MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Tom Osborne

Follow by RSS

Osborne defends the government’s affordability and spending files, from the $13-billion expenditure review to the groceries benefit and a promise to train up to 100,000 Red Seal workers, and has pressed to cut duplicated departmental approvals for major projects. He often circles a question rather than answering it directly: “Let us allow those seeds to bear fruit.”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B
79 / 100 over 11 statements
Signal 72 / 100
Relevance 67 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 90 / 100
Averaged over the 11 of 12 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.2.1 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.1

Loses points less than most for Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Statements 12

Statements by Members ·

Canadian Heritage

“Canadian shows on Netflix are having huge success around the world. The show Below is number one globally, gave jobs to over 700 people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and added more than 90 million dollars to our economy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Below is now the number one show on the Netflix global top 10 for a second straight week. With almost 40 million views, it has reached number one in 82 countries. It is also officially the most viewed debut for a Canadian Netflix title ever. This builds on a strong run for Canadian productions from North of North to Wayward, reaching a cumulative 48 million views since June. The success of Canadian storytelling is translating into real results. In 2025, viewing of Canadian content in Canada grew by nearly 20%, while almost 65% of Netflix members worldwide watched Canadian content. Below was filmed for 75 days across Newfoundland and Labrador, including in St. John’s, Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove, Brigus South and Pouch Cove, employing more than 700 cast members. Below contributed more than $90 million to Canada’s economy, most of it in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

“Businesses have to deal with too many government departments asking for the same things. I want the minister to explain why we must make this process easier so businesses invest in Canada instead of the United States.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, part of the problem we are facing in the country in these current geopolitical times is the fact that a proponent must go through a process where in one department, a silo, a number of boxes need to be checked, and in another department, another silo, a number of boxes need to be checked. Some of those are duplicates. I am asking the minister to comment on the importance of ensuring that we are competitive as a country so that we can attract business in this country, as opposed to it going to other countries, such as south of the border.

Private Members' Business ·

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

“I want the House to vote against this bill. It forces certain criminals to stay in maximum security prisons for their whole sentence. Most criminals will eventually be released. Keeping them in maximum security stops them from getting job training and rehab programs. That will make our communities and our prisons less safe.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, ensuring the safety and security of Canadians is a top priority for our government. Indeed, it is a top priority that is shared by all members of the House. Bill C-232 proposes new rules that would require dangerous offenders and those convicted of more than one first-degree murder to spend their entire sentence in a maximum-security environment. The bill maintains that doing so would support public safety. Our government stands with victims and all Canadians who want to keep our communities safe. We understand and appreciate the intent behind the legislation. That said, we believe the approach proposed in the bill has significant shortcomings. Firstly, the bill contradicts the very purpose and principles of the federal correctional system and its mandate to effectively rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders. The vast majority of offenders re-enter society after serving their sentences. The goal is to ensure that they do so as law-abiding, productive members of our communities. Punishment alone does not make our communities safer. We must also focus on rehabilitation. The current Corrections and Conditional Release Act is carefully designed to balance punishment, public safety and the eventual reintegration of offenders. The act is designed to ensure that an offender’s transfer to medium or minimum security only occurs when they no longer pose an undue risk to society and where they can be safely managed. All transfer decisions are based on comprehensive professional assessments by case management teams, psychiatrists and security professionals. Bill C-232 would undermine the expertise of our corrections professionals and tie the hands of those responsible for managing these offenders. Maximum-security institutions are, by necessity, highly restrictive environments focused primarily on containment. They offer fewer opportunities for offenders to access the programs required, such as education, domestic violence and substance abuse treatment, and job and skills training, to address their criminality. Based on years of evidence, we know that access to these programs is a proven tool for reforming criminal behaviour. Programs like these are more readily available in minimum-security institutions. By keeping offenders in maximum security longer than necessary, we are preventing offenders with determinate sentences from getting the treatment and skills training they need to re-enter society safely upon their release. In other words, by mandating that offenders remain in maximum security regardless of their behaviour, programming success or reduction in risk, we would, in fact, achieve the very opposite of the stated purpose of the bill. Keeping offenders in maximum-security prisons does not mean that they will never re-enter society. It means that we are failing in our responsibilities to ensure that offenders are effectively rehabilitated and able to safely reintegrate when they eventually re-enter the community. Under Bill C-232, we would, in effect, be less safe because individuals would go directly from maximum security to release into the community without any chance of rehabilitation. Furthermore, limiting access to the programs that offenders require to address their criminality would ultimately make our institutions less safe. It could create increased tension, anger and behavioural issues that would lead to more violence in our prisons. This would also put staff and those who work in these environments at risk. The government is also concerned that Bill C-232 would be likely to exacerbate the experience of indigenous people in maximum security. It would further limit their access to culturally appropriate interventions and programming, as well as conditional releases. Furthermore, the bill would create significant charter concerns because of its application to current inmates and its ability to negatively impact their prospects for conditional release. An offender’s classification must be a dynamic process, not a static label that is assigned at the time of their sentencing. Let me be clear: Our government agrees that we need tough sentences for violent criminals. Indeed, when individuals have committed serious crimes, they must serve their time. The bill makes for catchy sound bites and clips, but our responsibility to Canadians is to pursue policies that will actually make our communities safer. Evidence has shown that effective rehabilitation and reintegration programming are an essential part of ensuring public safety. Under the existing system, an offender is placed in maximum security when they pose a threat to the public, to staff or to the security of the institution, and they remain there until their risk factors are mitigated. Objective risk assessments must first prove it is safe before any easing of restrictions can occur. Even then, they occur gradually and are closely monitored. Bill C-232 would make our communities less safe, because it puts political will ahead of evidence of what works most effectively to increase public safety. Canadians deserve better. For those reasons, I urge all members to vote against Bill C-232.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

In response to a question from Michael Cooper

“The United States put unfair trade fees on us this past year. We are strengthening our economy by building things with Canadian materials and workers, and by finding new trading partners. The Conservatives should help us build the country instead of saying our economy is doing poorly.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, what has happened in the last year is that our largest trading partner has put in unfair tariffs against this country. The Conservatives try to pretend that did not happen. The largest impact would be on the largest trading partner, but we have planted the seeds of a stronger economy. We are building Canada strong and building more infrastructure in Canada using Canadian materials and Canadian labour, with more trading partners. Let us allow those seeds to bear fruit. Instead of talking down the Canadian economy, the Conservatives should join us in building Canada strong.

In response to a question from Pat Kelly

“Conservatives vote against help for Canadians and then complain that life costs too much. They also put down our economy while we are trying to fix it. We are building our country with Canadian workers and materials. The Conservatives should support our work.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, when Conservatives vote against affordability measures and then complain about affordability, Canadians see that as disingenuous. What is also disingenuous is when they talk down the Canadian economy while we are trying to find solutions. The U.S. is Canada’s largest trading partner. It only stands to reason that we would have the largest impact. We are building Canadian infrastructure using Canadian labour and Canadian materials. We are building trade corridors with other countries. I ask the other party to join us in believing in Canada, in believing in Canadians and in believing in building Canada—

Adjournment Proceedings ·

Adjournment Proceedings

In response to a question from Garnett Genuis

“The Conservatives do not listen to Canadians. They voted against cheaper child care, tax cuts, help for first-time homebuyers, and money for 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 analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    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 analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member talk about people who do not listen and who are not tuned into the Canadian public and the needs of Canadians. It was the Conservative Party that voted against reducing the tax for first-time homebuyers, making it easier for young Canadians. It was the Conservative Party that voted against $10-a-day child care, making it easier for Canadians. It was the Conservative Party that voted against a reduction in income tax, helping 22 million Canadians. It was the Conservative Party that voted against the Canada child benefit. It is interesting to hear the member talk about people who do not listen. The Conservatives have not listened to the Canadian public on what Canadians need, and vote against every opportunity in this House to make life easier for young Canadians.

In response to a question from Garnett Genuis

“We are spending billions of dollars to train workers, especially in skilled trades. Canada will need hundreds of thousands of new tradespeople soon, so we are giving grants to apprentices, employers, and training centres. We are also funding summer jobs and training programs for students and youth.”
  • A repeated line

    “Train and hire up to 100,000 new Red Seal trades workers in the next five years.”

    Said 8 times by 7 members since May 1.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are always prepared to look at good ideas, but we are also acting and putting in place measures that really make a difference for Canadians. We could not agree more that Canadians are looking for hope and real solutions. Preparing Canadians for good jobs is a top priority of ours, especially during these challenging times. We are renewing Canada’s workforce strong, team Canada strong. It is a $6-billion promise to protect our workforce and our capacity to grow the workforce, because without skilled workers, we cannot meet the moment. That is why, under team Canada strong, we will recruit, train and hire up to 100,000 new Red Seal workers in the next five years. This is critical, because within seven years there will be more than 410,000 vacant skilled trades positions across Canada. There is no time to waste. Team Canada strong will expand our union training and innovation program, so that union-run training centres can upgrade their facilities and invest in modern equipment. Small and medium-sized businesses will be supported when they hire new first-year apprentices. The build Canada apprenticeship program will help employers hire and train apprentices, providing them with up to $10,000. Once certified as a Red Seal tradesperson, they will receive a $5,000 completion bonus. The new apprenticeship training grant means that apprentices can receive an income top-up of $400 per week while they are getting technical training. This comes out of a total payment of $16,000 per apprentice. We know that there is more that needs to be done to weather the current storm. That is where the labour market development agreements and the workforce development agreements come in. These represent a $2.9-billion annual investment in training and employment assistance services to help hundreds of thousands of Canadians upgrade their skills and find employment. Our programs help workers complete their studies, build their skills and access opportunities that lead to successful careers. Since 2019, Canada summer jobs has helped more than 600,000 young people find summer employment. This summer, the program will support up to 100,000 jobs for youth between the ages of 15 and 30. All told, we are supporting over 175,000 opportunities for youth and students this year under the student work placement program, the youth employment and skills strategy, and the Canada summer jobs. In 2026-27, the student work placement program will support up to 55,000 work-integrated learning opportunities with employers for post-secondary students. Over 34,000 employers and 420 post-secondary institutions have participated in this program. We are focused on delivering the results that Canadians need and creating the opportunities that will strengthen the economy.

In response to a question from Mel Arnold

“The Conservatives voted against cheap child care, dental care, higher pensions, school food, and lower taxes for new home buyers. They talk about making life cheaper, but they vote against helping people. We are the ones actually making life more affordable.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 3 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the opposition party can control certain things. We know what they would do if they ever formed government. They would get rid of the $10 a day child care. We know this because they voted against it. We know that they would get rid of the dental plan, increases to old age security and the school food program because they voted against them. They also voted against reducing taxes for first-time homebuyers. On this side of the House, we are working to make life more affordable for Canadians. We hear a lot of talk from the Conservative party, but we do not see action. The only action we see is voting against programs that would make life more affordable for Canadians.

In response to a question from Mel Arnold

“We know life is too expensive right now. We are helping Canadians by cutting income taxes, pausing the fuel tax, lowering banking fees, and giving families money for groceries. We also created dental and school food programs and cut taxes for first-time homebuyers.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 91 of 100

    Of this reply, 92% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “We introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit.”

    Said 29 times by 19 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, government is well aware that affordability is the single most pressing issue for Canadians, which is why we focused on delivering targeted support where it matters most. The world is changing rapidly, and not always for the best. It is increasingly fragmented, complex and unstable, and for far too many, it is also more expensive. We cannot control the conflict in the Middle East, the war in the Ukraine or the tariffs that are transforming global trade, but what we can choose to respond to is building the strongest economy in the G7 and providing targeted supports to those who need it most. Over the past number of months, we have supported Canadians with concrete measures to make everyday life more affordable. To make essentials, such as groceries, more affordable, we introduced the Canadian groceries and essentials benefit. This measure builds on the GST credit and will provide additional support for more than 12 million Canadians, starting with a one-time top-up on June 5. Combined with a 25% increase to the benefit over five years, as of July, a family of four will receive up to $1,890 a year and a single individual will receive up to $950. To lower costs for Canadians, we have suspended the federal fuel tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels until Labour Day. This measure is expected to reduce the cost of filling up at the pump by more than $5 on a 50-litre tank. Benefiting more than 25 million Canadians, it will reduce operating costs for truckers and businesses in the food, agriculture, housing and construction industries. We have also lowered the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%, providing tax relief for 22 million Canadians. In 2026, this change means savings of up to $420 a person or $840 for a two-income family. More than 6.5 million Canadians can now access affordable dental through the Canadian dental plan. We have also made the national school food program permanent to provide meals for up to 400,000 children each year. This program saves families with two children participating in school up to $800 on groceries. First-time homebuyers are saving up to $50,000 through the removal or reduction of the goods and services tax on eligible new homes. Canadians are now paying less in banking fees as well with the changes that we have made to banking fees in this year’s budget. We have also expanded access to low-cost and no-cost bank accounts for Canadians, with up to 50% more debit transactions at a cost of no more than $4 a month. These measures are making life more affordable for Canadians. In the spring economic update, we announced the intention to reduce the contribution rate to the Canadian pension plan base rate from 9.9% to 9.5%, effective January 1 of next year. This was achieved due to the co-operation of all provinces. We look forward to introducing more measures and making life more affordable for Canadians.

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“We will be fair and caring as we do this work. We will make services better for Canadians while being responsible with money.”
  • 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 analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that as the government goes through this process in a fair and compassionate way, we are also committed to ensuring the services that Canadians rely on and that Canadians will get. We are absolutely committed to Canadians, to providing better services for Canadians but also being fiscally responsible.

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“We promised to spend less money on running the government so we can invest more in the economy, defence, and workers. We found ways to save 13 billion dollars a year by cutting about 16,000 public service jobs. We are doing this fairly by offering early retirement and letting people leave on their own instead of firing them.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as members may recall, the government made a clear commitment to Canadians to be fiscally responsible and bring discipline to the federal budget. We were also elected with the mandate to spend less on government operations so that we can invest more in workers, businesses, defence and nation-building infrastructure that will grow our economy and strengthen the country. As part of this effort, the government launched the comprehensive expenditure review to meet its commitment to responsible, cost-effective spending that delivers results for Canadians. This review required federal organizations to bring forward savings proposals, to spend less on the day-to-day running of government by targeting programs and activities that are not core to their federal mandate, that are duplicative or that are not aligned with government priorities. Organizations also considered ways to work more efficiently, leveraging existing and emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, where it makes sense. Budget 2025, tabled last November, presented the results of this review, which identified savings across government of $13 billion annually by 2028-29. This will include decreasing the size of the public service by approximately 16,000 full-time equivalents. It will also look to reduce 1,000 executive positions over the next two years. The reductions are being managed with fairness and compassion, relying on attrition and voluntary departures to the greatest extent possible. That is why we have the early retirement incentive. Organizations are required to follow established workforce adjustment policies outlined in collective agreements or, in the case of executives, career transition measures. Both set out clear processes and supports for employees who may be affected. In a workforce adjustment situation, there are specific provisions governing how this is done that are co-developed or negotiated with bargaining agents. Indeed, the government is leveraging all available tools to limit involuntary departures. This includes the proposed early retirement incentive, a program that would provide an opportunity for eligible employees to retire without a penalty for early departure. These reductions are being carried out fairly and responsibly, in line with the government’s obligations as an employer. They are part of a necessary and major “recalibration” in government spending that will redirect funds to investing in Canada. They are what this moment calls for and an investment in our future.

Government Orders ·

Strong and Free Elections Act

In response to a question from Kelly Block

“The bigger fines in this bill are meant to stop people who want to break the rules. People who follow the rules have nothing to fear. I want the member to explain their concerns about these fines.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, you have obviously done a great deal of review on the bill. I will give the member an opportunity to elaborate. You talked about penalty increases and some concern with the size of the increases. The size of the increase, I believe, is to prevent bad intention or bad actors. If candidates, official agents or others are acting in good faith, they have no fear of an increase in the size of the penalty. I want to give you an opportunity to elaborate on your thoughts.