The Budget

The House debated the government’s 2026 budget. Liberal members said the budget invests in the economy while meeting its fiscal targets, pointing to lower taxes for businesses that invest, a separation of operating and capital spending, funding for clean electricity, heat pump rebates, electric vehicle chargers and marine conservation, and a deficit lower than forecast. Conservatives said the budget adds too much debt, lacks a credible plan to balance the books, raises interest costs, and leaves the country less prepared for future crises, and urged members to vote against it. Bloc Québécois members objected that the budget supports fossil fuels and questioned whether natural resources would be processed in Canada, while the NDP criticized what it called unfair ferry funding for British Columbia compared with Atlantic Canada.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

9 statements

Greg McLean, Calgary Centre

Conservative
“The government is using slogans while spending away our future. This budget adds 766 billion dollars of debt over the next five years. That debt will have to be paid back. I want the member to explain how this counts as careful spending.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is on the finance committee with me, and we manage to work pretty well together as far as what we have to get done at that committee goes. I heard his speech today, and I know it is a canned speech, as it always is from that side of the House, with a whole bunch of slogans. The government has been very good at coming out with marketing slogans, and I love the name of this one, “Masters of our destiny”. Masters of our own destiny includes Canadians, Canadian taxpayers and Canadian businesses, and, frankly, the government is spending their future. There is a huge accumulation of debt in this budget classified in different ways, but we are talking about an additional $766 billion of borrowing over the next five years. It as a ludicrous amount. “Debt” is defined in public finance as demand brought forward. What is the government going to do when it has to pay that debt? Will the member please come to the table and tell me what he means by “fiscal prudence”, because we are exactly not there, and how he is going to reiterate that line when he has to—

Dane Lloyd, Parkland

Conservative
“The new budget gives a $2-billion annual tax break to Canada's oil and gas sector. We in Alberta are excited about this. I want the member to tell us how excited he is that his government is giving them this tax break.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I note that the hon. member is a climate change champion and that he talked a lot about the clean energy investments his government is making. I want to ask about the productivity mega tax deduction. It is estimated that this tax deduction will provide a $2-billion annual tax break to Canada’s oil and gas sector. We are certainly excited about that in Alberta. I wonder if the member could tell us how excited he is that his government is providing a $2-billion tax break to Canada’s oil and gas sector.

Michael Chong, Wellington—Halton Hills North

Conservative
“I want the House to vote against this budget. The government has no plan to balance the budget or lower the debt. Interest on the debt now costs 11 cents of every tax dollar, which is more than we spend on health care. High government borrowing pushes interest rates up and leaves us unprepared for future crises. This spending is not fixing the economy, food bank use is at a record high, and the government hid key details from Parliament.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Crowfoot. This budget fails to establish a credible fiscal anchor to reduce the debt and to balance the budget. The fiscal anchors of Liberal budgets of the past decade were ever-changing and never met. The Prime Minister has continued with that practice. The national debt is increasing, interest costs are starting to take off and there is no plan to balance the budget. Here are the consequences. The Prime Minister risks losing credibility with financial markets because there is no credible fiscal anchor to reduce the debt and balance the budget. Canada’s experience in the mid-1990s demonstrates how quickly things can change when investors lose confidence. Debt crises have their small beginnings when interest expense grows faster than nominal GDP, and that is exactly what is happening. Interest expense on the debt is growing faster than nominal GDP, and interest on the national debt has now become the fastest-growing expense. Interest expense currently costs 11¢ of every tax dollar and is projected to rise to 14¢ in four short years. That is $85.5 billion a year, more than what the government spends on public health care. That is $8,000 a year for a typical family of four. Canada has the smallest of the G7 currencies, and ours is not a reserve currency. Canada also has some of the highest levels of household indebtedness in the world and some of the highest income taxes in the G7, which means that households already struggling to pay the bills and struggling with affordability have little ability to pay more in tax. Canada has some of the highest levels of subnational debt in the world, for which the federal government is the backstop. All this borrowing is also making life more unaffordable for individuals, families and companies. Massive increases in government debt compete with individuals, families and businesses for the money available to borrow from lenders. Lenders increase interest rates. The yields on the Government of Canada’s five- and ten-year bonds have been rising in recent years. These are key benchmarks that determine the bank’s cost of funds and interest rates for mortgages, lines of credit and car loans. These rising interest rates hit Canadian households particularly hard because of the high levels of household indebtedness in Canada, currently at $3.3 trillion. Another consequence of rising debt and interest costs is that Canada is rapidly losing fiscal capacity to deal with a future major crisis. In the last 20 years, Canada has faced two major crises: the 2008 global financial crisis and the 2020 pandemic. In those cases, Canada’s debt to GDP was roughly 30%, giving the government the fiscal firepower it needed to respond, and allowing the government to borrow upward of 5% to 15% of GDP in order to respond. The Prime Minister has stated, in his recently released national security strategy, that we must be prepared for a major crisis. It states that Canada needs to prepare for all contingencies up to and including war and other worst-case scenarios, and has put economic security at the heart of that plan. The next major crisis the Prime Minister says we must be prepared for requires fiscal capacity, just as was needed in 2008 and in 2020. The problem is that the debt is rising, and so are interest costs. They are reducing the capacity for the government to do that. The government’s debt to GDP is currently 40% and climbing, and interest costs are starting to take off. This is leaving less and less fiscal capacity to deal with a future crisis the Prime Minister says we must be prepared for. While the government is not facing an immediate fiscal impasse, it has become complacent in not having credible fiscal anchors to reduce the deficit and the growth of the national debt. All this spending in the budget also is not working. It is doubling down on what the previous Trudeau government did. In the Prime Minister’s first budget, deficits over five years were double that of Mr. Trudeau’s last budget. In the Prime Minister’s second budget, spending has been obscured by pushing it off the budget onto the balance sheet by capitalizing borrowing. For all the talk of increased business investment, employment growth and economic activity, little is showing up in the numbers. Food bank usage is at record highs, with some 2.35 million Canadians visiting a food bank each and every month, up 117% since 2019. Overall business capital formation has declined in five of the last six quarters and remains at the low levels of when Mr. Trudeau left office. Unemployment remains elevated, about 1% above pre-pandemic levels, because the economy is not generating enough jobs to push it down to roughly 5.5%. Productivity growth remains sluggish, if not non-existent, since the Bank of Canada declared a productivity emergency two and a half years ago. Economic growth remains stagnant, below 1% this year. All these things, food bank usage, overall business capital formation, unemployment, productivity and economic growth, have changed little in the last 18 months under the government. That is because the government has failed to introduce the fundamental supply side reforms necessary to spur investment, create growth, and raise incomes and paycheques for Canadians, reforms such as an overhaul of Canada’s competition policy to increase consumer choice and lower prices for struggling households; an overhaul of our taxes that the business community and experts have long called for in order to increase investment and incomes; an overhaul of our regulatory system, particularly for small- to medium-sized businesses; addressing interprovincial trade barriers; and so many other regulations that are strangling business and capital formation. The last thing I would like to say is this. This budget is an affront to Parliament. It is a travesty of a document. First of all, it is incoherent and impossible to understand. There are several definitions of net debt in this document. Its accounting definitions, operating versus investment, are so vague that even financial experts are finding it impossible to understand exactly what is going on. Off-budget items have been so massively expanded by capitalizing them on the balance sheet that the deficit figure has become a completely useless figure, and the debt is growing at more than twice the pace of the deficit. Here is the bigger travesty. The fact we had to wait this long to get the document is an outrage. The government made numerous announcements contained in the document months ago, outside the fiscal framework and outside Parliament. Parliamentarians should not have to learn about $36 billion in tax expenditures at some investment conference in downtown Toronto through the nightly news. This is the place where the Prime Minister should be telling Canadians how much the government plans to spend, how much it plans to tax, and how much it plans to borrow. The government has spent most of the last year announcing spending and taxation at its own organized conferences and its own contrived photo ops outside Parliament. To add insult to injury, when it does finally have an opportunity to tell us exactly what is going on in the budget, it is obscured by all sorts of financial chicanery. Finally, the head of government, for whom the budget document is supposed to be an aspirational and generational blueprint, is jetting off to yet another around-the-world tour, leaving us to pick through whatever gobbledygook this is. I have a message for the Prime Minister. This is not Goldman Sachs. This is not Brookfield. This is the Parliament of Canada, and democratic accountability in this place, particularly over the public purse and taxation, is sacrosanct. It is time to start showing up in Parliament and to start answering some questions.

Michael Chong, Wellington—Halton Hills North

Conservative
“We are not in a crisis now, but the government must prepare for future ones. In 2008 and 2020, Canada had to spend a lot of money to help people. Our national debt is now 10% higher than it was then. This budget makes it much harder for us to handle the next crisis.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think the problem is that, although we are not currently in a fiscal crisis, the government needs to prepare for future crises like the ones in 2008 or 2020, which forced the government to spend a great deal of money to support our fellow Canadians. The problem with the government’s budget is that the national debt is 10% higher than it was in 2008 and 2020. The government is considerably reducing its ability to respond to a future crisis.

Michael Chong, Wellington—Halton Hills North

Conservative
“The budget document is confusing because the government defines debt differently in different parts of it. Also, federal debt has grown from 30% of our economy to 40% and is still rising. This leaves us with less money to respond to a future crisis.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is raising an important point about the debt. The problem, first off, is that the government uses different definitions of net debt in the same document. The document opens with a net debt definition used by the International Monetary Fund. Later on, in the annexes, it uses a completely different definition of net debt. In fact, it does not even refer to it as net debt but simply as debt. The document is very confusing and very difficult to follow, because there are so many varying definitions for various items. The second point I would make in response to my colleague’s point is that the federal government is rapidly diminishing its capacity to respond to a future crisis that the Prime Minister says, in his national security statement, could be coming. In 2008 and 2020, the federal debt stood at roughly 30% of GDP, allowing the government to spend upwards of 15% of GDP to respond to that crisis. It now stands at 40% and is rising.

Kelly McCauley, Edmonton West

Conservative
“The Prime Minister promised our debt would go down, but it went up instead. I want my colleague to talk about this broken promise.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, last year in the House, the Prime Minister stated the government would deliver a declining level of debt, yet we have higher debt and a higher debt-to-GDP ratio. I wonder if my colleague could opine on the fact that the government has not delivered what the Prime Minister has promised.

Michael Chong, Wellington—Halton Hills North

Conservative
“The Prime Minister keeps setting budget goals and missing them. If this continues, markets will lose trust in Canada's ability to pay its debts, just like what happened in the 1990s and recently in the United States and France. His father's last budget had deficits half the size of this government's deficits.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a very good point. The Prime Minister risks losing fiscal credibility with markets by following the pattern, frankly, of the previous Trudeau government in establishing ever-changing fiscal anchors and never meeting them. We all saw this story play out in the mid-1990s. Markets can very quickly lose confidence in a government’s ability to service its debt and to finance its operations. The bond markets have in recent years gone wobbly, as they have in recent months in the United States and in France. The government is not on a fiscally prudent track. The irony is that Mr. Trudeau’s last budget was far more fiscally conservative, with deficits half of those of the current Prime Minister’s budgets.

Pat Kelly, Calgary Crowfoot

Conservative
“I oppose this budget. It does not lower costs for Canadians, it does not stop wasteful spending, and it does not set a real limit on borrowing. The government has added hundreds of billions of dollars to our debt and plans to add hundreds of billions more. High debt and interest payments will leave Canada unable to afford the next crisis.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak about the budget, but before I get into the details of the budget, it is important to put it in the context of the government and its legacy since 2015. In 2015, when the Liberals were first elected, they inherited a balanced budget with a $2-billion surplus. We had an economy wherein housing was affordable, where a normal family with proper jobs or a person with a proper job could save their money and buy a house, across Canada. We had a country that had a middle class described by the very liberal New York Times as the world’s most prosperous middle class. There were pipelines approved. The northern gateway pipeline to the Pacific coast on the shortest route to Asian export markets was approved. The Keystone XL pipeline was approved. The Trans Mountain expansion was on the horizon with a private sector proponent. The energy east pipeline was on the horizon, to be proposed by TransCanada. The Liberals blew it all. They immediately broke the promise they had made in the 2015 election to run only two years of modest deficits that would permit the budget to balance itself. They cancelled the northern gateway pipeline. They passed Bill C-48 to make sure it could never come back. They failed to champion Keystone XL. They chased the TransCanada pipeline out of Canada. The company changed its name to TC Energy and focused its investment activity in Mexico and the United States. They chased Kinder Morgan out of Canada and built the TMX at an extraordinary cost to the Canadian taxpayers. This is the legacy of the government: broken promises and expenditures. Minister Morneau repeatedly broke every fiscal promise. He declared this fiscal anchor of a declining debt-to-GDP ratio, as opposed to his election promise of a balanced budget, and then the Liberals blew through that promise and broke it repeatedly. His successor, Chrystia Freeland, in 2022 said that a declining debt-to-GDP ratio was “our fiscal anchor” and “a line we shall not cross” and that it could not be breached, in order to sustain their fiscal credibility. Two years after that, the promise was broken again. She resigned rather than table a budget with a $30-billion deficit. We were here when an unsigned budget was just dropped on the table without a speech. It was extraordinary. That was just two years ago. Following the resignation of Prime Minister Trudeau, the current Prime Minister promised in the election that elected his government that there would be a declining debt to GDP. The Liberals broke that promise immediately. The PBO, as recently as just this month, has said debt is the fastest-growing expense of the federal government, and that brings us to the budget, which we had yesterday. Before the budget, Conservatives had three asks. We asked for immediate relief for Canadian consumers who are unable to afford the high cost of living. We asked for the extension and removal of all taxes on fuel through to the spring, not just the excise tax but the whole range of federal impositions on the cost of fuel that make life unaffordable for Canadians. We asked the government to stop its wasteful spending, and the Liberals delivered a budget that contains 150 billion dollars’ worth of new spending. It is very difficult to follow the threads of their spending, as my colleague said before me, in this 500-page budget of confusing definitions and charts. We called upon the Liberals to rein in the spending so that interest does not end up choking out all other spending opportunities. Our third ask was that they return to their anchor, or at least their stated anchor, of declining debt to GDP. The anchors that have been cut loose and dropped to the bottom of the ocean by the government are astounding. There has never been a fiscal anchor that has held the government. The PBO said as much. The PBO’s report said there is no evidence that the stated fiscal anchors put any meaningful restraint on the government’s spending. Like a sailor, the Liberals buy an anchor. They do not tie it to the boat. They drop it overboard and realize that the boat is not being held. They go back to the chandler and buy another anchor, and everybody on the dock laughs at them. We ask that the government finally hold itself to a meaningful fiscal anchor. A declining debt-to-GDP ratio is an anchor. It is something, at least. However, for a government that began its tenure with a balanced budget, a true fiscal anchor, I would suggest, would leave the government with the ability to cope with international crises and national emergencies, which happen much more often than people think. It is quite reasonable to expect that once every 10 years or so, there will be a catastrophic global event that will require massive support from the government. That is why it should be balancing the budget in the meantime. In a time of a growing world economy, the government should be balancing its budget and leaving fiscal capacity to run deficits in times of national emergency, not simply as a matter of course. The government has added $750 billion to the national debt since members were elected in 2015. This budget proposes to add another $765 billion through to 2031. The Liberals have already given themselves extraordinary self-congratulations in their projection, claiming they will move up, by one year, the time at which they balance their so-called operating budget. What an utterly meaningless measurement of fiscal prudence that anchor is. It is rooted in accounting trickery wherein they can randomly choose how to classify their expenses in order to reduce whatever their so-called operating number would be and claim they have balanced it. Even the whole approach of meeting a fiscal anchor by something that is going to happen in the future is very typical of the government. It is always in the future, someday in some future year, going to deliver what it has promised today. This budget is very disappointing. It does not address any of the three important asks that opposition parliamentarians raised with the government: making life affordable for Canadians, reining in its wasteful spending, and establishing a somewhat serious fiscal anchor and to actually be held by that anchor. Therefore, this budget is a disappointment. It is, as the member for Wellington—Halton Hills North said earlier, an affront to Parliament that the government would table a budget that adds extraordinary amounts of debt that is non-budgetary. It is 500 pages long and very difficult to follow. The debt is accelerating faster than the deficits because of the way the government is accounting for its spending. This budget will not help make life more affordable for Canadians, it does not restore any type of fiscal discipline, and it leaves Canada vulnerable to future crises by eroding Canada’s fiscal capacity to deal with uncertainty in the future. We have been warning these Liberals for 11 years that their reckless spending will leave us where interest chokes out other spending priorities.

Pat Kelly, Calgary Crowfoot

Conservative
“The Liberals have broken promises for 11 years, so I will not take fiscal lessons from them. Brian Mulroney inherited a financial crisis from Pierre Trudeau that took more than nine years to fix. Also, in 2008, the Liberals tried to bring down the Harper government because it refused to run an even bigger deficit.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 44 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 27 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear any contrition over all the broken promises the Liberals have made for 11 years. If the member really wants to go back 40 years to Brian Mulroney, I might point out that when Brian Mulroney became prime minister of this country, Canada really, truly was in an absolute financial death spiral that had been left by Pierre Trudeau. I guess nine short years was not long enough to completely undo the fiscal vandalism of an even earlier Liberal government, so I will not take any lessons from him. I may also remind the member that in 2008, it was his party that was ready to bring down the Harper government, in cahoots with the Bloc, over its refusal to spend even more and run a bigger deficit.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 164

  1. Government Orders The Budget 27 statements
  2. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  3. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Budget 10 statements
  5. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Budget 6 statements
  7. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions Climate Change 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Rail Transportation 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Canadian Heritage 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Finance 14 statements
  12. Oral Questions Employment 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Aviation Industry 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Points of Order 9 statements
  17. Oral Questions The Budget 4 statements
  18. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  19. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions News Media Industry 4 statements
  21. Oral Questions The Budget 2 statements
  22. Private Members' Business Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act 16 statements
  23. Oral Questions Employment 4 statements
  24. Government Orders The Budget 36 statements