“The government did not need to rush this economic statement. Most of these measures could have waited until the fall. The real emergency is Donald Trump's 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum, but this bill does nothing about that. I want to know if the member challenged his own government on this.”

“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.”

“I want to ask my colleague from the Green Party about the government's poor environmental record. They approved pipelines, weakened pesticide rules, and gave tax breaks to oil companies. Can we still have hope for the fight against climate change under this government?”

“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands on her speech. Obviously, she represents the Green Party, the environmental party. I would like her to tell me a little about this government’s backsliding on the environment since this Prime Minister took office last year. For example, think of the pipeline agreements, the rollback of the pesticide regulations, and the continued investment in tax breaks for oil companies. I would like to know if my colleague is still optimistic about the fight against climate change under that party’s leadership.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 23 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I want the member to explain what good things are in this economic statement. I do not see anything in it that helps the steel and aluminum sectors deal with Donald Trump's 25% tariffs.”

“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.”

“The government wants the food inspection agency to think about the economy when making decisions. I want to know if my colleague thinks dangerous pesticides should be approved just to help businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, the government is going to change the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to include economic considerations. Does my colleague think that hazardous pesticides should be approved for economic reasons?”

“The member and I used to agree that big streaming companies must pay their fair share to support Canadian culture. Now his government is giving in to American pressure. They are making taxpayers pay instead of these tech companies. I want to know if he has changed his mind.”

“Mr. Speaker, time seems to stand still when my colleague from Winnipeg North rises to speak. This parliamentary secretary was here during the previous Parliament. He has been here for quite some time. In the previous Parliament, I remember sharing his point of view on a very important broadcasting bill, Bill C-11. We debated it in the House. The Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP were on the same side back then. We believed that we had to fight for culture. Today, his government is doing the opposite. His government is turning its back on culture and giving in to American threats by caving on some very important things, including the digital services tax, which was supposed to bring some tax fairness to the system. We just saw the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, make an important decision, which the government overturned and sent back to the drawing board. The government refused to implement the 15% contribution that the CRTC had just mandated and has instead chosen to have taxpayers foot the bill for the share that streaming services should have paid. We were equally passionate about Bill C‑11 and the principle that streaming services and U.S. tech giants should pay their fair share. However, his government is going in exactly the opposite direction. Has my colleague changed his mind? Has he switched sides? Does he think that it is a good idea to let streaming services and tech giants skip out on paying their fair share and contributing to the broadcasting system that they are profiting from immensely?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The government is cutting money for farm science, research, and food inspection, while also approving banned pesticides. I am worried our food will not be safe. I want to know what my colleague thinks about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, what I see when I look at this bill, and its timing, is that the Liberal government has done basically only one thing to achieve the 15% cuts per department that were announced to perhaps one day balance the budget. Otherwise, running a $70‑billion deficit is no big deal. The aim, then, was to cut 15% in every department. However, it seems that the only department that actually did it was the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and the only area where it did so was in science and research. I think that is completely absurd, particularly when it comes to the capacity for innovation in agriculture. Will we be able to eat safe, healthy food? That worries me. There are also going to be cuts to food inspection at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. At the same time, certain pesticides that had previously been banned are now going to be approved. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that.”