“Government spending does not protect Canadian culture. Canadian creators succeed through the freedom to compete and express themselves, and we will keep standing up for that.”

“Madam Speaker, I think the Liberals often confuse spending and protecting. The Weeknd, James Carroll, Lorne Michaels and Saturday Night Live did not come from the CRTC content fund. What protects Canadian culture and talent is the freedom to compete. We will continue standing up for Canadian creators and their freedom to compete and express themselves.”

“The government must reject the new fee on streaming services like Netflix. This fee will make subscriptions more expensive for families. It will also push movie and television jobs out of Canada.”

“Madam Speaker, the Liberal government must reject the CRTC’s massive increase imposed on our online streaming platforms such as Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV, an increase sometimes referred to as the “Netflix tax.” The government may try to frame this as a technical broadcasting adjustment, but Canadians know what it really means. It means higher costs and another blow to affordability at a time when families are already struggling. The government could not even contain itself from taxing at-home leisure. The CRTC has now increased the required contribution from major streaming services from 5% to 15% of Canadian revenues, tripling the burden imposed on these companies. The 15% levy now places Canada among the most expensive countries in the world for streaming services to operate in. Let us be honest, business and Canadians do not operate alone or in a vacuum. When the Liberal government increases costs, those costs do not simply disappear. They erode the quality of leisure for hard-working Canadians. The Liberal government will, of course, avoid answering a very simple economic question: Who ultimately pays for this massive increase in costs? There are only two possible outcomes. Either streaming platforms decide Canada is becoming too expensive and not worth investing in, or they pass the high costs directly on to Canadian consumers. In both cases, Canadians lose. If productions move elsewhere, Canada loses jobs, investment and economic activity. This industry is highly mobile. Streaming companies can produce content almost anywhere in the world. Governments everywhere are competing aggressively to attract these productions, because they generate high-quality jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity. Why is the government increasing costs at a time when Canada is already struggling to attract investment? Canada already has a growing reputation internationally for being expensive, over-regulated and increasingly difficult to do business in. We have already seen capital leaving sectors such as energy, manufacturing and resource development. This policy discourages investment in Canada and is particularly damaging for major film and television production hubs like Vancouver and Toronto. If the government believes companies will simply pass the costs on to consumers, then let us call the policy what it really is, which is an indirect tax on Canadians. The Liberals may insist this is not technically a tax because the money does not flow directly into government revenue, but if government policy deliberately increases costs for companies and companies then raise prices for consumers, the effect on Canadians is exactly the same: Families pay more. Whether it appears on a tax form or on a monthly streaming bill, it is still more money coming out of the pockets of Canadians during a cost of living crisis. The Liberals may argue that the increase per household is small, but Canadians are tired of being told every increase is small. A few dollars more for streaming, a few dollars more for groceries, a few dollars more for fuel and a few dollars more for utilities, and eventually, those small increases become a major burden for families already living paycheque to paycheque. The total amount involved is not small. Reports indicate the new framework could extract hundreds of millions of additional dollars annually from the Canadian market, potentially approaching $600 million overall in contribution obligations. That is money Canadians could otherwise spend in the broader economy. That money could go toward groceries, restaurants, children’s clothing, mortgage payments or supporting small businesses. Instead, the Liberals are squeezing more money out of consumers during a cost of living crisis. While the government talks about supporting industry, these platforms are already major contributors to the Canadian economy. Netflix alone has stated that, between 2021 and 2024, its activities generated approximately $6.5 billion in economic impact in Canada. These productions support thousands of jobs: camera operators, editors, visual effects artists, drivers, construction workers, caterers and countless small businesses connected to film production. This is especially important for major urban centres, such as Vancouver and Toronto, where the screen production industry has become a major economic engine. Netflix recently opened Netflix Animation Studios in Vancouver, creating more than 450 jobs in the city and bringing significant investment into British Columbia. This issue matters deeply to my riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole. Richmond and the broader Metro Vancouver region are directly connected to British Columbia’s growing film and streaming industry. Many residents in my community work directly or indirectly in these sectors. In Richmond alone, filming activities take place almost every day of the year. When productions expand, jobs are created. When investments slow, local workers and businesses feel the consequences. Conservatives believe Canada should be a country that attracts investment, rewards innovation and creates jobs. However, once again, the Liberals are moving in the opposite direction. Every time a sector becomes successful, this government seeks another opportunity to impose higher costs and heavier regulations. At a time when Canada desperately needs economic growth, productivity and investor confidence, this government is making Canada less competitive. Canadians are the ones who will pay the price, through fewer jobs, less investment or higher monthly bills. This increase is the wrong policy at the wrong time. Canadians deserve affordability. Canadians deserve economic opportunity. Canadians deserve a government that understands growth cannot come from squeezing more money out of consumers and businesses. Conservatives will continue standing up for affordability, investment, jobs and common sense.”

