TranslatePolitics.ca

Ryan Turnbull

Liberal 4:55 p.m.

“I'm going to list a lot of things our government is doing. Food prices are high so we're sending cheques to lots of people. We're also changing tax rules to help greenhouse builders. And we have a whole food security strategy with billions of dollars. We're extending the grace period before people have to repay money they took out of their RRSP to buy a home. We're reducing pension contributions slightly. The opposition argues with us a lot but we're doing the right things to help Canadians.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to participate in the debate on a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28. We are debating the government motion today, which is very important. It is unfortunate that we needed a government motion to program committee business to ensure that the bill gets passed, but it is the direct result of Conservatives filibustering. They moved eight subamendments, for example, on one amendment, which was their amendment. It is quite unfortunate, when we think about parliamentary procedure, that the Conservatives had amendments that did not include the subamendments that they then proposed. They then successively filibustered the committee on an aspect of Bill C-30 that they had actually advocated for, to lower CPP contributions, knowing that the pension plan was healthy. It is very unfortunate that we are here today, but I am also proud to work on behalf of Canadians and get key affordability and economic measures passed in the House before the House rises for the summer. Our government delivered the spring economic update 2026, “Canada Strong for All”, in April, as Canadians felt the too real effects of geopolitical turbulence well beyond the country's borders. That deep uncertainty persists as the world continues to undergo a series of fundamental shifts at a speed, scope and scale not seen in generations. This fragmented world is more complex, more volatile and, for many, more costly and unpredictable. Our government continues to focus on what we can control, which is building a strong Canadian economy, diversifying our trade partners abroad, delivering responsible fiscal management and supporting Canadians who are under pressure from everyday expenses. Our objective is clear: to build a stronger, more resilient and more affordable country. There is no doubt that Bill C-30 is a big part of this effort. Allow me to begin with the rising cost of food, which is understandably a concern for Canadians. Our government is focused on bringing down the high food prices that are putting significant pressure on Canadian household budgets. For example, to support those most affected by food costs, in January we announced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit to help more than 12 million Canadians afford day-to-day essentials. On June 5, the first cheques went out to over 12 million Canadian families to help them with the cost of groceries. That is an average of $1,890 for an average family of four, which is a considerable increase from the GST rebate, which was boosted by 50% this year and 25% for another four years after. Our plan also includes immediate assistance for food banks via the local food infrastructure fund, which was boosted by our government as well. Bill C-30 is proposing additional measures to help ease the financial pressures of food bills. The passage of Bill C-30 would help growers supercharge domestic food production in Canada with temporary tax changes to allow the immediate expensing of eligible greenhouse buildings. These provisions would allow producers to fully write off the cost of building new greenhouse facilities in the year incurred rather than spreading it over time. This incentive is designed to help expand greenhouse production and strengthen Canada's year-round domestic food supply. The measure is projected to provide $41 million in tax relief over six years. The bill has so much more in it. Bill C-30 includes a number of other measures. Before I mention those measures, I will also make mention of June 11, when the Prime Minister launched Canada's first-ever national food security strategy. I am quite proud of this as I fed into the process. The national food security strategy will boost domestic food production and break open the market for independent food retailers in Canada. It will support resilience, regional supply chains and infrastructure that those supply chains need to thrive, and it will ultimately build a stronger, more independent, more affordable food system where there can be more competition, which we know is the key to bringing down prices. The strategy is backed by over $3 billion in investments over 10 years. To help deliver on this important objective, Bill C-30 would amend the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act and the Pest Control Products Act to include the consideration of food security and the costs of food. To implement this change, the government proposes to provide $24 million over four years, and $9 million per year ongoing, to support Health Canada in expanding its economic analysis capacity to optimize the review processes for pest control products. These costs will be fully recovered through annual fees. The government is also working tirelessly to help address housing affordability concerns. It is clear that the high cost of housing is putting significant pressure on household budgets, especially for younger Canadians. Our government recognizes that many Canadians who have recently purchased their first home, or who are planning to do so, continue to face significant affordability challenges and could benefit from a boost to their cash flow. That is why Bill C-30 proposes extending the grace period during which homeowners are not required to start repaying their homebuyers' plan withdrawals from their RRSPs. The proposed extension is from two to five years. This extension is designed for homebuyers making a first withdrawal between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2028. This extended grace period already applies to withdrawals made between 2022 and 2025. The bottom line is that this change would provide cash flow relief of up to $4,000 per individual, per year, for the three years over which they are not required to repay the amount into their RRSP. The passage of Bill C-30 would also make an important change to Canada pension plan contributions to ensure Canadians can keep more money that they otherwise would have been compelled to contribute to the Canada pension plan. Indeed, the CPP is foundational to Canada's retirement income system, providing stable, predictable pension income to millions of Canadians. Considering the affordability challenges faced by so many households in Canada, Canada's ministers of finance unanimously agreed in April to reduce the contribution rate for CPP. The change would lower the contribution rate by 40 basis points, from 9.9% to 9.5%, effective January 1, 2027. That reduction to the CPP contribution rate will translate into annual savings of about $133 for an employee earning $70,000 a year, with the equivalent savings for their employer. The change will do this while ensuring the long-term sustainability of the plan. We listened to Conservatives go on and on in committee for 10 or 11 hours about the health and sustainability of the Canada pension plan, which I recognize is a concern, but when the chief actuary has tabled a report in Parliament and has done the analysis to say that the Canada pension plan is healthy and solvent for the next 75 years, and when Conservatives have actually advocated to decrease Canada pension plan contributions themselves, decreasing it by 40 basis points, leaving a 30-basis point buffer in the plan, is certainly a smart move. It makes sense for Canadians. Considering the fact that finance ministers from our provincial and territorial counterparts across Canada all agreed to this unanimously, agreeing that it just made sense, I cannot see why Conservatives would be kicking up a fuss proposing eight subamendments in the finance committee. Anyway, tax relief has been supported by our government. We moved forward with many tax measures, including an income tax cut for 22 million Canadians, suspending the fuel excise tax over the summer until Labour Day and offering new benefits such as the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. We cut the consumer carbon tax. We have done many, many things to support Canadians with many of the costs that they experience. In Ontario, I am quite proud to say that the HST on new home purchases is being waived with an agreement we signed with the Ontario government. That includes up to almost $200,000 of relief. It is a 50% reduction in development charges and 13% off the purchase of a new home. That is significant support for Canadians. No one can argue otherwise. Last, I will just say that Bill C-30, as I have cited, would enhance the labour mobility tax deduction for skilled trades workers when they travel for work. As we are boosting the economy, we are seeing more construction jobs, 27,000 of them, in the last labour statistics. We can see that those skilled trades workers can have an enhanced deduction of $6,000 more —

