Steven MacKinnon

“I am asking the House to approve an agreement between all parties to pass several bills quickly and set our schedule for the summer break.”

“Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House: (a) the motion respecting the Senate Amendment to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of National Defence, be deemed adopted on division; (b) Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, as amended, be deemed concurred in at report stage on division and be deemed read a third time and passed on division; (c) Bill C-27, An Act to give effect to the Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be deemed concurred in at report stage on division and be deemed read a third time and passed on division; (d) Bill C-29, An Act to establish the Financial Crimes Agency and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts and regulations, be deemed read a second time on division and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights; (e) Bill S-227, An Act respecting Arab Heritage Month, be deemed read a third time and passed; (f) the written questions dated June 17, 2026, standing on the Notice Paper, be deemed to have been transferred to the Order Paper on Thursday, June 18, 2026, for the purpose of Standing Order 39; (g) the House shall not sit the week on September 28, 2026; (h) commencing on Monday, November 30, 2026, and concluding on Friday, December 4, 2026, the House shall continue to sit until midnight, except on Friday, when the House shall continue to sit until 8 p.m.; (i) at the conclusion of oral questions today, proceedings pursuant Standing Order 38 shall take place immediately; and (j) following proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38, the House shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 21, 2026, provided that, for the purpose of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Friday, June 19, 2026.”

In response to a question from Roman Baber

“The Conservatives used to support the police and fight crime. Now they believe in conspiracy theories instead. I want them to work with us to fight crime.”

“Mr. Speaker, growing up, I chose the Liberal Party for a whole host of good reasons, but when I was growing up, the Conservative Party used to stand for one very clear thing. It stood with the forces in blue. It stood for law and order and for crime prevention in this country. Right now, the other side has taken over. The conspiracy theories, the rabbit holes and the tinfoil hats are all out. Where are the law and order Conservatives? Will they stand with us Liberals and take on crime in this country?”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 0 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Signal 0 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Helena Konanz

“The health minister has already answered this question many times. The Conservatives are just wasting time and trying to stop our work.”

“Mr. Speaker, the health minister has answered that question several dozen times over the course of this session. This is a perfect example for the Canadians watching at home, as the Conservatives yell at me from across the aisle, of the obstruction and the waiting and the pointless talking. Anything they can possibly do to halt the work of Canadians that gets done in this place is what Conservatives do. They use this tactic— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 11 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Signal 21 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Richard Martel

“The Conservatives complain about government spending making prices go up. But they will not say which programs they want to cut, like health care, dental care, or school food.”

“Mr. Speaker, the summer adjournment is almost here, but one mystery remains unsolved. What exactly counts as inflationary spending? Does health care count? Does dental care count? Does the Canada child benefit count? Does the national school food program count? The Conservatives keep going on and on about inflationary spending, but they cannot pinpoint which of these items constitutes inflationary spending.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Signal 0 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →
• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“Our government is taking action on trucking, but provinces also have a role. We do not hire highway inspectors. Quebec police must keep doing their job, checking trucks, and making sure driver licenses are valid.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate that the government has taken action and has stepped up, as confirmed by trucking associations across the country, including in Quebec. This is a shared responsibility. We do not employ highway inspectors. The Sûreté du Québec must continue to do its job. We need inspections. We must ensure that drivers’ certifications are valid and up to date. These are examples of shared responsibility, but the federal government, the Government of Canada, has stepped up to the plate.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Claude DeBellefeuille

“Police in Quebec have asked for tools to stop crime, including child abuse and coercion. The Bloc Québécois opposes these tools, but our government will give police what they need to fight crime.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois should know that Quebeckers are just as concerned about crime, especially crimes involving coercion and child pornography. For a long time now, law enforcement agencies, police officers and municipal police forces in Quebec have been asking us to provide them with the tools they need to apprehend criminals and prevent this type of crime. The Bloc Québécois opposes these measures, but the government is determined. We will fight crime both in Quebec and everywhere else.”

• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Andrew Lawton

“The Prime Minister is returning from the G7 with 13 new agreements. These deals will bring over $5 billion in investments to Canada, including new contracts for critical minerals and defence.”

“Mr. Speaker, as the G7 wraps up in France, I know Canadians are very proud to be represented by the Prime Minister on the world stage and will be very proud to learn, as he returns, that he returns with 13 new agreements that will generate over $5 billion of investments in our country, new contracts for critical minerals, new contracts for Canadian defence firms as part of the SAFE arrangement and new partnerships to build a stronger, more self-reliant Canada in a troubled world.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 17 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Andrew Lawton

“The Leader of the Opposition is having trouble with his own MPs. The Prime Minister is representing Canada at the G7, and he trusts all 174 of our MPs.”

“Mr. Speaker, well, it is pretty obvious that the Leader of the Opposition has an issue on his backbench. After all, the colleague sat down at a small desk in a cabin somewhere and wrote out the biography of the leader of the opposition, longhand, and look where he got. I can tell the House that the Prime Minister, from the G7, from representing us proudly on the world stage, has confidence in the entire team of 174 MPs— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

• Little substance
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Signal 34 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Jason Groleau

“I support the Quebec company Garaga. If the company needs help from the government, it should contact us and we will act quickly.”

“Mr. Speaker, Garaga is an iconic brand in Canada. I have Garaga garage doors myself. I will continue to support this Quebec-based company, just as I do all Quebec-based companies. If Garaga has an issue it needs to raise with the government, then it should do so, and I can assure the hon. member that we will act very quickly.”

• Vague
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Clarity 43 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Grant Jackson

“We will keep working with the Manitoba government on the port of Churchill and other big projects across the country.”

“Mr. Speaker, we intend to continue working with the Premier of Manitoba, with whom we have an extremely productive relationship. Indeed, the port of Churchill holds much promise. We will be studying all the options and will be working very hard to complete that and many other nation-building projects in western Canada and right across this country.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Yves Perron

“We are focusing on Canadians' priorities, like costs and building high-speed rail. Bloc members used to support high-speed rail, but now they oppose it. They need to explain why they changed their minds.”

“Mr. Speaker, we make no apology for working tirelessly on Canadians’ priorities, on affordability, on delivering major projects and, yes, on major, unifying projects of national interest such as high-speed rail, which the Bloc MPs oppose, despite having supported it prior to the last election. What are they telling their constituents? The Bloc members made a solemn promise to support high-speed rail, but after receiving instructions from Mr. Plamondon, they are now against it. They need to explain their about-face.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 0 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Shannon Stubbs

“We try to help Canadians by funding dental care, food, and child benefits, and by bringing back jobs from other countries. The Conservatives vote against these programs and criticize us when we defend Canada in trade disputes. What are they actually for?”

“Mr. Speaker, Canadians watching are somewhat confused, because every time we propose a measure to help vulnerable Canadians, like the groceries and essentials benefit, dental care or the Canada child benefit, the Conservatives vote against it. When we are attacked with an unjustified, illegal trade war, what do Conservatives say? They say we are throwing a hissy fit. When we put more measures in place and when the Prime Minister goes abroad to bring back jobs and investment, the Conservatives are against them. I ask again, what are the Conservatives for?”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 0 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Dental care and the Canada child benefit.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since June 2.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Vincent Ho

“The Conservatives vote against our programs that help people with dental care and groceries. They vote against our new projects and investments. I want to know what the Conservatives actually support.”

“Mr. Speaker, when we propose programs like dental care or the groceries and essentials benefit, anything that could help vulnerable Canadians, these Conservatives are against. When our closest ally launches an unjustified trade war, what do Conservatives do? They say we are having a “hissy fit”. When the Prime Minister goes and brings back tens of billions of dollars of jobs and investment to this country and proposes major projects, what do the Conservatives do? They vote against that. What, for the love of all that is good, are the Conservatives for?”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 12 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Christine Normandin

“The high-speed train project will create 51,000 jobs and add $35 billion to our economy. It will help businesses and workers across Quebec. I want to know why the Bloc Québécois opposes it.”

“Mr. Speaker, why is the Bloc Québécois attacking the Quebec factories, Quebec SMEs and Quebec workers that would be involved in building this vast infrastructure project, the high-speed train? I am talking about SMEs in Louiseville, workshops in Old Montreal, businesses in Gatineau and marketing companies in Quebec City. This is a revolutionary project that will create 51,000 jobs and add $35 billion to our GDP. It is a transportation revolution. Why is the Bloc Québécois, led by the member for Repentigny, giving up?”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 0 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Rhonda Kirkland

“Our government is helping the economy grow. We have created more jobs per person than the United States. We are building major projects across the country, like high-speed rail, even though the opposition is against them.”

“Mr. Speaker, let me tell the member and her entire bench what success looks like. Success looks like creating twice as many jobs per capita as the United States. Success looks like diversifying our trade. Success looks like Contrecœur. Success looks like high‑speed rail in Ontario and Quebec, which her party is against. Success looks like an MOU with the Province of Alberta. Success looks like economic development from one coast to another. We are going to keep getting success, notwithstanding the opposition of these guys.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 34 of 100

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

  See full analysis →