Senator Housakos: The Leader of the Government in the Senate will only say that inflation is a global phenomenon. As was the case last week, you are leading us to believe that the Trudeau government does not take seriously the accessibility crisis in our country and its effect on the lives of Canadians. However, the reality is that Canada’s inflation rate is the second highest in the G7. Across the country, the cost of food, housing, home heating and transportation has skyrocketed. What will the Trudeau government do to help all Canadians deal with the cost of living crisis? Will you cut your reckless spending, or will you continue to sit back and do nothing, under the pretext that inflation is a global problem?

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Everyday life has become more unaffordable for Canadians under this Trudeau government, much as it did under the previous Trudeau government. Statistics Canada says that the inflation rate is now at its highest point in 18 years, yet we have a government that barely mentioned inflation in the Speech from the Throne and a finance minister who, not that long ago, believed that deflation is the greatest risk facing our economy.

Leader, your government’s answer, when asked about the rising cost of living, is to point to creating childcare spaces and building new housing — and that will be five years from now. How does that answer help a senior living on a fixed income struggling to buy groceries or medication? How does that help middle-class and poor Canadians when dealing with their day-to-day expenses? How does that help middle-class families with school-aged children trying to get by? Government leader, can you tell us what your government is going to do about this issue?

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, before the fall of Kabul on August 15 — ironically on the same day that a federal election was called in Canada — a letter from women civil society leaders, such as Senators Mobina Jaffer, Rosa Galvez, Julie Miville-Dechêne, Donna Dasko, Paula Simons and me, went to Prime Minister Trudeau, to key cabinet ministers and to key ambassadors, urging Canada to take a strong international lead by applying our feminist foreign policy skills and resources to helping the people of Afghanistan, in particular to recognize that women leaders were at extremely high risk.

This week, every member of the Canadian women’s soccer gold medal team signed another letter to the Prime Minister, with many international sports leaders and organizations, calling for leadership and follow-through on evacuation and resettlement promises that Canada has made since mid-August, noting that Canada has helped fewer women athletes at extreme risk than Australia, Portugal, Switzerland and the U.K., for example.

Senator Gold, Afghanistan’s women athletes are targeted by the Taliban. “Athlete” is listed on their passports. I ask you “when?” Even though donations have poured in and there are planes waiting, why, after months now, are so many of these athletes still without their visas to Canada? When will Canada start issuing visas more efficiently to save those lives?

Senator Batters: Senator Harder, the Trudeau government has introduced this new Bill S-2 as an identical bill to Bill S-4. The government did have several months to re-evaluate its legislation and make any needed changes. I note that terms undefined in the Parliament of Canada Act and in 150 years of history, like “liaison” and “facilitator” — positions that will, under this very bill, receive taxpayer funded remuneration — are still undefined in this new Bill S-2. Why hasn’t the Trudeau government used some sober second thought and provided a definition for these still new terms in the Parliament of Canada amendment act?

Senator Harder: That was the same question you asked, as I recall, when I gave my speech on Bill S-4. The Government of Canada, in drafting the bill, made the decision, not the omission, to leave the definition of those officers to the Senate itself and its practices. Remember, it’s permissive. It doesn’t obviate the future possibility of a return to old nomenclature. It simply adds to the nomenclature available for this chamber.