Session overview
- Opposition members led by Pierre Poilievre repeatedly attacked the government over budget 2025, citing a $78-billion deficit, an 80% growth in bureaucracy since the Liberals took office, and warnings from Fitch Ratings and the Parliamentary Budget Officer that fiscal anchors had been abandoned.
- Conservatives pressed the government on the Prime Minister's 28 international trips covering enough kilometres to circle the earth four times, arguing that each trip coincided with new or higher tariffs from the U.S., China, India, and the U.K. â not a single tariff reduction was identified by ministers in response.
- The Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois and the government clashed over arts and culture funding in budget 2025, with Minister Steven Guilbeault correcting Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet's figure of $500 million to $770 million and listing specific allocations â including $150 million for TĂ©lĂ©film Canada, $38 million for local media, $41 million for the music sector and $26 million for the National Film Board â while repeatedly noting the Bloc voted against each item.
- Public safety dominated several exchanges, with Conservatives citing a 500% rise in extortion in B.C. and a 330% national increase since the Liberals took office; the government responded by accusing Conservatives of blocking lawful access measures in Bill C-2 that police associations have requested.
- The cost of living and food affordability â including baby formula inflation double that of the U.S., record food bank use at 2 million Canadians a month, and grocery prices rising 40% faster than in the United States â were raised repeatedly by Conservatives, met mainly with Liberal references to the Canada child benefit, dental care and school food programs.
- The NDP raised the elimination of the luxury tax on yachts and private jets in budget 2025; Minister MĂ©lanie Joly responded by citing Bombardier's announcement of 600 new jobs in Montreal and Quebec following the change to the tax regime.
Minister Maninder Sidhu provided the most concrete substantive response of the session, identifying specific new trade deals signed with Ecuador and Indonesia, active negotiations with ASEAN, the Philippines and Thailand, a FIPA being wrapped up with the U.A.E., and legislation before the House to expand trade ties with the U.K., representing 750 million potential consumers.
Davies makes a specific factual counter-claim â that the luxury tax raised hundreds of millions of dollars a year and brought in 20 times what it cost to administer â directly challenging the finance minister's stated rationale for eliminating it, and asks a pointed accountability question about what values the budget reflects.
Rather than addressing Melissa Lantsman's specific list of failed trade outcomes on canola, autos, steel and aluminum, MacKinnon responded entirely with an attack on the Leader of the Opposition's polling numbers, providing no information relevant to the question.
Outstanding questions
- Pierre Poilievre (Exchange 5) asked the Prime Minister to admit that the Liberal government was wrong to cancel the northern gateway pipeline approved by the Conservative government in June 2014 â no admission or direct response was given.
- Pierre Poilievre (Exchange 6) asked whether the government will scrap the ban on shipping Canadian energy off the northwest coast of B.C. so that a pipeline to Asia becomes viable â the minister did not address the tanker ban at all.
- Carol Anstey (Exchange 39) asked whether the Liberals will scrap the $742-million gun buyback program given its reported results â including only 22 firearms turned in during the Cape Breton pilot â and the public safety minister's own leaked admission that it will not work; the minister did not respond to the program's record or the leaked audio.
- Corey Tochor (Exchange 32) asked why the Prime Minister is keeping the food packaging tax, which the Conservatives say costs Canadians an additional $5.6 billion a year and has driven up the cost of fresh produce by over 34% â the minister did not address the tax or the figures cited.
- Laila Goodridge (Exchange 28) asked what specific action the government will take to address infant formula inflation being double that of the U.S. and Canada's near-total dependence on imported formula with only one domestic plant â the minister cited innovation funding in the budget but made no specific commitment on formula production or pricing.
Why has the Prime Minister produced the largest non-COVID deficit in Canadian history, $16 billion more than promised, while the bureaucracy has grown 80% and the government's House leader says cuts will be minimal?
The question cites specific figures (80% bureaucracy growth, $16 billion over-promise) and references the Liberal House leader's statement on minimal reductions, but the ask is rhetorical in framing ("why must starving Canadians pay to feed the bureaucracy").
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les Canadiens paient le prix de ce premier ministre avec l'Ă©picerie et le logement, dont les coĂ»ts ont explosĂ©. Le premier ministre rend cela encore pire avec un budget qui a doublĂ© le dĂ©ficit de Justin Trudeau, le plus grand dĂ©ficit dans l'histoire du pays, Ă l'exception de la pĂ©riode pandĂ©mique. C'est 16 milliards de dollars de plus que ce qu'il a promis pendant les Ă©lections. Pourquoi? C'est pour financer une bureaucratie qui a augmentĂ© de 80 % depuis l'arrivĂ©e au pouvoir des libĂ©raux. Maintenant, le leader du gouvernement Ă la Chambre dit que la rĂ©duction de la bureaucratie va ĂȘtre minimale. Pourquoi les Canadiens doivent-ils payer pour nourrir la bureaucratie au lieu de nourrir leur famille?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are paying the price for this Prime Minister through record-high grocery and housing prices, but he wants them to pay even more. He has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit, the biggest deficit in Canadian history outside of the pandemic years. It is $16 billion bigger than he promised during the election campaign. Why? It is to fund a bureaucracy that has grown by 80% since the Liberals took office. Now, the government House leader is saying that there will be only minimal reductions in the bureaucracy. Why must Canadians pay to feed the bureaucracy, rather than feeding their families?
Joly asserted that the budget is reducing government operational spending, accused Poilievre of not reading the budget, and listed investment areas he voted against.
Joly claims the budget reduces operational spending but provides no numbers or specifics, pivots to listing investment areas, and accuses Poilievre of bad faith rather than addressing the deficit or bureaucracy figures cited.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le chef de l'opposition n'a pas lu le budget. S'il l'avait lu, il aurait peut-ĂȘtre vu ce qui se passe prĂ©sentement: nous sommes en train de faire diminuer les dĂ©penses liĂ©es aux opĂ©rations du gouvernement. S'il ne l'a pas vu, c'est peut-ĂȘtre la raison pour laquelle il a votĂ© contre. Peut-ĂȘtre aussi est-il simplement de mauvaise foi. Il est contre les emplois qu'on essaie de crĂ©er partout au pays, contre le fait qu'on investisse en dĂ©fense, contre le fait qu'on investisse davantage en santĂ©, contre le fait qu'on investisse partout au pays dans des projets miniers, des projets d'Ă©lectricitĂ©, des projets Ă©nergĂ©tiques. Bref, il est contre la croissance.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has not read the budget. If he had, perhaps he would have seen what is happening right now. We are reducing the government's operating expenses. If he did not see that, perhaps that is why he voted against the budget, or perhaps he is just acting in bad faith. He is against the jobs that we are trying to create across the country, against investments in defence, against investments in health care, and against investments in mining, electricity and energy projects across the country. Basically, he is against growth.
After more than 20 international trips covering 150,000 km, can the minister name even one tariff the Prime Minister has succeeded in reducing, given that US, Indian, and Chinese tariffs have all increased?
The question cites 20 international trips and 150,000 km of travel and names three specific tariff outcomes (US, India on peas, China on farmers/fish), culminating in a clear single ask: name one tariff the Prime Minister has reduced.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre fait encore son kid kodak en faisant un autre voyage. C'est le temps de demander des rĂ©sultats pour ces 20 voyages internationaux, ces 150 000 kilomĂštres, ce qui est assez pour faire le tour du monde entier Ă quatre reprises. Au cours de toutes ces rĂ©unions, qu'est-il arrivĂ©? Les droits de douane amĂ©ricains ont doublĂ©. Les droits de douane de l'Inde sont appliquĂ©s sur nos pois. Les droits de douane chinois s'appliquent aux produits de nos fermiers et de nos pĂȘcheurs. Ce serait mieux pour notre Ă©conomie si le premier ministre se cachait sous une roche au lieu d'assister Ă une autre rĂ©union. Est-ce que la ministre peut nommer un seul droit de douane que le premier ministre a rĂ©duit?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is beginning another photo op tour. It is time to start asking for the results of his more than 20 international trips, covering 150,000 kilometres, enough to circle the globe four times. What happened during all those meetings? U.S. tariffs have doubled. India has imposed tariffs on our peas. China has imposed tariffs on the products of our farmers and fishers. It would be better for our economy if the Prime Minister hid under a rock instead of attending another meeting. Can the minister give us even one example of a tariff that the Prime Minister has succeeded in reducing?
Joly did not name any tariff reduced, instead accusing Poilievre of wanting to keep Canada economically dependent on the US and touting market diversification efforts.
Joly does not name a single tariff reduced, instead mocking Poilievre's caucus management and pivoting to market diversification strategy and the presence of Swedish visitors.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la seule personne qui se cache sous une roche prĂ©sentement, c'est le chef de l'opposition quand il regarde son caucus. Je pense que le chef de l'opposition veut faire en sorte que l'Ă©conomie canadienne demeure dĂ©pendante de celle des ĂtatsâUnis. Je pense que c'est sa stratĂ©gie et il ne le dit peut-ĂȘtre pas aux Canadiens. De notre cĂŽtĂ© de la Chambre, la stratĂ©gie est de faire en sorte de diversifier nos marchĂ©s, de crĂ©er des emplois, notamment en allant aux Ămirats arabes unis, dans les pays du Golfe, en Europe, en Asie. D'ailleurs, les SuĂ©dois sont en ville. C'est une bonne nouvelle, nous faisons de bonnes affaires.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the only person hiding under a rock right now is the Leader of the Opposition when he looks at his caucus. I think the Leader of the Opposition wants to make sure that the Canadian economy remains dependent on the U.S. economy. I think that is his strategy and he is not being up front about it with Canadians. On our side of the House, the strategy is to diversify our markets and create jobs, including by going to the United Arab Emirates, the Gulf countries, Europe and Asia. In fact, the Swedes are in town. That is good news. We are doing good business.
With the biggest non-COVID deficit in Canadian history at $16 billion more than promised, the debt-to-GDP anchor broken, and the Liberal House leader admitting only minimal bureaucracy reductions, why must Canadians pay to feed the bureaucracy rather than their families?
The question cites specific figures (80% bureaucracy cost increase, $16 billion over-promise, broken debt-to-GDP ratio commitment, Liberal House leader's "minimal reductions" statement) and poses a pointed accountability question, though the closing framing is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are paying the price for the Prime Minister through record-high grocery and housing cost inflation, but he wants them to pay even more. He has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. It is the biggest deficit in Canadian history outside of COVID and $16 billion bigger than he promised. He shattered his other promise to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. The bureaucracy is taking the lion's share, which is 80% more costly than when the Liberals took office. The Liberal House leader said just yesterday there will be only minimal reductions in the bureaucracy. Why must starving Canadians pay to feed the bureaucracy, rather than to feed their families?
Hajdu cited Canada's Building Trades Unions' endorsement of the budget and accused Conservatives of voting against Canadians they claim to represent.
Hajdu does not address the deficit figures, bureaucracy costs, or broken fiscal anchors, instead citing a Building Trades Unions endorsement and accusing Conservatives of voting against Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, do members know what helps families? Good-paying jobs do. That is why we have had such a tremendous response to this budget, including from Canadaâs Building Trades Unions, which has said it is grateful to all parliamentarians who supported the federal budget and acted in the best interests of Canadians. I guess that does not include the Conservatives, who voted against the very Canadians they say they stand up for.
After more than 20 international trips totalling 150,000 km, can the Prime Minister give even one example of a tariff his international meetings have succeeded in reducing, given that US, Chinese, Indian, and British trade barriers have all worsened?
The question cites 20+ trips and 150,000 km of travel, names specific tariff setbacks with the US, China, India, and the UK, and asks for a single concrete example of a tariff reduced â a clear, answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is beginning another costly photo op tour. It is time to start asking for the results of the more than 20 international trips and the 150,000 kilometres, which are enough to circle the globe four times. It would be great if he were actually getting something done. When he met with the Americans, they doubled tariffs on our products. He met with the Chinese and they hit us with new tariffs on our farmers and fish harvesters. He met with the Indians and they hit us with new tariffs on Canadian peas. The British are still blocking our beef. Can the Prime Minister give us even one example of a tariff his international meetings have succeeded in reducing?
Sidhu cited new trade deals with Ecuador and Indonesia, advancing negotiations with ASEAN, the Philippines and Thailand, a FIPA with the UAE, and UK trade legislation covering 750 million potential consumers.
Sidhu named new trade deals with Ecuador and Indonesia, advancing negotiations with ASEAN, the Philippines and Thailand, and a FIPA with the UAE, and legislation to expand UK ties, but did not cite a single tariff reduction as specifically asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has been in this House for more than 20 years with not much to show for it. Here is what we have accomplished in the last few months in trade. We have signed new trade deals with Ecuador and Indonesia. We are advancing trade discussions with ASEAN, the Philippines and Thailand, and we are wrapping upâ
Mr. Speaker, we have signed new trade deals with Ecuador and Indonesia. We are advancing trade negotiations with ASEAN, the Philippines and Thailand and are wrapping up a FIPA with the U.A.E. We have legislation before the House to expand our trade ties with the U.K. Together these countries represent 750 million potential consumers. While the Prime Minister is opening doors for workers and businesses, the other side is focused on shutting them.
Will the Prime Minister admit his Liberal government was wrong to cancel the Conservative-approved 2014 pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific, and acknowledge that Canada needs a pipe to the Pacific now?
The question cites specific dates (June 2014 approval, November 29 2016 cancellation, March 27 2021 statement) and asks the Prime Minister to admit the Liberal government was wrong to cancel the pipeline to the Pacific, making it factually grounded though the ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all that adds up to not a single tariff reduced in the Prime Minister's eight months of travelling the globe. Now let us move on to his costly agenda on pipelines. In June 2014, the Conservative government approved a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific. On November 29, 2016, the Liberal government cancelled that pipeline, ordering the energy board to dismiss it. On March 27, 2021, the current Liberal Prime Minister said that he supported cancelling the pipeline. Will the Prime Minister admit he was wrong, that his Liberal government was wrong and that Conservatives were right? We need a pipe to the Pacific now.
Hodgson said the Prime Minister and the premier are having productive discussions on an MOU premised on a pathways decarbonization project, strengthening the industrial carbon price, and first nations support, with an announcement to come when ready.
Hodgson discusses an MOU between Canada and Alberta, a pathways decarbonization project, industrial carbon price, and first nations support, which is tangentially related but does not address the specific question about the cancelled northern gateway pipeline or whether the government was wrong.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the premier have publicly stated that they are having productive discussions on advancing an MOU between Canada and Alberta. They have each stated that those discussions are premised on building a pathways decarbonization project, strengthening the industrial carbon price and receiving support from affected first nations jurisdictions. When the Prime Minister and the premier are ready to make an announcement, they will, to all Canadians.
Will the Prime Minister admit the Liberal government was wrong to cancel the northern gateway pipeline and to ban Canadian energy shipping off B.C.'s northwest coast, and will he scrap the ban so Canadian product can reach Asia?
The question raises a specific second issue â the Liberal ban on shipping Canadian energy off the northwest coast of B.C. â that would render a new pipeline ineffective, and asks whether the government will scrap the ban, making it a pointed and specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are hoping the Prime Minister will announce he was wrong and that the Liberal government was wrong to kill the northern gateway pipeline that had been approved back in 2014. Nine years have since been lost after the Liberal government blocked it. However, it also put in a ban on shipping Canadian energy off the northwest coast of B.C., so if there is a pipeline while the Liberal ban remains in place, it would have to be a pipeline to nowhere. Will the Prime Minister admit the Liberal government was wrong to ban Canadian energy shipping, and will he scrap the ban so we can pipe our product over to Asia?
MacKinnon attacked the Harper government's infrastructure record, credited the current government with building one pipeline, and called on Canadians to vote Liberal for energy security.
MacKinnon does not address the tanker ban or the northern gateway pipeline cancellation, instead attacking the Harper-era record and making a partisan call to vote Liberal, with only a vague reference to the Trans Mountain pipeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in those long, barren Harper years when the member was a minister, the only pipeline that was built was the pipeline full of hot air that led to nothing. Not a single energy-exporting piece of tidewater infrastructure was ever constructed under a Conservative government. We have built one. We just heard the minister talking about a process on another. If someone wants to vote for energy security, vote for energy exports or vote for major projects and opportunity in this country, they should cast a Liberal vote.
Why should Blanchet congratulate the minister for announcing $500 million per year in arts and culture when cancelling the internet multinationals tax cost $1.5 billion that would have been paid by multinationals rather than Canadian taxpayers?
Blanchet cites specific budget figures ($500 million per year in arts and culture) and a specific policy decision (cancellation of the internet multinationals tax that would have yielded $1.5 billion), making a substantive contrast, though the closing ask is rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ministre de lâIdentitĂ© et de la Culture canadiennes a annoncĂ© dans le budget 500 millions de dollars par an en arts et en culture. Toutefois, il aurait pu annoncer 1,5 milliard de dollars sans frais pour les contribuables...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture announced $500 million a year for arts and culture in the budget. However, he could have announced $1.5 billion at no cost to taxpayersâ
Oh oh!
Hansard translation: Oh, oh!
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ministre de lâIdentitĂ© et de la Culture canadiennes a annoncĂ© dans le budget 500 millions de dollars par annĂ©e en arts et en culture.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture announced $500 million a year for arts and culture in the budget.
Bravo!
Hansard translation: Hear, hear!
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pouvez-vous contrĂŽler les bouffons? Or, le ministre aurait pu annoncer 1,5 milliard de dollars, sans frais pour les contribuables, s'il n'avait pas annulĂ© la taxe sur les multinationales d'Internet. Ăa aurait Ă©tĂ© payĂ© par les multinationales, qui ne paient pas d'impĂŽts au Canada. LĂ , ce sont les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et les Canadiens qui paient et qui perdent 500 millions de dollars. Est-ce que je suis censĂ© fĂ©liciter le ministre pour ça?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, could you please get those clowns under control? The minister could have announced $1.5 billion, at no cost to taxpayers, had he not scrapped the tax on multinational Internet companies. It would have been paid for by multinationals, which do not pay taxes in Canada. Now, Quebeckers and Canadians are on the hook for that $500 million. Am I supposed to congratulate the minister for that?
Guilbeault corrected the figure to $770 million, listed specific cultural investments including $38 million for local media, $6 million for the Canada Arts Council, $150 million for Telefilm, and $26 million for the NFB, and noted the Bloc voted against all of them.
Guilbeault corrects the figure to $770 million, provides a breakdown of specific line items (38 million for local media, 6 million for the Canada Arts Council, 150 million for Telefilm, 26 million for the NFB), but does not address the cancelled internet multinationals tax argument.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais corriger le chef du Bloc québécois. Ce n'est pas 500 millions de dollars que nous avons annoncés dans le budget pour les arts et la culture partout au pays, c'est 770 millions de dollars. C'est l'investissement le plus important de l'histoire du pays. Cela inclut 38 millions de dollars pour les médias locaux, ce contre quoi le Bloc québécois a voté. Cela inclut 6 millions de dollars par année pour le Conseil des arts du Canada, et le Bloc québécois a voté contre. Cela inclut 150 millions de dollars pour Téléfilm Canada, et le Bloc québécois a voté contre. Cela inclut aussi 26 millions de dollars pour l'Office national du film du Canada. C'est l'investissement le plus important depuis des décennies pour l'Office national du film du Canada, et le Bloc québécois a voté contre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the leader of the Bloc Québécois. We did not announce $500 million in the budget for arts and culture across the country. We announced $770 million, the largest investment in Canadian history. That includes $38 million for local media, and the Bloc Québécois voted against that. It includes $6 million a year for the Canada Council for the Arts, and the Bloc Québécois voted against that. It includes $150 million for Telefilm Canada, and the Bloc Québécois voted against that. It also includes $26 million for the National Film Board of Canada, the largest investment in decades for that organization, and the Bloc Québécois voted against that.
Does the minister expect to be congratulated for completely abandoning private television and radio by redirecting $1.5 billion away from arts and culture and offering only $150 million to Radio-Canada and the CBC?
Blanchet references the minister's previous answer on $150 million to Radio-Canada/CBC and asks specifically whether the minister expects congratulations for completely abandoning private television and radio, a pointed if rhetorically framed question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ministre a « scrapĂ© » 1,5 milliard de dollars qui auraient pu aller en arts et en culture. Ă la question de ma collĂšgue sur l'absence de financement pour les tĂ©lĂ©s et les radios privĂ©es, le ministre a rĂ©pondu qu'il donne 150 millions Ă RadioâCanada et Ă la CBC. J'ai moi-mĂȘme Ă©tĂ© commentateur Ă RadioâCanada, et j'ai le plus grand respect pour les professionnels qui y travaillent. Toutefois, est-ce que je suis censĂ© le fĂ©liciter pour l'abandon complet des tĂ©lĂ©visions et des radios privĂ©es?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the minister scrapped $1.5 billion that could have gone to arts and culture. In response to my colleague's question about the lack of funding for private television and radio, the minister said that he is giving $150 million to Radio-Canada and the CBC. I was a Radio-Canada commentator myself, and I have the utmost respect for the professionals who work there. However, am I expected to congratulate the minister for completely turning his back on private television and radio?
Guilbeault cited $41 million for the music sector, $38 million for local media, and funding to Québecor in the budget, and accused the Bloc of voting against all of it.
Guilbeault lists specific line items (41 million for music sector, 38 million for local media, funding to Québecor) but does not address private television and radio specifically, instead focusing on the Bloc's vote against these measures.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le chef du Bloc québécois a été président de l'Adisq. Or, dans ce budget-là , il y a 41 millions de dollars pour le secteur de la musique pour les trois prochaines années, et le Bloc québécois a voté contre. Il y a 38 millions de dollars par année pour les médias locaux, et le Bloc québécois a voté contre. Il y a des millions de dollars qui vont à Québecor dans ce budget-là , et le Bloc québécois a voté contre. C'est proprement scandaleux, cette position-là du Bloc québécois.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois was once the president of ADISQ. This budget provides $41 million for the music sector over the next three years, yet the Bloc Québécois voted against it. It provides $38 million a year for local media, and the Bloc Québécois voted against it. Quebecor is receiving millions of dollars under this budget, and the Bloc Québécois voted against it. The Bloc Québécois's position is outrageous.
Given that private television and radio are essential for media diversity, regional services, French language, and independence, is the government intentionally programming the end of private media, and should Quebecers congratulate it for that?
Blanchet raises a substantive concern about media diversity, regional services, French language, and independence, and asks a pointed question about whether the government is intentionally programming the end of private media, but the framing is partly rhetorical and compound.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si le ministre veut jouer Ă ce jeu-lĂ , je peux lui rappeler qu'il a dĂ©jĂ Ă©tĂ© le prĂ©sident d'Ăquiterre. Le ministre ne prend pas la mesure de la crise. L'information se nourrit de diversitĂ©, de services rĂ©gionaux, de langue française et d'indĂ©pendance. Les 150 millions de dollars Ă Radio-Canada ne servent pas cet objectif. Les tĂ©lĂ©visions et les radios privĂ©es sont essentielles. Elles se sentent menacĂ©es, mĂ©prisĂ©es et abandonnĂ©es. Est-ce que le gouvernement programme littĂ©ralement la fin des mĂ©dias privĂ©s? Est-ce intentionnel? Est-ce que les QuĂ©bĂ©cois doivent le fĂ©liciter pour ça?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to play that game, I can remind him that he was once senior director of Equiterre. The minister does not seem to appreciate the scale of the crisis. News thrives on diversity, regional services, the French language and independence. The $150 million for CBC/Radio-Canada does not serve that goal. Private television and radio stations are essential. They are feeling threatened, swept aside and abandoned. Is the government actually planning the end of private media? Is it doing this on purpose? Are Quebeckers supposed to applaud it for that?
Guilbeault pointed to Radio-Canada's strategic plan to open local news stations across Canada including Quebec and reiterated it was the first investment in Radio-Canada/CBC, accusing the Bloc of voting against the largest cultural investment for Quebec.
Guilbeault refers to Radio-Canada's annual report and strategic plan for local news stations, but does not address private television and radio at all or answer whether the government's policies are intentionally ending private media.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'inviterais le chef du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois Ă lire le rapport annuel de RadioâCanada et le plan stratĂ©gique qui vient tout juste d'ĂȘtre prĂ©sentĂ©, oĂč il est Ă©crit noir sur blanc que RadioâCanada/CBC va investir dans l'ouverture de stations locales de nouvelles partout au pays, y compris au QuĂ©bec. C'est 150 millions de dollars et c'est notre premier investissement dans RadioâCanada/CBC. Les bloquistes ont votĂ© contre le plus grand investissement pour la culture au QuĂ©bec. C'est proprement scandaleux, cette position-lĂ du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the leader of the Bloc Québécois to read CBC/Radio-Canada's annual report and the strategic plan that was recently released, which states quite clearly that CBC/Radio-Canada will invest in opening local news stations across the country, including in Quebec. It is $150 million, and it is our first investment in CBC/Radio-Canada. Bloc members voted against the largest investment in culture for Quebec. The Bloc Québécois's position is frankly outrageous.
With a $78 billion deficit that is $16 billion more than promised and a Fitch Ratings warning about high risk of further fiscal deterioration, when will this government manage public finances responsibly?
Deltell cites a specific deficit figure ($78 billion, $16 billion over the election promise), references a Fitch Ratings warning about high risk of further deterioration, and asks when the government will manage finances responsibly, though the ask is somewhat open-ended.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier budget de ce nouveau premier ministre libéral, c'est le budget de la carte de crédit, avec 78 milliards de dollars de déficit, soit 16 milliards de dollars de plus que ce que les libéraux avaient promis en campagne électorale. On n'a pas besoin d'avoir un doctorat de l'Université d'Oxford pour savoir que, quand on fait des déficits, c'est une facture que l'on envoie à nos enfants, à nos petits-enfants et à nos arriÚre-petits-enfants. D'ailleurs, la firme de notation Fitch lance un avertissement: il y a un risque élevé que les finances fédérales se détériorent davantage. Quand ce gouvernement va-t-il réagir de façon positive afin de faire une gestion responsable?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the new Liberal Prime Minister's first budget is a credit card budget, with a $78 billion deficit. That is $16 billion more than the Liberals promised during the election campaign. I do not need a Ph.D. from Oxford University to know that running deficits means fobbing the bill off on our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. In fact, Fitch Ratings has warned that federal finances run a high risk of further deterioration. When will this government respond positively and manage the situation responsibly?
Provost argued the budget restores women's purchasing power through social programs and creates good jobs through economic diversification, without addressing the deficit or Fitch warning.
Provost does not address the deficit figure, the Fitch warning, or fiscal management, instead pivoting to a gendered framing of the budget's social programs and women's purchasing power, with no connection to the specific fiscal concerns raised.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis surprise d'entendre mon collÚgue crier contre ce budget. Ce budget, je vais l'aborder du point de vue d'une femme. Je suis une femme, et j'ai vécu toutes sortes de choses en tant que femme. Chaque fois que, de l'autre cÎté, on nous parle des femmes, on nous parle souvent d'elles comme des victimes: victimes de violence dans leur vie privée ou victimes parce qu'elles ont du mal à payer l'épicerie. Ce budget-là va permettre aux femmes de reprendre leur pouvoir d'achat grùce aux programmes sociaux. Il va donner aux femmes la capacité d'avoir des bonnes jobs par notre diversification économique. En plus, il soutient...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear my colleague criticizing this budget. I want to approach this budget from a woman's perspective. I am a woman, and I have had all kinds of experiences as a woman. Whenever the other side talks about women, they often talk about them as victims: victims of violence in their private lives or victims because they have trouble paying for groceries. This budget will enable women to regain their purchasing power through social programs. It will give women the ability to get good jobs through economic diversification. It also supportsâ
Given that the current parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry said in 2015 that a balanced budget is essential for state credibility and financial stability, why is he not in cabinet advising the Prime Minister to balance the budget?
Deltell uses a specific 2015 quote attributed to the current parliamentary secretary about the importance of balanced budgets, which is clever framing, but the ask â why is he not in cabinet to advise the PM â is rhetorical and unanswerable in a meaningful policy sense.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, qui l'eĂ»t cru? L'actuel premier ministre fait pire que Justin Trudeau avec des dĂ©ficits compulsifs, alors qu'il faut vraiment rĂ©gler cette situation-lĂ . Je vais me permettre de citer quelqu'un qui a dit, le 11 mars 2015, que l'Ă©quilibre budgĂ©taire « est un moyen pour asseoir comme il faut la crĂ©dibilitĂ© de l'Ătat et la stabilitĂ© financiĂšre de l'Ătat ». Sait-on qui a dit ça en 2015? C'est l'actuel secrĂ©taire parlementaire de la ministre de l'Industrie. Lui, il a fait l'Ă©quilibre budgĂ©taire au QuĂ©bec. Comme QuĂ©bĂ©cois, je suis trĂšs heureux de ça, mais comme Canadien, j'ai une prĂ©occupation. Pourquoi n'est-il pas au Conseil des ministres pour conseiller directement le premier ministre qui, lui, devrait faire un Ă©quilibre budgĂ©taire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, who would have believed it? The current Prime Minister is worse than Justin Trudeau when it comes to compulsive deficits. Something really needs to be done about this. Let me quote someone who, on March 11, 2015, said that balancing the budget "is the best way to maintain the credibility and financial stability of the province". Do members know who said that in 2015? It was the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry. He balanced the budget in Quebec. As a Quebecker, I am pleased about that, but as a Canadian, I have concerns. Why is he not a member of cabinet, directly advising the Prime Minister, who should be balancing the budget?
Gainey said Budget 2025 responds to the needs of the moment by investing to build strong families and communities and creating jobs, and called it shameful that the opposition voted against it.
Gainey does not address the balanced budget quote, the deficit, or the parliamentary secretary's past statements, instead offering generic talking points about the budget building families and communities and accusing the opposition of voting against it.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le budget de 2025 répond aux besoins du moment. Nous investissons pour bùtir des familles et des communautés fortes partout au Canada. Les investissements créent des emplois et des carriÚres pour les jeunes et protÚgent les mesures de soutien qui aident les familles et leur permettent d'avancer. Notre budget comporte un plan pour bùtir, protéger et renforcer le Canada. C'est honteux que les députés d'en face aient voté contre celui-ci.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, budget 2025 responds to the needs of the time. We are investing in building strong families and communities across Canada. The investments will create jobs and careers for young people and protect the support measures that help families and enable them to get ahead. Our budget has a plan for building, protecting and strengthening Canada. It is a shame that the members across the way voted against it.
With Fitch Ratings warning that the Liberals repeatedly blow past their own fiscal anchors putting the credit rating at risk, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer also sounding the alarm, how many more warnings will it take for the Prime Minister to rein in out-of-control spending?
The question cites Fitch Ratings and the Parliamentary Budget Officer as external sources sounding alarms, and asks how many more warnings it will take for the PM to rein in spending, but the ask is somewhat open-ended and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's costly credit card budget piles today's reckless spending onto tomorrow's taxpayers. Credit card agency Fitch Ratings says that the Liberals repeatedly blow past their own fiscal anchors, putting our credit rating at risk. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer is sounding the alarm on this financial mess. How many more warnings will it take for the Prime Minister to rein in his out-of-control spending?
Long used a snow globe metaphor to dismiss Conservative advice, appealed to progressive Conservative voters who supported the Liberals, and called for building the strongest economy in the G7.
Long offers a metaphor about a weatherman in a snow globe, makes a partisan appeal, and does not address Fitch Ratings, the PBO, or fiscal spending in any substantive way.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, trusting advice from the Conservative leader on this budget is like trusting a forecast by a weatherman who lives inside a snow globe. On this side of the House, we are standing with Canada. People from Carleton knew it, progressive Conservative leaders knew it and Canadians knew it. It is time for the Conservatives to get real about the budget and support us in building the strongest economy in the G7.
With Canadians putting nearly 50% more of their expenses on credit cards than in 2015 and 2 million monthly food bank visits setting all-time records, when will the Prime Minister stop his out-of-control spending that makes everything unaffordable?
The question cites a specific statistic (Canadians putting nearly 50% more expenses on credit cards than in 2015) and the record of 2 million monthly food bank visits, grounding it in data, though the ask is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Canadians are putting nearly 50% more of their expenses on credit cards than they did in 2015. Monthly food bank visits have smashed all-time records, with 2 million Canadians a month visiting the food bank. Families that once used to donate to the food bank are now standing in line waiting for help. The Liberal government has made everything more expensive. When will the Prime Minister stop his out-of-control spending that makes everything more unaffordable for Canadians?
Long described the coalition of NDP, Green, and progressive Conservative supporters that backed the Liberals, called the budget transformational, and urged the opposition to stand with them to build a strong economy.
Long does not address credit card debt, food bank usage, or affordability, instead describing the coalition that elected the Liberals and pledging to build the strongest economy in the G7.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the last election, NDP supporters, Green supporters and so many progressive Conservatives stood with us to form a new party to form a bold vision for this country. We went from coast to coast to coast. We listened to Canadians. We came forth with a transformational budget that will build our economy into the strongest economy in the G7. It is time for the members opposite to stop the rhetoric, stop the slogans, stand with us and build a strong economy.
With the PBO saying Budget 2025 abandoned the fiscal anchor to reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio and Canadians putting 50% more on credit cards than in 2015, how many more fiscal watchdog reports will it take for the Prime Minister to rein in costly credit card spending?
The question cites the 50% increase in credit card expenses, quotes the PBO's specific language about abandoning the debt-to-GDP fiscal anchor, and mentions the PM's desire to fire the PBO, but the ask is repetitive and rhetorically framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's costly credit card budget loads today's reckless spending onto tomorrow's taxpayers. After 10 years of the tired Liberals, Canadians are putting nearly 50% more of their expenses on their credit cards than in 2015. The parliamentary fiscal watchdog is ringing the alarm bell, saying, âWith Budget 2025 the Government abandoned the previous fiscal anchor to reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio over the medium term.â It is no wonder the costly Prime Minister wants to fire him. How many more fiscal watchdog reports is it going to take for the Prime Minister to rein in his costly credit card spending?
Church cited dental care savings of $800 per year for seniors, the new horizons program, $5 billion for health care infrastructure, and the health heroes tax credit benefiting PSWs, with an endorsement from SEIU Healthcare.
Church pivots to dental care savings of $800 per year, the new horizons program, $5 billion for health care infrastructure, and the health heroes tax credit with a union quote, which are tangentially related spending items but do not address the fiscal anchor or PBO concerns raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the people in my riding, like seniors, who are benefiting from the budget. When I talk to them, I hear about dental care and their saving $800 a year. I hear about our new horizons program for seniors, supporting projects that affect seniors' quality of life. I hear about $5 billion in the budget going to health care and hospital infrastructure. Most importantly, I hear about a health heroes tax credit benefiting PSWs, who are the heart and soul of care in our communities. Do not take my word for it; SEIU Healthcare union president, Tyler Downey, says, âPutting more money directly into the pockets of PSWs will support retention and help strengthen care for Canada's seniors.â
With Fitch Ratings warning that the Liberals frequently blow through fiscal anchors putting federal finances at high risk of further deterioration, and the PBO sounding the alarm, how many more fiscal watchdog reports will it take for the Prime Minister to rein in costly credit card spending?
The question again cites Fitch Ratings language ("federal finances run a high risk of further deterioration") and the PBO, but the ask is repetitive from exchange 14 and broadly rhetorical about reining in spending.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in one costly budget, the high-spending Liberals have managed to max out our great-grandchildren's credit cards. The parliamentary fiscal watchdog is not the only one ringing alarm bells. Fitch Ratings, the agency that gives the government its credit score, says that since the Liberal government frequently blows through its fiscal anchors, âfederal finances run a high risk of further deterioration.â Fitch is concerned. The parliamentary fiscal watchdog is sounding the alarm. How many more fiscal watchdog reports is it going to take for the Prime Minister to rein in his costly credit card spending?
Church described youth-oriented budget measures including AI, the climate corps, Canadian film, higher education, and skilled trades, and cited the YMCA's endorsement of paid skills training in the budget.
Church does not address Fitch Ratings, the PBO, or the fiscal anchor, instead describing youth-oriented budget measures (AI, climate corps, film, education, skilled trades) and citing the YMCA, with no connection to the fiscal concerns raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me keep going. Let me talk about the youth in TorontoâSt. Paul's, because this side of the House knows that our economic future depends on them. That is why we are saying that whatever ambition means to Canada's youth, whether it is to shape the future of AI, whether it is to join the climate corps, whether it is to make a great Canadian film, whether it is to study higher education or whether it is to work in the skilled trades, this budget is helping young Canadians from their first summer job all the way through the career-starting, lifelong job they are going to have. Let us not take my word for it; let us talk about the YMCA, which says that paid skills training in this budget is going to strengthen resilience in ourâ
Why does the Prime Minister continue to endanger public finances, given that the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed the government has abandoned its fiscal anchor, while workers like those at the Petit-Saguenay sawmill are losing their jobs?
Cites the Parliamentary Budget Officer's finding that the government abandoned its fiscal anchor and grounds the question in a local mill closure affecting 25 workers, but the ask is vague and rhetorical rather than demanding a specific answer.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre utilise son budget comme une carte de crĂ©dit sans limites. Le directeur parlementaire du budget confirme que le gouvernement a abandonnĂ© son ancrage financier. Chez nous, dans ma circonscription, la scierie PetitâSaguenay ferme ses portes; 25 travailleurs perdent leurs jobs; les familles ne savent plus comment elles vont faire pour payer leurs factures. Pendant ce temps, le premier ministre dĂ©pense sans compter. Ăa va ĂȘtre beau pour nos gĂ©nĂ©rations futures. Pourquoi le premier ministre continue-t-il de mettre nos finances publiques en danger?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is using his budget like a credit card with no spending limit. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the government has no fiscal anchors left. In my riding, the PetitâSaguenay sawmill is closing and 25 workers are losing their jobs. Families have no clue how they are going to pay their bills. In the meantime, the Prime Minister is spending like there is no tomorrow. What a gift to leave future generations. Why does the Prime Minister keep putting our public finances in jeopardy?
The minister argued the budget increased programs for vulnerable families and Indigenous communities and accused the opposition of voting against those measures.
The minister pivots entirely to Indigenous and vulnerable families, praises the budget in general terms, and attacks the opposition for voting against it, never addressing the fiscal anchor finding or the Petit-Saguenay mill closure.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on devrait parler des familles autochtones et des familles qui vivent dans les régions québécoises. Toutes les familles de chez nous, dans ma circonscription, ont vu un budget qui a vraiment augmenté et qui a maintenu les programmes pour les personnes les plus vulnérables dans les communautés. C'est un budget qui va les protéger. C'est une chose contre laquelle l'opposition a voté. On veut savoir: le processus de dépense par carte de crédit, n'est-ce pas le processus de défendre le Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we should be talking about indigenous families and families living in Quebec's regions. All the families back home in my riding felt that the budget has truly increased and maintained programs for the most vulnerable members of our communities. It is a budget that will protect them, but the opposition voted against it. We want to know this: Is the process of spending on credit not really a process of defending Canada?
Can the minister explain clearly how a hypothetical Quebec currency would push Quebec into the arms of Donald Trump?
The question poses a specific logical challenge â asking the minister to explain her stated claim that a hypothetical Quebec currency would push Quebec into Donald Trump's arms â but it is embedded in partisan framing about Pablo Rodriguez's financing and personal loyalty declarations.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la loyauté est une vertu. Moi, je suis loyal au Québec et à la souveraineté du Québec. La ministre responsable de Développement économique Canada pour les régions du Québec, elle, se montre loyale au Parti libéral du Québec et à Pablo Rodriguez, dont la légalité du financement est exposée aujourd'hui. à chacun, ses loyautés. Or, sa loyauté fédéraliste et libérale lui fait dire d'étranges choses. Peut-elle nous expliquer clairement en quoi une hypothétique devise québécoise lancerait le Québec dans les bras de Donald Trump?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, loyalty is a virtue. I am loyal to Quebec and to Quebec sovereignty. The Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions has shown that she is loyal to the Quebec Liberal Party and to Pablo Rodriguez, even as new revelations emerge about the legality of their financial practices. To each their own loyalties. However, the minister's federalist and Liberal loyalties are making her say some strange things. Can she clarify how a hypothetical Quebec currency would drive Quebec into Donald Trump's arms?
The minister ridiculed the Parti québécois proposal for a new Quebec currency, raised fears about a third referendum and loss of purchasing power, and criticised Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, without explaining the Trump connection.
The minister does not explain the causal link between a Quebec currency and Trump, instead mocking the Parti québécois proposal, invoking loss of purchasing power and a third referendum, and personalising the attack on Paul St-Pierre Plamondon.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis trĂšs contente que mon collĂšgue ose, sur le parquet de la Chambre des communes, parler du nouveau projet du Parti quĂ©bĂ©cois: arriver avec une nouvelle devise quĂ©bĂ©coise. Les QuĂ©bĂ©cois sont trĂšs inquiets au QuĂ©bec. On se demande si, vraiment, on parle d'un troisiĂšme rĂ©fĂ©rendum; vraiment, on parle de la perte de notre pouvoir d'achat et, Ă un moment oĂč un prĂ©sident amĂ©ricain est en train de menacer la souverainetĂ© du Canada, nous nous trouvons vraiment Ă nous affaiblir en tant que QuĂ©bĂ©cois et nous sommes prĂȘts Ă donner les rĂȘnes Ă Paul StâPierre Plamondon pour qu'il dĂ©veloppe ses « PS piastres ». Ăa n'a pas de bon sens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague would venture to talk in the House of Commons about the Parti QuĂ©bĂ©cois's new plan to create a new currency for Quebec. Quebeckers are very concerned. They are wondering whether there is really going to be a third referendum, whether we are going to lose our purchasing power and whether, at a time when the American president is threatening Canada's sovereignty, we are really going to weaken our position as Quebeckers by handing the reins over to Paul StâPierre Plamondon so he can invent his own currency. That would be absurd.
Following the minister's own logic that a larger country means a stronger currency, should Canada abandon its dollar and adopt the US dollar?
Blanchet turns the minister's own logic against her with a pointed hypothetical â if bigger country equals stronger currency, should Canada adopt the US dollar? â which is a sharp Socratic test of internal consistency, though it is inherently rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, et l'ombre de Jean ChrĂ©tien et de Jean Charest passa sur le Parlement. Le raisonnement de la ministre est clair. Plus gros est le pays, plus forte est la devise. Admettons, mĂȘme si c'est avec plaisir que je lui proposerai un stage avec mon collĂšgue de Mirabel. Dans l'intervalle, ne croit-elle pas, selon sa propre logique, que le Canada devrait abandonner son dollar et adopter le dollar amĂ©ricain?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, and the shadows of Jean Chrétien and Jean Charest fall over Parliament. The minister's reasoning is clear. The bigger the country, the stronger the currency. Let us assume that is true, although I would be happy to offer her an internship with my colleague from Mirabel. In the meantime, based on her own logic, does that mean she thinks Canada should scrap its own dollar and adopt the U.S. dollar?
The minister called the question political fiction, said the exchange reveals what is happening within the Parti québécois and the Bloc québécois, and pledged that the Liberal government will defend the Quebec economy and Canadian sovereignty.
The minister dismisses the question as "politique-fiction," ignores the logical challenge entirely, and pivots to defending the Liberal caucus's commitment to Quebec jobs and Canadian sovereignty.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on est vraiment dans la politique-fiction, mais c'est bon parce que ça permet aux gens des diffĂ©rents caucus de tous les autres partis de comprendre ce qui se passe vraiment au sein du Parti quĂ©bĂ©cois au QuĂ©bec et du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois. Une chose est claire: nous, nous allons ĂȘtre lĂ pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois avec nos 44 dĂ©putĂ©s. Nous allons dĂ©fendre notre Ă©conomie, nous allons dĂ©fendre nos jobs, nous allons investir et nous allons faire en sorte que, au bout du compte, la souverainetĂ© du Canada va ĂȘtre plus forte.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the member is really living in the world of political fiction, but that is good because it shows people from the various caucuses of all the other parties what is really going on within the Parti Québécois in Quebec and the Bloc Québécois here. One thing is clear: We will be there for Quebeckers with our 44 members in the House. We will defend our economy and our jobs. We will invest and we will ultimately strengthen Canada's sovereignty.
Why does every trip the Prime Minister takes result in worse trade outcomes for Canadians, such as higher tariffs on canola, cars, steel and aluminum, and no deal for pork and beef farmers in the UK?
The question links specific trade outcomes (tariffs on canola, doubled car tariffs, tripled steel and aluminum tariffs, no UK deal for pork and beef farmers) to the Prime Minister's foreign trips, giving it factual grounding, but the framing is highly partisan and the causal claim is rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every time the Prime Minister flies out of the country for another glittering photo op, things get worse for Canadians. He went to China and came back with more tariffs on Canadian canola. He went to the U.S. and came back with double the tariffs on cars and triple the tariffs on steel and aluminum. Now the two sides are not even talking. Then he went to the U.K., and he still could not land a basic deal for our pork and beef farmers. Why is it that every time the Prime Minister boards a plane, Canadians get sacked with a bigger bill?
The minister deflected entirely, asking why the Conservative leader's poll numbers fall every time he travels domestically, and urged the deputy leader to demand better results from her leader.
The minister completely ignores the trade policy questions and instead mocks the Conservative leader's domestic travel and polling numbers, making no connection to canola, tariffs, or trade deals.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party should ask the question in reverse. Why is it that when the Leader of the Opposition flies out of the city to far-flung places across our vast and grand land, his polling results go down every single time he lands at a great Canadian airport? The deputy leader should demand more of her leader and demand bigger results from her leader. The deputy leader needs to step up.
Why is the Prime Minister jet-setting to Dubai on taxpayer funds while failing to close deals on canola, softwood lumber, autos, steel and aluminum, and jobs in Windsor and Oshawa are going south?
The question references the absence of deals on canola, softwood lumber, autos, steel and aluminum, and the Prime Minister's trip to Dubai, but the ask ("obsessed with foreign travel because he likes spending other people's money, or is it that he just cannot face Canadians at home?") is purely rhetorical and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is a lecture from a government that cannot close a deal on canola. It cannot close a deal on softwood lumber, on autos, on steel and on aluminum, basically every export that is the backbone of the Canadian economy. The Prime Minister sold Canadians hope and he did not deliver. Then he used that broken trust as a reason to collect more stamps in his own passport. He is jet-setting on another taxpayer-funded vacation to Dubai while jobs in Windsor and Oshawa are going south. Is the Prime Minister obsessed with foreign travel because he likes spending other people's money, or is it that he just cannot face Canadians at home?
The parliamentary secretary cited Canada's AAA credit rating, near two-year inflation target compliance, lower interest rates, strong job numbers, and IMF welcome of budget 2025, and asked why Conservatives do not believe in Canada.
The parliamentary secretary responds with Canada's AAA credit rating, inflation figures, interest rates, job numbers, and budget 2025, none of which address the specific trade failures or Dubai trip raised in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that Canada has a AAA credit rating. Inflation has been within the Bank of Canada's target range for almost two years. Interest rates are down, job numbers are exceeding expectations and budget 2025 makes generational investments that the head of the International Monetary Fund welcomes. These investments will pay dividends to Canadians over generations in the form of good-paying jobs, affordable homes, thriving and productive industries, resilient supply chains and infrastructure that connects our country and enables diverse trade. The only question is, why do the Conservatives not believe in Canada?
Given nearly 70 flights and 28 trips in eight months burning enough jet fuel to circle the earth four times, with no real results and higher tariffs each time, why does the Prime Minister not stop and focus on affordability at home?
The question offers specific figures â nearly 70 flights, 28 trips, enough fuel to circle the earth four times in eight months â but the ask reduces to a talking-point about "flights of fancy" and affordability rather than a precise accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in just eight months, the Prime Minister has flown the friendly skies nearly 70 times on 28 different trips and burned through enough jet fuel to fly the equivalent of four times around the earth. What does he have to show for all of his gallivanting around in a private jet? He just has expensive photo ops, empty announcements and no real results for Canadian workers. Not only have these trips failed to get the deals he promised, but tariffs and costs for Canadians seem to go higher each time he takes off. Why does the Prime Minister not stop his flights of fancy and start making life more affordable for Canadians here at home?
The minister asked why Conservatives do not join the government in building the economy, pointing to budget 2025 measures on taxes, innovators and small businesses, and citing Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters support for the budget.
The minister does not address the travel figures or trade results, instead pivoting to budget 2025 measures on taxes, small businesses and entrepreneurs, and citing Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters support, which is tangential to the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, instead of talking down the economy, why do the Conservatives not join us and build the economy up? Let us see what we can agree on. Can we agree we want to lower taxes for Canadians? This budget did it. They voted against it. Can we agree we want to support innovators, small businesses and entrepreneurs? This budget did it. They voted against it. Do not take my word for it. Just today, I was speaking with Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, and it represents 10,000 businesses. This budget makes meaningful steps to support manufacturers under pressure. They should join us to build Canadaâ
While tens of thousands of steel, auto and softwood lumber workers have lost jobs and Canadians rely on food banks, why does the Prime Minister spend time on fancy travel instead of making life more affordable?
The question mentions record food bank use, steel, auto and softwood lumber job losses, and the Prime Minister's travel, but remains largely rhetorical, contrasting "fancy travel" with affordability without a precise answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while fancy art dealers and high-flying people like the Prime Minister are living their best life, here on the ground, a record number of Canadians are using food banks and struggling to heat their homes. They do not get to leave their troubles behind by jumping on a private jet. These swanky trips have done nothing for the tens of thousands of steel, auto and softwood lumber workers who have lost their jobs, and the millions more who are living with uncertainty due to the Prime Minister's broken promises on tariffs. Why does the Prime Minister not spend less time on fancy travel and more time focusing on making life more affordable for Canadians?
The minister cited support from Canada's Building Trades Unions, the YMCA and Food Banks Canada for the budget's programs and approach, and said Canadians support a government with ambition to create jobs today and tomorrow.
The minister pivots to citing stakeholder endorsements â Canada's Building Trades Unions, the YMCA, Food Banks Canada â for the budget and claims Canadians support the government, without addressing trade failures, job losses, or travel costs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike the members opposite, Canadians know that we need to invest in ourselves, and that is exactly why they have supported this government and why they support this budget. From Canada's Building Trades Unions to the YMCA to Food Banks Canada, a variety of different stakeholders have advocated for the programs and approach in this budget. People are happy. They are happy with a government that has ambition on their behalf. We are not going to stop, because we are creating the jobs of today and tomorrow.
With 28 trips covering enough kilometres to circle the earth four times, and tariffs rising after visits to China, India and Washington, why are Canadian families paying higher tariffs so the Prime Minister can take photo ops abroad?
The question specifies 28 trips, enough kilometres to circle the earth four times, and links individual country visits (China, India, Washington) to higher tariffs outcomes each time, but the ask is still framed rhetorically and includes an unexplained reference to deals for Brookfield.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all the Prime Minister has achieved is higher air miles, higher altitudes and higher tariffs. With 28 trips and enough kilometres travelled to circle the earth four times, Canadians expect more than just photo ops and hollow letters of intent. When he travelled to China, Canadians got higher tariffs. When he travelled to India, Canadians got higher tariffs. When he travelled to Washington, Canadians got higher tariffs. Why are Canadian families paying the price with higher tariffs for the Prime Minister to jet around the globe for photo ops and deals for Brookfield?
The minister told the Manitoba MP that Manitobans want the budget passed for investments like the port of Churchill and the national school food program, and encouraged him to vote for these measures.
The minister does not address tariff outcomes from any of the listed trips and instead pivots entirely to announcing investments in the port of Churchill and the national school food program, which are unrelated to the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member is from Manitoba and we need to recognize that Manitobans want to vote for this budget. They want to for the port of Churchill. They want us to build, protect and empower the north. This is the first time we are seeing these types of investments in generations. I encourage the member to get on board and vote for them to ensure we make the national school food program permanent.
Can the secretary of state speak to the broad support for the buy Canadian policy that prioritises Canadian-made steel, aluminum and softwood lumber?
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the secretary of state to tout support for the buy Canadian policy on steel, aluminum and softwood lumber, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this week, the House reiterated its confidence in our government and in budget 2025. Indeed, budget 2025 is an expression of confidence in Canada. In the face of uncertainty, Canadians are going to build a future we want for ourselves. That includes our new buy Canadian policy, which is strengthening our economy by prioritizing Canadian-made steel, aluminum and softwood lumber. It is supporting local jobs, protecting industries impacted by international tariffs and reinforcing our commitment to stable supply chains. Can the secretary of state speak to the broad support for this buy Canadian policy?
The secretary of state said the buy Canadian policy will leverage every public dollar to strengthen the economy and create jobs, and noted that Conservative MPs for ChicoutimiâLe Fjord, JonquiĂšre and Lac-Saint-Jean applauded the policy last week before voting against it.
The secretary of state explains that the buy Canadian policy in budget 2025 will leverage public dollars for jobs, and names specific Conservative MPs from ChicoutimiâLe Fjord, JonquiĂšre and Lac-Saint-Jean who applauded the policy before voting against it, adding substantive political contrast.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the buy Canadian policy outlined in budget 2025 will leverage every public dollar to strengthen Canada's economy and create jobs. Do not take my word for it. Ask the members for ChicoutimiâLe Fjord, JonquiĂšre and Lac-Saint-Jean. They all joined our government in announcing and applauding this policy last week, only to vote against it a few days later. Canadians notice that while that side of the House is putting partisan politics above results, we are building the strongest economy in the G7.
How is it that every time the Prime Minister boards a plane to meet foreign leaders, Canadians end up paying higher tariffs, given 28 trips and no concrete agreements?
The question again cites the 28 trips and earth-circling kilometre figure and notes the absence of concrete agreements, but the causal framing â each flight causes higher tariffs â is rhetorical and the ask is the same as previous CPC questions on this topic.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre se comporte en vrai touriste. Dans ses huit premiers mois en tant que premier ministre, il a fait 28 voyages et parcouru assez de kilomÚtres pour faire le tour de la Terre quatre fois en jet privé. Pourtant, il n'y a aucun accord et aucun résultat concret, que de bonnes intentions et des séances photo aux frais des contribuables. Comment se fait-il que chaque fois que le premier ministre monte dans un avion pour rencontrer des dirigeants étrangers, les Canadiens doivent payer des tarifs encore plus élevés?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is acting like a real tourist. In his first eight months as Prime Minister, he has taken 28 trips on a private jet and covered enough kilometres to circle the globe four times. However, he has no agreements or meaningful results to show for it, just good intentions and photo ops on the taxpayers' dime. Why is it that every time the Prime Minister boards a plane to meet foreign leaders, Canadians end up paying even higher tariffs?
The minister contrasted a Prime Minister visiting allies and diversifying markets with an opposition leader on obscure podcasts denigrating institutions, and said the government is reducing dependence on Americans to strengthen the economy and build the strongest G7 economy.
The minister argues in favour of visiting allies and diversifying markets, contrasting the Prime Minister with the opposition leader on obscure podcasts, but does not cite specific market diversification results or address the tariff correlation raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, avec tout le respect que j'ai pour mon collĂšgue, s'il faut choisir entre un premier ministre qui va visiter nos alliĂ©s et nos partenaires commerciaux pour diversifier nos marchĂ©s, et un chef de lâopposition qui passe son temps sur des balados obscurs Ă dĂ©nigrer nos institutions, le choix est Ă©vident, le choix est simple et c'est le bon choix que les Canadiens ont fait. Nous misons sur la diversification des marchĂ©s pour rĂ©duire notre dĂ©pendance aux AmĂ©ricains, stimuler notre Ă©conomie, augmenter notre productivitĂ© et bĂątir l'Ă©conomie la plus forte du G7.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, given the choice between a Prime Minister who visits our allies and trade partners to diversify our markets and an opposition leader who spends his time disparaging our institutions on obscure podcasts, the choice is clear and simple. Canadians made the right choice. We are focusing on diversifying markets to reduce our dependence on the United States, stimulate our economy, increase our productivity and build the strongest economy in the G7.
With tens of thousands of steel, auto and softwood lumber workers having lost their jobs, and businesses needing a deal with the US for predictability, why do tariffs keep rising with each prime ministerial trip?
The question grounds the ask in tens of thousands of job losses in steel, auto and softwood lumber and the need for predictability for Canadian businesses, and asks why tariffs rise with each trip to a warm country, but remains structurally similar to several prior questions on the same theme.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ça ne change absolument rien pour les dizaines de milliers de travailleurs de l'acier, de l'automobile et du bois d'Ćuvre qui ont perdu leur emploi Ă cause des Ă©checs du gouvernement libĂ©ral en matiĂšre de droits de douane. Les entreprises canadiennes demandent une entente avec les ĂtatsâUnis pour assurer la prĂ©visibilitĂ© de leurs revenus. Pourquoi est-ce qu'Ă chaque arrĂȘt du premier ministre dans un pays chaud les droits de douane montent et les Canadiens paient la facture?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that makes absolutely no difference to the tens of thousands of steel, auto and softwood lumber workers who have lost their jobs because of the Liberal government's tariff failures. Canadian businesses are asking for an agreement with the United States to ensure predictable revenues. Why is it that every time the Prime Minister travels to warmer climes, the tariffs go up and Canadians are left footing the bill?
The minister said those in the auto, forestry, steel and aluminum sectors are asking the government to open international markets and reduce dependence on Americans, and that exporting aluminum, forestry products and steel to Europe and Asia is exactly what the Prime Minister and team are doing.
The minister does engage the steel, auto, forestry and aluminum sectors named in the question, arguing those industries are asking for market diversification and reduced US dependence â which is at least thematically responsive â but provides no specific results or data.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, on a déjà vu mieux de la part du collÚgue. Je pense que mon collÚgue devrait passer plus de temps avec les gens dans le secteur de l'automobile, plus de temps avec les gens dans le secteur de la foresterie et plus de temps avec les gens dans le secteur de l'acier et de l'aluminium. Pourquoi? C'est parce que, ce que ces gens nous demandent, c'est d'ouvrir des marchés à l'international et de diminuer notre dépendance aux Américains, comme mon collÚgue de Louis-Hébert le disait. C'est parce que c'est trÚs, trÚs important que nous puissions exporter notre aluminium, nos produits forestiers et notre acier vers l'Europe et vers l'Asie. C'est exactement ce que le premier ministre et l'équipe font.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have seen better from my colleague. I think my colleague should spend more time with people in the auto sector, the forestry sector and the steel and aluminum sector. Why? These individuals are asking us to open international markets and reduce our dependence on the U.S., as my colleague from LouisâHĂ©bert was saying. That is because it is very, very important for us to be able to export our aluminum, our forestry products and our steel to Europe and Asia. That is exactly what the Prime Minister and the team are doing.
Given the experience of Thunder Bay mother Cassandra Shedden, who rummages for things to sell to buy baby formula, why will the Prime Minister not act so parents can afford infant formula?
The question uses a direct quote from a named Thunder Bay mother, Cassandra Shedden, describing the choice between bills and baby formula, grounding the ask in a specific human case, though the policy ask â "do something so parents can afford baby formula" â is vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, âSometimes you're trying to choose between bills and feeding your kids.â That is a direct quote from Thunder Bay mom Cassandra Shedden, who relies on formula to feed her infant child. She describes rummaging around her house, looking for things to sell just so she can put formula in her baby's bottle. Why will the Prime Minister not do something so that parents can afford to buy baby formula?
The minister said Cassandra Shedden herself cited the Canada child benefit as helping her feed her baby, and accused the member of voting against the Canada child benefit and school food programs.
The minister engages Cassandra Shedden by name and cites the Canada child benefit as the specific program that helped her, but pivots to attacking the member for voting against the Canada child benefit and school food rather than explaining what the government will do about formula affordability.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, nobody should have to feel the fear that Cassandra feels, but I will note what Cassandra also said. She said she could hardly wait until the Canada child benefit arrived on the 20th of each month because it helped her feed her baby, as she lived on Ontario disability. The member voted against the Canada child benefit. She voted against school food. She voted against the very people she has the temerity to stand up and quote in this House.
Since 2017 baby formula inflation has been double the US rate, Canada has only one domestic production plant, and every fuel tax, supply chain disruption and tariff hits families harder â will the government finally make domestic formula production a priority?
The question cites a specific statistic â baby formula inflation since 2017 has been double the US rate â and identifies structural vulnerabilities (only one Canadian production plant, reliance on imports, exposure to transportation taxes, supply chain disruptions and tariff threats) with a reasonably clear ask for government action.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since 2017, inflation on baby formula has become double what it is in the U.S. We are overly reliant on imported infant formula, and we only have one plant in Canada, which means that every single tax on transportation, every supply chain disruption and every single tariff threat hits Canadian families harder. This is due to a lack of any kind of action from any of the Liberals for the last 10 years. Will they finally make this a priority so that parents can afford to feed their babies formula?
The minister cited Canada research chair Lesley Frank's recommendation to increase the Canada child benefit and to produce formula in Canada, noted the Canada child benefit is indexed to inflation, and pointed to agriculture innovation funding in the budget as a mechanism for domestic production.
The minister references Canada research chair Lesley Frank's call to increase the Canada child benefit and to produce formula in Canada, and points to agriculture innovation money in the budget, but does not address the inflation differential, the single-plant vulnerability, or a concrete plan for domestic formula production.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, maybe the member did not read the article where Canada research chair Ms. Lesley Frank said that the Canada child benefit should be increased, which, by the way, it is every year because it is pegged to inflation, and where the experts said that formula should be produced in Canada. In this budget, we have money for innovation in agriculture. How does that member think that Canada will be able to do anything if she votes against Canadians' interests time and time again?
With parents buying opened formula bottles and begging strangers online for money due to government inaction, will the Liberals do something concrete rather than create more bureaucracy?
The question paints a vivid picture of parents buying opened formula containers and begging online for money, but the ask â "will the Liberals actually do something other than just create more bureaucracy?" â is vague, rhetorical and unanswerable in specific terms.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is deeply wrong is the fact that parents are waiting every single day for those cheques just so they can afford to put groceries on the table. What is deeply wrong is that mothers are begging strangers online for money just so they can afford to buy baby formula. What is deeply wrong is that parents are resorting to buying opened bottles and cases of powdered formula, just so they can feed their kids. This is because of the government's lack of action. Will the Liberals actually do something other than just create more bureaucracy? We need action.
Oh, oh!
The minister accused the member of fake outrage while her colleagues vote against supportive measures, referenced a different Conservative member's comment about hungry children, and said single mothers need all the help they can get.
The minister's response is interrupted and never completed substantively; she pivots to accusing a different member from BowmanvilleâOshawa North of suggesting hungry children should go without, and to defending single mothers generally, never addressing formula affordability or domestic production.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, members like that one, with the fake outrage as their colleagues stand up and vote against the veryâ
Mr. Speaker, just the other day, the member for BowmanvilleâOshawa North suggested that hungry children should go without because parents should be able to afford to feed their kids. Well, I have a news flash: Single mothers, just like I was in my day, need all the help they can get, and that is what we do for moms every single day in the House.
With Canadians flooding food banks due to government mismanagement, why will the government not scrap the fuel tax to bring down grocery costs?
The question mentions food banks and the fuel tax as concrete policy levers but the ask â "why is the government hell-bent on keeping the fuel tax?" â is primarily rhetorical and the framing is dominated by partisan attack rather than a specific accountability request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is from a minister who is completely out of touch with Canadians, who are struggling day in and day out to afford the very basic necessities of life. Meanwhile, the members across the way are heckling me while Canadians struggle and are going to food banks in droves. That is because of the government's mismanagement, and it can do something about it. One of the things the Liberals could do about it would be to scrap the fuel tax, which would bring down the cost of groceries. Why is the government hell-bent on keeping the fuel tax and making sure that Canadians cannot afford basic necessities?
The minister accused the member of voting against every measure helping single mothers â reduced early learning and child care fees, dental care for children and school food programs â without addressing the fuel tax or grocery costs.
The minister does not address the fuel tax at all and instead pivots to listing budget measures the member voted against â early learning and child care fees, dental care for children, school food â making no connection to the fuel tax or grocery affordability raised in the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite fails to acknowledge is that she voted against every measure that helps single mothers right now, every single day. Whether it is fees reduced for early learning and child care, access to dental care for children who do not have dental care benefits or fighting against school food, these Conservatives stand up to say they feel the pain of moms, especially single moms, but when push comes to shove, they vote against them time and again.
Thomas cites Statistics Canada data showing beef up 17%, chicken up 6%, apples up 4%, and baby formula up 6%, and notes grocery prices have risen 40% faster than in the U.S., asking what the government will do about food affordability.
The question cites specific Statistics Canada figures for beef, chicken, apples, and baby formula price increases and references grocery prices rising 40% faster than in the U.S., but the closing ask â "What will the government do about it?" â is vague and compound, and the framing is heavily partisan with "socialist policies" rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the minister is saying is that, through socialist programs, Canadians can be provided for. Canadians should be able to make ends meetâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, grocery prices in this country have risen 40% faster than in the United States of America. That goes to prove that it has a whole lot to do with the government and its socialist policies. Statistics Canada shows that beef is up 17%, chicken is up 6%, apples are up 4% and baby formula is up 6%. Baby formula is the most stolen item in a grocery store because parents are desperate due to the government's mismanagement. Folks are suffering. I hosted a town hall last week. Their faces and their stories came forward. These are more than stats, folks. What will the government do about it?
Hajdu defends Liberal values by referencing support for single mothers, employment insurance, dental care, and universal health care, without addressing any of the cited price figures or food cost policies.
Hajdu does not address any of the cited price statistics or offer any policy response to grocery costs, instead delivering a general defence of Liberal values and social programs with no connection to the specific question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is why I am so proud to be a Liberal. Liberals believe in helping each other. We believe that, when a single mom is having a tough time, we should be there for her. We believe that, when a family is down on their luck, we should have an employment insurance program that helps people out when they lose their jobs. We believe that, when people cannot access dental care, sometimes for up to 20 years and are living in pain, we should do something about that as a country. That is what Canadians believe. It is why we are known for our universal health care system. We care about each other.
Tochor asks why the Prime Minister is keeping the food packaging tax, which he claims costs Canadians an additional $5.6 billion a year and has driven up fresh produce costs by over 34%.
The question cites a specific figure â the Liberal tax on food packaging costing Canadians $5.6 billion a year and driving up fresh produce costs by over 34% â and asks a pointed question about why the Prime Minister is keeping the food packaging tax, but partisan framing and the term "food packaging taxes" without citing a specific policy document reduce precision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is the most expensive in Canadian history. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians, driving up the cost of everything. Year after year, food costs have gone up and the Liberals want us to pay more for their food packaging taxes. The Liberal tax on food costs Canadians an additional $5.6 billion a year, driving up the cost for fresh produce by over 34%. Why is the Prime Minister keeping the food packaging tax and making everything more expensive for struggling Canadians?
Belanger claims the government has been cleaning up Harper's mess for 10 years and highlights $51 billion set aside to build communities, without mentioning the food packaging tax or the cited figures.
Belanger does not address the food packaging tax or the cited figures at all, instead pivoting to Stephen Harper's record, a $51 billion infrastructure fund, and urging the member to vote for the budget.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for 10 long years, I have been telling the people of Saskatchewan that, as a result of the mismanagement under Stephen Harper, the government has spent these years cleaning up Harper's mess so we can go on a bold new journey. There is $51 billion set aside to help Canada build its communities. That is an impressive amount of money. The Saskatchewan MP should wake up, vote for the budget and back up Saskatchewan.
Gill asks why the Prime Minister is increasing the industrial carbon tax given that food prices in Canada have risen nearly 40% faster than in the U.S., citing the Prime Minister's own invitation to judge him by grocery store prices.
The question references food prices rising nearly 40% faster than in the U.S. and links it to the industrial carbon tax, but the question is largely a repeat of Exchange 31's framing, relies on an asserted causal link without citation, and the ask is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is the most expensive in Canadian history. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians, driving up the cost of everything. The Prime Minister told Canadians to judge him by the prices they see at our grocery stores. Now, the industrial carbon tax has caused food prices in Canada to rise nearly 40% faster than in the U.S. Why is the Prime Minister increasing the industrial carbon tax and making food more expensive?
Valdez speaks about budget 2025 investments, tax cuts for 22 million Canadians, and 175,000 jobs for young people through Canada summer jobs and student work placement programs, without addressing the industrial carbon tax or food prices.
Valdez does not address the industrial carbon tax or food prices at all, instead speaking generally about budget 2025, tax cuts for 22 million Canadians, and youth employment programs, with no connection to the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in budget 2025, we are making generational investments to build Canada strong. Again, we have cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. This is making sure we put more money back into their pockets. We are also supporting our young people. We have created new pathways to support them. This is 175,000 jobs for young people through the Canada summer jobs and student work placement programs. We are empowering youth to gain the skills they need. We are going to continue to build Canada strong and support our youth in this country.
Bains asks the minister to explain how the north coast transmission line, recently referred to the Major Projects Office, will support B.C. jobs and lower emissions while helping Canada become a critical mineral producer and clean energy superpower.
This is a government-backbench softball question inviting the minister to tout the north coast transmission line project, with no accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last spring, my hometown of Richmond voted for a government that would develop clean, reliable electricity to power our economy. In British Columbia, the north coast transmission line has just been referred to the Major Projects Office. It will twin key transmission corridors, reinforce B.C.'s clean grid in the northwest and support industry while connecting communities. Can the minister explain how this project will support B.C. jobs and lower emissions while helping Canada realize its potential as a critical mineral producer and clean energy superpower?
Hodgson states the north coast transmission line is expected to support thousands of direct jobs and help avoid up to three million tonnes of carbon emissions every year, while unlocking natural resources and powering new industries with low-carbon electricity.
Hodgson provides specific relevant information â thousands of direct jobs expected and up to three million tonnes of carbon emissions avoided per year â directly responsive to the question about B.C. jobs, emissions, and critical mineral production.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the north coast transmission line is exactly the kind of enabling infrastructure Canada needs to get to net zero, become a clean energy superpower and diversify our exports. Once in operation, it is expected to support thousands of direct jobs and help avoid up to three million tonnes of carbon emissions every year. By unlocking our vast natural resources and powering new industries with low-carbon electricity, we are giving workers and communities what they want.
Sukhman Gill notes extortion has risen over 500% in B.C. with 100 shootings linked to extortion in the community, asks why Liberals blocked an emergency debate request, and when the Prime Minister will get serious about extortion.
The question cites extortion rising over 500% in B.C. and 100 shootings linked to extortion in the community, and raises a specific procedural question about why an emergency debate was blocked, but conflates two distinct asks and leans on rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Abbotsford residents woke to the news of yet another shooting linked to extortion in our communities. Far too many families and businesses across the region have been affected. Under the Liberal's soft-on-crime policies, extortion has risen over 500% in B.C. alone. In my community, 100 shootings have been linked to extortion. Why do the Liberals block our request for an emergency debate? When will the Prime Minister finally get serious about extortion?
Sahota clarifies that it was the Speaker â not the Liberals â who ruled on the emergency debate, and argues that Bill C-2's lawful access measures, which the Conservatives are blocking, are the key tool to deter extortion by giving police the ability to catch criminals.
Sahota corrects the record on who blocked the emergency debate and raises Bill C-2's lawful access measures as a concrete deterrence tool, but does not address the 500% extortion increase figure or the 100 shootings specifically, making the answer partial.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Liberals did not block any kind of debate, as the member is well aware. The Speaker made that ruling yesterday. Second, the best thing to stop extortion is deterrence. If criminals knew they would be caught, they would not be involved in such crimes. One way to deter criminals is to make sure we give police officers the tools they need to be able to catch them. We have brought lawful access measures in Bill C-2 in the House. Guess who is blocking them? The Conservatives are. They will not allow the police to have the tools needed to catch these criminals.
Caputo states extortion is up 330% since the Liberals took power, cites 100 reported extortions in Surrey, Abbotsford and Delta, notes the Prime Minister said nothing about it during a B.C. visit, and asks why Liberals are allowing extortions to run rampant.
The question cites extortion up 330% since the Liberals took power and references 100 reported extortions in Surrey, Abbotsford and Delta, plus notes the Prime Minister said nothing about it during a recent B.C. visit, but the closing ask â "Why are these Liberals allowing extortions to run rampant?" â is rhetorical rather than precise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since the Liberals took power, extortion is up 330% in Canada. There have been 100 reported extortions already in Surrey, Abbotsford and Delta. The Prime Minister recently visited British Columbia, and he said nothing about this pressing problem. The question is this: Why are these Liberals allowing extortions to run rampant, whether it be in Calgary, Windsor, Surrey or Brampton? Why?
MacKinnon says Bill C-2 contains measures police have long requested to prevent extortion and catch criminals, and blames Conservatives for standing in the way of those measures by demanding their removal from the bill.
MacKinnon references Bill C-2's specific lawful access measures and the Conservative role in demanding their removal, which is somewhat responsive, but does not address the 330% figure, the B.C. visit, or the specific communities mentioned.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the House has before it measures, contained in Bill C-2, that would give the police long-requested abilities to prevent extortion and to catch extortionists and criminals in our country. The Conservatives, and the Conservatives alone, stood in the way of those particular measures, demanding their removal from Bill C-2. That member needs to talk to his whip, talk to his leader, and get out of the way of law enforcement to stop extortion in this country. That member needs to stand for law and order.
Caputo accuses the minister of voting against a Conservative bill to imprison extortionists, voting for house arrest for extortion with a firearm, and voting to repeal mandatory jail time for extortion with a firearm, and asks when Liberals will tackle extortion.
Caputo makes specific factual claims â that the minister voted against a Conservative bill to put extortionists in jail, voted for house arrest for extortion with a firearm, and voted to repeal mandatory jail time for extortion with a firearm â which are checkable and pointed, but the overall framing is confrontational and the ask remains vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. That minister needs to look in the mirror. That member voted against a Conservative bill to put extortionists in jail. That member voted for house arrest for people who do extortion with a firearm. That member voted to repeal mandatory jail time for extortion with a firearm. Talk about being out of touch. Talk about missing the boat on justice. When will the Liberals get on board and tackle extortion across this country? When?
Anandasangaree says the government is taking real action on extortion, highlights lawful access in Bill C-2 as supported by every law enforcement agency and police association, and urges the member to support its passage.
Anandasangaree references lawful access in Bill C-2 and notes endorsement by law enforcement agencies and police associations, which is relevant, but does not address any of the three specific voting record claims Caputo made against him.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is taking real action to stop those who commit extortion. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have failed to support these measures, such as lawful access, a measure that every single law enforcement agency and every single police association have been asking for. They have been asking the Conservative Party to step up to ensure that Bill C-2, with lawful access, is passed. I urge the member opposite, who is my critic, to step forward today to ensure that lawful access becomes law.
Coteau asks the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure to outline concrete steps the government is taking to accelerate the building of affordable homes in Ontario.
This is a government-backbench softball question inviting the minister to describe housing investments, with no accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians and the great people of ScarboroughâWoburn voted for a government to build more homes, and they are looking to their new federal government to lead with real solutions. Could the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure update the House on what concrete steps the government is taking to accelerate the building of affordable homes here in Ontario?
Robertson says recent generational investments will create more than 3,000 homes across Canada, including over 1,500 in Ontario, giving local families affordable and stable places to live.
Robertson provides a specific number â more than 3,000 homes created across Canada including over 1,500 in Ontario â directly tied to the question about affordable housing in Ontario, which is substantive if brief.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for ScarboroughâWoburn for all of his hard work. We are committed to delivering a massive increase in affordable housing, starting in the GTA and all across Canada. Just last week, we made generational investments across the country to create more than 3,000 homes across Canada for Canadians, and that includes over 1,500 much-needed homes in Ontario. Those homes will give local families an opportunity to be more stable and have affordable places to live. It is time to build Canada strong.
Anstey asks whether the Liberals will admit the $742-million gun buyback has failed â citing a Cape Breton pilot that reportedly had only 22 firearms turned in, leaked audio of the public safety minister admitting it will not work, and the sudden retirement of the police chief overseeing the program â and scrap it.
The question cites the $742-million cost of the program, leaked audio of the public safety minister admitting it will not work, a reported 22 firearms turned in during the Cape Breton pilot, and the police chief's retirement, making it reasonably specific with a clear ask to scrap the program.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the $742-million gun grab has been a complete disaster from day one. It is wrapped in controversy, with leaked audio revealing that the public safety minister himself admitted that it will not work. The Cape Breton pilot program reportedly only had 22 firearms turned in. Now, the police chief overseeing the program, who is the brother-in-law of the Liberal member, is suddenly retiring. Will the Liberals finally admit that the program is a waste of taxpayers' money, admit that it has failed, and scrap it?
Oh, oh!
Thompson criticizes the member for voting against the budget and lists unrelated budget investments including Canada child benefit increases, a school nutrition program saving families $800 a year, and rural community infrastructure, without mentioning the gun buyback program.
Thompson does not address the gun buyback program, the $742-million figure, the Cape Breton pilot results, the leaked audio, or the police chief's retirement, instead attacking the member for voting against the budget and listing unrelated child benefit and nutrition program spending.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, apart from partisan politics, this member, who is from my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, voted against a budget that invests in Canada and invests in our province. She voted against 46,000 families who will see an increase in the Canada child benefit, families who rely on the foodâ
Mr. Speaker, instead of playing partisan politics, let us focus on Canadians. The member opposite from Newfoundland and Labrador voted against a budget that invests in Canada; invests in our province in rural communities, roads, bridges, schools and hospitals; and invests in families with the school nutrition program's $800 savings a year for a family with two children. There is the family benefit that 46,000 families rely on, and there is an increase. Shame on the member.
Davies challenges the finance minister's claim that the luxury tax cost more to administer than it raised, asserting it brought in 20 times its administration cost and raised hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and asks what value Canadians should take from the Liberals' choice to eliminate it while cutting public services.
Davies makes a specific factual counter-claim â that the luxury tax raised hundreds of millions of dollars a year and brought in 20 times what it cost to administer â directly challenging the finance minister's stated rationale for eliminating it, and asks a pointed accountability question about what values the budget reflects.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it has been said, âDon't tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value." The Liberal budget chose to slash public services and cut frontline jobs, but it eliminated a tax on luxury yachts and private jets. To cover this blatant gift to the rich, the finance minister claimed that the tax cost more to administer than it raised, but that is not true; the luxury tax brought in 20 times what it cost, raising hundreds of millions of dollars a year. What value should Canadians take from the Liberals' choice?
Joly says the change to the tax regime on jets led Bombardier to announce 600 new jobs in Montreal and Quebec, and frames this as consistent with Liberal support for unionized jobs, without directly addressing the revenue figures Davies cited.
Joly provides a specific and concrete response â that Bombardier announced 600 new jobs in Montreal and Quebec following the change to the tax regime on jets â which is relevant context for the policy decision, but does not address Davies's specific claim that the tax raised 20 times its administration cost or counter the "gift to the rich" framing directly.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, but I think he should call Lana Payne, the head of Unifor, which represents the Bombardier workers in Montreal. That is because, following the fact that we changed the tax regime on that particular aspect linked to jets, Bombardier announced 600 new jobs in Montreal and Quebec. Obviously, like the NDP, we are in favour of unionized jobs, we are in favour of creating jobs and we will fight for these ones.