MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Dave Epp

Follow by RSS

Epp presses the government on agriculture and food policy — defending farm research funding, challenging the $90-billion Alto rail project’s threat to more than 5,500 farms, and pushing a plan to cut federal diesel taxes for growers facing diesel costs up 84%. He argues by digression, wandering into personal asides like “my colleague’s roots are in the farm fields of Portage—Lisgar, just as mine are from those in Chatham-Kent—Leamington” before reaching his point. He often arrives armed with figures — GDP shares, budget shares, diesel price gaps — to press his case.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
83 / 100 over 21 statements
Signal 75 / 100
Relevance 79 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 97 / 100
Averaged over the 21 of 24 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Does well more than most

Answered ×1.7

Says again and again

Echo

Statements 24

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“Diesel prices are up 84% from last year, which hurts farmers. I want the member to explain how these high fuel costs are affecting the people he represents.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I understand that my colleague’s roots are in the farm fields of Portage—Lisgar, just as mine are from those in Chatham-Kent—Leamington. We both share professional experience in ag organizations prior to our parliamentary life here. Where we diverge, however, is that his daughter is younger than both of my granddaughters, but that is not for debate today. On Tuesday, we debated our opposition day motion on diesel pricing in the House. I talked to my brother who had been harvesting tomatoes and soybeans yesterday, as well as today. His diesel costs are up 84%. With my colleague’s knowledge of how our food chain value works, could he share how 84% higher diesel prices from a year ago are impacting the lives of his constituents every day?

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“We supported the government's first building bill a year ago to get things moving. It has not worked, and now they are back with another bill.”
  • 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, I am going to remind the member opposite that Bill C-5, the omnibus Building Canada Act, was passed in this chamber with our support. We are the ones that said, “Let us get going.” We are the ones that said, “We really need to get Canada moving.” The evidence has not been there. Now here we are, one year later, with the building Canada strong act.

In response to a question from Eric Melillo

“The government changed its mind and now promises to approve building projects quickly. It only used half of our ideas, and it has only approved one project in two years. I will not support this bill until we see real evidence that it works.”
  • 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, witnessing the government, the old one and the new one, has actually made me appreciate our health care system and its ability to treat whiplash. This government, on the rhetoric side, has gone from supporting carbon taxes, environmental considerations above all others and cancelling seven LNG projects that are on the books, to stating that it is going to move at speeds unheard of. The rhetoric has caused whiplash. The Liberals have actually taken some of our policies and implemented them in half measures. What has not come forward yet is the evidence. We have one project in two years that has been announced, with Chinese steel by the way. Missouri is the show-me state, and as it would say, “Show me the evidence”, after we have properly scrutinized this legislation.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“Half a trillion dollars in investment has left Canada in the last ten years. The government makes promises and photo ops, but they only approved one project in two years. We need to study this bill properly and actually start building projects.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    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
  • 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, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his always thoughtful, probing comments and questions. Half a trillion dollars is the net amount of capital that has fled this country in the last 10 years. A promise and a summit is what we have had. No one has ever criticized the government’s ability to hold summits, make promises or have photo ops, and I am sure glossy brochures come with those promises. However, what is needed is execution. The Prime Minister promised execution at speeds unseen in a generation. Is the member saying that approving one project in two years is at a speed that has not been seen in generations? I think not. I would challenge that. We want to build things. Canada wants it. Canadians need these infrastructure projects. Where is the action behind all of the glossy brochures, all of the photo ops and all of the fancy announcements? That is what Canadians are looking for. That is what we are looking for. We need to scrutinize the legislation properly and then get going, and not just with announcements.

“This bill is 250 pages long and covers too many different topics at once. The government promised faster project approvals before, but almost nothing was built. I want the government to show us the economic facts, listen to farmers, and let Parliament carefully study each part of this bill before we vote on it.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber. Tonight, I am speaking to Bill C-39. It is certainly not a small piece of legislation before us. Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, is a substantial omnibus bill covering major project approvals, transportation, trade and labour. At roughly 250 pages, it is legislation that deserves a great deal of careful review. Madam Speaker, I know I can speak with a piece of paper in my hand, but if I hold the bill, is it considered a prop? The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès): No. Dave Epp: It is not. It is fairly weighty and substantive, so I wanted to clarify that before I carry on. Some 15 months ago, the government brought forward Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act. It was an omnibus bill that established a framework intended to accelerate major projects and reduce duplication in federal reviews. The government said Canada needed to build “at speeds not seen in generations”. Does that sound familiar? Now, just over a year later, the government is back before the House with another major omnibus bill, once again promising greater speed, certainty and investment. The government says Bill C-39 would establish a one-year federal decision timeline, and this is important, once proponents have submitted a comprehensive application. It is not one year from entering into the system to a decision, but supposedly one year once all of the requirements have been submitted. That timeline does not include the additional pauses included at ministerial discretion, which are peppered throughout the legislation. The question Parliament should be asking is a very simple one. What has actually changed since Bill C-5 and what evidence do we have that Bill C-39 would deliver the results that Canadians can see? There has been progress from Bill C-5 to Bill C-39. I would not have said that last week. Only one project now has been approved of the 500 that sat on the Prime Minister’s desk. That is 0.2%, or one-fifth of 1% of the projects, and that is in two years. However, the Liberals have succeeded in increasing one thing by 33%, and that is the title. They have added the word “strong”. The bill now reads, “the Building Canada Strong Act.” It is 33% longer than “building Canada strong”. The government describes this legislation as a major effort to accelerate projects, strengthen transportation corridors, modernize labour relations and create greater certainty for investment. The government says Bill C-39 would create a one project, one decision approach. Those are important objectives, and Canadians want Canada to build. We need infrastructure, investment and reliable transportation networks, and we need to develop our natural resources and get Canadian products to Canadian and international markets, but Canadians have heard these promises about faster approvals before. That is why the appropriate question is not simply whether Canada says this bill would accelerate projects. The question is whether the legislation would remove the barriers that have prevented projects from moving forward in the first place. Nowhere, as I referenced in the previous question, do I see where Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 are being repealed. If the government believes its approach will make Canada more competitive, Parliament should be able to examine the evidence behind that claim. Canadians should know which delays are being eliminated, how they are being proposed and what the expected economic benefits are. If a policy makes life cheaper, Canadians deserve to know how. If it makes life more expensive, Canadians deserve to know why. Therefore, I would ask the government if it has conducted an independent assessment of the economic impact of Bill C-39 on Canadian families, workers, farmers and businesses. What would this legislation mean for the cost of getting goods to market? What would it mean for investment? What would it mean for jobs? What would it mean for the cost of energy and transportation? These are reasonable questions for a government that is asking Canadians to trust another major omnibus bill. Agriculture provides an excellent example of why these questions matter. Bill C-39 proposes to continue extended rail interswitching for four years in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Extended interswitching allows a shipper to access a competing railway over longer regulated distances than the ordinary 30 kilometres. For western agriculture, rail transportation is part of the economic infrastructure that determines whether Canadian grain and other commodities reach domestic and international markets efficiently. Farmers need certainty. They make decisions months and years in advance. They purchase land and equipment, choose what to plant, enter contracts and make investments based on the expectation that they will have reliable access to transportation and markets. Why should we have another pilot? If extended interswitching is intended to improve competition and help Canadian goods move to market, Parliament should understand the government’s evidence for limiting it geographically, first of all, and also for making it another four-year measure, rather than making it permanent. Why is the measure temporary, and why is it limited to the three prairie provinces? Agriculture needs certainty with longevity, and four years may or may not provide the certainty that the agri-food industry requires. That is precisely the kind of question that should be answered before Parliament passes this legislation. This issue brings us to a larger concern about how the government approaches consultation. We have seen significant concern from farmers and rural communities regarding the Alto high-speed rail project. On September 19, farmers and others from numerous political stripes gathered in Rigaud to protest the project and raise concerns about its impact on agricultural land and rural communities. On Friday, I attended the Transport Futures summit in Toronto, where speaker after speaker raised concerns about the lack of a business case for the Alto high-speed project. We talked about that again at the ag committee today. The government claims that it has consulted the public for this project, yet these farmers and municipalities in rural Canada in the proposed path are out there fighting to stop Alto. This does not sound like a government that is listening. The point is that consultation has to mean more than government officials meeting with people and proceeding exactly how they originally planned. I have another example. We have already seen what happens when Canadians and the agricultural industry come forward, provide evidence and ask the government to reconsider its decisions. The ag committee studied the planned closures of seven federal research stations and experimental farms. It heard from 27 witnesses and received 15 written briefs. The committee ultimately unanimously, all of us, recommended that the government reconsider the closures and conduct proper site-specific cost-benefit analyses before proceeding. The economic case for agricultural research is significant. Witnesses told the committee that agricultural research drives productivity, innovation and long-term economic growth. It is the foundation of a sector worth $150 billion in 2024 that supports 2.3 million jobs and is exporting more than $100 billion in products. Here is the question: If the government is serious about building a stronger Canadian economy, why would it close research capacity in a sector that contributes so significantly to our economy and our food security? This brings us back to consultation. The National Farmers Union and the Agricultural Union have now publicly criticized the government’s response, saying that the committee’s unanimous recommendations to reconsider the closures have not been acted upon. To industry leaders, it is as though the concerns of Canadian agriculture fell on deaf ears to a government that never intended to listen. That raises a very serious, reasonable question about Bill C-39 as well: When the government says it has consulted Canadians and stakeholders, what happens when the consultation provides recommendations that the government does not want to hear? That matters for Bill C-39 because the government is asking Parliament to consider major changes in several areas at the same time. This brings me to part 3 of the legislation. Part 3 proposes to change the Canada Labour Code involving collective bargaining, geographic certification, first collective agreements and the government’s role in certain labour disputes. The substantial labour changes proposed in this bill deserve detailed examination. Canadians should not have to choose among infrastructure, public policy, transportation policy and labour policy as though they were a single question. They are three different issues that would affect Canadians in different ways. They require different witnesses, different expertise and different evidence. If the government is confident that every part of the bill is good public policy, then there should be no reason to fear giving each part the time and scrutiny it deserves. Canadians do not need another headline promising that everything is about to get better. They need evidence that government policy is actually improving their economic circumstances. Canadians need a government that listens when farmers speak and takes parliamentary considerations seriously. They need a government that can explain the costs and benefits of its legislation. They need Parliament to have enough time to examine legislation before it becomes law. Canadians deserve evidence and a Parliament of accountability. Canadians deserve a government whose actions match its promises. If not, we will be back here in another year debating another new act: the building Canada very strong act.

“This bill gives the federal government more power over local ports. I want to know if the transport minister talked to local port authorities and town leaders before making this change. If he did not, I want to know why.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I have appreciated serving with the member at times on FOPO, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I usually come from a freshwater perspective, and he is often a little saltier, I think from his surrounding water. He mentioned in his speech the port overhauls and the St. Lawrence authority overhauls. Did the transport minister consult with the local port authorities and municipal leaders before giving Ottawa expanded intervention powers over their operations? If he did not consult, why not?

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“This bill claims it will help us build things quickly. To do that, it needs to cancel two major environmental laws. I cannot find where it does that. I want to know where in this bill those laws are cancelled.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent speech. I know she reviews legislation very carefully. Bill C-39 purports that it would build things at speeds that generations have not seen. Obviously, that would require the repeal of Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. Is that in part 1, part 2 or part 3? I could not find it. In what part of this massive bill is the repeal of that legislation? Where is it contained?

Statements by Members ·

Diesel Prices

“Farmers need diesel to harvest their crops, but prices are far too high. Our plan would cut federal taxes and rules on diesel. I want the government to support our motion to lower fuel prices.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, across Canada, farmers are bringing in the harvest. The work that began months ago is coming down to these critical weeks where the weather, the crop and the clock all come together. There is no postponing the harvest because conditions are not perfect or the economics are unfavourable. When the crop is ready, farmers have to get it off the field. Tractors and trucks, combines and harvesters, a swath of machinery has to run to bring in the crop. For the vast majority of that equipment, that means diesel. My brother, a farmer, is paying 84% more for diesel this September versus last. That is 24¢ per litre more than the American average. The Conservative emergency fuel relief plan proposes eliminating federal taxes on diesel until at least Canada Day 2027 and the removal of the industrial carbon tax and clean fuel standard. Longer term, it proposes emergency permitting for diesel refineries, production and distribution, and a strategic refined petroleum reserve. Will the government support our motion today to address these high diesel prices?

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

“The Liberal government has stopped resource projects for over ten years. We helped pass their last bill to fix this, but nothing was built. Now they have introduced this new bill, which proves their past plans failed to develop our country. I want to know if the member agrees.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley would agree with the following statement. The presentation in this chamber of Bill C-39 is actually a proof point, in the same manner that Bill C-5 was a proof point. What do I mean? Well, Bill C-5 is a proof point that 10 or 11 years of Liberal government has basically stifled resource development in this country, so the government needed Bill C-5. We supported it, fast-tracked it through, and now, after 18 months and 500 projects, absolutely zero has been done. Now the government has added a word, calling it “building Canada strong”, and here we are with Bill C-39. Would the member agree that it is a proof point that neither 10 years of previous policy nor the issuance of Bill C-5 has developed this country at all?

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

“Canadians gave the Liberals a minority government. They should not shut down debate like they have a majority.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I, along with a number of my colleagues, came to this place in 2019 and have gone through three elections. The member opposite just said the Liberals were elected and, yes, they were elected, in a minority Parliament. I have experienced nothing but seven years of minority Parliament until, of course, a few weeks ago. Now I am experiencing a majority government for the first time in my elected career. Is this what I am to expect, time allocation, closure and cutting off debate? Is this how the government intends to reflect the minority mandate, quite frankly, that the Canadian people gave it?

Private Members' Business ·

Ukrainian Heritage Month Act

“I support making September Ukrainian Heritage Month. Canada and Ukraine have deep ties, and many Canadians share this history, including my own Mennonite family who fled war and hunger there.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to the chamber. I come today representing, especially, both the people of Ukrainian ethnicity and those of Ukrainian heritage. There is actually a difference, and I am going to come back to that in a moment. Of course, we are talking today about Bill S-210, about designating September as Ukrainian heritage month. Here are some ties that bind our country of Canada and our country of Ukraine. Canada is home to approximately 1.4 million people of Ukrainian descent, and I am referring to ethnic descent. That actually represents 4% of Canada’s population. Canada has the second-largest Ukrainian diaspora outside Russia in the world. The first Ukrainians came to Canada in 1891, with about 150,000 estimated to have landed between 1891 and 1914. These figures come from the Government of Canada in 2020, and I am actually going to dispute some of the numbers in a moment. Most Ukrainians from this period settled in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, which we have heard from other interventions today. They came to obtain farmland, bringing their rich heritage of agricultural expertise from the steppes of what was Russia at the time and is now Ukraine, here to Canada, to our untamed west at the time and to Ontario. In fact, 28% of Canadians identifying as being of Ukrainian ethnic descent live in Ontario. These are the statistics from Canadians who identify as being of Ukrainian ethnicity, but as I mentioned earlier, there are others who claim Ukrainian heritage, and I count myself among that group. As many members know, I am from a Mennonite background, and there are a number of Mennonites here in the chamber who have the honour of representing their constituencies. This year marks 100 years since all four of my grandparents came to Canada from, at the time, the steppes of Russia, which is now part of Ukraine. All four of them were actually part of the second wave of Mennonites who left Ukraine and chose Canada as their home. The first wave came in the 1870s and settled in southern Manitoba, primarily in the east and west reserves. They were also fleeing the greater intervention of the Russian government at the time into their way of life in the colonies of what we call Russia. I consider myself of Russian Mennonite background. There are two streams: Russian Mennonite background and Swiss Mennonite background. I could spend my 10 minutes and the next three hours talking about that wave of history, as Mennonites have fled war and persecution from the Russians from the late 1500s to Danzig in northern Poland, and then to Ukraine. I am going to talk specifically for a moment about the ties that bind my own family, specifically my Epp lineage, but I am fairly confident that my Neufeld, my Reimer and my Rempel sides also trace this same path of immigration into Ukraine in 1804. My ancestors spent 122 years in Ukraine and now 100 years in Canada. They came to Ukraine at the invitation of Catherine the Great. This is important because, again, they were fleeing, at the time, greater government intervention in their lives in Gdańsk, called Danzig at the time of the Austrian Hapsburg empire, in northern Poland. They came to the steps of Ukraine at the invitation of Catherine the Great to farm, to break those steppes of Ukraine, and they turned that into part of the breadbasket of Europe. That heritage is in my blood today. They were told, actually, that the territory at the time was empty. Reflecting now and looking at history, that actually is not true. The Tatars had been cleared of that area, and the land was given to my forebears in 1804. It was the second wave that came into southern Ukraine. The first wave of Mennonites who came from the Prussian empire actually came in 1789, settled into the Khortytsya region, which is called Zaporizhzhya today. My ancestors, as I stated, came in 1804, settling into the Molotschna region, which is near the present-day city of Tokmak. I will come to that. They left 100 years later. They came into Ukraine and left Ukraine for the same reason, and that same reason is actually one of the reasons we are talking about the bill today. It was the fact that they were experiencing both war and revolution. Mennonites have a complicated relationship with government. When they feel that their allegiance to their faith is superseded by government, historically they have fled or moved, but we must not mistake that for a lack of service to country. That is evidenced by the members of the chamber, and it is evidenced by my own family history. I am going to get into two short stories. My great-grandfather Gerhard Neufeld was drafted into the service, in 1904, of Czar Nicholas II. Rather than serving in the army, he served in what was called the Forsteidienst, the forestry service, so he was stationed on the banks of the Black Sea at the czar’s summer resort, Yalta. My mother’s father’s family, the Neufelds, came from wealth, so my great-grandfather had been educated in Europe and knew that the phylloxera virus was spread by the aphid, and he saved the czar’s vineyards from the phylloxera virus. He was decorated with a silver pocket watch, which remains in our family to this day. It was given to him in 1904. Those who know me personally know that I do enjoy the odd sip of wine. I do that not for enjoyment reasons but obviously because I am genetically predisposed to enjoy wine, given my Neufeld heritage. My Neufeld family, on August 1 and 2 of this year is celebrating 100 years of settlement in Canada. We are celebrating that in the Vineland region, where my great-grandmother is buried. That same Gerhard Neufeld who was decorated by the czar was shot dead in his bed, five days before they came to Canada. My great-grandmother left, bringing five children, and I and my mother are here because of that history. On my father’s side is my Epp heritage. In 1926, my great-grandfather Epp bought, yes, bought, a passport in order to flee. He saw what was coming. My grandfather came to Canada on that passport at the age of 22. His parents were going to come that fall. When they had finished the harvest in southern Ukraine, they were going to join their family. For seven years, there were letters that went back and forth between my grandfather and his parents, and here is where those histories of ethnic Ukrainians and heritage Ukrainians unite. Stalin slammed the door shut on my great-grandparents. Their visas and passports were never honoured. They tried and retried. Those seven years of letters became increasingly desperate, and eventually a letter came from my great-grandfather to my grandfather stating that his mother had passed away at the beginning of the Holodomor. My great-grandfather would follow, dying of starvation in 1933. My own heritage is intertwined with the conflict that comes from war and revolution. My parents never had a desire to visit Ukraine, and neither did any of my grandparents, even when those opportunities opened up again post-1991. I, on the other hand, have been back three times. I have been to that soil, but it actually has not been my own heritage that has allowed me to go back. It has always been tomatoes and the Ukrainian involvement in the tomato industry. I could spend another hour talking just about that, but I will not. In the final minute of my speech, I want to talk about other areas in which Canada and Ukraine have become close and have supported each other. Canada was the first western country to recognize Ukraine’s independence, and since then, we have maintained a close bilateral relationship. Canada is one of the leading bilateral development assistance partners of Ukraine, and many of us continue in that work today. Our free trade agreement has allowed for the further expansion of trade. Of course, time will not allow me to get into the last four years, but it is war, again, that has brought our relationship even closer. I stand here proudly today, as proud as a humble Mennonite can be proud, to support Canada’s relationship with Ukraine and the designation of September as Ukrainian heritage month.

Government Orders ·

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

“The justice minister criticized how Conservatives used House rules in the past, but he defends how the government is using them now. How can he compare the two when the government is currently shutting down debate in committee?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, the Minister of Justice referenced the procedural tools of the trade that are used. He decried the Conservative Party’s use of the tools in the past and justified the use of the tools in this present hour. How is the Conservative Party’s use of procedural tools equivalent when comparing what is being done to stifle debate at the health committee by going in camera on PrescribeIT versus what we are witnessing here today?

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

“The member says she believes her own words and that this government is on the right track. Earlier this year, she said this government abuses its power and shuts down debate. I want her to explain how both statements can be true.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 24 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member just responded to my colleague and said, “I believe the things I say.” She also concluded her speech with, “Our new government is on the right track.” I want to read a quote from March 10 of this year: “Mr. Speaker, the motion we are going to vote on today is another example of the government’s overreach and tyranny and of how it always wants to shut down debate, especially when it comes to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.” As for the member’s response of “I believe the things I say,” how does she reconcile those two quotes from herself?

Oral Questions ·

Agriculture and Agri-Food

“The government's $90-billion rail project will hurt more than 5,500 farms. I want to know why the government is cutting up valuable farmland during a recession instead of protecting our food supply.”
  • A repeated line

    “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

    Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, under the Liberal Prime Minister. Farmers warn that food security begins with protecting valuable farmland, yet the Liberals continue to advance the $90-billion Alto rail project, despite concerns about its impact on more than 5,500 farms. While $2.5 million in bonuses has already been paid before a single inch of track has been laid, Canadians across the country pay and local communities suffer. Is the Liberals’ plan for food security to slice up farmland? Is this what they call governing in a technical recession, or is it really just a technical war on agriculture?

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Canada's economy and food processors are struggling because of ten years of bad Liberal policies. I want the Prime Minister to say if he will fix these problems.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, our “missing middle” processors have been missing. Finally, we are seeing some action, but Canada’s productivity crisis did not start this year. Weak investment did not start this year. Declining competitiveness did not start this year. These are the consequences of a decade of bad Liberal policy choices. As Sylvain Charlebois recently stated: “The greatest threat to Canada’s food economy isn’t a recession. It’s the illusion that someone else is responsible for our economic decline.” Does the Liberal Prime Minister plan to reverse these declines or just have a new definition of a recession?

“Canada is in a recession, and food prices are hurting families and businesses. Why is the government letting our economy get worse?”
  • A repeated line

    “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

    Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. While Canadians can delay buying a home or a car, which also hurts our economy, they cannot stop buying food. Families are stretching every dollar at the grocery store, restaurant demand is weakening and our agri-food sectors are facing exploding input costs. Experts have warned that Canada’s food economy cannot outrun a shrinking national economy. Why are the Liberals content to watch Canada’s competitiveness and productivity erode? Is this a technical recession or technically a failure of policy?

Government Orders ·

Report Stage

“Our committee listened to witnesses and suggested changes to this military justice bill. I want to know why the government is ignoring those changes and ignoring the victims.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, while I was not personally involved, I would like to note the co-operation between our side of the House and the Bloc in getting amendments in based on the witness testimony. As I have been following the debate today, the question I keep asking myself is this: Why? Why are the victims being ignored? Why is all the testimony being ignored, along with the amendments that the committee worked so hard to put through? Could my colleague venture as to why the government is taking this route as opposed to following the hard work of the committee?

Government Orders ·

Military Justice System Modernization Act

“The Prime Minister promised to move quickly on big projects, but he has not. Instead, he is rushing through Parliament and ignoring our committees.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister went to the Canadian people and said that he was going to move at speeds unseen in generations. We thought that was for major projects, and that is not what we have seen. Now what we are seeing is speeds moving and steamrolling over committees and over the co-operative work of this House. Is that what the Prime Minister meant by moving at speeds unseen in generations, ignoring the will of this House through the committee network?

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

“The government gave tax help to the greenhouse industry, and that is good. Now the government should give that same tax help to all hurting industries, because the Prime Minister failed to make a trade deal with the United States.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 21 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way has, at times, criticized me in this chamber for not lauding the government’s efforts at supporting industries in my riding, and so I want to congratulate the government for hitting a single when it extended accelerated depreciation to the greenhouse industry. However, with the new-found majority the Liberals are proposing to find at committees, would he attempt, with his government, to hit a home run and extend that accelerated depreciation across all of the industries that are hurting, because the Prime Minister did not get a deal with our neighbour of the south, as promised last July?

“This is the first time a minority government became a majority because members switched parties. Will the government admit that the Prime Minister's Office planned this?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Clarity 48 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, I want to congratulate the chief government whip for representing the largest riding in Canada by population. I am not sure if he is aware of that. The member cited a number of examples of precedents of floor crossing. However, he acknowledged that it is unprecedented that we now have a majority government by a combination of by-elections and floor crossings. Obviously, the by-elections change nothing, but would the member acknowledge that this is the first time a minority has tipped to a majority due to floor crossings and that this is a result of an orchestrated campaign from the Prime Minister’s Office?