Post-budget, the PM was finally present for the first time in two weeks, as were all of the other leaders, ready to put on a show. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he declared that never has any budget forced Canadians to pay more for so little, decried the size of the deficit. Mark Carney insisted that Canada still has the best position in the G7, and that this was about building for the future. Poilievre decried that the cost to service the debt meant less money for doctors, and Carney retorted that debt servicing charges were less than they were under Harper. Poilievre repeated his first question in English, and threw in a couple of added slogans. Carney declared that 75 percent of the measures in the budget are to protect are sovereignty while the rest are for help for the cost of living, such as their tax cut. Poilievre insisted that the industrial carbon price was threatening “food sovereignty,” and quoted the so-called “Food Professor” to make his point. Carney patted himself on the back for killing the consumer carbon levy, that farms all fell below the industrial carbon price cut-off, and that the Climate Institute calculated that the impact of the industrial carbon price on inflation is zero. Poilievre tried to tie this to steel production and food prices, and Carney repeated that the effect of the industrial carbon price on food inflation is zero. Poilievre then switched to Friday’s Supreme Court decision, falsely characterised it, and demanded the government invoke the Notwithstanding Clause. Carney said that they would come up with new legislative measures in response.
Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, to lament that their priorities were not in the budget, and Carney responded that clean electricity tax credits was a good measure. Blanchet insisted that a tax credit was just creative accounting, and Carney insisted that Hydro-Quebec would be the biggest beneficiary, and that carbon capture was needed for the oil Quebec uses. Blanchet decried that the budget was just austerity, and Carney insisted this was about investing and that this was a growth budget.
Round two, and Poilievre got back up, and tried to claim that the industrial carbon price was a housing tax (MacKinnon: You are concerned over imaginary taxes), tried to insist that this meant that the budget was imaginary (MacKinnon: Some soaring rhetoric about what the budget will help build; Robinson: The budget delivers on affordable housing for Canadians), he invoked the “Food Professor” again to decry food prices (Hajdu: As a former single mother, I can tell him that affordability measures in this budget are what they are looking for; Canadians don’t have time for your antics), before Michael Chong got up to decry the changed fiscal anchor in the budget (Long: Reciting every budget slogan in succession; Sidhu: We are unlocking new markets for young Canadians).
Jean-Denis Garon decried that the environment was no longer a priority in the budget (Joly: Expenditures on defence have an impact in your riding, so how can you say it’s not delivering?; Quebeckers said they want us to protect their language and culture, and we have invested in the budget).
Adam Chambers worried some more about the size of the deficit (Anand: We have the best situation in the G7 and are topping the G20 for foreign direct investment; Solomon: Join us to build Canada), Dan Mazer read a script about the deficit (Turnbull: We are empowering Canadians; Gull-Masty: The prime minister has a vision for the future including space that have been under-invested like the North), and Luc Berthold read the French version of the same script (Lightbound: Hooray our position in the G7).
Round three saw yet more questions on the size of the deficit and the industrial carbon price (Zerucelli: We are building the country city-by-city; When we invest in unions to train people, it will build Canada; Belanger: You should love the country like we do; McLean: If you vote against budget, you will vote against school food, trading, and supports for seniors; Gainey: We are delivering historic investments; Alty: This budget focuses on youth, particularly Indigenous youth; MacDonald: The Climate Institute says that the industrial climate price has no effect on food prices; Guilbeault: When you were a provincial Liberal in Quebec, you voted for carbon pricing; Provost: There is a difference between spending and investing). There were also questions on the Supreme Court decision on Friday (Fraser: We will move forward legislative solutions that will give clear directions to the courts, and you should stop obstructing our border bill; Sahota: We are bringing forward a new bill but you voted against other measures to protect children), and changing the budget to get more support (MacKinnon: Hooray for the budget).
Conservatives still quoting the “Food Professor” to claim the industrial carbon price increases food prices. Carney and the agriculture minister have each countered with the Canadian Climate Institute analysis that says the effect of this price on food is essentially zero, but only once each. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-05T20:08:42.494Z
Why is it so hard for the government to say that the Conservatives didn’t read the #SCC decision on Friday and that they are outright lying about it actually said? #QP
— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-05T20:12:44.151Z
The shouting match over the aisle over that vile Supreme Court question is getting heated. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-05T20:13:47.911Z
Overall, it was back to an incredibly repetitive day, where very nearly all Conservative questions were about simultaneously the size of the deficit and the industrial carbon price, and most of them invoked the *ahem* “analysis” of the so-called “Food Professor,” which was contrary to any previous economic analysis of the impacts of carbon pricing on food price inflation (to which it is negligible). However, only two answers—one from Carney, one from the agriculture minister—quoted the Canadian Climate Institute’s study that showed there was no impact. That was it. They didn’t hammer that message home, but rather took the opportunity to get ministers just stand up and deliver their scripted good-news talking points about the budget, so that scripted questions and scripted answers were entirely divorced from one another. And while Poilievre had fully planed on trying to take the second round to goad Carney into responding to him further, Carney took off as soon as the leaders’ round ended.
We did not get away from the vile questions on Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision either today, as we got one from Poilievre at the end of the leaders’ round, plus more from Mark Strahl and Rachael Thomas in the third. And while Carney and Fraser had better answers today about crafting new legislation in response, rather than heed the brainless (and dangerous) calls to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause, it absolutely boggles my mind that no one on the government side can just say “Perhaps my honourable friend would like to actually read the decision, where they can see that the Court is calling on Parliament to craft more carefully targeted legislation.” It’s not that hard, and they keep giving the Conservatives more dishonest fodder for their clips rather than calling them out on their fabrications.
Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Giovanna Mingarelli for a light grey tailored three piece-suit with a white collared shirt, and to Ben Carr for a dark blue suit with a crisp white shirt and a pale pink tie. Style citations go out to, and to Jim Bélanger for a taupe grey microfibre jacket over a grey-green shirt, brown slacks, and a dark grey tie, and to Ruby Sahota for a dusky rose suit with a top that was the same colour, but two shades lighter. Dishonourable mention goes out to Shannon Miedema for a dark yellow jacket over a black top and slacks.