Business of Supply

A Conservative supply motion calling on the government to cancel the CRTC’s new requirement that online streaming services pay 15% of their Canadian revenues, up from 5%, arguing the cost will be passed to consumers, cost jobs, and strain trade with the United States. Conservatives said the levy amounts to a tax that hurts households and cultural businesses, which should compete freely; the Bloc opposed the motion and argued both major parties have abandoned taxing digital companies, pointing to the cancelled digital services tax and what the government got in return for scrapping it; the NDP said streaming companies should contribute to Canadian film, television and artists and urged members to vote the motion down; Liberals defended the CRTC as an independent regulator whose decisions should not be directed by the House and said the government is protecting the arts sector and Canadian industries during trade negotiations with the United States. Some Bloc members also paid tribute to a departing colleague, and one Liberal question concerned how Bill C-11 supports francophone artists.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

114 statements

Kerry Diotte, Edmonton Griesbach

Conservative
“We are not attacking Quebec culture. The government's plan will just cost Canadians more money. It will make it harder for people to afford simple things like streaming Netflix and Disney+.”
  • 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, no, of course we do not want to attack Quebec culture, but let us call this what it is. This is not an attack on culture. This is an attack on Canadians’ wallets. It is one of the few pleasures that people seem to have these days. They can sit back and stream Disney+ and Netflix. The Liberal government wants to take even that small pleasure away from them, and that is just unconscionable.

Rosemarie Falk, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake

Conservative
“Canadians are struggling to pay for food, housing, and gas. The government's plans to help are not working. I want to know why the government keeps raising taxes and making life more expensive for people.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we know, and hear in this place almost daily, that Canadians are struggling. We are in an affordability crisis. Canadians are having a hard time being able to house themselves, feed themselves and even fuel up to get where they need to go. We hear a lot from the Liberal government about its so-called affordability measures that it seems to have to put in place, but they are clearly not working because Canadians still cannot afford to feed and house themselves. Why is it that the Liberal government always promotes or wants to increase taxes and does not care when costs keep rising and it is a burden is on Canadians?

Kerry Diotte, Edmonton Griesbach

Conservative
“Canadians are struggling to pay for food and rent, and they cannot afford another tax. The government's new tax will also hurt trade talks with the United States.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 48 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is the $64,000 question. Canadians just cannot afford another tax, and the Liberals keep heaping them on. Canadians are having trouble putting food on the table and paying rent, and now we get this onerous luxury tax, basically, that will also imperil negotiations with getting a free trade deal with the United States. It is double-trouble.

Ziad Aboultaif, Edmonton Manning

Conservative
“I want the member to explain how this affects our trade deal negotiations with the United States. We are already hearing concerns from them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member is a neighbour in Edmonton. He mentioned in his previous answer how this can affect the negotiations with CUSMA or the USMCA. We are hearing from the United States about this specific topic. If he can talk about this, I think it will be important for this conversation.

Kerry Diotte, Edmonton Griesbach

Conservative
“I agree with my colleague. The American ambassador criticized this. We should not upset the United States because they are our biggest trading partner.”
  • 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, my colleague is exactly right. It has been criticized. The U.S. ambassador himself criticized this as a major irritant. This is not the time to further irritate our largest trading partner. We are lucky to be on the border with the United States of America in order to sell our goods to them. They are—

Heather McPherson, Edmonton Strathcona

NDP
“I want the House to vote against this motion. Foreign streaming companies like Netflix should pay money to support Canadian films, television, and artists. The Conservatives want to protect big American corporations instead of Canadian workers and our own culture.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Bourassa. I want to start by talking about the workers who this impacts. I want to talk about the grip in Sudbury, the indigenous filmmaker in Winnipeg and the French-language screenwriter in Rimouski. I want to talk about my friend Marcus, who is a boom operator in Vancouver. I will state this very plainly: New Democrats will continue to fight for workers’ rights, and that includes those who work within the arts and culture sector in this country. We will not stand with multi-billion-dollar corporations and web giants over Canadian workers. That is the ultimate contradiction that we see with this motion today. The leader of the official opposition claims to stand for working Canadians, but today he is standing up for Netflix, Amazon and Disney. The CRTC’s new framework requires streaming services to direct 15% of their Canadian revenues to support domestic programming. That is part of a $2-billion support system for Canadian and indigenous content. It is not a punitive surprise. It follows the Online Streaming Act that was passed three years ago, after repeated calls from Canadian entertainment companies, broadcast workers and artists to modernize a decades-old Canadian content regulation. Let us put these numbers into perspective. Traditional broadcasters like CTV currently pay between 30% and 45%. Under the new framework, they will actually lower that payment to 25%, so we are asking the web giants to pay 15%. It is not radical. That is fair. That is fairness to Canadian content producers. Canada’s film and television production industry generates nearly $12 billion in GDP and $10.2 billion in production volume, and it supports over 181,000 jobs. Those jobs do not fund themselves. Critically, the contributions are not a direct tax on consumers. That is clearly a Conservative talking point, not a fact. It is a contribution requirement on corporations. I want to quote the Toronto president of ACTRA, Kate Ziegler, who said: Decisions to strengthen support for Indigenous and Canadian content and to improve discoverability are a step in the right direction. For ACTRA Toronto performers, this has the potential to generate new opportunities, strengthen domestic production, and help ensure Canadian audiences continue to see themselves reflected on screen. The Canadian Media Producers Association said the CRTC’s decisions: reflect the underlying philosophy of the Online Streaming Act, namely that broadcasters and streaming services that generate significant revenues from Canadian subscribers and viewers must also invest in Canadian programming. This is also about supporting French and indigenous production, to ensure that we have that content, to ensure that those stories are being told. That is an important role that we have in this country. The Conservatives are trying to stop the creation of that content at a moment in time where our cultural sovereignty is at risk. We are New Democrats, and workers need us. We need to be supporting them, and we will. We always will. Today, we are going to stand with the 15,000 ACTRA members and the 181,000-plus workers in the creative sector. We are not going to stand with the shareholders for Netflix. Yes, Canadians are struggling with the cost of living. New Democrats have been saying that for years, but the answer to that is not to let web giants off the hook, because Netflix, Amazon, Disney+ and Apple TV+ are not struggling small businesses. They are trillion-dollar corporations that are extracting billions from Canadian subscribers every year, and they should pay into the system that they are benefiting from. If the Leader of the Opposition is so worried about the cost of living for ordinary Canadians, why is his solution to cut the levy on some of the wealthiest corporations in the world? Who is he actually fighting for? The NDP believes in making the ultrawealthy and giant corporations pay their fair share so that we can fund the services, the storytelling, the creation and the building of our cultural sector, as well as the jobs that Canadians are depending on. The strategy of appeasement does not work. History has told us that it does not work. We know, as we negotiate with the United States, that there is an explicit exception in CUSMA that allows us to take measures to support and protect cultural industries. Canada fought for that clause. It is in the agreement, and we should be using it. I understand that the Conservatives want to pre-emptively roll over. They want to pre-emptively gut our own cultural policy to soothe Trump’s trade hawks, but we do not make domestic policy based on what Donald Trump wants. We make our policy based on what Canadians want and what Canadians need. If we abandon content funding every single time Donald Trump objects, we no longer have a cultural policy. I want members to think about the absurdity of that. If we have a policy dictated by Washington, we have already given up our cultural policy. I want to get back to the people who work in this industry. I want to talk about the actor in Edmonton who got their first gig on a CAVCO-funded production, the indigenous storyteller whose documentary in Edmonton was made possible because of the system that requires investment and the journalists in a small market who kept their job because local news got funded. These are the stakes that we are talking about right now. The NDP stands for a Canada that tells its own stories, employs its own workers and refuses to be hollowed out by corporations that are being cowed by foreign governments. We call on the House to reject this motion, to stand with Canadian workers and to affirm that Canadian culture is not a trade irritant. It is who we are. The Conservatives want to bow to Trump. They want to support big corporations trying to rip Canadians off. New Democrats will always choose Canadians over corporate profits.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Protecting Canada's independence means supporting our arts and culture. The Conservatives are wrong to say we should just do what President Trump wants. I want the member to say more about why our sovereignty and arts programs matter.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, part of the point that I have been trying to make is the fact that we have Canadian sovereignty. A part of that sovereignty means our culture and arts performers, many of the professions that my friend from the New Democratic Party has highlighted, are very important to who we are as a nation. What is disappointing is the degree to which the official opposition has capitulated its responsibility to protect Canadian sovereignty by indicating that we should just listen to what President Trump wants. I appreciate the comments on that by the member. Could she expand on the importance of Canadian sovereignty and on the issue of our arts programs?

Heather McPherson, Edmonton Strathcona

NDP
“I support Canadian arts and culture. The Conservatives are wrongly trying to please Donald Trump. At the same time, the Liberals gave in to Donald Trump on the digital services tax, and Canadians got nothing back.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 42 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I represent the riding of Edmonton Strathcona. We are a hotbed of arts and culture in the province of Alberta and across the country. I am extraordinarily proud to support people within the arts sector. One thing I will say, though, is that the member talked about appeasement, about appeasing Donald Trump, and how disappointing it is for many of us in the House to see the Conservatives taking a stance to appease somebody like Donald Trump, particularly concerning our cultural identity. I will also say that the digital services tax, a tax that was also put in place to make sure that the web giants were paying their fair share, was something that the Liberal government decided to give to Donald Trump as some sort of an inauguration gift. Canadians paid the price and got nothing in return.

Jonathan Rowe, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas

Conservative
“People talk a lot about Donald Trump and tariffs. Does the member think this is meant to fight back against Trump's tariffs, or not?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk about Donald Trump and tariffs. There was a lot of talking during the campaign about potential retaliation tariffs. Do the NDP and the member across the way view this as a retaliation tariff to Trump, or is this simply something that we are doing that is not a retaliation tariff?

Heather McPherson, Edmonton Strathcona

NDP
“This law helps Canadian artists and workers. It is based on rules we passed years ago. We should not let Donald Trump decide Canada's arts policy, and the Conservatives are wrong to fight against our culture.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 22 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, let us be very clear that this is part of legislation that was passed years ago. This is making the playing field more fair for Canadian content creators. I think about things like Heated Rivalry. We are all so impressed and so proud when we are able to have productions like that in our country. Now there is this idea that we would allow somebody like Donald Trump to decide what our cultural policy should be and how we have any domestic policy that impacts how we support workers and how we support culture and arts in this country. It is so disappointing that this is the hill that the Conservatives decided to fight on today.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères

Bloc Québécois
“The Conservative motion attacks Quebec culture to please the Americans, just like the old Harper cuts. But I am even more worried that the Liberals are too weak to defend our culture and taxes. I want to know what my colleague thinks about the government being so unsure of itself.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 42 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 like to congratulate my colleague on her speech today. I must say that, while I am extremely disappointed by the Conservative motion we are debating today, I am not entirely surprised by it. It is a painful reminder of the Harper years, when cuts were being made to culture left, right and centre. However, this is even worse. They are doing the Americans’ bidding and launching yet another full-scale attack on our culture, Quebec culture, and perhaps even Canadian culture, if such a thing exists. However, I have even greater concerns about the government. It was unable to stand its ground on the much-discussed 3% digital services tax, and it refused to commit to the CRTC’s decision, despite being publicly questioned on the matter. What does my colleague think of the fact that the Liberals do not seem overly sure of their position?

Heather McPherson, Edmonton Strathcona

NDP
“This motion threatens French and Indigenous content in Canada. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are trying too hard to please Donald Trump. That does not help Canadians.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 34 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Respect 71 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “Donald Trump becomes cranky or upset about just about anything, depending on which side of the bed he wakes up on”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we really need to acknowledge with this motion is the threat that it puts forward towards French content and indigenous content in this country at a moment when we are seeing such pressure from the U.S. administration to undermine our sovereignty in just so many ways. There is the idea that we are appeasing Donald Trump on so many fronts. The fact of the matter is that Donald Trump becomes cranky or upset about just about anything, depending on which side of the bed he wakes up on, so when the Liberal government appeases Donald Trump and when the Conservatives kneel to Donald Trump, that is not helping Canadians. New Democrats are here to—

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“I oppose this motion. Big foreign streaming companies make a lot of money in Canada, so they should help pay for Canadian shows and movies just like our own broadcasters do. This money creates good jobs and supports our economy and culture.”
  • A repeated line

    “The audiovisual production sector supports hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Canada.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since May 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is with conviction that I rise to express my clear opposition to the motion. I oppose it because I want to defend a broadcasting system that continues to invest in Canadian workers, Canadian creativity and our country’s economic prosperity. Despite the rhetoric evident in the motion moved by my Conservative colleagues, this debate is not about a so-called streaming tax. It is about whether global streaming giants, which derive substantial revenue from Canadian audiences, should contribute in a fair and reasonable way to the ecosystem that they benefit from every day. There is nothing radical or new about this. For decades, companies that participate in the Canadian broadcasting system have contributed financially to the creation of Canadian programming. These contributions have helped build one of the most respected production industries in the world. The motion before us today disregards that reality. It portrays contributions to Canadian programming as a burden or penalty. However, these contributions are investments in jobs, infrastructure, intellectual property and economic activity across the country. Let us be clear: Platforms are not being asked to throw their money away. They are being asked to invest in some of the best productions in the world. They cannot claim that the programming produced here is unworthy of their services. The audiovisual production sector supports hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Canada. These are not abstract jobs. These are good, highly skilled jobs filled by Canadians in every region of the country. These are technicians, artists, producers, actors, videographers, translators and many more. The economic impact is much broader because it goes far beyond the film set. When a production comes to a community, for example in Montreal, hotel rooms are filled, visits to local restaurants increase and local workers are hired. It also generates interest in tourism and economic development for the area. Entire local economies benefit from a vibrant production sector not just in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, but also in rural, northern and indigenous communities. That is why the framework established by the Online Streaming Act is so important. The world has changed considerably since the original Broadcasting Act was drafted. Canadians are consuming more and more content online. This is especially true for young people. Young people tend to go directly to online content rather than broadcast content. That is a very important distinction to make, because historically, only broadcasters were required to contribute. Imposing obligations on one group but not the other was not sustainable. If Canadian broadcasters are required to contribute to Canadian programming, while foreign platforms that generate significant revenue in Canada are exempt from this requirement, the financial foundation supporting Canadian production will inevitably crumble. This framework is neither unique nor radical. In fact, we see the same thing happening all over the world. European countries have adopted similar requirements, and despite these obligations, major global platforms continue to invest heavily in these markets. It is fair to ask why that is the case. It is because businesses invest where there is talent, stability, infrastructure and opportunities, and Canada offers all of that. It offers opportunities, infrastructure and, above all, exceptional Canadian talent. The irony is that many of the voices criticizing these requirements today will celebrate the Canadian industry’s success without ever acknowledging the policies that made it possible. We cannot separate our success from the public policy framework that has supported this growth. When domestic production shrinks, jobs disappear, creative workers leave the industry or leave the country altogether, and Canada becomes dependent on content produced abroad, without maintaining its own creative industrial base. This is not a recipe for long-term economic resilience. Countries that invest in domestic production develop exportable industries, and our creators develop commercial intellectual property on an international scale. Film and creative studios attract foreign investment. Canada strengthens its position in a rapidly expanding global audiovisual economy. Weakening our production ecosystem would not make Canada stronger. It would make it far more dependent, and since we are seeking cultural sovereignty, such a dependence is something to be avoided, especially when we consider the motion under discussion today. The substance of the issue before the House is simple. Should international and multinational streaming platforms, which generate significant revenue from the Canadian public, contribute to the Canadian broadcasting and production system, or should the burden continue to fall disproportionately on Canadian broadcasters and companies alone? I believe Canadians know the answer. There should not be an imbalance. It should not be disproportionate. It should be balanced. A modern broadcasting system needs to reflect a modern market. That requires fairness, sustainability and, above all, ensuring that the economic benefits of our system continue to support Canadian jobs. Canadian production and Canadian stories must also be supported. At a time when countries around the world are in fierce competition to attract production investment and creative talent, now is not the time to weaken the foundations of our domestic industry. Now is the time to modernize our framework responsibly so that it reflects the realities of the digital age, while continuing to support the creators who put Canada on the map. Canada has never built its greatness by stepping aside. Canada has never done that, and it will not start today. Before coming to Quebec and Canada, what most attracted me was Canadian and Quebec culture. How do we get to know this culture? Through what means? How do we hear about it? Who is the ambassador for this culture? We discover this culture through Quebec’s cultural productions, which are exported abroad, both in English and French. If we do not fully support this industry, we will not be able to encourage, retain and develop the teams responsible for these productions. As I said, Canada never built its greatness by stepping aside. Canada will not start doing that today. For all these reasons, I urge all members of the House to reject this motion.

Jonathan Rowe, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas

Conservative
“These rules would apply to YouTube, which regular people and artists use to share videos. Where does the government draw the line? Will adult video sites be ignored while YouTube gets regulated and taxed?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, these rules would even apply to YouTube, a website that provides one of the easiest avenues for Canadian artists to put their skills, talents and content on display. It is basically a website on which common folks can post their content. Where would the bill start, and where would it end? Where would the Liberals draw the lines? Are we going to start taxing all websites that have videos on them? This is my question: Where would the porn streaming sites fall under the bill? Would adult films be left out, unregulated and untaxed, while YouTube is regulated and taxed?

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“I had trouble hearing the question over the noise. But our goal is to protect our industry, jobs, and culture. We want to make sure the tax is fair.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 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 35 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, too, was having a hard time speaking because of all the noise. I would ask my colleague to repeat his question, because I could not really hear him, even with the interpretation. That said, if I understood correctly, he was asking whether the tax will be broadly applied. I am simply saying that what matters to us is the objective itself, that of protecting our industry, protecting out jobs and protecting our culture. That is the goal. The most important thing is not knowing who will have to pay and who will not, but ensuring a degree of fairness. Obviously, that is what we are aiming for.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères

Bloc Québécois
“The government just does what the Americans want. As soon as Donald Trump told Canada not to tax digital services, the government dropped the three percent tax and got nothing in return.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 33 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 want to commend my colleague opposite on his speech, which was interesting and seemed to be heading in the right direction. However, it was not necessarily all that reassuring, because, so far, all we have been seeing is his government kowtowing to the Americans. As soon as Mr. Trump told us not to tax digital services, Mr. Carney’s government did away with the much-discussed 3% tax without getting anything in return. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères

Bloc Québécois

Linked statement

“The government is not defending Quebec's culture. Big web companies take money from us and give nothing back, but the minister will not stand up to them. I want to know why the government is not doing more.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am so worked up over this that I am naming people that I should not be. What I wanted to say to my colleague across the way is that we see this government caving in and failing to defend Quebec’s culture. Even the minister, when asked to respond to the CRTC’s decision, was unable to say that this was the right thing to do and that we needed to stand up to the web giants, who are sucking up revenue without giving anything back to our culture. Why are the Liberals not doing more and standing up for our culture?

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“I agree with my colleague's goal, but we need to discuss the timing and our plan. We are negotiating with the United States right now, so we must be careful with our approach. Quebec culture and its French identity cannot be compromised.”
  • 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, I thank my colleague for his eloquence and his interest. I can say one thing: I fully agree with the objective. My colleague and I could discuss the pace we should set and how to proceed. We must also not forget that we are currently in negotiations with another country to the south. We therefore need to figure out how to move forward with our proposals and our approach. This has been said many times, and I reiterate it today: Quebec culture and its francophone identity are non-negotiable.

Louis Villeneuve, Brome—Missisquoi

Liberal
“I disagree with the Bloc Québécois member. Our government is not backing down. I want to know how this CRTC decision will protect and promote Canadian and French-language culture.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add that I do not agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague. Our government is not caving in, quite the contrary. I would therefore like to ask my colleague how this CRTC decision will help protect and promote Canadian and francophone voices so that our culture remains strong and well represented.

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“Our government is protecting the French language and culture. We are doing this by investing hundreds of millions of dollars into public broadcasting, film, and media.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the objective is the same. What we want is to protect our institutions, promote the French language and protect francophone culture. In 2025, our government invested $150 million in CBC/Radio-Canada, $150 million over three years in Telefilm Canada, $127.5 million over three years in the Canada Media Fund, $26.1 million over three years in the National Film Board and $6 million over three years in the Canada Council for the Arts. Our government will defend the French language, francophone culture and the essential institutions that protect them. I came today not to orate, but to present numbers and facts.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 124

  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 114 statements
  2. Oral Questions Foreign Investment 13 statements
  3. Oral Questions Justice 6 statements
  4. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Environment 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Finance 6 statements
  8. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 6 statements
  11. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 8 statements
  12. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Seniors 4 statements
  14. Oral Questions Public Safety 6 statements
  15. Oral Questions Oil and Gas Industry 3 statements
  16. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Climate Change 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Air Transportation 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Business of the House 2 statements
  20. Government Orders Business of Supply 66 statements
  21. Oral Questions Health 4 statements
  22. Private Members' Business Canada Revenue Agency Act 12 statements
  23. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  26. Government Orders Business of Supply 462 statements