to eliminate the industrial carbon tax, eliminate the fuel standard tax, and cut red tape for farmers.
Cites specific Food Bank Canada data (2.2 million visits, 8.3% vs 6.8% seniors) and a G7 food inflation claim, but the yes/no ask bundles three distinct Conservative policy proposals rather than pressing on one accountable point.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, seniors are choosing between medication and groceries. Food Banks Canada has reported 2.2 million visits in a single month, and 8.3% are seniors, up from 6.8%. Food inflation is the highest in the G7. Canadians need our help. Conservatives have proposed real solutions: eliminate the industrial carbon tax, eliminate the fuel standard tax and cut red tape for farmers. Will the Prime Minister show compassion for Canadians and work with us to provide real relief, yes or no?
McLean touts the OAS increase for seniors over 75 and the groceries and essentials benefit worth up to $950 for a single low-income senior, claiming the government's actions are compassionate.
The minister pivots to OAS increases and the groceries and essentials benefit without addressing the industrial carbon tax, fuel standard tax or red tape proposals the question named, and misattributes a Conservative policy position without evidence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, our actions are compassionate. Our actions show compassion for seniors. We increased OAS for seniors over age 75 when the Conservatives wanted to bring it down to below age 65. We have protected OAS, ensuring that it is indexed to inflation, and we just guaranteed that low-income seniors will get the help they need to fight rising food costs, which is something we cannot control. However, what we can control is helping families afford the food they need with the groceries and essentials benefit. This will buy up to $950 more food for a single, low-income senior.
Larouche asks when the government will act on new retirees who have not received their Old Age Security for nine months due to problems with the new CĂșram software, noting that officials warned the Liberals in June.
Larouche identifies a specific software system (CĂșram), a specific delay duration (nine months), references a June warning to the government by its own officials, and directly quotes the government leader's dismissive response, making this a well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il y a des nouveaux retraitĂ©s qui ne reçoivent pas leur pension de la SĂ©curitĂ© de la vieillesse depuis neuf mois Ă cause des problĂšmes du nouveau logiciel CĂșram. Pourtant, hier, qu'est-ce que les libĂ©raux avaient Ă dire Ă ces gens? Leur leader a rĂ©pondu que, les problĂšmes de logiciels, ça arrive. Il a rĂ©pondu que c'Ă©tait une campagne de peur. Les libĂ©raux ont Ă©tĂ© mis au courant au mois de juin par leurs propres fonctionnaires. Avec des rĂ©ponses comme ça, on comprend clairement qu'ils n'ont absolument rien fait. Quand est-ce qu'ils vont s'activer?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, some new retirees have not been receiving their old age security pension for nine months now because of problems with the new CĂșram software. What did the Liberals have to say to these people yesterday? The Liberal House leader said that software problems happen. He said that we were fearmongering. The Liberals were made aware of this in June by their own officials. With answers like that, we can see why they have done absolutely nothing. When will they do something about this?
Hajdu states the department is modernizing to a new system, says the delay affected 1.2% of OAS applicants, and directs affected individuals to contact Service Canada, pledging to work to resolve the problems.
Hajdu acknowledges the CĂșram transition and quantifies the problem (1.2% of OAS applicants affected) but does not provide a timeline for resolution or address the allegation that officials warned the government in June, only directing affected people to contact Service Canada.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, mon ministÚre est en train de transférer le paiement des prestations vers un systÚme plus moderne. Le retard dans le traitement de demandes a touché 1,2 % des demandeurs de la Sécurité de la vieillesse. Le ministÚre s'est engagé à verser la Sécurité de la vieillesse de maniÚre rapide et précise. Mon ministÚre et moi travaillons sans relùche pour résoudre ces problÚmes. Si une personne a des difficultés à accéder à la Sécurité de la vieillesse, nous l'encourageons à contacter Service Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, my department is in the process of transferring benefit delivery to a more modern system. The delay in the processing of applications affected 1.2% of OAS applicants. The department is committed to delivering the OAS swiftly and accurately. My department and I are working tirelessly to resolve these problems. If anyone is having difficulty accessing the OAS, we encourage them to contact Service Canada.
Larouche presses further, noting retirees receiving wrong amounts and facing future benefit reductions, and asks when the government will take retirees' problems seriously rather than dismissing them.
Larouche sharpens the follow-up by specifying retirees receiving incorrect amounts and future benefit reductions, and challenges the government leader's characterisation that things are fine, though the ask is somewhat broad ('take the problems seriously').
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si tout allait bien comme l'a dit le leader du gouvernement, on n'aurait pas des retraités qui ne reçoivent pas leur pension depuis le printemps passé, on n'aurait pas des retraités qui reçoivent des mauvais montants et qui vont se faire réduire leurs futures prestations. Ce n'est pas une campagne de peur, ce sont des vraies personnes qui avertissent que le nouveau logiciel, leur nouveau systÚme, cause des problÚmes. Quand le gouvernement cause des problÚmes, son travail, c'est de trouver des solutions, pas de répondre que ça arrive. Quand le gouvernement va-t-il prendre les problÚmes des retraités au sérieux?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if things were going as well as the government House leader claims, then we would not have seniors who have not received their pension since last spring. We would not have seniors who are receiving the wrong amounts and who will be getting less on their cheques in the future. This is not fearmongering. We are talking about real people who are saying that the government's new software, its new system, is causing problems. When the government causes problems, its job is to fix those problems, not to say that stuff happens. When will the government take seniors' problems seriously?
