Oct 26–30
Party report card
How each party's statements graded over 5 sitting days.
Liberal
Grade BAverage grade558 statements-
Strongest
Danielle MartinReply to a comment · Oct 28“We need this bill to protect children's mental health. Social media feeds kids content that makes them hate others and hate themselves. At the same time, some kids need the internet to find safe spaces and good information. We need an expert regulator to balance both needs.”
“Madam Speaker, indeed, mental health is one of the major reasons this bill is so critical at this time. We certainly saw a massive spike in mental illness and distress among young people coming out of the pandemic and since then as social media has infiltrated people’s lives. As I mentioned in my speech, many of these algorithms are feeding information to our kids that makes them hate others and, very worryingly, hate themselves. This is an area where we really need clear intervention. I will also say, as I learned at our round table, it is important to recognize that there are circumstances in which the ability to have online access to good information and safe spaces can be life-saving for kids who are not safe at home. It is important that we have a balanced approach, which is why an expert regulator would be so critical in us getting this right as a country.”
-
Typical
Wade GrantQuestion Period answer · Oct 29
“I disagree that our government is bad for the environment. We use the best science and standards. We are working to fight climate change, double our clean electricity, and spend billions of dollars to protect nature, oceans, and wildlife.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree. We have the best science, we have the best standards and we are going to keep to them. I am always pleased to work with all of my colleagues here as we move forward to fight climate change and protect the environment. We have introduced the national electricity strategy, we are going to double the electrical grid by 2030, we have invested $3.8 billion in the nature strategy to protect 30% of lands and waters by 2030, and we have invested $1.2 billion to protect oceans, marine conservation, whales and indigenous partnership.”
-
Government answer in Question Period
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.
See full analysis
-
-
Weakest
François-Philippe ChampagneQuestion Period answer · Oct 28
“We cut the fuel tax to help families, truckers, farmers, and fishers. The Leader of the Opposition voted against this help.”
“Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Leader of the Opposition likes to talk, but he should listen. He should listen to the voices in this House, like when we extended the suspension of the excise fuel tax. That is helping Canadians. That is helping families. That is helping truckers. That is helping farmers. That is helping fishers across this nation. I hope Canadians are watching at home today because this gentleman has voted against supporting Canadians.”
-
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
Reasoning 0 of 100
This statement drew 5 conclusions but offered no reasons to support them.
See full analysis
-
Conservative
Grade A–Average grade522 statements-
Strongest
Pierre PoilievreQuestion Period question · Oct 29
“Canadians are struggling with the cost of food, gas, and housing. The Prime Minister focuses on big international meetings instead, but he is not getting results. Nine European countries still have not approved our trade deal, allowed Canadian beef, or dropped their carbon tariff. I want to know if his trips are just for show.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has told Canadians for the last two years to ignore their grocery bills, their rising gas prices and the fact that an entire generation cannot afford a place to live because he has got these grand signing ceremonies of meaningless documents. Here we are, with no commitment from the nine European holdouts to sign on and ratify the existing free trade agreement we have or to allow our beef in or to cancel their planned carbon tariff. Why is the Prime Minister not delivering real results? Is it because this is just another public relations stunt?”
-
Typical
James BezanDebate question · Oct 26
“The government is using Crown corporations to hide its deficits. Putting military spending into these corporations turns spending into assets, which does not protect taxpayers. What does my colleague think about this?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Edmonton West for his very strong intervention pointing out all the political interference we have witnessed already from the Liberals. My colleague is the chair of the government operations committee, or, as we like to call it, the mighty OGGO. He hears from the Parliamentary Budget Officer on a frequent basis. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in the last week or so, was criticizing the government for its overuse of Crown corporations to hide its ongoing structural deficits by moving things underneath Crown corporations, especially the spending that is going to take place under National Defence. It is going to turn spending into assets, which does not protect taxpayers. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.”
-
Weakest
Luc BertholdDebate reply · Oct 26
“The Liberal government does not want to be held accountable. Not a single minister answers to the public anymore.”
“Madam Speaker, it is simple. It is because they do not want to be held accountable. There is not a single minister who is accountable to the public. Ministerial responsibility no longer means anything to the Liberal government or its ministers.”
-
Reply to a debate question
Signal 30 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 -
Reply to a debate question
Clarity 0 of 100
Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.
See full analysis
-
Bloc Québécois
Grade B+Average grade125 statements-
Strongest
Yves-François BlanchetQuestion Period question · Oct 28
“This week, the Prime Minister gave a grand welcome to the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates, even though that country funds violent groups in Sudan. In the same week, he refused to let Quebec's premier speak at a summit in Montreal. I want the Prime Minister to explain why he honours the UAE while giving nothing to Quebec.”
“Mr. Speaker, this week, the Prime Minister hosted a grand banquet for the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, arranged a photo op on Parliament Hill and even provided a mounted escort. Let us not forget that the United Arab Emirates is currently funding violence in Sudan, including violence perpetrated by a group that commits torture, rape and summary executions. This week, that same Prime Minister also refused to allow the Premier of Quebec to speak at the Canada-European Union summit in Montreal. How can the Prime Minister justify bestowing such honours on the United Arab Emirates while offering nothing to Quebec?”
-
Typical
Mario BeaulieuDebate question · Oct 27
“Canada has a big deficit, but the government gave up tax money by letting American tech giants off the hook. It did this to make Donald Trump happy, but we got nothing back in the fight over tariffs. What does the member think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a significant deficit. We agree. At the same time, the government has forgone revenue by waiving the digital services tax for U.S. tech giants that threaten our culture and our media. They did that to appease Mr. Trump, but they gained absolutely nothing in the tariff war. What are my colleague’s thoughts on that?”
-
Weakest
Gabriel Ste-MarieDebate question · Oct 29
“This bill deals with areas that belong to Quebec and the provinces, like social services and child protection. I want to know if the government worked closely with them and consulted them enough before introducing this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate and thank my colleague and friend, the member for Laurentides—Labelle, for her great speech. The topic is important, and she addressed it with heartfelt conviction. The issue covered by this bill touches on many areas of jurisdiction that belong to Quebec and the provinces, including social services, youth protection and other related sectors. In my colleague’s view, has the government worked closely enough with Quebec and the provinces on this matter? Did it adequately consult the other levels of government before introducing this bill?”
-
Question or comment in debate
Relevance 0 of 100
None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.
See full analysis
-
Green
Grade A–Average grade26 statements-
Strongest
Elizabeth MayQuestion Period question · Oct 30
“Two-thirds of Parks Canada workers were told they might lose their jobs to save 145 million dollars, while the government is spending two billion dollars on the military. Cutting these jobs puts our parks at risk. I want the minister to explain how she is fulfilling her legal duty to protect our parks.”
“Mr. Speaker, Parks Canada employees from coast to coast to coast are reeling. Two-thirds of them have received notices that their job is on the line and that they should either quit now or wait to be fired later. This puts at risk the statutory responsibility of the minister and the government to maintain our parks for future generations, all to save $145 million. In another category, $2 billion, without batting an eye, goes to U.S. fully owned General Dynamics for military spending. Can the minister defend that she is looking after the statutory responsibility to protect our parks?”
-
Typical
Elizabeth MayDebate reply · Oct 28
“I want to change this bill in committee to punish social media companies more. We should make the bosses of these companies personally responsible when their platforms do harm. That is the best way to get their attention.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, I have a lot of ideas and I hope to be able to propose amendments in committee, especially when it comes to punishing social media platforms. Furthermore, there are precedents. I want to mention quickly that if we look at what we do with anti-spam legislation in Canada, that is attaching to directors their behaviour. If they are aware of this conduct and they direct it, they are personally liable. That is the kind of thing that really gets their attention.”
-
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysis
-
-
Weakest
Elizabeth MayDebate question · Oct 28
“We all want to protect children from online harms. This bill does not ban kids by age, but we could change it to punish social media companies heavily if they fail to protect children. I want to know what the member thinks of that idea.”
“Madam Speaker, there is something of a lovely age gap between the member for New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville and I, and it is with a sense of generational continuity that I address him. Our first conversation was about how his best friend was the grandson of one of my very best friends. This is one of those things where some of us have more familiarity with social media than others. I want to ask a question following up on the question from my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. We do not really have an age ban in the bill. I think all of us are united in wanting to protect children from online harms, but my current fixation is what we could fix through amendments to this bill. We could create incentives for corporations to protect children in Canada, saying that otherwise, they would suffer significant and crushing financial or personal punishment. They would then be highly incentivized to make sure their platforms do not harm our children. Does the member have any thoughts on that?”
-
Question or comment in debate
Signal 37 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
-