“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?”