MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Grant Jackson

Follow by RSS

Jackson presses the government on living costs: taking taxes off diesel to help farmers and food prices, boosting domestic food production in Canada, reversing the CRTC’s streaming tax, and restoring the rule requiring employers to try hiring Canadians before temporary foreign workers. He also pushes for major projects in Manitoba, pressing for a “yes or no” on plans for the Port of Churchill. In debate he demands direct answers, asking whether the Prime Minister or the Parliamentary Budget Officer is “misinformed”, and cites constituents by name, like a farmer named Brian, to make his case.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
87 / 100 over 53 statements
Signal 75 / 100
Relevance 84 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 96 / 100
Loses points more than most for Greetings and pleasantries.1.8 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.8 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 promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 53 of 61 statements graded so far.

Statements 61

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Life is too expensive, and working families in my riding are falling behind. I want the government to adopt our economic plan, which would save families nearly $10,000 this year.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, after nearly 18 months of the Liberal government, Canadians have witnessed a lot of talk and no results when it comes to affordability. Kayleigh from Westman wrote to me and said she spends $160 a week just driving to work and over $2,000 a month on groceries to feed her kids. Despite working full-time, Kayleigh writes, “it feels like we are falling further behind every month.” Her friends and neighbours, like all young parents in my community, are questioning why they work so hard and never get ahead. Will the Liberals adopt our economic action plan to save families like Kayleigh’s nearly $10,000 this year and provide real relief?

Government Orders ·

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“This bill creates a commissioner to make sure the government follows through on modern treaties. That shows the government already expects to break the promises it is making to First Nations right now. It should not need a whole new office just to keep its word.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the comments from the member for Winnipeg North are really interesting because the member from Edmonton earlier admitted that there is a treaty commissioner that some provinces have, to deal with the failure of government to follow through with the commitments of the historic numbered treaties. I think everybody finds that to be very reasonable. However, this bill would create a modern treaty commissioner. With numerous modern treaties it is actively pursuing, some of which are before this House for debate, the government is admitting that it is already preparing for the fact that it is not going to follow through with the commitments that it has written into those treaties. The government needs to create another independent office at the same time as it is passing these treaties, to make sure it actually keeps the commitments that it is making to the first nations people in this country. That is a bit outrageous, and I wonder if my colleague from British Columbia would agree.

In response to a question from Doug Eyolfson

“The member for Winnipeg West says there was not enough consultation on this bill. I want the member for Edmonton Northwest to share his view on this, given his experience as a former First Nation chief.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back and a pleasure to see you in the chair. I wonder if my colleague from Edmonton would mind giving his perspective. The member for Winnipeg West just spoke about the lack of consultation with treaty partners. I thought the question was a little bizarre coming from the member for Winnipeg West, given the member from Edmonton’s history as a proud chief of his first nation and his relationship with the federal government and the Crown over the course of his service in that role. I wonder if the member for Edmonton Northwest could give a little bit more clarity for the member from Winnipeg on this topic.

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C-26

“I want the minister to tell us if small towns can get this housing money. In the past, federal programs ignored small, rural towns in Manitoba and across Canada. Will the government let all towns access this funding this time?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister minds addressing whether any of this money would be available for municipalities that are quite small. Despite their not being perhaps as flashy as big announcements in the major cities across Canada, these municipalities, in previous Liberal iterations of bloated federal government programs and funding, could not access the type of funding that they needed to spur small-scale housing projects in their municipalities. Can the minister comment on whether Liberals are going to get it right this time and ensure that all municipalities within the country can access funding for housing projects or whether they going to forget about rural Manitoba and rural Canada once again?

Oral Questions ·

Infrastructure

“Manitoba's premier said the Prime Minister will only fund the port of Churchill expansion if it ships gas by 2030. I want to know if that is true, yes or no.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we will be trusting the minister’s word on what a .22 is, given that he did not know what an RPAL is either. Manitoba’s premier, Wab Kinew, recently said that the Prime Minister is requiring LNG to be shipped through the port of Churchill by 2030 as a requirement for federal support of the port of Churchill plus expansion project. Is that true, yes or no?

Government Orders ·

Combatting Hate Act

“The member for Winnipeg North made an unfair accusation against the member for Calgary Skyview. The member for Calgary Skyview is speaking for his community and his faith. I want him to share more of what his faith leaders told him before we vote on this bill.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 37 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 find it very unfortunate that the member for Winnipeg North would accuse this member of the things that he has put on the record today. I think that is a pretty disturbing accusation to put on the record. I think the member for Calgary Skyview is accurately representing the concerns that he has heard from his own constituents as well as his own ethnic community. I wonder if the member could put on the record a bit more of the things that he has heard from leaders of his faith, which the member for Winnipeg North should probably take heed of before we take a final vote on the bill.

Government Orders ·

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

“The government fails to plan its schedule properly every year before summer. The member in charge of planning has been here for years and should know how to get their bills passed on time.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it always amazes me that the theme for the government should be that someday they will get it done, and that member is certainly no exception to that rule. He is in charge of planning for the government, in terms of the House schedule, as is the House leader he serves. That member has been elected in this House since 2010. There is nothing new on the Liberal benches about that member. In fact, I was 13 years old when that member was first elected to this place, and he has not figured out by now that summer comes every year, midway through June, and that they need to plan accordingly to get their legislative agenda through. When exactly does that member think he is finally going to get ahead on the planning of the legislative agenda to get the government’s legislation finished in this place?

“The government is misusing rules to cut off debate in Parliament. I want the member to explain how this hurts people's trust in our democracy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, although I disagreed with large segments of my colleague’s speech, the part she ended on is the most important one in her intervention today, which is the unacceptable nature and the affront to Westminster parliamentary democracy we have seen on display last week and now this week with programming motions being used at whim by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the rest of his administration. I wonder if that member could elaborate just a little further on the damage that does to public trust in the institution of this Parliament and how it operates on behalf of all Canadians.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“The Prime Minister is spending tax money on luxury travel while families struggle to buy food. In Manitoba, food bank use is at a record high, and almost a third of those people have full-time jobs. The government needs to take real action to lower food prices.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, despite leading Canada into a recession, the Prime Minister continues living in luxury, racking up $1 million in inflight catering alone. Meanwhile, more and more Manitoba families are struggling just to put food on the table. Last week, Harvest Manitoba shared its Manitoba poverty report card, which says it all, giving the government an F in its poverty rating and advising that of the record-setting 60,000 Manitobans who visit food banks monthly, 30% are employed full-time. What? If full-time workers cannot even afford food, these gimmicks and rebates are not going to cut it. When is the government going to take serious action to reduce food prices in this country?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“People in my area are struggling with high living costs and lower wages. I want my colleague to explain why the government will not admit its spending has hurt the economy and increased family debt.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my excellent colleague for his speech, not least for the way that he ended it. I might just have to find myself down there for a couple of butter tarts. His speech accurately portrayed what I am hearing, and what I know most of our colleagues in this place are hearing, from constituents. They are feeling the recession. They are feeling the inflationary policies of the government that have driven down their wages and driven up their cost of living. I would like the member to provide a little more clarity on why he thinks the Liberals cannot admit that their 11 years of inflationary spending have had a devastating impact on our economy, on household incomes and on household debt, and what the implications of that could be going forward.

“The chief government whip is breaking the rules. He is not allowed to talk about whether a member is present or absent from the chamber.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the chief government whip knows well that he cannot reflect on a member’s presence or past presence in, or absence from, the chamber. I would remind him to read his own rule book, for which he is responsible for the government—

“The Liberals claim they saved taxpayers $60 billion, but that is not true. Their economic policies have failed. They are spending far more than they planned and running record deficits.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is no question the member is an excellent member of Parliament. We are lucky to have her and so are her constituents. I just want to pick away at this a little. I know she heard the speech earlier from the Liberal member talking about how he felt his government has saved the taxpayer $60 billion. I just do not see that in any of the documents. I do not see that in anything we are discussing today with respect to the opposition day motion. In fact, we are calling out the Liberal government on the fact that its economic policy has failed Canadians. It has failed this country for 11 years. We need a fresh perspective. I wonder if that member can elaborate on the fact that the Liberals seem to be pretty out of touch when they have spent over their $60 billion projected deficit. We are now much higher than that. Somehow these Liberal members are still running around saying that they have saved the taxpayers money when in fact we are seeing record-level deficits.

“The Liberals are making the economy worse instead of fixing it, which hurts young people and Manitobans. I want to ask the member what it will take to get the government to admit its mistakes and change.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the analogy, I think, is just perfect. The Liberals are spinning their tires so hard in the mud, trying to prove to Canadians that they are improving the economic situation when they are in fact failing it, that they are actually going backward and making things worse. They are doing this instead of being stuck stationary and, certainly, instead of moving forward, which is exactly what people in this country need, particularly Manitobans and young Canadians across this country, from coast to coast to coast. I wonder if the member, who has been here a bit longer than I have, could provide a little more context about what it might take to finally get the Liberals to do a bit of self-reflection, eat a bit humble pie and maybe make a change so that Canadians are better off.

“The Liberals claim Conservatives hate Canada, but that is not true. We are pointing out where the government has failed. More Canadians than ever cannot afford food or buy a home under this government.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, there are a few disturbing comments on the record already, unfortunately, early this Monday, from the government whip and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I find it very unfortunate that they continue to accuse Conservatives of hating Canada. I love this country, and the member for Winnipeg North knows that. I find it very disturbing that he continues to accuse us of rightfully calling out the government where it has failed over the last 11 years. There are more Canadians at food banks than ever before, including educated Canadians with post-secondary degrees, more than ever, lining up at food banks because their jobs do not pay them enough to pay for the increase in food prices under the Liberals. There are more Canadians under 35 out of the housing market than ever before. What exactly is it that the Liberals think they have to be so proud of?

Oral Questions ·

Transportation

“A woman died in a truck crash in Manitoba. The trucking company had lost its safety licence there, but it kept driving because it had a licence from another province. Why has the transport minister not closed this loophole?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, just last week, a tragic collision just east of Brandon claimed the life of a 49-year-old woman after a semi-truck failed to stop at an intersection on Highway 110. Our thoughts remain with her loved ones during this devastating time. Since then, reports have revealed that the trucking company involved had its Manitoba safety licence revoked in 2021, yet it was able to continue operating in Manitoba under a licence issued in another province. The Liberals know that this licensing loophole has existed for some time, so why has the transport minister not taken any action to close it and ensure preventable deaths like this never happen again?

Government Orders ·

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

“I am asking if the House agrees to call the time 7:12 p.m.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, is it the will of the House to see the clock at 7:12 p.m.?

In response to a question from Blake Richards

“We must support our veterans. The Liberals criticized us for moving a veterans office from Brandon to Shilo, but they permanently closed their own Brandon office last year.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important work standing up for the veterans of this country. No higher purpose, as I see it, really exists in this Parliament and in this country than standing up for those who have put on a uniform and put themselves in harm’s way for the rest of us. An hon. member: You closed down the office in Brandon. You know that, right? Grant Jackson: Madam Speaker, to the member for Winnipeg North, I love this question because, yes, the office in Brandon was temporarily closed and moved to Shilo. The Liberals made hay of that when they were in opposition. They have since closed the Brandon office that they reopened. I wonder if the member for Winnipeg North knows that. It closed last year, permanently. An hon. member: No. Grant Jackson: Madam Speaker, yes, they gave up the lease, and the entire staff has been moved to Canadian Forces Base Shilo.

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“Donald Trump's taxes on Canadian goods are hurting our workers and businesses, and the Prime Minister broke his promise to make a trade deal with the United States. Conservatives want a trade deal instead of wage subsidies. We should use our oil, gas, and minerals to push the Americans to drop their taxes on our goods.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 43 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

Madam Speaker, there is no question that Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canadian products are an absolute disaster. Unfortunately, an equal disaster is the Liberal government’s failure to live up to its election commitment to negotiate a deal with his administration. The Prime Minister touted himself as the big economic expert who was going to fly in and get a win for Canada. Well, here we are, well over a year into his prime ministership, and there is no deal with America, so my friends from Quebec, as well as those from every other province and from specific industries, are facing the brunt of that because of that failed promise from the Liberals. The Conservatives do not believe in wage subsidies in particular. We would rather negotiate a deal in which we could continue to have tariff-free access to the American market. Our leader has put forward a plan to boost Canadian natural resources, not just in the oil and gas sector but also in the critical minerals sector, and use that as leverage to negotiate with the Americans for tariff-free access to their market. That is something we would love for the Liberals to pillage from us. Maybe the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade wants to take that when he is on his next junket down to Washington. We would be glad for him to take it, glad for him to finally get some success on this file and glad to help our friends from Quebec and their industries that have been impacted by Donald Trump’s disastrous tariff policy.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government says it supports the Port of Churchill project, but this budget does not say how much money it will get. This is the only big project the Liberals have for Manitoba, and they are not funding it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 39 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I was born in a time when Liberals failed to meet their commitments to Manitoba. There is no question about that. The member mentioned the Port of Churchill. There is no mention of a dollar figure for Churchill. If the Liberals support the Port of Churchill plus project, how much are they spending on it? We do not know, because it is not mentioned in any of these documents. That is the only major project that the Liberal government has come up with for the province of Manitoba. The Liberals have six Manitoba members. One of them represents northern Manitoba. Is this all they could come up with? There are no budgetary figures for the one project they have got referred to the Major Projects Office. That is a shameful legacy for the Liberal members from Manitoba and a shameful record for the government overall.

“I do not want this budget bill to pass. The government spends too much money, and more people are using food banks than ever before. Now the Liberals are cutting off debate on this huge bill to rush it through.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to get up today and put a few words on the record about the disastrous situation in which we find ourselves with the government moving time allocation on Bill C-31. Some of my colleagues today have covered the challenges pretty well. This is a habit we see from the Liberal government relatively frequently. We have members opposite making comments that this is a new Liberal government. Of course, it is not. The vast majority of members of the government benches on that side are certainly people who have been in cabinet and parliamentary secretary roles for a very long time, so the argument that this is a new government in any way, shape or form is a bit fictitious. Nonetheless, the government continues to perpetuate this myth to the Canadian public, which we find very unfortunate. Similarly unfortunate is the Liberals’ inability to control their own spending. The Liberals go on and on about how they are going to create more jobs and how everybody in Canada is going to do better with just one more deficit. One more is going to do it. “I promise,” say the Liberals, that one more deficit will be the one that is going to get Canadians ahead this time and we are going to make it. We have yet to see that reap any real benefits for Canadians after 11 long, tired years of this failed economic strategy. In fact, more Canadians now are lined up at food banks than at any point in recorded history. That is a shockingly bad statistic and one that these members fail to take accountability for. It is a bit alarming that they seem to think that the few programs they have put forward, some of which are tweaked with this budget implementation act, are going to make any substantial dent in those enormously long lines at every single food bank across the country, many of which are actually running out of food. We are a bit shocked that the Liberals cannot eat a little slice of humble pie. They cannot find that at a food bank because they are out of food, but if they could make one for themselves and take a little bite, it might be good for the Canadian public to see that for the first time from the tired 11-year-old Liberal government. They might actually come to appreciate the efforts they are undertaking maybe slightly more, because right now they seem to hear from the government that life has never been better. I do not know any constituents in Brandon—Souris who believe that is true. On top of that, then the Liberals go and blow another $60-billion deficit, or whatever they managed to pitch that down to with the spring economic update. It is shockingly high for a government that committed in the last election to spend less to invest more. What happened to that? I have no idea where that slogan went to die, somewhere in the Liberal backbench. Perhaps the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie took that with him when he walked out with the environmental caucus. I am not sure where that is going, but nonetheless, we are concerned about the spending the government continues to perpetuate. If that was not bad enough, now we have government members who do not even want to debate their spending or answer questions regarding their spending. The Prime Minister failed to stand up and answer any questions in question period today. It is fair game to question why exactly that is. He also failed to take any questions from the media all weekend long, including today, and particularly on Friday, when it was announced that this country has in fact dived into what is unquestionably meeting the definition of a recession. The parliamentary secretary to the finance minister often stands up and loudly proclaims the Prime Minister’s economic credentials. If he is such an expert, why does he not want to answer questions about the economy? He does not want to answer them from us. If he does not respect Parliament and does not want to answer questions in question period more than once a week because it is too much of a bother for him, okay, but he should answer questions from the media then. The Liberals always profess to have a greater respect for the national press gallery than Conservatives, they claim, and yet it is our leader time and time again taking questions from the media. I was with him today when he offered a press conference, offering not just critiques of the government, but also our party’s proposed path forward to deliver a better economic path for this country that might get us back out of this recession. There was nothing from the Prime Minister, nothing at all. What a shame. There was nothing from the finance minister either. Where is the finance minister? Why is he not answering these questions for the media, if not for the House of Commons? I would add that I am splitting my time with the esteemed member for Airdrie—Cochrane. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Grant Jackson: Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North knows better than that. I know that he does not like what I have to say, because he is a member of that tired, exhausted, spent Liberal team that has been in the front couple of benches for the last 11 years. The Liberals have no new ideas. They have no vision on how to spend smarter to actually get this country into a proper economic footprint. We are the only country in the G7 that has slipped into a recession. That is not a proud legacy for the member for Winnipeg North, and I feel bad for him, except for the fact that he cannot admit it. None of them can over there. They cannot admit their mistake, and that is unfortunate for Winnipeggers, unfortunate for Manitobans and definitely unfortunate for the country of Canada. Perhaps it is time for some fresh blood from Winnipeg. We have the member for Elmwood Transcona, who is fresh blood as a Winnipegger in the House. What an excellent member of Parliament he is, and I cannot wait to see all the contributions he is going to make to this Parliament over the course of its duration. However, to get back on track here, we are talking about finances, and it is terribly concerning what that member and the entire Liberal cabinet have done to the finances of this country over the course of the last long 11 years. The Liberals said that budgets balance themselves. Do members remember that one? That was a good one. What happened to the minister of middle-class prosperity? I loved that one, before I got elected to this place. There is still no definition from Liberal members as to what the heck that means. There is no concept. What has happened to the middle class since they appointed that ministry? Well, the ministry got abolished pretty shortly thereafter, because it was such a tire fire. Unfortunately, now all the middle class is at the food banks, and they ran out of food. That pretty much sums up the Liberal record on middle-class prosperity. It has been an abject failure, and now they do not want to even take questions on it. The Liberals have moved time allocation on this bill so that they have only three hours of debate on a bill that, as my colleagues have mentioned, is over 300 pages long. They are going to ram through votes so that they can go off for the summer and spend like Liberals often do. I guess we will see. Maybe the eleventh time is the charm. I doubt it. I really doubt it, but perhaps this time the significant deficit put forward by the government, the minister and that failed front bench will have better luck than “budgets balance themselves”, better luck than “spend less to invest more” and better luck, hopefully, I am praying, than the former minister of middle-class prosperity.