“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.”

“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.”

• Little substance
  ?

  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 →

“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.”

“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.”

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

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “The governor of the Bank of Canada.”

  Said 4 times by 3 members since June 2.

  Every time it was said →

“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.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“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.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “The governor of the Bank of Canada.”

  Said 4 times by 3 members since June 2.

  Every time it was said →

“People in my riding are struggling to afford food, and the country is in a recession. The Liberals keep denying there is a problem. What is the danger of denying these clear issues?”

“Mr. Speaker, I always learn so much whenever my colleague stands in the House. I am hearing constantly from the people in my riding that they are struggling with basic needs, like putting food on the table. I know I am not the only one. I am sure every MP in this room right now, every MP who was elected in the last year, feels the same thing. We know from the data that there is a recession. We know there are issues in Canada, but the Liberals keep denying that anything is wrong. What does my colleague think is the danger of denying issues like this when they are so blatant? I know the Liberals are hearing the same things we are hearing. What is the danger of denial?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 44 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 →

“Our top-earning and most skilled workers are leaving Canada for the United States to get higher pay and lower taxes. Studies show that thousands of our highest earners have already moved there.”

“Mr. Speaker, one of the dangers of denial is that we are going to see a brain drain from this country to our neighbour to the south. According to the TD Bank study that was released on May 21, Canada’s top-skilled workers are leaving for the United States in droves for lower taxes and higher pay. It says, “Canada is not hollowing out; it is spilling out at the top” and “Absent progress on this front, Canada will continue to be a feeder system for the U.S. innovation economy.” Statistics Canada confirms that in 2023 alone, 18,590 Canadian residents immigrated to the U.S. permanently, and a 2024 Bank of Canada study found that 40% of Canadians who would rank in the top 1% of earners have already left Canada for the United States. It also found that up to half of the top 2% to 10% of income earners have also already left.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Canadians are struggling to afford food and going bankrupt. I want to know if the member tells people in his riding that the country is on the right track.”

“Mr. Speaker, when the member opposite is in his riding and he is talking to the Canadians standing in food bank lineups, facing consumer insolvency and struggling to afford groceries, I wonder if the response he gives Canadians is that we are 100% on the right track. Are these the statistics he gives them? Is this acceptable to the Canadians who live in his riding? It is sure not acceptable in my riding, when I talk to people who are struggling.”

“Crime, debt, and the cost of living are getting worse under this government. Canadians do not believe their promises anymore because life is not getting better. I want to know when the government will face this fact.”

“Mr. Speaker, behind every announcement from the government is a problem getting worse, whether it is crime, debt or the cost of ordinary life. Canadians have stopped taking Liberal promises on faith because they are now measuring them against their own reality. They fall short every time. When will the government and the member address that they cannot announce their way out of results—”

“I support this motion. Canada is in a recession because of high government spending and taxes. I want the government to cut spending, lower taxes, and reduce rules on businesses so life becomes more affordable.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of this motion because it tells the truth about what the Liberals have done to this country. The reality is that Canada is in a recession. This is not a slowdown. This is not a rough patch. It is a recession. In fact, it is the only country in a recession in the G20. Canadians in Newmarket—Aurora are living it every day. They are paying more for groceries. They are watching their mortgage payments climb. They are wondering whether their kids will be able to afford a home in the community they grew up in. They are asking a simple question: How did it come to this? The answer is 11 years of poor Liberal policies and spending without limits. The numbers do not lie. Scotiabank has downgraded Canada’s growth to 0.8% this year, and the Bank of Montreal has downgraded Canada’s growth to 0.5% this year. Then, there is the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent, non-partisan officer of this Parliament, and her latest report does not mince words. There is slowing growth, a weakening fiscal outlook and a deficit that is bigger than promised. The probability of the government meeting its own fiscal anchor is 1%. Let us remember that this is after the government chose to give up the last fiscal anchor it also could not meet. If a student handed in a business plan with a 1% chance of success, they would fail the course. If a CEO presented a strategy with a 1% chance of meeting its targets, the board would show them the door. However, the government members stand here and ask Canadians to trust them with the national finances, with a 1% chance of keeping their own promises. Let us not forget they revised this fiscal anchor after they already failed to meet their last one. I should mention I am splitting my time. The government will stand and say this is all external, that it is caused by global headwinds, tariff uncertainty, forces beyond its control. Canadians have heard that before. They heard it when inflation hit 40‑year highs. They heard it when housing costs skyrocketed. They heard it when the debt doubled. There is always an excuse from the Liberal government. There is never accountability. Here is what it cannot explain away: Every other G20 country is growing. Canada is an outlier. Canada is the exception. Even Mexico, which also shares a border with the U.S. and has been significantly impacted by tariffs, has managed to steer clear of a recession. When we are the only country in the world’s 20 largest economies to be in a recession, that is a local policy problem. Still, the Liberal government has chosen to respond with more of the same: denial, increased spending, higher taxes, more regulation and more debt. It continues to choose to make life more expensive for the very Canadians who were already stretched to the limit. I want to speak directly to what this means to the families I represent in Newmarket—Aurora. I heard from a young couple, both working, both doing everything right, who cannot afford a down payment because their rent has eaten up every dollar they saved. I heard from a small business owner on Davis Drive who is watching her customer base shrink because people simply do not have money left over at the end of the month. I heard from a senior on a fixed income who never thought he would have to choose between his bills and groceries. This is deeply concerning for me because my own grandfather lives in Aurora and we have this conversation all too often. Seniors, who spent their entire life working hard, who gave it their all, are now on a fixed income and have to make these impossible choices. They are not statistics. They are neighbours and friends. They are family members, in fact. They deserve a government that is honest about the damage that it has caused and is serious about fixing it. This motion calls for exactly that. Today’s motion does not ask the impossible. It does not ask the government to undo every mistake overnight. It asks for something straightforward: reverse the costly inflationary policies that brought Canada to this point; stop the reckless spending that drives up debt and keeps interest rates higher for longer; stop layering on new taxes and new regulatory burdens on businesses that are trying to hire, invest and grow; and stop the costly credit card budgeting that future generations will be asked to pay for. On this point, I had a discussion with a group of youth just a few weeks back. They told me they felt like they were on a bus where the driver did not care about the passengers and did not care about the direction that the passengers wanted to go in. They felt that they were the passengers, because the government was driving them into incredible amounts of debt that they would eventually inherit. The government can start with its $750-million gun grab, the $90-billion train or the $25 billion of debt it will be taking on for the so-called sovereign wealth fund or the $20 billion on consultants. Those are just to name a few. I am talking about Canada’s conditions for real, sustainable growth, not politically convenient announcements, but the kind of economic environment where businesses expand, investors can invest, workers earn more and businesses can actually get ahead. Today’s motion is simple. It is honest. It is necessary. Canada is in a recession, the only country in the G20. The banks have downgraded growth projections. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has sounded the alarm. The numbers do not lie, even when the government’s talking points are trying to obscure them. Conservatives will always stand on the side of fiscal responsibility, economic growth and the hard-working Canadians who deserve a government that respects every hard-earned dollar that they make, and to work as hard as they do. With that, I urge all members of this chamber to support this motion.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “The reality is that Canada is in a recession.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since June 8.

  Every time it was said →

“Young people are having a very hard time finding jobs. Even when they do find work, especially in the trades, there are not enough experienced workers to train them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I brought up youth because I have been hearing these concerns for quite some time. Of course, for youth, it is about that first job opportunity. It is an opportunity to build a career and have a future here in our country. Most of the concerns are with unemployment that is highly concentrated in youth. It is a concern for them because they tell me it is not a situation where they can just walk in and get a job any more, or submit a résumé and get a job any more. A lot of them are not able to find that job. When they do, because some of the industries, especially the trades, do not have senior people there any more to train them, they find their futures are actually quite difficult.”

“Young people are struggling to find their first jobs because businesses are closing down. The government is not doing anything to help these businesses with high taxes and too many rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, one of my priorities is to be the voice of the youth who are struggling today. As I mentioned before, it is quite concerning for them because of how critical that first job is. They are looking for these jobs in all sorts of industries, but we are seeing that business investment has fallen for five consecutive quarters and that more businesses are shutting down than opening up. Retail, which is one of the largest employers for our youth, is being hit particularly hard. There is no initiative right now from the government to actually remove some of the barriers that these businesses are challenged with, when it comes to overtaxation, over-regulation and actually being able to expand their business.”

• 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 Liberals claim they saved taxpayers $60 billion, but that is not true. Their economic policies have failed. They are spending far more than they planned and running record deficits.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is no question the member is an excellent member of Parliament. We are lucky to have her and so are her constituents. I just want to pick away at this a little. I know she heard the speech earlier from the Liberal member talking about how he felt his government has saved the taxpayer $60 billion. I just do not see that in any of the documents. I do not see that in anything we are discussing today with respect to the opposition day motion. In fact, we are calling out the Liberal government on the fact that its economic policy has failed Canadians. It has failed this country for 11 years. We need a fresh perspective. I wonder if that member can elaborate on the fact that the Liberals seem to be pretty out of touch when they have spent over their $60 billion projected deficit. We are now much higher than that. Somehow these Liberal members are still running around saying that they have saved the taxpayers money when in fact we are seeing record-level deficits.”

“The government is not saving money. Future spending will cost even more, and many government announcements were left out of their budget numbers.”

“Mr. Speaker, there are no savings. In fact, if we look at the projections going forward, there are even more costs. Even when we look at the spring economic statement or the budget itself, there are hundreds of announcements that they have made that have not been included in those projections.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →