MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Melissa Lantsman

Follow by RSS

Lantsman presses for lower living costs, pushing the government to scrap the clean fuel standard and GST on fuel, find $150 billion in savings she identifies, and cut taxes on homes and gasoline, while demanding answers on antisemitism, IRGC visas and immigration fraud, and sponsoring a bill to force platforms to block online fraud. She argues with numbers and hard either-or choices—“It is a very simple yes or no”—pressing ministers to answer directly.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
87 / 100 over 96 statements
Signal 73 / 100
Relevance 81 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 96 / 100
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for Thanks and tributes.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 Averaged over the 96 of 108 statements graded so far.

Statements 108

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I oppose the government's plan for a wealth fund. It will not work because it interferes with the market instead of investing outside the country. The Liberals keep adding rules and subsidies that push business away, which has already caused one trillion dollars to leave Canada.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 88 of 100

    Of this reply, 92% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I know that we are discussing the sovereign wealth fund today, but this is not what the government is proposing. In fact, the Liberals cannot even talk about it in their questions. The sovereign wealth fund, or the sovereign debt fund, that they are proposing is the exact opposite of one that would actually work. It would work in an economy where we have surpluses and resource revenue, and it would invest outside the country and not distort the market within the country by picking the very projects that make it unprofitable in the first place for businesses to invest. This is the problem with the Liberals’ government. Every single time, their solution is to come in and distort the market, regulate the market and subsidize the market so nobody can build here. That is evidenced by the $1 trillion of capital that has fled this country.

“The government wants to create a 25-billion-dollar wealth fund using borrowed money. Canada does not have extra money to save because we are running a huge deficit. Real wealth funds are built on savings, not debt. Businesses are not building in Canada because taxes and rules are too high, not because there is no government money. The government should stop borrowing money for this fund, cut taxes, and remove red tape so businesses can invest on their own.”
  • A repeated line

    “We have seen this movie before.”

    Said 6 times by 6 members since April 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is an old joke about a man who racks up an enormous credit card debt, takes a second mortgage, opens a savings account and tells his wife it did not cost them anything. That joke is a pretty accurate description of the government’s economic policy, and we are all the wife. The Prime Minister has announced a $25-billion so-called sovereign wealth fund, and Canadians deserve a serious accounting of what has actually been put in front of them. Let us begin with the most fundamental question: What precisely is a sovereign wealth fund? A real one would be built on genuine surpluses. We heard in the House today about Norway. Norway’s government pension fund, the model the Prime Minister so eagerly name-drops, was capitalized by petroleum revenues. It has $1 trillion of assets because Norway saved when times were good. Canada is not Norway. Norway has oil money and Canada has vibes and a $25-billion credit card statement. We are running an almost $70-billion deficit in the current fiscal year alone, double the last guy’s, so we do not have surpluses to invest. We have deficits to finance, and $25-billion seed money in this fund is not savings. It is actually borrowed money any way we look at it. It is debt finance, like every other federal expenditure that exceeds our revenues. The Prime Minister is not building a wealth fund. He is building a debt fund, and he should be honest with Canadians about it. Let us be clear about what it means for every Canadian household. The government is borrowing at roughly 3.5% or 4% on 10-year bonds and betting that a bureaucratic Crown corporation run by political appointees will outperform the cost of that capital. It is leveraged speculation with taxpayer collateral, and not the nation building that the Prime Minister is suggesting it is. I have heard Liberal government members say that this fund will be different, that it will be more transparent, more accountable and better governed. I would feel more confident about that claim if they could tell us who is going to govern it, how the projects would be selected, when it would be operational and what relationship any of this would have to the Canada Infrastructure Bank or the Canada Growth Fund. They cannot answer any of those questions today, and we will see that throughout the day. I am certainly not alone in asking them. This announcement landed with a giant thud. The sovereign wealth fund proposal was met with near-universal skepticism, disbelief and, frankly, pure ridicule. The Globe and Mail, not exactly a Conservative voice in Canada, observed this week that the pension funds that presumably partner with this vehicle, including the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, were not even consulted before this announcement was made. The CPP Investment Board, to its credit, said that the key to long-term success for any public investment institution is “a clear commercial mandate, strong governance, and operational independence.” That is a politely worded way of saying that it has concerns. We should have concerns, because the question cuts to the heart of this whole exercise. The fund’s mandate is politically directed toward domestic infrastructure such as ports, mines and trade corridors, with diversification explicitly not a priority. It is then not truly an investment fund at all. In the Globe’s words, it is an “off-balance sheet vehicle for fiscal policy.” That is a government wealth fund in a costume. It is actually just another government program. We have seen this movie before and we know how it ends. Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which members might remember now as the green slush fund, sent $400 million out to Liberal-backed pet projects with 186 identified conflicts of interest, zero accountability and zero measurable results. The Canada Infrastructure Bank was also endowed with $45 billion in infrastructure. It spent a fraction of that on actual construction while handing out $8 million in bonuses since 2024. The Prime Minister himself made these comparisons earlier this week. With respect, I do not think it is the endorsement he thinks it is. Here is a deeper problem. The reason that major projects are not getting built in Canada is not a lack of government capital, and that is the point here. There is not a lack of capital in Canada. They can ask anybody. If an infrastructure project is not moving forward, it is almost certainly because the private sector stakeholders have determined that it is not economically viable or because of the absurd regulatory environment. They have told us this. One does not solve an onerous regulatory environment by creating a new Crown corporation to fund projects the private sector stakeholders already said no to. One solves it by fixing the actual regulatory environment. Even industry leaders are telling the Financial Times, not a Conservative blog but the Financial Times of London, saying that the government’s red-tape cutting efforts are already floundering, costing more in lost trade than Trump’s tariffs ever did. Forestry executives are frustrated. People in the oil and gas sector are frustrated. Auto executives are frustrated. What do we do? We create another bypass around the dysfunction, instead of fixing the dysfunction itself. The Liberals have created an $18-billion-a-year regulatory burden. They have interprovincial trade barriers in place that knock $200 billion off our GDP. They are married to Bill C-69, the tanker ban, the policy uncertainty that has chased a trillion dollars out of this economy over the 10 years. Capital did not flee Canada because there was no government bank to subsidize it. It fled because it was simply unprofitable to do business here. A $25-billion Band-Aid applied over a gaping wound does not close the wound. It just becomes a really expensive Band-Aid that Canadians will end up paying for. There are real alternatives to this. We could genuinely cut taxes so that families have more in their pockets every single month and business owners have a reason to stay here or to open up their business here in the first place. We can eliminate red tape and trade barriers that cost hundreds of billions of dollars in lost economic activity every year. I just do not understand how that is never the solution that they go to. We could fast-track approvals and start building things rather than funding another Ottawa office to study the feasibility of someday perhaps getting something built. We could scrap the bad laws, including Bill C-69, the tanker ban and the industrial carbon tax. They are actively preventing pipelines, mines and LNG terminals from being constructed. That is not this side of the House saying that. That is the industry representatives themselves. None of this would require borrowing $25 billion of new money. All of it would create much more wealth than the government ever could. That is how to build a country, not on borrowed money funnelled through a Crown corporation whose governance, mandate and accountability mechanisms have yet to be designed but were announced first and with details to follow. Canadians get to pay the bill. This House is owed answers that the government has not provided. Who runs the fund? How much in terms of management fees did they get? On what criteria are projects approved? What prevents them from being another vehicle for the same Liberal patronage networks that have embarrassed the government repeatedly? We will keep asking those questions. We will keep being the voice of every single Canadian who can see clearly what this is. When this was announced, I could not find a whole lot of people who were excited about it, except for the members on the other side of the House. They keep telling Canadians that Canadians do not understand the potential of this and this is based on hope, but everything this would do is the opposite of what the government says it is going to do. It is going to spend borrowed money, pick winners and losers, mostly losers, in our own economy and distort the market. Canada’s federal deficit sits at 2.1% of GDP. It is higher than it was last year. That is not lower. That is going in the wrong direction. Interest on the debt is heading past $80 billion annually, double what it was just four years ago. I will close with a sincere request for the government. Put down the $25-billion chequebook, step away from the podium at the Canada Science and Technology Museum and try something truly novel the government could not do in over a decade. Get out of the way, so that private capital and private business could be put to work here once and for all.

Oral Questions ·

Finance

“The government's spending made life worse for Canadians. We now have high debt, high unemployment, and the worst food and housing costs in the G7. When will the government stop spending more money than it has?”
  • A repeated line

    “The highest housing costs and the second-highest unemployment in the G7.”

    Said 15 times by 12 members since April 27.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I doubt that Canadians will drink all that Kool-Aid, because they spent more and things actually got worse. After a decade of Liberal deficits, Canadians have the worst grocery inflation, the highest household debt, the worst housing costs and the second-highest unemployment in all of the G7. On top of all of that, Liberal ministers got rich and Canadians got the bill. These holdover ministers still have not learned that we cannot borrow our way to prosperity. I will ask again. How much more do Canadians have to pay before the government learns to live within its means?

“The government is spending too much money. The Prime Minister promised to spend less, but he doubled the deficit instead. I want him to stop this spending and keep the deficit under $31 billion.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, red ink is flowing here in Liberal Ottawa, as the government puts the final touches on today’s fiscal update. The Prime Minister’s promise to spend less money quickly turned into a pledge to load up the taxpayer credit card and blow right past the limit. He could not even stay remotely close to the $31 billion left over by the last Liberal fiscal disaster. In fact, he actually doubled it. Will he end this costly credit card budgeting, cut spending or, at a minimum, cap the deficit at the already reckless $31 billion the last guy left behind?

Oral Questions ·

Finance

“The Prime Minister doubled the debt and deficit. This caused higher food prices, rent, and household debt for Canadians. I want him to stop this heavy spending.”
  • A repeated line

    “The highest housing costs and the second-highest unemployment in the G7.”

    Said 15 times by 12 members since April 27.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, nobody thought it was possible to outspend Justin Trudeau, but here we are, with the same cast of characters sitting in the exact same seats saying the same thing. The Prime Minister doubled last year’s deficit and sent the bill to Canadian kitchen tables: the worst grocery prices, the highest household debt, the worst housing costs in the G7. Those are the actual facts. When Liberals doubled the debt, they doubled the food bank lineups and they doubled the rent, passing on the balance from the credit card to every Canadian family. Will the Prime Minister stop the credit card budgeting, or does he think Canadians can also just apply for a higher limit?

“The Prime Minister promised to spend less, but he added 90 billion dollars in new spending. Operating costs and the size of government both went up. Will he promise to keep the deficit under 31 billion dollars?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister took office, he pledged to spend less than Justin Trudeau. Instead, he added $90 billion of net new spending, two-thirds of that on day-to-day operations. Bureaucracy is up 7% and operating costs are up 9%, all higher than his promised savings. He is putting the nation’s finances on a credit card and pretending all of that is normal. Will the Prime Minister commit today that his deficit will not exceed the already excessive $31 billion Justin Trudeau left behind, or has he simply grabbed Trudeau’s credit card and asked for a higher limit?

Oral Questions ·

Finance

“The government's high spending and deficits hurt our economy and cost Canadians money. When will this stop, and who will take responsibility for it?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is the Alto high-speed train, consultants and the gun buyback program. There are a number of them, and we can discuss those at length in the House. However, the C.D. Howe Institute also said today that persistent Liberal deficits are undermining “growth and living standards” rather than supporting them, the very thing they claim to do. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians. When will all of that stop and when is anybody over there going to be held accountable for any of it?

“The government spends too much money, and that is making life more expensive. The Bank of Canada says government spending is driving up interest rates. I want the Prime Minister to stop spending so much money.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, next week, the Liberals are set to release their fiscal update. The Prime Minister is copying Justin Trudeau’s playbook as he burns through more taxpayer dollars, goes deeper into debt and piles even more inflationary spending on every Canadian family. After more than a decade, none of the Liberals have realized that the more they spend, the worse affordability is for everyone. The Bank of Canada confirmed last week that rising interest rates are directly tied to excessive government spending. If the Prime Minister will not bother with this place, will he at least call his friends at the Bank of Canada and get his spending under control?