Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Greg McLean

Conservative Calgary Centre 69 statements translated

Follow by RSS

McLean presses for lower federal spending and debt, pointing to interest payments that have risen from $24 billion a year in 2020 toward $59 billion this year, and challenges spending decisions such as a $200-million spaceport lease to a company he says is near bankruptcy. He argues with figures, walking ministers through PBO reports and audited statements line by line. He also sponsors a bill giving businesses a tax credit for turning industrial waste heat into power.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
84 / 100 over 60 statements
Signal 79 / 100
Relevance 84 / 100
Reasoning 74 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 96 / 100
Averaged over the 60 of 69 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Wording that hides who did something, or who will.1.8 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.8

Loses points less than most for Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A story that illustrates instead of making a point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Does well more than most

Answered ×1.9

Statements 69

Adjournment Proceedings ·

Adjournment Proceedings

“The government gave 20 million dollars to a private company with no oversight. Company leaders took the money, sold their shares, and kept the profits. If this company goes broke, taxpayers will lose their money. I want the government to tell us what will happen with this money.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer. The $20 million in arrears, there is no excuse for. There is no Treasury Board Secretariat oversight of how that money was spent. It was spent in the year before the government threw the money out the door and immediately into the pockets of a private sector organization in order to get the ball rolling. It is exactly how government should not be operating, particularly when the people it is giving the money to flush the shares out and put the money in their pockets. I do not know if it even knows what a share lock-up agreement is, but it is a repetitive pattern, including with everything the government says is in urgency, much like with Lion Electric, which is being investigated by the RCMP this week because of what it did, in exactly the same format of funding the public companies and all of the principals taking the money out when they pump the stock up and running away. When this goes bankrupt, if this goes bankrupt, then the Canadian taxpayers are going to end up holding the bag again. Will my colleague tell us what is going to happen?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis
“The government gave a $200 million defence contract to a spaceport company that is almost bankrupt. We are paying the company $20 million a year to lease land that the company rents for only $13,500. This deal pumped up the company's stock, letting an insider cash out roughly $2 million in shares. This is a waste of tax dollars to help connected insiders, and the government must answer for it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am following up on a question I asked in the spring about an issue called spaceport. The government awarded a 10-year contract for $200 million to fund a national defence company called Maritime Launch Services through National Defence. One of the egregious factors in this lease is that Maritime Launch Services does not own the land the government is paying for a lease on, but leases it from the Government of Nova Scotia for $13,500 per year. We are paying a $20-million lease on land that the company is leasing for $13,500, which is ridiculous in itself. Now, my colleagues across the way will say how much value has been added by the development of the site by Maritime Launch Services. That nonsense, of course, is completely defied by the company’s financial statements. In June 2025, the company had negative value and its paper assets, before considering any of its liabilities, were only $13 million. Again, that is $13 million, against which we are going to pay $20 million annual rent for the land. It is ridiculous again. The government had decided to pay this $20 million, but the second most egregious part of it, of course, is that it is paying a year in arrears when they were not even on the land. It is basically a grift, a gift to some of their connected insiders that is beyond what should happen with any responsible government. Let me read from Maritime Launch Services’ actual audited statement from the middle of 2025: “As a result, there is material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt as to whether the Company will have the ability to continue as a going concern.” It is almost a bankrupt company, and the government decided to give them $20 million from defence, in addition to a $10-million line of credit from none other than Export Development Canada. Now, we have seen Export Development Canada, of course, involved in so many other slush fund operations where the government is throwing Canadian taxpayers’ money out the door. We have got a few corporations in here. Now, what is Maritime Launch Services? Let us look at its role in this. It is really a sandwich organization between renting from one government and getting a big contract from the other government. It is a penny stock, a worthless company on the stock exchange, publicly traded, now doing the government’s bidding and getting paid egregious amounts of money for doing next to nothing. Now, we know there is a whole bunch that has to happen here, as far as spaceport goes, but this is an example of money being thrown out the door. If this is what the government is talking about, about how we spend money in defence procurement more effectively, it is completely wrong. This is a way to throw Canadian taxpayer dollars away, not actually trying to make sure it gets into the pockets of the right people. No sooner than it put $20 million into an almost bankrupt company than the principal of the company gets the lift from that, the $20 million onto a balance sheet, from five cents a share to 60¢ a share, and he unloaded almost 2 million dollars’ worth of his shares. That is a grift, through and through, and the government has to be held to account for it. It is the definition of pump and dump. I will let the government respond to that, and I will continue to push on this. This is not the way any democratically elected responsible government should be acting.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government should not spend public money on LNG Canada. Projects like this do not need tax dollars, and private companies built the first phase without them. The government is pushing out real business investment and wasting money, and it needs to stop.”

  • 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, that opens up a good avenue for me to talk about. LNG Canada should not require any government investment. Quite frankly, LNG one did not require any government investment. LNG two should not require any government investment. What the Government of Canada is doing right now, under the Liberal Prime Minister, is effectively replacing private sector investment with government investment. It is inflated. It is not getting anything done particularly well, as far as what they call investment goes, if there is no test to it. Frankly, it is displacing the investment that should be happening in our economy rather than adding to it. It has to stop. We have to get the private sector back on track.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

In response to a question from Jeremy Patzer

“Too much government spending and debt cause high inflation and higher interest rates. This makes life unfair. People who already own things get richer, while others cannot afford to buy a home until much later in life.”

  • 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, the issue is that there is one pool of money in the world but a whole bunch of people dipping into it. As I pointed out, in Canada we have federal government debt, we have provincial government debt, we have consumer debt and we have corporate debt. All of these are in the same debt pool, so when there is a risk, it all goes up. When it all goes up, inflation happens. Inflation is going to happen as far as the expenses go on interest, but when the government excessively spends and runs huge deficits, it causes massive inflation in the economy, asset inflation in particular. One of the reasons we have what is called a K-shaped economy in Canada right now is that people who have assets have seen those assets inflate. People without those assets have gone without, so those people are waiting in line for a home that is going to take far longer to build. They cannot enter the housing market for a much longer period of time, into their mid-thirties and forties now, when it used to be in their mid-twenties and early thirties. This is a problem. This is the cause of inflation. This is a result of governments spending too much and thinking that somebody down the road will pay the bill. That is not going to happen.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government's ability to borrow money can disappear overnight. Interest rates are rising around the world because governments, especially Canada's, have too much debt. This will drive up borrowing costs very suddenly, just like what happened in the 1990s. The government must pay attention to this risk and be ready for it.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 92 of 100

    Of this reply, 90% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the operating balance. I have pointed out a bunch of numbers that were part of the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report. Fiscal capacity is there until it is not. Suddenly, it all turns around overnight, and it turned around when Jean Chrétien was Prime Minister. I pointed out the example. It happens very suddenly when the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, comes in and says that we can no longer pay our bills. What is on the horizon here? I will point out to the member that interest rates are rising around the world, primarily because of excess government debt everywhere, in Canada in particular. The increase in government debt is going to cause more risk. Therefore, bond rates will go up and more people will have to pay money. This avalanche will happen before it is planned. It will happen very suddenly, and we need to get it in front of us. We need to make sure we are aware of it. We need to make sure we know how to deal with it. Fiscal capacity will disappear very quickly.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis
“The government is borrowing far too much money, and the interest on our debt is rising fast. That drives up inflation and puts our public services at risk. The government has broken every spending rule it set for itself. It must commit to balancing the budget soon.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House before I begin that I will be splitting my time today with my esteemed colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge. I am happy to share time with him. Today, we are going to talk about the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report. I agree with parts of it. The House will hear my critiques of parts of it as well, because all of this is open to debate. I hope my colleagues across the way will listen to some of this debate on how we forge our direction in Canada economically going forward. I will quote from the report: PBO anticipates that federal borrowing will grow significantly faster than deficits, which are measured on an accrual basis. Over the next five years, cumulative deficits are projected to total $333.3 billion, whereas federal borrowing is projected to rise by $732.9 billion.... Let us look at the delta there, the change, if we can. There is over $400 billion more in borrowing than deficits. This is a partial result of what the financial wizards on the other side of the House are bringing to Canadian federal government budgeting. It is a whole bunch of cash out the door that Canadians have to pay interest on without it looking like debt. This is the issue about investments versus spending. They have changed the way we look at debt and deficits in Canada and have categorized them differently. Nevertheless, the number Canadians need to worry about is the amount of interest they are paying on that debt. That number has gone from $24 billion a year in 2020, around when I first came to the House in 2019, up to $59 billion this year and $83 billion in four years’ time. Let us think about that escalation of debt. That escalation of debt is two things: It is more money we are paying interest on, but it is also a higher rate of interest. The Parliamentary Budget Officer illustrates clearly that the stress we have on the debt and the amount in bonds outstanding are going to cause Canada to start paying a higher interest rate. It is right in the report. We can talk about our AAA rating, but the fact is, because we are borrowing so much, we will have to start paying a higher rate of interest. It is not just more interest on more debt and more debt, but a higher rate of interest as well. This is what we call a waterfall. This is going to continue to impact Canadians. It is $83 billion at the federal level alone. If we take a look at all the debt in Canada in U.S. dollars, we have about $4.6 trillion in debt across the nation. This puts us as one of the most indebted nations in the world. This is a problem. It is a combination of consumer debt, corporate debt and government debt. The government always tries to say that our debt-to-GDP ratio is only 40% plus, but let me say that that is an illusion, because government debt in this country is not just federal government debt; it is federal government debt plus provincial government debt. The amount of debt that provincial governments are in collectively across the country is about $1 trillion. If we add up the debt, not the amount outstanding, of $1.6 trillion at the federal level and $1 trillion at the provincial level, plus the massive amount of debt that consumers and corporations have outstanding, we have a massive wall of debt in Canada that is almost the worst in the world. There comes a point in time when this becomes a problem and we have to start addressing it. That time is right on our horizon, because interest rates are starting to rise. Not only are they going to rise for the federal government, making it pay more money, but they also going to rise for consumers, who are going to have to start paying more for their mortgages and more for their consumer debt. They are also going to start rising for corporations, which will have to cut back because they are paying more in interest and have less money to invest, as the Prime Minister likes to say. Let us look at the $83 billion in debt interest, which is ridiculous. When Canadians ask why we cannot fix health care, I am going to bring them back to the Jean Chrétien years. I remember the Mulroney years when we talked about an operating balance. Brian Mulroney was a very good prime minister, in my opinion, and he got us to a point where we had an operating balance. We still had a huge amount of debt we were paying, but we had an operating balance. This is where the current government pretends it wants to go, although it is very selective about what it uses in the numbers in the operating balance. The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s job is to assess the government against its performance, but a lot of the numbers are now hidden. I am glad she points out the accrual basis and the extra $400 billion in borrowing under the government’s new way of accounting for these programs. It is a mirage. We have to get ahead of this. This $80 billion a year in debt interest payments is far too much for Canada. That is $2,000, give or take, per person in Canada, not per family. For a family of four, $8,000 goes out the door before they even see it. Most families in Canada are probably not paying $8,000 in taxes, but that is going out the door whether they like it or not. Everybody is behind, not counting their personal debt as well. What effect does this have on the economy? It causes inflation. If we look at what the Parliamentary Budget Officer says in this report, she talks about the reduction in real GDP growth, to 0.9% in this economy. The nominal is 5.4%. What is the difference? It is called the GDP gross domestic product deflator, which is 4.6%. If anybody tells us the interest is only 3% or 2.5% in Canada, then why is the GDP deflator, which is a proxy for inflation, at 4.6%? If we measured these things, as they are real and affect people’s lives, we would understand the pain that Canadians are feeling right now, as opposed to hiding behind a bunch of numbers. Let me correct the Parliamentary Budget Officer, because she buys into this mirage of what net debt is. When the government describes its net debt, what it is doing is taking hundreds of billions of dollars of pensioners’ assets and saying that it is the government’s asset. It is not the government’s asset; it is the pensioners’ asset. The government should tell Canadians directly that when things get rough, because things are going to get rough with our financial situation, it is going to reach in there, grab some of their pension earnings and put them on its balance sheet, because the bankers across the world we owe interest to are expecting us to do that. If that is part of the arrangement, the government needs to make it clear to Canadians that their pensions, and Quebeckers’ pensions, which are not managed by the same management team, are on the table for the government to use. That is how it calculates its debt-to-GDP ratio. It is dishonest, unless the government has some arrangement with the Canada pension plan behind the scenes to make that happen. What makes this even more troubling is that Canadians were promised fiscal discipline by the very well-educated Prime Minister. We have to acknowledge that he is a well-trained economist. However, the results we are getting from this well-trained economist are anything but good. If he is hiding the numbers in different balance sheets and raising the debt that Canadians have to pay, he is not performing as expected. Canadians were promised fiscal anchors. There is not one fiscal anchor, in the seven years I have been here, that the government has stuck to. It keeps making things up as it goes along. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer in her report has said that it is not going to meet its fiscal anchors. When are we going to say enough is enough? It has no fiscal discipline whatsoever. An economist like the Prime Minister must understand our debt position in the world. He must understand that he is visiting inflation upon Canada. He must understand the cliff we are getting to as far as our outstanding debt in this country goes, including in the provinces. Commitments are made to balance the budget. Commitments are made to get back to fiscal discipline in this country. None of them have been met. If anybody has been watching over the last several months, even though the government set itself a $60-billion-plus deficit, it has continued to make announcement after announcement as if money is no object. If money is no object to our Prime Minister and he thinks he can continue to keep spending, making announcements and blowing $40 billion here and $50 billion there without any consequences, then we have to go back to the drawing board and figure out what exactly is going to happen. I will tell members what happened when Jean Chrétien had to deal with the debt. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien had to cut payments to the provinces. The result of those cuts to the provinces is that they had to adjust their health care spending, and health care was cut across Canada. That was the result of a choice that that government had to make because it was fiscally off base. The debt had gotten too high in Canada. We are approaching that position again. When I ran for this position, a key consideration was to get this country back to balance. We need to get back to balance. Will the government commit to getting us there sooner rather than later?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

Weights and Measures Act

“The idea of a green shift economy is a myth. Canada needs an economy built on oil and gas. I want the member who just joined the Liberals to tell us if she has convinced her new party of that.”

  • Speech on a bill

    Relevance 21 of 100

    Only 8% of this speech directly addressed the bill under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague’s speech. As noted, she is somebody who has a background in chemical engineering. I have always appreciated that about her, as well as her ability to get facts, figures and everything else. She talked in her speech about the increases in oil, gas and mining that are going to happen here, and of all the sensors that are going to have to be part and parcel of that. All of those sensors, and she would know this, have an embedded carbon price, as does the increased production of oil and gas, in particular, to make sure we have a baseload in a reliable energy system in this country. Since she has crossed the floor, and I am going to ask the member this question very clearly, has she managed to convince the rest of her new colleagues over there that this whole green shift economy is a bit of a myth and that we need to build a sustainable economy in Canada that depends on oil and gas?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade D+ View analysis

Oral Questions ·

Finance

“The Prime Minister promised to balance the budget by 2029 and lower the debt, but he is failing at both. The government is spending and borrowing too much money. It must stop this spending and plan for Canada's future.”

  • Opposition question in Question Period

    Respect 90 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “The economist Prime Minister”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, a sign of a strong economy must be how much the government can give people because they cannot afford to pay their own bills. The economist Prime Minister promised Canadians two things: to balance the budget by 2029 and to maintain a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. He is failing badly at both. To quote the PBO report, “the two fiscal anchors have imposed limited fiscal discipline on government spending and borrowing.” Our escalating debt is consuming way too much of our tax dollars. The bottom line is that if the PBO were a doctor, she would tell Canadians that the government is on life support. When will the Liberals think about Canada’s future and stop spending as if—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis
“The government keeps spending billions of dollars without a real budget plan, and Canadians are not seeing any results. The budget officer says this spending is out of control and the economy is getting worse. I want the minister to explain how spending more money leads to worse results.”

  • Opposition question in Question Period

    Reasoning 33 of 100

    This statement drew 3 conclusions, but gave no reasons for 2 of them.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, barely a day goes by without the Liberal government’s making an announcement of billions of dollars of new spending. Press releases are issued, media content is bought, consultants are paid and dollars go out the door immediately, yet results for Canadians are years away, if at all. The bulk of this announced spending is part of no budget plan. This is government by blank cheque. Just this week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released the fall economic outlook, showing just how out of whack the spending has become, and the economic outlook just gets worse. Can the minister stand here and explain how more spending leads to worse results?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C View analysis

Government Orders ·

Canadian Space Launch Act

“The government is using tax money to help its friends. It gave $20 million to Maritime Launch Services for a lease worth only $300,000, and the company president made millions selling shares. The RCMP just raided another company that got money the same way. Can the member promise the RCMP will not have to raid this company too?”

  • 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
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to address what happened yesterday in relation to Maritime Launch Services. The RCMP raided an operation in Quebec, Lion, that has shown exactly the government’s template for how it actually funnels government money, taxpayer money, to individuals it favours. How this relates to Maritime Launch Services is that it has taken two years for Lion to be investigated by the RCMP. Maritime Launch Services is doing exactly the same thing. The government, in arrears, gave $20 million of rent to Maritime Launch Services, before it even occupied it, for a $300,000 lease that it actually had. It was $20 million, for nothing at all, to give to the government’s friends. The minute it did that, the president of Maritime Launch Services took a whole bunch of his shares and sold them, as they were pumped up to 60¢ a share, putting almost $2 million in his pocket. The government is continually using mechanisms through which it is funnelling Canadian dollars, almost illegally, as the RCMP showed yesterday, to its friends in their chosen fields. Can the member tell us that we will not see the same repeat of a raid from the RCMP on this operation?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade F View analysis

Oral Questions ·

Finance

“The Liberals give tax money to their friends' companies, insiders take millions, and the businesses fail. The government must release the hidden records on money lost at Export Development Canada and let the RCMP investigate how much taxpayers lost.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that has become the Liberal template: pump taxpayer funds into companies connected to Liberal friends, watch millions get extracted by insiders and hope the public is not paying attention when the bankruptcy follows. This level of incompetence earned the minister a promotion from the Prime Minister. Will the Liberals take this opportunity to come clean and release the additional information from the financial losses experienced by Export Development Canada, information they have withheld from this Parliament, and allow the RCMP to get a full picture of how much in taxpayer funds has been lost due to the minister’s gross incompetence?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis
“The RCMP raided Lion Electric yesterday. The government gave that company over $500 million, but called it a calculated risk. The minister who did that is now the finance minister. If he cannot judge risk, Canadians cannot trust him to manage the budget.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the RCMP raided the offices of Lion electric. This pump-and-dump scheme involved over $500 million in government grants and Canada Infrastructure Bank financing, plus an undisclosed amount from Export Development Canada. The Liberals called this a calculated risk and claimed “rigorous due diligence was conducted.” Clearly, that minister, now the finance minister, cannot evaluate risk. With investment success like this under his belt, how can Canadians count on the finance minister’s ability to manage the budget? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Adjournment Proceedings ·

Adjournment Proceedings

“The government needs to deal with our debt now before it becomes a crisis. Canada must refinance almost a third of its debt this year, and interest costs are rising while the government keeps overspending. If we do not act early, the government will end up cutting services like health care later.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the numbers he is putting on the table. We do need to address this. I know that the government has been very good at always pointing out that it has to do something because there is a crisis. The crisis happens because its members have not paid attention to what is in front of them. They are always responding to what has happened behind them. This is something that has already happened. Twenty-nine per cent of our debt has to be refinanced at the Canadian government level this year. It is going to have huge impacts upon Canadians writ large. The amount of interest going out the door is going to continue to mount. The government continues to run deficits as if there is no tomorrow. We have to get ahead of this. This is my putting on the table for the government, “Address this now before it becomes a crisis and you have to do something in the rearview mirror.” This was faced by the Chrétien-Martin government way back when. The result was, of course, to cut health care funding for Canadians. We want to make sure the government is ahead of it this time.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis
“Canada has too much debt. The federal government owes nearly $1.5 trillion, and about one-third of that must be refinanced in the next year. With interest rates going up, our interest payments will skyrocket past the $57 billion we already pay. The government needs to cut back its spending.”

  • Speech in the House

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I rise today to raise what I have raised in this House many times: the problem with Canada’s mounting debt. We talked about this back in the spring when I last asked a question about it. I have since heard throughout the summer about all kinds of spending the government wants to do that was not part of the $65-billion deficit that it indicated in last year’s spring update. Spending is continuing to mount with the government. It is as if we have a new economist as our Prime Minister who has not understood the problem with the escalating debt we have in this country. Let me give some examples, because we are a basket case when we look at the total amount of debt that Canadians have, not just government debt in Canada. The national government debt alone is approaching $1.5 trillion. Provincial debts on top of that amount to almost $1 trillion at this point in time. Of course, there is always the other debt, and that is the one that Canadians hold. Canadian individual household debt amounts to about $3.2 trillion, and then corporately Canadians have about $3.8 trillion outstanding. This is an amazing amount of debt. Combined, as an actual function of GDP, Canada, government-wise, has about 100% of its debt to GDP at the government level, about 101% at the household level and about 118% at the corporate level. That means 318% of Canada’s GDP is held in debt, debt that it has to pay interest on. We are concerned here about the federal government’s debt, because I cannot argue about all the rest. There are impacts throughout the rest of the debt based on what happens at the federal level. The more the federal government spends, the more it goes into debt and the more it is going to have to pay in interest. The more it pays in interest, the more debt outstanding causes other interest rates to go up, including for all the financial debt outstanding to corporations and all the debt outstanding for mortgages and loans to consumers. This is a massive amount of money. We have all seen that around the world, central banks are increasing their lending rates right now. That means that the debt profile is going to continue to go up and the amount of interest paid is going to continue to go up. Why is this so significant for the federal government? It is because fully 29% of the Government of Canada’s outstanding debt is due within the next year. If we think about how much money is going to have to be refinanced, 29% of almost $1.5 trillion is going to be refinanced within the next 12 months. That is an amazing amount of money, first of all, to go to debt markets. Some of that is expiring debt, and some of it is going to be new debt. I think there is going to be more new debt with the way the government is spending money, but that is just what is expected to be renewed at this point in time. That will mean that the $57 billion Canadians are actually paying in interest payments right now is going to skyrocket. Think about that. Think about the actual rate that the government pays right now, which is about 2.5%, as a debt profile across its full portfolio. Think about one-third of that falling off and paying 100 basis points more. This is fully one-third of $1.5 trillion, or $500 billion. Where we are paying 1% more, this is going to impact Canadians significantly. We are going to have higher debt payments and higher interest payments as a result of the government’s profligate spending. The issue we want to get to is how we get to a better spending profile. Short-term financing is not taken by the provinces. All the provinces have a much more flat, low-impact duration for when their payments are due. The federal government is the one that is the most ramped up toward the front end of the repayment schedule. When I heard the finance minister for the government talk this summer about—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Statements by Members ·

Affordability

“The government's policies are making life worse for working Canadians. People are taking on more debt, cannot afford homes, and have a lower standard of living than their parents. The government needs to change course so the next generation has more opportunity.”

  • Member's statement

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, working Canadians are doing their best in a K-shaped economy, where those with assets are doing relatively well, while those striving to buy their first home are seeing that dream move out of reach. The government has created a financial reality where Canadians are asked to take on more debt, pay more interest and accept a lower standard of living than the generation before them. Work harder and expect less is not the legacy we were supposed to leave our children, yet the Liberal government continues to manage expectations downward because its policies have led to a less prosperous country. That means lower results for everyone, including less food security, less shelter and lower expectations for health outcomes. A generation’s future is being pulled back because that is the price of the government’s choices. Where we are is clear. How we got here is evident. What Canadians need now is a government prepared to change course, restore opportunity and build a future where the next generation can contribute more and expect more.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis

Statements by Members ·

Philip Roderick MacAulay

“I am honouring Philip Roderick MacAulay, who passed away on June 11. He was a navy veteran and served as president of the Calgary Legion for 20 years. I send my condolences to his family.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today we honour the life and legacy of Philip Roderick MacAulay, a long-time president of the Royal Canadian Legion Calgary No. 1 Branch, who passed away on June 11. For more than 50 years, Phil dedicated himself to the Legion, serving veterans, supporting his community and working tirelessly to ensure that the branch remained a vibrant place. A proud navy veteran, Phil spent decades in service, including 20 years as branch president, and earned the Legion’s Meritorious Service Medal. We remember Phil for his humour, his generosity and his unwavering commitment to keeping the Legion relevant for all. Phil’s loss will be deeply felt, especially by his wife of 37 years, Susan, who continues her own service to the Royal Canadian Legion Calgary No. 1 Branch. I will miss Phil at Remembrance Day ceremonies and Legion events, for he was a constant presence. On behalf of this House, I extend our heartfelt condolences. May we all strive to carry forward Phil’s spirit of service and remembrance. Lest we forget.

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Government Orders ·

An Act to Authorize Certain Payments to be Made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund

“This bill spends another 1.7 billion dollars on housing. Families in Quebec already pay thousands of dollars each year just for interest on government debt. Is voting for this bill a waste of money?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my friend from Quebec a question about government spending, because an additional $1.7 billion is to be spent on housing across the country. Quebec households are paying the cost of interest on both the federal and provincial deficits. For each household, that amounts to $3,400 a year in federal government debt and $3,000 a year in provincial government debt. That money is being thrown down the drain. We are paying more in interest. Is supporting this government bill a waste of money?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis
“I want to know what this $1.7 billion will actually do. The government has already spent billions on housing without fixing the problem.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the member if she can just tell us what the $1.7 billion would accomplish, because we have already thrown a lot of money at the situation. We have empty condos now that do not suit the market in Toronto. Now we would give the development industry more money when there are empty lots to be developed once the actual economics make sense. We keep aiming for these problems that we are creating, yet what the government suggests is a crisis is something of its own making. How is it going to square this by just throwing another $1.7 billion of taxpayer money at it, thinking it would solve everything that the government’s last few billion dollars thrown at it has not solved so far?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C-26

“The minister wants to spend another $1.7 billion on housing, but his plans have not fixed anything. He wants to spend this money without a committee checking how it is used. I want him to tell us how he will make sure this money is spent properly.”

  • Question or comment in debate

    Reasoning 33 of 100

    This statement drew 3 conclusions, but gave no reasons for 2 of them.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows this because I met him when he first got elected here on the floor of the House of Commons, and when he was named the housing minister, I told him that the first thing he had to do was to get rid of the people who have led us into this trap in the first place. Those are the people in his department, the ones whose advice he is following now to spend another $1.7 billion of Canadians’ money in accomplishing what they have accomplished so far, which is just spending money and not fixing the situation at all. He keeps referring to a crisis. This crisis is a crisis of his party’s causing, along with the officials who have led him to this trap. Not getting this to committee means another $1.7 billion of Canadian taxpayer money going out the door without anybody seeing what it is about, what the accountability mechanisms might be or if the money is being spent wisely. It is just another cheque that the minister is trying to bring in front of the Canadian people. Will he please tell us if he is going to entertain any input on the accountability mechanism assigned to the $1.7 billion of new taxpayer money?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C View analysis
“The government is spending lots of money, but housing costs are not going down. I want the minister to explain why spending more money and creating another government office will work this time.”

  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 42 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, it is great to be here, and I am thankful this debate is allowed to continue. I am surprised that it has to go through this last half hour of questions for the minister, but it is an interesting bill we are debating here today. We want to make sure that we get to the bottom of everything that is happening in the House of Commons. Of course, we know it is springtime. It is actually a great time to be sitting in Ottawa and debating the business of the country, making sure we are moving forward in holding the government to account and making sure that the legislation we bring forward is the best it is going to be for Canadians. I beseech the minister, if he can, to actually take a look at the bill. This is his fourth Crown corporation, and there are no solutions so far. There is lots of money going out the door and there are lots of announcements, but no solutions have been put forth to actually aid Canadians and bring lower housing costs across Canada. What does the minister think he would accomplish with even more money and another bureaucracy that has not been accomplished along the way with everything else that has been done so far in this field? The lack of accomplishments is stark. Can he please address why he thinks it is going to be different this time?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C View analysis