Kelly McCauley

“This economic plan adds hundreds of billions of dollars to our debt without growing the economy. Instead of spending so much money on debt interest, the government should cut spending and balance the budget. It should also help our economy grow by supporting the oil and gas industry and letting companies build pipelines.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the spring economic update, or as I call it, the spring deficit update. The Liberals, on their introduction of the bill, put out a good 250-page program called “Canada Strong for All.” I think it should be “Canada Deficits for All.” It reminds me of a famous Internet meme from Toy Story of Woody and Buzz Lightyear, where Buzz is pointing out saying, “as far as the eye can see.” That is what this economic update is. It is deficits as far as the eye can see. Do members remember, not too long ago, in the Trudeau days, when Trudeau said that balanced budgets from the Liberal government was a commitment set in stone? He said it was “very” cast in stone. Now, 75% of the current Liberal bench, and about half the cabinet, is made up of people who were here under the Trudeau government, yet somehow this cast-in-stone commitment to balance the budget has disappeared. Instead of a balanced budget, what do we get? We get deficits as far as the eye can see. It was $67 billion last year, which is well up from the worst of the Trudeau days; $65 billion this year; $63 billion next year; $58 billion in 2028; a $56-billion deficit in 2029; and $53 billion in 2030. That is $362 billion of added debt in just over six years. Do members remember the government’s saying it was going to spend less and invest more? Over the same period, this spending less is going to get us $406 billion in interest on the Liberal debt. There is money for bankers, with $406 billion for banker friends of the Prime Minister, not for Canadians, not for more doctors, not for more nurses, not for more schools or hospitals, not for lower taxes, heaven forbid, and not for defence or more infrastructure. That is $406 billion over a six-year period for the Liberal debt. Do members remember, which was repeated ad nauseam by the government, by the ministers, that they were going to cut spending? Again, they said that they were going to spend less so they could invest more. The President of the Treasury Board was at the operations committee yesterday, the mighty OGGO. I have to mention that. He stated that there was $60 billion less in spending, but what does the spring deficit update actually bring us? It brings more spending and program spending that actually outpaces the rate of inflation over the next six years. Somehow spend less equals more program spending. This is from the Liberals’ own documents. What about the public service? The government says it is going to cut 35,000 jobs, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer has put out a report noting that spending on the public service is actually increasing 6%; from $71 billion, it is going up to $76 billion. In committee, we asked about this, and the Treasury Board told us that it is not actually reducing public servants or spending but just re-profiling, shifting things around. What does all this extra spending get us? For 10 years, the government has been excusing its deficits by saying that spending is needed because it is going to add growth, is going to do this and is going to do that. What did we get? It is not a lot of growth, with a 1.7% average growth over the next six years. An added deficit of $362 billion equals 1.7% growth. What is interesting is that the Bank of Canada put out its monetary policy report at about the same time that the spring deficit update came out from the government, and the Bank of Canada’s number for growth is 16% lower in 2027 than what the government is saying, with a 10% lower prediction in GDP growth the following year. How is it that the Bank of Canada has different numbers than the government does? We actually asked and were told that the Bank of Canada is using proper numbers. Who has the real numbers? How much higher is the deficit going to be if we are to believe the Bank of Canada over the government? It is about an extra $2 billion to $3 billion of deficit added per year. That is certainly not adding to any productivity or growth. According to the Bank of Canada report on the contributions to real GDP growth over the coming years, in 2026, the year we are in now, the vast majority of growth in our GDP is government spending. Almost as much growth is from consumption. It is not from added exports, and it is not from growth in productivity. I think GDP growth is 1.2% this year, and almost all of it is government spending. In 2027, 44% of the GDP growth that we are going to see in this country, according to the Bank of Canada, will not be from pipelines, from building more cars, from more industry or from more exports. It will be from government spending. In 2028, 27% of the projected growth, according to the Bank of Canada, is going to be government spending. What should we do to increase growth? It is simple: Unleash our oil and gas industry. We can start by repealing Bill C-48, which bans tankers off British Columbia’s north coast and stops Alberta oil from being exported. We could get rid of Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill. We could end the destructive oil production cap that the government still has not repealed. We could actually get to building pipelines and increasing revenue and wealth for this country. We saw a note from a very famous economist, Ms. Exner-Pirot. She stated that just in the two months of the war in Iran and the issues with the Strait of Hormuz, if we had built the northern gateway pipeline, we would be looking at an extra $3 billion in revenue for this country, just from the added oil from the last two months. The government is running a massive deficit. Instead, we could actually be making more. I am going to talk about northern gateway and the lost revenue caused by the government when it cancelled the project. The government has still not set up the regulatory regime to allow a pipeline to the coast. Total government revenue between 2019 and 2048, if we had built northern gateway, would be $131.5 billion: $72 billion for the federal government and about $59 billion for the provincial governments. On an annual basis, in revenue by region, provinces will have lost out on $2.1 billion per year because the Liberal government cancelled the northern gateway project, with $1.7 billion lost for the federal government. With respect to jobs, we just heard the member for Winnipeg North go on and on about, in the spring deficit update, money for trades. We do not have a lot of trades jobs available in Canada right now. It is wonderful that there is finally, after 10 years, recognition by the Liberal government that the people who build things have value, but where are the jobs going to be for them? The jobs could have been in helping build northern gateway. For that period, 773,000 jobs, on an FTE basis, are lost because the government threw up barriers and cancelled northern gateway. The government will say that we need to have a carbon tax in order to sell our oil. We saw the president of Cenovus today state quite bluntly that we would be the only country in the world handicapping our oil and gas industry in such a way. He states that under Liberal policies, the government is producing high-paying jobs in Saudi Arabia, Russia and America instead of here in Canada. Canada’s oil production is the most ethical, and we have an industry that is providing more jobs for indigenous people and more wealth than any other industry in Canada, but the government is trying to wreck it. The government needs to get out of the way and recognize that the oil and gas industry has produced wealth for this country and for the world. It needs to get out of the way to allow us to build, and it needs to stop its inflationary practices and stop destroying this country with its deficit spending.”

In response to a question from Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

“Can my colleague name other groups that support this bill to protect vulnerable people?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his work and his advocacy for the vulnerable. I do not think there is a stronger voice in this House for that, so I thank him very much. I wonder if perhaps he could comment on some of the other groups that are supportive of his measures. He mentioned Inclusion Alberta, which is wonderful, but I wonder if he could mention some of the others. Apparently, people on the other side of the House think this is not an issue to be attended to.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 37 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 →

“Government rules cost Canadian businesses $18 billion a year. Instead of this small bill, I want the government to introduce a law that actually cuts this red tape.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has noted that red tape alone is costing businesses $18 billion a year. Red tape and regulations are strangling Canadian businesses. I wonder if my colleague thinks that perhaps the Liberal government could introduce legislation to reduce some of this burdensome red tape rather than relying on the Senate to bring in a bill that has a relatively low impact on supporting businesses.”

In response to a question from Martin Champoux

“The Prime Minister promised to do politics differently, but he has not. His actions help the Liberal Party, not Parliament or democracy.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said he was going to do politics differently. It is clear that he is not. His politics are like the empty, performative politics of every member of the past Trudeau government and the current government. They are just empty, performative politics that suit the Liberal Party and serve the Liberal Party but do not suit Parliament and do not serve democracy or accountability.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this motion because it stops the opposition from holding the government accountable. The government is trying to take control of key committees. We want opposition parties to keep leading these committees so Canadians have proper oversight and transparency.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is hard to fit in so much on an attack on democracy and explain it in four and a half minutes, but I will try. I am pleased to rise on Motion No. 9, another attempt by the Liberal government to quash all opposition and criticism of its government. Now, this is not about the legitimacy of the Liberal majority, however vile the betrayal of their constituents was by the MPs who crossed. It is still allowed within the Westminster system and I do respect that. I recognize the government as a majority. The Prime Minister commented that he was going to do things differently, with a less partisan approach to governing. Of course, that comment aged about as well as his comment that affordability is at its best in the last 10 years. I am fine with the Liberals adding more members to committees. I would note that when the Liberals formed the committees in June, they actually reduced the number of committee members they normally had, stating they did not have enough members to do the work. It is funny to see them now actually bumping up two people on committees, when really they could make do with one. Again, I am perfectly fine with it. They do have the majority. However, this House and Canadians deserve oversight from this government. For the sake of accountability and transparency, we need better oversight. That is why we are proposing that the operations committee, known as the mighty OGGO, the public accounts committee, the access to information committee, also known as the ethics committee, and the status of women committee maintain the current setup, which is traditionally led by the opposition, with the Conservatives and the Bloc making up the majority. Again, this is for accountability and transparency. Now, we have seen the contempt the Liberals have for this Parliament. It is clear again and again, and this goes back to 2015. The Liberal government always seems to say that it wants an audience and not an opposition. We have seen motions like this in the past. Going back to the 42nd Parliament, we had Motion No. 6 from this government. Many of the Liberals here today were here for Motion No. 6. That was a motion that would have gutted Conservative opposition members’ ability to submit Order Paper questions. The government was going to decide what was a valid Order Paper question, not an elected MP. The minister would decide. Also under Motion No. 6, the government stated that it would decide what was an appropriate amount of debate. The Liberals would stop the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP from debating certain issues. Of course, we all remember that famous night of Motion No. 6, known as “elbowgate”, when the former prime minister manhandled the late Gord Brown and also elbowed an NDP member in the chest. During COVID, we saw Bill C-13 under the Trudeau government, and again, a majority of the members opposite were part of that government. With Bill C-13, the Liberals brought in a bill that would allow them, for 21 months, to have unlimited taxing and unlimited spending without any oversight or vote in this Parliament. The whole reason Parliament exists goes back to King Edward I, 1295, when calling the model Parliament, stating that “ what touches all should be approved by all”. Here we have the Liberal government under Bill C-13 saying that, for 21 months, what touches all should only be approved by the Liberals and not by all elected members. This government has a long history of trying to stamp out opposition. We have seen this government and my colleague from Winnipeg North constantly call out any opposition to Liberal plans as obstruction. Let us remember that the finance minister refused to table a budget last spring. He said there would not even be a budget in 2025, and yet when the Liberals finally tabled a budget, 10 months later, they accused the opposition of purposely delaying it. I understand I am out of time for this half of my speech about Liberal obstruction and blocking accountability. I look forward to continuing it afterwards.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 1 of 100

  Only 1% of this speech directly addressed the bill under debate.

  See full analysis →