Lefebvre pushes for permanent tax cuts on gas and diesel while challenging the government over wasteful spending, such as the $200-million Nova Scotia lease. He uses financial data and personal stories to argue that government mismanagement is harming families. He builds his case on specific facts, often ending with a direct challenge: “If it were your money, what would you do?”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .
Average grade
B+
The average grade of 60 analysed statements. 10 more were analysed but were too short to grade.
83 / 100 over 60 statements
Signal71 / 100
Relevance67 / 100
Respect100 / 100
Clarity96 / 100
Loses points more than most for Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.1.6 times as often as most members.What the tags mean →×1.6Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean →
Averaged over the 60 of 70 statements graded so far.
“Liberal regulations and taxes are hurting Canadian businesses. They cause layoffs and closures, and regular Canadians pay the price. I want the Prime Minister to realize this.”
“Mr. Speaker, 11 years of Liberal management have resulted in higher taxes, more debt, more credit card spending and more regulations. The National Bank’s chief economist reminded us that the Liberals are now imposing over 320,000 regulatory requirements on Canadian businesses, while the United States is deregulating. The consequences of this are layoffs or, worse, closures. When will the Prime Minister understand that more regulations force additional costs on businesses and that Canadians are the ones paying the price?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, 11 years of Liberal management have resulted in higher taxes, more debt, more credit card spending and more regulations. The National Bank’s chief economist reminded us that the Liberals are now imposing over 320,000 regulatory requirements on Canadian businesses, while the United States is deregulating. The consequences of this are layoffs or, worse, closures. When will the Prime Minister understand that more regulations force additional costs on businesses and that Canadians are the ones paying the price?
“The government is spending too much money and leaving the debt to our children. They have already wasted billions of dollars on a broken software system and are adding more. I want to know when they will stop borrowing money.”
“Mr. Speaker, by doubling the deficit promised by the former prime minister, the Liberals are wasting money and racking up credit card debt for future generations, including the students from Richmond who are here on the Hill today. The Cúram scandal rears its ugly head once again in the economic update. The Liberals are adding half a billion dollars in cost overruns to the $5 billion in cost overruns already on the books. Every dollar squandered today means more debt for future generations. The Liberals have already spent $6.6 billion on a system that does not work. What is the Liberals’ credit card limit?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, by doubling the deficit promised by the former prime minister, the Liberals are wasting money and racking up credit card debt for future generations, including the students from Richmond who are here on the Hill today. The Cúram scandal rears its ugly head once again in the economic update. The Liberals are adding half a billion dollars in cost overruns to the $5 billion in cost overruns already on the books. Every dollar squandered today means more debt for future generations. The Liberals have already spent $6.6 billion on a system that does not work. What is the Liberals’ credit card limit?
“The government is creating too many new groups and rules to build things. We already have the Canada Infrastructure Bank to do that job. The Liberals should use the tools we already have.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question because, once again, we have proof that what the Liberal government is doing is doubling and tripling the infrastructure. It is adding more layers and more structures. We already have the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is there to do the job. The Liberals should be using the tools that are in place and continuing to build Canada.”
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question because, once again, we have proof that what the Liberal government is doing is doubling and tripling the infrastructure. It is adding more layers and more structures. We already have the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is there to do the job. The Liberals should be using the tools that are in place and continuing to build Canada.
“I do not make as much money as the Prime Minister, and I would not invest the way he does. Conservatives believe Canadians should be free to choose how they invest their own money.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not make the same kind of money our Prime Minister does. My investments are far more modest. However, that is certainly not the choice I would make. As for Canadians, Conservatives naturally are in favour of freedom of choice, so I will leave it to Canadians to make their own choices regarding their investments.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not make the same kind of money our Prime Minister does. My investments are far more modest. However, that is certainly not the choice I would make. As for Canadians, Conservatives naturally are in favour of freedom of choice, so I will leave it to Canadians to make their own choices regarding their investments.
“I do not trust the Liberals with public money. They have wasted Canadians' money for 11 years and doubled our debt from $700 billion to $1.4 trillion.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is not Canadians I am worried about. What I am worried about is how the Liberal government manages Canadians’ public finances. This government has been wasting Canadians’ money for 11 years now. When the Liberals came to power, the debt was $700 billion. Now, 11 years later, it is $1.4 trillion. What worries me is putting money in Liberal hands.”
Mr. Speaker, it is not Canadians I am worried about. What I am worried about is how the Liberal government manages Canadians’ public finances. This government has been wasting Canadians’ money for 11 years now. When the Liberals came to power, the debt was $700 billion. Now, 11 years later, it is $1.4 trillion. What worries me is putting money in Liberal hands.
“I oppose creating a $25-billion investment fund with borrowed money. It is too risky for taxpayers, and the money would be better spent on lowering taxes for families or funding local infrastructure.”
“Mr. Speaker, before becoming Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister had another life and was involved in similar initiatives in the United Kingdom. The idea in that case was also to use public funds to stimulate strategic investments, but the British experience revealed certain limitations, including results that were slower than expected, investments that were concentrated in certain sectors, and lingering questions about real profitability. This reveals something critical. Setting up a fund does not guarantee financial success, and it is not the size of a fund that creates prosperity. It is fiscal discipline and the quality of decisions that create prosperity. The opportunity cost is what could have been done instead. When we talk about $25 billion, we also have to consider the opportunity costs, because even borrowed money could be put to other uses. The government could have decided to ease the tax burden on families, who are currently being squeezed. It could have invested directly in critical infrastructure, supporting municipalities that are desperately underfunded. Instead, the government is choosing to invest that money in an uncertain financial vehicle, and that is a risky choice. This decision will have consequences for decades to come. Financial markets are unpredictable. Even the best investors suffer losses. Imagine a simple scenario: a global recession, a market crash, investments losing value. What will happen? The government will have to inject more money into the fund or absorb major losses. Once again, taxpayers will be left holding the bag. This fund does not eliminate risks. It transfers them directly to the public using Canadians’ credit card. Conservatives believe in a different approach. We believe in fiscal discipline, financial responsibility, using existing tools efficiently, and, above all, reducing government waste. Before creating a new fund, we should seriously evaluate the effectiveness of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We should improve what already exists, not add more costly structures. Canadians deserve better. Canadians work hard. They pay their taxes and budget carefully. They know they do not want to live on credit forever. They expect the same level of discipline from their government, but this sovereign wealth fund proposal gives the opposite impression. It gives the impression of a government that is willing to take on major financial risks without providing sufficient guarantees or full transparency. To conclude, I want to make something clear. This debate is not anti-investment. This debate is not anti-innovation. This debate is anti-financial recklessness. Creating a debt-financed $25-billion fund creates unnecessary duplication, increases financial risks, opens the door to political interference and imposes a heavy burden on future generations. They deserve transparent investments. That is why, in the name of fiscal responsibility and transparency, and on behalf of taxpayers, I am against the creation of this sovereign wealth fund.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, before becoming Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister had another life and was involved in similar initiatives in the United Kingdom. The idea in that case was also to use public funds to stimulate strategic investments, but the British experience revealed certain limitations, including results that were slower than expected, investments that were concentrated in certain sectors, and lingering questions about real profitability. This reveals something critical. Setting up a fund does not guarantee financial success, and it is not the size of a fund that creates prosperity. It is fiscal discipline and the quality of decisions that create prosperity. The opportunity cost is what could have been done instead. When we talk about $25 billion, we also have to consider the opportunity costs, because even borrowed money could be put to other uses. The government could have decided to ease the tax burden on families, who are currently being squeezed. It could have invested directly in critical infrastructure, supporting municipalities that are desperately underfunded. Instead, the government is choosing to invest that money in an uncertain financial vehicle, and that is a risky choice. This decision will have consequences for decades to come. Financial markets are unpredictable. Even the best investors suffer losses. Imagine a simple scenario: a global recession, a market crash, investments losing value. What will happen? The government will have to inject more money into the fund or absorb major losses. Once again, taxpayers will be left holding the bag. This fund does not eliminate risks. It transfers them directly to the public using Canadians’ credit card. Conservatives believe in a different approach. We believe in fiscal discipline, financial responsibility, using existing tools efficiently, and, above all, reducing government waste. Before creating a new fund, we should seriously evaluate the effectiveness of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We should improve what already exists, not add more costly structures. Canadians deserve better. Canadians work hard. They pay their taxes and budget carefully. They know they do not want to live on credit forever. They expect the same level of discipline from their government, but this sovereign wealth fund proposal gives the opposite impression. It gives the impression of a government that is willing to take on major financial risks without providing sufficient guarantees or full transparency. To conclude, I want to make something clear. This debate is not anti-investment. This debate is not anti-innovation. This debate is anti-financial recklessness. Creating a debt-financed $25-billion fund creates unnecessary duplication, increases financial risks, opens the door to political interference and imposes a heavy burden on future generations. They deserve transparent investments. That is why, in the name of fiscal responsibility and transparency, and on behalf of taxpayers, I am against the creation of this sovereign wealth fund.
“I oppose the government's plan to borrow $25 billion to create a sovereign wealth fund. Other countries build these funds with extra money, not debt. We already have an infrastructure bank that has not spent all of its money. Creating a new fund will add wasteful bureaucracy and risk taxpayers' money if the investments fail.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the Liberal government’s announcement concerning the creation of a so-called sovereign wealth fund amounting to $25 billion. We are not talking about $25 million or $2.5 billion, but $25 billion, charged to the national credit card. As a Conservative member, I want to be clear. We believe in strategic investment, but we do not believe in writing a blank cheque using the country’s credit card. In the end, the government will not be the one footing the bill. Canadian families, workers, small businesses, our children, our grandchildren and future generations will be the ones paying for it. A fund built on credit is a risky bet. The first critical problem with this sovereign wealth fund is the source of the funds. It is not funded through surpluses. It is not funded through surplus revenues, such as proceeds from natural resource development. The other countries mentioned by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue for comparison purposes are all countries involved in developing their natural resources. They have budget surpluses, extra funds, which they use to create their sovereign wealth fund. Ours will be funded through debt. In other words, the government is proposing to charge $25 billion to the credit card at a time when inflation is hitting households hard, the cost of living is skyrocketing, and federal debt is reaching historic levels. The government is choosing to add another layer of financial risk. A debt-financed sovereign wealth fund is a gamble with other people’s money. When markets fluctuate, as they always do, it is taxpayers who absorb the losses. This is an unnecessary duplication of tools that already exist. There is another fundamental question. Why create a fund when we already have existing tools? Canada already has the Canada Infrastructure Bank, an institution created specifically to finance transformative projects, attract private investment, support the development of strategic infrastructure, and share financial risks. It was supposed to be the central tool for investing in the country’s economic future. The Canada Infrastructure Bank has $35 billion in capital. It has currently committed only $18.1 billion of that amount. The remaining $16.9 billion is awaiting allocation by the government. This government is not even able to make the most of the existing bureaucracy. If the Canada Infrastructure Bank is already doing the job, why create another vehicle? Creating a new fund means multiplying bureaucratic structures. The Liberals are experts in that. They are the champions of bureaucracy, the champions of structures and the list goes on. Creating a new fund also means watering down responsibilities, complicating accountability and increasing administrative costs. Instead of improving what already exists, the government is choosing to reinvent the wheel—and at great expense. Another major danger of this fund is the risk of political interference. When a government controls a $25-billion fund, there is always a risk that investment decisions will be influenced by political considerations, election priorities or partisan regional interests. A sovereign wealth fund—a true sovereign wealth fund—must be independent, transparent and rigorously managed. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, which is worth $2 trillion and is considered the best-performing sovereign wealth fund in the world, is not allowed to invest in the domestic market in order to ensure it stays independent. History shows us that when governments directly manage billions of dollars, the risks of favouritism increase. We have to ask ourselves some serious questions. Who will decide on the investments? What will the criteria be? How much transparency will there actually be? Who will bear the losses if investments fail? All of these questions remain unanswered. There will be losses. That is inevitable in any investment portfolio. Once again, taxpayers are the ones who are going to pay, with a governance that is still unclear and that does not provide answers to our questions. Another concerning point is the lack of clarity regarding the governance of the fund. We have heard some big announcements, but not a lot of details. How will the fund be structured and managed? What accountability mechanisms, investment limits and loss protection mechanisms will there be? A $25‑billion fund cannot be based solely on vague promises. It must be based on strict rules, robust mechanisms and absolute transparency. Right now, all we are getting is slogans. There are no guarantees. It is also important to look at what is being done elsewhere. Before becoming Prime Minister, Mark Carney was involved in similar initiatives—”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the Liberal government’s announcement concerning the creation of a so-called sovereign wealth fund amounting to $25 billion. We are not talking about $25 million or $2.5 billion, but $25 billion, charged to the national credit card. As a Conservative member, I want to be clear. We believe in strategic investment, but we do not believe in writing a blank cheque using the country’s credit card. In the end, the government will not be the one footing the bill. Canadian families, workers, small businesses, our children, our grandchildren and future generations will be the ones paying for it. A fund built on credit is a risky bet. The first critical problem with this sovereign wealth fund is the source of the funds. It is not funded through surpluses. It is not funded through surplus revenues, such as proceeds from natural resource development. The other countries mentioned by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue for comparison purposes are all countries involved in developing their natural resources. They have budget surpluses, extra funds, which they use to create their sovereign wealth fund. Ours will be funded through debt. In other words, the government is proposing to charge $25 billion to the credit card at a time when inflation is hitting households hard, the cost of living is skyrocketing, and federal debt is reaching historic levels. The government is choosing to add another layer of financial risk. A debt-financed sovereign wealth fund is a gamble with other people’s money. When markets fluctuate, as they always do, it is taxpayers who absorb the losses. This is an unnecessary duplication of tools that already exist. There is another fundamental question. Why create a fund when we already have existing tools? Canada already has the Canada Infrastructure Bank, an institution created specifically to finance transformative projects, attract private investment, support the development of strategic infrastructure, and share financial risks. It was supposed to be the central tool for investing in the country’s economic future. The Canada Infrastructure Bank has $35 billion in capital. It has currently committed only $18.1 billion of that amount. The remaining $16.9 billion is awaiting allocation by the government. This government is not even able to make the most of the existing bureaucracy. If the Canada Infrastructure Bank is already doing the job, why create another vehicle? Creating a new fund means multiplying bureaucratic structures. The Liberals are experts in that. They are the champions of bureaucracy, the champions of structures and the list goes on. Creating a new fund also means watering down responsibilities, complicating accountability and increasing administrative costs. Instead of improving what already exists, the government is choosing to reinvent the wheel—and at great expense. Another major danger of this fund is the risk of political interference. When a government controls a $25-billion fund, there is always a risk that investment decisions will be influenced by political considerations, election priorities or partisan regional interests. A sovereign wealth fund—a true sovereign wealth fund—must be independent, transparent and rigorously managed. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, which is worth $2 trillion and is considered the best-performing sovereign wealth fund in the world, is not allowed to invest in the domestic market in order to ensure it stays independent. History shows us that when governments directly manage billions of dollars, the risks of favouritism increase. We have to ask ourselves some serious questions. Who will decide on the investments? What will the criteria be? How much transparency will there actually be? Who will bear the losses if investments fail? All of these questions remain unanswered. There will be losses. That is inevitable in any investment portfolio. Once again, taxpayers are the ones who are going to pay, with a governance that is still unclear and that does not provide answers to our questions. Another concerning point is the lack of clarity regarding the governance of the fund. We have heard some big announcements, but not a lot of details. How will the fund be structured and managed? What accountability mechanisms, investment limits and loss protection mechanisms will there be? A $25‑billion fund cannot be based solely on vague promises. It must be based on strict rules, robust mechanisms and absolute transparency. Right now, all we are getting is slogans. There are no guarantees. It is also important to look at what is being done elsewhere. Before becoming Prime Minister, Mark Carney was involved in similar initiatives—
“The Liberals are spending too much money instead of cutting costs, and they announced a job training program without even telling Quebec. They will add $321 billion in debt by 2031. I want to know why they are spending like this when Canadians are struggling.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are talking about workforce training, and yet Quebec was not even aware of this program before it was announced yesterday. A $37-billion increase in spending is not a cut. That is more spending. The Globe and Mail reported this morning that, in the upside-down land of the Liberals, a spending spree is a spending cut and blowing a windfall of billions of dollars is prudent. I hope members are sitting down, because I have some disappointing news. By 2031, the Liberals will have saddled our children and grandchildren with $321 billion in debt. How can the Liberals spend so recklessly when Canadians are struggling to make ends meet?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about workforce training, and yet Quebec was not even aware of this program before it was announced yesterday. A $37-billion increase in spending is not a cut. That is more spending. The Globe and Mail reported this morning that, in the upside-down land of the Liberals, a spending spree is a spending cut and blowing a windfall of billions of dollars is prudent. I hope members are sitting down, because I have some disappointing news. By 2031, the Liberals will have saddled our children and grandchildren with $321 billion in debt. How can the Liberals spend so recklessly when Canadians are struggling to make ends meet?
“The Prime Minister says he is creating a sovereign wealth fund, but he is borrowing $25 billion to do it. Real wealth funds are built from extra money, not borrowed money. The government is running a record deficit, and future generations will have to pay for it.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants us to believe that he is creating a sovereign wealth fund. That is incorrect. A sovereign wealth fund is built with years of surpluses, budget surpluses and natural resource development. It is not built by charging $25 billion to Canadians’ collective credit card. The Liberals just ran up a record deficit, the biggest deficit outside of COVID-19. They are running up a record deficit without proving that they can manage public funds well. How can the Liberals use the credit card of future generations so shamelessly?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants us to believe that he is creating a sovereign wealth fund. That is incorrect. A sovereign wealth fund is built with years of surpluses, budget surpluses and natural resource development. It is not built by charging $25 billion to Canadians’ collective credit card. The Liberals just ran up a record deficit, the biggest deficit outside of COVID-19. They are running up a record deficit without proving that they can manage public funds well. How can the Liberals use the credit card of future generations so shamelessly?
“Most older Quebeckers worry they will run out of money in retirement. Seniors cannot afford to live, and the government's high spending and taxes make it worse. Will the Prime Minister stop putting more debt on our seniors?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the sad reality: More than half of all Quebeckers aged 50 and older are worried about running out of money when they retire. That is what the newspaper Le Journal de Montréal reported this weekend. Our seniors are no longer making ends meet, but the Liberal solution is more debt, higher costs and more taxes. Canadians are the ones paying the Prime Minister’s credit card bills. Our seniors built our country, and this is how we thank them? My question is simple: Will the Prime Minister stop saddling our seniors with more debt, yes or no?”
Mr. Speaker, this is the sad reality: More than half of all Quebeckers aged 50 and older are worried about running out of money when they retire. That is what the newspaper Le Journal de Montréal reported this weekend. Our seniors are no longer making ends meet, but the Liberal solution is more debt, higher costs and more taxes. Canadians are the ones paying the Prime Minister’s credit card bills. Our seniors built our country, and this is how we thank them? My question is simple: Will the Prime Minister stop saddling our seniors with more debt, yes or no?
