‘That is untrue!’ Well, yes and no, Justin
The facts on key debate attacks show he’s right about home tax, but wrong on Indigenous kids
On Thursday night, Canada’s federal leaders faced off in the first and last English debate, fighting it out on issues like climate change, Indigenous reconciliation and economic recovery.
There were standout moments — tomatoes were mentioned a few times, as was Jody Wilson-Raybould, and Green Leader Annamie Paul invited Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet “to get educated about systemic discrimination” — but the quick-moving, scattered debate format meant the leaders made very few specific claims I could fact check. Instead, they spent most of their time expressing opinions, appealing to Canadians’ emotions and, well, arguing.
On a couple of occasions, however, the party leaders confronted Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau over something he insisted wasn’t true. And these are claims I can fact check.
The first, from NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, was on the question of compensation for First Nations children, and the second, from Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole on a proposed housing tax.
Here’s what we know about the disagreements, and who’s telling the truth.
Is Trudeau “taking Indigenous kids to court?”
The short answer: The long answer:
Yes.
While responding to a question on Indigenous reconciliation, Singh said: “How do you restore trust when you’ve got a prime minister that takes a knee one day and then takes Indigenous kids to court the next?”
Singh repeated the claim a few minutes later in a discussion about violence against Indigenous women and girls, to which Trudeau responded: “Mr. Singh, you love that line. It is actually not true. We have committed to compensating those kids who went through that.”
The fact is, the government is currently fighting a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision requiring Ottawa to pay First Nations children taken from their on-reserve homes and communities.
The First Nations Child and Family Caring Society and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) filed a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act in 2007, alleging the government was systemically underfunding health services for Indigenous children, causing a disproportionate number of kids to be put in foster care.
They also claimed the government was defying Jordan’s Principle, a rule that prioritizes getting First Nations children the help they need above jurisdictional disputes over who is responsible for providing it.
The AFN and Caring Society said these failures amounted to discrimination based on “race and national ethnic origin.” In 2016, the tribunal ruled in their favour, ordering the government to stop the discrimination. In 2019, the tribunal awarded $40,000 to each child who was taken from their home, as well as their families.
In 2020, the government filed an application asking a federal judge to review the decision to ensure that it’s lawful. That case is ongoing.
The government is challenging two aspects of the tribunal’s ruling:
The decision to compensate each child $40,000, which the government says is an overreach of the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The decision to expand Jordan’s Principle to children living off-reserve, which the government says is outside the scope of the original rule.
The government’s arguments were heard in June, and now we’re waiting for a decision. The Liberals have said they agree First Nations children deserve to be paid, but that the tribunal’s “one-sizefits-all” award of $40,000 is inappropriate and “hinders fair compensation.”
Given all of this, was it a fair description of events for Singh to say Trudeau is “taking Indigenous kids to court?” Considering that the government is, in fact, seeking judicial review in federal court over compensation awarded to Indigenous children, yes.
Cindy Blackstock, executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, said she was “stunned” to hear Trudeau say it’s not true in Thursday’s debate.
“I couldn’t believe that (the Liberals) were continuing to say this when all someone had to do was go on the federal court website and prove that they’re wrong,” Blackstock said.
Are the Liberals proposing a tax on primary home sales?
The short answer: No.
The long answer: In the third quarter of the debate, during a discussion on housing and affordability, O’Toole said, “Mr. Trudeau, Canadians are worried you’re going to be taxing their primary home sales. Your advisers have said it, and your candidates said it, and it’s on Page 14 of his policy book. He’s introducing a new tax on the sale of homes.”
Trudeau interrupted his claim, repeating “that is untrue.”
O’Toole’s campaign clarified that he was referring to the Liberals’ proposed anti-flipping tax, which requires Canadians to pay a tax on profits from residential properties that are sold within 12 months.
It’s misleading for the Conservatives to characterize that as a tax on “primary home sales,” said John Pasalis, president of Realosophy Realty. “They’re making it sound like the Liberals have a grand plan to tax home equity, which the Liberals have been clear that they don’t plan to do.”
The tax, which is meant to temper rising house prices, has exemptions for Canadians who might sell their houses abruptly because of life changes, such as pregnancy, death, new jobs, divorce or disability.
The housing tax plan is meant to target people who are making a big profit by flipping homes they never intend to live in, Pasalis said. “That’s a small segment of the market. It’s probably not even going to have a material impact on the market.”
So: Although this tax would apply to a primary residence, it only does so in the rare circumstance that a home is bought and sold within a year, and none of the exceptions apply — making O’Toole’s framing false.