“I want the House to pass this budget bill quickly. The Conservatives are delaying it in committee. This bill makes life more affordable by giving tax breaks to greenhouse growers, giving first-time homebuyers more time to pay back their RRSPs, and lowering pension payments for workers and businesses.”

“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 —”

• Echo ×29

  A repeated line

  “We introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit.”

  Said 29 times by 19 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“Food costs are high because of global problems like wars and oil prices, not our policies. We are helping people buy food and feed their children, but the Conservatives still complain.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 94 of 100

  Of this reply, 91% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“Our government has repeatedly supported industries hurt by tariffs. We have helped businesses adapt, diversified our trade, and built needed infrastructure. We spend money responsibly, we have the strongest economy in the G7, and I disagree with the member across the way.”

“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.”

“I want to know how the government is responding to the threat of American tariffs, especially on aluminum.”

“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about affordability measures and the major ongoing projects. Could he perhaps speak to the government’s responsiveness to the tariff threat that faces us in the section 232 tariff response, the aluminum tariff response, etc.?”

“We know tariffs have cost people their jobs. That is why our government is giving aid to those industries while we try to reach a deal with the United States.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is great to have my colleague aboard the team asking so many good-faith questions in the House. As I responded to the previous member’s question, our government has stepped up. We do recognize that tariff-impacted industries are where the concentration of job losses has been most persistent. That is why we have stepped up with supports and packages, while we are in ongoing engagement and negotiations with the United States, with the hope that we will eventually have a deal.”

“The Conservatives will not admit that Canada's economy is actually strong. Bank economists agree that our economy is doing well.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Conservative propaganda machine has gone from technical to full-blown almost overnight because the negative economic paradigm that they exist in has them not able to face the truth that there are broad indicators of strength and resilience in the Canadian economy. Every single bank’s chief financial and economics adviser has come out—”

“Canadians voted for this government to act quickly during uncertain times. We are doing what people expect us to do.”

“Mr. Speaker, I tremendously respect the member opposite’s experience here, and she said something really interesting. She said that she has never seen anything like the current government for moving fast. A year ago, Canadians elected a serious and pragmatic government in a time of tremendous uncertainty, and I would say that what we were exactly elected to do is to move fast and with purpose. Would she not agree that is what Canadians expect out of this government?”

“Our exports to countries other than the United States are up by about 17 percent since the last election. We are also signing more trade deals that will help places like Quebec. I want the member to comment on this success.”

“Mr. Speaker, I believe my friend underestimates how important it is to recognize many of the things that have been occurring. When the member talks about the importance of exports, we now have exports beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border up something like 17% since the last election. There have been significant increases. Trade agreements, which will deal with a wide spectrum of agricultural goods plus many other items, are increasing. We have had legislation passed and agreements signed off on defence. The province of Quebec, as an example, will do exceptionally well with those expanded trade opportunities. Could the member provide his comments on that issue?”

“The member only spreads fear, anger, and division. I want him to admit that Canada is not broken and that our government is doing the job it was elected to do.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that there is a difference between good faith, constructive criticism and whatever it is the member does on a regular basis. Everything is a conspiracy and everything is division, fear, anger and hyperbolic nonsense. Frankly, it is sad and it is embarrassing. Would the member acknowledge that Canada is not broken and that, in fact, our government is doing exactly what it was elected to do?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 60 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “whatever it is the member does on a regular basis”.

  See full analysis →

“I support this motion to limit debate and pass our budget bill. The Conservatives are constantly stalling and playing games to stop our laws from passing. We have an important plan to grow the economy, build housing, and create jobs across the country, and we need to get it done.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak, in essence, to Bill C-30 and the motion we have before us. I would argue that it is a motion that is absolutely necessary because of the behaviour we have witnessed from the Conservative Party of Canada since the last election. The Conservatives like to forget about it, but in the last federal election, just over a year ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister. Along with that new Prime Minister, dozens of other members of Parliament were elected. In fact, today, there are 70 new Liberals in the House of Commons. They have been here for just over a year. Whether the Conservatives like it or not, they need to recognize that there is a new government, with a very strong legislative and budgetary agenda. What we have witnessed from the Conservative Party is constant filibustering and its doing what it can to prevent legislation from passing. It is interesting when the Conservatives stand up. They like to accuse the government of not being able to bring forward legislation or get its legislative agenda through the House. An hon. member: Hear, hear! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, they say, “Hear, hear!” across the way. They need to look in the mirror and do a fair assessment of why it has been somewhat problematic getting legislation passed. It has been a very strong challenge, with 99% of the challenge being the Conservatives’ attitude toward the House of Commons and the games that are being played on the floor of the House of Commons today. All we need to do is take a look at what we have witnessed over the last week. Last week, we had a motion that passed, which the Conservatives actually supported, to see the House of Commons sit until midnight for the remaining balance of the sitting days. This means that tonight, tomorrow night, Wednesday night and Thursday night, we will sit until midnight, dealing with bills, and on Friday, we will sit until 8 o’clock. The same thing was supposed to happen last week. The Conservatives actually voted in favour of the motion. I stood up. I was very grateful, because back in December, I encouraged the Conservatives to agree to sit late to have more sitting days in order to accommodate more speaking. Shortly after that, the Conservatives moved an adjournment motion. They said they wanted to sit late, but right away, they moved a motion to adjourn. It is not the first time. They will complain and they will say, “We want more time to be able to debate issues.” At the end of the day, the Conservatives actually had the bells ring at the report stage of one of the government’s bills, which they supported. It is truly amazing. When we look at the games the Conservatives play with the legislative agenda, which incorporates the budget legislation and the presentation of the budget, let alone a number of other things that I want to go into detail on, we can very easily understand why we have to bring in time allocation. Let us talk about that legislative agenda. Many members of the Conservative Party have been critical of the government’s legislative agenda today. First of all, we should recognize that we have had 26 days of nothing but opposition days. Every one of those days was time-allocated. They are planned, just as Private Members’ Business is. There were 26 days. How many days have we actually sat? Was it 130 days? We would have to get a count on it, but 26 of those days were nothing but opposition days. That is not to mention— An hon. member: Agreed to by the House. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, no. We do not have to agree to it. The opposition parties are guaranteed those 26 days, which do not include the many days when the Conservatives brought in concurrence motions. Here is why it is important. If the Conservatives follow along, they will better understand why there is time allocation. Let us look at the legislative agenda. There is Bill C-3, the Citizenship Act; Bill C-4, the carbon tax cut; Bill C-8 respecting cybersecurity; Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act; and Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, a piece of legislation I know the minister responsible for crime is very keen on. We have Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act; Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act; Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada’s immigration system and borders act; and Bill C-13, respecting trade in Great Britain. We also had Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and Bill C-20. Bill C-14 is the bail and sentencing reform legislation. I was just speaking about Bill C-16. There was filibustering even on that legislation. There is Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, which the Conservatives were criticizing in the speech before mine. There is Bill C-21, the Red River Métis self-government recognition and implementation treaty act, and Bill C-22, the lawful access act. When we brought in Bill C-2 regarding lawful access, the Conservatives said, “absolutely not”. They were going to oppose it, and there was no way they were going to let it pass. We had to bring in Bill C-22, and they are still opposing it. There is Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. Do members remember that one? I just made reference to it. Everyone agreed to it, yet the Conservatives still made the bells ring because they really did not want to debate, apparently. Bill C-26 would authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply. Conservatives talk a lot about housing and affordability, even though the average cost of a house has gone down since the new Prime Minister was elected. The average cost of rent has gone down since the Prime Minister was elected. However, we would not know that if we listened to the Conservatives. The list goes on. Bill C-28, one I really like, is the Canadian space launch act. There is a whole industry, and there is industry potential. Thousands of jobs could be created. However, all the Conservatives say is that they do not like it and do not want it. We have to force legislation through. That is not to mention the Senate bills. I can say that the Government of Canada, headed by our newly elected Prime Minister, has a very aggressive legislative agenda because we want to and will, despite what the Conservatives continue to put in our way, continue to fight and bring in legislation that is going to make our communities safer and stronger. As the Prime Minister says, we want a strong Canada for all Canadians. That is what we are striving for. We are saying we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7. All one needs to do is look at the actions that the government and the Prime Minister have taken since the last election. All I made reference to was the legislation. In that legislation, there are a number of initiatives that complement the legislation. That is all part of the budget process and what the bill we are currently debating, Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act, is all about. It is the next step in supporting Canadians and building a stronger Canada, but the Conservatives still want to filibuster. Let us look at what took place at the standing committee. On the one hand, the Conservatives say they want more time. They had 30 hours. From what I have been told by many of my colleagues and have heard from across the way, it was a filibuster show, with no discussions back and forth that could have taken place. That is a decision made depending on the motions that are brought forward. I know how standing committees work. When there is collaboration, good ideas and a willingness to work together, a standing committee can be very productive. I know that because there was a day I participated in standing committees. There is so much potential for all of us to work more collaboratively together on a wide spectrum of budgetary issues and legislative issues. In fact, with respect to legislative issues, the first thing we did when we formed a majority government, contrary to what the Conservatives will say, is that we actually passed Conservative opposition private members’ bills through to different stages. I suspect there is a real chance that under the Prime Minister since we have been a majority, in eight, nine or 12 weeks, whatever period of time it is, we have probably passed more opposition initiatives than Stephen Harper did in his four-year mandate. It would not surprise me if this is in fact the case. I challenge members opposite to show me what private members’ initiatives from the floor of the House of Commons actually passed when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the table, and contrast that to what we have done in eight weeks. There is no surprise there, because we have a Prime Minister who is committed to collaboration. Where there is a willingness to collaborate, we collaborate. Let us take a look in terms of all the provinces. Let us talk about the major projects. Let us talk about Bill C-5, which I made reference to. That was possible only because of the collaboration between provinces and Ottawa under the Prime Minister. There is a reason we had the King of Canada make the throne speech. The King of Canada came in a historic moment and delivered the throne speech here. It was a significant time in Canada’s history. I think that, coming out of the election, we all need to recognize what was taking place prior to the last federal election. Canadians were concerned about our economy. They were concerned about what I classify as the three Ts: President Trump, the issue of tariffs and the issue of trade. We have consistently taken actions to address the issues Canadians have faced and will face yesterday, today and, obviously, looking forward into tomorrow. All one needs to do is take a look at the actions we have actually taken. Shortly after the last federal election, numerous meetings took place between the Prime Minister and premiers, with the idea, as we said to Canadians in the last election, of building one Canadian economy. Based on what was taking place with President Trump in the United States, and to address the anxiety and the concerns Canadians had, the Prime Minister was working hand in hand with provinces. By doing that, we were able to build a consensus. We were able to bring in the legislation. We were able to take down the federal barriers, interprovincial barriers that the federal government is responsible for, which enabled us to be able to talk and continue the dialogue with provinces to take down those provincial barriers that prevent the trade between provinces. We have had some success in doing even that. We continue to have dialogue with provinces. All one needs to do is take a look at a province such as Alberta. In the province of Alberta, we are now implementing an MOU that was signed by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta. The Conservatives can criticize that, but I believe that the Premier of Alberta is right in her assessment, as is the federal government, of the way in which we can in fact build Canada and make Canada a superpower when it comes to energy. All one needs to do is to look at the consensus building that we have been able to bring together by working collaboratively through major projects from coast to coast to coast. There have been serious investments in things such as wind power and the expansion of energy opportunities on the east coast, as well as something I often talk about, which is the expansion of the Montreal port. We can take a look at Ontario and how we are enhancing the nuclear industry in Ontario through major projects. In my home province of Manitoba, the Premier of Manitoba is NDP, but we work with all political entities. The people of Manitoba have realized that, for the first time in generations, there is now opportunity to have hope in regard to the port of Churchill and the potential of its becoming a port where things such as, potentially, LNG and certain minerals could go through, let alone other opportunities through agriculture. These are very tangible and real in my home province. In Saskatchewan, we could talk about copper investments through the major projects. On the canola front, the Prime Minister was able to deal with it, at least in part and far more than what we saw when the leader of the Conservative Party was seated around the caucus table. We could talk about Alberta and B.C., the two of them together, whether it is on the issue of coming up with agreements on pipelines, LNG and other fossil fuels, or mining. We could talk about northern Canada. It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister, was in, I believe, Yellowknife in northern Canada. I am not 100% sure it was Yellowknife, but he made the announcement about how we are going to protect Canadian sovereignty by investing literally billions of dollars. We have great potential, major investments, coast to coast to coast. The government recognizes that building a stronger infrastructure, improving our economic corridors, if I can put it that way, through trade, means a great deal to our nation. It is where our future is in terms of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs. We have a Prime Minister who goes out and looks for investment. We have commitments for billions of dollars of foreign investment to come to Canada. In fact, foreign direct investment coming to Canada in the last 12 months, if it is not number one in the G7, which I believe it is, it could be as high as number one in the G20 countries. That factors out some of the commitments that were also made. There is reason for us to be optimistic, because we have a government that understands the importance of investment, of bringing and building our infrastructure. We have a Prime Minister who is committed to enhancing where we can and being patient with the United States in regard to the trade file. We are not going to capitulate. We will continue to advocate for the very best deal for Canadians, and where we need to, we are assisting industries that are being hurt by the negotiations and what is taking place in the United States. Let us recognize this: We have had 20 trade and defence agreements, and we have agreements in the making. I often talk about how important the United States is, and everyone should recognize that. I recognize that, but let there be no doubt that we have a government and a Prime Minister committed to expanding our trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. That is where we got the 20 defence and trade agreements, and we also have had formal trade agreements not only signed off but brought into the House and passed as trade legislation. I could also talk about the trade potential between Canada and India, two great nations. I would welcome and love to see a formal agreement signed off this year. The Prime Minister has met with the prime minister and the president of two great nations. The opportunities are real and tangible, which is why there have been 17%, I believe, export increases to non-U.S.A. locations. Our government continues to work, day in and day out, at expanding opportunities for businesses, small, medium and large alike, because we realize the real beneficiaries from those are the citizens of Canada, and they are who we will continue to work for every day.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “We have signed over 20 new trade and security agreements in under a year.”

  Said 4 times by 2 members since June 15.

  Every time it was said →

“The Conservative leader is only focused on wasting time, attacking people, and raising money. Then he blames the government for his own bad actions.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member might have been three or four years old when the leader of the Conservative Party was sitting in the House of Commons. It was during those days in opposition that the leader of the Conservative Party actually had a book on how to be a destructive force in the standing committees, and nothing has changed. Today, the leader of the Conservative Party genuinely believes that an effective opposition has nothing more to do than just raise money through gaslighting on issues, character assassination and filibuster after filibuster. Ultimately, they then try to blame the government for the poor actions of the official opposition, and in particular those of the leader of the official opposition’s office, and the tactics that they use.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 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 39 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 care about Canadian arts and culture. I am glad our government announced steps to protect children online, and we need to keep talking about the impact of the broadcast regulator's recent decision.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have always been passionate about our arts and cultural community. The member would likely know full well that I have had opportunities through the years to talk about it on many occasions. I am really glad that we recently made an announcement about how we are going to protect children on the Internet. I think that, in the months and years ahead, we will continue to have dialogue. I think there are certain considerations that have to be taken in the thought process on the CRTC’s decision, and the impacts of that particular decision, on an issue with many different fronts. I think it is best that I just leave it at that.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Canada is a large country with different regional needs. I do not know the details of how different provincial ferry systems are funded, and I need more information. We try to work with other governments to keep policies fair across the country.”

“Mr. Speaker, my question to the member was going to be regarding whether the member wants us to reopen the Constitution. I will forgo that question. At the end of the day, Canada is a vast country. There are regional differences, economically and otherwise. We can call them different types of boundaries, provincial boundaries and so forth. I do not know all of the circumstances. For example, the Province of B.C. might be contributing to BC Ferries. I suspect that it probably is. They might be in a better position to be able to do so. I do not know the details about how both ferry systems function. The member would have to maybe give a bit more detail. I would like to believe that we work collaboratively with governments to make sure that there is a sense of fairness in Canada on policies in general.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Conservatives do not like it when I speak, but my job is to pass our bills and hold the opposition accountable. I am speaking the truth and doing the best job I can for the people I represent.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time Conservatives have felt uneasy. One often gets the sense that they do not want me to speak. In fact, the other day, we might recall, one of my colleagues wanted to ask for unanimous consent to share time with me and was initially told no because of a violent reaction from the Conservatives. I am not that bad a guy, really and truly. When I stand up to speak, I speak the truth. I like to hold the opposition accountable. There is some responsibility for the opposition to be accountable. Trust me, there is a huge gap there. I take the duty of being the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader very seriously. I try to get the legislative agenda pushed forward. I try to ensure that the members opposite are held accountable for the comments that they make. I like to think that there is, maybe, a bit of continuity. I do not mean to offend the member opposite for being a strong advocate for the people I represent. I can assure her that, at the end of the day, this is a government in which every Liberal member of Parliament plays a vital role, whether it is on the floor of the House of Commons, in our standing committees, in our national caucus or in the communities that they represent. I am but one of 170-plus. I try to do the best job I can.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 9 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 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 →

“Our government is making regular announcements because we are investing in Canadians. The opposition sees this as wasteful spending, but we believe in Canada. Investing in the country is what we were elected to do.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite. I think she did a great job of highlighting and reiterating a number of government announcements, so I want to thank her for reannouncing that good news here in the House. She mentioned new announcements and new commitments every few weeks, and I concur. That is exactly what we are doing. I think there is a fundamental difference, though, between our perceptions of what is spending versus what is an investment. When we hear the members opposite talk about spending, they are coming from a “Canada is broken” world view, whereas on this side of the House, we believe in Canada, we believe in Canadians, and that is why we are investing in Canada. Would the member not agree that is exactly what we were elected to do?”

“Our government increased military spending to 2% of Canada's economy. The Conservatives only spent 1% when they were in power. Does the member support our higher military spending?”

“Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest expenditures that the government is making, which is relatively new, is in the area of the military. The Liberal government has actually elevated military spending to 2% of Canada’s GDP, something the Conservative government in the past had at 1%. When the Leader of the Opposition was a part of the government caucus, 1% of Canada’s GDP went to the military. Does the member support the Government of Canada’s expenditure of 2% of GDP to the military?”