“I want the House to spend only one more day debating this budget bill at this stage, and then vote on it right away.”

“moved: That, in relation to Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.”

“We have debated this budget bill enough, and we need to pass it. It gives money back to Canadians and invests in our military. The member opposite spent years asking for more military funding, but now he is trying to stop this bill.”

“Madam Speaker, the member opposite, for years, has been championing investment in the defence industry. Now, when he gets this singular moment to support it, he gets up and rants about— James Bezan: Oh, oh! Hon. Marc Miller: Madam Speaker, the member has talked a lot. I think I will try to talk a little less. The member now starts ranting on about our not wanting to debate it, but it is very obvious that there has been sufficient and complete debate on this budget, which is important for getting money back into Canadians’ hands and reinvesting into the economy. To the member opposite’s point, it is important to invest in an industry that has been underinvested in for a long time, and to make sure Canadians are safe and protected by our military, the servicemen and servicewomen who serve this country and who are prepared to lay down their lives for it. As I have heard the member opposite for the last 10 years talk about the military, it is interesting that he gets one chance to support it but starts coming up with a whole bunch of theories about why we should not continue or why we should not accelerate and get it into the hands of the people best equipped to protect us. It is very odd, to say the least. If there is any any proof of that behaviour, it is in the amendment that the Conservatives suggested, which just wants to shut down the bill in the first place.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 37 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 →

“We should keep today's debate focused on the budget. We are having complicated talks with the United States right now, and it would be irresponsible to talk about them here. But we will always defend Canada's forestry industry.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank the member for this relevant question. Overall, I think that today’s debate should stick to what is in the budget. Some highly complex discussions are certainly under way with the United States, but I think it would be irresponsible to discuss them in the House of Commons. However, I want the member to know that we are still there to defend the forestry industry in Quebec and across Canada.”

• 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 →

“The opposition has asked for more defence spending, more housing, clean energy tax credits, and high-speed rail. Now they refuse to vote for this budget bill, even though it does those exact things.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to know why the members opposite do not want to reach our NATO spending targets, which they have been saying for years we need to reach. They have said time and time again they want to accelerate things. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Marc Miller: You have had your chance to talk. Why don’t you stand up and ask a question? Madam Speaker, if the member wants to talk, they should stand up and ask a question. Members opposite have been saying for years that we need to accelerate investing in Canada homes, delivering a clean electricity investment tax, introducing a productivity superdeduction and accelerating the path in constructing Alto high-speed rail. Now we give them the opportunity to put this through in a budgetary implementation act that is consistent with other budget implementation acts, and they are starting to balk.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The opposition has spent the last ten years blindly cheering their leaders. They shut Parliament down for a full year to stop bills from passing.”

“Madam Speaker, the members opposite have been clapping like seals for the last 10 years, so I think they have demonstrated what they believe the chamber should do. Indeed, they shut it down for an entire year, completely preventing legislation from getting through. Again— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 18 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 34 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 →

“This bill spends over half a billion dollars on Canadian arts, culture, and creators. I want the minister to explain why this investment is needed right now and how the cultural community has responded to it.”

“Madam Speaker, we are debating the second implementation bill of the 2025 budget, which includes an investment of more than half a billion dollars in Canadian creators and the cultural economy. This investment demonstrates that arts and culture are a priority for us. We talk about building Canada strong, and arts and culture, along with the entire cultural sector, are a cornerstone of what building Canada strong means to us. I want to ask the minister how the cultural community has responded to this investment and why it is important to make such an investment at this time.”

“We are spending up to $750 million on Canadian arts and culture. Even while trying to cut costs, we need to support artists, local groups, and the CBC.”

“Madam Speaker, I think my colleague has presented the reality of the situation just as well as the minister responsible for this file. I would say that, yes, cultural communities, creators and those who shape the vision of who we are as a country have welcomed this investment, especially knowing that this budget was meant to be prudent, particularly with regard to cost-cutting. Under the Prime Minister’s leadership, we are investing up to $750 million in Canadian arts and culture, because it is important, at this stage in our evolution as a country, to make significant investments, whether in CBC/Radio-Canada or in small communities like the one represented by the member that have things like theatre groups, and to ensure that the federal government is there to showcase all the talent that exists across the country.”

“The Conservatives are trying to stop debate on the budget bill. Experts and business groups support this budget because it helps lower bank fees, increases competition, and supports Canadian businesses.”

“Madam Speaker, again the Conservatives’ actions speak louder than their words. They would not have put forward the amendment they are proposing if they wanted to continue debate on the budget. The Conservatives do not believe what we have to say, so let me quote Bloomberg as to what its people thought about the budget: “Canada’s government is taking aim at competition in the financial sector, pledging to tackle fees, make it easier for consumers to switch banks and reduce regulatory burdens for smaller lenders.” The Council of Canadian Innovators said, “Today’s budget represents an important step toward building trust with Canada’s innovators and the broader business community. For the first time, we’re seeing the federal government embrace a serious conversation about economic sovereignty—and that shift in focus is both welcome and overdue.””

“The Bloc Québécois supports parts of this budget bill. Members of Parliament have had weeks to read it themselves, so they do not need to wait for a briefing.”

“Madam Speaker, I do not wish to be disrespectful towards the hon. member. I note, and we all should note, that the Bloc Québécois is offering some support for the budget. However, what he says is a little odd. Members have had several weeks to read the bill, yet the member said they were waiting for the briefing. I realize that the briefing could have been given earlier, but even though I am sometimes surprised to see proof to the contrary, I was under the impression that MPs could read.”

“Local leaders in southwestern Ontario want us to grow the economy quickly. The government is responding, but the Conservatives are dragging out this debate. I want the minister to talk about why we need to move fast.”

“Madam Speaker, it is really interesting to hear the comments that are being made in the House. I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to talk to regional mayors in southwestern Ontario and other leaders in our community who are seized with our economic development and the things that we need to do to continue to grow our region. The one answer that we have heard is that the government is responding fast, given the challenges that we are already facing. Maybe the minister can comment on the fact that we are in a situation we have never been in before. We need to move fast, and we need to work with everyone, including Parliament of course. Why are the Conservatives so stuck on continuing to drag on debate when people are asking us to move fast so our economy can continue to grow? The mayors of southwestern Ontario are asking for us to move with speed. Can the minister comment on that?”

“The Conservatives tell us to move faster, but then complain when we do. They shut down Parliament last year and do not have a clear plan. We are making the school food program permanent, but they have nothing to say about that.”

“Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are the ones who shut down Parliament for well over a year, about a year ago. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès): Order. Hon. Marc Miller: Madam Speaker, again, they want to hear answers, but all they do is heckle. They have been asking us to move faster and faster, but when it comes time to move fast, they start squealing. It makes no sense. One of the members talked about food banks. We have an initiative to make the school food plan permanent. The Conservatives have had no comment on that. They want to put money here and there, but where is not entirely clear. However, then they stand up and complain that we should be going slower. What is it: faster or slower?”

“The Conservatives say they want us to fund our military and meet our NATO targets, but then they complain about the deficit created by that military spending. Canadians pay taxes and expect us to invest in our armed forces. The Conservatives should be thanking us for doing what they asked for.”

“I do not know which Trudeau the Conservatives are more obsessed with, Madam Speaker. Maybe it is a tie. What is clear here is that the member opposite seemed to suggest that he supported investments in the defence industry, yet his leader stands up consistently and talks about the deficit related to the spending in our defence policy. Which is it? Is it more money into the defence industry that does not come from the government? That does not make sense, because Canadians expect us to invest in our defence. People pay taxes just so we can invest in our armed forces, which we are going to do. The Conservatives have spent weeks complaining about a deficit the vast majority of which is invested in our armed forces and to hit our NATO targets, which they have been asking us to do for 10 years. I would think the least the member could do is stand up and thank us.”

“Yes, we can do the briefing, but members must be ready. Three weeks is enough time to read 300 pages.”

“Madam Speaker, I would say that the answer is generally yes, but everyone has to be prepared for the briefing. All I was saying is that people can read. Honestly, three weeks to read 300 pages is not asking too much.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“People should stop playing politics with language. Doing that makes it harder to protect French as Quebec's main language. Our government supports language minorities across Canada without using them to score political points.”

“Madam Speaker, what I made very clear when I was appointed to this position is that I was fed up with the politicization of the language debate. It is true. The reality is that politicizing this debate makes it impossible to get to the heart of the matter to ensure that the common language in Quebec is and remains French. As a government, we support minority languages both outside and within Quebec. We do so with a clear-eyed perspective, without seeking to gain political capital at the expense of indigenous peoples, immigrants, English-speaking minority communities, and French-speaking minority communities outside Quebec. That was the point. I think this is a very important point to make, because right now, the member is going off in all sorts of directions to raise a very ridiculous point about today’s debate.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 22 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The member has asked me the same question three times. He has had three weeks to read the bill. If he wants to talk about it, he can ask me real questions about it right now.”

“Madam Speaker, it is not arrogant to point out that this is the third time he has asked me the same question. If he is interested in the bill, now is the time for him to ask me questions about it. He will also be able to ask me questions in the coming hours. I agreed with him that, yes, as a member of Parliament—and this applies to all members—he must be able to receive a proper briefing. I also told him that he had had three weeks to read the bill, but that I would be surprised if all members had taken that much time to read it.”

“I want to congratulate the member for working hard to learn French and speaking it well. She is a good example for other English speakers across Canada.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member opposite on the quality of her French and the efforts she has made to learn the language. I believe she is setting an example for many unilingual English speakers in this place and across Canada who are making the effort to learn French. I want to take this brief moment to congratulate her.”

“June is Filipino Heritage Month, and many people will celebrate across Canada. I want the minister to explain how the budget helps recognize our country's diversity.”

“Madam Speaker, the minister is responsible for heritage in Canada, and I want to recognize that June 1 is day one of Filipino Heritage Month. Winnipeg North is the centre of the heart of the Filipino community in Canada. It does not matter where. From coast to coast to coast, we will witness all forms of celebration of Filipino heritage. Given that the minister represents heritage, I wonder if he could provide his thoughts on how important it is to recognize Canada’s diversity, from the perspective of the budget. I would ask him to share his thoughts on the importance of recognizing our diversity.”

“I want to wish everyone a happy Filipino Heritage Month. Filipino Canadians have contributed a lot to our country, and their community is now over one million people.”

“Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to wish a great Filipino Heritage Month to everyone celebrating and to all Canadians, whether they are Filipino or not. This is a community that has grown, I think, to well over a million strong over the last few years: a million and one, if we count the member for Winnipeg North, who appears to be an honorary member of the Filipino community and certainly behaves as such. He has been a fierce defender of their rights and has magnified their struggle to be in Canada and to thrive as Canadian citizens. I wish all of those celebrating a great Filipino Heritage Month as we celebrate this month of June, recognizing their contributions to Canada, present and future.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 15 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 remind the Conservatives that they shut down Parliament from 2024 to 2025. It is my turn to speak.”

“Madam Speaker, not that this is an example for anyone, but I would remind the Conservatives that they shut down Parliament from 2024 to 2025. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Marc Miller: Madam Speaker, last time I checked, I was the guy standing. Members opposite would like to talk about the current economy, but I would note that—”

• 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 →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 29 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 →

“Canada has one of the strongest economies in the G7. In the last quarter, our economic growth per person went up.”

“Madam Speaker, I am glad to answer it. I would note for members opposite that when they are talking about one of the strongest economies in the G7, and it is a good point what they are saying, I would ask them to look at the issue they talked about for years, which is GDP per capita, and they will note that it has jumped in the last quarter.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →