“Canada's finances are strong despite world uncertainty. We have the lowest net debt to GDP ratio in the G7 and top credit ratings. We are balancing our day-to-day spending a year early so we can invest in building the economy. We are also giving big tax breaks to businesses to invest here. I want the House to support our economic plan.”

“Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me an opportunity to say a few words about the motion. I think that most members of the House, if not all, are aware that we are living in a world that is changing quickly and in unpredictable ways. In the face of economic uncertainty and international trade tensions, Canada must focus on what it can control. That means strengthening our economy here at home, diversifying our trade relationships abroad and making strategic investments to build an even stronger, more independent and fairer economy for everyone. The cornerstone of this approach is having a sound financial position. Indeed, a sound financial position gives us the means to act. It allows us to protect Canadians when circumstances require it. It also gives us the tools to respond to economic shocks and, more importantly, to invest in the future. Canada is well positioned to weather this period of uncertainty. I am not alone in saying so. According to the latest projections from the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, Canada is expected to have the second-lowest deficit in the G7 this year as a share of its economy. The IMF also forecasts a continued decline in that deficit 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. We also have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio of any G7 country. Canada is one of only two G7 countries, alongside Germany, to hold a AAA credit rating from all major credit rating agencies. This top-tier rating reflects the confidence that global investors have in Canada’s public finances. It is a significant strength, helping to keep borrowing costs as low as possible while ensuring that we have the capacity to act. Furthermore, we are the world’s most connected economy, with free trade agreements covering countries that represent 1.5 billion consumers. We also offer the most competitive tax system in the G7 for new business investment. Last month, Canada hosted the very first Canada investment summit. The goal was clear: to bring together some of the world’s largest investors and show them what Canada has to offer. The summit laid the groundwork for substantial new investments and strategic partnerships, with nearly $500 billion in new funding and investment commitments in Canada. It is important to attract investors to Canada, but that is not enough. We also need to create the conditions that make them want to invest here. That is why our government announced the new productivity mega deduction. We made that announcement recently, at the investment summit in fact. The productivity mega deduction is a major tax investment. This measure makes Canada the most competitive G7 country for new business investment. It provides businesses with immediate expensing for a broad-based range of depreciable property on a permanent basis. It increases the proportion of assets eligible for immediate expensing from about 15% to over 65%. It will support Canadian businesses of all sizes, small, medium and large, by encouraging them to invest more in their workforce, thereby stimulating long-term growth in Canada. Canada has a financial advantage, and we are determined to protect it. Budget 2025 also marked a shift in the government’s strategy for managing public finances. As the Prime Minister announced recently, the government is on track to balance operating expenditures and revenues in 2027-28, one year earlier than expected. By reducing the government’s operating expenditures, we can invest more in the assets and infrastructure that strengthen our economy. In other words, we are devoting fewer resources to the day-to-day operations of government, but allocating more on building Canada’s economic capacity for decades to come. We must protect that capacity, which is why the government has set clear objectives to guide its budget decisions. First, we must balance operating expenditures with revenues. Second, we must keep the deficit on a downward track relative to the size of our economy. That is how we will preserve Canada’s fiscal advantage in the years ahead. In closing, we have one of the strongest fiscal positions in the G7, the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 and a AAA credit rating. Our responsibility is twofold: to preserve those strengths and put them to work in support of growth and prosperity for Canadians. That means investing in infrastructure and major projects that strengthen our economy. That means attracting more private capital to Canada and encouraging investment. That means giving our businesses the means to invest and grow. That means diversifying our international trade and helping our businesses access new markets. That means maintaining careful management of our public finances. That is exactly what we are doing and what we will continue to do.”

“The Prime Minister and his ministers are always willing to come to committee, and the member has had many chances to question them. What matters more is that we work together to support the investments our government is making for Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the member listened to my attempt to briefly describe what we are doing for Canadians. He has had lots of opportunities, including with his leader, to ask questions to the Prime Minister and his ministers, who are always willing and able to come to committee. What matters even more is that we work together to sustain and support those investments that I highlighted in my short speech.”

