House debates Conservative motion to cut all federal fuel taxes

Other moments

Question Period, exchange by exchange

AI-rated Each answer’s rating (answered, partly answered, deflected, answered something else) is a model’s reading of the exchange. How the AI rates this

1. deflected
   TaxationAndrew Scheer (Conservative) asked François-Philippe Champagne (Liberal). rhetorical question.The answer diverts to unrelated good news and IMF growth instead of addressing the call for full fuel tax relief.There is so much good news that I do not know where to start.
2. deflected
   TaxationAndrew Scheer (Conservative) asked Tim Hodgson (Liberal). rhetorical question.The answer lists unrelated tax cuts and ignores the specific question about full fuel tax elimination.We have reduced the price of gasoline by 28¢ a litre since we became the government.
3. deflected
   TaxationPierre Paul-Hus (Conservative) asked François-Philippe Champagne (Liberal). rhetorical question.The answer pivots to IMF growth and the partial measure without explaining refusal of full relief.This morning, the International Monetary Fund reported that Canada will have the second-fastest growth in the G7.
4. misdirected
   TaxationPierre Paul-Hus (Conservative) asked Joël Lightbound (Liberal). rhetorical question.The answer attacks the Conservatives' voting record instead of addressing the request to eliminate all fuel taxes.These are all measures the Conservatives voted against.
5. deflected
   TaxationJohn Barlow (Conservative) asked Steven MacKinnon (Liberal). rhetorical question.The answer shifts to jet fuel tax cuts and tourism instead of justifying the partial fuel tax relief.Canadians are going to find it less expensive to get out and travel around the country this summer, because we are lowering the excise tax on jet fuel.
6. deflected
   TaxationJohn Barlow (Conservative) asked Heath MacDonald (Liberal). rhetorical question.The answer emphasizes global instability and partial relief without engaging the demand for complete tax elimination.It is 28¢ less a litre since this new government has been put in place, and $2.4 billion back in the pockets of Canadians.
7. partly answered
   News Media IndustryChristine Normandin (Bloc) asked Marc Miller (Liberal). substantive question.The answer acknowledges the fund's role for French media and states options are under consideration.Yes, we are considering all the options in a landscape where these platforms and these broadcasters are under threat from the larger platforms.
8. partly answered
   News Media IndustryChristine Normandin (Bloc) asked Marc Miller (Liberal). substantive question.The answer refers back to considering options but does not commit to increasing the fund.as I said in my previous answer, we are considering several options.
9. deflected
   News Media IndustryMartin Champoux (Bloc) asked Marc Miller (Liberal). substantive question.The answer attacks the Bloc's motives rather than addressing the timeline for replenishing the ILNF or extending the tax credit.that question reveals the true nature of the Bloc Québécois, which is always trying to pit the English-language media against the French-language media.
10. deflected
    TaxationScot Davidson (Conservative) asked Tim Hodgson (Liberal). loaded question.The answer lists prior tax cuts instead of explaining the current fuel price policy or addressing the revenue versus relief claim.We have cut taxes by 28¢ a litre since this new government came into office.
11. partly answered
    TaxationScot Davidson (Conservative) asked François-Philippe Champagne (Liberal). loaded question.The answer acknowledges the savings figure and lists beneficiaries but does not address adopting the full Conservative plan.I know in his heart, he knows that the measure will save Canadians $2.4 billion.
12. deflected
    TaxationRob Moore (Conservative) asked Wayne Long (Liberal). loaded question.The answer pivots to criticizing the opposition leader's activities instead of explaining why only partial tax relief was chosen.while that leader continues his podcast tour, on this side of the House we are going to continue to focus on affordability for Canadians.
13. partly answered
    TaxationRob Moore (Conservative) asked Patty Hajdu (Liberal). loaded question.The answer explains the short-term pause and contrasts it with long-term measures but avoids committing to the full Conservative tax elimination plan.We can help families with urgent cost relief right now, which we are doing by eliminating the fuel excise tax, but what we can also do, and this is the part Conservatives do not get, is help with long-term sustainable affordability.
14. misdirected
    TaxationWarren Steinley (Conservative) asked Buckley Belanger (Liberal). loaded question.The answer shifts to announcing a tax break for farmers in Saskatchewan instead of addressing the national fuel tax relief question.I get to announce the tax break for the farming community in Saskatchewan.
15. misdirected
    TaxationWarren Steinley (Conservative) asked Buckley Belanger (Liberal). rhetorical question.Both sides trade personal attacks about past records rather than discussing fuel taxes.
16. deflected
    TaxationHelena Konanz (Conservative) asked Jill McKnight (Liberal). loaded question.The answer highlights summer tourism benefits instead of addressing why only one-third of the year and one-third of the taxes were paused.are happy to hear that we are making a reduction in fuel costs from now until Labour Day.
17. deflected
    Employment InsuranceAndréanne Larouche (Bloc) asked Patty Hajdu (Liberal). substantive question.The answer discusses general EI improvements without addressing the spring gap or the requested 15 weeks.That is why we improved the program and added measures for workers facing real hardships.
18. deflected
    Employment InsuranceMarilène Gill (Bloc) asked Patty Hajdu (Liberal). substantive question.The answer offers general support and collaboration but does not commit to filling the spring gap.I want to work with my colleague to come up with other ideas to help workers.
19. deflected
