“The Liberals have a majority and can win any vote, but they need to be more humble. The finance minister refused to answer any questions from opposition members at a recent committee meeting. What more can the member say about the government's poor performance and its arrogance?”

“Madam Speaker, in his speech, the member called upon the government to turn down the arrogance a bit. The Liberals have a majority and they can win any vote they want. They could start being just a little more humble about their performance. I would note that the Minister of Finance recently appeared at the finance committee. He did not answer any of the member’s questions. He did not answer any of my questions. He ignored the questions that were put to him by opposition members. Does the member have anything else to say about the government’s performance and the need for a little humility, given that performance?”

“Canadians already knew the economy was in bad shape because food and housing cost too much. A new report confirms the government's budget problems. Why did the Liberals take so long to admit this, and why will they not change their policies?”

“Madam Speaker, Canadians did not need a Parliamentary Budget Officer report to tell them that the economy was in trouble; families knew it when their groceries kept getting more expensive, when their mortgage payments doubled and when young people gave up on owning their own home. For years we have been sounding the alarms, yet the Liberals kept telling us, “Everything is fine.” Now, the PBO confirms that we have a bigger deficit, weaker growth, lower wages and only a 1% chance of meeting the government’s own fiscal anchor. Why does my colleague think it took the Liberal government so long to admit what Canadians already knew, and why are they still refusing to change the costly policies that are making life less affordable?”

“This train project could cost ninety billion dollars, which means tickets might cost around three hundred dollars each. Does the member really think the Liberals have figured out how much this project will actually cost?”

“Madam Speaker, the member spoke earlier in the debate on Alto, and I know how sensitive the people in his riding are about expropriation. Going beyond the expropriation issue, just some cocktail-napkin math here, if it costs $90 billion and, as the McGill study said, there are only going to be 12 million annual passengers, and they borrow the money at, let us say, 4%, that is about $300 a ticket. Does the member think that the Liberals have done their homework in any way on what the actual cost would be in order for that project to be financially viable?”

“I support this motion. Canada is in a recession because of government spending. Food bank visits are at record highs, unemployment is up, and businesses are leaving. The government is pushing for major changes like AI, but they are not preparing Canadians who are already struggling to afford basic needs.”

“Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Portage—Lisgar. I rise today in support of the opposition motion before us. This motion states that Canada has become the only G20 nation to fall into recession. Members may debate the definition of a recession, economists may debate what a technical recession is, but even if they disagree on the label, they should not ignore the signals. The question that Canadians are asking is not about the definition of recession, which is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative real GDP growth, but why Canadians feel weaker with more instability, why business investments have slowed, why families feel less secure and why opportunities feel harder to reach. Perhaps that is what the concern is mostly about. Canada should not accept becoming an outlier among advanced economies, and that is why Conservatives are very sad to hear that Canada is going through a recession. We warned what reckless inflationary spending would do to our economy and to our country. Recessions result in households making smaller plans, businesses delaying decisions, young people lowering their expectations and communities wondering whether growth can still include them. Many Canadians felt that financial hardship long before there was an announcement that we were in a recession, because Canadians do not experience the economy through quarterly reports or decimal points. They experience it when groceries cost more than they expect, when their children wonder whether they will ever own a home and when communities lose opportunities. This motion asks us to consider whether our current approach is producing the outcomes Canadians were promised. Canada has recorded declining real GDP in three of the last four quarters. Business capital investment fell by 0.7% in the first quarter of the year, marking the fifth consecutive quarter of decline. Businesses are leaving Canada. Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7, at 6.9%, and 112,000 Canadians lost work just in the first four months of this year. Food bank usage has reached 2.2 million visits every month, which is the highest level on record and double what it was in 2019. One in four Canadians is now experiencing food insecurity. These are not abstract indicators. These are not technicalities. They reflect pressure that households are experiencing every single day. Canadians are more cautious now about spending, investing and planning for their future. People are asking whether wages are keeping up, whether opportunities are shrinking and whether their children will have the same chances of success as they had. Canadians are also being asked to adopt major technological changes at the same time that households and businesses are becoming cautious and financially weaker. People are worried about whether their paycheques will stretch far enough, whether opportunities are shrinking and whether the future will offer more security or less. Recessions are not only periods of contraction. They are tests. They expose whether the economy has built the productive capacity, the investment conditions and the resilience needed to recover and grow. That is why this motion deserves serious attention. While concerns grow about recession, the government has announced major ambitions around artificial intelligence and digital infrastructure. Those ambitions deserve to be debated seriously, because digital infrastructure does not just exist on paper. Artificial intelligence requires data centres. Data centres require compute capacity. Compute capacity is something very physical. Reliable energy is needed. That deserves serious debate, because Canadians are being asked to carry two realities at once: economic weakness today and economic transition tomorrow. Workers and families are feeling the growing pains today, and we know the new AI system the Liberals are trying to build could even change the meaning of work. As tasks become automated, businesses will likely need fewer workers. Some sectors will become more productive with fewer workers. This is why we must be honest about the future with AI and automation and what it will look like. If Canadians are already struggling with affordability, weak growth and uncertainty, then the question becomes: Are we preparing people for the transition that the Liberals are putting forward? Are we informing people about what is to come with AI and the digital infrastructure that the Liberals are building? Are we creating enough growth to absorb the disruption that AI will bring? Are we strengthening productive capacity? Perhaps part of what Canadians are feeling right now is not only economic pressure but uncertainty about transition. People sense that systems are changing and that technology is becoming more integrated into daily life. Decisions once made by people may increasingly become influenced by digital systems, and they are asking deeper questions. As these systems become more powerful, what remains of humans? That question should not be dismissed, because as we build digital infrastructure and adapt to artificial intelligence, we should ensure that human judgment remains meaningful. That divine spark in us must be preserved through human dignity. We see our dignity in work, in providing for our families, in learning and volunteering to help others even without being paid or rewarded. It is through this dignity and charity that our society was built. We must ensure that people are never reduced to technicalities, profiles, outputs, data points or mere QR codes. Technology should strengthen human capability, not weaken human agency. If we are entering a period of profound change, then our responsibility is not simply to build smarter systems; it is to build systems that remember the value of people and exist to serve people. The question is whether Canadians will participate in the prosperity that new technology creates, whether workers who are displaced and lose their jobs can adapt to the technological change, whether businesses can adapt and grow, whether families can plan for the future and whether communities can benefit. The goal cannot simply be more technology and more spending deficits. The goal must be more opportunity, because opportunity, not deficits, is what builds confidence and confidence builds investments. That is why this recession is so real. It is not because of technical definitions. Economists may debate what “technical recession” means, but Canadians do not live in a technicality. Canadians live with grocery bills. They live with a lack of jobs. They live with a shrinking economy. They live with food bank lines. They live with cancelled plans and postponed dreams. They live with choosing between turning up the heat in their homes and buying food. They live with the uncertainty of wondering whether their children will have the same opportunities they had. That is why this debate matters. It is because recessions are not ultimately measured by quarters. They are measured by whether people still believe tomorrow can be better than today. If Canadians are losing confidence in their efforts and opportunities, then we should not dismiss that as a technicality. We should treat it as a warning that our responsibility is not simply to manage decline but restore the conditions that allow people to build, invest, contribute, believe in the future and, once again, unite in a prosperous Canada.”

• Echo ×10

  A repeated line

  “Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7.”

  Said 10 times by 9 members since April 28.

  Every time it was said →

“The Liberals are hiding the truth about our economy. They redefine words like recession and use summer job numbers to make things look better. Canadians are suffering and need honest answers.”

“Madam Speaker, it is so sad that the Liberals will not admit the situation they are in. They use everything to deflect. They deflect even from the term “recession”. They try to redefine it. They try to use labour data from summer jobs to buttress, to increase, what the employment rate is. It is a really sad situation, because Canadians are suffering. They need truth. They need honesty. They need transparency. We are not getting these from the government.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 0 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 →

“Canada has huge oil reserves, but we still import 550,000 barrels of oil every day. Not using our own oil is hurting our economy. The government's plan to start an investment fund using borrowed money will not fix the problem.”

“Madam Speaker, countries that have a sovereign wealth fund are based on wealth. They are not based on debt, as the Liberal government is attempting. The member’s question was also about pipelines. Every single day, Canada imports 550,000 barrels of oil. We have the third-largest accessible oil reserves on this planet, yet we continue to import oil from other nations. The lost opportunity, our not optimizing our full potential and not developing our natural resources, is one of the reasons we are in this recession. We are trying to solve the problem using creative deals like creating a sovereign debt fund and pretending it is wealth. It is not going to solve the problem.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Liberal policies are hurting the London area. Our unemployment rate reached 9.2% in April, which was the highest in Canada. I want my colleague to talk more about the economic problems in her riding.”

“Madam Speaker, the London region, especially London—Fanshawe, has been hit hard with the Liberal policies with regard to the local economy. In March, we had a 9.1% unemployment rate. In April, we had a 9.2% unemployment rate, the highest in the country. Could my colleague elaborate on the economic issues in her riding?”

“People in my riding and across Canada are struggling to afford both heat and healthy food. Even families where both parents work are using food banks. We must do something to make life more affordable.”

“Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the economic issues in my riding are very similar to the economic issues in many ridings in the country. People are making tough decisions: Do they turn up the heat in their home, or do they make sure they put a meal on the table for their family that has sufficient nutrients in it to feed and energize their family? These are the tough decisions that people are making. Some families line up at food banks. These include families with two working parents who just cannot make ends meet. We have to do something to make life more affordable for average Canadians.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Canada's economy is falling behind because the government spends too much and blocks new projects. The deficit is growing, and too many rules make it take years to build anything. The government needs to cut spending and make it faster and easier to build big projects.”

“Madam Speaker, when a truck is stuck in a ditch, there are two ways to make the problem worse. One is to keep flooring the gas while pretending that spinning the tires means we are getting somewhere. The other is to just simply blame the mud, the road and the person who told us to take the turn in the first place, but to never admit that the driver could be the problem. That is where Canada’s economy is today. The government has been spinning the tires for years, throwing mud in every direction and telling everyone that if we wait just a little bit longer, the country is finally going to start pulling ahead. However, now we can see what is really happening: We are not moving ahead but are in fact falling behind. The motion before the House says what millions of families already know: Canada has been driven into the G20’s only recession. Scotiabank and the Bank of Montreal have both downgraded growth expectations. The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s latest report shows slowing growth, a weakening financial outlook and a bigger-than-promised deficit. Those words can sound very far removed from real life, but that is exactly where this bad news lands. It lands on the mortgage renewal, the grocery bill, the repair that cannot wait and the credit card bill that was supposed to be paid down but is, in fact, bigger than expected. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has now put numbers to what Canadians already feel. She projects real GDP growth of only 1.1% in 2026 and 1.6% in 2027. That is not an economy that is charging ahead. She also says that the deficit is expected to rise from $36.3 billion to $72 billion. That is not simply a rounding error. It is the fiscal equivalent of promising to back out of the driveway but ending up going through the garage door. The government did not miss its promise by just a little bit. It missed it by billions and billions of dollars. It told Canadians that spending was under control, but eventually the bills come due. The numbers are a lot harder to spin than the speeches the Liberals offer are. Canadians were promised one thing, but the numbers now show something completely different. As usual, Canadians are of course stuck with the invoice. Then there is the fiscal anchor that used to be a point of discussion. That is the government’s own promise to keep the deficit from growing out of control. It is supposed to tell Canadians that someone around the cabinet table still knows when to stop borrowing, stop spending and stop pretending that the budget will balance itself. The PBO says that there is less than a 1% chance the government will meet that promise. That is not a fiscal anchor; that is a lottery ticket, at best. No person could walk into a bank with a 1% chance of making their household budget work and call that responsible. No small business owner could tell their employees that there is only a 1% chance that the paycheques will clear and call that a plan. A weak economy shows up long before anybody gives it a name. It shows up when the job sites get quiet, when the bay sits empty at the shop, when the truck stays parked in the yard and when a young worker who was supposed to start Monday is told he cannot because there is not enough work. That is what slow growth means when it reaches the real world: fewer hours, fewer raises, fewer orders and fewer chances for young people to get started in their career. The government wants us to believe that this was all just unavoidable. It says there have been global pressures. Of course there have been. Every G20 nation has faced interest rate hikes, supply chain challenges, inflation, war, energy shocks and global uncertainty. The difference is that Canada is now being described as the G20’s only nation in a recession. When everyone faces the storm but only one boat starts taking on water, maybe it is time to see what the captain has been doing. A country does not get rich based on how much the government spends. A country gets richer when people can build, invest, produce, hire, export, take risks and succeed. It gets richer when a welder can leave the shop on Friday and start his own business on Monday, or when a mine with Canadian mineral workers can be approved before the opportunity moves somewhere else. We have all the ingredients of an incredibly prosperous country. We do not have a shortage of ability. We have a government that keeps turning that ability into delays, higher costs, and smaller paycheques for Canadians. Imagine someone who wants to build something in this country. Imagine a shop in a small town, a mine up north, a grain terminal, a processing plant, a power line or an energy project. They start with an idea, workers ready to go, suppliers lined up and a belief that Canada is still a place where real effort can become something real. These investors then meet the process that the government has built. First comes the permit delays, then some new rule and the consultation that leads to yet another consultation. Then the financing gets more expensive throughout the time that passes. Investors then ask why the same project could move so much faster somewhere else. After a while, the question is no longer whether the project makes sense; the question is how long people are willing to bleed money before they simply give up. That is why the government’s own consultation paper on getting major projects built is so revealing. After years of Conservatives, provinces, workers, industry and investors warning that Canada had become too slow and too uncertain, the government is now admitting the same thing but in writing. Its own paper says major projects could “face a complicated and time-consuming” process. It points to duplication and poor coordination between departments. It says, “mines, ports, pipelines, nuclear facilities, and transportation infrastructure [are] often slow, expensive, and confusing.” It even admits that “it has often taken more than five years for a project to receive the federal decisions” needed before construction can even begin. Bill C-69 was passed in 2019. The Liberals sold it is a way to restore confidence, to protect the environment and to help good projects move forward. In reality, it became simply a symbol of delay and uncertainty. The Supreme Court later of course made clear that the problem was not only in the delays that it caused. The act went too far, by allowing the federal government to turn limited federal interests into a much broader review of projects that often mainly fell under provincial jurisdiction. The Liberals amended the act and then claimed that the problem was somehow fixed, yet here they are again admitting that major projects still face a process that is slow, expensive, confusing, poorly coordinated and too often takes longer than five years. The Prime Minister wants to sound like a man who can get Canada building again, but the system he is now allegedly trying to repair was built, defended and celebrated by his own Liberal Party. Canada does not need weaker environmental standards. It needs clear standards, real timelines, and decisions that actually get made. Money goes where it is welcome. Jobs go where projects can move forward. Opportunity goes where people are allowed to build things. If the government keeps making Canada slower, more expensive and more uncertain, it should not be shocked when investments start looking for a different address. What Conservatives are saying is not very complicated: Reverse the costly and inflationary decisions that helped put Canada in this position to begin with; restore discipline and federal spending; stop treating borrowed money as a substitute for private sector growth; make Canada a place where major projects can actually get approved and built again; lower the cost of work, investment, energy, transport and homebuilding; stop punishing the sectors that pay the bills; and focus on paycheques, production, homes, food, energy, exports and opportunity. Canada is not poor, Canada is not weak, and Canada is not doomed. The country has everything it needs to succeed, except a federal government willing to stop making excuses and stop making success harder. We could be a country to which investment comes because approvals are clear, taxes are competitive, energy is reliable, workers are respected and projects move forward. We could be a country where the next generation inherits more than debt and more than just excuses. It starts with admitting that the current approach has failed miserably. The government made the bills bigger, the economy weaker and the deficit worse, and now it wants us to be impressed that it found some gentler words for its own failure. Canadians deserve better than a government that asks them to settle for less. We were not handed a small country, a poor country or a country that is running out of promise. We were handed one of the greatest nations on earth, blessed with resources, talent, courage, and people who still believe tomorrow can be better than today. What we need now is a government with enough faith in Canadians to let them build, work, dream and prosper once again. It is time to stop spinning the wheels and calling that progress. It is time to change course.”

“Canadians are struggling with debt and the cost of food, and the government caused these problems. The government must admit it is failing and change direction.”

“Madam Speaker, Canadians are thriving, despite the government. The member talks about this being just a technical recession. Are collectors just technically calling, asking for their money that has been loaned out? Is a mom just technically skipping meals so that she can afford to feed her daughter? Are these just technicalities? No. The crisis facing this country has been clear for many years. The government not only caused it, but refuses to accept that it is to blame for it. It is time to change course and recognize when the government is spinning its wheels and failing Canadians. Life has not been good for everyone. It is time to accept that and change direction. We can and must do better for the people we are here to represent.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Liberals are making the economy worse instead of fixing it, which hurts young people and Manitobans. I want to ask the member what it will take to get the government to admit its mistakes and change.”

“Madam Speaker, the analogy, I think, is just perfect. The Liberals are spinning their tires so hard in the mud, trying to prove to Canadians that they are improving the economic situation when they are in fact failing it, that they are actually going backward and making things worse. They are doing this instead of being stuck stationary and, certainly, instead of moving forward, which is exactly what people in this country need, particularly Manitobans and young Canadians across this country, from coast to coast to coast. I wonder if the member, who has been here a bit longer than I have, could provide a little more context about what it might take to finally get the Liberals to do a bit of self-reflection, eat a bit humble pie and maybe make a change so that Canadians are better off.”

“The government needs to admit its policies have made life too expensive. Instead of blaming others, it should take responsibility and use Conservative ideas to fix things.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to believe the Liberals have that in them. The last 10 years have not shown me that they have an ability to accept things as they are. It is like they do not talk to people who live in the real world and see the cost pressures they are facing. One thing that really bothers me is that in government, just like in life, it is okay to sometimes say, “We were wrong. We messed up.” We do not have to continuously hide behind the fact that things are not going okay and try to blame everybody else. The government should take a bit of responsibility. The other day, I heard a minister try to blame Stephen Harper. It is 11 years later. It is time to accept that things have not been going well because of the policies and accept the ideas that are coming collaboratively from the Conservatives to try to move this country forward. Change the policies and change course so that we can all be better off.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 32 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 92 of 100

  Of this reply, 90% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“Investing in Canada is a good idea, but the government should not borrow money to do it. Canada should create wealth by using its oil and gas instead of taking on more debt.”

“Madam Speaker, Canada led the way with this idea that we could borrow our way to calling something wealth. The idea of a sovereign wealth fund is a good one, if we are a country that is in a position to create wealth and has executed on the idea of creating wealth. Instead, we decided to keep our oil and gas in the ground as much as possible over the last decade. The idea of investing in projects in Canada is a good one. Financing it entirely based on debt and calling that progress is just another example of how the government seems to refuse to accept that things have not been going well for Canadians and that its policies are to blame. We can and must do better.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 97 of 100

  Of this reply, 95% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“Electing a Conservative government would not be hard, and it would make Canada prosperous again.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member says transitions are tough. That is another odd excuse. It would not be a tough transition to elect a Conservative government so that this country can once again prosper.”