“People in my community are worried about high living costs and government spending. The government seems to measure success only by how much money it spends. I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.”

“Madam Speaker, in this current day of an affordability crisis, which the Liberal government voted we are actually not in, I am hearing from members of my community about affordability and accountability with respect to the government. It seems that the government is measuring its success by the amount of money it spends. What are my colleague’s thoughts on that?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 25 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 →

“The government is spending borrowed money it does not have. By 2030, paying interest on this debt will cost Canadians $83 billion a year. That is more than we spend on health care transfers. I want the government to be responsible with our money and fix real problems.”

“Madam Speaker, if there is one thing the Liberal government has plenty of, it is money it does not have. The Liberals are putting a lot of measures in place, but not a one of them can be paid with money that exists. It is money the government has to borrow. What does that mean? It means that by 2030, it will cost Canadians $83 billion a year in interest on the debt. That is more than we pay for the health transfer, even though we have major problems across the country, particularly when it comes to mental health. I therefore invite the Liberals to be more prudent and fiscally responsible with Canadians’ money, and I invite them to solve the real problems instead of creating more.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Companies like Netflix raised their prices because they expected new government fees. Those fees were cancelled, but the companies still have not lowered their prices for consumers.”

“Madam Speaker, companies like Netflix hiked their fees when they saw that the government was going to impose levies. Unfortunately, the levies were scrapped. Prices should have come down for consumers, but none of those companies have lowered their fees.”

“I congratulate the former members of this House who were just elected to Quebec's legislature. No single party speaks for Quebec. The Liberals created the digital services tax and made it retroactive, then dropped it to appease the American president. They got nothing in return. Fewer homes are being built, and 2.35 million people use food banks. The Liberals say one thing and do the opposite.”

“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today’s debate on a motion moved by the Bloc Québécois. Speaking of the Bloc Québécois, I think it would agree with me that we should give a little nod to what is currently happening in Quebec. After that, I will address the heart of the matter of the digital services tax. Some will have already noticed this, but the House of Commons is practically serving as a highway to the Quebec National Assembly these days. That may sound a bit poetic, but here are the facts. Yesterday, the Premier of Quebec, Premier Paul Saint‑Pierre Plamondon, who can now be called “PPSPP”, unveiled the composition of his cabinet. I wish him all the best. Two of his ministers used to sit here in the House of Commons, and they were no ordinary members. I would like to take a moment to salute and congratulate Alain Therrien, who is now the president of the Quebec Treasury Board. Mr. Therrien served here in the House of Commons as the member for Sanguinet from 2019 to 2025. He was also his party’s House leader, and I had the pleasure of working with him, or against him, although it was far more often with him, because he always sought to reach the best compromise for all parliamentarians. I also knew him when he was a member of the National Assembly the first time, and I can say that he is also a great businessman. Above all, he is an honest man who gives his word and keeps it. When I say honest, I know he will do the right thing when it comes to managing public funds at the Treasury Board. I did say he would do “the right thing”, not that he is “right-wing”. I also want to acknowledge the appointment of Simon‑Pierre Savard‑Tremblay as the Minister Responsible for Relations with the First Nations and the Inuit. As members may recall, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay was the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe in the House of Commons until quite recently. That is no small matter. It is the first time that a first nation member has sat at the cabinet table, dealing with first nations issues in particular. He deserves a round of applause. He is a member of the Wendat Nation. When we say “Wendat” we often think of Wendake. Since he is originally from the Wendat Nation, I used to run into this gentleman at every powwow in Wendake. In fact, the Grand Chief of the Wendat Nation, Pierre Picard, welcomed this appointment and intends to work with him for the good of first nations and all Quebeckers. There are even more moves from the House of Commons to the National Assembly, as they involve not only elected officials but also people working on parliamentary teams. Today, a member who once worked in the House of Commons as a senior adviser to a party leader is about to be sworn in. His name is Éric Duhaime, and he once served as senior adviser to the leader of the Canadian Alliance, from 2000 to 2002, in the House of Commons. Understandably, I know Mr. Duhaime well and have had the pleasure of his acquaintance for over 20 years. We worked together at the provincial level, and I am pleased to offer him my heartfelt congratulations. Everyone in politics knows him for the absolutely outstanding and attention-grabbing campaign he led, starting with zero MPs and ending up with 19. Today, these 19 parliamentarians will be sworn in to the National Assembly. History is being written today, 90 years, 10 months and 10 days since 1935, as Conservative members, under the leadership of Éric Duhaime, return to the National Assembly. As for the official opposition, we can talk about a second generation, since two of the members elected under the Liberal Party banner in the National Assembly and sworn in are the sons of two veteran parliamentarians who have had careers in the House of Commons. Allow me to acknowledge Sacha Cannon, the son of Lawrence Cannon, a well-known member of this House who was also a senior minister and brought honour to Canada around the world when he was foreign affairs minister. I would also like to acknowledge the member for Verdun, Antoine Dionne Charest, son of Jean Charest, who was here as a member of Parliament, deputy speaker of the House, senior minister, deputy prime minister of Canada and party leader, before becoming an MNA and premier of Quebec. Yes, we see people from the House of Commons at the National Assembly, but the left is also represented, since Québec Solidaire includes a former member of the House of Commons. Here in the House he stood out for inspiring many with his passion and a tone that left no room for interpretation. I am referring to the former member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, Alexandre Boulerice, who is now the MNA for Gouin. I checked his election results. He was elected with 63% of the vote. Let us just say that he does not have to concern himself with recounts. I think his experience here in the House of Commons will be valuable to the Quebec legislature because he, too, has experienced a minority government. Let us not forget that he was part of the parliamentary group that signed a long-term agreement with the minority government. We know the outcome, how things turned out. I think that if, by chance, the leader of Québec Solidaire were considering a long-term agreement with the Parti Québécois government, Mr. Boulerice could keep a close eye on things and tell his leader that it is not really a good idea. I would like to acknowledge and congratulate the 127 people elected to the National Assembly. I wish them every success in their work on behalf of Quebec. This clearly shows that democracy in Quebec is alive and well. Why is that? It is because there are four distinct parties firmly established in the National Assembly. There are four different colours, four different perspectives. Whether the perspective is sovereignist, federalist, autonomist or socialist, each is represented in the National Assembly. This leads me to an important point: No one in this House can claim an exclusive right to speak on behalf of Quebec. All members from Quebec speak on behalf of Quebec, and no one has a monopoly on that. The proof is quite simple. Quebeckers have elected four different parties to the National Assembly. Yes, it is a minority government, but what is clear is that the views of Quebeckers will continue to be debated in the National Assembly in the months ahead. I want to come back to the subject at hand, but I think that was worth mentioning. The digital services tax is a Liberal Party invention. Let me remind members. Originally, in 2015, the Liberals were against this “Netflix tax” and they did not want to implement it at all. Ultimately, they ended up putting it in place. In November 2020, in an economic update, they announced their intention to create the digital services tax. Between 2021 and 2023, there were a few postponements. On June 20, 2024, they finally passed Bill C‑59, which introduced the digital services tax. On June 28, 2024, the order in council was passed. What was particularly unfortunate about this approach is that it was retroactive to January 2022. Taxing people, taking money out of people’s pockets, is not necessarily the best way to balance a budget. In addition, doing so retroactively was quite unfortunate. However, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stepped down. The Liberals then adopted a new approach. We all remember that approach: In 2025, they chose a new leader who vowed to stand up for Canada everywhere, especially at the White House, with an elbows up attitude. We all remember the Prime Minister’s elbows up rhetoric. How did that elbows up approach end up playing out at the White House? It ended with a thumbs up. When the Prime Minister appeared before the President of the United States, he seemed far less inclined toward elbows up and settled instead for a thumbs up. The photographs speak for themselves, and that is unfortunate. To demonstrate that he was no longer operating in an elbows up frame of mind but rather in a thumbs up one, he sought to ease tensions in the relationship in the hope of creating more room for a possible agreement with the United States. That is why, on June 30, 2025, he announced the elimination of that tax, saying it would facilitate negotiations. Unfortunately, that approach yielded absolutely nothing. If one campaigns on an elbows up message but shows up with a thumbs up, what does that achieve? It achieves nothing. That is exactly what happened here. The government tried to appease President Trump, but it gained absolutely nothing in return. That is why what we are discussing today is yet another unfortunate illustration of how the Liberals and this Liberal government say one thing but do the opposite, and never seem to deliver. They are always boasting about all the houses they are going to build, but fewer have been built this year than in previous years. They say they are going to help people more, but 2.35 million people are using food banks. That is the Liberal Party’s record after 11 years. That is the Liberal Party’s record over the past 18 months, under the leadership of this man, who said he was elbows up but instead, all he can do is give a thumbs up.”

“Our party has always opposed a tax on Netflix since 2015. The Liberals promised not to raise internet costs with new taxes, but they changed their minds. We are sticking to our position.”

“Madam Speaker, I am very surprised at the question from the member. I am sure he knows our position pretty well, because it was very clear in 2015: no Netflix tax. All of us here who were elected in 2019, 2021 and 2025 had exactly the same stand on that, which was no taxation. The Liberals changed their minds. Let me remind them that former prime minister Trudeau said, “We’re not going to increase the cost of internet...to impose more taxes...on taxpayers.” A few years later, however, he said that other countries had taken action and that Canada had no reason to apologize for doing the same. We are sticking to our guns, but unfortunately, the Liberals are changing their minds like a weather vane.”

“Canadians will have to pay for this plan. My party opposes new taxes and extra costs. Over one million people in Quebec voted for us because of this.”

“Madam Speaker, the problem with the proposal is that Canadians are the ones who will end up footing the bill. That is why we have always taken a completely different approach, one that I acknowledge is open to review. I readily acknowledge that we favour policies that avoid imposing additional taxes or similar charges. That is our approach. I believe that it is the best one, but of course that is a matter for debate. We were all re‑elected in 2025 on that basis, having received one million votes from Quebeckers. Let us never forget that our Conservative caucus had nine members here in Ottawa in 2025 and eleven afterward. We increased our share of the vote to 21%. More than one million Quebeckers voted for us, so yes, I think so. As I said earlier, we do not speak for all Quebeckers, but many Quebeckers think as we do.”

“I congratulate the newly elected members of the Quebec National Assembly. Can the member give more examples of the Liberals breaking their promises, and explain how those broken promises hurt Quebec?”

“Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate all the newly elected members of the Quebec National Assembly, including former members of the House of Commons, especially the Conservative members. It has been decades. I also thank the member for his comments. Can he give more examples of times when the Liberals failed to keep their promises? If so, what impact have these empty promises had on Quebec?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 44 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 →

“The Prime Minister broke his election promises. He said to judge him by the price of food, but food bank use is up by more than 20 percent. Last month, 2.35 million Canadians had to use food banks to eat. This is not the Canada people deserve.”

“Madam Speaker, indeed, the Prime Minister was elected on the basis of a lot of promises he made, talking elbows up yet going thumbs up instead while making no progress with Trump. Worse still, he said he would be judged by the price of food, but since he came to power, the number of people using food banks has grown by more than 20%. Last month, 2.3 million people visited food banks. The most basic of all our needs is the need to eat. However, 2.35 million people have to turn to food banks. This is not the Canada we dreamed of. This is not the Canada that Canadians deserve.”