MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Jim Bélanger

Follow by RSS

Bélanger pushes to lower fuel taxes and defend softwood lumber jobs in northern Ontario, arguing the excise tax suspension should be made permanent, and wants closer scrutiny of the government’s social media bill. He draws on his 25 years running a petroleum business, often leaping past his own evidence, claiming tax relief “is always a good thing.”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
86 / 100 over 19 statements
Signal 81 / 100
Relevance 82 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 92 / 100
Averaged over the 19 of 29 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Statements 29

Government Orders ·

Safe Social Media Act

In response to a question from Luc Berthold

“People in my riding and in my family are worried about what is happening on social media. Technology used to change slowly, but social media is moving alarmingly fast.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, yes, that is absolutely the case in my riding. Closer to home, in my family, I have three young people who are parents, and they tell me all the time that what is happening on social media today is very worrisome. In my grandmother’s day, as I was saying, progress took a long time. We went from horse-drawn carriages to the telephone, then to radio, television, and sending a man to the moon. All of these things took a long time. However, today, social media is advancing alarmingly quickly.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“We want to keep kids safe and hold social media platforms accountable. But this bill gives a new commissioner too much power with too little oversight. A committee needs to study this bill much more carefully across party lines to get it right.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 48 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives want to make sure kids are kept safe and platforms are held accountable. The concern many Canadians have is that the Liberals would give the proposed commissioner sweeping powers with little accountability. Bill C-34 requires much more scrutiny at committee and needs non-partisan work to get it right.

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“We need to study this bill carefully in committee. We want to protect young people and hold social media platforms accountable. But the government gives the new commission too much power with too little oversight. We need to add real safeguards before this becomes law.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 28 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

Madam Speaker, I completely agree that this matter should be studied thoroughly. Conservatives want to ensure that young people are safe and that platforms are held accountable. However, many Canadians are concerned about the very broad powers the government wants to grant the proposed commission without sufficient accountability mechanisms. Bill C‑34 deserves much closer scrutiny in committee. We need to take the time to study it carefully and ensure that the appropriate safeguards are in place.

In response to a question from Iqwinder Gaheer

“Teens started using smartphones in the early 2010s. This changed how their brains and social lives grow. I think it is the biggest reason kids are struggling today.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it goes back to asking what on earth happened to teens in the early 2010s. It was the move from regular phones to smart phones. The rewiring of childhood has interfered with children’s social and neurological development. I think that has been the greatest cause for the crisis we are in today.

“I want this bill sent to committee so we can study it carefully. Social media harms children's mental health, and we need rules to make online platforms safer. But I do not want a new government office acting as internet police and censoring what Canadians say. We must protect kids without taking away our basic freedoms.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, over the past decade, we have seen an alarming rise in rates of anxiety, depression, self-harm and other mental health challenges among young people. Many parents, educators and health professionals have raised concerns about the role social media may be playing in this trend. Social media has fundamentally changed childhood. While these platforms can help young people connect with friends, learn new things and access information, they can also contribute to sleep deprivation, attention fragmentation, loneliness, social comparison and addictive behaviours. The reality is that many social media platforms are designed to maximize the amount of time users spend online. When platforms offer services for free, it is often because the users themselves have become the product. Their attention is a valuable commodity that companies compete to capture and sell to advertisers. The longer users remain engaged, the more profitable those platforms become. As a result, companies are often competing against one another for our attention and, in some cases, the attention of our children. Too often, the incentives in the marketplace reward engagement rather than well-being. That is why many Canadians are asking whether more should be done to encourage safer online environments for young people. Children should be protected from products that are intentionally designed to be addictive. I believe social media companies should recognize their responsibility to design services that put the best interests of children first. However, given current business practices and market incentives, many believe legislation may be necessary to encourage different behaviours and different design choices. Governments have a role to play in creating those incentives and in providing parents with the tools they need to make informed decisions about how their children engage with the online world. This brings me to Bill C-34, the safe social media act, which is before us today. The legislation would establish new responsibilities for organizations that operate social media platforms, AI-powered chatbots and other online services. For example, regulated social media services would be required to provide users with tools to block and report harmful content as well as with access to support resources. In addition, the legislation would create a new regulator responsible for overseeing compliance and enforcing these requirements. The bill is built around two key obligations. First, there is a duty to protect children. This includes safety-by-design requirements, age-appropriate design features and measures intended to limit children’s exposure to harmful and pornographic content. Second, there is a duty to be transparent. Platforms would be required to maintain records demonstrating compliance and publish a digital safety plan in a clear and accessible format. The legislation would apply to three categories of regulated services: social media services, including livestreaming and adult content platforms; AI-powered chatbot services, which are treated as a distinct category with their own obligations; and certain other online services, including websites and applications that allow users to interact with them. In short, Bill C-34 seeks to establish a framework for digital safety, transparency and accountability in online spaces. While I will be supporting the bill to be sent to committee, I have some apprehensions with the legislation. While I will always support the right of parents to control what their children see online and believe they should be given the tools to do so, I take issue with the creation of a new federal bureaucratic department to act as the Internet police. We must be careful that in our effort to make the Internet safer, we do not create a system that places excessive power in the hands of government regulators or imposes burdensome requirements on platforms without delivering meaningful results for Canadian families. As legislators, we must exercise caution whenever we grant government new powers over what Canadians can see, share or access online. Protecting children is an important objective, but it must not come at the expense of fundamental freedoms. We must ensure that this legislation contains clear safeguards and accountability measures so that it cannot be used to expand government control over online speech or set a precedent for future censorship. This is something Conservatives will continue to champion as this bill moves through the legislation process. It is also important that we examine real-world examples of similar legislation. In December 2025, Australia implemented a ban on social media access for children under the age of 16. Rather than placing responsibility on parents or young people, the Australian approach focuses on holding social media platforms accountable for enforcing the rules. Oversight is provided by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, which issues guidance on the measures platforms must take to prevent underage access and has the authority to impose significant financial penalties on companies that fail to comply. As Parliament studies Bill C-34, we should carefully examine the results of the Australian model. What has been the outcome in Australia and has it been effective? Early evidence suggests there is reason for caution. In March 2026, the Molly Rose Foundation conducted the first large-scale survey of Australians aged 12 to 15 following the introduction of the social media ban. The survey found that 61% of young people who previously had accounts on restricted platforms continued to have access to at least one active account. More than half of those who had used platforms such as TikTok, YouTube and Instagram remained able to use those services, while 70% of children who continued to access restricted platforms said it was easy to circumvent the ban. The survey also found that 51% of respondents believed the ban had made no difference to their online safety, while 14% reported feeling less safe online. Although some children reported spending less time online, the overall impact on well-being was mixed. These findings suggest that while the objective of protecting children online is laudable, legislation alone may not be sufficient if young people can easily bypass the restrictions and continue accessing social media platforms. The Australian experience shows how difficult it is to keep children safe online. In many ways, it is like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. Technologies move quickly and young people often find ways around restrictions that governments and platforms put in place. This is why Parliament must take the time to thoroughly study Bill C-34 at committee. We should hear from a broad range of witnesses, including parents, teachers, child advocates, civil liberties advocates, legal experts and those working in the technology sector. We all agree that children should be protected online, but good intentions alone do not make good policy. Before moving forward, Parliament must ensure the measures proposed are active, effective and practical and that they strike the right balance between protecting children and preserving the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

“The member talked about a sharp rise in anxiety and depression in children. What does he think is the main cause, and what should we do to find the causes and fix this?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about a sharp rise in anxiety and depression in children. Can he tell the House what he thinks is the major cause of this crisis and what we need to do to identify the causes and potential ways to reverse this crisis?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“Government spending is making life more expensive, and the national debt keeps growing. That debt will cost families an extra $6,000 in interest. The government needs to take paying it down seriously.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, government spending is driving up the cost of living, and the national debt continues to rise. That debt will cost families an extra $6,000 in interest alone. How serious should the government be about tackling that debt?

“Life costs too much right now. The government taxes people, gives some money back in programs, and grows the debt. I want to know if the government will fix the real causes of high prices instead of just treating the symptoms.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we all know that we are facing a cost of living crisis, and we acknowledge that. That said, it seems to me that the government is taking money out of people’s pockets and then putting some of it back through subsidies and other programs, all while the debt continues to grow. Does the government intend to examine and address the root causes of the rising cost of living, rather than simply treating the symptoms?

“Interest on the national debt is growing faster than our spending on health care. I want to ask my colleague how the government could cut spending and balance the budget.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the interest on the national debt is the fastest-growing category of government expenditures, outpacing health care transfers. How does my colleague think the government could reduce spending and put the budget back on a more responsible path?

Statements by Members ·

Special Olympics Sudbury National Team

“I want to congratulate the Special Olympics Sudbury athletes who competed at the 2026 Canada Summer Games. Josée and Danie won gold, Jesse won silver and bronze, and Eric and Renée placed fourth and fifth in bocce. I also want to thank their coordinator, Lynne Houle, for 23 years of service.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the Special Olympics Sudbury national team. Last week, I had the opportunity to meet with some of the athletes from the team, who proudly represented our community at the 2026 Canada Summer Games in Medicine Hat. I would like to extend my congratulations to Josée and Danie, who brought home gold medals. I want to commend Jesse for earning both a silver medal and a bronze medal, an impressive achievement. I would also like to give a special shout-out to Eric and Renée, who finished fourth and fifth in the bocce competition. A special thanks goes to Lynne Houle, community coordinator for Special Olympics Sudbury, whose leadership and 23 years of dedicated service have helped countless athletes reach their goals and achieve their full potential. I congratulate all the athletes, coaches and volunteers once again on their outstanding achievements.

Government Orders ·

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

In response to a question from Carlos Leitão

“Global events like wars raise the price of oil, but taxes make it cost even more. Cutting taxes helps buyers, and that is always a good thing.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is true that global pressures, wars and so on are having an impact on the price of oil. However, prices are set on a certain base amount, and taxes are then added on top. The relief we can give to consumers by reducing taxes is always a good thing.

In response to a question from John-Paul Danko

“Electric vehicles do not work well in cold winters where I live. We need to pause the fuel tax for even longer, and we need to find other ways to lower costs.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, first of all, where I come from, EVs are not really practical. They do not have enough power for the winter months, when it gets cold. As for the excise tax, the fuel surcharge that is going on should be extended for a longer period of time. We should be looking at different ways of reducing costs.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“Fuel costs are too high, especially in rural and northern Ontario where everything is moved by truck. The government should extend the fuel tax break for longer. It will not cost the government any money because higher fuel prices already bring in more sales tax.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I think what I am trying to say is that the fuel costs are too high. Especially in rural and northern Ontario, where I come from, transportation costs and diesel costs affect everything. Everything is transported by truck and so on. Whether we eliminate the excise tax for good or extend it for a longer period of time, when the prices are higher, the Government of Canada is collecting more GST from those revenues. It is not costing the government any money to extend that longer. It should be at least extended to what—

“I will vote for this bill because it lowers fuel taxes for people in northern Ontario, where everyone has to drive. But it is only temporary relief. I want the government to cut fuel taxes longer, scrap the industrial carbon tax and fuel rules, and give drivers permanent tax cuts.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. I will be supporting this bill because whenever there is an opportunity to make life more affordable for Canadians, especially for the people of Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, I will support it. However, let me be clear: While the bill is a step in the right direction, it would not go far enough to address the affordability challenges facing northern Ontarians. Before I had the privilege of serving my constituents in Parliament, I owned and operated a small wholesale petroleum business. For more than 25 years, we supplied petroleum products to retail, commercial, industrial and residential customers throughout northern Ontario. Fuel costs were a significant expense, representing more than 30% of operating costs. Any increase in fuel pricing had an immediate impact. What affected my business then affects families and businesses across northern Ontario even more today. People in my region drive because they have to. They drive to work. They drive to school. They drive to medical appointments. They drive drive in order to buy groceries and to visit family. Unlike residents of major urban centres such as Toronto or Ottawa, northern Ontarians do not have the option of taking public transit to get around. That is why any measure that lowers the cost of fuel is something I support. However, make no mistake: This bill is before us today because Conservatives forced the government’s hand. For years, Conservatives have argued that taxes on fuel and energy are too high. We warned that rising fuel costs were driving up the price of groceries, increasing home heating costs, raising transportation expenses and making life less affordable for working Canadians. We brought forward motions. We raised these concerns in the House. We stood up for Canadians struggling with the cost of living. Eventually the government was forced to respond, but it did so only with temporary measures. First, the government suspended the excise tax on fuel. Then, after continued pressure from Conservatives, it extended that suspension until January 31, 2027, reduced the tax rate by half for February and March and scheduled the full tax to return on April 1, 2027. While this relief is welcome, it remains just that: temporary. For people in northern Ontario filling a typical 50-litre tank, the full suspension would save more than five dollars per fill-up. That is a start. Every dollar matters when families are stretching their budget. The problem is that this relief would come with an expiry date. Come April 1, 2027, the full tax would return. Canadians will not suddenly become more affluent on February 1, 2027. Northern Ontarians will still need to get to work. Students will still need to get to school. Families will still need to attend medical appointments. Truckers will still need to move goods across the country. The government’s plan would not solve the problem. It would simply postpone it. The federal excise tax currently adds 10¢ per litre to gasoline and four cents per litre to diesel. Conservatives have consistently said this is too much. The government likes to point to temporary fuel tax relief as proof that it is helping Canadians at the pumps. Any relief is welcome, and I support measures that help families keep more of their hard-earned money, but there is a reality that the government rarely talks about. It is that when fuel prices go up, governments collect more HST because that tax is charged as a percentage of the price at the pump. In Ontario, drivers pay HST not only for the fuel itself, but also on the federal and provincial fuel taxes already built into the price. In other words, Canadians are paying tax on top of taxes. The higher fuel prices climb, the more tax revenue governments collect, so while motorists may receive a few cents per litre in temporary relief, governments can be bringing in even more through increased HST revenues. For people across northern Ontario, that matters. Driving is not a luxury. It is how people get to work and keep their businesses running. Northerners do not have the option of simply driving less. That is why affordability cannot be based on temporary measures and short-term announcements. Northern Ontarians need lasting relief that recognizes a simple reality, which is that in our part of the country, transportation is not optional and every extra cent at the pump comes out of a family budget or small business trying to make ends meet. The Conservative position is straightforward. It is to remove federal taxes on gasoline and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027 and permanently eliminate the clean fuel regulations and the industrial carbon tax. Together, those measures could reduce fuel costs by approximately 25¢ per litre. That is meaningful relief. We know what happens when fuel costs rise. Transportation costs rise, the cost of moving goods rises, the price of building materials goes up, small businesses face higher operating expenses and, ultimately, those costs are passed on to consumers. At every stage of the economy, higher fuel costs make life more expensive. Meanwhile, diesel prices in the United States remain significantly lower than they are in Canada, placing Canadian producers, businesses and supply chains at a competitive disadvantage. The government cannot control global energy markets or geopolitical events, but it can control the taxes and regulations imposed on Canadians here at home. Conservatives proposed a plan that would reduce federal taxes on fuel until Canada Day 2027, permanently eliminate the industrial carbon tax and repeal the clean fuel regulations affecting diesel production. We have also called for increased domestic refining capacity and expanded fuel storage reserves so that Canada is better prepared when global disruptions cause prices to hike. Bill C-38 is better than nothing. I have always said that Conservatives will support measures that put money back into the pockets of northern Ontarians, but temporary tax relief with a sunset clause is not a long-term affordability strategy. Affordable energy should be a permanent priority, not a temporary political adjustment. Northern Ontarians are not asking for more government programs. They are asking to keep more of their own money. They are asking for lower taxes and a government that understands the realities of life in rural and northern Canada. Conservatives will support Bill C-38 and the relief it provides, but we will also continue fighting for a broader solution: the permanent removal of the industrial carbon tax, the elimination of the clean fuel regulations and an energy policy that puts affordability first. I will continue fighting for lower taxes for the people of Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt and Conservatives will continue fighting for lower taxes for all Canadians.

“Canadians pushed for this fuel tax relief. Does my colleague think people will be doing well enough early next year to pay all these gas taxes again?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that there has been pressure from the Conservatives and from Canadians for this relief on taxes and the excise tax. Does she believe that by January, February, March and April of the coming year, Canadians will be in such better shape that we could put all the taxes back on gasoline?

“Fuel taxes are added on top of the base price of oil. Because of that, cutting the fuel tax directly saves money for consumers.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 46 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my impression is that we do not share a common understanding of the situation. If I understand correctly, the question is whether tax rebates go directly to consumers. My understanding of the oil market is that the base price is determined by New York Harbor and by global market forces. Then taxes are added. For each distribution centre, there is a base nominal price on oil that is set every day. Various applicable taxes are then added, followed by the GST. In my opinion, yes, the savings go directly to consumers.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“I want the House to pass our motion to admit Canada is in an affordability crisis. Food, heating, and housing cost too much, and incomes are not keeping up. Ten years of Liberal spending, debt, and taxes caused this problem.”
  • A repeated line

    “After 11 years of the Liberal government.”

    Said 25 times by 19 members since April 30.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of our Conservative motion calling on the House to recognize that Canada is in an affordability crisis. This is an issue that comes up time and time again when I speak with my constituents in northern Ontario. I hear of it constantly. The cost of housing, food, fuel and everyday necessities is through the roof, and northerners are living paycheque to paycheque. The affordability crisis Canadians are experiencing today did not happen by accident. For the last decade, the Liberals’ economic approach has been driven by higher spending, growing deficits, increasing debt and more taxes, rather than by economic productivity and growth. Instead of creating the conditions for Canadians to get ahead, they have created a country where more and more families are struggling simply to keep up. Canada should be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We are blessed with abundant natural resources and hard-working people. We have what the world wants, yet we have not been able to efficiently service that demand and live up to our potential. After 10 years of the Liberal government, Canada has experienced weak economic growth, declining purchasing power and countless missed opportunities. Rather than removing barriers to investment, reducing taxes and getting projects built, the Liberal answer is more bureaucracy, more red tape and slower approval processes. The result is a country facing a severe affordability crisis. Habitat for Humanity’s recent international report paints worrying numbers. More than half of Canadian non-homeowners now believe they will never own a home. Two-thirds of Canadians have cut back on other expenses simply to keep up with housing costs, while 44% say that one unexpected bill could threaten their ability to remain housed. That is not the sign of a healthy housing market. It is evidence of a country where the dream of home ownership is slipping away, out of reach. Affordable homes have virtually disappeared in my region of northern Ontario. When I was a young man starting a family, my wife and I did not have significant savings, but what we did have were good jobs, modest paycheques and the confidence that if we worked hard and managed our finances responsibly, we would be able to buy a home. We did all that in the same week we got married. That was the reality and the opportunity of the Canada I grew up in. Today, too many young Canadians no longer believe that owning a home is possible. They are doing everything right. They work hard and follow the rules, yet home ownership is further away than ever. Our younger generation is losing faith that they can build a future in Canada. The affordability crisis extends well beyond housing. Statistics and surveys continue to show that Canadians are struggling with the rising cost of essentials. Housing, groceries, energy, transportation and other necessities are consuming a growing portion of a household’s income. Lower-income households, renters, young Canadians and single-parent families are among those being hit the hardest. Middle-class Canadians who once felt financially secure are now finding it increasingly difficult to balance their budgets. In northern Ontario, those pressures are often magnified. People in my riding travel long distances for work, medical appointments and essential services. Higher fuel costs, increasing transportation expenses and rising home heating bills place significant strain on household budgets. As winter approaches, many families are once again wondering how they will make ends meet. Unfortunately, nowhere is this pressure felt more clearly than at the grocery store. As families prepare to gather for Thanksgiving this weekend, many are not focused on celebrating with loved ones. Instead, they are worried about whether they can afford the meal on their table. According to researchers at Dalhousie University, the cost of a traditional Thanksgiving dinner continues to rise, with basic staples costing 10% more than they did just a year ago. Thanksgiving should be a time for family and gratitude. It should not be a time when parents are calculating whether they can afford a turkey dinner. Canadians do not need more government affordability programs designed to help them cope with the consequences of bad policy. What they need is a government that addresses the root causes of the crisis. We would not need so many affordability measures if inflationary spending, mounting debt and economic mismanagement had not pushed the cost of living so high in the first place. It is worth examining the data about incomes measured by GDP. Affordability is about the relationship among what households earn, what government leaves them to spend after taxes and transfers, and what that income can actually buy. At the end of 2025, per-person GDP in Canada stood at 3.5% higher than at the end of 2014. For perspective, from the end of 2003 to the end of 2014, per-person GDP grew by 11.7%. The numbers look even worse when compared to those of other industrialized countries. For example, at the end of 2025, per-person GDP in the United States was 21.7% higher than at the end of 2014, so the U.S. economy outperformed our economy by 18% in that same period. Canada’s economy has generated remarkably little new income over the past decade. Real GDP per capita has grown by an average of just 0.6% annually, the weakest performance since the Great Depression, while real household disposable income has risen only 0.8% per year. Without stronger income growth, affordability will continue to deteriorate. My constituents are dealing with an affordability crisis, fuelled by a decade of inflationary Liberal policies. While the cost of essentials continues to rise, Canadians’ purchasing power remains stagnant. The Canadian dream of homeownership is slipping away for an entire generation. In northern Ontario, the cost of transportation, heating and groceries is weighing more and more heavily on families’ budgets. Canadians need hope. They need policies that will revive our economy, make life affordable again and give everyone a chance to improve their lives. The Prime Minister has said that affordability is now better than it has been in a decade. In reality, Canadians face unaffordable housing, higher grocery prices and stagnant incomes. Affordability remains a major problem, and the government should recognize that and vote in favour of our motion.

“The government should pause fuel taxes for longer, until Canada Day or more. Gas prices have doubled in the last year, and the government is making extra money from sales tax. It can afford to give people this break.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about fuel relief and the suspension of the taxes on petroleum, gasoline and diesel. He was telling us about those benefits. The other side is always asking us about coming up with ideas and helping. If he agrees with me that the suspension of the tax is good, I would like to suggest that it last longer, up until Canada Day or even longer. We understand the price of fuel has doubled over the last year, and HST is a tax over a tax, so there is a lot of revenue going to the government with the extra costs of the fuel. As such, there is ample opportunity to provide relief for a further period of time.

“Prices are going up while people's wages stay the same, and many people cannot afford to buy homes. This is what I hear from people in my riding. I want to know what my colleague is hearing in his riding.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the cost of essentials keeps going up, but Canadians’ purchasing power remains stagnant. The Canadian dream of becoming a homeowner is disappearing for a generation. That is what I hear back home. I would like to know what my colleague is hearing in his riding.

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

“The member says we need to change how we do things to fix the economy. Why did it take the Liberal government over 10 years to realize that?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague say that we cannot keep doing things the way we always have and that the goal is to improve the Canadian economy. My question is this. Why did it take the Liberal government over 10 years to realize that we cannot keep doing things the way we always have?