MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
Lantsman presses for lower living costs, pushing the government to scrap the clean fuel standard and GST on fuel, find $150 billion in savings she identifies, and cut taxes on homes and gasoline, while demanding answers on antisemitism, IRGC visas and immigration fraud, and sponsoring a bill to force platforms to block online fraud. She argues with numbers and hard either-or choices—“It is a very simple yes or no”—pressing ministers to answer directly.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .
Government Orders ·
“Does the minister consider the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be a terrorist group, yes or no?”
“Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time. Does the minister consider the IRGC to be a terrorist organization in this country, yes or no?”
Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time. Does the minister consider the IRGC to be a terrorist organization in this country, yes or no?
“The minister's department found 800 cases of fraud among people claiming asylum at taxpayers' expense. I want to know why so few people have been charged.”
“Mr. Chair, the minister cannot cast aspersions on any members of the House and what they want. I am talking about the fraud in her department. Of those flagged applicants, 21,000 filed asylum claims at the taxpayer’s expense. The minister’s department confirmed 800 fraud cases. Why are there so few prosecutions?”
Mr. Chair, the minister cannot cast aspersions on any members of the House and what they want. I am talking about the fraud in her department. Of those flagged applicants, 21,000 filed asylum claims at the taxpayer’s expense. The minister’s department confirmed 800 fraud cases. Why are there so few prosecutions?
“The government investigates only 2,000 fraud cases a year, but there are 153,000 cases to check. It will take 76 years to finish them all. I want the minister to tell us if she thinks that is acceptable.”
“Mr. Chair, temporary foreign workers are up. Let the record show it. The minister cannot mislead the House by saying otherwise. However, let us talk about study permits for a second. The minister’s department can investigate 2,000 fraud cases a year. The Auditor General flagged that there are 153,000 cases. At that pace, it is going to take 76 years. That is probably longer than I am going to be here and probably longer than she is going to be here. Is that acceptable to her?”
Question or comment in debate
Signal 43 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysisMr. Chair, temporary foreign workers are up. Let the record show it. The minister cannot mislead the House by saying otherwise. However, let us talk about study permits for a second. The minister’s department can investigate 2,000 fraud cases a year. The Auditor General flagged that there are 153,000 cases. At that pace, it is going to take 76 years. That is probably longer than I am going to be here and probably longer than she is going to be here. Is that acceptable to her?
“The minister is not answering my question. Temporary foreign worker permits went from 72,000 in 2015 to 190,000 in 2024, while youth unemployment is at 15%. The Prime Minister called this a failure. I want to know if the minister agrees with him.”
“Mr. Chair, the minister is failing to answer the question. She is failing to acknowledge that she has actually let in more temporary foreign workers. The TFW permits have gone from 72,000 in 2015 to 190,000 in 2024. That is a 163% increase, all while youth unemployment is at 15%. The Prime Minister himself called this a failure of execution. Does she agree with that statement, at least?”
Mr. Chair, the minister is failing to answer the question. She is failing to acknowledge that she has actually let in more temporary foreign workers. The TFW permits have gone from 72,000 in 2015 to 190,000 in 2024. That is a 163% increase, all while youth unemployment is at 15%. The Prime Minister himself called this a failure of execution. Does she agree with that statement, at least?
“Canada gave out more temporary foreign worker permits early this year than it did at the same time last year. Why is the minister increasing this program?”
“Mr. Chair, let us compare 2026 to 2025. There were 33,500 TFW permits in the first two months of 2026, and there were 24,000 in the same period last year. Does she know that 33,000 is more than 24,000, and why on earth is she accelerating the TFW program?”
Mr. Chair, let us compare 2026 to 2025. There were 33,500 TFW permits in the first two months of 2026, and there were 24,000 in the same period last year. Does she know that 33,000 is more than 24,000, and why on earth is she accelerating the TFW program?
In response to a question from Lena Metlege Diab
“The minister said fewer temporary foreign workers are coming to Canada, but the numbers went up this year. I want to know why.”
“Mr. Chair, the minister said earlier in her exchange that the temporary foreign worker program was down from 2024 to 2026, but I want to bring to the attention of the House that the minister activated 33,500 TFW permits in the first two months of 2026, compared to 24,000 in the same period last year. Why?”
Mr. Chair, the minister said earlier in her exchange that the temporary foreign worker program was down from 2024 to 2026, but I want to bring to the attention of the House that the minister activated 33,500 TFW permits in the first two months of 2026, compared to 24,000 in the same period last year. Why?
In response to a question from Lena Metlege Diab
“Many young Canadians cannot find jobs. The government should not approve visas for low-wage temporary foreign workers when youth unemployment is so high.”
“Mr. Chair, there are thousands and thousands of youth who cannot find jobs, that is for sure, but should we be approving visas for low-wage temporary foreign workers at a time when youth unemployment is at a recession-level high, no matter what program she talks about?”
Mr. Chair, there are thousands and thousands of youth who cannot find jobs, that is for sure, but should we be approving visas for low-wage temporary foreign workers at a time when youth unemployment is at a recession-level high, no matter what program she talks about?
In response to a question from Lena Metlege Diab
“Youth unemployment in Canada is almost 15%. I want to know if the minister thinks this is a crisis.”
“Mr. Chair, I am going to split my time. I want to thank the minister for being here tonight. I want to thank the officials for joining in. I want to go back to something that the minister spoke about. The youth unemployment rate in this country stands at almost 15% right now. Does she believe it is a crisis?”
Question or comment in debate
Signal 33 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 analysisMr. Chair, I am going to split my time. I want to thank the minister for being here tonight. I want to thank the officials for joining in. I want to go back to something that the minister spoke about. The youth unemployment rate in this country stands at almost 15% right now. Does she believe it is a crisis?
In response to a question from Kelly DeRidder
“Government spending does not protect Canadian culture. Canadian creators succeed through the freedom to compete and express themselves, and we will keep standing up for that.”
“Madam Speaker, I think the Liberals often confuse spending and protecting. The Weeknd, James Carroll, Lorne Michaels and Saturday Night Live did not come from the CRTC content fund. What protects Canadian culture and talent is the freedom to compete. We will continue standing up for Canadian creators and their freedom to compete and express themselves.”
Madam Speaker, I think the Liberals often confuse spending and protecting. The Weeknd, James Carroll, Lorne Michaels and Saturday Night Live did not come from the CRTC content fund. What protects Canadian culture and talent is the freedom to compete. We will continue standing up for Canadian creators and their freedom to compete and express themselves.
In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe
“The Prime Minister dropped a 3% digital sales tax in the United States and got nothing in return. Now the government is putting a 15% tax on Canadian families who watch online streaming services. This makes no sense.”
“Madam Speaker, I am not sure where the member was going with that question, but I will highlight what he highlighted. The Prime Minister went to Washington last year and rescinded a 3% digital sales tax, getting nothing in return. Now we see the Liberal government imposing a 15% tax, many more times than 3%, on Canadian families for watching streaming services that the CRTC does not even count as Canadian content. It makes no sense. It makes no sense in our negotiations—”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 47 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMadam Speaker, I am not sure where the member was going with that question, but I will highlight what he highlighted. The Prime Minister went to Washington last year and rescinded a 3% digital sales tax, getting nothing in return. Now we see the Liberal government imposing a 15% tax, many more times than 3%, on Canadian families for watching streaming services that the CRTC does not even count as Canadian content. It makes no sense. It makes no sense in our negotiations—
In response to a question from Martin Champoux
“I want the government to cancel its decisions on internet regulation and online news laws, and to stop giving money to the CBC. These rules do not work, they block Canadians from local news, and they act like a tax on families.”
“Madam Speaker, I think the member opposite knows that the position of the Conservatives is very clear on the funding to the CBC. We are talking about what the Prime Minister does and does not have control over. That is very simple. We have a motion in the House right now to ask the government to rescind its decision. While we are at it, it can rescind the decisions on Bill C-11, which has not worked, and Bill C-18, which has taken news out of the hands of Canadians and blocked them from local journalism. We can do all of that with this motion and with future motions. There is no regulatory problem for the government here. It is imposing a tax on Canadians, and the exact thing we are arguing today is that it should take that tax off of Canadian families.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 44 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMadam Speaker, I think the member opposite knows that the position of the Conservatives is very clear on the funding to the CBC. We are talking about what the Prime Minister does and does not have control over. That is very simple. We have a motion in the House right now to ask the government to rescind its decision. While we are at it, it can rescind the decisions on Bill C-11, which has not worked, and Bill C-18, which has taken news out of the hands of Canadians and blocked them from local journalism. We can do all of that with this motion and with future motions. There is no regulatory problem for the government here. It is imposing a tax on Canadians, and the exact thing we are arguing today is that it should take that tax off of Canadian families.
In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux
“The government claims it cannot stop the broadcast regulator's decision, but that is not true. The government has the power to overrule it right now. The Liberals are just using the regulator to hide a new tax on Canadians.”
“The Conservative position, Madam Speaker, is often for the Liberals to get out of the way and let Canadians decide. The member opposite and the government are saying that the CRTC is an independent decision-maker, which is where this is all going, and that its hands are tied. That is simply not true. The government has the power today to issue a directive. It can set the decision to the side entirely by an order in council. The Prime Minister does not have a regulatory problem with the CRTC. He has a spending and a taxing problem with respect to Canadian families. He can hide behind the CRTC all he wants, but what Canadians ought to know is that they are getting a new tax and the Liberals are controlling that.”
Reply to a debate question
Respect 90 of 100
This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “He can hide behind the CRTC all he wants”.
See full analysisReply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisThe Conservative position, Madam Speaker, is often for the Liberals to get out of the way and let Canadians decide. The member opposite and the government are saying that the CRTC is an independent decision-maker, which is where this is all going, and that its hands are tied. That is simply not true. The government has the power today to issue a directive. It can set the decision to the side entirely by an order in council. The Prime Minister does not have a regulatory problem with the CRTC. He has a spending and a taxing problem with respect to Canadian families. He can hide behind the CRTC all he wants, but what Canadians ought to know is that they are getting a new tax and the Liberals are controlling that.
“The government is forcing streaming services like Netflix to pay a new fee to Ottawa. These companies will pass that cost on to Canadian families, who are already struggling to pay their bills. This policy also risks trade fights with the United States. Conservatives will fight this new tax.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to start today by offering a short recap to those watching at home, because this is still a developing story. There is one important newsflash that I think Canadians ought to know. The message is to get ready for another Liberal tax. That is it. The government has already taxed our gas. It has taxed our groceries. It has taxed our capital gains. God knows it has taxed our income. It is now coming for our Netflix. That is really what today is about. The Liberal-appointed CRTC, which is an unelected, unaccountable body that regulates streaming services and digital content in this country, just mandated that companies such as Netflix, Disney+ and Prime Video fork over 15% of their revenues to Ottawa. That is a 200% increase from where they were. For someone watching at home, let us put a number on this and what it means for families. Netflix alone earns about $1.5 billion annually from Canadian subscribers, and 15% of that is $225 million. When passed on to consumers, that will be potentially three dollars or four dollars every single month per household, on top of everything else that Canadians pay. That might not sound like a lot of money, but that is exactly where the tax that Ottawa is collecting is going to go: directly to the consumer. At four dollars a month, that is $50 a year. We know what happens when the Liberal government levies taxes on corporations. They simply get passed on to consumers. It is never a minister that pays them. It is never the government that pays them. It is always the consumer. Anybody who says that is not the case has not been here in the last 10 years. The last thing that Canadians need right now is more taxes. On this side of the House, we will always advocate to get rid of every single one of them. Forty per cent of people in the country are within $200 of insolvency. They are within $200 of going broke. One-quarter of households are food insecure right now. We know that. We talk about it in this place all the time. When streaming becomes more expensive, people do not stop watching; they turn to things like piracy. We know that too. Canada already has some of the highest rates of piracy in the G7. This tax, of course, will make that worse. That is not a victory for Canadian creators. If we listen to the debate in the House, one would think that this was all about Canadian creators. Instead, it is a self-inflicted wound on the country. Of course, Conservatives will strongly and loudly oppose all the new taxes from this place, from Ottawa, on struggling families. We understand that when government takes less, families keep more of what they earn, businesses can invest and grow, and people have the freedom to make choices themselves rather than having unelected bureaucrats make those choices for them. It is a very simple argument, and I am sure that by the end of today, the folks on that side will understand it. There is a broader narrative at play here too. This decision reveals something about how the government thinks or what the government’s values really are. First, this new Netflix tax is being levied under the guise of supporting so-called content creators. In the abstract, I think we can all agree that having more things made in Canada is good. Telling Canadian stories is a good thing. It is better for us, and it is better for our country. However, we should consider what the argument ignores. Drake, The Weeknd, Schitt’s Creek and Letterkenny are some of the most celebrated Canadian cultural exports in a generation. Beloved here at home and around the world, they succeeded not because the regulator mandated their existence but because they were actually good. They were brilliant, in fact. We should also consider this: If we are making this argument today, I think we have to be honest about it. Off Campus is the number one show on Prime Video right now. It is filmed in Vancouver. It is based on a Canadian author’s book. It features music from a Canadian band. By every common-sense measure, it is a Canadian story told by Canadians, but under the CRTC’s own rules, it does not qualify as Canadian content. Not a dollar of this new tax flows to productions like it. What exactly are we funding? We are not funding the things that Canadians are actually watching. Remember, it is the number one show. Folks in the House might not know it because it is a young adult audience, but that is what people are watching and celebrating. Instead, we are funding what Ottawa has decided counts. It is a distinction that says everything about who this policy actually serves. Canadian stories cannot and will not succeed just because we have taxed our way to cultural relevance. They will succeed because those stories are worth telling and people want to hear them. Second, these taxes effectively shield broadcasters like the CBC and CTV from competition, rather than nurturing the creators who actually need the help. Over and over again, every independent analysis has proven that these funds disproportionately flow to established government institutions, the ones with relationships and high-priced government access payrolls, not the independent YouTuber in Calgary, the podcaster in Halifax and the digital filmmaker in Winnipeg who are building audiences on their own terms. They are now being penalized by the very subsidies that go to their better-connected competitors. That structure is not a recipe for a healthy, competitive marketplace, and we have discussed that in the House time and time again. It is how the Liberal government protects its cronies at the expense of our cultural ecosystem, and it says that anybody who disagrees with it must not like culture. On that point, there is one really big foreign entity taking a very keen interest in the signals that this is sending, and that is the United States government. Let us put it plainly: Taxing American streaming giants is a provocation. We know that. They have said that. In fact, the Prime Minister admitted that himself when he rescinded the digital services tax. That was a 3% tax. This is a 15% tax. How do members think that is going to go over with the Americans? By the way, the Prime Minister did not get a single concession for rescinding that tax when times got tough. In all of this, the retaliation could fall again, and it could fall on Canadian agriculture, on Canadian lumber or manufacturing. These are industries that also employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians, who are waiting with bated breath for something from negotiations that have not taken place since October. The Prime Minister often says that we can control what we can control, and I agree. The choice to bring in these new taxes is an entirely controllable one. Why are we voluntarily picking another fight with our largest trading partner at exactly the moment at which Canadian businesses and workers need stability, as they deserve? That makes no sense. The policy itself makes no sense, but the timing makes even less sense. Now the members opposite will try to caricature our position on this. They will say that opposing this tax means opposing Canadian culture. That is a false choice on the floor of the House of Commons, and Canadians really deserve better than that lazy argument. Conservatives believe in Canadian stories, the ones that are worth telling. We simply disagree about how to get there, because there is another way. Instead of taxing streaming platforms and hoping the money trickles down to creators, we could expand direct production tax credits that put resources in the hands of the writers, of the directors and of the producers, not the hands of the bureaucratic behemoths this is going to fund. Instead of regulations that protect legacy broadcasters from competition, we could invest in co-production treaties with our allies, such as New Zealand, the U.K. or Australia. This would open international markets to Canadian stories and give our content creators a massive market to tell their stories. Schitt’s Creek did not succeed because a regulator forced it into a content fund. It succeeded because it was brilliant, it was funny and people chose to watch it. Our job is to create an environment in which the next Schitt’s Creek gets made, not to tax Netflix and declare victory for Canadian culture on the backs of Canadian families. The Liberals never seem to learn the lessons that Canadians already know instinctively: We cannot tax a country into prosperity. Families are not variables on a spreadsheet, and artists are not government programs. Conservatives believe in a free people, free markets and free expression. This means we will say no to yet another misguided attempt by the government to overreach into our media markets on the backs of Canadian families and charge them a brand new Netflix tax they simply cannot afford. We say not today, and not ever.”
Madam Speaker, I want to start today by offering a short recap to those watching at home, because this is still a developing story. There is one important newsflash that I think Canadians ought to know. The message is to get ready for another Liberal tax. That is it. The government has already taxed our gas. It has taxed our groceries. It has taxed our capital gains. God knows it has taxed our income. It is now coming for our Netflix. That is really what today is about. The Liberal-appointed CRTC, which is an unelected, unaccountable body that regulates streaming services and digital content in this country, just mandated that companies such as Netflix, Disney+ and Prime Video fork over 15% of their revenues to Ottawa. That is a 200% increase from where they were. For someone watching at home, let us put a number on this and what it means for families. Netflix alone earns about $1.5 billion annually from Canadian subscribers, and 15% of that is $225 million. When passed on to consumers, that will be potentially three dollars or four dollars every single month per household, on top of everything else that Canadians pay. That might not sound like a lot of money, but that is exactly where the tax that Ottawa is collecting is going to go: directly to the consumer. At four dollars a month, that is $50 a year. We know what happens when the Liberal government levies taxes on corporations. They simply get passed on to consumers. It is never a minister that pays them. It is never the government that pays them. It is always the consumer. Anybody who says that is not the case has not been here in the last 10 years. The last thing that Canadians need right now is more taxes. On this side of the House, we will always advocate to get rid of every single one of them. Forty per cent of people in the country are within $200 of insolvency. They are within $200 of going broke. One-quarter of households are food insecure right now. We know that. We talk about it in this place all the time. When streaming becomes more expensive, people do not stop watching; they turn to things like piracy. We know that too. Canada already has some of the highest rates of piracy in the G7. This tax, of course, will make that worse. That is not a victory for Canadian creators. If we listen to the debate in the House, one would think that this was all about Canadian creators. Instead, it is a self-inflicted wound on the country. Of course, Conservatives will strongly and loudly oppose all the new taxes from this place, from Ottawa, on struggling families. We understand that when government takes less, families keep more of what they earn, businesses can invest and grow, and people have the freedom to make choices themselves rather than having unelected bureaucrats make those choices for them. It is a very simple argument, and I am sure that by the end of today, the folks on that side will understand it. There is a broader narrative at play here too. This decision reveals something about how the government thinks or what the government’s values really are. First, this new Netflix tax is being levied under the guise of supporting so-called content creators. In the abstract, I think we can all agree that having more things made in Canada is good. Telling Canadian stories is a good thing. It is better for us, and it is better for our country. However, we should consider what the argument ignores. Drake, The Weeknd, Schitt’s Creek and Letterkenny are some of the most celebrated Canadian cultural exports in a generation. Beloved here at home and around the world, they succeeded not because the regulator mandated their existence but because they were actually good. They were brilliant, in fact. We should also consider this: If we are making this argument today, I think we have to be honest about it. Off Campus is the number one show on Prime Video right now. It is filmed in Vancouver. It is based on a Canadian author’s book. It features music from a Canadian band. By every common-sense measure, it is a Canadian story told by Canadians, but under the CRTC’s own rules, it does not qualify as Canadian content. Not a dollar of this new tax flows to productions like it. What exactly are we funding? We are not funding the things that Canadians are actually watching. Remember, it is the number one show. Folks in the House might not know it because it is a young adult audience, but that is what people are watching and celebrating. Instead, we are funding what Ottawa has decided counts. It is a distinction that says everything about who this policy actually serves. Canadian stories cannot and will not succeed just because we have taxed our way to cultural relevance. They will succeed because those stories are worth telling and people want to hear them. Second, these taxes effectively shield broadcasters like the CBC and CTV from competition, rather than nurturing the creators who actually need the help. Over and over again, every independent analysis has proven that these funds disproportionately flow to established government institutions, the ones with relationships and high-priced government access payrolls, not the independent YouTuber in Calgary, the podcaster in Halifax and the digital filmmaker in Winnipeg who are building audiences on their own terms. They are now being penalized by the very subsidies that go to their better-connected competitors. That structure is not a recipe for a healthy, competitive marketplace, and we have discussed that in the House time and time again. It is how the Liberal government protects its cronies at the expense of our cultural ecosystem, and it says that anybody who disagrees with it must not like culture. On that point, there is one really big foreign entity taking a very keen interest in the signals that this is sending, and that is the United States government. Let us put it plainly: Taxing American streaming giants is a provocation. We know that. They have said that. In fact, the Prime Minister admitted that himself when he rescinded the digital services tax. That was a 3% tax. This is a 15% tax. How do members think that is going to go over with the Americans? By the way, the Prime Minister did not get a single concession for rescinding that tax when times got tough. In all of this, the retaliation could fall again, and it could fall on Canadian agriculture, on Canadian lumber or manufacturing. These are industries that also employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians, who are waiting with bated breath for something from negotiations that have not taken place since October. The Prime Minister often says that we can control what we can control, and I agree. The choice to bring in these new taxes is an entirely controllable one. Why are we voluntarily picking another fight with our largest trading partner at exactly the moment at which Canadian businesses and workers need stability, as they deserve? That makes no sense. The policy itself makes no sense, but the timing makes even less sense. Now the members opposite will try to caricature our position on this. They will say that opposing this tax means opposing Canadian culture. That is a false choice on the floor of the House of Commons, and Canadians really deserve better than that lazy argument. Conservatives believe in Canadian stories, the ones that are worth telling. We simply disagree about how to get there, because there is another way. Instead of taxing streaming platforms and hoping the money trickles down to creators, we could expand direct production tax credits that put resources in the hands of the writers, of the directors and of the producers, not the hands of the bureaucratic behemoths this is going to fund. Instead of regulations that protect legacy broadcasters from competition, we could invest in co-production treaties with our allies, such as New Zealand, the U.K. or Australia. This would open international markets to Canadian stories and give our content creators a massive market to tell their stories. Schitt’s Creek did not succeed because a regulator forced it into a content fund. It succeeded because it was brilliant, it was funny and people chose to watch it. Our job is to create an environment in which the next Schitt’s Creek gets made, not to tax Netflix and declare victory for Canadian culture on the backs of Canadian families. The Liberals never seem to learn the lessons that Canadians already know instinctively: We cannot tax a country into prosperity. Families are not variables on a spreadsheet, and artists are not government programs. Conservatives believe in a free people, free markets and free expression. This means we will say no to yet another misguided attempt by the government to overreach into our media markets on the backs of Canadian families and charge them a brand new Netflix tax they simply cannot afford. We say not today, and not ever.
Government Orders ·
In response to a question from François-Philippe Champagne
“Our economy is shrinking, and business investment per worker is down by nearly a third. I want the minister to explain how he can claim our economy is improving.”
“Mr. Chair, what is true is that we have the only shrinking economy in the G7, and the answer is that it is 30% down. If he were truly interested in investing per worker, he would do so, and it has fallen by nearly a third. Stats Canada projects that non-residential capital spending across all industries will grow by less than 2% going forward. Does this sound to the minister like an economy that has turned around or is turning around? It certainly does not sound like that to anyone on this side of the House or anybody watching at home.”
Mr. Chair, what is true is that we have the only shrinking economy in the G7, and the answer is that it is 30% down. If he were truly interested in investing per worker, he would do so, and it has fallen by nearly a third. Stats Canada projects that non-residential capital spending across all industries will grow by less than 2% going forward. Does this sound to the minister like an economy that has turned around or is turning around? It certainly does not sound like that to anyone on this side of the House or anybody watching at home.
“The best way to measure Canada's economy is how much businesses invest in their workers. I want the minister to tell us if business investment per worker has gone up or down over the last ten years.”
“Mr. Chair, the Minister of Finance knows, and if he does not know, he can ask the officials sitting right in front of him, that the true measure of Canada’s health is the domestic investment. Canadians investing in Canada, businesses investing per worker, is the single best indicator of whether Canadian firms are growing and becoming more productive. He knows this. He is not telling the House this, but he knows it. Can the minister tell us if domestic investment per worker is up or down in the last decade?”
Mr. Chair, the Minister of Finance knows, and if he does not know, he can ask the officials sitting right in front of him, that the true measure of Canada’s health is the domestic investment. Canadians investing in Canada, businesses investing per worker, is the single best indicator of whether Canadian firms are growing and becoming more productive. He knows this. He is not telling the House this, but he knows it. Can the minister tell us if domestic investment per worker is up or down in the last decade?
“The finance minister does not understand foreign investment. When foreign companies buy Canadian companies, profits, decisions, and ideas leave Canada without creating new jobs. He should not celebrate this.”
“Mr. Chair, that answer is condescending and it does not show that he, as finance minister, understands what foreign direct investment is. It means a foreign company buying a Canadian one. Strategic decisions are moved abroad. The intellectual property moves abroad. The profits move abroad. He knows that as the finance minister. Again, he is treating those in the House like we are stupid. C.D. Howe finds mergers and acquisitions generally do not create new jobs or investments, so why is the minister celebrating in the House the hollowing out of the Canadian economy?”
Mr. Chair, that answer is condescending and it does not show that he, as finance minister, understands what foreign direct investment is. It means a foreign company buying a Canadian one. Strategic decisions are moved abroad. The intellectual property moves abroad. The profits move abroad. He knows that as the finance minister. Again, he is treating those in the House like we are stupid. C.D. Howe finds mergers and acquisitions generally do not create new jobs or investments, so why is the minister celebrating in the House the hollowing out of the Canadian economy?
“Almost half of these deals are company mergers and buyouts. They do not create new factories, research centres, or jobs. I want the minister to explain to Canadians what they actually do.”
“Mr. Chair, I will answer the question for the minister, since he does not want to. The answer is 45%, nearly half. Can the minister explain to Canadians, as the finance minister, what a merger and acquisition actually means in that context? It does not mean a new factory. People at home will know that. It does not mean a new research centre, and it does not mean a new job. What does it mean?”
Mr. Chair, I will answer the question for the minister, since he does not want to. The answer is 45%, nearly half. Can the minister explain to Canadians, as the finance minister, what a merger and acquisition actually means in that context? It does not mean a new factory. People at home will know that. It does not mean a new research centre, and it does not mean a new job. What does it mean?
“The minister celebrates foreign investment in Canada, but not all of it is good. How much foreign investment over the last ten years was just foreign companies buying Canadian companies?”
“Mr. Chair, I can see that the minister does not want to admit it or answer my question, so I will talk about foreign direct investment. The minister frequently celebrates Canada’s foreign direct investment numbers, but he knows, as finance minister, that all of those numbers are not created equal. Can he tell the House what share of Canada’s inbound foreign direct investment over the last decade came from mergers and acquisitions, from foreign firms buying Canadian firms?”
Mr. Chair, I can see that the minister does not want to admit it or answer my question, so I will talk about foreign direct investment. The minister frequently celebrates Canada’s foreign direct investment numbers, but he knows, as finance minister, that all of those numbers are not created equal. Can he tell the House what share of Canada’s inbound foreign direct investment over the last decade came from mergers and acquisitions, from foreign firms buying Canadian firms?
“The Prime Minister wants to attract $1 trillion in new investment, but $1 trillion left the country under the last industry minister. Will the minister admit this plan is just trying to replace what was lost?”
“Mr. Chair, I am going to start off where I left off. The Prime Minister announced a plan to attract $1 trillion of new investment after that former industry minister watched $1 trillion leave this country on his watch. Can the minister admit to Canadians that this is not ambition, but damage control? He is trying to replace what his last government lost. Is that true?”
Mr. Chair, I am going to start off where I left off. The Prime Minister announced a plan to attract $1 trillion of new investment after that former industry minister watched $1 trillion leave this country on his watch. Can the minister admit to Canadians that this is not ambition, but damage control? He is trying to replace what his last government lost. Is that true?
“Business leaders say government rules are the biggest thing stopping investment in Canada, not tariffs. I want to know if the finance minister agrees.”
“Mr. Chair, does the finance minister know that the single biggest hurtle to investment decisions in this country right now is not tariffs? His own business council, the Business Council of Canada, says it is Canada’s own domestic regulatory burden that is in the way. It is government that is in the way of those investment dollars. Does he agree with any of that?”
Mr. Chair, does the finance minister know that the single biggest hurtle to investment decisions in this country right now is not tariffs? His own business council, the Business Council of Canada, says it is Canada’s own domestic regulatory burden that is in the way. It is government that is in the way of those investment dollars. Does he agree with any of that?