    TaxationLuc Berthold (Conservative) asked Nathalie Provost (Liberal). loaded question.The answer defends multiple programs instead of addressing why the government did not abolish all gasoline taxes.we are working to boost Canadians' purchasing power in every way we can.
20. misdirected
    TaxationLuc Berthold (Conservative) asked Rachel Bendayan (Liberal). loaded question.The answer shifts to criticizing the Conservatives' filibuster rather than responding to the tax relief question.The Conservatives' approach since last summer has been to filibuster in the House.
21. misdirected
    TaxationDominique Vien (Conservative) asked Joël Lightbound (Liberal). loaded question.The answer pivots to listing unrelated Liberal programs instead of addressing the full tax elimination request.It would be so simple for the member to support that program.
22. misdirected
    TaxationDominique Vien (Conservative) asked Joël Lightbound (Liberal). substantive question.The answer attacks the questioner's past government actions instead of addressing the partial relief criticism.I also find it ironic that the member opposite was part of the Quebec government that put a price on pollution with its cap-and-trade system.
23. misdirected
    TaxationJacques Gourde (Conservative) asked François-Philippe Champagne (Liberal). rhetorical question.The answer insults the member with a grade comparison and avoids engaging the policy critique.like the people watching us on TV, I must give the member an A in theatre but perhaps a C in math.
24. answered
    Indigenous AffairsJamie Schmale (Conservative) asked Rebecca Alty (Liberal). substantive question.The answer directly states the government's disagreement, appeal, and commitment to protecting private property.We disagreed with the Cowichan ruling and appealed it on September 8, 2025.
25. deflected
    Indigenous AffairsJamie Schmale (Conservative) asked Rebecca Alty (Liberal). substantive question.The answer restates the appeal without addressing the specific argument limitation raised.Mr. Speaker, again, we are appealing the Cowichan ruling, and we will be pursuing all legal options.
26. partly answered
    Indigenous AffairsChak Au (Conservative) asked Rebecca Alty (Liberal). substantive question.The answer states a position on property rights but avoids confirming the specific argument in court.We believe that this decision requires legal clarity.
27. answered
    Indigenous AffairsChak Au (Conservative) asked Sean Fraser (Liberal). substantive question.The answer directly states the government's position on fee simple and private property rights.At trial we defended fee simple, and we believe that more clarity is needed, particularly on the issue of private property rights.
28. deflected
    Indigenous AffairsEllis Ross (Conservative) asked Rebecca Alty (Liberal). substantive question.The answer shifts to negotiations and another agreement instead of addressing the court argument priority.This is what we have done in that member's jurisdiction.
29. misdirected
    Indigenous AffairsEllis Ross (Conservative) asked Gregor Robertson (Liberal). substantive question.The answer attacks the opposition rather than addressing the commitment on future agreements.This band of Conservatives is what is sowing dissent and anxiety in Canada.
30. partly answered
    Indigenous AffairsBrad Vis (Conservative) asked Jill McKnight (Liberal). substantive question.The answer affirms commitment to clarity on property rights but does not confirm the specific argument will be made.We are committed to maintaining legal clarity and stability for private land ownership.
31. misdirected
    Indigenous AffairsSukhman Gill (Conservative) asked Taleeb Noormohamed (Liberal). substantive question.The answer accuses the opposition of fearmongering instead of confirming the commitment on agreements.The concern here is that the opposition is not interested in the answer.
32. partly answered
    Indigenous AffairsTamara Jansen (Conservative) asked Rebecca Alty (Liberal). loaded question.The answer addresses defending property rights through litigation and negotiation but ignores the loaded framing.Through litigation, we are defending private property.
33. deflected
    EthicsMichael Cooper (Conservative) asked Steven MacKinnon (Liberal). substantive question.The answer discusses ethics rules and Alto's ownership without addressing the request for the minister to appear or stop filibustering.We will comply vigorously, as my colleague the Minister of Finance has done.
34. misdirected
    EthicsMichael Cooper (Conservative) asked Steven MacKinnon (Liberal). rhetorical question.The answer pivots to praising the rail project and attacking Conservative positions instead of addressing accountability or the Liberal majority question.
35. misdirected
    Rail TransportationShelby Kramp-Neuman (Conservative) asked Steven MacKinnon (Liberal). loaded question.The answer focuses on past Conservative support for rail rather than addressing costs, expropriation, or cancellation request.The conclusion the Conservative delegates came to overwhelmingly, just three years ago said, was to build high-speed rail in this country.
36. deflected
    Foreign AffairsMichael Chong (Conservative) asked Mona Fortier (Liberal). substantive question.The answer addresses general support for civilians and monitoring Iran without explaining the UN committee vote.We are currently supporting and making sure that civilians and civilian infrastructure are protected and that international law is respected
37. partly answered
    HealthGord Johns (NDP) asked Marjorie Michel (Liberal). substantive question.The answer acknowledges the concern and states ongoing conversations with Alberta but provides no timeline or enforcement details.My department is having a conversation with Alberta right now.
38. deflected
    Science and InnovationElizabeth May (Green) asked Karim Bardeesy (Liberal). substantive question.The answer highlights record investments and visits but does not confirm whether the chief science adviser was consulted on the cuts.we made record investments in science and research in the 2024 budget, and now in the 2025 budget on our impact-plus research chairs program.