“This economic plan adds hundreds of billions of dollars to our debt without growing the economy. Instead of spending so much money on debt interest, the government should cut spending and balance the budget. It should also help our economy grow by supporting the oil and gas industry and letting companies build pipelines.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the spring economic update, or as I call it, the spring deficit update. The Liberals, on their introduction of the bill, put out a good 250-page program called “Canada Strong for All.” I think it should be “Canada Deficits for All.” It reminds me of a famous Internet meme from Toy Story of Woody and Buzz Lightyear, where Buzz is pointing out saying, “as far as the eye can see.” That is what this economic update is. It is deficits as far as the eye can see. Do members remember, not too long ago, in the Trudeau days, when Trudeau said that balanced budgets from the Liberal government was a commitment set in stone? He said it was “very” cast in stone. Now, 75% of the current Liberal bench, and about half the cabinet, is made up of people who were here under the Trudeau government, yet somehow this cast-in-stone commitment to balance the budget has disappeared. Instead of a balanced budget, what do we get? We get deficits as far as the eye can see. It was $67 billion last year, which is well up from the worst of the Trudeau days; $65 billion this year; $63 billion next year; $58 billion in 2028; a $56-billion deficit in 2029; and $53 billion in 2030. That is $362 billion of added debt in just over six years. Do members remember the government’s saying it was going to spend less and invest more? Over the same period, this spending less is going to get us $406 billion in interest on the Liberal debt. There is money for bankers, with $406 billion for banker friends of the Prime Minister, not for Canadians, not for more doctors, not for more nurses, not for more schools or hospitals, not for lower taxes, heaven forbid, and not for defence or more infrastructure. That is $406 billion over a six-year period for the Liberal debt. Do members remember, which was repeated ad nauseam by the government, by the ministers, that they were going to cut spending? Again, they said that they were going to spend less so they could invest more. The President of the Treasury Board was at the operations committee yesterday, the mighty OGGO. I have to mention that. He stated that there was $60 billion less in spending, but what does the spring deficit update actually bring us? It brings more spending and program spending that actually outpaces the rate of inflation over the next six years. Somehow spend less equals more program spending. This is from the Liberals’ own documents. What about the public service? The government says it is going to cut 35,000 jobs, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer has put out a report noting that spending on the public service is actually increasing 6%; from $71 billion, it is going up to $76 billion. In committee, we asked about this, and the Treasury Board told us that it is not actually reducing public servants or spending but just re-profiling, shifting things around. What does all this extra spending get us? For 10 years, the government has been excusing its deficits by saying that spending is needed because it is going to add growth, is going to do this and is going to do that. What did we get? It is not a lot of growth, with a 1.7% average growth over the next six years. An added deficit of $362 billion equals 1.7% growth. What is interesting is that the Bank of Canada put out its monetary policy report at about the same time that the spring deficit update came out from the government, and the Bank of Canada’s number for growth is 16% lower in 2027 than what the government is saying, with a 10% lower prediction in GDP growth the following year. How is it that the Bank of Canada has different numbers than the government does? We actually asked and were told that the Bank of Canada is using proper numbers. Who has the real numbers? How much higher is the deficit going to be if we are to believe the Bank of Canada over the government? It is about an extra $2 billion to $3 billion of deficit added per year. That is certainly not adding to any productivity or growth. According to the Bank of Canada report on the contributions to real GDP growth over the coming years, in 2026, the year we are in now, the vast majority of growth in our GDP is government spending. Almost as much growth is from consumption. It is not from added exports, and it is not from growth in productivity. I think GDP growth is 1.2% this year, and almost all of it is government spending. In 2027, 44% of the GDP growth that we are going to see in this country, according to the Bank of Canada, will not be from pipelines, from building more cars, from more industry or from more exports. It will be from government spending. In 2028, 27% of the projected growth, according to the Bank of Canada, is going to be government spending. What should we do to increase growth? It is simple: Unleash our oil and gas industry. We can start by repealing Bill C-48, which bans tankers off British Columbia’s north coast and stops Alberta oil from being exported. We could get rid of Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill. We could end the destructive oil production cap that the government still has not repealed. We could actually get to building pipelines and increasing revenue and wealth for this country. We saw a note from a very famous economist, Ms. Exner-Pirot. She stated that just in the two months of the war in Iran and the issues with the Strait of Hormuz, if we had built the northern gateway pipeline, we would be looking at an extra $3 billion in revenue for this country, just from the added oil from the last two months. The government is running a massive deficit. Instead, we could actually be making more. I am going to talk about northern gateway and the lost revenue caused by the government when it cancelled the project. The government has still not set up the regulatory regime to allow a pipeline to the coast. Total government revenue between 2019 and 2048, if we had built northern gateway, would be $131.5 billion: $72 billion for the federal government and about $59 billion for the provincial governments. On an annual basis, in revenue by region, provinces will have lost out on $2.1 billion per year because the Liberal government cancelled the northern gateway project, with $1.7 billion lost for the federal government. With respect to jobs, we just heard the member for Winnipeg North go on and on about, in the spring deficit update, money for trades. We do not have a lot of trades jobs available in Canada right now. It is wonderful that there is finally, after 10 years, recognition by the Liberal government that the people who build things have value, but where are the jobs going to be for them? The jobs could have been in helping build northern gateway. For that period, 773,000 jobs, on an FTE basis, are lost because the government threw up barriers and cancelled northern gateway. The government will say that we need to have a carbon tax in order to sell our oil. We saw the president of Cenovus today state quite bluntly that we would be the only country in the world handicapping our oil and gas industry in such a way. He states that under Liberal policies, the government is producing high-paying jobs in Saudi Arabia, Russia and America instead of here in Canada. Canada’s oil production is the most ethical, and we have an industry that is providing more jobs for indigenous people and more wealth than any other industry in Canada, but the government is trying to wreck it. The government needs to get out of the way and recognize that the oil and gas industry has produced wealth for this country and for the world. It needs to get out of the way to allow us to build, and it needs to stop its inflationary practices and stop destroying this country with its deficit spending.”

“The government is stopping pipeline construction and capping oil and gas production. It is also punishing our energy industry with a carbon tax that other countries do not have. Businesses will not invest in Canada because of these policies.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North overlooks the fact that this government has not repealed Bill C-48, which ensures no pipeline will get built to the B.C. coast. He overlooks that this government has still not repealed Bill C-69, the no new pipelines bill. This government has still not repealed the oil and gas production cap. Who is going to invest in this country when we cannot get our oil to market, and when the government is punishing the oil and gas industries with a carbon tax that does not apply to similar industries in other countries? The Major Projects Office is like everything else the Liberals offer: It is an illusion.”

“The Liberals broke their promise not to use giant bills that bundle many laws together. This bill includes 11 different laws and helps foreign companies take over our banks. The Prime Minister cares about his own business interests instead of Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague has brought up a great point. He has actually brought up two great points. When the same old, corrupt, tired Liberal government was elected, the Liberals stated they would no longer do omnibus bills, and that is what this is. I think there are 11 different pieces of legislation, including the act the member mentioned. On the direct question about helping foreign entities come in and take over our banking system, I honestly wonder what he expects from the Prime Minister when one of his last acts in the private sector was moving his company out of Canada into the States, and then denying he actually did it. The Prime Minister is not dedicated to our country. I think he is dedicated to his business interests.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 17 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Personal attack
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Respect 79 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “The Prime Minister is not dedicated to our country”.

  See full analysis →

“The government is spending an extra $3 billion on climate projects around the world while running a large deficit. Does the member really think Canadians can afford this?”

“Mr. Speaker, one thing the member missed in his speech that I think needs to be brought here very clearly, and I know the member will be able to address this, is the extra $3 billion put forward by this government, in a horrendously overstretched deficit, for international climate initiatives around the world. Does the member really think that Canadians can afford an extra $3 billion, and what does this signal as far as the government’s commitment to actually get things done properly with Canadian taxpayers’ money?”

“The government is wasting money overseas instead of helping people at home. Millions of Canadians need food banks every month, and families cannot afford food. The government should focus on building wealth in Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Calgary Centre for his continued advocacy for Alberta’s oil and gas industry. It is ridiculous. This government continues its virtue-signalling tour around the world, spending Canadian money on wasteful projects, I believe, overseas, when we have 2.2 million people every month at food banks in Canada. We have seniors and we have parents who cannot feed their children. This government should be focused on growing our wealth, not spending our wealth abroad so the Liberals can have photo ops.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I disagree with the member from the Green Party. Canada needs to build pipelines and build projects to help Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, of course, I disagree with the member from the Green Party. We probably disagree on everything. I think she needs to leave the past behind and, like Marty McFly, go back to the future and understand that Canada is in a different spot right now. We need to get the pipelines built. We need to build in Canada, to serve Canadians.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a 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 →

“The grocery rebate leaves out working families. A couple with kids making barely more than minimum wage earns too much to get it. Most of the money goes to single people without children instead. I want my colleague to comment on why the government made that choice.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg West; we share the “west” part of our ridings. I appreciate the member’s speech and I honestly believe that he means well, he cares for people and he is not out here pushing the government’s slogans. One of the issues he brought up was the grocery rebate. The way it is formulated, if we have a husband and wife, a mother and father, or two adults with up to four kids earning pennies above minimum wage in Manitoba, they would be earning too much and would not receive the grocery rebate. The way the government has it set up pushes most of the rebate into the hands of single earners, single families without children. Can my colleague comment on that being the government’s priority, not helping low-income families, which is the way the program is set up?”

“The member has supported American politician Bernie Sanders for a long time. I want to know which of his American policies she wants to bring to Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member has a lengthy history of supporting Bernie Sanders. A quick Google search revealed that he has many photos of press releases from events where she is seen sitting next to Bernie Sanders or supporting and applauding him down in the United States. What U.S.-style politics and policy from Bernie Sanders is she going to import into Canada?”

“The government is spending and borrowing too much money while life gets more expensive for Canadians. It wastes billions on outside consultants, bureaucracy, and broken computer projects. I want the government to stop this waste, cut back its spending, and leave more money with taxpayers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Riding Mountain. On April 28, the Minister of Finance proudly tabled his economic update. He talked about “Canada Strong”. He repeats that line every week in the House. The 167‑page update includes billions of dollars in spending, $25 billion for a sovereign debt fund, strategies, programs and announcements on top of announcements. In Parliament, the government was talking about ambition. Meanwhile, on April 28, people in Baie‑Saint‑Paul, Saint‑Hilarion, Beaupré, Boischatel, L’Isle‑aux‑Coudres, Île d’Orléans and in Montmorency—Charlevoix were going about their daily lives. Families were worried about their grocery bills. Young couples were holding off on buying their first home. Seniors were counting down the days until their next pension cheque. Workers were wondering how they were going to be able to pay their mortgage at the end of the month. These are the two realities that we are facing here in Canada in 2026. In Ottawa, the government talks to us about billions of dollars; in Quebec, however, people talk to us about dollars. I am rising today to make a connection between these two realities. To hear the Liberals talk in the House, it seems like all is well, yet Canadians know the truth, because they live with it daily. They go to the grocery store and see that things are more expensive. They go to the gas station and gas seems a lot more expensive too. When the time comes to pay their rent, mortgage or credit card, they see that something is wrong. I would like to talk about credit card budgets. The government talks about discipline, caution and responsibility, but let us look at the facts through the eyes of an an impartial third party. Claude Lavoie is not a Conservative. He was director-general of economic studies at Finance Canada. He said this: It’s not that the GDP is doing better. It’s more that we took in more revenue [including from gas taxes, because gas is expensive, so it brings in more money] and spent a little less by deferring certain expenses. In other words, the programs that were announced were not delivered, the money was not spent and people were taxed more. Now, the government is telling us that public finances have been carefully managed and that it has kept its promises. No, the government did not keep its promises at all. Not only did it not spend the money, but it imposed more taxes. It is also important to note that the Liberals are projecting an average deficit of $55 billion over five years. Things are not going well when it comes to taxation. The Conservatives are calling this a credit card budget. Basically, the government is paying the bills with the national credit card. Then, Canadians are forced to pay their bills with their own personal credit cards. That is why everything costs more. It is because when the Liberals spend without any limit, prices, interest rates and mortgages all go up and families get poorer. Today, the interest on the debt costs more than all of the health transfers to all the provinces. We were talking about health transfers. The interest on the debt costs more than all of that. Imagine. Every dollar people spend on federal taxes when they make a purchase goes toward paying bankers and bondholders. It does not go toward paying doctors and nurses, let alone supporting patients. Meanwhile, Canadians are skipping meals. There are parents who work full time. Some even work overtime, like Kevin, who called me this week to talk about his situation. He even shared his story with QUB Radio through tears. That is the reality for hard-working citizens who can no longer make ends meet. It is not that these people are not putting in the resources, the work or the effort. It is that they simply can no longer survive under Liberal rule, which takes everything from them. There are seniors living on $2,000 a month. How is anyone supposed to get by on $2,000 a month? The Prime Minister told us that affordability is the best it has ever been, but people do not live in press releases. They live in the real world. I would like to discuss something else that was announced: the sovereign debt fund. Despite inflation and the cost of living crisis, the government found a way to borrow $25 billion to create a gimmicky sovereign debt fund. The government talks about Norway and says that it will follow the Norwegians’ approach. It cannot be serious. Norway built its sovereign wealth fund by developing its resources and became wealthy by selling these resources. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is worth $3.5 trillion Canadian. It achieved this by developing its resources, not by going into debt and borrowing money. What is the Canadian government doing? Instead of using surpluses, it is taking on more debt to create the illusion of a sovereign wealth fund when that is not what it actually is. Basically, it is as if our neighbour boasted about opening up a savings account and depositing money into it but failed to mention that he used his credit card for the deposit. Ultimately, it is not a terrible idea, although what is most concerning is that the government refuses to even say how much this fund is going to cost per year. It is the flagship measure in its economic announcement, its economic update, but it refuses to say what the real annual cost will be. When a government refuses to say how much its key measure will cost, that is not transparency; it is a warning about what is to come. It shows what Canadians are going to experience in the coming years. While the government is asking people to tighten their belts and telling young people to make sacrifices, we are seeing money fly off in every direction. The government is investing at least $90 billion in Alto, a high-speed train project that the Minister of Finance recused himself from, or at least, he was supposed to. After 18 hours of Liberal monologues, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics was finally able to call the minister to answer questions. The government is investing close to $1 billion in the program to confiscate legal, registered guns. The government is going to spend nearly $1 billion to take those guns away, when they are clearly not the problem. The government spends $20 billion a year on outside consultants. It has hired 100,000 public servants over the past 10 years, and yet it still has to spend more than $20 billion a year on consultants. It has spent $65 billion on bureaucracy, which just keeps expanding. It spent $42 million in just one year on the Major Projects Office, which has not recommended a single project since it was created. Meanwhile, Canadian families are still having to choose between paying for groceries, paying the rent and putting gas in their cars. That is why the priority really lies elsewhere for the Conservatives. Our priority is to put money back in the pockets of Canadians, not in the pockets of consultants, not in the pockets of well-connected insiders and not in the coffers of poorly managed megaprojects. We want to put money back in the pockets of Canadians. I mentioned mismanaged projects. One that comes to mind straightaway is Cúram. Cúram is the latest chapter in an ongoing saga. In fact, we have not talked about it enough, and it needs to be discussed. It was in the budget. It is a computer system that was supposed to modernize pension payments, but what actually happened was that tens of thousands of seniors did not receive their cheques. These are people who worked all their lives, paid their taxes and trusted the government. What did the government do? In its economic update, with the trust of Canadians, it threw another $473 million at this fiasco. The total cost of creating this software was estimated at $1.75 billion, yet it has apparently surpassed $7 billion. That is what we are learning, because we are finding out more every day. The cost increased by 277%, for a cost overrun of $5.25 billion. That is what the Liberals’ idea of sound and effective management of public finances. It gets even worse. It might seem like this must be the end, but it is not, because there was also an internal memo forbidding public servants from telling seniors who were not receiving their cheques that the problem was caused by the new software. Two days after the economic update was released and the additional $473 million thrown at this fiasco was discovered, the government used its majority to block the opposition’s requests for parliamentary documents. Every day when a sitting of the House of Commons opens, the Speaker stands up and says, “Let the doors be opened”. Basically, the Speaker is telling the citizens to enter the people’s House. However, when opposition parties ask questions, those doors close. That is not transparency. That is certainly not accountability. I would, however, like to mention one good thing about the economic update, and that is sport. When something good is being done, we should be able to acknowledge it. The investments in amateur sport and sports federations are excellent news. It is too bad that we cannot vote on just one measure, because everyone agrees with that one. That is not a Conservative or Liberal point of view, but a Canadian point of view. The investments in sport and physical activity are good investments. That said, this measure is aimed primarily at the young people, families and volunteers who spend their evenings at rinks and fields. I look forward to seeing how direct support will be delivered to our teams on the ground. People can trust me because I am able to point out what is being done right. I am not just being partisan when I make a judgment and say that bad things are happening. Our role is not just to criticize or oppose; it is also to put forward proposals. Conservatives believe that a government should live by the same rules as Canadian families. When money is tight, choices have to be made. The government should cut waste, reduce unnecessary spending and respect workers’ money, because every dollar spent comes out of taxpayers’ pockets, and that needs to be respected. I will conclude on that note. The government needs to cut spending on consultants, trim the bureaucracy, put an end to mismanaged projects, cut waste and stop interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction. The government also needs to excel in the few areas where the Canadian federation requires its involvement, namely borders, the armed forces, the justice system, a strong dollar and strong interprovincial trade. This is what we should be focusing on to ensure that our constituents live in a prosperous country and feel that that is their reality.”

“The Prime Minister is calling this a sovereign wealth fund, but it is not one. It is funded by debt. England made the same kind of fund when the Prime Minister worked there, and they did not call it a sovereign wealth fund. He knows better, and calling it that is a mistake.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is very odd. In 2024, England set up a fund exactly like that. It was a fund directly financed with debt. The British Parliament refused to call it a sovereign wealth fund because that is not what it was. The term does exist, and it applies in some countries, such as Norway. However, the concept we are discussing is not a real sovereign wealth fund. Oddly enough, our current Prime Minister was a consultant. He was there to help the British Parliament put that in place. He knows that this is not a sovereign wealth fund. He is using the term, but not the concept. In my opinion, that is a mistake.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Respect 88 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “He knows that this is not a sovereign wealth fund”.

  See full analysis →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The Liberals claim to have a wealth fund, but they are paying for it with debt. They spend too much without asking Canadians, and they are putting our country deeper into debt every year. We will lose an average of $55 billion a year over the next five years. It is a mistake to gamble with public money.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always rather funny to hear our Liberal colleagues speaking to us as though their words are actually backed up by results. They talk about a wealth fund, meaning a fund containing wealth, but it is actually financed through debt. I said that the British Parliament refused to call it that. It was not the Conservatives in Canada who did so, but the British Parliament. The Prime Minister was an adviser on the project. He was told it would not be called that. The other thing my colleague just said is that Canadians are not being given the chance to make a decision. Indeed, that is what the Liberals have been doing for the past 11 years. They spend without restraint. They impose their decisions on Canadians by telling them that it is the right thing to do and that they have nothing to worry about, but we go further into debt year after year. Things are not getting any better. The country’s finances are not getting any better. Over the next five years, we will lose an average of $55 billion a year. They want us to believe that money will suddenly start growing on trees and everything will be fine. That is gambling with taxpayers’ money, and it is a mistake.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 92 of 100

  Of this reply, 91% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“A study says the government's buy-Canada policy could cost over $12 billion a year. Does my colleague think spending more money on projects like high-speed rail is the best way to help Canadians during a cost-of-living crisis?”

“Mr. Speaker, a recent study by the Montreal Economic Institute estimates that the government’s buy Canada policy could drive up costs by more than $12 billion a year. During an affordability crisis, does my colleague think paying much higher prices for Liberal vanity projects like Alto rail is the best way to help Canadians keep more of their hard-earned dollars in their pockets?”

“I oppose the government spending billions of dollars on a high-speed train. We do not know how much tickets or upkeep will cost, and it will use tax money to compete with airlines. Taxpayers will be stuck paying for it for generations.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Once again, it is a grand idea. Canada is going to build a high-speed rail system at the taxpayers’ expense. California is currently trying it out. It has already cost $300 billion, and it is not over yet. Here, they say it will cost $90 billion, but they do not say how much a ticket will cost. They are selling a project, but they are not saying how many people will be on it or how much it will cost to maintain. We already have airlines operating between Toronto and Montreal and between Montreal and Quebec City. They pay taxes and create jobs. Now the government is going to take responsibility for this and use public funds to compete with the private sector. What is more, the government is not telling people how much it will cost to ride this infamous train. It may turn out to be more expensive and less efficient than flying. Families will not use that train, but they will be paying for it their whole lives, for generations to come.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The Liberals wasted 300 million dollars on a digital prescription program that failed and was shut down. Hardly anyone used it, and the head of the non-profit running it made nearly 900,000 dollars a year. This shows the government wastes money without accountability.”

“Mr. Speaker, the bill is about how much money the Liberals have actually wasted here. The PrescribeIT program is a blinding example, and it is absolutely a waste of $300 million. Canada Health Infoway is a so-called non-profit organization funded by the federal Minister of Health. For nearly a decade, the Liberals poured money into a program called “PrescribeIT”. They promised PrescribeIT would eliminate fax machines for prescription drugs, but as a result, it was a $300-million failure. There was $300 million spent, and fewer than 5% of prescriptions ever made were on the platform. In my province of Manitoba, a province of over one million people, the program collected just over $1,200 in fee revenue over 15 months. The Liberals promised that it would be financially self-sustainable. What a joke. However, after spending $300 million with nothing to show for it, the Liberals quietly shut down the program and hoped that Canadians would never notice. The CEO of Canada Health Infoway, who refused to disclose his own salary at the health committee, was earning nearly $900,000 a year while this was happening. This was for a non-profit organization. He was fired last month, after the Conservatives launched an investigation. This is what Liberal spending looks like. It is a black hole with no accountability.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 8 of 100

  Only 1% of this question directly addressed the speech or the topic being debated.

  See full analysis →