Pierre Poilievre
Battle River—Crowfoot, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, for over a century and a half, Canadians took for granted that when people came here from around the world, they left their problems behind.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Battle River—Crowfoot in communities like Amisk, Hardisty, Hughenden, Czar, Metiskow and Lougheed and the MDs of Wainwright, Provost and Flagstaff, who have all raised significant concerns about problems with cellphone coverage and data service, adding to already limited connectivity in…”
“Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member what we are for. We are for an affordable Canada, a Canada with growing paycheques and safer streets, which is the exact opposite of what the Prime Minister has delivered. This is his record: Count them; there have been five consecutive quarters of declining investment.”
“Mr. Speaker, do people know why the Prime Minister cannot stand to answer a question in the House of Commons? It is because he has been wrong about every single economic issue of the last decade. He was wrong to push bigger and broader carbon taxes. He was wrong to say that we should keep half our oil in the ground.”
“Mr. Speaker, no, we do not plan for a restful summer. We plan to fight all summer long against the Liberal recession, Liberal inflation, the rising Liberal cost of living and the rising Liberal crime crisis in our streets. Let us take, for example, investment. The Liberal Prime Minister promised he would increase it.”
“Mr. Speaker, at least the Liberals listened for once. I explained to them that houses are built by plumbers, electricians and carpenters, and the members stood up and said that the building trades build homes. We know who builds homes, but do we know who blocks homes? The Liberals block homes.”
The complete record
Every one of 972 lines we hold for Pierre Poilievre, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 20.
“Mr. Speaker, who suggested that the Liberals open our borders to massive, uncontrolled immigration that has inflated housing prices, taken jobs away from Canadians and put pressure on the health care system while causing a decline in the French language? It was Mark Wiseman, the ultra-Liberal corporatist at the head of the Century Initiative, who suggested tripling Canada's population. Why is it that every time someone introduces policies that hurt Canadians, the Prime Minister gives that person a promotion?”
“The Nobel Prize awarded for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the Venezuelan people is, therefore, a victory not only for herself but for all of those who have suffered under decades of socialism. May we all be inspired by her courage and determination to stand up for freedom over socialism and for the people all around the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, on what should have been the proudest moment of her life, Maria Corina Machado was not even there. Unable to attend the ceremony after months of hiding and fighting the regime in Venezuela, her daughter accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on her behalf. Quoting her mother, she said, “our journey towards freedom has always lived inside us. We are returning to ourselves. We are returning home.” For years, Venezuela's iron lady has boldly opposed the socialist Maduro dictatorship and the economic collapse it has engendered and inflicted on the once proud and free nation. At great personal cost to herself, Machado has inspired millions both in her country and around the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister should tell that to the Liberal member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country , the Liberal member for Vancouver Granville , the Liberal member for Beaches—East York and the Liberal members for Victoria , Vancouver Quadra , South Surrey—White Rock , Honoré-Mercier , Fleetwood—Port Kells , Laurier—Sainte-Marie , Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam and North Vancouver—Capilano . These are all the 11 Liberal MPs who have spoken out against the Prime Minister 's deal. Instead of standing up to them, instead of standing up to the “leave it in the ground” Liberal caucus, the Prime Minister has backed down, put them back in charge and blocked his own pipeline.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member got that off his chest, but the reality is that the question was for the Prime Minister . He is the one who promised to spend less, yet he doubled the deficit that Justin Trudeau left behind. His deficit is $16 billion bigger than he promised, and he has added about $90 billion of net new spending, most of it on governmental operations. All this will contribute to the inflation Canadians are paying at the grocery store. Why will the Prime Minister not stand up and take account for the food price inflation he has caused, while Canadians struggle to put Christmas dinner on the table?”
“Mr. Speaker, as Canadians walk down grocery aisles week after week, looking at prices rising to the point where they can no longer afford even to buy beef or put meat and potatoes on their dinner table, they see the Prime Minister , who promised he would be judged by the price at the grocery store, unwilling to even stand up to defend his appalling record of increasing grocery bills by $1,000 for the year to come. It is not just the industrial carbon tax; the Prime Minister has also doubled the deficit Trudeau left behind, which will once again stoke inflation. Why is the Prime Minister forcing Canadians to feed his morbidly obese deficit rather than feeding their families?”
“Mr. Speaker, is the member talking about standing up for Canadians? The Prime Minister will not even stand up in the House of Commons to answer a question about groceries. A moment ago he was bragging about his industrial carbon tax, and now his minister says it is imaginary, so apparently the Prime Minister is imagining things again. How can Canadians keep straight the Prime Minister 's story on grocery prices when one day he promises to be judged by the price of food, and the next day he says we need more of a tax on food and his own minister says it is all in his head?”
“Mr. Speaker, no matter how high the Liberals raise the taxes, they are not going to change the weather. The Prime Minister should be willing to stand up before Christmas and look in the eye the seniors who cannot afford to feed themselves, and the single mothers who cannot afford to feed their children and to buy Christmas gifts this winter, while he puts not only an industrial carbon tax on farmers and fertilizer but also a food packaging tax that will increase grocery prices by a billion dollars across the land. Will the Prime Minister live up to his promise to be judged by the prices at the grocery store and get rid of those hidden Liberal taxes on food?”
“Mr. Speaker, nonetheless, the Prime Minister is afraid to stand up to debate grocery prices. He says he knows so much about inflation; well, he certainly caused a lot of it in his life. He should, then, be able to stand up to defend the very industrial carbon tax that he says is even more important than a pipeline from Alberta. It is an industrial carbon tax on farm equipment, fertilizer and food processors at a time when Canadians are paying twice what they were a decade ago for groceries. At Christmas time, will the Prime Minister do the right thing and get rid of this tax so Canadians can eat?”
“Mr. Speaker, speaking of trucks, they take steel, unlike what the Prime Minister said when he asked a reporter whether he or anybody uses steel anymore in Canada. Farm equipment takes steel as well, and farming takes fertilizer. All these things are taxed by the industrial carbon tax. I am sorry I have to give this elementary lesson in the supply chain to the Prime Minister, but it is a reality, and with this tax, food prices have gone up so that Canadians now have to spend $17,000 a year on groceries. Before Christmas, will the Prime Minister get rid of that tax, or will he be the grinch of the grocery store?”
“Mr. Speaker, we put the interties proposal right in the motion, right out of the Prime Minister 's deal. We put the carbon capture right in the motion, right out of his deal. We put the pipeline and the overriding of the oil shipping ban right in the motion. It came right out of the deal that he signed. Now it is clear that the only thing the Prime Minister really cares about is that it does not include an industrial carbon tax that would drive jobs out and drive grocery prices up. Why is it that the Prime Minister wants a carbon tax without a pipeline, when what we really need is a pipeline without a carbon tax?”
“Mr. Speaker, not only do we acknowledge the obligation to consult with our first peoples, but we put it right in the motion. It is right there for the Prime Minister . We put it right there so the Prime Minister could vote for the words that he put in the agreement, but let us be honest: He never planned to honour the agreement. He whispered quietly to the “keep it in the ground” Liberal caucus, “Don't worry; there will never be a pipeline. We'll delay it until after the election, and then, God forbid, if we win, we would kill it altogether.” Why can the Prime Minister not say one thing to all Canadians and champion the pipeline with us today?”
“Mr. Speaker, I took the wording for the motion right out of the Prime Minister's deal. If he votes against the motion, he is voting against a pipeline to the Pacific; he is voting against overriding the discriminatory and anti-Canadian ban on shipping our energy abroad; he is voting against consultation with first nations people and the British Columbian government, and he is even voting against his own beloved carbon capture and storage, all of which I took word for word right out of his own deal. If the Prime Minister is in favour of pipelines only when he is in Alberta, but against them when he is in B.C. and Ottawa, how can Canadians keep track of where he stands on anything?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada needs a pipeline to the Pacific to sell $30 billion of our energy overseas, outside of the U.S. market, making us more independent and self-reliant, and our dollar, and therefore Canadians' purchasing power, stronger. The Prime Minister always opposed the pipeline, which his party killed, but last week he flip-flopped and promised, in a deal while he was in Alberta, that he would build such a pipeline. I took the very wording right out of that deal and put it into a motion before the House of Commons. He experienced a massive rebellion in his own caucus. If he is going to vote against his own words, how can Canadians ever believe his words?”
“Mr. Speaker, eating the whole meal would be great if only Canadians could afford to buy the meal. He is talking about a carbon tax that still applies to farm equipment, to fertilizer and to those who deliver food. This has caused food inflation to the point that it now costs $17,000 a year to feed a family of four. Why will he not cut hefty taxes on groceries so Canadians can feed their families?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada needs a pipeline to the Pacific Ocean so we can sell more of our products overseas, somewhere other than the U.S. It will make our economy more independent and strengthen the Canadian dollar and the purchasing power of all Canadians. The Prime Minister has always been against it, but he flip-flopped last week in Alberta. When he came back to Ottawa, there was a rebellion among his MPs. I took the words straight from his agreement. Is he going to vote against his own words, or can Canadians believe what he says?”
“All we are doing now is taking the wording from the MOU he signed on the pipeline, the tanker ban, the issue of carbon capture, the issue of indigenous consultation and the engagement with B.C. so that he can vote for his words. Will he do it?”
“Madam Speaker, it would be very beneficial. It would also diversify our economy. The Prime Minister made grand promises that he would diversify our trade and double exports to non-U.S. markets. This is the single biggest export of Canadian goods to non-U.S. markets that we could ever imagine. There is literally not another project that would even come close to the $30-billion-a-year of overseas exports that this project would enable. The Prime Minister has had eight months since becoming Prime Minister on the promise to build the unimaginable at speeds not seen in generations, and he has not even begun consulting on the pipeline. He has not even stated clearly that he supports a pipeline.”
“If he wants to block it, he will block it. As future prime minister, I will green-light this pipeline and allow Canadians to build a pipe to tidewater so that Canadians can be richer, our lives can be more affordable and our economy can be more sovereign.”
“Madam Speaker, this pipeline will get built if a Conservative government is elected, because we are going to get out of the way. Only one authority can approve or block the pipeline, and that authority is the federal government. Section 92A(1) of our Constitution clearly specifies that any project crossing an interprovincial border comes under exclusive federal jurisdiction. Under Bill C-5 , the decision rests with the Prime Minister of Canada. If the Prime Minister wants a pipeline, it will happen; if not, it will not happen. This project is going to be extremely cost-effective and profitable without subsidies. All it needs is the green light. (1215) [ English ] The exclusive power to approve this pipeline is the Prime Minister 's under the Constitution and the law. If he wants to green-light it, it will happen.”
“Madam Speaker, I think we just heard the Liberal member for Calgary Confederation say that he opposes a pipeline to the Pacific unless it includes a massive, crippling carbon tax on his own province. I would encourage him to go around his province, talk to the energy workers in his riding and say the reason he voted against a pipeline is that he does not think Albertans are paying high enough taxes. He wants a higher tax on the Alberta oil sector, a higher tax on Alberta gas and a higher tax on industries that build homes or farmers who produce food. Conservatives wants a pipeline without a tax. That Liberal member for Calgary Confederation wants a tax without a pipeline.”
“related to their own projects of interest that involve the province of Alberta, including interties, and Canada working with B.C. on other projects of national interest in their jurisdiction”.”
“I move: Amendment That the motion be amended by inserting after the word “including” the word “(i)” and by adding after the words “Indigenous peoples” the following: “(ii) Green lighting the world's largest carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) project for the purpose of making Alberta oil among the lowest carbon intensity produced barrels of oil in the world.” (iii) providing meaningful opportunity for Indigenous rightsholders to participate in consultation processes and economic opportunities through Indigenous ownership, partnerships and benefits, (1205) (iv) engaging with British Columbia immediately in a trilateral discussion on the pipeline project, and during the potential development and construction of the bitumen pipeline referred to in the MOU, and to further the economic interests of B.C.”
“We are going to amend our own motion in order to include the things that the Liberals claim we left out. We are going to amend the motion so that it will support green-lighting carbon capture and storage, green-lighting indigenous ownership in the project and engaging with British Columbia, in the spirit of good faith. We are removing all the Liberal excuses because we know what the Prime Minister 's plan is. He wants to pretend that he supports a pipeline, like the majority of Canadians, just long enough to get through the next election, while he quietly whispers to his “keep it in the ground” caucus, “It will never happen. Do not worry. Just hang tight with me, and be quiet. We will kill it after the election.” To make sure he cannot play that duplicitous game, we are going to give him this amendment.”
