Business of Supply

The House debated a Conservative opposition motion on a supply day, focused on government spending and the state of public finances, with the opposition calling for greater accountability over federal finances. Conservatives pointed to the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s findings, arguing the government is borrowing too much, breaking its own fiscal anchors, driving up debt-servicing costs, and hiding debt through budget structures and Crown corporations; they also questioned the military reaching 2% of GDP through reclassified spending and asked how spending could be cut. Liberals said Canada’s finances are strong, noting the country retains a top AAA credit rating, has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, is attracting large private investments, and is cutting its deficit; they defended increased spending, including on defence, and argued ministers and parliamentary secretaries already provide accountability at committee without requiring the Prime Minister to appear. Some members also discussed whether LNG Canada should receive public money, a proposal to change pension fund investment rules, and Canada trading with more countries while upholding its values. A Bloc Québécois member said the Prime Minister should appear before committee to answer for his plans, noting his attendance in the House.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

17 statements

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

Liberal
“The Conservatives give a false impression about our finances. Canada still has a top credit rating, and we have the money to invest in Canadians. The Conservatives choose not to invest in people.”
  • Speech on a motion

    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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the Conservatives like to give a false impression. Canada does have financial capabilities, and we still get the AAA credit rating from credit agencies. I see the member is closely following what I am saying. Hopefully, he is actually listening. At the end of the day, we have the financial resources to be able to invest in Canadians. The Conservative Party of Canada has made the decision to not invest in Canadians and to not see the value of growing Canada stronger and healthier for all to be able to participate. It has focused strictly on one issue, not recognizing that we do have a AAA credit rating.

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

Liberal
“The Liberal leader is well-qualified. Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed him to run the Bank of Canada, and Britain's Prime Minister chose him to run the Bank of England. In the last election, Canadians looked at both leaders and chose him.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, at the get-go, I want to follow up on what the member for Barrie South—Innisfil just finished saying about the leader of the Liberal Party having been the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I would remind my friend across the way that it was Stephen Harper who recognized the skill set he has by appointing him Governor of the Bank of Canada. In fairness, he is not the only prime minister to have recognized that. So did the Prime Minister of England in ensuring he would then become the Governor of the Bank of England. That is something that is worthy of noting. Not only did Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Prime Minister of England recognize the leader of the Liberal Party’s credentials, but Canadians as a whole did just that. In the last federal election, Canadians were very concerned about a wide spectrum of issues. They looked at what the leader of the Conservative Party had to offer and contrasted that to what the leader of the Liberal Party had to offer. Never before has the Liberal Party of Canada received as many votes as a direct result—

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

Liberal
“I want the House to vote against this Conservative motion. Canada is not broken. Our economy is strong, we have a top credit rating, and businesses want to invest hundreds of billions of dollars here. Our dental care and school food programs help hundreds of thousands of people. Conservatives only want to attack the Prime Minister and talk down our country.”
  • A repeated line

    “We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.”

    Said 17 times by 13 members since April 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to highlight is the fact that Canadians have a very good understanding of what our Prime Minister brings to the table in terms of economic credentials. I think it is important that we take a look at the larger picture. I had the opportunity to ask questions today in debate to the leader of the Conservative Party and the deputy leader. For those who are following the debate, the question I asked the deputy leader was in regard to very important programs. I talked about two programs in particular. I talked about the national dental program that provides support to seniors who are on fixed incomes, as an example, literally tens of thousands of seniors in every region of our country. I highlighted that program, along with the national school food program, which has 400,000 children benefiting from that particular program. I asked her to provide her thoughts on it. Now, I will put the personal shot she took to the side, but she made it very clear that those programs are failures. I was disappointed in the manner in which, in a very clear and concise way, she said that those programs were failures. She should tell that to the senior who is on a fixed income in her own riding or a child who is receiving the benefits in a classroom. That is the type of insensitivity that we see coming from today’s Conservative Party. They talk about affordability, but when it comes to actual actions, the government has delivered a wide spectrum of actions, and I will go over them. What we see is the Conservative Party, time and again, devaluing these programs. I have heard members of the Conservative caucus calling the school food program garbage. Talk about being insensitive to the issues of the day, like affordability. They talk about it; they like to get those clips, but in reality, their actions speak louder than words. We saw that demonstrated today when I posed a question to the deputy leader of the Conservative Party. For those who were around or who followed the speech of the leader of the Conservative Party, they should take a look at what he said. I am sure he will cut and paste, and try to make it look good for the far right. However, if we listen to the entirety of the speech, we cannot help but walk away thinking that Canada has a serious problem and, in fact, that we are broken. Talk about depressing. There is no doubt that there is always room for us to look at ways in which we can improve. We do not question that. However, I say to the leader of the Conservative Party that Canada is not broken. Canada is doing exceptionally well when compared to our peers. We have people, companies, other governments and pensions looking at investing in Canada in a very real and tangible way. They are not going to do that if they believe that Canada is broken. Let us take a look at last month. For the first time ever we had a Prime Minister host the world in Toronto, where we were asking people to come and take a look at what the government had been doing over the previous 12-plus months, and to look at ways in which they might be able to invest in Canada, in those major projects. We had over $500 billion, that is half a trillion dollars plus, that recognized that Canada is worth looking at. That is what they are actually doing. It is a historic amount of money. They would not be doing that if they honestly believed what the leader of the Conservative Party was saying today in his remarks on the opposition motion. I believe that the Conservative Party is way off base. To Conservatives, it is all about the deficit. We have the second-lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio in the G7. If we want to talk about the AAA credit rating, think in terms of the G7 countries. Everyone would like to be a part of the G7, I would suggest, but take a look at those G7 countries. We are talking about the United States, England, France and Germany. There are only two nations, Germany and Canada, that have a AAA credit rating. When I had the opportunity to state that fact to the opposition critic of finance, his response was like, “Well, they don’t know what they’re talking about”. He then went into the reasons he believes that of the credit agencies, which also provide credit reports to provincial entities. He indicated that, “Well, they don’t know what they’re talking about.” I have a lot more confidence in those credit agencies than I do the official opposition, because day in and day out, the Conservatives want to talk down Canada. What is at the core of the motion the Conservatives have before us today? It is hard to believe, but they are saying that, as we have the budget coming down, they are concerned about the deficit. They want to have the Prime Minister go before a standing committee. Maybe the opposition can tell me if, when they were in government, Stephen Harper ever went to a standing committee dealing with the budget. I will save them some time: It never happened. At the end of the day, if we want to do a comparison, the leader of the Conservative Party today, when he was in government, was in the only Conservative government that was ever found in contempt of Parliament. It was the only government in Canadian history. When we start looking at fiscal capacity, what is it with the Conservative Party in terms of not recognizing the potential that Canadians have? There is potential in our resources, commodities, ingenuity and technology, which is there and real in every jurisdiction in Canada. The Conservatives’ response is that they are not prepared to see that sort of investment take place, because they constantly criticize the projects we bring forward. All they say, and focus their attention on, are two things. One is character assassination, whether it is the Prime Minister or other ministers. The other is the deficit situation, but we have been very careful in demonstrating that everything is, in fact, under control. It is by making these investments that we are going to create additional revenue in the future. All one needs to do is to take a look at the projects that are on the table. There are a couple of quotes I would like to share, and then I will go on to some of these projects I made reference to. In regards to the Minister of Finance, I thought he made it very clear the other day in dealing with the financial issue. He said, “The International Monetary Fund just said that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7 and the second-fastest growth in the G7, almost twice that of Germany and Japan.” I see that as good news. The Minister of Finance would reinforce some of the statements I have made, if not all the statements, such as that AAA credit rating. When I talk about having our finances in order and the financial capacity to look at building a stronger, healthier Canada that works for all Canadians, I would suggest it would be irresponsible of the government not to take advantage of that. It pleases me greatly to be able to say that we very much have a proactive Prime Minister who really understands how an economy works and has the relationships not only in Canadian borders but outside of Canada in order for us to advance that. I do not say that lightly. Let us look at the things we have done as a government that led up to the Investment Summit that Canada hosted just last month that I commented on earlier with regard to half a trillion dollars. If we want to support small, medium-sized and large businesses, we need to find customers. In the last federal election, when people were genuinely concerned about Trump’s tariffs and trade, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians in that campaign that we would look at ways to expand trade opportunities that went beyond the Canada-U.S. border, and that is exactly what this government has been doing in good part. We have signed 20-plus trade and security agreements. It is probably 22 or 23 at this point, with many more in the works. Whether it is the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade among the provinces, there are numerous ministers, led by the Prime Minister and supported by every member of the Liberal caucus, out there in the world encouraging and promoting trade opportunities. That is why we are seeing the types of trade numbers today in terms of opportunities gained, at least in good part, working as a team with small businesses, provinces and indigenous people. This is what is making the difference. We have the opportunity to grow the economy, but it means we have to also be prepared to invest in it. Earlier today, representatives of CentrePort in Winnipeg were in the government lobby, and I had a chance to have a very brief chat. I thanked them for what they are doing in building a stronger economy in Manitoba. It is both private and public investment that is feeding that growth because they know they can count on the federal government, the provincial government and private businesses investing in CentrePort. That is exactly what is happening today, which is creating jobs and opportunities into the future. That is a very small example, which is important to my province, of investment that takes place. We can take that snapshot and apply it to every region of our nation. That brings me to the whole thought we have been talking about, which is how we can build, build big and build now. Since the last federal election, we have been working collaboratively with provincial governments and indigenous leaders at ways we can build and expand the Canadian economy, and at the same time protect our environment. There are many projects. In the past, I have talked about the premiers and Prime Minister working, virtually from day one after the last federal election, to build one Canadian economy, and the federal government has done its part in passing the legislation that was necessary to enable that to happen at the federal level. We continue to work with the provinces so that more provinces will take down some of their barriers, because Canadians made it very clear that they want one Canadian economy. They also made it very clear that they want to expand the economy, and expanding the economy means major projects. Let me try to summarize the major projects. We can go from coast to coast to coast, from Arctic sovereignty to what is taking place in B.C. We can talk about LNG phase two and of billions of dollars of investments. We can talk about MOUs in Alberta with a Conservative government. We can talk about copper mines and about the canola issue in the province of Saskatchewan. I already talked about CentrePort, in Manitoba, but we can also talk about the Port of Churchill. We can go into Ontario and talk about nuclear power. We can talk about, in the province of Quebec, something the Conservatives often bring up, the port of Montreal or about the expansion of hydro in Atlantic Canada, among other major projects. From coast to coast to coast, we have a federal government that is working with provinces to make big projects happen and work, and we will all benefit from that. This is one of the ways we can secure more financial resources coming into the country, and if it takes time to be able to secure that, we will put in that time, because we want to make Canada the strongest and healthiest nation in the G7, and that is what we are fighting to achieve.

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

Liberal
“Our increased spending is justified. For the first time in generations, we are spending 2% of our GDP on the military. Past prime ministers wanted to reach this goal, but our new government reached it in six months. This is a good way to spend money to support our troops and protect our country.”
  • 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 entirety of my speech, with the exception of the reference to Stephen Harper, was about the time since the last federal election. Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government. If we were to take a look at the expenditures, I would tell the member to look specifically at the Canadian Forces, because in the Canadian Forces, for the first time in generations, we have actually hit 2% of the GDP. This is something that has been called for, for years. Stephen Harper dreamed of it, and even the previous administration with Justin Trudeau hoped to achieve it. The Prime Minister actually achieved it within six months of being elected. I believe that it is a good expense to support members of CAF and our sovereignty.

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

Liberal
“Ministers and parliamentary secretaries already go to committees to answer questions. Opposition members can also talk directly to the Prime Minister before question period. The government is already open and accountable enough without forcing the Prime Minister to appear at committee.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think that members, at times, undervalue the important role that ministers of government play. We have ministers who go to standing committees. We have parliamentary secretaries who are at standing committees. There is an opportunity in opposition. I sit just two seats behind the Prime Minister. I constantly see members from the opposition go up to the Prime Minister prior to question period when he is here, whether it is Bloc members or other opposition members. An hon. member: When he is here. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I suspect everyone is absent from the House at times, but the point is that there is ample opportunity. I think members opposite should recognize that we do have a cabinet and we do have parliamentary secretaries, so there is ample opportunity to ensure there is accountability.

Jennifer McKelvie, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure

Liberal
“Our government is spending money to make Canada stronger. I want the member to explain which of these investments are most important to the country and to his province.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about the proactive approach of our government, so I was just hoping that he could really elaborate on what it is that excites him the most about the investments that are being made. It is important that we are investing in ourselves right now so we can build Canada strong. I would really like to know what he has found to be the most important investments, not only for the country but also for his home province.

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

Liberal
“I support our government's investments across Canada. We are working with Indigenous people and provinces on big projects in every region. In Manitoba, these investments help our aerospace industry and the Port of Churchill.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, for me, I have always perceived myself to be a nationalist, first and foremost. I love the fact that the government’s approach has been to ensure that every region of our nation is getting major projects. We are working with indigenous people and provinces to make sure that every region is going to benefit from major projects and investments. For me, in terms of my home province of Manitoba, of course, I am somewhat partial to that. I love the attention that is being given to our aerospace industry through investments in the Canadian Forces. I love the idea that Port of Churchill, for the first time, is being talked about as a viable port into the future. I like the idea that we are working so collaboratively with Wab Kinew as a premier, as well as the other premiers, in building a stronger and healthier nation for all.

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

Liberal
“The investment summit in Toronto was a success. It brought together provinces, Indigenous people, and global investors, with the potential for half a trillion dollars in investment. I believe billions of dollars will come to Canada because of it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think I will save the CPP issue for another day. I am going to provide a comment on the Toronto summit. The Canada investment summit attracted the potential for a half trillion dollars of investment. To give the member opposite a sense of the excitement that was created around this summit, we had the premier of Manitoba there, Wab Kinew. He said that, if somebody wanted to invest in the Port of Churchill, Manitoba would exempt them from paying provincial sales tax. I think there is a wide expectation because this is not just the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister might have been the one who brought everyone to the table, but we have provincial jurisdictions, indigenous people and investors from around the world. I believe there will be billions of dollars of investment as a direct result of that particular summit. It is only a question of time, and I am glad to see that we had so much take-up, in particular from provincial governments.

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

Liberal
“Both Justin Trudeau and Stephen Harper asked the Prime Minister for advice because of his economic experience. Over the last 18 months, our government has done good work on affordability, the military, investments, and major projects. Canadians can see through the Conservatives' political games.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 42 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 25 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 think it is important to recognize that the member wants to talk about Justin Trudeau, and I would talk equally about Stephen Harper. Both of those former prime ministers saw the merit of seeking the advice of our current leader of the Liberal Party, today’s Prime Minister. I see nothing wrong with seeking advice. I see that as a positive. I can assure the member opposite that there are many people who sought the advice of today’s leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister of Canada. I suspect that it has a lot to do with his economic credentials. At the end of the day, if we were to be judged on the last 18 months, whether on issues of affordability, the Canadian Forces, investments in Canada or major projects, I believe Canadians would see through the Conservative games.

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

Liberal
“The budget watchdog gave warnings when Stephen Harper was in charge, too. Canada still has the room to borrow and spend money. I want to know if the member agrees that we should use that room to invest in Canadians and grow our economy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the government has made a commitment with respect to the operating balance, which I think is a positive thing. The member might find some light in that. He made reference to the PBO quite a bit in his comments. I wonder if he is aware that even under Stephen Harper’s administration, warnings came from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. At the end of the day, I believe we have fiscal capacity. Does the member believe that if we have fiscal capacity, we should seriously look at investing in Canadians to try to build a larger economy, which would help out in the long run?

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

Liberal
“Spending money on big projects is a good idea when they make money back for the government later. LNG projects cost money now, but they will bring in a lot of tax money in the future. I want the member to admit that government investments can pay off.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to the issue of the ability to invest. If we are investing in projects that will generate wonderful revenues into the future for government, is that not a wise thing? I think of LNG two. Yes, there is a cost to the federal government, but in the long run, there will also be phenomenal financial resources coming, with a return to the federal government. Would the member not agree that investing can mean many different forms of returns for Ottawa? That could be anything, including income tax and beyond. I would like his comments on the value of investing.

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

Liberal
“Our ministers answer dozens of questions from the opposition every day. Former prime minister Stephen Harper never went to the finance committee for the budget either. The finance minister presents the budget and is accountable for it. I want to know if the member agrees that the finance minister is the one who should be held accountable for the budget.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think today’s official opposition underestimates the value of accountability through the different ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Stephen Harper was here for question period but never showed up at the finance committee to address budget issues. There is no change there. Every day we sit, the Conservative Party gets to ask literally dozens of questions, whatever questions they want. There are always ministers here to field those questions. The Minister of Finance presents the budget and will be held to account for the government budget. Does the member believe that the Minister of Finance has an obligation to be the one held accountable for the finance budget?

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“Canada is in a strong financial position, with a top credit rating and a low debt-to-GDP ratio compared to our peers. We are managing public money responsibly, bringing in hundreds of billions of dollars in new investments, and cutting our deficit.”
  • Speech on a motion

    Relevance 27 of 100

    None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.”

    Said 17 times by 13 members since April 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough Southwest. I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the motion put forward by the leader of the official opposition. It touches on an issue that affects all of us: the state of our public finances and what they enable us to do for Canadians. I believe there is at least one thing members on both sides of the House can agree on: The world is changing fast. It is changing unpredictably; trade tensions are on the rise, supply chains are being reshaped, and decisions made far from here are being felt in our kitchens, our factories and our small and medium-sized businesses. I see this in my riding of Bourassa every day. Families are carefully budgeting, and business owners on our main streets are wondering what tomorrow will bring. They do not expect slogans from us; they expect us to take this seriously. Faced with such uncertainty, what does a responsible government do? Our government is focusing on what it can control. It is strengthening the economy here at home. It is diversifying its trade relationships abroad. It is making strategic investments to build a stronger, more independent and, above all, more resilient economy. All of this rests on one essential condition, and one condition alone: a solid financial position. A sound financial position is not an end in itself. It is an asset for the country and a tool for the government. It is what allows us to protect Canadians when the storm hits. It is what gives us the means to respond to shocks. Above all, it is what allows us to invest in the future rather than simply endure it. The good news is that Canada is entering this period from a position of strength. The government is not the only one saying so; the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, agrees. It should be noted that the IMF does not engage in politics; rather, it produces calculations, figures and rather interesting performance indicators. According to its most recent projections, Canada will have the second-lowest deficit in the G7 this year as a share of its economy. That deficit will continue to decline over the coming years. It is expected to fall from 2.5% of GDP in 2026 to 2.4% in 2027, before falling to 1.7% by 2031. Across the globe, budgetary pressures are mounting, yet Canada remains among the strongest performers in the G7. We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the entire G7. Canada is one of only two G7 countries, alongside Germany, to hold a AAA credit rating from the major credit rating agencies. The AAA rating cannot be bought; it must be earned. This rating is not merely a badge of honour. It is a vote of confidence from investors around the world. This confidence has measurable value: It helps keep our borrowing costs as low as possible, and that directly protects taxpayers. There are other assets in addition to that. Canada is the best-connected economy in the world, with free trade agreements that open the door to 1.5 billion consumers. We offer by far the most competitive tax environment in the G7 for new business investment. We are not letting those strengths go to waste; we are putting them to work. In fact, last month, Canada hosted the first-ever Canada investment summit. We brought together some of the world’s biggest investors and gave them a simple message: Come and see what Canada has to offer. The result was nearly $500 billion in new funding and investment commitments in Canada. However, attracting investors is not enough. They need a reason to want to stay, to build and grow here in Canada. That is why we announced the new productivity mega deduction. What does a mega deduction actually mean? It means that businesses will be able to immediately and permanently write off their eligible investments in a broad-based range of assets. The percentage of assets covered will increase from about 15% to more than 65%. This measure would help an SME that is hesitating over whether to buy a new machine. There is an industrial area in my riding of Bourassa. If an SME wants to buy a new machine or modernize its systems, this measure is a reason to say yes to that investment. If a large company is torn between Canada and another country, this measure is a reason to choose our country, Canada. Whether small, medium or large, all our businesses benefit. Whether in Quebec, Alberta or elsewhere in the country, everyone benefits. When businesses invest in their equipment and their workers, our overall productivity improves. Canada has a financial advantage, and we are determined to protect it, because investing in the future does not mean spending recklessly. On the contrary, budget 2025 marked a real shift in how public finances are managed, and this plan is working. As the Prime Minister recently announced, the government is on track to balance its operating spending as early as 2027-28, a year earlier than our government had projected. We are also committed to rigorously implementing the efficiency measures set out in budget 2025. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue will table the 2026 budget on November 5. On November 5, we will not be tabling slogans. We will not be tabling a motion. We will be tabling a budget. The logic is very simple: fewer resources devoted to the day-to-day operations of government and more resources devoted to the things that build our economic capacity for decades to come, such as infrastructure, major projects and revenue-generating assets. Every family understands the difference between the money we spend to meet our day-to-day needs and the money we invest to build our future. A prudent family keeps a close eye on the former. A wise family never neglects the latter. That discipline is not optional. Our fiscal position is strong today, but in no way does that mean we can take it for granted. That is why the government has adopted two clear and essential rules. First, operating expenses must be balanced with revenues. Second, the deficit must remain on a downward path relative to the size of our economy. These are two simple, measurable rules, and our government is abiding by them. This brings me to my conclusion. Canada’s fiscal strengths are real. We have one of the strongest financial positions in the G7, with the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio and a AAA credit rating. Our responsibility is twofold. The first responsibility is to preserve these strengths. The second is to use them for growth. That means investing in infrastructure and major projects, attracting more private capital, empowering our businesses to grow, diversifying our trade so that we are less dependent on a single partner, and diligently managing our public finances. That is exactly what we are doing. As I was saying, we live in a rapidly changing world. Neither the Speaker of the House, nor I, nor the Prime Minister, nor any member of the House can control what happens outside our borders. However, we can control the choices we make, and our choice is clear. We are choosing to build on our strengths, invest in the future and build a more resilient and more prosperous economy for our children. We do not control the world, but we can control our choices.

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“Interest costs are going up all around the world. Canada is handling this well. We have the lowest debt compared to the size of our economy in the G7, our top credit rating keeps borrowing costs low, and our deficit is going down.”
  • 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, here is what Canadians watching us need to know about interest charges: They have increased, but they have increased around the world. Given the rise in rates that the whole world has experienced, the real question is this: Who is weathering it best? That is the real question, not whether interest charges have exceeded health transfers. As I just said, Canada has the lowest net debt‑to‑GDP ratio in the G7 and a AAA credit rating. That rating is what keeps our borrowing costs as low as possible. In addition, our deficit is on a downward path.

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“Canada will stick to its values no matter who we do business with. We need to trade with more countries, like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and nations in Europe. We can protect our economic interests in these places without giving up our values.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to say what a pleasure it is to sit alongside my colleague on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. The first answer is very clear and simple: The Government of Canada will uphold its values, no matter which country it does business with. Economically speaking, we are in a situation where we need to diversify our trade. Of course, without compromising our Canadian values, we have economic interests in other countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and throughout Europe, with which a summit will soon be held. We are going to pursue that with the values that Canada is known for. People want to invest in Canada for its values, its economic strength and the opportunities we give to our investors.

Braedon Clark, Sackville—Bedford—Preston

Liberal
“I want my colleague to explain why Canada's finances compared to other major countries matter for our economy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague and friend from Bourassa mentioned Canada’s fiscal position relative to other G7 countries. Can he explain why those facts are so important for our economy and our country?

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“Our tax deductions help businesses buy new machinery and vehicles. This creates jobs and brings more investment to Canada.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 43 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, to answer the question, I will just talk about the mega deduction, although there is also an opportunity to attract investors. For example, I had an opportunity to host a round table in Bourassa’s industrial area. Industrialists and businesses want to invest, and the mega deduction will help them upgrade their fleets and machinery. That will create jobs. It is good both for employment in our ridings and for our industries. To repeat what I said earlier, this is about our ability to attract investment, as we did at the first-ever summit. I think the future will be a lot more promising because we can attract a lot more investment, because of our potential and, as I said in the previous answer, because of our values.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 156

  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 105 statements
  2. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  3. Oral Questions Housing 6 statements
  4. Oral Questions Oil and Gas Industry 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Finance 10 statements
  6. Oral Questions Labour 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 5 statements
  8. Oral Questions Veterans Affairs 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Housing 8 statements
  10. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Relations 6 statements
  11. Oral Questions Government Appointments 4 statements
  12. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 8 statements
  13. Oral Questions Youth 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Small Business 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Natural Resources 6 statements
  16. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Rail Transportation 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Marine Transportation 2 statements
  19. Government Orders Business of Supply 41 statements
  20. Oral Questions Natural Resources 2 statements
  21. Government Orders Business of Supply 17 statements
  22. Private Members' Business Relieving Grieving Parents of an Administrative Burden Act (Evan's Law) 2 statements
  23. Government Orders Committees of the House 2 statements
  24. Private Members' Business Relieving Grieving Parents of an Administrative Burden Act (Evan's Law) 4 statements
  25. Orders of the Day Concurrence in Committee Reports 71 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  27. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  28. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements