“Grandparents from my riding came here today to listen to the debate on the economy.”

“Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was speaking with some grandparents from my riding who were actually sitting in the gallery listening to my colleague, our finance critic, speak on the state of our economy. I did not realize they were coming. I am very grateful to have met them downstairs. As they listened to the Liberal members—”

“Seniors and families are struggling with the rising cost of living. Why is the government ignoring the recession that ordinary Canadians are dealing with?”

“Mr. Speaker, the grandparents listened to the Liberal members dismiss concerns about the recession, rising debt and the cost of living. They told me they wished they could call and tell the government what they were seeing in their own lives, as seniors struggling to make ends meet. They talked about grocery bills that keep climbing, adult children who are struggling to get ahead, and their grandchildren facing a future that looks less affordable than the one they inherited. Can my colleague explain to me why so many ordinary Canadians can see we are in a recession, while the Liberal government continues to downplay the very real economic struggles that families are facing every day?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 29 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“The chief government whip is breaking the rules. He is not allowed to talk about whether a member is present or absent from the chamber.”

“Mr. Speaker, the chief government whip knows well that he cannot reflect on a member’s presence or past presence in, or absence from, the chamber. I would remind him to read his own rule book, for which he is responsible for the government—”

“Our economy is struggling, and the Prime Minister has done nothing to fix it. He needs to lower taxes, cut red tape, and bring in more competition for our banks and airlines. Instead, he is borrowing record amounts of money and doubling our deficit. This debt puts our country at huge financial risk, and the interest payments will soon take money away from the programs Canadians need.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to rise today to speak to this very sobering issue. I will be splitting my time with the wonderful new member from Long Range Mountains, who is a fantastic member in this place and brings a lot of expertise. I am happy to share my time with her. Also, I want to say hi to Susan, who might be watching at home, who typically watches many of these speeches. I thank and appreciate her for all the support and the friends at Cornerstone. We are talking about a recession. We might be down by 0.1% or up by 0.1%, but the truth is that the economy is not doing very well, regardless of whether the government suggests that we are not in a recession or that, as some people like to say, it is just a technical recession. In fact, according to Sean Speer, editor-at-large at The Hub, all of this is a bit of silly semantics: “The real questions are: how much does the economy suck, how long has it sucked, why does it suck, and what are the different ideas to stop it from sucking.” We have a productivity crisis in this country, and everybody knows it. The Prime Minister has even acknowledged it. I think the Prime Minister was elected in part because of his résumé, but it appears, over a year into his term, that his economic agenda and plan are not working. It is even a bit hard to determine what his economic plan and agenda are. If it is to attack productivity, one cannot connect very many of his economic announcements to actually making the big reforms and changes we need to the economy in this country to get it going. Of course, President Trump’s tariffs weigh on our economy, but we saw serious economic trouble before anyone had heard of President Trump. The Bank of Canada has called it a productivity emergency. Senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers declared it “an emergency”, a “time to break the glass”. If it is true that we are in this economic crisis of productivity, the Prime Minister’s agenda is not addressing it. He is saying we have moved at speeds faster than ever before, but we have not seen fundamental reforms. There has been no serious competition reform, tax reform or regulatory reform. In fact, when it comes to those three items, we could classify the Prime Minister not as a bold actor but as one who supports the status quo. He is the status quo man. He is not willing to take on the banks, the airlines, the telecoms or the other oligopolies that we need to take on to enhance the productivity of our country. He must move faster. On competition, we should radically attack the profit pools of our financial institutions, in particular the banks, by introducing more competition to deliver lower prices to Canadians. If we want to send a message to the United States, let us do it through CANZUK. If British Airways wants to fly a plane between Toronto and Vancouver or Toronto and Halifax, why do we not let them and invite any airline in the CANZUK countries to do so? On taxes, we should immediately move to reduce capital gains on those businesses and individuals who reinvest in Canada and in Canadian companies. We need a tax reform package to lower taxes, business and personal, and significantly reduce complexity. On regulation, we need service standards for permitting. We need to pre-approve projects in areas of the country, which means they can be done faster. We should be working more closely