MacKinnon acknowledges some people were affected, defends the software modernisation as positive, and asks affected individuals to call Service Canada to resolve their files.
MacKinnon acknowledges the seriousness and reiterates the modernisation rationale but does not address the incorrect payment amounts or future benefit reductions Larouche raised, again only directing people to Service Canada.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous prenons Ă©videmment trĂšs au sĂ©rieux la nĂ©cessitĂ© de fournir les prestations Ă ceux qui sont en droit de recevoir ces prestations. Effectivement, le gouvernement a modernisĂ© son logiciel vĂ©tuste, et c'est une bonne nouvelle. Il permet maintenant aux aĂźnĂ©s d'accĂ©der Ă un service Web et Ă un niveau de service accru. Il y a eu quelques personnes touchĂ©es. C'est quelques personnes de trop. On s'entend sur ça. Nous demandons Ă ces gens d'appeler Service Canada, oĂč on va rĂ©gler leur dossier.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we obviously take very seriously the need to provide benefits to those who are entitled to them. The government modernized its outdated software, and that is good news. The new software enables seniors to access services online and receive an enhanced level of service. A few people have been affected, and that is a few people too many. We agree on that. We are asking these individuals to call Service Canada to get their situations sorted out.
Aitchison cites data showing home ownership among 30- to 34-year-olds fell from 60% to 52% and only 12 ownership-intended homes were built per 100 adults added, and asks how the Prime Minister expects young Canadians to buy a first home given policies that have not worked for 10 years.
Aitchison cites two specific statistics (home ownership drop from 60% to 52% for 30â34-year-olds; 12 homes built per 100 adults added) to ground a clear policy-failure question, though the ask is somewhat rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, between 2011 and 2021, home ownership among 30- to 34-year-olds fell from 60% to 52%. From 2019 to 2024, for every 100 adults added to the Canadian population, only 12 homes intended for ownership were built. That is less than half the rate of the earlier decades. How does the Prime Minister expect young Canadians to ever buy their first home when his government keeps using the same old policies that have not worked for the last 10 years?
Robertson touts the first-time homebuyers' GST break worth up to $50,000 off a first home purchase and blames the opposition for stalling it in the fall session.
Robertson highlights the first-time homebuyers' GST break without addressing the specific ownership-rate and housing-starts data cited, and deflects by blaming the opposition for stalling the measure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the good news is that our government has brought forward the first-time homebuyers' GST break, which is up to $50,000 off their first home purchase for young Canadians. This is a new measure. It was stalled in the fall session by the opposition, unfortunately. We are ready to bring this forward. We are ready to deliver affordability for young Canadians.
Aitchison notes new home sales are down 45% in the GTA and 56% in Vancouver and asks the minister to remove the HST on all new homes under $1.3 million to get builders building again.
Aitchison cites specific new home sales declines (down 45% in the GTA, 56% in Vancouver) and the statistic that nearly half of young Canadians consider leaving their communities, and poses a specific policy ask about removing HST on all new homes under $1.3 million.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, new home sales are down 45% in the GTA and 56% in Vancouver. Rebates do not matter to first-time homebuyers if no homes are getting built. Nearly half of young Canadians are now considering leaving their home communities because they cannot afford to stay. When will the minister listen to all the experts, the builders, the developers and the Conservatives, and remove the HST on all new homes under $1.3 million so that we can get builders building homes again?
Robertson cites record annual construction in Calgary, Montreal, Edmonton and Ottawa and calls last year the fifth-best year for housing starts in Canadian history, and calls on the opposition to support Build Canada Homes.
Robertson references record annual construction in named cities and the fifth-best year for housing starts in Canadian history, which partially engages the supply argument, but does not address the specific HST proposal or the sales decline data.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it starts with first-time homebuyers and not obstructing bills that will deliver relief and affordability for young Canadians. That is number one. Number two, we have record annual construction in Calgary, in Montreal, in Edmonton and in Ottawa. We have housing starts that were solid last year, the fifth-best year in Canadian history. We will continue to build on that work with Build Canada Homes, which we expect the opposition's support on.
Mantle cites the Missing Middle Initiative report and its 10 solutions, noting that none of them was a bureaucracy to build non-market homes, and asks why the government's plan differs so sharply from what these experts recommend.
Mantle references the Missing Middle Initiative report and reuses the 60%-to-52% ownership statistic, asks why the government's plan differs from the report's 10 solutions, but the framing is partly rhetorical and the ask is not sharply specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a new year, but it is the same old story for Canadians trying to buy a home. They cannot. The Missing Middle Initiative reported this week that while the vast majority of gen Z and millennials want to buy a home, only about half can realize that goal. Home ownership for them has decreased from 60% to 52%. Their ambition to buy a home has turned into uncertainty, and that uncertainty has turned into defeat. Missing Middle proposed 10 solutions. Not one of them was the government's plan for another bureaucracy to build non-market homes. Why is the government's plan so different from what sensible experts are recommending?
Robertson touts Build Canada Homes as a one-stop shop for affordable housing, claims rents have dropped across Canada for 30 straight months, and challenges the opposition to support affordable housing.
Robertson promotes Build Canada Homes and claims rents have dropped for 30 straight months without engaging the Missing Middle Initiative's 10 solutions or explaining why the government's approach differs from them.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the good news is that we have Build Canada Homes starting up, a one-stop shop for affordable housing, delivering housing for young Canadians in particular. The opposition can support affordable housing. It has never done it before, but it can start now. It can start helping this government deliver affordability, whether that is new homes through Build Canada Homes or bringing down rents, which we have seen drop across Canada for 30 straight months.
Van Popta cites the Missing Middle report showing home ownership among 30-year-olds at an all-time low and housing starts not keeping up with population growth, and asks the Prime Minister to adopt Conservative policies to cut bureaucracies so homes get built.
Van Popta references the Missing Middle report and an all-time low in home ownership among 30-year-olds but frames the ask as 'why not adopt our policies to cut bureaucracies,' which is vague and largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not keeping his promise to young Canadians to help them buy their first home. In fact, according to the Missing Middle report, things are going in the wrong direction. Home ownership among 30-year-olds is at an all-time low. Less than half think they are ever going to own their own home, and housing starts are not even keeping up with population growth. Here is an idea. We are feeling generous. Why does the Prime Minister not adopt our policies to cut bureaucracies so that homes get built and first-time Canadian buyers can buy their first home?
Blois touts Build Canada Homes and the GST removal up to $50,000 for new homebuyers, and accuses Conservatives of obstructing progress on Bill C-15.
Blois promotes Build Canada Homes and the GST removal measure while attacking the Conservatives for obstruction, without addressing the substance of cutting bureaucracies or engaging any specific element of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have a great idea for the member opposite. This government has put a series of measures in place to help support young Canadians getting into their first home and to be able to build more housing supply in this country, whether it is Build Canada Homes or removing the GST up to $50,000 for new homebuyers buying their first home. The Conservatives obstruct at every single pass. The member has to go back and answer to his constituents for why Conservatives are standing in the way of the progress this government is seeking to advance. There are important measures in Bill C-15. They should get on board and actually be a part of the solution.
Généreux cites a Léger poll showing one in five Quebec renters struggled to pay rent last year (one in four in Montreal) and asks when Quebecers will have access to truly affordable housing after 10 years of Liberal government.
GĂ©nĂ©reux cites a LĂ©ger poll showing one in five Quebec renters struggled to pay rent (one in four in Montreal) but the question is broadly rhetorical â 'when will Quebecers have access to truly affordable housing' â with no specific policy ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la crise du logement se voit dans les rues et dans les maisons des Québécois. Les familles choisissent entre le loyer et le frigo. Les jeunes repoussent leurs projets, faute d'appartements abordables. D'aprÚs un sondage Léger, un locataire sur cinq au Québec a eu de la misÚre à payer son loyer l'an dernier. à Montréal, c'est un sur quatre. C'est inacceptable. AprÚs 10 ans de gouvernement libéral, quand les Québécois auront-ils accÚs à des logements vraiment abordables?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are seeing evidence of the housing crisis on the streets and in the homes of Quebeckers. Families are being forced to choose between paying rent and putting food on the table. Young people are putting their plans on hold because they cannot find affordable apartments. According to a Leger poll, one in five renters in Quebec had trouble paying their rent last year. In Montreal, it is one in four. That is unacceptable. After 10 years of Liberal government, when will Quebeckers have access to truly affordable housing?
Bendayan promotes the new Allocation canadienne pour l'Ă©picerie et les besoins essentiels worth over $1,800 for a family of four, and asks why Conservatives are blocking Maisons Canada and the new allocation.
Bendayan pivots entirely to the Allocation canadienne pour l'Ă©picerie et les besoins essentiels, which addresses food costs rather than housing affordability, making the answer largely non-responsive to the housing question asked.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, une famille de quatre pourra recevoir plus de 1 800 $ de notre nouvelle Allocation canadienne pour l'Ă©picerie et les besoins essentiels. Ăa va pouvoir aider nos familles et justement aider les mĂ©nages Ă joindre les deux bouts Ă la fin du mois. C'est vrai, on voit les statistiques: un mĂ©nage sur cinq a de la difficultĂ© Ă payer son loyer. Alors, je me demande pourquoi les conservateurs bloquent le travail de Maisons Canada. Pourquoi est-ce que les conservateurs veulent bloquer notre nouvelle allocation pour les Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a family of four may receive over $1,800 through our new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. That will help families and households make ends meet at the end of the month. It is true. We have seen the statistics that show that one in five households has trouble paying their rent, so I am wondering why the Conservatives are blocking the work of Build Canada Homes. Why do the Conservatives want to block our new benefit for Canadians?
Saini asks the Minister of Public Safety to update the House on measures the government is taking to counter extortion, support law enforcement, and ensure community safety, particularly in B.C.'s Lower Mainland.
This is a government-backbench softball that simply invites the minister to update the House on extortion measures, with no accountability pressure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, communities across Canada want to feel safe in their neighbourhoods and confident their government is taking action to prevent crime, especially given the rise in extortion in B.C.'s Lower Mainland. Can the minister update the House on measures the government is taking to counter extortion, support law enforcement and ensure our communities feel safe?
Anandasangaree reports meeting with Premier Eby, committing to deploy up to 20 RCMP members, deploying two helicopters in the Surrey area, and a $4 million federal funding announcement in November to bolster Surrey police efforts against extortion.
Anandasangaree provides specific, concrete information: a meeting with Premier Eby, deployment of up to 20 RCMP members, two helicopters deployed in the Surrey area, and $4 million in federal funding announced in November to bolster Surrey police efforts.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the rise in extortion in Surrey and the Lower Mainland is unacceptable, and I extend my support to the victims of extortion everywhere. This morning, I met with Premier Eby and we committed to deploying up to 20 RCMP members to support law enforcement efforts. We deployed two helicopters in the Surrey area, and in November we announced $4 million in federal funding to bolster the Surrey police's efforts to tackle extortion threats. There are bills before the House that the opposition can support right now, like the one on lawful access, to help us combat extortion in Canada.
Seeback argues that Bill C-5, meant to fast-track nation-building projects, has approved no new projects and broken no ground, and asks why the Liberals will not support a Conservative sovereignty act to repeal anti-development legislation and speed approvals.
Seeback makes a specific claim that Bill C-5 has not approved a single new project or broken ground, and proposes a named alternative (Canadian sovereignty act) with specific elements, though the framing has a rhetorical edge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for almost a year, Canada has endured an unprovoked economic attack by the United States and President Trump. Conservatives worked to fast-track Bill C-5, which was supposed to fast-track nation-building projects. Unfortunately, it has not fast-tracked anything. Not a single new project has been approved and not a single shovel has gone into the ground. There is an alternative. A Conservative sovereignty act would repeal anti-development legislation, speed approvals and create economic opportunities for Canada. Businesses and provinces that invest would be rewarded. Why will the Liberals not support this bill so that we can lessen our dependence on the Americans?
MacKinnon claims Conservatives are 'coming around to the Liberal plan' of trade diversification and nation-building, and asserts Canadians voted for the Prime Minister's plan in the election.
MacKinnon does not address the claim that no projects have been approved under Bill C-5, instead pivoting to trade diversification talking points and electoral results, providing no substantive engagement with the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is good to see Conservatives finally coming around to the Liberal plan, which is precisely that: To diversify trade markets, to build our country up with Canadian steel, Canadian aluminum, Canadian ingenuity, Canadian know-how and Canadian union men and women building our country together. The Conservatives' proposals were tested. They had the ultimate test, a general election, which did not go so well. Canadians voted for the Prime Minister's plan to build Canada strong. That is what we are going to keep doing.
Seeback repeats that no nation-building project has been approved and no shovel has gone in the ground despite Bill C-5, and asks the Liberals to adopt the Canadian sovereignty act to tear down barriers to building projects.
Seeback reiterates the specific claim that no nation-building project has been approved and no shovel has gone in the ground, and asks again for the Liberals to adopt the Canadian sovereignty act, but is largely a restatement of Exchange 25.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals promised in the election was that they were going to fast-track nation-building projects, and that is one of the reasons Canadians voted for them. Unfortunately, they have not actually fast-tracked anything. Not a single new nation-building project has been approved. Not a single shovel has gone in the ground for any of those projects. We need a new approach. That's why a Canadian sovereignty act needs to be implemented. It would tear down the barriers to building these projects. It would create new economic opportunity and thousands of good-paying jobs. The Liberals have stolen almost every single one of our policies. Why do they not steal this one for the benefit of Canadians?
MacKinnon names specific projects underway in Ontario (nuclear sector, Crawford nickel mine, high-speed rail) and British Columbia (LNG, northwest corridor, Ksi Lisims) as evidence the government is building.
MacKinnon names specific projects (Crawford nickel mine, nuclear sector, high-speed rail Quebec City to Toronto, LNG, northwest corridor, Ksi Lisims) which partially engages the 'nothing built' claim, but does not address whether any of these were newly approved under Bill C-5.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have nation-building projects going on right across this country. I would refer the member to his own province of Ontario, where we are in major developments in the nuclear sector and will be developing the Crawford nickel mine, and where we are going to build North America's very first high-speed rail network, from Quebec City to Toronto. We are going to build in British Columbia, whether it is LNG, the northwest corridor or Ksi Lisims. We are building this country. We are building it big. We are building it strong.
Calkins accuses the Prime Minister of breaking his promise to build Canada strong after eight months with no new approved projects, flags the closure of agriculture research stations including the 120-year-old Lacombe station, and asks Liberals to vote for the Canadian sovereignty act.
Calkins adds a new element about closing agriculture research stations including the 120-year-old Lacombe station and firing scientists, but the ask bundles this with a vote on the Canadian sovereignty act and contains a rhetorical 'new world order agenda' reference.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has broken his promise to Canadians. He said he would build Canada strong, but in eight months he has not approved a single new project. Instead, he is closing down agriculture research stations and firing scientists, including at the 120-year-old station in Lacombe. Conservatives introduced a motion this week to pass a Canadian sovereignty act. Will the Liberals vote for our legislation to repeal Liberal laws that block development, to reward investment in Canada and to protect Canadian innovation, or will they continue selling Canada out with their new world order agenda?
Zerucelli says Conservative ideas were tested and lost in the election, then pivots to broad claims about building the largest infrastructure investment in Canadian history using Canadian steel, lumber, skilled trades and student workers.
Zerucelli does not address the agriculture research station closures or the Lacombe station at all, instead noting election results and broad infrastructure investment talking points.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' ideas were tested in the election, and guess what, they lost. We are focused on something that is very clear and something Canadians want. They want us to build this country. They want us to grow the economy, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are going to build the largest infrastructure investment in Canadian history, with major projects across this country, building affordable homes for Canadians using Canadian steel, Canadian lumber, Canadian skilled trades and Canadian student workers. We are diversifying our trade, expanding to new markets and investing in innovation. We are going to create theâ
Calkins argues that closing agricultural research centres undermines Canadian farm innovation at a time of rising food prices and asks when the Liberals will understand that growing and exporting more raises incomes and makes life more affordable.
Calkins raises the closure of agricultural research centres as a concrete issue linked to food prices, but frames it with rhetorical 'jet-setting' and 'new world order' language that weakens the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Liberals never let solutions get in the way of their ideology. While the jet-setting Prime Minister travels the world to glad-hand and talk about his new world order, food prices are up and families are struggling to put food on the table. In the meantime, the government is closing the very agricultural research centres that allow Canadian farms and agribusinesses to be so innovative. When will the Liberals finally understand that when we learn more, grow more, build more and export more, incomes go up and life becomes more affordable for Canadians?
MacDonald defends the restructuring as streamlining research through collaboration with academia and the private sector, prioritizing high-impact areas, reducing duplication, and aligning projects with the needs of farmers and ranchers.
MacDonald acknowledges the closures and frames them as a mandate-driven streamlining effort (collaboration with academia and private sector, reducing duplication, aligning with farmer needs) but does not provide specifics on which stations close or how farmer innovation will be maintained.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know this is going to be a difficult time for some, but this was the mandate that Canadians elected us for: streamlining research, collaboration with academia and the private sector, prioritizing high-impact areas, reducing duplication and aligning projects with the needs of farmers and ranchers across this country. We are going to work with stakeholders and move this industry and sector forward that has been neglected for over 20 years.
Reynolds credits the Liberals with passing Bill C-5 with Conservative support to fast-track projects, but says nothing has been built, and asks the government to pass a Canadian sovereignty act to repeal regulations blocking development and reward provinces that build.
Reynolds acknowledges bipartisan work on Bill C-5 and makes the specific claim that nothing has been built, then asks for the Canadian sovereignty act, but this is the fourth iteration of essentially the same question in this QP.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect us to work together to improve their lives. In that spirit, we worked with the Liberals to pass Bill C-5, giving the Prime Minister sweeping powers to get projects built faster. Despite the press releases and photo ops, nothing has been built. When we build, Canadians get jobs, our economy grows and life becomes more affordable. We have put forward a bill that would repeal regulations that block development, reward provinces that build, and protect Canadian innovation. Will the government work with us and pass a Canadian sovereignty act?
Long calls the Canadian sovereignty act the Conservatives' platform rather than the government's, then pivots to the groceries and essentials benefit announced Monday that would put $1,900 in the pockets of working families.
Long dismisses the Canadian sovereignty act as 'the Conservatives' platform,' pivots to the groceries and essentials benefit announced Monday, and offers no engagement with the claim that Bill C-5 has produced no new approved projects.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is the Conservatives' platform, not ours. On this side of the House, we are focused on building one strong Canadian economy. On Monday, our Prime Minister announced a groceries and essentials benefit that would put $1,900 in the pockets of working families. On this side of the House, we are going to continue to build Canada strong. We are going to continue to focus on our economy. The Conservatives are focused on obstruction.
Rowe argues that building and exporting more strengthens the economy and the dollar, states that despite voting for Bill C-5 no new project has been approved, and asks when the government will pass a Canadian sovereignty act for an independent economy.
Rowe reiterates the 'no new project approved' claim and frames it in terms of economic sovereignty and Canadian pride, but this is essentially the fifth iteration of the sovereignty act question, offering diminishing new specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when Canada builds more and exports more, incomes rise, our dollar gets stronger and life becomes more affordable. One of the first things I voted for was to give the Liberals extensive powers to improve projects at speeds never seen before, but despite all the Liberal slogans, they have not removed any barriers. Not a single new project has been approved. When will the Liberal government work with Conservatives to build a country that all of us can be proud of and approve a Canadian sovereignty act to have an independent economy?
Thompson accuses the member of using canned notes and says the government is building the country and investing in provinces and rural communities, without addressing the sovereignty act or the no-new-project claim.
Thompson dismisses the question as 'canned notes' and makes vague claims about building the country and investing in rural communities without addressing any specific element of the Canadian sovereignty act or the claim that no new project has been approved.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here we go again with another round of canned notes that do not address what the government is actually doing. It is another example of obstruction. I have heard from the member's constituents. They support what the government is doing: building this country, investing in provinces and investing in rural communities, such as those the member represents. Let us stop the nonsense. Let us get to work. Canadians expect it, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians expect it.
McKenzie notes Conservatives supported Bill C-5 but the Major Projects Office has not approved any new projects, and asks whether the government will support a Canadian sovereignty act to unleash development.
The question references Bill C-5 and the Major Projects Office's lack of approvals, giving some factual grounding, but the ask â will the government support a Canadian sovereignty act â is broad and rhetorically framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives voted for Bill C-5, but the Prime Minister's Major Projects Office has not approved any new projects. What is worse is that the Liberal mountain of antidevelopment laws is still in place. When we build more and give Canadians jobs and opportunities, incomes and prosperity go up. I ask the Prime Minister, will his Liberal government support a Canadian sovereignty act to unleash development, protect Canadian innovation and reward Canadians for building our country?
Hogan dismisses the motion as recycled ideas, references an MOU with Alberta, and invites the opposition to get on board without addressing the Major Projects Office or the sovereignty act.
The response dismisses the motion with mockery and vague references to an MOU with Alberta without addressing the Major Projects Office inaction or the sovereignty act specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what can we say about the motion? It includes a few things we are already doing and a few things Canadians rejected. It feels like the Leader of the Opposition found it in a jacket he has not worn in a while. It is time of new ideas. We have some like the MOU with Alberta. It is an exciting time to be an Albertan. We are getting things built, and we invite the members opposite to get on board.
Malette asks whether the government will work with Conservatives to cut regulations and repeal barriers to unlock economic potential in northern Ontario through a Canadian sovereignty act.
The question identifies northern Ontario sectors (mining, sawmills, pulp mills, agriculture, manufacturing) but the ask â will the government cut regulations â is vague and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, northern Ontarians keep asking me when we will finally unlock our economic potential. I reply that it will be when the government finally decides to cut regulations. A Canadian sovereignty act is a chance to do exactly that and repeal needless barriers. In northern Ontario, economic sovereignty leads to affordability. When we grow our industries, such as mining, sawmills, pulp mills, agriculture and manufacturing, incomes rise and unaffordability dies. Will the government work with us to deliver results for Canadians?
Hajdu cites support for Kap Paper, FedNor capacity, the lumber industry and critical mining as evidence that the federal government is a strong partner for northern Ontario.
Hajdu engages the topic of northern Ontario by citing specific work with Kap Paper, FedNor, the lumber industry and mining, but does not address deregulation or the Canadian sovereignty act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member of Parliament for their advocacy for northern Ontario, a topic I am always happy to get up to talk about. As the member knows, we have been there for northern Ontario in many difficult and challenging ways. Most recently I have been working with Kap Paper to support the mill as it reorients its product to a product that will be sellable across the world. We will be there for northern Ontario, whether it is through the capacity of FedNor, direct supports to the lumber industry or supports for critical mining. Northern Ontario knows it has a strong partner in the federal government.
Martel states that despite supporting Bill C-5, nothing has changed â no barriers removed, bureaucracy persists, permitting still too slow â and asks whether the government will vote for the Canadian sovereignty act motion.
Martel identifies concrete problems (no obstacles removed, continued bureaucracy, slow permitting) and poses a clear binary question about the sovereignty act motion, but framing remains partisan.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les libĂ©raux nous ont dit vouloir accĂ©lĂ©rer la rĂ©alisation des grands projets. C'est pourquoi d'ailleurs nous avons votĂ© pour le projet de loi Câ5. Aujourd'hui, nous nous apercevons qu'il n'y a absolument rien qui a changĂ©. Aucun obstacle n'a Ă©tĂ© enlevĂ©; la bureaucratie continue d'ĂȘtre une lourdeur; l'octroi des permis prend toujours trop de temps. C'est pourquoi les conservateurs ont proposĂ© la loi sur la souverainetĂ© canadienne afin d'exporter et de construire davantage. Est-ce que le gouvernement va voter en faveur de notre motion ou continuera-t-il de freiner l'Ă©conomie?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals told us that they wanted to fast-track major projects. That is why we voted in favour of Bill C-5. Today, we see that absolutely nothing has changed. No barriers have been removed. Red tape continues to slow things down, and permits are still not being issued in a timely manner. That is why the Conservatives are proposing the Canadian sovereignty act so that we can export more and build more. Will the government vote in favour of our motion or will it continue to hold back the economy?
MacKinnon cites the election result as validation of the government's approach and mentions the port of Saguenay and port at ContrecĆur as examples of getting things built.
MacKinnon deflects to the election result as a mandate and mentions the port of Saguenay and port at ContrecĆur without addressing the specific claims about bureaucracy, permitting delays or the sovereignty act vote.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous avons mis nos idĂ©es Ă l'Ă©preuve l'annĂ©e derniĂšre, lors de l'Ă©lection gĂ©nĂ©rale, oĂč le plan du premier ministre pour bĂątir un Canada fort a Ă©tĂ© retenu. L'approche que le dĂ©putĂ© revendique n'a pas Ă©tĂ© retenue. C'est donc une nouvelle sur ce plan. Je rĂ©itĂšre Ă mon honorable collĂšgue que le port de Saguenay est un projet que nous venons d'annoncer, sans parler du port Ă ContrecĆur, un mĂ©gaprojet de logistique et de chaĂźnes d'approvisionnement au QuĂ©bec.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we put our ideas to the test last year during the election, and the Prime Minister's plan to build Canada strong won the day, while the member's approach was rejected. I guess that is news to them. I want to reiterate to my colleague that we just announced a project at the port of Saguenay, not to mention the port at Contrecoeur, a logistics and supply chain megaproject in Quebec.
Lavoie asks the Secretary of State to explain why the Ottawa-Quebec partnership is essential to the success of the Programme d'indemnisation pour les armes Ă feu de style arme d'assaut.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the Secretary of State to explain the Ottawa-Quebec partnership on the Programme d'indemnisation pour les armes Ă feu de style arme d'assaut â no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le 17 janvier dernier fut un moment historique pour le Canada. Le gouvernement canadien a annoncĂ© le lancement du Programme d'indemnisation pour les armes Ă feu de style arme d'assaut aux cĂŽtĂ©s du gouvernement du QuĂ©bec, Ă MontrĂ©al. Le QuĂ©bec occupe une place particuliĂšre dans le paysage canadien en matiĂšre de sĂ©curitĂ© publique, notamment en raison de son histoire, de sa sensibilitĂ© collective et de ses cadres lĂ©gislatifs propres. La secrĂ©taire d'Ătat Ă la Nature peut-elle expliquer en quoi le partenariat entre Ottawa et QuĂ©bec est essentiel Ă la rĂ©ussite de ce programme et Ă l'atteinte de nos objectifs communs en matiĂšre de sĂ©curitĂ©?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, January 17 was a historic day for Canada. The Canadian government, together with the Quebec government, announced the launch of the assault-style firearms compensation program in Montreal. Quebec occupies a special place in the Canadian landscape when it comes to public safety, particularly because of its history, its collective awareness and its unique legislative frameworks. Can the Secretary of State for Nature explain how the partnership between Ottawa and Quebec City is essential to the success of this program and to achieving our common security objectives?
Provost explains that Quebec contributes the Sûreté du Québec to the program and notes that hunters and firearms owners across Canada are already registering in large numbers.
Provost identifies the concrete contribution of the Sûreté du Québec to the program and notes that hunters and firearms owners are registering in large numbers, providing some real informational content.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie mon collĂšgue de sa question, qui porte sur un enjeu important dans le cĆur des QuĂ©bĂ©cois, mais aussi dans le cĆur de tous les Canadiens. Rappelons-le: les Canadiens souhaitent que ce programme fonctionne bien et que nous sortions les armes Ă feu de style arme d'assaut de nos rues. Le partenariat avec le QuĂ©bec, qu'est-ce que ça fait? Ăa fait que le QuĂ©bec met au service de ce programme la SĂ»retĂ© du QuĂ©bec. Je voudrais remercier les chasseurs et les propriĂ©taires d'armes de tout le Canada qui dĂ©jĂ s'inscrivent en grand nombre pour retirer ces armes de nos rues.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which address an issue that is important to Quebeckers and to all Canadians. Let us not forget that Canadians want this program to work well and they want to get assault-style weapons off our streets. What does it mean to partner with Quebec? It means that Quebec is making the Sûreté du Québec available to participate in this program. I would like to thank the hunters and gun owners across Canada who are already registering in large numbers to get these guns off our streets.
Jansen cites a shots-fired incident on her street and Surrey mayor Brenda Locke's call for a state of emergency, asking the government to restore mandatory minimums and repeal catch-and-release laws.
Jansen cites a personal incident and Surrey mayor Brenda Locke's request for a state of emergency to ground the question, but the ask â restore mandatory minimums and repeal catch-and-release laws â is a compound partisan demand.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to talk about the gap between rhetoric and reality. Well, last week reality came in the form of two police cars in my driveway investigating a report of shots fired on my street. My neighbours are wondering if we are now in the line of fire of some extortionists. Surrey's mayor, Brenda Locke, is asking the government to declare a state of emergency. Conservatives are asking, will the government stop with the rhetoric, restore mandatory minimums and repeal the catch-and-release laws so criminals will feel the consequences?
Sahota argues Conservatives are obstructing lawful access measures that would let police connect phone numbers and IP addresses to criminals, and asks whose side they are on.
Sahota pivots entirely to lawful access measures and IP-address tracing rather than addressing mandatory minimums, catch-and-release laws, or the mayor's state-of-emergency request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives need to decide whether they are going to help us stop extortions or whether they are going to obstruct us giving law enforcement the tools they need to prevent these crimes from happening. Right now it takes about six months for police agencies to connect a phone number to an IP address or to a person, to a criminal, but these Conservatives are against supporting our lawful access measures, which would give law enforcement these exact tools. Which side are they on? I hope they will vote with us when we put this bill before Parliament.
Guglielmin cites a York Regional Police arrest for seven-year extortion, outlines the bail reform legislative timeline, and asks the government to restore mandatory minimums and repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.
Guglielmin cites a specific York Regional Police arrest, provides a detailed legislative timeline (bill tabled October 23, sent to committee November 18) and names specific laws â Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 â making this reasonably grounded, though still partisan in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the York Regional Police recently arrested a man accused of extorting a Vaughan resident for seven years through threats and violence. Extortion is not a talking point; it is impacting real Canadians. Now Liberals are spreading falsehoods. Let us look at bail reform. The Liberals tabled bail changes on October 23. We agreed to send the bill to committee on November 18, and until yesterday, they sidelined public safety to attack freedom of expression. Will the Liberal government stop its obstruction, work with Conservatives to restore mandatory minimums for extortion and repeal catch-and-release laws Bill C-5 and Bill C-75?
Sahota again focuses on lawful access measures for connecting IP addresses and phone numbers to criminals, asserting Conservatives are obstructing those measures.
Sahota repeats the same IP-address/lawful access answer without engaging the legislative timeline, the specific arrest, mandatory minimums, Bill C-5 or Bill C-75.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about catching these criminals. In order to catch these criminals, the police need the tools to do so. They need to be able to connect IP addresses and phone numbers to the criminals, which the Conservatives are obstructing and stopping from passing in the House. We brought lawful access measures to Parliament in June, yet the Conservatives have been obstructing those measures all along. Whose side are they on? Will they help our law enforcement and police officers with catching these criminals?
Lawton cites the Federal Court of Appeal's affirmation that the government violated the Constitution and Charter by using the Emergencies Act and freezing bank accounts, asking whether the government will accept the ruling and not appeal to the Supreme Court.
Lawton cites a specific Federal Court of Appeal ruling, identifies specific constitutional violations (Emergencies Act, charter rights, bank account freezing, right to protest) and poses a clear, answerable yes/no question about whether the government will accept the ruling and not appeal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court of Appeal has once again affirmed that the Liberal government broke the most supreme law in this country, which is the Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when it wrongly used the Emergencies Act. It also ruled that the government violated the charter rights of Canadians by freezing the bank accounts of political protesters and limiting the legal right to protest. If this truly is a new government, will it say to Canadians right now that it will accept this ruling, uphold the civil liberties of Canadians and not appeal to the Supreme Court?
MacKinnon laments the member's endorsement of the 'occupation' of downtown Ottawa and praises the co-operative law enforcement model that ended it, without addressing the court ruling or the appeal question.
MacKinnon ignores the Federal Court of Appeal ruling, the charter findings, and the appeal question entirely, instead attacking the member for endorsing the 'occupation' and praising co-operative law enforcement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as a proud resident of the national capital region, I can only lament this member's repeated, and he has been consistent on this, endorsement of the occupation of this downtown and of the disturbance and unbelievable annoyance this created for residents of downtown Ottawa. The fact is that it was an unlawful demonstration that was ultimately ended by the good graces and very Canadian model of co-operative law enforcement.
Harrison asks the Minister of Agriculture to explain what Monday's announcement means for producers and food security in Canada.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the Minister of Agriculture to explain Monday's announcement â no accountability dimension whatsoever.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Prime Minister announced new measures to put money back in the pockets of Canadians, including the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which I know will mean a great deal to my constituents in Peterborough and Canadians across the country. The announcement also included new measures to improve our domestic production and enhance food security in Canada. As a farmer, I cannot stress enough just how important this is. Now more than ever, Canadians want food made and produced right here in Canada. Can the Minister of Agriculture please explain what Mondayâs announcement will mean for our producers and for food security in Canada?
MacDonald announces immediate expensing for greenhouse buildings available before 2030, a national food security strategy, $20 million into a local food infrastructure fund, and improved affordability for more than 12 million Canadians.
MacDonald provides specific measures: immediate expensing for greenhouse buildings available before 2030, a national food security strategy, $20 million into a local food infrastructure fund, and impact on more than 12 million Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague gets it as a farmer. Canadians want access to Canadian-grown food, and our world-class farmers, producers and ranchers are ready to deliver. On Monday, our new government announced immediate expensing for greenhouse buildings. This will allow producers to fully write off greenhouses that become available for use before 2030. We are developing a national food security strategy, investing $20 million into a local food infrastructure fund and much more. Simply put, we are improving affordability for more than 12 million Canadians, and building a more domestic, resilient food system here at home. I hope the Conservatives can agree.
Kibble names the Crofton, Atli and Chemainus mills, notes hundreds of jobs lost, and asks when the Prime Minister will deliver on his promised softwood lumber trade deal.
Kibble names specific mills (Crofton, Atli, Chemainus), specifies the Chemainus curtailment timeline (end of 2026), identifies hundreds of jobs lost, and asks a clear question about the promised softwood lumber trade deal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, forestry families on Vancouver Island are struggling. The Crofton mill closed. The Atli mill closed. The Chemainus mill was curtailed until the end of 2026. Hundreds and hundreds of jobs have been lost, but more importantly, already struggling families are now facing dire consequences. The government's handouts and subsidies are not helping those affected and will not save this critical and renewable resource industry. When will the Prime Minister deliver on his promised softwood lumber trade deal?
Oh, oh!
Guay acknowledges mill closures are difficult, cites federal financial support and a forestry sector transformation task force, and urges provincial partnership, without mentioning the softwood lumber trade deal.
Guay acknowledges the difficulty of mill closures and mentions financial support and a forestry sector transformation task force, but does not address the softwood lumber trade deal at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the closure of a mill is difficult news, whether it is on Vancouver Island or anywhere across the country. It is difficult news for workers, their families and the community. The federal government has come forward with support for the sector. We urge the provincial governments to work with us as partners to protect these jobsâ
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult news, the closure of any mill, whether it is on Vancouver Island or anywhere in the country. We have come forward with a lot of support from a financial perspective. We work with the provincial governments as partners to protect these. The Conservatives may have missed the news that we announced a forestry sector transformation task force for the industry. It has already met and is formulating recommendations for the government for the future. We will continue to examine every option available. I urge the members to work with us on thoseâ
May asks how the government can justify cuts that, according to the Public Service Alliance of Canada, threaten public health and safety, specifically the layoff of workers involved in marine emergency responses to oil spills.
May cites a specific Public Service Alliance of Canada report and identifies a concrete case â workers involved in marine emergency responses to oil spills being laid off â though the question is somewhat compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with massive cuts being made to our civil service, how can the government justify threats to public health and safety as outlined today by the Public Service Alliance of Canada? Specifically in my community, we are very concerned because across a number of departments, believe it or not, workers involved in marine emergency responses to oil spills have all been laid off. How does the government justify this?
Ali describes a responsible approach to public service renewal through voluntary measures and announces a reduction of up to 1,000 executive positions over two years, without addressing marine emergency response workers.
Ali responds with generic language about efficiency, sustainability, voluntary workforce renewal measures and a reduction of up to 1,000 executive positions, without addressing marine emergency response or oil spill workers at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government is taking a responsible approach to renewing the public service focused on efficiency, sustainability and respect for those who serve Canadians. New incentives are being introduced to support workforce renewals and to manage adjustments, primarily through voluntary measures. Budget 2025 also proposes a measured reduction in up to 1,000 executive positions over the next two years to ensure leadership structures remain aligned with operational needs.
Members acknowledged the presence of guests in the gallery.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Caputo moves that Bill C-225 be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and referred to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
This is a unanimous consent motion to transfer Bill C-225 between committees, not a question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding the order made Wednesday, December 3, 2025, Bill C-225, an act to amend the Criminal Code, be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and referred to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
No summary.
There is no ministerial answer to score.