“The government has changed CRTC decisions before, so it can do it again now. This new fee will make life more expensive. Does the government support adding this extra cost on people?”

“Mr. Speaker, let us see who is sidestepping here. From 2021 up to now, we have seen numerous occasions where the government intervened with decisions made by the CRTC. Now the Liberals are trying to hide behind the argument that the CRTC is an arm’s-length organization. Let us be clear. We are not talking about the CRTC’s mandate here today. We are talking about affordability and the burden on the people with this increase in levy. Let me ask a simple question: Does the government agree that this increase would impose an additional burden on the people? Also, will the government support this additional burden on the people?”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“My area has become a big place for making movies and TV shows. How will this higher tax hurt our communities?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the area I come from, the Sudbury area, has actually become a pretty major Ontario film hub over the last 10 to 15 years, namely for Shoresy, which is a spinoff of Letterkenny. How does my colleague think this increase in tax will impact our communities and what damage might it do?”

“Our film industry brings jobs and money to our communities. We should not put extra costs or taxes on these businesses, because that will hurt people and the economy.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think my city and his riding are in a similar situation. We have a growing film industry, and we are creating jobs and economic activities in our community, which is very beneficial to people. I think we have to keep this economic growth going. If this kind of levy is imposed on companies creating jobs for our communities, I think it will hurt people. We have to safeguard and encourage the film industry, and not have it destroyed by this kind of additional cost for businesses.”

“The Liberals are hurting Canada's arts and film industry with new fees and taxes. We should stop blaming Donald Trump for our problems. Instead of government control, we should bring in private investment and competition to help Canadian culture grow.”

“Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments that my Bloc colleague made earlier that the Liberals are a major threat to the cultural sector in Canada. Imposing that kind of levy with an increase is not going to make the cultural sector stronger. Also, I believe we are focusing too much on Trump. We are talking about our own production and our own film industry in our country. Very often, Trump is being used as an excuse or as a defence, which again sidesteps the issue. We have to encourage investments coming into our country for the cultural sector, so that those investments and their efficiency through competition will make Canada’s culture be more widely broadcast, not by government intervention, but by the market economy.”

“Tax credits helped the film industry grow in Sudbury. I want to know if the member supports this tax or not.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the filming industry in my area, in Sudbury, managed to come about and grow because of tax credits, incentives and so on. I listened to the member, and I would like to ask him whether he is for or against this tax.”

“Our tax credits helped our film industry grow. But the new broadcast regulator rule takes away revenue and adds taxes. Will this hurt the industry and push Canadian jobs to the United States?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her description of the excellence, the talent and the workforce that have been created. I had the pleasure of working for the Ontario government in 1995 when we came forward with the Ontario film and tax credit. We have generous tax credits provincially and federally, which have allowed the excellence of that industry to grow. However, does the member not think that the ruling from the CRTC, the penalizing of the revenues up to 15% and the tax that will flow because of it, lead to penalizing the industry and to the loss of jobs and expertise? It is a competitive business. Production companies are being told to go to the United States. Would we lose because of this move?”

“The government's streaming laws led to new fees on foreign media companies. This hurts our trade relationship with the United States and threatens Canadian jobs. We should cancel this tax hike and protect trade with the U.S. instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak about the recent CRTC decision, what it means for the ongoing trade relationship between Canada and the United States, and both how this decision will directly hit Canadians at home and its broader implications on negotiations on 232 tariffs and CUSMA. I first want to address the first point of defence that the government uses, which is that this is not a government decision but a CRTC decision. This is a gross mis-characterization of the process. The CRTC’s own press release clearly indicates that the decision is a direct result of the organization’s attempt to meet criteria set out in legislation introduced and passed by the government. The CRTC presser acknowledges: The CRTC is taking important steps to implement the modernized Broadcasting Act (the Act) by updating how Canadian and Indigenous content is supported and made available. The Act requires the CRTC to modernize Canada’s broadcasting framework and ensure that online broadcasters make meaningful contributions to Canadian and Indigenous content. That instruction came in the last Parliament, under Bill C‑11, the Online Streaming Act. I will remind the House that Conservatives raised objections to this legislation, including to its potential impact to CUSMA negotiations, months prior to the U.S. election. We voted against the legislation specifically because of our concerns of impacts to the trading relationship between Canada and the U.S. even during the Biden administration and before the current administration’s battery of unjust and unfair tariffs was levied against Canadian industry. Outside the House, we were not alone in our concerns. In June 2024, in a meeting with the international trade committee, Dr. Meredith Lilly, associate professor and Simon Reisman chair in international economic policy at Carleton University in Ottawa, stated in her opening remarks: ...implementing CUSMA in good faith also means not adopting legislation and regulatory measures that contravene CUSMA and antagonize the Americans. For example, on digital trade, the Online Streaming Act would be in violation of the chapter of CUSMA on digital trade were it not for Canada’s cultural exemption. Similarly, unilateral action by Canada to introduce a digital services tax would discriminate against large U.S. firms. We should be prepared for U.S. retaliation if these measures are enacted, and Canadian lawmakers should be aware of the damaging consequences for the broader CUSMA review process. Similarly, Sean Heather, senior vice-president for international regulatory affairs and antitrust at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, stated: Consequently, Americans find it ironic that Bill C‑11 specifically targets U.S. companies in a manner that may violate Canada’s international trading obligations, including those under CUSMA. This action appears to contravene commitments that guarantee a minimal standard of treatment, require equal treatment of foreigners and local enterprises, and obligate Canada to refrain from imposing certain performance requirements on foreign direct investment. While addressing a press conference in 1947, standing alongside Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, President Harry Truman said, “The record proves that in peaceful commerce the combined efforts of our countries can produce outstanding results. Our trade with each other is far greater than that of any other two nations on earth.” Everyone was telling not just the government but all members of the House that the Online Streaming Act would have a negative effect on CUSMA talks. Now we have the added issue of tariff negotiations as well, and all of this is just for the initial 5%. Bill C-11 gave the CRTC the power to do what it is doing. As a result, that 5% has now tripled to 15%, and the timing could not have been worse. The Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade is heading down to Washington to negotiate with our American counterparts, which is a difficult prospect on the best of days. Now he has to contend with a regulatory body’s recently tripling what the Americans have viewed since 2024 as a trade irritant. I will be quite candid. I would love for the minister to succeed. There would be no member of the House happier than me if he came home with a paper in hand that ends the 232 tariffs sets the groundwork for a successful CUSMA review, but decisions like the recent CRTC announcement make it unnecessarily harder for him, especially considering that the initial levy is still being argued before the courts. We need, collectively, to set him up to succeed, not to fail. Supporting the decision by the CRTC, and refusing to accept responsibility for giving it the authority and mandate to do what everyone warned it would do, is not supporting the minister in his duties but actively torpedoing him. I would also like to take the opportunity to head off the argument that by opposing this tax hike, and tax in general, we are attacking Canadian and indigenous media and content producers. This is simply false. The government has innumerable ways to help out these sectors financially. The only thing we are saying is to not create an additional irritant in a trillion-dollar relationship in order to get there. I have the perfect solution. The CRTC estimates that the tax will mean $2 billion in revenue. I know how we can supplement that for the next 45 years, and it will not cost the government a single cent of additional committed funding: cancel the $90-billion Alto high-speed rail vanity project. Using public funds to unite Canadians through media, among a dozen other concerns, is a far better use of taxpayers’ dollars than paying for a project that no one asked for and that will involve the permanent expropriation of private lands and tear rural communities asunder. Naturally, yes, I am singling out the Alto high-speed rail project because it is topical and relevant to my riding, but the broader point is that there are a number of programs or revenue-raising mechanisms that can be used instead of a tax on these digital service providers. What gets lost in these conversations is the reality of these investments in Canada. These companies, while American-owned, provide economic benefits alongside Canadian digital service providers. They provided $4.6 billion in 2024-25 and were responsible for 86% of foreign productions that year. They support an estimated 85,000 Canadian jobs, and of course, they are not happy. Motion Picture Association CEO Charles Rivkin issued a statement on this matter, which in part reads, “This burdensome framework unfairly targets global streamers with requirements that directly violate Canada’s obligations under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.... The decision also undermines the open, market-based system that has helped fuel investment, job creation, and creative partnerships across North America”. It is important to remember that these concerns about Bill C-11, which led to the recent CRTC decisions affecting the Canada-U.S. relationship, predated the Trump administration. They predated elbows up. They predated the current trade war. It may feel great to some listeners to dismiss the importance of this relationship and say to move on. If they are not willing to listen to the economic argument against that, I would encourage them to think about what that means for their daughter-in-law who works in the local steel mill, their father who is on the line at the auto plant or their sister who is working at the pulp mill. Their economic well-being, as well as the livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who depend on the nearly $1 trillion of trade that flows between our two nations annually, is the cost of that good feeling. As a legislator, I am not prepared to pay that cost. Speaking to the importance and defence of Canada-U.S. trade is not a defence of or attack against any one administration, Democrat, Republican, Liberal or Conservative. It is a plea to cut through the rhetoric and noise and to repair and reinvigorate the relationship between our two great nations. We as legislators need to think beyond the current news cycle. We need to plan for 10, 20, 50 and 100 years into the future. Yes, that means diversification, but as the Prime Minister himself recently said, that also means deeper integration while building fortress North America. Leaders on both sides of the border cannot change that one part proximity, but we need certainty to change everything we can to restore those nine parts goodwill and common sense. Getting rid of this tax hike is certainly a step in the right direction.”

