“I am moving an amendment to change the rules for debating this bill. The government is spending too much money and adding to our debt while the economy is in a recession. Families and seniors in my riding cannot afford food and housing, and the government's economic plan will not fix this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion as it relates to the Liberal government’s spring economic statement. It may be the spring season that prompted the Liberals to use this update to paint a rosy picture of our economy, but the reality on the ground is that the real and non-partisan numbers show a stark picture for residents in my community, especially among working families and struggling seniors. The economic statement shows spending continuing to rise rapidly and no binding fiscal anchors. The growing deficit will only worsen as the Liberal government borrows more against the national debt. Debt service costs are rising rapidly, eating up more of each tax dollar than total spending on health care or defence. The fact is, Canada’s economy has entered a recession. That is not a political talking point but an agreed economic viewpoint for decades. Any period in which our economy sees two consecutive quarters of declining GDP is widely called a recession. This has been a mantra of economic statistics for decades. If others want to fight over the difference between a recession and a technical recession, the fact remains that there is nothing technical about a weak economy, as the Governor of the Bank of Canada described it just last week. A weak economy is what we see in 2026, when 112,000 more Canadians are out of work in just the first four months of this year and where, by per-person GDP, Canadians still have a lower standard of living than they did in 2022. Worsening signs like this for Canadian household finances are, sadly, not hard to come by. Household savings fell to the lowest level in two years, with Canada having the highest household debt in the G7 by far. Statistics Canada found that Canadian household debt has outstripped income for six consecutive quarters. Equifax reported that insolvency volumes increased to levels not seen since 2009, up nearly 19% year over year. There are 1.5 million Canadians who have missed a debt payment in the first three months of this year alone, with mortgage delinquency rates climbing 32% year over year. The Prime Minister promised us he would build the fastest-growing economy in the G7, yet we are alone among the G7 in having our economy shrink in three of the last four quarters. Promises to build quickly and build big to fortify the Canadian economy, through measures like the major projects act, a bill that I voted for, have not come to pass. Canada has neither designated nor started a single major economic project to fast-track a year after we passed that legislation. Instead, years of Liberal laws creating burdensome regulations, high taxes and persistent large-budget deficits have all made it increasingly expensive for businesses to invest in Canada. I understand that many want to hold on to the belief that the rosy picture the Prime Minister paints of the country is accurate, but looking at his peers outside politics, we see the real story. The Prime Minister’s own choice for the non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the Liberals’ deficits are billions higher than they claim. She showed that promises to reduce government spending are not reflected in rising personal costs, which will also increase by billions of dollars over the next several years. She showed that the government’s revenue forecasts will fall short because of expected weaker wages and slower salary growth in a worsening economy. Lastly, she said the government’s fiscal plan has a 1% chance of meeting its fiscal anchor to reduce the deficit-to-GDP ratio each year. As someone who knows balance sheets in both the private and public sectors, I can say that if a fiscal plan showed only a 1% chance of succeeding, any small business or local government would be revising the plan. Instead, the Liberal government moves forward with more spending and more debt, which will only result in more taxes and more inflation. These are the national figures, but I would like to take a moment to focus on how these national trends are causing real tension in communities like mine in Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. A real and growing consequence of higher-than-average unemployment, sluggish wages and food inflation is that more people are turning to local food banks. No one should ever be ashamed of turning to food banks, but government should be ashamed of the worsening affordability crisis pushing more workers, more seniors and groups that have historically not availed themselves of food banks to use their services for the very first time in their lives. The government’s allocated funding for food banks is insufficient. It will not curb the worsening affordability curve. We have seen that it is pushing these groups toward food bank services. The Liberal government has overseen the worst rise in food bank use in a generation, surpassing levels during the 2008 financial crisis and the height of COVID-19, and rural Canada is really suffering. The amazing volunteers I recently met with at the Boundary Community Food Bank told me that they have seen a 73% increase in demand for their services since 2020, with 25% of their regular clients having only applied within the last year and 20% of their clients working full- or part-time. They told me that they now see over 100 seniors from within this little community needing their services each month, and this is just in the Boundary. It does not cover the Kootenays, the Similkameen, the South Okanagan or Penticton. Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay has one of the oldest demographics in Canada. Seniors used to be the demographic most likely to donate to food banks. They were more likely to fill out a volunteer form than to apply for a food hamper. That is now changing rapidly. This increased turn for our seniors is leaving them financially vulnerable and less able to participate in their own communities as much as they once did. This is a huge loss. Volunteers at community events have traditionally been older, partially because they had a little more in their bank accounts to fill an extra tank of gas for volunteer driving, for buying extra hamburgers or hot dogs, or for giving a little more of their day. After speaking with people in my region, and after speaking with colleagues from across the country, I feel that seniors are increasingly unable to volunteer because of the cost of living. Over the last few years in my region, we have seen the loss of community events, such as those in the community of Penticton. In the last few years, we have lost Ironman, the Pentastic Jazz Fest, Ribfest and Okanagan Granfondo. Service clubs, which in the past were made up of seniors volunteering, are dwindling. It is impacting the entire community as a whole, and many seniors who are facing a financial crunch are considering even more dire options than simply not volunteering. My office has heard from too many seniors who have exhausted their benefits and drained their savings and are inquiring into the terms of an application for MAID. It is a horrifying thought that, in Canada, the financial burden being carried by seniors should have them think that the best option is to end their life early, not on medical grounds but because of a harshly rising cost of living. This symbolizes an unaffordable Canada none of us should accept. Unfortunately, the spring economic update shows us little change in course to restore an affordable Canada for workers, families and seniors. I move, seconded by the member for Oshawa: That the amendment be amended, in paragraph (b), by replacing the words “paragraphs (b) to (f)” with the words “paragraphs (b) and (d) to (f)”.”

“It is very important to support the military. Conservatives have stood up for our soldiers, but the Liberals have not.”

“Mr. Speaker, any time that anybody is supporting the military in the House, it is extremely important to do so. Unfortunately, the Liberals have not supported it in the past. It is the Conservatives who have stood up for the people who fight for this country.”

“We need more health care spending, but we must spend it properly. We should not spend money on buildings or more office workers. We need to spend it on doctors, nurses, and medical machines so people can actually get care.”

“Mr. Speaker, as my colleague may know, health spending is extremely important to me. I sit on the Standing Committee on Health right now. I agree that there are certain places where we need an increase in health spending, but we have to make sure that it is spent properly. We cannot spend any more on infrastructure or buildings for which we need to hire more and more bureaucracy. We need to spend it on boots on the ground. We need more doctors. We need more nurses. We need more MRI machines. We need things that would help people actually have a doctor. Thousands of people in my riding alone do not have a doctor.”

• 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 produces plenty of food, but government taxes at every step make it too expensive. I want my colleague to talk more about how these rising costs hurt people in her riding.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech highlighting some of the affordability challenges that are affecting people in her riding and across all of Canada. I would just like to read a quote from Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, the food professor. He said: ...Canada does not have a food security problem. We are one of the world’s largest agri-food exporters. Canadian farmers produce far more food than Canadians consume. Our challenge is not food availability. It is competitiveness. Do the Liberals not understand that the taxes they put on every step of the value chain when it comes to production, when it comes to processing and when it comes to retail are driving up costs for Canadians? Maybe my colleague could expand a bit on how that is affecting people in her riding.”

“We need to cut rules and lower taxes, including the industrial carbon tax. When it costs businesses more to ship goods, stores have to raise prices on products like food.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. It is obvious. Anyone who runs a business knows that, if something costs more, they are going to have to charge more. It is not even advanced economics. People all over who have small businesses know that it is common sense. Yes, we need to take away the red tape. We need to lower taxes. We need to take away taxes such as the industrial carbon tax. Especially in my riding, which is extremely rural, any time it costs more to transport goods to a grocery store, the owner of that store is going to have to charge more for that product.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“When a government borrows too much money, it causes higher inflation and higher interest rates. Why does the government keep borrowing money when it cannot back it up?”

“Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my hon. colleague across the way because I know he was the Liberal finance minister in Quebec and helped that province come out of a very dire situation. I also know that we both worked on treasury boards in our respective provinces. When a government borrows money and increases the amount of money supply in the province or in the country, it is inevitably going to drive up inflation, which is also going to drive up interest rates, which makes it more difficult to borrow on bond markets. Can the member explain what the rationale is for the government to keep borrowing and borrowing, with nothing to back it up?”

“I oppose this budget bill. It does not do enough to fix the housing crisis or help young Canadians afford a home.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you, as always. I rise in the House today on behalf of the beautiful, wonderful people of Bowmanville—Oshawa North, to oppose the Liberal budget, specifically Bill C-30. I do so because this is the latest example of the current Liberal regime failing to meet the moment in Canada. The Liberals are simply tinkering at the edges of the status quo, without offering any positive, substantive changes for our communities to become stronger and healthier. Liberals may ask, what is the moment we are in? Certainly, they seem unaware. It is a moment when a generation of Canadians are knocking on the door, asking to be admitted into the Canadian dream, yet they are having that door shut in their face by a government that continues to show very little self-awareness for what is going on in our economy today. For Canadians who, frankly, have been working hard for over a decade now to establish themselves in the economy, to buy their first home or to start a family, they are encountering an uncomfortable and unstable position. They are working hard to do so, despite the challenges they face. If the Liberal regime were truly interested in meeting the moment facing our country right now, they would do more than just tinker at the edges of the status quo. Rather, this would be a government that would respond with real change and real hope for the builders, the dreamers, the strivers and the hustlers who are working hard to get ahead every day. The part of this budget that I would like to focus on in particular is the matter of housing, because it has become emblematic of the challenges we face in our country today. In this budget, in Bill C-30, the government has a provision to extend the grace period for repayments in the homebuyers’ plan. Now, in a vacuum, this might actually be a worthwhile idea. It is good to extend the grace period. However, the problem we face is that when we look at the context of our country right now, it is simply not enough. In fact, it is outrageous to sit in the chamber and see Liberals patting themselves on the back for continuing to fail to fix the housing crisis in this country, while failing to recognize that much more needs to be done. While Liberals sit in the chamber or fly off to Europe to celebrate their half measures and their band-aid solutions, one of their own housing bureaucracies, one of several, has published data today showing that the housing crisis continues to be unaddressed by the Liberal Prime Minister, who promised to fix it, the second Liberal Prime Minister, I may add, who promised to fix it in the last decade. From today’s CMHC housing starts and construction data, we see that in the month of May 2026, “Actual monthly housing starts were down 5.2% year-over-year in centres with a population of 10,000 or more”. We also see in that data that “housing starts for all areas in Canada decreased [month to month by] 6% in May”. CMHC’s deputy chief economist looked at all of this data and offered a comment that I think this House must consider. He said, “Overall, these results suggest that construction activity is uneven and taken together with the decline of approved units not yet started and market intelligence point to weaker momentum for future supply”. If we zoom out for a moment and think about what this means for the young Canadians knocking on the door who want to get in on the Canadian dream but are having the door shut on them by the Liberal regime, we see that there are real consequences for real people behind all of these numbers. For every house that is not getting built or is too expensive for the average middle-class Canadian to afford, we know there is a life being put on hold: people who want to move out of their parents’ house but cannot do so; people who want to make an investment in their future but cannot do so; people who want to start a family but cannot do so. By the way, as an aside, I would like to add that if we fix the housing crisis, we might see the declining birth rate start to tick up and the Liberals would have less of an excuse to continue with their mass immigration plan. However, I will leave that for another day. This is what is happening to young Canadians today. They deserve so much better than what they are getting from the Liberal government, from a regime that continues to put budget after budget forward that fails to solve a single serious problem and is not getting better results. Young Canadians are not getting the response they deserve from their own government, the government they pay taxes to and the government that is intended to serve them. I would like to share a story of a young man I met yesterday, from north Oshawa. He runs his own business, and on the weekends he drives an Uber. He is a very hard-working guy who grinds every week, non-stop. He recently got married, and he does not have any children yet, but he hopes to be able to afford a home one day. He shared his family story with me, and he is a real family man. He told me about his father who recently beat cancer, and I could see how proud he was when he talked about his dad going through that hard time with a smile on his face on the other end of it. This business owner in north Oshawa told me that he had a conversation with his wife last week, and he asked his wife an important question. He asked what she thought of some of the concerns weighing on him at the moment. Specifically, he was wondering whether he should continue to work so hard and continue to work two jobs and be away from his family as much as he is. He wondered if he should stop. He wondered if his effort was ever going to pay off based on what he saw happening in our country. I will be honest; it was tough to hear him talk that way, because he is a talented and very capable young man, but he was considering giving up. He told me that when he had that conversation with his wife and asked her those questions, she thankfully told him that she thought he should keep trying. She expressed belief in him. When he told me about his wife’s confidence in him, I could tell it meant the entire world to him. I bring this up because people need to better understand what is happening to this generation of Canadians knocking on that door and trying to get in on the Canadian dream. They are often thinking about giving up and often questioning the merit of hard work. They are second-guessing themselves and the way they spend their time, and whether doing all of the things they were told a contributing citizen should do is actually going to bear fruit as they continue to get older. This is exactly what is wrong with the Liberal regime’s budget. It fails to offer any sort of understanding of what is going on today. It fails to show any contrition from a government that has, for 11 years now, made bad decision after bad decision, often sentencing young Canadians to a much harder life than generations past, making it harder to get ahead and making it harder for people to feel hopeful and optimistic about their futures. The Liberal regime then has the audacity to question the patriotism of people who say that they deserve better. I would say that the young Canadians knocking on the door hoping to get in on the Canadian dream do deserve better. They deserve a lot better than what they have been getting. My message to all of the strivers, dreamers, builders and hustlers across this country is to just keep going. I know that it is hard and that often it feels like people in positions of power are not listening, but the reality is that we have no choice but to continue fighting for this country and for a better future. Even when the people who are privileged enough to fly first class to Europe lecture us on what kind of country we should want to have here in Canada and even when they show us how tone-deaf they are, I want those who are fighting for a better future to know that someday I hope they will have a government that honours them properly. God bless Canada.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Signal 38 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 disagree with Premier Ford and the federal government. Neither level of government cares that life is getting worse and more expensive for regular Canadians, especially when it comes to housing.”

“Mr. Speaker, I agree with Premier Ford on very little actually, including his opinions of the Liberal regime here in Ottawa and its performance on matters like housing. It is quite unfortunate that it is so difficult to get the people who profit and benefit off the status quo to understand why so many Canadians are frustrated with multiple levels of government, provincial and federal alike. It is also unsurprising that the federal government would find common cause with a provincial government that also seems to be perfectly fine with a situation where no one’s life is getting better and the quality of life for the average middle-class Canadian is declining.”

“The government uses conflict with the United States as an excuse to avoid solving everyday problems for Canadians. I want the Liberals to stop using this issue for politics and actually finish a trade deal that helps Canadian workers and businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be perfectly blunt with the member. We have a lot of problems in this country, and I think we have a government here in Ottawa that has used the drama with the United States as an excuse to solve very few problems that affect the day-to-day lives of our fellow citizens. I think it is shameful that it has become a political tool to exploit justifications for making nothing better for the lives of the average Canadian. Instead, the Liberals are able to position themselves as fake nationalists who seemingly have very little pride or long-term vision for the good of this country. I would like to see some humility on the part of the Liberal regime here in Ottawa. I would like to actually get a trade deal done for the good of Canadian workers and Canadian industries, and for the Liberals to stop exploiting this issue for their own political gain.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 41 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 6 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 →

“The Prime Minister is not solving problems for Canadians. He has not settled trade deals with the United States, a new border bridge is still not open, and people in Ontario are living in campers because they cannot afford rent. I want my colleague to tell us if his riding is having these same problems.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague who represents Bowmanville—Oshawa North for his speech. I really appreciate working with him on various issues that are affecting Canadians today. Earlier, the member for Winnipeg North, the parliamentary secretary, boasted about the Prime Minister and how he is solving issues on behalf of Canadians. To date, we are still waiting for the negotiations dealing with the tariffs with President Trump to be finalized. On another note, two hours southwest of London, in Windsor, we are still waiting for the Gordie Howe International Bridge to open up. It is a Canadian taxpayer-funded bridge, yet this chief negotiator cannot negotiate with the U.S. to open the bridge. A week ago, I found out that one hour east of London, in Kitchener, regarding the Canadian promise, people are now living out of Winnebagos in carpooling parking lots just off the 401. They cannot afford houses and they cannot afford rent, so they are now living in Winnebagos. Can my colleague elaborate on whether those issues are occurring in his riding as well?”

“The other member is right. The government has let this country get worse for 11 years. People are frustrated. Life keeps getting harder for regular families, but the government does not care and does not learn from its mistakes.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member for London—Fanshawe’s observations are completely accurate. We have a government here that has been sitting around for 11 years watching the decline of a country and, in many cases, managing the decline of a country. People naturally are increasingly frustrated by a status quo that is not working and is not serving the best interests of our people. We have seen members opposite sit there, heckle, laugh and high-five each other while things keep getting worse for the average middle-class family. I would like to see them show any sense of contrition or learn from their mistakes. Alas, I have not seen that evidence.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 25 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 20 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 do not want the government to rush this economic bill through Parliament without proper debate. It affects too many things, including food safety and pesticides, and we need time to study every part of it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan. If the motion before the House, which we are considering today, is passed unamended, it will force a major fiscal bill through committee, cut off clause-by-clause review after only 30 minutes, deem amendments moved without meaningful debate, skip real report stage consideration, limit third reading to only a handful of speeches and restrict ordinary procedural tools after 6.30 p.m., while preserving special flexibility for cabinet ministers, but not for regular members of Parliament. That would be a lot, and it would not be a minor adjustment to the parliamentary calendar. It would be a serious and unconscionable shift in power away from Parliament and toward the executive. That is why I rise today to support the amendments and ask the government to reconsider its current plans to ram this important legislation through the House. Bill C-30 is broad. It would impact taxation, excise duties, fuel taxes, alcohol duties, housing-related rules, labour mobility, worker ownership, greenhouse building, banking payments, transportation information, employment measures, food inspection, pesticides and other areas of federal law. A bill of that breadth deserves Parliament’s full attention. The government is asking the House to accept the appearance of scrutiny while bypassing proper review. If the world is in crisis and if Canada is at a crossroads where we are attempting to do big things fast, to diversify our economy and our trade relationships, then we cannot afford to get this wrong. We need the best ideas to rise to the top, and that is the role of opposition. That is the role of committee. That is the role of clause-by-clause study. There is no boardroom table in a successful company that I know of where no dissent is allowed, where shortcuts get the best results or where the fastest policies are the best policies. Clause-by-clause study matters. It is where members examine the actual words of the bill, not the press release around it. It is where we ask officials what a clause would do, how it would work, who it would affect and what would happen if were misused. It is where amendments are proposed and can be explained, tested and improved. It is where witnesses, members and sometimes the public catch drafting problems, unintended consequences and overly broad powers before they become law. That is not obstruction. That is how the best ideas rise to the top. Under the motion, the committee would meet at 9 a.m., and, if clause-by-clause were not finished by 9:30 a.m., the remaining amendments would be deemed moved and then are voted on without further debate. This motion is a stopwatch, and in a time of global crisis, Canada cannot afford stopwatch law-making. The government’s inability to manage a legislative agenda is not the opposition’s crisis, no matter how much the government tries to bully us into submission. This week, I spent some time at the public safety committee, examining witnesses about a Liberal subamendment to a Bloc amendment that related to privacy concerns that had been expressed to me by numerous people in my community. Others did the same. By the end of the interventions, we all understood and supported the clause as amended and subamended, and we had explained it in committee in a way that should reassure those watching from home that the clause would not cause undue harm to people’s privacy. That is the kind of collaboration the government claims it wants, and when it comes to Canadians’ privacy, it is what we all need, so why the government is shutting it down here in the House is beyond me. The motion would short-circuit report stage. Then, at third reading, it would allow only a very limited number of speeches. Members do not come here as ornaments, here to decorate the government’s bills with a few words. We come here to bring the lived and living experiences of Canadians into the policy choices that are before this country. When debate is reduced to a few speeches, those voices are marginalized. Canadians lose the benefit of having competing arguments tested before a vote takes place. In an unstable, volatile world, there is all the more reason for Parliament to take its time to make sure that Canada gets its policies right. The proposed amendments would let the committee continue its work and protect the stages of review that help Parliament separate strong policy from weak policy before a law is passed. Some parts of Bill C‑30 deserve much closer public scrutiny than they are going to get, because they raise serious concerns about how the government now thinks about power. One of the most troubling examples is the proposed change to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. Buried in this spring economic update bill is a power that would allow cabinet, by order, to exempt persons, things or activities from the application of laws or regulations administered or enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In plain English, cabinet could create exemptions from food and agricultural rules for up to three years, and then extend them for another three years. That means there could be a possible six-year exemption from rules that exist to protect Canadians, our food supply, our producers, our markets and our public confidence. Canadians should not have to guess about questions like, “What is an unreasonable risk? Who makes the decisions, and on what evidence? What notice would Canadians receive and what recourse would they have if the power were used badly?” Food safety should not depend on vague language and cabinet decisions. Those are all questions that I will never get to ask because of the way the government is planning to ram through this bill. Canadians expect food safety rules to be clear, public, stable and enforced. They expect science, inspection and accountability. They do not expect broad exemption powers to be tucked into a budget-style bill and rushed through committee. That same concern appears in the proposed changes to the Pest Control Products Act. Those provisions would allow cabinet to authorize or reinstate the use of a pest control product, even after the responsible minister has determined that the environmental risks are not acceptable, if cabinet decides that the product is needed for economic or food security. That should make every member pause. The regulatory process could say an environmental risk is unacceptable, and cabinet could still step in and permit the product. There may be rare, emergency cases when flexibility is needed, and reasonable people can accept that, but emergency powers should be narrow, clearly defined, transparent, time-limited and subject to strong oversight. They should not be drafted so broadly that Parliament is asked to trust cabinet first and ask questions later. These two brief examples demonstrate why clause-by-clause matters and why committees matter. Canadians need more than abstract, procedural debates. We need safeguards. We ought to make space for members to find provisions such as these, ask what they mean, test the government’s explanations, hear from officials and affected groups and improve the law before Canadians have to live with it. A government that is confident in its agenda should be willing to explain it, defend its legislation line by line and accept amendments that add clarity, accountability and limits. Canadians should pay attention, because the kinds of motions we are debating here today are becoming a trend. Too often, the government seems to believe that if it has the power to do something, that is reason enough to do it. That is not how responsible government works. Just because a government can use a procedure to limit scrutiny, it does not mean that it should. The House of Commons is not an inconvenience in the legislative process, and it ought not be treated as such. It is the central democratic forum of this country, where public money is authorized, laws are tested, ministers are held to account and the executive must answer questions before it changes the lives of Canadians. The Prime Minister should be willing to propose and defend his vision for Canada here, in this chamber, reserved for commoners. We are everyday Canadians who deserve answers. The government has the votes and the procedural tools to force this through, but just because it can, it does not mean that it should. A serious government should not ask members to vote first and understand later. For those reasons, I urge all members of this House to support these amendments. I urge the House to reject this shortcut, protect Parliament’s role and allow Bill C‑30 to receive the scrutiny it deserves.”

“The government ignores committee work and forces bills through the House. This bad process causes real problems, like huge backlogs.”

“Mr. Speaker, actually, all I need to do is look at what happened in this House with Bill C‑3. It is a bill that went to committee. The committee treated it seriously and amended it. The bill came back to the House, and the government showed what it thought of committees. It rejected all of the amendments and used its majority to ram it through. Now we have a situation where there are advertisements in the United States, with companies saying, “You can find a connection to Canada.” We are going to have a big backlog. Americans are suddenly discovering that we have the health care and the country they want. I do not even know what to say. The government does not respect the parliamentary process or committees, and it is going to have unintended consequences.”

“We need more time to study this bill and hear from experts. The government is rushing it through instead of letting us do our jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I brought up two examples in my speech, and here is another one. There is so much substance in this bill to consider. There are recommendations. There are experts whom we need to hear from, but we will not have the opportunity to do that. As every member on the opposition side has made the point, over and over again, that this is a bill that requires more scrutiny and more consideration, the government members have stood up and accused us of all kinds of things in order to ram their bill through.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want to congratulate Logan Stankoven from my riding for winning the Stanley Cup. Also, the government claims we are playing games, but they are the ones who shut off committee cameras as soon as they had a majority.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. First of all, I want to give a shout-out to Stanley Cup champion and Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola product, Logan Stankoven. We are so proud of Logan for winning the Stanley Cup. To my hon colleague, the member for Winnipeg North talked about playing games. Is this not the government that shut off the cameras in four committees the moment it got a majority? I ask my colleague, who is playing games?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 30 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 →

“The government is using its majority to shut down debate in committee instead of talking things through.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was in committee when the first vote happened after the government received its majority. Members can look at the tapes. I sat there and said, “We are going to go upstairs, and when we come back down here, the government is going to use its majority to end the conversation in this committee,” and that is exactly what it did. This is not a government that is starting conversations. It is a government that is ending conversations.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government's economic update fails Canada and breaks promises to Saskatchewan. It cuts research stations, ignores the Snowbirds and the RCMP museum, and fails to fix child care or housing.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate on Government Business No. 12 on the spring economic update. A lot has changed since the spring economic update. The most recent PBO report says the government has slowing growth, a larger than promised deficit, a weakening fiscal outlook and a 1% chance of meeting the government’s own fiscal anchor. That has all happened since the last spring economic update. We are debating Government Business No. 12, and it feels like Groundhog Day. Every time the Liberals bring a closure motion forward, the member for Winnipeg North gets up and says the Conservatives are blocking and filibustering. It is an example of the far-left ideology over there. It is always someone else’s fault. There is always a reason why they did not get the job done. If Liberal legislation did not get passed, it is the Conservatives’ fault. If the Liberals cannot meet any of their economic targets, it is Donald Trump’s fault. If the Liberals cannot get trade deals done, its the fault of the global crisis. There is always something to blame for why the Liberals never follow through on their promises. If they cannot get houses built, it is the municipalities’ fault. If they cannot get more trade deals, perhaps it is the Easter bunny’s fault. I do not know. The Liberals always have someone to blame, and that is the far left in a nutshell. It is never, ever their fault. One thing I want to talk about when it comes to ideology is child care in Saskatchewan. This is the Liberals’ flagship. This is their baby. They thought it would change the lives of parents. I want to talk about the latest report on child care in Saskatchewan, which says 92% of people in Saskatchewan say it is difficult to find child care. Families are being told that child care is more affordable, but affordability does not matter if there is no availability. The report goes on to say that so many communities in my home province of Saskatchewan are being called child care deserts. There are simply not enough day care spaces. Get this. It further says the people the Liberals pretend to care about and want to help are the ones who are hurt the hardest. It is often the parents who need flexibility the most. The nurses, first responders, retail workers and anyone working evenings, weekends or shift work are left without options. This is what the Conservatives talked about all along when the Liberals brought forward their child care program. We said parents need choice. Make it the parent’s choice. Allow private day cares to stay open. Allow parents to have the choice of where they want their children to go. Supplement public day care with private day care so that there are more spaces. The Liberals promised to build 255,000 day care spaces, and they have only made 65% of that target. Shame on them for over-promising once again and leaving parents holding the bag. There are a few other things I want to talk about that were in the spring economic update but never materialized in Saskatchewan. When the people in Saskatchewan look at the spring economic update, what do they not see? They do not see funding for the Snowbirds. It took the Liberals only 10 years to ground the Snowbirds program in Saskatchewan. The iconic Snowbirds are housed in Moose Jaw. The aerial acrobat team is the pride of Canada, and it took the Liberals only 10 years to ground it. They are going to over-promise and over-commit once again. They promised to have the Snowbirds flying by 2030. I do not think that is going to happen, and I do not think anyone on these benches thinks the Snowbirds are going to be flying any time soon. A lack of preparation and planning by the Liberals caused that. Let us talk about what else is not in the spring economic update for Saskatchewan. There is no money for the RCMP Heritage Centre. It is in my home riding of Regina—Lewvan. The Liberals have promised money since 2015 to help the RCMP Heritage Centre become a national museum. They promised it in the 2015 campaign, the 2019 campaign, the 2021 campaign and the 2025 campaign. It was in their platform, and they still have not followed through on the commitment to make the RCMP Heritage Centre a national museum. That is a shame, because it does wonderful work and tells the stories of our brave men and women in uniform. That is something that should be done sooner rather than later. I hope they follow through on that commitment, because they promised it time and time again and they have never delivered. Another thing in the spring economic update that would not help Saskatchewan is the closing of agriculture research stations in Scott and Indian Head. I do not know when the Liberals became the anti-science party. I do not know why they do not want to believe in the science of agriculture across our communities. The research stations are so important because there are four different types of soil in Saskatchewan. That is why there is one in Scott, one in Indian Head and a federal research station in Swift Current. They do different experiments on these different soil types. If the Liberals close two of these research stations, they are going to throw away decades of research that has been done to help the soil become more fertile and to help us make sure we have better crop varieties. They do not say much about the fact they have cut funding to research stations. They do not talk about the cuts they have made, and there are so many more places where the Liberals have wasted billions of dollars. Then they decide to cut the Snowbirds and the agriculture research stations, and not fund their commitments to the RCMP heritage museum that they have promised time and again. The last thing I would say, and this has been really quiet on the Liberal front, is that the government is talking about the potential of selling airports, which I find is a very interesting strategy coming from the Liberal side. The Regina airport is located in Regina—Lewvan. I do not know what the Liberals do not like about Regina—Lewvan, but I hope they will come visit. We would give them a tour so they could see a lot more of this beautiful part of the city in Regina, Saskatchewan. I invite them all to come out. They could see— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Warren Steinley: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting point from the Liberal across the way. I wonder, if I crossed the floor, if the Liberals would fund the RCMP Heritage Centre. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Warren Steinley: Mr. Speaker, we hear them cheering that, yes, they would. They tricked one of the Conservatives by promising to fund something in their riding. That is how the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong got tricked into moving over to the Liberal side. She was promised money from the housing minister. I find it very interesting that the Liberals are willing to try to buy people. I will tell my friend across the way a little story. My daughter saw some of the comments with respect to floor crossing, and she asked me if I would ever cross the floor. I told her that I would not in a million years. She said, “Good. I’ll still be proud of you.” There is the saying “from the mouths of babes”. Even 11-year-olds know that we should really keep our word all the time. I think sometimes we get the most truth when we talk to young people across the country. That is what the Liberals have lost in the economic update as well: the fact that young people are struggling more each and every day. The fact that the vast majority of young people in Canada do not believe they are ever going to afford a home is not good enough for our country. We need to do better for young people. The fact that 2.2 million people go to food banks in this country, which is the breadbasket of the world, is not good enough. A vast majority of those people going to food banks are children, young people and students. The fact that people are languishing on wait-lists for years in the health care system is unacceptable. The fact that we gave $1.6 billion to failed asylum claimants for health care benefits but we do not look after seniors who need hip and knee replacements is unacceptable. One thing I want to get to before I wrap up is the fact that when we say that Canada can be better, and when we question if the Liberals are doing good enough for Canadians, they call us unpatriotic. That is unacceptable. The Liberal government is not Canada. Every member of the chamber loves our country, but we think our country can do a heck of a lot better than it is doing right now. We are the only G7 country in a recession, and the blame lies at the Prime Minister’s feet. He promised the world he could deal with Donald Trump. There is a video that says this. That was an absolute crock. The Prime Minister has failed at every promise he has made. He promised to build at speeds not seen in generations. That is not true. He said he would deal with Donald Trump. That is not true. He said he would make sure that the budget was balanced. That is not true. Do members remember when Stephen Harper said that budgets are like potato chips and that one cannot not have just one? It has been 11 years of straight deficit budgets that keep getting bigger, and Canadians are left holding the bag.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Relevance 9 of 100

  Only 8% of this speech directly addressed the motion under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×8

  A repeated line

  “We are the only G7 country in a recession.”

  Said 8 times by 8 members since May 29.

  Every time it was said →

“We helped the Liberals pass an economic bill, but they have not used it once. Even when we try to help them grow the economy, they fail.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would love to debate back and forth with my colleague, because, as I said, we helped the Liberals pass Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act. We needed it. We co-operated. They needed it to make the economy stronger, but they have not used the bill once. Even when we are trying to help them grow the economy, they fail. I will take no lessons from the colleague across the way. We will do our job and study legislation, but when we do help, they still cannot get the job done.”

“The government is wasting money on outside consultants, growing the civil service, and sending money to other countries. I want this spending cut.”

“Mr. Speaker, there are so many ways the Liberals have wasted money. I can talk about the $300 million in PrescribeIT. I can talk about the tens of billions of dollars given to third party consultants and about the growing size of bureaucracy. If they hire more consultants, they should not have to have a larger bureaucracy. We can talk about the millions, even billions, of dollars sent out of the country in international aid, which is probably on an ideological basis not on a humanitarian basis. There are a lot of areas where there is money wasted by the government. I want to make sure that those are cut and that the provinces remain full.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Many people in my town are upset that the Snowbirds are cancelled. I worry they might never fly again. I want to know what the member would do to keep them flying.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that the hon. member brought up the Snowbirds, because this past weekend, the Barrie Airshow was held. There were 150,000 people who attended the air show. I was fortunate that I had the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan come to Barrie, because he has been leading the fight to keep the Snowbirds flying. He heard from a lot of people how disappointed they were that the Snowbirds have actually been cancelled. The main concern is that this five-year hiatus may turn to six years, to 10 years and then to their never returning. I am wondering what the hon. member would do to keep the Snowbirds flying.”