Business of Supply

The debate focused on government spending, the national debt, and the rising cost of living in relation to Government Orders. The government defended its fiscal policies by citing Canada’s strong AAA credit rating and highlighting investments in affordability measures and essential programs, while opposition members countered that growing debt and interest payments pose risks to social services and are driving up the cost of living. Some members also questioned the government about economic stability given external factors like tariffs and expressed concern over debt warnings issued by credit rating agencies. Consequently, members of the opposition called on the Prime Minister to appear before the Finance Committee to explain his plan for spending and deficit reduction.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

46 statements

Pat Kelly, Calgary Crowfoot

Conservative
“The Parliamentary Budget Officer warns that the cost of paying Canada's debt will more than double, from $24.5 billion to $59.3 billion. The government is borrowing more and more money each year, like refinancing a home until you cannot pay. I want the member to say if he is worried about this growing debt.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member said that the motion was short on text, but the motion referenced the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report, which is full of data and statistics. I bring to his attention page 3, which reads: Public debt charges are the fastest-growing expense. They are projected to more than double from $24.5 billion in 2021‑22 to $59.3 billion in 2026‑27. I will let him reflect on that and maybe check through the report for some of the other data there. He spoke about households and talked about buying a house and getting a mortgage. I was in the mortgage business for 22 years. The government’s household analogy would be more like buying a house and then going back to the bank every year to refinance the house and borrow continually against the house. Sooner or later one hits a wall. Sooner or later the debt becomes unsustainable. Is he concerned about the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s warnings about sustainability?

Pat Kelly, Calgary Crowfoot

Conservative
“I want the Prime Minister to come to the finance committee to answer for his spending. The Liberals have broken every promise they made about controlling debt and deficits. The interest we pay on the debt is growing fast, and it now costs more than health care or the military.”
  • A repeated line

    “The cost of government has driven up the cost of living.”

    Said 4 times by 3 members since April 27.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Barrie South—Innisfil. Today, the opposition moves that the House call on the Prime Minister to appear as a witness at the finance committee. For 11 years, the cost of government has driven up the cost of living. The result of these accumulated deficits is that interest on the national debt is the fastest-growing cost of the government. The Liberals now spend more on debt than they do on the Canada health transfer. This works out to $6,000 in federal taxes per Canadian family of four. The Prime Minister promised that he would reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio and the deficit-to-GDP ratio, but the Liberal government has broken every fiscal promise, has jettisoned every fiscal anchor and has smashed through every fiscal guardrail that it has ever set for itself. In the wake of a truly horrific Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report, it is time for the Prime Minister to explain himself at the finance committee. It is worth remembering how we got here. In 2015, on page 12 of their campaign document entitled “Real Change: A New Plan for a Strong Middle Class”, the Liberals promised modest short-term deficits of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years. They immediately broke that promise when they tabled a $30-billion deficit in 2016 and another $30-billion deficit the next year. They acted like they had never promised maximum modest short-term deficits and a return to balance by 2019. That is a return because that is where they started from. They said not to worry because they had a fiscal anchor. They promised, “a low and consistently declining debt-to-GDP ratio”. They made that promise in 2015 and again in the 2016 budget, when Bill Morneau actually said, “our interest rates have never been lower, so we can borrow on excellent terms”. Never mind that he was breaking a campaign promise from only a few months earlier, never mind that the deficits would only get worse, never mind that without a plan to ever return to balance, they might eventually have to refinance their debt at higher rates and never mind that despite Justin Trudeau’s claim, budgets do not ever just balance themselves. They cut loose this first fiscal anchor in the fall 2018 economic statement when their debt-to-GDP ratio jumped up. Then in 2019, they again promised to reduce debt as a function of our economy “each and every year”, and they failed to keep that promise, too, because even before the pandemic began in March 2020, the Liberals were already on track to break that promise. They had already baked in a structural deficit and added $100 billion to the national debt before COVID without any COVID spending. After the pandemic, they went back to claiming that a declining debt-to-GDP ratio was their fiscal anchor, “a line we shall not cross, and that will ensure that our finances remain sustainable so long as it remains unbreached.” So said Chrystia Freeland in 2022. Of course, they breached it again. They breached it in the very next budget in 2023 and again in 2024. By late 2024, the finance minister resigned rather than table a fall economic statement that blew through her own promise, breaking projections that she had made just six months earlier regarding new spending. Then the new Prime Minister arrived. Their 2025 platform again promised declining debt to GDP “over the budget horizon”, but right after he won the election and ran on that promise, he ignored it and came back with a new plan. He resorted to accounting trickery, a promise to balance the operating budget and to do so by 2028-29. He promised a declining deficit to GDP, but their spring economic statement earlier this year already projects that the debt-to-GDP ratio will continue to rise and will not decline until 2029, at which time it will still be higher than it was in that 2024 fall economic statement that precipitated the resignations of both Freeland and Trudeau. We have seen that for 11 years, the government has broken every fiscal promise, smashed through every fiscal guardrail and repeatedly cut loose every fiscal anchor, which brings us to this month’s Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report, the “Economic and Fiscal Outlook”. According to the PBO, “The federal debt-to-GDP ratio...is projected to rise each year...[through] 2030-31.” So much for the line they shall not cross. So much for their finances remaining sustainable so long as that line goes unbreached. So much for another fiscal anchor cut loose and sunk to the bottom of the ocean. The PBO projects that “the Government will not meet its second [fiscal] anchor of...a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio”. Anchors away. The report goes on to say that “the two fiscal anchors have imposed limited fiscal discipline on government spending and borrowing.” It continues: Public debt charges are the fastest-growing expense. They are projected to more than double from $24.5 billion in 2021-22 to $59.3 billion in 2026-27 and are projected to reach $83.0 billion by 2030-31.... On a per capita basis, public debt charges [climbed] from $640 in 2021-22 to $1,419 in 2026-27 and are projected to reach $1,952 in 2030-31.... This is a terrible report. The short-term outlook, though, for the balance of this year actually reflects higher than projected revenues, but the higher revenues are because of world oil prices, not increasing economic output. In fact, the higher revenue comes “Despite weaker real economic activity”. The government receives higher revenues, and consumers face higher prices. A brief sugar high of unexpectedly higher revenue will not pay down the national debt, and it is not going to anchor the government’s finances. The rapidly rising cost of debt service on the national debt is entirely due to accumulating deficits. It is not from higher than projected interest rates, but the possibility of higher interest rates in the years to come has been identified by the PBO as an emerging risk to Canada’s fiscal health. The report states, “Public debt charges are now...twice as sensitive to higher interest rates as in pre-pandemic outlooks, mainly because the Government carries a larger stock of interest-bearing debt.” We must remember, this is the government that was willing to pile on debt long before COVID and continues to do so long after, and these are the same Liberals who said back in 2016 that low interest rates meant it was safe to run deficits. Now we are twice as vulnerable to factors beyond our control because interest is now the fastest-growing government expense. We now spend more on interest than we do on national defence. We now spend more on interest than we do on the health transfer. It is now over 13% of the federal budget and rapidly rising. The per capita interest cost is rising faster than per capita income. An average family is already paying nearly $6,000 in taxes just for interest on the national debt, and the number is going to grow quickly in the next four years. Canadians cannot afford to pay more taxes in order to pay more interest, and this government continues to rack up debt. Canadians are not getting ahead. Their incomes are not keeping pace with inflation. They are already highly taxed, and the portion of their taxes that is going straight to bondholders is increasing. As for the portion of Canadian taxes that goes to interest, the government’s options narrow. The room to lower taxes, increase services, increase defence capability or pay down debt is more and more limited. That is why Conservatives want the finance minister to come to the finance committee and testify on saving Canadians money by cutting spending, debt interest and taxes. It is time for the Prime Minister to take responsibility for his broken promises and his government’s failed approach to budgeting. This government inherited a balanced budget. The Liberals inherited a rapidly declining per capita interest expense. It is right there in the report. They inherited what The New York Times called the world’s most prosperous middle class. They had every advantage that a new government could possibly ask for back in 2015, and they blew it. This PBO report should be a wake-up call to the government. It is time for the Prime Minister to admit that up until now, the Liberals’ fiscal anchors and campaign promises were not kept. Some say it is never too late to do the right thing. I would hope that the Prime Minister may actually welcome the opportunity to attend the finance committee. He can apologize to Canadians for his broken promises, and he can still reverse course and save Canadians money.

Pat Kelly, Calgary Crowfoot

Conservative
“The Liberals break their promises and do not care. The government breaks every fiscal limit it sets for itself.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 35 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Respect 71 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “I know he is impervious to shame”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the member was really heading to there. I know he is impervious to shame. This member ran on a platform way back in 2015. The Liberals do not care that they do not keep their promises. The government that he speaks for breaches every fiscal anchor it lays down for itself, and this member does not care.

Pat Kelly, Calgary Crowfoot

Conservative
“The government is not handing out cash subsidies to oil and gas companies. Instead, its bad policies chased away private money for the Trans Mountain pipeline and built it with public money at huge cost overruns. I oppose the government picking projects and using tax dollars to build them.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 97 of 100

    Of this reply, 96% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Bloc members always raise this. I think they are quite confused about what a subsidy is. The government, for all of its misgivings and all of the terrible policy that it has, is not squandering Canadian tax dollars on subsidizing oil and gas, other than its failed and failing approach to project development. It took a pipeline like Trans Mountain that would have been built by private investors, chased the private investment out of the country, and built it at the public expense at about a 500% cost overrun. I do oppose that style of policy-making. The problem with this government is that its entire approach to industrial policy is to cherry-pick projects and use the power of public money behind construction.

Pat Kelly, Calgary Crowfoot

Conservative
“The Liberals want credit for building the pipeline, but they are the ones who broke the project in the first place. They changed the rules and refused to support it, which drove the original company away and forced the government to buy it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always entertaining to listen to the Liberals talk about something they broke and then demand extraordinary recognition for their attempts to put things back together. They chased Kinder Morgan out of Canada. They chased it out by moving the goalposts and refusing to champion the approvals that existed and then afterwards want enormous credit for nationalizing that project although they had forced the proponent out.

John Brassard, Barrie South—Innisfil

Conservative
“I want the House to pass this motion to make the Prime Minister answer questions at a committee. Government spending has gotten worse, and our debt is growing fast. Families are paying thousands of dollars just on debt interest while food bank use is way up. The Prime Minister needs to explain our country's finances in detail.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, there is a famous scene where Obi-Wan Kenobi is on the high ground and Anakin Skywalker, who eventually becomes Darth Vader, is getting burned. In that scene, Obi-Wan says to Anakin, “You were the chosen one.” He says, “You were supposed to bring balance to the Force. You were not supposed to join the Sith. You were supposed to defeat them.” Well, in April 2025, the Prime Minister billed himself as the chosen one. He was supposed to bring balance to our fiscal force. He was going to spend less, and things were going to improve. Things have done anything but improve in this country. In fact, I would suggest that they have gotten a lot worse under the Prime Minister in terms of fiscal mismanagement. We have had two PBOs, the previous one and this one, who have sounded the alarm on the state of the country’s fiscal finances, and the most recent report should cause anyone to pause. For anyone who has kids, anyone who has grandchildren or great-grandchildren, it should cause great concern about the direction this country is heading in terms of fiscal mismanagement. Frankly, what concerns me, not just as a parliamentarian but as a father, is that my kids will be picking up the scattered pieces of what is left economically in this country after the Prime Minister and the Liberal government are done with it. The alarm was sounded by the latest Parliamentary Budget Officer. Members will recall that the Liberals were not happy with some of the things the previous Parliamentary Budget Officer was reporting to Canadians. He referred to the state of our finances as “stupefying”. The current Parliamentary Budget Officer has picked up where the previous one left off and has raised the alarms in a great way in this country. The latest fiscal update from the Parliamentary Budget Officer goes like this. The interest on the debt this year is going to be $59.3 billion, which is more than we send to the provinces for health care transfers. She went on to say that by 2030-31, the interest on the debt is going to be $83 billion. This means that an average family of four in this country is going to be paying $6,000 on the debt this year, and that is going to rise to $8,000. This is money that could be put in people’s pockets. It could be put toward the health of their children through sports programs or better nutrition. We are seeing food banks in this country reporting that millions and millions of people a month are going to the food bank. Many of them are working-class Canadians who cannot afford the necessities of life anymore. It is not just the deficit that is a problem. Cumulatively, over the next five years, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said, the level of debt is expected to increase by $732.9 billion. That is $732.9 billion added to the already existing debt. The only ones who make money off this are the bondholders and the bankers. With the interest that is paid on that debt, and in some of the examples I gave earlier, this is just what those numbers are going to look like. This motion calls on the Prime Minister to not stand in the House for 35-second questions when he is here. It calls on the Prime Minister to stand before a parliamentary committee and answer questions about the state of the finances in this country, which has been created by government spending and by programs that have gone to well-connected insiders, and to answer questions about Alto, questions about foreign aid and questions about why Canadians are in such bad shape when he said and made a promise to them in April 2025 that he was going to make things better. These are very simple questions that need to be asked, not in 35-second sound bites in this place, but before a parliamentary committee so we can have a fulsome discussion about the state of finances in this country for Canadians to be made aware, truthfully and honestly, of the state of their finances and what it means to the future of this country and the future of their kids and grandkids, who, like I said earlier, are going to be picking up the scattered pieces of what is left of this country after these Liberals are done with it financially. There is a budget coming up November 5, and it is curious to me why it is being presented on a Thursday afternoon. I have been here 11 years, and I have never seen a budget presented on a Thursday afternoon. Typically, budgets take place on Tuesday afternoon. There is then a full opportunity for opposition members to call into question some of the issues related to the budget, but this is happening on November 5 of this year, a Thursday afternoon. This means that Friday, which is generally a reduced session, will be the only period we have to ask questions about the budget, and then we are back in our ridings for the week of Remembrance Day. I think the purpose of this is that Canadians and parliamentarians may actually forget about what is in the budget. I also think the government is fearful about what it is going to report in this budget, and that is why it is being introduced on a Thursday afternoon. This is equal to government news coming out on a Friday afternoon when it does not want anybody to pay attention to it. That is concerning in and of itself. When we talk about accountability and transparency, we talk about the Prime Minister coming to committee to answer these questions. We know he is not willing to answer the questions here. Otherwise, the government would not be introducing a budget on a Thursday afternoon when members of Parliament will be back in their ridings the next week for Remembrance Day. At a minimum, because he said that he was going to make things better for Canadians, the Prime Minister needs to come to committee to answer those questions. As I said earlier, what these numbers mean is that the average family of four is going to be paying roughly $6,000 a year in interest on that debt. This is just absurd at a time when Canadians are struggling and dealing with food insecurity and housing affordability. They are dealing with issues of anxiety and stress. There is not a day that goes by, and I am sure there are other members of Parliament on all sides who are dealing with this too, when we are not walking somebody in off the ledge who is dealing with these issues of affordability. In 2015, Canada had the wealthiest middle class in the world, and now we have 2.3 million people a month, and in many cases, these are working-class people, who are visiting food banks in this country. Food banks are reporting that their shelves are bare now because of the demand that has been happening. We have seniors in grocery stores putting items back on the shelf because they cannot afford them. This is not a normal state for a G7 country. The Prime Minister said that he was going to fix it, and he has done anything but. In fact, I would suggest that he has made this situation much worse with the lack of control in spending, the debt and the deficits. It is disturbing. It is disturbing for my kids. It is disturbing for all of our kids and grandkids. They are the ones who are going to pay the price for this.

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