“The United States warned Canada many times not to tax streaming services like Netflix. A top American trade official said our streaming law hurts our trade relationship. The government was careless to pass this law, and we need to deal with this problem.”

“Mr. Speaker, very boldly, I will reiterate for the record, the USTR warned Canada again and again not to institute this Netflix tax. The USTR, Ambassador Jamieson Greer, in testimony to the ways and means committee of the U.S. Congress, specifically cited the implementation of the Online Streaming Act as a trade irritant, and I can attach that for the record in the House of Commons. We in the House have to acknowledge that this is a big picture. We cannot get caught up in the noise and the rhetoric. This is significant information and data that needs to be addressed, and this is a careless act by the government.”

“American film and TV productions supported about 85,000 Canadian jobs this year. That is more than double the jobs in Canada's steel and aluminum industries combined.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge that American film and television production supported an estimated 85,000 Canadian jobs in 2024-25, which is more than two and a half times the combined direct workforce of Canada’s steel industry of 23,000 and aluminum industry of 9,800.”

• 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 →

“Canadians already struggle with high costs. The government is making streaming services more expensive with a new tax. Why is the government adding another tax to families who cannot afford it?”

“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a wonderful member of Parliament and a passionate public servant. Canadians are already struggling with rising costs. Every industry is struggling to survive. Now the Liberal government wants to make streaming services more expensive through its so-called streaming tax. Why is the government punishing families with another tax while affordability is already challenging for Canadian families?”

“Trade tariffs and the upcoming review of our North American trade deal are hurting Canadian workers and businesses. I want the trade minister to sit down with our trade partners and fix this now. I am ready to work with him.”

“Mr. Speaker, every single time I am back in the riding and throughout the weeks when I am serving the people in the House of Commons in Ottawa, I continuously listen to the concerns of Canadians. In concert with working on the file as shadow minister of Canada-U.S. trade, I am continuously reminded of the hardships that Canadians are facing, especially in the industries affected by the tariffs and the pending CUSMA review. July 1 is a benchmark, but we need to move forward with specific action. We need to lose the rhetoric, lose the noise, get to the table and have a conversation. Mexico is at the table. Mexico is having a conversation. I urge the Minister of Canada-U.S. Trade to do what he does best, to sit down and work this out, in coordination with a willing shadow minister of Canada-U.S. trade. We are able to work together. We have a lot of people at the table, a lot of stakeholders with a lot of expertise, who are willing to make this work. Let us get it done.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 10 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the government to stop the new streaming tax. Streaming companies will pass this cost to Canadians, making monthly bills higher. Life is already too expensive, and this tax also hurts our trade with the United States.”

“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are stretched thin. They are paying more for groceries, more for gas, more for rent, more for everything. Now the Liberals want them to pay more to stream their favourite shows and movies online. With this new policy, the CRTC is ordering online streaming services like Netflix and Disney to pay more of their annual Canadian revenues to fund Canadian content. It is not the first time the Liberals have tried to do this. Under the Liberals, the CRTC introduced a 5% tax on revenues. That tax is being challenged and is still before the courts. Now it wants to increase the tax from 5% to 15%, and that is wrong. Let us call it what it is: This is a streaming tax. A tax is a tax is a tax. Canadians know exactly what happens next. Big corporations simply do not absorb new costs. They pass them on to consumers. That means higher monthly bills for Canadian families who are already struggling with the cost of living crisis the Liberal government created. The Liberals can try to dress this up in bureaucratic language. They can call it a contribution, and they can call it modernization, but Canadians know better. If it walks like a tax and costs like a tax, it is a tax. Canadians can smell a rat, and they can smell a tax too. This Liberal tax will drive up the cost of living for all Canadians who have to shell out for online streaming services. This is just another example of a government that believes Canadians are somehow undertaxed. Conservatives have always believed in letting Canadians keep more of their own money in their own pockets. By contrast, the Liberals are always the ones with their hands in Canadians’ pockets. We have repeatedly called on the government to remove all taxes on gasoline and diesel at the pumps to give some measure of tax relief to beleaguered Canadians. Unfortunately, the Liberals have only responded with half measures, including taking off a few cents a litre in taxes, but we know more can be done. After 11 years of the Liberal government, life has become more expensive. Mortgage payments have doubled for many families. Food inflation has hammered household budgets. Food bank usage has doubled since 2019 to nearly 2.2 million visits per month. One in four Canadian kids now go to school hungry. Canadians are struggling. At the same time, interest rates have soared. Why? It is because the government fuelled that inflation with its reckless spending. The Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau’s deficit, which was $31 billion. This allegedly new and improved leader has a projected deficit of $65 billion. Now the Liberals want to make our entertainment more expensive too. Canadians use streaming services because they want choice, convenience and affordability, and the Liberals are threatening all three. The Liberals have already pushed through the Online Streaming Act. Conservatives warned that bill would open the door to more government control, more CRTC interference and more costs for consumers. We were right. The Liberals claimed ordinary Canadians would not be affected, but now we see the consequences. We see the higher costs. We know there is more red tape. Ultimately, we know it is due to more government meddling. It is the same old Liberal platform: tax, spend, repeat. This decision also sends the wrong message to investors. Canada should be attracting investment, not driving it away. Businesses need certainty. They need competitiveness. They need a government that understands economic growth. Instead, under the Liberal government, all they get is endless regulation, escalating costs and unpredictable markets. Why would companies invest more in Canada when the Liberal government keeps moving the goalposts? Why would innovators choose Canada when they are punished with higher fees and heavier regulation? Conservatives believe in supporting Canadian culture, but we do not strengthen it by punishing investment, driving up costs and undermining economic growth. This decision creates uncertainty at the worst possible time. Canada’s economy is already weak. Productivity is declining. Investment is lagging behind our competitors. Businesses are leaving. This 15% tax hike places Canada among the most expensive operating jurisdictions in the world for streaming services. Put simply, it discourages business investment in Canada and will further devastate Canadian film and television production hubs like Vancouver and Toronto. In the face of declining capital, the Liberals are responding the only way they know how, with another tax hike for already struggling Canadians. That is backward and Conservatives will stand against it. This decision also risks damaging Canada’s relationship with the United States ahead of a CUSMA review. At a time when we should be reducing trade tensions, the Liberals are creating new trade irritants. The U.S. ambassador to Canada said, “CRTC’s decision to triple the tax rate on leading streaming services is making a bad situation worse. CRTC is targeting and taxing U.S. companies, putting up new, discriminatory trade barriers, and worsening the investment climate for American businesses.” That is exactly what the government is doing: making a bad situation worse. While we are on the topic, how are those trade talks going? I remember that, for the first Canada-U.S. trade deal under Justin Trudeau, there were discussions many months in advance. The true irony of this is that the new Prime Minister sold himself to Canadians as the man who could get a deal with Mr. Trump by July 2025. Obviously, that failed. I am pessimistic about his ability to get a new trade deal anytime soon, especially when his government is increasing tensions between our countries with more needless taxation. That is just irresponsible. The United States has already raised concerns about discriminatory digital taxes and regulatory measures targeting American companies. The Liberals should be working to strengthen North American trade, not weaken it. Our economy depends on stable and predictable trade relationships. The government should not be picking fights with our largest trading partner just to satisfy its ideological obsession with big government. It is not just American organizations that are against this tax hike. It has also faced criticism from Canadian domestic screenwriters and creators, including the Writers Guild of Canada. Conservatives believe in lower taxes. We believe Canadians should keep more of their own money. We believe government should spend within its means, instead of driving up its deficit and constantly reaching deeper into Canadians’ pockets. We believe consumers, not bureaucrats, should decide what Canadians watch online. The streaming tax is costly, careless and completely unnecessary. That is why we are calling on the Liberals to reject the CRTC’s decision. The government has the authority to act. It should eliminate this streaming tax before Canadians are forced to pay the price. Canadians cannot afford more Liberal taxes. They cannot afford more inflation. They certainly cannot afford another Liberal government cash grab disguised as cultural policy. Conservatives will continue fighting for affordability, for taxpayers and for common sense.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Respect 98 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “This allegedly new and improved leader”.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×25

  A repeated line

  “After 11 years of the Liberal government.”

  Said 25 times by 19 members since April 30.

  Every time it was said →

“The United States is our biggest trading partner. We need to trade with them without tariffs, but high taxes make that harder and will hurt us.”

“Mr. Speaker, Canada is not alone, but that is hardly a bragging point. Saying other countries overtax their citizens, too, is not a bragging point. Whether we agree with the U.S. on certain things or not, they are our biggest trading partner. We need to get tariff-free access to United States markets. This is a major impediment and it is going to have absolutely terrible repercussions.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We are not attacking Quebec culture. The government's plan will just cost Canadians more money. It will make it harder for people to afford simple things like streaming Netflix and Disney+.”

“Mr. Speaker, no, of course we do not want to attack Quebec culture, but let us call this what it is. This is not an attack on culture. This is an attack on Canadians’ wallets. It is one of the few pleasures that people seem to have these days. They can sit back and stream Disney+ and Netflix. The Liberal government wants to take even that small pleasure away from them, and that is just unconscionable.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Canadians are struggling to pay for food, housing, and gas. The government's plans to help are not working. I want to know why the government keeps raising taxes and making life more expensive for people.”

“Mr. Speaker, we know, and hear in this place almost daily, that Canadians are struggling. We are in an affordability crisis. Canadians are having a hard time being able to house themselves, feed themselves and even fuel up to get where they need to go. We hear a lot from the Liberal government about its so-called affordability measures that it seems to have to put in place, but they are clearly not working because Canadians still cannot afford to feed and house themselves. Why is it that the Liberal government always promotes or wants to increase taxes and does not care when costs keep rising and it is a burden is on Canadians?”

“Canadians are struggling to pay for food and rent, and they cannot afford another tax. The government's new tax will also hurt trade talks with the United States.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is the $64,000 question. Canadians just cannot afford another tax, and the Liberals keep heaping them on. Canadians are having trouble putting food on the table and paying rent, and now we get this onerous luxury tax, basically, that will also imperil negotiations with getting a free trade deal with the United States. It is double-trouble.”

• 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 →

“I want the member to explain how this affects our trade deal negotiations with the United States. We are already hearing concerns from them.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member is a neighbour in Edmonton. He mentioned in his previous answer how this can affect the negotiations with CUSMA or the USMCA. We are hearing from the United States about this specific topic. If he can talk about this, I think it will be important for this conversation.”

“I agree with my colleague. The American ambassador criticized this. We should not upset the United States because they are our biggest trading partner.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. It has been criticized. The U.S. ambassador himself criticized this as a major irritant. This is not the time to further irritate our largest trading partner. We are lucky to be on the border with the United States of America in order to sell our goods to them. They are—”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →