MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Leslie Church

Follow by RSS

Church defends the government’s affordability and labour agenda — the groceries and essentials benefit, $6 billion to recruit 100,000 trades workers, and Bill C-39’s changes to collective bargaining — and backs the Safe Social Media Act to protect children online. She makes promises with no date, measure or named actor — “We are building a strong economy that benefits all Canadians” — though she does back claims with figures.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B
78 / 100 over 54 statements
Signal 80 / 100
Relevance 67 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 82 / 100
Averaged over the 54 of 64 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.1.7 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.7

Loses points less than most for A remark off to the side of the point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Thanks and tributes.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Statements 64

Oral Questions ·

Families, Children and Social Development

In response to a question from Garnett Genuis

“We will not take lessons from the Conservatives on making life affordable for families. We gave parents longer leave, shared benefits, and more help for working families. We also created nationwide child care that saves some families more than $16,000 a year, which the member opposes.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 34 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, once again, we are going to take no lessons from the Conservatives in terms of affordability for families. We have been delivering it. We have put in place longer parental leave options, shared parental benefits, greater support for working families and, perhaps most importantly and most historically, a Canada-wide early learning and child care program saving families over $16,000 a year in some cases, which the member opposes.

Oral Questions ·

Finance

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“I reject the Conservatives' criticism of our school food program. Groups that feed kids and students themselves say this program helps them every single day. The member should listen to them.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 30 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we absolutely take no lessons from the other side of the House when it comes to the national school food program. I was at that committee meeting, and I heard from the Coalition for Healthy School Food, from the Breakfast Club of Canada and from students who have written to our Prime Minister about how the national school food program is helping them every single day in their schools. The member should listen up.

Government Orders ·

Safe Social Media Act

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“This bill punishes social media companies if their products are not safe. The companies want to sell here, so they will follow the rules. Other countries and even Ontario school boards are also taking these companies to court to hold them accountable.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the bill would make provisions for penalties in this scheme, and the companies have an interest in having their products in market. We want to make sure those products are safe, so if they are designed safely and if they meet the test the commission would set out, then we are going to feel much more reassured about their presence inside our digital borders. We definitely know there are multiple tracks at play here. We are seeing this in the United States. We are seeing it in Europe. We are seeing it even with the school boards in Ontario, which are taking many of these companies to court. I would offer my colleague across the way some hope that there are going to be multiple pathways we can look to in order to ensure that these companies are truly held liable for the social costs of the products they have put in all of our houses.

In response to a question from Karim Bardeesy

“Social media companies design their apps to be addictive and keep our attention. They know their platforms have harmful content, but they avoid their duty to remove it quickly.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, over the last 15, nearly 20 years that we have been living in a digital world, from YouTube to the iPhone to the social media that we know today, such as Facebook and Twitter. Platforms have been evolving. What we do know consistently is that they have been evolving and growing in a way that is designed to create attention, that is designed to create addiction, that is designed to create clicks and likes. Platforms know this. We have had variations of this debate at different times in the last 15 years. For things like figuring out how to take down content quickly, we know that many of these companies have had to stand up thousands of employees to do that work, but they are shirking their responsibilities to do it quickly and to address all the different types of harmful content that we know they know are out there.

In response to a question from Grant Jackson

“We need to pass this bill right now. Technology changes quickly, and if we wait to make the rules perfect, we will leave gaps that hurt children. Other countries are using this same approach.”
  • 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 have heard those concerns raised, but where I come down on this issue is believing we need action today. We need a commission that is going to be flexible, that is going to be able to adapt to the way technology is changing in front of our eyes right now. If we wait to get that just perfect, if we wait to hammer out all of those details, the technology, the platforms will continue to move and there will be gaps we do not anticipate today that are going to be on our children’s screens tomorrow. This is why this framework is necessary, and we are not alone in the world in pursuing this course. There are countries across the EU, across the G7 and G20 that are pursuing this as well, that are looking towards this type of framework. We are on the right track.

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“I want the House to pass this bill. Social media is harming children's mental and physical health. This bill makes social media companies legally responsible for protecting kids online, stops children under 16 from having accounts on unsafe platforms, and creates fines for companies that break the rules.”
  • A repeated line

    “First is a duty to act responsibly.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since October 21.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from University—Rosedale for splitting her time with me. A little less than a year ago, in December 2025, I visited the Hospital for Sick Children, or SickKids, as we know it in Toronto and across Canada. It has been called the world’s best children’s health care centre. It is 150 years old. That day last December, I met with seven researchers and pediatricians on staff. They are working as part of a new child health policy accelerator. It is an encounter that has stuck with me ever since. They told me what their number one concern for children’s health was, which was not what I had expected standing in the wing of a children’s hospital. They sat me down and said their number one concern today was social media and the harms they were witnessing every day in the digital space. They were proverbially ringing the alarm on something they were witnessing with nearly every child, family and condition that came through their doors, whether it was childhood eating disorders, mental health, substance abuse, self-harm, cyber-bullying, cyber-hate, anxiety, sleep disorders or developmental impacts. This was the reality they described in having to open a dedicated clinic, the Lotus Health Clinic, to respond to the harms they were seeing from online child trafficking and grooming. As a mother of three kids, I find that hard to hear. These are people who care for children through some of the most difficult moments of their lives. When they raise an alarm like that, we need to listen. Like any parent, I want all of our children to be healthy and happy. I want them to grow up feeling comfortable in themselves, have good friends and know they can find help when something is wrong. However, parents cannot see everything happening on a child’s screen, and we cannot be expected to understand every algorithm deciding what appears there next. In my work as Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for Children and Youth, I have met with youth organizations across the country and made young people’s well-being a priority. I bring that responsibility and my perspective as a parent to this debate. The evidence that SickKids shared is clear. Its report cites a Canadian study in which 57% of children aged six to 10 had frequent exposure to social media. That is ages six to 10. We are talking about children in elementary school. The consequences go beyond time spent on a device. SickKids points to survey findings that one in five teens has experienced bullying or harassment online, and 47% of young people aged 15 to 19 report negative experiences from social media use. Behind those numbers are children losing sleep, feeling anxious or carrying something frightening that they have not told anyone about. A few days ago, SickKids and a group of organizations, including the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, launched a campaign for safer online spaces called Six Clicks. The campaign draws attention to how platforms are designed with features that push kids toward extreme or harmful content in six clicks or less. This is not accidental or serendipitous. It is deliberate. It is designed to capture attention. It is not about choice. It is about addiction and monetization. Infinite scrolling, autoplay, push notifications, unsafe defaults, weak and hard-to-find safeguards, manipulative gaming and commercial features are the tactics that in almost any other consumer space, we would scrutinize and regulate. This is the reality our government is responding to with Bill C-34, the safe social media act. Its starting point is straightforward: The global companies profiting from these services must take responsibility for the risks and the social harms that their products create. Canadian families and children cannot be left to carry that responsibility alone. That is what a duties-based approach means. It looks beyond an individual post to the systems that recommend it, amplify it and keep putting similar material in front of a child. The companies design those systems. They control how they work. They have the technical expertise and the resources to make them safer. This bill would give them a legal obligation, a duty, to do so. We already expect safety to be part of the design of the products that children use or the advertising that they see. That expectation should extend to the digital environments where they spend so much of their lives. This bill would establish three core duties supported by transparency requirements. First is a duty to act responsibly. Regulated social media services would have to reduce the risk of exposure to seven categories of harmful content, including bullying, sexual exploitation and content encouraging children to harm themselves. AI chatbot services would also have obligations tailored to their risks. When someone expresses suicidal thoughts, for example, a chatbot would have to interrupt the conversation and direct them to immediate human support. Second is a duty to protect children with safeguards built into services and age-related protections. I will return to that in a moment. Third is a duty to make certain content inaccessible. Child sexual abuse material and intimate content shared without consent would have to be made inaccessible in Canada within 24 hours of being identified or flagged, subject to the bill’s review process. Companies would also have to publish digital safety plans explaining what they are doing and whether their measures are working. I want to focus on the duty to protect children, because this is where the bill speaks most directly to families. It would require certain social media services to prevent children under 16 from having accounts. A service could receive an exemption only if the independent commission was satisfied that it provides adequate safeguards for children. If a platform cannot make itself safe for children, it should not have children as customers. That is a clear expectation, and it is the company’s responsibility to meet it. Companies cannot be left to decide for themselves whether they have done enough. That has not worked, and it will not work. That is why this bill would establish an independent digital safety commission with the expertise to examine these systems and the authority to enforce the rules, review safety plans, investigate compliance and require companies to address failures. Significant financial penalties would give those obligations real consequences. For Canadians, that means having a public regulator working in their interests, able to demand answers from companies whose decisions affect their families and their children’s health. That expertise matters, because technology does not stand still. A framework built only around today’s platforms could be out of date before families feel its benefits. The commission would help develop safety standards as risks evolve. The legislation also provides a process to extend child protection duties to additional categories of online services that pose significant risk to children. It is a modern response to a problem that countries around the world are confronting. It would give Canada the capacity to keep learning, to strengthen protections and to hold companies to their responsibilities as technology changes. I keep coming back to that conversation with SickKids. When the people treating our children tell us that the digital environment is affecting their health, we have a responsibility to respond. We should be doing everything we can to prevent those harms before a child needs treatment. Parents will keep having the difficult conversations, teachers will keep supporting their students and doctors will keep caring for children who need help, but they do need us to do our part, and the companies creating these risks must be required to do theirs. For too long, they have ignored this problem and they have shied away from the obligations that are so obviously theirs. Our children deserve time to grow, confidence in who they are and a childhood that puts their well-being first. This bill is necessary and it is urgent, and I urge all members in the House to support Bill C-34.

Oral Questions ·

Finance

In response to a question from Melissa Lantsman

“Our economy is strong and benefits all Canadians. We have the second-fastest growth and the best balance sheet in the G7, and we are creating more jobs per person than the United States. We are also working to lower housing costs, provide cheap child care, and invest in job training.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 44 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Clarity 37 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let me put a few facts on the record for the member. We are building a strong economy that benefits all Canadians. We have the second-fastest growth in the G7 and the best balance sheet in the G7, and we are the most competitive country for business investment. We have higher per capita job creation than the United States. This is a government that is focused on what matters to Canadians, like bringing the cost of housing down, ensuring that they have affordable child care and ensuring that there are investments in the skills, training and education that they need to build the brightest future possible. That is our record.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

In response to a question from Scot Davidson

“Canadians are having a hard time with the cost of food and housing. Our government is working to lower housing costs and renewing child care deals to save families money. We are also investing in students, job training, and the skilled trades to help our economy grow.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 26 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Clarity 4 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “We are making massive investments in housing.”

    Said 3 times by 2 members since June 5.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians are facing challenges right now. Food is the beginning, but this also extends to the work we are doing to bring down the cost of renting or buying a home, one of the highest expenses that we know Canadians face. We have renewed our child care deals to keep building a program that is saving families thousands of dollars a year. We are making massive investments in students, in training and in the skilled trades. We are investing in the things that are going to build prosperity and build a bright future for all Canadians.

In response to a question from Scot Davidson

“The Conservatives should support our programs to help Canadians. We help people buy groceries, support families with children, and feed kids at school. Even though schools in the member's community serve this food, he keeps voting against it.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 8 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, those same Canadians are asking when the Conservatives are going to change their approach. When are they going to start standing up and supporting the government when we put forward initiatives like the groceries and essentials benefit and the Canada child benefit? We stand up and support a national school food program that serves food in the member’s communities, but he still stands up and votes against it time and time again, against the very Canadians who benefit from the support the government is working to deliver.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

In response to a question from Kelly DeRidder

“I want the Conservatives to support our programs that help Canadians with money. These include benefits for disabled people, workers, and groceries, as well as school food for kids. These are real solutions to the problems people face.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 44 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, with great respect to my colleague across the way, I would ask, when can Canadians expect the Conservatives to get on board with the income security policies that the very report they have been holding up this week speaks to? We are talking about the Canada disability benefit, the workers benefit, and the groceries benefit, as well as the national school food program, which is serving over nine million meals to kids in that colleague’s province. Those are real solutions to many of the challenges that Canadians are facing right now and that this government is squarely focused on.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Martin Champoux

“Why did the Bloc Québécois vote against the budget when it gave record support to Quebec's arts and culture?”
  • A repeated line

    “Which provided unprecedented support for Quebec's cultural industries.”

    Said 3 times by 2 members since October 22.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments today. I want to ask him if he can explain why the Bloc Québécois voted against budget 2025, which included unprecedented support for Quebec’s cultural industries.

Oral Questions ·

Immigration

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“The Conservatives are wrong about our immigration changes. Use of the temporary foreign worker program dropped by half last year, and these workers make up less than one percent of our workforce. Our changes are about bringing in highly skilled, top-earning workers to fill urgent job needs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it must be a rough day on opposition benches when the Conservatives take aim at Canada’s immigration system and TFWs in ways that they know are incorrect. They know that, for the temporary foreign worker program, its use is down 50% in the last year and TFWs make up less than 1% of our workforce. However, the changes the government introduced are not about that. They are about highly skilled, top-wage earners coming into this country in fields where we have an immediate workforce need. This is the talent and skills we want to attract, and that is what we are doing.

Oral Questions ·

Labour

In response to a question from Grant Jackson

“We prioritize workers with Canadian work experience for high-wage jobs. This makes it easier to hire skilled people in fields like health care, engineering, technology, and the trades, which keeps our economy strong.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 91 of 100

    Of this answer, 93% addressed the question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we will always favour Canadian labour and Canadian workers. What we are doing is ensuring that candidates with strong Canadian work experience for job offers in high-wage occupations are prioritized. It is a simpler process for key in-demand fields and for ensuring that we can recruit top, skilled talent. We are talking about health care. We are talking about engineering, technology and the skilled trades. This is core to our ability to build a strong economy, for our economic success and for supporting Canadian businesses right across the country.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

In response to a question from Rhonda Kirkland

“Canadians see through the Conservatives' words. They want to cut income supports that help people right now. They will likely vote against the school food program again, even though it helps 80% of our public schools.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 35 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think the problem Canadians have is that they see through the rhetoric on the other side of the House, which would cut the income security programs that a report such as this calls for and that are supporting Canadians right now. If the member stands up and again votes against the national school food program, a program that is in 80% of public schools in this country, that is what Canadians have learned to expect of the opposition when it comes to the supports we are delivering for Canadians and Canadian children.

In response to a question from Rhonda Kirkland

“We want to make sure no one goes hungry. We created benefits to help people pay for groceries, support workers, and help people with disabilities. The opposition voted against all of these supports.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging and thanking representatives of the Daily Bread Food Bank for being on the Hill and meeting with parliamentarians yesterday. It is one of the biggest partners in this study. Its report asks us, and provincial governments in particular, to build a future where no one goes hungry, and that is what we are committed to doing. That report talks about the importance of income security. It talks about the groceries and essentials benefit. It talks about the Canada disability benefit and the Canada disability tax credit. It talks about the Canada workers benefit. What do these measures have in common? The opposition voted against them.

Oral Questions ·

Finance

In response to a question from Michael Cooper

“Today, 3.5 million families are receiving the child benefit. That helps six million children with up to $8,100 this year. Our government created this program, and the opposition keeps voting against it.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 46 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, because today is October 20, I want to make sure that my colleague across the way knows that 3.5 million families in this country are receiving the Canada child benefit today. That is six million children who are benefiting with up to $8,100 this year as a result of a policy that our government put in place, that our government is delivering and that the opposition continues to vote against.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

In response to a question from Ziad Aboultaif

“Our government is helping families deal with high costs. Over 35,000 people in the member's riding got money for groceries this week. I want him to support our school food program, which feeds nearly 60,000 kids in Alberta.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, earlier this week, over 35,000 constituents of the member across the way received the groceries and essentials benefit. That is an important support that we put in place to try to address the increased cost of living that we know families are experiencing. I would ask the member to go back to his riding and support the national school food program, because that program in Alberta is helping to put food on the table for kids going to school in 63 public school jurisdictions and is supporting close to 60,000 kids. Those are important measures.

Oral Questions ·

Employment

In response to a question from Vincent Ho

“Our plan helps train 100,000 new skilled trade workers. It gives money to apprentices and businesses that hire them. The Conservatives voted against it.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite had the chance to vote in support of team Canada strong, which is making generational investments to hire up to 100,000 new Red Seal trade workers to support building and support the investments we are making right across the country. As part of team Canada strong, we are opening up paid apprenticeship placements in early 2027. We have introduced a new apprenticeship training grant, with a $5,000 completion bonus and $10,000 in wage incentives for employers to hire new apprentices. This is the kind of serious action that Canadians—

In response to a question from Vincent Ho

“Our government has a serious plan for the economy. We are investing in growth, attracting businesses, and training workers. Since September 2024, our job growth per person has nearly doubled that of the United States. We have added 163,000 jobs, including 24,000 in the private sector last month.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, Canadians are looking for a serious government with a serious plan, and that is what we are delivering. Global volatility, economic uncertainty and trade tensions are having a direct impact on Canadian families, workers and businesses, but we are focused on what we can control. We are focused on investing, driving growth, attracting investment and investing in people and skills and the retraining we need. Our per capita job creation has nearly doubled that of the United States since September 2024, and our private sector is holding strong, creating 24,000 new jobs in September and adding 163,000 jobs—

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Harb Gill

“Our government helps families with living costs, but we also have a plan to lower food prices. We are growing our food supply by spending $3 billion on food hubs and making it easier to build greenhouses quickly.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to point out that, in addition to helping families address the costs they face on an individual basis, we have also introduced Canada’s first-ever national food security strategy, because part of our addressing the cost of food in this country involves our ensuring that we actually have a more competitive, more affordable and bigger, broader supply of food in this country. That is why we are putting $3 billion towards food terminals and local food hubs and are ensuring that things like greenhouses can be built quickly and with immediate expensing incentives in place.