Blois defends the government’s affordability and economic agenda in the House, from tax cuts and the groceries and essentials rebate to the building Canada strong act and spending on fisheries, farms and Atlantic projects. He answers questions by rejecting the premise and turning to the opposition’s record, then softens the exchange with friendly asides, as when he told an opponent, “I would encourage her to buy Nova Scotia lobster too.”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .
Average grade
B
The average grade of 64 analysed statements. 4 more were analysed but were too short to grade.
78 / 100 over 64 statements
Signal69 / 100
Relevance67 / 100
Respect100 / 100
Clarity89 / 100
Loses points more than most for A remark off to the side of the point.1.6 times as often as most members.What the tags mean →×1.6Loses points less than most for Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.Less often than most members.What the tags mean →
Averaged over the 64 of 68 statements graded so far.
“Committees should match the makeup of the House of Commons. That is why we need seven Liberal members on each committee instead of six. This also lets Conservatives keep their seats.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to have 6.2 members per committee. Tradition dictates that the composition of committees reflect that of the House. For example, if the Liberal Party holds a majority of seats here in the House of Commons, then of course it is possible to have a majority vote. Parliamentary committees need to reflect that reality. That is why we need seven Liberal members on each parliamentary committee and not six. That will also enable the Conservatives to maintain the same level of representation at committee.”
Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to have 6.2 members per committee. Tradition dictates that the composition of committees reflect that of the House. For example, if the Liberal Party holds a majority of seats here in the House of Commons, then of course it is possible to have a majority vote. Parliamentary committees need to reflect that reality. That is why we need seven Liberal members on each parliamentary committee and not six. That will also enable the Conservatives to maintain the same level of representation at committee.
“We have a trade deal with the United States, and 85 percent of our products go there without tariffs. We are still telling the Americans that their extra tariffs are unfair. Also, our tax policy for greenhouses will help the member's community, because his area is the centre of that industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the banter I have with the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington. I will remind the hon. member, first of all, that we do have a trade deal with the United States. It is called CUSMA, and 85% of our products go into the United States tariff-free. We are continuing to make the case to the U.S. administration that we feel section 232 tariffs are unjustified and are against the spirit of that agreement. However, I am glad the member mentioned the immediate expensing for greenhouses. I would suggest to him, humbly, if I look back over time, that this may be one of the most significant federal policies to that member’s riding in the sense that Leamington is the heart of the greenhouse sector in North America. These are major capital expenditures, and we think this is a policy that will help support his communities in the days ahead. I know he will be sharing this with his constituents.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the banter I have with the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington. I will remind the hon. member, first of all, that we do have a trade deal with the United States. It is called CUSMA, and 85% of our products go into the United States tariff-free. We are continuing to make the case to the U.S. administration that we feel section 232 tariffs are unjustified and are against the spirit of that agreement. However, I am glad the member mentioned the immediate expensing for greenhouses. I would suggest to him, humbly, if I look back over time, that this may be one of the most significant federal policies to that member’s riding in the sense that Leamington is the heart of the greenhouse sector in North America. These are major capital expenditures, and we think this is a policy that will help support his communities in the days ahead. I know he will be sharing this with his constituents.
“I want us to change the House rules to be more like the United Kingdom. The Speaker should pick who asks questions without a strict list. We should stop clapping in the chamber. We should create a second room for extra debates, and we should give private members' bills their own dedicated day.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for ensuring that more members join us here in the House of Commons to listen to my excellent speech today on Motion No. 9. This is very important, and I appreciate a large crowd being here for me. Again, I think that the government is simply exercising the Westminster tradition. I would reject the premise we have heard from the Conservatives about the idea that this is orchestrated. This is members of Parliament going back into their riding with a government with a 70% approval rating among Canadians, saying that this is the type of leadership they want to see. I would echo some of the comments of the chief government whip, who respectfully challenged the opposition about the fact that there are important conversations inside that party, inside that caucus, about how best to position themselves. I do not think it is lamenting the idea that there have been members of Parliament in that caucus, for whatever reason, whether it is the Prime Minister’s leadership or perhaps leadership issues with the leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, who have made those decisions. Those are important conversations that I know my hon. friends on the other side will have so they can do the good work of His Majesty’s loyal opposition to hold the government to account. We are obviously here talking about the Standing Orders. While I am on my feet, I did not have the opportunity to join the debate when there was general debate on the Standing Orders, and I think this is tight enough within Motion No. 9 for me to opine on it. We have an opportunity to revisit some of the Standing Orders in a more expansive way. I take notice the government House leader has done this on committee composition. I would love to see the Speaker or individuals who are in the chair, during question period, for example, have a little more latitude. I see this in the United Kingdom, where there is about three-quarters of a list, so to speak, where government party leaders will be able to put forward suggested names. Of course, there is an idea of when someone might get a question, but then afterward, the Speaker has the ability to catch the eye of any member of Parliament. I think that is something we should be introducing into our system. Members do not clap in the Westminster system in London unless it is a real ceremonious occasion. Notwithstanding the fact that I love our Prime Minister and I think he is doing a good job, and I am sure the leader of the official oppositionappreciates the clap, I do not think it is needed. I think we could say “hear, hear” and bang the desk a little, but I do not think we need to be clapping. That is actually in the standing orders in the U.K. The last piece is the second chamber. In Westminster, there is a definitive second chamber to allow for specialized debates on topics. MPs can go into a committee room in the Palace of Westminster, where it is on the record. Constituents can actually see those debates. The chamber is not always busy, and I am an active member in this place, but it allows for an ability to have more members able to share their piece. The last thing is Private Members’ Business. I think we should have a dedicated day for Private Members’ Business in the House. Yes, we have hours that are kind of connected throughout the week. I think a larger block of time that could be strictly dedicated to Private Members’ Business would be smart. We could make additional amendments. I will leave that for the PROC committee. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for ensuring that more members join us here in the House of Commons to listen to my excellent speech today on Motion No. 9. This is very important, and I appreciate a large crowd being here for me. Again, I think that the government is simply exercising the Westminster tradition. I would reject the premise we have heard from the Conservatives about the idea that this is orchestrated. This is members of Parliament going back into their riding with a government with a 70% approval rating among Canadians, saying that this is the type of leadership they want to see. I would echo some of the comments of the chief government whip, who respectfully challenged the opposition about the fact that there are important conversations inside that party, inside that caucus, about how best to position themselves. I do not think it is lamenting the idea that there have been members of Parliament in that caucus, for whatever reason, whether it is the Prime Minister’s leadership or perhaps leadership issues with the leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, who have made those decisions. Those are important conversations that I know my hon. friends on the other side will have so they can do the good work of His Majesty’s loyal opposition to hold the government to account. We are obviously here talking about the Standing Orders. While I am on my feet, I did not have the opportunity to join the debate when there was general debate on the Standing Orders, and I think this is tight enough within Motion No. 9 for me to opine on it. We have an opportunity to revisit some of the Standing Orders in a more expansive way. I take notice the government House leader has done this on committee composition. I would love to see the Speaker or individuals who are in the chair, during question period, for example, have a little more latitude. I see this in the United Kingdom, where there is about three-quarters of a list, so to speak, where government party leaders will be able to put forward suggested names. Of course, there is an idea of when someone might get a question, but then afterward, the Speaker has the ability to catch the eye of any member of Parliament. I think that is something we should be introducing into our system. Members do not clap in the Westminster system in London unless it is a real ceremonious occasion. Notwithstanding the fact that I love our Prime Minister and I think he is doing a good job, and I am sure the leader of the official oppositionappreciates the clap, I do not think it is needed. I think we could say “hear, hear” and bang the desk a little, but I do not think we need to be clapping. That is actually in the standing orders in the U.K. The last piece is the second chamber. In Westminster, there is a definitive second chamber to allow for specialized debates on topics. MPs can go into a committee room in the Palace of Westminster, where it is on the record. Constituents can actually see those debates. The chamber is not always busy, and I am an active member in this place, but it allows for an ability to have more members able to share their piece. The last thing is Private Members’ Business. I think we should have a dedicated day for Private Members’ Business in the House. Yes, we have hours that are kind of connected throughout the week. I think a larger block of time that could be strictly dedicated to Private Members’ Business would be smart. We could make additional amendments. I will leave that for the PROC committee. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.
“I support this motion to change the House rules. The Liberals now hold a majority of seats after winning by-elections and having other MPs join our party. Our parliamentary committees should reflect this new majority.”
“Mr. Speaker, greetings to all my colleagues. I am pleased to rise today to speak to and debate Motion No. 9, which seeks to make changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons now that the Liberal Party has the majority of the seats in the House of Commons because some members changed their party affiliation and because of the three victories our party secured in the by-elections. The Westminster parliamentary tradition is absolutely clear. The composition of parliamentary committees must reflect the number of seats that the different parties hold in the House of Commons. Therefore, with 174 seats, the Liberal Party now holds a clear majority. We have four more seats than all the opposition parties combined. It is important to recognize that there is a long-standing parliamentary tradition, which is what Motion No. 9 put forward by the government House leader seeks to accomplish: to change the Standing Orders. How did we get here? I think that is important. Right now, the Prime Minister is governing the country in a very difficult and uncertain world. When I talk with my constituents, I find that they have many concerns about world events: the war in the Middle East, issues related to free trade between Canada and the United States and the relationship between our two countries in general, as well as the importance of fostering economic growth here in Canada. However, for most of my constituents, and I say this to all my colleagues, the Prime Minister and his government are positioned in the centre of the ideological spectrum, and Canadians, in general, are encouraged by the government’s current performance. The proof is in the pudding. We have talked about the fact there is a long-standing tradition that in Canada, and frankly in any jurisdiction where there is a Westminster style of government or Parliament, voters elect members of Parliament. I have heard a lot of narrative from the Conservatives about how Canadians elected a minority Parliament. Yes, with the 343 members of Parliament at the time, that was the case. However, members of Parliament have always had the ability to determine where they are best placed in the composition of the House. I think that is important. We have had a lot of conversations about the role of party leaders and party discipline in the country. If we are going to get into a situation where we are going to take away the inherent right for members of Parliament to choose their party affiliation, we are consolidating even more a leader’s prerogative with particular political parties. I think MPs should have the ability to make their own judgment and their own calculation. These decisions do not come easily, and they are relatively rare. In fact, with respect to what we have seen in Canadian history, this is quite unique, but it is a moment when I think the Prime Minister is governing a big-tent coalition. That is evidenced by the fact that members of Parliament who have previously been affiliated with the NDP or with the Conservative Party have made the choice to join the Liberal Party under his leadership. There were three by-elections: in Terrebonne, University—Rosedale and Scarborough Southwest. All three resulted in the election of new members of the House, who are here with us today. They were sworn in this morning. This is a positive result for us, and I would like to welcome my new colleagues. The government has outlined the privileges available to the Liberal caucus for amending the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. It is instructive as well that the government whip took us down a bit of a path of history about Bill C-306. At the time, it would have been a bill before the 42nd Parliament, I believe, where a number of members of Parliament, some of whom still sit in the House, made their decision about whether to support that bill, which was around putting an automatic by-election if a member of Parliament were to cross the floor. The government whip I thought did a great job highlighting the fact that former prime minister Stephen Harper felt at that time it was not necessary, that this was not a major public policy concern in our system. I would agree to this day that this still, as I have already asserted, should be the role of a member of Parliament, and I know no one takes those decisions lightly. The Conservatives have kind of talked about this idea of backroom deals. I can be a prime example. It started with a conversation at Shooters Bar & Grill with the hon. member for Acadie—Annapolis. There have been a number of disparate conversations that Liberal members have had. Again, I think it is a reflection of when members of Parliament go back into their ridings and the Prime Minister and his government have an approval—”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, greetings to all my colleagues. I am pleased to rise today to speak to and debate Motion No. 9, which seeks to make changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons now that the Liberal Party has the majority of the seats in the House of Commons because some members changed their party affiliation and because of the three victories our party secured in the by-elections. The Westminster parliamentary tradition is absolutely clear. The composition of parliamentary committees must reflect the number of seats that the different parties hold in the House of Commons. Therefore, with 174 seats, the Liberal Party now holds a clear majority. We have four more seats than all the opposition parties combined. It is important to recognize that there is a long-standing parliamentary tradition, which is what Motion No. 9 put forward by the government House leader seeks to accomplish: to change the Standing Orders. How did we get here? I think that is important. Right now, the Prime Minister is governing the country in a very difficult and uncertain world. When I talk with my constituents, I find that they have many concerns about world events: the war in the Middle East, issues related to free trade between Canada and the United States and the relationship between our two countries in general, as well as the importance of fostering economic growth here in Canada. However, for most of my constituents, and I say this to all my colleagues, the Prime Minister and his government are positioned in the centre of the ideological spectrum, and Canadians, in general, are encouraged by the government’s current performance. The proof is in the pudding. We have talked about the fact there is a long-standing tradition that in Canada, and frankly in any jurisdiction where there is a Westminster style of government or Parliament, voters elect members of Parliament. I have heard a lot of narrative from the Conservatives about how Canadians elected a minority Parliament. Yes, with the 343 members of Parliament at the time, that was the case. However, members of Parliament have always had the ability to determine where they are best placed in the composition of the House. I think that is important. We have had a lot of conversations about the role of party leaders and party discipline in the country. If we are going to get into a situation where we are going to take away the inherent right for members of Parliament to choose their party affiliation, we are consolidating even more a leader’s prerogative with particular political parties. I think MPs should have the ability to make their own judgment and their own calculation. These decisions do not come easily, and they are relatively rare. In fact, with respect to what we have seen in Canadian history, this is quite unique, but it is a moment when I think the Prime Minister is governing a big-tent coalition. That is evidenced by the fact that members of Parliament who have previously been affiliated with the NDP or with the Conservative Party have made the choice to join the Liberal Party under his leadership. There were three by-elections: in Terrebonne, University—Rosedale and Scarborough Southwest. All three resulted in the election of new members of the House, who are here with us today. They were sworn in this morning. This is a positive result for us, and I would like to welcome my new colleagues. The government has outlined the privileges available to the Liberal caucus for amending the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. It is instructive as well that the government whip took us down a bit of a path of history about Bill C-306. At the time, it would have been a bill before the 42nd Parliament, I believe, where a number of members of Parliament, some of whom still sit in the House, made their decision about whether to support that bill, which was around putting an automatic by-election if a member of Parliament were to cross the floor. The government whip I thought did a great job highlighting the fact that former prime minister Stephen Harper felt at that time it was not necessary, that this was not a major public policy concern in our system. I would agree to this day that this still, as I have already asserted, should be the role of a member of Parliament, and I know no one takes those decisions lightly. The Conservatives have kind of talked about this idea of backroom deals. I can be a prime example. It started with a conversation at Shooters Bar & Grill with the hon. member for Acadie—Annapolis. There have been a number of disparate conversations that Liberal members have had. Again, I think it is a reflection of when members of Parliament go back into their ridings and the Prime Minister and his government have an approval—
“Canada has the strongest finances and the second fastest growing economy in the G7. We have a plan to save taxpayers 40 billion dollars over the next five years. Much of our spending goes to the military, and we support them.”
“Mr. Speaker, that member may not know that the International Monetary Fund has actually reaffirmed that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. We actually have the second fastest growing economy in the G7. As it relates to the tough decisions government has taken, we have a comprehensive expenditure review that is going to save taxpayers $40 billion over the next five years. As it relates to spending, part of the large portion of our spending has actually been on the Canadian Armed Forces. I thought the Conservatives used to stand for investing in the men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces. We will stand by them every single day.”
Mr. Speaker, that member may not know that the International Monetary Fund has actually reaffirmed that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. We actually have the second fastest growing economy in the G7. As it relates to the tough decisions government has taken, we have a comprehensive expenditure review that is going to save taxpayers $40 billion over the next five years. As it relates to spending, part of the large portion of our spending has actually been on the Canadian Armed Forces. I thought the Conservatives used to stand for investing in the men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces. We will stand by them every single day.
“We already have a trade deal with the United States, and we are talking with them now to review it. We will not take a bad deal. Right now, we are helping the Canadian workers and businesses hurt by unfair American tariffs.”
“Mr. Speaker, we already have a trade deal with the United States. It is called CUSMA, and we are going through the review process. We understand the challenge to Canadian workers and to Canadian industry. As the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime Minister have made very clear, we are at the table. We are having conversations with the U.S. administration. We are engaging. The Conservatives have made very clear, and the Prime Minister has made very clear, that we are not going to settle for a bad deal. In the interim, we are supporting industries and supporting workers who are being impacted by the tariffs, which we feel are unjustified. We will take no lessons from the Conservatives. I will take Canadians back to 2018 when they would have had us fold before we got the best deal for Canadians.”
Mr. Speaker, we already have a trade deal with the United States. It is called CUSMA, and we are going through the review process. We understand the challenge to Canadian workers and to Canadian industry. As the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime Minister have made very clear, we are at the table. We are having conversations with the U.S. administration. We are engaging. The Conservatives have made very clear, and the Prime Minister has made very clear, that we are not going to settle for a bad deal. In the interim, we are supporting industries and supporting workers who are being impacted by the tariffs, which we feel are unjustified. We will take no lessons from the Conservatives. I will take Canadians back to 2018 when they would have had us fold before we got the best deal for Canadians.
“Canada has low debt and strong economic growth compared to other major countries. We are cutting $40 billion in spending, but we are spending $60 billion on the military. Does the member really want us to cut funding for our soldiers?”
“Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague did not hear the Minister of Finance this morning highlight the fact that the International Monetary Fund has reaffirmed that Canada has the best debt position in the G7 and that we have the second-fastest growing economy in the G7. The member asked for the government to be able to make tough choices. Our comprehensive expenditure review is going to save the taxpayers of this country $40 billion, but some of the spending we are doing is about supporting the Canadian Armed Forces. Is the member suggesting we should not spend $60 billion to support our men and women in uniform? Is that the position of the Conservative Party?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague did not hear the Minister of Finance this morning highlight the fact that the International Monetary Fund has reaffirmed that Canada has the best debt position in the G7 and that we have the second-fastest growing economy in the G7. The member asked for the government to be able to make tough choices. Our comprehensive expenditure review is going to save the taxpayers of this country $40 billion, but some of the spending we are doing is about supporting the Canadian Armed Forces. Is the member suggesting we should not spend $60 billion to support our men and women in uniform? Is that the position of the Conservative Party?
“I support this election bill. It stops foreign interference in party leadership races, balances rules on political donations, and deals with false information spread by artificial intelligence. I want the parliamentary secretary to share his thoughts on one of these three topics.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things in Bill C-25 that I think are important and supportive. I am feeling charitable this morning, so I am going to mention three different areas and will let the parliamentary secretary decide where he might want to respond. First, I think it is important that Bill C-25 would extend some of the foreign interference provisions into nominations and into leadership contests. Second, I like the provisions around political financing and walking a balance with regard to transparency, and also the idea that sometimes advance notice has drawn in a whole host of protest, I think unfairly disallowing Canadians from participating in political financing in a way that should be supported. The last piece is around artificial intelligence. There is a piece in the bill around putting in stronger provisions, particularly in a world where there is a rise of disinformation online and how that can be accelerated by artificial intelligence. The parliamentary secretary can decide which of the three he wants to raise, but I would like his thoughts on one of those three subjects.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things in Bill C-25 that I think are important and supportive. I am feeling charitable this morning, so I am going to mention three different areas and will let the parliamentary secretary decide where he might want to respond. First, I think it is important that Bill C-25 would extend some of the foreign interference provisions into nominations and into leadership contests. Second, I like the provisions around political financing and walking a balance with regard to transparency, and also the idea that sometimes advance notice has drawn in a whole host of protest, I think unfairly disallowing Canadians from participating in political financing in a way that should be supported. The last piece is around artificial intelligence. There is a piece in the bill around putting in stronger provisions, particularly in a world where there is a rise of disinformation online and how that can be accelerated by artificial intelligence. The parliamentary secretary can decide which of the three he wants to raise, but I would like his thoughts on one of those three subjects.
