Business of Supply

An opposition day motion on the state of Canada’s economy. Conservatives argued the country is in a recession, citing flat or negative GDP growth, declining business investment, weak productivity, and rising food bank use, and called for tax cuts, reduced regulation and more competition. Liberals pointed to job growth since the last election, wages rising faster than inflation, high foreign investment, growing exports and programs such as the national school food program, and argued that describing Canada’s economy as broken hurts the country in trade negotiations. Bloc Québécois members said Liberal policies contributed to a weak economy but questioned whether the Conservatives were overstating how bad things are. A brief procedural exchange concerned quorum and whether members may comment on attendance in the chamber.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

38 statements

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Canada's economy is doing well compared to other wealthy nations, despite what the Conservatives say. Our government is building major projects across the country, expanding trade around the world, and protecting good jobs by working with the provinces and Indigenous leaders.”
  • A repeated line

    “The expansion of the Port of Montreal.”

    Said 7 times by 5 members since April 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the opposition day motion, I thought it was really important for us to try to paint a different picture from what the Conservatives have been trying to tell Canadians, day in and day out. Canada as an economy, as a community, is actually doing quite well in comparison to other G20 countries. We continue to work every day on building a stronger and healthier economy. We often talk about how important it is to have a strong economy. In fact, we have had the Prime Minister clearly indicate that we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7. We are committed to doing that, to putting in the effort and the work necessary in order to achieve that goal. Canada has what the world wants in a very real and tangible way. I do not say that lightly because, at the end of the day, if we were to talk to the Prime Minister or any of the ministers who have been travelling abroad, in particular the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Industry or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, we would find that, wherever they go, they constantly hear about how others want to invest in and be a part of the Canadian economy or society, in some fashion or another. That should come as no surprise to members opposite. We were very aggressive in the last federal election just over a year ago when Canadians chose a new government and a new Prime Minister with a very clear mandate to build stronger relationships and look at ways to export our products beyond the Canada‑U.S.A. border. It is truly encouraging to see the degree to which, in that last 12 months, we have been very successful at reaching out and getting trade and defence agreements with a number of nations around the world. We have now had, for example, legislative measures here that have passed in Indonesia and the U.K., or England and Northern Ireland. It was really quite encouraging to see legislation and other aspects of trade being expanded. That is not failing to recognize the importance of U.S.‑Canada trade relations. In fact, what we have seen is a substantial increase in trade between Canada and the United States at the same time. I think it is worthy to note the degree to which we as a nation rely on trade. If people wonder why we have a government that is so focused on trying to expand opportunities, they should get an understanding and appreciation of the number of jobs that are very much dependent on trade. I have said this in the past. Canada makes up roughly 0.25% of the world population, yet we contribute far more in terms of trade. That should be in the back of our minds as we look at ways we can build that stronger and healthier economy. Exports and two-way trade matter. They mean literally hundreds of thousands of jobs, but that is not all that, as a government, we are acting on. We have a government that realizes that it is one thing to talk about improving and increasing exports and trade opportunities, but we also have to be able to invest in and build Canada’s infrastructure. We have a government that is very much focused on building that infrastructure in major projects. When we have a Prime Minister who tells not only Canadians but the world that we want to be an energy superpower, it means that we have to be prepared to look internally within Canada to see how we will achieve this. Factor that into trade and how important it is that we work with other jurisdictions, and what we have seen is a team Canada approach at building a stronger and healthier economy. This is because when we talk about those major projects, what we are really talking about is working with stakeholders, provinces, territories and indigenous leaders and looking at projects that are going to help build that economy, whether it is in the energy area or dealing with exports of widgets, which is absolutely critically important. We can ultimately see those tangible results. We have relationships with those provincial entities, territories, indigenous leaders and other stakeholders and we have seen major projects in every region of our great nation. I can talk about wind energy from Atlantic Canada and other energy sources. In the past, I have highlighted the expansion of the port of Montreal. This is a major investment that is going to allow for a lot more in terms of Canada’s ability to export. I can talk about nuclear energy in Ontario. A while back, I was in the Philippines as part of a government trade promotion mission, where I sat around the table with representatives from, I believe, the Ontario government, along with the federal government. Most importantly, there were representatives for nuclear energy potential in the Philippines. They were talking about how they were looking at Canada as a way to expand their nuclear energy supply, in particular, in Ontario, and that is why we see those federal investments. We can play a strong leadership role not only for Ontario or within Canada, but also abroad. Continuing to move from east to west, we can talk about Manitoba and the mining opportunities there through major projects. A personal favourite of mine, and I know