with indigenous leaders across the country to identify and pre-approve projects, to de-risk them, in order to free up and attract private capital. If the Prime Minister was serious about building a pipeline, he would have already started his consultations with indigenous groups. We risk allowing this valuable time to go by without making the difficult decisions. Instead, we get announcements, speeches and bureaucracies, such as the Major Projects Office, which, by the way, in and of itself is an admission that the regulatory process does not work. We have the build Canada office, and then the sovereign wealth fund, which will be funded, of course, with debt. Now I would like to turn, for the reminder of my comments, to a specific risk that I think is growing and that the government should be paying more attention to. The Prime Minister’s fiscal plan for this country is putting us at serious risk. By doubling the size of the deficits of PM Trudeau, the Prime Minister is threatening the fiscal stability of our country. If we get into economic challenges around the world, we will be less able to deal with them. We are borrowing record amounts of debt this year and in the next two years. This year we will borrow $510 billion in the market, then we have to borrow $594 billion in the market, and in 2027-28, we have to borrow $563 billion. We borrow mostly on the short end of the curve, so what happens is that this debt has to be rolled over every two or three years. That is like signing up for only a one- or two-year mortgage on a house. One would have to go to the bank, and guess what happens. Their interest rate gets reset every single time. When 40% of the government’s debt is purchased by non-bank financial actors, which are hedge funds and financial speculators, we are at serious risk if those hedge funds and purchasers cannot continue to purchase. In the face of all of this, the Prime Minister’s fiscal plan is to borrow more money, record amounts of money. If there is an economic event, a sovereign debt crisis or a war, something that happens totally outside of Canada, our debt service costs are going to explode. They are already going to be $80 billion in just a few years, and that is $80 billion that could not go to more productive uses. That $80 billion is a projection based on interest rates staying the same or going down. What if interest rates go up? The Prime Minister, who is a two-time central banker and chair of the Financial Stability Board, should know better than to increase the size of deficits and debt in this country and put us further at risk, and I am not the only one who thinks so. The Bank of Canada is warning that we will have potential problems. It is saying that higher stock market valuations, higher corporate debt and higher amounts of money borrowed by hedge funds to buy sovereign debt are vulnerabilities. “This has made it more likely that a new shock or a combination of shocks could cause several vulnerabilities to crystallize at once,” said the senior deputy governor, Carolyn Rogers. The Bank of Canada is warning the government that there could be economic instability, and we have a risk of who funds our government in purchasing our debt. That will put our AAA credit rating at risk. We can kiss the fiscal anchor goodbye. In fact, already the Parliamentary Budget Officer is saying that the government has a less than 1% chance of even keeping that anchor. The Prime Minister’s decisions are completely imprudent when it comes to fiscal responsibility, and it will result, and may result, in more pain later. Now, one of these events might not happen, but no one predicted the financial crisis in 2007 and 2008, or very few people did. However, it might happen, and with the fact that it might happen, and that the risks are growing, this Prime Minister’s decision to increase the size of the debt and the deficits can be called nothing short of reckless, because it will imperil the government’s ability to pay for social programs. The bankers and the bondholders get paid first, and our social programs will come second. As I said, one would think that the Prime Minister would be more attuned to some of these global risks and would be taking a much more fiscally responsible path with the government’s spending. As I might not get a chance to welcome everyone to Midland this weekend, it is Ontario’s Best Butter Tart Festival. Please come. I am super happy to plug that big event in my riding this weekend. I am also more than happy to answer any questions from any member in the House about my remarks.”

“People in my area are struggling with high living costs and lower wages. I want my colleague to explain why the government will not admit its spending has hurt the economy and increased family debt.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my excellent colleague for his speech, not least for the way that he ended it. I might just have to find myself down there for a couple of butter tarts. His speech accurately portrayed what I am hearing, and what I know most of our colleagues in this place are hearing, from constituents. They are feeling the recession. They are feeling the inflationary policies of the government that have driven down their wages and driven up their cost of living. I would like the member to provide a little more clarity on why he thinks the Liberals cannot admit that their 11 years of inflationary spending have had a devastating impact on our economy, on household incomes and on household debt, and what the implications of that could be going forward.”

“The government was too slow to admit that inflation and the slowing economy are real problems. They do not want to admit these problems because they have been in power for 11 years and should have fixed them.”

“Mr. Speaker, that was a wonderful question from a great colleague and contributor in this chamber. This is a movie we have seen before. The government was slow and late to acknowledge that inflation was a problem. It is slow and late to the party on the economic decline and stagnation of this country. Why? It is because if the Liberals acknowledge there is a problem, because they have been in power for 11 years, well, gosh, maybe they could have done something about it.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Our economy only helps people who are already rich. Everyone else is struggling to pay for food and fuel. It seems the only people doing well are close friends of the Prime Minister.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. My friend in the Bloc has great taste in colours of ties and colours of suits, today for sure. The member raises an important distinction. There is something called a K-shaped recovery in the economy. That is, those who have assets and wealth are actually doing quite well, like those who are invested in Brookfield, and those who do not have assets and wealth are struggling. They struggle with higher costs and higher food prices and fuel prices. This is really what is happening in the economy. There are those who are doing well and those who are not doing so well. It just so happens that everyone who seems to be doing well knows the Prime Minister very well.”

“My riding depends heavily on trade and resources, and our unemployment rate is 8.5%. I want the member to explain how the government's economic policies are hurting ridings like mine.”

“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a lot of expertise in the area of trade. I, of course, come from a riding and a place in this country that is heavily dependent on resources, on trade, on forestry and on north-south exports and imports. Unemployment in my riding is now at 8.5%. I wonder if the member could talk about how the economy is not being felt the same in different parts of the country and, perhaps, explain to the members opposite why their economic policies are hurting ridings like mine in particular.”

“The government is celebrating new jobs, but people are still hurting in different parts of the country. Unemployment is not the same everywhere, and new jobs are not helping the 80,000 people who just lost theirs. The government needs to pay attention.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her excellent question and for pointing out that the economy is not uniform across the country. The government applauds job numbers that we saw on Friday, and by the way, those monthly numbers happen to get revised quite substantially. Unemployment is different across the entire country. Those jobs that we see added are not necessarily going to those 80,000 people who lost jobs in the previous number of months. This is a challenge. We are trying to show the government that there is economic pain in different parts of this country, and the government ought to start paying attention.”

