“The Prime Minister told Canadians to buy Canadian. But his government just spent 7.8 billion dollars with American companies. I want him to explain why he is not following his own policy.”

“Mr. Speaker, we have even more proof that the Prime Minister is all talk and no results. Just over a year after he announced his own government’s buy Canadian policy, we now learn that the government has spent $7.8 billion enriching American corporations. A Prime Minister who says that we are “at war” with the United States is padding the bottom lines of American companies. He told Canadians to buy Canadian. Why is he not?”

“The minister did not answer my question. The Prime Minister promised to buy Canadian, but more government contracts now go to American companies instead. I want him to answer why he broke that promise.”

“Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I believe the minister got her talking points mixed up, because that had nothing to do with the question I asked. The Prime Minister looked at Canadians and said that he was going to lead by example and his government was going to buy Canadian. Instead, he has increased, in the time he has been Prime Minister, the number of government contracts going to American companies from one-fifth to one-third. Perhaps it is because 90% of his investments are wrapped up in American corporations. Here is a very easy question for the Prime Minister: What is up, his elbows or his stock portfolio?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Opposition question in Question Period

  Respect 69 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “What is up, his elbows or his stock portfolio?”.

  See full analysis →