the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski has been a very strong advocate for it, is the port of Churchill. We can talk about opportunities. Even the Premier of Manitoba is on board, promoting and encouraging opportunities with the port of Churchill. It would provide us, I believe, the opportunity to expand the port to be a year-round port, with the potential of exporting LNG and other types of minerals, scarce minerals, and other items. For the first time in generations, we have seen significant movement, and there is a sense of hope and optimism that we are moving in the right direction by working together and collaborating. We can move on to Saskatchewan, where we can talk about copper mines, canola and potash. The federal government is working well with the provincial government in recognizing the potential that Saskatchewan can materialize for the entire nation. With Alberta, we signed an MOU not that long ago. It was concerning, given the number of MPs from Alberta, that the Conservatives were not on board with that MOU. Now we have an implementation agreement, which is even a step further, because the Government of Canada, working in collaboration with the Province of Ontario, is in a great position to ultimately see more energy sources coming out of Alberta. Working collaboratively can make a difference. We can go to British Columbia. British Columbia leads the nation on things like LNG and mining. I am thinking of copper and other things. We can go into the north, where we are investing billions into northern economic sovereignty. There, we are seeing the promotion of energy can be a resource for actual sovereignty by promoting growth, in terms of our militarization in one form or another, in terms of the north and protecting sovereignty. The bottom line is that the federal government is demonstrating very clearly how, working collaboratively, we can build a stronger and healthier economy and society that all Canadians will be able to take part in. This is a wonderful opportunity. Political entities at different levels of government and municipalities of all different sizes are coming together and recognizing, based on the last national election, that it is time for collaboration. That is what we are witnessing, and there are tangible results there. We have seen other federal initiatives promoting investment, which is so warranted that we are fighting for it, such as the sovereign wealth fund, better known as the Canada Strong fund. The sovereign wealth fund has the potential to be there in a very real and tangible way for Canadians; it also affords Canadians the opportunity to be part of a wealth fund. I believe that the generation of this fund and having it as a resource in Calgary, where we have the Major Projects Office, can be a fantastic asset. We will be able to work in that collaborative fashion, making sure, where we can, that these major projects get off the ground and that they are sustained and highly successful. We have also seen a significant commitment to investments in Canada over the last year. We are not talking about millions of dollars; we are talking about billions of dollars in commitments. That is of great significance, because we recognize the times. We recognize that we need to think beyond the Canada‑U.S.A. border. At the same time, we are also looking, in terms of the United States, at ways we can enhance that relationship. There is a great deal of back-and-forth between American and Canadian politicians and the populations of the respective countries. There is a relationship that is exceptionally deep, between Canada and the United States, and we are going to continue to see that relationship well into the future. At the same time, it is important that we do not capitulate, that Canada stands strong and firm and ultimately achieves the best deal it can under the current administration. Contrary to what we might hear from across the aisle, if it takes time, we are prepared to put in the time. We are prepared to put in the resources. We have a cabinet and ministers who are providing the lead on this file and the capability to deliver for Canadians. That is what we will do on that particular file, recognizing that we exchange nearly $3.6 billion a day, I believe, between our two great nations. What is encouraging is that trade has actually increased year over year, so it is not fair to say or to imply that there is anything otherwise taking place with respect to international trade beyond Canada and the U.S. or between Canada and the U.S. The Prime Minister and the government are very much aware of how important that trade file is for both nations. We are very much aware of the importance of developing, promoting and materializing those major projects. It is something we are committed to doing. I have a quote I want to share with members. It is an important quote that I believe really says a lot, since the last national election just over a year ago. The International Monetary Fund, the IMF, is a fund that is, in essence, an organization that over 190 countries contribute to. It carries a great deal of influence around the world. Here is what it had to say about Canada and our approach: that we are “focus[ed] strategically on investment that [is] progrowth”. This organization is projecting that Canada will have the second-strongest growth in the G7 in 2026. When we put it in that perspective and look, from an economic point of view, at what we have been able to accomplish over the last year, it is leading to the types of results we need to see. As was pointed out on a number of occasions, in May alone, 88,000 jobs were created. Canada is in a great fiscal position to be able to do the things we need to do to support Canadians, such as the groceries and essentials benefit, which is providing support for Canadians. In fact, just last week, 11 million families benefited from that particular program. We reduced the tax on gasoline, the federal excise tax, by suspending it until Labour Day. The issue of affordability is important to this government. I realize I am running out of time. Hopefully, maybe in response to a question, I will be able to provide more details on the environment. However, whenever I talk about economic opportunities, advancements and major projects, I truly believe, as the government does, that sustainable development means the environment, with indigenous people being involved. It means including provinces and territories, working collaboratively, and together we can, in fact, build Canada strong—

Fraser Tolmie, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan

Conservative
“The Liberal government has failed the economy for ten years. If they had fixed trade across provinces years ago, Canadians would not be struggling to afford food today.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 20 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed my root canal today. I want to talk about my colleague across the aisle’s saying that he has recognized the economy. The Liberal Party has failed Canadian people for far too long. The Liberals had this opportunity 10 years ago, but they are just recognizing it now. The failures have prevented Canadians from being insulated from the challenges we are facing globally. I have just never heard such drivel in my entire life. The Liberal government has failed and has missed opportunities, and it is like a brand new thing to them. It is unbelievable. This should have been done 10 years ago. Canadians would not be in food lines. In my own riding, people are now being interviewed to go to the food bank. How has the government insulated and prevented Canadians from going through that? It is an economic mess.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“The Conservatives only say bad things about Canada. In reality, our economy is doing well compared to other countries. We get more foreign business investment per person than other major nations, but the Conservatives ignore the good news.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 21 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, but I guess the member is being consistent with the leader of the Conservative Party, who likes to go around Canada and tell Canadians that Canada is broken, that the sky is falling and that it is a massive darkness. A Conservative MP stands up, and we get the opinion that a black cloud is going over Canada. I would contrast Canada, its economy and overall performance, with any other G7 or G20 country. We have more foreign direct investment coming into Canada on a per capita basis, definitely the best in the G20 and G7 and likely the best in the world. The Conservatives just do not want to recognize when there is good news. If we raise the good news, they—

Martin Champoux, Drummond

Bloc Québécois
“The government says things are going well, but Canada lost 35,000 retail jobs in early 2026. This shows that people cannot afford to shop. I want to know when the government will help people pay for groceries and basic needs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the member for Winnipeg North talk about good news and how lucky Canadians are to have the current government, I really have to wonder. I wonder if I am dreaming and if someone should wake me up. It is really astonishing. The Liberals’ self-congratulation is getting embarrassing. When figures come out, we can break them down and interpret them as we wish, but some of them do not lie. In the first quarter of 2026, 35,000 retail jobs were lost. Retail is the end of the line. It is clothing shops, supermarkets and convenience stores. That is where people go to shop for their everyday needs. The loss of 35,000 jobs in the first quarter of 2026 means that people cannot afford to buy from their regular stores. That is an alarming figure that shows that Canadians and Quebeckers are currently feeling much more financial distress than optimism, contrary to what my colleague would have us believe. At some point, will the government take concrete measures to help people pay for groceries and basic needs?

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Politicians pick and choose their numbers, but Canada has gained over 150,000 jobs since the last election. We still have a top credit rating, and we are spending more on our military.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member is right that sometimes people, and politicians on both sides of the House, will be selective in the stats that they will throw out. Let me give a stat that I believe is important. Since the last federal election, there has been an increase in employment of over 150,000. Members can cherry-pick all they want in between, but at the end of the day, there are 150,000 more jobs since this Prime Minister was elected Prime Minister, and that is given the circumstances of that election. Canada still has a AAA credit rating, and for the first time in generations, we are investing in the Canadian military. We have actually surpassed that 2% of the GDP.

Marilyn Gladu, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong

Liberal
“I do not think there are enough members in the room for us to be meeting right now.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 31 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am just surprised. It is the Conservatives’ opposition day, and I do not think we even have the number of people required in the chamber. I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he could just— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Marilyn Gladu, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong

Liberal
“Can the member talk about the good things our government is doing to help our country?”
Official Hansard

It is comments and questions, right? The question is, could the member talk about all of the positive things that our government is doing to restore our country—

Martin Champoux, Drummond

Bloc Québécois
“A member pointed out that very few Conservatives are here today. I want to know if our rules allow members to point out who is here and who is not.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am curious. My colleague on the opposite side mentioned the fact that there are very few Conservative MPs present, even though it is their opposition day. Like you, I thought this was a quorum call, but is it permissible to note the absence or presence of MPs in the House?

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Our government has done a lot of good work for the economy and for Canadians over the past year. People support what we are doing, but the Conservatives keep complaining.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 39 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question very much. If we look at what has been achieved over the last 13 or 14 months since Canadians elected our current Prime Minister, it has been a great deal. Someone brought up the analogy of a marathon runner in terms of how the government, and the Prime Minister in particular, is responding to the Canadian economy and society as a whole, bringing in good legislative measures and financial measures to support Canadians. Canadians are seeing it, and they are encouraging us to continue to move forward. Only the Conservatives seem to be the naysayers.

Rhonda Kirkland, Oshawa

Conservative
“People are struggling to afford food, and the government's grocery benefit only gives some people about a dollar a week. Conservatives did not vote against this help. The government's many programs show that its policies have failed.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather appalling the way the member stands up here and talks about how everything is so wonderful. I will ask him what I asked earlier this morning. Is he talking to folks in his riding? People are struggling. We Conservatives are fighting for those people, and we are talking to them every day. I spoke with one of my constituents, who talked about the groceries and essentials benefit. I should correct the record because the Liberals keep saying that we voted against it, which is patently untrue. Since that is not the case, I did ask how the groceries and essentials benefit was helping her. My constituent said that it is giving her $1.31 per week, which might help her buy another package of ramen noodles. I wonder if the member would recognize that having all of these programs is really just a recognition of the government’s failure.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Wages have gone up faster than inflation since the last election. Some people still struggle, which is why we started a permanent program to feed school children. It feeds 400,000 kids, but the Conservatives still oppose it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member opposite would recognize that the average wage has actually increased more than the inflation rate every month since we had that last federal election. At the end of the day, there are individuals who are having some financial difficulties, and that has always been the case. Obviously, we all want to try to assist where we can, and that is where I would challenge the member opposite. A good program is the national school food program, which was made permanent by this Prime Minister, by this government. There are members of the Conservative Party who have called it garbage and said that it does not exist. It feeds 400,000 young children, yet they oppose it. At times, one begins to question just how much hypocrisy is oozing from the other side.

Charles Sousa, Mississauga—Lakeshore

Liberal
“The Conservatives claim Canada's economy is falling apart, even though experts disagree. This hurts Canada and helps the United States in trade talks. I want to know what the member thinks about this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, how does the member perceive the reaction in trade negotiations when the opposition is proposing that Canada is in a gloomy position, while most economists and experts are not positioning it that way at all? The Conservatives are positioning this as though Canada is in the midst of a tremendous downfall, when in fact it is the opposite, but that is giving leverage and strength to the United States in trade discussions. Can the member comment, please?

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Conservatives keep saying Canada's economy is broken. Talking down our country only helps the United States instead of Canada.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because there is so much truth in what the member said. If we go around and tell the world that Canada’s economy is bad, we cannot trust it, everything is broken and so forth, which is what we hear from Conservative member after Conservative member talking negatively about Canada, that ultimately assists the U.S. over Canada. I would cite the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North, who went down to the United States, and his report, after meeting with President Trump and the Vice-President, was that Canadians are just having a “hissy fit”—

Kurt Holman, London—Fanshawe

Conservative
“The economy is not doing well. More people are using food banks in London, and I want the member to explain that.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, to address what the parliamentary secretary is implying, which is that the economy here in Canada is good, I would ask him to come down to the London region. It is not just the increased food bank usage but the other organizations that support the food bank. I was talking to a representative from Urban Roots, which grows natural food to be donated to various organizations, including the local London Food Bank. The usage has increased in the last year. I would ask the member to comment on that.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Our government supports every region of Canada. We fund food banks and school food programs for children, which the Conservatives voted against.”
  • A repeated line

    “Such as the national school food program.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since June 8.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that different regions of the country have different impacts in the community. The government continues to look at all the regions of the country, and we do what we can, such as the national school food program for children, which the member opposite voted against. We also financially support food banks. We are, as a government, a whole lot more compassionate than what we have seen from the Conservatives over the last number of—

Michael Chong, Wellington—Halton Hills North

Conservative
“Canada is in a recession. Average income per person, worker productivity, and business investment are all dropping. The government must admit the economy is in trouble and fix it by cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and increasing competition.”
  • A repeated line

    “The governor of the Bank of Canada.”

    Said 4 times by 3 members since June 2.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, a recession can be defined as two consecutive quarters of flat or negative GDP growth. By that definition, Canada is in a recession. The government has downplayed the seriousness of these two consecutive flat to negative quarters of growth and painted a picture of an economy with underlying strength. However, that fails to take into account the bigger picture. Here is the bigger picture: In three of the last four quarters, aggregate GDP shrank. That comes on the heels of years of shrinking per capita GDP. Per capita GDP is a more important measure than aggregate GDP. Here is why. Decades from now, it would be far better to live in a country of 40 million Canadians making double what they make now than to live in a country with 100 million Canadians making the same as they make now. The first country would have a smaller economy than the latter, but it would be more cohesive, more prosperous and more environmentally sustainable, with higher levels of individual income. Many corporate CEOs would prefer the latter country, because the total accessible market would be larger, but the average Canadian would be poorer for it. Looking at the last three years, the picture of per capita GDP is grim. Canada was effectively in a per capita recession in 2023 and 2024. In 2022, per capita GDP stood at $60,735. In 2023, it shrank by $458. In 2024, it shrank, yet again, by $539. Over a two-year period, per capita GDP dropped by almost $1,000 per person, a drop of about 1.6%. Looking at the last six years, the picture is not much better. Before the pandemic began, per capita GDP stood at $59,681 in 2019. Last year, it stood at $60,073, an increase of only $392 over six years. This is a compound annual growth rate of 0.1% per year, effectively zero. All the while, the cost of living skyrocketed. The picture is just as bad when we look at last year. While per capita GDP edged up slightly in the last quarter, the first quarter of 2026, by 0.2% quarter over quarter, the fact is that per capita GDP shrank in Q2 and Q4 last year. As a result, per capita GDP last quarter was up only 0.2% year over year, effectively zero. In other words, per capita GDP in the first year of the new Liberal government follows the same trajectory as it had under the old Liberal government. Part of the bigger picture is not only declining GDP, but productivity. As a Nobel Prize-winning economist once said, “Productivity isn’t everything, but, in the long run, it is almost everything. A country’s ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker.” The picture of productivity looks grim. When we look at Statistics Canada’s annual measures, labour productivity has declined in each and every one of the last four years for which we have full-year data. Productivity dropped from $67.70 an hour worked in 2020 to $63.20 in 2024, a decline of almost 7%. Two years ago, on March 26, 2024, the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Carolyn Rogers, called Canada’s lagging productivity an “emergency”. Since then, productivity appears to have flatlined, if not declined. The emergency appears to have become even more dire. When we look at Statistics Canada’s quarterly measures, business sector labour productivity declined over the last year. In the first quarter of 2025, it measured on an index of 100 at 104.7. Last quarter, it stood at 104.074, a decline of 0.5% in just one year. Under the new Liberal government, the productivity emergency has gotten worse than it was under the old Liberal government. At this point, I will remind the House that I will be splitting my time. When the Bank of Canada rang the alarm bells on productivity, it cited low levels of business investment as one of the root causes. Business investment has plummeted over the past decade. According to a recent analysis by Steven Globerman of the Fraser Institute, business investment in plants, capital, equipment and IP, expressed as a percentage of GDP, dropped from 13.8% in 2014 to 11.1% last year, and under the new Liberal government, the decline has continued. According to Statistics Canada’s release of May 29, “Business capital investment fell 0.7% in the first quarter of 2026, the fifth consecutive quarterly decline.” Steven Globerman has called this a “business investment emergency”. We have not only a productivity emergency but a business investment emergency. The word “emergency” is not my word. This is the word of the Bank of Canada and a reputable research organization. The fundamentals have not gotten better in the past 12 months under the new Liberal government: not on per capita GDP, not on productivity growth and not on business capital investment. In fact, in many cases, it has gotten worse. The data I cite in this speech is taken from Statistics Canada, including tables 36-10-0706-01, 36-10-0480-01 and 36-10-0206-01, unless I have specified otherwise. In my assessment, nothing the new Liberal government has done with the new Prime Minister in the past year fundamentally changes the trajectory of the economy, and the early data that has come in over the past four quarters confirms that assessment. Canada’s per capita GDP continues to flatline, if not decline. Canada’s productivity continues to flatline, if not decline. Canada’s business capital investment continues to flatline, if not outright decline. That is because the government has failed to introduce the fundamental reforms necessary to turn the economy around. It has failed to introduce wholesale tax reform to our personal and corporate income tax systems. We need tax reform of the scale and ambition that we saw in 1971 or in the 1980s under the government of Brian Mulroney. It has failed to introduce fiscal reform of the scale and ambition of former prime minister Chrétien and finance minister Martin, who, in 1995, introduced a revolutionary budget that refocused the federal government and balanced the budget in 36 months. It has failed to introduce desperately needed competition reform to address the oligopolies and the uncompetitiveness of our economy, which are making our goods unattractive for export to global markets. Export expressed as a percentage of our GDP has plummeted, from about 43% of GDP in the year 2000 to about 33% today. The government has also failed to introduce the regulatory reform needed. We need to reduce the regulation that is strangling business investment and growth. The government implicitly acknowledged that its regulatory approach is not working. Not only has the government not used the national interest designation under Bill C-5, but it is engaged in yet more consultations to introduce yet more legislation to change its regulatory approach. Until early April, the government could argue that it did not have the power to enact these fundamental reforms because it did not have a majority. That excuse no longer holds. The early data coming in over the past 12 months is that the new Liberal government is on the same course as the old Liberal government on per capita GDP, productivity and business capital investment. The government has a choice: to acknowledge how bad things are, reverse course and introduce fundamental reforms in taxation, competition, and regulatory and fiscal policies, or to continue to preside over Canada’s continued economic decline. If the government does not acknowledge the very real and serious fundamental challenges our economy is facing, it will not fix the problem.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Foreign investment in Canada is at a 20-year high, and our exports are up both to the United States and the rest of the world. Where is the member getting his numbers?”
Official Hansard

I have two quick points, Mr. Speaker. The member gives the impression that it is an issue of foreign investment. Foreign investment today is at a 20-year high. I do not quite understand how he sees that as a decrease. On exports, we are at least 17% higher internationally, outside of the United States, but also exports to the United States are up from last year. Where is the member really drawing his numbers and conclusions from?

Michael Chong, Wellington—Halton Hills North

Conservative
“The member opposite is looking at the wrong numbers. Business investment in Canada has gone down for five quarters in a row. It is now too low to even replace our aging equipment, which is a major problem.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is making the mistake of looking at flows, in other words at the P&L, rather than at the balance sheet. The balance sheet is clear. Business capital investment has declined in each and every one of the last five consecutive quarters. That is the more important measurement, because as capital is deployed, it depreciates, and the fact that business capital investment has failed to keep up with the capital depreciation in this country and has declined over the last five quarters is a much more alarming statistic than the flows he is citing.

Mario Beaulieu, La Pointe-de-l'Île

Bloc Québécois
“Canada's economy is doing poorly, and Liberal policies caused this recession. But the Conservatives are exaggerating how bad things are. Does my colleague think that hurts their credibility?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Clarity 37 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Canadian economy is not doing well. It is also true that certain Liberal policies have contributed to the fact that we are in a technical recession. However, by painting an overly dire and one-sided picture, are the Conservatives not discrediting themselves? What does my colleague think?

Michael Chong, Wellington—Halton Hills North

Conservative
“Economic experts are calling our situation an emergency. The government has not fixed our main economic problems, and that is why Canadians still struggle to afford daily life.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “The governor of the Bank of Canada.”

    Said 4 times by 3 members since June 2.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It was not me who used the word “emergency”; it was the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada. It was a central banker who used the word “emergency”, which is strong language for someone who is normally quite opaque about the direction of the economy. It was not me who used the word “emergency”; it was Steven Globerman at the Fraser Institute, a reputable research organization and one of the largest economic research organizations in the country. The fact is that nothing has addressed the fundamental problems facing our economy, and that is why Canadians continue to struggle with the cost of day-to-day living and other essentials.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 131

  1. Private Members' Business The Criminal Code 6 statements
  2. Government Orders Business of Supply 68 statements
  3. Oral Questions The Economy 12 statements
  4. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 14 statements
  6. Oral Questions Health 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 10 statements
  8. Oral Questions Youth 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions The Economy 10 statements
  10. Oral Questions Health 8 statements
  11. Oral Questions Public Safety 6 statements
  12. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Employment 4 statements
  14. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  15. Government Orders Business of Supply 38 statements
  16. Government Orders Business of Supply 28 statements
  17. Government Orders Main Estimates, 2026-27 106 statements
  18. Government Orders Supplementary Estimates (A), 2026‑27 7 statements
  19. Government Orders Government Orders 5 statements
  20. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  21. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements