“I agree with the member that affordable housing is a major issue. Our government is spending 56 billion dollars over five years to build more homes, and housing costs in major cities are starting to ease.”

“Madam Chair, in front of all the people of Quebec City who are watching us, I want to congratulate the member. I think that the people of Quebec City should be proud to have an MP like him. He has a strong grasp of the issues, not only in the greater Quebec City area and in the national capital, but also as the former president of the Quebec City chamber of commerce and industry. He is obviously someone with extensive knowledge of important issues and economic matters. He spoke to a very important issue, the housing issue. This is true in Quebec City, true across Quebec, and true across the country. We know that housing is one of the pillars of affordability. I know my colleague understands that. That is why we have made generational investments. That is why Build Canada Homes is going to play an important role, because we do need to build more housing, but what we really need to do is build more affordable housing. We know that housing is the first pillar of affordability for families. People need to be able to find safe, affordable housing that is within their financial means and that is suited to their family’s needs. I would like my colleague to know that I think he has a very good grasp of the reality, namely that housing has been the priority. The 2025 budget includes generational investments. If we look at the total investments the government is making in housing for the five-year period from 2026-27 to 2030–31, we see that a total of $56 billion will be invested in various measures to help build more housing. We are already seeing results. Pressure has started to ease in major cities on house prices, as well as on the cost of housing. I would like to congratulate my colleague on the speech he gave today in the House. It was a speech that demonstrated just how well he understands the issues that matter to the people in his constituency, to the people of Quebec City, but also to Canadians as a whole.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 43 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 40 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“Businesses need stability during uncertain times. I want the Minister of Finance to explain how our economic plans will help Canadian businesses in the long term.”

“Madam Chair, I have another question for the Minister of Finance. The current global context of geopolitical and trade uncertainty has been mentioned a lot lately. Because of this context, the economic update emphasizes the importance of building a more resilient Canadian economy that is more focused on long-term investment. As a former president of the Chambre de commerce et d’industrie de Québec, I know how important predictability and stability are to our investors and entrepreneurs. These days, those are the words that come up most often when I meet with business leaders in my riding. In this context, can the minister explain how the measures we have announced, particularly the Canada Strong fund, the Major Projects Office and new trade partnerships, are helping to build a long-term economic strategy and create lasting benefits for our businesses?”

“The world economy is very uncertain right now, so we must focus on what we can control. We need to end trade barriers between provinces, invest in our businesses, and keep business taxes low. Canada still has the second-highest economic growth in the G7.”

“Madam Chair, I can imagine how pleased the people of Beauport—Limoilou are to hear their MP speak this evening. The Habs are not playing this evening, so I presume that a lot of people are watching their MP tonight. He is doing a great job. It is clear that, as the former president of the Chambre de commerce et d’industrie du Québec, he understands the issues. He is right. That is one thing that sometimes bothers me about my opposition colleagues. They forget that we are trying to navigate very uncertain economic times. The IMF publishes an uncertainty index. Right now, the level of uncertainty is almost as high as it was after the Second World War. We are living in uncertain times. I think that, in times like these, we need to focus on what we can control, as the Prime Minister so rightly said. What can we control? We can build the country; eliminate tariff barriers between the provinces; invest in our sovereignty, competitiveness and innovation; build safe and resilient communities across the country; and take fiscal measures that ensure that new investments made in Canada today benefit from the lowest tax rate in the G7. Canada is still a leader. We have the second-highest growth in the G7. Canada’s economic growth is twice that of our counterparts in Europe, twice that of Great Britain—”

• Echo ×12

  A repeated line

  “We have the second-fastest growth in the G7.”

  Said 12 times by 5 members since April 24.

  Every time it was said →

“We still need to invest in electric cars. Big changes in technology take time, and new kinds of cars have always taken years to become successful.”

“Madam Chair, I would think it is exactly the opposite. I think electrification is still our north star. Let me just remind my colleague that when Tesla started business, it took 17 years to be profitable. When the Model T Ford was introduced, it was not a success. When we have been doing the same thing for 100 years with internal combustion engines and we switch technology after a century, it is quite normal that we have adjustment of technology, of consumer habits and of markets, and the position that has been taken by our neighbour to the south has affected this. We have seen delays in most of the projects in the G7, but I still believe in investing in the electric stack and in making sure that we have the ecosystem to build a car—”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“Our government brought Volkswagen's largest electric vehicle battery factory outside Europe to Canada. This is good for Canadian workers and the auto industry.”

“Madam Chair, I am so happy to have that line of questioning. I almost hope that time would stop for a minute, because honestly, I could go on and on. Let us talk about Volkswagen, one of the largest automakers when we landed the gigafactory. It is the largest gigafactory outside of Europe of Volkswagen. In which country did they decide to put it? It was in Canada. It is amazing that, for the first time in Canada’s history, we have attracted a European automaker to Canada. I see in her smile that the member knows in her heart that we have done good things for the workers and that we have done good things for the industry. She is a good member. She is experienced. She will appreciate that—”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 40 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“We have been smart and careful with our deals to attract green investments. We only pay companies after they build and sell their products.”

“Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure. I know the member knows the sector because she has New Flyer in her riding, which I am still looking forward to visiting because it is a great company, and it is also looking at electric buses. My colleague will be happy to learn we were very disciplined. The Chair will remember this because I know he took note at the time. We were talking about production subsidies. This was on the back of the Inflation Reduction Act. In order to attract these investments, we were very smart, because we said we would only pay out when a number of units had been built and sold. Members should be reassured that we have been good fiscal stewards. We have attracted investment. We have been very disciplined in how we structured these deals. I would say to my colleague that she should keep in mind that the electric stack is the—”

“Our investment in the Volkswagen plant in St. Thomas is a big win for Canada. Projects sometimes face delays everywhere, but this will help our economy for a long time.”

“Mr. Chair, let me talk about Volkswagen for a minute. I can see the smile coming back on the member’s face, because Volkswagen will be one of the largest industrial sites in North America. She should be celebrating. I am sure she likes St. Thomas and southwestern Ontario as well. This is going to be an investment that is generational. If she had been with us when we announced that in St. Thomas, she would have seen the community members and the mayor. Everyone was there celebrating the fact that, for the first time in the history of Canada, we were able to attract a European manufacturer. When I started that journey, people thought it would be impossible. We made it possible. Canadians understand that obviously a number of projects get delayed. It is not unique to Canada. This is what we are seeing in all the other G7 countries, but smart countries invest not only for now, but for the future. These investments will provide benefits to Canadians in the long term.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Our government has always supported auto workers and manufacturers in Ontario. We are investing money to help the industry grow and adapt to the future.”

“Mr. Chair, I think everyone watching, particularly those in Oshawa and in southwestern Ontario, know that this minister and this government have been standing shoulder to shoulder with them. We can talk to the unions, the local union members, the industry partners and the manufacturers. We have stood with industry and workers every step of the way. When I started in my previous job as minister of industry, we made investments to make sure that the sector would grow and adapt to the new reality. This is a fast-evolving market, but the investments we are making today need to take into account the future as well, and I think the member will recognize—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 40 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“The space industry is important in Canada. I used to be in charge of the space agency, and I am glad to answer questions about it.”

“Mr. Chair, my colleague is asking questions about space. I think space is an important industry in Canada. I hope he is going to have many more questions. As a former minister responsible for the space agency, I will have a lot to say about that.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The member should be careful with what he is accusing us of. Investing in the space industry is a good idea.”

“Mr. Chair, I know that my colleague is an experienced member of the chamber. He is making allegations. It is not the first time that he has made allegations like this, but I think he should be careful in his line of questioning. At the same time, he should realize that the space industry is a great place to invest.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 28 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“The member should support our space industry instead of attacking it. We should be proud that a Canadian is going around the moon.”

“Mr. Chair, my colleague should, instead of going after the space industry, celebrate what we have achieved recently. We had our first Canadian to go around the moon. We went back to the moon as humanity. I think he should be proud. Instead of talking down a whole industry and talking down the space industry in the country, he should—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 30 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I support our space industry and astronauts. Canada needs to be able to launch into orbit from our own site in Nova Scotia.”

“Mr. Chair, he can talk down the industry. I will stand up for astronauts and the industry at every step of the way. If he was talking to our southern neighbour, he would understand that it is important for Canada to be able to launch from a Canadian site in order to get into a certain orbit, and we can do that in Canso, Nova Scotia.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 32 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Canada is in a great spot to launch things into space. The member should talk to American officials or astronauts to learn about this.”

“Mr. Chair, I do not know if there is a space parliamentary committee but the hon. member would gain knowledge by talking to our American colleagues. He would learn that having a location in Canada is very strategic in order to launch into a particular orbit, and I can put him in touch with a few astronauts if he wants.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 49 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I support Nova Scotia, our astronauts, and our space industry. The launch site in Canso is important for our national security.”

“Mr. Chair, the member went after the space industry. He went after a launch site. He is now going after Nova Scotia. I do not know where this is going to end, but one thing I can tell members is that I am going to stand with the people of Nova Scotia. I am going to stand with our astronauts. I am going to stand with the space industry. I will remind him that I am happy to put him in touch with astronauts. He would learn that Canso is a particular site from which to launch and something we need in terms of national security.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 37 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 32 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I am here to answer questions. We should be celebrating Canada's space program, including sending a Canadian around the moon, investing in our space industry, and building a launch site in Canada.”

“Mr. Chair, I am here to answer the questions from the member. What I find sad tonight is that there would be a way to celebrate the great success of our astronauts, the fact that we have launched a Canadian around the moon, the fact that we are investing in our space industry, the fact that we will have a launch site in Canada, and it is going to be part of the resilience of—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“We should not insult Canadian workers and businesses. I am offering to connect the member with our astronauts to talk about our space industry.”

“Mr. Chair, I do not know why, when we do these exercises, we need to talk down industry, why we need to talk down Canadians, why we need to talk down what people are doing. Let us talk about the industry. This is an olive branch. I am happy to put him in touch with astronauts—”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 18 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I want to connect the member with astronauts. They can explain how a rocket launch site in Canada helps our national security.”

“Again, Mr. Chair, in the spirit of collaboration, I am extending an olive branch to my colleague to put him in touch with astronauts so that he can learn how a launch site in Canada would be in the best interest of Canada’s national security.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Canada's economy is strong, not broken. Our deficit is lower than expected because our economy grew, and our debt is manageable. Global problems like the pandemic, wars, and American trade tariffs have hurt economies everywhere, but Canada is handling them well.”

“Mr. Chair, it is my turn to talk about Bill C-30 and to talk about the economic context in which our economic update was presented recently and, especially, the Canadian economy. What we have witnessed in the last year at least, since I have been here, is that our colleagues from the official opposition have developed this skill of offering really simplistic solutions to what are highly complex and serious problems. In that context, let us talk about the economic update. It was an economic update, not a budget, but of course, there were some fiscal measures that were also announced in the budget. What does the economic update tell us? To start with, the economic update tells us that the deficit for 2025‑26 in fact turned out to be about $66.9 billion rather than the $78.3 billion that had been forecast back in the November budget, so there was an improvement of about $11 billion in the public accounts of the government, of the country. Why was the deficit less than expected? It has nothing to do with the high price of oil. Conservatives talk about the GST on oil and say that it causes oil prices to go up and that is where the government makes its money, etc. No, the deficit was $11 billion less than what had been anticipated earlier because the economy in 2025 was much stronger than what had been expected. Government revenues were higher, and government spending was lower. That is where that $11 billion comes from. Not only is the economy of Canada a resilient economy that has been able to withstand severe shocks, but it grew at a reasonable pace when compared with our neighbours and peer countries. The economy of Canada is not broken. We are in fact leading the way among the G7 countries, which is recognized by our peers. That brings me to the next point I want to make, which is that this proves that Canada really has considerable fiscal strength. Our fiscal house is in order. We have a deficit of 2.1% of GDP, which, when we compare it to peer countries, is perfectly manageable. That deficit is projected to go to 1.4% of GDP by 2030, so the deficit is on a downward track. The debt-to-GDP ratio is at about 41% and will remain around that level in the fiscal framework into 2030 as well, which gives Canada a AAA rating. How can a country with a AAA rating have a broken economy? It does not. It does not make sense. We have a AAA rating because our fiscal house is in order and because our economy is growing despite the severe headwinds and shocks. By the way, I remind all members of the House and all those listening to us with great enthusiasm that this Friday, the GDP numbers are coming out for the first quarter. I do not know what those numbers will be, but I am pretty certain that Q1 GDP growth will be fairly strong. We hear this business that Canada has the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. No. In fact, we have one of the fastest-growing economies in the G7 despite the shocks and the very uncertain context in which we are operating. I would like to take some time to talk about that context. It is important to talk about the economic context because context is everything. Our colleagues from the opposition keep on saying that “2014 was this, 2014 was that, and 10 years later, blah blah blah.” The context is very important. We could go all the way back to 2007-08 and the financial crisis. I will not go that far, but I think we could because the world economy did go through a severe shock in 2007-08. The adjustment that took place afterwards took some time and left some scars globally. What has happened since 2020? We had the pandemic. The economy shut down. Governments in the OECD area shut down their economies because no one knew what was going to happen. Everything was stopped. To prevent a massive depression, because that was what was going to happen if nothing was done, governments in the OECD area spent massively to support their economies. The Conservatives will say we wasted all that money. If governments had not done that, then the OECD economies and the global economy would have slipped into a major depression. That was a big shock in 2020. It was then followed by an economic rebound, a very sharp rebound, that took place in late 2021 into 2022, and it was a rebound in the context of broken supply chains. The result of that was massive upward pressure on prices. Inflation took off in the OECD area. It was not a “Liberal deficit”. Were the Liberals also responsible for the U.S. deficit, the German deficit and the French deficit? Let us be serious. It was a result of the sharp rebound with broken supply chains, compounded by the war in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine led to, among other things, a very sharp increase in the prices of oil and other products, like grains. The global economy was already unbalanced in 2022-23. It was a very different environment than what we had before. New solutions and new proposals had to be put in place because the times were very different. As if that was not sufficient, then what did we have in 2024-25? A new administration in the United States decided to trigger a trade war. The world as we knew it is no longer the same. The United States, our trusted ally, no longer wants to buy things from Canada, because it claims it does not need anything from Canada. It does, but that is what it claims. Therefore, we have this weird world of 50% tariffs on aluminum from Canada in the name of the national security of the United States. The U.S. actually needs Canadian aluminum. We have a very complex world. The tariff war is real. The tariff war is something we did not ask for. The tariff war is what is leading to profound adjustments in our manufacturing sector and in our economy as a whole. As our Prime Minister has repeated over and over again, this is not just a simple adjustment. This is a rupture in the world as we knew it, and the world now is different. The world has changed. That is something provincial premiers have fully realized. Whether it is Mr. Ford in Ontario, Ms. Smith in Alberta or Mr. Moe in Saskatchewan, all Conservative premiers, they have realized the world has changed and Canada has to adjust to this new world order. Then, as if that was not enough, we have the war in the Middle East, which has led to a doubling of oil prices. That is a very different context that requires serious measures, which is what was done—”

“I want the Minister of Finance to explain what having a top credit rating means for Canada. How does it help Canadians, and what does it mean when he meets with other world leaders?”

“Mr. Chair, I have some questions for our excellent Minister of Finance. I am sorry about where I am sitting because we will have to turn. I did not choose my seating arrangement strategically. Perhaps the Minister of Finance could talk to us a little about what it really means to have a AAA credit rating. When he travels and meets with colleagues from other G7 countries, what does it mean to him that Canada has a AAA credit rating? What is the benefit of that for all Canadians?”

“Canada has a top credit rating, just like Germany. This gives us the money to make big investments in housing, infrastructure, and innovation.”

“Mr. Chair, it is refreshing to hear a colleague who was once a minister of finance talk to us about issues and real things. I think that the people of Laval must be very proud to hear my colleague share his experience. It is a great privilege to serve with a colleague who was once the finance minister of a great province like Quebec. I salute him and thank him for his economic statement. He is right, and it is refreshing to hear comments and questions like these because, essentially, what is being said is that two G7 countries, Canada and Germany, have an AAA credit rating. What does that give us? It gives us the fiscal capacity to make generational investments, similar to those that our colleagues in Germany made. We are doing it in infrastructure, obviously in housing, productivity and innovation, as well as effort. I will have a lot more to say in response to the next question.”