Branden Leslie · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-28

“I don't like the CRTC's new streaming rules. They're a tax that will make Netflix more expensive. The government shouldn't regulate what I watch. Let people choose what they want to see.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that there are many ways to describe the latest CRTC ruling on streaming services, but I will start with the obvious one: This is wild. However, it is not all that surprising. Conservatives warned that this would happen. We warned that the Online Streaming Act was never just about making Netflix and others pay their fair share. The real issue was always much bigger. The government handed the CRTC broad new authority over the Internet and then asked Canadians to trust that the regulator would not go too far, but here we are. The CRTC has decided that streaming services such as Netflix, Disney, Amazon and others must spend or contribute 15% of their Canadian broadcasting revenues towards Canadian programming. That includes the 5% payment already imposed in 2024, which several major streaming companies are still fighting in court. If the government believes , like the Conservatives do, that this ruling has perhaps gone too far, it does have options at its disposal. It can direct the CRTC to change course. It can bring forward legislation to narrow or repeal the powers that it gave the CRTC. It can stop pretending this is someone else's problem. However, what it cannot do is hand the CRTC a blank cheque over streaming and then deny responsibility when the bill is passed on to Canadians. Let us be clear about what is happening. The government is taking the old Canadian broadcast model built for cable boxes, rabbit ears, licences and cable packages and is trying to stretch it out over the entirety of the Internet. The CRTC says this is going to create far more money for Canadian content. On the surface, that sounds absolutely wonderful. Why would we not want more money flowing to Canadian content? No member of the House, including me, is against Canadian stories, artists, actors, writers, directors, musicians and all the people behind the scenes who make the industry work. We all support Canadian creators, but this is not the debate. The question is whether supporting Canadian creators requires another unnecessary and costly tax while Canadian consumers are paying more for their services. Make no mistake. As much as the government likes to claim it, this is not just free money becoming available. Streaming companies are not charities. When the government makes it more expensive to operate in Canada, there are only a few places the money can come from. It can come, which is most likely, from higher subscription services and prices. It can come from fewer services, less choice or reduced investment in Canada. The money will come from somewhere. That is the part that defenders of this scheme always seem to skip. They talk as if the government had discovered a new cultural oil well: Lower the bucket, haul up the cash and sprinkle it around, and everything is going to be fantastic. What they have really done is impose a new cost on platforms that Canadians already pay for and then pretend that the cost is never going to show up on anyone's bill any time in the future. This is the loony-tune type of rhetoric the government likes to project on taxpayers. Costs are never costs, and taxes are never taxes. It is always a framework, a contribution, a modernization or a flexible approach, but flexible for whom? It is flexible for the lobbyists who know how to work the system at the expense of citizens. It is flexible for the established players who know how to fill out the forms, meet the specific definitions, hire the right consultants and navigate the maze that is the CRTC. However, for a family watching the cost of its monthly subscriptions go up yet again, it is not that flexible at all. People are leaving and have left cable for a reason. They wanted choice. They wanted control over what they consume. They wanted a service that could bring a little bit of joy at the end of their busy days. The Internet is not cable with Wi-Fi. It is a completely different world. The old broadcasting system was built around scarcity. There were only so many frequencies, channels, licences and time slots available. That is why the old system was built around quotas, licences, mandatory contributions and rules about what had to be shown. The Internet functions entirely differently, as we all know. It is built around abundance: endless shelf space, choice and competition, with millions of creators reaching audiences directly without needing permission from a broadcaster or a regulator. A small creator in Winkler with a camera can reach an audience. A musician in Portage can create a song and put it online. A podcaster in Morden can speak directly to listeners anywhere in the world. They do not need to wait for a broadcaster to discover them. That is not a loophole in Canadian culture. That is Canadian culture in the modern world, and it does not stop at money. The CRTC is also getting involved in something called “discoverability”. Discoverability might sound harmless, but on the Internet, discoverability is everything. It is about what appears on someone's home page, what gets recommended to them, what shows up in their search, what gets suggested next, what becomes easy to find and what gets buried. When the government starts saying that certain content must be made more discoverable, the question becomes simple: Is something more discoverable because viewers asked for it, or is it more discoverable because the regulator nudged the platform into pushing it? This is no small question. On streaming platforms, the recommendation system is the store. It is the shelf. It is the front window. It is the clerk saying, “Hey, you may also like this.” When government starts directing how content should be presented, promoted, searched and surfaced, it is no longer just funding Canadian creators. It is getting involved in what Canadians are nudged to watch. That should make people uncomfortable, because that should not be the job of the government. The Liberal government has already pushed through enough censorship legislation and has advocated for more control in the lives of Canadians. Nobody wants the government to further interfere in what they watch at home alone or with their family. I believe that culture is strongest when people choose it freely. It is definitely not when the government puts its thumb on the scale and then congratulates itself for creating demand. The more government regulates online culture, the more it starts deciding what counts as Canadian culture in the first place. A show is treated as Canadian not simply because Canadians like it or because it is a Canadian story. It has to pass through a maze of ownership rules, spending rules, rights rules and points for approved jobs behind the scenes. The entire purpose of streaming was for people to watch what they wanted, when they wanted it, and definitely without the government's interfering in it. The government will say it is about fairness: Canadian broadcasters have had to contribute to the system for decades, so foreign streamers should contribute too. That is, frankly, the strongest argument. However, Netflix, Disney and Spotify did not break Canadian broadcasting. The Internet changed, as did its its viewers, its advertising and its technologies. People got used to choosing what they wanted instead of paying for a bundle of things they did not want to watch. There is also, of course, a serious trade issue with this. Companies such as Apple, Amazon and Spotify have already challenged the 5% ruling from the CRTC, and it is still before the courts. The United States has raised trade concerns regarding the decision. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has criticized the CRTC's move, arguing that the rules target American streaming services and interfere with platform operations. These are not some fringe organizations on the sidelines. This is the organized voice of major American businesses looking at the Canadian regulatory system and raising concerns. This lands, of course, at the worst possible time, because, as we know, we are heading into a CUSMA review. Our economy depends heavily on keeping access to the American market stable and predictable. At a time when our trade relationship with the United States is already uncertain, the CRTC has handed the American negotiators a fresh grievance to use. Why are we making Canada look more complicated, more expensive and more hostile to digital investment? The Liberal government should be trying to attract investment instead of giving reasons to scare it away. The defenders of this scheme will say it helps Canadian creators, which is partially true. Some established producers will benefit: the people who already know how to navigate the system and exactly where to line up. However, what about the independent Canadian creator building an audience on YouTube, Spotify, Patreon, TikTok or a podcast? What about the Canadian filmmaker who gets global backing but does not fit neatly into the CRTC's preferred category? What about the next generation of Canadian creators who do not want to wait at the gate? They want to build, they want to publish, they want to stream, they want to sell, they want to perform, and they want to compete. There is a much easier way to support Canadian creators: Make it easier to produce content here, attract more investment, keep our taxes competitive, remove barriers, and open markets. We need to let Canadian stories reach audiences in their living room, at home and around the world. We cannot build a cultural industry by giving government more power over the Internet. I strongly support Canadian content, and we should absolutely celebrate it, but Canadians are not children. They do not need the government hovering over the remote control. Canadian culture and Canadian wallets would be better served if government got out of the way.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-26

“I want the government to cut gas taxes. You're talking down to people and using silly examples to make them look dumb.”

“I want to blame soaring prices on the government's refusal to cut taxes. Everyone knows prices are rising fast because of the government's spending and its stubborn refusal to let people keep more of their money.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it really is astounding. I am not sure if the Liberals do not go to grocery stores, do not go to gas stations or do not talk to people, or all of the above. The people I represent always tell me that the cost of living is the number one issue of concern to them. They tell me that gas prices are blowing their minds. As they are watching the prices go up, they are deciding that they cannot fill up the whole tank or that they will have to skip the soccer game that afternoon. It is an absurd reality when the government forgets something is so integral as the taxes it is imposing on people, and not only the impacts those taxes have on the individual buying the fuel, but also the ripple effects across the entirety of the economy. We wonder why we have the fastest-growing inflation of food prices in the G7. This is a huge part of it. The inflationary spending the government has undertaken over the past 11 years, combined with its irrational refusal to take common-sense decisions that are in our control, like the one we are proposing as Conservatives today, is why the government needs to go.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want lower prices! The other parties don't. Some things are beyond our control, but high prices are our fault. We should fix our own policies. This tax cut would help a bit. Vote yes.”

“I want to cut fuel taxes for families and the economy. Government spends too much on other things instead. I'll always say my riding needs lower taxes.”

“I want the government to stop taxing gas and diesel. Rural Canadians need to drive and high gas prices hurt them. Food and everything else costs more when fuel costs more. The government should give people relief by stopping these taxes.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the constituents of Portage—Lisgar. I rise today in support of our Conservative opposition day motion, which calls on the government to give immediate relief by ending all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST. The motion is very straightforward. For the millions who are being squeezed at the pump, at the grocery store, on the farm or simply when buying the essentials of everyday life, it is badly needed. Let us start with the fact that Canada cannot control everything happening around the world. We cannot control instability in the Middle East or just snap our fingers and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but that does not mean we are powerless. A nation is judged not by whether it can prevent every storm abroad but by how wisely it prepares for and adapts to the storms that it cannot prevent. As the great Stoic philosopher Epictetus stated, “Make the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens.” The government can and should do more to help. It can stop taxing people every time they fill up their vehicles, and it can stop making a bad situation worse. Families were already in a cost of living crisis before this latest spike at the pump. Groceries were already too expensive. Rent and mortgages were already too high. Utility bills were already eating up more and more of the family budget. Food banks had countless people walking through their doors for the first time. This is something that is happening in every corner of our country, and now the price at the pump is pouring fuel on that fire. What did the Minister of Finance have to say about it? He said, “We have already acted.” Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but I am surprised he did not tell my constituents to go and eat cake while he was at it. I can assure him that the family filling up their minivan does not think that the federal government has acted enough on this issue, and it will come as news to the farmer who needs diesel to seed, to spray, to harvest and to haul everything. Canadians do not fill their tanks with Liberal excuses, but boy, I bet they wish they could. The government says it has acted already, but Canadians are still paying more. Gas prices are 13% higher in Canada than in the United States. That is about 22¢ more per litre on average. Many folks from my region, from the southern part of my riding, regularly head across the border to save those dollars and fill up their tanks, but they wish they did not have to. Life is simply so expensive that it is worth committing the extra time to travel internationally to fuel up. Gas now costs 50¢ more per litre than it did when the global oil prices were at the exact same levels in 2014. That is the point. It is not just global oil markets. It is not just events happening half a world away. It is about deliberate choices made right here at home by a government that kept adding costs and kept ignoring the consequences. The government has layered taxes, regulations, costs and waste upon everything else, and then, when people ask for relief, the Liberals just shrug it off and say they have already done their part. I represent a whole bunch of good, honest, hard-working folks who call rural Manitoba home. In rural Manitoba, driving is not optional. There is no subway from Winkler to Morden. There is no LRT from Carman to Portage. There is no magic electric bus that takes a farmer to the parts counter when he needs something, a nurse to a night shift or a senior living on an acreage to the nearest grocery store. For rural Canadians, the vehicle is not a luxury. It is simply how life works. When gas goes up, rural people do not have the option of just driving a little less. They have to eat the cost. They have to absorb it, and they have to cut somewhere else. That is why our Conservative team will continue to push on this issue. I think about the seniors who are on fixed incomes who have worked hard their entire lives. They have paid their taxes. They have raised their families. They have built our communities. They did what was asked of them and tried to follow the promise of Canada. I had the chance to speak with so many of them over the last couple of weeks back home in the riding, and a staggering number told me just how hard things are right now, that they are struggling to get by, that they cannot absorb yet another increase in the cost of living. They are looking at the price of meats. They are looking at the price of fruits and vegetables. They are making choices that no senior should have to make in our advanced first world country, in our beautiful nation of Canada. Do they fill the tank, or do they fill the fridge? Do they go to that appointment, or do they save the money on gas? Do they buy the healthier food, or do they just buy what is cheapest? Do they risk the perceived pain to their pride in asking their family for help if they need it, or do they visit a food bank for the first time? That is not dignity. That is not the Canadian promise. It certainly matters for parents. Every parent knows the feeling. The kids are growing, eating everything in sight, and the clothes they were hoping they could wear one or two more times simply do not fit anymore. Now the grocery bill looks like a car payment, the car payment looks like a mortgage, the mortgage looks like something from another planet, and we are faced with higher and higher fuel costs. These costs are baked into every product on every shelf. This is the part that the government does not seem to understand. Fuel is not just something that people buy at a gas station. Fuel is inside the price of absolutely everything we buy. It moves the seed, the fertilizer, the crop, the cattle, the potatoes, the groceries and the parts. It moves our economy. When diesel goes up, the price of food goes up. This is partly why we have the highest food inflation in the G7. When transportation goes up, the price of everything goes up. When the government taxes fuel, it is not just taxing the person standing and looking at the pump, wondering when it will ever stop. It is taxing the entirety of the supply chain, and our farmers are hit especially hard. Farmers do not have the option of just parking the tractor because the price of diesel is too high. The crop has to go in, crop protection products have to be applied, and the harvest must take place. The grain then has to move, and the bills just keep coming, and this was when fertilizer prices were already sky high. Farmers have faced huge increases in input costs. Fuel, equipment, repairs, parts, interest rates, transportation and taxes are all piled on, to over $160 billion in debt, with the government continuously piling on more red tape. Every extra cost eventually shows up somewhere else. Now, in my hometown of Portage, we have major food processors like Simplot and McCain. They are part of a food supply chain that reaches far beyond Manitoba. When fuel and diesel costs rise, their costs rise too. Those costs do not just simply vanish into thin air; they move down the line, and the consumer pays. That is why tax relief at the pump is not some narrow little measure. It is a broad measure of affordability relief for the entire economy. Let us talk about the hypocrisy of the carbon tax, but before I do, I would like to indicate I am splitting my time with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot. Members might recall that for years, Liberals told Canadians that the carbon tax had made them better off. They said the rebate covered it and more. They said anyone who disagreed was simply spreading misinformation. Then, when they finally removed part of their carbon tax, they bragged that it was saving families money. Well, which one is it? If removing the carbon tax saves families money right now, then it was costing families money before. The Liberals would never admit that, but both things cannot be true at the same time. For years, Conservatives said the carbon tax was making life more expensive. For years, this Liberal government denied it. Now the Liberals want credit for partially admitting what everybody else already knew intuitively. Canadians are not asking for a miracle; they are asking for relief. This House can give it to them today. If the government simply adopts our idea, it will immediately put money back into people's pockets. Every MP in this place has a choice. They can defend keeping all of these taxes on, or they can stand with people, who are the ones paying the bill. Nobody is saying that this motion is going to solve every challenge in the country or our world. It would not, but it would lower costs and give people some breathing room that they so badly need. It tells Canadians that their government is not completely deaf to what is happening in their lives. Let us stop pretending that everything is outside of our control. There are things in our control that we can do to make a difference in the lives of the citizens we are here to represent: suspend the federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, and give Canadians real relief, not another lecture. That is what this motion says. It would lower costs, it respects taxpayers, and it puts families first. That is why I am proud to support it.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want you to stop taking credit for cutting a tax. I'll fill time with a story about a senior who is sad and has to choose between appointments and food. Gas prices are bad. I want you to say whether your riding has seniors like that.”

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-05-06

“I want the Liberals to stop spending so much. The debt is too high. People are angry at you for making their cost of living higher.”

“I say Prime Minister spends too much. It makes costs go up for families. Government should spend less so people have more money.”

Private Members' Business

Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act

2026-05-05

“Bad phone service is not like bad weather. Rural people should not just accept it. Cell service is basic infrastructure. The government needs to fix spectrum policy. Companies should not hoard public airwaves. Farmers need to make calls. Families need to call for help in snowstorms. First responders need service. It's not acceptable for companies to take people's money and fail to deliver. The issue deserves study. The government has had years to deal with this problem.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, for many people living in big cities, a dropped call is an irritant, but then they dial again and it works just fine. For rural families, it can be dangerous. It can mean a farmer cannot connect to the equipment that keeps his or her modern operation running or, worse, cannot make a call if the combine starts on fire. It can mean a family driving on a lonely stretch of highway in a snowstorm has no way to call for help if disaster strikes. For a first responder, it can mean the difference between getting there on time and getting there too late, and the trauma that can follow. In Canada, cell service should not be a luxury or simply a perk. It is basic infrastructure in an advanced nation like Canada. When it fails, people notice, and sometimes, particularly in rural Canada, they pay for it. That is why this issue matters so much. “Spectrum” may sound like something regulators just talk about, but it is the invisible infrastructure behind every call, text, emergency alert and wireless connection that people rely on. It is also a public resource. The public owns it. Companies are licensed to use it, but government is supposed to manage it in the public interest. When spectrum policy works, people get better service, stronger competition and fewer dead zones. When it fails, families pay full price for half service at best sometimes. Signals drop, towers do not get built, smaller companies get squeezed out, and consumers get fewer choices to purchase from. Worst of all, prices stay high, and the same companies continue to call the shots on how this process works. Bill C-268 would require the CRTC to verify the mobile coverage data it gets from Canadian carriers. That matters because every rural resident knows there can be a huge gap between what the coverage map says and what the phone actually delivers for them. On paper, an area may be completely covered and may appear served, but it is not. In reality, that service may mean one weak bar at best, or a call that drops halfway through, or a signal that disappears the moment the road dips or the weather changes. I bet every single rural member of Parliament in this place knows exactly what I am talking about. We know instinctively where the dead zones are in our ridings. We know where we can make calls on the road, where we simply cannot and where, unless we have downloaded it, an audiobook or podcast is going to cut out, too. What matters is not just the stretch of highway where we know service is awful. We know that people stand outside their houses holding their phones up in the air hoping they might get that one bar. People live there, and despite being told they are served, they know they are not. That is why accurate coverage data matters. Rural folks do not need someone or some big company telling them they are covered when their own experience shows them that is not the case. They need a system that measures service as it actually exists in the real world. This bill would force Parliament to take another look at Canada's spectrum policy framework. That matters because the bill's own preamble makes a pretty remarkable admission that Canada's spectrum policy framework has not been updated since 2007. That is not just a long time ago; in the world of telecom years, that is ancient history. This framework predates the smart phone in the world we live in. It predates the app economy. It predates connected farms, remote work and the expectation that people should be able to bank, work, run a business and stay connected from almost anywhere in this great nation. Canada's public airwaves are being managed under a framework that has been sitting on the shelf since the flip phone era, thinking back to when we had to press enough characters 14 different times just to say hello and to have the patience of a saint. Since then, the world has changed immensely, as we all know, and the framework governing our public airwaves was written for a very different country than the one we are living in today. Bill C-268 would require the Minister of Industry to review that framework, report back to Parliament and hear from people who understand the stakes, such as rural municipalities, first responders, the CRTC, telecom providers and spectrum licence-holders, who would all to come to the table to help us understand what the challenges are and how they can be fixed. In plain English, Parliament would finally have to ask whether Canada's public airwaves are being used to connect people or if we are letting an outdated system limp along while rural communities are left buffering and paying full price for next to no service at times. It is amazing that we have become accustomed to this issue. In any other part of life, people would be furious to pay full price for a service if it only worked half the time at best. Imagine buying a new truck and it randomly just stops working while driving down certain roads. Imagine ordering home Internet to be told that it works wonderfully, except if someone tries to use it. Nobody would accept these services, yet with cell service, too many people have been trained to just shrug it off as if that it is just the way it is. People know where the call will drop, so they avoid making calls, and if they live in that area, I guess they just do not make calls from their own house without a land line. They know where they cannot send a text, they know what corner of the house gets that service consistently, and they know that stretch of road where they are just out of luck. Simply, they have adapted to bad service, but that does not make it okay. Even worse, they are expected to accept this from some of the biggest and most profitable telecom companies in the country. At some point, we have to stop treating bad cellphone service like bad weather, as if it just happens and there cannot be anything done about it. This is the conversation that Parliament is long overdue to have, and it is why Conservatives believe this bill should go to committee for study. At committee, members should hear from those rural municipalities and from our first responders, who understand the public safety risks. They should hear from industry stakeholders about the barriers to deployment and from the regulators about how coverage is measured and, most importantly, verified. We need to make sure this work leads to the problem being fixed, however. The last thing we need is another taxpayer-funded paperweight. A spectrum policy that only works on paper does not work, at least for the people I represent. A coverage claim that falls apart the moment someone leaves town is not good enough. For Conservatives, the test is simple. Does federal spectrum policy help get service to people who need it, yes or no? That should be the starting point of this conversation, not whether the consultation process checks every box or whether the department can point to another strategy, another target or another dashboard on some website. The question is whether the person on the rural road, the farmer in his field or his yard, the family at the lake and the small business owner heading through bad weather can connect when it matters most to them. Does it support competition? People are tired of being told to be grateful for whatever service the few companies decide to provide us. Competition is supposed to mean more choice, better prices, better service and a real reason for service providers to have to fight for their customers. If spectrum policy lets the big players sit comfortably on public airwaves while new entrants struggle to gain a foothold, then the system is not working. Does it encourage investment in our country? At the end of the day, speeches do not build cellphone towers, and press releases do not expand coverage. People need this infrastructure. The rules should reward deployment, reduce unnecessary delays and create confidence for companies willing to build, especially in places where the business case is harder. A serious spectrum policy should help to get service built where it is needed, not simply where it is easiest. Does it make better use of a public resource? Spectrum belongs to the public and should not be treated like private property for companies to hoard, because communities will continue to go without the service. If public airwaves are licensed out, people should expect public benefit in return. Finally, does it recognize that rural Canada cannot be treated as an afterthought? Rural people pay many of the bills for this country. They run businesses. They grow our food. They move the goods we all need across this country. They volunteer in fire halls. They drive long distances, they face tough weather, and they keep our rural communities going and our nation going. They should not be expected to accept second-class service. Those are the questions I believe this committee should examine. At second reading, we are voting on the principle of the bill. We believe that coverage data should be accurate and rural and remote connectivity should be taken seriously. That does not mean every word in the bill, as I see it, is perfect. It means the issue is real enough, serious enough and urgent enough that it deserves proper study. We can support sending this bill to committee so members can hear from the people closest to the problem, test the evidence, ask the hard questions and make sure the focus stays where it belongs: on better service, accountability, more competition and public safety. We will also be clear that the government has had years to deal with these problems. Rural dead zones did not appear yesterday. The framework did not suddenly become outdated just last week. People have been raising these concerns for a long time. The bill opens the door to greater scrutiny. The question now is whether Parliament will do more than wring its hands, because in 2026, nobody should have to wonder whether their phone will work when they pick it up to use it and need it most.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

Finance

2026-04-27

“I want government to remember taxpayers are the ones footing the bill. I want lower spending so debt interest doesn't eat up money for health care and infrastructure.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister needs to understand that the public purse is not his personal travel rewards card. I know that he likes to fly but there are no Aeroplan points when the government spends billions of dollars that it does not have. There is no free checked bag for the next generation. There is no lounge access for taxpayers, and there is definitely no complimentary upgrade when the country is stuck at the back of the plane with a maxed-out credit card. Since taking office, the Prime Minister has added $90 billion in net new spending and the cost of running government is up 9% in under a year. The Liberals are now spending more to service our national debt than the government collects in the GST, or, as it should soon be called, the debt servicing tax. That should set off alarm bells for everyone in our country, and anyone who thinks this can continue should give their head a shake. When interest payments eat up more of the budget, there is less money for health care, defence and infrastructure. Canadians do not need a Prime Minister asking for a higher credit limit. They need a government that remembers that taxpayers are the ones footing the bill.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Strong and Free Elections Act

2026-04-24

“I want to make it cheaper to become a candidate. Will you put that in the bill?”

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-04-24

“The Prime Minister says affordability is better than ever. Really? Grocery prices are up 42% since 2015. Everything costs more. More Canadians are going to food banks. The Prime Minister is out of touch.”

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-04-24

“The government is spending too much. More spending and debt mean more inflation. More inflation will hurt families and seniors. The Prime Minister should stop spending and making the problem worse.”