MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Evan Solomon

Follow by RSS

Solomon works to modernize regulatory processes through the Building Canada Strong Act and advance the AI for all strategy. He tends to pivot debates by emphasizing national success, as when he states, “We should build this country strong together.” His statements are often anchored in data, referencing figures like 217,000 jobs created.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
C+
67 / 100 over 36 statements
Signal 67 / 100
Relevance 52 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 89 / 100
Averaged over the 36 of 38 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Loses points less than most for Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A remark off to the side of the point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Says again and again

Echo

Statements 38

Oral Questions ·

Finance

In response to a question from Sandra Cobena

“Canada has the fastest growing economy and the lowest debt ratio in the G7. We are creating jobs. The Conservatives talk about affordability, but they voted against child care, school food, and dental care. We will keep making life more affordable for everyone.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 0 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the fastest growing economy in the G7 and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We are creating jobs. The Conservatives talk about making life more affordable, but they do not do anything about it. Do they vote for affordable child care? No. Do they vote for national school food lunches? No. Do they vote for dental care? No. All they know how to say is no to Canadians. We will continue to say yes to building Canadian, yes to building strong and yes to making life more affordable for everybody.

In response to a question from Sandra Cobena

“The opposition only criticizes our economy, but criticism does not create jobs or make life affordable. They voted against money for groceries and against investments in local businesses in their own ridings. They should support our programs so we can build the country together.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 4 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, all the opposition members do is talk down our economy and our workers, but they do not realize that criticism does not create jobs. Their negativity does not make life affordable. Did the Conservatives vote for the groceries and essentials benefit? No. Do they vote to make life more affordable? No. In the member’s own riding, when we support Technical Steel Corp or Exco Engineering, do they support that investment in businesses to create jobs? No. They should get with the program, and we should build this country strong together.

Oral Questions ·

Finance

In response to a question from Pierre Poilievre

“Our economy is doing well. In the last year, we added 217,000 jobs, our economy grew faster than any other G7 country, and we have the lowest debt compared to the size of our economy in the G7. The Conservatives should stop talking down our country and help us build it up.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 28 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.”

    Said 17 times by 13 members since April 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in the last 12 months, 217,000 jobs were created, with 156,000 in the private sector alone. There was 3.3% growth in Q2, which is the fastest in the G7. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Business investment grew in Q2 by 8.9%. I know these are inconvenient facts for the opposition, who, for once, should stop talking down the country and join us to build it up, build strong, build right and build Canadian. They have to try it.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

In response to a question from Pierre Poilievre

“We got real results by cutting the GST on new homes and cutting the gas tax. The opposition voted against both. I want them to work with us to build homes and support families.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to bring some real results that I wish the opposition supported. For example, we took the GST off new homes, saving $250,000 for new homebuyers. They do not support that. We took the federal excise tax off gasoline, saving people 25¢. They do not support that. This is a critical moment in our country. Whether we are building affordable homes or supporting families, for once, the opposition should use this opportunity to work and build this country strong.

In response to a question from Pierre Poilievre

“Conservatives talk about making life affordable, but they vote against helping Canadians. They voted against school food programs, dental care, child care, and giving people $1,900 for groceries and essentials.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there was an opportunity to vote for the groceries and essentials benefit to put $1,900 in the pockets of Canadians. They voted against it. There was an opportunity for Conservatives to support the national school food program. What did they do to help kids? They voted against it. They voted against dental care and child care. At every opportunity, they talk about affordability, and they do nothing to help Canadians.

In response to a question from Pierre Poilievre

“There is a big difference between talking and taking action. The Conservatives had their chance to act.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 49 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference between talking about something and doing something. The opposition had their opportunity— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

In response to a question from Pierre Poilievre

“We have taken many steps to help make life more affordable, including school food, dental care, and child care. I want the opposition to support these programs.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 36 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Signal 10 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, before I answer, I want to thank the hon. member for the work he has done in his riding at CFB Wainwright. We all stand with the families who lost loved ones and the families of the injured. We thank him for the work he has done in the community, and we all stand together on that tragedy. In terms of affordability, the government has taken multiple measures on affordability, and we look forward to the opposition at least once supporting those measures, whether it is our national school food program, the dental program or child care. Just once we would love to see the opposition support affordability measures.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

In response to a question from Harb Gill

“We are helping families save money on gas, heat, child care, food, and housing. The Conservatives vote against all of these programs. They should support them instead.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 17 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, if the Conservatives really cared about affordability, they would actually vote for affordability measures. We just took the excise tax off gas. The PBO says that is going to save the average family $276 a year. We just launched a heat pump program that will save an average family $1,400 a year. Will the Conservatives support that? No. Do they support child care? No. Do they support the national food program? No. Do they support the measures that we are taking to build affordable homes? The answer is no. In the member’s riding, we are supporting businesses and affordability. He should get on board.

Oral Questions ·

Artificial Intelligence

In response to a question from Jake Sawatzky

“Our new AI plan creates jobs and learning opportunities for young people. We launched a free AI course for a million students and 50,000 teachers, and I encourage everyone to take it. We also started a program to help 90,000 young people get jobs.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his remarkable advocacy for young people. In our new AI national strategy, which is based on trust, opportunity and sovereign control, we are investing in jobs and opportunities for young people. That is why we just launched our new free bilingual AI national literacy course for a million students and 50,000 teachers. I would encourage everyone to take it. We have also just launched our new jobs program for 90,000 job placements for young people. The first 10,000 just launched. That is how we build this country strong for young Canadians.

Oral Questions ·

Employment

In response to a question from Michael Cooper

“We are in a tough trade war, so our government is building big energy and mining projects to create thousands of jobs. I want the Conservatives to support our plan.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, we all know that we are in a very challenging trade war. That is why the thing to do is build major projects and create jobs. That is exactly what we are doing. At Darlington, we are building North America’s first grid-scale small modular reactors, with 18,000 construction jobs and 3,700 energy jobs. In Pickering, we are rebuilding the nuclear plant, with 30,000-plus jobs. East of Saskatoon, crews are building a potash mine, with 5,500 construction jobs. We are building the jobs. If only the Conservatives would come on board and join us.

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

In response to a question from Tom Osborne

“I want the House to pass this bill. Slow reviews hurt Canada, and this bill makes project approvals take only one year so things can get built.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, we know that delays have made Canada in some ways less competitive. The purpose of this bill is to have one project, one review, one year. This would give certainty to investors, get projects built and make Canada more competitive.

In response to a question from Mario Simard

“Our projects have helped Quebec, like the clean energy project at Churchill Falls. Right now, Canada sells oil at a discount because we only sell to the United States. This project lets us sell to new markets. That will bring in money to fund more projects for all Canadians, including people in Quebec.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. First of all, I want to point out that the projects of this government have supported Quebec, as we saw with Churchill, the largest clean-energy infrastructure project in North America, which benefited Quebec. This is absolutely critical. To the member’s question, and it is a good question, as the member knows, we sell oil now to the United States at a discount because it is the only customer. This project would allow us to expand our markets to have the revenue to support the very projects we want to build and to support all Canadians and, of course, the people of Quebec.

In response to a question from Dan Albas

“I want the member to support our major transportation projects like high-speed rail. This bill makes project reviews take only one year while still protecting the environment, keeping safety rules, and consulting Indigenous groups.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, that was a great question, and I would welcome the hon. member’s support as we build great transportation projects like high-speed rail. If he wants to help expedite those kinds of things, I would be more than delighted to welcome him and his support to move some of the major projects in transportation forward. We will count on his support. I look forward to the foreshadowing of his support for expediting great projects like high-speed rail. Through this particular bill, Bill C-39, it is absolutely important that we are doing one project, one review, one year for major projects while keeping the regulations, the safety of the environment and the consultation with indigenous partners in place.

“I want the House to pass this bill. It makes reviews for major projects faster by setting a one-year deadline and cutting out duplicate steps. We still protect the environment and talk with Indigenous groups, but decisions will happen sooner so we do not lose jobs and investments.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to stand here today with my hon. colleagues in the House as we turn our attention to the proposed building Canada strong act, a bill, as we know, that would modernize regulatory reviews of major projects in this country and eliminate costly delays and uncertainty for proponents while ensuring that the rights and interests of indigenous peoples are upheld and that we maintain Canada’s world-class environmental standards. Canada has a simple question. Can we turn our enormous potential into real jobs, real projects and real prosperity? We have what the world wants. We have the energy, the resources, the technology, the workforce and what cannot be found in many other jurisdictions: We have the trust. However, it is not enough if it takes too long to make a decision, issue a permit or get shovels in the ground. I do not think I need to remind anybody here that Canada faces an unprecedented economic threat, uncertainty and instability, circumstances that we did not create, that our workers did not create, but that have forced us to change in order to protect those good jobs, our economy and our sovereignty. That is exactly why we are bringing forward the building Canada strong act. This is about moving with urgency. It is about giving Canada a regulatory system that is clear, credible and capable of delivering. It is about doing it without in any way compromising Canada’s world-class environmental protections and while upholding indigenous treaty rights. We must move faster, but we cannot cut corners. We must protect the environment, but we also must create good jobs. We must build responsibly and with urgency because in the world we face today, delay is not an option. When a responsible project does not move forward, the investment will go somewhere else, the jobs and the opportunities will go somewhere else, and our government will not let the future be defined by missed opportunities because of delay. The building Canada strong act proposes changes to a lot of things. We understand that. There would be changes to the Impact Assessment Act, the Building Canada Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. That is a lot of legislative titles, but the purpose is clear. It is to make federal decisions faster, to make the process clearer and to give communities, indigenous partners, workers, investors and Canadians greater certainty about what happens next. We have heard from the public that we do not need weaker standards, and we will never have those. We need a government that can organize itself and coordinate things to work more responsibly and more expeditiously. That is the balance in this bill: speed and responsibility, growth and protection, ambition and trust. The proposed amendments would create a more coordinated federal process for all major projects, with clear timelines and more predictable decisions. Once a proponent has submitted a complete application with all the required information, federal reviews and decisions would be made within a year. In simple terms, the work would happen together instead of separately, not one step after another. Impact assessments and permit reviews would proceed at the same time, federal experts would be brought in earlier, duplication would be reduced, and problems would be identified sooner, not at the end of the process when they are hard and, frankly, expensive to solve. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is already helping proponents get ready before formal assessment begins. It is ensuring close coordination with federal departments and agencies, enhancing co-operation with provinces under landmark agreements for one project, one review, and focusing assessments on key issues within federal jurisdiction. This bill also introduces amendments that would ensure the federal regulator, with the most relevant experience and expertise, is carrying out impact assessments, putting the right expertise in the lead. Under this proposed approach, pipelines, transmission lines and certain offshore renewable energy projects regulated by the Canada Energy Regulator would solely be assessed by the CER through its process under the Canadian Energy Regulator Act. For nuclear and uranium projects, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would, logically, conduct impact assessments by following the rigorous process and requirements set out by the Impact Assessment Act. This is all common sense. These regulators understand these technologies. They understand the risks. They understand the full life cycle of these projects that they regulate. However, let me be clear: Environmental, health, social, economic and indigenous considerations would continue to be assessed. The standards would remain. The oversight would remain. What would change is the unnecessary duplication between federal processes that slows things down. Another important improvement being introduced through the bill would be the creation of a federal review coordination function and a Crown consultation hub, both to be housed inside the Impact Assessment Agency. The federal review coordinator would be responsible for ensuring that impact assessments are led by the Impact Assessment Agency and federal permits meet the new timelines. That is key. It would also work with experts in different federal departments to ensure that everything stays organized and on track. The Crown consultation hub would coordinate one clear consultation process for each indigenous group affected by a major project. This would replace multiple overlapping and repetitive federal processes and help reduce, essentially, consultation fatigue. Meaningful consultation matters, but it need not be repetitive. It should not require indigenous partners to repeat the same work for different parts of the same government. Better coordination would ensure the Crown upholds its obligations and would provide indigenous partners a process that is clear, coherent and more respectful of their time. Furthermore, to ensure clearer, more streamlined project decisions, the government is also proposing legislative changes to move toward a single comprehensive federal decision for major project permits and for approvals, which would result in one federal decision document that would be issued by the Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature. This document would include all federal decisions required for a project to move forward if it is undergoing a comprehensive impact assessment, while the federal review coordinator would ensure that all relevant federal experts across the government would provide timely advice and any key recommendations needed for that decision. For too long, proponents have had to move from department to department, process to process and decision to decision, creating unnecessary delays and a lot of uncertainty. The cost has been that this country has not remained competitive. This bill is practical and would make practical changes for that. It would move certain decisions, not all, from cabinet to the responsible minister. Conditions imposed on proponents would need to be technically and economically feasible. Some early construction activities could actually begin before final impact decisions, but only when the necessary permits have been approved. These are common-sense improvements that would help the federal government make the sound decisions we need to make. When companies choose Canada, workers benefit. When responsible projects move forward, communities benefit. When we build the infrastructure, energy systems and nation-building projects the world needs, our whole country benefits. We have worked very hard with every province that supports our goal of one project, one review. That matters. This is a team effort. Provinces, territories, indigenous rights holders, municipalities, workers, industries and communities all have to play a role, and the changes proposed in Bill C-39 would give us a stronger, more efficient system. As the Prime Minister said, Canada has what the world wants. It is now up to us to take action, to build our country faster and to create the jobs and opportunities here that will strengthen our economic sovereignty and our country. We are turning Canada and our potential into prosperity. It is common sense. There would be no compromise on the environment. There would be no compromise on consultation with indigenous communities. This is about building stronger, building Canadian and building together.

Oral Questions ·

Public Services and Procurement

In response to a question from Ned Kuruc

“The opposition should support our projects instead of criticizing Canada. This pipeline creates thousands of jobs and buys Canadian steel from businesses in Hamilton, Peterborough, and Windsor. We support Canadian workers and companies.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, instead of talking down the country and instead of talking down projects, they have to build it up. This pipeline is going to provide tens of thousands of jobs and Canadian steel. We are talking about supporting jobs in Hamilton in steel. Why do the hon. members not support Hooper Welding in Hamilton, which employs 100 people? They are making steel. In Peterborough, Kawartha Metals employs 60 people. They are supplying metal. In Windsor, there is Central Stampings. We are supporting the companies making steel because we believe in building in Canada, buying in Canada and believing in Canada.

Oral Questions ·

Steel and Aluminum Industry

In response to a question from Kathy Borrelli

“Our government is protecting our steel and auto industries. We have given $7.5 billion to support workers and businesses, including steel companies. The Conservatives should help build Canada up instead of tearing it down.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are defending Canada’s steel industry. We are defending the auto industry. We are investing in businesses, including in the member’s riding. We have delivered $7.5 billion in support to businesses and workers across the country, including steel companies. I was at Daybar, which uses Hamilton steel for doors and frames that it can export, and there are many other companies. The Conservatives should get on board and start building this country up, not tearing it down.

Oral Questions ·

Artificial Intelligence

In response to a question from Jake Sawatzky

“We launched a free, bilingual program to teach students and teachers about artificial intelligence. Young Canadians need to know how to use AI safely. I urge students and teachers across the country to use it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his advocacy and his great work. Our AI for all strategy is based on three pillars: trust, opportunity and sovereign control. To trust, young Canadians need to know how to use AI, and they need to create the opportunities to use it safely. That is why I am so happy to announce that we have launched Canada’s AI essentials national literacy program for students and educators, a free bilingual program for students across the country. I urge students and teachers to use it. We are building strong, building right and building Canadian.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

In response to a question from Grant Jackson

“We are helping Canadians afford daily life during a hard trade war. We cut taxes for 22 million people, gave money for groceries, and are building affordable homes.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 45 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Government answer in Question Period

    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
  • A repeated line

    “We cut taxes for 22 million Canadians.”

    Said 17 times by 12 members since April 27.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in the middle of this very difficult trade war, we are supporting Canadians and we are fighting for affordability. That is why we cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. That is why we have the groceries and essentials benefit: to make sure that families in my riding and in the member’s riding have an affordable way to feed their families. That is why we are building affordable homes. What we are doing is making sure that Canadians have an affordable way to live in a difficult time. We will always support Canadians.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

In response to a question from Scot Davidson

“The Conservatives vote against the help we offer Canadians, like the grocery benefit and our bill to stop high prices. I want them to support these bills instead of just complaining.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is confusing to us on this side how, every day, the members of the opposition party vote against every support for Canadians, yet they raise the issue. This month, Canadians will get the groceries and essentials benefit. The Conservatives voted against it. We are taking action against surveillance pricing to stop price gouging. How could they help people do that? They could support the bill. What are they doing? They are not doing it. For a change, I suggest they try supporting some of the measures to help Canadians instead of just talking down the economy.

Oral Questions ·

Grocery Industry

In response to a question from Don Davies

“We introduced a bill to protect people's privacy and children. It will also stop companies from tracking people to raise prices on them.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud to have tabled legislation that would protect children, privacy and personal information and give us the opportunity to finally act against surveillance pricing and price gouging, making sure that Canadians have an affordable life. We are doing that with a regulator that will enforce that. This practice has been praised by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, which said it is very pleased that this represents “a pivotal step for privacy in Canada” and “I welcome the proposals to recognize privacy as a fundamental right, an explicit recognition of the best interests of children, requirements to conduct—