Business of Supply

A Bloc Québécois supply day motion about American tariffs on Canadian goods, particularly metals, forestry products and other sectors, and how the government should respond. The Bloc argued the tariffs are hurting workers and small businesses, said loan programs are too slow and leave businesses taking on debt they cannot afford, and called for measures like wage subsidies, faster duty refunds, and better information for businesses. Liberals said they agree with condemning the tariffs and pointed to $1.5 billion in support for affected companies, easier access to employment insurance, trade diversification such as new agricultural exports to Mexico, and continued negotiations to secure a good deal with the United States. Conservatives focused on the impact of tariffs on sectors like steel, aluminum, lumber and auto parts, asked which tariffs had actually been removed, suggested using Canada’s energy and mineral resources as leverage in negotiations, and raised cost-of-living concerns in their ridings.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

57 statements

Jean-Denis Garon, Mirabel

Bloc Québécois
“The Prime Minister misses important details. The wage subsidy is working. It lets businesses keep their workers connected to their jobs when production has to stop. Employment insurance would cost small businesses more in taxes. This subsidy protects workers during a temporary crisis caused by the United States.”
  • 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, the Prime Minister is a macroeconomist. This explains why he lacks an eye for detail in certain areas. In the case of the wage subsidy, its purpose is to allow the business to pause operations while production is halted, in a context where the EI system is inadequate or where its actuarial structure means that if these workers were covered, then smaller SMEs would end up being taxed more heavily. It is an effective mechanism that supports workers, maintains employment linkages and acknowledges, as the government has said, that this is an artificial crisis created by the Americans and that it is temporary.

Marianne Dandurand, Compton—Stanstead

Liberal

Linked statement

“A company in my riding lost jobs because of cheap goods from China. We asked for an official trade investigation into this. Did the member talk about this investigation in his meetings, and what did he hear?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I felt compelled to speak when my colleague from Mirabel mentioned South Shore Furniture, a company in my riding. I salute its employees, who unfortunately lost their jobs recently. I have worked very closely with the Laflamme family on the challenge that they are currently facing. This company has borne the consequences of Chinese dumping in recent years. Together with the Canadian Wood Products Alliance, we met with the Minister of Finance, who has asked the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to launch an investigation. I would like to know whether my colleague discussed this investigation during his meetings. What feedback has he received?

Jean-Denis Garon, Mirabel

Bloc Québécois
“The finance minister was right to investigate cheap Chinese imports. Chinese furniture is brought in mostly built, finished slightly in Canada, and sold as Canadian. This unfair competition forced a good local company to close. We need to learn from this to save other jobs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I did not talk about that investigation specifically, but it is clear that it is a problem. It is clear that the Minister of Finance was right to take that initiative. Just because we are opening our borders and there is a type of free market between the countries does not mean that everything coming into our country is competitive. There are problems with Chinese products. That is true for the furniture sector. Some pieces of furniture are coming in almost 95% assembled. A bit of Canadian upholstery gets added, and then the furniture gets resold as a Canadian product for re-export. That is a problem. My thoughts are with the employees as well. The company that closed its doors was not a company with productivity or governance issues. It was not a company that was told that it needed to invest in its productivity in the short term to get through the crisis. There are aspects of the market that far exceed what that company could have done. Unfortunately, it is too late. Maybe the lessons we learn from this will help save other jobs in other companies.

Mario Simard, Jonquière

Bloc Québécois
“The government gives huge amounts of money to the oil and gas industry, but ignores Quebec industries like forestry and aluminum. I want my colleague to share their thoughts on this unfair treatment.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague from Mirabel also sees the blatant unfairness in what the government is doing, since it has a double standard when it comes to the oil and gas sector versus sectors specific to Quebec. We saw that the government’s response has been very slow, particularly in the economic statement. We see the astronomical amounts being given to the oil and gas sector. I often think that if only a fraction of the obscene amounts given to the oil and gas sector went to the forestry or aluminum sectors, we would be in a much stronger position. I would like to hear what my colleague, who is highly knowledgeable about economics, has to say about this.

Jean-Denis Garon, Mirabel

Bloc Québécois
“The government should stop giving billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks to oil companies. That money could be used for better things.”
  • 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, if there is one sector that does not need government support, it is the energy sector, particularly in the west. I believe that the oil companies are getting about $10 billion a year in subsidies for small modular reactors that make it possible to produce even more oil. The accelerated capital cost allowance has also been expanded to include enhanced oil recovery, which basically involves injecting CO2 underground to extract even more oil. Mr. Speaker, I know that you like oil, and I am not stopping you from liking oil, but it is the subsidies to oil companies that are problematic and that could be put to better use. That is why I am happy to talk about them.

Élisabeth Brière, Sherbrooke

Liberal
“The member mentioned that we are bringing back an existing program. I think this is good because it helps struggling businesses quickly. I want to know what he thinks about that.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, everyone can see that my colleague’s economic knowledge serves him well. However, he said in his speech that the government was resurrecting an existing program. I think that is a good thing, so that companies that are truly in need receive help quickly. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

Jean-Denis Garon, Mirabel

Bloc Québécois
“These programs will not help businesses fast enough. They are good tools, but they were not built for an emergency like this.”
  • 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, first of all, businesses are not going to get help quickly that way. The program is not agile enough. I did not say that the program was all bad. I said that these two programs were never designed to handle a situation as urgent as the one we are facing today. That is what I said. These are good tools for doing something, but not for doing what needs to be done today.

Kody Blois, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Liberal
“I agree with most of the Bloc motion about American tariffs. These tariffs hurt Canadian businesses and workers, especially in steel, aluminum, and forestry. Our government is already helping them with billions of dollars, buying Canadian goods, and finding new countries to trade with.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to have the opportunity to debate motions tabled by the opposition parties. Today, our hon. colleague from Joliette—Manawan moved a motion about the challenges posed by the U.S. tariffs, particularly for our manufacturing sector. I appreciate the way the Bloc Québécois has presented this motion today, because I think the wording of the motion is relatively fair. I have friends on the other side of the House of Commons, among the Conservatives. However, I find that there is always some sort of catch in how the Conservative motions are worded. That said, I feel that the Bloc’s work presents an opportunity for MPs from all parties to discuss a crucial issue, namely the impact of the U.S. tariffs, particularly the section 232 tariffs. This is important for communities across the country, including those in Quebec, of course, as well as in southwestern Ontario and in my riding. I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the perspective of my constituents in Kings—Hants, as well as my own as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. I think everyone here understands that the situation is difficult. There are four aspects to the Bloc Québécois motion. Point (a) condemns the imposition of the new U.S. tariffs that came into force on April 6, 2026, as contrary to the principles of free trade. We agree with that aspect of the motion. It is important to remind all Canadians that we have the best agreement with the United States, CUSMA. More than 85% of our goods and services trade is tariff-free. This is very important for our national economy. However, it is true that, for the sectors affected by the section 232 tariffs, things are very difficult. Things are difficult for the steel industry, for the aluminum industry and for the forestry sector. Now, with the revised tariff structure, it is no longer simply a matter of a tariff on certain non-U.S. products, but rather a tariff imposed on the full price of products in general. This increase stems from a decision by the U.S. administration. In some cases, there was a tariff of 2% or 3%, and it has now risen to over 20%. There are many examples. Our colleagues have mentioned some today. We agree with the first part of the Bloc Québécois opposition motion. Point (b) says that the application of additional tariffs on the full value of products containing steel, aluminum or copper is affecting a growing number of businesses, particularly SMEs. We agree on that. As I mentioned, it is how the U.S. administration decided to expand its section 232 policy. That is a problem for our SMEs across the country. We generally agree, but we have some reservations about point (c). It is not that it is problematic, but rather that we are already taking corrective action and helping our businesses. Point (c) of the motion expresses concern that this new trade environment could have irreparable effects on our manufacturing sector and the employees who depend on it. Yes, we understand that the situation is very difficult, but I believe that now is the time to help the sectors affected by tariffs and, at the same time, build a resilient economy. I would like to raise some important points about our government’s approach to addressing the challenge posed by tariffs for the affected sectors, as well as for the economy as a whole. First, we will be our own best customer in the steel, aluminum and softwood lumber sectors. That is why the minister responsible for procurement here in Canada is focused on how to buy more from our SMEs and our industries in general. I am proud of the products made by our local companies, I understand them better and I know that Canadians are now proud, too. With the government’s purchasing power, we have an opportunity to support our businesses across the country. When it comes to helping businesses, the next focus will be on agriculture and agri-food. We have a lot of farmers, especially in Quebec, but also in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. Based on certain aspects of U.S. policy, I think it is also important to help farmers, especially our small-scale farmers, with a buy local policy. The national school food program provides an opportunity to buy local products. That is one aspect of our national policy. With the goal of being our own best customer in mind, I am thinking of the Irving Shipyard in Halifax. We likely have more than 4,000 local workers, skilled workers, who have the opportunity to build and repair Royal Canadian Navy ships. This is a good example of our investment in the defence sector. It will be an opportunity not only to support members of the Canadian Armed Forces, but also to create good jobs across the country. There are other examples, such as the Davie Shipyard in Quebec City, CEI in Montreal, and Bombardier. There are many examples across the country. Now is the time to help these sectors. It is also important to find other markets. We agree with the proposal to continue our long-standing good relationship with the United States and recognize the importance of that market for our industries in general. That said, we must find other markets to support our businesses and diversify our free trade relationships around the world. I am very proud of the work done by our government to open new markets and create export opportunities for our products. There are many different sectors in that context, but it is very important in Europe, in South America, in the Asia-Pacific region, just as it is in India, Indonesia and China, in some cases. I am aware of the impacts on some of the manufacturing sectors, but new markets are very important in certain areas. When it comes to supporting workers involved with the EI extension and the specific funding initiatives for companies impacted by U.S. tariffs, we have invested over $5 billion in a program called the strategic response fund in order to help companies in the auto, steel and forestry sectors withstand the impacts of the section 232 tariffs and the tariffs imposed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. We recognize the importance of finding a way forward in the context of free trade with the U.S. administration. However, at the same time, we are here. We are here for workers in Quebec, in Ontario and across Canada. In the Atlantic, we have other products that are targeted by the U.S. tariffs. We have programs in place. I am also proud to highlight the importance of the funding allocated to Canada’s regional development agencies. There are various agencies across the country, and there are funds dedicated to helping affected companies, but funds are also being distributed to provide regional support in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, the Prairies, and western Canada. My colleague from Winnipeg North is familiar with the programs available in western Canada. There are two other important aspects to consider when building a resilient economy. One is major projects. The opposition motion we are seized with today was moved by my Bloc Québécois colleague from Joliette—Manawan. I am going to talk about major projects in Quebec, such as the Port of Montreal project in Contrecoeur, which is very important. It is very important for Montreal, for Quebec, but also for Canada. This is an example of a major project aimed at benefiting many sectors, such as the sectors affected by tariffs, including steel and aluminum, as well as workers, who face various challenges because of the tariffs. Nouveau Monde Graphite is a good example of a critical mineral project in Quebec. It is a good example of innovation in Quebec and Canada. Alto is also important when it comes to transportation and Canadian procurement. This is an opportunity to support that industry. In Nova Scotia, there is the Wind West transformation project, which is important for energy in Atlantic Canada. There is the Bay du Nord project in Newfoundland and Labrador. From what I understand, the premier of New Brunswick wants to implement a nuclear project in the province. We therefore have many opportunities to strengthen our economy in general. I also think that we need to invest in major projects to increase our export capacity. I mentioned the Contrecœur port, but the Minister of Transport has over $5 billion to invest in railways, ports, airports and logistics hubs through the trade diversification corridors fund. There are many important investments that can act as catalysts for private sector investments. That is another reason why it is important to get to work and focus on what helps us to be masters in our own house. We recognize the importance of finding a path forward with the U.S. in the context of CUSMA. That being said, as the Prime Minister noted, it is impossible to control the President of the United States, Mr. Trump. What we do have control over is our regulations, our initiatives here in Canada and our economic vision for the future of our communities and regions. I think this aspect is absolutely crucial in the context of what is to come. Now that I have gone over the first three points of the Bloc Québécois motion, I will read the last one, point (d): (d) call on the government to take all necessary measures without delay to mitigate the impact of these unjustified tariffs, including providing direct support to affected businesses and workers in Quebec and Canada, until a trade agreement with the United States is restored. We still have free trade with the United States, but we like the idea of charting a path forward in a context where tariffs are reduced or eliminated for the affected sectors. As I mentioned, we have more than $500 billion set aside specifically for companies, sectors and industries directly affected by the U.S. tariffs. We believe in the importance of these sectors and our workers in this context. The repercussions are known, and they affect not only Quebec and Ontario, but the entire country, given our continental economic integration with the United States. That is why we are going to seek out other markets. We are going to continue to help businesses, SMEs and workers affected by the tariffs. We understand that the situation is very difficult and that companies have little room to maneuver. We will also continue to invest in the Canadian Armed Forces. We have invested billions of dollars to buy more equipment and provide homes for our soldiers, for Canadian Armed Forces personnel. We believe that these investments are crucial for protecting our sovereignty, but also for our industrial capacity across the country. That includes Quebec companies. I see that I am out of time. It was a pleasure to have the opportunity to highlight the federal government’s measures in general and to share some personal insights at the same time. I am ready to answer questions from my colleagues.

Mario Simard, Jonquière

Bloc Québécois
“The forestry industry has been in crisis since 2017. Thousands of jobs have been lost and dozens of businesses have closed because of the softwood lumber dispute. The government has not done enough to help. I want to know what my colleague thinks about the need for real support for this industry.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his French. I will give my colleague a passing grade on that, but I will not give the government a passing grade. The forestry crisis has been going on since 2017. Once in a while, I like to go on the website of the Institut de la statistique du Québec to see how many businesses have closed and how many jobs have been lost since 2017. The last time I checked, 35 major businesses had closed and 29 businesses were experiencing sporadic closures. Their operations were significantly at risk. About 2,200 full-time jobs had been lost and 1,900 part-time jobs had been lost. That is what the softwood lumber dispute is doing. The government has not announced anything yet, other than what we saw last August. That clearly did not meet the expectations of the forestry sector. Everything in the forestry sector is currently destabilized. I want to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that, because we are still waiting for an important and worthwhile announcement about support for the forestry industry.

Kody Blois, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Liberal
“The forestry industry is vital to rural communities, including in Nova Scotia. The industry is facing hard times because of our dispute with the United States. We have set aside over $1.5 billion to support it, and we must listen to new ideas and promote wood construction to protect its future.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the forestry sector is important in Canada. My riding is home to companies such as Elmsdale Lumber and Ledwidge Lumber. In Nova Scotia, the forestry sector is absolutely crucial to our rural communities. I think that we can place greater emphasis on all the ideas put forward by members of the House of Commons to ensure that we have specific programs in place to help the sector as a whole during these very difficult times. We have over $1.5 billion earmarked for the forestry sector. Things are tough right now due to the conflict with the United States, but we need to focus on this sector to ensure it has a future. Solid wood construction is also more important in the context of Build Canada Homes.

Amarjeet Gill, Brampton West

Conservative
“The U.S. is putting taxes on Canadian steel, aluminum, lumber, and auto parts. Canada needs to use our energy and minerals as bargaining power to get a trade deal. Why has the government failed to stand up for our workers?”
  • A repeated line

    “If Canada wants a deal with the United States.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since April 24.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite understands the problem, but he is not providing the solution. Instead of talking about the issue, he was focused on improving his French in his speech. The U.S. continues to impose tariffs on key Canadian sectors: steel, aluminum, lumber and auto parts. If Canada wants a deal with the United States, we need leverage. Our leverage comes from our strengths: our energy, our critical minerals and our ability to supply the inputs that North American industries depend on. Why have the Liberals failed to defend Canadian industries and workers in these critical sectors?

Kody Blois, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Liberal
“I will not apologize for speaking French. Our government is working to build energy and natural resource projects in Canada. The Conservatives told us to give up too easily during the last trade talks. We will make sure any new trade deal protects Canadian workers and businesses.”
  • A repeated line

    “We will take no lessons from the Conservatives.”

    Said 9 times by 4 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of my use of French here in the House of Commons. Of course I speak English too, but I will not apologize for speaking French. To address the member in his own language, he talked about the work that this government is doing. We are focused on building, and maybe he did not hear because he was not listening very closely through the translation about the work that the government is doing to build up energy and natural resource projects in the country. That is exactly what we are doing. We are engaged, and we are at the table. We will take no lessons from the Conservatives. We see the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North going down and engaging. He is not in a mandate to actually do that. I will remind my hon. colleague that before his time in the House, in the last NAFTA renegotiation, the Conservatives suggested that the government should fold and try to get a deal at the time. We are going to make sure that the deal we make is in the best interest of Canadian industry and workers. When we are at that point, we will have more to say on that.

Marianne Dandurand, Compton—Stanstead

Liberal
“My riding and the member's riding both depend on manufacturing and farming. Can he explain how we are supporting our farmers during our current troubles with the United States?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 28 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, I listened carefully to my colleague from Kings—Hants. I note that we have relatively similar ridings in terms of wood, steel and aluminum manufacturing processing. We share another similarity, and that is agricultural products. My colleague provided a good outline of what we are doing for the primary sectors he mentioned. Can he also explain how we are supporting the agricultural sector given the difficult situation we are facing with the United States?

Kody Blois, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Liberal
“I support my colleague's bill to improve cell service in rural areas. It is an important issue for our communities. We are also working on a national food strategy to help our farmers.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on introducing her bill regarding the importance of cellular service in rural areas. I am very proud of her and her work because this is a very important issue in the riding of Compton—Stanstead, in my riding of Kings—Hants as well, and in many rural communities. In the agricultural sector, we are going to introduce a national food strategy that will be particularly important to farmers in both of our ridings. I could give many examples, but I do not have much time. That said, we are paying particular attention to agricultural issues in general.

Mario Simard, Jonquière

Bloc Québécois
“Aluminum and forestry businesses need help right now. A wage subsidy would keep people working and give these companies some relief. I do not understand why the government will not support this idea, and I want to hear my colleague's thoughts.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, earlier in his speech, my colleague spoke at length about market diversification and access to the liquidity measures being proposed by the government. The member for Mirabel did a very good job instructing us earlier on the long-term effects of these measures. However, businesses in the aluminum industry and forestry sector need short-term help here and now. One solution that everyone seems to support amounts to the equivalent of a wage subsidy. This would maintain the employment relationship and give businesses some breathing room. I do not understand why the government is closed to the idea. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that.

Kody Blois, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Liberal
“We have funding programs to help industries hurt by U.S. tariffs. The industry minister is open to ideas from all parties to support affected workers, and I will share them with him.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we have a lot of funding programs available to support sectors currently affected by the U.S. tariffs. I think and I imagine that the hon. Minister of Industry is open to suggestions from all the parties in the House of Commons. I will pass these ideas on to the minister. I know that it is important to the minister that they be brought to the government’s attention. All options are on the table, because we understand the importance of supporting our workers affected by the U.S. tariffs.

Kurt Holman, London—Fanshawe

Conservative
“Life is too expensive in London, and our 9.1% unemployment rate is the highest in Canada. Many people have to use food banks. I want to know when the Prime Minister will fix the tariff problem.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 28 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, the member opposite mentioned vision. If this is the Liberal government’s vision, I find quite concerning, especially as I represent the people of London—Fanshawe, but it is also concerning for the region of London. We are talking about the affordability crisis and the cost of living crisis, and London’s 9.1% unemployment is the highest in Canada. That is a concern also. Also with regard to vision, especially for the people who have to utilize the food bank, what we do tell the people in the lineup of the food bank about when the Prime Minister is going to come through and solve the tariff issue?

Kody Blois, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Liberal
“Most Canadians support our government's vision. We are helping people and businesses deal with hard times, and we are investing in local jobs. I want the member to support our programs to help people who are struggling.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 25 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to the Canadian people to decide whether or not the Prime Minister and the government have the vision they are looking for. I would remind my hon. colleague that according to basic statistics right now, almost 70% of Canadians approve of the general direction of the government. It is not for me to say and perhaps not for him to say. We obviously wear different partisan-coloured shirts in the House, so to speak, but I believe, in the context, and I have travelled across this country, that Canadians believe in the vision the Prime Minister is putting forward. We obviously understand that right now this is a difficult context of sectors that are being impacted, and I would suggest that it is through no fault of the government. We did not walk in wanting this. We are dealing with the circumstances. When I think about businesses in London, I think about the defence sector and the investments we are making that can help support business in London and help support people who are being impacted. With respect to affordability, I would ask the member to support the programs we are putting in place for some of the most vulnerable people. Accordingly, it is important for him to jump on board to support the government for some of the people who are being impacted.

Kent MacDonald, Cardigan

Liberal
“Our government helped farmers by opening trade with Mexico so they can sell potatoes there. Local exporters are excited about this. What does the member think about it?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member’s speech was very informative. Our government has been diversifying to help the agricultural sector. We recently opened trade with Mexico. In particular, potatoes are going to go into Mexico. There are exporters in my riding who are very excited about that. Can the member speak to that?

Kody Blois, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Liberal
“The agriculture minister and the government are doing good work by opening new markets in Mexico for Canadian farm products like potatoes, apples, and beef.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 49 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 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would simply highlight that the Minister of Agriculture, who is from the member’s home province, has been doing great work in Mexico, whether it is with potatoes or other things. In my context, it is apples from the Annapolis Valley, and there is also the beef sector. I say “well done” to the Minister of Agriculture and the government on creating new markets.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 117

  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 117 statements
  2. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 8 statements
  3. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions Taxation 8 statements
  6. Oral Questions Natural Resources 5 statements
  7. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  8. Oral Questions Rail Transportation 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Finance 10 statements
  10. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Taxation 4 statements
  12. Oral Questions Finance 7 statements
  13. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 6 statements
  15. Oral Questions National Defence 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions National Defence 8 statements
  20. Government Orders Business of Supply 57 statements
  21. Government Orders Government Orders 2 statements
  22. Government Orders Government Orders 2 statements
  23. Government Orders Government Orders 2 statements
  24. Government Orders Government Orders 3 statements
  25. Government Orders Government Orders 2 statements
  26. Government Orders Government Orders 3 statements
  27. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  28. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  29. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 5 statements
  30. Private Members' Business Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act 5 statements
  31. Private Members' Business Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act 7 statements