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Steven Bonk

Conservative 5:05 p.m.

“The government's own actions make food cost more, but I want them to feel bad about creating a program to help people afford to eat. I think the program should not exist.”

Ryan Turnbull

Liberal 5:05 p.m.

“You Conservatives just don't get it. Food prices have nothing to do with our policies. I'm going to list a bunch of other factors to distract from our role. And by the way, we're the good guys here. We're spending lots of money on programs to help people afford food. So stop complaining.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the cost of food is definitely something that Canadians are concerned about. The Conservatives do not seem to understand causation. They do not seem to understand how food prices are affected by global factors such as oil price shock, wars in Europe or a trade war where tariffs are being placed upon Canadian companies. What is interesting is that, when we step up to offer immediate relief and support, whether it is with the Canada child benefit to lift thousands of kids out of poverty, the national school food program to help feed hungry kids in schools, the groceries and essentials benefit to help ensure that Canadians can get by on a monthly basis or, now, a national food security strategy with $3.2 billion of investments to build a stronger food system, they are still complaining.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Sébastien Lemire

Bloc Québécois 5:05 p.m.

“I don't like your economic statement. It doesn't fix the problems I care about. Why didn't you just cancel it? An email would have been simpler.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is a combative man, someone who is not afraid to take a stand and argue a point. My question is simple: Did he argue with his government when it came up with the misguided idea of tabling an economic statement that fails to address any of the concerns that might have justified urgently presenting such a statement? After all, it is not a budget. We could have waited until the fall to adopt most of these measures. That would have been much simpler. The real emergency was Donald Trump and the 25% tariffs imposed on steel and aluminum, but the economic statement does not include any measures to address that. Did my colleague raise this issue internally and ask why his government did not simply cancel the statement and send everyone an email instead? That would have been much simpler.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Ryan Turnbull

Liberal 5:05 p.m.

“I want taxpayers to spend more money on my preferred programs. And that other guy is wrong.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we have stepped up time and time again to offer packages of support for tariff-impacted industries, whether it is with liquidity or for companies to pivot, change direction and modify their business models to essentially still thrive in the economy. We have offered support. We have diversified our trade. We are building the infrastructure we need to ensure those industries can survive and thrive in the future. I do not agree with the member opposite. Yes, I am combative sometimes because I have a meter for things that are untrue. I like to call members out when I have the chance, and that is what this place should be about. God help us if we ever lose the pursuit of truth in the House of Commons and in our Parliament. Our government has stepped up time and time again. We have offered immediate support and been fiscally responsible. We have the strongest balance sheet in the G7, and we are using it to make strategic investments, including our national food security strategy.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Marilyn Gladu

Liberal 5:10 p.m.

“You didn't answer the question. I want you to say the government is doing a good job handling tariffs.”

Ryan Turnbull

Liberal 5:10 p.m.

“I'm not going to actually answer your question. I'll just say the government is doing a great job and maybe one day we'll have a deal.”

Helena Konanz

Conservative 5:10 p.m.

“I want this government to stop spending so much money. How can they think these huge deficits are okay?”

Ryan Turnbull

Liberal 5:10 p.m.

“I'm just going to say lots of big words to make it sound like I know what I'm talking about and hope no one notices I'm not actually addressing the real problem of our massive deficit.”

Elizabeth May

Green 5:10 p.m.

“I'm complaining that the government is rushing bills through Parliament without proper debate or study. I don't like omnibus budget bills or time allocation. I think the government should respect Parliament and take the time to properly consider legislation, even if it means sitting longer.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is often that I find myself here wondering if this place has turned into something not quite like a sports arena, in the style of the Trump White House, with its caged sport for the celebration of 250 years of independence, which is a topic that is not necessarily connected to this at all, but, for sporting spectacles, this place sometimes resembles nothing more than target practice for teams that live in glass houses. It is difficult to watch. I know that I must have a glass house somewhere, but with the Green Party never having been in power, we have less of a record to attack. I do vividly recall when the Harper administration started using, as a matter of course, very long omnibus budget bills, which the Liberals of the day decried as burying too much in one bill, not properly reflecting or advancing the initial version of the budget and being done routinely. We then had, of course, the Harper administration bringing in repetitive motions for time allocation. I remember the first time I had started noticing that it had become quite routine. I went back, looked it up and found out that, over a period of 40 years, which is not that far back in our history, it had happened about 10 times. I started adding them up and keeping track, and it became hundreds of times. Of course, when in opposition, the Liberals pledged that they would never bring in omnibus budget bills containing many different measures in one piece of legislation and that they certainly would not use time allocation to shorten the time we have available to do those things. Again, both of the large parties live in, I must say, very large and well-equipped glass homes, but they are still throwing rocks at the same glass houses in which they live. They have both moved to omnibus budget bills once in power. The Liberals have done it, first under former prime minister Trudeau and now under the current Prime Minister. They also have continued to use time allocation. My own plea comes from my own little perch on parliamentary procedure. I know that it is against the rules of this place to have a member stand to deliver a written speech. If we followed that rule, I believe House leaders would be able to come to an agreement more quickly about how many speakers it would take to get a bill through the House. Listening to debate on the motion so far, I am reminded that, as the parliamentary secretary says to us all, we have to use time allocation or we cannot get this passed. To which I say, again, this is a glass house. It is like a child who has killed both of their parents pleading for mercy because they are an orphan. Why are we under time pressure? It is because the government of the day decided that we could shorten the amount of time we are sitting in June. Let us eliminate two days and create more pressure, meaning that it has to be passed now. Why is there no discussion about sitting longer? Why is there no discussion about what happened between when Bill C‑30 was first tabled on April 29 and when we next got back to it? After three hours of debate, the government moved time allocation on Bill C‑30. It is not a massive omnibus budget bill, but it is omnibus enough that I certainly had no indication that I was going to come across division 8, which has the most regressive pieces of the deregulation of pesticide legislation that I have seen. Believe it or not, as I know I look like a mere slip of a girl, someone who has just barely left law school, I have been working on pesticide issues for 51 years. This is the worst piece of deregulation I have ever seen, and it is inside an omnibus budget bill. I would be happy to support many of the provisions in the spring economic statement. There are some I would not. That is the nature of an omnibus bill. There are many things affecting many different bills, done all in one vote and all in one go. This time it is with the added factor that we do not have a lot of time. Who controls the timing? The government controls the timing. Who controls what bills come forward for debate, for Government Orders, for orders of the day? The government side does that. My hon. friends on the finance committee, I must say, performed the most extraordinary filibuster I have ever seen, in terms of creativity. I sat through all of it because I kept hoping against hope that we would maybe get to clause-by-clause and that my amendments could be discussed and debated. However, again, the pattern of the House of Commons since forever has been that the parties in opposition will use whatever tools they have at their disposal. It was decades ago that the Conservatives left the bells ringing for days. It takes a while, but the government regroups and finds a new way to get around that particular effort to put a spanner in the works. This is not uncommon, but what is uncommon is the use of programming motions, and I say this to my hon. colleagues on the Liberal benches. The first extremely offensive programming motion, in my experience as a member of Parliament since 2011, was what happened in June last year with the programming motion on Bill C-5, which saw us take the most extraordinary seizure of power and expansion to the power of the executive cabinet in a bill, Bill C-5, which included provisions I never thought I would see in Canada, and say that, if in passing this law we break other laws we have already passed, that is okay. This is based on a historical and never-used-in-Canada archival bit of trivia. It was Henry VIII who came up with that. If in passing this law, we break other laws we have passed before, that is okay. This extraordinary abuse of power was in Bill C-5, building Canada strong and reducing interprovincial trade barriers in part 1, which went through this place. I will never forget it because I still feel like I was caught under a bulldozer going right over me. It was Monday, June 16, when the programming motion took effect, and second reading took place with limited debate to pass it to committee. By the way, on the Monday, June 16, we did not even have a committee in place yet to deal with the bill. On Tuesday, June 17 at 3:30 p.m., the committee was put in place, one committee for all these provisions. Then the committee could start hearing witnesses in the afternoon. By Wednesday at noon, all amendments were due and so on until we got through report stage and third reading, both on Friday, June 20. Then we were adjourned for the summer, and we were told it was a monstrous hurry that we have a Major Projects Office. It was very important to able to see projects come through this process, which is why we could not, as I pleaded at the time, stay longer through the summer, discuss this bill, debate this bill, to see whether this extreme sweeping accumulation of powers by the executive was in any way justified. They said we were in a hurry, except it has been a whole year now, and the bill has not been used once to name a project through Bill C-5. Again, here we are on Motion No. 12 on Bill C-30. I am thankful for the way the unanimous consent motion was structured. I will have a chance to speak at third reading on Bill C-30 on the specifics of the part I most decry. I still hope against hope that the finance committee tomorrow will see fit to accept the amendments I have put forward and deemed to be moved. I have been, as I said, patiently waiting while admiring the artistry of the Conservative filibuster. I must say I have had more fun watching paint dry. It is always more interesting. On the other hand, it was artful. Although I do not agree with why the Conservatives were filibustering, I do sometimes, as a person who is observing glass houses more than living in them, enjoy the karma of the whole thing. I will vote against Motion No. 12 because it is offensive to democracy to have programming motions that say we must move fast, that we must not debate, that we must not consider. I find over and over again that there has been nothing like the current government for moving fast, and there has been nothing like the current government for treating Parliament with a kind of casual contempt. As a Canadian and someone who deeply believes in Westminster parliamentary democracy, I personally find it offensive. I may be the only one, but I think Canadians want to see this place respected and want to know that every bill has been properly studied. For one, I would be prepared to say that if properly studying bills means we cut into the summer and we are in Ottawa longer to do it, that is the right thing to do.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Grant Jackson

Conservative 5:20 p.m.

“I agree with you that rushing bills through Parliament without proper debate or study is bad. I think the government using programming motions to limit debate damages public trust in Parliament. I want you to say more about how these tactics hurt our institution and the people we represent.”

Elizabeth May

Green 5:20 p.m.

“I want MPs to debate bills properly before passing them. The government rushing bills through Parliament with programming motions is very bad. It's not respectful. We represent our voters. Voters want to be heard. I wish MPs could work together better. Maybe it would help if we didn't use prepared speeches.”

Martin Champoux

Bloc Québécois 5:20 p.m.

“I want the Green Party to complain more about all the ways this government is bad for the environment. Maybe that will make the government look bad.”

Elizabeth May

Green 5:20 p.m.

“I completely agree with you. This government is terrible for the environment. Their policies won't let us meet our Paris targets.”

John-Paul Danko

Liberal 5:25 p.m.

“I pretend to respect you. I say you said we move fast. Canadians want a fast government. You should agree that Canadians expect this.”

Elizabeth May

Green 5:25 p.m.

“I'm glad you respect my experience. I say 'move fast' means you ignore how a bill should be passed. I want to remind you that your party mentioned climate change many times, but never mentioned pipelines.”

Jason Groleau

Conservative 5:25 p.m.

“I'm here to talk about respect for hard-earned money. The government is spending a lot of money, but we aren't seeing results. The deficit is huge and it's only getting bigger. The housing plan is expensive and won't help many people. The government is wasting money on a spaceport. The gun buyback program targets law-abiding citizens instead of criminals. The government should support businesses, but instead they make it harder for them to succeed. We need to defend our workers and businesses against U.S. tariffs. Canadians deserve better.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Richmond Hill South. I rise today not to engage in petty politics, but to talk about something very simple that everyone in our regions understands well, except the Liberals, of course: respect for hard‑earned money. Back home in Beauce, money does not grow on trees. People earn their money early in the morning, with both hands in the dirt, behind a counter, at a construction site, or at a factory. When people earn it that way, they learn to respect it. It is with that respect in mind that I will talk about Bill C-30 and the Liberal government's economic snapshot. The Liberals projected a $38‑billion deficit in budget 2025. For the current fiscal year, the Liberal Prime Minister is now projecting a $67‑billion deficit. Yes, $67 billion. That is a lot of money. That is not just pocket change. The worst part is that he is projecting even bigger deficits in the years to come. Deficits can happen in a crisis. However, when they become a habit, Canadians have the right to ask a very simple question: Where are the Liberals' results? There are none. The real issue is not just how much money is being spent, but what we are getting in return. Take housing, for example. While people are struggling to find somewhere to live due to skyrocketing inflation in rents, the Liberals say they are going to create yet another layer of bureaucracy with Build Canada Homes and a budget of $13 billion. The results are modest. I am not the one saying that; it is the former parliamentary budget officer himself. According to his estimate, Build Canada Homes will help build 26,000 homes over five years. His conclusion is that this is a “modest” contribution. The Liberals are spending $13 billion on a modest contribution; meanwhile, young families are unable to get on the property ladder and young people are desperately searching for affordable housing. Canadians do not want announcements; they want more homes. They want construction. They do not want words; they want action. Now I will turn to another obscene expenditure that I still cannot wrap my head around: the spaceport in Canso, Nova Scotia. To recap the situation one more time, a company is leasing this plot of land from the province for $13,500 a year. The Liberal government went to this company and offered to sublet the land from it for $20 million a year. It also decided it would be smart to sign a 10-year lease, for a total of $200 million. That is money down the drain. That is insane. Why? What is on this land that is costing us $200 million? There is a 25-foot-by-35-foot concrete pad, two sea cans and a gravel road. I could build a dozen just like it with pleasure. I could do that, no problem. The time will come when the Liberals will have to explain themselves to taxpayers. This is insane. We have not received any answers. We have been here for over a year, and we are asking questions, but we are still not getting answers. Nevertheless, there were 13 meetings with the minister's team, during which someone thought it would be a great idea to spend $200 million on a concrete pad. Now let us talk about an issue that is close to my heart: the gun buyback program. What a waste of money. According to the former parliamentary budget officer's estimates, the compensation could cost nearly $800 million. That does not even include the program's administrative costs. That is nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars to target law-abiding citizens first and foremost. Meanwhile, too many illegal weapons are crossing our borders and fuelling real crime. That is the real target. It takes courage, but the Liberals do not have it. The problem is not the hunters in Saint-Georges or the sport shooters in Sainte-Marie, these proud people who obey the law. I have travelled all over Quebec and met with hundreds of hunters and thousands of sport shooters. These families feel they are being unfairly targeted. These are people who play by the rules, who complete the training, who obtain their licences, and who follow every law. Today, this government is treating them as if they are the problem. That is unfair. I can assure members of one thing: I have not finished my tour, and I will never give up on this issue. As everyone knows, I come from a region built by entrepreneurs, farmers and manufacturers who export all over North America. Beauce is a beautiful region. I own businesses myself. In real life, when a person orders $100,000 worth of goods and only sells $60,000 worth, they lose their credit. That is exactly what the Liberals are doing with our children's credit card. When a government cannot balance the books, it should make adjustments, admit its mistakes, start over and move forward for the people. The government should be there for Canadians, not for its cronies. A country's wealth comes not from the government, but from businesses. It is businesses that create wealth. They want to grow, hire people and conquer new markets, but they are coming up against endless red tape. The government is approving megaprojects that take years to come to fruition, but these are nothing more than announcements. Businesses have to deal with endless paperwork, which discourages even the best of them. This is a matter of economic survival. If we do not address this now, our children will pay the price and their standard of living will suffer. The Prime Minister talks about developing new markets. I agree with that. Everyone agrees. It will not pay off for 15 years, but we agree. In the meantime, we must never forget one fundamental reality. I just did an economic tour of Quebec with some of my colleagues. Our number one partner will always be the United States. That is just geography. Our steel and aluminum companies are facing 50% tariffs. Since April 2, as I mentioned here in the House, the metal tariffs were originally set at 25%, but for a garage door, for example, the tariffs are now at 50% on the entire product. Our businesses cannot compete. They are not getting any support from this government. It is that simple. Let us talk about other problems affecting my riding of Beauce and many regions across Quebec. Our unemployment rate is under 2.8%. We have no workers, no people to work. The government must give us the tools we need to attract workers, produce goods and be competitive. The one-size-fits-all approach that the Liberals in Ottawa are applying across the country is not working. We need flexibility, smart thinking, tact, and a clear understanding of how to support businesses. When the Liberals spend money without getting results, it is not just numbers on a page. It means lost opportunities for our regions. Agriculture is not just an important economic sector. It is the cornerstone of food security in our regions. My colleague here in the back could speak to that importance. Our families in rural areas, thousands of producers, get up every morning to feed Canadians. However, there is not much for them in the budget. Our farmers feel abandoned. Production costs are skyrocketing. Just think about fuel, transportation, machinery, fertilizer, energy, and interest on loans. Who can borrow at current interest rates? Meanwhile, consumers are paying the price at the grocery store. To conclude, I want to say this: When I come here, I think of the families who work so hard every morning. They are struggling to put food on the table. They are struggling to find somewhere to live. I think of our local manufacturers who are watching their profit margins shrink. I think of the entrepreneurs who take risks, create jobs and keep our economy going. These people are not asking for the moon. They are asking for a government that understands them, that respects them, that manages their money as if it were its own. They are asking for a government that can boost productivity, get projects moving and actually deliver on them, not just announce them. We must defend our workers and our businesses against the U.S. tariffs. Canadians deserve to have their money managed diligently.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 5:35 p.m.

“I want the member to acknowledge our wins on trade. Our exports and trade agreements are up since the last election. Quebec will do well with more trade. What does he think of that?”

Jason Groleau

Conservative 5:35 p.m.

“You think a 17% increase in exports is a big deal? It's 17% of nothing. Our real problem is the US. 85% of our business is with them. I want my businesses in Beauce doing more with the US. Fix that.”

Sébastien Lemire

Bloc Québécois 5:35 p.m.

“You and I have something in common. We both come from Créditiste regions. The economic statement has done nothing to help people in the steel and aluminum sector. What do you think about that? Also, how is your hockey pool going?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauce for his remarks. He and I have something in common. We both come from former Créditiste regions. That is worth pointing out. He told us that he was making a non‑partisan appeal. I would like to hear him elaborate. Can he name any good things that came out of the economic statement, particularly in relation to the 25% tariffs that Donald Trump imposed on all products containing steel and aluminum? Can he think of anything that the Liberals have done to help people in the sector? I personally do not see anything. I would like to hear his thoughts. Is he more optimistic than he was over the last month with his hockey pool? I would also like to hear his thoughts on that.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

Ryan Turnbull

Steven Bonk

Ryan Turnbull

Sébastien Lemire

Ryan Turnbull

Marilyn Gladu

Ryan Turnbull

Helena Konanz

Ryan Turnbull

Elizabeth May

Grant Jackson

Elizabeth May

Martin Champoux

Elizabeth May

John-Paul Danko

Elizabeth May

Jason Groleau

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Jason Groleau

Sébastien Lemire