“I support this Conservative motion. Liberal spending and taxes have put Canada into a recession and made life too expensive for everyday families. The government needs to cap spending, end the carbon tax, and cut rules so businesses can grow.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today on behalf of the people of Long Range Mountains in Newfoundland and Labrador, some of the most industrious and self-reliant individuals, who are asking for fairness and economic stability, not just for themselves and this generation, but also for their children and grandchildren so they can thrive at home. I rise today to speak in support of our Conservative opposition day motion, which addresses the cold, hard reality facing our nation. The Liberals have officially driven Canada into a recession, and the latest data shows that for everyday Canadians, it is only going to get worse. The Liberal Prime Minister is the only leader in the G7 and the wider G20 to plunge his country into a recession, after driving the Canadian economy into decline in three of the last four quarters. The Liberals want to label this a technical recession, but there is nothing technical about an empty stomach or someone coming home from work and telling their kids they no longer have a job. Hard-working, everyday Canadians are being forced to pay the price. This means that, in communities across my province, families are making choices they never imagined they would have to make. They are putting groceries on credit cards. They are postponing starting a family, delaying retirement and wondering whether they can afford to keep the house they worked so hard to buy. The Liberals love to blame global factors for Canada’s economic misery. They point to international tariffs and to geopolitical conflict, but every single country in the G7 faces those exact same global headwinds, international tariffs and global challenges, yet none of them, not one, is in a recession, only Canada. Under this Prime Minister’s watch, his inflationary spending, his layers of red tape and his antidevelopment laws, our economy has stalled and Canadian productivity has been choked out. Canada now officially holds the highest household debt in the G7, the worst housing costs in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. This is not a sign of success, and Canadians are not doing well as a result. Affordability has deteriorated so badly that working families are falling behind. What frustrates people back home is hearing Liberal ministers stand in the House and tell them that this is affordability, not loose slogans. They hear them say that government programs are working, that announcements are resonating and that Canadians are better off because of Liberal policies, but families back home are asking me a very simple question: If things are going so well, why are so many people struggling? The Parliamentary Budget Officer reports that the likelihood of this costly Liberal government meeting its own fiscal anchor to reduce the deficit-to-GDP ratio is less than 1%. Worse yet, the Liberals are already borrowing way over their own budget. In their spring economic update, they claimed the deficit would be $65.3 billion this year, but the PBO predicts a deficit of $71.8 billion. Where does that leave the taxpayers? It leaves them buried under mountains of Liberal debt. Federal debt charges are projected to skyrocket by 46%. By 2030-31, 13.1¢ of every single dollar of federal revenue will go directly to pay the interest charges on this costly credit card Liberal government. While everyday Canadians are being forced to tighten their belt and make sacrifices, the devastating impacts are evident. Consumer insolvencies across Canada have reached their highest levels since 2009. Newfoundland and Labrador continues to see rising insolvencies, and behind every insolvency is a family that has reached its breaking point. These are Canadians who worked hard, paid their bills and tried to get ahead, but they are falling behind because groceries cost more, fuel costs more, home heating oil costs more, housing costs more, rent costs more, and this has increased the pressure on household budgets in a way many families simply cannot absorb. While everyday Canadians are struggling, the Prime Minister’s luxury inflight catering costs reached nearly $195,000 for just three trips, including premium meals and expensive hospitality at taxpayers’ expense. The Liberal environment minister took a recent trip to Brazil and burned through $467,000 on luxury accommodations and another $650,000 just to rent, design and operate a single promotional pavilion. That is over $1 million spent on a single overseas trip for Liberal elites. This is all occurring under a Prime Minister who recently stated in New York that “a country that cannot feed, fuel, or defend itself is not truly sovereign”, yet he has created a reality where millions of hard-working, everyday Canadians are relying on food banks while he dines on luxury catering in the clouds and his minister stays in luxury accommodations. We cannot run an economy on expensive Liberal bureaucrats and elite menus; we need real private sector growth. Under the Liberal Prime Minister, we are in an entrepreneurial drought, with more small businesses closing than starting up. Business investment has dropped for five consecutive quarters. Capital investment fell by another 0.7% in the first quarter of this year alone, and over $20 billion in net investment has fled our economy since the Liberal Prime Minister took office. When capital flees, productivity dies. Labour productivity has fallen in three of the four quarters, and this directly impacts our labour market. The PBO noted, “The labour market has softened in line with the broader slowdown.” In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have the highest provincial rate of unemployment in the entire country. In the first three months of this year, 1.5 million Canadians missed a debt payment, while mortgage delinquency rates climbed 32% year over year. These numbers represent real human suffering. Consistently, I hear from people right across Long Range Mountains who are telling us heartbreaking stories. Clayton from Corner Brook reached out to our office. He is a senior and requires home care but is considering cancelling because, with the rising cost of heating, rent and food, he just cannot afford it anymore. I consistently hear about young people leaving. For generations, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have watched sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and friends leave home for opportunity elsewhere in Canada. We know the pain of saying goodbye at the airport. We know what it means to miss birthdays, anniversaries, Christmas dinners and family milestones because opportunity exists somewhere else. A recent study examining migration patterns across Canada found that Newfoundland and Labrador experienced the highest rate of net out-migration in the country, losing the equivalent of more than 10% of our population to other provinces. No province in Canada lost more people proportionally than Newfoundland and Labrador. We are the only province in Canada to experience a net migration loss to every other province in the country. Among young adults aged 18 to 24, Newfoundland and Labrador experienced net losses equivalent to nearly our entire current population in that age group over the last three decades. When our young people believe they can build a better life somewhere else, they move. When the Liberals fail to create the conditions for growth, investment and opportunity, families make difficult choices, and this has been the heartbreaking reality in Newfoundland and Labrador, a province rich in natural resources and untapped potential and opportunity. Squashed opportunity is not the only pressure. Grocery costs are up year over year, and 53% of employed Canadians report that food affordability has drastically worsened over the past year. More than one in three employed Canadians are now forced to use debt just to buy groceries. Some families are spending an unbelievable 120% of their total income on food and rent alone. Food bank demand nationwide has doubled since 2019, reaching a heartbreaking record of 2.2 million monthly visits. More than 137,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians live in food-insecure households. More than one-third of children in our province live in households struggling to consistently put food on the table. That is not a statistic that should exist in a country as prosperous as Canada. We cannot borrow our way out of a Liberal debt crisis. We cannot tax our way into economic prosperity, and we certainly cannot spend our way out of a recession that was manufactured by out-of-touch Liberal spending in the first place. For months, Conservatives have warned that this inflationary agenda would weaken growth, drive out business investment and leave working families to hold the bag and pay the bill. Today, the data has proven us right. The people of Long Range Mountains and all Canadians deserve an immediate turnaround. They deserve a Prime Minister who will tell them the truth and present a real plan to reverse these failed Liberal policies. It is time to end the Liberal recession. It is time to cap costly Liberal spending, scrap the inflationary Liberal carbon tax, cut the red tape and unleash the potential of our natural resources and our workforce. Conservatives understand the immense pressure that everyday Canadians are under, and we will continue to stand with them to rebuild hope, reward hard work, restore the dream of home ownership and empower the private sector to grow and thrive so Canadians can once again believe in the future of this great country.”

• Echo ×15

  A repeated line

  “The highest housing costs and the second-highest unemployment in the G7.”

  Said 15 times by 12 members since April 27.

  Every time it was said →

“Trained tradespeople will leave Newfoundland and Labrador if there are no good jobs for them. Investment in offshore oil and gas has dropped by 40 percent in the last decade, and that fails our young people.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for visiting my beautiful province. My response is that if we do not have an economy that has opportunity for our tradespeople, we can train them all we want, but they are not going to stay in the province if they do not have those good-paying jobs. We have an offshore oil and gas sector that has watched investment completely flee the province, with a 40% reduction in investment over the last decade. This is an example of how we are failing the young people in Newfoundland and Labrador.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Rural Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador have great potential, but government rules and high taxes are hurting natural resource projects and small businesses. Conservatives would cut these rules and taxes to help rural economies grow.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member. Rural Canada and rural Newfoundland and Labrador have so much untapped potential and opportunity. Newfoundland and Labrador is a natural resource-based economy, but there are so many projects that are caught up in regulatory red tape. There are so many small and medium-sized business owners who have a taxation burden. They also have a regulatory burden that they cannot get out from underneath. This is what fuels rural economies all over Canada, but especially in Newfoundland and Labrador. These are the solutions that Conservatives would bring forward to unleash opportunity in rural Canada and especially in Newfoundland and Labrador.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“People in my area cannot afford food, and nearby Kelowna has an unemployment rate over 9%. The government needs to stop ignoring this problem.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s speech really hit home for me, coming from rural B.C. Not many people would call Kelowna rural, but it is just north of me, and it has the highest unemployment rate now in the country, at over 9%. Then that filters down to all the areas around it, including my riding. I am hearing from constituents constantly about exactly what the member talked about. They are having trouble putting food on the table, and it is a real thing. We are not stirring the pot; it is actually a real thing. I am hearing about it in my office constantly. I am seeing it at the food banks. What is the danger of denying that there is a problem in our country? What is the danger of the Liberals continuing to deny this?”

“We cannot fix our country's problems if the government refuses to admit they exist.”

“Mr. Speaker, my mom would often say that in order to fix something, we have to acknowledge that the problem exists. This is exactly the problem we are seeing with our country right now. If we try to deflect with rhetoric and talk about our leader and get all excited, we are not dealing with the actual issues. That is the problem with denying it.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 30 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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →