“The government is hiding how much money it borrows by splitting its spending into two groups. It spends $1 billion a week just on debt interest, which takes money away from services like health care. I want the Prime Minister to come to the finance committee to explain his plan to control spending, lower interest costs, and cut taxes.”

“Madam Speaker, what if I told Canadians that every single week, the federal government spends $1 billion on something that will totally shock them? That $1 billion does not put a nurse at a bedside, does not build a home for a struggling family and does not make life one bit more affordable for Canadians. That $1 billion is 1,000 times $1 million, every seven days. What are Canadians getting for all that money? It is the bill for interest alone on the national debt. The worst part is that the $1 billion a week does not pay off a single penny of the debt itself. I think most of us know what it is like to sit down at the kitchen table with a pile of bills and wonder how we are going to make everything work. Imagine a family that has been relying a little too much on their credit card just to get through the month. They are doing their best, but the balance keeps growing, and every time they make a payment, so much of it goes toward interest that they barely make a dent in what they owe. One would think the sensible thing would be to sit down together, take a good look at where the money is going and figure out what they can cut back on. Instead, someone comes up with what they think is a brilliant idea: Why not get a second credit card and divide all their spending into two categories? On the first card, they can put everyday necessities, things like groceries, prescriptions, gas for the car and monthly bills. On the second card, they can put everything that they decide is an investment in the family’s future, like replacing a roof, buying new clothes for the kids and even taking the family to the movies, because, after all, spending time together is an investment too. Here is the clever part. From now on, they will only judge how well they are managing their money by looking at the first credit card. As long as they can get that balance under control, they will tell themselves that they are finally living within their means, even while the spending on the second card keeps growing. When the bills arrive, the bank does not care what they have decided to call their purchases. It does not matter whether the money went toward groceries, a new roof or a night at the movies. They still owe every dollar that they borrowed, and they are still paying interest on it. They have not solved their debt problem. They have simply found a new way of keeping score that makes one part of their finances look better without improving the overall picture. That little story might sound ridiculous, but it is a good way to describe how the Prime Minister is presenting the federal government’s finances. He is completely ignoring accounting practices accepted worldwide and has now decided to divide government spending into two categories. On the one side are the everyday operating expenses, and on the other are things his government calls investments in Canada’s future. Just like our family with the two credit cards, the Prime Minister wants Canadians to focus on getting that first account balanced while borrowing buckets of money to pay for what is going on the second. One does not have to take my word for whether this approach is actually keeping government spending under control. Just last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released her latest report, and the numbers tell quite a story. Since June, the government has announced $52.6 billion in new spending and tax measures over the next five years. Of that amount, $43.8 billion, more than 80%, has been classified as capital investment, which means it does not count against the Prime Minister’s promise to balance his operating budget. Think about that for a moment. For every five dollars in new measures that the government has announced, more than four dollars has been put into the second bucket, where they do not count against the Prime Minister’s promise to balance the day-to-day budget. Let us go back to that family sitting around the kitchen table, looking at their two credit card bills and trying to figure out how they are ever going to get ahead. They have been making their payments every month, but the balances never seem to come down because so much of what they are paying is being eaten up by interest. The longer they carry that debt, the more money they lose to interest, instead of being able to spend it on things the family needs. Most Canadians understand that problem because they have either experienced it themselves or watched somebody they love struggle with it. What many Canadians may not realize is that the federal government has run up such an enormous debt that the interest alone now works out to nearly $6,000 a year for every family of four in Canada. The Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us that the interest on our national debt is now the fastest-growing expense in the federal budget. We are not talking about health care, where Canadians are already waiting months for treatment, or national defence, where our military desperately needs new equipment, or even the benefits that seniors rely on to get by. We are talking about interest payments to corporate bankers and bondholders. This year alone, the federal government is expected to spend approximately $59 billion on interest. According to the PBO projections, that annual bill is going to climb to $83 billion by 2030. We can just imagine what that means for the next generation of Canadians, who will inherit not only the debt but the cost of servicing it. Here is where I find this especially troubling. When the Prime Minister took office, he promised Canadians that he would spend less, that he would bring some discipline back to Ottawa’s finances and that Canadians could expect a different approach to managing their money. Instead, we are looking at a deficit roughly twice the size of the one left behind by Justin Trudeau, with the government continuing to borrow billions more every year. Anyone who has ever tried to get out of credit card debt knows that they cannot keep increasing the balance and expect the interest payments to somehow take care of themselves. Eventually, those payments begin to crowd out everything else in the budget, and they find themselves working harder and harder just to keep up with what they already owe. That is exactly the concern we should have about our federal finances because every dollar Ottawa spends paying interest on the debt is a dollar that is not available to hire another nurse, provide another hospital bed, improve the services Canadians depend on or leave a little more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians. The really frustrating part is that those Canadians are already making difficult choices every single day. They are putting things back on the grocery store shelf because they cannot afford them. They are postponing repairs to their homes. They are telling their children there simply is not enough money for some of the things they used to enjoy. They understand that when money is tight, they have to make choices. Canadians are entitled to expect their government to show that same kind of discipline, which it promised. At the end of the day, it does not matter whether someone has one credit card, two credit cards or a hundred different ways of dividing up the spending. If they keep borrowing more than they can afford to repay, the interest will keep growing. Eventually, someone has to pay the bill, and in this case, that someone is the Canadian taxpayer. The Prime Minister came into office promising to spend less, but Canadians are still waiting to hear how he intends to bring down the deficit, reduce the enormous interest bill we are leaving to our children and grandchildren and give hard-working families some relief from the taxes they are paying. That is why Conservatives are calling on the Prime Minister to come before the House of Commons finance committee and explain his plan. We want to know how he intends to get government spending under control, how he plans to reduce the interest we are paying on the national debt and when Canadians can expect to see some of their hard-earned money stay in their own pockets. This week, every Liberal member of Parliament will have an opportunity to support this request. Surely, asking the Prime Minister to explain how he intends to keep his own promises should not be controversial. Canadians have been doing their part. They have been working hard, paying their taxes and making difficult decisions around their own kitchen tables. I believe they have earned the right to expect their government to be just as careful with their money as they have to be. The Prime Minister has told Canadians he knows how to manage the economy. We are simply asking him to come to the finance committee, show us the numbers and explain his plan. Canadians do not need another credit card. They need a government that knows how to pay the bill.”

“Times are tough, but the government still chose to spend more than it had. The budget office found we had 37 billion dollars in extra revenue, but the government announced over 52 billion dollars in new spending. The Prime Minister should explain this choice.”

“Mr. Speaker, nobody disputes that tariffs and global uncertainty are hurting our economy. In fact, Prime Minister Harper balanced the budget during those difficult times. The PBO acknowledges that these are tough times, but it also tells us that since June, stronger revenues created $37 billion in additional fiscal room while the government announced $52.6 billion in new measures. That is a choice about how to use the available money, and it is entirely reasonable to ask the Prime Minister to explain it.”

“The Prime Minister shows up to question period only about 26% of the time, and our questions about the country's finances go unanswered. He needs to come to the finance committee and answer them.”

“Mr. Speaker, one of the important statistics to consider in relation to why this motion is before the House is, of course, that the Prime Minister’s attendance at question period is roughly 26% of the time, and not all questions are answered. We have very important questions for the Prime Minister around the country’s finances, questions that are not answered with the made-up definitions or the fiscal anchor that he has chosen to control spending and debt in this country. Can the member comment as to why it is important for the Prime Minister to answer these questions in the finance committee?”

“The independent budget watchdog says the government's rules are not stopping its heavy spending. The deficit is $63 billion this year and will reach $70 billion next year, with rising interest costs. The Prime Minister needs to explain this.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. The PBO has just told us that the government’s own fiscal rules have imposed limited fiscal discipline. In plain English, the government’s spending rules are doing diddly-squat to stop the wild spending spree it is on. We are looking at a $63-billion deficit this year, climbing to $70 billion next year, while interest payments continue to grow. These are not numbers coming from the opposition. They are coming from Parliament’s independent budget watchdog. Surely, that deserves an explanation from the Prime Minister.”

“The government is spending too much money. Canada spends more as a share of its economy than most peer countries, and our debt costs keep rising. I want the Prime Minister to tell us if he has a real plan to get borrowing under control.”

“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague loves to talk about our amazing credit rating, but Canada is already spending more as a share of our economy than the G20 median, and the OECD tells us government spending has increased significantly since before the pandemic. Even Russia, which is in the middle of a war with Ukraine, is spending less than us. Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is projecting continuing federal deficits and rising debt interest costs. Canadians deserve to hear whether the Prime Minister has a credible plan to bring federal borrowing under control.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 37 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Life costs too much right now. The government taxes people, gives some money back in programs, and grows the debt. I want to know if the government will fix the real causes of high prices instead of just treating the symptoms.”

“Mr. Speaker, we all know that we are facing a cost of living crisis, and we acknowledge that. That said, it seems to me that the government is taking money out of people’s pockets and then putting some of it back through subsidies and other programs, all while the debt continues to grow. Does the government intend to examine and address the root causes of the rising cost of living, rather than simply treating the symptoms?”

“I want the Prime Minister to come to committee himself to explain the benefits the Liberals claim they are creating.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s 10-minute speech on all the benefits the Liberals believe are going on. What would be the problem with the Prime Minister’s coming to committee and explaining some of those himself?”

“Government spending is making life more expensive, and the national debt keeps growing. That debt will cost families an extra $6,000 in interest. The government needs to take paying it down seriously.”

“Mr. Speaker, government spending is driving up the cost of living, and the national debt continues to rise. That debt will cost families an extra $6,000 in interest alone. How serious should the government be about tackling that debt?”

“Most Canadian families are spending more money than they make. The government has doubled Canada's debt, and paying the interest on that debt costs billions of dollars that could go to services. I want the House to pass this motion to make the Prime Minister answer questions about this debt at the finance committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Leader of the Opposition. I want to set the scene. It is Friday night in a kitchen somewhere in this country. The kids are asleep. A mother sits alone at a table, with a paycheque in one hand and a stack of bills in the other. She lays them out side by side, and she adds them up once. Then she adds them up again, and then a third time. On the third time, the paycheque wins. That kitchen table is in every single riding in this country. No matter who we are or where we come from, we have heard the stories from our own communities. Every morning before the sun comes up, millions of Canadians lace up their boots, kiss their kids goodbye and head out the door to earn that paycheque. It is an overtime shift, a night course, years of training and a sore back at the end of the day. For generations, it meant something simple: If a Canadian worked hard, they could build a better life for their children. For too many families, that promise is very broken in this country. We come here every week with those stories that families tell in our communities. That is what I am going to talk about here today. A recent C.D. Howe Institute report found that 60% of Canadian households now spend more than they bring in. The lowest-income families spend more than double their disposable income, the next group overspends by nearly a third, and the middle-class families in this country, the backbone of what creates our economy, are spending 12% more than they make every single month. For a family with $60,000 in take-home pay, that means it is $7,200 short every single year. Behind those numbers are actual people and their stories. It is the mother at the grocery checkout putting raspberries back because the total came up to more than she expected. It is the dad picking up a second job and missing his son’s games. It is the parent who tells their kids they are not hungry tonight, just so there is enough food on the table. It is the conversation no parent wants to have: “Not this year, sweetheart. Maybe next year.” It is the young couple that wanted to start a family but keeps pushing it back. It is a senior who has worked her whole life but now has to decide between prescriptions and filling the fridge. It is the parent lying awake at two o’clock in the morning doing the math over and over again in their head, hoping it comes out different. These families are not irresponsible. Nobody puts groceries on a credit card for fun. Nobody takes a payday loan to keep the lights on because they like the interest rates. Nobody drains a retirement fund they have been saving for 20 years for the thrill of it. They do it because they have no choice. What does the government tell them? Well, the Prime Minister specifically says that affordability is the best it has been in a decade. How did we get here? Part of the answer is across the aisle. It has been the same people sitting in the same chairs and saying the exact same thing over the last 11 years. The Liberal government has doubled the national debt in that time, adding more debt than all previous governments in Canadian history before it, all of them combined. When Ottawa borrows and spends without restraint, the families I spoke about are the ones paying the bill. They pay it again and again, because debt is not free. It comes with interest. According to the PBO, who was hired by the Liberal government, Ottawa will pay $59 billion in interest on debt this year. That is more than $1 billion every single week. It is more than double what it was five years ago. It is now the fastest-growing expense line in the entire federal budget. Nobody can dispute those facts. Every Canadian has a share in that interest. It is $1,400 a year for every individual, and for a family of four, that is roughly $6,000. By 2030, the PBO projects that it will be $1,900 for every person, which is nearly $8,000 for that same family. That money is enough for a hockey season that a kid did not get. It is a modest camping vacation they keep putting off till next summer. It is a birthday party that is scaled down to cake at the kitchen table because times are tough. Those are the real stories and those are the real impacts of $6,000 a year for a family going to $8,000 a year because of reckless spending. What does the family get for that? The Liberals will stand up today in the House and ask them if they like this or that program, but the fact is they get nothing for the interest they pay on it. They do not get a single hospital bed. They do not get one classroom. They do not get a kilometre of highway. They do not get anything for their military with the interest on that debt. All of that money goes directly to bankers and bondholders, not to the families that are struggling, the mom who put the raspberries back on the shelf, the dad who took on a second shift and will miss his kid’s hockey game, or the senior who just cannot decide what to do next. That money goes straight to bankers and bondholders. The bills keep growing. Every Canadian share of that federal debt is now over $33,000. For a family of four, that is more than $130,000. It is a second mortgage they never asked for. It is a second mortgage they will one day hand to their children. Here is the cruellest part of it: Parents in this country are working themselves to the bone so their kids can have a better life, and the government is sending these same kids the bill. Today, the question is very simple. How does the Prime Minister expect these families to pay that bill? How does he expect them to pay $6,000 more a year or $8,000 more a year? I know there are a lot of people, including him, who do not worry about $6,000 or $8,000, but there are a heck of a lot of families in this country who absolutely do, and they are asking questions. Canadian families are all doing their part. They get up, and they go to work. They stretch every dollar until it squeaks. They sacrifice every single day without complaint. When the money runs out, they sit down at the kitchen table and they face those numbers honestly. Then, they go over and over it again in their heads, trying to make the math work out differently. The Prime Minister should be willing to do the exact same thing. This is why this motion calls on the Prime Minister to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance. It is very simple. It calls for him to not send a minister and not send a list of talking points, but to come himself to the table and answer the questions every single family in this country is asking: How is a mother with a stack of bills supposed to cover $60 billion in interest? How is a young couple supposed to start a family with a $130,000 share of debt hanging over them? How much more does he plan to put on the Liberal credit card before it all comes due? Every family, every person and everybody in the House, at one point in their lives, had to explain their budget to someone, to a bank, to a landlord, sometimes their own kids. The Prime Minister should be able to explain that to every single Canadian taxpayer, and he should be able to do that at a table without getting up in the House and telling those same families that affordability is the best it has ever been and that they have never had it better. I urge every single member of the government to vote for this motion, to vote for accountability. They have asked for the trust of the public, and they owe something in that trust relationship. The public is asking questions about how it is going to pay its fair share of that debt, and the Prime Minister ought to come to committee and answer those questions. It is not a difficult motion, and I hope members vote yes.”

“The government's programs have failed. More Canadians use food banks now than before, and the help does not cover the thousands of dollars families pay in interest. The Prime Minister should answer these questions himself instead of having his House leader repeat talking points.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member just listed a grand list of failures. Everything the government has put forward in a program has failed Canadians because there are more Canadians eating food from a food bank than there were before the government started its food program. Everything is getting worse under the government, and all of those programs are a drop in the bucket compared to what those families are paying for interest, which is $6,000 now and will be $8,000 in 2030. They have questions. Is it worth it? The Prime Minister should answer those questions instead of colleagues just hearing talking points from his House leader.”

“The member can ask that question to the Prime Minister when he comes to committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite can absolutely ask that question of the Prime Minister when he comes to committee.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 49 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government is presenting its budget on a Thursday afternoon right before a week off. That leaves only one day to question them about it. I think the government is doing this to avoid questions because it will be a bad budget. I want to know what the member thinks about this timing.”

“Mr. Speaker, this motion ultimately comes down to the fundamental principles of accountability, transparency and oversight. I am wondering what the member’s comments would be about the fact that the government is introducing a budget on November 5, a Thursday afternoon. Now, I have been here for 11 years, and I do not think I have ever seen a budget introduced on a Thursday afternoon. It leaves Friday for question period and then members will be, over the next week, in their ridings for the week of Remembrance Day. That really speaks to the issues of accountability, transparency and oversight. It proves that the government does not want any questions on this budget. I would suggest that it is going to be a really bad budget and that is why the government does not want to do it. I wonder what her comments are on that.”

“The government introduced the budget right before a break week to avoid questions about it. We need to pass this motion so the Prime Minister comes to committee. He needs to explain why he claimed life is affordable when families are paying $6,000 more a year and cannot afford basic groceries or vacations.”

“Mr. Speaker, if the budget looks like the last budget, then I understand completely why government members would not want to be questioned on it, not on a Friday and not on a Monday. The government introducing a budget on a Thursday before a break week, and then taking that next week, tells us everything we need to know. That is why this motion is so important. It is important to get the Prime Minister at committee to explain his comments, to explain why he told the House that affordability is better than it has ever been and to explain to Canadian families why he is charging them $6,000 a year while they cannot buy raspberries or take a vacation.”

“The member's answer was a failure, and all the government's programs are failures. Everything is worse now than before they started.”

“Mr. Speaker, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party says that the House leader is a failure. His answer was a failure, and all of those programs that he has introduced in the House are failures, because everything is worse than it was before he started.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  Signal 22 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 government is spending sixty billion dollars this year just on interest on the national debt. That is more than it spends on health care, the military, or child benefits. It costs a family of four six thousand dollars a year, and that will soon rise to eight thousand. The Prime Minister is hiding the true deficit and plans to add hundreds of billions more in debt, which makes life unaffordable. I want the House to call the Prime Minister to a committee to explain this. I want all parties to support our plan to cut government spending and lower the deficit.”

“Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve more for their money. Hard work should be rewarded here in Canada. Those who get up every morning to go to work and those who are trying to retire after having worked hard their whole lives deserve a good paycheque. However, after 11 years of this Liberal government, the more time passes, the less work is rewarded. A larger share of wages in Canada is being eaten up by inflation. People even have to hand what they earn at work over to the government in the form of very high taxes. However, the government will argue that taxes pay for services. Is that true? Are the services we receive commensurate with the taxes that we pay? The fastest rising-cost under this government is not the cost of services, health care or benefits for children or seniors. It is the cost of the interest payments on our national debt, which will be $60 billion this year. That is more than the government is spending on health transfers, more than it is spending on services, more than the total amount Canadians pay in GST, twice as much as the government is spending on benefits for children and much more than it is spending on our soldiers. What does the interest on the national debt cost a family of four? Five years ago, a family of four had to pay about $2,500 a year in taxes to cover the interest on the national debt. Today, that same family must pay $6,000 in taxes simply to cover the interest on the debt. In four years’ time, that family will be paying $8,000 a year just to service the interest on the debt, not to pay down the debt itself. That makes debt interest the fastest-growing expenditure of all. At the same time, the Prime Minister’s record deficits are driving up the cost of living by fuelling inflation. The debt situation is far worse today than it was a year ago. Canadians were promised a Prime Minister who would be more prudent than Justin Trudeau, but instead he has doubled the deficits. He did so after resorting to creative accounting in the government’s books. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this Prime Minister plans to add another $733 billion to the national debt over the next five years. That means an additional $40,000 in federal debt for every Canadian family and every household, on top of the $1.3 trillion already owed. Canadians are being crushed by the government’s debt. What are the consequences? More people are turning to food banks. An entire generation is being locked out of home ownership. Fuel prices at the pump are among the highest in the western world. Poverty is on the rise. That has to change. Canadians deserve better. The goal of the official opposition is to save them money, save their jobs, keep them safe, repair and reduce immigration, and put Canada first. That is why we are proposing to invite the Prime Minister to appear before the committee so that he can explain to Canadians how a family is going to pay $6,000 a year in interest on the national debt. It is also so that we can put forward our solutions, such as cutting down on red tape, consultants, corporate welfare, foreign aid, money for bogus refugees and more, in order to reduce the deficit and restore fiscal balance. The size of government must be reduced, along with the burden that government imposes on Canadians. We want to return to a country where everyone who works hard can have a big paycheque that stays in their pocket and where the dollar keeps its value. Greater purchasing power will enable our young people to buy a home, our families to buy food and our seniors to have the excellent retirement that they deserve. That is the Conservatives’ goal. For those reasons, we are calling on all parties to work with us to fulfill and restore the promise of Canada here, at home. Hard work should pay off. When someone puts in a long day’s work and bring home a paycheque, the money should stay in their pocket, and the dollars should retain value. The money should buy affordable food, homes and fuel. People should be able to put their kids in sporting activities that improve their health, their discipline and the quality of life they enjoy. They should be able to retire knowing that the money they saved up will buy them the necessities of life and allow them the freedom to enjoy the years they have earned. That means they should get value for money from the government. When people pay taxes, they expect something in return. Are they getting it? Well, what is the fastest-growing expense in the government’s budget? Is it seniors benefits? Is it health care? Is it the child benefit? Is it police? Is it our military? No, it is none of the above. Under the Prime Minister, for the first time in over two decades, the single biggest expense is interest on the national debt. It is an expense that has more than doubled in the last five years. Now, $60 billion of Canadian tax money goes to bankers and bondholders. That is more than we spend on health care transfers, more than we spend on the military and more than we spend on the child benefit. In fact, it is almost twice as much as we spend on the child benefit. Not only has it gotten worse; it threatens to get worse still. It is up from 10¢ to 13.6¢, almost 14¢, of every dollar the government spends that goes straight to bankers and bondholders for interest. This is the highest share of our budget since 2007. Here is what it means for the average family of four. In 2021, interest on the debt cost it $2,500 a year. Right now it is $6,000 a year, and in four years, under the government’s plan, it will be $8,000 a year. To put it in perspective, we are now spending vastly more on debt interest than we collect in GST. That is right: Every time we make a purchase at a retail outlet and we see that GST on the receipt, we should know that 100% of what we paid is not going to health care or our troops but is going to pay interest on the national debt. The situation, though, I have to say, is not as bad as it seems. It is worse, because the Prime Minister has cooked the books. He has decided that if he divides the debt and deficit up onto three separate credit cards, it will not cost as much. He says that some of the spending is operating cost. Some, he arbitrarily says, is investment. Further sums are for Crown corporations. At the end of the day, it is all money the government has to borrow and on which it has to pay future interest, all of which is a burden on the shoulders of taxpayers. To be clear, what the Prime Minister calls investment is fuzzy, undefined, and based on no generally accepted accounting principle. No other government in the world follows his definitions. It is simply what he picks in order to reduce what he calls his operating budget. Well, even with cooking the books, the Prime Minister has not managed to do that either. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reports that operating spending is up 11% in just over a year, rising well over three times faster than the growth in the population and the overall economy, and the Prime Minister intends to add $733 billion to our national debt over the next five years, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This works out to $40,000 in new debt for every single family in this country, and to get what? It is bigger lineups at food banks, a generation of youth who cannot afford a home, higher insolvencies, jobs leaving our country and our brightest people moving south. It the biggest increase of any country in the world of people exiting to go to the United States of America. It is “elbows up, Canadians out”. That is a bad result for all those hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit spending. There is a better way. We could restore the value of hard work by cutting bureaucracy, consultants, foreign aid, handouts to fake and phony refugees, and other wasted money in order to bring down debt, inflation and taxes; to make our money worth something; to ensure that our dollars are spent on health care, military, policing and borders, not on bankers and bondholders; and to restore the promise of this country, where anyone who works hard gets a great life on a safe street in a home they own, with meat and potatoes on the dinner table and a wonderful retirement under our proud flag. Let us make it happen.”

• Echo ×25

  A repeated line

  “After 11 years of the Liberal government.”

  Said 25 times by 19 members since April 30.

  Every time it was said →

“The government brags about promises it has not kept and investments that have not actually happened. Buzzwords and photo ops will not build the economy. The government needs to get out of the way so Canadians can reach their real potential.”

“Mr. Speaker, the only thing broken is the record on the other side of the aisle. I have never heard any party so capable of bragging triumphantly of promises it has not yet kept. The member got up and did not say that the investment had occurred. He said that it has the potential to one day occur. Someday over the rainbow, if we just follow it, we might get to a pot of gold. We just need another summit, another signing ceremony, another photo op or a bunch of new made-up MBA isms, such as catalyze this and synergy that. We will not build an economy out of buzzwords or unrealized promises. We will build an economy by getting the government out of the way and off the backs of the Canadian people to realize their real potential.”

“The government spends more money paying interest on the debt than on health care. Six million Canadians do not have a family doctor, and wait times are getting worse. Canada should pay down its debt and spend that money on health care instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Liberal government spends more on servicing the debt than on health care. Conservatives believe that it should be the other way around. Canadians pay income tax and other taxes to get health care services. They deserve to have the best health care service in the world, but this is far from the case. Our current health care system includes 6 million people with no family doctor. The waiting lists keep getting longer. Within the OECD, we rank among the worst countries when it comes to health care services. One problem is that the Liberals are diverting money from our system to bankers to pay down the interest on our debt. We should pay down our debt and support health.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Canada needs to control its spending. When we bring this up, the government asks what we would cut. I want our leader to explain our plan to spend less money.”

“Mr. Speaker, oftentimes in the House when we talk about these subjects, the common response we get from the members opposite is, “What would Conservatives cut?” I am curious if the Leader of the Opposition would like to expand on the Conservatives’ exact approach to practising fiscal restraint, which we desperately need in this country right now.”

“The Liberals ask what we would cut. We have found about $200 billion in savings. We would cancel the $150-billion Alto train project. We would end subsidies and loans to big corporations, including ones the Prime Minister has a personal interest in. We would end benefits for fake refugees and cut foreign aid. We want to cut this wasteful government spending and leave that money with Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals always ask, as if it were some kind of gotcha question, “What would we cut?” We have only found about $200 billion of savings that we have identified and stated publicly. To start with, there is the Alto rail disaster. The government wants to spend $150 billion on a train that is already off the tracks even though it has not built a single inch of rail. That is $150 billion right there. Massive increases in corporate welfare, which favours corporate power brokers with massive interest-free loans, grants, subsidies and other favours, would be reversed. This is companies such as Brookfield and others that the Prime Minister has a personal interest in. While he hides his money abroad, he mostly forces Canadians to subsidize his corporate interests here at home. We would get rid of the deluxe benefits for fake and phony refugees, who get more benefit from our tax dollars than our hard-working seniors do. We would cut back on foreign aid and stop sending our money out of Canada. It belongs to the Canadian people. We would bring it back to our people. I just came up with four or five excellent examples of how we could cut back the enormous, wasteful, morbidly obese government we have on the other side of the aisle, so Canadians can have a more rewarding life.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Respect 77 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “that the Prime Minister has a personal interest in.”.

  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 →

“The government now spends more on interest for its debt than it sends to provinces for health care. I want to know if the government will cut its spending so life can be more affordable for Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, public debt charges are the fastest-growing major expense and have already surpassed Canada health transfer payments. That means Canadians are paying more to service debt than they receive for health care. Can my hon. colleague think of a few ways the Liberal government could improve the amount of debt? Could it cut back on its spending so that Canadians can live more affordably?”