“We have been asking questions for three hours. The minister will not even answer a very simple question about whether he buys his own groceries.”

“Mr. Chair, we have just seen the proof. We have been asking questions for three hours. I asked the easiest possible one: Does the minister do his own grocery shopping? It does not get any simpler than that.”

“I want the minister to tell me how much a pound of butter costs in Quebec right now.”

“Mr. Chair, thank you for calling me to order. You are quite right. Here is my second, equally simple question for the minister, who has just confirmed that he does his own grocery shopping: How much does a pound of butter currently cost in Quebec?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 25 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 →

“Butter cost nine dollars this morning. I want to know if the minister knows how much milk costs in Quebec.”

“Mr. Chair, I would like to know where the minister does his shopping, because at the IGA this morning, a pound of butter was $8.99. I will follow up with another simple question. How much does a two-litre carton of milk currently cost in Quebec? Can the minister tell us the price of milk?”

“The Prime Minister said that life has been hard to afford for over ten years. I want to know if the minister agrees with him.”

“Mr. Chair, I have been involved in provincial and federal politics for 10 years. I have to give the minister credit: He came well prepared for the question period when he realized it was a possibility. I congratulate his team. On March 25, the Prime Minister said that affordability has not been good for over a decade. I want to know whether the minister shares the Prime Minister’s opinion.”

“I want to know how much rent has gone up in Quebec over the past few years.”

“Mr. Chair, we are talking about affordability. I would like to know what the percentage increase in rent has been in Quebec over the past few years.”

“The minister's numbers are wrong. Housing costs have gone up 30% since April 2021. How many homes are actually being built right now with the $13-billion housing program?”

“Mr. Chair, I am going to have to correct the minister on that response. We are currently seeing an average increase of 3.6% year-over-year and a 30% increase since April 2021. The $13-billion Build Canada Homes program is a good way to build a number of homes. I would like to know how many housing units are currently being built through Build Canada Homes.”

“The government's new housing agency has only built 5,200 homes out of its 500,000 goal. That is just two percent, and at this rate it will take 50 years. I want to know why the government created this new agency when it works this slowly.”

“Mr. Chair, we are talking about the number of homes built by this new organization established by the Liberal government, Build Canada Homes. The figure is 2%. Only 5,200 housing units out of a target of 500,000 have been built. That represents 2% of the target. At that rate, it would take nearly 50 years to meet the target. Is the minister aware that this cannot work at that pace? Why create a new organization like Build Canada Homes?”

“The government created a new housing agency that adds red tape and builds no homes. Also, a private company rents land in Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year and is renting it back to the federal government for $20 million a year. That will cost $200 million over 10 years. I want to know if the minister thinks this is a good way to spend public money.”

“Mr. Chair, Build Canada Homes is another agency that the Liberal government just established. That means even more red tape, and we have not seen any real results in terms of new housing. I want to come back to another subject: the space launch pad in Nova Scotia. A private company is leasing land from the provincial government for $13,500 per year. That same private company then turned around and sublet the land to the Liberal federal government for $20 million per year. To make this even more profitable, a 10-year contract will be signed. We are talking about $200 million. I repeat: A private company is leasing land from the provincial government for $13,500 a year. That same company turned around and sublet the same land to the Liberal federal government for $20 million per year for 10 years, or $200 million. My question for the minister is simple. Is this sound management of public finances? Would he have signed this agreement if this were his own money?”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “That company then turned around and sublet the same land to the Liberal federal government for $20 million a year.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since May 26.

  Every time it was said →

“I want the minister to explain a bad deal. A private company pays $13,500 a year to rent land, but the government is paying that same company $20 million a year to rent it. The minister is avoiding my question.”

“Mr. Chair, I hope that Canadians are watching. I just asked the minister to explain how we entered into a 10-year contract worth $20 million a year when a private company is renting that land for $13,500 a year. His response is that he is going to introduce me to some astronauts to avoid talking about this mismanagement. Again, a private company is renting property from the provincial government for $13,500 a year. That same company then turns around and rents out that same property to the federal government for $20 million a year for 10 years, or $200 million—”

“The government has a $66.9-billion deficit this year and plans to run huge deficits for five more years. I want the minister to answer when this level of spending will stop.”

“Mr. Chair, the minister has been taking questions for a little over three hours now, but we have not gotten any real answers so far, just a lot of hot air. I will stick to the facts. We want to avoid being partisan, so we will stick to the facts. It is a fact that we have a $66.9-billion deficit this year. That is the biggest deficit in the history of the country, outside of the pandemic. What is worse, the Liberals are planning to spend an average of $59 billion per year for the next five years. They will rack up a deficit of $59 billion per year for the next five years. My question for the minister is very simple. At what point does it become unacceptable to burn through taxpayers’ money like that?”

“The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer says our debt will keep growing over the next few years. I want to know if the government thinks his numbers are wrong.”

“Mr. Chair, I do not need a clip. I think people like to know what is going on over here and get informed through clips. That is how they learn about the government’s out-of-control spending. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is independent. I have just been told that we are dealing with independent officers, people who are being independently monitored. That is great. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the debt-to-GDP ratio will increase by 43.7% by 2030. Is he way off the mark or is that some bad news?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 35 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 the minister to answer my question in French. The government has already run the largest deficits in Canadian history, and they plan to keep doing it. Why do they need more money when they have already spent more than any past government?”

“Mr. Chair, I asked the question in French. Perhaps the minister should get his answer translated more quickly. I would prefer to get an answer in French. The people listening to us would prefer to hear answers in the same language the question was asked in. It was just mentioned that the government ran up the biggest deficit in Canadian history. Not only that, but the government will continue to run bigger deficits for the next five years. The Liberals’ first instinct was to charge $25 billion to Canadians’ credit card to create a sovereign debt fund. Why are they trying to get even more money when they have spent more than any other government in the history of our country?”

“The government is spending too much money, and the deficit will stay high for years. They also created a debt fund that another country refused to call a wealth fund because it was built on debt. Does the minister know this?”

“Mr. Chair, it is interesting that the minister would mention fiscal responsibility. The deficit is forecasted to be $65 billion in 2027, $63.5 billion in 2028, $58 billion in 2029, $56 billion in 2030 and $53 billion in 2031. Under the previous prime minister, we had a $31-billion deficit. The Liberals boast about their fiscal responsibility, but I think they should show a bit more restraint. I am going to ask another question and go back to the one I asked earlier. The Liberals have created a sovereign debt fund. Are they aware that the British Parliament tried the same thing but refused to call it a sovereign wealth fund because it was built on debt? Is the minister aware of that?”

“I want the minister to answer my questions. The government said it ended the rule requiring electric car sales. Does that rule still exist in Canada or not?”

“Mr. Chair, I am having a very hard time understanding what the Liberal EV and auto strategy is. I have a series of questions for the minister, and I hope he will actually try to answer the questions I am asking. Minister, your government announced the end of the zero-emission vehicle mandate. Is it your position that there is still no zero-emission vehicle mandate in Canada for automobiles?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 38 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 the minister to admit that the government's rules are an electric vehicle mandate. By 2035, only fully electric vehicles will meet the rules.”

“Yes, Mr. Chair, I am splitting my time. I asked the minister about a zero-emission vehicle mandate, and he did not answer. I am assuming it is because the minister did not know the answer. In fact, the regulations that the government has put forward actually mean that only a fully electric vehicle will meet the tailpipe emissions target by 2035. Will he agree with me that this is a zero-emission vehicle mandate?”

“The minister has not answered my last two questions. I want to know if he knows how many vehicles were made in Canada in 2025.”

“Mr. Chair, it is very frustrating when ministers will not answer questions. That is two questions I have asked, and two questions he did not answer. Does the minister know how many vehicles were manufactured in Canada in 2025?”

“The minister did not answer my question. Of the 1.2 million vehicles, how many were electric cars made in Canada?”

“Mr. Chair, once again, the minister is either unwilling or unable to answer a question that I am asking. The answer to that question is this: 1.2 million vehicles. Does the minister know, of those 1.2 million vehicles, how many were electric vehicles that were manufactured in Canada?”

“The minister has not answered my questions. Canada makes 1.2 million vehicles, and only 20,000 are fully electric. I want the minister to tell me what percentage that is.”

“Mr. Chair, it is becoming quite embarrassing now. I have asked three questions, and the minister has not even attempted to answer any of them. I will answer that question as well. It is 20,000 vehicles. Out of 1.2 million vehicles manufactured in Canada, 20,000 of those are fully electric vehicles that will meet the zero-emission vehicle mandate. Does the minister know what percentage that is of the vehicles manufactured in Canada?”

“Only a tiny fraction of cars made in Canada meet the government's zero-emission rules. Almost all of the cars we make will be banned by 2035. Why did the government make a rule that does this?”

“Mr. Chair, 1.6% of the vehicles manufactured in Canada will meet the Liberal zero-emission vehicles mandate. That means that 98.4% of the vehicles manufactured in Canada will not. Why did the Liberals set up a zero-emission vehicles mandate that will make 98.4% of the vehicles manufactured in Canada illegal by 2035?”

“Canada only makes a tiny share of electric cars. The government's plan for electric cars just means bringing in over 50,000 electric vehicles made in China.”

“Mr. Chair, when he says that electrification is the north star in Canada, and we only manufacture 1.6% of our vehicles as electric, what he must mean by “electrification is the north star in Canada” are the 50,000 Chinese electric vehicles that he is now allowing into Canada. Is it not really what he means when he says electrification is the future or the north star, that it is the 50,000-plus Chinese electric vehicles that he is going to be bringing into the country?”