MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Carlos Leitão

Follow by RSS

Leitão defends the government’s strategy against the U.S. trade war, advocating for projects like the Alto rail and programs like Bill C-38. He often characterizes policy implementation by obscuring actors, for instance, stating, “New solutions and new proposals had to be put in place.”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
81 / 100 over 85 statements
Signal 78 / 100
Relevance 81 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 86 / 100
Loses points more than most for Wording that hides who did something, or who will.2.7 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.7 A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.1.9 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.9 A remark off to the side of the point.1.6 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.6 Loses points less than most for A story that illustrates instead of making a point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 85 of 101 statements graded so far.

Statements 101

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

In response to a question from Gérard Deltell

“The other side is harassing me and trying to silence me. They cannot do that here.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Signal 0 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! I believe this is straight harassment from that side. It is trying to shut me up. You cannot do that. We are supposed to be able to— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

In response to a question from Gérard Deltell

“Canada is not in a recession. Our economy is hurting because of foreign wars, high fuel prices, and low investment, but we have a plan to fix it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: Canada is not in a recession. I could tell the member that, per capita, the GDP rose in the first quarter, but I am not going to say that. I could have also told him that the financial markets have completely ignored this message and that they are not in turmoil over it. What I can say, however, is that the Canadian economy is suffering directly from the impact of the trade war and is suffering directly from the impact of the war in the Middle East. Fuel prices are very high. Investment is down, due to uncertainty. That is the problem, but we have a plan.

Statements by Members ·

710 Ste-Rose Squadron

“I want to congratulate the 710 Ste-Rose Squadron on its 65th anniversary. I am thanking the cadets, instructors, and volunteers who help train young people in our community.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 65th anniversary of 710 Ste-Rose Squadron, a remarkable institution in our community that has been inspiring and training generations of young people for 65 years. Through its commitment to leadership, discipline, service, and excellence, 710 Ste-Rose Squadron plays a vital role in the development of our youth, instilling in them values that will stay with them for life. I would like to pay tribute to the cadets, instructors, volunteers, families, and everyone who has contributed over the decades to the success and reputation of this vital squadron. On behalf of the people of Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, I congratulate 710 Ste-Rose Squadron on its 65th anniversary and wish it a long and successful future.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from François-Philippe Champagne

“I support the new Canada Strong investment fund. I want the minister to tell us more about it.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 40 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the economic update includes many measures, but I would like to focus on one in particular and ask the minister if he can comment on it. Unfortunately, we do not have much time. I am thinking in particular of the investment fund, the Canada Strong fund, which I think is an excellent idea. Could the minister comment on that?

In response to a question from François-Philippe Champagne

“The International Monetary Fund had good things to say about Canada's economy. I want to know how the minister uses that praise when speaking with foreign leaders and investors.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the International Monetary Fund released its annual report a short time ago, which includes very encouraging remarks about Canada and the Canadian economy, despite the cloud of uncertainty hanging over the global economy. The IMF had some really positive things to say about us. When the minister is abroad, speaking with his counterparts and with investors looking to invest here, what advantage does he get out of the fact that the IMF has such high praise for Canada?

“I want the Minister of Finance to explain what having a top credit rating means for Canada. How does it help Canadians, and what does it mean when he meets with other world leaders?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, I have some questions for our excellent Minister of Finance. I am sorry about where I am sitting because we will have to turn. I did not choose my seating arrangement strategically. Perhaps the Minister of Finance could talk to us a little about what it really means to have a AAA credit rating. When he travels and meets with colleagues from other G7 countries, what does it mean to him that Canada has a AAA credit rating? What is the benefit of that for all Canadians?

“Canada's economy is strong, not broken. Our deficit is lower than expected because our economy grew, and our debt is manageable. Global problems like the pandemic, wars, and American trade tariffs have hurt economies everywhere, but Canada is handling them well.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, it is my turn to talk about Bill C-30 and to talk about the economic context in which our economic update was presented recently and, especially, the Canadian economy. What we have witnessed in the last year at least, since I have been here, is that our colleagues from the official opposition have developed this skill of offering really simplistic solutions to what are highly complex and serious problems. In that context, let us talk about the economic update. It was an economic update, not a budget, but of course, there were some fiscal measures that were also announced in the budget. What does the economic update tell us? To start with, the economic update tells us that the deficit for 2025‑26 in fact turned out to be about $66.9 billion rather than the $78.3 billion that had been forecast back in the November budget, so there was an improvement of about $11 billion in the public accounts of the government, of the country. Why was the deficit less than expected? It has nothing to do with the high price of oil. Conservatives talk about the GST on oil and say that it causes oil prices to go up and that is where the government makes its money, etc. No, the deficit was $11 billion less than what had been anticipated earlier because the economy in 2025 was much stronger than what had been expected. Government revenues were higher, and government spending was lower. That is where that $11 billion comes from. Not only is the economy of Canada a resilient economy that has been able to withstand severe shocks, but it grew at a reasonable pace when compared with our neighbours and peer countries. The economy of Canada is not broken. We are in fact leading the way among the G7 countries, which is recognized by our peers. That brings me to the next point I want to make, which is that this proves that Canada really has considerable fiscal strength. Our fiscal house is in order. We have a deficit of 2.1% of GDP, which, when we compare it to peer countries, is perfectly manageable. That deficit is projected to go to 1.4% of GDP by 2030, so the deficit is on a downward track. The debt-to-GDP ratio is at about 41% and will remain around that level in the fiscal framework into 2030 as well, which gives Canada a AAA rating. How can a country with a AAA rating have a broken economy? It does not. It does not make sense. We have a AAA rating because our fiscal house is in order and because our economy is growing despite the severe headwinds and shocks. By the way, I remind all members of the House and all those listening to us with great enthusiasm that this Friday, the GDP numbers are coming out for the first quarter. I do not know what those numbers will be, but I am pretty certain that Q1 GDP growth will be fairly strong. We hear this business that Canada has the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. No. In fact, we have one of the fastest-growing economies in the G7 despite the shocks and the very uncertain context in which we are operating. I would like to take some time to talk about that context. It is important to talk about the economic context because context is everything. Our colleagues from the opposition keep on saying that “2014 was this, 2014 was that, and 10 years later, blah blah blah.” The context is very important. We could go all the way back to 2007-08 and the financial crisis. I will not go that far, but I think we could because the world economy did go through a severe shock in 2007-08. The adjustment that took place afterwards took some time and left some scars globally. What has happened since 2020? We had the pandemic. The economy shut down. Governments in the OECD area shut down their economies because no one knew what was going to happen. Everything was stopped. To prevent a massive depression, because that was what was going to happen if nothing was done, governments in the OECD area spent massively to support their economies. The Conservatives will say we wasted all that money. If governments had not done that, then the OECD economies and the global economy would have slipped into a major depression. That was a big shock in 2020. It was then followed by an economic rebound, a very sharp rebound, that took place in late 2021 into 2022, and it was a rebound in the context of broken supply chains. The result of that was massive upward pressure on prices. Inflation took off in the OECD area. It was not a “Liberal deficit”. Were the Liberals also responsible for the U.S. deficit, the German deficit and the French deficit? Let us be serious. It was a result of the sharp rebound with broken supply chains, compounded by the war in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine led to, among other things, a very sharp increase in the prices of oil and other products, like grains. The global economy was already unbalanced in 2022-23. It was a very different environment than what we had before. New solutions and new proposals had to be put in place because the times were very different. As if that was not sufficient, then what did we have in 2024-25? A new administration in the United States decided to trigger a trade war. The world as we knew it is no longer the same. The United States, our trusted ally, no longer wants to buy things from Canada, because it claims it does not need anything from Canada. It does, but that is what it claims. Therefore, we have this weird world of 50% tariffs on aluminum from Canada in the name of the national security of the United States. The U.S. actually needs Canadian aluminum. We have a very complex world. The tariff war is real. The tariff war is something we did not ask for. The tariff war is what is leading to profound adjustments in our manufacturing sector and in our economy as a whole. As our Prime Minister has repeated over and over again, this is not just a simple adjustment. This is a rupture in the world as we knew it, and the world now is different. The world has changed. That is something provincial premiers have fully realized. Whether it is Mr. Ford in Ontario, Ms. Smith in Alberta or Mr. Moe in Saskatchewan, all Conservative premiers, they have realized the world has changed and Canada has to adjust to this new world order. Then, as if that was not enough, we have the war in the Middle East, which has led to a doubling of oil prices. That is a very different context that requires serious measures, which is what was done—

“Gas prices were lower in 2014 because the price of crude oil dropped by almost half that year. I want to know if the Leader of the Opposition knows that.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 41 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am not even going to go to the money-printing side because that could take a few minutes. That is a whole different discussion. For example, I would never say I would fire the governor of the central bank. As a country, we do not say those things. The very specific question I have is this. In 2014, yes, the crude oil price started the year at $100 a barrel, but it finished at $55 a barrel. There was that sharp decline in oil prices throughout the year that explains the lower gasoline prices. Is the Leader of the Opposition aware of that?

“We will vote against the Conservative motion because it will make things worse. Pausing our fuel tax for four months already costs 2.4 billion dollars. The Conservatives have not explained how much their plan costs or how they will pay for it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think I can safely say that, no, we will not vote for the Conservative motion. In fact, the motion would make things far worse. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Carlos Leitão: Yes, it would. Yes, it would. Let me just say this, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Our current suspension of the federal excise tax for four months, at 10¢ a litre, will cost $2.4 billion. How much would the Conservative motion cost? How would they fund it?

“I want to ask my colleague if he thinks the Conservatives would cut pensions and income support for seniors. Those programs cost about $85 billion.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, talking about seniors, that is exactly what I would like to ask my colleague about, because we do have in Canada the program of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. Together we are talking about something like $85 billion. Does my colleague think that the new, right Conservatives would probably put an axe to those programs?

“Gas prices are high because of global oil prices, which the government cannot control. Cutting gas taxes would help rich people more than anyone else.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I understand the situation very well. In my riding also, folks talk to us all the time about the high prices of gasoline and about the high cost of living. Everybody is worried about that. Also, folks do understand that the current high prices of gasoline come from the very sudden increase in crude oil prices, which is totally out of the government’s control. By the way, oil is a global commodity, so global oil prices affect everybody, including the United States. Does my colleague not think that an across-the-board reduction in gasoline taxes would benefit folks at the higher end of the income scale more than people—

“I agree with my colleague that we should vote against this motion, and that the Conservatives are wrong about gas prices in 2014. Does my colleague agree that our grocery benefit is well designed to help the people who need it most?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 31 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech, and I thank him for reiterating that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion. We are on the same page, which is great. I would also like to thank my colleague for pointing out that, lately, our Conservative friends have often referred to the price of gas in 2014. However, what the Conservative members are saying is factually incorrect. I want to thank my colleague for pointing that out as well. Now I have a question about the groceries and essentials benefit. Does my colleague not think that this is a well‑targeted benefit? We did not simply change the name of the transfer. We are using the GST credit criteria to target those most in need.

“I agree with the Bloc Québécois for voting against this Conservative motion. But the member said our plans only pretend to help people. Does he really think our grocery benefit will not help the 12 million Canadians who will get it?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 34 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I also commend his party, since he said that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the Conservative motion. In that regard, we are on the same wavelength. There are, of course, many other things my colleague mentioned that I do not fully agree with. There is just one aspect that I would like him to clarify for me. He said that the government’s measures are just giving the impression of helping people. Does my colleague think that the Canada groceries and essentials benefit is just giving the impression of helping? That benefit will help 12 million Canadians starting on June 5.

“The opposition is wrong about why gas prices fell in 2014. It was because the oil supply went up, not because of taxes. I also want to ask my colleague if government help should go only to people who need it, or to rich people too.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, there is something that the members opposite have been saying over and over again, which is that, in 2014, oil prices were what they are now and gasoline prices were much lower. That is just not correct. It is factually incorrect. Perhaps they should stop saying that. Oil prices started 2014 at $100 a barrel, and they closed the year at $57. That was the year of shale oil in the U.S. There were massive oil inventories, and that is why gasoline prices came way down. It is not the taxes. Come on. My question is about support for families. Does my colleague think assistance to families should be targeted, or should it be generalized so that rich people get the same relief as poor people?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“The world and our relationship with the United States have permanently changed. We always try to get the best deal possible for our country.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what we have said from the outset is that the world we knew before and our relationship with the United States have changed for good. We said that this was not just a minor, temporary situation, that it was a major change and that we would get the best deal possible. That is what we always try to do.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“We need to end these illegal tariffs and protect our trade deal with the United States. We cannot let them put taxes on our goods whenever they want.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is hugely important, because our objective is not just to get rid of the tariffs, which is important enough, obviously. We also want to have a comprehensive trade agreement, which we do. CUSMA is still in place. We want to reinforce that agreement and make sure it prevails. Second, we want to put an end to the tariffs that have been illegally imposed on a country that has signed a trade agreement with the United States. That is where we are. That is why it is so important. We cannot remain vulnerable to having tariffs imposed at any time, for any reason. That makes absolutely no sense. The tariffs are ultimately illegal and counterproductive.

In response to a question from Helena Konanz

“The forestry industry across Canada is having a hard time. We are still working to make a trade deal with the United States for forest products, and talks are moving forward.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 46 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the forestry sector, whether in Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario or British Columbia, is suffering a great deal. As we certainly know, the problems in the forestry sector are a little different from those in the manufacturing sector. This trade dispute has been going on for a very long time. Nevertheless, we remain fully committed to reaching a negotiated agreement with the United States, specifically on forestry products. The negotiations are moving forward.

In response to a question from Gabriel Ste-Marie

“Regional development agencies are already doing this. The agency in Quebec just got more money to help small and medium businesses with smaller amounts.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the case. In fact, regional development agencies are already doing this. Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions has just received additional funding to support SMEs with smaller amounts than that. This will be done through the regional economic development agencies.

In response to a question from Karim Bardeesy

“Canada is selling more goods and natural resources to Europe. Our trade deal with Europe took a long time to get going, but it is now helping Canadian businesses.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, our exports to Europe are starting to grow quite rapidly. We have natural resources that Europeans need, but we are now also beginning to see the benefits of the free trade agreement with the European Union. That agreement was negotiated several years ago, and it took us some time because the various governments, both here and there, did not seem particularly interested in developing this free trade agreement. However, it is beginning to bear fruit. The future for Canadian manufactured goods in Europe is very promising.

In response to a question from Vincent Ho

“I completely disagree with the member. The Prime Minister has said that the world has changed and that a bad deal is worse than no deal. We still stand by that.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, obviously I disagree totally with what our colleague just mentioned. In fact right from the start, from the election campaign, our Prime Minister has said, and we repeat it very often, that this was a rupture and that the world as we knew it would no longer be the same. We also kept on saying that a bad deal would be worse than no deal. We stand by those principles.