On a day when the Conservatives were preoccupied with their Supply Day motion shenanigans, the PM was present, where he was doubtlessly going to be grilled on the topic. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and declared that Canada needs a pipeline to the Pacific, to strengthen our economy, strengthen the dollar and restore purchasing power, then declared that Carney’s caucus rebelled, so Poilievre took the words from the MOU, and asked if he would vote for them, or if they couldn’t believe his words. Carney replied that the MOU isn’t something you can pick and choose from, and that they chose only a few words and left out the industrial carbon price, the methane regulations, the Net-Zero 2050 goals, and that they need to eat the whole meal and not just the appetizer. Poilievre took this as an invitation to falsely claim that the industrial carbon price was causing food inflation, and demanded it be abolished, to which Carney reminded him there is no carbon taxes on Canadian farms, and that the impact of that price, according to the Canadian Climate Institute, is effectively zero. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the claim that we need a pipeline to the Pacific, at the supposed rebellion, and that he took the wording for his motion came right from the MOU. Carney quoted the Canadian cricket team about needing to play the whole T20 and not just a couple of overs (a not-so-subtle reference to the fact that the national cricket team was in the Gallery) and that the MOU wasn’t just about the pipeline, it’s also Pathways, methane reductions and Net-Zero 2050. Poilievre insisted that if the government votes against the motion, they vote against things like consultation with First Nations. Carney responded that this was the first time that Poilievre acknowledged the constitutional duty to consult, but he hasn’t acknowledged working with provinces or industrial carbon pricing. Poilievre claimed that they believe in it and put it in their motion (but said nothing of consent), and claimed Carney was quietly telling his caucus the pipeline was never going to happen. Carney insisted that the MOU was about pipeline, carbon capture, inter-ties for electricity, digital asbestos data centres, industrial carbon pricing, and methane reductions. Poilievre then said the quiet part out loud and that the only thing the motion doesn’t include a carbon price, and demanded a pipeline without a carbon price. Carney responded by suggesting they instead vote for the whole MOU.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, raised Steven Guilbeault’s op-ed, and wondered if the government was choosing his caucus or the shareholders in the oil sector. Carney said he was choosing the Canadian economy which includes clean and conventional energy. Blanchet moved to the religious exemption for hate speech, and wanted Carney’s personal views. Carney said that Bill C-9 is about protecting religions, such as temples, synagogues and mosques, and the committee was considering this matter. Blanchet then raised someone who has preached “anti-Zionism” under religious freedom, before moving topics again to the issue of “discount drivers” on roads. Carney said that unacceptable word are always unacceptable, and that they are working to protect truckers, which is why they were tightening the rules.

Round two, and Poilievre got back up to try and tie farming to the industrial carbon price (MacKinnon: We were all bracing for another lecture on wood, and hooray our farmers; Dabrusin: The industrial carbon price doesn’t affect food, but climate change does), Poilievre dismissed this as taxes not changing weather and claimed more “hidden taxes” (Hajdu: You don’t believe in climate change and believe in imaginary taxes, but vote against supports for families; They throw roadblocks at solutions), he called the deficit “morbidly obese” (Long: We cut taxes for Canadians; Hodgson: We are in a trade war), and Poilievre listed MPs who spoke out against the MOU and said that he has backed down to them (MacKinnon: Everyone on this side was elected to put Canadians to work).

Xavier Barsalou-Duval accused the prime minister of being cosy with someone who hires “discount drivers” (MacKinnon: This prime minister has worked to tighten the rules and the Quebec Association of Truckers congratulated us; Harper created the regime, and your provincial counterpart is asking the federal government to interfere in provincial jurisdiction).

Mark Strahl debuted today’s script about a pipeline and the motion (Hodgson: There are things we need to get there like the carbon price which you ignore; Noormohamed: Your motion ignores British Columbia), Stephanie Kusie read the same script (Zerucelli: We were elected to do big things, which you voted against) and launched an attack on Corey Hogan (Sidhu: I was born in Calgary and we are Building Canada Strong™), and Billy Morin read the script with a claim the Liberals were cutting out Indigenous voices (Gull-Masty: Are you consulting or pushing projects forward, because that is what Indigenous communities are worried about).

Chris d’Entremont gets a backbench suck-up question, starts with a Conservative script, pauses, changes the page, and then proceeds to ask a question about ACOA. The Liberals found this hilarious. #QP

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-09T19:50:26.560Z

Round three saw questions on food price inflation (Gainey: You voted against meals for children at school; There are no taxes on food; Hajdu: If you listen to the Conservatives, there is no solution, where we are taking care of people; Dabrusin: You didn’t actually read the food report, such as why drought has impacted the price of beef; Turnbull: Canadians are getting a tax break; Lightbound: It’s sad you just read talking points from your leader, and it’s sadder that you voted against help for Canadians; Look at all the jobs we’ve created while inflation is going down; MacKinnon: Nobody in your riding is saying to take these programmes away; Just what is “inflationary spending”?; van Koeverden: Your leader is so proud to vote against school food and housing, but he is also proud to call climate change just weather, or use possessives with Indigenous people; Belanger: You have done nothing for Saskatchewan over the past ten years; McLean: You lost an election and invented imaginary taxes), Guilbeault’s comments and the MOU saying nothing about consent (Dabrusin: The PM was clear that it requires the agreement of BC and First Nations), and the budget bill that gives ministers the power to exempt laws (Turnbull: We are reducing red tape to broaden regulatory sandboxes to drive innovation).

Overall, I will grant that I was surprised that Poilievre actually asked pipeline questions in French—but only two (and none of his Quebec MPs asked their own)—but it was probably unavoidable given the topic of the day, but man, the lengths by which Poilievre and the Conservatives contorted themselves around this question to try and trap the Liberals on the MOU while trying to avoid showing any support for carbon pricing was both cringey and hilarious. Poilievre then tried to goad Carney into answering through the second round again, this time on trying to tie the industrial carbon price to food price inflation. Carney didn’t engage, and we had more ministers actually pointing out to the role climate change plays in those price increases and Poilievre actively dismissing this as “weather” was an opening that they didn’t exploit nearly enough. Carney could and should have absolutely skewered him on that, but he did not, and it demonstrates the lack of a killer instinct.

I will note that it was amazing that Elizabeth May’s question on those passages in the Budget Implementation Bill about giving ministers the power to suspend certain laws did get an actual response, more or less, about sandboxing for regulations and innovation. It could have been clearer without as much self-congratulation, but there was an actual response to the question, which should not be novel, but in the current day, it is (and that is a sad, sad indictment).

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Natilien Joseph for a tailored dark grey suit with a white shirt and a dark blue diamond-patterned tie and complimentary-toned pocket square, and to Chi Nguyen for a black jacket with brass buttons, over a scoop-necked dark green velvet dress with some statement gold jewellery. Style citations go out to Anna Roberts for a light brown over-shirt with black patterns over a navy turtleneck and black slacks, and to Jonathan Rowe for a light blue jacket over a white shirt, black tie and blue jeans.