“I agree that we must support our artists, craftspeople, and media groups. Our 2025 budget invests a record amount of money to help them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his steadfast commitment to culture in Quebec and across Canada. He is absolutely right to underscore the importance of continued federal support for our artists, artisans and media organizations, including in my own constituency, which has a very rich cultural and artistic scene. I would encourage him to take note of the record investments included in the 2025 budget and of the government’s ongoing commitment to supporting our artists and artisans.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 34 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 →

“My colleague helped create the dental care plan, and it helps families in my riding. I want him to speak more about how important this plan is for families.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Québec Centre, who is always very eloquent. I really appreciate what he said about businesses. I know my colleague works very hard for families. I would even go so far as to say that he was one of the architects of the Canadian dental care plan. He always talks about it with so much pride. I think we should be the ones thanking him on behalf of families. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to him on behalf of the families in my riding for putting this exceptional program in place. I wonder if he could talk a little more about the importance of the Canadian dental care plan for families like the ones in Compton—Stanstead and Québec Centre.”

• Off topic
  ?

  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 →
• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 20 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Our dental care plan is working well. About 98% of dentists now take part in it. It helps thousands of young people and seniors who cannot afford dental care and do not have insurance. Without it, their tooth problems would get worse and send them to emergency rooms. We need to keep supporting this plan and telling people about it.”

“I thank my colleague, whose generosity, kindness and insight are always on full display, for raising the Canadian dental care plan. The reason it is not talked about that much is that it is doing so well. Contrary to the expectations of some members on the other side of the House, roughly 98% of dentists are now participating in the plan. When we meet with dentists, as my colleague does all the time, they tell us that they see the importance of oral health every day for the thousands of people who would not otherwise come to see them. These people could suffer from infections or other oral health problems that could spread throughout their body and send them to the emergency room or a family doctor who could do nothing for them. Thousands of people, not just seniors, but also young people, do not have access to dental insurance and cannot afford oral health care either. They are people we must continue to support. We must also continue our efforts to reach them and ensure they are aware of the assistance available to them.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“We must manage public money well and take care of people. The Conservative leader called school breakfast programs bureaucratic and child care spending wasteful. I want the member to tell us if he agrees with his leader.”

“Mr. Speaker, I believe, as he suggests, that we do need to ensure sound management of public finances. I also believe that we need to take care of people. I know the member across the way is relatively new here, so I would like to welcome him to the House, if somewhat belatedly. He may have heard his leader describe the support provided by breakfast clubs in his own riding as “bureaucratic” or suggest that feeding children is bureaucracy. I would like to know whether the member agrees with him. His leader also said that investing in child care is wasteful. Why is it wasteful? I have never understood why, but I would like to know. I would also like to know whether the member agrees with his leader’s position that investing in affordable, high-quality child care is a waste of money.”

“Our government cares about high living costs and has taken action. We created programs for dental care, school food, and grocery costs. The Conservatives keep voting against them.”

“Mr. Speaker, back in 2010, I campaigned in a by-election. I can recall an instance in a German-Canadian Congress building, located on Mountain and Arlington, where a senior told me they did not even have the ability to purchase food because of the cost of medications. There is absolutely no doubt that the government and the Prime Minister have been issued a mandate and are very much concerned about the issue of affordability. All one needs to do is take a look at what the government’s actions have been, whether it is providing support for dental care, providing food for children in schools or introducing the Canada grocery program. These are programs dealing with affordability, both directly and indirectly, and the Conservative Party continues to vote against them. There is—”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 38 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 Conservatives call our programs failures. But we provide dental care to seniors and food to 400,000 school children. If Conservatives care about costs for families, they should support these programs or get out of the way.”

“Mr. Speaker, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party says that programs, such as the dental care program that provides dental services for seniors who are on fixed income, are a failure. The deputy leader of the Conservative Party says that the food program in our schools, which feeds 400,000 children, is a failure. I think it is time that the Conservative Party wakes up. If Conservatives are concerned about affordability, then they had better start supporting these programs or step aside and let the government do its job.”

“Canada is not broken. It is the best country in the world to live in. Last month, our government hosted an event in Toronto that brought in around half a trillion dollars in potential investment. We are working well with the provinces, and investment in Canada has never been higher. The Conservatives need to admit that.”

“Mr. Speaker, I hate to disappoint the Leader of the Conservative Party, but I can tell him that Canada is indeed not broken. Canada is still the best country in the world to call home. The Leader of the Opposition downplays the importance of investment, but just last month, in September, the Prime Minister and the Canadian government invited the world to come to Toronto. What we saw was half a trillion dollars of potential investment. That is completely unheard of in Canadian history. In collaborative co-operation, working with our provincial entities and major projects, again, we are nearing half a trillion dollars. The federal collaboration is working. Investment is looking into Canada like it has never before. It is time the Conservative Party recognized that Canada is—”

“The Conservatives only offer catchphrases, but our government is taking real action on the cost of living. We cut middle-class taxes and helped families with tax credits, cheaper child care, and rebates for heat pumps. We are also funding local water pipes to help build more homes, and helping farmers grow more food here so grocery bills go down.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants. We just heard a speech by the Leader of the Opposition that was once again full of catchphrases. I think he came here just to record his social media sound bites for this week. If Canadians are interested in practical measures, then they need to look to this side of the House. We are implementing measures to strengthen the Canadian economy, which is working for everyone. I think that Canadians see right through the official opposition’s tactics when they hear this kind of rhetoric. We need only look at the results of the most recent by-elections and polling numbers. Canadians clearly favour our approach, which is based on practical measures that make a difference in people’s lives. On that note, I will focus on the content of my speech, because today’s motion deals with the cost of living. To address the cost of living, we can implement immediate measures. I am thinking of the enhancement of what was previously known as the GST/HST credit and the tax cut for the middle class that we announced last year. These are measures that put money back into Canadians’ pockets now. That said, we need to think from a medium- and long-term perspective. I am thinking in particular of the national food security strategy that we launched earlier this year. This strategy aims to address factors within Canada’s agri-food ecosystem to help stabilize grocery prices over the medium and long term. One of the pillars of this strategy is to increase food production in Canada. To achieve this, we are implementing a range of programs designed to support innovation in the food sector, help our entrepreneurs modernize their equipment, and assist them in acquiring the capabilities needed to do more processing in Canada. Our goal is to have more Canadian food on our plates and to ensure that our entrepreneurs already active in the agri-food sector have the means to modernize and become more efficient: With the same workforce, how could they improve their equipment and processes so they can produce more food right here at home? I am also thinking of all the tax incentives we are putting in place to increase our production of fruits and vegetables in Canada year-round, particularly through our incentives for the construction of greenhouses and other controlled-environment growing facilities. Our goal is to increase Canada’s food sovereignty and reduce our dependence on others. Countries that are dependent on international trade are more likely to be affected by supply chain disruptions. That is why conflicts affect the price of groceries in Canada. However, if we boost domestic production, we are less likely to see price fluctuations based on changes happening abroad. I am also thinking about the exchange rate. When we import a lot of products and the exchange rate varies, that also affects prices. Strengthening our food sovereignty at home helps stabilize grocery prices over the longer term. Boosting competition is also important. We know that. In Canada, five major retailers control nearly 75% of Canada’s grocery market. Our national food security strategy will allow us to help independent grocers buy and transport products at competitive prices without relying on the big grocery chains. We need to make it easier for independent grocers to access supply chains through various programs, increase competition in the sector and improve grocery prices for consumers. Thanks to the national strategy, we will also be providing nearly $130 million to the Competition Bureau and the Competition Tribunal to investigate, prevent and counter anti-competitive business practices. Rules are in place, but we must have the means to enforce them. Finally, we need to reduce red tape. In fact, a bill has already been introduced to this end, because red tape can have an impact on production costs. Strengthening the Canadian economy and supporting Canadians also requires strategic investment in our infrastructure. These investments must be made in partnership not only with the provinces, but also with municipalities. At the end of the day, there is only one taxpayer, and it is that taxpayer who ultimately foots the bill. When we invest alongside local governments in infrastructure projects that are essential to our communities, we help place those municipalities on a sounder financial footing. If the federal government does not contribute to major infrastructure projects, local governments may have no choice but to adjust their tax rates, and this will be reflected in our constituents’ property tax bills. That is why I think it is important for the federal government to be involved when there are plans to upgrade water and sewer systems to increase housing capacity in our communities, for example. Last summer, I was involved in making three announcements where the federal government, the provincial government and the municipalities made joint investments in water and sewer infrastructure projects, not only because these systems were aging but also to increase housing capacity in the areas where the work is being done. If we want to grow our communities and increase our housing stock, we must ensure that we have the proper water and sewer infrastructure in place to support that growth. I am thinking about the announcement that I made last June in Campbellton, alongside the late Mayor Soucy, regarding the upgrades to infrastructure on Notre Dame Street in the Atholville area. I also made an announcement in Grand Falls about the relocation and replacement of older sanitary sewer infrastructure on Taylor Street, Park Street and O’Regan Street. In addition to supporting residential development in this area, this project will also address critical environmental challenges because the Saint John River is nearby and we could see that a manhole was on the verge of collapse. This could have led to a serious environmental incident in Grand Falls. Through these investments, we are not only supporting the construction of more housing but also addressing an environmental imperative. My last example is the announcement of more than $1 million that we made in Edmundston to extend water and sewer lines to service a residential project on Laboissonnière Avenue, des Mélèzes Street, and Mgr Lacroix Avenue. These are tangible ways that we can help our communities and all citizens who benefit from these projects. As for the cost of living, we know that the price of electricity is also a major concern for Canadians. We know that the heating method used can have a significant impact on electricity bills. That is why we recently announced the launch of the national heat pump rebate program to help up to 820,000 households across the country switch to more efficient electric heat pumps. Our goal is to increase the number of homes that are more energy efficient in order to reduce electricity consumption and save people money every month. Heat pump systems have several advantages over traditional heating systems. They are more energy efficient, lowering energy costs for consumers. They also combine heating and cooling within the same system for year-round comfort, in the summer with air conditioning and in the winter with heating. What is more, it helps us meet our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Under this program, households with below-median incomes will get up to $10,000, and other households will get up to $2,000. This is another concrete measure put in place to help people cope with the cost of living and also to meet our environmental objectives. As for the cost of living, I think it is also important to mention our affordable child care program, which we launched in 2021. The results speak for themselves. The statistics show that the labour force participation rate of young parents, particularly young mothers, has increased since this program was launched. Child care spaces have been created and made available to families in multiple communities across Canada, and we continue to work with provinces and territories to strengthen the early learning and child care system across Canada for the long term. Huge progress has been made over the past five years, but we know that the needs are great and that there is still a need for more affordable child care in our communities. There are still waiting lists. There is more work to be done, but when we look at the progress made over the past five years in expanding access to affordable child care in Canada, we see that great strides have been made. In fact, last June, an announcement of up to $5.4 billion over two years was announced. This is in addition to the more than $58 billion in funding that has already been allocated to this program since 2021 under the current extension agreements with the provinces and territories. This is another example of a concrete investment that has an impact on the cost of living, on Canadian families and on their ability to fully participate in the labour market. I will conclude by saying that addressing the cost of living and strengthening the Canadian economy so that it works for everyone requires concrete measures and action, not just empty rhetoric. The official opposition’s rhetoric is always followed by votes against every measure we put in place. On this side of the aisle, we take the issues seriously, take action, and implement concrete measures.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Respect 98 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “he came here just to record his social media sound bites for this week”.

  See full analysis →

“We are managing public money carefully. We are reviewing department spending to make sure it is used well. We are also investing in the economy so it can grow and pay for the services Canadians need with the cost of living.”

“Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are managing our fiscal situation meticulously. We have undertaken a review of government spending across the various departments. We are ensuring that public finances are managed effectively. The goal is to have sufficient fiscal flexibility to be able to meet the needs of Canadians. When we implement various measures to strengthen and stimulate the Canadian economy, the idea is to have a thriving economy that allows us to fund the various social services that help Canadians cope with the cost of living.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Our government is spending $4.1 billion to support official languages and French-speaking minority communities. Even with inflation, this is the most money Canada has ever invested in official languages. It funds French schools, health care, legal services, and jobs. This money is vital for regions like mine, which has many French speakers outside Quebec.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague alluded to the official languages in the preamble to his question. It gives me an opportunity to remind the House of the Liberal government’s historic investment in the official languages. The action plan for official languages 2023-2028 invests $4.1 billion in supporting the official languages and the vitality of francophone minority communities. Even taking inflation into account, this is the largest investment in the official languages in the history of Canada. It lets us support French-language education in our communities, take measures to support health, access to justice and employment services, and document our realities better through Statistics Canada data. In all, over a dozen federal organizations are involved in implementing the action plan for official languages, which is generating tangible benefits across Canada. I know what I am talking about, because I represent Madawaska—Restigouche, one of the ridings with the highest concentrations of francophones outside Quebec. These investments in the official languages are vital to my region.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 34 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Some children in my riding go to school hungry. I want the member to explain how our government helps families by feeding kids at school.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. One of the issues in my riding has been children coming to school without having breakfast or something to eat. I know the government has been doing some work on this. I am wondering if the member would be able to explain more about how we have been helping families through food at school.”

“Children cannot learn when they are hungry. We created a permanent national school food program to help. In New Brunswick, we are spending 11.3 million dollars over three years to provide free breakfast in all schools and support a pay-what-you-can lunch program.”

“Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague’s concern. No child should ever have to spend a day in the classroom with an empty stomach. It is not conducive to learning. As a government, we have taken this issue seriously. We established Canada’s national school food program, and given the program’s success and importance, we made it permanent. For example, in my province of New Brunswick, this translates into an agreement valued at $11.3 million over three years. This investment is making the free breakfast program available in all schools across the province of New Brunswick. In addition, the government is supporting the launch of a pay-what-you-can lunch program administered by our provincial partners. This is a good example of a concrete measure that allows us to support children and families, while helping to create a healthy learning environment that meets their needs.”

“I do not support this Conservative motion. Government spending is not what is making life more expensive. Global issues, like wars and trade disruptions, are driving up prices everywhere. Canada actually has the lowest net debt to our economy in the G7, and the second-lowest deficit. We are also cutting $80 billion in government spending over five years, while helping families with programs like child care and school food. The Conservatives ignore these facts, and their own platform called for $130 billion in new spending.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, as always, to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents in Kings—Hants, but also in my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, to take part in the debate on the Conservative opposition day motion moved today concerning Canada’s fiscal situation. I would like to raise a few important points for the benefit of Canadians who may be watching at home today and following the debates in the House of Commons in order to better understand the overall situation. In my view and in the government’s view, the wording of the motion moved today by the Conservatives is problematic because it fails to take some crucial context into account, including Canada’s fiscal position in general. I am going to start by going to the first point in the text of the motion. The Conservatives assert that “the cost of government is driving up the cost of living.” I would reject the premise of that. The text of the motion fails to take into consideration the fact that the government has a comprehensive expenditure review, and the government will be reducing government expenditures by $80 billion over the next five years. Part of that includes downsizing the number of staff of the Government of Canada, the federal government, and targets have already been met in that domain. The motion fails to recognize that global events are having an impact on the cost of living for all countries, not just Canada. There is a blockade at the Strait of Hormuz, which is impacting global energy prices, and that is being felt globally. That is, of course, being felt by Canadians because it is a domestic challenge we are facing, but it is being felt by countries around the world. There is also a war in eastern Europe, in Ukraine, and while we have been a steadfast ally in supporting Ukraine, the implications on food security and energy security are felt globally. We are in a global trading environment, but our government has focused on controlling what we can here at home. The Conservative text of the motion today fails to understand the work that the government is doing to reduce operational costs. The text of the motion does not take into consideration the government’s promise to balance the operating spending of the government by fiscal year 2028-29. That is important. I am a proud Nova Scotian. I get to see the work of rebuilding the Royal Canadian Navy in Halifax, in my home province, where we are making generational investments that started under a previous government but have continued. We have also reinvested in the River-class destroyer. Those are long-term investments that I hope all members of this House understand are important for protecting our sovereignty and providing for the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. Our goal as a government is to make sure that the expenditures the government takes on are part of the long-term industrial capacity and long-term economic growth of the country, and that we have a true balance in the types of operational spending the government is going to be taking on. The Conservatives ran on a platform in the last election that included approximately $130 billion of new spending. My hon. colleagues across the way can appreciate that it feels somewhat facetious to raise this type of measure when the platform promises of the Conservatives, had they been in government, would have led them to spend $130 billion above and beyond expenditures at the time. That is an important piece. Let us talk about Canada’s fiscal position. Governments are different from household finances, but let us think about the average Canadian. My wife and I, when we were able to buy a home, did not have the money to outright buy a home. We had to get a mortgage from a bank. We had to take on debt to build a future, raise a family and live in our community. Governments are no different. Governments have to look at the borrowing costs of making longer-term investments versus the sustainability of taking on the debt obligation to drive longer-term outcomes. Nowhere in the Conservative motion today does it highlight that Canada has the best fiscal position and net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Canadians need to understand that Canada’s overall debt, as a relative size, is proportionate to the economy. We are four times the factor in the better than Germany. On the net debt-to-GDP ratio, our fiscal position is nine times better than the United States’s. We also have the second-lowest deficit in the G7. This is at a time when the government is cutting in certain areas and making tough choices, while at the same time making massive investments in energy, critical minerals, defence and the things that we believe are important long-term for the Canadian economy and our sovereignty. Nowhere in the opposition day motion does it highlight that to Canadians. It is the prerogative of His Majesty’s loyal opposition to choose how these texts are developed, but nowhere does it recognize that that is the case. The one area where I would agree with the Conservative position is that we have to remain vigilant. Bond rate increases are happening around the world. If we look at what is happening in France right now, its government bond yields are continuing to go up, which means the cost for the government to borrow is going higher and higher. That is now starting to be priced into the market. Our Prime Minister and this government understand that we need to maintain Canada’s fiscal position. That is exactly what we are doing in the face of global market uncertainty, particularly around financing. Today’s motion is also about affordability. The wording of the motion moved by the Conservatives links government spending with affordability and the cost of living in general. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives fail to mention the affordability measures that our government has introduced. For example, the national child care program is a concrete measure that is intended to help educate our young people, but it is also intended to make life more affordable for parents. We are working with the provinces and territories. As my hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester mentioned earlier, there are school programs in place across the country. Through Canada’s national school food program, we are ensuring that 400,000 students across the country have the opportunity to eat breakfast or lunch made with food from local farms. There is also the Canada child benefit. In my riding, that benefit offers families nearly $17 million to help them provide for their children. The amount is calculated based on household income. Those are concrete measures that the government gas put forward. I also mentioned the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. That is why the government proposed eliminating the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel. This is important. This measure is not there to guarantee that everything goes smoothly, but the government is using this concrete measure to give farmers, businesses and the general public a helping hand. I really look forward to the debate. I did not have the opportunity to be on my feet this morning. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues about how the Conservative position seems to not reconcile the fact that Canada is in a strong fiscal position. I have no problem with His Majesty’s loyal opposition highlighting that the government needs to remain diligent and needs to be thoughtful about its approach in the days ahead, but the text of the motion was presented to the House today without presenting any of the key statistics that actually outline Canada’s fiscal position. It is difficult, certainly, for a government, and, I would say, many members of Parliament, to be able to vote without those key statistics that provide Canadians a better overall picture of where we are at. The ability to talk about the fact that the debt servicing costs of governments across the world are rising because of bond rates and that governments need to be fiscally responsible and thoughtful, balancing operations and balancing budgets, while at the same time making long-term investments, is all fair game, but that level of nuance is something that I have rarely seen from the Conservative Party in my seven years, even though I have great friends across the way and there are some thoughtful colleagues, for sure. I would like to see the party in general try to find the types of texts that we could vote on and that, I think, are a little bit more balanced in terms of how they move forward.”

• Echo ×7

  A repeated line

  “Is it the Canada child benefit?”

  Said 7 times by 3 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“Canada has the best financial position in the G7. The other member talks about how much our debt costs, but he ignores that our economy grew at the same time. We still need to be careful with spending, but our finances are in good shape.”

“Mr. Speaker, first of all, with regard to the household analogy, what that member fails to recognize is that if he is concerned about the overall debt as a proportion of the size of our house, he should take a look across the street and in the neighbourhood and realize that, actually, we are in one of the best positions. That does not mean that we still do not have work to do, but nowhere in his public commentary that I have heard in the House today does he recognize that Canada actually has the strongest fiscal position within the G7. If he would like to highlight that we should take that barometer out wider and look at the G20 or other comparable countries, I think that is a fair question to raise, but when he talks about debt servicing charges going from $24 billion to over $50 billion, what he is failing to recognize is that the size of the economy also grew at the same time. When we deal in nominal numbers, it can feel like a very big number to the average Canadian. Again, I am not trying to shed the responsibility. The government has to be careful and thoughtful on this question. In the context of his framing, he does not highlight the fact that the overall economy has grown to such a size that Canada’s fiscal position remains sustainable.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 96 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Prime Minister rarely speaks to a committee, and he does not need to here. We have good ministers who can answer these questions, including the Minister of Finance. Members can ask them every day during question period.”

“Mr. Speaker, I actually did not have the chance in my remarks to address that particular point. I mean, it has not happened often that a sitting Prime Minister is going to sit in front of a parliamentary committee. My hon. learned colleague knows that that is quite rare in circumstance. We have a very talented team of government ministers, including the Minister of Finance. Obviously the Prime Minister is the one who is ultimately responsible as the first amongst equals within the cabinet. At the same time, we have a competent bench that can respond to these questions. The hon. member has time every single day the House of Commons sits to ask these questions of the government. I would differ as to whether or not it is the Prime Minister that has to be before a committee. Hopefully, today, that hon. member will get a chance to ask some of these questions to the Minister of Finance when she has her turn in this place during question period. That is accountability every single day that we look forward to.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Canada and Germany are the only G7 countries with a top credit rating. We invest public and private money to grow the economy and create jobs across the country. Why do the Conservatives oppose these investments?”

“Mr. Speaker, I will go to the facts. Out of the G7, only Germany and Canada have the AAA credit rating. The difference between us and the Conservatives is that we understand and appreciate the value of investing in Canada, in Canadians, to build a stronger and healthier economy. Just moments ago, I was talking with members from CentrePort in Winnipeg. CentrePort is going to be one of the driving forces of Manitoba’s economy. By doing that, it will make a difference, with both private and public investment growing job opportunities. That is not unique to the northwest area of Winnipeg. It is happening in every region of Canada. Why does the Conservative Party oppose government and private sector investment?”

“The Trans Mountain pipeline would never have been built without our government's help. The Conservatives never built a single inch of pipeline to the west coast when they were in power. Our government works with the provinces to get major projects built, and the Conservatives should admit that.”

“Mr. Speaker, to pick up on what the member just said, TMX would not have happened had the government not been directly engaged in building that pipeline. I can understand why Conservatives are confused, because the Conservative Party, while in government, did not even build an inch of pipeline to to the west coast. It took a Liberal administration to do that, just like it has taken a Liberal administration to have LNG and this particular Prime Minister for LNG phase two to be among the numerous major projects in progress today in every region of our country. Will the member now recognize the value of a proactive government working in collaboration with provinces to build projects?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →