“The government finally cancelled the carbon tax after attacking people who opposed it for ten years. Now they are bragging about cutting the fuel tax by 10 cents, but history shows the Liberals always end up raising taxes.”

“Mr. Speaker, yes, a year ago the government cancelled the carbon tax. I have to remind him that from 2015 to 2025, he spent all day long attacking those people who said that it was not very good to have a carbon tax. The Liberals said all the wrong things about that, but finally they recognized that was the right thing to do. The member is talking about the tax break that his government gave for 10¢ of taxe d’accise, as we are calling it in French. By the way, in 1979, we have to remember that under Joe Clark, the Progressive Conservative Party government applied this and said that we had to raise it to a level that was attacked by the Liberals at that time, but when they were back in power in 1980, they doubled that taxation. To the point about the taxe d’accise of 10¢—”

“The government has been in power for over a year and still refuses to work with the opposition parties. It only has a majority because members crossed the floor to join it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague; his questions are always pertinent. It is indeed a pity that the government, which has now been in office for over a year, has not gone to the trouble of engaging with the opposition parties, which is absolutely essential, particularly in the case of a minority government. That said, for the past few weeks, there has been talk of it being a majority government. It is a defector-led majority. It is a majority government made up of floor crossers. It is funny; I think it sounds quite good in both English and French.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government is spending too much money and adding to Canada's debt. Now we have to spend more money paying off that debt instead of funding public services. What are the consequences of this spending?”

“Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals treat Canadians like a cash cow and spend so irresponsibly, they are adding more money to the national credit card, which means we have to put more money toward repaying the debt than funding public services. What are the consequences of this kind of spending?”

“The government is spending too much money. This creates debt and deficits. Every cent we pay in GST now goes just to pay interest on the national debt. The government broke its promise to balance the budget.”

“Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois applauding my colleague, who speaks impeccable French, with genuine enthusiasm. Incidentally, I urge everyone to read the biography he published a few months ago of our leader, the Leader of the Opposition. My colleague’s question is essential and fundamental. When someone lives beyond their means, sooner or later, they have to pay for that spending. What does that lead to? It leads to debt, deficits and interest on the debt. We know that every penny of GST we pay is used solely to pay the interest on the debt. That is terrible. It is great for bankers but terrible for Canadians. That is why we need to adopt a responsible and realistic approach. Unfortunately, the government that was elected in 2015 on the promise that there would be no deficit in 2019 has thrown that promise away.”

“I oppose this bill. It only gives temporary tax breaks on fuel instead of permanently cutting fuel and carbon taxes. It also adds too much to the national debt without solving the high cost of living.”

“Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hard-working small business owners, farmers and families in my riding of Middlesex—London, I say enough is enough. Bill C-30, the Liberal government’s spring economic update implementation bill, does little to improve the quality of life for Canadians but does saddle them with lost investment opportunities and more generational debt. After months of the Prime Minister promising real change, Canadians are receiving more of the same temporary band-aids and half measures that fail to address the root causes of the affordability crisis, which is making life more expensive for every family across the country. Let me be perfectly clear from the outset: This is not a serious economic policy but a collection of short-term, worthless political gestures designed to create headlines while the Liberals avoid making the hard decisions that Canada needs to get our economy back on track. What does Bill C-30 actually deliver? It provides a temporary suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel, but only until September 7. That is just four and a half months of partial relief. After that, the taxes snap right back, so families will be struggling at the pumps, small businesses will still face high operating costs and farmers will still have to pay more to bring food to our tables. For those in Middlesex—London, where our rural roads stretch for kilometres and agriculture is the backbone of our local economy, this bill provides no relief at all. Farmers rely on diesel to run tractors, combines and transport trucks. Truckers haul our produce to market. Families drive long distances just to get to the city to buy groceries, go to a medical appointment or go to the grocery store. What the Liberal government is offering is not meaningful support. The bill gives it the opportunity for photo ops, plain and simple. It is a short-term gimmick to distract from the real pain that Canadians are facing every single day. Conservatives have been crystal clear. We want the permanent removal of all federal taxes on fuel for the remainder of 2026 and beyond. That would deliver real, tangible results and savings of roughly 25¢ per litre at the pumps for families, truckers and farmers right across the country. That is about $1,200 a year for an average family. That is real help for the producers who keep our grocery store shelves stocked. Instead, the Liberals are offering this fleeting discount and calling it leadership. I call it what it is, which is insufficient and insulting to people who are struggling. This pattern of temporary fixes repeats throughout the bill. There are minor tweaks to tax deductions for tradespeople, short extensions to EI benefits, small adjustments to the Canada pension plan and a few technical changes, such as an enhanced capital cost allowance. These may sound good in Liberal press releases and offer some temporary minor relief to some Canadians, but they do nothing to solve the real root causes of the problems, which are reckless Liberal spending, exploding Liberal deficits and a government that refuses to live within its means. The so-called hero banker PM has run the federal deficit nearly double in less than a year, and there is nothing to show for it. We are now looking at the largest deficit, outside of the pandemic, in our history. The national debt exceeds $1.3 trillion. Interest payments alone now cost taxpayers more than $59 billion annually, more than we spend on health transfers to the provinces. Every Canadian family is effectively paying over $3,400 a year just to service this debt. That is money that could go toward schools and hospitals, or back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians, the ones who earned it. While families in Middlesex—London are being forced to choose between filling their gas tank or their grocery cart and between paying the hydro bill or the mortgage, the Liberals are busy creating new funds and new ways to spend the money we do not have. They call it an “investment in the future”, but Canadians, especially rural Canadians, call that more debt being passed on to our children and grandchildren. As someone who comes from a farming background, I hear every week from constituents that high fuel costs, with carbon taxes layered on top, and red tape are threatening the family farms that have been in operation for generations. These are the people who work from dawn to dusk to produce the food we all depend on, yet the government continues to punish them with policies that drive up their input costs while grocery prices keep climbing for everyone else. The bill captures the Liberal approach perfectly: It manages the crisis instead of solves it and offers temporary relief instead of structural reform. The Liberals spend more, tax more and regulate more, and then hope no one notices when the bill is due. If I were not a responsible, functioning adult, I might think that was a good idea. The Conservatives offer a fundamentally different vision, one grounded in common sense and fiscal responsibility. We believe that the government should live within its means, just as families and farmers across Middlesex—London do every single day. That starts with permanently axing the carbon tax, not just the consumer portion but the entire carbon tax, including the industrial backstop that is driving up the cost of fuel, fertilizers and natural gas for drying grain and heating barns. The Conservatives would cut wasteful bureaucracy and the billions of dollars that are being squandered to consultants. We would repeal antidevelopment laws, such as Bill C-69, that block pipelines, energy projects and resource development. We would get serious about building homes by slashing red tape, speeding up approvals, incentivizing municipalities to build faster and removing the barriers that have made home ownership a distant dream for young families in our communities. Only the Conservatives would unleash our natural resources responsibly so that Canada could be a leader in affordable, reliable energy, not just for ourselves but also for our allies around the world. By developing our oil and gas and critical minerals responsibly, we could create good jobs in ridings like mine that are rich in nearby manufacturing and development. We could also lower energy prices at home, strengthen our economic sovereignty and ensure that Canada is no longer held hostage by foreign supply chains. I reject the idea that Canadians must keep paying higher taxes so that Ottawa can keep spending recklessly. I believe hard-working families deserve to keep more of their own money. I believe farmers and small businesses should not be punished for producing the foods and goods that keep this country running. I believe that the best way to help people is not through more government programs and subsidies, but through lower taxes, less red tape and real economic growth that creates opportunities for everyone. Bill C-30 would fail the test on every level. It is another chapter in the long, Liberal story of big promises and small results. It is more illusions of affordability, more illusions of fiscal irresponsibility and more credit card budgeting that would leave future generations to pay the price. I am fed up. Canadians are fed up. They are tired of seeing their grocery and gas bills and their receipts go up, while their paycheques stay the same and their purchasing power shrinks. They are tired of broken promises from a government that talks about hope but purposely does nothing in its power to keep people from feeling hopeless. Canadians are tired of being told to just wait, while cynical Liberal politicians in Ottawa play games with their hard-earned money and their children’s futures. In Middlesex—London, the stories are the same. There are young couples unable to afford their first home, small business owners going bust because people cannot afford to go out anymore and seniors stretching fixed incomes to cover rising utilities. The people of Canada deserve better. They deserve a government that puts families first, respects taxpayers and focuses on the real priorities. They deserve affordable homes, lower costs at the pump and the grocery store, safer communities, and a strong, self-reliant Canada that stands on its own two feet. That is exactly what Conservatives would deliver. We would bring common sense back to Ottawa. We would make life more affordable for every Canadian family. We would cut taxes, build homes that Canadians need, fix the budget and unleash the energy and resources that power our prosperity. We would rebuild Canada, where the next generation could actually get ahead and not just get by. The choice before the House and before Canadians is clear. They can accept temporary gimmicks or demand a permanent solution. They can accept more debt or demand real relief. They can accept illusions or demand results. The Conservatives have chosen common sense. Will the Liberals listen to us?”

“The carbon tax is making farming much more expensive. Fuel and fertilizer cost too much, and the government adds too many rules. We should make it easier to grow food in Canada, not harder.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member’s question fails to address something I can speak to, as I am someone who works in the agriculture industry and works daily with people in the agriculture industry. I can say that, since the carbon tax was implemented in Canada, our costs have gone up exponentially. Every single input cost in this country has gone up, and that started long before any conflict started around the globe. I hear this from farmers every single day. Fuel costs are through the roof and fertilizer costs are through the roof. The government continues to pile on red tape and more bureaucracy that tie the hands of our producers, the ones who feed us. We should all be doing all we can to make sure it is easier to produce food in this country.”

“We need to cut taxes, cut red tape, and work with local governments. High fees and too many rules stop builders from making homes that young families can afford.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very thoughtful question. Recently I have had the opportunity to sit down in London with homebuilders, developers and people who actually want to buy a home. I am hearing the same thing across my riding and across the country. We need to cut bureaucracy and red tape to make homes more affordable. Builders cannot build if they have to pay too many taxes. If the cost of a home now has hundreds of thousands of dollars in development charges, young families cannot afford to buy their first home. We need to work together with municipal governments to find a way to cut red tape, cut taxes and incentivize builders to build homes that Canadians can afford.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government's plans do not do enough to help people with high costs. I want to know if the member's voters also see that the government is just pretending to help.”

“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member’s speech, and I want to just bring things back a bit. One part of her speech basically was about the shallow so-called half-measures, which is what we are calling them, of the Liberal government to provide relief for issues that it has caused. I am wondering if her constituents are seeing what mine are, that the reality does not match the illusion, the smoke and mirrors, of the government as it keeps pretending to be focused on Canadians and affordability.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 40 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 →
• Vague
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Clarity 43 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“People in my riding cannot afford food and housing. Conservatives will keep fighting for everyday taxpayers and holding the government accountable.”

“Mr. Speaker, I hear from constituents every day. Tony from Denfield wrote to me and said, “The Prime Minister says that Canadians need to suffer for a little while. Why can’t the Liberals take half reduction in income so that they can feel the effects?” John from Newbury said, “Cost of living is too high. People cannot afford groceries, let alone housing. What happened to fiscal responsibility? Tired of being forgotten.” Ted from Putnam says, “Please keep fighting for the everyday taxpayer, and never forget who pays the bills. It seems like the other parties have forgotten where the buck stops.” Well, I could not agree more with that. Conservatives will continue fighting every day to make sure that Canadians are not forgotten and that we hold this Liberal government to account.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government's bad policies weakened Canada's power grid. Now we have to buy electricity from other countries for the first time in decades. The member helped cause this problem, so I want to know why she thinks she can fix it.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the whole issue of a new electricity system across Canada to double our electricity. The thing I like best about this approach is that for years, the government, including this member, who has been here for years, as I have faced her for over six years now, has hobbled our electricity system across this country. Now it is flying in at the last minute saying, “Oh my gosh, we don’t have enough electricity in Canada,” because we are actually importing electricity in Canada right now for the first time in decades, as a result of failed policies. It is now coming in as if it is the saviour and saying, “I get to fix this.” Well, if someone is an arsonist, they get to put out the fire. Can I ask the member how she thinks she is going to solve something that she actually helped the government create, as opposed to turning it over to people who actually know how to solve something?”

“The member's speech made no sense, and he insulted Christians. People in his riding are struggling with the cost of living and housing. It has been a year since the election. When will he open his local office so his voters can reach him?”

“Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot in that speech. A lot of it did not make sense. A lot of it nobody on this side could relate to or understand. The member talked a lot about the rights of his citizens, and we know the citizens in his area are suffering an affordability crisis. We know they are suffering a drug crisis, a housing crisis, an affordability crisis, a revenue crisis and an income crisis. In his speech, he even managed to disparage Christians in this country. I have a simple question for him. If he is talking about the rights of the citizens in his riding, I think it is a right of every citizen to have access to their MP. When will he open his office? We are a quarter of the way through the mandate. He has been here a year and his office is still closed.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 12 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I want the member to answer my question about when his office will open.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is. There might have been an issue with the audio. I do not know if the member knew he was being asked when his office will open.”

“This government spends too much money, borrows too much, and accomplishes very little. It is driving away business investment and hurting our resource industries by constantly changing the rules. I support the funding for skilled trades, but the government needs to control its deficits and spend real money on military equipment instead of more bureaucracy.”

“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury. This has been quite the spring economic statement or spring economic update, whatever the government wants to call it. A lot goes into every financial statement the government puts forward. It seems that there is no shortage of money to keep pouring out, but there is a real lack of fiscal discipline. One thing I did notice about this government over the last six and a half years that I have been here is its ability to announce and announce, as if it is going to continue to do great things. Announcing things, spending money and accomplishing very little seems to be the flavour of the day and that happens all the time here. I want to go through a bunch of things in my speech here. I do not mean to just be critical, so I will also be giving some good feedback on some of the things that work in this budget. First of all, let us talk about what my colleague across the way talked about, all the announcements of the 20 economic and defence partnerships signed in the last year. Partnerships are signatures. I would like to see what really comes out of those at the end of the day. We need to measure these outcomes. These are not just papers we sign. We are not a republic. Our Prime Minister is not a president who gets to write executive orders and say, “This is the way things are.” We are diminishing the role of the House of Commons here. We need to get back to actually doing things in the House of Commons that are good for all Canadians and include the input of people from across this country. I went through the budget. The budget talked about a few things, and I know that the government likes the high-level stuff to start the budget. It talks about the rule of law in Canada. If we had the rule of law in Canada, we would have a very stable investment dynamic right now, which we are clearly missing. This stable, reliable financial system is one that is layered more and more on top of an oligopoly that really benefits from the weight that it maintains and that, of course, the government would like that to be. We need to make sure we have a more diverse economy, a more open economy, an economy where people can see what the rules are and invest accordingly, not just invest when the government says, “Hey, we have some friends here, let us give them some money so they will put some more money into the economy.” That is not the way a modern, democratic country is supposed to run. It also talked about investment attractiveness. Let me tell the House what investment attractiveness would actually mean. It would mean that the pension funds that collect money from Canadians in Canada would actually reinvest that money into Canada. Most of those pension funds invest most of their money offshore and for good reason, because this government has created an economic and investment climate in this country that does not work if we want a return on capital. That return on capital, of course, is competitive with jurisdictions around the world, even to the south of us, where we have a trade partner that is not behaving as if we actually had a trade agreement with them. We have to make sure that we actually stand up against that. The next thing the budget talked about was tax competitiveness, but it was talked about under new business investment. All the current business investment is not taxed efficiently here in Canada. However, the government will give all kinds of tax credits if some new capital is brought into Canada. There is no clear path to what that represents as far as the rule of law going forward is concerned. Then it talked about Canadian resources, which we are proud to stand for on this side of the House. I am sure the members know the numerous entreaties we have made to the Liberal government to make sure we actually have a better resource industry in this country, with more transparency and more ability to get some things done, because the budget did talk about transparency. However, there is no transparency. There is a complete black hole. What are the rules today? What are the rules tomorrow? Continually changing the rules on our resource industry is what holds back investment in our most important part of our economy. I say most important not because I am trying to diminish any of the other parts of the Canadian economy, but because I want to make sure people understand how much those resource industries contribute to Canada, in employment, in taxation and in the balance of payments with our trade partners around the world. It is lopsided how much we actually benefit from the resources we export. We have to make sure that we have a level playing field that says, “Invest here, in this country, in these resources and you will get a return and there will be a line of sight on how that actually turns out for your shareholders and your company.” Now I am going to differ with a few things the government said in this economic statement. It talked about having the second-fastest growing economy in the G7. That is great, but most of those are in Europe. Japan’s in a bit of a mix right now. Compared to our neighbour to the south, we are forecast to be growing at 1.5%, and they are at 2.3%. The growth rate in the United States is one and a half times higher than our growth rate. We are not doing that well considering who our nearest neighbour is. We have to take a step back to understand what is happening here. Part of what is happening, of course, is the lack of transparency with respect to what happens to the investments people make in Canada. The government talked about fiscal discipline. Let me contradict it very clearly here: There is no fiscal discipline on that side of the House whatsoever. The Liberals talk about changing from a $78-billion deficit in the fall budget to a $67-billion deficit looking forward in the spring economic statement because of $7.8 billion more in collections from the resource industry. This is how we are making our money. This is how we are getting better. However, no sooner do they see a whole bunch of new revenue coming in from taxation than they decide to spend that in a bunch of other maladjusted ways as far as investing and throwing more money out the door. They can call it an investment, but it is a really bad use of our money. This is not a bottomless pit. Canadians need to make sure that we get back to balance at some point in time. That balance means at least a zero deficit, and hopefully a surplus at some point in time, because we have gotten massively into debt in this country. The government got cute in the spring economic statement and changed its actual fiscal anchor from a net debt to GDP and a declining deficit to a net deficit to GDP. That is because the GDP is not increasing enough. Members would know that when we talk about GDP, we are talking about consumption plus investment, plus government expenditures, plus exports, minus imports, one of which is government expenditures. Government expenditures keep increasing and therefore keep increasing the GDP. The rest of the equation is not holding weight because it is not that investable an economy. We need to do much better in that respect. A $67‑billion deficit is one thing, but $1.4 trillion in debt is the government’s book number. Let me explain what that means. The government has borrowed almost $2 trillion. It is paying interest on almost $2 trillion through its various agencies. The difference between $2 trillion and $1.4 trillion is $600 billion, which is in the various accounts at Crown corporations and other borrowing entities, many of which have opaque accounting mechanisms where they are not writing off their debts. Therefore, when the new government comes in, we are going to have to see a massive writeoff of all the debts that the current government has accumulated and has not put on its books at this point in time. That includes things like, of course, the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We pointed out at committee that it had $600 million‑plus in loans to Lion Electric in the first place. We have all kinds of boondoggles like that sitting in several Crown corporations that are part of the government’s debt profile. They have to be more transparent. This is something that has to change going forward. On March 27, the Liberals increased the borrowing authority to $2.54 trillion. That tells Canadians where they are going with this. We are going to have an extra half trillion dollars in debt going forward. Congratulations. There is no stopping this train. I need to give the government credit for what it has done with respect to training and for allocating a whole bunch of money to the trades. I am very thankful for that. I would like to thank the government because that is another page from the Conservative book that it took out of our policy manual, having more money put into the trades in this country so that we have better outcomes. For that whole layer of jobs that is unfulfilled at this point in time, we need to make sure we get those technical people trained. I thank the government for putting that in there. Something else I think the Liberals could put on there, if they are thinking about taking something else from our books, is defence. I know they have increased the money for defence. They have increased the salaries. Good for them. Now they are going for another defence procurement agency, a defence bank, and all these things where they are spending money on bureaucrats. Here is what the Liberals need to do. They need to spend money on defence and spend money on actually getting things. The United States has rightly been complaining about how much we have not spent on defence in Canada. They should take another page from our book. In the last election, we talked about getting Iqaluit built as a base. That should be a 90‑day process: Here is the money we need to spend on this and here is where we have to get going. They should act as if there is some urgency here and get some things going. We do not mind sharing these ideas with the government. We need to make some things happen in this country as quickly as possible. I beseech the government to take the good ideas we have presented to it and make them work going forward. There are a whole bunch of other issues here. I would love to keep talking, because there are other things I have to talk about, but I know my time has come to an end.”

“I apologize if I upset my colleague. The government needs to bring its trade agreements to Parliament so we can pass them. Canada needs to trade with more countries to solve our issues with the United States. We will see if these plans actually work.”

“Mr. Speaker, if I have said something that upset my colleague, I apologize, because I know they are working hard, but as I said in my speech, I think it is very clear that we need to measure these outcomes. At this point in time, we have signatures on letters of intent and everything. I am saying that the Liberals should bring these paths forward to the House of Commons. Let us pass all these documents they are signing that they think are going to do better for Canada. Let us measure the results. We do have a problem south of the border that we need to deal with at this point in time. Diversifying our trade, of course, is one of the most important things we do. We will look at the results when they arrive.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We are losing too many jobs to the United States. We need to keep jobs in Canada. I want to know what the government will do to fix this and how it will measure success.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his long question. I think I got the gist of it. It is important to have support for stakeholders in the Canadian economy right now. I wonder how the federal government will measure success when we are losing so many jobs to the United States. It is important to keep jobs here in Canada. What measures will the government put in place to mitigate the effects of this situation?”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“It is good to spend money to train people in the skilled trades, but they also need jobs once they finish training. Workers in my riding are worried there will not be enough jobs for them, and I want the member to address this.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are all up here and have lots of questions for this member, so I am grateful that you called on me. Last Friday, I spent some time with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in Oshawa, and we talked about money for the trades. I can appreciate that they are giving the Liberals some props for putting money towards that, but they have a real concern, and I have one too: What about jobs? We are going to spend all this money on trades. It is great to invest in trades, but these folks need jobs when they are trained, and right now the electrical workers and folks in my riding are very concerned about that. I wonder if the member could comment on that.”

“The government's plan to train workers will not fix our electricity problems. Its advisers already ruined Ontario's power system, and now they are doing the same to Canada by throwing money at it. We need a real plan that creates jobs and actually makes our power system work.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is very important. The government talks about training people, but it does not talk about how that is actually going to fit into the economy. I know the Prime Minister made an announcement while we were not sitting in the House of Commons last week about building our electricity system across Canada. Talking about the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, we know they are going to need those jobs. I think we have to take a good look. As I said earlier, the government has caused the problem with the electricity system in Canada because it inherited a bunch of policy advisers from the Government of Ontario who more or less botched the electricity system in Ontario for a decade. Then they moved to Ottawa and decided to botch it even further. All they seem to be able to do is add a whole bunch of money into the equation whenever those messes seem evident to everybody. We have to make sure we have a real solution here that gets people working and actually gets an electricity system that works for the whole country.”

“I oppose this budget update. The government is spending too much money and adding billions to the national debt. People in my riding are struggling to afford food and rent, and seniors are being forced back to work.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the soup and salad bowl of Canada, home to Honda Civic and the best potatoes this side of P.E.I. In the spring economic update, and throughout this debate, the Liberals have made it apparent that they believe Canadians have never had it so good. The Minister of Finance even introduced this update by telling us, “the dream of Canada is alive and well.” I think we need a reality check. Let me share what is happening in my community, because it tells a very different story. Last week, my son came back from running a booth at a local job fair. He came back upset and shocked. He told me he saw hundreds of people lined up, résumés in hand, hoping for a chance to work for one of the few employers in the area still hiring. That was not the shocking part, given that the unemployment rate is now almost 7% across the country. What was shocking to him was the number of seniors in those lines. I am lucky. My son is an old soul. He does not come to me often, but he was very upset. He told me how sad it was to see elderly men in dated suits that had not been worn in years, helped along by wives for whom just standing in that line was an immense effort. Those couples were not there out of choice or ambition. Those people had already worked their whole lives, earned for their retirement and assumed that this chapter was behind them, but now they are pushed back into the workforce because the cost of everything has risen so far and so fast. Unfortunately, very few will manage to get a job at all. It is not just them: All generations are struggling, right across the country. Young people have given up on owning a home. Families are choosing between groceries and rent. It is infuriating that this is the reality facing our people today. This is the new normal in Canada, after 11 years of the Liberal government. Canadians are being asked to accept what used to be unacceptable: crowded emergency rooms, no doctors, two million people lined up for blocks around food banks, and rampant crime and homelessness in our streets. We see it every day. Now even our proud Snowbirds, a symbol of Canadian excellence for generations, are being grounded for years and replaced with inferior aircraft that do not come close to what we have today. In every corner of Canadian life, the message from the government is the same: “Lower your expectations.” Instead of aspiring to build a better Canada and restoring the fiscal responsibility this country sorely needs, the spring economic update confirms that the Liberals are spending money they do not have and charging the bill to Canadians who can least afford it. The Prime Minister promised to spend less than Justin Trudeau, but under his leadership, direct program spending has increased 12.4%, and the deficit has doubled from $31 billion to $65 billion. Their own projections in this update show the national debt reaching $1.63 trillion by 2031. Every dollar of that debt comes with a price tag. This year alone, the price is $58.7 billion in interest payments. That is more than the federal government collects on GST and more than it transfers to the provinces through the Canada health transfer. That is $3,400 from every Canadian family: not for hospitals, not for highways, not for any of the people in that job fair line, just for the interest alone. This level of overspending is indefensible, given the windfall of tax revenue the government has collected through higher-than-expected oil prices over the past year. What did they do with this windfall? They spent 80¢ of every new dollar. They fell short of their own promised savings in operating expenditures by $30 billion. The debt-to-GDP ratio, the government’s own preferred measure of fiscal health, will continue rising until 2030. Instead of returning that good fortune to Canadians through lower taxes or applying it against the deficit, the government used it as a licence to spend even more. We see this with the so-called Canada Strong fund. There is another slogan. The Liberal government cannot even manage its own finances, but now it wants to leverage Canadians’ own money towards projects underwritten by even more debt. The key to a sovereign wealth fund is wealth, after all. After 11 years of the Liberal government, Canada has none. Our country is poorer due to Liberal policies that have blocked economic growth, fuelled inflation and increased our national debt to record levels. Now, just as they did with the failed Canada Infrastructure Bank, the Liberals claim that this $25-billion fund will attract investment that it would not otherwise attract. This begs the question that I have asked so many times in this chamber: If this fund is so great and will produce such an amazing return on that investment, why would we stop at $25 billion? Put in $100 billion. Why not put in $250 billion? After all, according to the government, it is just a capital investment. It is basically free. Well, we all know the answer to that, because at some point even the Liberal government has to own up to the fact that incurring massive amounts of debt is not an investment strategy. It is a liability, and $25 billion of it deployed into projects of the government’s choosing is not a true wealth fund; it is a gamble, and Canadians are being asked to cover that bet. This is a recurring theme with the Liberal government’s approach to the economy. It is always our people who have to suffer the consequences of this Prime Minister’s economic and trade failures, and right now they are struggling in record numbers. New insolvency data shows that over 37,000 Canadians filed for insolvency in the first quarter of 2026, the highest level since the great recession. Our people are carrying $2.6 trillion in household debt, while mortgage delinquency has reached its highest level in five years. With this spring economic update, the Liberals are adding more debt, more costs and more taxes on the backs of Canadians, who are already at the breaking point. Even worse, all this is taking place while Canada is still without a trade agreement with the United States. The uncertainty, tariffs and job losses that flow from that into auto manufacturing, into agriculture and right across the economy have more of an impact than anything announced in this update. The Liberals are failing on both fronts: They have not lowered the debt, increased investment or unleashed our economy, and they still have not gotten Canadians the trade deal they need. The Liberals would have us believe that if one does not support their spending, their failures and their misplaced priorities, they somehow do not support this country. It is crazy. Some members in this House may choose to set aside their principles to prop up this government. However, as a member of His Majesty’s loyal opposition, my job is not to blindly support the government’s agenda. It is to make Canada the best it can be by holding the government to account on behalf of Canadians. The spring economic update is not a plan to make Canada stronger. It is a plan to make Canadians poorer, and that is just not good enough. I believe in a Canada where hard work is rewarded, where the dream of owning a home is within reach and where the generations that follow us inherit something better than a lifetime of debt with nothing to show for it. That Canada is possible, and Conservatives will fight every day to make it happen.”

• Echo ×25

  A repeated line

  “After 11 years of the Liberal government.”

  Said 25 times by 19 members since April 30.

  Every time it was said →

“The government is out of touch. It is using borrowed money to pay for this new fund. The Liberals also wrongly claim that the industrial carbon tax does not raise prices.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North has had too much Kool-Aid today. That is a government that is out of touch. This so-called sovereign wealth fund is financed with debt. The government does not understand the way things work. The Liberals talk about imaginary taxes all the time. They say the industrial carbon tax does not drive up the price of things. That is how upside down the Liberals are.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Respect 77 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North has had too much Kool-Aid today”.

  See full analysis →

“Canadians are struggling with high debt, expensive housing, and the cost of food and medicine. The Liberals say the economy is doing great. I want them to explain why so many people feel like they are falling behind.”

“Mr. Speaker, Canada now has some of the highest household debt and least affordable housing in the G7. Food bank use is at a record high. Seniors are skipping meals. Young families are delaying having children. Working parents are choosing between groceries, rent and medication. However, I have heard the Liberals say over and over today that they are improving affordability and that Canada’s economy is doing great. My question is simple. If life is supposedly getting better, why are so many Canadians feeling like they are falling further behind every single month?”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Food bank usage is at a record high.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since May 25.

  Every time it was said →