“The Prime Minister promised to buy and build in Canada, but he broke that promise. Spending on American companies is up by 50 percent, and eight billion Canadian dollars went to the American economy instead of ours. He needs to stop putting on a show and actually invest in Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, their styles may differ, but this Liberal Prime Minister has the same obsession with grand theatrical announcements as his predecessor. This is just like the solemn promise to buy and build in Canada. It was all just hot air, because he has done exactly the opposite ever since making that promise. Government procurement from American companies has increased by 50%, and $8 billion of our money—money that belongs to workers, mothers and the unemployed—is boosting the American economy. It is like watching the same play against a different backdrop. When will he stop grandstanding and actually invest in Canada?”

“The government gives us slogans instead of real answers. The Prime Minister said Canada was at war with the United States. Most of his personal investments are in the U.S. I want to know if that conflict of interest is why he is sending $8 billion to the American government.”

“Mr. Speaker, all of this government’s ministers are following the Liberal Prime Minister’s lead. They are giving us words, slogans, announcements and theatrics but never any results or real answers for Canadians. On August 22, the Prime Minister said that Canada was at war with the United States. When we asked him why, he simply said that it was because the Americans had attacked us. Is it because 90% of the Prime Minister’s personal investments are in the United States that he is sending $8 billion of our money to help the United States government wage war against us?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Opposition question in Question Period

  Respect 58 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “Is it because 90% of the Prime Minister's personal investments are in the United States that he is sending $8 billion…”.

  See full analysis →

“Our trade war with the United States has caused many factory closures and layoffs in Canada. The government promised to buy from Canadian businesses to fix this, but it bought fifty percent more from American companies instead, spending nearly eight billion dollars. I want the government to explain why.”

“Mr. Speaker, we have been in a trade war, and everyone knows this, with America, and there have been real consequences because of that: The Stellantis plant in Brampton closed, Paccar had major layoffs, Stelco now has layoffs, and hundreds of business across this country are laying off workers. The Liberals had a solution: Buy Canadian. What were the results? They bought American. They have increased the buying from American companies by a whopping 50%, in the middle of a trade war, to $7.8 billion. Why is that?”

“The government says it buys Canadian, but it is sending more money to the United States instead. We are in a trade war, so we should buy less from America. I want the government to explain why it is not doing that.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals must have a different definition of what buy Canada means than what we think buy Canada means. If we are buying Canadian, we do not actually increase the amount of money we are sending to America. It is a pretty simple economic lesson. Why did the Liberals do this? It is because their buy Canada is all illusions. They are all talk, no results. If we are in the middle of a trade war, as we all know, we should be buying less from America. Will someone explain why we are not buying less from America in the middle of a trade war?”

“The Prime Minister promised to buy Canadian, but his government has given $7.8 billion to American companies instead. One-third of what the government buys now goes to American businesses. I want to know if his promise to buy Canadian was just an empty slogan.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government, since the Prime Minister took office, has given $7.8 billion to American corporations. This is the same Prime Minister who made a big, grand show of theatre in promoting a government policy to buy Canadian, yet since then his government has increased government contracts to American companies. They now make up one-third of what the Canadian government is buying. The out-of-touch Prime Minister is ignoring what Canadians want and what he promised to Canadians. I have a very simple question: Was “Buy Canadian” just another empty Liberal slogan?”

“The Prime Minister tells people to buy Canadian, but he keeps 91% of his assets in the United States and has increased government contracts there. Meanwhile, Canadian businesses are laying off workers because of high taxes, too many rules, and no trade deal.”

“Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants someone invested in Canada, why has the Prime Minister put 91% of his assets in the United States? This is a very real problem. Canadian businesses in my community and across this country are laying people off because the government has turned its back on them through 10 years of high taxes, high regulations and an inability to get a deal and support businesses. When the Prime Minister told them that they should buy Canadian, they expected him to follow the example and not increase government contracts to the U.S. Was it buy Canadian or sell out Canadians?”