“They have been generating a whole lot of excuses about why they have to vote against the wording in their own MOU. Let us go through some of the excuses. They said it did not mention they want to accompany the pipeline with a carbon capture project. They claimed it did not go far enough in spelling out indigenous engagement and ownership. They claimed it did not clearly lay out the plan to engage with British Columbia. Let us forget for a second the obvious fact that if the Liberals are telling the truth when they say they support the whole MOU, then they should be prepared to vote for any part of the MOU. After all, it is their MOU. That obvious contradiction aside, we know the Liberals have made these excuses. I am going to help brush away those excuses for them.”
“Conservatives brought forward a good-faith motion just to make sure Liberals meant what they said, to get them all in the House of Commons to vote on whether they want a pipeline to the Pacific and whether they are prepared to open up our waters to shipping energy overseas. Now, the Liberals went dead quiet. I expected them to enthusiastically applaud this gesture of goodwill. They went dead quiet over the weekend, telling reporters on background they had no idea how they were going to vote on their own MOU proposal for a pipeline and an adjustment to the oil tanker moratorium. I even used wording right out of the Prime Minister 's MOU to make it easy for them, but it still was not easy enough. As we know with Liberals, they often start by making promises and then they go to making excuses.”
“To believe he is actually committed to the MOU, we have to believe he now says he was wrong about everything he wrote and everything the Liberal government did in the preceding 10 years. We have to believe he was wrong about the emissions cap, wrong about the electricity regulations, wrong about shipping oil through a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific and wrong about the tanker ban. He was wrong about all of those things, but we would have to believe he has accepted that wrong. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt. Let us give him a chance to come in the House of Commons and vote in favour of what he promised.”
“However, in a November 2016 cabinet decision, the Liberal government killed the northern gateway pipeline. The current Prime Minister , who was not in the cabinet at the time, went on to testify at the industry committee that he agreed with killing the northern gateway pipeline. (1200) The current government continues to have a tanker ban in place that blocks shipping Canadian oil off the northwest coast of B.C. while allowing American tankers to move oil between Alaska and the U.S. west coast. Apparently, it is safe when the Americans transport oil through those same waters but not when Canadians do it. Clearly, that is an act by the government of economic self-harm and of discriminating against Canadians. The Prime Minister suddenly claimed that he had reversed himself. He signed an MOU.”
“The cost of goods that are internationally priced becomes more affordable. There would be more affordable food, fuel and inputs to build housing. A stronger dollar means a more affordable Canada, and that is our ultimate purpose. The biggest problem in Canada today is that people cannot afford to live, after Liberals doubled housing costs, doubled costs at the grocery store, doubled lineups at food banks and doubled our national debt. One way to make life more affordable is to have a strong Canadian dollar that buys more food, fuel and housing. All of these incredible benefits would be a no-brainer, and we should not even have to debate it. In fact, we would not have to debate it if the previous Conservative government's decision to approve the northern gateway pipeline to the Pacific had been allowed to go ahead.”
“Local vendors would be able to sell more clothing, more housing supplies and other goods to enable and rejuvenate communities all across the northern part of Alberta and British Columbia. Originating as it would in Hardisty, Alberta, in my wonderful riding, the best people in the world would therefore benefit from this incredible project. I add that not only would it give paycheques. It would bring tax revenues that would allow us to fund more schools, hospitals and better policing and to increase social services not through higher taxes, as the Liberals so often favour, but rather through a booming economy. Furthermore, when we export more Canadian goods abroad, we force other countries to buy Canadian dollars. That raises the dollar and therefore the purchasing power of our people.”
“The pipeline to the Pacific would add 75 times more to Canada's exports overseas than would the only agreement the Prime Minister likes to brag about. There is literally not a single trade deal the government could sign and not a single government project it could fund that would come anywhere close to opening up the $30 billion of overseas, non-U.S. exports that this single project would enable. It would mean thousands of extra jobs for Canadians in western Canada but also, potentially, in central Canada, which might be the region supplying the steel for this patriotic pipeline. It would mean communities on the route would have new life, as workers would be filling restaurants with their paycheques.”
“To put this into perspective, recently I pointed out that the Prime Minister , after running on the promise that we were in an existential crisis and needed to do the unimaginable at speeds not seen in generations, had not succeeded in removing a single foreign tariff on Canadian exports despite countless months of world travel. He snapped back that there has been a trade deal with Indonesia. Well, forget the fact that it was the previous prime minister who negotiated that; something the current one has a bad habit of doing is taking credit for things he did not do. By the government's own projections, if that trade deal were to be as good as the Liberals promised, it would add $400 million to our exports.”
“Madam Speaker, we in the Conservative caucus are united. We believe that Canada needs a pipeline to the Pacific and that we need to override the discriminatory anti-Canada ban on shipping Canadian energy overseas. We need this pipeline because it would make for stronger take-home pay, it would make for affordable living, and it would make for a sovereign, self-reliant economy. Let us talk for a moment about the incredible benefits that such a pipeline would bring. It would allow us to move $30 billion a year of Canadian energy overseas to the 2.5 billion Asian customers who would then pay world prices for it. Thirty billion dollars would be the single biggest increase in overseas exports that any decision by this country could make.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is suggesting there are parts of his own MOU he does not support. The MOU says there would be a pipeline to the Pacific. I took the wording right out of the agreement. There would be an overriding of the tanker ban. I took the wording for that right out of the MOU. Now the Prime Minister is hiding under his desk. Liberal members on one side of the country are saying they are against, while they are pretending in Alberta that they are in favour. Why do they not stand up in the House of Commons, look Canadians in the eye, take one position, vote for a pipe to the Pacific and override the tanker ban?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the only division here is that the Prime Minister is divided against himself. The Prime Minister opposed the pipeline to the Pacific. Now he claims he supports it. He supported the tanker ban. Now he claims he opposed it. This is the Prime Minister who said he wanted to keep half of our oil in the ground, and now he pretends to have changed his mind. He signed an MOU. He says one thing in B.C., the opposite in Alberta, and here in the House of Commons, he hides under his desk. Why will the Prime Minister not stand up, take a position and announce he is voting in favour of his MOU language to build a pipeline?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are trying to do. In the spirit of Christmas, I decided to take a great act of generosity and lift the words right out of the Prime Minister 's MOU in order to support a pipeline to the Pacific and a repeal or an overriding of the Liberal tanker ban. Now, of course, it would mean Liberals would have to admit they were wrong, admit they were wrong to block that pipeline and wrong about the tanker ban. Will, in the spirit of Christmas, Liberals admit they were wrong, vote for their own wording, approve a pipeline and get rid of the tanker ban?”
“Mr. Speaker, if they want to combat their own cost of living crisis, the Liberals would focus on approving pipelines that would sell more oil and boost our Canadian dollar so Canadians could buy affordable food and homes. In fact, there was such a pipeline, the northern gateway. The Liberals killed it in a 2016 cabinet decision, a decision the Prime Minister supported. They further blocked it with a Liberal ban on tanker traffic off the northwest B.C. coast. The Prime Minister claims to have changed his mind in a recent MOU. Will he be able to change the minds of fellow Liberals to vote for his own MOU and allow a pipeline to the Pacific?”
“Mr. Speaker, this Christmas, the Prime Minister is the Grinch of the grocery store. According to Dalhousie University, the cost of groceries will be up $1,000 in 2026, for a total of $17,600 just to feed a family of four. It is the Liberal Grinch, who brings in an industrial carbon tax on farm equipment, fertilizer and food processors; the Liberal Grinch with a food packaging tax; and the Liberal Grinch with a $78-billion inflationary deficit. Will he get rid of all of these hidden grocery taxes so Canadians can feed themselves at Christmas?”
“Mr. Speaker, Christmastime is here and the Liberals are already acting like grinches, but Canadians are the ones who should be unhappy given grocery prices. Canadians deserve delicious, affordable meals, and yet Dalhousie University estimates that they will have to pay an extra $1,000 for groceries next year, for a total of $17,600. This is all because of the Liberals' inflationary taxes and deficits. Why are the Liberals forcing Canadians to feed a big government instead of feeding their families?”
“Mr. Speaker, the industrial carbon tax is not only real; it was in the Prime Minister 's own budget that he wants to increase it. It is a tax on the steel that goes into farm equipment, the fertilizer that goes into farm fields, the equipment that goes into food processors. Then there is the tax on food packaging. By banning plastics, they are making food go bad earlier and costing an extra $1 billion, all of which is passed on. Finally, a $78-billion deficit is inflating the cost of everything. Instead of doubling the cost of food, why will they not scrap the taxes on groceries?”
“Mr. Speaker, children cannot eat agreements or photo ops or promises. If any of these costly promises the Liberals were making were actually real, then we would not have seen the number of kids relying on food banks double to 700,000 kids in the last five years. Today, a report from Dalhousie proves that the weekly grocery bill of a family of four has doubled to $340 a week. That is the result. Will they finally reverse the Liberal taxes that are driving up food?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the point in any Liberal term when the Liberals go from making promises to making excuses. The Prime Minister promised that he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Let us look at those prices on a weekly basis. Today's report gives out data that shows that when the Liberals took office in 2015, it was $163 a week to afford groceries for a family of four. Now it is $340, literally double. Liberal taxes for farmers, fertilizers, food processors and packaging have all driven up the cost of food. Will the Liberals reverse their taxes on groceries?”
“Mr. Speaker, hard-working Canadians deserve affordable, nutritious and delicious food: meat and potatoes on the dinner table every single night. However, after a decade of the Liberal government, the cost of groceries has literally doubled. Today the food price report shows that Canadians will spend $17,600 to feed a family of four next year, double what it was when the Liberals took office, and $995 more than the preceding year, after the Prime Minister promised to be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Will the Prime Minister reverse his inflationary taxes on food?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us look at weekly grocery bills. According to data from the report released today, in 2015, the year the Liberals took office, the average Canadian family was spending $163 a week on groceries. Next year, it will be double that: $340. The cost of government has driven up the cost of groceries. When will the government axe these taxes?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to have nutritious, affordable, excellent food. Unfortunately, that is not what they are getting after 10 years of Liberal government. Let us look at the current facts. The annual food price report predicts that a family of four will spend up to $17,600 in 2026, an increase of $995. That is double what it was the year the Liberals took power. Will the Prime Minister finally abolish the taxes and inflationary deficits that are driving up the cost of food?”
“Mr. Speaker, it was a metaphor, just like all those Liberal promises. Unfortunately, today we learned even more terrible news. The Domtar workers in British Columbia have lost their jobs, as a 30th mill has closed under the Liberal government. The Prime Minister promised that he would get a deal to end the tariffs, and those tariffs have tripled, all while he removes the legal challenge against the illegal softwood lumber tariffs. How is it the Prime Minister broke his promise and sold out our lumber workers?”
“Mr. Speaker, I had the honour to stand with the Unifor workers in Brampton, who were out in the rain and the cold. There was not a Liberal around and not a word from the Prime Minister . All of them wanted to know what was happening with their jobs. The Liberals had given money to Stellantis for that plant and $15 billion to Stellantis for another plant, and those workers out in the cold, unable to afford their mortgages, were wondering how it was possible for the Prime Minister to give $15 billion without even guaranteeing their jobs. Does he have the courage to stand up now and explain it to their face?”
“I have three points, Mr. Speaker, about this $15-billion bailout and handout. The minister did not read the contract, she did not read the contract and she did not read the contract. How can she possibly claim she is going to get the money back, when she does not know what legal powers are in the contract because she admits she did not read the contract? My question for her is this. As families are lining up at food banks because they cannot afford food, how does she justify charging every single household $1,000 for a handout to a company shipping jobs south of the border?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are going to go and report the Prime Minister to the witness protection program, because he refuses to stand in this House and answer about his government's expenditure of $15 billion, $1,000 for every Canadian family, to one company, supposedly to create jobs. That same company now ships those jobs south of the border, and the government is covering up the contract. Yesterday, we learned from the company that it does not have any reason to redact the contract, so why does the government not release the full details of the contract, so that Canadians can find out how badly the Prime Minister ripped them off?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot stand up for workers if he cannot even stand up and answer my questions. The finance minister has not stood up for workers either. He signed a $15-billion sweetheart subsidy deal with Stellantis, and now that same company, taking our tax dollars, the equivalent of $1,000 for every family in Canada, is shipping the jobs to the United States of America. The industry minister says she has not even read the $15-billion contract. Has the Prime Minister even read the contract, or did he simply look at the $15-billion deal and say, who cares?”